VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – More border resources for migrants is not a solution

Desperate asylum seekers are crossing the Canadian border, and did so in the dead of winter. This has precipitated an emotionally charged, political debate. Simplistic solutions abound, notably loud calls to deploy more resources at Canada’s land border.

But there are serious limits to what throwing money at the border can accomplish. Migrants have been crossing illegally in full view of Canadian authorities, even after being warned they would be arrested. And enhanced enforcement at the border will hardly deter those intent on crossing.

So what can we do?

First, Canadians need to realize immigration is actually a national security policy. We need to grow immigrant levels, but in a way that balances fairness, equity, safety and prosperity.

The initial generation of economic migrants may fill labour-market gaps, even while tending to incur higher health, social and education costs than established Canadians. Yet, the real benefit accrues from well-integrated, well-educated subsequent generations. Unlike much of the rest of the world, Canada does not just take in refugees, it welcomes future Canadians.

How many refugees Canada should accept is controversial. Canada could, and should, take in more refugees if its approach were more systematic in spreading the burden across the country. The means, however, are not up for debate. Canada’s approach to refugees is premised on working systematically with international organizations to identify a limited number of refugees in greatest need of resettlement, and who are reasonably well-matched with Canadian society.

That principled approach is meant to give the most vulnerable and destitute a fair chance. By having the resources, know-how and stamina to make it to Canada, the bulk of illegal entrants from the United States do not fall into that category. There are millions of people in the world worthy of protection under our international treaty obligations; so, how is one to choose?

Encouraging people to jump the queue and cherry-pick their preferred country of settlement undermines Canada’s principled approach to refugees. Is it really in Canada’s interest to encourage people who are already in the United States to cross the border illegally and evade the rule-of-law-based Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States?

What we should be asking is: How did migrants who are crossing illegally into Canada enter the United States in the first place? After all, if they had a legitimate refugee claim, they could have long ago filed it. It also hardly follows that those who are subject to removal from the United States should necessarily be taken in by Canada.

To safeguard the integrity of our refugee and immigration strategy, Canada needs more resources beyond the border. By and large, Canada is already pretty good at this and getting better at working with allied and partner countries to forestall the arrival of illegal entrants.

Remember the arrivals of the MV Ocean Lady and MV Sun Sea on Vancouver Island in 2009 and 2010? It was no accident more boats did not arrive. It was the result of concerted, deliberate, strategic action by the government of the day.

Never has it been more difficult to enter Canada by irregular means; crossing between ports of entry is a last resort. Since November, 2016, the Electronic Travel Authorization makes it much harder to fly to Canada using false or forged travel documents. Canada has also improved the sharing of entry-exit data at ports of entry with the United States. To reduce the rise in illegal crossings to the new U.S. administration is overly simplistic. The recent surge in irregular crossings is instead a symptom of the confluence of these changes.

In sum, putting more resources at the border is wrong-headed and misinformed. Instead, Canada needs more resources beyond the border, especially for intelligence and immigration enforcement, to ensure that those whose refugee claims are denied are, indeed, removed.

If Canada’s fairly principled approach to refugees is compromised, then that undermines Canada’s demographic competitiveness, economic prosperity and national security strategy.

Christian Leuprecht is a professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University and a Munk Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

This article was originally published in the March 2017 edition of Inside Policy, the magazine of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.

VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – The Cafeteria Conundrum: 8 Ways to Encourage Healthy Eating in Our Schools

Schools are tasked with a difficult and sometimes controversial responsibility: promoting healthy eating. Indeed, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development’s recent evaluation regarding compliance with its nutritional policy gave our schools low marks in a number of areas. This is not surprising as there is a great deal of inertia to overcome.

As far back as 1980 the New Brunswick Federation of Home and School Associations lamented “the dangers of junk foods,” and urged principals to take action. Dietitians charged with the current audit have raised serious concerns about the kinds of foods in schools, the use of food as a reward, and contracts with fast-food chains. History shows that initiatives aimed at improving in-school nutrition require firm government support to ensure that they are wide-ranging, effective, and sustainable.

The current provincial Policy 711 is a step in the right direction but it needs to be enforced, and some of its provisions need to be re-evaluated. Despite the policy, loopholes still allow the serving of unhealthy foods to children. Last November two local physicians raised concerns about the selling of Slush Puppies in school cafeterias: technically permitted under the guidelines but containing 29 grams, or seven teaspoons, of sugar! The policy does not apply to the fundraising activities of support groups. A number of schools also now offer “hot lunches” that inadvertently encourage students to patronize fast-food franchises. Such practices may not contravene Policy 711 but they conventionalize the consumption of fast-food as part of students’ regular routine, and thus contradict the healthy eating messages conveyed elsewhere in the policy and in school curricula.

The provision of healthy foods is a difficult task for departments of education. Tightening food regulations presents a challenge because cafeterias are expected to break even financially. Healthy eating initiatives and the essential life-long lessons they convey are effectively hindered from the get-go. Historically, cafeterias have relied on junk food sales to subsidize healthier options. The fact that many children bring lunch from home also means that cafeteria food tends to be supplemental, and thus less healthy, e.g. potato wedges, cookies, dessert. In some cases attempts to create healthier menus have led to cafeteria closures as revenues decline.

Still, the effort to improve healthy eating is needed. Dr. David Kessler, the former head of the US Food and Drug Administration, notes that there is increasing evidence that “foods high in sugar, fat and salt are altering the biological circuitry of our brains” and thus encouraging overeating and obesity. In 2007 a House of Commons committee reported that Canada’s rate of childhood obesity was one of the worst in the developing world. New Brunswick currently vies with several other Atlantic provinces to lead the Canadian statistics for obesity and inactivity in children and adults.

If we want to see significant changes in the health of our population, and in the messages children are exposed to, we need to make significant changes. Here’s what we recommend:

  1. Return drinking fountains to all public places, including schools, and encourage their use.
  2. Stop marketing fast food to children (especially in schools).
  3. Recognize that school food programs should not have the responsibility to break-even or to make money: they’re an investment in children’s health now and into the future.
  4. Don’t treat cafeterias as ancillary to schooling. The lessons learned there are as important as those offered in the classroom.
  5. Don’t use food as a reward, unless it is fresh fruit and vegetables.
  6. Bring back home economics and include food preparation and healthy eating in the curriculum from kindergarten onwards.
  7. Task and empower dietitians to enforce Policy 711 consistently across the province: Policy 711 must be a political and school priority.
  8. Keep it simple: stick with whole foods and plant-based diets.

Schools have a moral imperative to be role models for the entire community. They need to promote healthy eating by serving healthy food and educating children (and families by extension) about healthy eating and active living.

Dr. Catherine Gidney, Adjunct Research Professor, History, St. Thomas University, and Member, Royal Society of Canada’s New College of Scholars, Artists
Dr. Gabriela Tymowski-Gionet, Associate Professor, Faculty of Kinesiology, UNB Fredericton

This article was originally published in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner, 20 March 2017.

Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.

VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – From the Tea Party to the Trump Party and Beyond

In an article published earlier this year in The Atlantic, Molly Ball asks whether anti-Trump protesters could learn from the Tea Party, a conservative oppositional movement that emerged in the aftermath of the election of Barack Obama to the White House in November 2008. For her, the parallels between the anti-Obama Tea Party and the emerging anti-Trump movement are striking: “a massive grassroots movement, many of its members new to activism, that feeds primarily off fear and reaction.” These remarks are perceptive but they are also ironic, as that Tea Party helped pave the way to the Trump phenomenon.

First, at a more superficial level, Trump became a key figure in the so-called “birther” thesis, which received much support among Tea Partiers, as most of them were unsure whether President Obama was born in the United States, or believed he was born in Kenya or in another country. In this context, during the Obama years, Trump became a Tea Party hero as he pressured the president to release his birth certificate and he continued to cast doubt upon the president’s place of birth long after the White House had released such a certificate. In fact, it was only in mid-September 2016, late in his presidential bid, that Trump finally stated unequivocally that “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”

Second, populism emerged as a key ideological factor of both the Tea Party and the Trump phenomenon. Populism is a slippery and ill-defined term in public debate but, according to Princeton political scientist Jan-Werner Müller, it simply refers to an anti-elitist and anti-pluralist approach: “populists claim that they, and only they, represent the people.” The populism of the Tea Party is explicitly embedded in the official name of the movement: the “Tea Party Patriots” who, like their alleged predecessors of the 1773 Boston Tea Party, claim to speak on the behalf of the American people against a government seemingly alien to them. The popularity of the “birther” movement among Tea Partiers was directly connected to this form of white populism, as many of them depicted Obama as an anti-American leader who might not even hail from the United States. As for Trump, he spent his presidential campaign attacking the “Washington elite” while being hailed by his supporters as the only legitimate voice of “Real America,” an expression rich in racial and nationalistic undertones. More recently, from the White House, President Trump has stated on a number of occasions that some media outlets such as CNN and the New York Times were nothing more than “the enemy of the people,” a phrase meant to tap into both nationalistic and anti-elitist sentiments, as these “mainstream” media are widely seen by the president’s base as an anti-American instrument in the hands of liberal “coastal elites.”

Third, there is a clear demographic overlap between the Tea Party and the Trump phenomenon. For instance, in their study The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson showed that older white people, especially men, were overrepresented among core Tea Party supporters. Simultaneously, the victory of Trump last November was depicted as “The Revenge of the White Man,” a phrase that is reflected in polling data. As Jill Filipovic put it: “Across racial groups, there was a gender gap of close to 10 points in this election, with many more men than women voting for Trump. Fewer than a third of white men voted for Clinton, and fewer than half of white women.” Concerning the age factor, polling data shows that “Older voters (ages 65 and older) preferred Trump over Clinton 53%-45%.” From this perspective, although not identical, the demographics of Tea Party supporters is similar to the one of Trump supporters.

The current anti-Trump movement is clearly grounded in a different demographic base than the Tea Party and the Trump phenomenon, as it is both younger and more socially diverse. From an ideological standpoint, the left-leaning anti-Trump movement is also at odds with the conservative Tea Party. Yet, if the anti-Trump movement can draw tactical lessons from the Tea Party about how to mobilize against a sitting president, for instance by protesting at town hall meetings held by elected officials who support him, it could help it impact U.S. politics in a meaningful way.

Daniel Béland is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Public Policy at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy.

“Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.

VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – Counting the Victims of Islamophobia

In recent weeks, political purveyors of “common sense” would have us believe that free speech itself is under threat by M-103, the Liberal parliamentary motion to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” There is a hard line, Conservatives suggest, between free speech and hate speech, and while they denounce the latter, Liberals claim that they nevertheless cross that line by refusing to condemn Islamophobia. Heritage Minister Melanie Joly has said that “by not denouncing Islamophobia, they are actually contributing to the problem.” Conservatives have countered that the Liberal motion would muzzle free speech and an individual’s right to “criticize” Islam.

Despite politicking from both camps, there is a more fundamental contest here over what speech is, what it does, and who is responsible for its effects. Is speech solely a matter of individual freedoms or is there something “systemic” in the ways speech acts within a society, when our words circulate? Is criticism of Islam necessarily Islamophobic? Or is criticism of Israel necessarily anti-Semitic, for that matter? Not necessarily. Indeed, within Islam and Judaism, as within Christianity, we find robust traditions of interpretation and critique.

Presiding at the funeral of three of the men killed at La Grande mosquée de Québec, Imam Hassan Guillet shocked some mourners on February 3 by counting Alexandre Bissonnette amongst the victims. “Before he was a killer, he was a victim,” Guillet said. “Before he shot our brothers, words more dangerous than bullets were planted in him.” The Imam’s own words neither excuse nor exonerate the young man charged with six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder. Nor do they simply betoken a religious gesture of compassion or forgiveness. Rather, they constitute criticism that is both timely and courageous.

Words are not merely descriptive: they do things, sometimes hurtful and hateful things, and sometimes wonderful things, too. With speech, the lines of cause-and-effect are almost never horizontal or rectilinear. “Certain politicians, certain media,” Guillet continued, “have poisoned the country and Alexandre Bissonnette with their words.” And, sadly, it is not difficult to find public speech that cultivates xenophobia and racism, even if it is not explicitly a call to arms. Such speech is often banal or innocuous in tone, yet it informs what passes as “common sense”; meanwhile, it is often uninformed, based in fear rather than critical reason, or fallaciously generalizes from particular and extreme cases.

Québec society has in the wake of the shooting embarked on some serious soul-searching, and ordinary people have emerged in critical numbers to stand in solidarity and support of the victims, their families, and communities. There has been fresh criticism of certain local radio stations known for their incendiary discourse. I listened to one broadcast dating back just a few months in which the announcer averred that Islam is “fundamentally incompatible” with “our” way of life. These are spoken as “our” words, in “our” name, defending “our” way of life. The words are hostile to all criticism and to truth in any meaningful sense, and yet they hold the power to galvanize the identity of some listeners and to settle on a common enemy.

Meanwhile, and more broadly, debates have raged for many years over the “neutrality” or “secularism” of the state, and whether conspicuous (ostentatoire) religious symbols—such as the hijab—ought to be banned for those who work in the public sector. Ironically, the crucifix and other Christian symbols are often considered “neutral” on the grounds of “cultural heritage.” But let’s not forget that this iconography also constitutes public speech. The philosopher Charles Taylor has recently reversed his earlier position on secular dress codes: “The debate had the effect of attenuating or eliminating … inhibitions, along with thickening the clouds of suspicion and concern around newcomers.” The debate itself proved toxic.

On the national stage, we might recall Stephen Harper’s legal contortions to ban the veil from the citizenship ceremony, or the hotline to report “Barbaric Cultural Practices” proposed by Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander—“for victims,” they said helpfully, “as well as for citizens” (a troubling binary). This was callous and strategic fear-mongering of the highest order by our parliamentary representatives, speaking in our name. And to what effects?

Together, this odious rhetoric fosters a climate—thick clouds of suspicion—in which fear and ignorance are naturalized, and hate becomes a permissible, ostensibly innate, response. We note the marked rise in anti-immigrant sentiments and petty hate crimes. And we bear witness, among others, to Donald Trump’s racist invectives and executive orders in the United States, and Marine Le Pen’s efforts in France—both of whom where followed, and “liked,” by Alexandre Bissonnette on social media. As Guillet remarked, Bissonnette was not born into a rhetorical vacuum. There are no Lone Wolves in society.

And so there is something dangerous and disingenuous, we might say, when we are so quick to identify and disown the “Lone Wolf,” to morally distance ourselves from him, as if we and our words were innocent and apart. Our silence also speaks. Guillet’s statement was, then, a call of conscience—for us to imagine that every life is in a relation of care and entrusted to others, and that we share a responsibility not just for what we say but for what our words do. To resolutely condemn hate crimes and violence, as we must, is not incompatible with owning, in small part, those words that aggrieve us, and the terrors that they propagate.

Stuart J. Murray
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Rhetoric and Ethics
Carleton University

“Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.

VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – Engaging the Media in Troubled Times

To invite sociologists to engage with the media at this particular moment in history hardly appears propitious. The proliferation of populist nationalisms and religious fundamentalisms around the world is emboldening politicians and celebrities—the line between the two being increasingly blurred in our infotainment era—to openly profess hostility towards or ignorance of expertise of all kinds. To this extent, sociologists risk facing either political animus or popular indifference, for we reveal certain inconvenient truths that puncture, undermine, or squarely contradict the cherished dogma of naturalized, profanely or theologically sacred, and seemingly self-evident common sense about the social world.

Adding to the untimely character of this call for media engagement is the belief amongst certain members of the sociological community that media organizations are reducible to instruments of corporate or state power, or yet again, that sociologists who work with news outlets are craven, shallow, and publicity-seeking dilettantes uncommitted to serious scholarly work. Furthermore, the last few years have witnessed the multiplication of “how-to” guides for academics interested in public outreach via social media platforms, inadvertently fostering the perception that conventional media is sliding into the waste bin of cultural and technological obsolescence.

While some of these arguments may be convincing to varying extents, wholeheartedly accepting their conclusions can only produce disengagement from the media and deprive sociologists of means of mass communication. The reach of mass media remains unrivalled—and this, at the very time that sociological perspectives on crucial social, political, cultural, and economic debates need to be heard more broadly. Moreover, engaging with the media makes for better public and professional sociologists. It simultaneously enables us to encounter a wider range of ideas, opinions, and experiences than would be available to us otherwise and compels us to reflect upon, frame, and present our work to audiences unaccustomed to academic discourse, rituals, and norms.

Why, then, turn to Canada? From a global perspective, the Canadian experience is a valuable case study because the duality of its two dominant, linguistically-based public spheres encompasses and mirrors the two most common ways in which media organizations view sociologists around the world and, conversely, the two strategies through which sociologists participate in public debates via news outlets: as professional specialists, or as public intellectuals.

In English-speaking Canada, as in the rest of Anglo-American world where professional sociology is a more prevalent mode of disciplinary practice, news outlets primarily solicit sociologists as specialists on a precise topic receiving coverage (say, the settlement of Syrian refugees or social media-fuelled bullying in high schools). At the same time, consistent with American and British tendencies, Anglo-Canadian sociology has a relatively subordinate public standing vis-à-vis some of its social scientific counterparts—notably, economics, psychology, and political science, whose practitioners traditionally have enjoyed a greater foothold on prestigious, nationally broadcasted television and radio panels as well as in newspapers of record.

In French-speaking Québec, much like in Latin America and continental Europe where sociology benefits from a relatively high degree of socio-cultural esteem and intellectual prestige, the discipline occupies a public role that rivals, and often surpasses, its professional one. This is so because sociologists have contributed in significant ways to the articulation of the social and cultural foundations of francophone Québécois collective identity and nationhood since the anti-clerical and modernizing “Révolution tranquille” of the 1960s. As a result, sociologists in Québec tend to be viewed as public intellectuals and generalists whom the media approaches to opine on broad social and political questions; a journalist or host frequently asks “what do you, as a sociologist, think” of a given topic?

Although the above observations are derived from the Canadian context, the dual character of sociology’s positioning—either as a specialized profession or a public intellectual pursuit—is generalizable to many other settings. Accordingly, because their risks and rewards differ, each of these modes of practice benefits from learning from the other while calling for a distinct set of strategies of media engagement.

In the Anglo-American world, given that the legitimacy of sociology is less well established and principally grounded in professional specialization, I want to put forth three proposals of publicization of the discipline:

Understand your positioning: Study the ideological and professional terrain of your national media fields to grasp the role that you will be asked to play. Why are producers or journalists soliciting you, to what ends is your expertise being requested, and how will your statements be framed in an article or during an appearance?

Embrace a varied diet: Apply media sociology’s analytical principle of representative sampling to the interviews that you grant by speaking with less prestigious or consecrated news sources such as community radio stations, smaller newspapers, and so forth. You will thereby reach an audience that may not be as familiar with, and may be intrigued by, a sociological vantage-point on a particular topic.

Opinions are cheap, but (sociological) facts are hard earned: In the age of social media, everyone has an opinion and a platform to broadcast it. Your differentia specifica as a professional specialist, then, stems from the ability to draw upon your research findings and cite facts to counter popular misconceptions, as well as locate a particular event within its broader socio-historical and comparative context.

For places such as Latin America, continental Europe, and francophone Québec, where sociologists regularly perform the role of public intellectuals and media engagement veers toward professional specialization, I offer two proposals:

Shape the encounter: Since journalists or producers normally will conduct a pre-interview with you and value your advice highly, take the opportunity to mold the angle that the story will take. Suggest alternative lines of inquiry, recommend another person to be interviewed, or follow up by sending reports, data, or even (hark!) a refereed journal article or book on the subject being covered.

Keep your eyes on the prize: Given that you will be constituted as a public intellectual, it will be tempting to speculate by making sweeping pronouncements about the state of the world or establishing reductive causal ties. Instead, steer the interview back to matters that touch upon your research interests and areas of expertise. Do so in a concise manner that focuses on your key points of analysis, one that is accessible yet neither diluted nor “dumbed down”.

A final point applies across all settings: timing is everything. Tight deadlines and fleeting newsworthiness are sacrosanct for the media. You need to find a just medium between accommodating their last-minute requests and your own schedule. Reporters, producers, and editors cannot and will not wait for you to find the time to grant them an interview or publish your op-ed piece once their story is filed or has faded from public consciousness.

Rather than turning sociologists into bloviating windbags or tiresome pundits, these proposals make a case for renewed collaboration with the media, for it behooves us to cultivate sociology’s twin purpose as a public vocation and a professional discipline that serves as an alternative to the kind of public relations spin, entrepreneurial platitudes, or cynical opportunism that passes as wisdom in too many public spaces in these troubled times.

Fuyuki Kurasawa is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at York University and is York Research Chair in Global Digital Citizenship.

“Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.

VOICES OF THE COLLEGE – Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: the intersectionality of the Women’s March on January 21, 2017

Seeing the images of women and men around the world marching on January 21st in the collective defense of human rights is uplifting. If only Thomas Jefferson could see, for it was he who wrote in the 1776 American Declaration of Independence that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These ideals were picked up shortly after by the authors of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789, expanded to “all citizens” and “every society” and they were considered “natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man” (Article 2) derived not from kings nor from a supreme being, but made from the relationship between human beings. By 1948, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights echoed the first article of the French Declaration in stating that “All human beings are born free and equal in the dignity of rights.” The problem, of course, is that none of these documents were binding and that these rights only hold concrete meaning in the local context and mainly come into question upon their abuse. That it took time, and more importantly hard work, reason and contestation to expand “man” to include the non-propertied, non-white, non-male, and non-Protestant and Catholic—reminds us that human rights are the product of history. As historian Lynn Hunt argued it also took “imagined empathy” (that is, “imagining that someone else is like you”) for the human rights revolution to occur. In the 2017 Women’s March, we see the broadening and intersectionality of these rights: women and men defending the rights of others for whom they are able to imagine and empathize with (a white woman carrying a sign “black lives matters” or a father who brings his two young sons in support of women’s right). These rights were gained through history. They have to be maintained and expanded in our present and beyond. Human rights (collective and individual; social, political, economic and environmental) are still the cultural battleground of our societies. We cannot assume their universality nor their inalienability. They must be protected, as so passionately understood by those who marched on January 21st.

Cynthia E. Milton
President, College of New Scholars, Scientist and Artists of the Royal Society of Canada, Canada Research Chair in Latin American History, Université de Montréal

“Voices of the College” is a series of written interventions from Members of the College of New Scholars. The articles provide timely looks at matters of importance to Canadians, expressed by the emerging generation of Canada’s academic leadership. Opinions presented are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily reflect the views of the College of New Scholars nor the Royal Society of Canada.