After publishing a 300-page judgment, PSAC is very disappointed by the Court’s decision to uphold the Loi sur laïcité de l’État (Bill 21) and its refusal to rule on the laws infringement of fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion and expression, the right to equality and freedom of association.
Yesterday’s decision is a very conservative one, as it mostly maintains the results of the Superior Court judgment from April 2021.
“This law is a direct affront on unionized workers rights, as it goes against many of the anti-discrimination provisions negotiated by unions in their collective agreements. And using the notwithstanding clause to do it is alarming,” said Yvon Barrière, National Vice President of PSAC-Quebec. “PSAC will continue to defend the rights of its members. It is especially important to protect minorities who will potentially face discriminatory use of this clause.”
In its challenge to the Act, PSAC presented arguments based primarily on the infringement of fundamental rights. The main obstacle we face is the use of the notwithstanding clauses as a preventive measure. The Court of Appeal refused to depart from previous jurisprudence and therefore did not review the conditions for the use of these notwithstanding clauses. As a result, they hinder any attempt to highlight human rights violations and the unconstitutionality of the law in this respect.
The use of notwithstanding clauses as a preventive measure to infringe on human rights is deeply worrying. We have observed a dangerous tendency on the part of certain governments who do not hesitate to use this course of action. PSAC criticized the use of this tactic by the Ford government in Ontario when it passed legislation forcing education support staff back to work.
PSAC has always been at the forefront of important and successful campaigns to promote human rights, workplace rights, pay equity, occupational health and safety, and queer rights. We intend to continue to challenge the Act by intervening as a party in the likely event that the constitutionality of the law is presented before the Supreme Court.