Comparing the EU's Failed Constitutional Treaty to Quebec's Bill 1: Two Cases of Top-Down Constitutional Overreach

Comparing the EU's Failed Constitutional Treaty to Quebec's Bill 1: Two Cases of Top-Down Constitutional Overreach

Both the European Union's aborted Constitutional Treaty of 2004 and Quebec's Bill 1 (the Québec Constitution Act, 2025, tabled in October 2025) represent ambitious attempts to constitutionalize supranational or national aspirations through elite-driven processes that sidelined broad public buy-in. 

In each case, the resulting documents—or near-documents—failed (or risk failing) to fulfill the core functions of a true constitution: forging societal cohesion, safeguarding rights, constraining governmental excess, and mirroring the polity's diversity. Instead, they highlight a "democratic step backward," as one might aptly put it for Bill 1, where rushed legislative maneuvers prioritize political symbolism over deliberative legitimacy. Below is a breakdown of the parallels and contrasts across key dimensions, drawing on the historical record for the EU and recent developments for Quebec.

1. Adoption Process: Rushed Elitism vs. Deliberative Ideal

• EU Constitutional Treaty: Drafted by a 105-member Convention on the Future of Europe (2001–2002), which included parliamentarians, national officials, and civil society reps, it aimed for inclusivity. Yet, the final text was hammered out in secretive intergovernmental conferences, then ratified via national parliaments or referendums. The "rushed" element came in the post-draft phase: governments pushed for quick adoption to meet EU enlargement deadlines in 2004, framing it as "housekeeping" to streamline the bloated treaty system. This backfired spectacularly—French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005 referendums (54.7% and 61.6% "No," respectively), exposing the disconnect between Brussels elites and citizens wary of a federalizing super-state.
• Quebec's Bill 1: Tabled by the CAQ government under Premier François Legault as the first bill of the 43rd Legislature's second session, it's being advanced through standard legislative channels without prior public consultations, Indigenous engagement, or multi-party input—despite its sweeping scope. Critics, including opposition parties (e.g., Parti Québécois, Liberals) and civil liberties groups, decry it as a unilateral power grab at the tail end of the CAQ's mandate, timed for electoral appeal ahead of 2026 polls. Hearings are slated for late November 2025, with a clause-by-clause study in spring 2026, but the lack of a constitutional convention or referendum makes it feel like "routine housekeeping" for nationalist posturing, not a foundational pact.
• Parallel: Both bypassed the "broad participation and careful deliberation."  The EU's convention was more participatory on paper, but ratification exposed its top-down flaws; Bill 1 skips even that pretense, risking division rather than unity in a province already polarized on identity issues.

2. Societal Binding: Symbolism Without Shared Demos

• EU: Intended to cultivate a "European demos" via symbols (flag, anthem, "EU Constitution" title) and institutions (e.g., elected Parliament strengthening), it couldn't overcome national allegiances. Low EP election turnout (43% in 2004) and the referendums' backlash underscored a failure to bind diverse societies—East vs. West, rich vs. poor—into a cohesive whole.
• Bill 1: Enshrines Quebec as a "free national State" with "precedence over any inconsistent rule of law" (including federal ones), codifying CAQ priorities like secularism (Bill 21) and language protection (Bill 96). It aims to "affirm the constitutional existence of the Quebec nation," but without dialogue, it alienates anglophones, allophones, Indigenous nations, and federalists, potentially fracturing social cohesion in a multicultural province.
• Parallel: Neither fosters genuine buy-in; the EU's grand vision crumbled under diversity's weight, while Bill 1's nationalist framing risks entrenching "us vs. them" divides, as noted by legal experts like Julius Grey.

3. Rights Protection: Prioritizing Collective Over Individual

• EU: Incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights but was criticized for diluting national protections (e.g., via supremacy of EU law). Post-rejection Lisbon Treaty (2009) made the Charter binding, yet perceptions persist of EU courts overriding domestic rights (e.g., German challenges to ECB policies).
• Bill 1: Amends the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to "balance" collective "nation's rights" (language, culture) against individuals, while shielding the notwithstanding clause from justification requirements and barring public funds for challenges to "nation-protecting" laws. This could hobble rights enforcement, especially for minorities, by weakening judicial recourse and reorienting the Human Rights Commission toward "nation's rights."
• Parallel: Both tilt toward collective goals at rights' expense—the EU's integrationist push vs. Quebec's nation-building—eroding trust in supranational/provincial safeguards.

4. Limiting Government Power: Empowering Elites, Not Checks

• EU: Aimed to curb the "democratic deficit" with a stronger Parliament and transparent Council, but entrenched the unelected Commission's legislative monopoly and opaque bargaining, expanding EU powers without proportional accountability.
• Bill 1: Creates a Conseil constitutionnel (Quebec Constitutional Council) for oversight, but asserts parliamentary sovereignty to pass laws immune from federal or judicial vetoes. It eliminates the lieutenant-governor's role (a federal check), claims precedence over the Constitution Act, 1867, and centralizes power in the National Assembly—potentially sparking a constitutional crisis with Ottawa.
• Parallel: Far from limiting power, both entrench elite control: the EU's technocratic sprawl and Bill 1's insulation of CAQ policies from scrutiny, as warned by civil rights groups.

5. Reflecting Diversity: Uniformity Imposed on Pluralism

• EU: Pushed a "one-size-fits-all" model (e.g., eurozone rules) that clashed with Eastern Europe's post-communist realities and Southern debt crises, fueling Euroscepticism.
• Bill 1: Defines Quebec through "founding principles" like French primacy and secularism, but ignores Indigenous perspectives and multicultural fabrics—framed as a "monolithic" vision that could marginalize non-francophone communities.
• Parallel: Both impose a homogenized identity (pan-European or Quebecois nationalism) on diverse populations, breeding resentment rather than representation.

Dimension	EU Constitutional Treaty (2004)	Quebec Bill 1 (2025)
Process	Convention + secretive IGC; referendums derailed it	Unilateral tabling; no prior consultations
Societal Bind	Failed to create "European people"	Risks alienating minorities in "nation" narrative
Rights Protection	Charter binding but supremacy erodes national trust	Weakens individual rights for collective "nation"
Power Limits	Expanded EU without full accountability	Shields legislature from federal/judicial checks
Diversity Reflection	Uniform rules ignored regional variances	Monocultural frame overlooks Indigenous/multicultural input

In essence, the EU's treaty was a cautionary tale of overambition without grassroots legitimacy, leading to its stealth repurposing in Lisbon—a "constitution in disguise" that still grapples with deficits. Bill 1 echoes this as a provocative "law of laws" that, if passed, could provoke federal clashes and erosion of rights without the deliberation needed for endurance. True constitutions, as noted, demand participation to endure; these experiments underscore why shortcuts breed backlash. 

If Bill 1 advances without reform, it may fare no better than its European predecessor—another step back from democratic maturity.

Canada Is Quietly Testing the Limits of Its Constitution — And the Warning Signs Are Already Here

 

Democratic Restraint and Constitutional Culture: Revisiting Insite, Vavilov, and Canada’s Unwritten Governance Framework

Canada’s constitutional order relies not only on formal legal texts but also on interpretive principles, administrative accountability, and unwritten conventions that guide the exercise of state power. Recent political developments—including increased executive discretion, accelerated policymaking, and the framing of governance through urgency rather than evidence—raise questions about whether these constitutional safeguards are being strained.

This article examines three pillars of Canada’s constitutional architecture: (1) evidence-based constraints on state power as articulated in the Insite ruling; (2) the justificatory framework for administrative decision-making reaffirmed in Vavilov; and (3) the normative force of constitutional conventions as articulated in the Patriation Reference and subsequent scholarship. Taken together, these elements illustrate the need for renewed attention to constitutional culture, democratic restraint, and the normative expectations that underlie responsible governance in Canada.

Introduction

Democratic decline rarely begins with a dramatic rupture; instead, it starts with small deviations from institutional norms, often justified as temporary, necessary, or efficient. Canada’s legal tradition has long emphasized that constitutionalism is both legal and cultural: it depends on courts to articulate limits, but also on governments to internalize restraint.

Canada is now facing a moment where expediency increasingly competes with constitutional process. The framing of public policy as inherently urgent—whether regarding public health, security, or digital regulation—has accelerated policymaking in ways that sometimes sidestep deliberation, parliamentary scrutiny, and public justification.

Against this backdrop, three areas of constitutional law serve as guideposts:

• the requirement for evidence-based state action;

• the obligation of reasoned decision-making by administrative bodies;

• and the ongoing relevance of unwritten constitutional principles.

Insite and the Evidentiary Burden on State Power

The Supreme Court’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society (Insite) reaffirmed that constitutional rights are not subject to shifting political preferences. The ruling held that when state action jeopardizes life or security of the person under section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify such action through demonstrable evidence—not theoretical risk or ideological position.

The policy relevance of the judgment is not limited to the supervised injection site context. Instead, Insite affirms a broader constitutional rule:

Government may regulate, restrict, or intervene—but only where such action is demonstrably rational, proportionate, and evidence-based.

In an era marked by expanding regulatory frameworks—ranging from public health directives to digital governance—the reasoning in Insite provides a constitutional benchmark resisting the normalization of speculative or paternalistic policymaking.

Vavilov and the Duty to Justify Administrative Power

The 2019 Vavilov decision represents a constitutional recalibration of administrative law. Rather than treating administrative discretion as self-legitimizing, the Court repositioned justification as the core condition of lawful authority.

Administrative decisions must now meet a standard of intelligibility, transparency, and rationality. The decision’s broader democratic meaning is clear:

In a constitutional state, the exercise of public power must be explained—not assumed.

As regulatory systems evolve and governments increasingly rely on delegated authority rather than legislative enactment, Vavilov serves as a safeguard, ensuring that administrative governance remains accountable to constitutional norms rather than convenience.

Constitutional Conventions and the Culture of Restraint

Unlike jurisdictions with a comprehensive written constitution, Canada distributes constitutional authority across legislation, jurisprudence, and unwritten conventions. As articulated in the Patriation Reference, conventions are binding upon political actors even where they lack formal legal enforceability. They are the behavioural norms that prevent lawful action from becoming illegitimate action.

Examples include:

• ministerial responsibility;

• parliamentary supremacy in scrutiny of spending and emergency powers;

• judicial independence;

• respect for opposition and the press as democratic checks.

These conventions form what some scholars call Canada’s constitutional morality—a shared understanding that power must be exercised with restraint, transparency, and accountability.

However, conventions are uniquely vulnerable: they erode through neglect rather than confrontation. Once abandoned, restoration is difficult.

The Present Moment: A Slow Drift or a Constitutional Inflection Point?

Indicators of strain now exist across Canada’s constitutional landscape:

• Emergency-style governance invoked outside traditional emergency thresholds

• Policy justified primarily through appeals to necessity rather than evidence

• Expansion of administrative discretion without proportional increases in transparency

• The tendency to frame dissent—not as participation—but as obstruction

These developments do not yet constitute a constitutional crisis. But they do suggest constitutional drift—subtle, incremental, and largely administrative.

Conclusion

A constitutional democracy is not preserved by law alone. It endures through the ongoing public expectation that power must be justified, rights must be respected, and governance must remain accountable to evidence, process, and restraint.

Insite demands evidence.
Vavilov demands reasoning.
Constitutional conventions demand self-restraint.

Together, they form a tripartite framework for maintaining the legitimacy of public authority in Canada.

As Canada continues to navigate increasingly complex governance challenges, adherence to these principles will determine whether our constitutional culture strengthens—or whether it slowly erodes under the weight of expediency.

SOURCES:

Selected Legal Citations 

1. Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 SCR 134.

2. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.

3. Reference re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada (Patriation Reference), [1981] 1 SCR 753.

4. Peter W Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, loose-leaf (Toronto: Thomson Reuters).

5. Dwight Newman, “Constitutional Conventions and Democratic Legitimacy” (2013) UTLJ.

Rail Reality Check: Kingston Commuters Have Options — and Perspective Is Needed

The Kingston This Week piece sensationalizes a relatively narrow service adjustment (the VIA Rail Train 50 pilot reallocation) without presenting the full transportation reality — namely, the abundance of alternatives already linking Kingston and Ottawa daily: multiple intercity bus lines (Megabus, FlixBus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, etc.), Ontario Northland’s network, car-sharing services like Poparide and KABU, and, of course, direct highway access via Highway 15 or 401/416.

While politicians and a handful of commuters express outrage over VIA Rail’s temporary Train 50 service adjustment, it’s time for some factual grounding and perspective. The narrative that Kingston has suddenly been left stranded between Toronto and Ottawa simply doesn’t hold water.

1️⃣ The Myth of “No Alternatives”

Contrary to claims repeated in local media, Kingston residents have multiple affordable, accessible, and frequent alternatives to reach Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and beyond.

• Intercity buses: FlixBus, Megabus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, and Ontario Northland all operate daily Kingston–Ottawa routes.

• Car share options: Poparide, KABU, and other ride-share platforms post numerous same-day trips every morning.

• Highway access: The 401 and 416 corridors remain among the safest and fastest in the province.
  In short, the infrastructure and private services already exist — and they are widely used.

2️⃣ The Numbers That Matter

Before crying foul, let’s ask: how many daily commuters were actually dependent on Train 50?
VIA’s own data shows that the majority of Kingston–Ottawa traffic occurs via Trains 42 and 43, with Train 50 representing a fraction of total passengers. Yet media coverage treats the change as a citywide crisis.
Without publicly disclosed ridership figures, public outrage lacks factual grounding. Responsible journalism — and responsible politics — demand data before drama.

3️⃣ Smart Transit Means Testing, Not Clinging

VIA Rail’s three-month pilot is part of a broader modernization effort to evaluate more direct Toronto–Montreal service frequency. It’s an experiment — not abandonment. Progress sometimes means testing efficiency and redistributing resources temporarily.
Kingston remains a major VIA stop with multiple departures daily. The city is not losing service; it’s adapting to a pilot that will yield long-term gains in scheduling and connectivity.

4️⃣ Civic Leaders Should Lead, Not Stoke Emotion

Rather than amplifying public anxiety, political figures should engage VIA Rail constructively to ensure the pilot’s data collection is transparent and that commuter needs are fairly assessed after the trial. Leadership is about facilitating solutions — not fueling outrage for headlines.

5️⃣ The Bigger Picture: Choice and Competition

Canada’s future in transportation lies not in rigid dependence on one state-run carrier, but in embracing multimodal, competitive systems that give travellers options — trains, buses, shared rides, and electric vehicles alike. Kingston, strategically located, already benefits from this diversity.

Bottom Line

Commuter inconvenience is regrettable — but temporary. Exaggerating it into a civic crisis helps no one.
If the goal is better service and mobility for all, then Kingston should welcome this pilot as part of the national evolution toward modern, efficient, and sustainable intercity travel.

UPDATE: 

Here is Mr. Hall's email (1) to me, along with my rebuttal to his email (2), so everyone can make up their own minds: 

(1). Re: Rail Reality Check: Kingston Commuters Have Options — and Perspective Is Needed

Inbox

Hall, Bill	12:12 PM (1 hour ago)
to me, Jan

Dear Mr. Clarke,

Not once in my article regarding the changes in VIA Rail's services did I state it was "abandonment" or a "civic crisis" as you claim in your e-mail.

Nowhere in my article did I say there were no alternatives to Train 50 or any other train. 

I simply let a disappointed passenger explain how it was a terrible inconvenience, how it might impact his livelihood and that the other alternatives were not preferred.

I also gave, as an impartial journalist, an opportunity for all levels of government to speak on the matter.

If anything could "stoke emotion," as you put it, it would be your inflammatory remarks here, had they found a greater platform.

People have a right to complain when their quality of life declines, and The Kingston Whig-Standard ensures they have a voice.

Sincerely,

Bill Hall

bihall@postmedia.com

(2).

Peter R. Clarke <clarketoronto@gmail.com>	1:18 PM (19 minutes ago)
to Bill

Dear Mr. Hall,

Thank you for your reply.

You are correct that your article never used the literal words “abandonment” or “civic crisis.”
However, what I addressed — and still stand by — is the impression your reporting conveyed. Tone, framing, and omission often speak louder than words.

Your article presented a one-sided narrative by amplifying commuter frustration while offering no quantitative data or broader context. The casual reader is left to assume a major service collapse — when, in reality, Kingston remains well-served by multiple alternatives: frequent intercity buses (FlixBus, Megabus, Rider Express, Red Arrow, Ontario Northland), car shares, and other VIA departures. Those are undisputed facts.

You also cite a single passenger’s personal inconvenience as the article’s emotional anchor. Journalism is strongest when personal stories are balanced with empirical evidence. For instance, where are the ridership numbers for Train 50, the number of affected passengers, or VIA Rail’s stated trial objectives?

Yes — people have every right to express dissatisfaction. But citizens also have a right to accurate scale and perspective. The role of journalism, especially in smaller cities, is to inform, not inflame.

My piece did not attack you personally; it challenged the framing of the issue — a fair and necessary part of civic discourse. If such discussion is deemed “inflammatory,” then public debate itself is at risk.

Respectfully,
Peter Clarke

SOURCE: 

https://www.thewhig.com/news/a-rail-less-travelled-passengers-frustrated-as-via-cancels-morning-stops-in-kingston  

The Great Real Estate Disconnect, Part II: Report Card Exposes Canada’s Housing Mirage

 

A Market in Freefall

The illusion is over. For years, politicians, developers, and industry lobbyists have sold Canadians the fantasy that housing targets would solve our affordability crisis. They claimed supply was coming, affordability was on the horizon, and economic stability was just around the corner. The Q2 2025 GTA and Greater Golden Horseshoe Housing Report Card has blown that narrative to pieces.

Across 34 municipalities, housing starts are down 40% compared to the 2021–24 average. Condo starts plunged 54%, ground-oriented homes dropped 42%, and even pre-construction sales—a forward indicator—collapsed by 89% for condos and 70% for ground-oriented homes. The pipeline is empty. The promises are hollow.

A Failing Grade for Governments

Of the 34 municipalities studied:

• 22 received an F.

• 5 scraped by with a D.

• Only 7 managed a C or better.

Toronto, the country's economic engine, failed spectacularly, with 10,209 jobs lost due to reduced starts and a 67% shortfall against housing targets. Brampton, Vaughan, Newmarket, Innisfil, and Hamilton all cratered. Newmarket managed just 2 housing starts against a 600-unit target. This isn’t underperformance—it’s collapse.

I. The Housing Mirage in Numbers

• Housing starts across 34 GTA & GGH municipalities are down 40% in 2025.

• Condo starts: -54%, ground-oriented: -42%, sales: -70–89%.

• 22 municipalities failed outright (F grades), including Toronto, Brampton, Vaughan, and Hamilton.

• Employment impact: 24,195 person-years of construction work lost.

• Toronto alone: 10,209 jobs gone, 67% below housing targets.

👉 The Report Card proves Canada’s housing crisis is not easing—it’s imploding.

II. The Hidden Side of the Disconnect: Assessed Value vs. Market Hype

Even as starts collapse, sellers and agents inflate the prices of what little housing exists.

• MPAC and provincial bodies assess properties to set taxes.

• Yet when homes sell, those valuations are ignored—listings run double or triple the government’s value.

• Example: $600,000 assessment → $1.2 million listing, no upgrades. That’s not market forces—it’s a con.

And the kicker? Taxes don’t update right away. Owners of multimillion-dollar homes often pay taxes based on 2016 values, while new buyers shoulder speculative prices. The result is systemic unfairness and lost public revenue.

III. Case Studies in Distortion

• Two Homes, Same Street: both sell for ~$1.2M, but one buyer pays $500 less in tax because assessments lag.

• Frozen Assessments: Ontario hasn’t updated valuations since 2016, despite prices doubling.

This is the quiet scandal: the government has the system to ensure fairness but refuses to enforce it, leaving taxpayers overpaying mortgages while speculators profit.

IV. Winners, Losers, and the Mirage

• Winners: Agents (commissions), speculators (flips), banks (bigger mortgages), and governments (land transfer taxes).

• Losers: Young buyers, seniors downsizing, immigrants, renters—those simply seeking shelter.

• Illusion: Politicians boast about “supply targets,” but cities are missing them by 70–90%. Meanwhile, the properties that do sell are listed at fantasy prices, detached from assessed value.

V. A Modest Proposal: Reconnect Value to Values

1. Force listings to show assessed value.

2. Cap sale prices at 3–5% above assessment unless justified by renovations or rezoning.

3. Apply penalties for unjustified price inflation.

This isn’t anti-market—it’s pro-transparency. It stops speculation from masquerading as “market dynamics.”

VI. Conclusion: Time to Wake Up

Canada’s housing system is now a two-tiered hustle:

• On one side, a collapsing supply and vanishing construction jobs.

• On the other hand, wildly inflated sale prices are disconnected from the government’s own valuations.

The Great Real Estate Disconnect is no longer a warning. It’s a reality—and the 2025 Report Card confirms it. Unless governments enforce fairness and transparency, Canada will remain trapped in a housing mirage where the public pays the price and speculators always win.

No Country Above the Law — Recognition of “Palestine/Gaza” Now Is Rewarding Terror, Not Diplomacy

 

In an act of breathtaking moral inconsistency and legal heedlessness, several Western governments have moved to recognize “Palestine” (or Gaza) unilaterally — a move that, in practical effect, would reward terrorism and subvert international law. Countries that claim to defend the “rules-based international order” cannot selectively apply the law. Recognition under these circumstances is not compassion—it is capitulation.

The objective legal test — and why Gaza fails it

International law is not a hollow slogan. The Montevideo Convention (1933) sets out the tested, objective criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Any credible legal argument must start here. 

Apply it honestly:

1. Permanent population — yes, Gaza has people living there, but under siege, mass displacement, and the collapse of normal civic structures.

2. Defined territory — no. Gaza is a fragmented war zone; the West Bank is administered separately under Israeli military control and PA enclaves. There is no coherent, contiguous territorial sovereignty corresponding to a state. 

3. Effective government — no. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, an organization designated as a terrorist group by multiple governments; Hamas does not provide the rule-of-law government that an internationally recognized state requires. 

4. Capacity for foreign relations — massively compromised. What passes for diplomacy is often mediated by third parties and lacks the independent, accountable diplomatic structures that states possess.

On these objective requirements, recognizing Gaza or a Hamas-dominated entity as a sovereign state is legally baseless. It is not a “fast-track to peace.” It is a legal nullity dressed up as morality.

This is not history-sensitivity — it’s hypocrisy

These same governments insisted on legal rigour over Crimea, Hong Kong, Kosovo, and Taiwan—invoking norms when it suited them. Now they seek to waive those standards selectively. That is not statesmanship; it is opportunism. The international system is credible only if rules apply even when doing so is politically inconvenient.

Rewarding terrorism — the perverse incentive

Hamas is not a political party in the democratic sense. It is a violent organization that has legitimized terror as policy and repeatedly targeted civilians. To transpose a sovereign flag onto territory governed — practically or symbolically — by such an organization sends a simple, lethal message worldwide: violence and mass atrocity can be rewarded with recognition. That mistake will not only embolden extremists in the region: it will reverberate across conflict zones globally. 

The political realities and recent moves

Western recognitions — decisions taken in haste or for domestic political cover — risk inflaming the very violence they claim to resolve. Recent reporting shows a surge of recognition by several Western states in direct response to the Gaza catastrophe and to pressure at the UN General Assembly. That surge is precisely the action we warn against: unilateral recognition without meeting legal tests or securing governance guarantees. 

What must follow — hard accountability, not rhetorical rebukes

If democratic governments proceed with recognition of a non-state entity dominated by a terrorist organization, they should face concrete consequences:

1. Domestic and international legal challenge (ICJ and treaty forums). Such actions are ultra vires and contravene established international obligations; affected states should pursue legal remedies in international courts and treaty mechanisms. 

2. Diplomatic penalties. Suspension of bilateral cooperative initiatives, downgrading of diplomatic ties, and coordinated governmental rebukes are warranted.

3. Targeted sanctions. Where recognition materially empowers violent actors or facilitates fund flows, targeted sanctions and financial restrictions should be pursued.

4. Naming and accountability. Where parliaments or officials vote for or execute such recognitions, they must be named publicly and held politically accountable; lawfare must be an available tool against ultra vires state actions that breach international commitments.

Why the United States (and like-minded states) cannot remain silent

This is not merely a “regional” quarrel. Unilateral recognition of an entity that fails the rule-based tests of statehood undermines decades of diplomatic architecture designed to separate legitimate national aspirations from violent extremism. A principled state must defend the integrity of the legal test. If the West abandons legal standards now, it forfeits the right to demand compliance from adversaries tomorrow.

The hard truth

Statehood is earned through accountable governance, the renunciation of terror, secure borders, and legitimate institutions — not awarded as a consolation prize for suffering, however profound. To recognize otherwise is to hand an international imprimatur to violence. That is not compassion. That is complicity.

Freedom from Ideologies: Why Ottawa’s Attack on the Notwithstanding Clause Betrays Our Heritage

 

A Forgotten Foundation: Freedom from Ideology

Western democracy did not arise from ideology, but from a rebellion against it.

• 17th-century empiricists—Bacon, Newton, Locke—recognized that human progress depends on escaping idealism (systems of abstract thought unmoored from reality).

• 18th-century Encyclopedists—Diderot, d’Alembert, Condorcet—argued that liberty required the active development of empirical faculties, not submission to dogma.

• The result was political liberty, scientific achievement, and the institutions that still anchor Western society today.

In other words, our democratic heritage is freedom from ideology itself.

Quebec, the Quiet Revolution, and Autonomy

Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause should not be seen as an attack on rights but as an assertion of autonomy—an extension of its Quiet Revolution tradition.

• The clause was deliberately embedded in the Charter because premiers in 1981 knew that unchecked judicial power could override both Parliament and provincial legislatures.

• It is not a loophole or abuse—it is a constitutional safeguard, a pressure valve to prevent Ottawa’s ideology or judicial activism from steamrolling provincial authority.

Quebec is exercising this right properly. Other provinces should consider it as well.

Ottawa’s Centralizing Authoritarian Drift

The Carney/Trudeau Liberals have repeatedly shown disdain for the clause, and their latest attempt to restrict its use is revealing:

• They have stacked the judiciary with Liberal-friendly appointees while presenting themselves as guardians of “rights.”

• They denounce provinces for invoking the clause even as Ottawa itself has trampled Charter rights during COVID, through speech restrictions and through regulatory overreach.

• Their real goal is not liberty—it is centralized control, dressed up in the language of rights.

To weaken the notwithstanding clause is to betray the very compromise that made the Charter possible.

The Irony of Liberal Gaslighting

• Pierre Trudeau only secured the Charter by agreeing to include the clause. Without it, there would have been no constitutional deal.

• Today, his son’s government wants to pretend the clause is a constitutional accident. It isn’t—it’s the linchpin that keeps Canada a federation instead of a unitary, Ottawa-dominated state.

• To frame Quebec’s use of the clause as authoritarian is a form of gaslighting. The real authoritarianism lies in Ottawa’s attempt to strip provinces of their only meaningful constitutional shield.

Conclusion: A Call for Courage

Canada is not a one-party state, and our Charter was not meant to be a Liberal monopoly.

• The notwithstanding clause exists for exactly these moments—when ideology masquerades as law, when courts forget Parliament, and when Ottawa forgets federalism.

• Quebec, by invoking it, is not betraying Canada’s heritage. It is protecting it.

If Ottawa truly wishes to defend rights, it should stop weaponizing ideology and start respecting the constitutional safeguards that make our federation work.

Québec’s Language Tests and Its Stand on Gender: Identity, Survival, and Fairness

 September 16, 2025

Growing up in Québec in the 1960s, English-speaking students like myself were required to pass a French language exam to graduate. No certificate, no diploma, without demonstrating competence in the language of the majority. At the time, it felt less like an opportunity for bilingualism and more like a government-imposed barrier, rooted not in fairness but in cultural insecurity.

History Cannot Be Rewritten

Let us not forget: the French lost the wars. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ceded New France to Britain. Sovereignty passed decisively to the English Crown. Yet, despite losing politically and militarily, Québec’s French-speaking population refused to fade away. They clung fiercely to their language, their religion, and their civil law system. That persistence is admirable, but it does not give license, centuries later, to impose compulsory French language requirements on English-speaking students whose families were loyal citizens of Canada.

The Nationalist Logic

Québec’s nationalist project argues otherwise. The recent Rapport sur la laïcité (2025) insists that French, alongside secularism and gender equality, forms the very foundation of Québec’s identity. To them, French is not simply a language; it is the nation’s safeguard. Rejecting Canadian multiculturalism, the report states that French as the common language — together with laïcité — is the “prerequisite for social cohesion.” In this framing, the mandatory French test was never about fairness, but about national survival.

A Binary Foundation of Equality

The same report also makes clear that equality in Québec is anchored in the binary of women and men. It recommends that the law be amended to spell this out explicitly: “l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes.” By doing so, Québec draws a line against what many call “gender ideology creep.” While Canada embraces multiple self-declared identities — non-binary, gender-fluid, two-spirit — Québec’s laïcité affirms equality in the traditional sense: male and female, nothing more, nothing less.

This is more than semantics. It reflects Québec’s belief that true secularism protects women from patriarchal religious practices, not by multiplying categories, but by enforcing equality between the two sexes.

The Problem of Coercion

But here lies the contradiction: if French is strong enough to be the cornerstone of identity, why force it upon others through compulsion? True confidence in a culture comes from openness, not coercion. Compelling English-speaking students to pass a French test in the 1960s — and continuing to entrench similar requirements today — undermines the very values Québec claims to defend: freedom of conscience, equality, and fairness.

The same risk applies to gender: by fixing equality narrowly on men and women, Québec may appear unbending to broader currents of Western liberalism. Yet, unlike the language test, here the firmness sends a clear cultural message — Québec defines equality on its own terms.

Toward a Healthier Model

Bilingualism should be celebrated, not enforced. Québec could lead by encouraging young people to see French as an asset in a global world, not as a mandatory gatekeeper. Likewise, on equality, it could present its binary model not as exclusionary but as principled: an insistence that male and female both matter equally, without dilution.

Bottom Line: Whether in language or in gender, Québec has chosen to stand firm against accommodation and ideological drift. The challenge is ensuring that firmness does not become coercion. True cultural survival must inspire confidence, not resentment.

SOURCE: 

https://www.quebec.ca/gouvernement/politiques-orientations/laicite-etat/comite-etude-respect-laicite