How to Criticize

Criticize "Discover Canada" and the Conservatives if you want, but do so based on clear, reasoned, and evidence-based understanding.

Laura Kaminker’s recent article in The Mark is highly critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, and as a Canadian I respect that. We should have a diversity of views, and the confidence and freedom to express them openly.

But we should also do so fairly, with due regard to context and history.

Regrettably, Kaminker’s critical attack on the new citizenship guide, and her suggestion that it has branded Canada in a distinctly “Conservative” manner is neither entirely fair, nor cognizant of the history behind it.

The problems begin in the second sentence: “Called, ‘Discover Canada: the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship,’” Kaminker writes, “the new guide replaced a booklet called ‘A Look at Canada,’ first published in 1997 and updated in 2005 under Liberal governments.”

Reading this sentence, one would assume that there have been three versions of the guide: the original, from 1997, the update, from 2005 (both Liberal), and the new one, published by the Conservatives in 2009.

If this were true, then some of the conclusions stemming from Kaminker’s comparisons would have merit.

For example, she argues that the Conservatives have “militarized” the guide. “While the old guide contained no reference to the military,” she explains, “the new guide defines Canada’s history by war.”

Similarly, she notes that the oath of citizenship in the new guide is conspicuously placed at the front, stressing (too strongly for her) the Conservatives’ emphasis on Canada’s European heritage. In the old guide, she tells us, it appeared at the back.

The problem with both of these examples, and with a number of other arguments in her text, is that they are based on incomplete information resulting from a lack of research into the history of the guide.

In fact, there have been at least 19 versions of “A Look at Canada,” dating back to an interim publication by the Department of Secretary of State in 1977. And this does not even include How to Become a Canadian Citizen, first published in 1947, or A Guide to Canadian Citizenship, published in 1967.

The 1977 edition of “A Look at Canada,” published by the Trudeau Liberals, included a number of references to the military. There were discussions of Remembrance Day and the Second World War. There were pictures of a Canadian Armed Forces airplane and the first Canadian destroyer.

It is also worth noting that the 1977 edition did not contain the citizenship oath at all. (It was included instead in a complementary publication, The Canadian Citizen.) But there certainly was a discussion of Canada’s British heritage, including references to the celebration of Victoria Day and the impact the Victorian era had on Canada’s evolution.

It was the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that first inserted the citizenship oath into “A Look at Canada” in 1995, prominently positioning it on page three. It was only moved to the back in 2000.

Canada’s alleged commitment to the environment (a commitment that was and is hardly substantiated by this country’s standing as one of the largest per capita users of water in the world, by our absolute rejection of a federal carbon tax, and by our colossal failure to reduce carbon emissions) was not mentioned until 1999.

(Frankly, as someone who believes that we have to do better on the environment, I am glad that the references to Canada’s environmental commitment have been reduced. It was embarrassing to have the government so brazenly mislead future citizens about this country’s policies.)

The elimination of references to the military and profound increase in references to peace were also part of the changes of the late 1990s. Indeed, “peace” did not become a Canadian “value” in the Chrétien guides until 2000.

This brief summary does not do justice to the extent of the evolution in the citizenship guides over the years, nor does it serve to refute each and every one of Kaminker’s arguments and conclusions.

Personally, I too found the words “barbaric cultural practices” in the current guide jarring. Nor would I have objected to a reference to Canada’s progressive policy on gay marriage. But then, no previous version of “A Look at Canada” ever noted Prime Minister Mulroney’s efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the military, so it’s awkward to criticize the current omission as excessively partisan.

My point is that history matters far more than Kaminker seems to think. Without it, we lack the context necessary to analyze credibly, and to engage in reasonable dialogue.

If Kaminker didn’t want dialogue, if she intended merely to criticize the current government’s attitudes and policies, that’s fine too. But all of our political parties have regrettably given us plenty to criticize without having to resort to such misleading and unfair attacks.

Kaminker concludes by talking about the Canada that “she knows.” I would hope that such a place encourages frank, open discussion based on clear, reasoned, and evidence-based understanding. Mine certainly does.