Bill 96: who’s spreading disinformation?
François Legault says foes of Bill 96 are spreading disinformation and that access to health care will remain the same for anglophones and immigrants – but his opponents say he’s doing it too and contradicting what’s written in the bill.
What effect the bill will have on Quebec society can’t exactly be known yet, but surely there’s no doubt about what’s written down? Is Legault implying that he knows the terms of the bill are unrealistic to apply in practice?
Matt G 09:42 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
Un “shitshow”, comme on dit.
mare 09:58 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
There *is* doubt because a lot of the exceptions are up to interpretation. Who says that interpretation will not be legally challenged afterwards?
“Hey doctor, was that really a life threatening situation? We, the St-Jean-Baptiste Society, don’t think so.” A judge will probably side with the doctor, but a court case, of just the threat of one, makes not for a somewhat relaxing work environment.
Kevin 11:03 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
There’s a whole lot of nuance when the premier says something like the following:
“I want to reassure everybody speaking English, even if their fathers went to an English school or not… [providers] will not refuse to treat a patient in English if it’s needed.”
Who decides *if* it’s needed to communicate with someone in English?
Then look at this comment from Christopher Skeete, when a doctor asked if she could talk to her patients in Italian, and was told it would be fine as long as nobody complained https://twitter.com/Cskeete/status/1526552794324516866
It’s extremely dishonest when politicians are pushing the Shirley Exception as a reason not to be worried.
https://frasersherman.com/2019/06/03/the-shirley-exception-and-other-links/
EmilyG 11:07 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
I’m tired of the notwithstanding clause. I think the CAQ used this to quickly pass the law that people can’t wear religious things that the CAQ doesn’t like. And now this.
François Legault reminds me of a bad parent, who thinks that “Because I said so” is an appropriate reason for anything.
Michael 13:57 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
Trumpian divisive politics as usual with the ex-separatists.
H. John 17:40 on 2022-05-18 Permalink
And here’s a twitter thread from Robert Leckey McGill’s Dean of Law, “Are health and social services exempted…”
https://twitter.com/DeanLeckey/status/1526896919540293632
Kate 10:11 on 2022-05-19 Permalink
That’s interesting, H. John, but Leckey doesn’t delve into the definition or identification of who’s English-speaking. Some who immigrate here speak other languages and can manage some English, but no French, yet I doubt they will be acknowledged.
I’ve told the story before about going to a walk-in clinic in my neighbourhood, and while waiting, overhearing an incident. A couple had come in, and the man, who spoke English with a heavy accent I didn’t recognize, was pleading with the receptionist. His wife was ill, but they hadn’t understood a phone message in French and had missed an appointment. Can you please leave our appointment messages in English, the man begged. The receptionist – a man – coldly told him (in English): “Our first priority is the French language.” And this was a few years ago, before Bill 96 was even a glint in Jolin-Barrette’s cold eyes.
Margaret 09:58 on 2022-05-20 Permalink
If the community is falling victim to “disinformation”, maybe Legault should reconsider an English language debate where the facts can be laid out for better transparency?