{"id":31260,"date":"2024-11-29T12:43:08","date_gmt":"2024-11-29T19:43:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/?post_type=library&#038;p=31260"},"modified":"2024-11-29T12:43:08","modified_gmt":"2024-11-29T19:43:08","slug":"exposing-a-bad-trick-why-quebecs-bill-96-cannot-amend-the-canadian-constitution","status":"publish","type":"library","link":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/library\/exposing-a-bad-trick-why-quebecs-bill-96-cannot-amend-the-canadian-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"Exposing a Bad Trick: Why Quebec\u2019s Bill 96 Cannot Amend the Canadian Constitution"},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Section 159 of Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the off\u0131cial and common language of Qu\u00e9bec, purports to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the Canadian Constitution, by introducing two new articles, \u201c90Q.1\u201d and 90Q.2\u201d, respectively, providing that \u201cQuebecers form a nation\u201d and that \u201cFrench is the only off\u0131cial language of Qu\u00e9bec [and] also the common language of the Quebec nation\u201d. The Bill makes no such amendment, but the reasons it fails to do so are misperceived. This article argues that the Bill draws on basic, but widespread, shortcomings of Canadian constitutional-legal thinking. Specifically, I highlight the general failure of Canadian constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence to come up with clear, coherent and operative concepts of the Constitution of Canada as \u201csupreme law\u201d, \u201cthe constitution of [a] province\u201d, and even off\u0131cial (rather than administrative) consolidation. I thus contend that the constitutional pretence of Bill 96, which has been referred to as a \u201cfind\u201d and a \u201ccoyote\u2019s trick\u201d, is nothing more than the pulling of a hare out of a tuque. Yet the bad trick is performed before a confused Canadian audience, who feel they are being fooled but cannot see how. In other words, I aim to demonstrate how the confusion about Quebec\u2019s Bill 96 is an illustration of the fact that, in constitutional law, basic \u201ctheoretical\u201d concepts are filled with practical implications.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"template":"","library--year":[108],"law-and-freedom":[],"library-theme":[168,95],"dicey-law-review":[78],"main-categories":[67],"class_list":["post-31260","library","type-library","status-publish","hentry","library--year-108","library-theme-constitution-act-1867","library-theme-constitutionalism","dicey-law-review-volume-2","main-categories-dicey-law-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/library"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library\/31260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"library--year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library--year?post=31260"},{"taxonomy":"law-and-freedom","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/law-and-freedom?post=31260"},{"taxonomy":"library-theme","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/library-theme?post=31260"},{"taxonomy":"dicey-law-review","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/dicey-law-review?post=31260"},{"taxonomy":"main-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/runnymedesociety.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/main-categories?post=31260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}