[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-597595-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-597595-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","canadian-social-studies-no-1-the-canadian-heritage-committee-kerfuffle-a-history-educators-take","Canadian Social Studies - No. 1 - The Canadian Heritage Committee Kerfuffle: A History Educator's Take","","Examines the public controversy sparked in Canada by reports on May 2, 2013 that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage would undertake a thorough review of significant aspects of Canadian history. Traces the debate’s focus on heritage preservation programs, federal versus provincial rights, and claims that the Conservative government sought to rebrand history. Explains the committee’s planned review subjects, witness interviews, museum visits, broadcaster meetings, and anticipated best-practice recommendations.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/canadian-social-studies-no-1-the-canadian-heritage-committee-kerfuffle-a-history-educators-take/597595/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/canadian-social-studies-no-1-the-canadian-heritage-committee-kerfuffle-a-history-educators-take/597595.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"pop out","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What set off the Heritage Committee controversy in Canada?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Reports on May 2, 2013 stated the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage would undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects in Canadian history, leading to rapid public debate.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which three issues does the controversy center on?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Why the committee reviewed preservation programs despite existing key decisions, whether the review infringed on provincial rights, and whether the Conservative government aimed to rebrand history to match its vision of Canada.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What review topics and methods does the committee plan to use?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The review focuses on comparing education standards and courses across provinces and territories, reviewing preservation programs across federal/provincial/municipal levels, and highlighting major Canadian history topics. Methods include interviewing witnesses, visiting museums, and meeting broadcasters.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},597595,1792882894,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":111,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":117,"preview_page_count":4},962090760408,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Canadian Social Studies, Volume 46, No. 1  \nThe Canadian Heritage Committee Kerfuffle: A History Educator's Take  \nLindsay Gibson  \nUniversity of British Columbia  \nThe latest round in Canada's History Wars was set off by reports on May 2, 2013 that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage was going to “undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects in Canadian history.”As details of the Heritage Committee’s review emerged, controversy erupted as politicians, historians, political scientists and members of the chattering classes rushed to either defend or oppose the committee's proposed mandate through public statements, articles, news reports, and editorials. The controversy centred on three main issues: why the committee is reviewing federal, provincial and municipal programs designed to preserve Canadian history and heritage when they have already made key decisions in this area, whether the heritage committee’s review of Canadian history was infringing on provincial rights, and whether the Conservative government was trying torebrand history to suit their vision of Canada.  \nWhile all of these controversial issues focus on important discussions that Canadians need to have, the overblown partisan rhetoric that fuelled the debates served as a red herring that distracted the public from having a thoughtful discussion about what Canadian history educators have been focusing on for years—why Canadians should learn history, and the methods and practices that best enhance Canadians’understanding of their past. In other words, the importance of “how” Canadians best learn, access, preserve and engage with their history was pushed to the sidelines.  \nBefore describing the controversy, it is important to understand what all the fuss was about in the first place. The Conservative dominated committee (seven Conservative MP's, four NDP MP's and one Liberal MP) met behind closed doors on April 29 and agreed to give themselves what historian Christopher Dummit charitably described as “an eccentric mandate.”(Click here to see the Minutes of the Proceedings for April 29) . Like the recent Conservative omnibus bills that were swept through Parliament, the Heritage Committee’s diverse mandate includes many aspects that are commendable, but includes other aspects that justifiably raised theire of different groups across Canada.  \nThe Committee’s review of the significant aspects in Canadian history will focus on three specific subjects and themes, all three of which proved to be enormously controversial in the public debate that ensued:  \n1. To compare the standards and courses of study offered in primary and post-secondary institutions in each of the provinces and territories;  \n2. To review federal, provincial and municipal programs designed to preserve our history and heritage;  \n3. To focus on Canadian history including but not limited to pre-Confederation, early Confederation, suffrage, World War I, with an emphasis on battles such as Vimy Ridge, World War II including the Liberation of Holland, the Battle of Ortona, Battle of the Atlantic, the Korean conflict, peacekeeping missions, constitutional development, the Afghanistan conflict, early 20th century Canada, post-war Canada, and the late 20th century.  \nCanadian Social Studies, Volume 46, No. 1  \nThe other aspects of the committee’s proposed investigation evaded controversy. The Committee’s review also seeks to emphasize how Canadians utilize the tools and methods available for accessing and preserving historical content and education, how Canadians increase their knowledge of history, and in what can only be described as a bizarre and random addition, how Hansard can be used as a means of preserving important witness testimony.  \nThe methods that the Heritage Committee will utilize to gather information for their review are also relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. The Heritage Committee plans to“interview witnesses and gather firsthand accounts o","cbCaicO1Mjmd8lrH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicO1Mjmd8lrH","pdf",160220,"English","# Background and Trigger\n## May 2, 2013 Announcement and Public Response\n# Core Controversies\n## Federal Programs and Jurisdiction\n## Rebranding History Concerns\n# Committee Mandate and Review Topics\n## Education Standards and Course Comparison\n## Preservation Programs Review\n## Historical Themes and Conflicts\n# Methods and Expected Outcomes\n## Witness Interviews and Museum Visits\n## Final Report and Best Practices","[{\"question\":\"What set off the Heritage Committee controversy in Canada?\",\"answer\":\"Reports on May 2, 2013 stated the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage would undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of significant aspects in Canadian history, leading to rapid public debate.\"},{\"question\":\"Which three issues does the controversy center on?\",\"answer\":\"Why the committee reviewed preservation programs despite existing key decisions, whether the review infringed on provincial rights, and whether the Conservative government aimed to rebrand history to match its vision of Canada.\"},{\"question\":\"What review topics and methods does the committee plan to use?\",\"answer\":\"The review focuses on comparing education standards and courses across provinces and territories, reviewing preservation programs across federal/provincial/municipal levels, and highlighting major Canadian history topics. Methods include interviewing witnesses, visiting museums, and meeting broadcasters.\"}]","Canadian Social Studies - No. 1 - The Canadian Heritage Committee Kerfuffle: A History Educator's Take | PDF",1792085309]