From the beginning of the 20th century until the present Canada’s culture has undergone and some state that Canadian culture doesn't exist. Canada’s cultural diversity created an accepting environment for people but Canada was not always a diverse country and it did not always accept non-white immigrants. Canada was an ethnically divided place, Chinese immigration was excluded, Japanese Canadians were put in camps and Jews and blacks were discriminated. In 1900, the Federal i... ... middle of paper ... ... culture is rich and unique culture and it can’t be defined. Stephen Harper states that, “there is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders”.
However immigration and citizenship policies have since changed and somewhat upgraded since then, in 1982 Canadian leaders introduced the charter of rights and freedoms, the Multiculturalism policy in 1971, and Multiculturalism Act in 1988 to reshape our nations religious, ethnic and cultural beliefs and making it more diverse (Joppke, 2012, p. 855). People can acquire citizenship in three ways by descent, by birth and by naturalization (Macklin & Crepeau, 2010). Immigrants are chosen on different entry categories and variations in the point system (Grant & Sweetman, 2004). In this article we also look at the difference between Canadian citizenship policy and the UK policy to determine the advantages and disadvantages in both (Paquet, 2012). In Conclusion, we will see how one can acquire a Canadian citizenship; we will look at the policies in Canada and the UK and determine which ones better and we will also look at some of the issues in Canadian immigration policy.
Canada was once a liberal internationalist country, and Harper changed this dramatically during his time in Ottawa. The major question that will be asked about this is whether Harper’s foreign affairs have changed the way in which the world associates itself with Canada. The next section would be whether or not Canada as a whole currently things of itself as a peacekeeping nation. In today’s society many adults are continuing to tell their children that Canada is a peacekeeping country, and while that may have been true in the time that they grew up themselves, it may no longer be accurate. This section will analyze public opinion of Canada as a peacekeeper and address the main question that this paper will attempt to solve: is Canada still a peacekeeping nation?
Three Nation Theory followed right on the heels of the Dual Nation Theory and finally replaced it completely by the 1990's. This replacement can be formally recognized when Section 25 is put into the Constitution Act 1982 and Aboriginal right and title are officially recognized. That is not to say however, that aspects of this theory did not exist prior to 1982, just that this instance can be pointed to as a turning point in Canadian history in wh... ... middle of paper ... ...cline of Deference.” Essential Readings In Canadian Government and Politics. 461-464 Preston Manning. 1987.
Multiculturalism is a significant fabric of Canadian society that defines its unique identity among the rest of the world. Enactment of the Canadian multicultural policy (1971) affirmed government position and recognition of multiculturalism as a vital element of Canada. It is imperative to understand that multiculturalism is a static concept that keeps changing overtime and has a multidimensional entity. Canadians have always and will continue to revise the concept of multiculturalism to suit the ever expanding needs of Canadian society. In this paper, I will evaluate the reasons behind Canada’s adoption of multicultural policy and assess whether the policy should be maintained or not.
The idea of Canada being a “multicultural” society has arguably been around since the country’s early origins, despite varying understanding of the term itself. Notably, George-Étienne Cartier, who was a Father of Confederation, conceptualized Canada “as a political nation, encompassing different cultural nations” (Davis 68). Cartier’s ability to see politics as a framework that incorporated multiple cultural nations under the assumption that they would be working together for a greater common good speaks volumes about what the Fathers of Confederation had envisioned for Canada. His initial understanding of multiculturalism in the 1860s outlines keys values which if maintained would have positively influenced the further development of Canadian public policy. Year’s later, between World War I and World War II, novelist and folklorist J. Murray Gibbon used the term “mosaic” to best describe the concentration of the Canada population.
The current intentions of multicultural policy is to appeal and retain immigrant populations in Canada (Adsett 2011, 47-48). In the essay “More than a Market Strategy: Multiculturalism and A Meaningful Life” by Andrew M. Robinson he argues this point. He states that that federal multicultural policy has shifted away from the foundations of a meaningful life, a key component of a healthy multiculturalism, towards a market strategy (Robinson 2011, 38). Robinson argues that Canadas motives for multiculturalism is less about fostering diversity and more of scheme to make Canada appear as a better option for immigrants to work and live; multiculturalism is used like an advertising campaign (Robinson 2011,29). For example, The Canadian Multiculturalism Act section (5) subsection (d) appears to work in the best interests of marginalized groups and ethnic minorities by focusing on strategies to integrate ethnic businesses into the economy but there is an underlying goal to assimilate these groups into the mainstream, as well as benefit from their businesses that fill a niche.
This understanding stems from the understanding that many Canadians have about the idea of “two nations” in the country being of two founding peoples, the English and the French, but this sense of agreement ends here (Elliott 1). This reality has since expanded to encompass Aboriginals under this idea of nation founders, amidst an ever-expanding multicultural understanding of Canada. The historical foundations of the RCBB were sparked by a period of great change in Canada during the 1960s, especially in terms of the immigrant policies. These changes stood to both change and challenge previous immigration requirements, which were based on geographical and racial exclusion (Haque 20). With the demand for labour increasing in Canada, the immigration laws needed to be changed in order to allow for an increase in immigration once again.
There was a notable divide between Canada’s French and English-speaking population in the 1960s, as they each presented contrasting views of the country’s national identity. As the federal government faced what seemed like two separate nations embodied within a single country, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson assembled the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in July 1963. It was to evaluate the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism and recommend the actions needed to alleviate the largely linguistic and cultural divides in Canada. Pearson’s directive was given at a time when Quebec was experiencing a period of great social and economic development through the Quiet Revolution, while English-Canada was grappling with the re-establishment of the country’s identity as the British definition of Canada was becoming increasingly rejected. This paper will assess bilingualism and biculturalism as it challenged national identity, seen through the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (RCBB) and the influence of the Quiet Revolution; which resulted in policy – the Official Languages Act in 1969 and the Official Multicultural Policy in 1971 – that ultimately shaped bilingualism and biculturalism within what became a multicultural framework in Canada.
Governmental policies in Canada today continue to change and evolve along with the needs of people and the consequences of globalization. More recently were the creation of polices that resulted from ... ... middle of paper ... ...s to the analysis of politics, in that governments are self-interested who seek to maximize power and as a result they will not satisfy “public interests” (McBride, 2011, p. 30). It logically follows then that these theorists proclaim that the driving force behind policy agendas are special interests and not the people (or globalization). The paradigm shift from domestic to foreign policies succeeded from the paradigm shift in ideologies. This led to international changes where states no longer managed national economic systems (McBride, 2005, p. 8).