Let me wrap up this week with a topic that confuses me more and more. Like many, I am an immigrant to this fine country. I did not go to school here to learn Canadian history, and it means little to me, and most recent immigrants. I came here in 1986 when I was 26 to do my MBA. I saw it as a wonderful way to broaden my horizon. I met a wonderful young woman in 1987 in Edmonton, and, as they say, the rest is history. I had a wonderfully successful career and the kids are now well off into their professional (medical) careers – a testament to Canada’s economic environment to turn a poor immigrant into a success and to its superior education system.
I love Canada. It has many positive attributes. Many though have to do with geography, such as oceans, beaches, river, Rocky Mountains, Whistler, Banff, Prairies .. to me mainly the word “space” comes to mind as a key differentiator between Canada and other (often far more crowded) countries. Canada has more space, more forest, more oil, more water, more coastline, more wheat and more land per capita than any nation on earth. It easily can hold 100M people, or more. People, meh, they are very similar wherever you go: idiots, loners, weird ones, brilliant ones, outgoing ones, curious ones, loving ones, rich ones, poor ones, caring ones, self absorbed ones, liberals, conservatives, greens, ugly or good looking ones, lazy or ambitious ones .. similar to wherever you go .. never have I seen a true “Canadian” persona or trait that I might not have encountered in the other many countries I spent time in.
It used to be that I thought Canada was not as capitalistic or raw as the US and not as socialist as Europe, a good blend basically. But it is becoming alarmingly more like Europe in my opinion. Canada’s laws and social systems are already very similar to the EU nations and will likely approach its very high taxes, artificially high energy prices, high debt levels and thus, reduced economic opportunities soon, too.
However, with more and more immigrants, roughly 300,000/year, and many ethnic groups concentrating on certain regions or parts of regions I wonder more and more what is means to be “a Canadian” besides that you carry a passport, obey the specific laws and pay certain taxes here.
Trudeau was asked about this this week in the US and described Canada as the first post-national country. Story here. He is quoted as saying: ‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’
What are Canadian values ? Is our Prime Minster right that it is “openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice.” Or is this just the usual politically correct mushy stuff one says, as this certainly applies to many Europeans, Asians or even Americans (both north, central and south) ?
Looking at this blog here, many people take offense to certain things I or some other folks say. Is this the opposite of “openness” ? Is this un-Canadian ?
Many folks come here for the passport as they escape a corrupt regime. Many have 2 or more passports. Is it true that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, or is it more true that some Canadians get special rights (indigenous people) while others with dual-nationalities should be stripped (but are now not) of a citizenship if they commit hideous crimes ?
Many more, most perhaps, come to better their economic well being. Some come because their religious beliefs are oppressed were they came from. Now they’re here, what makes them Canadian ? Do they have to change their dress, culture or language ? Anything goes ?
Is English or French speaking a requirement to be Canadian as many immigrants speak little, if any, of it and live in their ethnic enclave, often for decades. In Richmond now, some shops sprout a sign “we speak English”. Are they actually Canadian, or just their offspring that typically goes to school here, learns English (or French), some Canadian history (that is irrelevant to many in their cultural context) and becomes bi-lingual or even alienated from their parents’ home (like my children who speak a passable German but go there only as tourists) ?
Is Vancouver more Canadian as it has more Asians or Toronto, as it is ethnically far more diverse (for example it has more black people and more Muslims) ? Or is it Nanaimo, Halifax or Saskatoon as they are more “white” which was the historic make-up of immigrants until the 1970’s by and large ? Or should we not even talk about this as “race” allegedly matters not ? Race matters, as you see it in your face, but no on talks about it. Why is that ? Are we afraid to be called the apartheid nation again as we treat our indigenous people different than the rest ? Are they the truest Canadians ? Or do we just hush it, as we are polite, you know, Canadian i.e. not American, Scottish, Dutch or Germans who are brash, direct and loud ?
Or is the true multitude of races, living relatively peaceful amongst each other, the greatest of all Canadian attributes ? I.e. the diversification ? Our humbleness ? Our acceptance or tolerance of other people’s styles, smells, behaviors and dresses ?
How does our housing and taxation policies play into this ? Do we tax foreign homeowners or affluent immigrants enough in housing related taxes, on acquisition, while holding or on exit ? Or do we simply ignore locals’ inability to buy houses in Vancouver because we let in too much foreign money or too many immigrants with money to drive tax revenue and housing related job growth ? Is this Canadian ? We care more for folks coming than folks here already ?
Does a nation actually matter anymore as many, especially affluent and intellectually superior people with transferable skills, like doctors, nurses, teachers, architects, real estate investors, lawyers, jewelers or plumbers can move from place to place to sell their skills to the highest bidder or in their location preference ?
What is a typical Canadian meal ? What is typical Canadian architecture ? Or a Canadian accent ? A Canadian dress code ?
What is typical Canadian street and urban design ? Are we a mere clone of our British heritage, as we see in the absence of pedestrian malls in Vancouver, or are we a mish-mash of whatever goes ?
Has the “nation” of Canada become less and less relevant, and individual and/or regions/cities become more important ?
What does it mean to you, to be Canadian ?
“Is Vancouver more Canadian as it has more Asians or Toronto, as it is ethnically far more diverse (for example it has more black people and more Muslims) ? Or is it Calgary, Nanaimo, Halifax or Saskatoon as they are more “white” which was the historic make-up of immigrants until the 1970’s by and large ? Or should we not even talk about this as “race” allegedly matters not ? Race matters, as you see it in your face, but no on talks about it. Why is that ? Are we afraid to be called the apartheid nation again as we treat our indigenous people different than the rest ? Are they the truest Canadians ? Or do we just hush it, as we are polite, you know, Canadian i.e. not American who are brash and loud ?”
Thomas you are tripping across the sidewalk cracks abit….if we wish to talk about race and being Canadian:
What on earth does race have to do with being Canadian or proper definition of “Canadian”? I like the multiplicity of Canadian identities. It makes Canada far stronger and far more flexible as a society long term, compared to other countries.
Does speaking English or French well, define one as a Canadian? It helps, but is that the best definition?
Or is it strong loyalty and commitment to Canada as reflected by contributing to society and its economy in the following hard way:
*a non-English, non-French speaking Canadian parent who raises their children in Canada to become law-abiding, working citizens to contribute to Canadian society and economy. This is my mother. All her 6 children are born and raised on this soil, university educated in Canada and working here. (My father was bilingual.) Is she LESS a Canadian? Has she wasted our Canadian social network support systems? Shall we send her back to China because she can’t speak English?
*non-English, non-French speaking Canadians who bought home in Canada, lived in it, kept property in good condition, and paid property taxes. Are these Canadians “less” Canadian?
*non-English, non-French speaking CAnadians who haven’t gone back to their ancestral family’s country. These are my parents: in their 20’s, they left China. They never returned. They couldn’t afford the trip cost and later, when we offered to pay their trip, they didn’t want to go. (Communists had radically changed their village lands, people were physically hurt during the height of Mao in 1960’s-1970s).
As for all the fears of Chinese speaking only folks in Richmond: Get a grip. Ask for bilingual signs but be patient in change: Their children who enter into the Canadian school system must learn English (or French if they are in Quebec). Assimilation is one powerful god. The process can be fast and natural. I can attest to this one:
Born in Hamilton, ON. Entered into kindergarten in shock because I didn’t know any English. Now I can barely hold a simple everyday conversation in Chinese. It’s pretty sad.
And with my partner Jack, who does speak German (the true immigrant, born in Germany), I know how poor my fluency is when we play word translation games.
Author
Well said.
Is the true multitude of races, living relatively peaceful amongst each other, the greatest of all Canadian attributes ? I.e. the diversification ?
Peaceful diversification does not adequately describe being a Canadian. After all, there are immigrants living in ie. Norway, Spain, Italy…
Many of the other European and Asian countries may tend to think of bloodlines and hence others whose family roots aren’t the same as their own country, makes them viewed as ‘less’ of a citizen in spirit there.
More telling is the relationship between non-aboriginal Canadians and aboriginal Canadians, in terms of identity and what we feel in spirit.
Author
These countries mentioned have not nearly as many immigrants as a % of society as we do. What are “Canadian values” as opposed to say “American values” ? Is a Canadian just an American without guns and socialized healthcare with a better school system ? Or is there more to it ?
What integration, if any, do we expect from adult immigrants as they often, as you stated, do not speak a lot of either English nor French, dress in their original garbs, attend unusual religious institutions and generally hang only in their social circle of other immigrants. is this normal, i.e. do we expect only the children of these immigrants to be “Canadian” as they went through the school system like my kids did ? At least I speak & write the language impeccably well and pay income taxes, unlike some immigrants. What do we expect from immigrants ? Nothing, besides obeying the written laws ?
Jean, yours sounds like a fairly typical Canadian immigrant story. Those experiences were shared by groups as diverse as Ukrainian families in the early 19th century, post-war Germans and Jamaicans who came to Canada in the 1970’s. I think the fear about the current wave of Chinese immigration is that there isn’t the same commitment to Canada. The father continues to work in China and the mother and children spend the school years here. Whether that is just a stereotype or a significant driver of housing costs is still open to debate.
Thomas, I’ve noticed this in your posts elsewhere; you seem to think that native people here have “special rights”. That’s a rather biased way of describing their rights. Here’s the history behind what’s going on.
In the 19th century people from Europe spread over the continent and displaced the native people from the lands they occupied, using various degrees of force. In most of Canada they were persuaded to sign treaties in which they gave up their claim to those lands in return for certain benefits.
But here west of the Rockies, no such treaties were ever signed. So from one point of view we (you, me, all those other people) are illegal immigrants. However money and power speak for themselves so we’re staying here. What happened later was that several native groups managed to convince the courts that even though they didn’t have pieces of paper and little white stakes in the ground to prove they owned certain areas, their oral histories could be taken as reasonable evidence that they “owned” them.
This still isn’t ownership as we would understand it, because it meant that at certain times they would use those territories in certain ways. But it gave them the right to be “consulted” when we want to use that land in other ways which might conflict with the limited rights they have. And it gave them the right to be compensated when those limited rights had been violated in the past. Note that none of this is because they are native people, it’s because they are people who have some historical rights over a particular area. You may have noticed people saying that you live in “unceded Musqueam territory” — this is what they’re talking about, and it’s why they get to acquire pieces of land in your neighbourhood to develop. Or why they get salmon fishing quotas that you or I couldn’t get.
Of course this concept of “consultation” is a recipe for never-ending wrangling in the courts, as no doubt you’ve noticed. It’s a political football for sure but both teams will play the game. But it’s the Canadian way — we’re happy to leave things ambiguous rather than having a knock-down battle to clarify them.
Author
I see two groups here with different rights. Very un-Canadian to me. Very racist in fact. Some “nations” with more rights than others. Unclear what the goal here is of this perpetual dependency and approach with different rights. 1/4 blood and you are Meti and have more rights. 1/8s .. sorry you do not. That is a great solution ?
No, both groups have the same rights. If you own some land then you should get to have a say about what happens on that land. Don’t get blinded by the fact the two groups are of different “races”, that’s not the reason why these things were done.
Look at it this way: suppose that 100 years ago the government had taken the land from some people, and now it was finally determined that the government should make some restitution to those people and their descendants. Sounds reasonable enough, no? But when you reject that proposal because the people in question are indigenous people, that starts to look like a racist attitude.
It’s true that intermarriage between indigenous and non-natives leads to confusion. In principle you should be able to say that you’re a descendant of the people whose land was taken and therefore you should be in on the restitution part as well, but in practice it gets messy. Doesn’t mean that the whole process is wrong though.
As for the perpetual dependency part, yeah, that’s pretty ugly. There’s more history behind that but it’s too long to go into here. But I think that the third generation after residential schools is starting to turn things around. You’ll notice that indigenous groups have bought a big stake in the former Jericho military lands, so they have money now and are on course to get more money. One can hope that the cycle of dependency might be coming to an end.
Author
No problem with the land part. But is is far more than that. We can’t give them land AND perpetual $s. Are they adhering to the same laws, or just some of them ? Yes, grave injustices were done 100-200+ years ago – like so many folks that had to leave – Mennonites, Japanese farmers, Ukranians .. many of whom lost everything and came with nothing.
Many immigrants – now Canadians for a year or 5 or 12 or 35 or 120 – care little about the Canadian history, the British-French thing, planes of Abraham, the natives, the alleged or real injustices .. it means nothing to them. is this Canadian ?
Europe 1946: North America turns to the destroyed continent across the water and says ‘Shit happens, suck it buttercup. No Marshall Plan for you.’
Fast forward to 2016 – dateline Brussels: European warlord and dictator Francois Meanyman recently announced a further reduction in human flesh rations as stocks of cadavers have reached a new low. Ongoing food riots are being reported in major centres, while the continent continues to grapple with the fall-out of the events of World War II.
The continent you grew up on benefited greatly from stolen resources from stolen native land Thomas, both before and after the 2 world wars. Billions of other people’s money… not reparations for a historic wrong, but simple human compassion (when it wasn’t outright theft). Be thankful your homeland wasn’t given the same treatment indigenous people suffered here. Pay it forward. On a just planet the countries of Europe would be helping North America buy back its right to claim some semblance of justice for all.
cheers,
CK
What?
Interesting – you see Canada as becoming more like Europe, I see it becoming much more like the U.S. Canada has drifted away from the strength of it’s original federation, as regions have become more powerful more distinct, and more divided. The only way countries with Canada’s political system survive is with a powerful federal government. Our federal powers are being weakened by austerity – Ottawa used to fund healthcare 50%, and demand standard care across the nation. Federal govt now funds 15%, and coverage is starting to vary in painful ways – e.g. insulin pumps. Canada’s regions have different economic prospects and life is very different within the same country. Substantial immigration to a few major cities is another source of friction and division.
Canada has long been a sellout nation – resources up for grabs. At a time of less technology and strong unions, ordinary people got something in return for the sellout to outside capital. Well paid jobs, security, a pension and benefit scheme. Now that capital has replaced labour, we see the true sellout of the majority of people that three levels of government are busily engaged in. When the resources are gone, the high paying resource extraction and processing jobs that have already seen their best days, we will be left with environmental cleanup costs and little else. Some lifestyle cities, ecotourism perhaps? Manufacturing is continuing to die a slow death. Becoming more like Europe? Europe has 4 – 6 weeks holidays for all workers by law, full medical, full dental, better pensions. Canada doesn’t even come close, outside of the shrinking union sector. We are moving in the direction of the U.S., a nation of crap jobs, shrinking middle class and concentration of income wealth and political power.
Our values unite us as Trudeau claims. A middle path between America’s failed dream and the socialist Europeans is dying under a public dialogue of resentment and division as you rightly point out. Yet Canada’s decency of values attracts people who would otherwise go to Europe or the U.S. Perhaps Canada is not sustainable, if we don’t care enough to unite under our common values.
Author
What are our common values ?
Being polite ? Having public (free) healthcare ? Strong unions ? Decent school system (for free) ? Stopping at crosswalks ? Queueing for the bus or Tim Horton’s ? High taxes ? GST [ Americans don’t have a federal GST and if they had one their deficit would be gone; Europeans have often a combined PST+GST of over 20% ] ? A more worldly outlook as there are so many immigrants from so many nations here ? As such, our acceptance or tolerance of other people’s styles, smells, behaviors and dresses ? Being more civil ? What ?
The point of my post was that I honestly do not know anymore what these “Canadian” values are .. and perhaps that the idea of a “nation” becomes less and less relevant, and individual and/or regions/cities become more important.
Some thoughts on the search for what it means to be Canadian.
It is seen more clearly by our defining national moment when British North America divided in two. The US calls this the Revolutionary War but it was actually a Civil War. The United States had been formed in the 1600s as English Colonies. In 1707, a radical transformation took place in which England, Scotland, Wales and later Ireland were politically unified. At that time these countries were very different – different languages, religions and cultures. They called the result British – many distinct ethnicities living under one political union. ‘British’ did not have an ethnic meaning but rather a constitutional meaning.
The Canadian Colonies were established as British Colonies in the 1700s. The US and Canada have continued to reflect this English Monoculture versus British Multiculture. King George III did several things which upset the Monoculture colonies. His Proclamation of 1763 reigned in aggressive settlers by recognizing the rights of native people in their lands. The legal power of native people in British Columbia is based on this Proclamation. In 1772 all American slaves were emancipated in Britain. This turned the powerful American slave owning class against the King. Remember that 41 out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves while many of the others supported slavery. But the Americans formally blamed the Revolution on the Quebec Act of 1774 which recognized the French language and Catholic religion. They called this an ‘Intolerable Act’.
The US embraced the ideology that the majority monoculture should be able to make the rules for the minority. Of the three major ethnicities, the Europeans in the US enslaved the Africans and ethnically cleansed the North Americans from their lands using democratic processes. Canada remained loyal to the British Constitutional formula inspired by Aristotle and other philosophers, that there should be three balanced governmental forms, a ‘mixed government’. The traditional form i.e. Monarchy, the deliberative form i.e. Appointed Senate and the democratic House of Commons. All people had a right to live under the ‘King’s Peace’ of protection regardless of identity.
Hope this history helps.
Thank you for the context. But, that was a LONG time ago. My point is that many immigrants come from a different context, and if they come as adults, like me, they do not identify or do not know the long British-French-Amercian contextual history .. and often care less.
The question is TODAY: what does it mean to be Canadian, as we bring in 3,000,000 new folks every decade ?
I think it is an illusion, cooked up in the French-English speaking ivory tower in bi-lingual Ottawa and Montreal, that this history is somehow relevant to immigrants. I have met many (now) Canadians in Vancouver who have never been east of the Fraser Valley, i.e. Okanagon, let alone Alberta or Prairies, or even Ontario or Quebec. This history means NOTHING to many folks living in MetroVan. It may mean more if you live in Montreal, perhaps.
Thomas, while true the historic context was a long time ago, you are ignoring the fact that history remains relevant through the movement of time. My grandparents arrived from Eastern Europe in 1902 with the same perceptions you did, but with very limited economic opportunity and no English skills. They thrived through backbreaking homesteading and their descendants have now become part of the Canadian miliue.
This is Canada’s story, regardless of when immigrants arrive. It is a process, and it often takes a generation or two to bear fruit from the opportunities presented to them.
Regarding indigenous people, it was the opposite. Their opportunities and existence were stolen and their children were illegally confiscated against their will and placed in the residential school system in which the government and the church did their damnedest to erase their culture and identities, and abused perhaps half as a sideshow. The recovery has only just begun now, three generations later.
As Chris pointed out, Germany would not be the Germany we know today if it wasn’t for the Marshall Plan that rebuilt it after 13 years of Nazi rule. Canada’s Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and several supreme court decisions are our collective Marshall Plan for aboriginals
I think that the history should have relevance to newcomers for today. That Canada is not a typical nation state of one approved culture/language and that the concept of British has a constitutional meaning of ‘many cultures under one political union’, that the founding idea of loyalty to certain values like a special place for the first people and government by the majority is one but not the only consideration for decisions. But newcomers will have to reinterpret the stories to try to find relevance for themselves…
Author
Hence my blog post. History ” should” mean something but to many economic migrants it does not, especially in W-Canada, the fastest growing region in Canada. Most adult immigrants get taught nothing about this history, and unless you live in a bi-lingual part of ON, NB or Quebec it means little, if any. So if history doesn’t make you Canadian then what does ?
Is the idea of a nation actually still relevant ?
You raise some excellent points Thomas. Many, many, excellent points.
Going back to the historical notes that Sam raised we read about important issues that cannot be ignored forever, even though they are better left alone to simmer in the background.
When the political structure of Canada was created most of the population was in the east. That’s where the greatest political power was entrenched in both the House and the Senate.
As you say, the west is now the fastest growing. How long before this lack of equitable power upsets the west is a good question. Opening the new, Trudeau the 1st, constitution to redress and update the balances of power is not something any government wants to do, particularly because of 1982 amending formula, known as the unanimity formula, is extremely difficult to achieve.
So, we are left with an officially bilingual federal civil service and federally chartered corporations, with unilingual provinces (excepting little New Brunswick, with around 700,000 people and shrinking). It seems glaringly obvious that Canada will never be anywhere near a bilingual country but nobody would risk saying so. This is another reason the political power rests primarily within the historical cradle of Canada.
When Trudeau the 2nd said that there is no true Canadian identity he was not wrong. It has proved to be a strength in itself. Canadian themselves struggle with the question of their identity, often saying state provided health-care is the most important aspect of their country.
The massive wealth of natural resources with the tiny population in this gigantic country is extraordinary. Being next door to the richest world market is also an incredibly favourable place to be. There are, of course, some drawbacks but not of any real consequence. Canadians are some of the luckiest people on the planet.
One day the population in the west will be so large, in comparison with the east and some issue, perhaps federal equalization payments, will arise and it will cause changes to be made. This might happen sooner or later. Meanwhile, we should all be grateful.
Eric, by referring to the “… lack of equitable power …” you are of course ignoring the Federal Government of Alberta that ruled our nation for a decade, ending last Oct 19th. The fact that they couldn’t influence the nation more than they did is no one’s fault but their own.
We may have lots of resources, but exploiting them for export in raw form with little value-added criteria is like blowing an inheritance though no consideration for the intelligence of the beneficiary. Many, many smart prognosticators are worried about our lack of innovation and intellectual property patents, and the lack of economic diversity in several jurisdictions, Alberta being the stand out today. Some have written reports bemoaning the fact Alberta’s petroleum royalties were put directly into the capital and operating budgets instead of into the bank. In essence, Alberta’s “low tax” regime is artificial and subsidized because it’s underpinned by a finite resource subject to volatile world prices. BC’s growth didn’t flinch a bit when oil prices dropped. That is a sign of our healthy and well-diversified economy.
The graphics below illustrate the concern about our over-reliance on fossil fuels, which in Canada is exploited mostly foreign-owned and comprises only 8% of our national economy, and the potential for renewables which is becoming elevated with every passing month that breaks all records for warming:
https://peoplestrusttoronto.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/canadi22.gif
http://www.solarbusinessfocus.com/assets/images/editorial/CanadaSolarMap.jpg
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/renewable-energy-resources/north%20america/Geothermal/canada_files/canada-geothermal.jpg
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/01/100-percent-renewable-energy-Canada.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAYnvC6WgAAzPji.jpg
Author
I love these charts. The energy mix of 2050 is a little optimistic as we still will have plenty of cars, trucks, buses, ships or airplanes that will use so called fossil fuels aka natural oil based products.
We may see more electric energy being produced with many of the forms you show but oil will still be used in 2100 as we use SO MUCH of it today, almost 100,000,000 barrel a day (or over 1000 a second): http://watchdog.org/202798/world-consuming-oil/