‘Chilling effect’: Quebec's proposed constitution draws fire from legal, rights groups

Quebec's proposed constitution represents a fundamental shift in how workers, unions, and employers operate within the province.

The legislation, introduced without prior consultation and poised for rapid implementation, would restrict legal challenges to government policies, limit union funding mechanisms, and centralize power over employment matters in ways that reshape labour relations.

The most immediate concern, according to experts, involves provisions that would prevent public and publicly funded organizations—including major employers in education, healthcare, and social services—from using institutional funds to challenge provincial laws or defend workers' legal rights.

The Quebec Bar Association issued an extraordinary rebuke of the legislation, stating that restrictions on legal challenges amount to an "act of intimidation" that threatens to erode the rule of law, said the CBC. Rémi Bourget, the bar association's vice-president, warned that the provision "is meant to have a chilling effect for any organization which could be called to fight for their members' rights or the public's rights."

Notwithstanding clause as unrestricted tool

A particularly significant provision allows Quebec to invoke the notwithstanding clause "without any requirement to contextualize or justify the provision," according to Policy Magazine.

CBC News reports that the legislation "seeks to defend Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause 'without any requirement to contextualize or justify the provision.'"

It's becoming more commonplace for provincial governments to consider and use the notwithstanding clause, according to a new report.

"Essentially, the notwithstanding clause has become more normalized as provincial governments see it as a legitimate option when governing," said Lydia Miljan, professor of political science at the University of Windsor and a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

Union funding constraints

The constitution operates in tandem with other legislation that directly constrains unions' ability to defend workers. According to CBC News, Bill 3 attempts to limit unions' funding for legal challenges over the constitutionality or validity of a law. Combined with Bill 1's restrictions on using public funds for court challenges, the legislation creates a dual mechanism limiting workers' capacity to mount legal defences.

The Quebec Bar Association specifically flagged these limitations as part of a broader pattern. According to its statement cited by the Montreal Gazette, the three bills together "place limits on the freedom of people and institutions to challenge laws before the courts or seek remedies for injustices; constrain the rights of individuals or organizations to make decisions about their personal or professional activities under threat of steep sanctions; and gag citizens and groups from speaking out if expressing opinions that diverge from what the government deems the national interest."

Rémi Bourget of the Quebec Bar Association stated the restrictions represent an attempt by the government to limit "citizens' ability to assert their rights," according to CBC News.

Workplace religious expression

The constitution enshrines existing legislation including Bill 21, which bans public employees in authority positions—including teachers, social workers, and other professionals—from wearing religious symbols. This provision locks in place restrictions on religious expression in the public sector and publicly funded organizations.

The English Montreal School Board has already challenged Bill 21's constitutionality, with the case advancing to the Supreme Court.

Under the new constitution, such institutions would be unable to fund similar legal defences going forward, so, challenging these restrictions on religious expression would become legally and financially more difficult.

According to CBC News, Laurence Guénette, a coordinator with the Ligue des droits et libertés, contended that the government is attempting to "enshrine the so-called Quebec values at the expense of rights and freedom of all Quebecers, but especially the minorities."

‘Collective’ national interests

The constitution reflects a broader pattern of government expansion into workplace management. Bill 2, part of this legislative package, would give the government power to track doctors' work and impose new pay models without negotiation—a precedent that extends the government's reach into employment relationships previously negotiated between employers and workers.

According to Policy Magazine's Daniel Béland, the proposed Constitution Act "would reinforce the tendency in Québec under the CAQ rule to limit minority rights in the name of the nation and collective rights associated with it."

This framing—prioritizing "collective" national interests over individual and group rights—establishes a constitutional basis for government intervention in workplace decisions and employment standards, say experts.

Constitutional legitimacy and process concerns

The process through which the constitution was developed has raised questions about its legitimacy. The document was drafted entirely by government officials in secret, without consulting unions, workers, employers, or even legal experts, say media reports. According to Policy Magazine, Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette "had his office write the document in secret."

Karine Millaire, a constitutional law professor, told CBC News that constitution-making demands transparency: "It must be very open and public and inclusive. We're talking about a constitution, not something that we should talk about in secret."

The province granted interested parties until December 3 to submit feedback, with legislative hearings scheduled to follow.