Search

This article explores the nature of parliamentary opposition on issues affecting Indigenous communities at Canada's national parliament. Content analysis is performed on all oral questions asked on Indigenous issues in the 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th and 41st parliaments. The findings reveal a particular preferred frame for approaching Indigenous issues, centred on a poverty-based problem statement. In contrast, more particularistic Indigenous issues, such as historical restitution, resolution of competing claims to territory or increasing self-determination, are underrepresented in parliamentary discourse. The article explores the implications of this finding for Indigenous issue representation, and the representation of other groups in parliament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While serving as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada between 2008 and 2013, Jason Kenney likened the detention facilities used to house an increasing number of asylum seekers and non-status migrants to hotels. And yet, when addressing the responsibilities of citizenship, he repeatedly argued that 'Canada is not a hotel.' However contradictory, Kenney's references to hotels and, implicitly, to the comforts and privileges they represent, draw on the idea of Canadian hospitality: the suggestion is that we detain asylum seekers in hotels or hotel-like conditions because we are an hospitable people but that our reputation for hospitality leaves us vulnerable to migrants who construe themselves as hotel guests with privileges rather than citizens with responsibilities. Paying particular attention to recent legislative reforms that will almost certainly result in the incarceration of more asylum seekers, this article asks how Canadian hospitality is defined and practiced today. More generally, it uses discourse analysis to explore the tension between the Canadian ideal of hospitality and the realities of an expanding immigration detention system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparatively few studies have looked at debates in other countries besides The United States. This study replicates past research using Functional Theory to analyze electoral debates from two countries with parliamentary systems, i.e., countries in which citizens cannot directly vote for their Prime Minister. Content analysis was employed to investigate the four 2006 Canadian prime minister debates-two held in English, two in French-and the 2007 Australian prime minister debate. Candidates in these debates acclaimed, or praised themselves, more than they attacked, or criticized opponents, and defended, or refuted attacks from opponents, least. The incumbent candidates produced more acclaims and defenses and made fewer attacks than the challenger candidates. In particular, the incumbents used past deeds, or record in office, to acclaim their record in office; challengers tended to use past deeds to attack the incumbent's record rather than to acclaim themselves. These candidates discussed policy more than character. Candidates, in general, acclaimed more than they attacked on general goals and ideals. These patterns are generally similar to those observed in Israel, South Korea, The Ukraine, and The U.S., which suggests that some features of political debates transcend national and cultural borders [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]