The debates concerning the State Secularism Act began in the Court of Appeal on Monday morning. While opponents of “Bill 21” condemn the use of the notwithstanding clause for a law “whose objective is illegitimate”, the Attorney General defended the use of this clause notwithstanding before the highest court of Quebec .
Posted at 11:09 p.m.
The province’s highest court began hearing Monday on the constitutionality of the secularism law, also known as Bill 21.
The law prohibits public sector workers in positions of authority, including teachers, police officers and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as the hijab, yarmulke or turban, at work.
Supporters and opponents of the law are contesting the judgment of Judge Marc-André Blanchard of the Superior Court handed down last April. Some groups consider that his decision goes too far and others, not enough.
The Notwithstanding Provision
The notwithstanding clause was at the heart of the debates on this first day of the hearing. Its preventive use by the Quebec government shields Bill 21 from most legal challenges.
The notwithstanding clause, also known as the notwithstanding clause, is a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allowing Parliament to exempt a law from the application of certain rights guaranteed by the Charter.
Me Frédéric Bérard of the Autonomous Federation of Education criticized the CAQ government for having amended the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms to adopt Bill 21 “by using the gag” and by including the derogation provision.
Parties opposed to Bill 21 on Monday castigated the use of the provision to take away rights from some citizens. “The derogation clause cannot be used if the objective of the law is illegitimate”, added Me Alexandra Belley-McKinnon, who represents the legal committee of the coalition inclusion Québec. “However, here, it only takes away people’s rights. »
The derogatory power is not exceptional, pleaded Me Isabelle Brunet, from the Attorney General of Quebec.
The notwithstanding clause allows for flexibility when it comes to major issues of public interest, she adds.
The Mouvement laïque québécois finds the notwithstanding provision useful, indicating that “from a legal point of view, it is permitted”.
“It is not possible for the courts to exercise substantive control over the use of escape clauses,” explained lawyer M.e William Rousseau.
There is no constitutional right to practice one’s religion as part of one’s professional duties, he explained in court.
The 17 parties involved in this appeal procedure will speak in court until mid-November. The pleadings are divided into 10 themes. This will include the notwithstanding clause, the question of fundamental rights and the guarantee of rights for both sexes.
With the Canadian Press