The Wilson Centre for Canadian History was privileged to have John H Thompson speak today on “Managing in the Bush Leagues: The Canada-US Relationship since 2001.” Thompson’s lively talk was marked by his personal reflections on what it’s like to be an advising Canadian, one who has moved permanently to the US and on his perspective as a student of United States — Canadian relations from one living in the heart of the beast.
His pithy presentation was enfragranced with a number of well chosen editorial cartoons from both Canadian and American papers and by a couple of rather loaded quotations. His talk was loosely framed by an exploration of the relationship between countries during the presidency of George W Bush, and introduced by a short retrospective of relations between Canadian Prime Ministers and Presidents from Mackenzie King.

Thompson highlights the asymmetry of the relationship summed up in Jeffrey Simpson’s September 2001 observation that “Americans know and care the square root of squat about Canada.” This is not to poke fun at American ignorance in the vein of Rick Mercer’s ‘Talking to Americans,” but rather to state the obvious, that there are very few reasons that would actually motivate Americans to have any greater regard for their neighbour to the North. Resource and military factors aside, he states “Americans and benevolently ignorant of Canada. Canadians are malevolently well informed about the US.” And this pretty much sums it up. We may well be joined at the hip geographically, economically, but on the American radar, we simply don’t figure more prominently than an annoying gnat at times and or a diplomatic afterthought.

To support his argument, Thompson cited the number of occasions in the American press that slights rated high in the Canadian national consciousness went unmentioned. Whether it was references to the Canadian president by sitting presidents or even presidential-hopefuls such as Barak Obama, what makes headlines in Canada infrequently warrants mention in the US. To support the contention that we frame our identity through our animosity towards Americans, he demonstrated that Canadian editorial cartoons rarely present Americans and particularly American presidents a in a positive light.
This is not to say that relations, as demonstrated by the court of public perception, have been static. FDR for example was more widely seen as a heroic and positive leader in the Canadian press, and at times relations between the leaders of our two countries have verged on the cordial (Carter and Trudeau for example). However, Thompson asserts that possibly the most effective relationship was that between Jean Chretien and George W Bush based on an established distance between the countries and didn’t attempt to pretend as though there was a bilateral respect.

He summarized his talk with the advice that there is a great paradox in the Imperial presidency of George W. Bush: he has made himself more important to the nature of the relationship between his country and Canada (or for that matter any other country in the world), but that the summit diplomacy where this would make a difference actually has little or no relevance to the world in which we find ourselves today. Additionally, (and responding to others advice) Canada should wake up and realize that it cannot seek to manage its relations with the US and that any Prime Minister or hopeful that promises to do such is either misguided or mendacious. Finally he cautions that Canada should look out for its national interests and not suffer under any delusion that nations have any friends.

Responding to questions following the talk, Thompson went to great length to affirm that the US medical system is not superior to the Canadian and that by being self-critical we play into the hands of conservative attempts to discredit the Canadian system.

a

The Wilson Centre in Canadian History officially launched an awesome new learning tool destined for the classrooms of local schools last night. The People and the the Bay is an historical environmental documentary created by Nancy Bouchier, Ken Cruikshank and the wizards from Pixel Dust Studios This stunning production brings a vivacity, zest, and probing depth to explore the unique relationship between the Hamilton harbour and the lives of people in the area and the city itself. The occasion was celebrated at the Canada Marine Discovery Centre, a uniquely appropriate site for presenting this production. The centre sits on the harbour and is an interpretative museum dedicated to Canada’s rich aquatic heritage.

Nancy Bouchier, one of the co-authors/presenters of the programme suggests that when most of us think of Hamilton we picture, ” a successful but grimy, industrial city.” The backdrop to this is steel mills, steamers, traffic and smokestacks. But, as Ken Cruikshank, our other guide asserts, it’s much more than this and Hamilton is a city rediscovering its rich heritage by reconnecting to the harbour. Over the next 45 minutes Ken and Nancy bring to life the richness of past connection to Burlington Bay and leave us with a hopeful appreciation for the continued revitalization of the body of water that has been so central to the growth of the area. The natural beauty of the harbour area is highlighted — an aspect of the Hamilton harbour area that is far too easy to miss. You have to walk the trails, sail in the harbour and maybe produce a documentary production, to truly find this beauty. When you immerse yourself in the area you can find it, but it does take effort. It may be easier to do this today, as the DVD conveys, but it is still all too often hidden behind a veil of smog, or camouflaged by industry that scares one away from wanting to get too close. Our commentators do get close to the nature of the harbour. They walk the trails, wander the parks and cemeteries, and in Bouchier’s case canoe the bay to bring a new appreciation to viewers.

Pixel Dust Studios and director Zach Melnick have woven their magic to deliver this amazing historical-environmental documentary. I wax gushingly, but honestly admit that this programme is crafted with a special touch. The cinematography is superbly shot, composed and rendered with original music. They combine historical re-enactments, with stock and historical footage to create an engaging and pertinent production that is testament to their ability not only as filmmakers, but as craftspeople who work with historical material with tremendous sensitivity. The DVD is presented in both SD and HD formats as well, giving the viewer an added visual treat.

It will be valuable to follow the classroom adoption and use of this DVD. As these are distributed to local history teachers for use in their classrooms, the true benefits and impact of the product will be recognized. It has been authored with this use in mind. The duration of the programme is geared towards being able to show within a single class period. It is nicely segmented into short chapters and these can be used to support specific events and study foci. Additionally, and I appreciate this one, one of the navigation options is spatial. The particular chapters have been mapped to their locations around the harbour. All we are missing is a separate chronological timeline view. The wealth of options hopefully will allow varied uses for the product and for convenient enhancement of existing curricula. Will the addition lead to the discussion that the producers clearly hope to engender? I hope and believe it will, and look forward to discovering how it does work. One thing is of little doubt, this product raises the bar for tools to aid in teaching Canadian history in the classroom. I fervently hope that this is only the first of such productions that can bring a compelling and media-competitive edge to teachers who have to battle the pervasiveness of block buster historical epics that lead students to conclude that Canadian history is boring.

Last year I had the privilege to assist Dr. Viv Nelles, the LR Wilson Chair, and person responsible for initiating this project, when he presented the Introduction to Canadian History course. He re-imagined the presentation of what is a staple course for history departments in Canada and created a fresh and dynamic offering for his students. His innovative approach combined pertinent themes with an appreciation for the broader context of the interaction between man and nature. Judging from my interaction with the students, engaged them in a course many expect to be a yawn fest. This went so far as one student confiding to me that she had actually suffered from nightmares following his eerie telling of tales of the loup-garou and its role in Québecois society. You know you are reaching students when… This new teaching tool for high school history teachers smacks of this dedication to innovation and revitalization of the teaching of our history.

I was planning to blog after attending the DVD launch last night. I ruminated over words and messages and continued to do so as I drove to the office this morning. And that’s when it hit me. As I drove along the 403 I passed many of the points highlighted in the production. We can all too easily miss the context of our everyday life. Tasks and places are rooted in our shared existence with others and with the past. The historical context deepens out understanding, our appreciation and hopefully our sensitivity to place. We can be sensitive to their care, sympathy, stewardship and struggles with problems that we face today and continue in their efforts. Through productions like ‘The People and the Bay,’ we are made aware that these processes that are longer than our lifetimes and often memories, but that awareness leads to new appreciation not just of superficial beauty, but can inspire the the strength and dedication to build on the efforts of our ancestors.

Note: The most beautiful sequence for me is the 6 spans crossing the Dejardins canal captured in the image above, and presented at the beginning of chapter 9. The slow progression through the ancient waterway and the perfect lighting conditions really resonated with me.

Update: The Hamilton Spectator has great coverage of the launch.

a

I attended a SRO lecture by Alan Taylor last week. He delivered a wonderful narrative on the life of Joseph Brant couched in the currently contentious discussion over native land rights in the Grand River basin. Taylor is the author of a variety of books, the most pertinent being The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution. Following a concise, if rather softly spoken, brief on the various parties playing in the story, he moved to the meat of the matter. The key element that Taylor seemed to want the audience to appreciate was that the Six Nations themselves were by no means homogeneous. Additionally, the area into which they moved was by no means dominated by one party or another and was a populated by a collection of diverse groups already: pre-existing natives such as the Mississauga, recent settlers from either the US or from the British Isles and significantly, a small, but vocal cadre of British military forces. The result is an intermixed culturally diverse people in this area.
Turning to Joseph Brant, Taylor suggested that he was a skilled strategician, who probably had the interests of his immediate band, if not the entire Six nations confederacy at heart as he attempted to find a place where they could practice their native customs as a nation and exist in peer relationship with British North America. To accomplish this he engaged in an evolving series of tactics that included superb use of the media, threats, and outright collusion with American interests to maintain a precarious balance of power. In the end he failed, partly through his inability to garner consensus amongst the six nations, to attain outright ability to buy, sell and lease the land that was granted to his confederacy and ultimately through the contingencies of events taking place outside of his immediate sphere of influence. Brant’s scheme to lease land within the Grand River reserve to American land speculators floundered when he overplayed his hand militarily and betrayed a deep racism within the colonial state that was unwilling to see settlers subject to native landlords. The talk was superbly attended and, along with Lou Pauly’s the previous week kicks off the Wilson series for this year.

a

The 2007–2008 Wilson series of lectures in Canadian History kicked off at McMaster University today. John Weaver, the acting Wilson Chair in Canadian History, has attracted an exciting list of speakers for the coming year. Lou Pauly spoke on ’Globalization, Political Authority and the Prevention of Systemic Financial Crises.’ He followed Angela Graham who, less than 24 hours prior to her doctoral defense, provided an engaging look at Canadian Foreign Policy towards the People’s Republic China between the Second World War and recognition in 1970.

After providing a brief overview of Chinese international relations following the Second World War, Graham’s framing question was why Canada, who tended to follow US lead, seemed to pursue a different foreign policy with regard to the PRC. Her topic seems a popular one these days after the success of Margaret Macmillan’s Nixon in China and Robert Wright’s Three days in Havana. Graham contends that Canada engaged in a constant process of evaluation of recognition following the Second World War but did not actively pursue recognition as it had more to lose in relations with allies than to gain from formal recognition of the PRC. Following the devastating Great Leap Forward, Canada enjoyed a financial windfall from substantial grain sales during an international glut. In a position of financial gain and weakening American opposition to recognition, Canada was able to carefully negotiate recognition that did not formally support PRC claims on Taiwan.

This recognition provided a model for other countries’ (including the US) terms of recognition.

One is left wondering whether Canadian recognition was to just get wider access to Chinese trade agreements before Americans?

Lou Pauly’s paper “Globalization, Political Authority and the Prevention of Systemic Financial Crises: The European Case in Comparative Perspective” questions the overarching question of how nation states deal with a legitimacy solidly stemming from sovereignty and national autonomy in a global economy that is increasing integrated and relies on cross-national co-operation for its sustainability. More directly, he is asking what is going on with the current credit crisis? How severe is it? What can be done and more importantly, what ‘should’ b done?

Dr.Pauly’s talk, was scintillating, brilliant and chilling. He was able to contextualize the financial tremors of the past few weeks and use them as a sandbox in which to prose some very serious questions. Pauly logically asks whether our current system is sustainable, give the huge imbalance between capital importers and capital exporters. he argues that according to economic principles, capital should be flowing to where is can get the highest return, but instead it is being fed by the dominant consumer engine of the Unites States. Not uniquely he charges that if the US was a third world country, the IMF would have stepped in decades ago. Nonetheless he argues that players isn the world today are motivated to perpetuate the current system, which raises his second question: is perpetuation of this system just and right? This is of course a more complex question and far harder to answer. What Dr. Pauly suggests is that as we speak, Canada and the Bank of England find themselves arrayed against Germany and France over this question. The Germans and French have publicly affirmed that they believe that they should immediately bail out any failing institution, stabilize the system and then deal with the subsequent fallout. The British and Canadian position is that it is just this guarantee that will lead financial institutions to assume even riskier investment vehicles armed with the knowledge they will not be allowed to fail.

Efficient markets depend on stable confidence generating means. Stabilization required tools for crisis management and resolution. When they are in place, they also work towards crisis prevention.Canadians, he asserts are lucky to be able take the moral high ground.This wasn’t so clear 6 weeks ago, when there were fears of failure of the CIBC. Now that that’s passed, Canada is in a position to assume this ground. Is it possible that the Bank of England and Canada are riding on the backs of the Germans and French, letting them handle the bail out that calmed the markets by flooding them with liquidity? How have the British succeeded for so long? Is Britain one big offshore market?

The bottom line for Pauly seems to be the surface appearance and the behind the scenes deeper currents. On the superficial level, appeals are made to nationalism and the pretense of regional interests. Below the surface, connection are made that ensure that alow for co-operation and greater financial integration between global institutions.

a

Apparently, when the going gets tough, Canadians turn to lawyers. I have semi-arbitrarily qualified the two world wars as national crises (yes, we could argue over what other crises may well have faced the nation, but for sake of simple conjecture I will use these), and examined what occupations emerge amongst our elected representatives. During both world wars, members of the legal profession end up as the dominant non-Parliamentary career in the House of Commons. There is only one other point at which they are the dominant occupational group… During the Depression and the 17th Parliament from 1931–1935:

In a previous post, I challenged my own belief that lawyers formed the largest group in Canadian parliament. Looking at current composition I was somewhat surprised to discover that businessperson and administrators make up the bulk of MPs. I subsequently posited that maybe this was something that had changed over time and followed this study with a look at what occupations were represented amongst the first few sessions of Canadian Parliament. Although lawyers may in fact represent or have represented the dominant members of the house (this might be measured by looking at occupations of ministers of the crown), business interests seem to have been dominant largely throughout the past 160 years.
The exception to this appears to be during wartime. The occupation of members of the Unionist government in the 13th Session (1917–1921) can be proportionally represented:

In this session lawyers edged out businessmen and were followed by farmers and by physicians at their highest proportion in any session.
During the Second World War, the 19th Session of Parliament (1941–45) was also dominated again by lawyers:

However, teachers and professors show a large increase in voter’s confidence as do members of the clergy.
As a side note. If you happen to be wondering where those lawyers are coming from, its Quebec. They actually come from across the country, but as proportion of elected representatives over half of those from Québec are lawyers. To be fair, 100% of the reps from Yukon are lawyers, but there is only a single member. MPs from Québec during the 17th Parliament are composed of the following occupations:

This is a rather simplistic analysis of how Canadians cast votes, but it does raise the interesting question of possibly where citizens place their confidence when faced with national crises and how policy during these crises may be effected by the personal characteristics of those setting policy.

I used the tree chart tool from Many Eyes to create these visualisations.

a

In an earlier post, I pondered the occupational composition of the House of Commons and its implications on policy making. This posts casts an historical gaze on the occupations of MPs at Confederation comparing the structure with the current and hypothesizing about the evolution over the past 160 years.
As I mentioned earlier, I had a sense that lawyers were a more dominant force in earlier times and that business men and women possibly have a more decisive role in policy making today than earlier. This chart:

shows the occupational composition of the Canadian Parliament in 1867. When compared with the current composition:

this anecdotal idea that businessman have risen in dominance is not supported. Although lawyers formed a much larger proportion of the house in 1867 than they presently do, it is in other areas that we have seen greater change. Business men and today women continue to hold the largest proportion of seats. However, as discussed earlier, it is those self-identifying as administrator/professional civil servants that have assumed a greater role. The other significant change is the emergence of educators as a representative group.
To gain a wider perspective, this bar chart compares number of MPS for each occupation for three sessions of Parliament — the first two of the nineteenth century and the current session:

The next post will examine regionalism, party politics from an occupational perspective.

I used the tree chart tool from Many Eyes to create these visualisations.

a

A colleague and I were discussing an anecdotal perception that there has been a shift from relying on lawyers to craft policy and laws in Canada towards reliance on business. This post ponders how our elected representatives self-identify themselves and what effect their prior occupation might have on their policy making.
This tree chart shows the composition of the current House of Commons by occupational classification:

In fact, businessmen do represent the greatest number of seats in Parliament. However, they just barely hold this title and are trailed very closely by those identifying themselves as administrators, or having experience solely in the public sector. This I think may be a more telling phenomenon. I read this bluntly as the inmates taking over the asylum — that’s probably a little pejorative but I hope the point in made. A large proportion of members of parliament are individuals who have little or no experience in the private sector, but are skilled in managing public enterprises. I have always believed that the structure of our government was to have policy made by a chamber representative of society as a whole and then have those policies and laws carried out by people trained to execute those policies. What these numbers say to me is strangely, we now have policy determined by those civil servants that we have in the past employed simply to carry out the policies.
What is the impact of this? Does it mean that policies are geared towards being those that can be efficiently or effectively accomplished by the existing bureaucracy and thus contribute to a perpetuation of the status quo? Maybe.
This is not to say that the businessperson makes for a better policy maker. In fact, maybe the businessperson more pragmatically looks to the bottom line of the exercise, which is ultimately to be re-elected and thus operates under a policy horizon of four to five years maximally. He or she ensures that monies and public reminders of success are carefully managed for public perception at a time when this ensure electoral impact rather than the long term benefit of the country. Maybe this pragmatism is good.
We have historically (and still do as numerically the third most significant group) looked to lawyers as good lawmakers. This is now a position shared with those identifying themselves with educators.
Historically, those identifying themselves as lawyers were also quite savvy businessmen and their role in government was often to enrich themselves and their immediate circle. We have probably come a long way towards eliminating that which we directly identify as systemic corruption. This is not clearly to say that we have eliminated personal aggrandizement entirely and if you examine the data between 1997 and 2007 there is an exodus of long time members of the house, many of which have been associated with some rather less than savory behaviour.

Obviously from a compositional standpoint, parliament is about as far from being representative of the general population as one might imagine. But the simple use of self-identified occupations might also be rather deceptive. If one serves in the house for an extended period of time, how closely is one’s decision-making process unreflective of previous occupation versus increasing experience in how Canadian federal government actually operates. That is, how long does it take a teacher to become a professional politician? It’s a natural process.

Another emergent observation asks how the occupational breakdown of a particular caucus might influence its policy when it is the party in power.

The ruling Conservative party is dominated by businessmen:

When the Liberals were in power, their ranks were more administrators and lawyers and a greater diversity of occupations:

These are some initial musings. I will post some more later along with a complete breakdown of parties between the last four sessions of Parliament.

I used the tree chart tool from Many Eyes to create these visualisations.

a