Brett Thoms
Pontiac June 15, 2022
Pontiac MP Sophie Chatel sat down for an interview with THE EQUITY to explain her position on the controversial law.
“We should all agree that we must be more apt to protect French,’’ said Chatel. “I think there’s no disagreement on that. We definitely understand the struggle that has taken place to preserve French in Quebec and not just in Quebec, but in Canada. But I also believe that it is possible to support the vitality of the development of the French language in Quebec, Canada and North America, while ensuring that . . .
the English-speaking minority in Quebec can access government service in English, especially those that can access English school. I don’t think that removing their rights to access government services in English is necessarily going to help promote French and protect and preserve French in Quebec.”
Chatel noted that her specific concerns with the bill related to anglophone access to government services and the requirement of courts to produce certified French translations of court documents, which she said could undermine anglophone access to courts.
She also said the six-month time limit immigrants and refugees have before they cease to be allowed to receive provincial government services in English is problematic.
“My husband is an immigrant from the United States in Michigan,” said Chatel. “He’s a scholar and even then, it took him more than six months to be able to fully read and converse in French.”
Chatel said the federal government is prepared to intervene against Bill 96 if a legal challenge goes to the supreme court. She said a challenge would specifically focus on constitutional protections of the use of both English and French in the National Assembly and in the court system.
“We are also concerned about the use the pre-emptive and unneeded use of the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause was meant to be used only in a sectional way, especially following a court decision that would say that a certain aspect of legislation is problematic ‘’, said Chatel.
Chatel said since the law is still new, it would be important to see how it will be implemented before a clearer picture of it develops.
Leadership candidates for the Federal Conservative party also spoke on their position on Bill 96 during a French language debate on May 25.
Leaders of the Conservative party had different standards on Bill 96. Patrick Brown, the mayor of Brampton Ontario, Scott Aitchison, MP for Simcoe-Muskoka and Roman Baber all expressed opposition to Bill 96 during the debate.
Brown was the firmest in his opposition, saying: “It runs counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. People should be able to speak both official languages in Quebec regardless of where they live.”
“I agree with Patrick Brown, Bill 21 and Bill 96 are divisive,“ said Aitchison. “The politics of fear and anger must not win in this country.”
Leslyn Lewis, MP for Haldimand—Norfolk said she is sympathetic to the goals of Bill 96, though believes it should be amended to be more conciliatory to anglophones in the province.
The two presumed front runners in the leadership race, Jean Charest, former Liberal premier of Quebec and Pierre Poilievre, MP for Carleton, while not addressing the law explicitly, both expressed support for the ostensive rationale behind Bill 96.
“Protecting French is a sacred duty of our elected officials,” said Charest. However, Charest said he is concerned about the effect language policies will have on immigrants.
“The protection of the French language is a priority,” said Poilievre. “Canadians have the right to receive service from the federal government in both official languages.”
However, Poilievre has yet to give a clear position on Bill 96.
THE EQUITY reached out to the local NDP riding association for their comment on Bill 96 but has not received a response before press time.
Given the use of the notwithstanding clause on Bill 96, it is still unclear what federal challenge to the legislation would even accomplish.
