The question is on impacts, so I'll answer it in two parts: first, the impact of the law, Bill 21, and then the impact of the notwithstanding clause.
To give us context about what we're talking about, we have a law that says that Muslims, Jews and Sikhs who wear religious symbols cannot become teachers in Quebec. That's the law. The impact of this was explained both in court and in a study that followed our court appearance. A report found that one in five Muslim women in Quebec has experienced physical threats or aggression at work, and 54% of Quebec Muslim women have heard racist or prejudicial remarks about their religious identity from their colleagues at work compared to 9% of the general population.
When we were in court, the court heard from many witnesses as to the harms they endured. Women teacher candidates, most of them Muslim, lost their jobs and vocations, and an aspiring Crown prosecutor had their plans derailed. I know of people on personal levels who have been impacted by the bill. Individuals expressed concern about their financial security and fears for the future of their children. Many Muslim women described increasing incidents of verbal and physical harassment against them in public spaces. One woman, overcome with emotion, simply wept on the stand as she described how it felt to be excluded from a society that she had once seen as a model of acceptance. That's when we were talking about the impact of Bill 21.
When we talk about the impact of the notwithstanding clause, it's clear in just looking at how readily other provinces are now to either use or threaten the use of this clause to pass populist legislation. Wielding this power in this way threatens the very fabric of our rights, reducing them from inalienable, fundamental human rights to mere permissions that are granted and taken away on a whim. That's on the impact.
I'll leave it at that.