Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!lesperan
Newsgroups: can.general
From: lesperan@ai.toronto.edu (Yves Lesperance)
Subject: Re: Canada -- One or two cultures
Message-ID: <89Aug3.145600edt.10404@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: 3 Aug 89 18:56:54 GMT


I don't know if a rational discussion on this topic can be held in this
forum, but let me try...

First, one should try to keep the issue of regional alienation and lack of
influence separate from that of linguistic policies.  Failure to devise
an adequate constitutional agreement between Quebec and the rest of the
country that includes adequate linguistic provisions will not aleviate
alienation in the western and atlantic provinces, it will only break up
the country and leave Ontario as dominant as ever.  Let proposals
to resolve that problem be discussed independently (say under regional
representation).

Portions of Bill 101, 158, and various provisions of the Meech Lake Accord
have been largely viewed in English Canada as arbitrary restrictions on
individual rights.  What need to be recognized in Canadian political
culture, are the rights of linguistic communities.  Both communities
associated with Canada's official languages currently have some geographical
area where it is possible to largely lead one's public as well as private life
in that official language.  Each linguistic community is large enough to
generate a lively cultural environment.  It should be part of the Canadian
raison d'etre that this state of affairs should continue in the future.   
But the situation of each community in this respect is widely different.
Assimilation has decimated the French community throughout the course of
Canadian history.  Immigrants come to Canada looking largely for a less
imperialistic version of the American way of life and culture.  Unless
they speak French before they arrive, they will chose to integrate into
the English community in the absence of measures to incite them to do
otherwise.  Therefore, if the survival of each linguistic community is
to be assured, the legitimacy of taking such measures must be recognized.

Now, there may be disagreement about the extent of the threats to the French
community's continued viability and about what incitative measures
are reasonable and appropriate, but not on the goal itself, nor on the
principle that individual rights must sometime be traded off against
collective linguistic rights.  If you don't think collectivities can have
rights think of them as the rights of future generations to be able to
live in their official language (and as the rights of their currently living
parents to have that be the case).

To me (and most French Canadians I would think) the goal of ensuring
continued viability of the French community is more important than the
right to education or other government services in one's language in areas
of the country where the other linguistic community is dominant.  The
provision of these services is commendable, but the level of services
provided should not interfere with the continued viability of the communities.
Similarly, I think it is reasonable to resrict the rights of immigrants
to chose which language they will be educated in because immigrants
should be required to support the purposes of the country to which they
freely chose to immigrate.

I am not sure how these views should be implemented into linguistic
policies and constitutional provisions.  I do not like the Meech Lake
Accord much because it is too vague on collective linguistic rights
and probably too restrictive with regards to constitutional change
in non-linguistic matters.  But I think criticisms of it and Bill 158
that focus on individual rights to services in one's language are
misguided.  The Trudeau vision of a unitary bilingual Canada is a recipe
for conflict and dissapearance of the French community.

Yves Lesperance       lesperan@ai.toronto.edu