«« Loi 101

A victory for moderation

Éditorial - The government of Quebec has introduced a lot of language laws over the years - Bills 63, 22, 101, 178, 86 and now Bill 104, tabled this week in the National Assembly. With the notable exception of closing a Bill 101 loophole that allows children to acquire the right to enroll in English public school one year after attending English unsubsidized private school, Bill 104 is more significant because of what is not in it, as opposed to what is. It is the end chapter of six years of reflection on the status and future of French in Quebec. The message it sends is clear: the moderates in the governing Parti Québécois have triumphed over the language fundamentalists. Nothing for which the fundamentalists had lobbied since they tried to use language as a paddle to spank the English-speaking community after the close 1995 referendum has found its way into Bill 104.

There are no provisions to toughen up the language police; in fact, Bill 104 merges the Conseil de Protection de la Langue Française and two other language bodies into a new Office Québécois de la Langue Française. Neither does Bill 104 put an end to freedom of choice of language of education at the CÉGEP level, which language hawks badly wanted. Similarly, the bill does not provide for a new ban on languages other than French on signs or for an extension of French-language requirements in companies with fewer than 50 employees.

Coming as it does on the eve of the 25th anniversary of Bill 101, Bill 104 symbolizes the end of an era in Quebec. It tells us that francophones are confident with the gains French has made and that there is no political appetite in the francophone mainstream for more restrictive measures. One really has to go back to the days preceding the Anglo-Saxon wave of immigration to Montreal, which followed the decommissioning of the British soldiers after the Napoleonic wars, to find a time when French was as strong as it is today.

By essentially leaving Bill 101 intact, Bill 104 serves notice of a recognition in the highest political offices of Quebec that this society has reached the limit of possibilities in terms of what legislation can, or should be allowed to, do in order to preserve and promote French.

We would have liked to have seen the provision involving private schools maintained. Few used it anyway - 800 kids a year. The loophole represented no serious threat to French, and it is petty to close it. Given that French is stronger than ever in Quebec, the government should be providing more freedom of choice, not restricting it. But considering what a devastating disappointment Bill 104 represents for language hawks, the PQ needed a sacrificial lamb, and the people currently using the school loophole are it.

It says something about language relations in Quebec that we've come to a point where the closing of a loophole is the principal achievement of a language bill. We forget sometimes that Bill 101, in its original form, set out to deny people the right to an English-language trial in Quebec. As an issue of overarching importance, the loophole pales in comparison to the replacement of the Quebec clause of Bill 101 by the Canada clause or to the bicultural angst over Bills 178 and 86 concerning the language of signs.

Former premier Lucien Bouchard deserves some credit for standing up to language hard-liners and finessing their discontent into the Larose commission, where moderate views reflecting the political mainstream found their way into the final report. It was one small step from the commission to Bill 104 but a giant leap for Quebec.