August 01, 2006
An exchange from the cyf-talk listserv...
> I'm leaning towards organizing the entire course around the question
> of Canadian Identity. Do we have one? What is it? Is it important?
> Does it make sense to speak of a national identity? And so on.
Each person will answer these questions differently. I can first provide my own coles notes take on the subject. Canada is not, in my view, a 'nation' in the political science glossary sense of the word. There have been numerous attempts since the late 1960s to artificually create a sense of Canadian nationalism. While there are pockets where it might now have some roots and some followers whose view of the country depends on staying blissfully ignorant re several big chapters of Canadian history, for the most part this effort has not only failed, it has polarized Canada in many ways.
*A Legal History professor at Dal Law used to quip that the difference between Canada and the United States was that in the United States, the people showed up and decided what kind of government they wanted whereas in Canada, the government showed up and decided what kind of people they wanted.*
On many levels, this is the situation, or (if you're of my view on the matter), the problem! I always loved even the difference in how the two constitutions begin. . . "We the people . . . " and so on right on up to the top authority, versus "Canada is a nation under God. . . . " and right on down to a point where you might even find reference to a regular individual! Now to be more positive. Canada is a federation. This doesn't mean it isn't a good country. This doesn't mean it's weaker. This doesn't mean there isn't something even more impressive inherent in the building blocks of the federation. Indeed, Canada the federation is a much more unique and promising concept than Canada the nation. Canada the federation has more potential. The last 30-40 years of federal politics has been marked by the struggle between those who see the potential and those who feel the need to rail against and exterminate anything that doesn't fall into line with post-expo-67 "CA-NA-DA-ism" [sing it to the tune of that dreadful expo anthem] If you want insights into the nature of Canada, as well as some much-needed explosion of the Ottawacentric orthodoxies about Canada and the people and how they are/were governed and came to be here, I suggest the following reading list."First Nations, Second Thoughts" by Tom Flanagan. Skewers all the left fed entitlemania.
- "Misconceiving Canada: The Struggle for National Unity" by Kenneth McRobarts. [turns most of what Canadians heard about unity from their simplistic Trudeauite Canadian nationalist heroes on its head. Does so with piercing logic and solid grasp of empirical fact]
"Thirty Million Musketeers" by Gordon Gibson. Another great slice into the Ottawa orthodoxy on Canada. From a more specific perspective of somebody from Newfoundland and Labrador, I recommend you take a gander at some of the defining texts that establish how most NLers see themselves and Canada.http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/royalcomm/
- "Our Place in Canada" Report of the 2003 Royal Commission on NL's place in Canada.
"Surviving Confederation" by F.L Jackson http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Surviving_Confederation-A_Revised_and_Extended_Version_of_Newfoundland_in_Canada/0921191022/ As well as the books that show us the depth of some of the provinces that centralizers of the Trudeau/Chretien school would so quickly dismiss as meaningless:
- "More than a Poor Majority: The Story of Newfoundland's Confederationwith Canada" by Bren Walsh
"Newfoundland and Dominion Status" by William C. Gillmore "Newfoundland at the Crossroads: Documents on Confederation with Canada." Ed. J.E. Fitzgerald.
> I want the students to keep this question in mind while we tackle a
> number of different, more specific, issues. Here is a rough list of
> the more broad categories, with sub-headings:
> I. Canadian Politics and Government Public Policy
> Question: Is there a "Canadian" approach to policy?
Unless it is some shorthand on pluralism and federalism and hopefully 'subsidiarity,' no, not really. I'd also mention the outward & inward looking work of Don Mazankowski's 2002 commission on this file as well as the writings of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. . . http://www.aims.ca/healthcare.asp?typeID=1&fd=0And the work of Dr. David Gratzer ("Code Blue" & "Better Medicine"), Brian Lee Crowley ("Definitely NOT the Romanow Report"), Johan Hjertdvist, Fred McMahon, Martin Zelder, and Dr. David Zitner. A final bullet on this subject -- Tommy Douglas supported user fees!
Excerpt from a speech given by Tommy Douglas, October 13, 1961, to a Special Session of the Saskatchewan Legislature. "I want to say that I think there is a value in having every family and every individual make some individual contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility. I would say to the members of this House that even if we could finance the plan without a per capita tax, I personally would strongly advise against it. I would like to see the per capita tax so low that it is merely a nominal tax, but I think there is a psychological value in people paying something for their cards. It is something which they have bought; it entitles them to certain services. We should have the constant realization that if those services are abused and costs get out of hand, then of course the cost of the medical care is bound to go up."
For the best stuff from Canadians, I'd recommend Brian Lee Crowley and Fred McMahon. They tear Maude Barlowe and company apart on their assumptions about NAFTA, FTA, WTO etc... The crazy part about that is the fact that we've stalled and we still have a ridiculously large government footprint on the economy. This is as good a place as any to consider discussing the use by the Liberals/NDP/Red Tories of the United States as the bogeyman example of what would happen if Canada became any more economically free. American students should get a laugh out of that.
> II. Regionalism
> Question: Do Canadians identify more with their region than with the nation?
72% of NLers see themselves as Newfoundlanders or Labradorians first and foremost. Less than a quarter saw themselves as "Canadian" first. http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/royalcomm/research/pdf/ryan.pdf
The more interesting discussion is about whether this is such a bad thing. I think it's a positive and quite understandable thing. I'd recommend you also consider whether most people who advocate Quebec Independence would define themselves in the near negative (ie "separatism"). As you might expect, I have some difficulty with discussing the Newfoundland and Labrador experience in Confederation in context of "Atlantic Canadian," given the artificiality of that concept in any other sense except the greater "Atlantica" region's long history of economic connectivity. There is some commonality between the Maritime provinces' political culture. Even then, It's tough to lump these folks together. That said, I'm an MA candidate for "Atlantic Canada Studies," so I obviously didn't think the concept was completly without utility. On Newfoundland and Labrador nationalism and distinctiveness, see the texts I mentioned earlier. For history, try "As Near to Heaven by Sea" by Kevin Major and "Newfoundland in the North Atlantic World" by Peter Neary. On Atlantic Canada history, the greatest resources come from St. Marys University's Gorsebrook Institute.
> III. Parties and System - Liberal Party hegemony
I'd insert something in here about the effect of the hegemony on even the policy and leadership development in the Tory party. Dilution of conservatism. Trojan horse politics. I'd also mention some of the personality/leader worship that affects our politics and leaves us with less ideas based politics. If there's time, try to remind them that the pre-1982 provincial and federal civil rights legislation in tandem with SCC civil rights jurisprudence was leading to a quite eloquent system of rights protection and already surpassed most of what existed in the world at that time. It did so protecting a greater range of rights -- including property rights.
Hope this helps. Give me a shout if you have any specific inforequests re NL or anything else.
For more information about cyf-talk, contact lizbradshaw@sympatico.ca
To add other members - have them email cyf-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com