Gray: WWI an odd place to start our national mythology

2014/08/28 Leave a comment

Nice contrarian piece by Charlotte Gray on World War 1 and the government narrative:

As early as October 1914, Maclean’s magazine called the bloody conflict in Europe “the Great War.” But it wasn’t a great war, let alone “the war to end all wars” as British writer H. G. Wells suggested. It was a failed war. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was supposed to ensure that the major European powers would never go to war again. In fact the Versailles Treaty turned out to be “the peace to end all peace.” Within twenty years of the treaty being signed, brutal conflict had erupted again in Europe.

The boundaries that the victorious powers slapped onto their maps of the Middle East reflected their own self-interest rather than the religious and ethnic realities on the ground. The current turmoil in the Arab world can be traced back, in part, to decisions taken in the Hall of Mirrors and subsequent diplomatic get-togethers.

The second reason for my increasing unease is a disturbing thread in some of the First World War commemorations: Military battles are being presented to Canadians as significant moments in our “coming of age” as a country. Yet you only have to read about the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge see historian Tim Cook’s wonderful Shock Troops: Canadians Fighting the Great War 1917-1918 to know that this “coming of age” was the result of poor military planning by British generals, and involved hundreds of needless deaths. Amongst those Canadians that returned, there was an undercurrent of resentment that they had been embroiled in a British imperial crusade. This is a funny place to start the national mythology. How much is our past being manipulated for nationalist reasons? Many of the citizens in today’s multicultural Canada have their roots in countries that were either defeated in 1918, or played no part in the conflict. What should the killing fields of Europe mean to them?

So let’s recall the nobility of individual young men who answered the summons “Your Country Needs You” and marched to their death. But it should not obscure the most depressing side of the story – the pointlessness of the massacre.

Gray: WWI an odd place to start our national mythology | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

The ideological roots of Stephen Harper’s vendetta against sociology

2014/08/28 Leave a comment

While a bit over-the-top, there is a more than an element of truth to the roots of the Government’s distrust of social science and sociology. Paul Wells captured some of this in The Longer I’m Prime Minister in his discussion of the reasons behind the cancellation of the Census and his explanation of some of the thinkers, like Peter Brimelow, behind his views and ideology.

But sometimes the social scientists assign all responsibility to structural factors, neglecting the individual. Bit more complicated.

But worth reading and reflecting upon:

Harper’s two disparaging comments about sociology, however, also need to be understood alongside his gutting of the long-form census in 2010. It is widely accepted that this action fundamentally undermined Canada’s ability to understand its own demographics, long-term social trends, and inequalities — in short, its sociology.

So what does Harper have against sociology? First, Harper is clearly trumpeting a standard component of neo-liberal ideology: that there are no social phenomena, only individual incidents. This ideology traces back to Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim that “there is no such thing as society.” Neo-liberalism paints all social problems as individual problems. The benefit of this for those who share Harper’s agenda, of course, is that if there are no social problems or solutions, then there is little need for government. Individuals are solely responsible for the problems they face.

This ideology is so seductive not only because it radically simplifies our world, but also because it mirrors the two social institutions neo-liberals actually believe in — the “free” market and law and order. Everything is reduced to either a simplistic market transaction or a criminal case. In the former, you either have the money to buy stuff, or you don’t and it’s up to you to get more. In the latter, a lone individual is personally responsible for a crime and is punished for it. Easy peasy. No sociology needed.

via The ideological roots of Stephen Harper’s vendetta against sociology | Toronto Star.

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , ,

Progressive Israel advocate Shira Herzog’s fine lessons | Farber

2014/08/28 Leave a comment

Good profile by Bernie Farber of the late Shira Herzog on both the personal and broader aspects of her character and role. A reminder of the diversity of voices within the Canadian Jewish community, and the different interpretations of “moral clarity”:

Yet personal criticism, even harsh reprimands from Jewish community leadership, never fazed her. She held her ground with the courage of her convictions. She spoke passionately of the need for peace, of the necessity to understand the folly of occupation — and she did so with a strong Zionist heart and a great love for Israel, the country of her birth.

And by doing so she gave us heart. She showed us that progressive-thinking Jews can, as we do right here in Canada, love a country and still be critical of political policies that don’t measure up to the standards of social justice. Like a good teacher she demonstrated that through reason, devoid of rhetoric but filled with fact and research, people will listen. They may not always agree but they will listen.

Indeed David Koschitzky, the National Chair of the Council for Israel and Jewish Affairs the successor agency to both CJC and CIC said it best in the recent Star obituary:

“Her major theme was fostering rapprochement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. One of her strengths was that she was able to balance her progressive views with calls to recognize the existential challenges confronting the Jewish state.”

This was Shira’s greatest gift to Canadian Jewry. Our community was her classroom and no one who came under her tutelage ever forgot the lessons she imparted.

Progressive Israel advocate Shira Herzog’s fine lessons | Toronto Star.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Terrorists may lose Norwegian citizenship – The Local

2014/08/28 Leave a comment

Another country considering citizenship revocation in cases of terrorism:

Minister of Children and Equality, Solveig Horne, said to the media: “This is a strong signal to people wanting to take part in terror operations and wars.”

The Norwegian government believes it is important to look at new measures to oppose radical behavior connected to terrorism.

Horne said: “We will turn over every stone to find the necessary measures to prevent radicalization and extremism. We will begin discussion about introducing regulations on revocation for any citizen causing serious damage to vital government interests or who has volunteered to serve in foreign military services.”

Terrorists may lose Norwegian citizenship – The Local.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated

2014/08/28 1 Comment

VictoriaFerauge’s updated list on citizenship and immigration readings:

Global Marriage: Cross-Border Marriage Migration in Global Context (2010) by Dr. Lucy Williams.  Outstanding look at cross-border marriages from a global perspective.  Williams takes on the myths, stereotypes about foreign brides (and grooms) and counters them with solid research. A refreshing antidote to the many silly things said about those “marriage migrants.”

The Scramble for Citizens: Dual Nationality and State Competition for Immigrants (2013) by David Cook-Martin.  A fine book that looks at migration from Spain and Italy to Argentina in one era and the reverse migration from Argentina back to Spain and Italy of those immigrants’ descendants in another.  The author does a fine job of showing how it is almost impossible for a state to make (and make stick) immigration/emigration and citizenship law unilaterally.  There is a larger context with sending and receiving states competing for the productive power and loyalty of immigants/emigrants.  This competition takes place over generations which may (the author says) have interesting implications for large receiving states like the United States.

Democracy and the Foreigner (2003) by Bonnie Honig.  Great read.  Honig takes the idea of “the foreigner” as a vexing issue to be solved through assimilation or rejection and turns it around.  Are there circumstances when the stranger is not a problem at all, but rather a solution to what ails a community?

Migration and the Great Recession:  the Transatlantic Experience (2011) edited by Demetrios Papademetriou et al.  If you were wondering how the economic crisis in the first decade of the 21st century had an impact on migration, this book of essays from the Migration Policy Institute is good place to begin.  Data from the U.S., U.K., Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden and Germany.

Anthropology and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity (2003) by Caroline Brettell. An anthropologist looks at migration, transnationalism, and assimilation/integration through a population she knows well: the Portuguese diaspora. (Flophouse review here.)
Moving Matters: Paths of Serial Migration (2013) by Susan Ossman. .A look into the minds of “serial migrants.” Those who immigrate once (like all other migrants) and then do something that shatters the standard immigrant tale – they move on. (Flophouse review here.)
International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization (2010) by Andres Solimano. Well-written, well-argued book.  The author is ambitious and confronts some of the most difficult topics around migration:  Why is International Migration Such a Contentious Issue?  Are Goods and Capital More Important than People?  Don’t Always ‘Blame’ the North, and so on.
The Citizen and the Alien:  Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (2006) by Linda Bosniak. Refreshing take on the dilemmas of citizenship and democratic ideals.  Who is included/excluded and on what basis?  The problem of democracy and the legal permanent resident. Complex questions with no easy answers.
A Nation of Emigrants:  How Mexico Manages Its Migration by David Fitzgerald (2009)  The internal American battle over immigration from Latin America is a very public debate but it’s only half the story.  Mexico, the U.S.’s southern neighbor and a major sending country, has made and is still making policy to manage its emigration and its emigrants.  This is an extraordinary book and there is much to be learned from Mexico’s efforts and policies – even when they have failed.
The Sovereign Citizen:  Denaturalization and the Origins of the American Republic (2013) by Patrick Weil  Really superb book.  Excellent research into the un-making of American citizens in the 20th century.
Citizenship and Those Who Leave:  The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation by Nancy L. Green and Francois Weil (2007)  I contend that you cannot talk about immigration without also discussing emigration.  A fine work – excellent chapters on how states (UK, Holland, U.S., France and others) have tried to manage emigration.
Citizenship and Immigration by Christian Joppke (2010) This one covers a wide variety of old and new ideas about citizenship.  A good place to begin for someone who is just delving into how immigration/emigration and citizenship are entwined. Joppke refutes the idea of the decline of citizenship – an argument worth reading..
International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics edited by Rey Koslowski.  Some very good insights into how international migration and diaspora politics affect politics back in the home country.

Immigration and Citizenship in Japan by Erin Aeran Chung (2010) Excellent book about Japan as a country of immigration. “Japan is currently the only advanced industrial democracy with a fourth-generation immigrant problem.” Chung tells the story of how this came about and the impact this has had on modern Japanese citizenship law.

Rights and Duties of Dual Nationals:  Evolution and Prospects edited by David A. Martin and Kay Hailbronner (2003)  Fine set of articles on dual citizenship and such things as military service, extradition, political rights (Peter Spiro), denationalization and many others.  Pricey but worth every penny.
International Migration and Citizenship Today by Niklaus Steiner (2009).  A very fine book on the political, economic and cultural impact of immigration.  He frames the discussion around two essential questions:  What Criteria to Admit Migrants?  and What Criteria to Grant Citizenship?
Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (2001).  This was one of the best books I read on the topic of citizenship with essays by Patrick Weil, Karen Knop and Richard T. Ford, among many others.   I particularly enjoyed Ford’s contribution called “City-States and Citizenship” which was, for me, a real revelation.
States without Nations:  Citizenship for Mortals by Jacqueline Stevens (2009) A strong critique of birthright citizenship in all forms and a call for citizenship based on residency.
The Perils of Belonging: Authochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe by Peter Geschier (2009).  Outstanding read.  States make citizens and states can also “unmake” them.  Nativism and the never-ending debate over who really “belongs.”
The Politics of Citizenship in Europe by Marc Morje Howard (2009).  A really fine study of the citizenship policies of the oldest member-states of the EU.  Read this book to grasp how citizenship laws have changed over time and the reasons why.
The Future Governance of Citizenship by Dora Kostakopoulou ((2008).  Good overview of the current citizenship models and a proposal for an “anational” citizenship framework.
Beyond Citizenship:  American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008).  Excellent book that examines how globalization has changed the value of citizenship overall and American citizenship in particular.  Very thoughtful.  Very well-written.
Qu’est-ce qu’un Français? by Patrick Weil (2002).  Mr. Weil spent over 8 years in the archives researching this book and it is fascinating.  France has been something of a test lab for just about every combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship possible.  Everything has been tried and tried again.  I read the book in French but it is also available in the usual places in English.
Gender and International Migration in Europe by Eleonore Kofman, Annie Phizacklea, Parvati Raghuram and Rosemary Sales (2000).  If you are looking for some empirical evidence (as I was) for how migration, immigration policy and citizenship rights have different outcomes and impacts for women, this is a good place to start.
The Birthright Lottery:  Citizenship and Global Inequality by Ayelet Shacher (2009) An attack on both jus soli and jus sanguinis methods of transmitting citizenship.  Fascinating argument.
Aliens in Medieval Law:  the Origins of Modern Citizenship by Keechang Kim ((2000).  I’ve been meaning to write a post about this book since it has a very original take on the historical roots of modern citizenship.  I recommend it highly.
Human Rights or Citizenship? by Paulina Tambakaki (2010)  Interesting ideas about how traditional models of citizenship and  human rights legislation are in conflict.
International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain edited by Caglar Ozden and Maurice Schiff  for the World Bank (2006)  This book contains a number of very interesting essays about the economic impact of remittances and brain drain/gain.  The editors point out that the potential for economic benefit for all parties (individuals and sending and receiving countries)  is substantial but policy decisions need to be made carefully (we are talking about people after all).
Let Them In:  the Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (2008)  The author makes a very radical argument for simply opening the doors and letting people move where they wish.For info I have created a Citizenship and Migration book list on Goodread’s Listopia here.  Good place to read reviews and find quotations from the above books.
Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

Blood, soil, birth tourism and anchor babies – Globe Editorial

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

The Globe’s editorial take on birth tourism – evidence-based policy, which Minister Alexander appears committed to, given his and his spokesperson’s recent comments stating that decisions “will be informed by facts” (in contrast to earlier anecdotes dramatizing the issue):

At present, however, birth certificates are the most common proof of Canadian citizenship. They do not include any information about a newborn baby’s parents’ citizenship.

Hospitals are a provincial jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons why the provinces and territories have been in charge of birth certificates for a long time. The subnational governments of Canada would doubtless not be eager to spend a huge amount of money to overhaul their birth-certificate system – let alone unanimously.

Ottawa could choose to foot the bill. But if the government is to go any further, it should commission a rigorous study to discover whether so-called birth tourism is a significant phenomenon. So far, the evidence is anecdotal. The available numbers in a given year are in the low hundreds. The real numbers may be higher, but it would be premature to remake the basics of our citizenship on a hunch.

Blood, soil, birth tourism and anchor babies – The Globe and Mail.

Related to this, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (Carmen Cheung and Audrey Macklin) wrote a comprehensive response to the earlier Jan Wong article on birth tourism (see my post Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers):

But how serious an issue is birth tourism? While the government does not publish statistics on actual cases of birth tourism, Statistics Canada reports that of the 377,913 live births recorded in Canada for 2011, only 277 of those were by mothers who lived outside of Canada. The numbers were slightly higher in 2010 – 305 babies born to non-resident mothers out of 377,518 live births. That is less than one tenth of one percent of all births in Canada.

A recent article in Toronto Life magazine proposed another metric for measuring birth tourism, by collecting the number of uninsured mothers giving birth in Toronto-area hospitals over a five-year period. Based on those numbers, we’re still looking at less than one percent of all live births in the city of Toronto.

Using the number of uninsured mothers as a proxy also likely overstates the problem. Provincial health cards are only issued after a minimum period of residency in the province – this is the case whether an individual has arrived from another country as a landed immigrant, or has just moved from British Columbia to Ontario. There are also foreign nationals who are excluded from provincial health care schemes, such as students, temporary foreign workers and diplomats. Particularly vulnerable Canadian citizens – such as the homeless or transient – may also not be able to prove their eligibility for provincial health insurance because of lost documentation.

By any measure, the number of babies born to non-resident non-Canadian mothers is negligible.

Born Equal: Citizenship by Birth is Canada’s Valuable Legacy

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

ICYMI: In Britain, School Report Cites Division Over Islam

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

I think the issue is not that this ‘turns’ students to or from terrorism, but the overall message it sends to students about acceptable behaviour in a multicultural and diverse society, based upon equality (see also UK: Michael Gove (Education Sec’y) accused of using ‘Trojan Horse’ row to push anti-Islam agenda):

British education inspectors investigated 21 schools after claims that Islamic fundamentalists had taken over leadership of schools in Birmingham, home to a significant Muslim population.

The inquiry found that the influence of hard-line school board governors sometimes left staffs polarized between those who favored a more Islamic approach and others who did not. In British state schools many governors are elected by parents or staff members.

Some teachers, for example, “actively discourage girls from speaking to boys,” the report said, adding that in one school “boys and girls are also taught separately in religious education and personal development lessons.”

At one school, Oldknow Academy, “governors have used the academy’s budget to subsidize a trip to Saudi Arabia for only Muslim staff and pupils,” the document said.

Among the striking details to emerge from the report was that a senior figure in one school was so scared of being seen talking to school inspectors that a meeting had to be arranged in a supermarket parking lot. Another school hired private investigators to check staff email, the report said.

Ofsted’s chief, Michael Wilshaw, described some of the findings as “deeply worrying and, in some ways, quite shocking.”

But the findings were criticized by the Muslim Council of Britain, which says it has more than 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It argued that “extremism will not be confronted if Muslims, and their religious practices are considered as, at best, contrary to the values of this country and at worst, seen as ‘the swamp’ that feeds extremism.”

“There is scant evidence that the education system or the Muslim community are the reasons for why people turn to terrorism,” it added in a statement.

In Britain, School Report Cites Division Over Islam – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Un-muzzle the scientists? Not so fast. – Macleans.ca

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

Andrew Leach in Macleans on government science and un-muzzling, and trying to find the fine balance between a more open approach and respecting the public servant role and policy process.

His arguments are valid in the macro-sense, but that the Government’s overly zealous focus on controlling the message has tipped the scale too much the wrong way. But a thoughtful contribution to the debate:

For me, the key questions are whether government researchers should, themselves, be able to speak out when they feel a government policy does not align with the evidence and, if so, why we would only restrict that to a particular class of government researchers? To speak out publicly against government policy is, by the current definition, fundamentally at odds with the role of a public servant in our democracy. Public servants are expected to provide impartial advice to the policy development process and loyal implementation of government policies once decisions are taken. They are not supposed to critique that policy publicly when it doesn’t align with their interpretation of the evidence or their beliefs with respect to how that evidence should be weighed. Allowing public servants to be openly critical of government decisions – whether based on scientific evidence or any other criteria – turns the relationship between the bureaucracy and their democratically elected masters on its head, undermining the trust essential to an effective working relationship.

Should we have more open government science? Perhaps. I think the better question is to what degree government-supported research should take place in arms-length agencies (the U.S. model for agencies like NASA and the Energy Information Administration come to mind) or outsourced to universities via government granting agencies as opposed to being housed in policy departments. Research housed outside of government departments would allow elected and bureaucratic offices to determine which questions are being asked by researchers or which subject areas are being explored without having influence over the answers or controlling the message. It would also mean that researchers were not privy to the policy discussions of the day and would not necessarily be involved when their research is used to support a decision. There are also options within the public service: perhaps Statistics Canada could broaden its role to collect and publish more environmental statistics such as the sea ice coverage, which was the subject of so much consternation this week, perhaps absorbing some of the functions now performed within Environment Canada. In the same way in which no one would ask a Statistics Canada official what government should do to combat youth unemployment or to raise median incomes when those data are published, no one would ask whether the extent of sea ice coverage should influence our climate change policy choices. When you’re asking officials from the department with jurisdiction over both our domestic climate change policies and our intervention in international climate change negotiations about sea ice coverage, the implications are very different. The questions to the scientist might even be policy-neutral, but I expect most of the resulting articles would not be.

If you want to take the muzzle off government researchers, that’s fine if you want it for the right reasons. I’m all in favour of increasing the quality of information available both to our decision-makers and to the general public. However, we must do it without skewing the policy process. The only way to make sure that’s true if you want open access to researchers is to disconnect those undertaking primary and policy-relevant research from that process and from those departments. Whether that’s best done through arms-length institutions, through universities, or through agencies such as Statistics Canada is a topic for debate. Of course, there are some topics of current government research not suited to open inquiry, for a variety of reasons. Maybe you’re willing to sacrifice some of those topics for access to information? You might also find that some of our government’s best researchers prefer their seat at the policy table to the front pages of the newspaper. Maybe that’s a sacrifice you’re willing to make? Unfortunately, I doubt you’ll be able to rely on anyone in a lab coat to tell you with certainty which is best for the country.

Un-muzzle the scientists? Not so fast. – Macleans.ca.

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

Ottawa jihadi seeking ‘martyrdom’ with ISIS in Syria | Ottawa Citizen

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

Profile of an Ottawa man fighting with ISIS in Syria:

Counter-terrorism officials say they are concerned that Canadian fighters who survive the conflicts in Syria and Iraq may return home to spread anti-Western radicalism and conduct terrorist attacks, but Maguire does not seem to want to leave.

“He said he’s not coming back,” his aunt, Allison McPherson, said in the Ontario family’s first public comments about their plight. “My sister doesn’t expect that she will ever see him again, and probably won’t ever see him again alive.”

As a boy, Maguire had a tough time, she said. After his mother left an abusive relationship and then suffered health problems, he was raised partly by his grandparents. “John is a very smart kid,” McPherson said, “but there was always something kind of closed off, and he kept to himself. And, of course, that’s exactly what these people are looking for — a bright guy, kind of a loner, needing a place to fit in.”

According to his online profile, he went to Hillcrest High School and once wanted to be a hockey player or motocross racer. He left home for California for a few months but returned  and enrolled at the University of Ottawa.

During the fall 2012 term, he began musing on Twitter about the brutality of President Bashar Al-Assad, writing, “how can I sleep with what is happening in Syria.” But the friend said Maguire was not an activist and had displayed little interest in issues in the Muslim world.

“Now we’re all just confused. What I’m trying to figure out is how it all began,” he said. Was he swayed by something he found on the Internet? Did someone influence him? Was he upset about events abroad? “I wish I knew what it was, and I wish I could have prevented it.”

As Canadian-born, and presumably not a dual citizenship, he would not be subject to citizenship revocation unlike other extremists not born but raised in Canada.

Ottawa jihadi seeking ‘martyrdom’ with ISIS in Syria | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Moins de place pour le Québec? | Le Devoir

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

The challenges of museums and choosing themes and approaches, in this case the Canadian History Museum (formerly Museum of Civilizations) and the shift from a geographic to a thematic approach. We will still see whether this approach works or appears too aligned with the Government’s particular historical and national narratives:

« On a aboli mon poste pour créer un poste pour l’archéologie du Canada central, déplore Yves Monette, ex-conservateur en archéologie du Québec du MCH, un des cinq postes abolis au printemps dernier. Mon expertise, c’est l’archéologie historique, et il n’y a plus personne au musée qui couvre cette période-là pour le Québec. »

En juillet, il avait eu des affectations temporaires. Il travaillait au MCH depuis cinq ans. Un autre poste de conservateur, cette fois en arts décoratifs et ameublement ancien du Québec, celui de Jean-François Blanchette, qui part à la retraite, est éliminé. Deux conservateurs adjoints et un administrateur s’ajoutent à l’attrition.

Parmi les motifs invoqués, on lui a indiqué que ses projets ne cadraient pas dans la nouvelle stratégie de recherche, alors qu’il a lui-même participé à l’élaboration de celle-ci, a défini ses projets en fonction des orientations nouvelles et a toujours reçu des évaluations positives, plaide-t-il.

…. Au MHC, on justifie les mises à pied par une réorganisation du travail en lien avec la nouvelle stratégie de recherche de l’institution développée conjointement avec le Musée canadien de la guerre, qui se décline en neuf orientations regroupées selon trois catégories : signification et mémoire, les premiers peuples et compromis et conflits.

« On a éliminé cinq postes, mais on en a créé cinq nouveaux pour que ça s’arrime à notre nouvelle stratégie de recherche, explique la porte-parole du musée, Patricia Lynch. L’embauche se fait plus selon des critères plus thématiques que géographiques, et on favorise une approche multidisciplinaire chez nos chercheurs. »

Le MCH procède actuellement à l’embauche de deux gestionnaires de la recherche et de trois conservateurs en ethnologie, en histoire autochtone et en sports et loisirs. L’équipe de 33 chercheurs n’est donc pas réduite. Au contraire, parce que le travail de chercheur fera partie des tâches de tous les nouveaux postes, « l’institution élargit ses capacités de recherche », soutient Mme Lynch.

Moins de place pour le Québec? | Le Devoir.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →