A recent article posted to ACS in the News caught my attention – what is the Canadian brand when it comes to immigration?

It may seem like an odd thought, but hey – it was in the Globe & Mail after all, how strange can it be? It got me thinking – what are we doing to entice immigrants, and skilled workers specifically, to settle in Canada? What image of Canada are we selling to the world?

Given the recent development of virulent anti-immigration rhetoric from some European political parties (and the GOP, of course), it concerns me that Canada may soon go down the same road. This we cannot afford, not merely for economic reason either – it also goes against our very nature as a nation of immigrants. We must endeavour to be the nation in which all nations are welcome, because a Canadian aspires to a common culture and society which exists beyond geographic limits. A nation bonded by a common philosophy for the common good of all Mankind. No lofty goal is this either – it will define future success. For these and many, many other reasons, Canada wants to pursue an expansive immigration policy. Among other reasons, we have a population which grows largely because of immigration, and with every new generation of immigrants which establishes themselves in Canada, the list of Canada’s allies and international partners grows as well. Business development through integration, a futre economic consideration for the entire nation.

And it isn’t a new consideration either – we knew this during the Great Western Expansion of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. The land of the Last Best West, as it was once advertised.

We still have vast quantities of territory which needs to be developed, and new ventures in northern development may very well cause another great wave of immigration to Canada.

But we need to be smart about this. For one, we want skilled workers, but we need to make sure that recent immigrants have access to good jobs first. I’m a little sick of seeing so many qualified engineers and academics driving cabs because for one reason or another they can’t get their credentials recognized. Also, we can’t have all immigrants moving directly into the largest cities either. Perhaps for the short term, but ultimately it is preferential that immigrants establish themselves in rural and semi-rural Canada inasmuch as the urban cores. We want to stimulate cultural integration, and either way the next years of major growth won’t happen in the already economically established cities. Jean Charest’s Plan Nord, as an example, seeks to vastly develop Quebec’s northern territory, opening it up to resource extraction, power generation etc. This may cause the development of small and medium cities located near the areas for development. Thus, since there will be growth here anyways, we should endeavour to encourage immigration into the regions. It could be that in most cases the immigrant’s skills may be put to better use somewhere where the skill-set is scarce.

Back in the early 20th century the drive was primarily to find agriculturalists to settle the vast prairie provinces, and thus we advertised ourselves as a prime location for farmers tired of Old Europe’s over-tilled fields. We promised cheap land, healthy country, openness, acceptance and the chance at personal prosperity through hard work and determination. How much do we need to tweak this message in order to attract the best and the brightest?

It may come down to social policy. For many people living around the world, Canada distinguishes itself amongst the liberal democracies as a nation of social progress and innovation. Such ideas are very encouraging, especially if the individual looking to immigrate here is doing so because of local oppression. Having various personal experiences working with immigrants and refugees, I can say the common motivation in moving to Canada is that this is the nation in which democracy is absolute and the individual, regardless of background, has a chance to succeed and to be taken care of by a state that respects and supports the citizen. Who wouldn’t want to pay elevated taxes to have that as a core element of their identity?

I feel often Canadians are so self-deprecating that we forget the many nations and peoples of the world who look up to us as a shining example. This good will won’t last forever unless we do all we can to make sure it will always be true. Thus, when considering our social policy, we should always be very much aware of its potential impact abroad, and how potential immigrants may perceive our social orientation. As a nation of immigrants, it’s guaranteed people living outside our borders are listening, watching, and judging.

What’s the cost of a good global reputation?

And can we afford to live without it, because sometimes I wonder if the majority of us can see beyond our borders.

Lévesque & Trudeau

I’ve been reading a series of articles by La Presse journalist Paul Journet recently, many of which quote surveys by the ACS and have to do with the Québec sovereignty issue. These days, though Québec sovereignty isn’t being discussed to the same degree it once was, there’s certainly a lot of discussion pertaining to language, culture and perhaps most specifically, the status of the French language in Montréal.

For anyone over thirty, this is hardly news. Looking back in time, you see that the French language has been on the verge of complete and total destruction in Québec for, wait for it, more than forty years. Bill 101, set into law some thirty-five years ago to protect the French language in Québec, has been both exceptionally successful and is woefully incomplete, depending on the mood of the separatist you ask.

As it happens, it happens time and again. An unpopular provincial premier who happens to be a convenient federalist sounds the alarm that French is threatened as a reaction to sagging poll numbers and popular discontent. And so, in this age of austerity, new money for language cops and expanded, and I might add punitive, powers for the OQLF. Add to that a restrained resurgence in the appeal of separatism, if only to prevent the destruction of the French Fact in North America, and a provincial election which may be only a matter of months away, and you’ve got an unfortunate situation. At a time when we should be building bridges and sewing the seeds of openness, acceptance, tolerance and social harmony, instead we watch the opportunists seize upon local dissatisfaction with a more general state of affairs and re-direct popular pessimism into a new channel – the call for an independent Québec.

It’s a peculiar situation that has repeated itself too many times in the last thirty some-odd years. The referendums cost Montréal its once grand status as Canada’s international capital and in turn haven’t done much for the provincial economy. It’s open the door to the concept of separation of any disaffected province – a cut and run approach. And all of this pales in comparison to the fact that an independent Québec is anathema to the very foundation of Canadian federalism, inter and multi-culturalism and the entirety of our liberal-democratic tradition stretching back to the heady days of the Rebellions.

I find it odd that the Patriote’s tri-colore would become the de-facto symbol of Separatist militancy – the flag-waivers have no idea the Patriotes were integrated, multi-cultural (by 1830s North American standards), liberal-democrats keen on achieving a new, united, and representative democracy in Canada. Canadians vs. British, not English vs. French.

If only we knew our much vaulted roots a little better, we might realize what’s truly at stake here. And why we should tread carefully when making broad statements of specific cultural minorities. If our nation is based on cultural integration, an embrace of the complex over the straightforward and a recognition of the inherent strength of plurality, then we should be very wary indeed of opportunistic claims of cultural destruction. Especially when it’s completely unfounded.

As long as we treat integration and pluralism as exceptions rather than the goal we ought to strive towards we’ll never progress past our current predicament. And Quebec’s perennial existential crisis is both indicative of a broader Canadian problem inasmuch as it will likely provide a viable national solution. It’s really just a matter of perspective.

The Battle of Chateauguay, 1813 – lithograph by Henri Julien, ca. 1884

There’s little question Canadians do tend to get ‘possessive’ about their history and culture. It’s not good enough that we have an immensely complex and rich history that will provide historians, sociologists, philosophers, journalists, writers and artists of all stripes an unending torrent of vitally important, culturally significant information to use and refer to forever more, but that we feel compelled to point out what ‘belongs’ to us.

It’s a part of ‘our’ heritage, after all.

And so the litany. We created peacekeeping, even though we publicly disparage it’s effectiveness. We created Medicare, even though we question it’s value. We built the Canadarm. We became a nation at Vimy Ridge. We invented Insulin, the Walkie-Talkie, Java, the Pager, the 56K modem, the Hydrofoil, the Snowmobile and Canola, to name but a few. We possess these accomplishments as a nation with an audacity some would call uncharacteristic given the stereotype of excessive Canadian humility. And where would our many great comedians and comic talents be without traditional Canadian self-deprecating humour. As far as I can tell, we own that too.

So when it comes to taking ownership of the War of 1812, not only are we well poised to declare ourselves the victor, we’ve been given the carte-blanche to do so by governments at home and abroad. It’s no secret that Canada’s current government is keen to use the War of 1812 as a means to encourage the study of Canada and to popularize this otherwise little-known conflict, possibly to the extent of turning it into some kind of creation-myth afterthought.

It’s an odd thing about our country – we didn’t fight a war to gain our independence, neither from an imperialist power, a disinterested colonial power, nor from a cabal or clique of interested parties. Our Founding Fathers, though all great men worthy of the title, were diplomatic in their affairs, cordial, and conducted themselves reasonably and patiently so as to accord greater freedoms for the collective mass. It was a long process, in some ways not thoroughly completed until repatriation in 1982 and the development of our own constitution, and more importantly, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But as it stands, far too many among us feel this simply isn’t enough, and that we must determine a moment when Canadians were baptised in blood. Though I’m loathe to go down that path, preferring the policy and politics of Confederation as it is, it’s clear the times are indeed changing.

It’s not that I mind, but I feel we should proceed carefully. Canada wasn’t a country back in 1812, and the majority of multi-generational Canadians, at that time, were called Canadiens. The vast majority of Anglophone Canadians were themselves formerly United Empire Loyalists, largely settled after the exodus thirty-six years prior. This was their war. Some Americans today refer to the conflict as the Second War of Independence, and in some significant ways they’re at least partially correct. It was a settling of accounts between an upstart nation and the super-power of the day.

It’s certainly true that the British would not have succeeded without the support of Canadians fighting against unstoppable hegemonic power that is the United States. Further, by proving themselves in battle against the Americans, the Canadians demonstrated that they were beginning to think and react like a community unto itself. There would be more crises ahead, such as the Rebellions of 1837-38 and the Fenian Raids a year before Confederation, but none would match the potential for destruction that came, and went, with the War of 1812.

But what does it mean for the Canada of today? We’ve had cordial, if not outright exceptional geopolitical relations with the United States for over a century. Though we are very different nations, we manage to get along very well. We are each other’s largest trading partners and share the world’s longest undefended border. We are fully integrated allies – so much so that the thought of our nations ever going to war again is beyond laughable – it’s patently absurd. So it’s our war, it’s their war, we share joint custody of a conflict that’s known almost exclusively to ourselves (the War of 1812 means something very different for most Europeans, typically, the beginning of the end of the Napoleonic Era). With all this said and done, we should look at this anniversary as a means to inculcate a broader understanding of Canadian history and Canadian studies in our large immigrant community, amongst our nation’s youth, and perhaps most importantly, as a means to sew stronger relations with the United States.

Was it our war of independence?

Was it the first manifestation of a Canadian identity?

Or was it the last time we’d let ourselves get sucked into the bickering of foreign empires?

And how much of your identity do you want based in bloodshed?

Charles Taylor & Gérard Bouchard – credit to Ivanoh Demers

I think we’re a bit spoiled in this country. To think that we have not one, but two competing philosophical perspectives on integrating cultural minorities, well…

Some would view this is yet another socio-political impasse in a country well-known for trying very hard not to offend anyone inasmuch as not taking a decisive position, but I feel such a perspective misses the mark. Where some see endless debate, I can only see methodical evolution – and that takes time.

Canada is a post-modern country; a pan-national, non-nationalist, open society which values patience, procedure and the pursuit of, well, if not happiness, at least equilibrium, balance. Because we are so exceptionally different we often feel as though we’re going it alone, and in some ways we are. But there’s no reason to shy away from a challenge.

That’s not the Canadian way, so to speak.

Integrating immigrants into Canadian society is not an easy task, even though Canada has been receiving immigrants, well, since before Canada was even born. We are a multi-national collective inhabiting a territory roughly the size of Europe and, as long as the polar ice cap continues to melt, more and more territory will become suitable for expansion and settlement. So you’d figure that we would have come up with some excellent solutions to these difficulties by now, right?

Unfortunately it seems sometimes as though we have only recently awakened to recognizing that our society must take the issue of immigrant integration very seriously and, further, must do so with an eye not only to practicality but the major philosophical implications of what an objectively good policy for this country could do. Immigration is a cornerstone of our society, and like the three nations we most identify with – the United States, the United Kingdom and France – we need to learn from their successes and mistakes in order to determine a best-practices solution for our own country.

Part of the issue is how immigration is framed within the political realm. As an example; when I was a child my parents explained immigration to me thusly – Canada is a big country with lots of room to accept people from all over the world, and so we keep our doors open for people wishing to live here. People come for all kinds of reasons, for some its because they lack opportunities back home, for others its because of various hardships. Others come seeking freedom from oppression while others seek a better standard of living. Though it was a simple explanation for a young mind, it still seems to me to be on the mark. And as long as Canadians value cultural pluralism, they value themselves, because we are far from being a singular state or people. Many nations come together here, and I would hope said nations aspire to a new human evolution, in which that which unites us takes precedent over that which divides.

Though debate over precisely how to accommodate reasonably and rationally continue, we mustn’t shy away from the challenge. Too many people in this nation seem to be of the mind that if it can’t be done quickly and efficiently, it shouldn’t be done at all. Others feel that the time spent integrating immigrants into Canadian society is in and of itself a risk to national stability, though I’d counter such people are contrarians by design. As our world gets smaller, the nations which are pan-national must lead the way – in philosophy inasmuch as policy.

The ACS will be holding a conference on March 28th in Montréal where we’ll be discussing these issues and others at great length. Should have a video on-line in a few weeks – stay tuned.

Huffington Post Canada’s Eric Grenier would have us believe “Canadians Feel Country Would Be Just Fine without Quebec.” (March 16th, 2012). On the basis of a Leger Marketing survey Grenier’s report states that “a majority of Canadians outside Quebec think the country would fare just as well or better without the Francophone province”. It is wrong to suggest that Canadians are “just fine with the idea” on the basis of them thinking the rest of the country would “fare just as well” if Quebec separated. The use of the term “just fine” which is not in the specific survey question suggests Canadians approve the idea. In fact another question in the same Leger marketing poll suggests that they don’t approve with only 16 per cent of Canadians in the rest of the country wanting Quebec to become a separate country.

The problem is that the question around which the Huffington story title builds its conclusion is misleading. For every Canadian that thinks the rest of Canada would be better off without Quebec (18%) nearly two believe it would be worse off (34%). It is not methodologically sound to associate the percentage saying we would fare just as well with those saying that we would be better off. It might be suggested that, as formulated, the replies to the survey question at issue suggest twice to the survey respondents that all will be fine if Quebec left the country and once that it would be worse off. In this case, the reporter should have analyzed the question more carefully rather than providing credibility to a provocative story title.

Canada is not only one of the oldest countries in the world, it is also one of the oldest and most stable democracies too.

That said, what constitutes our founding as an independent country is up for debate. I prefer using the date of Confederation as our point of origin as a modern democracy, though admittedly some would argue the Statute of Westminster is more appropriate, given that our country’s sovereignty was limited prior to 1931 (though how much of this was voluntary is a matter of debate; much like our Southern neighbours, we pursued a generally non-interventionist foreign policy for some time prior to the Second World War). Others would argue that we didn’t gain full sovereignty until 1982 when Trudeau patriated the Constitution and put the Charter into effect, though I would say this is a bit much given that we had been a key middle power and global leader for more than forty years prior.

All that said, for all intents and purposes we may as well work with a starting date of 1867. And as such, we’re one of the oldest stable democracies in the entire world. This is something to be immensely proud of, for far too many other nations have succumbed to civil war, insurrections, political upheaval and the like – few have been able to make it 145 years without having at least one major internal conflict, fewer still have been able to go this long without enacting draconian laws to limit personal freedoms at one point or another. Our country was created based on politically enlightened principles which place an over-whelming emphasis on the development of personal freedoms and the inter-action and integration of diverse ideas, cultures and identities into a fluid, pluralist, evolutionary society.

Not bad for 1867 eh?

And there’s more too. Consider that the Canada that was created in 1867 was already a ‘post-modern, multi-national nation’ in that a core component of our national identity was cultural integration. Whether you want to trace the roots of this concept as far back as the Great Peace of Montreal (1701) or the initial settlement of Quebec by the French (between 1534 and 1642), it was clear from the beginning that, in order for New France and the colonists to succeed, they would have to co-operate with the already established First Nations peoples. Moreover, Northern Canada has been inhabited for at least 26,000 years, while permanent settlement in Southern Canada exceeds 10,000 years – meaning that by the time of European Contact, Canada had already been home to hundreds, if not thousands of cultures and nations. Furthermore, democracy in Canada pre-dates Confederation by a considerable margin, given that the Iroquois had already established their own confederation over a century prior to European colonization.

In other words – democracy, co-operation and cultural integration are as ‘Canadian’ as hockey, double-doubles and progressive politics – it’s in our blood, so to speak.

In an era defined by the apparently new discussion of cultural accommodation, minority rights and the endless debate between the competing philosophies of multiculturalism and interculturalism, I find it comforting to know that we have hundreds of years’ worth of pertinent experience to look back on for answers to our present ‘problems’.

Now if only we could find it in ourselves to recognize the inherent value of the history of our society. With a country as old as ours, we have more answers in our own past experience than many of us care to acknowledge. Our national humility is a great asset, but we should turn it down a bit – I think – at least so as to find potential solutions to whatever difficulties we currently struggle with. One need look no further than the floral arrangement at the base of the Coat of Arms for inspiration – the intertwined ‘national flowers’ of the French, Irish, Scots and English, a bouquet of ‘founding peoples’. It’s unfortunate that there are, at present, no symbols representing our First Nations peoples, though I can imagine a future incarnation of the Arms may include such symbols. Regardless, I still think this idea is novel – call it a 19th century Euro-centric interculturalism if you wish, I call it a necessary first step, an innovation.

We have every right to be proud of the multi-national ‘nation’ we live in – we’re creating its evolution every day.

So this blog is going to be far more regularly up-dated from here on in.

And to start, a neat video from a recent ACS forum concerning the difficulties of teaching Canadian and Quebec history outside their ‘traditional’ realms.

McGill University professor Desmond Morton points out what we already know, but rarely realize the implications of – history education at the primary and secondary level is designed and determined by provincial governments and not a centralized, federal historical over-sight committee. Moreover, curricula is more often than not determined by the government, and not necessarily by education professionals or historians. Compounding the issue is that Canadian history is a vast and expansive field of study in which provincial histories play a significant role, though not always an equitable role.

So as we can see there are some over-lapping and potentially frustrating issues which all seem to be inter-related. The crucial issue discussed in this forum is how to bring Quebec history into the classrooms of other provinces and how to make Canadian history more integral within the context of history taught in Quebec.

Aside from linguistic difficulties, there is also simple fact that Quebec is considerably ‘older’ (and thus has more history to cover) than other provinces. Whereas the majority of provinces’ individual histories don’t extend much farther than the 18th or 19th century, the history of Quebec, it can be argued, goes back at least as far as the moment of European ‘discovery’ in the early-mid 16th century. Further, for that precise reason, Quebec takes a position of prominence within Canadian history which is seldom fully appreciated. After all, for all the talk of the implications of the Conquest, without the preceding 150 years or so of the history of New France, there wouldn’t have been anything to conquer in the first place!

In addition, there are competing visions of what constitutes the national historical narrative. Is Canadian history limited by Confederation? In one sense yes – what came before was not Canada, but rather the British (and prior to that French) empires. Canada is a product of 18th century European conflicts, and yet we’re also cognizant we’re more than that too. And as well we should – regardless of what happened in 1759, 1776, 1812 or 1837, a nascent Canadian identity was evolving in the earliest years of colonization (and I might add, this new cultural identity owes a lot to the interactions between the colonists and the many First Nations peoples who were already living here). So then there are Canadians who pre-date Canada, and a history which stretches far beyond what most Canadians view as “their history.”

You can imagine the difficulties this may create for a history teacher trying to get high-school students to internalize a comprehensive understanding of Canadian history from multiple perspectives, especially when Canada’s colonial era is largely defined by the interactions of the French and First Nations. The primary source documents we have from that era are principally written in French, and thus more accessible to Francophone Canadians than Canadians in general.

In any event – fascinating forum and some very interesting speakers.

Enjoy. Even if you’re not a history major or an education professional, you’ll surely find this to be a compelling introspection.

This month, Executive Director Jack Jedwab participated in a number of international symposiums on multiculturalism, bringing some Canadian perspectives and approaches to the issue in such diverse places as Trinidad & Tobago, China and Argentina.

November kicked off, however, with the ACS’ largest yearly gathering: its annual conference, this time held in conjunction with the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association under the title Ethnicity, Governance and Social Justice: Linking Canada to the World. Running concurrently was our National History Conference, organized this year in partnership with the Ontario History and Social Sciences Teachers’ Association.

Held on November 5 and 6 at the Holiday Inn Toronto International Airport Hotel, the history conference brought together educators, policy-makers, and leading academics from across the country to discuss a range of education issues tied to its central theme, “Canada’s Diverse Histories.” Over 400 people attended the two-day event, which featured talks by such prominent Canadians as the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Honourable Eva Aariak, premier of Nunavut, and Clément Chartier, president of the Métis National Council.

Below you can find photos from both events along with mp3 recordings of select conferences sessions.

Listen to Prof. Ryan’s address

Prof. Phillip Ryan (Carleton University) gives his opening address at the ACS Annual Conference on Friday November 5.

Dr. Raymond Théberge (Assistant Deputy Minister, French Language, Aboriginal Learning and Research Division, Ontario Ministry of Education) addresses the audience at the plenary session of the ACS/OHASSTA History Conference. From left to right: Dr. Raymond Théberge, Prof. Dominique Clément (University of Alberta), Roberta Jamisen (CEO of the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation), Jean Augustine (Fairness Commissioner of Ontario), Prof. Phillip Ryan (Carleton University & author of “Multicultiphobia”)

Listen to Jean’s address.

Jean Augustine (Fairness Commissioner of Ontario) speaks at the ACS/OHASSTA History Conference’s plenary session on the morning of November 5.

Jean Teillet (Teillet and Associates, Vancouver B.C.) gives a presentation on the history of the Métis at a history conference session entitled “Aboriginal Peoples and Social Movements.”

OHASSTA President Jan Haskings-Winner presents a paper at a history conference session entitled “Gender and Herstory.” To her left is Prof. Gail Cuthbert Brandt (University of Waterloo) and to her right, Prof. Jane Errington (Royal Military College/Queen’s University).

Listen to an excerpt from this session

History conference delegate John Myers (O.I.S.E., University of Toronto) speaks at a session entitled “The Intersection of History and Public Policy: Background, Commemoration and Apology.” Beside him are Dr. Dean Oliver (Senior Historian, Canadian War Museum) and the Honourable Herbert Marx, past president of the ACS.

The Honourable Herbert Marx chairs the history conference session entitled “The Intersection of History and Public Policy: Background, Commemoration and Apology.” Beside him is conference delegate Dr. Hector Mackenzie, Senior Historian at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

ACS Executive Director Jack Jedwab speaks at a history conference session entitled “The Future of Multiculturalism.” His co-panelists were Prof. Wil Kymlicka (Queens University) and Prof. Phil Triadafilopoulos (University of Toronto).

Prof. Wil Kymlicka from Queens University participates in the panel “The Future of Multiculturalism,” part of the ACS/OHASSTA History Conference held on November 5 and 6 in Toronto.

Listen to the full presentation

Co-panelists Jack Jedwab (ACS Executive Director) and Prof. Wil Kymlicka (Queens University) present at the history conference session “The Future of Multiculturalism.”

From left to right, co-panelists Irina Sytcheva (Schizophrenia Society of Ontario), Maria Veronica Caparas (University of Alberta), and Dr. Aya Fujiwara (McMaster University) present at the session entitled “Migration Challenges.” Not seen here is panelist Jill Bucklaschuk from the University of Manitoba.

Holly Ann Garnett from Queens University presents her paper “George Grant and Quebec Nationalism” at an annual conference session entitled “Territory and Nation Building.” To her right is session chair Jean Teillet (Teillet and Associates). To listen to a recording of the full conference session, follow the link in the caption below.

Listen to a recording of the conference

At the annual conference session entitled “Territory and Nation Building,” Hidetaka Hirota from Boston College presents his paper on the re-location of North American Irish migrants in the nineteenth century. To listen to a recording of the full conference session with Holly Ann Garnett (Queens University), Patrick Lacroix (Cowansville, Quebec), and Olga Marques and Lisa Monchalin (University of Ottawa), click on the audio file.