Author: Alyona Romaniuk, a student of the Lesya Ukrayinka Volyn' National University, Ukraine
Translated by Ihor Cap
Nowadays, alumni acutely question education: should we study further, which career to choose, or where to go following graduation? I wonder if everyone needs a higher education because right now many people who have degrees are unable to find work. In particular, there are hundreds of lawyers, teachers, and doctors out on the market without work. Moreover, how much effort and money was expended to get this higher education. Many parents assist their children in later life to pursue a higher education, without attention to the true talents of these young people. Maybe someone prefers to paint more than teach math, and still others would be just as happy sewing something instead of memorizing physics. The lawyer’s daughter will have to go to the Faculty of Law to satisfy her father’s will even though she may prefer a career in teaching. So who really decides what we really need: our parents or we? Often parents may use their authority (not only earned, but also authoritarian) to ensure that children receive a higher education. However, if the young person expressed other career interests, all options should be reviewed with equal attention and a decision must be taken together. It is very possible that not everyone needs a higher education because our country needs not only highly qualified specialists with degrees from prestigious schools, but also carpenters, seamstresses/tailors, drivers, and bakers. To find answers to these questions, I decided to talk to a few of this year’s graduates.
Most say that acquiring an education in our time is a necessity. In fact, it is extremely necessary in order to support yourself. However, does everyone need to study at a university?
Katya:
I think that post secondary institutes (PSIs) are for those children who really want to learn something and it works for them. After all, what kind of experts will they be if they have no ability to learn...?
Tetyana:
- Many young people who received higher education diplomas can't find a job according to their profession and leave to work in other countries “for gainful employment”. Maybe they should have gone to a vocational-technical school and become decent professionals. Our country also needs good apprentice-workers. Moreover, after completing their vocational training, numerous manufacturing jobs await them at the factories. The paradox is that, for some reason, the kids who study worse earlier on in life tend to adapt better in later life than those who “aced” their way through school and got used to getting everything using their “know-how” and then hope for their just reward at the end of it all. Really, would it not be simpler if we first assess our abilities, and then choose a life path? For some reason, we repeatedly hear from older people: "How can you build a family life without getting an education?" However, the ability to live as a family or to have a sense of responsibility for your relatives a higher education does not provide. Rather, it depends on the individual. It truly depends on the young person’s character and ability to apply their theoretical knowledge.
Having conducted my small survey, I made the following conclusion. Education is important for young people and it lies within our sphere of priorities. Still, it is but one factor (and not always the major one), which helps us to fulfill our life as well as the lives of our immediate others.
Indeed, full life – is a process of continuous learning, of discovering new horizons of personal attributes, of the unexplored sides of our surroundings. So, I can say with certainty, that higher education - is a powerful, but not the only way to discovering yourself and the world around us, or for acquiring knowledge and skills for professional activity.
Source of Original Article: http://stattitablohy.ezreklama.com
Friday, July 15, 2016
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
The Never-Ending Curriculum Debate
by Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Early Curriculum Foundations
Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) prepares individuals for useful, gainful employment (Finch and Crunkilton, 1999). TVET is not new. It dates as far back as 2000 B.C. to the first organized apprenticeship programs for scribes in Egypt. These programs followed two training stages. In the first training stage apprentices learned to read and write ancient literature. In the second, they served as apprentice scribes under experienced scribes who were usually government workers (Roberts, 1971).
The Goals of Education
The goals of education today are very similar. They consist of two basic elements: (1) formal education, which occurs in a structured setting, and (2) informal education, which occurs outside the school setting. Deliberate planning is not a given in the latter form of schooling. Superimposed on these elements are (1) education for life, and (2) education for earning a living (Finch and Crunkilton, 1999).
The Historic Curricular Issue At Heart
The foregoing implies that curriculum making should encompass general-academic education as well as vocational-technical education, together representing a comprehensive array of learning activities and experiences. While most North American educators and administrators today may subscribe to these views, it has not always been that way.
History always emphasized one type of education more than the other, usually because of philosophical, economic and/or social disagreements. Most issues that arose in practice emerged from these disagreements, suggested Leighbody (1972). No educational issue has received so much debate as that of the relationship between vocational and general education (Leighbody, 1972).
A cursory survey of philosophical readings concurs with this viewpoint. It has been discussed by:
Plato –in terms of the academy’s univocal or unilateral long-term education vs the Sophists multivalent short-term education,
Spencer - in terms of objective education vs subjective education,
Mann – in terms of comprehensive education vs general education,
Eliot – in terms of liberal education vs utilitarian education,
Friere – in terms of problem-posing education vs the banking-concept of education,
Stephens – in terms of formal vs informal education,
Bruner – in terms of useful vs ornamental education, and
Dewey – in terms of education for life vs specialization in education.
Additional Observations
The underlying assumption of this historical issue typically required a choice between one type of education over the other, and upon this premise strong philosophical disagreements have arisen between those who favor vocational education and those who believe that only liberal studies are educative (Leighbody, 1972).
For example, Plato claimed to provide people for a “choice” between the worse and better life in an organized, interdependent society. Though he professed the principle of equality and specialization, he aimed at making the Guardians (the highly trained philosophic elite of the Academy) the least dependent in an organized society. The Guardians curriculum would be streamlined to approximate the truth in one vocation (to become future leaders) for which they were “naturally fitted” while the Sophists’ (professional administrators) multivalent curriculum was written-off as the inferior “choice” simply because it served the short-term educational needs of the population.
By the 19th century, Mann argued from a sociological, humanistic and perhaps an economic perspective as well when he wanted to see Pestalozzian methods applied to vocational education as part of the general education of the public. He argued that a sound and comprehensive education and training would enable a great body of citizens versus a minority of leaders to have an equal chance for earning. The tool that would produce more useful and contributing citizens to society rather than dependents would be the common school.
Eliot reintroduced the controversy of liberal versus utilitarian education. He maintained that the traditional high school curriculum was suitable for the youngster who headed for work or for college. However, understanding well that only a small minority of students would pursue a liberal college education beyond high school, he, therefore, introduced the notion of freedom in choice of studies at the college level. Despite his well meaning intentions, Eliot instead compartmentalized education into polytechnical vocational colleges and liberal academic colleges that continue to form separatism in education.
Conclusions
There is a growing realization that it is increasingly difficult to compartmentalize education into general, academic or vocational-technical components. Many influential curriculum models have surfaced during the 20th century, Charters (1923) and Tyler’s (1949) amongst them, but they fall short on implementation or evaluation. We need a comprehensive approach to curriculum making. We need an approach that prepares us for life and for work. Oliva’s (1984) expanded model for curriculum development is illustrative of just such an approach. A very comprehensive strategy to instructional development, curriculum development and staff development is applied within a model of Supervision For Today’s Schools by highly respected authors George E. Pawlas and Peter F. Oliva (2007, ©2008). Alternately, vocational-technical educators and administrators will find comprehensive and practical planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating assistance following Finch and Crunkilton’s (1999) effective frameworks for developing quality technical and vocational education and training programs.
Reading References
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. LB885 .B78 1965X
Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum Construction. New York: Macmillan.
Cornford, MacDonald. Francis. (1945). Plato - Author. The Republic of Plato. Translated with Introduction and Notes by F. M. Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1945
Cremin, Lawrence A., ed. (1957). The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, John. (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: MacMillan, 1916; New York: Free Press / London: Collier-Macmillan, 1944).
Finch, C. R, & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education: Planning, content, and implementation (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Friere, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York] Herder and Herder, Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. Bib ID 2528455.
Krug, A. Edward. (1961). Charles W. Eliot and Popular Education. (Classics in Education, no.8; New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers’ College, Columbia University.
Leighbody, B. Gerald. (1972). Vocational education in America's schools; major issues of the 1970's. Chicago: American Technical Society.
Oliva, F. Peter. (1984). Supervision For Today’s Schools. Second Edition, Longman Inc., New York.
Pawlas E. George and Oliva, F. Peter. (2007). Supervision for Today's Schools, 8th Edition, ISBN 978-0-470-08758-9, June 2007, ©2008.
Roberts, Roy. W. (1971). Vocational and Practical Arts Education. New York: Harper and Row.
Spencer, Herbert. (1866). Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 448 & 445 Broadway.
Stephens, J. M. (1967). The Process of schooling: A psychological examination. New York: Holt,. Rinehart & Winston.
Tyler, Ralph. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a graduate of The Florida State University in Comprehensive Vocational Education and a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
This article first appeared June 26, 2010 in articlesandblogs.ezreklama.com.
Early Curriculum Foundations
Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) prepares individuals for useful, gainful employment (Finch and Crunkilton, 1999). TVET is not new. It dates as far back as 2000 B.C. to the first organized apprenticeship programs for scribes in Egypt. These programs followed two training stages. In the first training stage apprentices learned to read and write ancient literature. In the second, they served as apprentice scribes under experienced scribes who were usually government workers (Roberts, 1971).
The Goals of Education
The goals of education today are very similar. They consist of two basic elements: (1) formal education, which occurs in a structured setting, and (2) informal education, which occurs outside the school setting. Deliberate planning is not a given in the latter form of schooling. Superimposed on these elements are (1) education for life, and (2) education for earning a living (Finch and Crunkilton, 1999).
The Historic Curricular Issue At Heart
The foregoing implies that curriculum making should encompass general-academic education as well as vocational-technical education, together representing a comprehensive array of learning activities and experiences. While most North American educators and administrators today may subscribe to these views, it has not always been that way.
History always emphasized one type of education more than the other, usually because of philosophical, economic and/or social disagreements. Most issues that arose in practice emerged from these disagreements, suggested Leighbody (1972). No educational issue has received so much debate as that of the relationship between vocational and general education (Leighbody, 1972).
A cursory survey of philosophical readings concurs with this viewpoint. It has been discussed by:
Plato –in terms of the academy’s univocal or unilateral long-term education vs the Sophists multivalent short-term education,
Spencer - in terms of objective education vs subjective education,
Mann – in terms of comprehensive education vs general education,
Eliot – in terms of liberal education vs utilitarian education,
Friere – in terms of problem-posing education vs the banking-concept of education,
Stephens – in terms of formal vs informal education,
Bruner – in terms of useful vs ornamental education, and
Dewey – in terms of education for life vs specialization in education.
Additional Observations
The underlying assumption of this historical issue typically required a choice between one type of education over the other, and upon this premise strong philosophical disagreements have arisen between those who favor vocational education and those who believe that only liberal studies are educative (Leighbody, 1972).
For example, Plato claimed to provide people for a “choice” between the worse and better life in an organized, interdependent society. Though he professed the principle of equality and specialization, he aimed at making the Guardians (the highly trained philosophic elite of the Academy) the least dependent in an organized society. The Guardians curriculum would be streamlined to approximate the truth in one vocation (to become future leaders) for which they were “naturally fitted” while the Sophists’ (professional administrators) multivalent curriculum was written-off as the inferior “choice” simply because it served the short-term educational needs of the population.
By the 19th century, Mann argued from a sociological, humanistic and perhaps an economic perspective as well when he wanted to see Pestalozzian methods applied to vocational education as part of the general education of the public. He argued that a sound and comprehensive education and training would enable a great body of citizens versus a minority of leaders to have an equal chance for earning. The tool that would produce more useful and contributing citizens to society rather than dependents would be the common school.
Eliot reintroduced the controversy of liberal versus utilitarian education. He maintained that the traditional high school curriculum was suitable for the youngster who headed for work or for college. However, understanding well that only a small minority of students would pursue a liberal college education beyond high school, he, therefore, introduced the notion of freedom in choice of studies at the college level. Despite his well meaning intentions, Eliot instead compartmentalized education into polytechnical vocational colleges and liberal academic colleges that continue to form separatism in education.
Conclusions
There is a growing realization that it is increasingly difficult to compartmentalize education into general, academic or vocational-technical components. Many influential curriculum models have surfaced during the 20th century, Charters (1923) and Tyler’s (1949) amongst them, but they fall short on implementation or evaluation. We need a comprehensive approach to curriculum making. We need an approach that prepares us for life and for work. Oliva’s (1984) expanded model for curriculum development is illustrative of just such an approach. A very comprehensive strategy to instructional development, curriculum development and staff development is applied within a model of Supervision For Today’s Schools by highly respected authors George E. Pawlas and Peter F. Oliva (2007, ©2008). Alternately, vocational-technical educators and administrators will find comprehensive and practical planning, developing, implementing, and evaluating assistance following Finch and Crunkilton’s (1999) effective frameworks for developing quality technical and vocational education and training programs.
Reading References
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. LB885 .B78 1965X
Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum Construction. New York: Macmillan.
Cornford, MacDonald. Francis. (1945). Plato - Author. The Republic of Plato. Translated with Introduction and Notes by F. M. Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press, 1945
Cremin, Lawrence A., ed. (1957). The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Men. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, John. (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: MacMillan, 1916; New York: Free Press / London: Collier-Macmillan, 1944).
Finch, C. R, & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education: Planning, content, and implementation (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Friere, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. [New York] Herder and Herder, Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. Bib ID 2528455.
Krug, A. Edward. (1961). Charles W. Eliot and Popular Education. (Classics in Education, no.8; New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers’ College, Columbia University.
Leighbody, B. Gerald. (1972). Vocational education in America's schools; major issues of the 1970's. Chicago: American Technical Society.
Oliva, F. Peter. (1984). Supervision For Today’s Schools. Second Edition, Longman Inc., New York.
Pawlas E. George and Oliva, F. Peter. (2007). Supervision for Today's Schools, 8th Edition, ISBN 978-0-470-08758-9, June 2007, ©2008.
Roberts, Roy. W. (1971). Vocational and Practical Arts Education. New York: Harper and Row.
Spencer, Herbert. (1866). Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 448 & 445 Broadway.
Stephens, J. M. (1967). The Process of schooling: A psychological examination. New York: Holt,. Rinehart & Winston.
Tyler, Ralph. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a graduate of The Florida State University in Comprehensive Vocational Education and a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
This article first appeared June 26, 2010 in articlesandblogs.ezreklama.com.
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments 1982-2012
By Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Subsequent legislative affirmations espoused equality between the ethnocultural majorities and ethnocultural minorities and equality of conditions for all Canadians. Of overriding importance were The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, a consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 and The Constitution Act, 1982. Consolidated as of October 1, 1989, it contained various direct amendments (i.e. repeals, amended provisions, substitutions) and indirect amendments (i.e. alterations by United Kingdom Parliament, additions by Parliament of Canada, alterations by the Legislatures), spent provisions, a general procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, and a general amendment renaming the British North America Act, 1867 to the Constitution Act, 1867 (Department of Justice Canada, 1989).
The Acts consolidated what leaders-governments-after-next historically strived to promote and protect: basic human rights. Canada's record of' safeguarding these rights, was divided into three periods, each moulded by a set of mechanisms specific to the time and culture of the period (Greene, 1989): first, the period, from 1867 to 1960, of contentious action or inaction on the part of the judiciary to effectively invoke or negate the existence of "an implied bill of rights" (of civil liberties principles) inherited from the U.K.'s unwritten constitution by virtue of the principle of legislative supremacy pursuant to the preamblary statement in the original Constitution Act, which reads as follows:
(29th March 1867.)
The legal or customary rights of languages other than English or French were preserved in Section 22 of the Charter. Aboriginal, treaty or other "rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763" were not affected by the Charter (Section 25). As far as multiculturalism was concerned, Section 27 asserted that "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." The Charter's provision for equality rights (Section 15, effective 1985) was an additional guarantee, in law that stated:
To these ends, the Parliamentary Task Force on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society urged the federal government to consider recommendations contained in their Report and, in particular, the advisability of immediately (1) adding all visible minorities (non-whites) to the list of groups targeted for mandatory affirmative action within the public service (i.e., women, the disabled, Aboriginal peoples, and Blacks in Nova Scotia) by the Treasury Board in a policy statement issued June 27, 1983, and (2) introducing in Parliament a Multiculturalism Act, as indicated by Government in a Speech from the Throne, December 1983 (Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities In Canadian Society, 1984). Soon after, the Government tabled “An act respecting multiculturalism” (Bill C-48) which died on the order paper in the House of Commons when Parliament dissolved for the 1984 election (Secretary of State of Canada, 1987, p.15).
The Employment Equity Act and Regulations, created by statute in 1986, were major steps toward beginning nondiscriminatory rights for persons or groups disadvantaged in Canadian society. This Act operationalized the principle that "employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences" (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.2). It required federally regulated employers (with 100 or more employees) to implement programs ensuring that visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, women and the disabled achieved a degree of representation "that is at least proportionate to their representation" in the external labour force (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.4), and to report their results each year to the Minister, in prescribed manner (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.6). The same was required of employers who bid on federal contracts of $200,000 plus under the Federal Contractors Program, established the same year (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1990, p.2). Affirmative action programs or activities are helped and protected by Section 15(2) of the Charter that provides a constitutional guarantee to their amelioration of conditions.
Affirmative action, in the Canadian context, is not to be confused with programs involving the establishment of "quotas" across or in a particular sector of the economy. Nor does it concentrate on using the complaints of individual workers as a basis for redress, as with equal opportunity or equal remuneration legislation. It requires the cooperation of employers in "identifying and hiring or promoting or training" qualified (Gunderson, 1976) individuals who, by virtue of their group affiliation, find themselves arbitrarily and extensively excluded from the workplace (Abella, 1984). Employment equity and contract compliance measures function from this perspective.
The Government of Canada, basing itself on the Constitution of Canada, and in light of the Canadian Human Rights Act and international agreements on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Civil and Political Rights of individuals to which Canada is a party; bearing in mind the multicultural heritage and rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada recognized in the Charter, the provisions outlined in the Official Languages Act and equality of status to which all Canadians are entitled to under the Citizenship Act, enacted the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31). Today, by and with the advice and consent of the Houses of Parliament, the Canadian Government:
(a) ensure that Canadians of all origins have an equal opportunity to obtain employment and advancement in those institutions;
(b) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to the continuing evolution of Canada;
(c) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the understanding of and respect for the diversity of the members of Canadian society;
(d) collect statistical data in order to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada;
(e) make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins; and
(f) generally, carry on their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada. (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.3.(2), pp. 838”‘839)
Here again, as in 1971, the Government escaped further opportunity to create or establish a full-fledged Ministry of Multiculturalism and an Office of the Commissioner of Multiculturalism "to ensure that the multicultural diversity of Canada is served and that the objects and principles of this Act are implemented in all the programs and services provided to members of the public and in particular are sensitive to the ethnocultural demographic particularities across the regions of Canada", as recommended by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism (1987, p.79) in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 96(3)(d), an examination of multicultural policy. Rather, Section 4 of the Act assigned the Minister (designated for the purposes of this Act) general responsibility for encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach to the implementation of programs and practices in support of this policy. The approach involved consultation with organizations representing multicultural interests and the Canadian multiculturalism advisory committee (CMAC), and other Ministers of the Crown who ". . shall take such measures as the Minister onsiders appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada" (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.5.(l)). The chairperson of the CMAC shall have submitted to the Minister a yearly report on the activities of the CMAC and ". . . on any other matter relating to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada that the chairman considers appropriate" (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.7. (3)). The apparent lack of any definitive deployment strategy compromised the basis of a strong and well-defined Act. On the same issue, the Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba (1988, p.17) concluded as follows:
On September 27, 1989 and February, 1990, the Minister of State gave additional substance and form to the new directions of Canadian multiculturalism and citizenship by introducing in the House of Commons Bill C-37, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, and Bill C-63, an Act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, 1991). The main purpose of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute was said to facilitate the acquisition, retention and use of heritage languages throughout Canada (Statutes of Canada, 1991b, c.7, s.4). Other activities in furtherance of its purpose described in Section 4 of the legislation were to:
On November 25, 2005, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French), 2005, c. 41 was enacted “to enhance the enforceability of the Government of Canada’s obligations under Part VII” of the Official Languages Act. It renumbers subsection 41(1) of the Official Languages Act with three amendments. Essentially they speak to (1) the duty of federal institutions to ensure positive implementation measures of the commitments to the Official Languages Act, (2) granting the Governor in Council additional powers to make regulations regarding federal institutions that speak to this part of the Act, and (3) providing any person with an application for remedy under this part of the Act.
Bill C-331, An Act respecting the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act (2005, c.52) acknowledged the first ever internment operations that took place on Canadian soil during World War I. The Parliament of Canada has taken upon itself to express deep sorrow for that event and this enactment provides for further negotiations between specified Ukrainian-Canadian organizations and the Government of Canada in respect of measures deserving of that recognition. These may include, but are not limited to, the installation of commemorative plaques, public education initiatives which exhibit information concerning the internment of Ukrainians and their contribution to the development of Canada, a commemorative stamp or set of stamps, and the promotion of the shared values of multiculturalism, inclusion and mutual respect notwithstanding. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko are the three Ukrainian-Canadian organizations in the forefront of these negotiations. Other measures of the Act aim towards a better public understanding of (a) the consequences of ethnic, religious or racial intolerance and discrimination; and (b) the important role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the respect and promotion of the values it reflects and the rights and freedoms it guarantees. (See section 2.1) Section 6 of this Act affirms that these negotiations “shall not be interpreted as constituting an admission by Her Majesty in right of Canada of the existence of any legal obligation of Her Majesty in right of Canada to any person.”
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Bill C-21, chapter 30, 2008) received Royal Assent in Her Majesty’s name on June 18, 2008. Bill C-21 repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and continues to protect the customary aboriginal and treaty rights of the First Nations peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. A comprehensive review of the Act’s interpretive and non-derogation measures pertaining to Aboriginal authorities is required within five years after its enactment.
The Parliament of Canada recognized and honored the contribution that persons of Italian origin have made and continue to make to Canada in Bill C-302, the Italian Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act as passed by the House of Commons April 28, 2010. They also apologized to Italian Canadians for designating them as “enemy aliens” and interning them during World War Two. During their internment, Italian Canadians labored without pay on various road construction projects and cleared land. Section 5 of this Act instructs the Canada Post Corporation to issue a series of stamps commemorating these and other infringements of their rights. Bill C-302 also provides for appropriate redress for this action in the form of public education.
To the author's knowledge, no other legislation from 1982 was relevant to this 30 year review.
Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
Subsequent legislative affirmations espoused equality between the ethnocultural majorities and ethnocultural minorities and equality of conditions for all Canadians. Of overriding importance were The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, a consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 and The Constitution Act, 1982. Consolidated as of October 1, 1989, it contained various direct amendments (i.e. repeals, amended provisions, substitutions) and indirect amendments (i.e. alterations by United Kingdom Parliament, additions by Parliament of Canada, alterations by the Legislatures), spent provisions, a general procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, and a general amendment renaming the British North America Act, 1867 to the Constitution Act, 1867 (Department of Justice Canada, 1989).
The Acts consolidated what leaders-governments-after-next historically strived to promote and protect: basic human rights. Canada's record of' safeguarding these rights, was divided into three periods, each moulded by a set of mechanisms specific to the time and culture of the period (Greene, 1989): first, the period, from 1867 to 1960, of contentious action or inaction on the part of the judiciary to effectively invoke or negate the existence of "an implied bill of rights" (of civil liberties principles) inherited from the U.K.'s unwritten constitution by virtue of the principle of legislative supremacy pursuant to the preamblary statement in the original Constitution Act, which reads as follows:
(29th March 1867.)
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom (Department of Justice Canada, 1989, p.1);
second, the period between 1960 and 1982, in which the first Canadian Bill of Rights was born to failure because of a judiciary reluctant to negate the principle of legislative supremacy; and, third, the period, from 1982 up to the present, which interrupted the narrow judiciary actions and interpretations mindful of civil liberties associated with the first two periods in light of the form and spirit effected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Greene's (1989, p.38) review of the circumstances leading to the adoption of the Charter showed that it acts as the "key-instrument" in the Government's concerted nation-building strategy that evolved from 1967 to 1982:to create the conditions that would encourage a stronger national identity to counteract the forces of provincialism;
- to patriate the constitution (end the role of the U.K. Parliament in the constitutional amendment process, and provide for an entirely Canadian amending procedure); and
- to extend language rights and to create new ‘mobility rights’ so that Canadians would feel at home in any province and would not be deterred from moving within the country (Greene, 1989, p.38).
The legal or customary rights of languages other than English or French were preserved in Section 22 of the Charter. Aboriginal, treaty or other "rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763" were not affected by the Charter (Section 25). As far as multiculturalism was concerned, Section 27 asserted that "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." The Charter's provision for equality rights (Section 15, effective 1985) was an additional guarantee, in law that stated:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Lastly, the federal and provincial governments were committed to (a) "promoting equal opportunities for the well”‘being of Canadians," (b) "furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities," and specifically (c) "providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians," as framed in Section 36(1) of the Charter.To these ends, the Parliamentary Task Force on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society urged the federal government to consider recommendations contained in their Report and, in particular, the advisability of immediately (1) adding all visible minorities (non-whites) to the list of groups targeted for mandatory affirmative action within the public service (i.e., women, the disabled, Aboriginal peoples, and Blacks in Nova Scotia) by the Treasury Board in a policy statement issued June 27, 1983, and (2) introducing in Parliament a Multiculturalism Act, as indicated by Government in a Speech from the Throne, December 1983 (Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities In Canadian Society, 1984). Soon after, the Government tabled “An act respecting multiculturalism” (Bill C-48) which died on the order paper in the House of Commons when Parliament dissolved for the 1984 election (Secretary of State of Canada, 1987, p.15).
The Employment Equity Act and Regulations, created by statute in 1986, were major steps toward beginning nondiscriminatory rights for persons or groups disadvantaged in Canadian society. This Act operationalized the principle that "employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences" (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.2). It required federally regulated employers (with 100 or more employees) to implement programs ensuring that visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, women and the disabled achieved a degree of representation "that is at least proportionate to their representation" in the external labour force (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.4), and to report their results each year to the Minister, in prescribed manner (Statutes of Canada, 1986, c.31, s.6). The same was required of employers who bid on federal contracts of $200,000 plus under the Federal Contractors Program, established the same year (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1990, p.2). Affirmative action programs or activities are helped and protected by Section 15(2) of the Charter that provides a constitutional guarantee to their amelioration of conditions.
Affirmative action, in the Canadian context, is not to be confused with programs involving the establishment of "quotas" across or in a particular sector of the economy. Nor does it concentrate on using the complaints of individual workers as a basis for redress, as with equal opportunity or equal remuneration legislation. It requires the cooperation of employers in "identifying and hiring or promoting or training" qualified (Gunderson, 1976) individuals who, by virtue of their group affiliation, find themselves arbitrarily and extensively excluded from the workplace (Abella, 1984). Employment equity and contract compliance measures function from this perspective.
The Government of Canada, basing itself on the Constitution of Canada, and in light of the Canadian Human Rights Act and international agreements on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Civil and Political Rights of individuals to which Canada is a party; bearing in mind the multicultural heritage and rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada recognized in the Charter, the provisions outlined in the Official Languages Act and equality of status to which all Canadians are entitled to under the Citizenship Act, enacted the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31). Today, by and with the advice and consent of the Houses of Parliament, the Canadian Government:
recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, p.836).
Further, all federal institutions were directed to:(a) ensure that Canadians of all origins have an equal opportunity to obtain employment and advancement in those institutions;
(b) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to the continuing evolution of Canada;
(c) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the understanding of and respect for the diversity of the members of Canadian society;
(d) collect statistical data in order to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada;
(e) make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins; and
(f) generally, carry on their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada. (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.3.(2), pp. 838”‘839)
Here again, as in 1971, the Government escaped further opportunity to create or establish a full-fledged Ministry of Multiculturalism and an Office of the Commissioner of Multiculturalism "to ensure that the multicultural diversity of Canada is served and that the objects and principles of this Act are implemented in all the programs and services provided to members of the public and in particular are sensitive to the ethnocultural demographic particularities across the regions of Canada", as recommended by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism (1987, p.79) in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 96(3)(d), an examination of multicultural policy. Rather, Section 4 of the Act assigned the Minister (designated for the purposes of this Act) general responsibility for encouraging and promoting a coordinated approach to the implementation of programs and practices in support of this policy. The approach involved consultation with organizations representing multicultural interests and the Canadian multiculturalism advisory committee (CMAC), and other Ministers of the Crown who ". . shall take such measures as the Minister onsiders appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada" (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.5.(l)). The chairperson of the CMAC shall have submitted to the Minister a yearly report on the activities of the CMAC and ". . . on any other matter relating to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada that the chairman considers appropriate" (Statutes of Canada, 1988b, c.31, s.7. (3)). The apparent lack of any definitive deployment strategy compromised the basis of a strong and well-defined Act. On the same issue, the Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba (1988, p.17) concluded as follows:
Stripped of its preamble, which recognizes the Charter of Rights and various international conventions and covenants, the Act does not provide any mechanism for compliance. It encourages rather than enforces compliance.
Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, was the first official administrative measure taken by the Government on May 18, 1989 to strengthen the existing provisions in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, 1991, p. 1). Under Bill C-18, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship shall "initiate, recommend, coordinate, implement and promote national policies and programs" relating to multiculturalism and citizenship, citizenship registration, and the participation of every citizen in the mainstream life of Canada within the context of the values inherent in Canadian citizenship, such as human rights, fundamental freedoms and related values (Statutes of Canada, 1991a, c.3, s.5, p.2). As the second annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act indicated, "interim arrangements announced by the Prime Minister in September 1988 remain in effect until this becomes law" (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, 1991, p.1).On September 27, 1989 and February, 1990, the Minister of State gave additional substance and form to the new directions of Canadian multiculturalism and citizenship by introducing in the House of Commons Bill C-37, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, and Bill C-63, an Act to establish the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, 1991). The main purpose of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute was said to facilitate the acquisition, retention and use of heritage languages throughout Canada (Statutes of Canada, 1991b, c.7, s.4). Other activities in furtherance of its purpose described in Section 4 of the legislation were to:
- promote the learning of heritage languages;
- develop quality heritage language instruction programs;
- assist in production of new Canadian-oriented teaching materials;
- assist in the development of heritage language learning standards; and
- plan the dissemination of heritage language information, existing resources and research.
(a) eight hundred thousand dollars, to constitute the capital of an Endowment Fund to be invested and earn income to be expended for the purpose of the Institute; and (b) an additional five hundred thousand dollars, to be expended for the purpose of the Institute (Statutes of Canada, 1991b, c. 7, s. 22. (1) ).
The purpose of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was to facilitate "the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise in order to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society" (Statutes of Canada, 1991c, c.8, s.4). To fulfill its purpose, Section 4 of the legislation required the Foundation to:- promote effective race relations training and development of professional standards;
- act as a clearinghouse, providing information about existing race relations resources, policies, programs and research; and
- collaborate with business, labour, community and other organizations, public institutions and governments, in eliminating all forms and manifestations of racial discrimination.
On November 25, 2005, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French), 2005, c. 41 was enacted “to enhance the enforceability of the Government of Canada’s obligations under Part VII” of the Official Languages Act. It renumbers subsection 41(1) of the Official Languages Act with three amendments. Essentially they speak to (1) the duty of federal institutions to ensure positive implementation measures of the commitments to the Official Languages Act, (2) granting the Governor in Council additional powers to make regulations regarding federal institutions that speak to this part of the Act, and (3) providing any person with an application for remedy under this part of the Act.
Bill C-331, An Act respecting the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act (2005, c.52) acknowledged the first ever internment operations that took place on Canadian soil during World War I. The Parliament of Canada has taken upon itself to express deep sorrow for that event and this enactment provides for further negotiations between specified Ukrainian-Canadian organizations and the Government of Canada in respect of measures deserving of that recognition. These may include, but are not limited to, the installation of commemorative plaques, public education initiatives which exhibit information concerning the internment of Ukrainians and their contribution to the development of Canada, a commemorative stamp or set of stamps, and the promotion of the shared values of multiculturalism, inclusion and mutual respect notwithstanding. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ukrainian Canadian Foundation of Taras Shevchenko are the three Ukrainian-Canadian organizations in the forefront of these negotiations. Other measures of the Act aim towards a better public understanding of (a) the consequences of ethnic, religious or racial intolerance and discrimination; and (b) the important role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the respect and promotion of the values it reflects and the rights and freedoms it guarantees. (See section 2.1) Section 6 of this Act affirms that these negotiations “shall not be interpreted as constituting an admission by Her Majesty in right of Canada of the existence of any legal obligation of Her Majesty in right of Canada to any person.”
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Bill C-21, chapter 30, 2008) received Royal Assent in Her Majesty’s name on June 18, 2008. Bill C-21 repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and continues to protect the customary aboriginal and treaty rights of the First Nations peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. A comprehensive review of the Act’s interpretive and non-derogation measures pertaining to Aboriginal authorities is required within five years after its enactment.
The Parliament of Canada recognized and honored the contribution that persons of Italian origin have made and continue to make to Canada in Bill C-302, the Italian Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act as passed by the House of Commons April 28, 2010. They also apologized to Italian Canadians for designating them as “enemy aliens” and interning them during World War Two. During their internment, Italian Canadians labored without pay on various road construction projects and cleared land. Section 5 of this Act instructs the Canada Post Corporation to issue a series of stamps commemorating these and other infringements of their rights. Bill C-302 also provides for appropriate redress for this action in the form of public education.
To the author's knowledge, no other legislation from 1982 was relevant to this 30 year review.
Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
by Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
The interwar years witnessed a people at crossroads with the meaning of Canadian identity and unity. One definition or viewpoint restricted the meaning of the term Canadian to the "disparate partnership" between the former British and French colonists who have come to share its name and the principles for which it stands (Falconer, 1925). According to Falconer's (1925, p.603) outline of history, the two underlying principles of Canadian unity were " - attachment to Great Britain, and a determination not to be absorbed, in the United States, the second, except in the case of Quebec, being derived from the first." A second viewpoint extended this partnership to the non-British and non-French element because, as Hurd (1928) concluded, "Canadians have a common bond of unity in Canadian citizenship. That was broad enough to include Canadian nationals of every race and of every tongue.” (p.627) The latter viewpoint came in response to the glowing fervour about "...an insistence on the existence and recognition of a Canadian race." (Hurd, 1928, p.615) Officiating the "one-race nation” or melting-pot concept became futile given "bona fide differences" in the extent of language acquisition (note that the Parliament and records of Canada are officially bilingual), in fertility (and mortality) rates and in the extent of intermarriage between the British and French elements and the "average foreign race" when compared to either group in the majority on the same behavioural indices. (Hurd, 1928)
Consequently, the melting pot concept fell wayside to the appearance of a new interpretation of the continuing press for assimilation, introduced by Foster (1926, p.135) in these words:
Nevertheless, except for the more recent infamous internment and dispossession of West Coast Japanese Canadians during wartime (Richardson, 1990, p.174), it was in the years following World War II and under the combination of internal and international pressure, that the different aspirations and expectations of ethnocultural minority groups (e.g., cultural pluralism, structural change and recognition of their contribution to developing Canada) came to be more tolerated (Creighton, 1970, p.301,306,311; McLeod, 1975, pp.27-28; Richardson, 1990, pp.180-183; Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba, 1988, pp.12-13). Only under sustained pressure and after the federal government implemented the Multicultural Policy was there official recognition and support for cultural pluralism in Canada and general statutory protection of ethnocultural minority languages guaranteed in Section 38 of the Official Languages Act (Statutes of Canada, 1969,c.54).
The twin policies of official bilingualism and official multiculturalism stemmed from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism's inquiry into and
In 1971, Canada was officially declared to be multicultural. The federal policy of multiculturalism took effect and was directed toward "preserving human rights, developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation, reinforcing Canadian unity and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework" (Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, Multiculturalism, 1987, p.11). The endorsement came after ethnocultural minority leaders forcefully rejected the terms of reference espoused by the Commission, “an equal partnership between the two founding races”, “Anglophone”, “Francophone” and especially “biculturalism” (Heyman, 1978; Lupul, 1978), words and attitudes impervious to the cultural being and contributions of “other ethnic groups” who, “...came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian State” (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1967, p.xxvi).” The “other” Canadians and Aboriginals, for comparison, outnumbered those of French ancestry in seven provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories by a ratio of about 7 to 1 and outnumbered the British population in the three Prairie Provinces and the Territories, according to data from the 1971 census (Hlynka, 1981, pp. 22-23). Such regional variation was part and parcel of Canada’s history of settlement, geographic evolution and political organization. It compelled the Government to add to the Commission’s mandate a clause requiring the Commission to take “into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution” (Order in Council, 1963). This added mandate also resulted in Volume IV of the Commission’s 1969 Report, The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1969).
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism finished its work March 31, 1971. An official response to the multilingual and multicultural recommendations contained in Volume IV of the Commission's Report emerged in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971 with Prime Minister Trudeau's announcement of implementation of a policy of "multiculturalism within a bilingual framework." The Prime Minister revealed to the House ". . that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although, there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other” (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545). This statement of policy committed the federal government in four ways: helping cultural survival and group development, overcoming cultural barriers to full participation, promoting creative encounters and cultural interchange in the interest of national unity and assisting immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545). It is unfortunate to note that, while implementation of official bilingualism proceeded through legislation, official multiculturalism was merely Government policy and had no legislative base. Furthermore, government assistance to “cultural survival and development of ethnic groups” proceeded only to the extent “that a given group exhibits a desire for this,” while no such condition was placed upon the ethnocultural majorities or official language groups (House of Commons, 1971, p.8581).
Subsequent legislative affirmations espoused equality between the ethnocultural majorities and ethnocultural minorities and equality of conditions for all Canadians. Of overriding importance were The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, a consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 and The Constitution Act, 1982. Consolidated as of October 1, 1989, it contained various direct amendments (i.e. repeals, amended provisions, substitutions) and indirect amendments (i.e. alterations by United Kingdom Parliament, additions by Parliament of Canada, alterations by the Legislatures), spent provisions, a general procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, and a general amendment renaming the British North America Act, 1867 to the Constitution Act, 1867 (Department of Justice Canada, 1989).
The Acts consolidated what leaders-governments-after-next historically strived to promote and protect: basic human rights. Canada's record of' safeguarding these rights, was divided into three periods, each moulded by a set of mechanisms specific to the time and culture of the period (Greene, 1989): first, the period, from 1867 to 1960, of contentious action or inaction on the part of the judiciary to effectively invoke or negate the existence of "an implied bill of rights" (of civil liberties principles) inherited from the U.K.'s unwritten constitution by virtue of the principle of legislative supremacy pursuant to the preamblary statement in the original Constitution Act, which reads as follows:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012
The interwar years witnessed a people at crossroads with the meaning of Canadian identity and unity. One definition or viewpoint restricted the meaning of the term Canadian to the "disparate partnership" between the former British and French colonists who have come to share its name and the principles for which it stands (Falconer, 1925). According to Falconer's (1925, p.603) outline of history, the two underlying principles of Canadian unity were " - attachment to Great Britain, and a determination not to be absorbed, in the United States, the second, except in the case of Quebec, being derived from the first." A second viewpoint extended this partnership to the non-British and non-French element because, as Hurd (1928) concluded, "Canadians have a common bond of unity in Canadian citizenship. That was broad enough to include Canadian nationals of every race and of every tongue.” (p.627) The latter viewpoint came in response to the glowing fervour about "...an insistence on the existence and recognition of a Canadian race." (Hurd, 1928, p.615) Officiating the "one-race nation” or melting-pot concept became futile given "bona fide differences" in the extent of language acquisition (note that the Parliament and records of Canada are officially bilingual), in fertility (and mortality) rates and in the extent of intermarriage between the British and French elements and the "average foreign race" when compared to either group in the majority on the same behavioural indices. (Hurd, 1928)
Consequently, the melting pot concept fell wayside to the appearance of a new interpretation of the continuing press for assimilation, introduced by Foster (1926, p.135) in these words:
This alternation of questions and answers germinated additional interest and appreciation for the "mosaic" concept of Canadian culture - some of it significantly enough, from publicists and various service agencies working to facilitate immigrant adjustment (Ukrainian Community Development Committee - Prairie Region, 1986, p.8; Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, 1987, p.16). Serious study and growth in research with persons grouped round this centre of interest emerged in the 1930s (Swyripa, 1978, p.45). In any case, the pioneers round this concept forced themselves to learn through their own studies about the "mosaic" of traits and backgrounds of groups immigrating to Canada (Swyripa, 1978, p.41). These studies not only uncovered the many and various experiences in our national history which shaped the perceptions and attitudes of new Canadian arrivals, they also served as a direction indicator as to what is or may be inherited from a group's culture to enrich Canada (Swyripa, 1978, pp.41-42). Fourteen years after the initial questions were posed, there was a small congerie of agencies and programmes experimenting with ethnocultural groups and cultural maintenance (e.g. the Advisory Committee on Cooperation in Canadian Citizenship) regrettably, "...with little support from government." (Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba, 1988, p.12) By 1946, citizenship training programmes evinced a change of direction, at least in purpose. Formally, they aimed to foster positive social relationships between the various ethnocultural groups. Informally, however, these courses merely initiated “. . . the process of assimilation." (McLeod, 1975, p.27)In many minds the term "assimilation" is confused with amalgamation. Does the former necessarily imply intermarriage - the fusion of races? Is not assimilation rather the incorporation into our national life of all people within our borders for their common well-being. Is it not the working together side by side for the common advancement, each race contributing something of value and so slowly but surely evolving a new people enriched by the diversity of its origin?
Nevertheless, except for the more recent infamous internment and dispossession of West Coast Japanese Canadians during wartime (Richardson, 1990, p.174), it was in the years following World War II and under the combination of internal and international pressure, that the different aspirations and expectations of ethnocultural minority groups (e.g., cultural pluralism, structural change and recognition of their contribution to developing Canada) came to be more tolerated (Creighton, 1970, p.301,306,311; McLeod, 1975, pp.27-28; Richardson, 1990, pp.180-183; Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba, 1988, pp.12-13). Only under sustained pressure and after the federal government implemented the Multicultural Policy was there official recognition and support for cultural pluralism in Canada and general statutory protection of ethnocultural minority languages guaranteed in Section 38 of the Official Languages Act (Statutes of Canada, 1969,c.54).
The twin policies of official bilingualism and official multiculturalism stemmed from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism's inquiry into and
A positive by-product of these recommendations later found expression in Sections 97 and 98 of the Official Languages Act (1988), as amended. The amendments granted additional rights and services in “English and French or any languages of the aboriginal peoples of Canada” provided for in the Official Languages Ordinance and Languages Ordinance of the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act, respectively (Statutes of Canada 1988a, c.38).". . . report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution" (Order-in-Council, 1963).
In 1971, Canada was officially declared to be multicultural. The federal policy of multiculturalism took effect and was directed toward "preserving human rights, developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation, reinforcing Canadian unity and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework" (Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, Multiculturalism, 1987, p.11). The endorsement came after ethnocultural minority leaders forcefully rejected the terms of reference espoused by the Commission, “an equal partnership between the two founding races”, “Anglophone”, “Francophone” and especially “biculturalism” (Heyman, 1978; Lupul, 1978), words and attitudes impervious to the cultural being and contributions of “other ethnic groups” who, “...came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian State” (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1967, p.xxvi).” The “other” Canadians and Aboriginals, for comparison, outnumbered those of French ancestry in seven provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories by a ratio of about 7 to 1 and outnumbered the British population in the three Prairie Provinces and the Territories, according to data from the 1971 census (Hlynka, 1981, pp. 22-23). Such regional variation was part and parcel of Canada’s history of settlement, geographic evolution and political organization. It compelled the Government to add to the Commission’s mandate a clause requiring the Commission to take “into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution” (Order in Council, 1963). This added mandate also resulted in Volume IV of the Commission’s 1969 Report, The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1969).
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism finished its work March 31, 1971. An official response to the multilingual and multicultural recommendations contained in Volume IV of the Commission's Report emerged in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971 with Prime Minister Trudeau's announcement of implementation of a policy of "multiculturalism within a bilingual framework." The Prime Minister revealed to the House ". . that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although, there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other” (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545). This statement of policy committed the federal government in four ways: helping cultural survival and group development, overcoming cultural barriers to full participation, promoting creative encounters and cultural interchange in the interest of national unity and assisting immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545). It is unfortunate to note that, while implementation of official bilingualism proceeded through legislation, official multiculturalism was merely Government policy and had no legislative base. Furthermore, government assistance to “cultural survival and development of ethnic groups” proceeded only to the extent “that a given group exhibits a desire for this,” while no such condition was placed upon the ethnocultural majorities or official language groups (House of Commons, 1971, p.8581).
Subsequent legislative affirmations espoused equality between the ethnocultural majorities and ethnocultural minorities and equality of conditions for all Canadians. Of overriding importance were The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, a consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 and The Constitution Act, 1982. Consolidated as of October 1, 1989, it contained various direct amendments (i.e. repeals, amended provisions, substitutions) and indirect amendments (i.e. alterations by United Kingdom Parliament, additions by Parliament of Canada, alterations by the Legislatures), spent provisions, a general procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, and a general amendment renaming the British North America Act, 1867 to the Constitution Act, 1867 (Department of Justice Canada, 1989).
The Acts consolidated what leaders-governments-after-next historically strived to promote and protect: basic human rights. Canada's record of' safeguarding these rights, was divided into three periods, each moulded by a set of mechanisms specific to the time and culture of the period (Greene, 1989): first, the period, from 1867 to 1960, of contentious action or inaction on the part of the judiciary to effectively invoke or negate the existence of "an implied bill of rights" (of civil liberties principles) inherited from the U.K.'s unwritten constitution by virtue of the principle of legislative supremacy pursuant to the preamblary statement in the original Constitution Act, which reads as follows:
second, the period between 1960 and 1982, in which the first Canadian Bill of Rights was born to failure because of a judiciary reluctant to negate the principle of legislative supremacy; and, third, the period, from 1982 up to the present, which interrupted the narrow judiciary actions and interpretations mindful of civil liberties associated with the first two periods in light of the form and spirit effected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Greene's (1989, p.38) review of the circumstances leading to the adoption of the Charter showed that it acts as the "key-instrument" in the Government's concerted nation-building strategy that evolved from 1967 to 1982:(29th March 1867.)
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom (Department of Justice Canada, 1989, p.1);
-
- to create the conditions that would encourage a stronger national identity to counteract the forces of provincialism;
- to patriate the constitution (end the role of the U.K. Parliament in the constitutional amendment process, and provide for an entirely Canadian amending procedure); and
- to extend language rights and to create new ‘mobility rights’ so that Canadians would feel at home in any province and would not be deterred from moving within the country (Greene, 1989, p.38).
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012
Monday, July 4, 2016
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
By Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012
Author Information:THREE YEARS AGO WHEN IN ENGLAND, I VISITED ONE OF THOSE MODELS OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE WHICH THE HAND OF GENIUS, GUIDED BY AN UNERRING FAITH, HAD MOULDED INTO A HARMONIOUS WHOLE. THIS CATHEDRAL IS MADE OF GRANITE, OAK, AND MARBLE. IT IS THE IMAGE OF THE NATION I WISH TO SEE CANADA BECOME, FOR HERE I WANT THE GRANITE TO REMAIN THE GRANITE, THE OAK TO REMAIN THE OAK, THE MARBLE TO REMAIN THE MARBLE. OUT OF THESE ELEMENTS, I WOULD BUILD A NATION GREAT AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.The significance of Laurier's statement quoted above was not merely an acknowledgement of the inherent linguistic, cultural, and racial plurality of Canada. Nor was it simply a challenge to his contemporaries to recognize the pioneering contributions to nation-building of all three elements or forces of Canadian society. The main significance of the leader's visionary statement was that it provides his contemporaries with the 'social architecture' for catapulting the three elements of Canadian society into a more equitable partnership of participants and builders, rather than survivors and victims, of the future.
Sir Wilfred Laurier
Prime Minister of Canada
1896 - 1911
In the confluence of two earlier forces (the British and French settlers) "...that have shaped our Canadian character must surely be seen the force of two additional tributaries adding to the majestic flow of our culture and our civilization" noted the former Governor-General designate, Edward Schreyer, in his inaugural speech delivered in 1979 (Hlynka, 1981, p.43). One, of course, was the Aboriginal (Native) peoples, Canada's First Nations. The other was the multiplicity of settlers with origins other than British, French or Native. Census data show (see Table 1 in Mallea, 1990, p.4) that in 1871, just four years after Confederation, Canada's total population (comprises only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario) numbered about 3 million, 486 thousand people. Additional data show that 60.5 percent of this population were of British origin, compared to 31.1 percent of French, 0.7 percent of Native and 7.7 percent of Canadians that were none of these. The general picture of Canada changed considerably in the new century. By 1911, the total population of Canada (excludes Newfoundland) numbered about 7 million, 207 thousand people. Those of British origin comprised 55.5 percent of the total population, compared to 28.6 percent of French, 1.5 percent of Native and 14.4 percent of Canadians that were none of these. The latter group's contribution to nation building coincided most clearly with the settlement of the Prairie region (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) between Ontario and British Columbia, and the economic and political successes of Canada in the new century (Bryce, 1928, p.44; Schroeder, 1990, pp.38-58; Yuzyk, 1983, p.303).
With Alberta and Saskatchewan (formerly The North-West Territories) obtaining provincial status in 1905 (The National Atlas of Canada, 1974, p.86), Canada attained its ultimate extent in territorial aim and virtually its final framework of political organization (Lewis, 1913, p.200; Webster's New Reference Library, 1988, p.1087). One year later, when ". . the exports of wheat exceeded those of cheese in value" (Ruddick, 1913b, p.676), the country embraced an economic metamorphosis from the historically cheese-paring driven economies of 'Old World Canada' into the wheat, wheat flour, flax-seed and barley, and oats-producing economies of the new central 'West'. Creighton (1970, p.105), Professor and Historian, evaluated the national significance and impact attributed to the framers of 'the last best west' land policy in these words:
To be sure, the impulse of immigration and settlement of the Prairie region was a conditional element in meeting the additional exigencies of Canadian manufacturing and railroad building (Creighton, 1970, p.25; Gordon, 1910. p.106). Of no less importance, then, in shaping state behaviour and the political organization of Canada (1905) were the Native peoples. Although Native labour power was not momentous into the vicinity of the original union of the four older provinces of Canada (1867), “...the fact that Native people still controlled or contested control of large areas of putatively Dominion territory (on the prairies until the 1880s and in the north until much later) shaped the national lands policy (not to mention policy toward Native people) well into the twentieth century" (Abele and Stasiulis, 1989, p.240).It had always been assumed, as an article of faith, that immigration and western settlement would ultimately make the nation; and now, to the immense pride and satisfaction of everybody, this was happening .... The nation's production of wheat, which had been only 55,572,000 bushels in 1901, rose to 231,237,000 in 1912. Western Canada was well on its way to becoming one of the greatest granaries in the world .... But western settlement had been only one of the national policies and its successful realization was only a part, though a most important part, of Canada's spectacular success.
More important than the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway which according to Skelton (1913c, p.199) grew to 104 million by 1912 (30 million in 1901), more important than the total import and export values which had nearly quadrupled by 1912 after reaching an "axial point" (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p.13) of 125 million in 1895 (Skelton, 1913 c, p.239), and even more important than the perceived need for bolstering the Canadian navy and exercising military operations were the omnipresent "problems" of continued immigration and the kind of immigrant who was to ". . become part and parcel of the Canadian people" (Scott, 1913b, p.589) and by greater cleavage between majority and minority.
If the election of, then, municipal reeves and councillors of Ukrainian origin (Public Archives Canada, 1979, p.7) and the legal or customary educational-linguistic rights gained by ethnocultural minorities in 1872, 1873 (Skelton, 1917, p.454), 1897 (Skwarok, 1959, p.57), and 1901 (Skelton, 1917, p.456) can be interpreted as recognition of the general wealth accompanying minority labour and/or their integration into Laurier's more elastic image of Canadian identity then Ukrainians, like other minorities, seem to relieve themselves of illusion as their legal or customary rights receded with every economic and political consolidation.
Significant in the development of the Naturalization Act was the newly prescribed educational qualification (Skelton, 1917, p.442) requiring "an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages" (Statutes of Canada. 1914, c.44, s.2) of all candidates seeking naturalization. This qualification was closely tied in with the disappearance of the bilingual system of teaching (e.g. German-English, Ukrainian-English, Polish-English) in the Prairie region in 1916 (Skwarok, 1959, p.90). As immigration and bilingual instruction at this turn of the century increased (e.g. some 400 predominantly or all-Ukrainian schools alone by 1915) so did public pressure against the "Bi-lingual Schools" campaigns of Ukrainian teachers (Skwarok, 1956, p.90, 106). In 1916, the newly elected government of Manitoba closed the bilingual schools and the scarcely translated Ukrainian-English reading books for elementary school use, ". . which were still in boxes yet unopened - Dr. Thornton, Minister of Education orders them burned" (Gospodyn, 1990, p.11). Morton (1968, p.358) stated that "...public opinion came to hold strongly that Canadian nationality was threatened in Manitoba by the linguistic chaos in the schools." It seems ironic, in the light of the preceding statement, that the Naturalization Act of 1914 not only prescribed an additional two years' to meet the five-year residency requirement in Canada but granted, British, not Canadian, citizenship (Yuzyk, 1983, p.305).
The required educational-linguistic qualification and type of citizenship granted in the Act (1914) reflected the ongoing determination and power of the majority group to assimilate newcomers from countries with languages, skin pigmentation, customs or ideals unlike their own (Lewis, 1913, p.187,202; Scott, 1913b, p.531,569,578,589). Scots and Presbyterians had the largest stake in the prevailing socioeconomic order (Martynowych, 1983, pp.34-35). Fearing "another Quebec" may yet evolve in parts of western Canada, Presbyterian spokespersons advocated rapid Anglicization and assimilation of the South-East Europeans (especially Slavs) whose massive influx "...at once imperilled western Canada's status as a 'godly bastion of the British Empire' and challenged the Presbyterians to assume the burden of ‘uplifting' the 'benighted foreigners"' (Martynowych, 1983, p.36; Owen, 1985). Filling up the west with settlers from old Canada and "Returned Canadians" from the United States (Lewis, 1913a, p.202; Scott, 1913b, p.558,563), a safeguard favoured by French nationalists of Quebec (Lewis, 1913, p.187), ensured that the region remained British in character and visibly white.
The "utilitarian mentality" (Li, 1988, p.12,37,39) of industrialists and politicians of the day eroded support for non-white arrivals and, in the process, exacerbated the behaviour of whites toward them (Lampkin, 1985, p.663; Bibby, 1990, pp.25-27). Chinese labour, for example, was considered useful even necessary to CPR railway building. However, upon its completion in 1885, an Act to restrict and regulate Chinese immigration into Canada (Statutes of Canada, 1885, c. 71)rendered them racially undesirable. With few exceptions, an entry tax of $50 on every person of Chinese origin was set (Statutes of Canada, 1885, c.71, s.4), and raised to $500 in 1903 (Lampkin, 1985, p.664). In 1906, a stipulation limiting the number of Chinese immigrants in any vessel to "one such immigrant for every fifty tons of its tonnage" (Statutes of Canada, 1906, c.95, s.9) remained with effect from 1885. The Vancouver riot of 1907 was illustrative of the renewed hostile public behaviour toward their perceived threat to occupational competition (namely cheap Asiatic labour) and of British Columbia's willingness to extend similar idiosyncrasies of separation (e.g. segregating Chinese students from white students) and assimilation to the province's classrooms (Li, 1988, pp.32-33). The intensification of such idiosyncrasies prompted this and other provincial governments to legislate the exclusion of Asiatics from enfranchisement and certain professions (i.e. law and pharmacy), to enact de facto discriminatory restrictions affecting the hours of operation of Asiatic businesses and laws to prevent the employment of female labour (i.e. white or Indian) in their businesses (Li, 1988, pp.28-29).
Similar to the experience of other non-white western arrivals, the entry of black Americans was stymied by those invoking Section 38 of the 1910 Act respecting Immigration which prohibited the landing " . . . of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada"(Statutes of Canada, 1910, c.27, s.38). This notwithstanding, the black experience was particularly harsh for Canadian-born in eastern Canada - notably, Nova Scotia - where most blacks settled. Especially "...hard were the discriminatory practices in education by which School Acts from 1811 to as late as 1954 ensured that some black children in many communities received no schooling at all and others only inferior schooling in separate black schools", reported Lampkin (1985, p.655). Accordingly, the prevailing ideology of segregation and assimilation facilitated the more "useful and meaningful" (Sharzer, 1985, p.551) "acculturation and civilization" (Powless, 1985, p.604) policy pursued by government for the re-education and re-socialization of Aboriginal (Native) peoples in Canada. The goal of such a policy operated on the assumption that Natives must forfeit their past (Sharzer, 1985, p.552). In considerable measure, the educational objectives of living and earning a living in society channelled Natives and immigrants of both sexes into options that were not qualitatively different from the occupations of their parents (Martynowych, 1983, pp.46-47; Powless, 1985, pp.603-604; Li, 1988, Table 3.2).
According to Buckland (1985, p.148), Ottawa-based researcher and social policy analyst, “. . . these policies coincided with ideologies of racial superiority and inferiority and beliefs about the 'suitability' of certain ethnic groups for certain types of work. Thus, the Chinese were brought in to build the railroads, the Ukrainians to pioneer and cultivate the Prairies, and so on." The period between 1914-1920 was as much indicative of a reluctancy to forfeit such beliefs as it was of a 'social architecture' going completely amiss. During World War I, the government deemed it expedient, necessary and even "...desirable considering the lack of opportunity for employment" (Order in Council of the 28th of October, 1914) to make orders, proclamations and regulations to permit exit, arrest, detain, register or monitor the control of over 80,000 "alien enemies" (most of whom were Ukrainian), and their press in Canada (Proclamation of 15th August, 1914; Order in Council of the 20th of September, 1916; Luciuk, 1988, p.7; Order in Council of the 6th of November, 1914). Another 5,000 to 6,000 allied Russian occupied Ukrainians and enemy Austrian occupied Ukrainians, presumably sympathetic to Austria, were kept for several years in one of 26 internment camps across Canada - in spite of 10,000 voluntary enlistments in the Canadian war effort (Melnycky, 1983; Yuzyk, 1983, p.305; Luciuk, 1988). In some cases, they were dismissed from employment; their language and press outlawed (Public Archives Canada, 1979, pp.5-7; Luciuk, 1988, pp.25-27).
Moreover, in 1917 the government incapacitated legally from voting federally all conscientious objectors to combatant military service (i.e. Mennonites and Doukhobors) and aliens naturalized after March 1902 if they were "born in an enemy country" or if they spoke "a language of an enemy country" (The War-time Elections Act, 1917, c.39, s.154). A woman could be admitted to vote but only if she ". . qualified as to age, race and residence, as required in the case of a male person in such a province" or Territory and, as the case may be, was related to someone serving or having served in any of the naval or military forces of Great Britain or of Canada in the aforementioned war (The War-time Elections Act, 1917, c.39, s.33).
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)