On Being a Canadian

The federal government is thinking about adding in a language proficiency milestone for anyone hoping to become a naturalized Canadian citizen.  The proposed regulation changes state that citizenship applicants should have the ability to fill out forms and express simple ideas in either English or French.

For some classes of immigrant this many not be a big deal as language requirements are a part of their application process.  But for some, particularly refugees, it could be a roadblock to citizenship.  Apparently, that is an important part of being Canadian.

Like any other person born here, these language requirements will never apply to me.  Unless I give it up Conrad Black style, I'll always be a Canadian citizen regardless of how well or poorly I can use either official language.  But it's a good segue into a discussion on being a Canadian.

I've touched on what it means to be a Canadian a couple of time, but never in any great detail.  In the Thanksgiving rundown I mentioned how our very own turkey day pays homage to the outright failure of a Martin Frobisher voyage (he didn't find the Northwest Passage and brought home hundred tons of worthless rocks).  If a reader bothered to follow the link out of the entry on Page One, they would have learned what expat Bruce Headlam, then editor of the New York Times had to say about his home and native land ("not only a lot bigger than Minnesota, it’s just as interesting").

I've never been able to satisfy myself with a definition on what it is to being Canadian.  Aside from something basic like being eligible for a passport, the single best I've managed is that Canadians are a group of people who can spend a lot of time telling anyone who will listen how different we are from Americans.  

Will Ferguson included a quiz in his book How to be a Canadian that assigned a certain number of point towards your Canadianness.  Things like if you remember where you where when Ben lost his medal, or when Wayne was traded.  I recall those things happening, but they predate some of my classmates so they may not be the best litmus test.  Maybe its fairer to ask if they know where they were when Ross lost his medal or where they were when Sidney was drafted.

There is an actual citizenship test that hopeful Canadians must take and pass to become naturalized.  The Richmond, B.C. public library has a practice version of it here: http://www.yourlibrary.ca/citizenship/.  Discounting the questions specific to the Richmond area, I scored a 90% on the test, which is pretty good, though it is hardly a perfect test for gauging culture.

I don't know about the actual test, but parts of this practice one aren't quite correct.  Like this question.

11. How is the Prime Minister chosen?
a. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister.
b. The Governor General with the Senate appoint the Prime Minister
c. The leader of the party with the most elected representatives becomes the Prime Minister.
d. The MP's (sic) vote on the Prime Minister

The "correct" choice is c, but the answer disagrees with how a Prime Minister is actually selected.  Although the Prime Minister is most commonly the leader of the party with the most number of seats, there is no requirement that this be the case.  In fact, two PMs have been Senators who have not led their political party.  Nor is there a requirement that the Prime Minister come from the party with the most seats.  This can happen in a coalition government or following an election that does not result in a majority situation.  If that happens, the current Prime Minister retains the position even if his/her party doesn't have the largest number of seats.

For as wrong as the correct answer is, none of the others are really any better.  Answer d is completely off base, MPs have no say in the matter.  Choice b would be perfect if it didn't mention the Senate.  If the test-taker takes "Queen" to include her representative (the governor general) then it becomes the best fit.  As it is, that puts it about at the same level of incorrect as c.

Anyway, knowing the finer points of selecting a Prime Minister are hardly important to the day-to-day of being a Canadian.  To be honest, there are probably a lot of Canadians who think the PM is voted for in a manner similar to the U.S. president, it’s probably best not to include the issue at all.

And for as much as I like them, history and governance aren't the be all and end all of culture.  Things like food, art, sport and music should be considered.

For food, the only Canadian concoction that springs to mind is poutine.  While not without its charm, I'm not sure it qualifies as a national dish the same way perogies say Ukrainian or pasta says Italian.  If former Prime Minister Joe Clark is to be believed, we don't have a national food, rather a "cuisine of cuisines."  What that means to me is that we aren't original when it comes to food.

Art is important, but I'm sure many Canadians would struggle to name a famous Canadian artist who wasn't associated with the Group of Seven.  Even then, there would be a struggle to name an actual member of the group as neither Emily Carr nor Tom Thompson are members.  Literature can be lumped in here though I'm sure most Canadians have only a passing and probably unfavourable impression of Canadian authors based on having to read something by Margaret Atwood or Timothy Findlay back in high school.  Film too, although it is sometimes joked that the best witness protection program would be to involve someone in the Canadian film industry. 

In the realm of sports, we sure do like hockey.  Lots and lots of hockey.  I think we like it because we're better at it than anyone else.  We beat the Soviets in '72!  We beat the U.S. in 2010!  It's a bit thumbing of the nose, but since some Canadians have rioted because of the outcome of a hockey game, I guess it must be considered.

Musically we have a lot of talent here in Canada.  Acts like Rush, Celine Dion, Nickelback and Ann Murray have all made it big outside our borders, so that has to be worth something.  Then again, because Canada is so massive the bands on the east coast have a completely different sound from those practicing in the basements of the prairies and different still from whatever it is they do out west (I honestly can't name a band from out that way other than Chilliwack).  And Quebec pop music is in a completely different language.  If there is anything there, I sure don't know what it is.

So if it can't be tested or ingested, experienced or played, is there a definition of what it means to be a Canadian?  I still don't think it can solve our identify crisis with a small number of words.  The closest I've ever seen was something historian Frank Underhill wrote in 1964.

"If we are eventually to satisfy ourselves that we have at last achieved a national identity, it will be only when we are satisfied that we have arrived at a better American way of life than the Americans have." 

And maybe that's depressing, but I can't deny the accuracy of it.