Am I at all surprised to see Maxime Bernier, MP for the Quebec riding of Beauce, embroiled in another political scandal over his remarks or actions? Of course not. Mr. Bernier is an MP who has seemingly made it his prerogative to cause scandal or embarrassment since being elected to Parliament in 2006.
However, I am surprised to find that I support him in the situation in which he is currently embroiled, wherein he remarked during an interview on a Halifax radio station:
We don’t need Bill 101 to protect the French language. They know we speak French in Quebec, and we will speak French for a long time.
Needless to say, Mr. Bernier has been raked through the coals over his remark. For those playing at home, Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, is a controversial piece of Quebec provincial legislation that, among other things, formalized French as the “National” language of Quebec (yes, I know 1974’s Official Language Act also did that three years earlier) in a bilingual country (yes, I know it predates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) and limited the use of other languages (let’s be honest: they mean English, but it would be unseemly/bigoted to actually state it in a policy) in business/commerce, legislation, courts and education. It’s generally considered to have unquestioned support within the province and a considerably higher amount of derision outside it.
So when Mr. Bernier made his comment, he was inviting yet more hellfire down on himself and his party. Much of the province, from the Parti Quebecois to the provincial and federal Liberals, have been quick to denounce the statement. Federal Liberal MP Denis Coderre has remarked that Bernier’s statements “make Sarah Palin look like an intellectual,” and PQ leader Pauline Marois was quick to announce that Bernier needs to “come to Montreal more often.”
The first one is a simple, opportunistic remark designed to be cheap and get maximum coverage, but it’s the latter that is truly repugnant to me.
Now, it should be no surprise to any readers that I do not like the Conservative Party of Canada or Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I’m a democratic socialist and I take umbrage with many actions and remarks by Mr. Harper and his cabinet, current and previous, that are in many objective ways deceitful, from crossing the floor to accountability, to politicization of arts funding to support for adult literacy, culminating in a minority coalition government somehow making “coalition” a dirty word while misdirecting people regarding its own multi-year coalition.
I look forward to your letters.
But I find myself agreeing with Mr. Bernier when he states:
French will survive if Quebecers cherish it and want to preserve it; it will flourish if Quebec becomes a freer, more democratic and prosperous society… Not by imposing [French] and by preventing people from making their own decisions in matters that concern their personal lives.
Despite a very illuminating look at Canada’s unique approach to minority rights in Michael Ignatieff’s book The Rights Revolution, as well as general agreement with his stance on Aboriginal rights (but I’m Metis, so I’m not pretending I’m not biased), I can’t help but feel that a law which requires the periodic invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause to skirt its unconstitutionality could very well be inherently flawed and likely wrong. I’m Aboriginal; I understand the desire to nurture and preserve one’s traditional culture. However, I can’t abide this effort when it comes at the cost of another group’s freedom of expression, hence my disagreement with Bill 101.
But back to Ms. Marois. She’s not just saying that Mr. Bernier is wrong when he states that the perceived universality of support for Bill 101 is incorrect; she’s saying he’s an outsider, fundamentally unable to comment. He needs to visit Quebec to try to understand it. If he’s not truly Quebecois, then his voice of dissent on Bill 101 can’t be used to refute the myth of its universal support.
But Mr. Bernier is Quebecois. He was born in Saint-Georges de Beauce, attended university in Montreal, and resides there to this day, when he is not in Ottawa. He is Quebecois and he is francophone, and the insinuation that he is not because he disagrees with Bill 101 is political bullying and bigotry. It should be unacceptable within Canada, a nation that prides itself on its tolerance and diversity, as well as all its cultural heritages. The voice of dissent counts, even when it is unpopular.
So today, I support Maxime Bernier, even as I’m torn with the realization that his statements could cost a party I dislike its crucial support in Quebec in the lead-up to a likely federal election. I support him, even if I probably won’t next week when his actions return to federal policy. I support him, even if I want him to lose his seat.
Because bigotry, however camouflaged as political jurisprudence, is wrong.
Because I believe that this time, he’s right. And he should be counted.
