My attention has been monopolized by the Gaza genocide for months, so I did not intervene concerning the judgment of the Court of Appeal regarding Bill 21.

However, I am surprised that some celebrate the predominance of the legislative power over the courts.

I completely understand why we want to use the notwithstanding clause to avoid the application of sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter. We never approved the constitutional order of 1982, which ignored Quebec’s traditional demands (formal recognition of the Quebec people, special status, asymmetrical federalism, cultural sovereignty, right of withdrawal with unconditional financial compensation, etc.) I understand less why a derogatory provision was also preventively applied in Bill 21 to free itself from the application of articles 1 to 38 of the Quebec charter, and this, even before a judicial review took place based on this charter.

I am told that the problem is that the judges of the Court of Appeal who are appointed by the federal government risk interpreting the Quebec charter as they would interpret the Canadian charter. It does not seem to matter if blocking the application of the Quebec charter amounts to calling into question any judicial review and ultimately the rule of law.

Worse, we place the Quebec quasi-constitutional order in a contradictory situation, and we do so in a double fashion.

We have on the one hand a quasi-constitutional law asserting the rights and freedoms of the person and a quasi-constitutional law of secularism which, in order to exist, must block the application of its first 38 articles.

Then, while we are delighted to see parliamentary democracy triumph, it is one that contradicts the parliamentary democracy that was expressed on June 27, 1975. On that date, the national assembly unanimously adopted the charter Quebec rights and freedoms.