In 2001, Keith Henderson, the former head of Equality Party, organized a trial in Superior Court to challenge “Loi 99”.
Mr. Henderson’s request was heard at the end of March 2017.[1]
“Act 99” was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec in year 2000.
It establishes the legal existence of Quebec as a nation,[2] as well as the entitlement of the people to self-determination and its commitment to respect the fundamental human rights guaranteed by international covenants.
A first section of “Loi 99” explains its mission:
This bill reaffirms the fundamental rights and the prerogatives of the Quebec people and the State of Quebec.
The bill provides, among other things, that the people of Quebec have the inalienable right to choose freely the political regime and legal status of Quebec and that it alone determines, through their own political institutions, the exercise of this right.
Moreover, it establishes that no other parliament or government can reduce the powers, authority, sovereignty and legitimacy of the National Assembly or compel the democratic will of the people of Quebec to dispose of its own future.
The bill also affirms the characteristics and competences of the State of Quebec in various fields.
Anyone can observe that “Loi 99” has the legitimate and important mission to establish the commitment of our state to respect the fundamental human rights promulgated internationally.
Therefore, Mr. Henderson’s request – asking the Superior Court to quash it – is likely to cause very serious wrong…
It threatens to deprive all citizens of an instrument establishing that we are in a democratic state and that we intend to respect fundamental human rights which are promulgated by international conventions.
“Loi 99” is not perfect and it would need to be seriously reworked…
For example, we note that the expression « Projet de loi” (“Bill 99 ») is used to designate “Loi 99”, an “Act” which is deemed to have been adopted in the year 2000.[3]
We also observe that the Explanatory Notes introducing the Act reflect more wishes than realities while these inalienable rights are proclaimed for Quebec people :
- The right to choose its political regime[4];
- The right to choose its legal status and its affiliations with other states;
- The right to refine its own institutions in order to effectively observe its obligations regarding fundamental human rights;
- The right to never suffer the reduction of its powers, authority, sovereignty, legitimacy or the legitimate prerogatives of its National Assembly by another Parliament;
- The right to never undergo the reduction of its capacity and to never be forced to lose its will to dispose of his own future.
But, despite the presence of these « inaccuracies », the “Act 99” should not be cancelled since it is essential to prevent aggravation of the outrages inflicted on Quebec inhabitants.
“Act 99” has a major constitutional character in that it opposes the perversions contained in the 1982 Constitution Act whose application has been insidiously forced into Quebec for almost 35 years, despite its illegitimacy and illegality.
If Bill 99 were annulled by the court, it would have the terrible consequence of amplifying the dangerous chaos and legal void prevailing here, as well as paving the way for opportunistic people to carry out massive violations of fundamental rights.
In continuing the study of Bill 99, we note that several « whereas » in the preamble are unfulfilled wishes or contain other types of inaccuracies…
For example, the first « considering » states that:
WHEREAS the Québec people, in the majority French-speaking, possesses specific characteristics and a deep-rooted historical continuity in a territory over which it exercises its rights through a modern national state, having a government, a national assembly and impartial and independent courts of justice ;
There are currently several constraints in Quebec that prevent us from being truly a modern national state and to respect the judicial independence promoted by international conventions.
The separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, the administrative and the judiciary, which should be guaranteed in all modern parliamentary states, is not possible here because another very problematic separation of powers is still imposed…
This very archaic separation of powers comes from the time when the conquering monarch found an astute way to subdue our nation, to « pacify » its dominion and to maintain full control.
The patricidal « Constitution Act of 1982 » establishes that we are still subjects to the archaic separation of powers that is ordained in the British North America Act of 1867…
There is also a problem with the second « whereas » of Law 99 :
WHEREAS the constitutional foundation of the Québec State has been enriched over the years by the passage of fundamental laws and the creation of democratic institutions specific to Québec ;
This way of saying things suggests that everything is going well in the best world when it is not the case !
While it is true that the Quebec state was able to give itself some constitutional and institutional foundations favorable to its emancipation, this was never easily done.
This is due to the fact that we were subjects to the British monarchy and a centralistic federalism that was strengthened by the Constitution Act of 1982.
By obeying to the directives of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1982, Quebec tribunals have sadly contributed to humanistic freedom and development restrictions.
It is time for our courts of justice and lawyers to acknowledge their wrongs and to commit themselves to the respect of common sense and fundamental rights !
There is also a gross error in the third « whereas » of “Act 99” establishing that:
WHEREAS Quebec entered the Canadian federation in 1867…
In fact, Quebec did not enter a « federation » in 1867: our nation state has indeed entered a « confederation » !
Quebec and Canada have had some good periods of development when honest patriots devoted themselves (more or less consciously) to build the « confederation ».
Valiant citizens of those times have refused to participate in the annihilation of the canadian indigenous nations by a conqueror monarch or by a centralistic federalism favorable to the usurpation of power by transnational affairists.
A correction should also be made to the fourth « whereas » of Law 99 :
WHEREAS Québec is firmly committed to respecting human rights and freedoms ;
It should be specified that Quebec government is committed to respecting fundamental rights, freedoms and duties, as this is the primary mission of all national entities becoming members of the United Nations.
It is important to add the word « fundamental », otherwise the article becomes nonsensical.
Fundamental rights are distinguished from other rights because they are indispensable for the welfare of a person at the same time as they are required to ensure the good of the nation and of all nations.
We need to clarify this in Bill 99 because the anti-constitution of 1982 gives a perverted definition of what fundamental rights are…
For example, by claiming that they can enter into competition with one another or by establishing that the Constitution Act of 1982 includes them all and absolutely in its pernicious wording!
See Sections 1 and 52 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which astutely claim to establish the Rights and Freedoms and the Primacy of the Constitution in Canada, even though this so-called « constitution » does not respect the international covenants on human rights and cannot be changed in any way !
Rights and freedoms in Canada
- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
- (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
Constitution of Canada
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
We must further detail the fifth « whereas » which reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Abenaki, Algonquin, Attikamek, Cree, Huron, Innu, Malecite, Micmac, Mohawk, Naskapi and Inuit Nations exist within Québec, and whereas the principles associated with that recognition were set out in the resolutionadopted by the National Assembly on 20 March 1985, in particular their right to autonomy within Québec ;
We must remember the urgent need to take effective action to protect the existence of aboriginal nations before they disappear and to implement concrete measures to empower indigenous peoples.
A way to do so is by making the indigenous languages « official » and formally recognizing First nations as « founders » on the land we now share.
In the light of the damage caused by cultural imperialism, we must also correct the sixth « whereas » which states :
WHEREAS there exists a Québec English-speaking community that enjoys long-established rights ;
No nation should be granted privileges when it insidiously causes the erosion of fundamental rights and deculturation of other nations…
We also need to clarify the seventh « whereas » :
WHEREAS Québec recognizes the contribution made by Quebecers of all origins to its development ;
It is important to say without naivety which contributions are beneficial and which others are not since we face the contemporary challenges of massive migrations of people around the world and some terrorism causing human tragedies !
These massive migrations and terrorims tragedies are linked in a certain way to the infinite economic growth (neoliberalism) and to the neo-colonialism rampantly promoted in the anti-constitution of 1982…
The eighth « whereas » also deserves some clarification:
WHEREAS the National Assembly is composed of Members elected by universal suffrage by the Québec people and derives its legitimacy from the Québec people in that it is the only legislative body exclusively representing the Québec people ;
We must ensure that the politicians give access to the information allowing us people to verify if they effectively respect without perversion the fundamental rights to which our nation is deemed to subscribe.
In particular, our nation is recognized as fully adhering to the following important humanitarian law conventions:
When we observe that the elected members of the National Assembly do not respect these mandatory rules, we must oblige them to explain their conduct.
And when they are found guilty of prejudicial misconduct in violation of fundamental rights, they must be condemned to repair the harm they caused.
Considering the limits of means that a legislative assembly can sometimes have, we should also correct the ninth « whereas », which states :
WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the National Assembly, as the guardian of the historical and inalienable rights and powers of the Québec people, to defend the Québec people against any attempt to despoil it of those rights or powers or to undermine them ;
We should make all citizens responsible for protecting the fundamental rights and the sovereignty of the nation against attempts to undermine it.
In the tenth “whereas” establishing that:
WHEREAS the National Assembly has never adhered to the Constitution Act, 1982, which was enacted despite its opposition ;
The circumstances under which the Constitution Act of 1982 was slyly imposed on Quebec in spite of opposition by the National Assembly should be explained.
We must also ensure that the institutions and persons who permitted such contempt are now participating to the extent of their responsibility and their ability to make the necessary repairs.
The eleventh “whereas” reads as follows:
WHEREAS Québec is facing a policy of the federal government designed to call into question the legitimacy, integrity and efficient operation of its national democratic institutions, notably by the passage and proclamation of the Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference (Statutes of Canada, 2000, chapter 26) ;
It would be essential to explain to all citizens the true nature of this Supreme Court ruling which led the federal government to formulate a « Referendum Clarity Act ».
We should also collectively reconsider the appropriateness of organizing a referendum to resolve the disorder we are experiencing following the Constitutional Coup that was perpretrated in 1982…
The twelfth « whereas » deserves only a precision :
WHEREAS it is necessary to reaffirm the fundamental principle that the Québec people is free to take charge of its own destiny, determine its political status and pursue its economic, social and cultural development ;
We must remember that this freedom is framed by all the aforementioned mandatory rules of universal law.
And it is not only a freedom…
It is also a fundamental right and a fundamental obligation in the light of jus cogens !
The thirteenth “whereas” seems to give some confusion and could be repealed:
WHEREAS this principle has applied on several occasions in the past, notably in the referendums held in 1980, 1992 and 1995 ;
The same applies to the fourteenth “considering”:
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada rendered an advisory opinion on 20 August 1998, and considering the recognition by the Government of Québec of its political importance ;
As regards the body of Law 99, a correction is required in the fifth article:
5. The Québec State derives its legitimacy from the will of the people inhabiting its territory.
The will of the people is expressed through the election of Members to the National Assembly by universal suffrage, by secret ballot under the one person, one vote system pursuant to the Election Act, and through referendums held pursuant to the Referendum Act.
Qualification as an elector is governed by the provisions of the Election Act.
It is important to establish that the will of the people is expressed not only by universal suffrage in an election or by a referendum…
In a democratic national republic, whose constitution establishes an obligation to respect fundamental rights without perversion, the will and the power of the citizens are manifested through the means that the State puts at their disposal to act civically.
Courts and state agencies must be accessible to citizens for direct democracy so they are not unduly impeded by the obligation to consult a « representative of the National Assembly » or to obtain a prior authorisation to act by any other « member of a corporation ».
It is thus necessary to establish, in the Constitution and in other national legislation, the rules that ensure the optimal functioning of tribunals, parliaments and other public entities.
Article 8 reads as follows:
8. The French language is the official language of Québec.
The duties and obligations relating to or arising from the status of the French language are established by the Charter of the French language.
The Québec State must promote the quality and influence of the French language.
It shall pursue those objectives in a spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, respectful of the long-established rights of Québec’s English-speaking community.
We should take into account what I mentioned earlier and the following should be added to ensure that this section respects the mandatory rules of universal law:
« Indigenous languages still spoken also have the status of official languages in Quebec State, since they are indispensable for the indigenous people to exercise civic capacity and to protect fundamental rights. »
I will stop my analysis here by recalling the importance of not cancelling Bill 99 since it is essential for the protection of our fundamental rights until we find better…
And we must not hesitate to work on it !
If you wish to sign the petition to maintain Act 99, go to : http://www.loi99.com/
[1] The 16-year delay between the organization of the lawsuit and the trial attests of the dysfunction of our judicial system.
We are currently witnessing the effects of this decay in a number of other cases : trials are aborted and criminals are released because of the problems related to the constitutionnal decree of 1982 and its enforcement by the Supreme Court of Canada despite its violation of human rights !
[2] This recognition of Québec as a nation was made only recently, in 2006, by the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada with the “Quebec nation motion”.
But Quebec – which was previously known as “Nouvelle France”, “Canada” and “Bas Canada” – exists in fact since 400 years even though its existence was not recognized officially by the conquerors and by the United Nations.
The existence of indigenous nations of Canada, who were on the soil of the American continent probably since more than a millenium, is denied in a similar way.
[3] Did the Lieutenant governor (representative of Queen Elizabeth II of England) authorize its adoption in year 2000 ?
[4] The political regime of Québec is still a monarchy and the head of state is officially Queen Elizabeth of England, even though Quebec was annexed by the force of arms…
This is inacceptable !
