THE SHOCKS KEEP COMING IN QUEBEC.

In 90 short minutes last week I saw three things I thought I’d never see, ever. Actually, it was 90 long minutes of TV here in Montreal, since the revelations came during the second televised leaders’ debate in the Quebec election that culminates in the Oct. 1 vote. But still, in an hour and a half, three startling events is a lot.

The single most surprising thing about the debate was that it was held entirely in English. For most of my life, certainly since the passing of Bill 101 in 1977, that would have been completely verboten, strictement défendu. This is Quebec. French is the official common language. English has no legal status here. It’s the oppressor language on a continent of 375 million people and threatens to swamp the six million mother-tongue Frenchspeakers of Quebec. Using English in official situations merely normalizes it, encouraging the deadly (for the French) belief that you can live here without French. Just last November, a unanimous National Assembly felt it necessary to “invite” merchants to greet their customers with just “Bonjour,” rather than “Bonjour/hi,” which has become the standard signal in downtown Montreal that merchants are ready to serve their customers in either French or English, their choice.

So to have an entire debate conducted in English, with, ironically but not unusually, the PQ leader, Jean-françois Lisée, speaking it most fluently, was — after decades of venomous language prickliness — a shock. It’s also a tribute to competition. There are now two political parties vying for the votes of English-speaking Quebecers, the Liberals as always, but this time round also the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), which is slightly ahead in the polls. If one party said yes to an English debate, the other could hardly refuse and if two parties were in, the other two didn’t want to stay out. Competition really is grand.

Language will always be a source of political irritation in Quebec but maybe now we’re entering a time when it won’t be quite so existential. Bill 101 established once and for all that if you want to get anywhere in Quebec, you have to know French. With this now widely accepted legal backstop having been in place for a generation, French-speaking Quebecers may be more relaxed about English, which, as a matter of common sense, it’s obviously better to be able to speak than not.

The second shocker, which may be related to greater maturity about language, was that a chunk of the debate was given over to a discussion of “the labour shortage.” The province’s unemployment rate is at an all-time low of 5.6 per cent, lower today than in any province except British Columbia. Employers are venting about having trouble finding qualified workers. Job vacancy rates grew more quickly in Quebec last year than anywhere else in Canada. For most of my life the debate has been about how to “create jobs” so as to employ all the excess workers. Now, of all things, workers are in short supply.

There was a short, sharp, utterly unproductive exchange between the Liberal Premier Philippe Couillard and CAQ leader François Legault about whether the labour shortage is the worst economic problem facing Quebec. Legault said no, the big problem is that incomes are lower in Quebec than in Ontario, so living standards lag and, given tax rates, don’t generate as much revenue.

Neither leader — Couillard a physician by training, Legault an accountant — connected the dots and made the economically obvious point that a worker shortage will solve itself by producing upward pressure on wages in fields where need is especially acute and thus reduce the number of workers demanded and increase the number supplied. That there is actually a market for labour seemed unknown to any of the leaders.

But — shocking point number three — Couillard argued that one remedy for the labour shortage is automation. I never, ever thought I’d hear a politician say that machines reducing the need for people could be a good thing. It’s obvious that it can be. That’s the main way living standards rise in the long run. But most politicians argue that workers standing beside a production line acting robotically is a better result socially. I’m guessing none has spent time actually doing that. I’m sure productionline workers do prefer it to having no work at all but, compared to other possibilities away from the line, maybe not so much.

There were other mini-shockers, as well: for instance, the number of times Ontario was mentioned, without envy, as an example that we could be doing better. And there is the generally benign view here now of Ottawa: in past elections blaming the feds has been the default strategy. This year, not a lot.

It would almost be enough, if sour pessimism weren’t so obligatory these days, to make you think things have been getting better here.

I NEVER, EVER THOUGHT I’D HEAR A POLITICIAN SAY AUTOMATION COULD BE A GOOD THING.