Quebec's Language Bill 96 is Unconstitutional and Spits in the Face of 90 percent of Canadians

Quebec's language Bill 96 is unconstitutional and the PM must evoke the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Academics can debate until the end of Global warming about whether the powers within the Constitution remain legitimate constitutional tools if they are not used from time to time or for many years as this is simply an academic theory and NOT a law or power as written within the Constitution.

Further, as the disallowance power remains in the written text of the Constitution Act, of 1867, to be of no force, it would need to have lapsed through a convention. For a convention to arise, all parties affected must consider the convention to be binding on them.

Since no Prime Minister has declared the disallowance power to be obsolete, legally it is still a legitimate part of Canada’s Constitution and can or could and should be used to ensure that all provinces respect and adhere to the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 in my view.

Further, some debates, mainly by academics, have taken place on whether a constitutional convention can invalidate a written law. It is legally difficult to see how a lack of exercise can or could vitiate a written and legal constitutional power. Especially, since the courts upheld the appointment of eight additional senators in 1990, although the pertinent section of the Canada Act 1867, had never been previously used and was considered, by some, to be archaic.

Background: 

1. https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96

4.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand