In French Quebec, A Consensus Emerges on Language
Published by Cynthia Turpin on 2010-03-09
by DON MACPHERSON
The Quebec government's advisory Conseil supérieur de la langue française takes the "supérieur" part of its title seriously. Not content to recommend what legislation the Charest government should adopt in response to the Supreme Court ruling on Bill 104, it also presumes to dictate that the legislation be adopted unanimously.
"As much as possible," the Conseil recommends in its advice (snipurl.com/ungrs) made public last week, the government should see to it that "the National Assembly takes unanimous positions and decisions" in language matters to preserve "the cohesion of Quebec society."
This implies not only that the government seek the assent of the opposition parties but also that it threaten its own members, in particular those representing linguistic minorities, with punishment if they vote or even speak out against the legislation.
But for legislation on the divisive issue of language, unanimity has been the exception rather than the rule.
The only major language legislation adopted with apparently unanimous support was Bill 104 itself. That's the 2002 legislation that closed a loophole allowing parents to buy their children's way into publicly funded English schools for the price of a single child's tuition at an unsubsidized English school for a few years or less.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Bill 104 unconstitutional last October (not November, as I wrote on Saturday), but suspended application of its ruling for a year to give Quebec time to come up with an alternative.
The Conseil emphasizes repeatedly in its advice that Bill 104 was adopted unanimously and is therefore a clear expression of political will to defend French. But the unanimity was more apparent than real.
While the legislation was approved by all three parties then represented in the Assembly, there was no recorded division, or vote by individual MNAs by name.
Jean Charest, then opposition leader, didn't want such a vote, because it might have exposed dissension in the Liberal caucus.
When Bill 104 was proposed by the Parti Québécois government, some English-speaking Liberal MNAs threatened to vote against the bill, or at least abstain by being absent for a vote.
So Charest made a deal with the PQ: The Liberals would approve the bill if the PQ did not force a vote by name.
Still, in the final debate in the Assembly, English-speaking MNAs Thomas Mulcair (now a New Democratic Party member of Parliament) and Geoffrey Kelley (still a Liberal MNA) were critical of the bill their party was supporting.
This time around, a consensus is emerging - at least in French Quebec - in support of extending to the fully private schools the restrictions on admission to English schools.
The Conseil has added its non-partisan voice to that of the PQ in support of the proposal. Yesterday, La Presse's chief editorialist, André
Pratte, expressed reservations about the proposal, but said that unless the Charest government can come up with a better idea, it should adopt that one.
The rights of individual anglophones - at least the ones who have freedom of choice of the language of their children's schooling - aren't affected by the debate. But anglophones might see the proposal as a threat to the vitality of the English-speaking school system or an attack on the anglophone community.
And they might see the debate on replacing Bill 104 as a test for Liberal MNAs who represent anglophones. They might want at least to hear their representatives speaking out in defence of their interests - and maybe even to vote against the party line.
There is a precedent. In 1988, five English-speaking Liberal MNAs voted against Bill 178, Premier Robert Bourassa's legislation maintaining a ban on English from commercial signs.
The three who were ministers resigned from the cabinet. But the five were not suspended from the Liberal caucus or otherwise punished. Bourassa recognized the particular situation the English-speaking MNAs were in.
dmacpher@thegazette.canwest.com
