THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 27, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to consider foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, I wish to invite the committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator M. Deacon: Good afternoon. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ottawa.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I wish to welcome all of you, as well as those across Canada who are watching us today on SenParlVu.
Today, we are meeting under our general order of reference to explore the role cultural diplomacy plays in advancing Canada’s interests around the world. During today’s meeting, we are specifically looking at the impact of Canadian Studies programs. We would have begun yesterday looking at how Canadian culture and the arts contribute to Canada’s international relations, but since we had to cancel it, that meeting will now take place next Thursday.
For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome in person Dr. Nik Nanos, who is the Leader of the Advancing Canada Coalition, among many other functions and roles that he has. Joining us by video conference from Germany is Kerstin Knopf, Professor, North American and Postcolonial Literatures and Cultures at the University of Bremen, Germany; and Munroe Eagles, Professor, Political Science, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. Welcome, and thank you for being with us.
Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning too closely into your microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff and others in the room, our interpreters, in particular, who will be interpreting the proceedings.
We are now ready to hear your opening remarks. These will be followed by questions from senators. The opening remarks are four minutes each, and then we’ll proceed to senators. Mr. Nanos, the floor is yours.
Nik Nanos, Leader, Advancing Canada Coalition, Nanos Research: Thank you very much. I appreciate the honorific of “doctor,” but my PhD is incomplete, not to suggest I’m inadequate as a witness.
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for allowing me to address the committee on the importance of Canadian Studies and culture. My remarks will be short and snappy.
My name is Nik Nanos. I am a volunteer leader of the Advancing Canada Coalition, which is a broad group of volunteers including individuals like Margaret Atwood, Robert Bothwell, Margaret MacMillan and former prime minister Joe Clark.
We are a group of Canadianists committed to advancing multilateralism and a better understanding of Canada around the world. We believe that a new academic and cultural program is critically needed. Supporting academic and cultural programs focused on understanding Canada builds a global network of ambassadors, advances our values and creates an environment for a stronger economy. I have three examples to share.
First, for over a decade, I was a research professor at the State University of New York on Canada-U.S. studies. Through that period, I saw firsthand the importance of encouraging and supporting the study of Canada in universities outside of Canada. Enabling Canadian academic studies around the world creates a network of evidence-based allies who are thought leaders, commenting in the media and leading dialogue in their home countries.
Second, in 2021, I attended the Munich Book Fair, where Canada was the guest of honour. The book fair is the world’s largest trade fair for books, with several thousand exhibitors from around the world. Our role at the book fair was strategic and impactful. It was about more than just the sale of books. If I might say, if I’m allowed, I like books. I especially like Canadian books. But more importantly, the book fair was about putting a spotlight on creative industries, the promotion of women and youth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Canada’s strategy at the gathering was a success, but without the support of Canadian Studies programs around the world, the impact will be limited to the selling of books. Without the promotion of Canadian Studies, we diminish our relevance and impact on the world stage.
Finally, I can speak as the chief data scientist and founder of Nanos Research. My team does research in Canada and globally. I like to say that the best advantage is being Canadian, and our greatest commercial opportunities have resulted from connecting with organizations and people outside of Canada that understand our nation. It may be because they took a course on Canada in university or read a book or learned about our thought leaders. The more people around the world that understand Canada, the better the environment for our entrepreneurs to successfully compete globally. In a world of change, academic diplomacy and the study of Canada abroad will well position our nation for the future.
The previous Understanding Canada program successfully created a network of 7,000 scholars and thought leaders in 55 countries and advanced an understanding of Canada and the Canadian approach to such issues as culture, trade, security, prosperity, gender equality and the environment. The Understanding Canada program achieved this by disseminating information about Canada and supporting Canadian Studies and related programs in universities around the world. These programs created a cohort of individuals who understood and could speak about Canada.
If you believe trade is an important part of our economic prosperity, if you believe that Canada should contribute to the big global issues faced by democracies around the world and if you believe that Canadian culture deserves its place in the world, then you must enable a new, reinvigorated movement of Canadianists around the world that want to learn about, talk about and support Canada in their home countries. In my opinion, a modest investment for an exciting new program that advances Canadian Studies around the world will pay dividends economically, academically and culturally.
My final point is Canada needs the world, and the world needs Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nanos.
I’d like to acknowledge we’ve been joined by Senator Leo Housakos of Quebec.
We will now move to Professor Kerstin Knopf, North American and Postcolonial Literatures and Cultures, University of Bremen, joining us from Germany. You have the floor, professor.
Kerstin Knopf, Professor, North American and Postcolonial Literatures and Cultures, University of Bremen, Germany, as an individual: Thank you very much to the Senate committee for letting me speak at your meeting. I will first give you my personal perspective as a Canadian Studies scholar in Germany.
I am a full professor for North American and postcolonial studies at the University of Bremen, and my career was strongly supported and shaped through Canadian research funding. As a student, I refocused my research from U.S. American to Canadian Indigenous studies, because I was infected by the spirit of Canadian Studies that was built and promoted in my surroundings and because research funding was available. All of my degree-related research projects were done in Canadian Studies with three research trips to Canada, six months each, two of which were funded by ICCS grants.
I have been director of the Indigenous Studies section of the Association for Canadian Studies in German-Speaking Countries, GKS. I served as vice-president and president of GKS, and now I serve as president of the ICCS. I’ve published four books and two scientific journals in Indigenous studies, and two more are forthcoming. I do regular research trips to Canada, and I teach one or two classes each year on Canadian culture, literature or film. In this way, I get future scholars and future English teachers focused on Canada. Like me, they will be inclined to shift their research and teaching perspective to Canada-related topics, with a large impact, because Canadian Studies are in serious competition with U.S. American and British studies at German universities.
My research was very much channelled by the Understanding Canada program, and I continue to give back in kind my knowledge and academic work on Canada by researching, publishing, teaching and supporting the career building of younger teacher generations. Yet, people like me will retire eventually. We need sustained work and also financial support in order to build the next generations of Canadian Studies scholars that will put Canada on the agendas of schools and universities worldwide.
Now my perspective as the ICCS president: International Canadian Studies promote and diversify Canada’s image globally, and they create an environment that is beneficial to Canada’s international standing, its interests and its values. For 40 years, ICCS has produced substantial scholarship on Canada, and it is the hub of disseminating this knowledge. It generates international Canadian Studies scholars like me. Ten years of absence of support means extremely downsized knowledge‑building activities in ICCS member association and fewer students and faculty learning and researching about Canada.
Unfortunately, some large Canadian Studies associations have become defunct in the past 10 years or have frozen their activities. Missing funds in mutual funding structures means that national funding agencies have pulled out funding by now for the study of Canada projects. For their very reduced activities, universities now, like ours, rely on limited funds from the Canadian embassies in our countries and of funding from Quebec funding bodies like the AIEQ.
ICCS is still able to give out some graduate student scholarships. And yet, sustained government funding will allow more comprehensive support of graduate, postdoc and faculty research, as well as international networking, which will create snowball effects on knowledge building on Canada and attract international students to Canadian universities.
ICCS engages in high-profile SSHRC-funded research with the Robarts Center of Canadian Studies at York University. We have a partnership development grant project ongoing. We also diversify our research network, and our newest member is the Africa Network for Canadian Studies, located at the University of Benin in Nigeria.
ICCS wants to build and sustain understanding, knowledge and capacity with respect to Canada, its interests and its contribution to the world. That’s why we ask the Senate committee to advance Canada’s knowledge and cultural diplomacy and create a modernized international Canadian Studies program, as you have suggested in your report of 2019. We really thank the Senate committee.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Knopf. We will now go to Professor Eagles.
Munroe Eagles, Professor, Political Science, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York, as an individual: Distinguished chair and honourable senators and members of the committee, thank you for providing me with this opportunity to be with you today.
Since I’ve been at UB and now over 30 years, I’ve become deeply engaged in Canadian Studies, although, as you’ve just heard from Professor Knopf, this was not my main field of graduate training. For nine years, I’ve directed University of Buffalo’s Canadian Studies program, and I also served terms as president of both the American Canadian Studies Association and the International Council for Canadian Studies. I’m here today to encourage the committee to consider including in its report a strong recommendation for restored funding for foreign scholars who are involved in study and research about Canada. I will make two central points.
First, I’ve been able to observe directly and firsthand the negative implications of the Canadian government’s decision to terminate the Understanding Canada program in 2012. There’s been a sharp and ongoing reduction, as Professor Knopf has just outlined, in Canada-related scholarship and teaching around the world. I argue that this has a negative effect on Canada’s efforts in cultural diplomacy. As Professor Knopf mentioned, the situation will only get worse because the lack of program funds makes it difficult to recruit a new generation of Canadianists.
Second, I argue that, in taking this decision, the Government of Canada has walked away from substantial subsidies coming from foreign universities for the country’s cultural diplomacy efforts. Among the most substantial of these subsidies that are often overlooked are those that come in the form of the salaries, fringe benefits and professional support funds going to faculty outside Canada to support their studies and research about Canada. These should be regarded as an in-kind contribution from these foreign universities to Canadian cultural diplomacy.
A 2010 study by the late Brian Long estimated the return to Canada from the Understanding Canada program to be $36 for every $1 spent. However, his otherwise excellent analysis didn’t include the fringe benefits that go to faculty members from their employers. At my institution, University of Buffalo, this adds almost 64% to the base salary figures. His estimate of a 36 to 1 return significantly underestimates the total foreign subsidy coming to Canadian cultural diplomacy through the Understanding Canada program.
Both these points can be illustrated using my own campus as an example. On the diminished visibility of Canada, at the peak of our activities, our Understanding Canada grants at UB maxed out at $16,000 a year. These funds were matched dollar for dollar from our university. They stimulated an extensive array of Canada-related activities both in research and teaching across the campus. Eventually, these led us to develop a Canadian Studies academic program. Among our many initiatives in this program was a pioneering Joint Masters degree in Canadian-American Studies with nearby Brock University. This was the first international joint graduate degree program in our entire 65‑campus SUNY system.
Another of our initiatives sought to build capacity in the management of Canada-U.S. relations. Together with Brock and with support from DFAIT, Global Affairs and a number of local sponsors, in the summers of 2011 and 2012 we delivered intensive one-week training programs on Canada-U.S. relations for executive and legislative staffers from both Canada and the United States. We were eagerly exploring mechanisms to scale up this popular and successful program. All of this activity at UB became unsustainable after 2012, and virtually all of it has ended.
Now to my second point: At the peak of UB’s Canada-related activities, I personally was working exclusively on Canada-related projects, and my activities were supported in salary and other benefits from UB worth well north of $225,000 a year. Apportioning the appropriate level of salary and fringe benefits for my many UB colleagues who were active in Canadian Studies during those years would put the total subsidy coming from my campus to Canadian cultural diplomacy at about $0.5 million annually, and that represents about 10% of the entire Understanding Canada budget.
Revitalizing the international community of Canadianists by restoring support for their work —
The Chair: Professor Eagles, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I’ve been generous in giving you an extra minute. I know you have more to say, and perhaps we can tease that out during the question period. Thank you very much.
I’d like to acknowledge that Senator Woo of British Columbia has also joined the meeting.
Colleagues, I wish to advise, as per usual, you will have a maximum of only four minutes for the first round. This will include questions and answers. Please be concise, as you always try to be, in posing your questions. The same goes, of course, for our witnesses.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to our witnesses for that very enlightening presentations.
My question is addressed to Mr. Nanos, with contributions from the two professors if we have time. How can Canada’s approach to Canadian Studies be adapted to address emerging issues and trends such as climate change, Indigenous reconciliation and the growing role of technology in our society?
Mr. Nanos: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
The good news, especially when we look at the integration of cultural and academic studies, is the reality that Canadian thought leaders and writers are now prolifically engaged in all of those issues. The way I see it is that we are just naturally creating a body of knowledge on all of those issues because it is important to Canadians. I would expect that it would convert into the academic studies in these universities around the world.
One of the other things I think about is that maybe there’s an opportunity to even up our game on the previous program because I think what might be missing is the ability to bring together all of the learnings, all the papers, the academic studies and so forth into one place. Maybe there needs to be a destination for Canadian Studies globally in the program. I think it’s important for us to measure impact. One way to do that would be if there were, for example, a virtual repository or online place where people could read about all the latest ideas about Canadian Studies, not just in Canada but around the world.
Senator Ravalia: Professor Eagles, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Eagles: I think those are great suggestions. If you look at the output of the Canadianists who are working around the world, you’ve identified a number of the themes that are prominent in the work that’s being done among the Canadian Studies community. The driver of this, of course, is the pressing need for scholarship on these very real issues that confront us. Our community of Canadianists, no less than any other, is responsive and aware of these themes. I would expect that a restoration of funding to Canadian Studies would produce an outpouring of research on precisely the topics that you’ve identified.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Ms. Knopf: I would support what Munroe Eagles just said. There’s an opportunity to do international cooperative research projects on environmental and Indigenous issues and other important issues that advance knowledge in Europe, for example, and in Canada. I have to say that Indigenous studies is the topic most focused on in ICCS projects or in projects where students apply for ICCS funds or for the awards that we give out. I would suggest that 30 to 40% of our applications have to do with Indigenous studies.
For example, my research also focuses on Indigenous knowledge building and epistemological power relations in terms of Indigenous knowledges and other post-colonial knowledges. All of these ideas that are produced in cooperation between scholars around the world — Canadian and, of course, Indigenous scholars — are supportive of this knowledge diplomacy and cultural diplomacy that Canadian Studies are helping to produce.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank all our witnesses for their very interesting remarks. Canada is one of the few countries that is a member of both the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and the Commonwealth. Its bilingualism and history make it a country capable of dialogue and exchange with many cultures and regions around the world.
In what way does or should Canada build on this strength to deploy its cultural diplomacy in the world, and particularly on the African continent?
[English]
Mr. Nanos: Thank you, senator, for your question.
As an aside, I recently was on the jury for the Shaughnessy Cohen Prize of the Writers’ Trust of Canada. Through that process, I read 50 books by 50 Canadian authors who were up for the prize. What I learned, as a reader and reviewer of all those books, is that the issues we’re talking about in Canada have global implications and, I would say, would apply to wherever you live — whether someone is in Asia, Africa, Europe or South America. Thinking of the books that I reviewed, they included how to be a climate optimist, for example, and dealing with climate change, entrepreneurship, diplomacy, racism, reconciliation, healing and with what I’ll call populism and social cohesion.
The way I look at it, we’re uniquely positioned — not just because of the diversity within our country but the fact that, to your point, senator, we have our foot in the Francophonie and we have our foot in the Commonwealth. I know we can’t have more than two feet, but we have our feet in a lot of places.
I think that the way we can connect is through our content. Making those connections can be transformative not just for Canadians but can have a significant impact around the world. The reality is that when it comes to issues like climate change, prosperity, racism and social cohesion, we all have an interest in that, regardless of where it is.
That said, assuming that this program were reinvigorated, it would require the government to ensure that it was strategic in its application so that it didn’t just become a U.S. program. To your point, there needs to be sensitivity that if we’re going to deploy and build a network, that we actually build a truly global network and that we’re strategic in the way we support Canadian Studies around the world.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being with us today. It has been very enlightening.
I’ll start with Mr. Nanos. You’re clear that the Advancing Canada Coalition — and you, as a part of that — is advocating for bringing back the Understanding Canada program or something of that variety.
In answer to my colleague Senator Ravalia, you started to go where I was going to ask you about. How could it be better this time around? What are some of the learnings from the first round, from that round that has ceased, that we could incorporate into our support for a future Understanding Canada program or some version of that? You’ve mentioned bringing together the learnings through some kind of virtual repository and the importance of the evaluation of impact. Has there been an impact evaluation? If so, what are the findings? With that, and over and above that, what would you see a new program looking like?
Mr. Nanos: We have to realize that since the original program — which was a success, in my opinion, because it created that cohort of 7,000 ambassadors who were part of the program — a lot has happened technologically. The good news is that not only has a lot happened, but technology can now be levered in a very cost-effective way. I’d like to say that the opinions expressed are those of Nik Nanos and not of any other members of the coalition, because we’re a very diverse group.
I would hazard to say that what happened in the original program was that we did have an impact — Munroe talked about the 36-times multiplier — but stuff didn’t come back. I would say that was one thing that the coalition talked about enhancing, and that was in our correspondence with the minister. It had to do with creating what I will call a skinny virtual think tank that, for all intents and purposes, could be a repository to share all the dialogue that’s happening on Canadian Studies. The upside to this is that beyond the impact that the previous study had — which Munroe Eagles spoke about — it would allow any Canadian who was interested in anything related to Canadian Studies to go to a place and know that they could access the latest thought, not just in Canada but around the world, and that, if the Government of Canada supported this program, we would be able to transparently measure and observe what is actually happening. That would be my suggestion. I think that previously it was a one-way dialogue out, but because of technology, we did not have everything come back.
Maybe it’s not a virtual think tank. Maybe it’s a process where the government says that Library and Archives Canada will have a little spot for Canadian Studies virtually on their website. We don’t necessarily have to create a bureaucracy or another structure. Some people would call it simple; I would call it an elegant solution. I’m not here to add an extra burden on Library and Archives Canada. It might be something as simple as that where we have some type of arrangement — when I say “we,” I mean the government — where it says, “Library and Archives Canada, we would like you to have a Canadianists section,” where scholars and students from around the world would deposit their research and their latest thoughts on Canadian Studies, and that would be open and available to everyone. I see that as a kind of virtuous solution, which is low or no cost but transparent, and it puts a spotlight and allows Canadians to benefit from that.
Senator M. Deacon: Hello to our witnesses. Thank you for being here.
Fifty books is a lot of books — listening and learning from our Canadian authors.
As I listen and think about this, I’m reminded that one of Canada’s great strengths is that the world often wants to come to us, which is a good thing. That is particularly so when it comes to international students at Canadian universities. How could or does cultural diplomacy look at this level? If it isn’t already, should Canadian Studies be a required course for international students at our post-secondary institutions? How big a role should student exchanges play in Canada’s cultural diplomacy?
The Chair: Senator, who is the question for?
Senator M. Deacon: I’m opening it up, but I would start with Professor Eagles.
Mr. Eagles: Thank you very much, senator.
The free flow of students and scholars has long been part of what we saw in the Canadian Studies community. That remains a central priority. It’s important to have people experience Canada; it’s important that students and scholars from abroad come there.
Here at UB, we’ve had a special opportunity to do that, being a border institution. In the joint agreement I mentioned with Brock, we would move students across that border. Several times a week, they were taking half their classes in a Canadian university and half in the U.S., getting a degree from both institutions. I have to say that one of our American students, at least, has decided to settle in Ontario. She’s made a career in southern Ontario as a result of that exposure.
There are many benefits that come to Canada from a thriving Canadian Studies program abroad. A good deal of that is associated with the travel that students and scholars experience.
As to whether they should be required to take a Canadian Studies course if they’re a student in Canada, I think they probably will anyway. They’re coming to Canada with an image of the country and a curiosity and openness about the country. Making it a requirement is not a bad idea, but that would be up to provincial educational authorities.
Thank you for the question.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: Professor Knopf, would you like to respond as well?
Ms. Knopf: Thank you very much.
I believe that facilitating student exchanges is beneficial for all students involved. International students coming to Canadian universities are very often there to study specific fields that are interesting to them. They are also immersed in the country and experience Canadian culture, Canadian values, Canadian interests and so forth that they can take home and then disseminate that knowledge, either as teachers later on or among their peers.
It would also be great if Canadian universities would make it easier for Canadian students to go to international universities. It pays back. When you look at your own country from the outside world and see how other people think about your country, it does something to you about how you see and learn about your own country. It would also be beneficial to the knowledge building of Canadian students, in a sense.
I’m not sure if that should be made a requirement. I don’t think so, because students tend not to like things that they have to do. They tend to do things they have the opportunity to do.
I also think that, with a sustained program, it might be possible to select a few universities where you install fixed Canadian Studies modules or even a Masters Degree in Canadian Studies if you have a larger university that can afford several Master programs in something like that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses.
Canada is probably the weakest among the G7 in terms of it sponsoring and supporting study of its country abroad. I’d like each of the panellists to tell us about the competitive environment from other G7 countries on your campus. Could you provide a context as to which country is a model or could provide a model to us? It is a very important aspect of our cultural diplomacy, and we should learn from others and be ashamed. Who wants to start?
Ms. Knopf: I will start.
I will have to explain a few things. In Germany and other European countries, we don’t have professorships solely in Canadian Studies. We have professorships in American Studies, and if people like me consciously put an effort to teach Canadian Studies, we extend our denomination and call it “North American” or “U.S. American and Canadian Studies.” So we don’t have —
Senator Harder: My question isn’t about Canadian Studies; it’s about what other G7 countries are doing on your campus or what experiences, from a comparative point of view, we ought to incorporate into our planning for a revised Canadian Studies program. Who’s doing it better than we are? Obviously, everybody is doing it better than we are. Who should we be modelling our efforts upon?
Ms. Knopf: The study field that’s mostly sought after is U.S. American Studies. That’s why I was trying to explain that we don’t have professorships solely for Canadian Studies. Students go to American Studies. Then there’s a competition with British Studies. Increasingly, there are also Australian Studies and African Studies. Those other fields are also put on the agendas in high school education. That’s the serious competition that Canada basically faces.
Which country is doing it better? I do believe the U.S. has more clout. I’m not sure if they spend more money, but there’s also substantial programming for students to go to the United States and study there. Fulbright is only one example. There are other smaller mutual exchange programs and partner universities between Germany and the U.S., France and the U.S. and so forth. This is the competition that Canada faces.
I don’t want to put a name on any country that is doing it better, but that’s just my perspective here.
The Chair: We have a minute. Mr. Nanos, did you want to intervene?
Mr. Nanos: I will allow Munroe to speak quickly, and then I’ll be very quick.
Mr. Eagles: The one on campus UB that has the most vigorous cultural diplomacy is China via the Confucius Institute. We have just closed ours, so I wouldn’t hold that up as a model to emulate, but they were certainly aggressive on campus.
Mr. Nanos: In terms of competition, that would imply that we’re even in the race. We’re not even at the starting line. We are nowhere while everyone else is in a race.
I would actually put Germany ahead. Germany has a really good model, where the government kind of enables German Studies around the world, as does France, the United Kingdom and the United States. They all have some sort of program, because they see cultural diplomacy as a great way to build commercial and academic ties.
The Chair: Thank you. Let me just add that Canada does not have a Goethe-Institut, nor an Alliance Française, British Council or Cervantes Institute. Professor Eagles mentioned the Confucius Institute.
Senator Woo: I want to connect to the last point about the broader soft diplomacy efforts around the country, such as the British Council, Cervantes, Goethe, et cetera, and ask if our witnesses could connect the issue of Canadian Studies abroad to the broader question of Canadians abroad.
It seems to me that the deeper problem is that this country doesn’t value our assets overseas. You may know that the latest figures from StatsCan suggested that there are perhaps 5 million Canadian citizens living overseas, which is bigger than most provinces. It seems to me that if we don’t have sort of a national approach to thinking about our citizens abroad as assets and how they contribute to the national purpose — Canadian Studies alone are extremely valuable, but in a sense it’s a very small piece of this much bigger picture. Perhaps Mr. Nanos would like to comment on that first, and any of the other witnesses are welcome to chip in as well.
Mr. Nanos: Thank you, senator, for that question.
That’s why my remarks were a little broader than just the academic impact. I think that is how we have to look at the context for this. There is definitely — and I have seen it firsthand in my enterprise — a significant corporate impact not just from people who have done Canadian Studies abroad but from Canadians living abroad in other countries that would be part of those organizations that would want to make those connections and go into business to help create prosperity.
I think the point that we’re trying to make is that if someone told anyone that they could get a $36 multiplier on an investment and it was legal — assuming it was legal — I don’t think they would hesitate in making that investment, considering how moderate that investment is compared to all the other things that the Government of Canada puts money behind.
Mr. Eagles: I think it’s very worthwhile to think about mobilizing the Canadian diaspora. Many in the Canadian Studies community internationally are themselves Canadian. I actually speak as one of them. I feel at home on this panel because there are other Nova Scotians here. Canadian Studies internationally has been one of the ways in which Canadian scholars who are working abroad can feel like they’re contributing back to their country. I certainly feel this quite strongly. I will always identify as a Canadian, although I’m a dual national. I think that’s a project that the academic community can play a part in. I don’t think we have any special privilege there.
There are Canadians in every walk of life, certainly in the United States, who are making their mark, but the challenge in the United States for Canadians is that we’re not visible in the same way that we would be if we had an accent. We kind of pass as Americans. That feeds a real problem, I think, for Canada in that Americans think that Canada is very much the same as America. That’s a challenge. We have to sort of educate Americans on the fact that Canada is a sovereign state with very distinct values and provide Americans with an intellectual context to understand when we disagree on issues. The tendency in the United States is for Americans to throw up their hands and think, “What’s wrong? What have we done? They’re not with us.”
I think it’s an important project. I think Canadian Studies internationally could be a significant contributor to that larger objective of mobilizing the diaspora.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: My question will be for Professor Eagles. What you just said segued into what I wanted to speak to you about, and that is the foundations of this country and how it evolved. I have spent a lot of time in the U.S. with Canada U.S. I always remind my American friends that there weren’t 13 original colonies on the mainland, there were 15. Quebec signed the Quebec Act in 1774. It was pretty much a French‑speaking and Catholic society that did not want to join the U.S. Of course, Nova Scotia didn’t join, perhaps because of our natural contrariness, but we didn’t join. We are countries that evolved. Actually, Canada is very much a creation of the American Revolution. Many of our institutions evolved from that point. I’m just curious, how well do you think our institutions understand the evolution of the country and the values of this country and how they sprang from those events 250 years ago?
Mr. Eagles: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question. In fact, it springs right out of the syllabus that I offer in my Canadian politics class.
Both Canada and the United States are creatures of the American Revolution. Seymour Martin Lipset, who is probably the most influential American scholar on Canada, makes that a centrepiece of his work. His long career, in fact, was based around that very argument. We are inextricably entwined. We are born from the same forces. We had different reactions to those forces, and those have put us on parallel paths. We’re not converging; we’re on parallel paths that are complementary. We are both liberal democracies and multicultural societies. I think we have a lot to speak to one another about, and it goes right back to the origins. My family came up to Nova Scotia from one of those 13 colonies, Massachusetts, in the 1700s, so we go way back. It is a formative part of our joint histories. Robert Bothwell from the University of Toronto has written a wonderful book about the intertwined nature of the shared history between Canada and the United States. It’s absolutely central. I’m not sure how many Americans appreciate just how intertwined we are, and I think many would be surprised to think that the colonies, Quebec and Nova Scotia, had rejected opportunities and invitations to join the American experiment.
It’s a great question. It’s absolutely central to what we do at UB in Canadian Studies.
Senator MacDonald: I’m glad to hear that. I also have to say, unfortunately, I don’t know how many Canadians appreciate it either. I think there’s a real dearth of knowledge there.
Mr. Eagles: Absolutely.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much to everybody for being here.
I’m not as familiar with this, although I have family members who live in the U.K. and I think about how beneficial it would be for them to have an opportunity to learn about their Canadian heritage through a program like this.
I wanted to ask you to address linkages. When I think of the University of Buffalo, I think of the benefit of programs like this to better inform trade agreements in terms of both the level of understanding with our American counterparts and also the strong ties in trade and others to do with our Canadian-American relationships. That’s my first question.
The other, perhaps, Mr. Nanos may want to address. I think of how the world has changed substantially, our Indo-Pacific strategy, and how some of these types of programs and the basis of information could be helpful in informing Canadians and non‑Canadians about Canada’s role internationally.
Mr. Eagles: Thank you, senator.
At the University of Buffalo, we have had the opportunity to understand Canada in ways that are not widely shared by most American universities. Through the course of my 30 years here, we’ve kind of developed a sense of responsibility as a border campus to try to facilitate the understandings that would underpin closer and more harmonious relationships across the border. We’re sitting on one of the busiest border crossings, certainly the busiest for people, on the whole 5,000-mile border. We have taken that on, and while we were active, that was a centrepiece of what we saw as our mission. We tried to broaden it out, as I mentioned, in our attempts to build capacity among decision support people in the political arena about the sprawling nature of the relationship and the intimate nature of it. Nik Nanos was good enough to participate as an expert in those, helping staffers understand just how critically important this relationship was. Linkages across that border, developed and sustained through an active Canadian Studies program, I think, are critically important. I’m happy to say that Mr. Nanos was a major part of making all that possible as a colleague here at UB.
Thank you for the question. I hope that’s responsive.
Mr. Nanos: If I could add another dimension, senator, based on your question, I kind of see this like compound interest. If the program is reinvigorated and starts again, it’s not going to have an immediate impact. Let’s face it, Canadianists don’t sprout from some place. They are nurtured over time. But like compound interest, if you are consistent, if we have a sustainable commitment, the impact will be unstoppable after 10 and 15 years with just this very small investment.
I would say that the impact will be positive not just for Canadians living abroad but also non-Canadians because, like I said before, if we’re not even on the radar or agenda, it’s like we do not exist. We are just a vast spot on a map that is blank. When we’re trying to do trade, when I might be trying to deal with a colleague in another foreign country, if it means nothing to be a Canadian, then we are at a disadvantage. I think that’s why we need to engage in academic and cultural diplomacy.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like to ask a question before we go to round two. I’m directing it to Professor Knopf.
I first went to the Grainau conference — that’s a conference of Canadian Studies in German-speaking countries that takes place in Bavaria every year — in 2006 as an invitee to speak about Canada-U.S. relations. Later on, when I was posted in Berlin, I went every year. What really struck me was not just the number of professors but the number of young academics working on their MA degrees or on their doctoral theses, and it was all somehow related to Canada. In the interval, we’ve had the Understanding Canada program cut, and we also had a couple years of pandemic that has really impacted how students study and how professors teach. I’m wondering about the health of that conference and whether there has been a recalibration in terms of how it can work. Professor Knopf, if you would enlighten us, I’d be grateful.
Ms. Knopf: Thank you for that question.
Thank you for reminding me of the Grainau experience. That’s where we are right at the spirit of Canadian Studies. That is also created, of course, at that conference. The hotel is located in a beautiful area. People engage in intensive discussions, and we have a special emerging scholar forum where emerging scholars present their papers and research ideas in a protected environment. We have keynotes, of course, from Canada. We have international guests also from other Canadian Studies associations every year in Grainau.
When the program was cut, the GKS continued to exist because we also draw membership fees. We were able to still give out graduate study scholarships for young scholars to do their MA and PhD theses during a research trip to Canada, but we had to downsize the amount of those funds and the number of the scholarships we could give out. We also had to downsize the number of Canadian keynote and guest speakers that we could invite. So activities continue, but they’re extremely downsized.
I have to say that GKS is a fairly stable and strong association comparable with the American, Irish, Polish and French associations, for example, but there have been associations — for example, the Australia, New Zealand, Brazilian association and the association in Spain — that have stopped doing their annual conferences and their workshops and exchange of students and guest professors.
Earlier, we were also talking about Canadians and their responsibility for cultural diplomacy. The ICCS had a great program that would allow international universities to invite Canadian guest professors to teach at the universities for two, three or four months. It would incredibly add to our syllabi and teaching content when you have somebody from Canada teaching classes. It would add to the diversity of courses offered and the knowledge that was produced in international universities.
There was also a program to invite Canadian personalities — artists, filmmakers, writers — and these would also be invited to be artists in residence or writers in residence and do creative writing or artist and theatre workshops. Basically, all of that is not happening at the moment. ICCS would be committed to enable also, of course, the exchange of Canadian personalities and guest professors.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, we have about four minutes left. We have four senators who wish to participate in round two. What I suggest, if it’s agreeable, is to have each senator pose their question quickly and then encourage our witnesses to perhaps get back to us in writing. I think some of you and those on the next panel have already provided some written submissions on this subject, but I see this as really the only way to go forward at this point. I don’t see any dissent here, so let us go very quickly to the questions, senators, and please, be as precise as we can be.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My previous question was for everyone; I would like to give everyone a chance to speak to how Canada can use its duality, both in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and in the Commonwealth, to deploy its cultural diplomacy in the world.
The Chair: As I said, we are waiting for a written response.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I’d like to hear from any and all, if possible. We know that our cultural leaders are very diverse here in Canada, particularly in the various artistic realms. Do we have a similar diversity among those academics in Canada or internationally who are Canadianists? I’m just trying to understand the range of academics who are drawn to Canadian Studies and what can be done to encourage a diverse cadre of Canadianists in Europe, the U.S. and also internationally, as my colleague has asked about.
Senator Woo: I support this program very strongly, but I would encourage all of us to think a bit about the role of alumni of Canadian universities abroad and draw attention to a recent event organized by Universities Canada and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada in Singapore that brought together not Canadians but alumni of Canadian universities throughout Asia. There were hundreds of them, and it turns out 20-plus university presidents went to Singapore for that event. My point is simply that the promotion of Canadian ideas, values and thinking in a non-academic context — I appreciate it’s not scholarly — has to be more than just scholars. There’s a vast community out there that can help us with that.
Senator MacDonald: Professor Knopf, you mentioned your interests include post-colonial literature. I’m curious how you define post-colonial literature, what exactly that means, because Canada has been a country for over 150 years. There seems to be a lot of people who have trouble differentiating between a land mass and a nation. Canada has been a nation for 150 years plus. I’m just curious how you define post-colonial literature and when you believe it starts. Thank you.
The Chair: To our witnesses, we would welcome any written responses to the questions you’ve heard in round two.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you very much for your testimony today and for being with us.
[Translation]
The Chair: For our second panel of witnesses, we are pleased to welcome here in the room Daniel Béland, Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.
By videoconference, we welcome John English, Distinguished Professor Emeritus from the University of Waterloo, and Pamela Sing, President of the Canadian Studies Network.
[English]
We will hear from all three witnesses on this panel.
[Translation]
We will start with Daniel Béland.
You have the floor for four minutes.
[English]
Daniel Béland, Director, McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, as an individual: Good afternoon, dear members of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Thank you again for allowing me to be with you today to express my views on this important topic.
[Translation]
As Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and an expert in policy analysis who has been involved in research and teaching on five continents, I want to emphasize the importance of ensuring the vitality of the International Canadian Studies Network.
At this point, I would like to remind you that federal funding for the maintenance of this network was eliminated in 2012, so over a decade ago. This is an unfortunate situation that should be corrected as soon as possible.
In this context, I would like to publicly and enthusiastically support recommendation 8 of your 2019 report on cultural diplomacy, which states:
That Global Affairs Canada support the creation of a modernized Canadian Studies program that would contribute to knowledge about Canada in the world.
[English]
As suggested in your 2009 report on cultural diplomacy, Canadian Studies, research and teaching abroad is an essential and particularly effective form of cultural diplomacy and an excellent way to raise awareness of what Canada is and has to offer on the global stage. This is the case partly because the connections created through the international Canadian Studies network have commercial, diplomatic and intellectual value, and they help raise the profile of Canada internationally. If Canada wants to remain a key player on the international stage, it has to project itself on it through cultural diplomacy, which is exactly what the modernized Canadian Studies program would do.
[Translation]
Beyond these remarks, it is clear that stimulating the study of Canada abroad can have soft power benefits for the country. It’s something you care about. I know the members of this committee do. This is the case because of the intellectual contribution of foreign researchers to Canada’s understanding of specific issues such as federalism, immigration, health policy and foreign affairs. By stimulating research abroad, the federal government could help improve the knowledge available about our country.
[English]
As we trade globally and welcome immigrants from all over the world every day, supporting international research and teaching about Canada is more essential than ever. Post‑secondary research and teaching are increasingly global in nature, and Canada cannot stand on the sidelines while many other countries — our allies but also some potential foes — make strong efforts to project themselves onto the international scene through intense academic and cultural diplomacy.
[Translation]
Given the limited budgetary dollars at stake here — the old program cost less than $6 million per year — refinancing the International Canadian Studies Network through a renewed program would be a reasonable investment for taxpayers.
Considering these remarks, I encourage you to recommend again that Global Affairs Canada support Canadian studies abroad. It is a small price to pay to significantly improve Canada’s place and reputation in the world.
Thank you very much.
[English]
I will welcome your questions in due course.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Béland.
[English]
Now we will go to Professor John English. It is good to see you again. You have the floor to deliver your statement.
[Translation]
John English, Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, University of Waterloo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the invitation.
I think that your topic is very important.
[English]
Thirty years ago, the newly elected Government of Canada decided to review Canadian foreign policy and, after extensive discussions, it urged Canada to build a third pillar, culture, a different pillar for its international policy. In 1995, the Government of Canada accepted that recommendation. We had hoped for a pillar of granite, but it turned out to be made of sand.
One outstanding member of that committee, on which I also served, was Senator Raynell Andreychuk. I was delighted when she returned to the subject again as chair of this committee and issue that excellent report, Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy. That occurred in 2019. Among other items, that report strongly recommended, as you heard from Mr. Béland:
That Global Affairs Canada support the creation of a modernized Canadian Studies program that would contribute to knowledge about Canada in the world.
What you have already heard demonstrates clearly that it certainly has, and more. In testimony, Michael Kergin, a very eminent diplomat of the 1980s and 1990s and slightly beyond, told us about how important Canadian Studies in the United States was when Canada was working out the free trade agreement and NAFTA. He talks about the many encounters he had with Americans and Canadians in the United States who worked together with the Canadian diplomats at the time. I believe, Mr. Chair, you were there at the time too and saw that impact.
Second, you heard today from Professor Knopf. I found her testimony compelling. Understanding Canada shaped her own life and changed her academic focus. It changed her life, but it changed our own, because what has happened is, as she has explained Canada to us, we have Canada much better explained in Germany, which as we heard from her and from you, Mr. Chair, is a place where Canada is not well understood.
Finally, Professor Eagles convinced me, based upon Brian Long’s study and his own studies, that Canadian Studies pays. Other countries subsidize generously when we contribute. He suggests the rate may be over 60 to 1, but at least 36 to 1. I think that probably rivals the subsidies battery plants get and maybe exceed them.
Canadian Studies does work and has worked. Parliamentary committees have agreed. Why it has not survived is a great historical mystery, like Tom Thompson’s death and the failure of the Toronto Maple Leafs to win a playoff series. That may change tonight, and let’s hope it changes with Canadian Studies this year.
Thanks again. I think this is an important topic and something we should act upon because it is a tremendous opportunity that was lost but can be recovered. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor English.
We will now turn to Professor Sing.
Pamela Sing, President, Canadian Studies Network: Thank you for the invitation to participate in this process.
Just a short word to introduce myself: I am a retired professor of French, French-Canadian and Franco-Métis literatures at the French campus of the University of Alberta. While I was at the Faculté Saint-Jean, I was the director of the Institute d’études canadiennes from 2015 to 2018, and I have been president of the Canadian Studies Network for the last two years. Actually, since the beginning of March, I’ve become the past president.
My intention today is to elaborate on my experience on the international stage as a Canadianist. It is not thanks to funding through the ICCS or Understanding Canada program but through the Fulbright program, the Stirling Maxwell Fellowship program and the Institute of Modern Languages research fellowship that I was able to share my research on those three literatures in England, the States and Scotland. Obviously, as a professor, I participated in many international conferences; it was my own funds that subsidized those opportunities to share my research.
My intention is to support Recommendation 8 in the 2019 Senate report entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, which stated the committee’s conviction that Global Affairs Canada should support the creation of a modernized Canadian Studies program that would contribute to knowledge about Canada in the world.
In a nutshell, the perspective I intend to share with you is that a key component of such a program involves the restoration of the Understanding Canada program in one form or another. I propose to do this in this statement by underscoring two points.
My first point is that the mere existence of such a program speaks to the kind of country that we are, that is, a country that believes itself to be worthy of being talked about, discussed and understood both within its borders and beyond, and a country that wants to engage in dialogue with the rest of the world in order to be better understood — not as a finitely defined entity, but as a constantly evolving one. It is as important for the Government of Canada to communicate this message to its own citizens as it is to communicate it to citizens of other countries.
My second point is about the suggestion regarding the creation of a modernized Canadian Studies program. Such a creation must not forget the goals and accomplishments of the International Council for Canadian Studies. The ICCS unites numerous Canadian Studies associations around the world, it has existed since 1981 and currently comprises 23 member association and 5 associate members in 39 countries.
We must not forget either the fact that this multi-member organization serves to teach about our country and foster as well as support important research and publications concerning aspects and issues that are at the forefront of Canadian lives. This means that in 39-plus countries and continents, including the United States, Central Europe, Australia and New Zealand, people read, learn about and discuss topics related to the political, socio-economic and cultural values, realities, challenges and experiences that say who we are — again, not only within our own borders but also on the North American continent and on the world stage.
By restoring support to the ICCS through the Understanding Canada program, the Government of Canada would again contribute to ensuring the continuous formation and continued existence of Canadianists around the world, that is to say, 7,000‑plus local specialists whose work consists of contributing to knowledge about Canada throughout the world.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Sing.
We will now go to questions. As before, four-minute segments, please.
Senator Harder: My question is for John English. I think it’s important to put this program, as important as it is, in the broader context of cultural diplomacy. I have two questions for you.
One is what is the state of the study of Canadian history in Canada? You are a distinguished historian at a very distinguished university. You might comment on that.
The second aspect of that is the ability to host international students in Canada, with an objective of having them assume a broader understanding of Canada than simply an engineering degree, and keeping that connection is important as well. I reference that in Singapore, 30 years ago, the cabinet was called the University of Toronto Alumni Association because they had all studied at the University of Toronto. I’d like you to put this important issue in a broader context, because if we’re just doing this, we’re failing to maximize the impact even of this program.
Mr. English: Your question is a very good one.
In terms of the Canadian Studies programs themselves, I can tell you from my own very long history of teaching that it has a very large indirect impact. We can talk about numbers, but there’s something greater. What happens is that someone comes from Germany, to use two examples I have, and they end up in Canada. They work here, teach here and become professors here. In terms of Waterloo region, which you know very well, as do some of the other members of this panel, one of the Canadian Studies persons came and started writing books about the German tradition in Waterloo region. I think he’s probably the leading person on that subject. But it’s an incidental thing because he married a Canadian. He stayed here and made that large contribution. He had a language advantage, which many did not. It’s hard to quantify these aspects.
With Canadian history in Canada, obviously with the emphasis on STEM, which so many universities are undertaking now, history is a discipline that has fewer people. People are not being replaced. I can tell you that I was the editor of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography for eight years, 2006 to 2013 or 2014, and I had to rely on people who had studied Canada outside of Canada for articles on many subjects. It’s again an indirect influence.
You made the point earlier, and you’re correct: Canada is the least known of the G7 countries, and it probably ranks at the bottom in terms of the G20. I was in London last week, and, surely, right beside me was this store. I went into the bookstore, and there were a lot of books on Australia, and there were two books on Canada, which were general histories of Canada. There were some specialized works that dealt with Canada. We get left out, and one of the reasons we get left out is because we do not have programs like the British Council and the various Alliances Françaises that other G7 countries do have, and I think it is time for us to recognize that we are losing out on many opportunities because of this unknown nation that we are.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses for this really helpful discussion today.
Like you, I don’t understand why our country — humble people as we are — but that shouldn’t get in the way of being smart about how we position ourselves in the world. You can still be humble and be smart, so hopefully what you’re telling us today will help us in that direction.
Each of you has talked in different ways about the value of what was and the loss that has incurred since we no longer have that program supporting Canadian Studies. You’ve also all touched on the importance of a modernized Canadian Studies program. I’d like to hear from each of you as to what you see as that modernized program. I don’t mean curriculum, but what would that look like? What’s the new generation?
Mr. Béland: Thank you very much.
I will preach for my parish in the sense that I think public policy is very important. I’m a specialist of public policy, and I see that people in other countries are actually very curious about what we do in different policy areas to address common problems like climate change, child poverty and so forth. I think that a renewed program about understanding Canada could emphasize the need to reach out to policy schools all over the world to bring them into this discussion about Canada and to make them more aware of the fact that, in Canada, we have important policy debates, and we have something to contribute in terms of global policy learning.
Ms. Sing: Being a literature professor, I confront the fact every day that we have to pay to share our knowledge about Canada. I think one aspect that a modernized Understanding Canada Program could incorporate is to place more emphasis on our local Canadianists and support their travels elsewhere in other countries to share their knowledge. As I mentioned, at the beginning of my career, above all I had to self-fund. Today I believe that funds are even more scarce, so such a program could place as much emphasis on bringing the international to Canada as bringing Canada to the international.
Mr. English: I agree with what Professor Sing just said and also with what Nik Nanos said. I think that some sort of digital library that brought together the very diverse work that is being done on Canada would be very helpful. A Canadianist section of the Library and Archives Canada, or LAC, would be appropriate. I don’t want to have them take on more responsibilities than they already have, but it does seem the logical place, and in some ways, it is an extension of the deposit library responsibility that LAC has. I think that is a very substantial contribution to the debate, and it would modernize and assist the dissemination of information about Canada.
Senator Woo: Thank you to the witnesses.
I’d like to build on Senator Coyle’s question, and I draw on two recent books: one by a group of Canadianists called The Construction of Canadian Identity from Abroad, by Professors Nimijean and Kirkey, both Canadian Studies professors abroad, and the other book is Canadian Foreign Policy: Reflections on a Field in Transition, and it is, sort of, a reflection on the state of the study of Canadian foreign policy. The theme that I picked up in that book is that being a Canadianist is painful and not particularly rewarding for an academic career. If I can put it this way, boxing yourself in as a Canadianist focusing on Canadian foreign policy and teaching Canadian political theory or Canadian political issues in a political science department is often something that you’re penalized for doing for a variety of petty academic reasons, perhaps. I don’t know; I’m not an academic.
But that raises the question of the strategic way of developing a modernized Canadian Studies program. Would it be better, or could we consider, instead of creating a box called “Canadian Studies,” thinking about injecting Canadian perspectives into the so-called mainstream disciplines so that there is a Canadian angle always in economics, history, political science, sociology and so on and forth so that there is also the international and traditional scholarly and academic recognition that comes with being on topic, if you know what I mean? Perhaps Professor English would like to respond first, and then all three of you, please.
Mr. English: Sure. Canadian Foreign Policy: Reflections on a Field in Transition is a book of which I was the co-editor of the series, not the book itself.
I can tell you one of the problems that you pointed to correctly is that the book is published by University of British Columbia Press, as you probably know, and I just asked them for the sales of the series. One of the problems for Canadian publishing is that characteristically a book like that sells 300 to 500 copies. If you publish with Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press or one of the American ones, the books will sell 1,500 to 2,000 copies.
I’ve published with Canadian publishers and non-Canadian publishers, and the quality in terms of editing, the quality of the books themselves, I think, in most cases, are higher than the foreign counterparts, but we haven’t managed to handle that particular question. It’s a very particular one, but it’s part of a larger question: How do we get Canada known?
It’s very disappointing when you consider the amount of effort that goes into these books, and you will notice how much they cost. The reason they cost so much is because the number is not high in terms of sales, and they’re all subsidized. That’s a subsidized series, partly from a grant from the C.D. Howe Institute and partly by the government through Aid to Scholarly Journals.
Mr. Béland: Yes, Senator Woo, I agree with you. We should not just promote the study of Canada within Canadian Studies in the narrow sense of the term. That’s why I mentioned policy schools, but I could also have mentioned political science, economics, history and so forth. We need to understand that a comparative angle on Canada is very important.
When I started my career, a professor at the time — I was a PhD student — who is now a University of Toronto Professor Emeritus told me that if you want people abroad to care about Canada, you have to adopt a comparative perspective and explain to them why studying Canada is important in a broader global perspective. I think that’s what we should do when we renew Understanding Canada, because Understanding Canada is also understanding the world.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to all the witnesses.
Professor English, you referred to the committee’s 2019 report on cultural diplomacy, and in that report there was a reference to Indigenous communities of Canada as being “essential to Canadian diversity and its distinct image abroad.” What role can and should Indigenous communities play as part of our strategy, and in a broader sense, to what extent have Indigenous and BIPOC communities been involved in the development of such a strategy?
Mr. English: Firstly, I would defer to Professor Knopf, who works in this field and can comment more fully on this.
One of my last research projects was on the Arctic, and, of course, the Canadian Arctic has an Indigenous population that’s significant and has been extremely important in working internationally. It led in the creation of the Arctic Council, indeed. What I found in writing a book about the Arctic, paradoxically, was that in the Scandinavian countries particularly — and obviously the United States — the funding for scholarship on Canadian Arctic work, just general Arctic work, the kind of comparative work that Daniel was just talking about, was far more generous proportionally in those countries than it is in Canada. It was a disappointment. I was so impressed by what has been achieved in the Scandinavian countries. At the time, they had significant universities in the Arctic, with attention to their Indigenous and Arctic questions, and we had none. It was a glaring gap, both in terms of the academic side and also in terms of Indigenous questions within Canada itself.
Professor Knopf is a better commentator than I am.
Senator Ravalia: Would you like to add to that?
Mr. English: She’s not here anymore, I guess. She was in the previous session.
The Chair: Professor Béland, would you have a comment?
Mr. Béland: I like what Professor English said about the Arctic. I was professor at the University of Saskatchewan before, and I have noticed how well, for example, the Norwegians were organized on that front and how we were behind.
Also, in our institute, we have a program on Canadian Studies but also on Quebec Studies and Indigenous Studies. I do think that, increasingly, we have to understand that when we discuss the role of Canada internationally but also when we talk about what’s happening in Canada, the Indigenous perspective is very important, and it’s something that has to be stressed. When we modernize Understanding Canada, we have to keep reconciliation in mind.
The Chair: Professor Sing, you have a minute, if you wish to comment.
Ms. Sing: I would just add that this reconciliation question is indeed key. Universities, as you know, across Canada have been avidly hiring Indigenous scholars, but it’s still a process. For them to feel that they actually have a voice at the table will take some time. I think the emphasis we’ve been placing on Indigenous questions does shine a spotlight on them, but it’s still competitive, a “they and us” kind of situation. I believe in time, if we keep at the forefront of our minds the importance of involving Indigenous perspectives as one of many, then it seems almost inevitable that it will happen.
Senator M. Deacon: I’m going to ask this question and tart with Professor English. Of course, thank you for serving my community in the 1990s. It’s great to see you again. We’re using your Arctic book in another committee, so it’s always great to see the cross connections.
I open this up. I’m trying to think back to this 2019 report that you talked about on cultural diplomacy. In this report, the committee suggests that as part of a strategic policy framework, the government establish measurable goals. I wasn’t yet a member of the committee at that time, but I always challenge and struggle with that recommendation because determining tangible goals is always tricky, especially on a topic as individual and as subjective as culture. I’d like to get your thoughts today on what these goals would look like to you when it comes to Canadian Studies and how we can ensure it’s something we can look back to, point to and say, “We got there. We’ve been successful.”
Mr. English: Thank you very much for the comments you made about my time as the Member of Parliament for Kitchener.
In truth, the last session answered a lot of these questions. There was measurement done of the impact, as is so common now in all we do. I think in terms of simple quantitative measurement, the answers are fairly obvious. A lot of students in American universities and European universities and Asian universities were introduced for the first time to Canadian content. They heard about Canada probably for the first time, and they were able to follow through to the graduate level, si more graduate theses on Canada. Munroe Eagles testified that it was extremely important, and was convincing on that account, to a place like Buffalo, which is so close to where you come from, and how it had such an impact there. It made Canada a focus of interest. They worked with Brock University on a joint degree on Canadian-American at the MA level.
It can be measured. Universities always have a hard time measuring. You can’t simply measure by students or research output like citations. There has to be a qualitative judgment as well. But on both counts, qualitative and quantitative, it seems to me this program ranks at the A-plus level in the past, and that’s why there is a good case for it to be an A plus program in the future.
Ms. Sing: I would reiterate what Professor English just said in that Kerstin would be in a good position to answer this.
I would address the question on the level of prizes. The CSN gives out six prizes for studies on Canadian issues, ranging from undergrad to PhD to the best book and best articles produced by academics. The winners of the CSN are submitted to the ICCS. The ICCS receives all kinds of submissions for different prizes — for example, the best book and the best PhD on Canadian Studies. Each year, the number of these submissions does vary. It’s an indication of, how would you say, the widespreadness of interest in Canadian questions. If Kerstin were here, she could give us a comparative indication of how those numbers have shifted over the last couple years, for example. I know that within the Canadian Studies network, we have more and more people from other countries who are now Canadianists who publish theses, essays, books and articles on different questions related to the Canadian Studies domain.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I must say that it’s great to have a political science professor here and a history professor. I took an on-screen political science at Dalhousie. I was taught by men like J. Murray Beck and P.B. Waite. These were great professors and great authors and gave me a great education. I guess that’s what I want to get back to.
This country is a geopolitical miracle, historically. I’m one of those people who are increasingly skeptical of the type of education people are getting today in the social sciences in the universities. I’m wondering if you think that young Canadians understand, know or appreciate the uniqueness of our substantial history.
Mr. Béland: Thank you very much for your question. How much time do I have?
The Chair: Well, that will depend.
Mr. Béland: Oh, you’re flexible now. That’s great.
The Chair: I’ve always been flexible, but the other panellists may want to intervene on a very important question.
Mr. Béland: Of course. Yes, I will keep it short.
I would say it’s quite uneven in terms of how much people know about our history. It depends a lot on the region they come from. Our education systems are, of course, provincial. I studied history in Quebec, and when I moved to Alberta, I learned about things, or at least I became much more aware of things like the National Energy Program that I was never taught about in Quebec, or very little. People in Alberta are not taught about some things that are important to Quebecers or people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think this is a major challenge for Canada as a country, the fact that there is this patchwork. Of course, we have some institutions in this country, like Historica Canada, that do promote a broader understanding of Canadian history and institutions, but at least in my experience, and I taught for years in Alberta and Saskatchewan — also, when I moved from Calgary to Saskatoon, there are things that I also discovered that were not so central in the discussion about history even next door in Alberta. It is a challenge to put the pieces of the puzzle together so people have a more holistic understanding of Canada.
The Chair: Senator, can we go to the other panellists? It’s a comprehensive question, so we’ll allow a little bit more time.
Mr. English: Well, it is a very comprehensive question.
I think that my own experience of teaching students is that I taught up until the pandemic. Students have a great interest in Canadian history. As you know, Waterloo is a school with a large number of engineers, and I volunteered to teach engineers. They were among some of my best students. Embarrassingly, they were usually at the top in terms of their marks, and they wanted to take Canadian history. They knew they would be working in Canada, and it was something they wanted to understand. I don’t think we have a lack of interest. There is clearly an economic factor now, as there was earlier when I was first hired in the 1970s. There’s more money in other fields it seems. I don’t think that’s entirely true, but people perceive the money is in computer science and engineering and STEM fields, so there aren’t as many students taking it as majors, but there’s a lot of interest in history.
If you go down to any bookstore, you’ll see there’s quite a large number of books on Canadian history in particular fields. The top area, without question in terms of the books — take a look at the best-seller list — is Indigenous history. We’re having the debate about our past. It has attracted a great deal of attention. The second area in terms of popular sales is war. People are interested in the Canadian military tradition. When one goes to Chapters, you will see there a section often on military history.
Historica is doing good work. I edited the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which is a bilingual publication — “en français aussi.” If you take a look at it, we put on the hundred most popular biographies in French and the hundred most popular in English. It’s a very interesting difference between the two, but what surprises me is the overlap. Recently Louis Riel has been at the top in both French and English, and there are some people who surprise me. John Diefenbaker is near the top in French and English too, but it changes every week. We have more hits, as you call it, on the DCB than we had 10 years ago. It’s an indication to me that people are doing this and not using ChatGPT to write their essays. They’re actually sitting down and reading these things.
The Chair: Professor Sing, do you have a comment?
Ms. Sing: My range would be limited. I agree with Professor English that there’s no lack of interest in Canadian topics.
I know that when I was teaching masters level in Canadian Studies in literature, one of the more interesting students I had had just come from Africa with a medical background. She thought that since she was going to be working somewhere in Canada, where we have such a diverse population, she wanted to take Canadian Studies courses so she could learn about our background through reading novels and essays. She thought that all new immigrants should take such a Canadian Studies course in order to assimilate better — not assimilate, but to better fit into the Canadian society.
I would reiterate the fact that there’s no lack of interest and that there is great interest in Indigenous issues and in history.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank our witnesses. My question is for all of the witnesses.
We understood here, listening to all the panellists, that almost all of them deplore the fact that the Understanding Canada program was closed. According to their mandate letters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Canadian Heritage are responsible for launching a new cultural diplomacy strategy. If you had one recommendation to make in relation to this strategy, what would it be?
The Chair: That’s a good question.
Mr. Béland: Thank you very much for the question. My recommendation would be to explain to people abroad, around the world, why Canada is a country worth studying. We have done a lot of things in certain areas, such as immigration or social policies where we have innovations. We have to try to sell ourselves abroad by telling people why we are interesting.
Someone earlier was talking about modesty; I think it was Senator Boniface talking about modesty. We have to be modest, but at the same time we must not be afraid to tell people that we do interesting things in Canada. We also make mistakes. By studying our history, our political institutions and our public policies, they can learn about Canada and draw useful lessons for public action and for democracy elsewhere in the world.
Mr. English: Thank you for this good question.
[English]
Going back to Nik Nanos’ comment, considering the context in which you place the question and the dual responsibility between Heritage and Global Affairs, and you asked for one, I think the first thing would be to get a digital base of the abundant work that we’ve heard discussed here on Canadian Studies accessible through the Library and Archives Canada and the Bibliothèque. I would put that as first.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Sing: I’m afraid I don’t have any solution. I would agree it would be very helpful to offer access to an archival library, but even at the stage where we are, it is not content that is lacking.
[Translation]
It’s rather about unifying all the diversity into an approach that is affordable. I don’t know how to do that. What I had said to colleagues associated with the Institute for the Study of Canada was that, to be successful in promoting the study of Canada, we have to show that we are sexy so as to attract students. How to do that? I don’t know. We need to modernize the program, but I don’t know how to it. We are already on the right track, but we need to do more. Since we’re so complex and diverse, I don’t know how to find a single track. We need to continue to emphasize the diversity and the complexity by highlighting the number of issues that need to be addressed to begin to understand Canada. That’s it.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
I would like to make a comment and put a question to our panellists.
A long time ago, I was a student, like all of us were. I was at the University of Edinburgh, and that’s where I was working on my doctorate. I had an office. Because I was a teaching assistant in a Canadian Studies course, I had an office in the Centre of Canadian Studies, as it was called. It was in an old 17th century house on George Square. There was a visiting professor from Canada. At the time, it was Ernest Weeks from Prince Edward Island who had been a senior bureaucrat and first chair of the Saltfish Corporation. We had a writer in residence, Graeme Gibson, who came with his spouse, Margaret Atwood. He was followed by Dennis Lee, the poet. We all hung out together and it was great. The students were very enthusiastic. It was a second-year course on Canadian Studies. I was the TA on it while doing my thesis. Once in a while, the High Commissioner would come up from London, and that was Paul Martin Sr. It gives you an idea how long ago that was.
My question to the witnesses today: In terms of restoring something like the Understanding Canada program, does it make sense to have, at universities abroad, a brick-and-mortar unit or approach where there is actually a centre for Canadian Studies and that we provide incentives with Canadian writers and professors to attract the students? All of these students — many of whom are still in touch with me — became mini ambassadors for Canada in whatever they did. Now, there’s a special bond between Scotland and Canada, of course. In any event, I’d be interested in comments. Perhaps we can start with Professor English.
Mr. English: Sure. That’s a very interesting reflection. I do know how much that experience influenced you, Mr. Chair.
I think you’re correct. If you have a centre that’s established and particularly built around an individual, even a visiting professor — which is true of several universities where there’s an endowed Canadian chair — it builds up the kind of experience at universities which is really most valuable. We all know from our own university experiences that what occurs outside the classroom — in the coffee shop, in the bar — those types of gatherings are perhaps the experiences that endure.
Your description of what occurred at Edinburgh was duplicated in many other places. In Germany, many of my friends have been in Berlin and built up long, enduring relationships with Germany because of their experience there. Others have been in Japan, and it’s left a permanent mark on them and the way that they look at the Canadian experience, because, as Daniel said, Canadian Studies thrives when it is comparative, and so often we’re left out.
There’s an article in — I think it was the New York Times yesterday that tried to rank the United States on the pandemic. It compared the United States to Japan and various other countries and left out Canada, which is astonishing when you think that we’re next door and the long border we share. But it so often is the case that we’re left out. As you said, Mr. Chair, we don’t have enough ambassadors who spread the word or who buy books about Canada in bookshops in Germany or Canada. We do have to change our impression.
I am just back from a trip to Europe. I was in Poland and talked with Polish relatives of my wife. Canada is barely known. It’s far away, despite the fact that we have Polish Canadian relatives, because there’s nothing that appears about Canada in the Polish media. Granted, there are other concerns right now.
In Germany — you can speak to this better than I can, but my first experience in Germany was in an exchange, not as a student but as a worker. In the 1960s, Germany was short of workers, and I foolishly volunteered, and I worked two and a half months in a steel mill. The first question I got when I was there: Is your father a holzfäller, a lumberjack? I told him he wasn’t. Their impression of Canada was really built from the impressions of the American Wild West in some cases, the Karl May novels that were so famous.
Unfortunately, despite all the very good work that’s been done, the advantage of having something like the British Council, Alliance Française, the Goethe-Institut or whatever, is substantial. Having recognized centres — Duke University had one that did a lot of very good work. Munroe Eagles talked about Buffalo. If you can concentrate and focus on some centres, there can be the kinds of experiences for Canadians abroad and also for the people in the country itself that so much enriches what we know about ourselves and what others know about us.
The Chair: Professor Béland, would you have a quick comment?
Mr. Béland: Yes.
There’s a special connection, as you know, between McGill and Scotland, and also I have published a book at Oxford University Press that compares Scotland with Quebec and Flanders. I’ve been to Scotland quite a bit, and I have to say that, again, the comparative angle is useful here.
You’re right. Having concrete centres is essential. For example, at our institute, we have collaborated. At Berkeley, they have a program in Canadian Studies, UC Berkeley; SUNY Plattsburgh; Bridgewater State University. For example, with Bridgewater State University and SUNY Plattsburgh, we have a rotating speaker series in Canadian Studies. We have one professor from McGill who will go to these two universities and give a talk, and then the following year, a professor from one of these universities will come to McGill and the other institution.
We need concrete institutions and events that are annual events, and, yes, actually brick-and-mortar locations. We need centres where people can come. In terms of fellowships, we also have people from the Fulbright program come to our institute, some Americans who come and spend time at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. It has to be very concrete. It’s not just a one-off, like organizing a conference here and it’s over. It has to be a conference every year or a centre that is permanent in nature, and you have to collaborate with other centres.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I just wanted to go back to what Mr. English just said about the creation of centres. In a practical way, can you give a direction, for example, in terms of creating a new iteration of the Understanding Canada program?
What is the benefit of having a centre like the Alliance Française? Italians offer scholarships to study the Italian language, for example in Africa, if a student wants to study in Italy. Is there a way to convince people, with financial incentives, that this is a cost-effective approach for the government?
Mr. English: It’s very complicated.
[English]
Clearly, that’s something that Global Affairs and Canadian Heritage should try to sort out. I have often wondered why we haven’t — the Canada Council we have, but the British Council is such a different — Alliance Française and the British Council, and probably the Goethe-Institut too, make a great deal of their funding from language training.
[Translation]
Canada is bilingual, clearly; maybe that’s a possibility, but I don’t know.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We’ve had a very rich discussion.
Colleagues, I would again ask you to look at the written submissions that have come in, and on May 10 we will have witnesses from Heritage Canada and from Global Affairs Canada as a follow-up to this discussion. You might want to start thinking about questions you would like to ask. They have been frequently mentioned in the discussions today.
I’d like to thank the witnesses for their commentary. Thank you, senators. Unless there is any other business — nothing? — we’re adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)