Quebec Premier François Legault’s introduction of a new proposed constitution (Bill 1) has triggered significant backlash from legal scholars, civil liberties groups, and the province’s legal community.
While the government argues the legislation is necessary to protect Quebec’s common values, critics warn that the bill—introduced without prior public consultation—could severely weaken judicial oversight and infringe on individual freedoms.
The Proposal: Bill 1
Legault states that the constitution aims to protect the province’s “distinct national character” and common values, specifically citing:
-
The French language
-
Secularism
-
Abortion rights
-
Equality between men and women
However, Bill 1 goes beyond a symbolic draft. It modifies over a dozen existing laws, including the Quebec Charter of Human Rights. The bill’s preamble explicitly seeks to shift the legal balance to favor the “collective rights of the Quebec nation” over individual rights.
Major Areas of Concern
1. Restrictions on Legal Challenges
One of the most contentious aspects of Bill 1 is the financial restriction it places on the justice system. The legislation would prohibit publicly funded organizations from using those funds to launch court challenges against laws that protect “the fundamental characteristics of Quebec.”
This would directly impact groups like the English Montreal School Board, which is currently using public funds to challenge Bill 21 (the secularism law banning religious symbols for public authority figures) at the Supreme Court.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, director general of the anglophone rights group TALQ, argues this weakens the rule of law:
“The core constitutional principles… must be maintained, and hopefully strengthened, not weakened with a bill like this.”
2. Use of the Notwithstanding Clause
The bill seeks to defend Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause “without any requirement to contextualize or justify the provision.” This clause allows governments to override certain charter rights, and critics fear Bill 1 will make its use routine and unchallengeable.
3. A “Chilling Effect” on Justice
The Quebec Bar Association took the rare step of publicly denouncing the legislation. Rémi Bourget, the organization’s vice-president, called the limits on legal challenges an “act of intimidation.”
Bourget noted that when combined with other recent bills—such as those tracking doctors’ work or limiting union funding for legal battles—the government appears to be systematically limiting “citizens’ ability to assert their rights.”
Criticism of the Process
Beyond the content of the bill, the process of its creation has drawn sharp criticism for being secretive and rushed.
-
Lack of Consultation: The constitution was drafted without public input.
-
Short Timeline: Interested parties were given only until December 3 to submit feedback.
-
Academic Pushback: A group of 28 academics, including law professors and political scientists, published an op-ed in Le Devoir questioning the legitimacy of the process.
Karine Millaire, a constitutional law professor at l’Université de Montréal, described the government’s upcoming hearings as “window dressing.”
“We’re talking about a constitution, not something that we should talk about in secret… Many groups and many experts are really concerned that at this stage, we could just be instrumentalized.”
Laurence Guénette of the Ligue des droits et libertés noted that Quebec’s approach contradicts UN guidelines, which suggest constitutional drafting should be a lengthy, inclusive process reflecting society as a whole.
Political Context
Opposition parties argue that Bill 1 is a political maneuver designed to rally nationalist sentiment, noting that Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec party is currently lagging in the polls ahead of next fall’s election.
Pablo Rodriguez, leader of the Quebec Liberals, stated that a constitution should unite rather than divide: “We shouldn’t have a draft written on a piece of paper and then brought before the National Assembly to be part of a political debate where it will become polarized.”
Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s office stated they are carefully analyzing the “complex document,” emphasizing that the debate belongs primarily to Quebecers.
Leave a Reply