Kymlicka is onto a good point in mentioning how Canada's social welfare system is a fairly unique benefit, springing from a uniquely Canadian attitude towards its citizens and the role of the state in the lives of its citizens. Kymlicka helps his constructive definition of Canadians by pointing out that they are almost unique in the OECD by not dismantling their social welfare benefits in the 1990's. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this definition, it is worth explaining why Canada has stood out from other OECD countries in this sense while maintaining high growth. Instead, Kymlicka reverts to the point about the United States, and the differentiation in social welfare systems -- again bolstering the image of Canada as 'not the United States.'

Kymlicka is on much stronger ground when talking about diversity within Canada. This is a more historically- and culturally-based method to explain how Canada is developing its own unique cultural elements. Although the U.S. is also culturally diverse, Kymlicka rightly points out that Canada was formed by two distinct cultures which were very different than elsewhere: the British (not colonialist) culture, and French Canadians. These two cultures preserve their differences in more than language and food; these differences extend throughout their politics and culture, from differing social welfare systems to differences in political views.

Kymlicka is also right to point out how Canada's relatively mercenary approach to immigration is changing the country in a way different from all other developed...

His citing of the various groups settling Canada at different times, from indigenous, British and French, to more modern settlements from China and India, he paints a picture of Canada as a fast-changing country in a way that is very different from other OECD countries.
Many articles that attempt to explain Canada do so through a discussion of "Canadian Exceptionalism." Duverger, for example, talks about plurality rule as an accommodation to different cultures within the country (Gaines). Studlar explains how Canadian exceptionalism influences provincial as compared to federal politics (Studlar). Kymlicka chooses to concentrate on Canada's constitutional acceptance of diversity. In this case, his argument might have been strengthened by contrast and comparison to cultural diversity in America; he chooses rather to address those concerns in Australia and New Zealand.

In conclusion, Kymlicka's article provides a useful review of Canadian culture, with a repetition of some of the well-explored questions about federalism and provincial politics.

Bibliography

Gaines, BJ. "Duverger's Law and the Meaning of Canadian Exceptionalism." Comparative Political Studies (1999): 835-861.

Kymlicka, W. "Being Canadian." Kymlicka, W. Government and Opposition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 357-386.

Studlar, DT. "Canadian Exceptionalism: Explaining Differences over Time in Provincial and Federal Voter Turnout." Canadian Journal of Political Science (2001): 299-319.

Defining and Describing Culture