@NoLore:
Quebec’s government is about to introduce a new secularism law which will ban the niqab on campus, campus prayer spaces and daycare workers and ECE students from wearing religious symbols. All to try and save their racist asses in the polls.
@breaks8943:
I’ve been yelling from every rooftop since 2018 that Legault and his Coalition des Anglophobes du Quebec are dictator trash. The signs came very early and were very clear.
But sure, we’re just angryphones right? Not that we’re just smarter and saw this coming for years, no no.
I saw it coming for years too. Legualt is just another racist douche fucker. There are too many viciously cruel Nazis in Canada.
@gemechu_fanta:
Authoritarianism since 1971, fascism now.
Among all the problems with substance and process identified in this story on Quebec’s constitution bill, not mentioned is the blatantly unconstitutional element of purporting to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, which I remind you all, a province can’t do.
@emmettmacfarlane.com:
Among various papers published defending Quebec’s ability to unilaterally amend the Constitution of Canada, none actually address my arguments, made here in this article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal: digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol60/i…
Provincial Constitutions, the Amending Formula, and Unilateral Amendments to the Constitution of Canada: An Analysis of Quebec’s Bill 96 by Emmett Macfarlane, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo
Abstract
This article critically analyzes provincial authority to unilaterally amend the Constitution of Canada. Via an assessment of the purported amendments in Quebec’s Bill 96, which would recognize Quebecers as a nation and French as the only language of the province, the article argues that provinces cannot make direct amendments altering, adding, or repealing provisions of the Constitution of Canada. This argument is reflected in the wording of the various constitutional amending procedures, the historical and contemporary constitutional practice, and the underlying purpose of, and fundamental distinction and complex relationship between, the Constitution of Canada as supreme law and the constitution of the province. Notwithstanding this argument, the article also analyzes the specific matters in the Bill 96 provisions and concludes that their addition requires recourse to an amending procedure other than section 45. Adding recognition of Quebecers’ status as a nation to the Constitution Act, 1867 exceeds the scope of provincial authority, in part because it would not reflect a statement by Quebec in its own provincial constitution, something it would be free to enact via ordinary legislation. Instead, what Quebec proposes is to confer such recognition by the entire country. The language provision requires recourse to either the bilateral procedure under section 43 or the unanimity procedure of section 41, given the express requirements of those amending procedures. Finally, the unilateral enactment of these amendments would be contrary to the constitutional architecture. The article concludes by briefly examining subsequent provincial attempts to amend the Constitution, finding them equally illegitimate.
Macfarlane, Emmett. “Provincial Constitutions, the Amending Formula, and Unilateral Amendments to the Constitution of Canada: An Analysis of Quebec’s Bill 96.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 60.3 (2023) : 655-697.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3926
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol60/iss3/4
There is a ‘drift towards authoritarianism’ in the province, Quebec bar warns, Legal experts have criticized the Quebec constitution and recent CAQ bills that target doctors, school boards and unions by Jacob Serebrin, nov 26, 2025, Montreal Gazette
Three bills recently presented at Quebec’s National Assembly, including one that was quickly adopted, show signs of an authoritarian drift that threatens the rule of law, according to the head of the organization that regulates lawyers in the province.
Marcel-Olivier Nadeau, the bâtonnier of the Barreau du Québec, said elements in the proposed Quebec constitution, union governance bill and the law reforming doctor pay, commonly known as Bill 2, will weaken the ability of civil society to challenge government power and, in the case of doctors, impose undue limits on freedom of expression.
“Over the past couple of weeks, there have been three bills that have a common thread of being highly authoritarian in nature, and that will have the effect of taking away rights from citizens that are at the heart of our democratic life, that are at the heart of the rule of law,” Nadeau said in a recent interview.
The bills have also faced criticism from civil society groups, the English Montreal School Board and legal experts, who say they will undermine the ability of citizens and organizations to challenge laws that infringe on the rights of Quebecers.
However, one law professor says the claims of an authoritarian drift are hyperbole and that the Barreau is taking a partisan political stance.
The Barreau is calling on the government to remove a number of provisions from Bill 2, which has been adopted into law. Nadeau said the law contains a system of sanctions, denunciations and investigations that are hostile to freedom
One article would allow an inspector investigating an alleged violation of the law to order a doctor not to talk about the existence of the investigation, he said.
“We’re in Quebec here, we have the right to decide who we talk to and what we talk about,” Nadeau said.
“This is the type of provision that we find in the most authoritarian regimes.”So many Nazis in Canada, it’s horrifying
Read More
- Hanes: CAQ’s constitution is blood-chilling for all Quebecers
- CAQ constitution decried as bid to ‘insulate Quebec’ and raise tensions with Ottawa
Nadeau said the bill also includes provisions that would infringe on the freedom of doctors to plan their personal and professional lives.
While the government has suspended the application of many of those provisions, it has not removed them from the law.
The Barreau is also calling on the government to remove a clause from Quebec’s proposed constitution that would bar public-funded organizations from using tax dollars to challenge laws that the government says protect the nation of Quebec, its constitutional autonomy and/or its “fundamental characteristics.”
‘The basis of the rule of law’
Among the organizations specifically named in the bill are professional orders, state-owned enterprises, universities, municipalities and the organization that collects school taxes in Montreal. The bill states that it could also apply to other organizations and categories of organization named by the government.
For Nadeau, being able to go to court to challenge government actions “is really the basis of the rule of law.”
The Barreau also wants the government to remove clauses from the union reform bill that would prevent unions from using mandatory dues to go to court except in specific circumstances, like in regards to negotiations or their collective agreement.
Unions would also be barred from using dues to participate in any political advertising campaign or social movement, except to promote or defend rights conferred by a law or collective agreement.
Nadeau said that the provision limits the ability of unions to finance and organize themselves, which he describes as a significant infringement of the freedom of association.
“What we see is a drift towards authoritarianism, a marked weakening of the countervailing powers in society,” he said.
But Guillaume Rousseau, a law professor at the Université de Sherbrooke, disagrees.
“What (the Barreau is) doing is taking a position against two bills and one law that are really at the core of the government’s legislative agenda, so it’s much more than taking a position on one government measure; it’s the entire government that’s being criticized, it’s political,” he said.
Rousseau said he thinks the claims that certain clauses in the bills represent a drift towards authoritarianism are exaggerated and that the Barreau’s comments about the rule of law being threatened go too far.
There’s no legal right to use public money to contest a law, he said. “They have their political opinion, and they’re trying to cover that with legal principles.”
Providing services vs. challenging law
It should be up to the National Assembly to decide how tax dollars are spent, Rousseau said, adding that school boards are supposed to use their money to provide services to students, not challenge laws in court.
“We don’t take taxes from people to do whatever we want,” he said.
Unions, too, should use the money they get from their members’ dues to defend workers, Rousseau said, not to fund what he describes as ideological conflicts with the Quebec government.
He said there’s nothing stopping school boards and other groups from raising money from other sources to challenge the few laws that would be shielded from taxpayer-funded court challenges by the proposed Quebec constitution.
Currently, only three laws — the province’s language law, its law on state secularism and a recent bill on the integration of immigrants — are covered by the provision preventing using public tax money to challenge laws, and if Quebecers decided a future government had shielded too many laws with the provision, Rousseau said citizens will never have to wait more than four years to vote for another government.
In court challenges, he said unions and school boards have often used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to argue against Quebec laws, despite the fact that the Charter was adopted without Quebec’s consent.
“So they are using a charter whose legitimacy in Quebec is really problematic to invalidate the laws of Quebecers,” he said.
But Nadeau said his comments aren’t political and that Barreau is only targeting specific elements in the bills.
“It’s truly part of the mission of the Barreau to defend the supremacy of the law, to defend the rule of law. If the legislative agenda is authoritarian in nature and of a nature that infringes citizens’ rights, we will denounce the legislative agenda,” he said. “It’s not political, it’s our mission to ensure that the basic rules of a liberal democracy are respected in Quebec.”
‘Flooding the zone’
Louis-Philippe Lampron, a law professor at Université Laval who specializes in human rights, said he sees a link between the rhetoric used by the Coalition Avenir Québec government to justify its use of the notwithstanding clause to shield earlier bills from court challenges and the clauses in the new bills that would protect government action from legal challenges, though the new bills go much further.
“That rhetoric is that it is up to the National Assembly to make choices, and it’s not for a judge to call into question the choices made by the National Assembly,” Lampron said in an interview.
Lampron said he thinks the government is “flooding the zone” with legislation that’s intended to limit opposition outside the legislature.
The proposed constitution goes further than the other bills, he said, because it would weaken the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms’ predominant position in the province’s legal system by amending it and by creating new collective rights.
“If this constitution is adopted, effectively, the big winner will be the legislator, as it will become much easier for them to pass laws without fear of them being challenged in court,” he said.
The office of Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette declined an interview request and asked The Gazette to send its questions in writing. It has not responded to a series of questions sent late Monday afternoon.
Geneviève Paul, the executive director of the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, said the provision that bars certain organizations from using tax dollars to challenge specific laws could intimidate organizations that rely on public funding.
Concerns about the constitution
“For a healthy democracy, it really is essential to preserve the checks and balances that we have,” she said. “With provisions like that, you directly impede (on those) checks and balances.”
While non-profits that receive government money aren’t named in the bill, a future government could add them, she said.
Paul said her concerns about the constitution go further than those of the Barreau.
While it could have been an opportunity for Quebec society to consolidate around its principles, values and the way the government exercises power, she said, that would require a truly collective effort, done in a non-partisan fashion and involving a wide range of groups, including Indigenous communities.
Joe Ortona, Chair of the English Montreal School Board, said that if the proposed constitution is adopted, the board will probably challenge it.
Governments should have confidence that the courts will uphold their laws — instead, he said, the Quebec government is trying to “rig the game in their favour” by making it harder for others to challenge them.
While school boards are a public body, their interests are sometimes separate from those of the provincial government, he said, adding that he worries if the EMSB doesn’t stand up for its right to govern itself, the English community could lose control of its schools and eventually lose English schools altogether.
“We can’t just look at it as it’s taxpayer money. We also have to look at it from the perspective that it’s also the rights of the taxpayers that are being infringed, and if nobody stands up to defend them, then those rights are going to be, eventually, gone and lost forever.”
email hidden; JavaScript is required