Quebecers oppose the notion, of course, and state there are meanings and evidences Quebec can be independence. Quebec can be sovereign nation because they have powers and skills to survive as one nation. They keep arguing and seeking for independence still. This essay will talk about opinions of Canada’s opposition, notion of Canada’s alliance, the United States, and thoughts and evidences that state Quebec can be sovereign country. Once Quebec was asked to vote in a referendum on sovereignty before and of course, Quebecers wanted it.
In Canadian politics, a policy paper is referred to as a “white paper”. It does not imply anything racially related as many people initially assume. This 1969 white paper proposed the abolition of the Indian Act, due to the fact that it created circumstances which resulted in Aboriginals being treated differently than others within Cana... ... middle of paper ... ...special status for Quebec and any other province, yet he was willing to recognize the historic rights of Aboriginal peoples so long as recognizing did not entail the actual granting of special status. Like any politician, Pierre Elliot Trudeau made his mistakes. Aboriginal people also have their reasons to criticize him.
Canada’s suitability to partake on the world stage and that they were ready for independence without other nations. The accomplishments of the Canadian army brought respect from other countries to Canada. The victory of Vimy Ridge brought confidence to the Canadia Army. The Battle of Vimy Ridge considerably affected Canada.
Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top.
A Canadian could also be a “sovereigntyphobe”, refusing to see the liquefaction, albeit political, of the second largest country in the world. However, in this era of multiculturalism, could the current immigration flow help us determine what is a Canadian and, to an extent, what is Canada? Is multiculturalism a Cerberus of Canadian identity? In the 1970s, Pierre Elliott Trudeau decided to use multiculturalism as a “way of dealing with discontent over the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism1.”. According to some groups, this report dealt primarily with French and English linguistic issues and did not pay enough attention to issues referring to other groups within the Canadian population.
(www.globalization101.org) When the WTO ruled Canada tax on foreign publications was discriminatory Canada accepted the decision. Later in the 1998 Canada tried a new method to protect it magazine industry by creating Bill C-55 which prohibited foreign publishers from supplying advertising services to Canadian market. (www.about.com)This only created new problems in trade between Canada and the United States. This disputes were later settle with a new modified versions of the bill that both countries agreed to. I think the U.S.- Canadian magazine dispute was not greatly motivated by the desire to protect the Canadian culture, but mostly motivated by the desire to save the Canadian magazine industry.
Finally the most controversial request was for Quebec to receive a special status as a “distinct” society. Now it was near the end of the meeting, everyone was even more motivated by all that they had already achieved. This was true that Quebec was unlike any other province; technically they were distinct among the others. Although some Premiers felt uncomfortable giving one province a special status, they thought they had won so much already that it was not a big deal to just call them what they were; different. The problem with this clause is that Quebec took it as meaning the special status would give them advantages in court by ruling their distinctiveness makes them different than other Canadians.
Opposing this view, Thomas Flanagan argues against Native sovereignty for it is not a workable mechanism in Canadian politics. Native sovereignty can never coexist with Canadian sovereignty because of the complexity of having a third level of government, a resolution cannot be breached since each tribe’s traditions are different, and the idea of having a functioning conglomerate of native groups is very improbable. Roger Townshend makes a number of points that support the idea of Native sovereignty. He identifies that the very perception of sovereignty in regard to Aboriginals in Canada has changed. In the initial contact by early European settlers, Aboriginals were treated as “…allies or as enemies, but in any event, as nations to be treated as equals with European States,” (Townshend 37).
These violations were the first and primary provoking factors that led to war with Britain. There was reason that Britain became the target of US military rather that France. Britain has influenced Indians around Lake Michigan to resist white settlement. This was one of the primary reasons the English were chosen as our foe. Britain had the Indians do this as an attempt to keep the U.S. border as low as possible - not exceeding the Canadian border.
The problem with bilingualism is the fact that Quebec citizens are not willing to accept a second language and culture which is seen when Resnick says, “there has been a good deal of ressentiment by English Canadians about official bilingualism at the federal level, all the more when successive Quebec governments have been promoting French unilingualism within Quebec’s own borders.” Another problem that the debate on bilingualism failed to address was the fact that people of different ethnicities, other than French and English, lived in Canada. Resnick says that multiculturalism was introduced to make sure that these minority groups with “their non-British and non-French attributes not be drowned out in Canada’s pursuit of a bilingual strategy.” The policy of multiculturalism became a right for all Canadians guaranteed by the government by the 1988 Multicultural Act. One key aspect that multiculturalism has been successful in is in immigration. Resnick acknowledges that multiculturalism has lived up to what it was meant for. This is true because “there has been a dramatic ... ... middle of paper ... ...