International Education as Public Policy in Canada 9780228003106

Unravelling the story of international education and its emergence as public policy in Canada. Unravelling the story o

190 108 2MB

English Pages [453] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

International Education as Public Policy in Canada

Table of contents :
Figures and Tables
Introduction: The Emergence of International Education as Public Policy
1 Federalism and Internationalization
2 Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education: Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, 2006–17
3 International Education as a Human Resource Strategy: “A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy
4 The Elusive Pursuit of Internationalization in Canadian Research
5 International Education as a Strategic Investment in Developing a Knowledge-Ready Workforce in Alberta
6 Framing the Public Good in the Future of British Columbia International Education Policy
7 Collaborative Efforts Administering K–12 Internationalization through Policy and Practice in Manitoba
8 International Education Policy: The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador
9 The Internationalization of Post-Secondary Education in Nova Scotia
10 Internationalization of Education in Nunavut: A Legacy of Inuit Diplomacy
11 International Education Policy in Ontario: A Swinging Pendulum?
12 Population, Power, and Place: International Education Policy on Prince Edward Island
13 International Education as Public Policy in Quebec
14 Tracing Controversies in Internationalization: National Actors in Canadian Higher Education
15 Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage
16 Who Speaks for International Education? An Ontario Case Study
17 Across the Divide: Critical Conversations on Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization
Conclusion: International Education as Public Policy – The Canadian Story

Citation preview




mcgill-queen’s refugee and forced migration studies Series editors: Megan Bradley and James Milner Forced migration is a local, national, regional, and global challenge with profound political and social implications. Understanding the causes and consequences of, and possible responses to, forced migration requires careful analysis from a range of disciplinary perspectives, as well as interdisciplinary dialogue. The purpose of the McGill-Queen’s Refugee and Forced Migration Studies series is to advance in-depth examination of diverse forms, dimensions, and experiences of displacement, including in the context of conflict and violence, repression and persecution, and disasters and environmental change. The series will explore responses to refugees, internal displacement, and other forms of forced migration to illuminate the dynamics surrounding forced migration in global, national, and local contexts, including Canada, the perspectives of displaced individuals and communities, and the connections to broader patterns of human mobility. Featuring research from fields including politics, international relations, law, anthropology, sociology, geography, and history, the series highlights new and critical areas of enquiry within the field, especially conversations across disciplines and from the perspective of researchers in the global South, where the majority of forced migration unfolds. The series benefits from an international advisory board made up of leading scholars in refugee and forced migration studies. 1 The Criminalization of Migration Context and Consequences Edited by Idil Atak and James C. Simeon 2 A National Project Syrian Refugee Resettlement in Canada Edited by Leah K. Hamilton, Luisa Veronis, and Margaret Walton-Roberts


International Education as Public Policy in Canada


McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago




© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2020 isbn 978-0-2280-0175-1 (cloth) isbn 978-0-2280-0176-8 (paper) isbn 978-0-2280-0310-6 (epdf) isbn 978-0-2280-0311-3 (epub) Legal deposit third quarter 2020 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free

We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts. Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: International education as public policy in Canada / edited by Merli Tamtik, Roopa Desai Trilokekar, and Glen A. Jones. Names: Tamtik, Merli, 1974– editor. | Trilokekar, Roopa Desai, 1963– editor. | Jones, Glen A. (Glen Alan), 1961– editor. Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20200245996 | Canadiana (ebook) 20200246151 | isbn 9780228001751 (cloth) | isbn 9780228001768 (paper) | isbn 9780228003106 (epdf) | isbn 9780228003113 (epub) Subjects: lcsh: International education—Canada. | lcsh: Education and state —Canada. | lcsh: Education and globalization—Canada. Classification: lcc lc1090 .i58 2020 | ddc 370.1160971—dc23

This book was typeset by True to Type in 10.5/13 Sabon



Figures and Tables ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction: The Emergence of International Education as Public Policy 3 Roopa Desai Trilokekar, Glen A. Jones, and Merli Tamtik SECTION ONE


1 Federalism and Internationalization 29 Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones 2 Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education: Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, 2006–17 50 John Allison 3 International Education as a Human Resource Strategy: “A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy 69 Basu Sharma 4 The Elusive Pursuit of Internationalization in Canadian Research 90 Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá SECTION T WO INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY : PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL

5 International Education as a Strategic Investment in Developing a Knowledge-Ready Workforce in Alberta 113 Jing Xiao




6 Framing the Public Good in the Future of British Columbia International Education Policy 135 Sharon Stein 7 Collaborative Efforts Administering K–12 Internationalization through Policy and Practice in Manitoba 158 Merli Tamtik 8 International Education Policy: The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador 179 Sonja Knutson 9 The Internationalization of Post-Secondary Education in Nova Scotia 200 J. Colin Dodds 10 Internationalization of Education in Nunavut: A Legacy of Inuit Diplomacy 223 Patricia Gaviria 11 International Education Policy in Ontario: A Swinging Pendulum? 246 Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri 12 Population, Power, and Place: International Education Policy on Prince Edward Island 267 J. Tim Goddard 13 International Education as Public Policy in Quebec 288 Diane Barbarič SECTION THREE INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY : O RG A N I Z AT I O N A L ACTO R S , NET WORKS , AND DISCOURSES

14 Tracing Controversies in Internationalization: National Actors in Canadian Higher Education 313 Melody Viczko 15 Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque 16 Who Speaks for International Education? An Ontario Case Study 358 Amira El Masri



17 Across the Divide: Critical Conversations on Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization 384 Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon Conclusion: International Education as Public Policy – The Canadian Story 407 Merli Tamtik, Roopa Desai Trilokekar, and Glen A. Jones Contributors 427 Index 435



François Crépeau



Figures and Tables

figures 8.1 11.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1

Data compilation of net immigration by province, 1971–2015 180 Ontario international student enrolment, 2000–14 249 Total of ie-related articles and corresponding major global, national, and provincial events 361 Evolution of Economy storyline and its four main discourses in the media 364 Evolution of Risks storyline and its three main discourses in the media 369 Evolution of Gateway to the World storyline in the media 373 Indigenous wholistic framework 397

tables 3.1 3.2 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1

Levels and type of immigrants to Canada, 2003–17 77 International students, postgraduate work permits, and transition to permanent residency 78 Overview of provincial post-secondary and ie policies 123 Number of international students studying in British Columbia in 2015 141 Total number of international students in Manitoba, 2004–13 164 Goal 12: To increase enrolment of post-secondary international students 189


Figures and Tables

9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 C.1

International full-time student enrolment in Nova Scotia as a percentage of total enrolment, 1982–2017 203 nscc international student enrolment, 2007–17 204 Research queries by international dimension, policy anchors, and actors 228 Documents and analytical lines by research query 230 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit guiding principles 232 Overview of the provincial ie policies 410–11




This volume received funding from the Scholarly Works Fund and Start-Up Grant of the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba. Merli would like to thank her colleagues and staff for their continuous help and support. Glen would like to acknowledge the tremendous support he receives from Denise Makovac and Grace Karram Stephenson. His research is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Ontario Human Capital Research and Innovation Fund. Roopa would like to acknowledge the constant and stellar support of her doctoral student Amira El Masri.



The Backstory




On the House


The Emergence of International Education as Public Policy Roopa Desai Trilokekar, Glen A. Jones, and Merli Tamtik

International education (ie) is far from a new phenomenon, but in the early twenty-first century it has emerged as an almost ubiquitous concept within discussions of educational curriculum, the objectives of schools and universities, and government policies for K–12 and higher education. While the research literature on ie policy is vast and rapidly expanding, there has been surprisingly little attention paid to the Canadian policy context, perhaps because, as in any area of education or higher education policy in Canada, there is no single “whole” portrait that can be easily drawn. The decentralization of education and higher education policy, the vagaries of Canadian federalism, and the tangled web of intersections between the plethora of national, provincial, and local agencies and interest groups make any discussion of Canadian educational policy innately complex and multi-faceted. This complexity expands exponentially when attention is turned to ie, with its ties not only to education and higher education, but to foreign affairs, immigration, research, citizenship, and economic development. Recognizing such complexity, the current volume makes an important contribution to the study of ie by presenting a collection of chapters that tell the Canadian story of the when, how, why, and who of ie in Canada. What distinguishes this collection from others is its uniquely Canadian perspective. Canada is often identified as an anomaly in this policy field compared with other nations, and, in this book, we provide in-depth analytical perspectives for understanding


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

this anomaly. As such, Canada has attracted the attention of several other competitor nation states largely because of its rapid success with ie and its continuing pro-immigration policies. Thus, the Canadian story is as of much interest to a global audience as it is to local readership. Engaging a wide range of policy theories and taking historical, federal, regional/provincial, inter-sectoral, and multi-actor perspectives, the book provides a comprehensive yet complex and critical perspective on Canada’s broader policy context, illuminating the particular “local” or “Canadian” version(s) of ie. While applying a common framework of multi-level governance (mlg), some authors experiment with the inclusion of the novel theoretical policy approaches elaborated below to broaden our understanding of ie. In global terms, ie has been widely recognized as a politically strategic and economically promising policy area (Knight 2008). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd) has projected that, with demographic changes, international student mobility is likely to reach 8 million students per year by 2025 (Tremblay, Lalancette, and Roseveare 2012). Global student mobility, in particular the recruitment of international students, is often measured as a key indicator of ie. In 2018, more than 721,000 international students at all levels studied in Canada (Canada. gac 2019). Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada reported this as an increase of 20 percent over 2016. This means that Canada has surpassed its ie strategy goal of 450,000 international students in Canada by 2022, five years ahead of schedule (cbie 2018). International students contributed $21.6 billion to the Canadian gdp in 2018, supporting almost 170,000 jobs in Canada (Canada. gac 2019). In addition to their direct economic contributions, international students are now actively pursued as “ideal” immigrants by many countries, with “dual intent” study and stay policies. International students as “ideal” immigrants is a policy discourse that is now circulating globally and has been translated into a policy priority in Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Ireland, to name just a few countries (Gribble and Blackmore 2012; Hawthorne 2008, 2012; Morris-Lange and Brands 2015; Sá and Sabzalieva 2016). Canada recently shifted its policy related to international students, stating in its first ie strategy, “International students are well positioned to immigrate to Canada as they have typically obtained Canadian credentials, are proficient in at least one official language and often have relevant Canadian work experience” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 12).



The increasing global competition for resources and highly skilled talent has forced governments to monitor closely and invest in developments related to internationalization (European Commission 2013; oecd 2016). In this context, Canada is positioned as “a medium-ranking education power” (the editor, quoted in Chiose 2016). Across the three international ranking systems, four Canadian universities, namely the University of Toronto, McGill University, the University of British Columbia, and McMaster University, are consistently ranked in the top 100 universities in the world. In addition, another 14 to 22 Canadian universities, depending on the ranking system used, are in the global lists of top-ranked universities, with most universities ranking at spots between 200 and 400 and showing remarkable stability in terms of their international positions over time, maintaining their places or improving them slightly. However, given the increasing importance of international rankings as signifiers of global prestige and, as such, attractors of international students, rankings are both frequently critiqued and closely monitored as downward trends could have negative implications both for individual institutions and for Canada’s international reputation in higher education. There is a constant plea for further investments, particularly in research, if Canada hopes to “play in the area of world-class scholarship” (Church 2009, n.p.) and produce “world-class” universities (Beck 2008, n.p.). The world-class universities and rankings discourse has resulted in increased research funding to attract the “best and brightest” global students (e.g., the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship, the Banting Postdoctoral Scholarship) and faculty (e.g., Canada Research Chairs), and investment in research infrastructure and programs. Institutional heads of Canada’s research-intensive and highest-ranked universities have strongly lobbied the federal government for strategic policies and aggressive investments in scientific infrastructure and researchers to maintain and improve Canada’s global position. While this book is focused on ie at the post-secondary level, several chapters draw attention to Canada’s K–12 ie scene, which has been gradually gaining momentum as well. The number of international students studying in Canadian schools at the secondary level or lower was 25,343 in 2013 (Canada. cic 2015). The number increased by 121 percent (56 090 students) in 2015 with China, South Korea, and Japan as the top sending countries (cbie 2015). This recent and surprising trend has pushed both levels of government as well as educational


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

institutions to focus their attention on school-aged children by developing new policies, strategies, and legislation to tap into that expanding sector. Scholars have noted the worrisome trend of governments and public schools starting to act like businesses selling their programs, and using marketing and branding strategies to promote educational programs abroad (Fallon and Poole 2014; Stein 2018). Given this context, there is a growing recognition that Canadian governments, at both the federal and provincial levels, need to support and coordinate initiatives in ie to facilitate its expansion and secure the quality of those endeavours. As stated above, concerns for Canada’s competitiveness have formed the rationale for policy shifts. The new emerging markets, such as Brazil, India, and China, are considered to be major competitors for Canada moving forward, especially given the high level of investment their governments are making in higher education and scientific research. They are attracting and retaining top-tier talent from their own nations and others around the world, and this trend is expected to increase. However, there is also a sentiment that “traditional competitors in the United States, the United Kingdom and continental Europe are under extraordinary budget pressures, and those pressures will likely become more severe … These trends present opportunities for Canada” (Brodie 2012, n.p.). As well, in a world where nations like the United States and the United Kingdom are introducing more anti-immigration and other policies hostile to international scholars and students, Canada is viewed as an attractive country of choice. Compared with the United States and the United Kingdom, “Canada … provides cheaper study options, simpler application processes and more opportunities for permanent residency” (the 2017, n.p.). Thus, scholars like Florida and Gans (2017, n.p.) have asserted that “as the U.S. global brand wanes, Canada’s grows in stature.” At the same time, as the withdrawal of Saudi Arabian students from Canada in 2018 demonstrated, international relationships can shift quickly, with unpredictable results. In the past, Canada has stood out as an anomaly, a country that has exhibited “an erratic approach to internationalisation over the past 35 years” (European Parliament 2015, 205). Shubert, Jones, and Trilokekar (2009, 9–10) suggested that “Canadian universities had made independent decisions related to their internationalization agenda, with surprisingly little involvement or interest from the federal government.” In a similar vein, Jones (2009) noted that the inter-



nationalization of higher education in Canada has experienced a lack of interest and limited coherency at a system level. The degree of interest has substantially changed since 2010, when provincial governments started to articulate their own visions for ie, independent of the federal government and each other. In 2014, the federal government took an unprecedented step and announced its first-ever national strategy for ie (Canada. fatdc 2014). The strategy, titled Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity, positions ie as an endeavour “critical to Canada’s success in a global knowledge-based economy” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 4). Most recently, the federal government has announced an updated strategy, Building on Success: Canada’s International Education Strategy (2019–2024).1 Given Canada’s attractiveness within a changed global geopolitics, will Canada’s broader political, societal, and cultural milieu also hold a specific attractiveness for ie? ie has now become a core public policy focus for the Canadian federal government and many provincial governments. With its policy and practice varying considerably by institution, jurisdiction, and sector, there is a clear need for a more comprehensive understanding of how those governmental policies have emerged, how they interact and shape internationalization processes in Canada, and how they (re)shape and (re)define the purposes, functions, and roles of education and higher education in Canada.

international education as public policy The internationalization of higher education is commonly understood as a “process.” De Wit and Hunter (2015, 3) suggested that it is an “intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of pse [post-secondary education], in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.” We choose to speak of ie as “policy,” adopting van der Wende’s (2001, 253) definition, and view ie as “a systematic sustained effort [undertaken by governments] aimed at making [the] higher education [system of a certain country] [more] responsive to the requirements and challenges related to the globalization of societies, economy and labour markets.” Given this understanding, this book has three major objectives.


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

The first objective is to investigate “why and how has internationalization as a policy task emerged in Canada at both the provincial and federal levels.” Following Dye’s (1972, 2) definition of public policy as “anything a government chooses to do or not to do,” we aim to explore the historical processes that have led governments to develop ie policies since 1970, culminating with the federal government’s vision for ie in 2014. We aim to investigate how and why ie strategies were developed in specific jurisdictional contexts and what factors triggered the federal government to announce its ie strategy. The second objective is to examine “the extent to which international education as a cross-sectoral policy arena has been employed within the Canadian context.” Globalization and the “new knowledge economy” ideology have (re)framed policy issues, resulting increasingly in policy initiatives that concern multiple domains, such as trade and commerce, the labour market, education and training, the economy, and immigration. They have led to a convergence, overlap, or collision of policy sectors. This book highlights some inter-sectoral interfaces, providing an analysis of both the traditional federal policy jurisdictions (foreign policy, trade and international development, research and innovation) and the newer provincial and interjurisdictional domestic policy arenas (education, human capital development, labour market, immigration and citizenship, and research and innovation). This objective contributes to a deeper understanding of the contemporary tensions, contradictions, and complexities in ie policy. It leads to an evidence-based understanding of the importance of coherency across policy sectors in accomplishing broader goals of national importance. The third objective is to examine “the ways in which ie policies have impacted Canadian federal-provincial relations.” This consideration is especially significant because education in Canada is constitutionally a provincial responsibility with the federal government having limited powers to regulate education-related initiatives. Canada has no federal Ministry of Education, yet foreign policy that supports the overall economic well-being of the country is a federal responsibility. A close examination of provincial and federal policies helps to further our understanding of policy coordination: are governmental ie strategies converging or diverging in terms of policy coherence? With the recent shifts in the policy context, there is a clear need to have a pan-Canadian understanding of ie policy, its implementation, and its specific impacts on the (higher) education sector. These objec-



tives contribute to a broader theoretical understanding of the dynamic regional, national, and global factors influencing ie policy development in decentralized federal systems such as Canada. The Canadian government was slow to develop policy responses regarding ie compared with many Western peers, as this was a policy area historically characterized by the fragmentation of initiatives across stakeholders, government levels, and sectors (Jones 2009). Under the pressures of an ideology of globalization and the global knowledge economy, there is now considerable momentum and a greater shift toward both policy alignment and an overlap of roles between the two levels of government. We argue that these shifts and overlaps in roles and responsibilities have direct implications for higher education policy because, as Enders and Fulton (2002) have suggested, internationalization and globalization perform an “icebreaker function” on national systems of education. Canada may not have experienced the same level of policy changes observed in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom (Fisher, Rubenson et. al 2009; Jones 2014; Slaughter and Leslie 1999; Trilokekar and Kizilbash 2013); however, with the growing shifts in the Canadian policy context, there is a clear need to (re)examine a cross-national understanding of ie policy and its implementation, impact, and consequences to higher education.

overview of the book Our overall argument in this book is that ie is increasingly becoming a core area in Canadian public policy that engages and impacts all levels of government, involves a wider pool of stakeholders, and cuts across a diverse range of policy sectors. We argue that public policy is fundamentally challenging the traditional roles, responsibilities, and relationships between the federal and provincial governments and, as a result, is changing the roles, purposes, and functions of the (higher) education sector. This book identifies Canada’s unique policy context and provides an examination of how ie policy is deeply mediated by “embedded” historical, economic, social, political, and cultural contexts that produce the particular “local” or “Canadian” version(s) of ie policy (Ozga 2005, 207). This theme lends substance to Ball’s (1998) observation that context is critical in examining policy text and discourse, as translation of policy ideas is dependent on political architectures (Cerny 1990),


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

national infrastructures (Hall 1986), and national ideologies (van Zanten 1997). The theme of localized contexts is explored throughout the book as authors analyze factors that have led to the emergence of ie policy in the provincial, federal, and national contexts. Most chapters focus on the “policy context” and on the historical, political, economic, and socio-cultural contexts that have (re)defined the appeal and meaning of ie for both levels of government. Multi-level governance theory (Hooghe and Marks 2003; Börzel and Heard-Lauréote 2009; Zito 2015) provides a common theoretical frame that links most chapters of this book and creates clear connections across its contributions. Several collaborative meetings with chapter authors helped consolidate the book’s theoretical framework, although authors were given considerable independence in shaping their individual chapters. The core aspects of multi-level governance (mlg) theory are (1) the authority of collective decision-making (Capano 2015); (2) interdependence among stakeholders (Börzel and Heard-Lauréote 2009); and (3) mutual learning (Radaelli 2009; Zito 2015). This framework allows us to examine the dynamics of ie policy in multi-actor, multi-sector, and multi-level contexts and ultimately recognize ie as a “shared policy space” (Gregg 2006, 14). We want to give credence to Vidovich (2007, 285) by “removing policy from its pedestal.” In our policy analysis of ie we want explicitly to link “the ‘bigger picture’ of global and national policy contexts to the ‘smaller pictures’ of policies and practices” within provinces, local communities, and institutions (Vidovich 2007, 285). In doing so, while maintaining and ascribing a role for the government as more than just “an actor among actors,” we want to examine the multiplicity of actors that shape ie policy, which has become central to the study of governance. Thus, in addition to policy context, specific chapters are unique in identifying key policy actors, entrepreneurs, and networks (both governmental and non-governmental) and how they have engaged in (re)shaping ie policy. The specific organizational structures and systems that often define the role, access, and impact of these policy actors is also discussed. Several chapters make more theoretical contributions by engaging in policy discourse and ideology and addressing how power implicates each of these actors and their response to political pressures, ideologies, and self-interests. These authors examine how ie has (re)shaped relationships and practices among and between governments, non-governmental actors, and higher educational institutions.



The book is organized into three major sections. Section One, “Internationalization Policy: Federal,” is comprised of four chapters that together focus on three key policy arenas through which the Government of Canada is most engaged in ie. We first provide an overview of federalism as it applies to ie, and then we focus on specific policy areas – namely, foreign policy, immigration, and research. Section Two, “Internationalization Policy: Provincial and Territorial,” provides a cross-national perspective through a detailed narrative of select provinces and territories and their engagement with ie. Eight out of the ten provinces and one out of three territories are represented through chapters on Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec. Section Three, “Internationalization Policy: Organizational Actors, Networks, and Discourses,” presents four distinct theoretical perspectives from critical policy studies that push forward our analytical frames in order to theorize ie policy as networked, discursive, and relational. These three sections are described in more detail below. In the concluding chapter, the editors provide a review of the major findings in relation to our three major objectives.

section one. internationalization policy: federal Who in the Canadian federal government holds primary responsibility for setting ie policy? Global Affairs Canada houses a special ie unit. However, in reality, mainly Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but also Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is increasingly taking on an active and important role in shaping ie policy. This is because ie is becoming more significant not just as a soft power foreign policy tool but also a source for trade and revenue generation, immigration and human resource development, and research and innovation (de Wit 2002; Hawthorne 2008; Knight 2008, 2012; Trilokekar 2009, 2010). With ie’s increased role across federal departments and policy arenas come challenges of policy coherence and coordination within the federal government. How have past and current federal governments presided over the ie policy arena? Has there been a shift in the nature of ie governance toward a more collaborative approach or has federalism remained central to policy coordination challenges not only within the federal government but also between the federal and provincial


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

governments? The potential for policy deadlocks is heightened in the ie policy area as it falls between the cracks of federal jurisdiction (foreign policy, immigration, and research and innovation, among other policy areas) and provincial jurisdiction (education policy). How have and how will the forces of globalization and increased international competition influence the nature of co-operation, coordination, and intergovernmentalism within the Canadian context? These are some of the questions addressed by the four chapters in this section. Chapter 1, “Federalism and Internationalization,” by Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones, provides a detailed account of both the policy and programmatic evolution of ie policy under three federal governments, those of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (1993–2003), Prime Minister Paul Martin (2003–06), and Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–15). Drawing from extensive semi-structured interviews with federal government officials and non-governmental organizations, this chapter examines the role of the federal government in ie in relation to provinces, analyzing specific factors that led to Canada’s first federal strategy on ie. In particular, the chapter is concerned with how the federal government’s engagement with ie as policy is changing the nature of Canadian federalism. It outlines three distinct approaches to federalism under the three governments and considers whether the conflictual nature of Canada’s federalism is alive and well or has been tempered in this era of heightened global competition. In chapter 2, “Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education: Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, 2006–17,” John Allison also addresses Canada’s jurisdictional challenges with ie. Based on his analysis of primary data from the Archives of Ontario and the Library and Archives Canada, as well as secondary sources, Allison conducts a careful examination of the historical development of ie under two recent governments, the Stephen Harper Conservatives (2006–15) and the Justin Trudeau Liberals (2015 to mid-2018, when the chapter was completed), paying particular attention to each of their political and foreign policy directions. Allison uses Hooghe and Marks’s framework of mlg as an analytical tool to compare further the two governmental foreign policy approaches and their impact on ie. Using this framework, Allison explores the difference between Type I and Type II governance in resolving the conundrum of federal-provincial relations in ie.



In chapter 3, “International Education as a Human Resource Strategy: ‘A Citizen Model’ for Canadian Immigration Policy,” Basu Sharma examines how three major factors – globalization, economic transformation, and demographic decline – have resulted in an interface č between Canada’s ie strategy and immigration policies. He argues that these three factors are forcing both the federal and provincial/territorial governments to redefine the ie policy space. Sharma provides a detailed explanation of the evolution of immigration policy and documents how ie goals and immigration policies and practices have come to be mutually aligned through a series of initiatives. He explains how policy alignment translates ie into a multi-actor, multi-sector policy space that he also analyzes using Hooghe and Marks’s Type I and Type II mlg systems. In chapter 4, “The Elusive Pursuit of Internationalization in Canadian Research,” Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá provide a comprehensive review of how internationalization as a policy issue has emerged and been articulated in Canadian research policy. Drawing from data collected through semi-structured interviews of thirty-five administrators, as well as from the analysis of policy documents, they examine the rationales for research collaborations from the perspective of diverse stakeholder groups and analyze the gaps in promoting Canadian international research and innovation policy. In making their case that internationalization initiatives have been at the forefront of Canadian research and innovation policy, the authors elaborate upon how the multi-level, multi-actor, and multi-issue context of research policy in Canada has created institutional complexity contributing to fragmented policy approaches and limited policy coordination, with universities caught between the two levels of government.

section two. internationalization policy: provincial and territorial Given the mlg framework that plays such a key role in the volume, it is important to consider the variety of ways in which ie policies have emerged and evolved in Canada’s provinces and territories. Do all provinces have a formal ie strategy? How is ie defined and understood within these jurisdictions?


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

The chapters in this section focus on ie policy within a specific jurisdiction and reveal broad differences in provincial/territorial histories, approaches, and rationales. In Quebec, ie has been viewed as an extension of domestic education policy for more than fifty years. In Nunavut, the internationalization of education can be conceptualized within the broader context of Inuit political agency. For some of the Atlantic provinces, ie policy is seen as an important approach to increasing immigration in the context of population decline, while in other provinces ie is seen primarily as a mechanism for revenue generation. These chapters make a significant contribution to our understanding of ie in Canada because they explore the important differences in how ie policy is positioned within these distinctive provincial contexts, how these policy issues are taken up (or not), and how stakeholder interests intersect with great complexity. In chapter 5, “International Education as a Strategic Investment in Developing a Knowledge-Ready Workforce in Alberta,” Jing Xiao provides a comprehensive review of the evolution of Alberta government policies focusing on ie. Under the umbrella of “Campus Alberta,” the province has taken steps to develop an integrated system of higher education, and ie has become a strategic component of this systematic approach to higher education policy. Alberta government policy positions ie as a key mechanism for addressing the province’s needs for a highly educated workforce to further economic development, and there is evidence that universities have taken steps to incorporate ie into institutional strategic plans. The government’s approach has been to develop coherent, strategic plans for the recruitment and retention of international students through policies that integrate ie within the broader provincial strategies for education and higher education. British Columbia has devoted considerable attention to ie. In chapter 6, entitled “Framing the Public Good in the Future of British Columbia International Education Policy,” Sharon Stein engages in a critical transnational policy analysis and discusses how broader trends toward neo-liberalism and declines in public funding set the stage for positioning education as a globally available private commodity. A British Columbia Centre (later Council) for ie emerged in 1991 and developed some of the first strategic policy documents among Canadian provinces. A provincial ie strategy was created in 2012, several years before the federal government strategy was released. Stein discusses how ie has been positioned as a major provincial industry, with revenue generation used as a mechanism for subsidizing local stu-



dents in both K–12 schools and pse. She provides a critical examination of the ways in which the benefits of ie have been framed in terms of generating revenue, addressing labour gaps through immigration, fostering business connections, and providing intercultural advantages for British Columbia students. Issues of equity or reciprocity have largely been absent from ie policy discussions, and Stein raises important questions concerning the meaning of “public education” in this context. In chapter 7, entitled “Collaborative Efforts Administering K–12 Internationalization through Policy and Practice in Manitoba,” Merli Tamtik employs an mlg framework to explore ie in Manitoba by focusing on school administrators. Drawing on relevant documents and interviews with government and school officials, she explores how ie has become a government priority and the processes that stakeholders have used to further the agenda for ie in the province. Manitoba created its first ie strategy in 2008 and is the only province that has created legislation (the International Education Act, 2016) in order to standardize the provision of ie services. While recognizing that there are tensions between levels of government and stakeholders, she notes that both formal and informal mechanisms are in place to further collaboration in this policy area. In chapter 8, “International Education Policy: The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador,” Sonja Knutson provides a detailed analysis of reports and policy documents in order to illuminate the unique positioning of ie within this provincial context. She notes the importance of regional approaches to coordination, with ie often positioned under the rubric of the Atlantic Growth Strategy and with EduNova assuming a role in furthering regional interests. In the absence of any provincial strategy for ie, Memorial University has assumed a major role in essentially leading efforts on behalf of the province. In the context of a declining population, ie has been positioned as a key component of provincial strategies for population growth, and the university has become a core immigrant pathway for the province. In chapter 9, titled “The Internationalization of Post-Secondary Education in Nova Scotia,” Colin Dodds analyzes a series of provincial policy decisions and more recent intergovernmental partnerships (e.g., the Atlantic Growth Strategy) that have formed the foundation for the growth of ie in the province. The closely intertwined issues of provincial immigration demands and pressures to increase revenues


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

for the pse sector have pushed educational institutions to focus on income generation from private sources. Dodds questions the longterm sustainability of such an approach, which, he argues, has left the education sector exposed and vulnerable to any global political or economic changes. In chapter 10, “Internationalization of Education in Nunavut: A Legacy of Inuit Diplomacy,” Patricia Gaviria frames her thorough analysis of the internationalization of education in the territory within the broader context of Inuit political agency and the recognition of Inuit rights. Moving beyond the nation states that they are part of, Inuit peoples have taken steps to protect and promote Inuit culture, language, and education through both inward and outward international dimensions. The inward dimension refers to the use of international agreements to push governments to fulfill commitments related to furthering Inuit culture through public education in Nunavut. The outward dimension refers to the development of an Arctic space to deal with global issues affecting Inuit peoples, such as climate change and resource-based economic development. Based on an examination of policy documents and news reports, and informed by conversations with policy actors, Gaviria looks at inward internationalization activities through the development of Nunavut’s education system since its creation. Her analysis of outward internationalization activities focuses on Nunavut Arctic College and the Nunavut Research Institute. Gaviria sees an opportunity to define the internationalization of education from the vantage point of Inuit peoples. ie policy in Canada’s most populated province is the topic of Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri’s chapter 11, entitled “International Education Policy in Ontario: A Swinging Pendulum?” Noting that ie policy can be traced back to the Peterson government of the mid-1980s, they conclude that political support for international initiatives has moved back and forth, depending largely on the perspectives of provincial premiers. Drawing on an analysis of documents and interviews with key stakeholders, they identify and discuss six key themes that underscore the emergence and evolution of ie policy in the province: peoples, power, and position; economy and global competition; shifting federal-provincial relations; the recurring undercurrent of parochialism; the leadership role of universities; and managing risks. In chapter 12, “Population, Power, and Place: International Education Policy on Prince Edward Island,” Tim Goddard provides an examination of ie policy in Canada’s smallest province. He describes three key ele-



ments for understanding the socio-political context of the province: rurality, population, and the environment. Population growth is critical for the sustainability of the Island, and migration and ie are viewed as essential mechanisms for attracting new residents. There is no provincial policy for ie, and attracting international students has become the responsibility of post-secondary institutions. The successful recruitment of international students, combined with the utilization of the Provincial Nominee Program, have allowed the province to maintain a stable workforce. At the same time, Goddard notes that there are concerns related to socio-political power relationships between those born in the province and those who come from away, as well as with the academic experience of international students in an environment where there is limited interaction between international and domestic students. In chapter 13, “International Education as Public Policy in Quebec,” Diane Barbarič notes that the Quebec government has always viewed ie as an extension of domestic education policy. Major reforms to education were a key component of the Quiet Revolution. Ever since, the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, in which Quebec asserted its rights over all policy areas directly or indirectly within its constitutional jurisdiction, has guided ie policy. The doctrine led to tensions in federal-provincial relations, but the province has now signed over 200 international agreements dealing with education and training, and it created an ie strategy in 2002. Barbarič notes how ie policy in Quebec has matured, and she describes how it has now been incorporated into four larger sectoral policies: pse, youth, research, and ie.

section three. internationalization policy: organizational actors, networks, and discourses Sections One and Two largely address internationalization as policy from the perspective of the federal and provincial governments. However, new fields of study, including policy sociology and critical policy analysis in particular, encourage us to decentre the government in our understanding of policy. Critical policy studies view policy-making as an “extremely complex, often contradictory process involving multiple players, affected by power dynamics and distribution of resources and knowledge” (Diem, Young, et al. 2014, 1072). They aim to shed light on


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

the multiple players within the ie landscape, their power dynamics, and their ability to influence policy-making (or not). Ball and Exley (2010, 151) noted that policy networks mark “the emergence of new state modalities, with a shift away from government toward forms of polycentric governance, where policy is produced through multiple agencies and multiple sites of discourse generation.” Who are the diverse policy actors in the international policy arena? Are there inherent networks among and between each of these policy actors? Can these be distinguished by the power they hold, the discourses in which they engage, and/or the material outcomes they influence? The four chapters in this section seek to explore new ground by taking a novel approach to the study of internationalization policy through distinct critical policy studies frames. This work contributes greatly to our understanding of how policies are enacted and engaged by different policy actors – state and non-state – positioned differently in relation to one another in terms of power, materiality, and discourse. Jointly, the chapters emphasize the importance of examining policies within their historical, social, economic, cultural, and political contexts, as this contributes to our understanding of internationalization as policy that is inherently complex, political, and value-laden. In chapter 14, “Tracing Controversies in Internationalization: National Actors in Canadian Higher Education,” Melody Viczko explores Venturini’s concept of controversies to map the politics of internationalization. Drawing from data collected in 2017 for a broader project that included an analysis of organizational public documents, including websites, she examines three specific federal international initiatives: Mitacs, the Superclusters, and innovation hubs. Her analysis begins to unravel how universities’ roles and positions are (re)constituted through their co-entanglement with several national actors on a range of internationalization issues. Vickzo speaks to the increased politicization between actors given contemporary internationalization that has increased connections between university strategies and actors in international trade, industry, and corporate communities. Through the concept of controversies, she illustrates how mapping the politics by which these actors engage enables one to uncover the politics of these associations and how they work to shape internationalization processes and governance in higher education. In chapter 15, “Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage,” Marianne Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque seek to map social



relations between various policy actors using Ball and Junemann’s theorizing of the concept of policy network as assemblage. They seek to uncover the connections and power-infused relations between various internationalization policy actors within the network, namely the federal government, provincial governments, special interest groups such as the Canadian Bureau for International Education, and individual higher educational institutions, and the ways in which this network has changed over time. Their analysis is based on data drawn from AlHaque’s 2017 doctoral dissertation research, a case study of internationalization at an Ontario university. The case study method sharpened a micro-processes analysis of the workings of internationalization policy networks. Through this analysis, the authors document the shifting balance of powers among higher education institutions, provincial and federal governments, and non-governmental actors in influencing the shape and substance of internationalization policy. In chapter 16, Amira El Masri explores ie as policy discourse between policy actors/networks using Hajer’s Discourse Coalition Framework and his Argumentative Discourse Analysis as analytical tools. Her chapter, titled “Who Speaks for International Education? An Ontario Case Study,” seeks to explore dominant and less dominant “storylines” that shape the construction of ie policy in Ontario. Focusing on the role of media as an important policy actor, she examines how ie as a policy issue was highlighted in three of the highest readership newspapers in Canada, namely the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the National Post, from 2005 to mid-2017. She identifies three storylines in which policy actors/networks engage: (a) Internationalize: it is good for the economy; (b) Internationalize, yet manage its risks; and (c) Internationalize: it is Canada’s gateway to the world. In discussing each of these storylines, she highlights how different coalitions form or are hindered under prevailing socio-economic and political contexts and how new storylines can became the prime vehicles of policy change. In chapter 17, Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon speak to policy discourses and networks through another unique lens. They explore new ground in internationalization policy conversations through their chapter, titled “Across the Divide: Critical Conversations on Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization.” Authors make a bold proposition to bridge the current divide between policy discourses, networks, and actors of Indigenization and internationalization. Suggesting that the roots of both Indigenization and inter-


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

nationalization are connected to imperialism (Indigenization as a counter-movement of anti-colonialism, and internationalization as the reproduction of imperialism), the authors explore the push and pull factors that have created policy tensions and implementation challenges between the two efforts. As a way forward, the authors present a holistic Indigenous framework developed by Pidgeon to guide and (re)shape the current conversations within internationalization, which they critique as instrumental, superficial, and ill-conceived. They challenge us to consider a decolonization of internationalization where Indigenous peoples, and their lands, knowledges, principles, and practices, take centre stage for the reimagining of internationalization.

conclusion While there is a growing scholarship examining the trends related to the internationalization of Canadian higher education or research (Guo and Chase 2011; Jones and Oleksiyenko 2011; Trilokekar, Jones, and Shubert 2009), no previous academic publication has engaged in a systematic, analytical study of ie from a Canadian perspective utilizing the lens of public policy. Our approach has been to compile a unique collection of scholarly essays drawing on a common framework of mlg in order to explore ie policy at the federal/pan-Canadian level and at the provincial/territorial level that offer critical perspectives and conceptualizations of this important policy arena. The contributors include many of Canada’s major scholars of ie, both well-established researchers and junior scholars who are at the leading edge of this field. As we noted at the beginning of the introduction, ie policy in Canada is enormously complex, multi-faceted, and contested. We believe that this volume plays an important role in illuminating the complexity of this policy arena through the framework of mlg, and contributes to a much more nuanced understanding of what has become a major area of Canadian public policy.

note 1

The new federal strategy came out at the time of this book’s publication (2019), so references across this volume are made in regard to the previous federal strategy.



references Ball, S. 1998. “Big Policies/Small World: An Introduction to International Perspectives in Education Policy.” Comparative Education 34 (2): 119–30. Ball, S., and S. Exley. 2010. “Making Policy with ‘Good Ideas’: Policy Networks and the ‘Intellectuals’ of New Labour.” Journal of Education Policy 25 (2): 151–69. Beck, S. 2008. “Which Canadian Schools are World-Class?” Globe and Mail, 23 October. /which-canadian-schools-are-worldclass/article4192789/. Börzel, T.A., and K. Heard-Lauréote. 2009. “Networks in EU Multi-Level Governance: Concepts and Contributions.” Journal of Public Policy 29 (2): 135–51. Brodie, I. 2012. “A Top 10 Global Challenge for Canadian Universities.” Policy Options, 1 August. Canada. cic (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2015. Evaluation of the International Student Program. Ottawa: cic. /dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/evaluation/isp/2015/e3-2013isp.pdf. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates. Ottawa: gac. – 2017. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2017 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates. Ottawa: gac. .ca/education/report-rapport/impact-2017/. – 2019. Building on Success: Canada’s International Education Strategy (2019–2024). Ottawa: gac. /strategy-2019-2024-strategie.aspx. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2015. A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education 2015. Ottawa: cbie.


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

– 2018. “International Students Surpass 2022 Goal”. Press release, 16 March. Capano, G. 2015. “Federal Strategies for Changing the Governance of Higher Education: Australia, Canada and Germany Compared.” In Varieties of Governance. Dynamics, Strategies, Capacities, edited by G. Capano, M. Howlett, and M. Ramesh, 103–30. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Cerny, P. 1990. The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency and the Future of the State. London: sage. Chiose, S. 2016. “Canadian Universities Tumble in Rankings as China Rises.” Globe and Mail, 21 September. /news/national/education/university-rankings/article31983238/?ref. Church, E. 2009. “Canadian Universities Advance in Global Ranking.” Globe and Mail, 7 October. /canadian-universities-advance-in-global-ranking/article4288363/. De Wit, H. 2002. Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport: Greenwood Press. De Wit, H., and F. Hunter. 2015. “The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe.” International Higher Education 83: 2–3. Diem, S., M. Young, A. Welton, C. Mansfield, and P. Lee. 2014. “The Intellectual Landscape of Critical Policy Analysis.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27 (9): 1068–90. Dye, T.R. 1972. Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, nj: PrenticeHall. Enders, J., and O. Fulton. 2002. Higher Education in a Globalising World. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. European Commission. 2013. European Higher Education in the World. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commission. European Parliament. 2015. Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament. /etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf. Fallon, G., and W. Poole. 2014. “The Emergence of a Market-Driven Funding Mechanism in K–12 Education in British Columbia: Creeping Privatization and the Eclipse of Equity.” Journal of Education Policy 29 (3): 302–22. Fisher, D., K. Rubenson, G. Jones, and T. Shanahan. 2009. “The Political Economy of Post-Secondary Education: A Comparison of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.” Higher Education 57 (5): 549–66.



Florida, R., and J. Gans. 2017. “The Trump Effect: It’s Canada’s Moment to Win the Global Race for Talent.” Globe and Mail, 10 October. Gregg, A. 2006. “Introduction.” In The Faces of Federalism. The 2006 cibc Scholar-In-Residence Lecture, edited by R. Gibbins, A. Maioni, and J. Stein, 5–14. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada. http://brenderwriting .com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/037-07_Canada-by-Picasso_Book _web.pdf. Gribble, C., and J. Blackmore. 2012. “Re-positioning Australia’s International Education in Global Knowledge Economies: Implications of Shifts in Skilled Migration Policies for Universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34: 341–54. Guo, S., and M. Chase. 2011. “Internationalisation of Higher Education: Integrating International Students into Canadian Academic Environment.” Teaching in Higher Education 16 (3): 305–18. Hall, P. 1986. Governing the Economy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hawthorne, L. 2008. The Growing Global Demand for Students as Skilled Migrants, Washington, dc: Migration Policy Institute. – 2012. “Designer Immigrants? International Students and Two-Steps Migration.” In The sage Handbook of International Higher Education, edited by D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, and T. Adams, 417–35. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Hooghe, L, and G. Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” The American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–43. Jones, G.A. 2009. “Internationalization and Higher Education Policy in Canada: Three Challenges.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 355–69. caut Series. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. – 2014. “Building and Strengthening Policy Research Capacity: Key Issues in Canadian Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (8): 1332–42. Jones, G.A., and A. Oleksiyenko. 2011. “The Internationalization of Canadian University Research: A Global Higher Education Matrix Analysis of Multi-Level Governance.” The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 61 (1): 41–57. Knight, J. 2008. Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Sense Publishers: Netherlands.


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

– 2012. “Concepts, Rationales, and Interpretive Frameworks in the Internationalization of Higher Education.” In The sage Handbook of International Higher Education, edited by D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, and T. Adams, 27–42. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Morris-Lange, S., and F. Brands. 2015. Train and Retain: Career Support for International Students in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Germany: The Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration. oecd (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). 2016. Education at a Glance 2016: oecd Indicators. Paris: oecd Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag-2016-en. Ozga, J. 2005. “Modernizing the Education Workforce: A Perspective from Scotland.” Educational Review 57 (2): 207–19. Radaelli, C. 2009. “Measuring Policy Learning: Regulatory Impact Assessment in Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 16 (8): 1145–64. Sá, C., and E. Sabzalieva. 2016. Public Policy and the Attraction of International Students. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, oise, University of Toronto. Shubert, A., G.A. Jones, and R.D. Trilokekar. 2009. “Introduction.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 7–15. caut Series. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. 1999. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stein, S. 2018. “National Exceptionalism in the ‘EduCanada’ Brand: Unpacking the Ethics of Internationalization Marketing in Canada.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 39 (3): 461–77. the (Times Higher Education). 2017. “Best Universities in Canada 2018.” the World University Rankings, 26 September. https://www.timeshigher Tremblay, K., D. Lalancette, and D. Roseveare. 2012. Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes Feasibility Study Report. Vol. 1, Design and Implementation. Paris: oecd Publishing. Trilokekar, R.D. 2009. “Canadian Federalism, Foreign Policy, and the Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (dfait).” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 98–118. caut Series. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company.



– 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. Trilokekar, R.D., G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, eds. 2009. Canada’s Universities Go Global. caut Series. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. Trilokekar, R.D., and Z. Kizilbash. 2013. “Imagine: Canada as a Leader in International Education: How Can Canada Benefit from the Australian Experience?” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 43 (2): 1–26. Van der Wende, M.C. 2001. “Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and Contrasting Paradigms.” Higher Education Policy 14 (3): 249–59. Van Zanten, A. 1997. “Schooling Immigrants in France in the1990s: Success or Failure of the Republican Model of Integration?” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 28: 351–74. Vidovich, L. 2007. “Removing Policy from its Pedestal: Some Theoretical Framings and Practical Possibilities.” Educational Review 59 (3): 285–98. Zito, A.R. 2015. “Multi-Level Governance, EU Public Policy and the Evasive Dependent Variable.” In Multi-Level Governance: The Missing Linkages, edited by E. Ongaro, 15–39. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.


Trilokekar, Jones, and Tamtik

The Backstory


Internationalization Policy: Federal



On the House

1 Federalism and Internationalization Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

introduction Conflict is inherent in federal systems. However, the struggle to balance power through “shared rule” is especially pronounced in Canada. Canada has been identified as one of the most decentralized federations in the world (Atkinson, Béland, et al. 2013; Bakvis, Baier, and Brown 2009; Bakvis and Skogstad 2008), with intergovernmentalism (i.e., relations between the federal and provincial governments) largely characterized by “executive federalism.”1 Drawing from extensive semi-structured interviews conducted during the period 2009–12 with federal government officials involved directly in policy-making and non-governmental organizations engaged in national advocacy, this chapter explores the evolution of international education (ie) policy under three federal governments: Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (1993–2003), Prime Minister Paul Martin (2003–06), and Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–15). In particular, it examines how these three governments approached the federal role in ie, how they negotiated their relations with the provinces as they defined these roles, and what factors ultimately led to the unprecedented announcement in 2014 of Canada’s first federal strategy on ie, titled Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Compared to most federations, Canada has a very limited list of concurrent jurisdictions (Atkinson, Béland, et al. 2013). ie as policy is absent from the concurrent list. Further, it falls between the cracks of jurisdictional divides – international relations (federal) and education (provincial). The absence of a national Ministry of Education situates


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

educational policy exclusively within provincial jurisdiction, one that the provinces zealously protect against any incursion by the federal government. Dr. Chakma, president of Western University and the federal government appointee as chair of the Advisory Panel for Canada’s International Education Strategy, has lamented that “our biggest challenge on this file [referring to ie] is a structural one: It’s not having a department in Ottawa that champions education.” (Chiose 2015, n.p.; see also Canada. fatdc 2012). Shubert, Jones, et al. (2009) observed that there was no pan-national coordination or policy direction, and that Canadian internationalization was characterized by multiple and uncoordinated processes that had primarily emerged at the local institutional level; universities were taking the lead with little or no national ie agenda. Several provinces have ie strategies, the oldest one being Quebec’s strategy established in the 1970s, followed by others mostly developed in the 1990s. As a group, in 2011, the provinces came together under the banner of the Council of the Federation to announce their ie marketing action plan for provinces and territories: Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing the World to Canada.2 However, the absence of a nationally coordinated ie strategy has been lamented by diverse stakeholders, best captured by Farquhar (2001). Allison (2007) has argued that ie diplomacy was transient, ad hoc, and undelineated between 1970 and 1984. He suggested that “educational authorities at the federal and provincial levels collectively were ill-prepared to address the question of diplomacy in a field of provincial responsibility” (Allison 2007, 114). Both levels of government saw it in their interest to be active in this policy arena given its growing (economic) importance. The provinces wanted full control of the foreign policy agenda related to education, while the federal government maintained that it directed foreign policy. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (cmec) was created in 1967 to act as the premier administrative organization for education in Canada; however, its role remained elusive. Was it an interprovincial organization or the national forum for education? cmec did make some strides in formalizing agreements with the federal government, such as the 1977 “Procedures for Canada’s Participation in International Education Conferences” (for further details see Allison 2007; Trilokekar 2006). However, the struggle for power in the ie policy space continued between the two levels of government. In 1986, cmec established the Federal-Provincial Consultative Commit-

Federalism and Internationalization


tee on Education-Related International Activities (cmec 1991). However, it, too, was largely ineffective in formalizing a coordinated national policy. Thus diplomacy in education remained an activity based on “limited agreements with Ottawa, ad hoc correspondence, and last minute ministerial accords” (Allison 2007, 117). Scholars have suggested that the globalization and internationalization of the Canadian political economy has created a changed policy context (Atkinson, Béland, et al. 2013; Skogstad 2008; Trilokekar, Shanahan, et. al 2013). In an environment of increased exposure to foreign competition, different levels of government are forced to interact with “each other in order to address mutual problems and manage interdependencies. At a minimum, they need to communicate with one another in order to make adjustments in their respective roles. As policy interdependence increases so does the need for coordination and collaboration” (Bakvis and Skogstad 2008, 5). ie has come to be recognized as a soft power tool, a revenue-generating source, and also a human capital development catalyst and innovation propeller (de Wit 2002; Hawthorne 2008; Knight 2008, 2012; Trilokekar 2009, 2010). It involves and engages an expanded range of activities and policy actors at both levels of government. This has intensified jurisdictional overlap and policy interdependencies, and therefore, the need for consultation and eventually coordination. Recognizing ie as a highly contentious policy area, a federal government informant described it as one in which both the federal and provincial governments are “doomed to have to collaborate” (interview, 10 August 2009).3 This is because, as another federal official stated, the need for policy coordination has become increasingly important in the context of the growing competitiveness in ie from other countries that seem to “have really gotten their acts together” (interview, 20 May 2011). What has been the Canadian story of collaborative and competitive federalism when it comes to ie? Let us walk through the policy environments, approaches, and key initiatives across three federal governments from 1993 to 2015.

prime minister jean chrétien, liberal party, 1993–2003 Prime Minister Chrétien came into power facing a $42 billion deficit. Therefore, “expanding in the way Australia did and others do by putting in more people responsible for education in the embassies, or creating


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

trade officers, political officers, immigration officers, and, some people even suggested, public diplomacy officers and education officers – that was not going to happen because expanding government was deemed to be unacceptable” (interview, 10 August 2009). During this period of austerity, there were cuts to existing international scholarship programs and the Canadian Studies Program run by the then Academic Relations unit within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (dfait). Subsequently, under Chrétien’s leadership, two foreign policy reviews were conducted, the first in 1995 and the second in 2003. The 1995 foreign policy review had a substantial impact on the recognition accorded to ie, as cultural and academic diplomacy was identified as a third pillar of significance to Canada’s international image and interests (Trilokekar 2007). André Ouellet, Chrétien’s foreign affairs minister at that time, is largely credited with this new policy direction. It resulted in three key reports in 1994 that spoke to the importance of ie. Under Ouellet, there was some restoration of scholarship programs that had been eliminated during the budget deficit. However, on the whole, there was little follow-up to any of the policy reports and recommendations. The focus on cultural and academic diplomacy remained policy rhetoric. There were, however, four new initiatives established during this period. Chrétien was known to be almost bullish in his focus on increasing Canada’s international trade as a way to enhance Canada’s economy and make it less dependent on the United States (Trilokekar 2007). The amalgamation of two formerly separate units into a newly created dfait under Chrétien’s regime spoke to the growing importance of international trade in Canadian foreign policy. The Team Canada missions, which often included university presidents and coordinated a boost to Canada’s international trade, signalled the recognition of higher education as a business sector. It was this shift in thinking that enabled the department to open its first eight Canada Education Centres in 1995.4 Given Chrétien’s focus on new markets, it was no surprise that the centres were developed primarily under the auspices of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, albeit with funding support from dfait and the Canadian International Development Agency, and all eight centres were in Asia. Chrétien firmly believed that Canada’s economic prosperity depended on its acceptance of and engagement with the new forces of globalization, and his policies were directed to increase Canada’s competitiveness in an international knowledge economy.

Federalism and Internationalization


In 1998, Lloyd Axworthy replaced Ouellet as foreign affairs minister. He initiated a new “high-powered” Academic Relations Advisory Committee and allocated $2 million to dfait for international academic programs. Another major change was initiated by Minister of International Trade Sergio Marchi, who was credited by an interviewee for bringing in the “lingo of … trade” to this portfolio (interview, 10 August 2009). Marchi created a new Educational Marketing Unit within dfait, which eventually took a lead role in developing the Canadian educational brand abroad. The federal government’s 2002 report titled Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians identified the need to “significantly improve Canada’s performance in the recruitment of foreign talent, including foreign students, by means of both the permanent immigrant and the temporary foreign workers programs” (Canada. hrsd 2002, 8). The same year, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) was established, making Citizenship and Immigration Canada (cic) another federal department with high stakes in ie. The irpa established a separate category of temporary residents for international students with a view to facilitating study and work opportunities in Canada for them. Thus the irpa provided a broad framework for the subsequent cic policy initiatives in its International Student Program. By 2003, when the second foreign policy was introduced under Chrétien, ie became synonymous with marketing Canadian education abroad and recruiting international students. In 2004, in accordance with the government’s innovation strategy and the new irpa, the off-campus work program was introduced for international students. During the Chrétien period, the international trade agenda triumphed over all other foreign policy orientations, resulting in an increased emphasis on the marketing of Canadian higher education and student recruitment. The priority accorded to an innovation, knowledge, and skills agenda in a globalized economy further strengthened the international student file, and cic emerged as a department with a major stake in ie. It also introduced a new policy player, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (hrsdc). Bakvis (2008, 205) states that the transformation of Canada’s university system is described by Jeffrey Simpson as Chrétien’s “greatest legacy” and as Ottawa’s “Quiet Revolution” by Allan Tupper. During Chrétien’s term, the government invested heavily in many innovative research and development initiatives (see Axelrod, Trilokekar, et al. 2011; Fisher, Rubenson, et al. 2006). However, as Bakvis (2008) sug-


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

gested, it is important to note that the federal government acted unilaterally in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Most initiatives were implemented virtually uncontested by the provinces, including Quebec, with the exception of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which “ruffled feathers” because provinces regarded student financial support as falling within their domain. Provinces accepted the legitimacy of federal support for universities, cast as support for research and development, a federal domain, although in reality all of these policies had a significant impact on the direction of Canadian higher education. As one federal official said in an interview (Axelrod, Trilokekar, et al. 2011, 39) having new money to spend “buys goodwill with the provinces.” How did the provinces react to the Chrétien government’s approach to ie? Interestingly, here as well, ie was largely promoted as a sector within international trade, another portfolio of the federal government. The economic well-being of Canada depended significantly on international trade, and there was a clear understanding that neither level of government could “realize their trade policy objectives without the cooperation and collaboration of the other” (Skogstad 2008, 240), even when there were “limited carrots or sticks to nudge the provinces along” (Skogstad 2008, 241). Chrétien’s approach to ie could best be described as unilateral federalism, with Ottawa operating largely independently, under the assumption that the federal and provincial spheres were separate, working more directly as necessary with postsecondary education institutions, and keeping co-operation with the provincial governments at a bare minimum.

prime minister paul martin, liberal party, 2003–06 Martin had a different view of Canada’s international relations than Chrétien. He separated the formerly amalgamated dfait into two departments, foreign affairs and international trade, signalling an equal commitment to foreign policy and international trade. Martin and his foreign affairs minister, Pierre Pettigrew, looked to prioritize foreign policy and revive Canada’s role in the world, reminiscent of the Pearson era. Martin, often described as an internationalist, is said to have come into office “indicat[ing] a number of interests that he asked aucc [the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, now Universities Canada] to meet with him about, and international edu-

Federalism and Internationalization


cation was one of them” (interview, 19 May 2011). These interests and commitments translated into the lauded Martin budget of 2005 that allocated $150 million for ie. Unfortunately, this investment never saw the light of day before the Martin government was defeated. It was during the Martin administration that the third foreign policy review was conducted in 2005. It was labelled A Role of Pride and Influence in the World – Overview: Canada’s International Policy Statement (ips). The statement clearly expressed a renewed investment in international affairs and announced the government’s commitment to “making a difference.” Four foreign policy priorities – defence, diplomacy, development, and commerce – were each outlined in separate reports. ie was identified under the commerce policy priority. However, under Martin, ie’s exclusive focus on recruiting international students to Canada shifted to sending Canadian students abroad and preparing them with the necessary skills and training. Axworthy had already moved Canada’s international academic mobility programs with North America and Europe into hrsdc. However, under Martin, the role of hrsdc became even more central. “At that time, it was hrsdc that was really pushing for new investments in Canadian student mobility … because of the skills agenda – that Canadian students need international perspectives and languages and global skills” (interview, 19 May 2011). In 2005, hrsdc sponsored a national forum on post-secondary education in Ottawa, where internationalization was prominently highlighted. It also provided cosponsorship to a national conference at York University that same year on the topic of the internationalization of higher education, and offered partial funding toward publication of the conference proceedings (Trilokekar, Jones, and Shubert 2009). In keeping with Martin’s foreign policy focus on Canada’s role in the world, it also highlighted an increased emphasis on developmental assistance and a commitment to increasing development aid funding by 8 percent each year (Trilokekar 2007). In the international policy statement, Martin’s interests in development aid and enhancing Canadian students’ global skills and international perspectives translated into a “call for a new commitment to global citizenship” that developed into “Canada Corps as an important way to achieve it” (Tiessen 2007, 80). The Canada Corps University Partnership Program, later known as Students for Development, initiated under Martin, was mandated to put “our idealism to work by helping young Canadians bring their enthusiasm and energy to the world” (Parlia-


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

ment of Canada 2004, para. 86). Within an overall goal of promoting democratic governance in the developing world, Canada Corps manifested itself in the Canada Corps Student Internships and the Canada Corps University Teams Partnership Program. This initiative was funded through Canadian International Development Agency at approximately $2 million per year. While the university teams component was subsequently eliminated, the internship program was considered highly effective (Trilokekar and Shubert 2009). Most internships took place in developing countries where Canadian universities already had academic links. In 2005, the government also released a paper on innovation, Achieving Excellence: Investing in People, Knowledge and Opportunity, arguing for the advancement of internationally competitive research opportunities in Canada. The report led to increased policy and funding support to the granting councils. In the context of internationalization, there were two specific outcomes: the first, recognition of the need for an international mandate for each of the funding councils, and second, an interest in creating a world-class scholarship program of the same prestige and scope as the Rhodes Scholarship to attract foreign talent. Perhaps most importantly, the policy paper highlighted the need for a national strategy to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified people. In this context, the recruitment of international students received a boost with a particular emphasis on a change in immigration policies and procedures to both attract and retain international students. Thus, under Martin, several of the initiatives started by Chrétien were continued and sometimes strengthened, for example, the marketing of Canadian higher education and student recruitment, changes in immigration regulations for foreign students, and the need for strategies for innovation, knowledge, and skills in a globalized economy. The Martin government also introduced some new directions, including a focus on international mobility for Canadian students in the form of exchanges and internships, encouraging academic institutions to increase and strengthen academic and research linkages/partnerships with international institutions, focusing on science and technology partnerships, particularly with emerging economies such as China and India. hrsdc became a key policy player, along with cic and Industry Canada. Given the increased commitment to development assistance, cida was given a more prominent role than dfait in terms of enhancing international student mobility.

Federalism and Internationalization


Since Martin was in power for a relatively short period, it is difficult to assess his particular approach to federalism. Following pathways established by the Chrétien government, Martin, too, went the trade and commerce route in highlighting the role, importance, and approach to ie. However, his approach differed in two substantive ways. First, reviving the Pearson notion of Canada’s role in the world, he established programs like the Canada Corps to send Canadian students abroad. These programs did not engage the provinces and were in fact designed to work directly with post-secondary education institutions. They were also path-dependent in an area of federal jurisdiction, given cida’s earlier initiatives in international development with the university sector (see Trilokekar 2010). The second approach might have had implications for federal-provincial relations, had the Martin government endured. The Martin government intended to establish a study abroad program for Canadian students, with hrsdc likely taking a leadership role as part of its skills development agenda. While it is difficult to speculate, this would have been a new role for hrsdc and would have likely resulted in backlash from the provinces in terms of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. Regardless, during Martin’s era, dfait was given less importance relative to other departments, resulting in its recognition as “leading in name only” and lacking resources “to do anything much different” (interview, 18 May 2011). In contrast, cida’s long-standing engagement with university internationalization was revived (Trilokekar 2010). The involvement of additional federal departments such as hrsdc under Martin expanded the IE portfolio, but also resulted in a more piecemeal versus coordinated policy approach.

prime minister stephen harper, conservative party, 2006–15 The Conservative Party of Canada won the 2006 election, and Stephen Harper became prime minister. One of the first structural changes implemented by the Harper government was the re-amalgamation of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, taking it back to its earlier acronym, dfait, and emphasizing the importance of international trade and commerce (Cheung-Gertler 2008). Among the most controversial policy changes was the cancellation of important international academic scholarship programs, such as the Cana-


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

dian Studies Program, the Commonwealth Scholarships, and the Fulbright Program. The reason provided for cancelling these programs was that education falls under provincial jurisdiction and the federal government wanted to keep out of areas of provincial responsibility. Given the forceful pushback from academics and successful alumni of these scholarship programs, the government ultimately restored funding, but with modifications (Wells 2008). “This is a government that’s much more careful about provincial responsibilities and devolving appropriately and not creating grand national programs” (interview, 11 August 2009). The message was that certain ie policy initiatives, such as funding for programs to send Canadian students abroad, were not areas of federal responsibility, whereas “in terms of international student recruitment and bringing in more students … they’re linking it to the competitiveness agenda, to labour market needs, to the attraction of top global talent to enhance the competitiveness agenda” (interview, 11 August, 2009). Advantage Canada, released in 2006 as Canada’s economic action plan, clearly outlined the Harper government’s strategy. Knowledge advantage was understood as “creating the best-educated, most-skilled and most flexible workforce in the world” (Canada. Department of Finance 2006, 53). An important way to achieve this goal was to market Canadian higher education abroad and attract the “best” foreign students to Canada. These highly skilled Canadian-trained foreign graduates would then be well positioned to “adapt quickly to the Canadian economy” (Canada. Department of Finance 2006, 49). Thus, Advantage Canada supported international student recruitment as a key government policy focus and came to be recognized as a “marker” and a signature initiative of the Harper government. While a focus on marketing Canadian higher education emerged under the Chrétien government, the Conservatives “re-brand[ed] everything” (interview, 10 August 2009). The international marketing unit in dfait was renamed EduCanada and provided with new funding to further strengthen its mandate and establish a Canadian ie brand. Rather than support non-governmental organizations, like the Canadian Education Centres established under Chrétien, the Conservatives shut them down and enabled dfait to take on some of these roles.5 In 2008, the Global Commerce Strategy provided a further investment of $2 million per year for educational marketing.

Federalism and Internationalization


While the government initially argued that scholarship programs were not a federal responsibility, it would go on to provide additional support “in a bigger way … [to scholarships]” than the previous Liberal governments (interview, 18 May 2011). There was a “really strong recognition … that international students are actually golden, because they are the ones who will go in, get a Canadian education, and be ready for a Canadian workforce experience” (interview, 18 May 2011). In 2008, the Conservatives launched the off-campus work permit program with a novel immigration category, the Canadian Experience Class, enabling temporary foreign workers, including international students with Canadian work experience, to apply for permanent residency (Canada. cic 2015). The introduction of the Canadian Experience Class marked the start of an even more targeted approach to wooing international students as future permanent residents. By 2009, they were able to extend their post-graduation work permits for up to three years after graduation. Two government-commissioned reports, the Economic Impact of International Education in Canada and the Best Practices on Managing the Delivery of Canadian Education Marketing, both published in 2009, emphasized the economic advantage of hosting international students. In 2010, an updated version of the Economic Impact of International Education in Canada estimated even higher economic benefits to Canada, stating that international students spent in excess of $7.7 billion on tuition, accommodation, and discretionary spending; created over 81,000 jobs; and generated more than $445 million in government revenue (Canada. gac 2016). ie had become synonymous with recruiting and retaining more international students. To facilitate this policy imperative, cic started issuing international student study permits with automatic off-campus work authorization as of June 2014. “Certainly under the Conservative government, the trade agenda and the immigration agenda were much more front and centre in terms of the driver for international education” (interview, 10 August 2009), creating a context for the development of Canada’s first ie strategy. The government’s Economic Action Plan, 2011, subsequently allocated funding for the development of an ie strategy, and the Global Markets Action Plan, 2013, identified ie as one of twenty-two priority sectors for Canada’s economy. In 2014, Minister of International Trade Ed Fast announced Canada’s first-ever ie strategy, with its introducto-


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

ry paragraph stating, “International education is critical to Canada’s success … [I]nternational education is at the very heart of our current and future prosperity” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 4). The strategy’s goals included doubling international student numbers in Canada by 2022 and “increasing the number of international students choosing to remain in Canada as Permanent Residents after graduation” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 17). Under Harper, the strategic interest and direct engagement of the Prime Minister’s Office provided greater support to specific ie initiatives. However, the kind of strategic focus developed under Harper’s Conservative government has been broadly criticized as too narrow an approach for Canada’s foreign policy mission (Martin 2012; Nimijean 2013; Roland 2013), especially in the context of the full scope of ie as an aspect of Canada’s “soft power” foreign policy approach (Nye 2005). Boessenkool and Speer (2015) suggested that there were few areas in which Harper “reshaped Canada more significantly than federalism. He came to see it as the basis to reduce the size of the federal government, to accommodate different regional interests and priorities (including Quebec nationalism)” (Boessenkool and Speer 2015, para. 1). Harper is thus said to have revived a legacy of classical federalism or a form of “open federalism” restoring greater provincial and territorial autonomy (Jeffrey 2010). However, it was under the Harper government that both competitive and co-operative federalism thrived. While Chrétien had established initiatives for the Canadian brand, it was under the Harper government that EduCanada undertook an extensive branding exercise, engaging both provinces and other stakeholders. This got the provinces “alerted and slightly alarmed” as well as concerned with the “threat of federal intervention” because they did not “want the feds running away on that project without us” (interview, 26 June 2011). The federal government, on the other hand, organized the National Educational Marketing Roundtable (nemr) to facilitate coordination between different stakeholders on educational marketing much to the discontent of the provinces, who saw “nemr [a]s a redundant irritant … because it’s the federal government holding court in an area of provincial-territorial jurisdiction” (interview, 26 June 2011). Eventually, “the feds agreed [to work through cmec], so a working group was established for the development of the brand and the research was undertaken” (interview, 13 May 2011). The whole process took

Federalism and Internationalization


eighteen months of consultations, with the federal government expressing frustrations at the impasse in working with the provinces. A dfait representative sent a note to the provincial representative saying, “This is what we were going to do … We’re at this decision point now and if the provinces and territories don’t make a decision, we are going to take steps A, B and C.” There was eventual consensus reached, though some provinces were not “too happy that a stylized maple leaf was chosen as the brand” (interview, 13 May 2011). In spite of provincial resistance, the whole matter of the national branding and marketing of ie eventually pushed the two levels of government to sit at a table, albeit with difficult and tense discussions. An overlap of interests and the need to compete globally created a context for this increased co-operation and collaboration, despite great caution on the part of the provinces. Immigration, on the other hand, which had been the focal point of the Harper strategy, was a different story when it came to federalprovincial relations. First, immigration had been a shared policy jurisdiction since 1867. Provinces, on the whole, have co-operated and coordinated agreements with cic because “federal initiatives on international students are not going against provincial interests, and vice versa. The actions of the province don’t result in negative outcomes on federal immigration and things like that.” While cic was dependent on the provinces for policy implementation, the provinces saw cic as “giving them something that they want” (interview, 20 May 2011). Improving student visa processes, off-campus work permits, postgraduate work programs, and the Canadian Experience Class for international students brought increased alignment both across the two levels of government and among different ministries (e.g., education, immigration, and labour). Describing the relationship as “more functional,” an official cautioned that the path moving forward was not any smoother because “each policy arena [immigration, labour market] requires its own navigation, so I wouldn’t say that one is necessarily easier” (interview, 25 May 2011). As Guhr, Mondino, and Lundberg (2011, 68) rightly observed, however, “the shifting demographic balance and current and predicted labour market challenges across Canada’s provinces result in close alignment of economic and immigration policy between the provinces and the provincial and federal governments.”


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

conclusion The Harper government announced Canada’s first ie strategy in 2014. Did the announcement of the strategy suggest that Canada had moved from a decentralized to a more centralized and coordinated federation? A detailed examination of the federal approaches to ie under three subsequent governments from 1993 to 2015 suggests that the conflicted nature of Canada’s federalism is alive and well, the most recent example being the federal-provincial disagreements on a national logo for marketing Canadian education. However, the tension is much more tempered in a context of heightened global competition acutely perceived as a challenge by both levels of government. International student recruitment for purposes of funding and their retention as immigrants to fit labour market needs – the two policy priorities of the federal ie strategy – also align nicely and are in sync with provincial interests. Thus, there is a more unified voice within Canada in terms of ie, albeit defined narrowly in the context of Canada’s economic and national building agenda. The approaches to federalism associated with the three federal governments described in this chapter were distinct: the Chrétien government’s approach might be categorized as unilateral federalism; the Martin government’s approach was less clear but seemed to shift to a more uncoordinated federalism; and the Harper government’s approach was classical federalism or a form of “open federalism.” In spite of these distinct approaches to federalism, ie as a policy arena remained unaffected. Both Liberal and Conservative governments built on the policy initiatives of previous governments, with each focused on the economic imperative of attracting more international students and enhancing the talent pool for Canada’s labour market. While the Martin government might have made investments in unique program initiatives such as study abroad opportunities for Canadian students if it had continued in power, each of the governments stayed the course of defining ie as an economic and trade imperative. Of course, the relationships between levels of government might have been quite different if the “education” component of ie were highlighted in government policy (such as curriculum or study abroad) rather the economic and immigration dimensions. Several scholars believe that globalization has not only increased pressure for both competition and collaboration but also weakened the role of the modern state (Marginson 2002; Rizvi 2006; Viczko

Federalism and Internationalization


2012), and its powers have diminished relative to supra-state and substate provincial levels of governance. Giving examples of other federal countries, such as Australia and the United States, Atkinson, Béland, et al. (2013) suggested that far from declining, the role of the provinces in governance and policy development has increased compared to the role of the federal government. Within the Canadian context, they predicted that provinces will be the central sites of governance and policy innovation and will reshape the political and fiscal future of the Canadian federation. Using immigration as one of many examples, they suggested that a model of devolution is underway wherein there is a gradual shift from a centralized model of immigration selection toward devolution of federal authority to the provinces. There are now agreements between the federal and provincial governments that give provinces a greater role in recruiting, selecting, and attracting immigrants, including international students, according to the economic needs of the region. If the predictions of Atkinson, Béland, et al. (2013) are correct, will provincial ie policies take precedence and become the central sites for Canada’s ie policy approaches? Courchene (2008, 117) suggested that governance in a decentralized federation like Canada’s is no longer about disentangling jurisdictions – it is primarily about “adopting joint policies and making joint decisions on joint problems.” This suggests that collaborative federalism is likely to be a feature of intergovernmental relations (Cameron and Simeon 2002). According to Bakvis and Skogstad (2008), a distinguishing feature of collaborative federalism is partnership between two equal, autonomous, and interdependent orders of government that jointly decide national policy, although this could be achieved vertically between provinces and the federal government or horizontally as a partnership between provinces. Is it possible that, in Canada, we have greater vertical rather than horizontal collaboration? With each province pursuing its own internationalization strategy, there is heightened competition between the provinces; they may cooperate/collaborate with the federal government, but will provinces collaborate with each other? Bickerton (2010) suggested that path dependency is very strong in Canada, and its effect acts as a check or limitation on the scope of change that federal governments can accomplish. The latest federal ie strategy has been critiqued by the provinces for failing to “mention … whether or how provinces and territories might fit in” (Council of the Federation Secretariat 2011, 18). Perhaps the tug of war between the


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

two levels of government will always continue, as summed up by an interviewee: At the federal level … one of the huge challenges, and it cannot be overstated, is the federal-provincial relationship. It varies. It gets good, it gets bad, it gets collegial. In the international education area, we have made some strides toward a greater cohesive collegiality. Nevertheless, there are forces at play that are constantly tugging, and it’s an unfortunate thing. It’s a delicate balance that has to be maintained, and everyone recognizes that working together is for the greater good of all. Everyone recognizes that. But it’s an unfortunate thing that, nevertheless, there will be voices that break out and impede progress. (Interview, 18 May 2011) Undoubtedly, Canadian federalism has shaped the federal government’s engagement with the internationalization of higher education as policy. However, global forces have created and continue to create new policy and governance challenges for nation states, and Canada is only starting to grapple with policy questions arising out of this new landscape. As well, Canada’s changing national contexts, such as greater demands toward Indigenous self-governance, to give just one example, will likely shift the nature of federalism. Janice Stein (2006, 37) argued that federal governance is moving toward “more overlap and shared policy space, not less … The new paradigm is … a form of multilevel governance that deploys resources, expertise and authority at all levels but in a coordinated way”. Thus, there is a push to change discourses of government to governance that necessarily involves more players, as suggested by the mlg framework involving local, territorial, and Indigenous governments in addition to provincial, national, and international institutions, municipalities, and cities. Such a shift will undoubtedly influence the nature of Canadian federalism and the federal government’s engagement with the internationalization of higher education as policy.

notes 1 It is called executive federalism because decision-making power is concentrated in government executives: the prime minister, premiers, and cabinet (Savoie 1999; White 2005).

Federalism and Internationalization


2 The Council of the Federation is a venue that brings together the ten provincial premiers and three territorial leaders. The council meets biannually. Its main function is to provide a united front among the provincial and territorial governments when interacting with Canada’s federal government. 3 Interviewees were promised anonymity under the ethical protocol for this study. 4 The Canada Education Centres were to market Canadian higher education and boost the Canadian economy through the recruitment of international students. 5 As per the initial plans, the Canada Education Centres were to eventually be self-supporting entities; however, they failed to become independent of government funding. After renewing their funding for an additional fiveyear period, the government decided to shut them down.

references Allison, J. 2007. “Walking the Line: Canadian Federalism, the Council of Ministers of Education, and the Case of International Education, 1970–1984.” Journal of Educational Administration and History 39 (2): 113–28. Atkinson, M, D. Béland, G.P. Marchildon, K. McNutt, P.W.B. Phillips, and K. Rasmussen. 2013. Governance and Public Policy in Canada: A View from the Provinces. University of Toronto Press, 2013. Axelrod, P., R.D. Trilokekar, T. Shanahan, and R. Wellen. 2011. “People, Processes, and Policy-Making in Canadian Post-Secondary Education, 1990–2000.” Higher Education Policy (24): 143–66. Bakvis, H. 2008. “The Knowledge Economy and Post-Secondary Education.” In Canadian Federalism Performance, Effectiveness and Legitimacy. 2nd ed. Edited by H. Bakvis and G. Skogstad, 205–22. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Bakvis, H., and G. Skogstad. 2008. Canadian Federalism Performance, Effectiveness and Legitimacy. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Bakvis, H., G. Baier, and D. Brown. 2009. Contested Federalism: Certainty and Ambiguity in the Canadian Federation. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Bickerton, J. 2010. “Deconstructing the New Federalism.” Canadian Political Science Review 4 (2–3). Boessenkool, K., and S. Speer. 2015. “How Stephen Harper’s Open Federalism Changed Canada for the Better.” Maclean’s, 1 December. http://www


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

Cameron, D., and R. Simeon. 2002. “Intergovernmental Relations in Canada: The Emergence of Collaborative Federalism.” The Journal of Federalism 32 (2): 49–72. Canada. cic (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2015. Evaluation of the International Student Program. Ottawa: cic. /dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/evaluation/isp/2015/e3-2013isp.pdf. Canada. Department of Finance. 2006. Advantage Canada. Ottawa: Department of Finance. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. http://inter – 2012. Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy. International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity (Final Report). Ottawa: fatdc. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. By Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. _IntEd_Report_eng.pdf. Canada. hrsd (Human Resources Development Canada). 2002. Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians: Canada’s Innovation Strategy. Ottawa: hrsdc. Cheung-Gertler, J.H. 2008. “Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.” Chiose, S. 2015. “Lack of Federal Resources Fails International Student Strategy.” Globe and Mail, 1 June. /national/ottawas-resource-gap-leaves-international-students-waiting-forvisas/article24715563/. cmec (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada). 1991. Notes from a meeting of the Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on EducationRelated International Activities (fpcceria). cmec Toronto office archives. Council of the Federation Secretariat. 2011. Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing the World to Canada: An International Education Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories. Ottawa: Council of the Federation Secretariat.

Federalism and Internationalization


/Publications/Attachments/264/COF_Bringing_Ed_to_Canada_Eng_final .pdf. Courchene, T.J, J.R. Allan, and H. Kong. 2008. Canada: The State of the Federation. Open Federalism and Spending Power. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. De Wit, H. 2002. Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport: Greenwood Press. Farquhar, R.H. 2001. “Can Canada Get its Act Together in International Education?” Paper presented at the semi-annual meeting of the Management Board of the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials, Hull, Quebec, 8 February. Fisher, D., K. Rubenson, J. Bernatchez, R. Clift, G. Jones, J. Lee, M. MacIvor, J. Meredith, T. Shanahan, and C. Trottier. 2006. Canadian Federal Policy and Postsecondary Education. Vancouver: Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training, University of British Columbia. Guhr, D., M. Mondino, and A. Lundberg. 2011. Canada’s Capacity for International Student Enrollment. San Carlos, ca: The Illuminate Consulting Group. Hawthorne, L. 2008. “The Impact of Economic Selection Policy on Labor Market Outcomes for Degree Qualified Migrants in Canada and Australia.” irpp Choices 14: 1–50. Jeffrey, B. 2010. “Stephen Harper’s Open Federalism and the Quebec Conundrum: Politicized Incompetence or Something More?” Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, 1–3 June. https://www Knight, J. 2008. Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Sense Publishers: Netherlands. – 2012. “Concepts, Rationales, and Interpretive Frameworks in the Internationalization of Higher Education.” In The sage Handbook of International Higher Education, edited by D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, and T. Adams, 419–32. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Marginson, S. 2002. “Nation-Building Universities in a Global Environment: The Case of Australia.” Higher Education 43: 409–28. Martin, P. 2012. “Canada’s Image Abroad: Fade to Black: The Elimination of the Understanding Canada Program is a Heartbreaking and Unfathomable Blow to Canadian Studies Worldwide.” University Affairs, 6 June.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

Nimijean, R. 2013. “Harper’s Axe Hits Canadian Studies Abroad.” Inroads 32. Nye, J. 2005. “Soft Power and Higher Education.” Forum for the Future of Higher Education. Accessed 15 November. /soft-power-and-higher-education/. Parliament of Canada. 2004. “Speech from the Throne to open the First Session Thirty-Eighth Parliament of Canada.” /ParlInfo/default/en_ca/Parliament/procedure/throneSpeech/speech381. Rizvi, F. 2006. “Internationalisation of Higher Education: An Introduction.” Perspectives in Education 24 (4): 7–14. Roland, P. 2013. “There Is More to Foreign Policy than Trade.” cipsblog (blog). Centre for International Policy Studies. 28 November. http://www Savoie, D. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Shubert, A., G.A. Jones, and R.D. Trilokekar. 2009. “Introduction.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 6–15. caut Series. Toronto: James Lorimer. Skogstad, G. 2008. “Canadian Federalism, International Trade and Regional Market Integration in an Era of Complex Sovereignty.” In Canadian Federalism Performance, Effectiveness and Legitimacy. 2nd ed. Edited by H. Bakvis and G. Skogstad, 223–45. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Stein, J. 2006. “Canada by Mondrian: Networked Federalism in an Era of Globalization Canada by Picasso.” In The Faces of Federalism: The 2006 cibc Scholar-in-Residence Lecture, edited by R. Gibbins, A. Maioni, and J. Stein, 15–58. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada. http://brender _Book_web.pdf. Tiessen, R. 2007. “Educating Global Citizens? Canadian Foreign Policy and Youth Study/Volunteer Abroad Programs.” Canadian Foreign Policy 14 (1): 77–84. Trilokekar, R.D. 2006. “Federalism, Foreign Policy and the Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of the Department of Foreign Affairs (fac), Canada.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. – 2009. “Canadian Federalism, Foreign Policy, and the Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (dfait).” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 98–118. Toronto: James Lorimer.

Federalism and Internationalization


– 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. Trilokekar, R.D., G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, eds. 2009. Canada’s Universities Go Global. Toronto: James Lorimer. Trilokekar, R.D., T. Shanahan, P. Axelrod, and R. Wellen. 2013. “Making Postsecondary Policy in Canada: Towards a Conceptual Understanding.” In Making Policy in Turbulent Times: Challenge and Prospects for Higher Education, edited by P. Axelrod, T. Shanahan, R.D. Trilokekar, and R. Wellen, 33–58. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Trilokekar, R.D., and A. Shubert. 2009. “North of 49: Global Citizenship à la Canadienne.” In Introduction to Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, edited by R. Lewin, 191–211. New York: Routledge. Viczko, M. 2012. “Locating the Governance of Internationalization: Beyond the Global/ Local Problematic of Policy and Practice.” Paper presented at the ciesc Pre-Conference Session: Internationalization of Higher Education at the Cross Roads: Charting New Pathways. Wilfrid Laurier University, 26 May. Wells, P. 2008. “How Dare They!!! Oh … Here’s How.” Maclean’s, 7 May. White, G. 2005. Cabinets and First Ministers. Vancouver: ubc Press.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

2 Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education: Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, 2006–17 John Allison

introduction During the summer of 2017, Canada was hailed as the new “education superpower” by a journalist of the British Broadcasting Corporation (Coughlan 2017). This assertion, and the new interest in public diplomacy taken by scholars and practitioners, make it apropos to examine Canadian international education (ie) policy critically (Ang, Isar, and Mar 2018; Brooks 2018; Cull and Hawes 2018).1 On the one hand, while Canada is recognized as an educational superpower, scholars have consistently addressed its jurisdictional challenges in this policy area (Allison 2016; Potter 2009; Trilokekar 2010). This chapter proposes that intergovernmentalism is a framework critical to the understanding of Canada’s approach to ie. The chapter uses an analytic comparison to highlight the structure of intergovernmentalism as it embodies and supports, yet also hinders, ie policy. Historically, ie has been a field that Canadian governments at all levels have been grappling with for some time (Alphonso 2004; Gee 2007). For the federal government, over the past fifty years, cooperation with the provinces has been tenuous, ad hoc, sometimes halting, and straightforward on only very few occasions (Allison 2016). From the first invitation to participate in the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, the forerunner of unesco, in 1943 during the Second World War, Canadian governments have been called upon to respond to the issue of ie. Federalism at that time was affected in that

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


W.L. Mackenzie King and the foreign affairs ministry were reluctant to get deeply involved in the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education lest they provoke a provincial backlash (Goldthorp 1990). Further along, the rise of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (cmec) in 1967 reinforced the need for a more nuanced approach to this field. While not a federal Ministry of Education, cmec had some success in rallying provincial governments in this area, and conversely it made collaboration with the federal government more difficult as is described further in this chapter. In contemporary times, with the advent of neo-liberal economic policies, ie policy has been tied to Canada’s international trade and economic growth. Through these policies, Canadian federal-provincial relations have been focused on monetary policy, have developed a north-south continentalist focus on trade through nafta, and have renewed the focus on resource extraction, particularly oil and natural gas (Stanford 2018). This chapter covers the period between 2006 and 2017 under the governments of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. The Harper government was more focused on a narrow set of international relations priorities, while the Trudeau government has focused on a more expansive view of international affairs. The current government’s course is suggestive of a new direction in terms of international relations and, arguably, ie. Hooghe and Marks’s (2003) framework of multi-level governance (mlg) is very useful in gaining additional insights into Canada’s ie policy. This chapter further establishes the case for the complex role of the federal government and Global Affairs Canada (gac, also known as the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) in ie.

theoretical framework Since Hooghe and Marks (2003) discussed issues of mlg, their framework logically applies to Canada’s case. Canada has many overlapping levels of government in its federal system that impact foreign policy. As Hooghe and Marks noted, multi-layer overlapping jurisdictions have been around for a long time. In addressing the issue of national coordination in ie, an mlg framework is useful for analyzing the interdependencies between gac and other organizations because it offers a window into their deeper functions and roles. There is the logical typology of governance that diffuses decision-making away from central authorities (Boeing 2016; Hooghe and Marks 2003). More-


John Allison

over, by surveying the literature of different multi-level perspectives (i.e., European studies and global governance), Hooghe and Marks (2003) further argued that all the literature shares one basic idea: governance becomes more flexible and nimble when it is spread across many jurisdictions, rather than concentrated in one organization. Hooghe and Marks (2003) illustrated two types of governance: Type I speaks to federalism, in which few governments share power at a few levels. Generally, the levels of governance do not intersect, are limited in number, and are long-lived. Type II governance is made up of “task-specific institutions.” These, in contrast to Type I governance institutions, are overlapping, task-specific, flexible in their organization, and divide up jurisdictions. Hooghe and Marks (2003) also noted Frey and Eichenberger’s concept focj – functional, overlapping, and competing jurisdictions – is useful as it provides additional tools to critically examine organizational structures of government. Ultimately, more attention needs to be given to who is making decisions and for whom they are made rather than simply how decisions are made (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Type II structures, in Hooghe and Marks’s view, speak to more ad hoc geographical and functional voluntary communities, while Type I structures speak to more established communities inside the state. Based on this framework, while Canada has a Type I governance structure, this chapter illustrates that, nevertheless, several initiatives undertaken by the federal government appear to conform to a Type II structure (Hooghe and Marks 2003). Part of the task is therefore to probe further the link between Hooghe and Marks’s framework and foreign policy/diplomacy of education in the Canadian context.

methodology To examine the complexities of Canadian ie, Hooghe and Marks’s analysis of institutions was complemented by the use of a historical methodology. Bombaro (2012), Evans (2012), and McCulloch and Richardson (2000) have spoken to the fundamentals of historical research methodology for historians of education. This chapter is part of a bigger project whose data consists of several hundred primary source documents from gac and the Archives of Ontario related to ie, relevant and archived websites, and secondary source materials, including recent scholarly works on Canadian foreign policy.

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


historical context: the impact of foreign affairs on international education and federal-provincial relations Briefly establishing the historical context for contemporary Canadian ie policy affords better understanding of why ie is an ongoing conundrum (Allison 2016). Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, ie in Canada underwent expansion. As noted elsewhere, this expansion was both halting and, in other cases, undertaken with rapid speed and considerable energy (Allison 2016). The establishment of the Department of External Affairs in 1909 provided Canada with the opportunity to start to take control of its own diplomacy and begin to field ie questions (Donaghy and Nossal 2009; Hilliker and Barry 1995a). Initially, ie was incidental to the main mission of the foreign ministry; primarily, the Department of External Affairs was a clearing house for documents and correspondence from abroad that was forwarded to provincial ministries of education (Allison 2016). By the end of the Second World War, sufficient interest in education diplomacy and ie was expressed by nation states worldwide that Canada sent delegates to the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education (Goldthorp 1990). The postwar era saw new dynamics; international organizations, such as the United Nations, were now new players in the realm of international relations (Hilliker and Barry 1995b). For Canadians, however, and in particular for the federal government, this postwar world came with some challenges. The evolution of Canadian sovereignty and concomitantly the appearance of ie organizations influenced the growing role of the provinces; one outcome was the establishment of the cmec in 1967 by Ontario’s then Minister of Education Bill Davis. This in turn created tensions for the federal foreign ministry in performing its role in ie and diplomacy. Taken to its logical conclusion, the British North America Act of 1867 stipulated that education was the responsibility of the provincial governments, even in the realm of international relations. This conclusion was important as it eliminated Ottawa’s oversight in this area. This was the conclusion of the Quebec academic and politician Paul Gérin-Lajoie, who became Quebec’s first minister of education in 1964, following the election of a Liberal government (Gérin-Lajoie 1989). In March 1965, Gérin-Lajoie declared before the consular community in Montreal: “le prolongement international des compétences internes du Québec” (“the international extension of


John Allison

Quebec’s internal jurisdiction and expertise”) (Allison 2016; Gendron 2002). Quebec declared its independence of action in fields of jurisdiction where it held constitutional competency, and this state of affairs remains the case today. Over the decades leading up to this time, the organizational structures within the foreign ministry changed, and rationales, initial purposes, and missions shifted. Key core policy developments also took place (Donaghy and Nossal 2009; Hilliker, Halloran, and Donaghy 2017; Trilokekar 2007). If one looks at the efforts of other states around the world, it is readily apparent that many of the states acted boldly in terms of soft power, and that linking this to ie continues to be a highly attractive strategy (Henrikson 2005; Melissen 2005; Nye 2004). The efforts of these countries have ranged from international cultural institutes (i.e., the Goethe-Institut, the Alliance Française, the British Council, and the Confucius Institute, the new player) through scholarship and exchange programs, to aggressively recruit foreign students for K–12 schools and, particularly, institutions of higher education (Chaubet 2006; Dubosclard 1998; Kathe 2005). In the Canadian context, there remained much to do, but key questions also emerged: Who would do it? Which image of Canada would be projected to the rest of the world?

two approaches to international relations and their influence on international education Political Ideology and International Education: Do Politics Count? A deeper probing of Canada’s challenges with ie policy must also examine the connections among ie, political ideology, and economics. Throughout the last twenty years of the twentieth century, political ideology at the level of the sovereign state became infused with the notion of neo-liberalism. Simultaneously, globalization has changed the face of the world; it continues to advance but also faces setbacks. These two forces, political ideology and globalization, have had profound impacts on Canada, the political ideologies of mainstream political parties, and, as a consequence, ie policy. The main Canadian political parties (the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada) have in various degrees adopted neo-liberal values, and as Blad (2011) noted, these values have a long pedigree in the Canadian political system. Wells (2014) argued

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


the deeper philosophy of the Conservatives under Stephen Harper derived in part from works such as Peter Brimelow’s The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, among other conservative ideas. Much of this fit well with neo-liberal approaches to economics. In this sense, the orientation of the Stephen Harper Conservatives was toward less government and more corporate involvement in ie. A quick glance at the website of the International Education Division between 2011 and 2017 shows its evolution and move away from programs such as the Canadian Studies Program toward more corporate involvement through education trade fairs.2 To some degree, yes, politics counted as a neo-liberal agenda was coming to the fore. The Liberals under Justin Trudeau, however, saw the world and the power of global development through education differently. One of the characteristics of Justin Trudeau’s leadership continues to be his personality and celebrity. As Marland (2016) noted, this has been infused into much of what he has done in the Liberal Party and in government. Trudeau’s perspective also has taken political discourse away from the politics of fear and toward those of civic virtue, cultural pluralism, and changing old cultural shibboleths (Abu-Laban 2017; Jarvis 2018; Paris 2018). The Liberals’ and Trudeau’s approach to ie is in many ways tied to these philosophical tenants, which have informed their efforts going forward as is discussed below. Harper Government, 2006–15 The arrival of Stephen Harper as prime minister in 2006 marked a break in Canada’s “business as usual” foreign policy. In some senses, the Harper era harked back to eras under previous Progressive Conservative leaders such as John Diefenbaker (1957–63), Joe Clark (1979–80), and Brian Mulroney (1984–93). In other senses, the Harper Conservatives were something completely new in that their policies were more to the social-conservative end of the spectrum and upended the policy positions and expectations of previous Progressive Conservative prime ministers. One characteristic of foreign policy in the Harper years was the imposition of command and control in terms of what ministers and diplomats could say to the media. Harper wanted to control the message and wanted his subordinates to be on message. This manifested in Harper’s absolute control of all statements by all ambassadors worldwide (Blanchfield 2017, 76).


John Allison

While the Harper government stepped away from the role played by previous governments at the United Nations, and did not have access to members of the Security Council on an ongoing basis, it pursued new directions with its foreign policy. In some respects, and entirely spot-on in terms of the history, ie fell outside the normal ambit of foreign policy priorities (Allison 2016). The period between 2006 and 2017 was marked by different policies on the part of the Canadian foreign ministry that narrowed the ambit of action for Canada, including some startling changes in ie policy, for example, the demise of the Canadian Studies Program that sponsored academic study of Canada at universities worldwide (Blanchfield 2012; Frenette 2014). The government also announced $10 million to create an ie policy (Jones and Trilokekar 2013). Putatively, the monies for this initiative could have had a big impact on the role of the foreign ministry. This initiative could have brought a much larger role for ie, but instead the focus moved toward economic outputs. The budgetary statement cemented this ie initiative as an economic initiative as opposed to an effort at renewed interest in international peers and long-term diplomacy in the tradition of the United States’ International Education Act of the 1960s (Arndt 2005). The evolving thinking and direction of branding and the early initiatives of the Harper years came to fruition with these proposed activities. Trudeau Government, 2015 to Present Justin Trudeau is one of very few Canadian prime ministers who were teachers in their previous lives, which perhaps marks a greater interest in education. On 19 October 2015, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party were elected to form a new Government of Canada. Trudeau’s arrival marked a distinctly different approach from the Harper era and established a level of comfort on the part of the bureaucracy with the government. Right away, Trudeau released the shackles on Canada’s diplomats and called for a different approach to foreign policy. Trudeau expected diplomats to be engaged in public diplomacy, to talk to other diplomats, and to provide valid up-to-the-minute reporting on Canada’s position in the world (Blanchfield 2017, 195). Trudeau’s approach also differed from Harper’s positions in that it embraced a multi-lateral world, a diversity of peoples, and a spirited defence of Canada’s interests. Harper’s administration was more narrowly focused in its international perspective and his defence of Cana-

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


da’s interests was more militarily and bilaterally oriented, as noted earlier (Paris 2018). Trudeau’s view of the world and foreign policy was also informed by the fact that he was well travelled prior to assuming office and has continued in this vein as prime minister. Indeed, he has travelled the world (Blanchfield 2017). That he has a signature ie policy is not yet readily apparent, but he has an awareness of the international sphere that is broader than that of the prime ministers before him. Concretely, in September 2016, he committed Canada to $20 million in aid for emergency education worldwide specifically to meet the needs of refugee children, youth, and young women through the ngo Education Cannot Wait fund (Canada. pmo 2016a). Another clear example of Trudeau’s approach to ie was the support his government provided for refugees in Jordan. Trudeau was acutely aware of the challenge of the Syrian civil war, committing funds to schools in Jordan for Syrian refugees by providing $10 million for schooling, reception resources for new students, classrooms, and retention strategies (Canada. pmo 2016). The discussion now moves to the analysis of the ie initiatives under the Harper and Trudeau governments, using Hooghe and Marks’s intergovernmentalism framework. Intergovernmental structures that affect Canadian ie policy can be examined in a more profound fashion using this framework.

international education initiatives: type i or ii Harper Government: The EduCanada Initiative The first initiative that can be examined is EduCanada, established in 2006. This was an ie marketing program, as Trilokekar and Kizilbash (2013) and Katz (2009) have noted. In addition, the initiative was set out with the aim of developing and fostering the Education brand for Canada with cmec.3 Moreover, meetings with provincial and territorial partners and other interested parties, such as the National Education Marketing Roundtable, were at the core of this program (Canada. gac 2016). If we look at this program through Hooghe and Marks’s lens, this education-related initiative exhibits elements of Type II governance: it is flexible and it involves overlapping and competitive jurisdictions.


John Allison

The initiative created challenges between the two levels of government, as it was novel and demanded a response from provincial ministries. The Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on EducationRelated International Activities was largely dormant until this initiative. Additionally, the provinces regarded any activism on the part of the federal government with a degree of wariness. The initiative was representative of the Harper government’s new approach to ie, one based on marketing and providing a branded product for the world. The Harper Government: EduCanada – The Imagination Brand The establishment of the Imagine brand as part of the EduCanada initiative came in 2007 as part of dfait’s Global Commerce Strategy (Trilokekar and Kizilbash 2013). Since this was a principle component of ie policy in the early 2000s, it too needs to be examined through the lens of intergovernmentalism. Hopes were high in 2008, and it seemed that the federal government, the provincial departments of education, and cmec were coming together to build a new brand for Canadian-style ie (Tachdjian 2008). Tachdjian also discussed the nuts and bolts of branding with his analysis of brand concepts and their testing with international students and stakeholders. In the end the Imagine brand was agreed upon (Tachdjian 2008). EduCanada Final Report 2012 The EduCanada final report provides the next window into the processes of intergovernmentalism in ie policy (Canada. fatdc 2012). This final report of the committee charged with this initiative was very much oriented toward a blue-sky vision of ie in its opening paragraph. The authors of the report acknowledged past darkness in the area of ie policy, but in their view, now was the time to make a difference. In order to collect information on the topic, the advisory panel, with the support of dfait, used online surveys and submissions and regional roundtables. The team had the view that ie had benefits for all Canadians whether they were economic or through jobs, exports, or investment (Canada. fatdc 2012). The other point that comes across in the report is the urgent need for action in this policy field. The report noted that the need for highly educated graduates would grow worldwide – in fact, it was esti-

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


mated to double by 2025. The panel made fourteen recommendations under several headings, including targets, policy coordination, promotion of education in Canada, investments, infrastructure, and support (Canada. fatdc 2012). The EduCanada final report exemplifies a Type II government initiative in the sense that it aimed to solve a particular policy problem (ie), and it was focused at a particular voluntary group of constituencies who have had an ongoing need for collective decision-making (Canada. fatdc 2012; Hooghe and Marks 2003).

harper government: canadian educational centres – not economically viable Tachdjian stated in his 2006 presentation on the new education brand for Canada that “Canadian missions abroad lack collective direction” with regard to ie policy and branding (quoted in Tachdjian 2008). Perhaps as a response to the importance of ie branding, as Potter noted, Canada established a network of ie centres or, as they were known, the Canadian Education Centre Network, in 1995. By 2005, Canada had seventeen centres around the world focused on student recruitment (Potter 2009). The evaluation of these centres hinted at the possibility of a more stable funding model, but this was never accomplished. The evaluation also zeroed in on the sources of revenue for the network – client service fees and trade fairs. It was additionally skeptical that financial self-sufficiency could be achieved given the contradictory objectives of being part of the national trade policy and self-sufficiency (Canada 1999). As a result, the Canadian Education Centre Network initiative closed down in 2009 (Keller 2009). Harper and Trudeau Governments: Partner Countries and International Education In 2015, Minister of International Trade Ed Fast made a statement on the ie initiative and issued a report. In general, this report subscribed to the notion of education as an adjunct to international business strategy. Fast stated, “Canada’s International Education Strategy, a key element of the Global Markets Action Plan, is our blueprint to attract talent and prepare our country for the 21st century” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 4).


John Allison

Partner Countries – Focus on China Throughout the 2006–17 timeframe, one of the priorities of the ie branch was a focus on particular ie partners with business advantages very closely aligned with ie. This section looks briefly at some of Canada’s education partners to illustrate the Type II nature of ie governance processes and structures. Key among these partners were emerging markets in education, notably Brazil, China, India, the Middle East, Mexico, and Vietnam (Canada. fatdc 2014). All of these countries and regions received attention and programming from gac. The nature of the programming depended to some degree on the country and the aims of Canada’s engagement there. One example suffices here to provide the flavour of recent activities: China. Programming for Canadian ie in China from 2006 to 2017 included joint education programs such as post-doctoral fellowships, major education exchange agreements (e.g., Canada-China Scholar’s Exchange Program), education events (e.g., China Education Expo), and major trade negotiations and agreements (e.g., Canada-China Economic Complementarity Study) (Canada. fatdc 2014). Events such as these put a premium on showcasing Canada’s system of higher education to a burgeoning market in which interest in studying abroad is growing. According to the conference publicity, “Coordinated by the Government of Canada, the participation of Canadian education institutions in the cee and the cacie 2017 will represent a significant opportunity to showcase the best that Canada has to offer international students and educators. There will be a fresh-looking Canada Pavilion at each stop of the cee, under Canada’s new ie brand ‘Edu-Canada: A World of Possibilities’” (China Education Association for International Exchange & Expo & China Education Exhibition 2017, n.p.).

harper and trudeau: the role of the governor general Increasingly, the role of the Governor General in Canadian politics is evolving. This is interesting in terms of ie and Hooghe and Marks’s Type I and Type II governance (Smith 2013). Traditional expectations such as state dinners, tours across Canada, and interacting with Canadian civil society and the public remain important and representative of a Type I institution (Smith 2013). “While the Canadian Governor

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


General does these things, contemporaneously, the Governor General is undertaking increasing amounts of travel and is playing an increasingly flexible role in Canadian diplomacy.” These state visits have become more widespread since the 1960s, but as Goldstein (2008) noted, they also have given rise to particular challenges of protocol. In this sense, the period between 2006 and 2017 is instructive as Governor Generals Michäelle Jean and David Johnston each undertook many trips; some of these had as their goal the furtherance of ie. Shultz (2015), in her discussion of the decolonization of global citizenship, argued that that the Governor General’s involvement in ie, through being quoted in reports on ie or through leading international delegations on this issue, represents a legitimating process for the marketization of higher education (Canada. fatdc 2014). I am more inclined to think of this from the perspective of diplomacy; by nature of the office, Governor Generals are engaged in the “diplomacy of knowledge,” but they are also engaged in the most important of diplomacies – personal diplomacy. In 2014, Governor General Johnston travelled to the Netherlands in one example of this ie Type II role. While this particular trip was not promoted as an education-related trip, representatives of the education community in Ottawa were involved, notably Karen McBride, president of the Canadian Bureau for International Education (Canada. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General 2014). Subsequent to this, there was a trip by Canadian university leaders to the Netherlands to further develop ties between the countries’ two education systems (Universities Canada 2016).

discussion This chapter set out to establish the historical development of ie in Canada through a comparative discussion of the ideologies of two recent governments and their approaches to foreign policy. It also sought to examine whether Canada’s foreign ministry, currently gac, and its associated divisions (notably the International Education Division) and units were Type I or Type II governance institutions à la Hooghe and Marks in terms of Canada’s federal government involvement in ie policy. It is clear from the analysis that at the macro-level, gac has been a strong Type I governance institution for ie under both the Harper and Trudeau governments. As illustrated in this chapter, gac remains


John Allison

a key initiator and critical actor in Canadian ie. One of the most obvious and outstanding features of this institution is that, unlike other ministries of the federal government, the defined geographical space in which gac works is not Canada itself. Rather, its principal role is to gather information from the outside world, develop policy, and coordinate the execution of policy. Notwithstanding this unique orientation, gac is, as seen, a long-lived organization of central power and has no rivals in its sphere of influence. That said, many of its initiatives exhibit Type II features. The EduCanada initiative, for example, is characteristic of this as it brought together levels of government and educational organizations in an effort to promote an international brand that was Canada. Moreover, this initiative restarted the process of exploring connections between international students and Canadian academic institutions, Canadian residents and the education community at the provincial level. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Making ie more of a reality to officials at the level of K–12 schooling and higher education, and tying it to economic performance, was simply not done in the past. The Trudeau government’s broader and more nuanced diplomacy represented a shift in approach away from the Harper government with its focus on business and trade. Engagement with China using Type II institutions also characterized the latter part of the 2006–17 period. Justin Trudeau’s government acknowledged early on as well the shift in terms of international relations and superpower dynamics toward the Pacific and Asia and the importance of this in terms of the search for opportunities. The advent of this new engagement, particularly in the field of ie, is yet another indication that, in the future, Canada’s international policy will further pivot and focus to a greater degree toward the East. Also significant during this period is the rising role of the Governor General as another individual who can carry out ie voyages. These trips, while in many ways adhering to the traditional notion of a state visit, also depart from that script in that they are representative of a Type II governance model and flexible on the question of education. The numerous meetings and interactions that took place in the 2012 trip to Brazil provide yet another example of this. The ultimate impact of the ie policies and the nature of their associated institutions between 2006 and 2017 have yet to be measured. Arguably, one could suggest that baby steps have been made. The Harper period was marked with more planning initiatives such as the

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


Imagine brand and the EduCanada final report, while Trudeau’s first term was more about targeted policies and continuations of some earlier initiatives such as the funding of international ngos (for example, Education Cannot Wait). It remains to be seen whether Canada, including the federal government, gac, cmec, and the provinces, can take larger steps beyond these initiatives and develop a coherent sophisticated policy that sets us apart on the international stage through the use of assertive Type II governance institutions in the manner that Hooghe and Marks have discussed.

conclusion From this analysis of the development of Canadian ie policy in the recent past, it is clear that there has been a shift over the course of the past twelve years. Canada’s distinct foreign policy approaches under the Harper and the Trudeau governments have changed ie policy and brought it largely into the orbit of economic diplomacy. This trend started with the initiatives of the Harper years, and it has continued under Trudeau’s government. Trudeau’s foreign policy orientations and ideologies have been different, but there have been continuities. Foreign policy priorities, particularly as they have concerned resetting Canada’s relationship with China and further developing it under the Trudeau government, have represented one of the continuities. This definitely has impacted ie in the sense that the closer the two governments come, the greater the opportunity for Canadian educational institutions in the huge Chinese market. The difference is that Trudeau’s approach has been more nuanced. gac will continue to promote ie as economic diplomacy, but Trudeau’s personal diplomacy and global reputation will likely impact ie through developing coalitions around issues that involve education (i.e., the unparalleled refugee and migrant crisis) and providing hope for millions of displaced people and their children (Paris 2018). The need for this type of ie intervention is now, and the issue is most acute at the elementary school level. Another question that remains is whether there will be another review of ie policy under the Trudeau government, or whether the impetus set in motion by the Harper Conservatives has run its course. For the moment, there is no indication of new monies or new initiatives at the institutional level from the Trudeau government. Rather, the Liberal administration has focused on the targeted funding of particular important multi-lateral issue/area questions; the development


John Allison

and aid funding for education in Jordan was one example of this. Whether this will change in coming years is, at this point, conjecture. In the end, we are left with questions: Do Type I or Type II approaches to intergovernmentalism matter? Based on the research for this chapter and my ongoing research project, it is very clear that they do matter. Type I governance structures are central to addressing issues over long time frames with established geographical constituencies and issue-areas. Type II structures are by definition more fluid and changeable. The initiatives undertaken through the International Education Division reflect well the latter approach; the EduCanada initiative, the Imagine brand, and the final report of the EduCanada committee are clearly Type II strategies and actions. They were ad hoc, responded to a particular policy question, and had a provisional constituency that needed common decision-making (Hooghe and Marks 2003). The question of why we see Type II approaches in more recent initiatives is also worth pondering. Further, the question of what this phenomenon suggests about the changing nature of federal-provincial relations in ie is also intriguing. Type II initiatives can quickly address policy issues that are fast forming and need decision-making. With the accelerated pace of economic, political, and societal decision-making as a result of technological change, more and more Type II approaches will characterize government. Further to this, the federal government continues to search for ways in which to be engaged in the field of education while simultaneously acknowledging the role of the provinces in this regard. Type II initiatives and institutions might be the way to bring this into reality and resolve the conundrum of federal-provincial relations in education for the foreseeable future.

notes 1 Education diplomacy will be taken as synonymous with ie for the purposes of this chapter. 2 This was done by examining twenty different page captures of the International Education Division in the period between 20 May 2011 and 6 December 2017 (Canada. gac 2011–2017). 3 The Education brand was the initial term for what became the Imagination brand, a branding of the public education systems in Canada.

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


references Abu-Laban, Y. 2017. “Civic Virtue and Cultural Pluralism from the Standpoint of the Other.” In Citizenship and Multiculturalism in Western Liberal Democracies, edited by D.E. Tabachnick and L. Bradshaw, 119–36. Lanham, md: Lexington Books. Allison, J. 2016. A Most Canadian Odyssey: Education Diplomacy and Federalism, 1844–1984. London, on: Althouse Press/Western University. Alphonso, C. 2004. “Canada Urged to Try for Education Billions.” Globe and Mail, 29 October. /canada-urged-to-try-for-education-billions/article1005977 Ang, I., Y.R. Isar, and P. Mar. 2018. Cultural Diplomacy: Beyond the National Interest? Milton Park, UK: Taylor and Francis. Arndt, R. 2005. The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century. London: Brassey’s. Blad, C. 2011. Neoliberalism and National Culture: State-Building and Legitimacy in Canada and Québec. Leiden: Brill. Blanchfield, M. 2012. “Canada Axes Foreign Studies Program Despite Being Told of Economic Spinoffs.” Globe and Mail, 16 May. https://www.the – 2017. Swingback: Getting Along in the World with Harper and Trudeau. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Boeing, G. 2016. “Visual Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Chaos, Fractals, Self-Similarity and the Limits of Prediction.” Systems 4 (4): 37. doi:10.3390/systems4040037. Bombaro, C. 2012. Finding History: Research Methods and Resources for Students and Scholars. Lanham, md: Scarecrow Press. Brooks, S. 2018. Promoting Canadian Studies Abroad: Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Canada. 1999. Evaluation of the Canadian Education Centres Network. Ottawa: Government of Canada. /http:/ /evalcecn99-en.asp. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2012. Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy. 2012. International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. – 2011–17. “International Education.” 4083849/


John Allison

– 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. https://www view-apercu-eng.pdf. – 2016. “Info Source 2016–2017.” tions/infosource/infosource-2016-2017.aspx?lang=eng&_ga. Canada. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General. 2014. Visit to the Kingdom of the Netherlands by Their Excellencies the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada and Mrs. Sharon Johnston – Delegation. Ottawa: Government of Canada. 4_DelegatesEn_02.pdf. Canada. Prime Minister’s Office (pmo). 2016. “Canada Provides Significant Support Following UN Meeting on Refugees and Migrants.” Press release, 19 September. Chaubet, F. 2006. La politique culturelle française et la diplomatie de la langue: l’Alliance française, 1883–1940. Paris: L’Harmattan. China Education Association for International Exchange & Expo, & China Education Exhibition. 2017. “2017 Country of Honour: Canada.” /2017-10-13a.aspx?lang=eng. Coughlan, S. 2017. “How Canada Became an Education Superpower.” bbc News, 2 August. Cull, N.J., and M.K. Hawes. 2018. Canada’s Public Diplomacy. New York: Springer International Publishing. Donaghy, G., and K.R. Nossal. 2009. Architects and Innovators/Architectes et Innovateurs: Building the Department of Foreign and International Trade, 1909–2009/Le Développement du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères et du Commerce International, 1909–2009. Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Dubosclard, A. 1998. Histoire de la Fédération des Alliances Françaises aux Etats-Unis: L’alliance au coeur. Paris: Harmattan. Evans, R. 2012. In Defence of History. London: Granta Publications. Frenette, Y. 2014. “Conscripting Canada’s Past: The Harper Government and the Politics of Memory.” Canadian Journal of History 49 (1): 49–65. Gee, M. 2007. “Canada Must Fix ‘Pathetic’ Record on Recruiting Foreign Students.” Globe and Mail, 7 November. https://www.theglobeandmail .com/report-on-business/canada-must-fix-pathetic-record-on-recruitingforeign-students/article22625125.

Intergovernmentalism, Foreign Policy, and International Education


Gendron, R. 2002. Towards a Francophone Community: Canada’s Relations with France and French Africa, 1945–1968. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. Gérin-Lajoie, P. 1989. Combats d’un révolutionnaire tranquille. Montréal: Centre Éducatif et Culturel. Goldstein, E. 2008. “The Politics of the State Visit.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3 (2): 153–78. Goldthorp, L. 1990. “Reluctant Internationalism, Canadian Approaches to unesco, 1946–1987.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Henrikson, A.K. 2005. “Niche Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: The Global ‘Corners’ of Canada and Norway.” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by J. Melissen, 67–87. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Hilliker, J., and D. Barry. 1995a. Canada’s Department of External Affairs. Vol. 1, The Early Years, 1909–1946. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. – 1995b. Canada’s Department of External Affairs. Vol. 2, Coming of Age, 1946–1968. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Hilliker, J., M. Halloran, and G. Donaghy. 2017. Canada’s Department of External Affairs. Vol. 3, Innovation and Adaptation, 1968–1984. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” The American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–43. Jarvis, D. 2018. “The Ideological Rhetoric of the Trump Platform and Edmund Burke’s Theory of a Generational Compact.” In Trump and Political Philosophy: Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, and Civic Virtue, edited by M.B. Sable and A.J. Torres, 193–214. New York: Springer International Publishing. Jones, G.A., and R.D. Trilokekar. 2013. “Are the Stars Aligned? Will Canada Finally Create an International Education Strategy?” Academic Matters, 4 February. Kathe, S.R. 2005. Kulturpolitik um jeden Preis: Die Geschichte des GoetheInstituts von 1951 bis 1990. Munich: Martin Meidenbauer Verlag. Katz, E. 2009. “Imagine, Cooperative Branding!” International Educator, 12. Keller, T. 2009. “Canadian Education Centre Network Gets Unplugged.” Maclean’s, 10 July. Kotz, D.M. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.


John Allison

Marland, A. 2016. Brand Command: Canadian Politics and Democracy in the Age of Message Control. Vancouver: ubc Press. McCulloch, G., and W. Richardson. 2000. Historical Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Melissen, J. 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Nye, J. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Cambridge, ma: PublicAffairs. Paris, R. 2018. “The Promise and Perils of Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy.” In Justin Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Policy, edited by N. Hillmer and P. Lagassé, 17–29. New York: Springer International Publishing. Potter, E. 2009. Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power through Public Diplomacy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Shultz, L. 2015. “Global Citizenship or International Trade?” In Decolonizing Global Citizenship Education, edited by A.A. Abdi, L. Shultz, and T. Pillay, 107–17. Rotterdam: SensePublishers. Smith, D.E. 2013. The Invisible Crown: The First Principle of Canadian Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stanford, J. 2014. “Canada’s Transformation Under Neoliberalism.” Canadian Dimension 52. Tachdjian, J.-P. 2008. Canada’s Competitive Challenge: International Promotion of Education: New Initiatives (ppt). Ottawa: dfat Development. Trilokekar, R.D. 2007. “Federalism, Foreign Policy and the Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of the International Academic Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada.” EdD diss., University of Toronto. – 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. Trilokekar, R.D., and Z. Kizilbash. 2013. “imagine: Canada as a Leader in International Education: How Can Canada Benefit from the Australian Experience?” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 43 (2): 1–26. Universities Canada. 2016. “Canadian University Leaders Visit the Netherlands.” Media release, 23 May. Wells, P. 2014. The Longer I’m Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and Canada, 2006–. Toronto: Vintage Canada.

3 International Education as a Human Resource Strategy: “A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy Basu Sharma

introduction Globalization and the rise of a knowledge economy has put pressure on governments and businesses to create enduring capabilities for competing in the world economy and sustaining the welfare and well-being of Canadians. A critical factor for achieving this objective is a skilled, educated human resource capability. As Canada has an inverted population pyramid with a growing deficit of young people entering the labour market, the obvious policy choice for the government has been to increase the number of immigrants who have the skills and abilities to participate productively in the Canadian labour market. One of the ways to facilitate and expedite this process has been a strategic use of international education (ie) to attract foreign students to Canada. The evolution of this policy choice has, of course, entailed effective management of a multi-level governance (mlg) structure, as Canada is a federal state where education falls under provincial jurisdiction and immigration under federal jurisdiction. In this chapter, I examine the interface between Canada’s ie strategy and immigration policies to understand its implications for fostering human resource development. The immigration policies of Canadian governments over time have been premised on a “citizen model.” This history goes a long way back. The underlying thrust of this model was spelled out by Wilfrid Laurier in his famous speech delivered in Edmonton on 1 September


Basu Sharma

1905: “Let them become Canadians … and give their heart, their soul, their energy and all their power to Canada” (“Sunny Ways” 2016, n.p.). Laurier made a case for both the acceptance and integration of immigrants in this speech. The statement (from the same speech) that “Canada is in one respect like the Kingdom of Heaven: those who come at the eleventh hour will receive the same treatment as those who have been in the field for a long time” underpins this idea. Successive governments have built on this theme and developed policies, with some occasional aberrations, to “blend immigration with citizenship” (Saul 2017, n.p.). In a federal political structure, like the one in Canada, devolution of power across various levels of government is a given. To be specific, immigration falls under the purview of the federal government whereas ie comes under the jurisdiction of provincial governments in Canada. However, division of power creates opportunities and tensions in the policy space. In addition, the growing role of schools, community colleges, and universities in attracting international students and that of non-state stakeholders such as community organizations, private businesses, and industry partners in assisting with the transition of immigrants and international students is a rising phenomenon in Canada (Tolley, Biles, et al. 2012). Those opportunities and challenges can be meaningfully analyzed only with the help of an adequate theoretical framework. I used the mlg framework to examine the interface of ie strategy and immigration policies. As a relatively new theory, mlg has its practical roots in the integration of the European Union in the 1990s and the establishment of free trade areas around the world. According to Stephenson (2013, 817), mlg is “a conceptual framework for profiling the ‘arrangement’ of policy-making activity performed within and across politicoadministrative institutions located at different territorial levels.” Its main focus is on central control in the face of diverging supranational and subnational practices. This framework expands on such traditional approaches as neo-institutionalism and multi-national federalism and provides a more comprehensive understanding of subnational practices with respect to the role of the state, regions, and provinces (Lachapelle and Oñate 2017; Marks 1996). Decision-making is no longer under the full control of central authorities in the mlg system. Rather, it is shared by actors on different issues across different levels. In fact, mlg is concerned with analysis of the transfer of decision-making authority away from the central

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


governments upward, downward, and sideways to other governmental or non-governmental actors. This concept thus stands against the tenet of methodological nationalism, which focuses on the nation state as the main unit of analysis at the neglect of actors above and below the state level (Jeffery and Wincott 2010). mlg is not a theory in the positivist tradition, as it cannot generate testable hypotheses on when and how central governments will share decision-making power. It is primarily an exploratory framework for examining the extent of monopolization of power by central governments or the extent of power-sharing among subnational and supranational institutions and non-state interests (Marks, Hooghe, and Blank 1996). One of the underlying assumptions of this framework is that the state is a set of rules structuring “authoritative relation in polity” (Marks 1996, 22). It is a system of diffusion of control from central state to supranational or subnational entities. In the context of the Canadian federal system, the mlg model examines how the federal government manages and facilitates devolution of power to provincial and territorial governments and networks of other relevant nongovernmental institutions at various levels. Using this frame of reference, I first examine key labour market issues as they pertain to sustaining Canada’s economic growth. I then review relevant Canadian ie policies related to human resource development for addressing problems of labour market imbalances, innovation gaps, and economic growth (Jenkins, Dahlby, et al. 2011). ie has evolved as an important source for recruiting immigrants, especially economic class immigrants. I examine relevant policies and issues in subsequent sections. Finally, I discuss the challenges and opportunities that emerge as a result of these interactions. The chapter concludes by reiterating the key arguments that the mlg structure is working well in Canada and that the citizenship model of immigration policy uses ie as a human resource strategy.

labour market issues for canada’s prosperity It is now a platitude to say that this is the age of human capital. Canada’s prosperity, like that of most other countries with knowledge economies, depends on a steady inflow of skilled and educated workers into the labour market. However, Canada has been experiencing below-replacement birth rates for a long time. For example, Canada’s


Basu Sharma

population increased by 1.7 million from 2011 to 2016, but about two-thirds of this growth came from immigrants (Canada. Statistics Canada 2017). On the one hand, the traditional source of labour supply, population growth, has been dwindling. On the other hand, Canada’s population is aging, leading to an aggressive exit rate from the labour market. Gignac (2013) has observed that immigration explains about two-thirds of Canada’s 1.2 percent population growth, whereby Canada’s population aged 20–44 would be declining in the absence of immigration. It is thus clear that sustaining economic prosperity and welfare requires an increasing number of foreign workers. Canada is a nation of immigrants, historically and at present. Nonetheless, sources and desired attributes of immigrants have changed from time to time. This has been because successive governments have used immigration policy differently in addressing the labour market problems of their times (see the section titled “Immigration Policies and Human Resource Development” below). Thus, immigration policies of governments are often in line with the demands of changes in technology and the economy. Population in traditional source countries for immigration, especially in Europe, has also begun to decline. These countries themselves have been facing the problem of labour shortage. However, new source countries with an abundance of labour supply are available. Canada has set its sights on these countries, such as India and China, for recruiting international students as potential immigrants (cbie 2016). With the Fourth Industrial Revolution dawning upon Canada, the prominence of primary natural resources such as oil, gas, lumber, and minerals has begun to erode. Their places are/will be taken over by smart factories, 3D manufacturing, drones, and self-driving cars. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau summarized this transition to the World Economic Forum: “Canada is much more than its natural resources. It’s a place with a booming high-tech sector, advanced manufacturing, an educated workforce, elite educational facilities and a tolerant society” (quoted in Editorial 2016). Strengthening innovation capacity is one of the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth in its report The Path to Prosperity (Canada. Department of Finance. 2017). However, the council has noted that Canada’s growth has been constrained to some extent by a shortage of talent. Of the 800,000 or so information and communication technology professionals working in Canada, one-third are immigrants (ictc 2015). The industry has been grow-

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


ing fast, but the supply of talent required to keep pace with this growth has not. Given that there is a gap between the demand for and supply of information and communication technology talent and skills (ictc 2015), the council’s sub-recommendation to address this problem was to streamline the immigration process to ease the entry of top talent. All in all, the Canadian economy has been going through a major structural transformation for over two decades now. Driven by innovations in information and communication technologies, it has been slowly morphing into a knowledge economy. The key labour market consequence of this transformation has been a rising demand for a highly educated workforce. Internationally educated immigrants and/or international students who come to Canada to study and eventually stay are seen as a significant part of the solution to this pressing problem.

international education as a strategy for workforce development ie has recently been identified by the federal government as one of the key resources for Canada’s future prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014). Provincial governments had realized its importance long before and used ie as a strategy for resolving problems of demographic deficit and labour market imbalances. This is reflected in the Provincial Nominee Programs (pnps) of the provinces and the territories. Under the British North America Act of 1867, provinces and territories were given an exclusive jurisdiction over educational matters. Consequently, the federal government did not show much concern and did not have any strategy for ie until 2013. However, following recommendations of an advisory panel on Canada’s ie strategy, the federal government announced ie as one of the key strategies for growth and prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014). The minister of foreign affairs in Canada’s ie strategy (Canada. fatdc 2014) acknowledged that ie will help to address the problems of skilled labour shortages and demographic pressure, and recognized the need to use ie as a key element of the Global Markets Action Plan (Canada. fatdc 2013). Under this plan, four key initiatives were identified: (1) aligning ie with national economic growth; (2) identifying global consumers of Canadian education; (3) aligning interests and activities of the Government of Canada, provinces, territories, and other stakeholders in the ie community; and (4) implementing a per-


Basu Sharma

formance management system. In this plan, the student groups included foreign students studying in K–12 schools, colleges, and universities in Canada; Canadian students studying outside of Canada; collaboration between Canadian educational and research institutes and similar entities in other countries; sharing Canada’s educational models with foreign countries; and online delivery of Canadian education around the world. The purposes behind these programs vary slightly from one to the other in terms of their major focus and expected impacts. However, the ultimate policy objective of the federal government in undertaking these initiatives was to bring ie to bear on workforce development and labour market adjustment. Since foreign students studying in Canadian schools, colleges, and universities are the most critical group for achieving this objective, I examine this segment of ie further. Canada is the sixth most popular destination for international students, after the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and France, as its education system has an excellent reputation around the world (Canada. fatdc 2012). Building upon this reputation, the federal government set the goal of positioning Canada as one of the key providers of ie in the world (Viczko and Tascón 2016). When the federal government announced its ie strategy, it set a target of 450,000 international students in Canada by 2022 – a 33 percent increase over the actual number in 2015. It assumed that international students will spend $16.1 billion and create close to 176,000 new jobs in Canada (Canada. fatdc 2012). The plan also identified Brazil, China, India, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, and Vietnam as target markets for recruitment of international students to reach this goal (Canada. fatdc 2014). The idea was to keep the current market and build a future base to market the Canadian brand of education mainly in emerging economies. The plan articulated that the Government of Canada will provide support for institutional partnership building and collaboration using a coordinated approach. At the federal level, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, together with the International Development Research Centre, the Departments of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and other federal departments and agencies will work together to advance this agenda. At the pan-Canadian level, “the Government of Canada will work with the provinces and territories, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (cmec) and the var-

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


ious stakeholders within Canada’s international education community to communicate a consistent message, align activities and achieve common objectives” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 13). The ownership of the ie strategy remains with the federal government. However, the Imagine Education in/au Canada brand is managed by cmec together with provincial ministers of immigration and the Council of the Federation, consisting of the premiers and ministers of the Canadian provincial governments. Further, many schools, colleges, and universities across the country are the ones to actually do the front-line work of educating and training international students. These institutions have their own policies and plans in place for ie. Also, hundreds and hundreds of agents abroad are deployed by many of these institutions for recruiting international students. Both the federal and provincial governments provide logistic and sometimes financial assistance for these recruitment activities. Thus, ie strategy and its implementation process involves a complex and occasionally tangled web of networks and relationships (Viczko and Tascón 2016). Three major factors – globalization, economic transformation, and the demographic situation – are forcing the federal and provincial/ territorial governments to redefine policy space in regard to ie. Sustaining Canada’s competitiveness in the knowledge economy in an era of massive economic transformations forces both the federal and provincial governments to turn to ie to maintain competitive advantage and address demographic deficit. However, the success of the strategy of recruiting and bringing in many international students from target countries depends largely on immigration policies and vice versa. This is a multi-actor, multi-sector policy space. The discussion now turns to this theme.

immigration policies and human resource development Immigration policies in Canada have undergone various changes over time. The earliest policy of a “whites-only regime” was blatantly a racist one. For example, the 1910 Immigration Act contained a “preferred country” clause, giving preference to immigrants from Western Europe, mainly from Britain, under the assumption of the likelihood of an easy cultural assimilation (Nijboer 2010). Some individuals, mainly Chinese, were accepted, because Canada deemed them as a source of cheap labour to work in Canada’s mining, agriculture, and


Basu Sharma

railway building. However, once the demand for cheap labour slowed, the Chinese were discouraged from immigrating to Canada through a policy prescription for charging a head tax (Nijboer 2010). The system of country preference continued until 1962, when the Immigration Act sought to renounce this criterion in the selection of immigrants. A point system was introduced in 1967. Under this system, applicants were assessed according to their skills, education, and intended occupation. As Akbari and MacDonald (2014, 10) have pointed out, “Immigration policy became universal and immigrants were to be chosen according to their potential contribution to the economy, determined by their human capital content and not on the basis of their country of origin.” Unlike the earlier system, the point system did not discriminate at the entry gates. Many qualified people got a chance to immigrate to Canada. Beginning in 1976, a reworking of the immigration policy provided for recognition of three distinct categories of immigrants – independent applicants (based on employment skills, education, and language abilities), family class, and refugees and protected persons. The focus was mainly on family reunification and refugee categories. However, this changed along with the proclamation of the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa), shifting the focus to economic class. In fact, section 3(1) (a) of the act sets out that its number one objective is “to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration.” Table 3.1 presents data on level and type of immigrants to Canada over the last fifteen years. As the data indicates, the economic category has accounted for the majority of the immigrants coming to Canada, ranging between 53.5 percent of the total in 2016 and 66.6 percent in 2010. Obviously, this class carries labour market, or human resources, considerations. True to the number one objective of the irpa of 2002, the federal government has viewed international students as potential immigrants to produce maximum economic benefit for Canada, and has developed various programs to execute its ie strategy. One of the long-term goals of the strategy is to encourage international students in Canada to seek permanent residency. There are two principal pathways to permanent residency for international students: applying through (a) the pnp, or (b) Express Entry (previously Canadian

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


Table 3.1 Levels and type of immigrants to Canada, 2003–17 (% in parentheses) Refugees and protected persons

Humanitarian and other




Family reunification


121,047 (54.7)

65,122 (29.4)

25,983 (11.7)

9,196 (4.2)

221,349 (100)


133,746 (56.7)

62,275 (26.4)

32,687 (13.9)

7,115 (3.0)

235,823 (100)


156,312 (59.6)

63,361 (24.2)

35,776 (13.6)

6,790 (2.6)

262,241 (100)


138,252 (54.9)

70,508 (28)

32,499 (12.9)

10,392 (4.1)

251,643 (100)


131,244 (55.4)

66,232 (28)

27,955 (11.8)

1,322 (4.8)

236,754 (100)


149, 047 (60)

65,554 (27)

21,859 (9)

10,740 (4)

247,202 (100)


153,491 (60.9)

65,207 (25.9)

22,850 (9)

10,623 (4.2)

252,171 (100)


186,916 (66.6)

60,223 (21.5)

24,697 (8.8)

8,846 (3.1)

280,689 (100)


156,117 (62.8)

56,450 (22.7)

27,873 (11.2)

8,305 (3.3)

248,748 (100)


160,819 (62.3)

65,008 (25.2)

23,094 (9)

8,961 (3.5)

257,887 (100)


148,181 (57.2)

81,831 (31.6)

24,049 (9.3)

4,892 (1.9)

258,953 (100)


165,089 (63.4)

66,661 (26)

22,916 (8.8)

4,688 (1.8)

260,404 (100)


170,348 (62.7)

65,490 (24.1)

31,501 (11.6)

4,506 (1.6)

271,845 (100)


160,600 (53.5)

80,000 (26.7)

55,800 (18.6)

3,600 (1.2)



172,500 (57.5)

84,000 (28)

40,000 (13.3)

3,500 (1.2)


*For 2017, the figures are targets only, not actual. Source: Canada, ircc 2017, “Datasets on the Open Data Portal.”

Basu Sharma


Table 3.2 International students, postgraduate work permits, and transition to permanent residency (pr) (% in parentheses)


No. of international students

No. of postgraduate work permits issued

No. of students transitioning to pr



17,815 (9.7)

11,575 (65.0)



15,414 (7.6)

10,120 (65.7)



17,305 (7.7)

9,730 (56.2)



22,676 (9.1)

7,815 (34.4)



27,248 (9.9)

8,680 (31.86)



33,922 (11.2)

8,355 (24.6)



37,338 (11.4)

9,290 (24.9)



34,375 (9.7)

8,535 (24.8)

Source: cbie, 2016, A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education.

Experience Class). In either case, some Canadian work experience is a requirement. International students could accumulate it through participating in either the Post-Graduation Work Permit Program or in the Off-Campus Work Permit Program, although the latter was terminated in 2014. Under the former, foreign students who graduate from a post-secondary institution in Canada are eligible to apply for a postgraduate work permit. Permit holders can work up to three years after graduation. However, the amount of time cannot exceed the length of the program of study. To gauge the extent of the success of these policy initiatives, table 3.2 presents data on the number of international students (including K–12) studying in Canada, the number of postgraduate work permits issued, and the eventual transition of these permit holders to permanent residency.

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


The Post-Graduation Work Permit Program was designed to enable foreign students to gain Canadian work experience that could contribute toward eligibility for the permanent immigration program. There were 17,815 pgwps issued in 2008. The number increased to 34,375 by 2015. The corresponding numbers for those who transitioned to permanent residency were 11,575 and 8,535 in 2008 and 2015 respectively. In 2008, the Harper government introduced the Canadian Experience Class program (Canada. cic 2014). Its expressed purpose was to facilitate the process of permanent residency for internationally educated people applying for immigration, international students studying in Canadian universities and colleges, and skilled temporary workers working in Canada. The federal government launched a new Express Entry system in January 2015, consolidating three existing economic immigration programs – the Federal Skilled Worker, Federal Skilled Trades, and Canadian Experience Class. In the new system, the evaluation scheme assigns a score to eligible candidates out of 1,200 points, of which one half can be gained through a provincial nomination. If applicants have a job offer, they are awarded 200 points. Those with the highest points are then invited to apply for permanent residency under one of the three economic entry categories. Of the available total of 1,200 points, 500 are related to human capital factors such as age, education, experience, and language proficiency, and 100 points are allocated to skill transferability. Immigration policy is largely a federal matter in Canada. However, some aspects of the policy have devolved to provinces (Nelson, Verma, et al. 2011). For example, the Quebec government has been given control over admission and selection of independent immigrants (Iacovino 2014). Each province and territory has an immigrant nominee program. Canada’s constitutional framework provides that immigration is a concurrent power between the federal and provincial governments under Section 95 of the British North America Act of 1867, but the federal government has exclusive control over naturalization and aliens under Section 91(25) of the same act. Despite such a proviso, the Canadian provinces remained silent until the 1970s. However, the government of Quebec took up the issue of provincial participation in the selection of immigrants with the federal government. The federal government agreed to share some power in this regard for the first time in 1971. Successive rounds of negotiations culminated in the 1991 Canada-Quebec Accord, which provided for the Quebec


Basu Sharma

government’s control over the selection of independent immigrants. Under the accord, the federal government also withdrew from the settlement program and agreed to transfer funds to the Quebec government. Notably, this accord had a constitutional twist in that Quebec’s demand for independence dovetailed with a demand for independent immigration policy for the province (Vineberg 2012). What is important about this accord is that it was a trigger for the now popular pnps across all provinces and territories. The federal and provincial governments concluded a series of agreements resulting in the provincial governments – subnational units in the framework of mlg – acquiring an important role in the selection of immigrants from the 1990s onward (Seidle 2013). Thus, two types of powersharing arrangements have evolved: one for Quebec based on the Canada-Quebec Accord on immigration, and one for other provinces and territories called the pnp. Since the main objective of pnps is to entice immigrants who can participate in the provincial labour markets and contribute to a province’s economic development, each province or territory defines its target group differently. The pnp was first introduced in Manitoba in 1996. It was then followed by Saskatchewan in 1998 and by New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador in 1999. Prince Edward Island and British Colombia came up with their pnp in 2001. Nova Scotia introduced its pnp in 2003. Ontario followed suit in 2005 and Alberta in 2007. Yukon and Northwest Territories introduced their pnps in 2008 and 2009 respectively (Seidle 2013). The pnps have thus become one of the most popular immigration programs in Canada. The pnps admit about a quarter of economic immigrants. Entry streams under the pnps include business investors, international student graduates, temporary foreign workers, and families of immigrants. Provincial governments design their pnps, recruit and nominate immigrants, and monitor and evaluate their settlements. For example, the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program has an international student category that targets foreign graduates who want to stay and work in Ontario. It comes in three streams: international students with a job offer (must have graduated from a Canadian college or university program of at least two years), international students (master’s graduate), and international students (PhD graduate). In the case of master’s and PhD graduates, the degree should be from an Ontario university.

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


The latest stream under the pnps is the Atlantic Immigration Pilot program. In response to the deficit in skilled workforce in the region, it was established in July 2016 through an agreement between the federal minister of immigration and the premiers of four Atlantic provinces – New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. The program was established for three years as part of an overall Atlantic Growth Strategy, with a target of 2,000 immigrants for 2017. The power-sharing arrangement was that the four provinces would select the nominees and the federal government would take care of admissibility screening for medical, criminal, and security matters and make the final selection. Within the pnp, a certain number of candidates can be nominated through the Express Entry system. This is known as enhanced nomination. Those obtaining enhanced nomination are awarded 600 points out of a total of 1,200 points under the comprehensive ranking systems. Even though there have been some challenges, these programs have responded quite adequately to the labour market needs of provinces and territories (Baglay 2012; Nelson, Verma, et al. 2011; Seidle 2013). Another important program from the labour market adjustment viewpoint is the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. It started in 1973 as a means to address labour shortages in highly skilled professions. However, its scope gradually expanded to include live-in caregivers, agricultural workers, and workers in lower skill level jobs (Foster 2012). There were 90,322 permits issued under this program in 2016. The top five countries for recruitment of Temporary Foreign Worker Programs in 2016 were Mexico, Jamaica, Philippines, Guatemala, and India (Canada. hrsdc 2017). If qualified, temporary foreign workers can apply for permanent residency through the Canadian Experience Class or pnps. In fact, this path has become one of the corridors for internationally educated and trained temporary foreign workers to gain permanent residency in Canada. The percentage of temporary foreign workers able to achieve permanent residency status has increased over the years, from 9 percent in the mid-1990s to 21 percent in 2014 (Keung 2017). More than two decades ago, Thompson and Weinfeld (1995, 198) examined Canadian immigration policy and concluded, “For the door marked ‘exit’ will never shut completely. Canada needs immigrants; the world, and the immigrants, need Canada.” That conclusion still holds today; however, the paths are not always smooth.


Basu Sharma

challenges and opportunities Hooghe and Marks (2003) posited two ideal types of mlg systems – Type I and Type II. The former resembles a conventional federal system and the latter is designed around a certain policy issue (Campomori and Caponio 2017). In terms of this typology, Canada is a federalism of Type I governance system, which is characterized by a limited number of jurisdictional levels with a durable architecture. Decisionmaking is dispersed in certain ways but bundled in a limited way. Power-sharing and jurisdictional demarcation between the federal and provincial governments in Canada over the matter of ie and immigration allude to this architecture. Although these arrangements historically emanated from the British North American Act 1867, the devolution of power has progressed in Canada in a remarkable way. Embedded in this progress are stories of several complex bargaining rounds, difficult conversations, and twisted pathways. Local organizations, such as immigrant service providers, settlement agencies, educational institutions, and employers, have their own interests, issues, and concerns that they wish to bring up in their communication with the federal and provincial governments. For example, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada plays a critical role as it has the mandate to manage the study permit system. Due to bureaucratic rules and the attitude of visa officers, especially those located in developing countries, the system often suffers from errors of false negatives (rejecting genuine cases) and false positives (accepting cases that should have been rejected) (Banerjee, Chitnis, et al. 2009). Universities and colleges accept international students and issue acceptance letters, but some of these students cannot come to study because of visa refusal. This has costs for individual foreign students, host institutions, and the communities where the institutions are located. There is thus an urgent need to bring the ie goals and immigration policies and practices into mutual alignment. More than 75 percent of permanent residents landed in one of seven major Canadian cities in 2015 – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Winnipeg (Dharssi 2016). They have shunned small cities and rural areas. However, some small cities and towns have been taking the matter into their own hands. For example, the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, charted its own immigration plan and hired an immigration strategy officer. The officer runs

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


projects that urge international students studying there to stay and career fairs that encourage employers to hire international student immigrants. Similarly, the small Manitoba towns of Morden and Winkler have each successfully launched Community Driven Immigration Initiative. Under this initiative, city officials identify the types of immigrants they need, recruit them (using such criteria as work experience, suitability for jobs in the region, liking for small-town living, a week-long exploratory visit, and meeting with employers and members of the community) and ask the provincial government to nominate them under the pnp. Morden and Winkler had populations of 7,800 and 10,700 respectively in 2011. More than 3,000 immigrants have settled in these cities since then (Dharssi 2016). These cases demonstrate that cities and municipalities can come under the fold of the mlg structure, demonstrating leadership and negotiating their specific interests. In addition to recruitment, nomination, and selection of immigrants, there have been issues and tensions facing the mlg structure in matters of settlement of immigrants and related funding. For some provinces, the issue at hand is attracting immigrants; for others, it is settlement concerns and accommodation of a large number of immigrants. As Jeffrey (2015, 250) has noted, Jurisdictional issues of “Who does what?” and “Who pays for what?” are not the only factors contributing to the muddled and unpredictable nature of the multi-level immigrant settlement governance. Regional disparities also contribute to this complexity. In Québec and Manitoba for instance, the primary concern was not the delivery of immigrant settlement services, but attracting immigrants to the province. In British Columbia and Ontario, however, the chief immigrant settlement concern was to accommodate large numbers of immigrants who choose these provinces of their own accord, most often destined for Vancouver and Toronto. Quebec has generally received more money from the federal government than other provinces on a per capita basis for immigrant reception and settlement activities (O’Neil 2013). Other jurisdictions, especially Ontario, have tried to bargain with the federal government using Quebec as the benchmark. The Quebec government has negotiated for special treatment from the federal government using its


Basu Sharma

“unique culture” argument. This argument does not sit well with the other provincial governments (Jeffrey 2015). The federal government needs to negotiate with twelve different subnational units on multiple issues. It is no mean feat for the federal government to address the legitimate interests of all these units. According to a recent survey by Canadian Bureau for International Education (cbie 2016), 51 percent of international students plan to apply for permanent residency. Still, there seems to be a huge gap between the plan to apply and actual applications. Also, the policy supporting the retention of international students as permanent residents is rationalized by invoking the assumption that they are “ideal immigrants” in the sense that they are educated, speak English or French, and are familiar with Canada already (Zilio and Chiose 2016). However, findings of a recent study by Scott, Safdar, et al. (2015) indicated that this assumption does not quite hold, as many who received permanent residency through this stream have not been able to fully utilize their skills and education on the job. The sovereignty concerns of the federal government have led to the centralization of citizenship and immigration policy. However, the reception of immigrants and international students has largely been left to provincial governments, universities, and colleges as it is less of a challenge to the central government. Also, the path to eventual Canadian citizenship is clearly charted. However, the transition to full participation in Canadian society is not easy. Even though the point system did away with discrimination at the point of entry, many internationally educated immigrants become subject to systemic discrimination once they are in Canada as permanent residents. As the Economist (Ottawa 2015) remarked, “Employers did not always recognize skills and education acquired abroad, especially outside Europe. Doctors ended up driving taxis; architects toiled at convenience stores. The unemployment rate among immigrants is nearly 50% higher than that of Canada-born workers.” One might reasonably expect this would not happen in the aftermath of the passage of the Foreign Credential Recognition program. However, the reality is that employers still have explicit and implicit biases or assumptions that prevent them from hiring immigrants (Oreopoulos 2011). Cultural differences, both real and imagined, may also factor in, with some employers perceiving that additional training would be needed to acculturate immigrant employees to the Canadian business environment.

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed government policies on ie and immigration in Canada. I have attempted to show that both federal and provincial levels of governments have tried to relate immigration and ie policies to human resource development for promoting and sustaining a competitive advantage and ensuring Canadian prosperity. Obviously, the independent/economic class of immigrants carries labour market, or human resource, considerations. This is proclaimed in the current immigration policy that focuses on attracting youthful and educated immigrants to address labour market problems associated with low birth rates and an aging population. It is clear that both the federal and provincial governments have been working toward finding an effective institutional structure for development, coordination, and implementation of ie and immigration policies to augment Canada’s human resource capabilities. To that end, the existing mlg structure has worked reasonably well to attract both internationally educated and trained immigrants as well as international students to come to Canada and settle down. The fact that economic class immigrants are vetted for their educational qualifications to bring them in line with the human resource needs of the Canadian economy indicates that ie is indeed a cross-sectional policy. More importantly, unlike the European “guest-workers” model, the Canadian model of immigration is a “citizen” model. In the former model, migrants come and go; their attachment and loyalty to the host country is limited. Canada’s citizen model integrates immigration policies with the longer-term economic and social needs of the country. As explained earlier, even for many temporary foreign workers the door to permanent residency has opened up with the passage of the Canadian Experience Class program introduced in 2008. To conclude, demographic changes accentuated by low birth rates and economic necessities created by intensified global competition have compelled provincial governments to look for a solution in international students. Even though education falls under provincial jurisdiction, bringing in international students requires active federal government participation since immigration falls under the federal jurisdiction. Thus, ie as a public policy instrument feeds into the Canadian immigration system, which augments human resource capability. I have summarized the key aspects of immigration policies, exploring central aspects of the evolution of power-sharing arrange-


Basu Sharma

ments between the federal and provincial governments. Despite some tensions, the mlg system that the federal government has carved out has been working reasonably well. The alignment of ie, immigration, and labour market policies within the framework of multi-level negotiation and governance has become reasonably successful so far. Of course, complex negotiations and difficult conversations compel all concerned actors to seek new and noble pathways while looking into the future.

references Akbari, A.H., and M. MacDonald. 2014. “Immigration Policy in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US: An Overview of Recent Trends.” International Migration Review 48 (3): 801–22. doi:10.1111/imre.12128. Baglay, S. 2012. “Provincial Nominee Programs: A Note on Policy Implications and Future Research Needs.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 13: 121–41. Banerjee, A, U.B. Chitnis, S.L. Jadhav, J.S. Bhawalkar, and S. Chaudhury. 2009. “Hypothesis Testing, Type I and Type II Errors.” Industrial Psychiatry Journal 18: 127–31. Campomori, F., and T. Caponio. 2017. “Immigrant Integration Policymaking in Italy: Regional Policies in a Multi-Level Governance Perspective.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 83 (2): 303–21. Canada. cic (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2013. Evaluation of the Foreign Credentials Referral Office. Ottawa: cic. /content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/fcro-eng.pdf. – 2014. “Canadian Experience Class.” /immigrate/cec/index.asp. Canada. Department of Finance. Advisory Council of Economic Growth. 2017. The Path to Prosperity: Resetting Canada’s Growth Trajectory. Ottawa: Department of Finance. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy. 2012. International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. – 2013. Global Markets Action Plan: The Blueprint for Creating Jobs and Opportunities for Canadians through Trade. Ottawa: fatdc.

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy

87 /plan-eng.pdf. – 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf. Canada. hrsdc (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada). 2017. “Temporary Foreign Workers Program.” /dataset/2bf9f856-20fe-4644-bf74-c8e45b3d94bd. Canada. ircc (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada). 2017. “ircc Datasets on the Open Data Portal.” /resources/statistics/index.asp. Canada. Statistics Canada. 2017. “Population Size and Growth in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census.” The Daily, 8 February. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2016. “Facts and Figures.” Dharssi, A. 2016. “Canada’s Small Cities and Rural Areas Desperate for Immigrants.” Calgary Herald, 14 September. /news/national/canadas-small-cities-and-rural-areas-desperate-forimmigrants. Editorial. 2016. “Canada Needs to Shift Economic Focus.” Winnipeg Free Press, 22 January. /Canada-needs-to-shift-economic-focus-366229291.html. Foster, J. 2012. “Making Temporary Permanent: The Silent Transformation of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program.” Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 19: 22–45. Gignac, C. 2013. “For Canada, Immigration is a Key to Prosperity.” Globe and Mail, 7 October. /economy/economy-lab/for-canada-immigration-is-a-key-to-prosperity /article14711281/. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 233–43. Iacovino, R. 2014. “Canadian Federalism and the Governance of Immigration.” In The Politics of Immigration in Multi-Level States, edited by E. Hepburn and R. Zapata-Barrero, 86–107. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137 358530_5. ictc (Information and Communications Technology Council). 2015. The


Basu Sharma

Smart Economy Reshaping Canada’s Workforce: Labour Market Outlook 2015–2019. Ottawa: ictc. Jeffery, C., and D. Wincott. 2010. “The Challenge of Territorial Politics: Beyond Methodological Nationalism.” In New Directions in Political Science, edited by Colin Hay, 167–88. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jeffrey, K.A. 2015. “Consultation, Conflict, and Collaborative Federalism: Canada-Ontario Immigration Relation, 1970–2005.” PhD diss., Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Jenkins, T., B. Dahlby, A. Gupta, M. Leroux, D. Naylor, and N. Robinson. 2011. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Keung, N. 2017. “Study Shows Canadian Immigration System’s Shift toward Migrant Workers.” Toronto Star, 22 March. /immigration/2017/03/22/study-shows-canadian-immigration-systemsshift-toward-migrant-workers.html. Lachapelle, G., and P. Oñate. 2017. Borders and Margins: Federalism, Devolution and Multi-Level Governance. New York: Columbia University Press. Marks, G. 1996. “An Actor-Centered Approach to Multi-Level Governance.” Regional and Federal Studies 6 (2): 20–38. doi:10.1080/13597569608 420966. Marks, G., L. Hooghe, and K. Blank. 1996. “European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance.” Journal of Common Market Studies 34 (3): 341–78. Nijboer, H. 2010. “Federal-Provincial Relations on Immigration: Striking the Right Balance.” Master of Laws thesis, Graduate Department of Law, University of Toronto. Nelson, S., S. Verma, L.M. Hall, D. Gastaldo, and M. Janjua. 2011. “The Shifting Landscape of Immigration Policy in Canada: Implications for Health Human Resource.” Health Policy 7 (2): 60–7. O’Neil, P. 2013. “Quebec Outpaces Other Provinces in Federal Dollars for Settling Newcomers.” Vancouver Sun, 12 July. http://www.vancouversun .com/news/quebec+outpaces+other+provinces+federal+dollars+settling +newcomers/8653901/story.html. Oreopoulos, P. 2011. “Why Do Skilled Immigrants Struggle in the Labor Market? A Field Experiment with Thirteen Thousand Resumes.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3 (4): 148–71. Ottawa. 2015. “Canada’s Immigration Policy: No Country for Old Man.” The Economist, 8 January. /21638191-canada-used-prize-immigrants-who-would-make-good-citizensnow-people-job-offers-have.

“A Citizen Model” for Canadian Immigration Policy


Saul, J.R. 2017. “Immigration and Identity.” iai News, 28 February. Scott, C., S. Safdar, R.D. Trilokekar, and A. El Masri. 2015. “International Students as ‘Ideal Immigrants’ in Canada: A Disconnect Between Policy Makers’ Assumptions and the Lived Experiences of International Students.” Comparative and International Education 43 (3): Article 5. Seidle, F.L. 2013. Canada’s Provincial Nominee Programs: Securing Greater Policy Alignment. irpp Study No. 43. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Stephenson, P. 2013. “Twenty Years of Multi-Level Governance: Where Does It Come From? What Is It? Where Is It Going?” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (6): 817–37. “Sunny Ways.” 2016. In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Last modified 14 August 2018. /article/sunny-ways. Thompson, J.H., and M. Weinfeld. 1995. “Entry and Exit: Canadian Immigration Policy in Context.” The Annals of the American Academy 538: 185–98. Tolley, E., J. Biles, C. Andrew, V.M. Esses, and M. Burstein. 2012. “Introduction: From Metropolis to Welcoming Communities.” In Immigration, Integration, and Inclusion in Ontario Cities, edited by C. Andrew, J. Biles, M. Burstein, V.M. Esses, and E. Tolley, 1–22. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press. Viczko, M., and C.I. Tascón. 2016. “Performing Internationalization of Higher Education in Canadian National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (2): 1–18. Vineberg, R. 2012. Responding to Immigrants’ Settlement Needs: The Canadian Experience. New York: Springer. Zilio, M., and S. Chiose. 2016. “Ottawa Looks to Ease International Students’ Path to Permanent Residency.” Globe and Mail, 14 March.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

4 The Elusive Pursuit of Internationalization in Canadian Research Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

introduction Internationalization initiatives have been at the forefront of Canadian research and innovation policy discourse in recent years. Both Conservative and Liberal governments have emphasized the importance of international research collaborations, as well as attracting international graduate students and researchers. While this has been a crosspartisan issue in Canada, internationalization remains peripheral in research policy. This chapter examines the sources and consequences of the ongoing tension between espoused policy goals and the status of internationalization in research policy. We draw from data collected through thirty-five semi-structured interviews with relevant policy actors representing federal, provincial (Ontario), and institutional perspectives, as well as from the analysis of policy documents.1 Our focus is on the relationship between the Canadian federal government and other key stakeholders involved in research policy, including research universities, provinces, and industry. The question that guides this chapter is, how does federal research policy enable or constrain internationalization initiatives?2 Our main argument is that the internationalization of academic research has consistently fallen between the cracks of the institutional architecture of Canadian research policy. The traditional federalprovincial division of responsibilities has created a cleavage between most investments in research on one hand, and the financing of uni-

Internationalization in Canadian Research


versities on the other. In this context, research policy has retained a domestic focus in spite of high-level policy rhetoric; no agency has consistently worked across federal and provincial lines to support internationalization initiatives. On the contrary, there are inconsistencies across research funding agencies and government bodies in the way they support internationalization. These inconsistencies pose obstacles for cross-border collaboration as they present different rules, incentives, and constraints for institutions and researchers involved in such activities. Below we review how internationalization as a policy issue has emerged and how it has been articulated in Canadian research policy. Then, we examine the rationales for research collaborations and analyze institutional complexity and government support, while discussing the potential consequences for international research policy. We conclude with some reflections on current directions and how they might evolve in the near future.

the evolving role of the federal government Historically, most international scientific relations between Canadian researchers and scientists based abroad have occurred spontaneously, in a self-organized manner, driven by mutual research interests and curiosity (Leclerc, Okubo, et al. 1992). The federal government became involved in supporting international co-operation in the second half of the twentieth century, particularly as it expanded its role as a research sponsor. The National Research Council was the body chiefly responsible for Canada’s international scientific relations from the Second World War until well into the late 1960s (Dufour 2002). This role diminished as new science-based agencies were created in fields like atomic energy, defence, and medicine, each coordinating its own set of international scientific activities (Ghent 1979). However, internationalization was a secondary consideration for these agencies. Early internationalization initiatives at the federal government level were primarily guided by a need to access resources through international partners. A Science Council of Canada (1968, 8) report in the late 1960s illustrated this approach, noting that “because only a small fraction of all the world’s research and development will be performed in Canada, Canada must import much of the scientific and technical information which will be used here.” In a way, that reflect-


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

ed the development of Canada’s research capacity at the time, which relied in part on the international recruitment of university professors, primarily from the United States (Sá, Kretz, and Sigurdson 2013). The 1970s brought a growing awareness of the international dimension of research in national affairs. International collaboration in science became regarded as a tool for political security and broader cultural representation. In 1970, the Department of External Affairs established a Scientific Relations and Environmental Problems Division that later became a Bureau of Economic and Scientific Affairs (Dufour 2002). In the following year, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology was established with the aim to improve the formulation and coordination of policy in science and technology, including international research partnerships. With the Interdepartmental Committee on International Science and Technology Relations (1975) intragovernmental coordination improved, but the committee’s role was more reactive than developmental (Ghent 1979). Reflecting on this situation, another Science Council of Canada report (1973, 29) argued that international scientific affairs had become “a useful instrument for foreign diplomacy” and should be strategically supported by the federal government. Canada became active in establishing formal bilateral co-operation agreements that typically included co-operation in science. Those agreements were signed mostly with wealthy countries. Great Britain, France, and West Germany were the main partners in Europe (Leclerc, Okubo, et al. 1992). Ghent (1979) noted that 70 percent of Canada’s eighty-one bilateral international science and technology agreements between 1965 and 1978 were signed with countries such as the Soviet Union, Germany, Japan, France, and Belgium. There is some evidence of the intensification of international academic co-publication as a result of those agreements, especially between Canada and European scientists (Leclerc, Okubo, et al. 1992), but little is known about the intensity and nature of the individual institutional relations, other than the fact that, in Canada’s case, the commercial and economic benefits of those agreements were minimal (Ghent 1979). Despite the growth in these formal agreements, there was continuous criticism from the scientific community regarding the government’s approach to international scientific affairs. Statements about the “randomness of government policy” and the “lack of coordination between different sectors and the different levels of activity” were used to describe the situation (Science Council of Canada 1973, 13).

Internationalization in Canadian Research


The 1980s saw another shift in the discourse of the internationalization of science. Political calls to strengthen national scientific capacity became dominant and included the view that increased research cooperation within Canada was needed to create critical mass and enhance scientific competitiveness (Science Council of Canada 1982). In 1983, following a cabinet decision on international science and technology (s&t), the international responsibilities of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology were transferred back to the Department of External Affairs. Canada’s first national s&t policy (1987) emphasized growing support to bolster domestic s&t with an emphasis on university-industry relations (Fisher, Rubenson, et al. 2006), disregarding much of the international dimension of those activities. International s&t issues remained somewhat peripheral and were only occasionally referenced in national innovation or foreign policy reviews (Dufour 2002). This policy emphasis was reflected in research funding priorities. The federal research councils did not focus on the international dimension of research in their programs. At the same time, the provinces began to strike their own international agreements with international partners. For example, Newfoundland and Labrador signed a memorandum of understanding in 1989 with Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy to promote technology transfer, industrial co-operation, and training. Ontario signed memorandums of understanding with the so-called Four Motors for Europe (the regions of Rhône-Alpes in France, Lombardy in Italy, Baden-Württemberg in Germany, and Catalonia in Spain) to promote close ties in a number of areas, including technology transfer and industrial co-operation. Quebec signed a memorandum of understanding with France and with both Flanders and Wallonia (regions of Belgium) to promote bilateral technological and industrial co-operation (Science Council of Canada 1991). Those provincial initiatives were built on the specific needs of particular regions, yet contributed to a fragmented approach and confusion across government levels and international partners. International research collaborations surfaced again in policy debate in 1991. Michael Porter’s (1991) report Canada at the Crossroads: The Reality of a New Competitive Environment emphasized innovation and strategic partnerships as crucial aspects for economic development, situating these activities in a global context. These ideas were influential in years to come. In 1994, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s own National Advisory Board on Science and Technology issued a critical assess-


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

ment of Canada’s ability to leverage expertise and intelligence on international s&t in a coordinated and consistent manner to benefit the economy, proposing that international s&t could help small- and medium-sized enterprises innovate (Canada. Committee on International Science and Technology 1994; Dufour 2002). The issue of intelligence on international s&t was reiterated in the national science policy in 1996 (Canada. Industry Canada 1996). In the 2000s, the federal government placed international s&t collaboration at the forefront of policy discussions. Industry Canada’s (2000, 48) Reaching Out: Canada, International Science and Technology, and the Knowledge-Based Economy noted that Canada must become “a model of international s&t collaboration.” It recommended that the federal government create a special fund to encourage the scientific community to foster international co-operation, and emphasized the need for better policy coordination. Further, it proposed that Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada should collaborate with Industry Canada to oversee this area. Between 2005 and 2007, the three research councils followed suit by adopting new policies intended to guide the international dimension of their operations (see cihr 2006; nserc 2007; sshrc 2005). While each policy was attuned to the particularities of the disciplines and research areas supported by the respective councils, all emphasized that the global research environment was evolving and that the forces of globalization and increased international competition required increased levels of international co-operation (Lasthiotakis, Sigurdson, and Sá 2013). In 2000, the Canada Foundation for Innovation established two international funds (the International Joint Ventures Fund and the International Access Fund), each with a one-time $100 million budget, to collaborate with international partners aiming to access international intellectual capital (Doern and Stoney 2009). Another example of federal funding to support international research initiatives is a Mitacs Globalink program that incorporates federal funding with resources from provincial governments, companies, and universities to support Canadian scholars in conducting research abroad and to attract highly promising students from around the world to carry out research in Canadian universities. More recently, the last Conservative government (2006–15) espoused internationalization initiatives, as has the current Liberal government (elected in 2015). The Conservatives’ Global Markets Action Plan framed research collaborations as a mechanism for access-

Internationalization in Canadian Research


ing innovative science projects globally, and their ie strategy (2014) called for deeper links between Canadian and foreign post-secondary institutions and research centres, as well as for attracting researchers from abroad. Special initiatives like the 2014 Canada First Research Excellence Fund and the 2015 Canada Excellence Research Chair were partly justified by their role in helping universities to establish world-class research programs and to recruit leading international scientists, although they were not primarily focused on international partnerships. The Liberal government has similarly sought to promote international research and innovation collaborations from a particular angle – as a mechanism for trade, for business-driven innovations, and for attracting talent. Canada’s first ie strategy emphasized the importance of people and innovative knowledge, aiming to attract more than 450,000 international students to Canada by 2022 (Canada. fatcd 2014). That included increasing the number, breadth, and depth of active research collaborations between Canadian and foreign postsecondary institutions and research centres. The strategy failed, however, to delineate how goals would be achieved and who would be responsible for achieving them, and it also failed to address the necessary engagement of the provinces in any such policy initiative. On the other hand, there have been noteworthy changes in Canada’s immigration policy to support settling international graduate students and researchers in the country, providing them with an easier pathway to permanent residency. For example, changes to the Canadian Experience Class have been introduced whereby graduates from Canadian universities can work after completing their studies in their field of expertise. This is aimed to better align the needs of the labour market with the immigration system. To facilitate an innovative culture, improvements have been implemented through the Start-up Visa Program to recruit more foreign entrepreneurs. The Immigrant Investor Venture Capital pilot project aims to attract successful foreign entrepreneurs to Canada.

rationales for international research collaboration Four sets of goals and associated arguments have underpinned investments in international collaboration by the Canadian government: (1) creating economy of scale, (2) developing human resources, (3)


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

advancing economic and scientific competitiveness, and (4) solving global problems (Lasthiotakis, Sigurdson, and Sá 2013). First, international collaboration has been viewed as particularly important for Canada due to its relatively small size and the significant costs of conducting Big Science in the absence of international partnerships. Experience in international collaboration has also been framed as an important component of training research talent and providing opportunities to work with internationally trained experts. Internationalizing Canadian science is thought to be a key driver and a strategic necessity for the country to be economically successful and able to respond to domestic health and social problems, among others. Finally, international collaboration allows Canada to fulfill global citizenship obligations to help solve global problems and to aid less advanced countries (Lasthiotakis, Sigurdson, and Sá 2013). In addition to these goals, international research partnerships serve as a tool for enhancing international trade relationships and maintaining foreign diplomacy. The organizational structure within the federal government and the policy documents recently introduced reaffirm these recurring rationales.3 Each of these documents emphasize international research collaborations from a particular angle – as a mechanism for trade, a mechanism for business-driven innovations, a mechanism for attracting talent, and a mechanism for making Canada an innovation leader. For example, the Global Markets Action Plan (Canada. fatdc 2013) views s&t collaborations as a trade item and a tool for economic diplomacy. The document is signed by the Ministry of International Trade. The concentration is on the global markets that promise most commercial success to Canada. Canada’s science and innovation strategy (Canada. isedc 2014) builds on the Global Markets Action Plan and is heavily focused on supporting business-driven innovations with international partners. Canada has signed a number of s&t agreements with specific target countries (important from a foreign policy perspective): China (2007), Brazil (2008), India (2005), Sweden (2010), Italy (2015), Russia (2011), UK (2012), and Israel (2012). These agreements serve as a framework for Canadians to increase international s&t capacity. The forms of co-operation typically involve the following: (a) exchange of scientific, technological, and innovation intelligence; (b) joint seminars, symposia, conferences, and workshops; (c) business development and technology partnering missions, facilitating the sharing of leads

Internationalization in Canadian Research


and opportunities; (d) collaborative research projects; (e) shared use of resources and infrastructure; (f) mobilization and exchange of researchers, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Some agreements specifically focus on student and research mobility (e.g., the Canada-Brazil Framework Agreement for Cooperation on Science, Technology and Innovation and the Canada-India Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation). International research partnerships have become an important mechanism for achieving a variety of rationales related to the economic competitiveness of Canada. There is a sense of urgency and agreement in moving forward with the internationalization of science, yet the complexity in governmental organizational structures creates an environment that has become a major challenge to achieving this goal.

institutional complexity The multi-level, multi-actor, and multi-issue context of research policy in Canada is an extremely difficult landscape to navigate (De la Mothe and Paquet 1994; Jones and Oleksiyenko 2011; Tamtik 2016). The changing organizational structure of government agencies and the multitude of actors involved in facilitating international research policy has created institutional complexity that has contributed to fragmented policy approaches. A decade and a half ago, international s&t policy was called “the policy orphan” in the federal government structure (Dufour 2002, 421), primarily because of the low priority given it compared to domestic issues. Such an approach has caused erosion of predictable sources of funding for Canadian research organizations and universities to respond to emerging opportunities for international collaboration. While the rhetoric of the importance of international research collaborations has been highly visible in policy reports, as discussed above, the actual design and implementation of specific programs have not been at the forefront of federal agency agendas. There are several reasons for this. Dufour (2002) noted that research activities are, by their very nature, creative, serendipitous, and footloose, not easily managed through the usual structures of governance or decision-making. They are not time-specific activities in the sense that they are measurable or have immediate impacts. Moreover, the multi-actor nature of research policy is another issue contributing to limited policy coordi-


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

nation and institutional complexity. The fluidity of government units responsible for research support specifically has led to limited organizational authority over decisions. Several ministers continue to hold power over research investments as their ministries’ structure and mandates are significantly science-based (e.g., fisheries, agriculture, and natural resources) (Doern, Castle, and Phillips 2016). Our participants frequently referred to the wide range of stakeholders involved in policy debates leading to a lack of focus and dispersed priorities. An interviewee from a granting agency described this landscape: “There are just many, many players and there are so many moving parts and many influences that are beyond the control of the policy-makers” (interview, 18 December 2014). Most interviewees recognized that increased attention to policy coordination is needed, indicating that there is more to be done: “There are a lot of inconsistencies that we have not fixed yet” and “We’ve got gaps to fix” are some illustrative comments. A participant who represented a foreign government in science policy discussions with Canada provided an “outsider” perspective on the issues of fragmentation and coordination, noting that with the wide variety of stakeholders, there is limited ownership of decision-making and shared vision: “In Canada, that means that Industry Canada, National Research Council of Canada, and all the other people who, in theory, are engaged in the same process don’t feel ownership of it. In the [name of home country] side, when the foreign office signs something, it has already engaged with all of the other departments. They’ve agreed to this, and so they all feel like they have ownership. I have to spend a lot more time developing relationships with individuals and encouraging and trying to sort of create that feeling of ownership with Canadian stakeholders … In the end I have to create the buy-in” (interview, 23 February 2015). Our participants believed that coordinated policy approaches would significantly help in facilitating international initiatives. The experience of university professors and administrators included reports of policy fragmentation that affected their work. A university vice-president of research reflected on this issue: “We work with a lot of partners across the ocean, and we relate with how they see Canada, depending on how they interact with Canada. So I think that the key here is ensuring that they [the governments] don’t contradict each other, and that they actually are supportive of each other” (interview, 7 May 2015).

Internationalization in Canadian Research


A broader issue raised by an experienced research funding agency officer points to the overall profile of research policy nationally. While government officials are increasingly articulating the importance of building knowledge economies, the actual political visibility of research policy is minimal. This is not an area that is used in political campaigns to attract voter attention, and there is very little talk about the importance of research and knowledge mobilization in political debates. In addition, policy decisions are affected by the prospect of changing governments and sometimes short-term individual political gains become more important than long-term goals. Our informants indicated that politicians prefer opportunities where they can individually be recognized for distributing small amounts of funds locally, as opposed to supporting strategic long-term research efforts across provinces. One participant noted, “The first gap to me is that there’s very little visibility for science policy, or a research policy, among elected officials in legislatures across the country, whether it’s provincially or federally. There’s very little talk about science, and there’s very little capacity within parliaments or legislatures to understand science” (interview, 12 January 2015). The classic federal-provincial divide in Canada also manifests frequently in practice. The complex relationship between the federal and provincial governments has created a situation where universities are caught between the levels of government as they navigate policy issues. A university vice-president pointed to the tension that such situations create: “I won’t tell you the number of times that I’ve had a discussion with the federal government about something that has provincial implications and had a discussion with the province about the same type of thing, and the two of them are not talking to each other. They’re almost using the university as an intermediary between the two of them … It’s just the situation that you end up having to deal with in terms of trying to figure out what’s the best path forward to achieve something” (interview, 7 May 2015). As universities tend to reach out to the primary source of research funding – the federal government – they are mostly concerned about the coherency across the federal agencies and departments. A university vice-president further noted, “I don’t look at coordination between the province and the feds particularly. We look at coordination across the federal government departments, so finance, law departments, treasury board … That kind of policy coordination is impor-


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

tant because of the consistency we need from ideation to implementation” (interview, 12 March 2015). Interviewees from government recognized these complexities and spoke of efforts to overcome them. One participant reflected on this situation, tracing a parallel with trade: “We had very, very strong mechanisms for communicating and collaborating just because, you know, both levels of government had overlapping mandates. Even where the federal government had responsibility for trade and the provinces did not, there were areas of trade that hinged on shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government, so you had to involve the stakeholders in the development of the policies and the negotiations” (interview, 7 January 2015). Another government representative pointed to the importance of agency leaders acknowledging and prioritizing policy coordination. The person mentioned a specific example of a mechanism that had been set up within his unit to facilitate better information flow: “We have something called the Integration Board, which is a deputy minister–level table where they need to inform each other of initiatives that the different ministries are taking to look at coordination” (interview, 5 January 2015). As policy coordination is largely a social process focusing on stakeholder relationships, it does not always bring immediate benefits. Therefore, it is hard for government officials to justify the time, effort, and resources spent on coordination activities. As a result, activities emerge when there is an immediate pressing need and often result in excluding many relevant stakeholders. The experiences of the participants suggest that there is some diversity of views regarding how much coordination has already been achieved. University participants tended to describe situations where more coordination could be useful in addressing barriers for international research collaborations. Government representatives were more inclined to suggest the accomplishments that have been achieved and to comment on the factors that influence coordination processes. Overall, there seems to be an openness to engage in coordination activities, yet people lack knowledge and a clear mechanism for navigating this extremely wide network of stakeholders across different levels of authority and power.

Internationalization in Canadian Research


support for international partnerships Financial support for international partnerships is difficult to assess. As there is no overarching federal strategy or coherent mechanism for tracking international research collaborations, there is no clear data on how much funding has been allocated to international research collaborations in Canada. There is no assessment mechanism in place for individual universities and researchers to report on their international research activities. Canada’s Fundamental Science Review (cfsr 2017, 119) noted that support for such activity is often “diluted, incorporated within other international governmental agreements for business and innovation, or discontinued.” Pockets of funding for international collaboration exist at the federal government level and within the granting councils. The three granting councils have different levels of engagement in internationalization activities and generally support international collaborative research out of their existing grant programs. There is no specific fund targeted exclusively to international research collaborations, or the existence of a harmonized policy approach. cihr is the most active with over fifty agreements, while Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada have a smaller number of initiatives (cfsr 2017). As a result, there is no commonly accepted indicator in place for individual universities and researchers to report on their international research activities. The larger provinces have their own funding agreements and initiatives for international research. For example, Quebec has a fund with three streams to support international research initiatives: bilateral projects, multi-lateral projects, and large-scale projects. In addition, it has co-funding agreements with such countries as China, France, and Mexico. Ontario spends approximately $25 million a year on international collaborative opportunities (cfsr 2017). Despite this context, some university leaders believe that there has been an increase in the number of individual research collaborations. One university vice-president of research argued that the interest in such activities has increased: “International research collaboration has sort of arisen. It started about ten years ago to grow greatly, but now the growth has almost become exponential” (interview, 7 May 2015). However, Canadian participation in larger scientific collaborations is


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

affected by limited policy coordination involving the different priorities represented by the federal and provincial governments. Our informants disputed the relative priority afforded to these objectives in their experience, which is partly related to the lack of policy coordination. One respondent reflected, “When it comes to things like Big Science, we also have a challenge because the federal government looks to the benefits of Canada and therefore we could have a distributed infrastructure. Ontario will only look at supporting the Ontario component of those things … There is some policy coordination in terms of jointly funded, jointly sponsored, large implementations by the Ministry of Research and Innovation in Ontario [and the federal government]” (interview, 12 March 2015). Another university vice-president commented, “It [policy coordination] works as long as the work you want to do remains within the boundaries of Ontario. If the work you want to do is international, for instance, then no, we don’t have good alignment … By forcing us to limit ourselves to provincial or federally eligible partners, I think we do ourselves a disservice as a nation” (interview, 12 March 2015). Conflicting priorities among provincial governments also pose significant obstacles for Canadian participation in Big Science projects. When each province is looking to achieve its own distinct goals, the capacity to compromise around national objectives is diluted, undermining the country’s ability to join major cross-national research programs. The limited boundaries for initiating international partnerships are evident in funding schemes. For example, Global Affairs Canada (gac) manages thirteen s&t agreements, but any funding associated with them (through the Canadian International Innovation Program) is for industrial research and development (r&d) and limited to five countries only (cfcr 2017). Such requirements do not support the ad hoc innovation that is often the major mechanism for innovation initiatives. Senior university administrators frequently brought up the issue of restrictive funding requirements for applying to federal funds: “The other thing I’m seeing at the federal level, in terms of research policy, is difficulty in trying to do deals in the international scale … A lot of the federal government policies around research funding and innovation are not really designed to allow you to partner with the private sector from outside of Canada” (interview, 7 May 2015). Another university leader described a specific example of how potential collabo-

Internationalization in Canadian Research


ration with an industry partner that was not supported by the federal government led to missed opportunities: “I think the decentralized approach hurts us in attracting global r&d. I was speaking with Audi yesterday. So the apc [Automotive Partnership Council], it was $200 million dollars, lots of incentive to do research in really interesting ways, but you had to have a partner and the only partner that was eligible was one that did r&d in Canada. So, if your partner happened to be Volvo or Audi, you couldn’t qualify. You had to partner with gm or with Ford [to be eligible] and there’s only … so many partnerships they want to support” (interview, 12 March 2015). As discussed above, two long-standing rationales for international science collaboration in Canada have been to create economies of scale and to connect domestic researchers with peers abroad. Canadian researchers have lamented the fact that Canada is not taking full advantage of creating researcher-to-researcher connections to partner on larger-scale research projects (cfsr 2017). An example of limited opportunities was brought up in relation to the EU’s Horizon 2020 program that aims to allocate nearly €80 billion of funding over seven years to international research partnerships if a co-funding mechanism is available. If Canada wants to remain visible and become a trusted partner globally, it needs to participate more actively and assertively in international research projects. An industry representative commented, “We are having to co-operate more and more and coordinate internationally in order to be significant. So let’s pick cancer research for instance. We have got some top-notch cancer researchers, but we don’t have anywhere near enough money, people, or resources to do that. Or the astrophysics folks. There is no way that we can afford to create the instrument that they need. Not on our own. We might provide 5 to 10 percent of the funding for some of these big instruments … We have to do that in order to be relevant” (interview, 8 April 2015). Government interviewees provided a different perspective on policy coordination. They believe that quite a lot has been accomplished already, as exemplified by programs of the federal research councils that have been better aligned and made supportive of international collaborations. Several participants mentioned the Canada First Research Excellence Fund as an example of better coordination. The three granting councils co-operate on the management of the program and provide competitive funding for international partnerships. Funding is allocated toward areas of federal priority, including infor-


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

mation and communication technologies, health and life sciences, manufacturing, environment and agriculture, and natural resources and energy. A federal government representative commented, “One of its [the fund’s] objectives is to help better position leading institutions to engage in international collaborative initiatives. They [universities] have told us that they’ve got the expertise but they don’t have the discretionary funding to help to catalyze those initiatives” (interview, 7 January 2015). The administrator added, “It [the fund] is a more flexible type of instrument than what the other ones are. It allows a slightly greater opportunity for institutions to identify priorities and it utilizes the funds in a flexible manner so that they can seek opportunities and attract talent and develop partnerships internationally or domestically. So we just – we think it will be a very good initiative at the right time” (interview, 7 January 2015). Another government administrator expressed the view that there is a dilemma of whether to support international research partnerships in all areas of scientific expertise or only support those with the highest scientific excellence and priority. He noted, “So there’s always a bit of tension. You know, on the one hand, would it make sense to have more, say, international agreements to help facilitate, encourage, stimulate, catalyze international collaborations on the R&D side of things versus supporting more excellence? I don’t know” (interview, 7 January 2015). The field of genomics also provides a different experience for how the support of international partnerships has been organized. With the creation of Genome Canada, this field became a priority for Canada in the late 1990s. The field has experienced substantial funding and has seen federal-provincial coordination occur through decentralized provincial funding agencies (see Genome Canada 2016). This has allowed Canada to participate in strategic large-scale international partnerships and Big Data sharing platforms. One interviewee felt that the financial support has brought motivation for federal-provincial coordination through the unique Genome Canada structure. Another reiterated, “There’s quite a bit of ongoing policy collaboration [in Genomics], I think because it’s in the area of particular interest to the government, and everyone has a vested invest in making sure that this [project] moves forward” (interview, 23 February 2015). The findings reveal that some steps have been taken to enhance funding in specific fields but more flexible and responsive funding schemes to support field-initiated research partnerships remain

Internationalization in Canadian Research


absent. Currently, the limited boundaries around support for international partnerships have led to missed opportunities and have stopped individual researchers from pursuing other attractive collaboration schemes internationally.

conclusion The dominant rationale for endorsing international research collaboration has remained stable over the decades. The internationalization of research has supported governments’ economic aspirations, brought talented labour to the country, pursued political goals in foreign diplomacy, and gained access to resources necessary for Big Science. These long-standing rationales have not yet translated into policy capacity to make strategic decisions about goals and priorities involving federal and provincial agencies that play a role in supporting international research partnerships. While awareness of the importance of international research collaboration has long been present in policy discourse, inconsistencies in the mechanisms supporting internationalization activities remain. Unsurprisingly, there have long been calls for greater policy coordination in this field. Nevertheless, scattered responsibilities and mandates across departments, research funding bodies, and ministerial units have persisted. In federal systems where the relevant inter-jurisdictional responsibilities are divided between levels of government, coordinating bodies are often employed. This issue has been recognized in a recent comprehensive review of Canada’s federal support for research (cfsr 2017). Following the recommendations of this review, the federal government created the Canada Research Coordinating Committee to bring greater harmonization to policies and procedures across federal funding agencies. Its mandate includes strengthening “Canada’s capacity to engage in a rapidly evolving global research landscape” (Canada. isedc 2017b, n.p.). While this signals potential changes ahead, the main approach of the federal government so far has been to sign bilateral agreements with national governments that include science exchanges. International research partnerships in Canada continue to rely on the bottom-up initiative of individual researchers to create linkages with colleagues overseas and cobble together sources of funding for research projects. This mismatch between the federal initiatives and developments in universities regarding international collaborations has


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

served as a significant limitation to Canadian research capacity. Only recently have a few programs emerged that are dedicated to building international research collaborations with significant funding attached (e.g., the sshrc Partnership Development Grant). Facilitating international research co-operation requires more vigorous policy coordination in Canada’s multi-level governance context. This context is characterized by the participation of agencies in several policy sectors (e.g., finance, trade, foreign relations, immigration, education) as well as different stakeholder groups (e.g., federal and provincial governments, universities, industry, funding agencies). Policy sectors such as immigration, ie, and foreign trade have heightened the saliency of internationalization activities in research. Policy in each of these sectors builds upon the rationales and ideas of the others. However, there is no clear evidence of a consistent effort toward federal-provincial dialogue in this area. Among our interviewees, there was a consensus, even among those who saw some progress on this front, that research policy should become more adaptable to the needs of individual researchers and universities that engage in international partnerships. To achieve this, political commitment for the process has to be secured. What can Canada, as a country, achieve through international partnerships? How can the myriad individual initiatives of researchers and universities across the country be better supported and harnessed? With the mandate to support international collaboration, the new Canada Research Coordinating Committee might be just what the country needs to start addressing these questions.

notes This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (sshrc). 1 The following stakeholder groups were interviewed: vice-presidents’ research from the post-secondary education sector in Ontario (ten); federallevel policy-makers (Industry Canada) (five); provincial-level policy-makers across several units (nine): Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure (five); Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (three); and cabinet office/intergovernmental affairs (one); experts from the national granting councils (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Internationalization in Canadian Research


Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, and National Research Council) (five); international expert from the British High Commission (one); and stakeholders from the private sector: ibm (three), Parteq Innovations (one), and Cisco Systems Canada (one). 2 We use the term research policy as the broader concept encompassing policy goals, instruments, and initiatives applying to research across fields. Considering the relative importance of science and technology (s&t) fields specifically to debates about internationalization, we occasionally refer to s&t policy to discuss related developments that apply to the relevant disciplines. 3 Currently, there are four core policy documents that regulate Canada’s approaches to international research and innovation activities: The Global Markets Action Plan (Canada. fatdc 2013); Canada’s new s&t strategy Seizing Canada’s Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation (Canada. isedc 2014); Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014); and Canada’s Innovation and Skills Plan (Canada. isedc 2017a). These policy documents have been developed in accordance with the findings of the Jenkins Panel (2010) Innovation Canada: A Call to Action (Canada. Industry Canada 2010) that heavily criticized Canada’s inability to foster private-driven innovations.

references Canada. cihr (Canadian Institutes of Health Research). 2006. A Framework for International Relations and Cooperation. Ottawa: cihr. Canada. Committee on International Science and Technology. 1994. Report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology Committee on International Science and Technology: Presented to the Prime Minister of Canada. Ottawa: Committee on International Science and Technology. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2013. Global Markets Action Plan. Ottawa: Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. – 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf.


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

Canada. Industry Canada. 1996. Science and Technology for the New Century: A Federal Strategy. Ottawa: Industry Canada. – 2010. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Review of Federal Support to Research and Development – Expert Panel Report. Ottawa: Industry Canada. – Advisory Council on Science and Technology. 2000. Reaching Out: Canada, International Science and Technology, and the Knowledge-Based Economy. Ottawa: Industry Canada. /publication.html. Canada. isedc (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada). 2014. Seizing Canada’s Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation. Ottawa: isedc. _07472.html. – 2016. Building an Inclusive and Innovative Canada. News release, 14 June. – 2017a. Canada’s Innovation and Skills Plan. Ottawa: isedc. http://www.ic – 2017b. “Open Letter to Members of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee.” Ottawa: isedc. cfsr (Canada’s Fundamental Science Review). 2017. Investing in Canada’s Future. Strengthening the Foundations of Canadian Research. http://www De la Mothe, J., and G. Paquet. 1994. “Circumstantial Evidence: A Note on Science Policy in Canada.” Science and Public Policy 21 (4): 261–8. Doern, G.B., D. Castle, and P.W. Phillips. 2016. Canadian Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy: The Innovation Economy and Society Nexus. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Doern, G.B., and C. Stoney. 2009. “Federal Research and Innovation Policies and Canadian Universities: A Framework for Analysis.” In Research and Innovation Policy: Changing Federal-University Relations, edited by B.C. Doern and C. Stoney, 3–34. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Dufour, P. 2002. “Taking the (Right?) Fork in the Road: Canada’s Two-Track Approach to Domestic and International Science and Technology.” Science and Public Policy 29 (6): 419–29. Fisher, D., K. Rubenson, J. Bernatchez, R. Clift, G. Jones, J. Lee, M. MacIvor,

Internationalization in Canadian Research


J. Meredith, T. Shanahan, and C. Trottier. 2006. Canadian Federal Policy and Postsecondary Education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Faculty of Education, Centre for Policy Studies in Higher Education and Training. Genome Canada. 2016. “Genome Canada Applauds Federal Leadership in Genomics.” Press release, 22 March. Ghent, J.M. 1979. Canadian Government Participation in International Science and Technology: Background Study 44. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada. Jones, G.A., and A. Oleksiyenko. 2011. “The Internationalization of Canadian University Research: A Global Higher Education Matrix Analysis of Multi-Level Governance.” Higher Education 61 (1): 41–57. Lasthiotakis, H., K. Sigurdson, and C.M. Sá. 2013. “Pursuing Scientific Excellence Globally: Internationalising Research as a Policy Target.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (6): 612–25. Leclerc, M., Y. Okubo, L. Frigoletto, and J.F. Miquel. 1992. “Scientific Cooperation Between Canada and the European Community.” Science and Public Policy 19 (1): 15–24. nserc (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada). 2007. Making Research and Innovation Work to Canada’s Advantage. Statement to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance by cihr, nserc, and sshrc. /Reports-Rapports/Making_Research_And_Innovation_Work_eng.asp. Porter, M.E., and Monitor Company. 1991. Canada at the Crossroads: The Reality of a New Competitive Environment. A study prepared for the Business Council on National Issues and the Government of Canada. Ottawa: Business Council on National Issues. .pdf. Sá, C.M., A. Kretz, and K. Sigurdson. 2013. “Accountability, Performance Assessment, and Evaluation: Policy Pressures and Responses from Research Councils.” Research Evaluation 22 (2): 105–17. Science Council of Canada. 1968. Towards a National Science Policy for Canada: Report No. 4. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.


Merli Tamtik and Creso Sá

– 1973. Canada, Science and International Affairs: April 1973, Report No. 20. Ottawa: Information Canada. – 1982. Planning Now for Information Society: Tomorrow is Too Late. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. – 1991. Reaching for Tomorrow: Science and Technology Policy in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. sshrc (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). 2005. International Policy and Strategy. Ottawa. Tamtik, M. 2016. “Policy Coordination Challenges in Governments’ Innovation Policy: The Case of Ontario, Canada.” Science and Public Policy 44 (3): 417–27.

The Backstory


Internationalization Policy: Provincial and Territorial



On the House

5 International Education as a Strategic Investment in Developing a KnowledgeReady Workforce in Alberta Jing Xiao

introduction With the increasing influence of neo-liberal globalization, international education (ie) has become a key pillar in Canadian federal and provincial public policy to advance international competitiveness. Alberta has been recognized as one of the first provinces in Canada to develop comprehensive strategies and initiatives for ie. As of 2004, post-secondary education (pse) in Alberta came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Advanced Education, which is responsible for overseeing programs, services, and policies in post-secondary institutions, community learning, apprenticeships, and industry training, as well as ie. The ministry has been focusing on ie as a policy task since 2001 (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). The central piece of Alberta’s ie policy is to invest in developing a knowledge-ready workforce (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2005), with the goal of strengthening the province’s economy. This chapter examines Alberta’s key post-secondary educational policies and frameworks that focus on enhancing ie in the province. The chapter explores the strong linkage between the government’s economic plan (Alberta. Government of Alberta 2004a, 2004b) and its ie strategy (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). The policy analysis in this chapter is guided by the central questions proposed in this book: (1) how ie emerged as a policy task in Alberta; (2) how ie policies have impacted federal-provincial relations; and (3) how the policies


Jing Xiao

have reshaped the purposes, functions, and roles of post-secondary institutions in Alberta. There are five sections in this chapter. The first section begins with an overview of the context of pse in Alberta. The second section explores the development of internationalization policy in the postsecondary sector in Alberta as it has emerged from this particular economic and political context. The third section identifies the alignment and gaps between the federal and provincial levels of strategic directions within the Alberta context. The content in the fourth section examines the influence of provincial policy on the institutional functions and roles using two publicly funded universities within the province as examples. Finally, the chapter concludes by discussing the social and economic implications of Alberta’s approach to the internationalization of pse in order to meet the labour market demand of a knowledge-based economy.

the context of post-secondary education in alberta The development of the pse system in Alberta has been heavily shaped by its economic priorities. Alberta’s economy has traditionally relied on service industries and natural resource extraction (Stamp 2009). The petroleum and natural gas industries are the primary sources of income in the Alberta economy. A rapid increase in the price of oil in the late 1970s drove the provincial economy to unprecedented growth. Between the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, high oil and natural gas prices further pushed the growth of the Alberta economy (Stamp 2009). With the economic boom stemming from the natural resource industry, rapid growth demanded an educated workforce in the oil and gas industry. The formal pse system in Alberta started when the University of Alberta was founded in 1908 (Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials 2018). Over time, the increasing demand for university education led to the establishment of branch campuses of the University of Alberta in Calgary and Lethbridge. In 1966 and 1967, the University of Calgary and the University of Lethbridge became autonomous universities (University of Calgary 2018; University of Lethbridge 2018). Athabasca University was founded in 1970 to provide distance education with an open university model. With the increasing demand for bachelor degree–granting institutions, Mount

International Education in Alberta


Royal University and MacEwan University became Alberta’s fifth and sixth universities in 2009 (MacEwan University n.d.). With the oil boom in the 1970s, the provincial government supported technical and vocational training with heavy investment in the Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry Training (Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials 2018). The Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in Edmonton and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary were created to offer apprenticeship, technical, and vocational training programs. In addition to the vocational training institutes, there are also public community colleges in Alberta such as Red Deer College and NorQuest College that offer a range of programs in adult and continuing education. There are currently twentysix publicly funded post-secondary institutions in Alberta that receive funding from Advanced Education and are governed by the Province of Alberta’s Post-secondary Learning Act. All the aforementioned post-secondary institutions in Alberta have made ie an institutional strategic priority, with the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary being the leading institutions in recruiting international students and fostering international research partnerships. The universities and colleges in Alberta have recognized internationalization as an important priority by integrating international dimensions into institutional vision, mission, and strategic planning. For example, the University of Alberta’s 2018 comprehensive institutional strategy recognized that the strength of the provincial economy not only relies on diversity in industry, but also on creating an exceptional educational environment that will attract highly skilled talent internationally. The institutional strategy further identified fostering international research partnerships and encouraging education abroad as the university’s priorities for internationalization from 2018 to 2022 (University of Alberta, 2018). In Alberta, three foundational policy documents guide the postsecondary system and set out priority directions: Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework published in 2002; Province of Alberta’s Post-secondary Learning Act released in 2003; and the Roles and Mandates Policy Framework for Alberta’s Publicly Funded Advanced Education System launched in 2007. Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework outlined four key directions underlying the Campus Alberta approach to pse: (a) transition to a knowledge economy, by training and retaining highly skilled workers; (b) globalization, by preparing the learning system and learners for the growth of the international market; (c) full use of


Jing Xiao

potential and existing workforces, by meeting the needs for new knowledge and skill acquisition; and (d) societal understanding that supports democracy, personal growth, and individual life objectives (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2002). In the Roles and Mandates Policy Framework, ie was clearly defined as one of the priority directions for strengthening a post-secondary system that supports the development of the provincial economy. The policy framework specifically proposed developing a provincial strategy that would attract international students to study in Alberta and remain in the province by maximizing their employment opportunities (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2007). The priority directions proposed by the Campus Alberta and the roles and mandates policy frameworks revealed the Alberta government’s efforts to provide a comprehensive post-secondary educational system that serves the diverse needs of the provincial economy. The strategic focus on ie also set the stage for developing a provincial strategy and action plan of systematic internationalization for the attraction and retention of international students. With this policy support, international student enrolment in Alberta more than doubled in the ten years from 2005 to 2015. In the 2015–16 academic year, a total of 18,839 international students were enrolled in post-secondary institutions in Alberta. In 2013–14, more than 6 percent of graduates of Alberta post-secondary institutions participated in various forms of study abroad programs (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2016). The next section further explores how ie emerged as a policy priority within the Alberta context.

emergence of provincial international education policy Alberta has a long history of involvement in ie and is one of the first provinces that started to address its economic priorities through ie efforts. Since 2001, the Alberta government has developed a series of policies with growing focus on ie at the post-secondary level. This section explores the economic and political context that led to this policy development. Three groups of policies leading to an Alberta approach to ie are discussed: provincial economic strategic plans that address social and provincial priorities; pse policies that guide the development and coordination of cross-sectoral efforts; and ie strate-

International Education in Alberta


gies and policy frameworks that were developed by Alberta Advanced Education over the last ten years. Provincial Economic Priorities and Strategic Directions The work of the Alberta provincial government is guided by a series of strategic plans and policies. In 2004, the government launched a strategic policy framework that outlined a vision for the provincial economy, and its long-term, medium-term, and short-term plans. The vision called for innovation, research, and development of new ideas that create wealth at home and abroad (Alberta. Government of Alberta 2004a). Alberta’s strategic plan for its next twenty years of economic development was captured in a document titled Today’s Opportunities, Tomorrow’s Promise: A Strategic Plan for the Government of Alberta. This economic strategic plan recognized the contribution of natural resources to ensuring the province’s economic success, but it also called for the strategic direction of diversifying the economy (Alberta. Government of Alberta 2004b). This long-term strategic plan identified four key pillars and suggested specific strategies to realize them. These four pillars were: unleashing innovation to create infrastructure that enhances traditional economic strengths and generates new economic opportunities; leading in learning by investing in the provincial learning system and supporting “accessibility, quality, and affordability” in the education system (Alberta. Government of Alberta 2004b, 13); competing in a global market by ensuring reliable export markets; and making Alberta the best place to live, work, and visit by improving services. This strategic plan emphasized that Alberta, in the next twenty years, will require a well-educated and welltrained workforce to keep strengthening the economy. It also stressed that investing in the educational system will position Alberta more competitively in a global market. Responding to the provincial long-term strategic plan Today’s Opportunities, Tomorrow’s Promise, a cross-sectoral policy structure to support the development of a skilled workforce emerged in Alberta soon after the implementation of the 2004 economic plan. For example, the Ministry of Human Resources and Employment launched Building and Educating Tomorrow’s Workforce: Alberta’s 10 Year Strategy in 2006. In this strategic plan, the ministry defined the policy mandate of attracting, developing, and retaining international immigrants


Jing Xiao

as a potential source for Alberta’s educated workforce (Alberta. Alberta Human Resources and Employment 2006). The Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations launched Alberta’s International Strategy in 2010 and 2013. Focusing on building international markets to strengthen the provincial economy, these economic international strategies identified the challenges to the provincial labour supply and the constraints to responding to versatile global markets. Therefore, the strategies proposed taking action to support the economy in a competitive global market through developing Alberta’s ie and attracting international students and new immigrants (Alberta. Government of Alberta 2010, 2013). The different economic and societal priorities outlined by various policy actors demonstrated a focus on strengthening the provincial economy and improving the life quality of Albertans through investing in the internationalization of pse. The priorities and objectives proposed by these provincial policies called for a post-secondary system that was more responsive to the global economy and prioritized ie in order to develop an educated workforce. Post-Secondary Policy Context within the Provincial Government The current Ministry of Advanced Education has three divisions: Advanced Learning and Community Partnership, Apprenticeship and Student Aid, and Strategic and Corporate Services (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2018). Housed within the external relations sector in the Advanced Learning and Community Partnership Division, the International Education and Intergovernmental Coordination Branch is responsible for providing strategic oversight on ie, intergovernmental relations, and stakeholder engagement. This branch has been instrumental in developing ie policy in Alberta (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2018). Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework described Campus Alberta as an initiative whose principles reinforce that “the learning system works together to deliver seamless learning opportunities for Albertans” (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2002, 1). Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework emphasized the importance of the post-secondary educational system in the transition to a knowledge economy and the full use of potential and existing workforces. Since 2008, the annual Campus Alberta Planning Resource has become an important profile of

International Education in Alberta


Alberta’s pse system. ie has been included annually as a significant component of the planning resource by presenting data on the demographics of international students in Alberta, their enrolment, and their employment status, as well as statistics on Albertan students studying abroad. The most recent issue of the planning resource indicates that international graduate students are significantly contributing to Alberta’s economy through research output and research commercialization (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2016). Following the launch of Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework in 2002, a comprehensive review of Alberta’s advanced education system was initiated in 2005 to shape the policy development of Alberta’s pse. This review process was referred to as A Learning Alberta. The Steering Committee of the policy review produced a report and made some recommendations to position Alberta in a global economy and society. The report recommended that the province develop and implement a comprehensive ie strategy in order to facilitate the integration of new immigrants into Alberta’s economy. This should include recognizing international credentials and legitimizing new immigrants’ prior learning experiences, and developing strategies to attract and retain international researchers to strengthen the knowledge base of the provincial economy (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2006). In 2007, Alberta Advanced Education released the Roles and Mandates Policy Framework for Alberta’s Publicly Funded Advanced Education System. The policy framework recognized that “an educated society is key to securing both economic prosperity and social well-being” (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2007, 2). The policy framework identified ie as a priority direction and developed detailed mandates for institutions to support the development of ie. The policy framework outlined several priorities in developing ie: developing a provincial strategy to attract and retain international learners, developing research and education networks to support economic opportunities, maximizing employment opportunities for international learners to attract them to remain in the province, responding to the learning needs of a growing immigrant population, and encouraging post-secondary institutions to deliver programs that are intended to adapt foreign credentials (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2007). The priority directions and mandates outlined in this policy framework led to the development of a comprehensive ie framework in Alberta.


Jing Xiao

International Education Policies and Strategies As a commitment to internationalize its K–12 and post-secondary educational systems, Alberta Learning launched Alberta’s International Education Strategy in 2001. The strategy outlined a vision for ie. It provided directions for stakeholders in both public and private sectors in the province to work collaboratively to ensure that Albertans are well-prepared in a competitive global economy (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). The international strategy aimed for Alberta to be “internationally recognized as a leading provider of education, skill development and industry training, and Albertans will be well-prepared for their role in the global marketplace and as global citizens” (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001, 3). The international strategy acknowledged the essential links between global awareness, economic competitiveness, and building a strong workforce. The ie strategy proposed six objectives to promote the internationalization of education in Alberta: (a) ensuring Albertans will have opportunities to develop global awareness and global competencies; (b) increasing the number of international students who choose to study in Alberta; (c) enhancing Alberta’s competitiveness in providing educational programs and services in the global market; (d) facilitating international mobility of knowledge and skills; (e) facilitating training programs and services that will enhance Alberta’s international investment and trade; and (f) providing ie leadership through a cross-sectoral network (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). It is evident that these objectives started to link international student recruitment with the mobility of knowledge and skills in the global market. Alberta’s International Education Strategy of 2001 listed specific activities that support the six above-mentioned objectives. These activities focused on enhancing cultural understanding, developing exchange programs, and assisting international students through credential recognition and accreditation (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). The same ie strategy document provided an important framework for the Alberta government and other stakeholders to work together toward internationalization. It also served as a stepping stone for developing two other international policy documents in 2005 and 2009. With the launch of Alberta’s economic strategic plan in 2004, the Alberta government initiated a review of Alberta’s International Education Strategy of 2001 in order to develop an updated plan intended to serve the province’s long-term vision for ie. In 2005, the govern-

International Education in Alberta


ment released International Education: An Action Plan for the Future. The plan presented a framework to “position the international education sector competitively, facilitate the internationalization of the province’s education system, and support and strengthen the 2001 International Education Strategy” (Savage 2009, 128). Responding to the province’s 2004 economic strategic plan, the ie action plan identified a series of objectives focusing on developing international and intercultural competencies, meeting international students’ training needs, supplying ie products and services, and strengthening a provincial, national, and international network of coordinated international strategy (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2005). This action plan demonstrates the Alberta government’s commitment to further developing its internationalization strategy. It also indicates that the Alberta government believes that ie can play a vital role in supporting provincial economic growth. It can help achieve the long-term societal vision of building a vibrant and prosperous province and improving the quality of life for Albertans. While both the 2001 Alberta’s International Education Strategy and the 2005 International Education Action Plan focused on education across the K–12 and pse sectors, the 2009 International Education Framework outlined a dedicated internationalization strategy for Alberta’s post-secondary system. This policy framework recognized the importance of ie as a “key building block in advancing Alberta’s position in the global market and in achieving a knowledge-driven future” (Alberta. Advanced Education and Technology 2009, 2). Besides reiterating the vision of Alberta as a global leader in learning, innovation, and entrepreneurialism, the International Education Framework proposed that the internationalization of Alberta pse should be strategic, integrated, effective, mutually beneficial, high quality, and sustainable (Alberta. Advanced Education and Technology 2009). The framework stated the primary expected outcomes of internationalization in Alberta. These included a knowledge-driven future that supports economic diversification and growth; global strategic alliances that address Alberta’s long-term economic and social priorities; status as a well-recognized international leader in learning, research, and innovation; sustainable opportunities for learners that are supported through post-secondary research and innovation systems; and global awareness, leadership, and entrepreneurial capacity (Alberta. Advanced Education and Technology 2009). This International Education Framework was the first provincial policy ever to align


Jing Xiao

the internalization agenda with the Campus Alberta initiative. This policy framework developed specific strategic tool kits for institutions within the Campus Alberta network to work collaboratively and ensure the alignment of the individual institutional internationalization plans and the provincial plan. The 2009 International Education Framework was a milestone that marked the establishment of a coordinated ie strategy guiding post-secondary institutions in Alberta. With the above three key ie policies as the significant building blocks of Alberta’s internationalization strategy development process, some recent policy documents have focused more specifically on regulations and requirements for a provincial network, recruiting and retaining international students and new immigrants as learners. These policy documents have included the Alberta Designation Requirements (adr) for Becoming a Designated Institution for Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada’s International Student Program (2017) and the Alberta Opportunity Stream: List of Alberta Advanced Education Approved Post-Secondary Credentials for Post-Graduate Work Permit Holders (2018). These new regulations were developed to attract and retain more international graduate students in the province. Alberta’s ie policy development (see an overview of the policies in table 5.1) is closely tied to the provision of labour market training to diversify and grow the provincial economy. This reflects an economic-utilitarian objective (Kirby 2007) of the pse system in the province. The policy documents discussed above have clearly demonstrated the rationale of using pse, and ie in particular, as a critical means to respond to the needs of the labour market in a global economy. The Alberta government pushed this agenda by restructuring resource allocation and guiding post-secondary institutions to be more responsive to the demands of the market and industry (Barnetson and Boberg 2000). Further, Alberta’s educational policies since the 1990s have reflected government’s intention of investing in pse to support economic growth by encouraging institutions to transfer their research in new knowledge and technology to the private sector (Barnetson and Boberg 2000). For example, the International Education Framework recognized the significance of research and innovation for fuelling the provincial economy and the importance of developing a knowledgedriven economy through securing highly skilled talent (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2009). Alberta’s ie policies since the early 2000s have taken a strategic approach to ie by prioritizing


Alberta Learning Alberta Learning Alberta Advanced Education and Technology Government of Alberta Government of Alberta Alberta Advanced Education Alberta Advanced Education Alberta Human Resources and Employment Alberta Advanced Education Alberta Advanced Education and Technology Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations Alberta International and Intergovernmental Relations Alberta Advanced Education Government of Alberta


2001 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2008–16 2009 2010 2013 2017 2018

Table 5.1 Overview of provincial post-secondary and ie policies

Alberta Opportunity Stream

Alberta Designation Requirements

Alberta’s International Strategy: Building Markets

Alberta’s International Strategy: Global Advocacy for Alberta

International Education Framework

Campus Alberta Planning Resource (Annual Profiling of Alberta’s Post-Secondary Education)

Building and Educating Tomorrow’s Workforce: Alberta’s 10 Year Strategy

A Learning Alberta

International Education: An Action Plan for the Future

Today’s Opportunities, Tomorrow’s Promise: A Strategic Plan for The Government of Alberta

Province of Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act

Roles and Mandates: Policy Framework for Alberta’s Publicly Funded Advanced Education System

Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework

Alberta’s International Education Strategy

Name of document

International Education in Alberta 123


Jing Xiao

the development of a pse system that is responsive to the changing demands of the provincial economy in a globalized market.

impact on federal-provincial relations In Canada, pse falls in the jurisdiction of individual provincial and territorial governments. The federal government has no direct authority in coordinating pse (Shanahan and Jones 2007). However, the federal government plays an important role in supporting pse through research funding and other forms of resource allocation. Therefore, the commitment of both levels of government and the coordination and consistency between two levels of policies have direct implications for policy development (Kirby 2007). In terms of developing ie, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (fatdc) holds the primary responsibility at the federal level for making relevant policies. As Jones and Oleksiyenko (2011) noted, up to the 2000s, there was not much coordination of international programs across different federal agencies, and the policies and practices of internationalization at the federal level were inconsistent. In 2007, the Canadian federal government started coordinating international initiatives by using the federal budget as a lever to push for enhancing international research and partnerships (Jones and Oleksiyenko 2011). In 2014, fatdc released Canada’s first ever International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. This strategy was the federal government’s response to the call for a coordinated internationalization strategy across different provinces and territories. The ie strategy set targets to attract more international students to Canada (aiming to double the number of international students by 2022); focused on priority education markets such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East, and Vietnam; committed to branding Canada as a high-quality destination for ie; strengthened research partnerships between Canadian and foreign institutions; and supported activities and leveraged resources to maximize the results of internationalization through initiatives such as a pan-Canadian partnership with provinces/territories and all key education stakeholders (Canada. fatdc 2014). An analysis of the federal and provincial ie policies reveals some alignment between the two levels of government. Alignment can be

International Education in Alberta


found in areas such as international student recruitment and retention, strengthening ie partnerships and exchanges, and developing global awareness and engagement. For example, the 2014 federal ie strategy stressed the importance of attracting international students. It set targets to work with provinces and territories to double the size of the international student base to 450,000 by 2022 (Canada. fatdc 2014). The federal effort to increase the number of international students has focused on the economic opportunities brought by international students’ expenditure in Canada, which brings new jobs and economic growth. Similarly, Alberta’s International Education Framework stressed the importance of attracting international students, faculty, and researchers, but focused on efforts to retain them to meet the provincial need for highly skilled workers (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2009). Another area of alignment between the federal and provincial levels of ie policies is the priority direction of strengthening strategic international partnerships. Both the federal and Alberta provincial internationalization policies have prioritized engaging in strategic partnerships through research networks and collaborations with postsecondary institutions in other countries. At the federal level, the 2014 ie strategy focused its international partnerships in the areas of student and faculty mobility, joint research and curriculum development, joint course delivery, and joint academic and skills development programs (Canada. fatdc 2014). Alberta’s vision for global strategic partnerships focused on addressing the province’s economic and social priorities through collaborative research initiatives, student and faculty exchanges, joint degree programs, and collaborative and targeted student and researcher recruitment (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2009). Finally, both federal and provincial ie strategies have provided rationales for the development of global awareness, leadership, and engagement. The federal policy proposed a branding campaign and priority marketing plan to strengthen Canada’s engagement with the world. It also identified key stakeholders in the ie sector for a strategic alliance in branding Canada’s ie (Canada. fatdc 2014). At the provincial level, Alberta policy has focused on building learners’ cultural awareness, competencies, skills, and understanding in a globalized world. These capacities are to be achieved through student and faculty exchanges, joint degree programs, and leadership development (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2009).


Jing Xiao

While policy coherence can be found in the federal-provincial coordination in the Alberta context, it is important to note that there are also areas of divergence between the federal and provincial visions and strategies for ie. International student recruitment and retention is one of the areas where tensions have arisen in the federal-provincial relationship, particularly between the provincial ie policy and federal immigration policy. McBride, Humphries, and Knight-Grofe (2015) suggested that Canada’s immigration policy has had a profound impact on ie. While Alberta has strived to attract more international students to study and remain in the province to complement its skilled workforce, federal-level policies and regulations for student visa approval and immigration have not always aligned with the provincial and institutional demand. For example, while the federal government has been highly supportive of the retention of international students, the stringent and constantly changing student visa and immigration rules have made it challenging for international students to stay (Chiose 2015; Harris 2017). The 2001 Alberta’s International Education Strategy specifically recognized that there is a global competition for international students, which means jurisdictions need mechanisms to ensure market share in attracting international students (Alberta. Alberta Learning 2001). Alberta has the fourth highest number of international students among Canadian provinces, after Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2016). It is evident that competition for international students does not just happen globally, it also takes place between provinces in Canada. The Campus Alberta Planning Resource has indicated that competition for international students among Canadian provinces is increasing, which requires greater alignment between national and provincial ie strategies (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education 2016). In the 2001 Alberta’s International Education Strategy, the Alberta government expressed a willingness to work with the federal government on issues arising from federal immigration policy regarding international student recruitment. The 2009 International Education Framework also acknowledged the importance of ensuring mechanisms for attracting and retaining international learners by offering immigration and visa application services with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (cic). Recently, the province modified its Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program to initiate the Alberta Express Entry Stream and include more institutions and programs in the province that are qualified for this

International Education in Alberta


program (Katem 2018). This is a significant effort by the Alberta government to attract global talent while seeking policy support and alignment with federal level policies. The launch of Canada’s ie strategy in 2014 was an example of a systematic and strategic approach to ie. It demonstrated federal-level commitment to a strategic branding of Canadian education to achieve a leading position on the world stage. However, more efforts need to be made to encourage transparent alignment of policies, key stakeholders, and interests within a competitive international context.

impact of internationalization on institutional functions McBride, Humphries, and Knight-Grofe (2015) have contended that, in accordance with the federal and provincial development of ie policy, internationalization has become a pressing priority for institutions across Canada. Responding to the provincial visioning of ie, a majority of post-secondary institutions in Alberta have developed internationalization strategies. With provincial policy support for international student mobility and exchange, post-secondary institutions in Alberta have moved toward recruiting more international students, facilitating international partnerships, and prioritizing international teaching and learning. This section uses the example of two comprehensive research universities in Alberta – the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary – to explore the implications of provincial internationalization policy on functions and coordination at the institutional level. These two universities were chosen as they are the leading post-secondary institutions in the province in terms of their strategic focus on internationalization, international student recruitment, and development of international research partnerships. The number of international students in Alberta post-secondary institutions had a 40 percent increase in the five years between 2011 and 2016 (Graney 2016). The University of Alberta and the University of Calgary acknowledged and responded to the provincial policies soon after the launch of Alberta’s International Education Strategy and International Education Framework. Both institutions responded to the provincial ie strategy by integrating the provincial priorities and objectives into their institutional visions, missions, and strategic plans. The University of Alberta started developing its institutional international strategy in 2007, with the release of its International


Jing Xiao

Plan 2007–11 and 2011–15. The University of Alberta had an enrolment of 7,864 international undergraduate and graduate students in the 2016–17 academic year (University of Alberta 2018). The priority for the university’s internationalization strategy is to form international collaborations that create exceptional learning and discovery opportunities, and advance its vision to be one of the world’s top universities. Since 2014, the university has integrated its internationalization strategy into its annual Comprehensive Institutional Plan. The university’s internationalization strategy has prioritized engaging in education abroad, institutional partnerships, international research collaboration, and global citizenship programs (University of Alberta 2018). The University of Calgary attracted over 3,400 international students in 2016 (University of Calgary 2018). Its 2013 international strategy stated that the university strived to become a global intellectual hub, and the university’s internationalization strategy has aimed at fostering diversity, cross-cultural competencies, international partnerships, and international development (University of Calgary 2013). The University of Calgary’s Comprehensive Institutional Plan (2017) highlighted the position of Calgary as a global energy and business centre and called for an internationalization strategy that supports training graduates who are competitive in a global marketplace. ie policy development at the provincial level has had a profound impact on different aspects of post-secondary institutions in Alberta. It has reshaped and redefined institutional functions, including program delivery, organizational structure, student population, teaching and learning, and the integration of an international dimension into institutional missions, visions, and comprehensive institutional plans. Thus, another area that has reflected institutional response to ie policies is organizational change in strengthening and expanding international offices in universities. The University of Alberta International has a mission to provide “services and programs that build an international dimension to research, teaching, and community service at the University of Alberta” (University of Alberta 2018, n.p.). A scan of the University of Alberta International’s organizational structure online highlighted its work in the following areas: international relations, capacity-building, education abroad, global education, international student recruitment at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, international student ser-

International Education in Alberta


vices, the sponsored student program, visiting student programs, and research partnerships. The University of Calgary International manages activities related to international partnerships, international development, services for faculty and staff, and study abroad programs. Clearly, some of these functions and activities used to be managed by academic departments. For example, visiting students, research partnerships, and faculty and staff funding in international engagement have been moved to a centralized international office service model. In addition, a scan of online resources found that many faculties in the two universities have created positions of associate deans international to manage the proliferation of activities and initiatives related to internationalization. Lastly, institutional initiatives responding to provincial ie policy can be found in credential bridging programs for internationally educated professionals. The Roles and Mandates Policy Framework (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2007) encouraged postsecondary institutions to offer supports and design programs to adapt foreign credentials. Responding to this request, the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta initiated a bridging program for internationally educated teachers in 2013, and the University of Calgary initiated an accreditation program for internationally trained teachers. Both programs are intended to support the accreditation and credentialing of internationally educated teachers and prepare them for a provincial educational system with an increasingly diverse immigrant population. While the provincial internationalization policy outlines key considerations for institutions to act on systematic alignment and coordination between the provincial vision and institutional practices (Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education and Technology 2009), there are still gaps between provincial guidelines and institutional reality in internationalization. Internationalization activities in post-secondary institutions within the past decade have furthered the faster and broader development of an internationalization agenda at the institutional level. This will likely affect provincial-institutional relationships and inform provincial polices in various areas. For example, there is a need for more consistent provincial-institutional coordination on building and maintaining sustainable international partnerships, developing initiatives and programs to support international students’ well-being, developing curriculum for intercultural compe-


Jing Xiao

tence, and ensuring opportunities for domestic students to participate in international mobility.

conclusion A review of Alberta’s ie policies demonstrates that internationalization emerged in Alberta as a provincial effort to address the demand for a globalized economy. The government has made a significant effort to develop a coherent approach to ie as an integral part of its provincial higher education system. Compared to other provinces in Canada, Alberta has developed an integrated strategy of ie using a policy lens rather than an operational lens. This policy-oriented approach is idiosyncratic to the Alberta context with the goal of preparing Albertans for a knowledge economy that extends beyond the borders of the province. It is closely tied to the purpose of attracting and training a skilled workforce to strengthen the diversification and growth of the Alberta economy. The policy development process has shown neo-liberalism’s strong influence. It has included a market-oriented approach to ie in order to diversify the provincial economy and develop Alberta for a knowledge-driven future. This dominant influence of economic neo-liberalism has pushed Alberta’s ie policies toward marketization and strong links with business and industry. In particular, in its pse policy, Alberta has used ie as a strategic investment in developing a knowledge-ready workforce. The analysis of Alberta’s policies reveals this rationale, which can be traced to two key elements in the provincial agenda for ie: pse as labour market training and as a source of transferring knowledge and technology to the industry (achieved through resource allocation). Andrews, Holdaway, and Mowat (1997) believed that higher education should do more than just contribute a trained workforce to the provincial economy. They noted that Alberta’s pse should benefit society through being truly responsive and comprehensive, rather than merely through the quantifiable production of a workforce. ie should not be reduced to a means of privatization, marketization, and revenue generation. For example, both federal and provincial internationalization strategies have recognized the importance of international student recruitment for pse, but these ie strategies and plans have tended to focus on economic benefits instead of international

International Education in Alberta


students’ social and cultural contributions. Maybe it is time for Alberta to look beyond the provincial economy. The future direction of ie policy should focus on maintaining the balance between the “dual objectives of academic-humanism and economic-utilitarianism” (Kirby 2007, 18). Looking forward, there are a few considerations for future research on ie policy development in the Alberta context. Future study could focus on policy development that facilitates alignment and coherence of key objectives, interests, and coordination among stakeholders in internationalization across the federal, provincial, and institutional levels. The increasing number of international students has posed challenges for international student services and called for approaches to teaching and learning that will adapt to student diversity. ie policy development could use more research on how to provide support and services for international students. Building strategic international partnerships has also always been a challenging area for postsecondary institutions. In particular, it is difficult to develop sustainable and reciprocal international partnerships with a long-term strategy in mind. Future policy could consider providing support for building reciprocal, sustainable, and socially accountable international partnerships. Alberta’s ie strategy seems to focus strongly on incoming student mobility, but less on outgoing opportunities. Developing study abroad programs will enhance the outbound flow of students and is an important approach to building international and intercultural understanding. Finally, it is crucial to track the outcomes of ie strategies. An assessment of their implementation, the achievement of objectives, and quality assurance mechanisms could inform the development of future policies and practices. It has been more than ten years since Alberta launched its International Education Framework. There have been profound changes that have transformed the landscape of internationalization over the past decade. The post-secondary institutions in the province are facing challenges brought by new social and political development within and beyond Canada (for example, a wave of international students brought by the unstable politics in the United States). It is time to review the strategic alignment of the province’s internationalization policy and move toward a more holistic approach that is responsive to an increasingly culturally diverse Alberta.


Jing Xiao

references Alberta. Alberta Advanced Education. 2005. International Education: An Action Plan for the Future. Edmonton: Alberta Advanced Education. – 2006. A Learning Alberta: Final Report of the Steering Committee. Edmonton: Alberta Advanced Education. /0778547728. – 2007. Roles and Mandates Policy Framework for Alberta’s Publicly Funded Advanced Education System. Edmonton: Alberta Advanced Education. – 2016. Campus Alberta Planning Resource. Edmonton: Alberta Advanced Education. – 2018. “Post-Secondary System.” Edmonton: Alberta Advanced Education. Alberta. Advanced Education and Technology. 2007. Roles and Mandates Policy Framework for Alberta’s Adult Learning System. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Technology. /download/roles-and-mandates-policy-framework-for-albertas-adultlearning-system.pdf. – 2009. International Education Framework. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Technology. Alberta. Alberta Human Resources and Employment. 2006. Building and Educating Tomorrow’s Workforce: Alberta’s 10 Year Strategy. Edmonton: Alberta Human Resources and Employment. /documents/betw-strategy.pdf. Alberta. Alberta Learning. 2001. Alberta’s International Education Strategy. Edmonton: Alberta Learning. /albertas-international-education-strategy-july-2001.pdf. – 2002. Campus Alberta: A Policy Framework. Edmonton: Alberta Learning. Alberta. Government of Alberta. 2003. Province of Alberta Post-Secondary Learning Act. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. http://www.qp.alberta .ca/574.cfm?page=p19p5.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779737932. – 2004a. Securing Tomorrow’s Prosperity. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. – 2004b. Today’s Opportunity, Tomorrow’s Promise. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

International Education in Alberta


bcae8e9187f0/resource/04a761e5-4111-4637-9934-ddac4eeaa9b5/download /busplans-complete-2004.pdf. – 2010. Alberta’s International Strategy: Global Advocacy for Alberta. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. 78558798. – 2013. Alberta’s International Strategy: Building Markets. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. /download/6597763-2013-05-17-abinternationalstrategy2013.pdf. – 2018. Alberta Opportunity Stream: List of Alberta Advanced Education Approved Post-Secondary Credentials for Post-Graduate Work Permit Holders. Edmonton: Government of Alberta. /list-of-approved-post-secondary-credentials-for-post-graduation-workpermit-holders#summary. Andrews, M.B., E.A. Holdaway, and G.L. Mowat. 1997. “Post-Secondary Education in Alberta since 1945.” In Higher Education in Canada: Different Systems, Different Perspectives, edited by G.A. Jones, 59–92. New York: Routledge. Barnetson, B., and A. Boberg. 2000. “Resource Allocation and Public Policy in Alberta’s Postsecondary System.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 15 (2): 57–86. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy. Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf. Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials. 2018. “Postsecondary Education in Alberta.” _education_in_alberta.canada. Chiose, S. 2015. “New Immigrant Rules Risk Leaving International Students Behind.” Globe and Mail, 12 May. /news/national/new-immigration-rules-risk-leaving-international-studentsbehind/article22886693/. Graney, J. 2016. “International Students Rise 40 Per Cent in Five Years at Alberta’s Post-Secondary Schools.” Edmonton Journal, 5 September. Harris, K. 2017. “Foreign Students Flock to Canada as Government Struggles to Get Grads to Stay.” cbc, 3 September. /politics/international-students-jump-1.4268786. Jones, G.A., and A. Oleksiyenko. 2011. “The Internationalization of Canadi-


Jing Xiao

an University Research: A Global Higher Education Matrix Analysis of Multi-Level Governance.” Higher Education 61 (1): 41–57. Katem, E. 2018. “How Alberta’s Immigration Changes Affect International Students.” Canada Study News, 15 June. https://www.canadastudynews .com/2018/06/15/how-albertas-immigration-changes-affect-internationalstudents/. Kirby, D. 2007. “Reviewing Canadian Post-Secondary Education: PostSecondary Education Policy in Post-Industrial Canada.” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 65: 1–24. MacEwan University. n.d. “History.” Accessed 15 June 2018. https://www McBride, K., J. Humphries, and J. Knight-Grofe. 2015. “Canada.” In Internationalization of Higher Education, edited by H. de Wit, L. Howard, and E. Egron-Polak, 205–16. Brussels: European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education. Savage, C.A. 2009. “Provincial Internationalization Efforts: Programs, Policies and Plans in Manitoba and Alberta.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 119–33. Toronto: James Lorimer. Shanahan, T., and G.A. Jones. 2007. “Shifting Roles and Approaches: Government Coordination of Post-Secondary Education in Canada, 1995–2006.” Higher Education Research & Development 26 (1): 31–43. Stamp, R.M. 2009. “Alberta.” In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Last modified 22 November 2017. https://www.thecanadian University of Alberta. 2016. For the Public Good: Institutional Strategic Plan. Edmonton: University of Alberta. https://d1pbog36rugm0t.cloudfront .net/-/media/isp/final-doc/12885institutionalstrategicplan33final.pdf. – 2018. Comprehensive Institutional Plan. Edmonton: University of Alberta. University of Calgary. 2013. Becoming a Global Intellectual Hub: Highlights of the University of Calgary International Strategy. Calgary: University of Calgary. – 2017. Eyes High: Institutional Strategic Plan 2017–2012. Calgary: University of Calgary. – 2018. “Our History.” University of Lethbridge. 2018. “History of U of L.”

6 Framing the Public Good in the Future of British Columbia International Education Policy Sharon Stein

introduction Rizvi and Lingard (2010, xi) contend, “Educational policy always sits at the intersection of the past, present, and future, with the latter often expressed in policy texts as an imagined desired future.” In this chapter, I ask what kind of future is imagined and enabled by British Columbia’s international educational (ie) policy. In particular, I ask how the public good of education is (re)imagined in relation to the province’s growing ie industry. Today, education is the province’s third biggest export, following wood products and mineral products (Kunin and Associates 2017). I argue that the rise of ie as an export industry in British Columbia has depended on the partial transformation of education from a locally situated public social service to a globally available private commodity (Kwak 2013). This shift is framed in policies, such as British Columbia’s International Education Strategy, as broadly beneficial to the public (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012). However, as Rizvi and Lingard (2010, 6) have argued, education policies “often mask whose interests they actually represent.” In this chapter, I therefore engage in a critical transnational policy analysis in order to consider how the costs and benefits of British Columbia’s ie policy are actually distributed within and across local, national, and global populations. I ask how the province frames the “public good” in its ie policy, and question whose interests are actually served (or not) by the growth of ie. I argue that,


Sharon Stein

over the past several decades, British Columbia ie has operated within a broader provincial public policy paradigm shift away from equity and toward the expansion of private wealth.

critical transnational policy analysis Education policy can be both the product and driver of socioeconomic, political, and epistemic inequality at local and global scales, as well as a potential means of interrupting it. Critical transnational policy analysis seeks to avoid the common tendency to celebrate uncritically the global flows, mobilities, and encounters of contemporary ie. Instead, I attend to new and ongoing formations of social inequity across geographies. In particular, I situate British Columbia public policy in relation to the larger trend of neo-liberalization, which I frame as a political response to ensure capital accumulation despite slowing economic growth starting in the 1970s.

neo-liberalization and the international education industry In this chapter, I treat neo-liberalization not primarily as an ideological shift, but as a series of discursive and material responses to ensure continued capitalist profits despite the long-term global economic downturn after 1973 (Brenner 2009). Neo-liberal reforms have offered a means to perpetuate the continued accumulation of capital and power by wealthy classes, despite slowing growth rates in the global economy overall. According to Harvey (2005, 2), neoliberal rationales “propose that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.” If this is the case, then “the role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices” (Harvey, 2005, 2). Lowering taxes for corporations and high-income earners is one means of ensuring continued capital accumulation in times of slowing economic growth, but within neo-liberal discourse these reforms are framed as leading to larger public benefits. This discourse suggests that by “creating good business and investment environments for individuals and corporations,” (Kwak 2013, 1860), gov-

British Columbia International Education Policy


ernments will incentivize job creation, investments, and otherwise support local/national economic growth and stability. Apart from the fact that it is unclear that the public actually benefits from economic growth by way of lowered taxes, lowering taxes also results in declining revenues. Combined with the neo-liberal emphasis on the need for balanced budgets and minimizing public debt, this results in lessened public provisions. A primary strategy for balancing budgets without raising taxes while continuing to provide social services has been to replace or supplement public funding with private funding and/or to marketize or (partially) commodify previously non-commodified social services. The result is not so much a shrinking state, but a reformulation of the state’s role in relation to markets (Peck 2004). For instance, governments incentivize the adoption of market-like behaviours by public institutions, including schools. This results in redistributing wealth away from the public into private (already wealthy) hands (Harvey 2005). As a result, individual citizens take on more of the cost of their own social services, including education, even as it becomes more central to securing employment (Mahmud 2012; Williams 2016). I suggest that these shifts set the stage for shifts toward treating education as a globally available private commodity, as evidenced by the birth of the global ie industry in the 1980s. Today, this industry involves the circulation of tens of billions of dollars a year with Canada being a key player. The industry encompasses various modes of educational service delivery, at all levels of education (Ball 2012; Sidhu 2006). Critiques of the industry problematize how the intensified application of market logics can exacerbate existing global inequities, and more narrowly orient education toward private economic gain rather than collective, holistic flourishing. In particular, while people and money flow in many directions, the primary exporters and largest financial beneficiaries of the education industry are wealthy Western nations (Altbach and Knight 2007). Brooks and Waters (2011, 119) argued, “These patterns are a legacy of colonialism and imperialism; international he would seem to do little to redress historical patterns of dependency and uneven development.” While it is clear that Western countries disproportionately profit from political, economic, and epistemological hegemony in the ie industry, it is not always clear precisely who benefits. In the case of British Columbia, are economic benefits shared equally among all residents? How are


Sharon Stein

Indigenous peoples involved and/or affected? How does the ie industry directly or indirectly shape the public education of local students? How can we distinguish sincere concerns about the harmful effects of revenue-driven ie policy on the public good from racist xenophobia (Stein and Andreotti 2016)? Does “the public” imagined in British Columbia policy include citizens of other nations as well? There are also questions about the effects of ie on sending countries. As middle classes continue to grow outside the West, more families can and want to send their children to be educated in English-speaking Western countries (Sidhu 2006). However, there are significant inequalities in the opportunity for potential international students to access this education (Tannock 2013). Are international students beneficiaries or victims of the ie industry or both or neither? Approaching policy analysis from a critical transnational orientation offers guidance in both formulating and answering these questions. It allows tracing how the benefits of ie are framed in British Columbia policy, and to what extent these benefits are equally distributed across populations.

contextualizing shifts in british columbia international education After a recession hit Canada in 1974–75, there was a shift in federal funding from cost-sharing to block grants in 1976, which resulted in less overall funding for provinces, including for post-secondary education (pse) (Coyote and Landon 1990). An even worse recession hit Canada in the early 1980s. During this time, the ie industry – in British Columbia and throughout Canada – began to prioritize revenue generation. This is not to romanticize formations of ie in the province prior to this point, but to emphasize that direct revenue generation had not previously been an emphasis. Around this time, the need for ie to contribute to British Columbia’s global competitiveness also became a concern, as shown by remarks from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training in 1987: “International education initiatives help strengthen British Columbia’s bonds with other countries. Long-term relationships with major trading partners are developed, thus enhancing our ability to operate more effectively in a competitive world” (cited by Nelles 1995, 315). While Nelles (1995) noted that concern for international competitive advantage was not entirely new in British Columbia, it had not previously been a main emphasis of ie in the province. More recently, since the early

British Columbia International Education Policy


2000s, a more regressive tax structure in British Columbia has led to declining revenues from corporate income taxes and taxes from high earners. This has resulted in declining per capita public funds for education (Lee, Ivanona, and Klein 2011), further incentivizing the turn toward framing education in British Columbia as a global product.

post-secondary education During the negotiations around the 1976 federal transfer payments, the Canadian government “suggested that introducing differential tuition fees was an acceptable way for the provinces to generate additional revenue at institutions” (Canadian Federation of Students, cited by Brunner 2017a, 2). This reflected a shift at the federal level away from framing international students as objects of development aid and toward framing them as income-generating customers (Trilokekar 2010). Although the aid orientation was intended to serve Canada’s political and economic interests during the Cold War (McCartney 2016), ie had not previously been treated as an industry in Canada. Both the aid and customer-oriented framings, however, reflect the racialized positioning of international students as “other,” or outsiders, within the context of Canadian public pse institutions (Stein and Andreotti 2016). By the mid-1980s, bc post-secondary institutions were charging higher fees for international students than domestic students. In 1987, the Ministry of Education established an ie branch, and in 1988 and 1990, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology released two reports to encourage pse institutions in British Columbia to develop internationalization plans (Francis 1993). Then, in 1990, the Ministry of Education released a guide for international students studying in the province at the primary and secondary levels. A year later, in 1991, the British Columbia Centre for International Education (bccie, now the British Columbia Council for International Education) was founded as a voluntary non-profit organization by those working in ie at public post-secondary institutions (Brunner 2017a). bccie served as a coordinating agency to increase international activity in British Columbia pse (Francis 1993). By the late 1990s, it was made up of institutional members (i.e., British Columbia universities and colleges), and served ie professionals to deepen their expertise and “pursue international market opportunities” (Dimond 1998, A24).


Sharon Stein

In 1993, after commissioning a survey of internationalization activities at British Columbia pse institutions, bccie produced the province’s first-ever ie strategy document. In its rationalization of the internationalization imperative, the report emphasized that geopolitical shifts intensified the need for global literacy to ensure British Columbia’s economic competitiveness and good global trade relations (Francis 1993). Two years later, in 1995, the British Columbia Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour produced a manual with instructions for how to internationalize pse curricula (Brunner 2017a). Between 1988/1989 and 2005/2006, the total transfer of federal funds for pse decreased by 40 percent. In response, provincial funding in British Columbia rose 2.3 percent per full-time student from 1992/1993 to 2003/2004 (Fisher, Rubenson, et al. 2009), yet total government spending as a share of university operating revenue during this time declined, from 73 to 60 percent, while tuition as a share of university revenue increased from 18 to 30 percent. Despite higher public spending overall, adjusted for inflation, per capita provincial spending on pse in British Columbia has declined by 20 percent since 2001 (Dimoff 2017). To make up for declining public funds, pse institutions have not only raised tuition fees, but also have enacted more entrepreneurial policies and practices, including intensified international recruitment (Stein 2018). Provincial policies that target international students for post-graduation immigration opportunities, in turn, effectively serve as “recruitment tools” for pse institutions (Brunner 2017a, 2017b).

k–12 education The British Columbia Ministry of Education opened an ie branch in 1987, as well as a Pacific Rim Education Initiatives program. In 1995, the province authorized the first offshore schools to offer British Columbia K–12 curriculum abroad, in China (Schuetze 2008). The first school was inspected and certified by the province in 1997. In 2001, the incoming British Columbia Liberal government proposed the broad transformation of provincial education, including the expansion of funding sources for public schools (Fallon and Pancucci 2003). By 2002, Bill 34 authorized British Columbia school districts to create private for-profit companies to help raise funds for education much like incorporated business entities (Fallon and Poole 2014). Many subsequent revenue-generating activities have emphasized ie in

British Columbia International Education Policy


Table 6.1 Number of international students studying in British Columbia in 2015

Public post-secondary Private post-secondary K–12 Total

# of students

% of total

45,130 67,965 16,958 130,053

35% 52% 13% 100%

Source: Kunin and Associates 2017

some way, including the recruitment of international students and opening offshore schools. Bill 34 and related legislation further naturalized the partial reframing of education in British Columbia from a public service to a tradable commodity (Fallon and Pancucci, 2003), and reframed the role of the government to “an enabling partner” that encourages schools to generate non-tax revenues (Fallon and Poole 2014). According to Fallon and Poole (2014, 303), this did not simply open up new private sources of funding, but also transformed educational services “into marketable and salable ‘commodities’ used to generate ‘additional’ revenues.” These shifts occurred at the same time that provincial funding for public education was being slashed; for instance, from 2001 to 2016, K–12 funding as a percentage of provincial gdp declined by 25 percent, equating to billions of dollars less in public funding per year (Hemingway 2016). Thus, adopting entrepreneurial approaches to revenue generation is not merely supplementary but increasingly necessary for schools’ survival. However, as in pse, not all schools can compete equally for resources within this new marketized funding environment. Beyond this, the imperative to expand revenue generation often conflicts with the imperative to expand equitable access to educational opportunity (Fallon and Poole 2014).

the current state of british columbia international education By 2015, over 130,000 international students were studying in British Columbia, a 44 percent increase since 2010 (Kunin and Associates 2017). Over 113,000 of those students were studying in post-secondary schools, and nearly 17,000 in K–12 (Kunin and Associates 2017) (see table 6.1).


Sharon Stein

There are more international students studying in British Columbia (about 31 percent of total international students in Canada) than in any other Canadian province apart from Ontario (about 43 percent of the total) (Canada. gac 2016). China was the top sending country to British Columbia in 2015, with over 50,000 students; South Korea was at a distant second with nearly 12,700 students, and India had sent just over 12,100 (Kunin and Associates 2017). In 2015, international students spent over $3.5 billion on tuition, fees, and living expenses in British Columbia, which contributed $2 billion to the provincial gdp and supported nearly 30,000 jobs (Kunin and Associates 2017). Outside the province, today 46 offshore K–12 schools serve 12,009 students, mostly in China (bc Global Education Program Operating Manual for Offshore Schools 2016/2017; Hyslop 2017). The British Columbia government oversees the inspection, certification, and regulation of these privately owned schools (Hyslop 2017). The schools pay the province for their own inspections, as well as fees for students to register and take the appropriate examinations (Schuetze 2008).

the british columbia public policy paradigm Given the size of the province’s ie industry and the interrelation of ie with other policy areas, including employment, immigration, and trade, in this section I situate British Columbia’s current ie policy in relation to a larger provincial public policy paradigm. In 2012, the province’s Ministry of Advanced Education released British Columbia’s International Education Strategy, guided by the vision of “a high quality international education system in British Columbia that fosters social benefits and economic prosperity for all citizens” (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 3). In doing so, British Columbia joined a group of provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which developed provincial ie strategies before the first-ever federal ie strategy was released in 2014. A June 2016 update on the 2012 strategy identified the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Education, and Ministry of Advanced Education as “key partners” in British Columbia ie, along with bccie and the province’s schools, communities, the federal government, and other provinces and terri-

British Columbia International Education Policy


tories. In 2012, bccie became a Crown corporation, and the majority of its operating funds come from provincial grants. bccie works under the mandate of the British Columbia government to support increased international enrolment; provide marketing support; offer professional development; and support ie strategy development (bccie 2017). Thus, while I emphasize the 2012 ie strategy, I also ask how ie is described in and relates to the recent immigration, trade, and economic development strategies, as well as bccie documents and reports. In particular, I emphasize Canada Starts Here: The bc Jobs Plan (British Columbia. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011), given that the 2012 ie strategy was explicitly developed in reference to this plan.

british columbia international education policy analysis British Columbia’s International Education Strategy (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education. 2012, 4) declared, “International education is helping to make bc and British Columbians much more plugged into the global community and better positioned to succeed in the global economy.” The primary current and future benefits of ie identified in the strategy can be broadly understood as falling under the categories of either economic opportunity or cultural exchange, with the former receiving considerably more attention. I further break these down as falling within one of four smaller categories, the first three of which are primarily economic, and last of which emphasizes cultural exchange: (1) direct revenues from international student tuition and spending in British Columbia, as well as offshore tuition; (2) former international students filling labour gaps; (3) business connections fostered by former international students between British Columbia and their home nations; and (4) competitive advantages that British Columbia graduates gain from international and intercultural engagements. While these benefits are broadly defined, in what follows I examine each category of benefits using a cross-sectoral critical transnational policy approach. In doing so, I raise the question of who actually benefits from British Columbia ie policy and identify the invisibilized costs of the imagined future of ie.


Sharon Stein

generating direct revenues One of the primary economic benefits of ie identified is international student spending. This was emphasized in the 2012 ie strategy with infographics of international student spending, revenues generated, and jobs created. Revenues from international students in British Columbia, and students studying at British Columbia offshore schools, make up the bulk of the province’s ie industry. In the bc Jobs Plan (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011, 7) ie was listed as one of eight provincial sectors that are “critical for bc’s growth, either through direct job creation or as platforms for future expansion.” These eight sectors were divided into natural resource, knowledge-based, and infrastructure sectors, of which ie was identified as part of the infrastructure, rather than knowledge-based, sector. ie was explicitly framed in the plan as a means to “support our economic growth,” in particular in “Asia Pacific countries,” where “more parents than ever want their children to receive an English-language education” (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011, 11). As a result, international students have resolutely not been situated as part of the British Columbia “public,” but rather as sources of revenue. This positioning suggests the continuation of a racialized and nationalist hierarchy of value in which international students are primarily understood in terms of their perceived benefit to British Columbia residents (Stein and Andreotti 2016; Tannock 2009). The bc Jobs Plan (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011, 12) framed ie as an industry with “almost unlimited potential for growth,” and identified targets to increase international enrolments 50 percent by 2016. Securing revenues to fund public educational institutions has long been understood as falling under the mandate of provincial and federal governments. However, in the neoliberal context, revenue sources are increasingly diversified to include private sources. Today, the British Columbia government encourages individual educational institutions to compete with one another in order to attract the most international students to supplement public revenues. In other words, instead of having public education funded primarily through taxes (i.e., public funds), it is also increasingly funded through/subsidized by private monies (i.e., student tuition, from both domestic and international students). The move to seek more private funding for public institutions has been framed as a socially responsible act on the part of the British

British Columbia International Education Policy


Columbia government. In alignment with a neo-liberal ethos, public accountability emphasizes the financial element of a population’s well-being, in particular through minimizing public spending and decreasing “wasteful” spending that cannot be directly linked to measurable economic outcomes (Robertson 2010). A commitment to “fiscal discipline” appears several times throughout the bc Jobs Plan (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011, 5), where it is linked to “returning to balanced budgets and retaining low taxes for families and for job creators.” This economized portrait of the public is evident in British Columbia ie policy. The International Education Policy (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 10) notes, “As a result of [international student] spending, jobs are created in the education sector and in other sectors that support the students. For taxpayers, international education also generates significant tax revenues to the Province.” Further, because international students are framed within mainstream Canadian discourse as external to the nation (Stein and Andreotti 2016), this enables schools to charge them higher fees while avoiding difficult conversations about the reasons for declining public funds for education, or about the ethics and equity of those heightened fees (Tannock 2009). However, there is a need to consider the effects of revenue-driven ie policy on international students and their home countries. Given growing competition between host countries, international students have become objects of intense recruitment, particularly when they are framed, as they are in the 2011 bc Jobs Plan, as consumers in an ie industry. Given that the majority of international students come to Canada from outside the West, Johnstone and Lee (2014, 210) have described this as a “neo-imperial pattern of moving human resources from non-Western economies into Western knowledge economies.” British Columbia policy is fairly straightforward about the fact that primarily non-Western international students are subsidizing local students’ education. The contemporary revenue-intensive orientation of international recruitment is not only framed by some as unjust and exploitative of international students (Johnstone and Lee 2014), but it also affects the internal dynamics of countries with high numbers of students who pursue degrees abroad. The restricted ability to access ie can reproduce inequities in international students’ home countries (Brooks and Waters 2011; Tannock 2013), while Naidoo (2010, 78) has also argued that these patterns “are likely to stunt indigenous capaci-


Sharon Stein

ty in higher education in developing countries and maintain global institutional hierarchies.”

addressing labour gaps through immigration International students are framed in the 2012 ie strategy as potential immigrant workers. Such workers are presented as a primary way to meet the labour needs of the province and grow its economy. For instance, the document noted, “international education is also a significant contributor to British Columbia’s economy, both through direct and indirect student spending and by helping to meet our projected labour shortages as the economy grows” (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 9). The strategy also pledged to “create smoother transitions for international students who wish to live and work in B.C. after graduation” (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 20), for example, by promoting to employers the benefits of hiring international students and assisting international students in finding jobs in smaller communities in the province. This emphasis was also evident in a 2012 report of the British Columbia Immigration Task Force (British Columbia. Minister of State for Multiculturalism 2012). By its own account, the report echoed a federal-level shift toward a more economically focused, demanddriven immigration system in Canada, which has enhanced the role of employers in immigrant selection. Brunner (2017b) noted that the 2010 Canada-British Columbia Immigration Agreement specifically emphasized international students as central to British Columbia’s education and immigration agenda; this was echoed in the 2015 agreement. The British Columbia Provincial Nominee Program (pnp) enables the province to target international students as potential future immigrants, and the province currently has two pnp categories that target international students: International Graduate and International Post-Graduate. In this way, British Columbia pse institutions effectively serve as the first step in a two-step provincial immigration selection process (Brunner 2016). The 2012 British Columbia Immigration Task Force Report anticipated over 1 million job openings in British Columbia in the next ten years, and suggested a third would be filled by workers from outside the province and Canada (British Columbia. Minister of State for

British Columbia International Education Policy


Multiculturalism 2012). International students are understood as some of the most desirable high-skill immigrants (Brunner 2017b). They (or their families or governments) pay for their own education and training, meaning that neither the province nor their future British Columbia employer(s) pays these costs. International students are also framed as generators of innovation. Thus, the immigration task force suggested several strategies for retaining international students after graduation. Of course, in order for the recruitment of international students as immigrants to work as a strategy, students have to want to immigrate. Indeed, survey data suggest that over 50 percent of all international students in Canada intend to stay after graduation (cbie 2015). However, the number of students who actually achieve permanent residency in Canada is significantly lower than the number who plan to do so (Brunner 2016). Thus, the promise of immigration is held out to international students without significant nuance surrounding the potential challenges and inequalities involved. This arrangement can also produce a vulnerable labour force of people who are willing to work for lower wages, and/or in jobs for which they are overqualified, as indeed a recent internal Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada report has suggested is the case for many international students (Chiose 2016). Beyond the benefits, or lack thereof, for international students, or their home countries, around post-graduation immigration to British Columbia, it is necessary to ask why the province frames this particular population as desirable – and how this implicitly frames other immigrants or potential immigrants as undesirable, less desirable, or less “deserving.” Not only does this approach narrowly and economically evaluate human lives on the basis of potential future labour power, it also naturalizes the hierarchy of immigration classes (Stein 2017). Further, if it is understood, as it was within the British Columbia Immigration Task Force report (British Columbia. Minister of State for Multiculturalism 2012, 17), that “retaining [international] students as workers will go a long way to help address labour and skills gaps,” then the province can further shrink public contributions to the education of future workers (whether they be from British Columbia, elsewhere in Canada, or abroad). This further naturalizes education as an investment by private individuals rather than a public responsibility and/or the responsibility of future employers (either directly or through payment of higher taxes).


Sharon Stein

fostering business connections The British Columbia government is highly concerned with securing its place as a primary trading partner with so-called “emerging” economies. For instance, the bc Jobs Plan (2011, 1) remarked, “We have both the opportunity and obligation to lead our country across the ocean and secure our place in the emerging economies of the Asia Pacific.” Meanwhile, immigrants were understood in the British Columbia Immigration Task Force report (British Columbia. Minister of State for Multiculturalism 2012, 17) to “serve as a social gateway for bc industries and employers, further enhancing bc’s position as the investment gateway to Asia.” ie is understood as one means of ensuring these transnational connections. For instance, British Columbia’s International Education Strategy (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 8–9) emphasized how international institutional partnerships “create pathways for B.C. businesses into international markets” and “grow new business opportunities.” International students, as both students and potential future immigrants, have also been framed as central vectors of this growing transnational trade. The economic growth that is presumed to result from these trade relationships has matter-of-factly been framed as beneficial to all British Columbians. For instance, the bc Jobs Plan (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training 2011, 4–5) iterated the province’s commitment to attract “new investors who are looking for safe harbours in an era of global investment uncertainty” and to “build upon our current fiscal and economic strengths to create an environment where growth and investment can flourish, delivering the best fiscal, economic and social platform for job creation and skills development for all British Columbians.” This claim falsely suggests that economic growth in the province is distributed to all British Columbia residents, and skirts any consideration of how Canada’s relative advantage within the transnational global economy affects global inequalities. Economic growth differentially benefits British Columbia residents, as this growth does not necessarily lead to higher wages for existing jobs, the creation of new high-wage jobs, or more public revenues. The British Columbia Immigration Task Force report (British Columbia. Minister of State for Multiculturalism 2012, 2) expressed concern that immigration to British Columbia is not high enough,

British Columbia International Education Policy


and does not always align with “the needs of communities across the province.” However, the report emphasized the interests of employers, suggesting “communities” was more synonymous with businesses than residents. Although framed as negative developments within the report, full employment and wage hikes are beneficial to the average worker, suggesting again that the provincial government’s concerns are more aligned with businesses than with “the public” qua general population of citizens, residents, and workers. The expansion of resource extraction industries has also been naturalized, with no consideration of their environmental consequences (Walker 2017), or of the objections voiced by First Nations communities about new and ongoing resource extraction projects (Wood and Rossiter 2017); this not only violates Indigenous peoples’ governing authority in their territories, it also implicitly excludes Indigenous peoples from the British Columbia “public.”

intercultural advantages for british columbia students The 2012 ie strategy addressed the benefits of ie for British Columbia students. These included both study and work abroad opportunities as well as experiences at internationally focused British Columbia institutions. The strategy stated that these opportunities “give our own students a leg up in a highly competitive global economy” (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 11). It is significant that there was very little reference to the actual educational content of ie itself in policy discussions. There are sparse references to the value of intercultural learning in the strategy. The references that do exist are vague and depoliticized, centring on campus events that celebrate cultural difference or “international days.” More recent developments have pointed to growing attention to ie in curricula, as evidenced by the new “Asia Pacific Curriculum” pilot program funded by the Asia Pacific Foundation and the province. However, this program is still framed largely as an economic imperative (Chiang 2017a). It was also presumed in the ie strategy that the families and communities that host international students are “strengthened by the understanding and tolerance that comes from welcoming students from all over the world” (British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education 2012, 9). However, simply engaging people from other backgrounds does not automatically generate deeper understanding


Sharon Stein

and respect. Without proper facilitation for making sense of these engagements, and one’s position in them, they may even exacerbate negative perceptions (Grusky 2000). Tolerance is also a limited goal that does not necessarily lead to truly collaborative partnerships, equitable communities, and horizontal spaces of knowledge production (Madge, Raghuram, and Noxolo 2014). Also briefly highlighted in the strategy was the cultural enrichment that is presumed to result from the presence of international students. bccie (2017, 10) also noted, “International students enrich classrooms, campuses and communities.” However, even these enriching benefits are instrumentalized, especially toward economic gain, in particular for British Columbia residents (rather than international students). In this way, international students have been framed as resources for British Columbia students’ self-actualization and cultural capital accumulation, rather than as full and equal participants and learners. This framing also implicitly devalues intercultural learning that might be uncomfortable, or critical of existing global relations and the increasingly narrow economic imperatives of mainstream ideas of the public good itself (Naidoo and Jamieson 2005).

discussion British Columbia ie policy emphasizes the benefits of ie for provincial residents, with particular emphasis on (direct and indirect) economic benefits. Internationalization has been framed as a means through which all British Columbia residents are encouraged to seek and gain advantage; however, some (already wealthy) residents are structurally positioned to benefit more than others. Further, with regard to the larger global context, neither reciprocity nor equity have been addressed or prioritized in British Columbia ie policy. Private funding revenues have been framed as unalloyed benefits to “the public,” making international students not part of the public served, but rather sources of income, vectors of trade, or objects of learning for British Columbia residents. For instance, in 2002, Premier Clark said, “Creating offshore schools, in some cases, or recruiting offshore students to our districts … means money flowing from overseas directly into the classroom for the benefit of B.C. students” (cited by Hyslop 2017, n.p.). It is implied that it is not only acceptable but also desirable to treat education as a commodity for non-residents as long as British Columbia residents’ benefit. Specifically, it has been implied

British Columbia International Education Policy


that non–British Columbia students should not only pay the full cost of their offshore British Columbia education, but that they should also pay fees high enough so that net revenues exceed expenditures, thus resulting in the promised financial “benefit” for British Columbia students. This logic has also been evident at the post-secondary level. As Brunner (2017a) noted, it was present when the Ministry of Advanced Education suggested that schools set international student tuition fees high enough to cover direct costs and overheads, without displacing Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Fifteen years later, British Columbia Minister of Advanced Education Andrew Wilkinson (2016) wrote, “International students significantly subsidize domestic students and generate additional seats for themselves. Their tuition enables public K–12 and post-secondary institutions to add courses and facilitate the hiring of new faculty and staff.” Again, this suggested that international students should bring funds and resources to the university that exceed expenditures on them, reproducing the colonial framing of international students as resources. The implication, as Tannock (2009, 204) has argued, is that “foreign talent will only be welcome to the extent that it continues to serve citizens’ needs and interests.” It is unclear the actual extent to which international students are paying the full cost of their own education, versus how much their fees are subsidizing the education of local students through operating costs. Particularly in a neo-liberal context of financial accountability, it might be hard to imagine why the province would be willing to offer offshore curricula or create spaces for international students in public institutions were there no perceived financial benefit, whether immediate/direct or long-term/indirect. Nevertheless, the reasons that institutions seek to diversify their revenue streams are naturalized and depoliticized in British Columbia ie policy discourse. In addition to effects on international students and their home countries, there is a need to consider whether British Columbia residents, and which residents, actually “benefit” from a structure in which education becomes partially privatized. Different areas benefit differentially from an influx of private/international educational funds, given that a majority (over 75 percent) of international students in British Columbia reside in the lower mainland (Chiang 2017b). There are also indirect effects when public education shifts, even only partially, to become a private commodity. When public institutions are framed as needing


Sharon Stein

additional revenues, and finding them in international student fees through an ie industry, this transforms the meaning of “public education,” even as British Columbia residents’ education remains subsidized by public funds. For instance, this further naturalizes the framing of education as an individual, marketized good, laying the grounds for future tuition raises for domestic pse students, and lowered public subsidies for K–12 and pse institutions alike (Brunner 2017a; Tannock 2009). In 2017, an article reported growing concerns from British Columbia school and post-secondary leaders who believe institutions must attend to the unique needs of international students rather than simply treating them as “budget filler” (Chiang 2017b). Ironically, however, they emphasized that failure to support international student learning and well-being might tarnish the Canadian education “brand” (Stein 2018). Ultimately, even if there is some dissatisfaction with the extent to which ie policy has emphasized revenue generation, there have been significant alterations toward a marketized approach to ie in British Columbia that has not only been encouraged by public policy and Canadian federal policy but also adopted and embraced by educational institutions who are seeking new revenue streams in an era of declining public funding for education. In June 2017, the New Democratic Party (ndp) government was elected to power in British Columbia, ending a sixteen-year Liberal government. The ndp campaign contested austerity-driven, procapital priorities, and emphasized improved education and healthcare services. Prior to the election, bccie (2016) reported that the province was developing an update to the 2012 ie strategy in order “to remain competitive.” With the ndp in power, the fate of the strategy remains to be seen. Within the current political economic conjuncture, the possibility for a radical reversal of policy toward a more equityfocused approach to education is dubious. However, without such a shift, educational opportunity will be increasingly skewed toward the benefit of wealthy individuals and nations, along with K–12 school districts and pse institutions that are best able to generate revenues within the contemporary ie landscape.

British Columbia International Education Policy


references Altbach, P.G., and J. Knight. 2007. “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4): 290–305. Ball, S.J. 2012. Global Education Inc: New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge. bccie (bc Council for International Education). 2016. B.C.’s International Education Strategy Update. /bc-update.pdf. – 2017. 2017/2018 – 2019/2020 Service Plan. /sp/pdf/agency/bccie.pdf. British Columbia. Minister of State for Multiculturalism. 2012. British Columbia Immigration Task Force. /tourism-and-immigration/immigrating-to-bc/immigration_task_force _web.pdf. British Columbia. Ministry of Advanced Education. 2012. British Columbia’s International Education Strategy. /education/post-secondary-education/international-education/inter nationaleducationstrategy_web.pdf. British Columbia. Ministry of Education. 2017. bc Global Education Program Operating Manual for Offshore Schools 2016/2017. /assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/internation aleducation/operatingmanual.pdf. British Columbia. Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training. 2011. Canada Starts Here: The bc Jobs Plan. /sites/21/2017/01/CSH_BCJobsPlan_web.pdf. Brenner, R. 2009. “What is Good for Goldman Sachs is Good for America: The Origins of the Present Crisis.” Paper presented at the Center for Social Theory and Comparative History, ucla. /item/0sg0782h. Brooks, R., and J. Waters. 2011. Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalization of Higher Education. New York: Springer. Brunner, L.R. 2016. “The Uses of Capital in International Student and Immigration Selection Criteria.” Unpublished paper. – 2017a. Education Quality Assurance in British Columbia. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. /2017/06/Education-Quality-Assurance-in-British-Columbia-LISA-RUTHBRUNNER-WEB.pdf.


Sharon Stein

-- 2017b. “Higher Educational Institutions as Emerging Immigrant Selection Actors: A History of British Columbia’s Retention of International Graduates, 2001–2016.” Policy Reviews in Higher Education 1 (1): 22–41. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. By Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2015. A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education 2015. Chiang, C. 2017a. “B.C. Asia-Pacific Curriculum Aims to Bring International Perspective to High Schools.” Vancouver Sun, 9 April. http://vancouver national-perspective-to-high-schools. – 2017b. “Schools Urge Investment in International Education: bc Institutions, Staff Need to Keep Improving to Compete Globally, Administrators Say.” Business in Vancouver, 27 June. /6/schools-urge-investment-international-education/. Chiose, S. 2016. “International Student Work Program Creating Low-Wage Work Force: Report.” Globe and Mail, 31 March. https://www.theglobe Coyote, P.C., and S. Landon. 1990. “Cost-Sharing Versus Block Funding in a Federal System: A Demand Systems Approach.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 23 (4): 817–38. Dimoff, A. 2017. “Langara Faculty Association Says Provincial Funding for Post-Secondary Education Falls Short.” cbc, 13 March. /news/canada/british-columbia/post-secondary-funding-1.4023735. Dimond, S. 1998. “Hot Sites.” The Province, 15 July, A24. Fallon, G., and S. Pancucci. 2003. “Reframing Public Educational Services and Programs as Tradable Commodities – A Synthesis and Critique of British Columbia’s Bill 34.” Brock Education Journal 13 (1): 50–60. Fallon, G., and W. Poole. 2014. “The Emergence of a Market-Driven Funding Mechanism in K–12 Education in British Columbia: Creeping Privatization and the Eclipse of Equity.” Journal of Education Policy 29 (3): 302–22. Fisher, D., K. Rubenson, G. Jones, and T. Shanahan. 2009. “The Political Economy of Post-Secondary Education: A Comparison of British Columbia, Ontario and Québec.” Higher Education 57 (5) 549–66.

British Columbia International Education Policy


Francis, A. 1993. Facing the Future: The Internationalization of Post-Secondary Institutions in British Columbia. Task Force Report. Vancouver: British Columbia Centre for International Education. text/ED377759.pdf. Grusky, S. 2000. “International Service-Learning: A Critical Guide from an Impassioned Advocate.” American Behavioural Scientist 43 (5): 858–67. Harvey, D. 2005. Neoliberalism: A Brief History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hemingway, A. 2016. “What’s the Real Story Behind bc’s Education Crisis?” Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policy /08/ccpa-bc_Kto12EducationFunding_web.pdf. Hyslop, K. 2017. “bc-Certified Offshore School Not Up to Provincial Standards, Former Staff Allege.” The Tyee, 14 June. /2017/06/14/bc-Certified-Offshore-School/. Johnstone, M., and Lee, E. 2014. “Branded: International Education and 21st-Century Canadian Immigration, Education Policy, and the Welfare State.” International Social Work 57 (3): 209–21. Kunin and Associates. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic Impact of International Education in British Columbia in 2010 and 2015. Vancouver: British Columbia Council for International Education. Kwak, M.J. 2013. “Rethinking the Neoliberal Nexus of Education, Migration, and Institutions.” Environment and Planning A 45 (8): 1858–72. Lee, M., I. Ivanona, and S. Klein. 2011. bc’s Regressive Tax Shift: A Decade of Diminishing Tax Fairness, 2000 to 2010. Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. /files/uploads/publications/bc%20Office/2011/06/CCPA_bc_regressive _tax_shift.pdf. Madge, C., P. Raghuram, and P. Noxolo. 2014. “Conceptualizing International Education: From International Student to International Study.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (6): 681–701. Mahmud, T. 2012. “Debt and Discipline.” American Quarterly 64 (3): 469–94. McCartney, D.M. 2016. “Inventing International Students: Exploring Discourses in International Student Policy Talk, 1945–75.” Historical Studies in Education/Revue d’histoire de l’éducation 28 (2): 1–27. Naidoo, R. 2010. “Global Learning in a Neoliberal Age: Implications for Development.” In Global Inequalities in Higher Education: Whose Interests


Sharon Stein

Are We Serving?, edited by E. Unterhalter and V. Carpentier, 66–90. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Naidoo, R., and I. Jamieson. (2005) “Knowledge in the Marketplace: The Global Commodification of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.” In Internationalizing Higher Education, edited by P. Ninnes and M. Hellstén, 37–51. Dordrecht: Springer. Nelles, W.C. 1995. “From Imperialism to Internationalism in British Columbia Education and Society, 1900 to 1939.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia. Peck, J. 2004. “Geography and Public Policy: Constructions of Neoliberalism.” Progress in Human Geography 28 (3): 392–405. Rizvi, F., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Robertson, S.L. 2010. “Corporatisation, Competitiveness, Commercialisation: New Logics in the Globalising of UK Higher Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 8 (2): 191–203. Schuetze, H. 2008. Canadian Offshore Schools in China. Vancouver: Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. Sidhu, R.K. 2006. Universities and Globalization: To Market, To Market. Abingdon: Routledge. Stein, S. 2018. “National Exceptionalism in the ‘EduCanada’ Brand: Unpacking the Ethics of Internationalization Marketing in Canada.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 39 (3): 461–77. Stein, S., and V. Andreotti. 2016. “Cash, Competition, or Charity: International Students and the Global Imaginary.” Higher Education 72 (2): 225–39. Tannock, S. 2009. “Global Meritocracy, Nationalism and the Question of Whom We Must Treat Equally for Educational opportunity to be Equal.” Critical Studies in Education 50 (2): 201–11. – 2013. “When the Demand for Educational Equality Stops at the Border: Wealthy Students, International Students and the Restructuring of Higher Education in the UK.” Journal of Education Policy 28 (4): 449–64. Trilokekar, R.D. 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. Walker, J. 2017. “Creating an lng Ready Worker: British Columbia’s Blueprint for Extraction Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 16 (3): 1–15. Wilkinson, A. 2016. “International Students a Win-Win.” Vancouver Sun, 25

British Columbia International Education Policy


February. Williams, J. 2016. “A Critical Exploration of Changing Definitions of Public Good in Relation to Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (4): 619–30. Wood, P.B., and D.A. Rossiter. 2017. “The Politics of Refusal: Aboriginal Sovereignty and the Northern Gateway Pipeline.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 61 (2): 165–77.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

7 Collaborative Efforts Administering K–12 Internationalization through Policy and Practice in Manitoba Merli Tamtik

introduction International education (ie) has become a strategically important and growing industry in the province of Manitoba. It contributes approximately $325 million to the province’s economy annually (Canada. gac 2016). In addition to its economic contributions, ie has become a significant mechanism for facilitating population growth and workforce development. According to Statistics Canada (2016), Manitoba’s population has been growing at a faster rate (5.8 percent) than the national average (5 percent), mostly due to international migration involving substantial contributions from international students. International students, in general, are regarded as a desirable immigration pool. They are highly educated; most have some Canadian work experience and are therefore sought after by local employers. The Manitoba provincial government has recognized the potential for skilled labour among international students. In 2016, 42 percent of the provincial immigration nominations issued under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program were allotted to international students (cicNews 2016). The minister of Education and Training recently announced further improvements in service standards for the program, emphasizing that it would help international students to remain in Manitoba and fill 25 percent of the projected new job openings by 2022 (Canada. Government of Manitoba 2017). Policy support at the government level has been necessary to sus-

Internationalization in Manitoba


tain the influx of international students to the province. Under the leadership of provincial ie branch officials, the province developed its first International Education Strategy for the Province of Manitoba 2009–2013 (2008) and proclaimed a legally binding International Education Act (2016), which regulates the provision of K–12 educational programs to international students and standardizes the recruitment of prospective international students. Manitoba has to compete for international students with other provinces in Canada, particularly with British Columbia and Ontario, and the province has only been able to enhance internationalization as a result of collaborative efforts among educational stakeholders. An administrator and a recruitment officer at a K–12 educational institution characterized Manitoba as “a very difficult sell.” Nevertheless, Manitoba has been able to continually increase its international student numbers across the levels by almost 200 percent from 5,914 students in 2004/2005 to 11,174 students in 2013 (Manitoba. Manitoba Education and Training. ie Branch 2014). In addition to increasing student mobility, the provincial government has entered into mutually beneficial agreements authorizing schools overseas to teach the Manitoba curriculum and award Manitoba high school diplomas upon successful completion of required courses. Such partnerships have been established with schools in China, South Korea, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Thailand. These initiatives are clear examples of a political commitment and focused policy approach to making ie a provincial priority. However, with a change in the government after the 2016 provincial election, the responsibilities of the ie branch were redistributed in 2017 among three divisions within Manitoba Education and Training: (1) Post-Secondary Education and Workforce Development; (2) Immigration and Economic Opportunities; and (3) the Healthy Child Manitoba Office and K–12 Education. With this restructuring, it remains to be seen how coordination across the units will be achieved, but some restriction in regards to international student numbers have already been implemented (see Tamtik and O’Brian Klewchuk 2020). This chapter analyzes the dynamics and processes through which ie has become a policy priority in Manitoba. A multi-level governance (mlg) framework is applied to investigate the intersection of policy issues and mutually interdependent relationships between education stakeholders across government levels. The following research questions guide this chapter: How has international educa-


Merli Tamtik

tion in Manitoba become a governmental policy priority? What processes have Manitoba educational stakeholders used to enhance the agenda of international education, and what have been their experiences in this regard? The chapter particularly focuses on the experiences of Manitoba school administrators. This perspective is important for the following reasons. First, there is growing evidence of ie mobility starting early, with 15 percent of international students entering Canada for primary or secondary school education (cbie 2015). Second, high school mobility leads to pathways to post-secondary education (pse) and as such deserves further attention. Third, there is an increasing involvement of school administrators in K–12 international student mobility (e.g., minor students, homestays) than at the post-secondary level, allowing for closer relationships and more detailed understanding of policy implementation in practice.

theoretical framework Scholars increasingly have used mlg theory (Hooghe and Marks 2001; Marks 1993) to describe the complexity of policy-making across policy sectors and diverse stakeholder groups. This theory particularly focuses on the role of actors as essential players in contemporary policy-making. It unpacks the dynamics of state steering as a negotiated process interdependent with the stakeholders involved. It considers political actors as interest-oriented and constantly acting according to their agendas, although constrained by institutional rules and organizational norms. The mlg theory has become a relevant framework for scholars in education research who aim to explain governance and policy coordination processes (Amaral and Veiga 2012; Fumasoli 2015; Jones and Oleksiyenko 2011). Fumasoli (2015) identified three organizational features that can influence actors’ behaviours within the mlg framework: organizational structure, membership and identity, and centrality. Organizational structures define the authority and hierarchy of actors. For example, provincial governments, schools, or individual school administrators have different levels of authority within the hierarchy of the education system, and therefore they have different possibilities, opportunities, and constraints on their actions. Organizational membership determines those who are regarded as legitimate

Internationalization in Manitoba


actors to pursue organizational objectives. It is important to remember that actors can have multiple memberships that affect their loyalty to particular norms and values. For example, school administrators in Manitoba work with the provincial government, their own school division management, and the Manitoba Council for International Education (mcie) to increase the number of students coming to the province. They also need to ensure the quality of learning experiences for individual students, focusing on student achievement and academic progress at the local level. Often the level of the mlg structure in which the actors are located determines what capacity the actors have to influence decisions – the higher the level, the stronger the authority. This spatiality can be understood in geographical, political, economic, and cultural terms and contexts. Chou, Jungblut, et al. (2017) proposed an analytical framework that helps to track the developments within the framework of mlg. These scholars suggested that, in order to analyze the stability, change, and/or evolution of policy coordination, there is a need to unpack three distinct characteristics of mlg – multi-level, multi-actor, and multi-issue features. It is important to address and analyze each context separately, yet recognize their interdependencies, as those are likely to be responsible for policy outcomes and implementation in practice. The researchers described the characteristics as follows: (1) Multi-level characteristics focus on the antecedents and consequences of distribution or concentration of authority across governance levels; (2) Multi-actor characteristics acknowledge both the heterogeneity of the “state” and its many composite institutions as well as the involvement of non-state actors (e.g., stakeholder organizations, businesses, consumers); (3) Multi-issue characteristics identify how clashes as well as complementarities between policy sectors and spill-overs move into and away from the policy domain of interest (Chou, Jungblut, et al. 2017, 8). This chapter uses this analytical frame to examine the policy developments of internationalization in Manitoba. The framework is helpful as it highlights the importance of contextuality in understanding the dynamics of international education. It also views policy coordination as a social process shaped by the actors, their interests, and organizational capacities.


Merli Tamtik

methodology In order to answer the research questions, a qualitative case study approach was adopted. The first step involved gathering relevant policy documents related to Manitoba international education initiatives. The following publicly available policy documents were reviewed and analyzed: the International Education Strategy of the Province of Manitoba 2009–2013 (2008); The Guide to the Code of Practice and Conduct Regulation for Manitoba Designated Education Providers, Their Staff Recruiters and Contracted Agents. International Education Act Regulations 51(2) and Best Practices (2015); the International Education Act (2016); and the International Trade Strategy for Manitoba (2011). In addition, eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with government officials at the ie branch of the Manitoba provincial government (four) and with Manitoba school administrators (four). The school administrators were selected based on their leadership capacity and their direct involvement with overseeing the International Student Program (isp) within their schools. The interviews were carried out in the summer of 2016. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and summaries were sent to the participants for verification and further clarification. The collected data were organized, coded, and analyzed by identifying themes emerging from the responses (Miles and Huberman 1994; Strauss 1987). The themes were developed into generalizations based on the information provided by the interviews and the document analysis (Creswell 1998). The results obtained from this analysis, guided by the theoretical and analytical framework, were used to address the research questions.

multi-level characteristic – distribution of authority The distribution of authority in ie is vividly represented in shared responsibilities and blurred lines of authority across federal, provincial, and local levels. As in all Canadian provinces, education in Manitoba is a provincial responsibility, governed by provincial legislation. While the federal government does not have a direct legal authority over education, it does have responsibility for immigration, and shared responsibility for advancing international trade and economic growth across the country. For the first time, in 2011, the federal government announced funding for the development of a comprehen-

Internationalization in Manitoba


sive ie strategy. The 2014 document was linked with the goals of the Global Markets Action Plan (Canada. fatdc 2013), guiding developments in international trade, innovation, and immigration policy. Framing ie as part of the broader conversation around economic competitiveness helped to build the legitimacy of the federal government as it entered an area that is constitutionally a provincial responsibility. The need to achieve alignment across a variety of stakeholders has heightened the conversation about policy coordination at the federal level. For example, the federal International Education Strategy emphasizes coordination across the governments four times, stating the importance of “improved coordination of marketing efforts and objectives among governments and stakeholders” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 10). K–12 education in Manitoba is regulated by the Public Schools Act (1987) and the Education Administration Act (1987). The topic of ie is not specifically addressed in those documents, as schooling serves primarily local needs and internationalization has not been historically an inherent component of primary or secondary education to the same extent as it has been integral for universities (Altbach and Teichler 2001; Marginson 2000). Recently, Manitoba’s International Education Act (2016) has aimed to secure the quality of educational services offered to international students in Manitoba. While provincial regulations guide the operations of schools, there is a lot of decision-making autonomy left in the hands of local school boards. School boards are required to ensure compliance with provincial laws and policies, but they also need to be responsive to their community’s interests. As such, Manitoba school boards make decisions regarding the financing of schools (e.g., raising tax levies from property taxes, engaging in income-generating activities), personnel (e.g., hiring teachers), facilities (e.g., opening or closing schools with provincial approval), and programming (e.g., offering language supports). Decisions regarding ie are made primarily at the local level by the school boards. According to mcie (2017), ten public school boards (out of thirty-seven) and five private schools actively engage in recruiting international students at the K–12 level. Several urban and rural school divisions in Manitoba have established ie departments to oversee and facilitate such initiatives. The beginning and expansion of international student mobility in Manitoba schools is a good example of a local level bottom-up initiative that later became a provincially regulated area. The issue of

Merli Tamtik


Table 7.1 Total number of international students in Manitoba, 2004–13 2004

Elementary and secondary schools Post-secondary education

esl Total students










1,034 1,055 1,219 1,072

1,110 1,082

1,118 1,288 1,311


3,332 3,685 3,748 3,536 1,548 1,099 1,422 1,375 5,914 5,839 6,389 5,983

3,378 3,746 1,037 464 5,525 5,292

4,308 5,057 6,010 8,240 794 1,317 1,334 1,503 6,220 7,662 8,655 11,174

Source: Manitoba Education and Training, International Education (site discontinued). International Education Branch 2014.

accommodating international students in Manitoba schools became particularly relevant in the mid-1990s. There were some international students who had accompanied their parents and were placed in Winnipeg schools for their education. These students were struggling, with limited assistance and support from the schools. Vincent Massey Collegiate in the Pembina Trails School Division in Winnipeg was the first to initiate a more formal discussion around accommodating international students in its school. This very homogeneous community saw international students as an opportunity to diversify its student population and provide local students with cross-cultural learning experiences. A school administrator reflected: “It wasn’t for economic reasons the program started. The reason the program started was to try and help students, give them a different program. We also wanted to bring the world to the Canadian classroom” (interview, 26 July 2016). The school leadership was looking for best practices, and British Columbia became their learning site with its success in initiating isps. When the more formal isp started in the Pembina Trails School Division in 1995, it had a target of 10 students. It has currently expanded to over 200. Manitoba K–12 international programs have expanded to host over 1,000 students in dozens of schools across the province, in addition to students taking English-language courses or enrolled in post-secondary institutions (see table 7.1). As local schools and school divisions are responsible for initiating isps in their own schools, the priorities for establishing and marketing ie, and the financial opportunities to do so, differ across the province. As a consequence, isps have not been spread evenly around

Internationalization in Manitoba


Manitoba; the most active schools tend to be in urban and suburban areas in and around Winnipeg where homestays are more readily available. The school divisions with the highest annual numbers of international students in Manitoba include Pembina Trails School Division (200–250 international students), Louis Riel School Division (240 international students), River East Transcona School Division (150 students), St. James-Assiniboia School Division (100 students), and Lord Selkirk School Division (20–35 students) (caps-i 2018). Mountain View School Division in the Parkland region west of Manitoba, with an average of 115 international students, is an example of a school division actively involved in the program through administrative support in policy and practice, yet located away from the Winnipeg area. The distribution of authority across stakeholders has blurred the boundaries in ie. Each stakeholder can make distinct claims about why education should be guided by their objectives. Within each governance level, there are a number of government departments, boards, non-governmental organizations, and powerful individuals involved in shaping developments in ie across the province. With dispersed authority across and within the levels of stakeholders, policy coordination and collaboration become even more essential.

multi-actor characteristics – heterogeneity and coordination Formal federal-provincial collaboration takes place at the table of the Federal-Provincial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities. The committee was established in 1986 by Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (cmec) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is an advisory body that provides a forum for discussion of concerns common to federal and provincial/territorial governments, and refers to deputy ministers any items requiring decision. The federal departments most often involved in these discussions are the Foreign Affairs and International Trade (now Global Affairs Canada); Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Canadian International Development Agency; and Industry Canada. The topics discussed include marketing Canadian education abroad (developing the Canadian brand EduCanada), recruiting international students, and issues regarding study permits (cmec 2018). This


Merli Tamtik

committee meets face-to-face twice annually and holds frequent teleconferences. The director of the ie branch within the Manitoba government was a member of that committee. A similar committee has been set up by cmec to organize province-to-province dialogue. The committee is called the Provincial/Territorial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities and works collaboratively across provinces and territories to coordinate provincial positions on topics in ie. It aims to provide a channel for province/territory debates only; it is used to discuss specific concerns or issues relevant to individual provinces and as a forum to develop mutual agreement over policy perspectives before approaching the federal government. A member of the provincial ie branch commented, “So first we try to come to some type of consensus as provinces as to what we want or what we are proposing … Some of the problems can be very lengthy to get consensus. But, either you do it or you have to work individually and that would take much time. If we can work together, we are stronger” (interview, 29 June 2016). As education is a provincial responsibility, there is still a lot of autonomy left within the provincial government for responding to federal policy changes. The ie branch, established in 2001, has been the primary facilitator of ie policy within the Manitoba government. Close working relationships with individuals from other departments in the provincial government have contributed to this work. A government official reflected, “I work closely with other government departments in Manitoba such as those responsible for finance, health, and especially trade, since international education is actually an export commodity” (interview, 29 June 2016). The physical location of the ie branch has further facilitated cross-sectoral collaboration. The branch has been co-located within two ministries – Manitoba Education and Training and Manitoba Trade and Investment – so that physical proximity can best support closer working relationships and information flow. The provincial autonomy for responding to federal policy changes has been quite beneficial for Manitoba. Here is an example of how changes in federal immigration policy triggered a series of policy developments at the provincial level. In 2014, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) adopted a policy that required provinces to prepare a list of Designated Learning Institutions. This federal initiative aimed to create a

Internationalization in Manitoba


nation-wide mechanism for overseeing the quality of educational providers accepting international students. While all public primary and secondary schools in Canada were automatically designated, the designated status did not extend to post-secondary institutions, private vocational institutions, or private language schools. Therefore, the need emerged to initiate discussions in the province on those requirements. It was the provincial government’s decision as to how to designate institutions. As a result, provincial decisions were made based on Manitoba’s new International Education Act. An informant noted: “International Education Act, which of course is provincially initiated, has strong connections with the federal legislation. So really, the feds kind of set the directive and our goal was to get the tools in place to meet that directive on time” (interview, 29 June 2016). To create guidelines for compliance with the International Education Act, a working group of education stakeholders was established with representatives from educational institutions ranging from postsecondary to K–12, private colleges, and language schools. The discussions and meetings took place over a six-month period to develop coherence on best practices in the Manitoba ie context. This working group created a guidebook entitled The Manitoba Code of Practice and Conduct to provide suggestions (e.g., what support services should be available, what information should be provided to students) and best practices that help facilitate high-quality educational experiences. Manitoba was also one of the first provinces to establish a formal ie strategy. The initial strategy was released in 2008 and expired in 2013. The strategy listed goals and priorities regarding the inward mobility of international students, the outward mobility of Manitoba students, the establishment of Manitoba programs in other countries, and the internationalization of Manitoba programs and students at home. Work on a new strategy began in 2015 and is on hold due to changes in government priorities. In addition to fostering collaboration across the provincial government, ie branch officials have worked closely with local-level educational stakeholders and organizations such as mcie, an organization that facilitates dialogue in ie among Manitoba educational providers from K–12 schools to post-secondary institutions. A government administrator commented, “Manitoba is well known for how we work together through this council. It’s really run by the stakeholders themselves” (interview, 29 June 2016). One activity in which educational institutions in Manitoba are collaborating through mcie is


Merli Tamtik

organizing and funding familiarization tours for international agents who represent Manitoba institutions in their home countries. Finally, there is a mechanism for facilitating a school-to-school dialogue in ie throughout the K–12 system across the country. The Canadian Association of Public Schools-International (caps-i) is committed to advocacy and promotion of ie programs in Canadian K–12 public schools. caps-i works closely with the federal government, particularly regarding issues around immigration. caps-i plays an important role among Manitoba school administrators, partly because it was established in 2007 in Winnipeg by a group of Canadian K–12 public school administrators. Currently, eight Manitoba school divisions are members of the organization. Overall, there are both formal and informal mechanisms in place to enhance coordination across the stakeholder groups. The strong involvement and leadership of Manitoba’s ie branch has clearly had a significant impact on advancing the strategy for ie in the province. The process has moved forward by initiating formal roundtables and forming working groups of local isp administrators. In addition, the schools have their own professional organizations that help to articulate their position on internationalization. Because each actor has its own rationales, alignment across this heterogeneity is not always easy to achieve, but once achieved it is beneficial for the sector as a whole.

multi-issue characteristics – complements and clashes As noted, ie has become a policy sector of recognized importance in Manitoba. The benefits of internationalization typically range from academic, economic, and social to cultural rationales (Knight 2012), usually involving a mixture of several. While different stakeholders might emphasize different rationales, each has gains to be achieved through ie. The Manitoba provincial government sees ie essentially as an item of trade, as well as a significant source of revenue and skilled labour. According to a government representative, “International education is one of the top ten export commodities [in Manitoba]. It comes in between agriculture and machinery and frozen vegetables” (interview, 29 June 2016). For schools that host large numbers of international students, the isp has also become an important revenue source. Schools can use those funds directly for developing programming to support interna-

Internationalization in Manitoba


tional students or for hiring additional teachers to help international students without having to wait for public funds.1 Smaller institutions with fewer students do not tend to see ie as a source of revenue but rather as a way to enhance multicultural learning experiences for all students. A school representative from a smaller school reflected, “[The economic benefit] is not the primary reason at all for the program but to provide multicultural experiences to our students. What better way to learn than to have Mexican students sitting right beside you and to learn about the language and the culture” (interview, 26 July 2016). Having the opportunity to benefit from the knowledge and diverse perspectives that international students can bring to the classroom contributes to the quality of learning experiences for all. Mutually shared benefits across stakeholder groups create alignment and motivation to enhance collaboration in ie. As a result, the relationships and communication between different levels of governance have become closer. Participants in this study gave examples of times when federal government officials reached out to schools in order to enhance co-operation. A school isp administrator, a member of capsi, noted, “caps-i works very closely with the federal government. We meet with them, we meet with [the] immigration [department]. When they released their [ie] strategy in 2014, we certainly were very interested. We wanted to match our goals with theirs” (interview, 26 July 2016). The relationship between the provincial government and local schools has also become closer. An isp school administrator recognized the benefits of close communication with the provincial ie branch, and two school administrators also pointed to the need for even closer communication with the provincial government. Fortunately, it was evident from the interviews that there is a willingness from both sides to enhance this relationship. A provincial representative stressed the importance of working in the same direction across the province: “It is important that our institutions align their strategies with the provincial strategy, because Manitoba is a small province and we all need to pull in the same direction” (interview, 29 June 2016). The province has taken steps to help smaller school divisions initiate isps. The International Education Incentive Loan Fund – a provincial loan program – was introduced to help Manitoba’s public educational institutions develop, market, and implement innovative, revenue-generating ie projects by providing interest-free loans to


Merli Tamtik

eligible applicants. This loan has enabled western Manitoba schools to establish an isp whereby five school divisions have worked together to hire an isp director and initiate the program. This person recruits international students and places them in schools throughout these five school divisions. While there is no formal pressure for education institutions to follow the provincial vision for ie, there seems to be a high level of compliance and collaboration among local stakeholders in Manitoba. Despite stakeholders’ general alignment of goals and willingness to work together, there are still areas where their interests diverge and their powers conflict. The fact that the federal government has become highly influential in ie has alarmed the provincial government and other educational organizations, leading to the mobilization of forces to protect the constitutional rights of provinces to govern education. For example, cmec, as a pan-Canadian intergovernmental organization of educational ministers, guards very closely the provincial-territorial policy jurisdiction. They have released joint ministerial statements (see cmec 2008) where they have emphasized their primary coordinating role in education in Canada and signed an understanding with the Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which regulates Canada’s representation in ie-related conferences. A Manitoba provincial government official noted the inevitability of working with the federal government: “The international part belongs to the feds and the education part belongs to the provinces and so international education sits kind of right in between so we have to work with the federal government” (interview, 29 June 2016). While it may be difficult to resist federal policy developments at the local level, there is definitely visibly heightened awareness of these developments, leading to protection and mobilization of forces to guard provincial jurisdiction over education. Despite closer communication between the province and Manitoba schools, there has been a certain divergence of viewpoints that is apparent when comparing provincial and school perspectives on international students. While provincial government representatives have regarded ie as an important industry branch and a mechanism for bringing in talented labour to the province, the schools have had to secure academic and social benefits for the students. As Manitoba is not a well-known province outside of Canada, the quality of the services provided at the schools determines provincial success in the ie market. Provincial government officials have been highly concerned

Internationalization in Manitoba


over the reputation and quality of services provided by their education institutions. Yet, the real experiences are created at the school level, where administrators must ensure that students are receiving high-quality education, that they are satisfied with their host families, and that their overall learning experience is positive. It all takes a lot of resources, planning, and monitoring. An isp director was straightforward about the continuity of effort involved: “Our goal is to make sure we provide the support the students need ’cause bringing them in is one thing, but you’ve got to make sure that their experience is something they will want to go home and talk about … Once we get the students here, it’s not just a matter of us dumping them off at the school and saying good luck. That is where a lot of the infrastructure and support has to happen” (interview, 26 July 2016). There was the sense in the interviews that schools need a little more support from the province when it comes to creating those experiences. While the several provincial policy documents in ie are helpful in providing coherent guidelines in Manitoba, there is also significant work involved for the schools in securing the success of ie in the province. This reveals another opportunity to further enhance dialogue and collaboration across the stakeholder groups involved. Veiled conflicts are visible not only in federal-provincial and provincial school relations but also between and within schools. Differences in the opportunities to generate additional funding through isps have raised questions among schools regarding the distribution of those resources. Some schools with limited resources and/or a different emphasis on ie have been afraid of losing out financially. For example, the Winnipeg School Division does not have an international program partly because the division already has high levels of immigrants and refugees and they do not need to bring in international students in order to internationalize their schools. Other school divisions are too small to operate their own isps and are losing out financially. In order to promote equality and fairness, some school divisions have decided to distribute the generated income from isps across all the schools within a division, so that smaller schools that do not host international students can also benefit from this extra income to build and strengthen their educational programs. As the K–12 segment of student mobility amounts to about 10 percent of the total number of international students in Manitoba, the overall visibility of K–12 level international mobility is politically


Merli Tamtik

peripheral compared with the post-secondary sector. The main focus of the (federal) government policies and attention is on post-secondary-level student mobility, making other forms of ie (e.g., language learners, short-term mobility programs, K–12 exchanges) less visible. A school isp administrator commented: “So, we are not being ignored but the bulk of students still come for post-secondary and that is where their [federal] focus has to be. But there are over 20,000 K –12 students over Canada, so we keep reminding the government of that. We are not a small piece of the pie” (interview, 26 July 2016). This lack of attention has sometimes caused immigration issues, as most K–12 students are minors and some have experienced difficulties obtaining student visas to enter Canada. It has also indirectly affected the status and visibility of isps within schools. Although all isp administrators in this study spoke positively about their relationship with their school and divisional leadership, several still mentioned that isp activities are not always fully considered within schools and school divisions. One of the implications associated with the limited political priority of K–12 international student mobility has to do with the absence of data regarding students’ educational career choices after graduation (including local students). There is currently no assessment system or mechanism to track students’ educational careers after they graduate from Manitoba high schools. This is a broader problem of the Manitoba education system in general, which has been articulated, yet not addressed, for years. A school administrator recognized this shortcoming: “We don’t track our students. It is hard to do. We don’t know how many of our students go to the University of Manitoba or how many go back home. We don’t do a good job of tracking that and neither do, actually, most schools … If I had to guess I think around 50 percent stay at least in Canada and probably 20 to 30 percent probably stay in Manitoba and the other 50 percent would go home or go abroad to another university” (interview, 26 July 2016). There is a pool of qualified international students with Manitoba high school diplomas who have the potential interest and drive to continue their higher education in Manitoba or another part of Canada. With closer collaboration among schools, post-secondary institutions, and the provincial government, there is an opportunity to manage costs associated with recruitment campaigns abroad and attract international students with Manitoba educational experiences closer to home.

Internationalization in Manitoba


The multi-issue aspect of an mlg framework revealed coherencies but pointed also to several tensions within the stakeholder groups. These tensions have been driven by organizational position and authority to influence decisions in education. As ie is closely related to federal immigration policy, local-level stakeholders are not in the position to resist federal changes and are forced to align their policies accordingly. At the same time, provinces have the freedom to determine specific mechanisms, which have been actively used in Manitoba to regulate ie developments to support provincial objectives and address local issues of concern.

conclusion Manitoba is a province that has gradually made ie a policy priority. It is the only province in Canada that has introduced legal regulation – the International Education Act (2016) – to standardize the provision of ie services in Manitoba. In addition, there are other non-binding guidelines in place that help educational providers to secure quality and coherence of educational experiences across the province. The provincial government’s International Education Branch has led the process, securing the position of ie as an important trade item in the province. With the new Progressive Conservative government in the province (elected in 2016), it remains to be seen what goals will be set for ie. ie as a policy area has emerged in Manitoba as a bottom-up initiative triggered by educational institutions (Tamtik, 2018). The K–12 isp essentially began as a result of the vision of one school principal who recognized the multi-faceted potential of ie for Manitoba schools. Initially the focus of ie was on the need to support diversity in the homogeneous classrooms of Manitoba and to provide better support services for the international students already studying in the province. With increasing student numbers and associated financial revenues, the drivers for ie have changed. While enhancing cross-cultural competencies and developing the global skills of students remain an important mission, most educational stakeholders also regard ie as a vital industry in Manitoba. Government officials have been focusing on coordinated marketing efforts to increase the visibility and reputation of the province and thus increase the numbers of international students. Schools are part of those coordinated marketing efforts. However, they are primarily engaged with enhancing the quality of


Merli Tamtik

student educational experiences, securing their networks of host families, and developing their academic and social programs, so that students are satisfied with their learning experiences in Manitoba. Developments in ie, especially in the immigration sector, have brought federal-provincial governments closer together. The Manitoba provincial government has been actively aligning its ie policies according to the developments of the federal government. Schools, while partly embracing the financial revenues, are working more closely with the federal and provincial governments individually and through professional associations (e.g., caps-i, mcie, cmec) to voice their interests and concerns. There is clearly a heightened awareness regarding education as solely a provincial responsibility, which has made local stakeholders’ participation in policy debates, through provincial and federal-provincial roundtables or associations, an important undertaking. Examining ie policies through the lens of Manitoba K–12 school isp administrators has provided unique insights on the topic. K–12 student mobility has not been policy priority in Canada traditionally, and it is still a relatively marginal (but growing) sector compared with post-secondary student mobility. For example, K–12 level internationalization is not specifically addressed in the Canadian federal internationalization strategy. Nevertheless, the interviews showed school administrators’ dedication and leadership in carving out a policy space for school-level ie experiences locally. With increasing numbers of K–12 students coming to study in Manitoba and with the Manitoba high school curriculum being taught abroad, K–12 sector internationalization is difficult to ignore. It currently has a clear presence and focus in all of Manitoba’s provincial ie documents. This has been achieved through local stakeholders collaborating individually and through ie branch, mcie, and caps-i. Schools have worked closely together with each other and with the provincial government in coordinating their recruitment activities abroad. isp administrators’ oversight of the process after students arrive has provided them with the opportunity to determine weaknesses. They then have worked toward strengthening their programs by providing a range of extracurricular activities and organizing information sessions for host families and students. With support from provincial legislation, schools have been able to create coherency across the province. The focus on K–12 internationalization has revealed a few discrepancies in internationalization activities across the school divisions in Manitoba. However, steps have been taken to address these discrep-

Internationalization in Manitoba


ancies. The province of Manitoba has developed a unique loan program to support schools in starting isp initiatives. In addition, at least one school division (the Pembina Trails School Division) has introduced an equitable distribution of funds generated through ie activities across its schools. There is currently no mechanism in place to assess students’ post-secondary choices after they graduate from Manitoba high schools. This can be regarded as a lost opportunity. Nevertheless, overall, Manitoba has made significant progress in regulating and securing quality ie experiences and should be regarded as a front-runner among Canadian provinces regarding progress made in internationalization.

notes The author would like to recognize the following people for their continuous support and guidance in this project: Brent Poole, Cheryl Prokopanko, and my research assistants Donovan Alexander and Erin Mitchell. The author would also like to thank all anonymous research participants for sharing their experiences. This project was supported by the University of Manitoba and a Faculty of Education research grant. 1 Schools do not get financial support from the province for international students. International students’ tuition fees charged by the schools (average of $12,000 per year) must cover the costs of their education which in 2016/2017 was $10,227 per pupil in Manitoba (Canada. Government of Manitoba. Education and Training 2016).

references Altbach, P.G., and U. Teichler. 2001. “Internationalization and Exchanges in a Globalized University.” Journal of Studies in International Education 5 (1): 5–25. Amaral, A., and A. Veiga. 2012. “The European Higher Education Area: Various Perspectives on the Complexities of a Multi-Level Governance System.” Educação Sociedade & Culturas 36: 25–48. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2013. Global Markets Action Plan: The Blueprint for Creating Jobs and Opportunities for Canadians through Trade. Ottawa, on: fatdc.


Merli Tamtik

– 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /pdfs/overview-apercu-eng.pdf. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. By Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. /impact-2016/index.aspx?lang=eng. Canada. Government of Manitoba. 2008. International Education Strategy for the Province of Manitoba 2009–2013. /awweb/pdfopener?smd=1&did=19314&md=1. – 2016. International Education Act. /legislation.html. – 2017. “Province Improves Service Standards, Renews Provincial Program.” Manitoba News Releases, 6 April. ?archive=&item=41277. Canada. Statistics Canada. 2016. Population Size and Growth in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. http://www.stat caps-i (Canadian Association of Public Schools – International). 2018. “List of Member Schools.” Accessed 20 January. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2015. A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education 2015. Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education. https://cbie .ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/A-World-of-Learning-HI-RES-2016.pdf. Chou, M.H., J. Jungblut, P. Ravinet, and M. Vukasovic. 2017. “Higher Education Governance and Policy: An Introduction to Multi-Issue, Multi-Level and Multi-Actor Dynamics.” Policy and Society 36 (1): 1–15. CICNews (Canada Immigration and Citizenship News). 2016. “Manitoba Outlines Immigration Strategy for 2017 and Beyond.” 21 December. cmec (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada). 2008. Learn Canada 2020. /187/CMEC-2020-DECLARATION.en.pdf. – 2018. “International.” Accessed 20 January. /International.html.

Internationalization in Manitoba


Council for International Trade. 2011. International Trade Strategy for Manitoba. &did=19147&md=1. Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Fumasoli, T. 2015. “Multi-Level Governance in Higher Education Research.” In The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, edited by J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D.D. Dill, and M. Souto-Otero, 76–94. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2001. “Types of Multi-Level Governance.” European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 5 (11). /2001-011.pdf. Jones, G.A., and A. Oleksiyenko. 2011. “The Internationalization of Canadian University Research: A Global Higher Education Matrix Analysis of Multi-Level Governance.” Higher Education 61 (1): 41–57. Knight, J. 2012. “Concepts, Rationales and Interpretive Frameworks in the Internationalization of Higher Education.” In The sage Handbook of International Higher Education, edited by D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl, and T. Adams, 27–42. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Manitoba. Manitoba Education and Training. 2015. The Guide to the Code of Practice and Conduct Regulation for Manitoba Designated Education Providers, their Staff Recruiters and Contracted Agents; International Education Act Regulations 51(2) and Best Practices. /ie/about/legislation.html. Manitoba. Manitoba Education and Training. ie Branch. 2014. Manitoba International Student Reports. Winnipeg: ie Branch. Manitoba Council for International Education. 2017. “Members.” Marginson, S. 2000. “Rethinking Academic Work in the Global Era.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22 (1): 23–35. Marks, G. 1993. “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the ec.” The State of the European Community 2: 391–410. Miles, M., and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, ca: sage Publications. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tamtik, M. 2018. “International Education in Manitoba: Exploring Leader-


Merli Tamtik

ship Practices in Policy Contexts.” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 187: 18–30. Tamtik, M. and A. O’Brien Klewchuk. 2020. “The Political Process of International Education: Complementarities and Clashes in the Manitoba K12 Sector through a Multi-level Governance Lens.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 28 (1): 1–26.

8 International Education Policy: The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador Sonja Knutson

introduction Newfoundland and Labrador has exclusively focused its international education (ie) policy on attracting international students as skilled immigrants for more than a decade (Newfoundland and Labrador 2007). The province views international students as potential immigrants and thus has framed policy in a series of repopulation strategies, beginning in 2007. The impetus for this focus was the devastating outmigration resulting from the collapse of the groundfish industry in 1992 (Vaughan 2015). Provincial immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador remains the lowest in Canada (figure 8.1); the province has acknowledged it has not managed immigration effectively, lagging in both attraction and retention of newcomers (Newfoundland and Labrador 2015). Over the past decade, the Newfoundland and Labrador government has introduced three consecutive immigration policies. Diversity – Opportunity and Growth (2007) saw the first government program to coordinate efforts to improve immigration outcomes. This was followed by Live Here, Work Here, Belong Here: A Population Growth Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador 2015–2025 (2015) and The Way Forward on Immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador (2017). In each of these strategic projects, the province outlined a range of initiatives and actions to attract and retain new immigrants. A striking facet of each of these strategies was the prominent role of post-secondary institutions, and in particular that of Memorial University, in supporting

Sonja Knutson


Net international immigration per 1,000

Figure 8.1 Data compilation of net immigration by province, 1971–2015 Source: Locke, W. 2017

provincial immigration goals. Memorial has acknowledged its function as a pillar of the strategic attraction of new immigrants and a major contributor to population growth, and has organized its own strategic plans on themes of international student attraction for the purpose of immigration (Greenwood and Storey 2004; Memorial University of Newfoundland 2014, 2015b). The overwhelming thrust of immigration strategies has been to focus on the postgraduate retention of international students. Other aspects of post-secondary internationalization have been neglected, such as attracting full fee-paying international students for revenue generation, the development of international research partnerships, or domestic student engagement in international experiences (Altbach and Knight 2007; Teichler 2004). Over the past decade, ie in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has become synonymous with the immigration of international students.

international education and the role of the provincial government Newfoundland and Labrador is the youngest of Canada’s provinces, having joined Confederation in 1949. The education of its youth was a priority issue in the process of joining Canada (Higgins 2007);

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


indeed, even before Newfoundland and Labrador became Canada’s tenth province, post-secondary education (pse) was closely tied to the economic self-reliance and development of the population (Johnston 1990; Vaughan 2015; Webb 2014). Although education was a priority, international considerations were not initially high on the agenda of the province due to the complex process of joining Canada. Only after the bleak demographic reality of the out-migration of the 1990s, compounded by an aging population, weak economy, and extremely low immigration, did an international dimension appear in higher education policy. Despite increased government attention, the province continues to attract the lowest numbers of immigrant arrivals in Canada, at 0.4 percent of the Canadian total of over 320,000 new arrivals in 2016 (El-Assal and Goucher 2017). In a country where the population averages 20.6 percent of people born outside of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador sits at 1.8 percent, the lowest ratio in the country (El-Assal and Goucher 2017). This inability to attract and retain immigrants has been attributed to a number of factors, including the difficulty in travelling to the province, its isolation and climate, and the lack of a strong, resilient economy with robust job prospects (Gien and Law 2009). The province now has the oldest population in Canada. While there was an uptake in population from 2007 to 2015 due to an economic boom driven by the oil industry, this prosperity was short-lived, and the subsequent downturn in the economy has led to a new round of out-migration (Locke 2017). The “emptying out” of the province has singularly and almost exclusively shaped policy around ie. This is a contrast to elsewhere in Canada, where multiple factors have shaped internationalization, including a need for new revenue streams, a focus on global research and innovation networks, the development of intercultural and globally minded skills, and the “upgrading of international perspectives and skills of students” (Altbach and Knight 2007, 290). ie policy in Newfoundland and Labrador has become relatively distinct among the Canadian provinces. Although immigration-focused policies and programs have been in place in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2007, it is important to acknowledge a brief period of time in the early 2000s when the province engaged in discussions through the Newfoundland and Labrador Council on Higher Education that explored international student recruitment as a revenue source (Blake 2001). These discussions focused first on an ie strategy, which then became conflated


Sonja Knutson

with an international student recruitment strategy. The Council on Higher Education, established in 1992, consisted of representation from government and the public higher education sector, and had a mandate to advise on education policy, planning, and coordination (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2001). Its annual reports tell the story of the intensification of international recruitment travel by numerous stakeholders. This lasted about five years and came to a halt when the council work ceased upon the recommendation of the White Paper (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2005). The council was reconstituted in 2006 through legislation with a renewed mandate (Newfoundland and Labrador 2006). This short-lived attempt to develop provincial engagement in ie was mentioned first in the council’s annual report of 1999–2000. kpmg, a Canadian consulting company, was engaged to develop a report on the potential for ie in the province. It was also to host a series of workshops with stakeholders from government and the public education sector to develop a vision and strategic directions (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2000). The assembled stakeholders agreed to develop a brand; recruit and retain international students and scholars; and overall to recognize the importance of ie “as a contributor to economic development and social and cultural enrichment” (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2000, section 2.4). Specific targets were also set, both for inbound and oubound students: “to increase the international student population in the province from 424 to 2,000 by the year 2005; to provide up to 1,000 international placements for Newfoundland students by the year 2005” (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2000, section 2.4). However, these stakeholder directives and targets had quickly disappeared by the following year. The funding proposal in the 2001 annual report focused only on international student recruitment, leaving out any mention of supporting international placements for students from the province (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development 2001). The 2001 report also announced the engagement of a director in the Department of Youth and Post-Secondary Education with the

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


responsibility of developing an overall ie strategy. The strategy focused on student recruitment, reinforcing assumptions that ie is primarily accomplished through international recruitment (Newfoundland and Labrador 2001). After this date, no further mention of the international education strategy exists. It would appear that, despite an initial flurry of travel activity, the necessary political support to advance these initiatives was never garnered. The lack of an official provincial position on ie paved the way for Memorial to begin to act as a de facto proxy to lead the file. A government news release in late 2004 identified Memorial as the lead to “work with secondary and post-secondary educational institutions and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to market and promote the province as an educational destination for international students” (Newfoundland and Labrador 2004, para.19). This appears to signal a formal transfer of leadership on ie from the province to the university. By 2005, any discussion of international students as a source of revenue or, indeed, as a part of the education framework in the province had completely disappeared. The extensive 2005 White Paper consultations elicited discussion of the internationalization potential of the public post-secondary system but this was not incorporated into the final document (Newfoundland and Labrador 2005). During the White Paper consultations, submissions from the post-secondary community specifically addressed the international student recruitment potential of the post-secondary system, but voices that could have broadened the internationalization discussions were not sought (Vaughan 2015). ie received little mention and was not incorporated as a strategy in the finalized 2005 White Paper, which continues to provide the framework for the government’s approach to public pse policy (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 2005). The only mention in the White Paper of ie was a data set representing the numbers of international students enrolled across the sector (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2005). The document contained no strategies to address international student recruitment, nor any aspect of internationalization, despite the fact that each of the province’s two public post-secondary systems operated a campus abroad at that time, Memorial’s Harlow campus and the College of the North Atlantic’s Qatar campus (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of


Sonja Knutson

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2005). Immigration was also ignored, though the declining demographics of the province were mentioned and there was a brief statement on the economic benefits of retaining Memorial alumni from “outside the province” (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2005). The White Paper instead reinforced a narrow policy focus on accessible and affordable access to public pse, characterized in particular by the continuation of a tuition freeze for students, which remains intact (Vaughan 2015). While ie was discussed in the early 2000s and some initiatives ensued, few records exist and we can only make assumptions as to why discourse on the topic had virtually disappeared from the province’s agenda by 2005. One likely explanation is that the work of ie was primarily carried out by the provincial body, the Council on Higher Education, which was identified in the White Paper as needing renewal (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2005). One may surmise that the council was not considered to be structured appropriately and thus was not seen as robust and trustworthy (Vaughan 2015). When the reconfigured council was established in legislation through an act in 2006, there was minimal mention of international activities – only a responsibility to recommend “costeffective provincial, national and international student recruitment.” (Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour 2017, 15). The initiatives that began with the kpmg report in 2000 came to an abrupt end with the demise of the former Council on Higher Education. By the late 2000s, the province was also actively seeking to distance itself from the file in its K–12 sector. A review of international student recruitment practices of the provincial school boards was initiated which “found that international education can enrich students, schools and communities, but it is not the responsibility of the provincial government” (cbc News 2008). The review followed fraud charges against a school district employee and examined international student programs (isps), recruitment, and homestays to determine inherent risk to government (cbc News 2008). The report found weaknesses in oversight processes, and the government subsequently required a phase-out of school district management of isps (cbc News 2008; Jane Helleur and Associates 2008). It is noteworthy that the demise of the K–12 isp had the unintended and ongoing consequence of hindering the creation of pathways for such students to

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


enter the provincial post-secondary system, a successful and efficient international student recruitment strategy in other provinces (Illuminate Consulting Group 2015). The lack of a provincial ie agenda has meant that aspects of internationalization important to other provinces, such as the global skills development of their youth or tuition revenue,1 have been absent from Newfoundland and Labrador’s pse policy and discourse. As the province has engaged with the file only with respect to the immigration potential of students, ie policies and programs have defaulted to the institutions themselves – primarily to Memorial University and, to a lesser extent, the College of the North Atlantic. Memorial University of Newfoundland Memorial was established in 1925 as Memorial University College, a monument to the loss of many Newfoundlanders in the First World War, with a mandate to “materially assist its young people to achieve success in life” (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2015a, n.p.). In 1949, one of the first legislative acts of the new provincial government was to raise the college to degree-granting status, thus founding Memorial University of Newfoundland as the only degree-granting post-secondary institution in the province (Vaughan 2015). No longer would students wishing to complete a post-secondary degree have to “attend other post-secondary institutions off the island, in Canada, the United States or Great Britain” (Johnston 1990, 5). Since its establishment through the Memorial University Act of 1949, the university has expanded from its original site in St. John’s to three campuses on the island of Newfoundland, several institutes including the Labrador Institute in Labrador, and a campus in Old Harlow, United Kingdom, which provides international learning opportunities for Memorial students. The recent history of Newfoundland and Labrador and its participation in two world wars has had a profound effect on the province and a corollary effect on Memorial. The losses of significant numbers of its young men in the First World War, and the impacts of its loss of self-government in the 1930s after an economic crisis, and the joining with Canada in 1949 (Reynolds 2009) have all contributed to an exceptional context in which the university has “a special responsibility to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, and by virtue of these unique origins [Memorial] is intrinsically tied to the social, cul-


Sonja Knutson

tural, and economic development of the province and its people” (Vaughan 2015, 87). Memorial was assigned a clear role in “nation building” by the provincial government, a special obligation that continues to shape the institution, its relationship to multiple proxy governmental functions, and its support of policy priorities. Memorial thus became both an “agent of modernization” and cultural preservation, safeguarding the province’s distinct cultural heritage, while at the same time ensuring that the youth of the province could access education at a level comparable to what was offered in other provinces (Webb 2014). Memorial was uniquely tasked with an explicit role to be an “integral part of the economic development policy for the province” (Johnston 1990, 6). The government intended for Memorial to take “responsibility for several areas of economic development that were the responsibility of provincial officials in other provinces” (Webb 2014, 4). While the university operates with institutional autonomy, similar to its Canadian counterparts, it was de facto assigned a broader role than most universities in Canada – not only responsible for the higher education of the population but also responsible as the primary vehicle by which the new province would develop the capacity for self-reliance within the new Canadian context (Vaughan 2015). Memorial developed into a comprehensive, multi-campus university and remains the sole university in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has a robust internationalization infrastructure resulting from the goals and actions of its Strategic Internationalization Plan 2020. The plan specifically addresses how the university fulfills its role of increasing immigration on behalf of the province. In particular, Action 2.9 states that Memorial will: “Contribute to the population growth of the province through strong post-graduation transition programming and support of welcoming community initiatives which nurture relationships between the host culture and newcomers. In particular, significantly improve settlement and integration support to international faculty, undergraduate students, and graduate students and their families, especially in relation to dedicated housing, residential space, family-based housing, etc.” (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2015b, 15). Furthermore, the university should play a lead role in supporting the career transitions of international students as per Action 2.11: “Identify the labor market entry of international students, and in fact all newcomers to the province, as a priority and work with local busi-

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


ness communities and external professional accrediting bodies to help transition graduates into meaningful careers in the province” (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2015b, 15). Memorial’s international strategic plan begins with its responsibility to the people of the province to provide a “gateway to the world” (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2015b, 2). Like many other such institutional strategies, it also has goals of developing global citizenship, building an international profile, and engaging in research partnerships abroad. However, it is the central focus on supporting international student transitions to citizenship that is unique. Memorial’s role in “province building” is developmental, and its strategic plans are framed in a “special obligation” to the people of the province as the university “nurtures the creation of new knowledge, new ideas and new technologies, drives innovation, and connects to the fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the province’s social and economic growth” (Memorial University of Newfoundland 2015b, 2). Memorial’s identity and values are inextricably aligned with provincial growth objectives. Thus, its strategic internationalization plan supports the attraction and retention of newcomers to the province. The College of the North Atlantic The College of the North Atlantic was first established in 1963 and provides technical and vocational education in the province. It is Newfoundland and Labrador’s only public college system with seventeen campuses. Since 2002, this has included a campus in Doha, Qatar, which was established through an agreement between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Qatar (College of the North Atlantic 2017b). Unlike public colleges elsewhere in Canada, the college is directly governed by the province, as evidenced by the College Act (Newfoundland and Labrador 1996). While it might be presumed that the college’s (and thus the provincial government’s) international presence through its campus in Doha, Qatar, would form the basis for leveraging ie, the existence of the campus was barely mentioned in the White Paper on Public PostSecondary Education (2005) and did not appear in any of the subsequent immigration strategies. As the cna Modernization Plan 2019 (2017a, 28) stated, “The College fails to realize the potential benefits of, and lacks a strategic approach to, its international activities.” The plan referenced in particular the college campus in Qatar, which pro-


Sonja Knutson

vides a significant revenue stream to the province (College of the North Atlantic 2017a, 29). The college has not yet engaged in significant international student recruitment activities, unlike its counterparts in other parts of Canada. A small glimmer of hope in the overall disinterest in internationalization appeared in 2016, when the provincial government amended the College Act to allow the College of the North Atlantic to launch applied degree programs; at least a part of the explicit rationale was to improve the college’s global competitiveness (Squibb 2016). The 2017 plan outlined publicly for the first time the college’s international activities, primarily focused on international development project work. It recommended next steps to improve coordination and leveraging of college capacity to engage in international business development and student recruitment activities, the latter of which is currently non-existent. Although the cna Modernization Plan 2019 did discuss ie briefly, its primary focus necessarily remained on the college’s activities within the province and bringing its many campus sites and academic offerings into greater alignment with provincial labour market priorities and regional needs (College of the North Atlantic 2017a). The college has thus been largely absent from “international students as immigrants” discussions.

newfoundland and labrador immigration policy frameworks and the role of memorial As mentioned above, beginning in 2007, the province initiated a series of strategies to address persistent issues of population decline. The strategic documents, reviewed below, each have recognized that pse plays a key role in talent attraction and in retaining international students, post-graduation. This section details immigration policy initiatives as they relate to international student recruitment and retention at Memorial. It sets the stage for a discussion of the issues and challenges Memorial faces in its quest to ensure provincial immigration goals are supported. Provincial Immigration Strategy 2007 The first provincial immigration strategy was based on provincewide consultations following the release of a 2005 discussion paper

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


Table 8.1 Goal 12: To increase enrolment of post-secondary international students What we will do ...

How we will do it ...

Using a provincial approach, continue to work with our educational institutions to promote province as a destination of study for international students. Make the province more attractive as a study destination for international students. Continue to work with federal government to improve visa processing issues.

Produce and disseminate promotional materials; update websites. Engage current and former international students, including those that have become permanent residents, as ambassadors. Support incoming missions. Negotiate co-operation agreements with foreign governments. Pursue opportunities to work with other Atlantic provinces to promote Atlantic region. Provide Medical Care Plan (mcp) coverage to international students. Promote, implement, and enhance mou allowing international students to work off-campus, as well as mou allowing international graduates to work in the province for up to two years post-graduation. Educate visa officials about what the province has to offer as an education/immigration destination. Participate on federal/provincial marketing and immigration committees.

Source: Newfoundland and Labrador 2007, 19.

that provided a rationale for increasing immigration to the province (Newfoundland and Labrador 2007). The resulting strategy was foundational to internationalization at Memorial. The strategy adjusted policy and programs to enable immigrant attraction and retention for international students. It expanded the scope of the provincial health policy to encompass international students and set the stage for the development of a new international student graduate category for the Provincial Nominee Program (pnp). This program allowed students who were graduating from Memorial and who demonstrated labour market attachment and affinity to the province to be selected as provincial nominees. Goal 12 (see table 8.1) of the immigration strategy contained the bulk of the actions related to how the government intended to support international student recruitment and retention.


Sonja Knutson

The actions of Goal 12 mirrored a university-based international student recruitment strategy focused on marketing, raising awareness, both inbound and outbound mobility, partnerships, and innovative recruitment techniques such as using alumni as ambassadors. Other goals addressed postgraduate labour market transitions (Goal 13) and the consideration of a new provincial nominee stream for international student graduates (Goal 14). Two of the new policy directions were to have far-reaching impacts on Memorial. A new health department policy allowed international students to enrol in publicly funded healthcare. In addition, the government’s freeze on post-secondary tuition was applied to the international student differential tuition fee. For the first time, the province dedicated resources and policies to support international students with the explicit goal to develop immigration pathways for them to remain in the province. The exclusive focus of the strategy on international students as immigrants ignored other considerations such as revenue potential and opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador students to develop global competencies through learning abroad. Provincial Immigration Policy 2015 Another immigration action plan was developed in response to crossprovincial consultations in 2015 (Newfoundland and Labrador 2015). As with the 2007 plan, consultations included discussions with stakeholders from the international offices at Memorial’s campuses; however, the resulting plan was short-lived due to the existing government’s election loss shortly after the document was published. The plan did, however, establish a new communication link between the provincial Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and Memorial through the following action: “Establish a Government presence focused on immigration and workforce development at Memorial University to provide on-site services in an effort to encourage international students and graduates to remain in Newfoundland and Labrador” (Newfoundland and Labrador 2015, 4). The provincial government placed a government employee from the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism within Memorial’s Internationalization Office to support the pnp’s international graduate category. The program officer meets and conducts outreach activities with international students and their spouses, as well as with new

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


international faculty and post-doctoral fellows. While the embedding of a government official into an international office could be viewed as encroaching on the academic independence of the university, the experience has been positive for international students who have direct access to government staff. The officer is able to relay students’ challenges to the government and act upon them, resulting in positive shifts to provincial immigration programs, such as elimination of the field of study requirement (Newfoundland and Labrador 2017). When the 2016 elections saw the formation of a new provincial government, this position within the internationalization office of the university continued to have support. This arrangement appears to be the only one of its kind in Canada, facilitated by the common understanding that Memorial should support the immigration goals of the provincial government. Provincial Immigration Policy 2017 In 2017, the new government released The Way Forward on Immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador, an immigration strategy outlining a range of new initiatives to support international student retention after graduation (Newfoundland and Labrador 2017). Through this strategy, the province intended to “refocus its presence at Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic and work with all post-secondary institutions to support international student recruitment, increase pathways to permanent residency for international graduates, and link international graduates to labour market supports and programs” (Newfoundland and Labrador 2017, 18). Measuring the success of initiatives to date has been a challenge since reliable data has not been available. However, recent work with federal open data sets from 2013 has shown that 11 percent of international students in Newfoundland and Labrador remained in the province one year after graduation, which at the very least provides a baseline for measuring success (Haan 2018). A key policy shift outlined by the 2017 strategy was a new pnp category for international student entrepreneurs (Newfoundland and Labrador 2017). Memorial prepared for this by establishing entrepreneurship training for international graduate students (Cook 2013). This work, along with new initiatives to support international students securing their first job, is expected to continue to tie pse to provincial immigration and labour market policy goals.


Sonja Knutson

provincial strategies and memorial: opportunities and challenges The question of how internationalization at Memorial should support provincial population strategies has long been considered in its strategic planning processes. In 2007, parallel with the development of the first provincial immigration strategy, the university was engaged in its own consultations on a pan-university Strategic Plan with five priorities related to students, research, the needs of the province, the conditions for success, and institutional responsibility (Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development 2008). University leadership at that time made it clear that “immigration issues touch all of these priorities” and that the “Strategic Plan makes a commitment to continue playing a major role in the province’s development and to its cultural, social and economic needs” (Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development 2008, 27). It was with this commitment that Memorial undertook the responsibility for developing specific initiatives to address the goals of Diversity – Opportunity and Growth. It is therefore not surprising that Memorial would take a distinctive and expanded role in internationalization compared to other universities in Canada, reaching beyond the walls of academe to become integral to the strategies of the province. Universities across Canada provide a number of supports to international students such as orientation, immigration advising, and career counselling. These programs can be considered “student success” supports, aimed to ensure that international students can graduate successfully and overcome barriers not faced by their domestic counterparts. With its unique obligation to support provincial immigration goals, Memorial has extended support services to international students far beyond the normal paradigm, developing specialized programs to address the settlement and integration of spouses and children, career advising, and programming for international students (Browne and Knutson 2017). These and several other Memorial programs have fostered a sense of belonging for students, and created a positive atmosphere for students and staff (Monjimbo 2017). Other aspects of the provincial strategic plans have placed a large burden on Memorial staff, in particular on the international student advisers. The impact of the expansion of public health insurance (Medical Care Coverage) to include the international student population created the need for new administrative processes for opting in

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


and out of insurance plans, extensive student advising, and working with student complaints and sometimes major student crises due to unexpected refusals of public health insurance by the provincial office in individual students’ cases (N. Clark, personal communication, December 1, 2017). The supports for this provincial program have been a drain on international student advising staff, but unquestioned within the context of Memorial. Instead, as illustrated above, the university has been unwavering in its support for the province on the internationalization file, even to the point of supporting initiatives that elsewhere would be the responsibility of government. The 2007 plan noted the importance of provincial international relations, and outlined three intended future actions: forming agreements with overseas governments, hosting incoming delegations, and improving the understanding of the province in Canadian embassies abroad (Newfoundland and Labrador 2007). Despite the recognition that these actions were desired, the province took no sustained action to implement them. Acknowledging that the province was poorly profiled compared to other jurisdictions with more efficient and sustained self-promotion efforts (Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development 2008), Memorial began addressing these gaps, hosting foreign government delegations, developing co-operation agreements with foreign governments to attract scholars, and regularly meeting Canadian embassy officials abroad to improve officers’ understanding of the context and expertise of the post-secondary sector in the province. In addition, as the Atlantic Canadian education sector began to self-organize with the common goal of attracting students to the region, there was no capacity within the provincial government to support participation in such activities aimed at strengthening partnerships and visibility (acoa 2012). Memorial thus took on a pan-Atlantic leadership role, coordinating international missions to Korea, Japan, India, United States, and Brazil to further enhance the profile of the province (Ash, 2012). The provincial government has also been hindered in its ability to engage in pan-Canadian ie initiatives due to a lack of dedicated staff and adequate resources. At times, questions requiring a provincial position have been unofficially passed to Memorial staff for briefing notes and recommendation; when Memorial has led coordination of pan-Canadian initiatives, the ie officers from other provincial governments have enquired about the university’s role in planning and communications for events that elsewhere are provincial government mandates. These illustrations


Sonja Knutson

exemplify Memorial’s distinctive position in provincial policy and programming. Even though the province has had strategic plans aimed at improving its ability to attract immigrants through international student recruitment and retention for more than ten years, it has neither an ie unit nor a dedicated position in the ie portfolio. The provincial government’s failure to play a central coordinating role in ie means that, unlike most provinces in Canada, ie efforts in Newfoundland and Labrador are effectively managed by its public university at this time. Challenges arise because the university is not actually responsible for drafting and enforcing the policy shifts, which affect the ability of international students to navigate the path to immigration successfully. In addition, while carrying forward the government’s strategic purposes related to international students, the university has inherited the burden of management and resources to support the new policies but lacks reliable and systematic communication pathways to the provincial policy-makers.

conclusion Immigration-focused ie policy in Newfoundland and Labrador is now a decade old, and shows no signs of going away. If anything, there is growing interest in the topic and more pressure to perform, as the entire Atlantic Canadian region is now working across sectors and provincial boundaries to enhance global awareness of the region as an education and an immigration destination (acoa 2017). This federal government push for stakeholders across the entire sector to work together will perhaps result in Newfoundland and Labrador’s provincial government supporting its ie providers, but time will tell. Memorial University has extended itself beyond the usual function of a university, carrying out a quasi-governmental role in creating and supporting programs and pathways for international students to make their homes in the province. The College of the North Atlantic has not been engaged in international recruitment nor in retention initiatives for the few international students that are enrolled there. As explained previously, the college is directly governed by the province and cannot engage in initiatives without provincial direction and endorsement. Memorial’s experience may be of interest to other regions of Canada and international regions with similar characteristics. Newfoundland and Labrador has a geographical and a demographic

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


profile far more akin to the northern areas of each Canadian province than to their southern metropolitan areas. Perhaps regions in which a single university is in harness with local government on a number of files can learn from Memorial’s history of collaboration with the province on internationalization. However, this approach also raises questions around how a university should provide leadership and resources for provincial goals that stretch beyond educating students to implementing policies for them to remain in the region post-graduation. Newfoundland and Labrador is not the only province looking at international students as prospective immigrants, but it is evident that the unique immigrant attraction policies of the province have formed a narrowly focused ie policy, which relies on the expertise and resources of its public institutions for implementation. The exclusive immigration focus of the province when it comes to ie has meant that other aspects of internationalization are little understood and supported, such as initiatives for Newfoundland and Labradorian students to engage with ie opportunities. The lack of a provincial ie office with associated leadership, funding, and strategies in a province that so greatly needs innovation and exposure to diverse educational opportunities for its own youth forms a gap that obstructs the establishing and the maximizing of global opportunities. While Memorial has embraced its role in supporting the goals of the province, tensions will remain as long as there is no mechanism for its expertise and experience to inform and influence the province’s approach to ie, and ensure it encompasses a comprehensive set of strategies to internationalize education for all its youth. It will be unfortunate if immigration strategies are successful but the province has neglected the broad internationalization strategies that ensure its residents have the necessary intercultural and global skills to welcome and include newcomers.

note 1 This is because Memorial University was set up first to educate veterans returning from the First World War, and tuition was free for the first fifty years or so, even after the province joined Canada. There is still a highly patriotic and idealistic theme that runs deeply in the unions here: tuition should still be free for everyone.


Sonja Knutson

references Altbach, P.G., and J. Knight. 2007. “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4): 290–305. Ash, G. 2012. “Bringing Brazil Closer to Home.” The Gazette, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 4 September. /issues/vol45no2/brazil.php. Blake, W. 2001. Charting the Future Internationalization of Memorial University. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Browne, J., and S. Knutson. 2017. “Internationalization in Canada: Current Context and Memorial University’s Efforts to Embed Employability in the International Student Experience.” Career Integration: Reviewing the Impact of Experience Abroad on Employment 2: 81–90. Canada. acoa (Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency). 2012. Atlantic Canada’s Education and Training Sector. Ottawa: acoa. _Educationandtraining.aspx. – 2017. Atlantic Growth Strategy: The Drive to Thrive – Working Together for Atlantic Canadian Prosperity! Ottawa: acoa. /ags-sca/Eng/atlantic-growth.html. cbc. 2008. “Plug Pulled on International Student Program.” cbc News, 16 September. College of the North Atlantic. 2017a. CNA Modernization Plan 2019. Stephenville, nl: College of the North Atlantic. /business-and-industry/pdfs/irp/Modernization-Plan-2019.pdf. – 2017b. College of the North Atlantic: Annual Report 2016/17. Stephenville, nl: College of the North Atlantic. Cook, M. 2013. “Taking Entreprenuership to the Next Level.”, 11 March. El-Assal, K., and S. Goucher. 2017. Immigration to Atlantic Canada: Toward a Prosperous Future. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Gien, L., and R. Law. 2009. Attracting and Retaining Immigrants to Newfoundland and Labrador: Voices from the Newcomers and International Students. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Greenwood, R., and K. Storey. 2004. Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Dialogue Discussion Document. St. John’s: Harris Centre. http://www.mun .ca/harriscentre/reports/research/2006/Rural_Dialogue_Report.pdf.

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


Haan, M. 2018. “International Student Recruitment and Retention in Canada, 2004–2014.” Paper presented at the Population Symposium: Retaining the Recruits, St. John’s, nl, 15 March. Higgins, J. 2007. “Social Changes, 1949–1972.” Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador. Illuminate Consulting Group. 2015. “International Student Pathways in Canada: 2015 Enrollments – 2020 Scenario.” San Carlos, ca: Illuminate Consulting Group. Jane Helleur and Associates. 2008. Homestay Program: 2008 Review. St. John’s: Department of Education. tions/k12/InternationalEducation.pdf. Johnston, K. 1990. “Government and University: The Transition of Memorial University of Newfoundland from a College to a University.” Doctoral diss., University of Toronto. Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development. 2008. Report from the Immigration and Settlement Workshop. St. John’s: Harris Centre. _Workshop_Report.pdf. Locke, W. 2017. “State of nl Economy: From Bad to Worse.” Presentation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, 20 October. Memorial University of Newfoundland. 2014. Enrolment Plan 2020. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. /vpacademic/Enrolment_Plan_2020_final.pdf. – 2015a. “Memorial’s St. John’s Campus Remembers.” News Releases, 5 November. – 2015b. Strategic Internationalization Plan 2020: Thinking Globally … Acting Globally. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. https://www Monjimbo, J. 2017. “Fostering Togetherness.” St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Memorial University Gazette, 12 April. Newfoundland and Labrador. 1996. College Act, Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador, c.22.1. St John’s: Queen’s Printer. /legislation/sr/statutes/c22-1.htm. – 2001. “International Education Strategy Announced.” News Releases, 5 December. /1205n01.htm. – 2004. “Provincial Government Investing Over $1 Million in Regional


Sonja Knutson

Economic Incentives.” News Releases, 8 December. http://www.releases – 2006. An Act to Establish the Council on Higher Education, Statues of Newfoundland and Labrador, c.37.001. St John’s: Queen’s Printer. – 2007. Diversity – Opportunity and Growth. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. – 2015. Live Here, Work Here, Belong Here: A Population Growth Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador 2015–2025. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. – 2017. The Way Forward on Immigration in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. 2005. Foundation for Success: White Paper on Post-Secondary Education. St. John’s: Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. paper05.pdf. – Council on Higher Education. 2017. Activity Plan 2017–2020. St. John’s: Department of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Council on Higher Education. 2000. Annual Report: Academic Report 1999–2000. St. John’s, nl: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. /council/anre2000.htm (site discontinued). – 2001. Annual Report: Academic Year 2000–2001. St. John’s: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. /council/anre2001.htm (site discontinued). – 2005. Annual Report 2004–05. St. John’s: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. /archives/CHEactivityreport04-05.pdf. Reitmanova, S. 2008. “Unequal Treatment of International Students in Canada: Handling the Case of Health Insurance Coverage.” College Quarterly 11 (2): n.p. Reynolds, N. 2009. “What Newfoundland Can Teach Us.” Globe and Mail, 27 November. Squibb, M. 2016. “College of the North Atlantic to Offer Applied Degrees.”

The Case of Newfoundland and Labrador


cbc News, 25 May. Teichler, U. 2004. “The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher Education.” Higher Education 48 (1): 5–26. Vaughan, A. 2015. “Whose Voices Are Heard and How? Understanding PostSecondary Policy and Agenda-Setting in Canadian Provinces: A Focus on Memorial University of Newfoundland.” Doctoral diss., University of Calgary. Webb, J.A. 2014. “The Rise and Fall of Memorial University’s Extension Services.” Newfoundland and Labrador Studies 29 (1): 1–25.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

9 The Internationalization of Post-Secondary Education in Nova Scotia J. Colin Dodds

introduction The history of Nova Scotia is rich in its international focus and outreach. Pier 21 was the Ellis Island of Canada from 1928 to 1971, with over one million immigrants passing through its doors. It now hosts the Canadian Museum of Immigration. Following the “Russell-Einstein Manifesto” in 1955, the first international conference for scientists for the abolition of nuclear weapons was held in 1957 in Pugwash, Nova Scotia.1 With historic trade routes to the New England states and the Caribbean and global entrepreneurs such as Samuel Cunard, who founded the Cunard Line, it is no surprise that the province’s universities have attracted many international students. Nova Scotia has also had a long tradition of welcoming students from other provinces. It was a public policy decision in 2003 by the Ontario government to eliminate grade 13 that led to a surge of enrolments in Nova Scotia. Some universities in Nova Scotia have positioned themselves as a “go to” destination for out-of-province enrolments while others have developed international student recruitment strategies. Not surprisingly, studies by Savoie (2010) and Gardner Pinfold (2011 and 2017) and the One ns report (Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy 2014) have all stressed the key role of the post-secondary education (pse) sector, including the recruitment of international students, in the future prosperity of the province.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the unique success of Nova Scotia as an early adopter and innovator of the internationalization of its education sector and to place this in the context of the evolving intersection of federal, provincial, and interprovincial policy linkages. I cannot point to an overall provincial international education (ie) strategy that led to significant international university enrolments and growing international enrolments in the Nova Scotia Community College (nscc)2 and K–12 system. However, I can argue that these increases did not happen by accident. Rather, as I describe, there have been a series of significant provincial policy decisions and partnerships with the pse sector dating back to the mid- to late 1990s that formed the foundation for the growth of ie in the province. Fortuitously, the growth in international students was assisted by incremental federal policy changes concerning study and work permits and funding through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (acoa), the region’s economic development agency. Concomitantly, there were shifts in the global economy with the emergence of middle-class parents in China who were looking for offshore study destinations. The creation of the King Abdullah Scholarship Program in 2005 for students from Saudi Arabia to study abroad added to the flow. In addition, there has been a more urgent, cohesive, and proactive policy agenda of outreach undertaken by the federal government, seeking the enhancement of intergovernmental partnerships. A recent example of this is the Atlantic Growth Strategy which was announced in July 2016. Led by the Atlantic premiers and federal ministers, and with a broadly based advisory group, it seeks to address the demographic and other challenges facing the region by aligning federal and provincial policies in five action areas: (1) skilled workforce/immigration; (2) innovation; (3) clean growth and climate change; (4) trade and investment; and (5) infrastructure. To achieve this regional growth strategy will require partnerships with the private sector and the pse sector in particular, and the continued recruitment and retention of international students will reinforce the province’s immigration strategies. The Nova Scotia government, apart from its role in the Atlantic Growth Strategy, is developing inter-sectoral co-operation among the Departments of Immigration, Labour and Advanced Education and Education and Early Childhood Education. In the past three years, it has introduced innovative pilot programs such as Study and Stay to link recruitment and retention of international graduates. This augurs


J. Colin Dodds

well for more proactive, responsive, and aligned policy strategies to guide the future of the province. The chapter highlights a particular policy dilemma on a go-forward basis for universities and the provincial government. A declining age 18–24 population and fiscal constraints have caused universities increasingly to rely on tuition, particularly from out-of-province and international students. This has ensured the sector’s survival to date by providing more budget flexibility and cushioning funding shortfalls from the provincial government. Usher (2017) reported that tuition revenue, including ancillary fees, and provincial grants are now equal. This calls into question whether higher education in the province is becoming a private-public good as opposed to public-private. The downside of this reliance on tuition revenue is that it could threaten the sustainability of the university system in Nova Scotia if there are significant reversals in out-of-province or international enrolments with a changing global higher education landscape. The announcement in August 2018 (Vincent 2018) of the immediate suspension of the King Abdullah Scholarship Program is a case in point. Such external forces will affect the economic contribution ie can make not only as a knowledge export but also to other provincial policies, including immigration and innovation. Together they can contribute to arresting some of the demographic challenges of an aging population and in addressing labour market gaps.

nova scotia system of education: an overview The pse sector in Nova Scotia is a public one with ten degree-granting universities and the multi-campus nscc. The majority of institutions offer mainly undergraduate programs apart from Dalhousie University, a U15 member,3 and the Atlantic School of Theology. A few universities offer specialized programs including francophone education (Université Sainte-Anne). The enrolment data in table 9.1 cover the period 1982–2017 and demonstrate that full-time student enrolment peaked in 2013. This is the result of smaller graduating classes from Nova Scotia’s high schools and a decline in the enrolment of Ontario students, given the introduction in 2011–12 of a 30 percent tuition rebate to study in Ontario. However, there was significant and sustained growth in full-time graduate students over the period of 1982–2017, which,

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


Table 9.1 International full-time student enrolment in Nova Scotia as a percentage of total enrolment, 1982–2017 Year










Total full-time students International Percentage (%) Full-time undergraduate Full-time graduate Full- and part-time

21,683 24,635 29,658 30,981 33,919 35,004 38,368 37,643 37,367 1,724 1,491 1,644 1,315 2,492 3,590 6,756 7,760 8,089 8.0 6.1 5.5 4.2 7.3 10.3 17.6 20.6 21.6 – 22,699 26,921 28,579 30,856 31,316 34,021 33,144 32,658 – 1,936 2,737 2,402 3,063 3,688 4,347 4,499 4,709 28,483 31,782 37,589 37,960 42,022 42,292 45,793 44,948 44,702

Source: aau (Association of Atlantic Universities). Notes: In 1982, aau did not separate out full- or part-time undergraduate and graduate enrolments. For out-of-province students, their percentage of full- and part-time enrolment was close to 30 percent with Ontario at 6,256; New Brunswick at 2,360; Alberta at 1,414; and British Columbia at 1,008 students respectively. The enrolment data do not include students in offshore programming.

if continued, will counterbalance some of the falling undergraduate enrolments. International student enrolments speak for themselves. Universities enrolled 8,089 students for 2017–18 out of 37,367 – 21.6 percent of full-time enrolments and 18.1 percent of total full- and part-time enrolments with 81 percent in undergraduate programs. China headed the list with 41 percent, followed by Saudi Arabia with 13 percent, India with 4.7 percent, and the United States with 3.9 percent (see mphec 2017). However, the percentages of international students by institution varied quite significantly, reflecting their recruitment strategies for out-of-province vis-à-vis international students.4 The pse sector has a wide array of international outreach strategies on and off campus that go beyond welcoming international students to the campuses. There are offshore programs,5 international research and knowledge partnerships (particularly in oceans technology research),6 international development initiatives funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and other international aid agencies, and exchange programs for study abroad and international internship opportunities. Alumni, composed of local, national, and international members, assist with student recruitment and fundraising activities. Those overseas help in trade/investment delegations seeking export markets and attracting investment back to Nova Scotia. Many studies in the Canadian context have described universities as economic drivers, talent magnets, and export industries, including


Percentage (%) Source: nscc 2018.




All full-time students











Table 9.2 nscc international student enrolment, 2007–17

































204 J. Colin Dodds

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


Knowledge Exports by Canadian Universities (aucc 2007), International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2012), and Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update (Canada. gac 2016). Gardner Pinfold (2017, 2018)7 reinforced this argument for Nova Scotia, finding that, in 2016, the total value of out-of-province and international student tuition and other expenditures was $702 million. With $184 million in research funding from the federal Tri-Council Agencies and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, this placed the universities as the province’s third largest exporter after tire manufacturing ($1.2 billion) and seafood preparation and packaging ($918 million) (see Gardner Pinfold 2017, table 4). The enrolment data for nscc are in table 9.2. While the percentage of international student enrolments is still quite small at 3.6 percent, there has been almost a ten-fold increase in enrolments over the past decade. Many Nova Scotia high schools provide the International Baccalaureate (ib) program and have, since 1997, enrolled international students, particularly at the senior high school level, thus providing another pathway to the pse sector. Additionally, the Nova Scotia curriculum, similar to many other provinces in Canada, is offered to students in China and the United Arab Emirates, providing yet another pathway to pse. In addition, there are a number of private language schools beyond the provision of esl training available at some of the universities. With this vast array of international initiatives inside and outside of the province that extend beyond the pse sector, it is not surprising that Nova Scotia in some of its marketing literature uses the moniker “Canada’s education capital.”

provincial government policy changes and initiatives The Catalyst: A Change in the University Funding Formula There was one early provincial policy action in 1998 that was pivotal in terms of university international student recruitment and the emergence of a more business-export model of higher education. This arose from the pressing need to change the university funding formula that had been in effect since 1989, not only to radically address shortfalls, but to develop a model that would provide more stability and certainty and reflect enrolment and program changes. Tuition in


J. Colin Dodds

Nova Scotia at that time was the highest in Canada, and the provincial government was concerned about student debt loads (nsche 1995, 1996). Included in the existing formula was an international differential fee or “tax” of $1,700 per international full-time equivalent student,8 which the universities collected and remitted to the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (mphec). Given the strong provincial and regional demand for university education and a “steady state” international enrolment from historical linkages and the alumni base in the United States, Bermuda, and the Caribbean, there was little incentive to market and recruit actively outside of these countries. The Nova Scotia Council of Higher Education (nsche), an intermediary body between the government and the universities, released a report on university financing (nsche 1995) that recommended a new funding arrangement for the universities, followed by another report in March 1996 entitled Proposal for a New Funding Program (nsche 1996). This led to a request by the minister of education and culture for the nsche to undertake broad consultations and prepare recommendations for a new funding formula. Following the publication of a discussion paper in March 1997 (nsche 1997), the nsche issued its final report in March 1998 (nsche 1998). The council, in its work, established a set of guiding principles9 that included the following statement: “the enrichment that international students provide to the educational experience of all students should be valued and encouraged” (nsche 1998, 4). Funding for international students was recommended to be included in the formula; universities could retain the international differential fees and charge what the market would bear. Institution-wide international student enrolment corridors were established at 10 percent for undergraduate and 30 percent for graduate students (nsche 1998). The limit of 10 percent was set so as not to exclude domestic students. For graduate programs, the council recognized that the viability of many graduate programs relied on international student enrolments. Universities were free to go beyond the limits but would not receive additional public funding. A caveat was included that the council could review a program if international graduate enrolments exceeded 50 percent. However, no reviews were undertaken either by the nsche or its successor, the Nova Scotia Advisory Board on Colleges and Universities.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


The provincial government accepted the recommendations. In justifying the funding up to the enrolment limits and the retention of international tuition by the universities it was attempting to balance a series of issues. On the one hand, one of nsche’s guiding principles was that international students bring a cross-cultural dimension to campuses (the societal, citizenship argument); on the other hand, the recommendations alleviated the funding issues facing universities (the export business case). Thus, the recommendations reduced the pressure for the government to make significant funding commitments to the universities and restrained increases in domestic tuition and student debt. The guidelines left universities free and encouraged them to recruit more international students, aggressively if they wished. This incentive of retaining the differential fees with no restraint was the catalyst for increased international student recruitment. Subsequent federal government initiatives that date from 2002 regarding study permits and work visas, more recent provincial and provincial/federal initiatives, and a growing market for cross-border education from China and Saudi Arabia all assisted recruitment. Since the adoption of that funding formula, and a new formula in 2008, Nova Scotia provincial governments have variously increased or decreased funding from what is now a block grant allocation that is no longer enrolment driven. Additional student recruitment, therefore, whether from within Canada or abroad, does not attract additional provincial government funding, only the tuition and ancillary fees. Successive provincial governments have frozen or capped domestic university tuition (at 3 percent) and provided a tuition rebate to Nova Scotian students (currently $128.30 per three-credit-hour course), but whether Conservative, ndp, or Liberal, they have retained the principle that international tuition is deregulated. This has allowed institutions to continue to market their programs and Nova Scotian universities have now come to rely on international tuition revenue to balance their budgets. The nscc, while it has a very different funding model to that of the universities, is also free to levy international differential fees. During the process of consultations that led to the new funding formula, the university presidents and the provincial government cofounded in 1997 the Higher Education International Trade and Marketing Project (heitmp) with a budget of $5 million. The funds, provincial and federal through acoa, were to support collaborative


J. Colin Dodds

international recruitment and international development initiatives if they involved at least two universities. The members selected markets where they felt a collaborative approach could highlight their profile and help accelerate the recruitment cycle. They retained the traditional markets of the eastern seaboard of the United States, the Caribbean, and Bermuda and looked toward potential new markets in Scandinavia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Target markets were reviewed annually with the assistance of Canadian embassy staff. While the branding and marketing of Nova Scotia’s universities were still largely the responsibility of each institution, there was now an added opportunity not only to work collaboratively, but also to receive funding support. The benefits of jointly marketing the province as a study destination became apparent, and the universities and nscc sought a permanent arrangement. Ava Czapalay, who managed heitmp, developed the concept of a not-for-profit co-operative named EduNova with a broad membership that also included school boards and private language schools. Its mandate was similar to that of the heitmp with EduNova facilitating and coordinating recruitment activities and identifying, developing, and supporting international contract activities for members. Funding was again provided by acoa, the province, and membership dues. Over the years, EduNova has coordinated numerous marketing missions and a number of education training and capacity-building contracts, particularly in the Caribbean and United Arab Emirates, building on the recruitment initiatives forged by the heitmp. It is now managing two new innovative provincial pilot retention programs, Stay in Nova Scotia and Study and Stay, that are discussed later in the chapter and that have now been adopted by other Maritime provinces.

provincially initiated pathways to higher education Nova Scotia Offshore K–12 Program Another key initiative of the province was the establishment of the Nova Scotia International Student Program in 1997. This initiative focused on providing the Nova Scotia high school curriculum to selected schools abroad. It was initiated by a parent who had lived in the United Arab Emirates but moved to Halifax to be with her chil-

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


dren who studied at university. She took the idea to the Department of Education, and the Abu Dhabi Grammar School was the first school to join this program. In 2017, the program enrolled a total of 4,133 students, with 2,995 students in grades 10–12 in fifteen schools in China and the one school in Abu Dhabi with 1,138 students from grade K to 12 (data provided by the Department of Education and Early Childhood Education). In the case of Abu Dhabi, the agreement to operate is between the Ministry of Education for the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and the Nova Scotia government. For China, the agreement is between the government of Nova Scotia and Chinese management companies related to trade, immigration, and tourism. Since 2006, 3,501 students from this program have come to Canada for post-secondary studies. In 2017, of the 837 program graduates, 657 came to study in Canada with Nova Scotia attracting 90 (14 percent), Ontario 287, Alberta 90, and British Columbia 82 (personal communication, Department of Education and Early Childhood Education n.d.). Nova Scotia International Student Program The Nova Scotia International Student Program welcomes grades 4–12 students from around the world. It was initiated by two high school teachers, David Cook and Paul Millman, who separately approached the Department of Education in 1995 and 1996 respectively with the idea of internationalizing high schools in their own school boards by enrolling international students. While the department embraced the concept, the stipulation was that it should be open to all school boards. With a pilot in the Southwest Regional School Board in 1997–98, the program commenced operations in 1998 and it now extends to over ninety-five junior and senior high schools. Students can enroll for a full year or single semester and there is short-term program ranging from two to ten weeks, but averaging six weeks. Students in all programs live with local host families. Based on data from the Nova Scotia International Student Program, in 2017 there were 1,447 international students in the longterm program and 470 in the short-term program. The programs are economic drivers for local economies, particularly in rural areas that enroll two-thirds of the students and where schools have more acutely felt the aging demographics. To ensure diversity, the Operations Committee placed a limit of 15 percent on any one country, and in


J. Colin Dodds

any one school there can be no more than six students from a single country. In addition to the longer-term placements, there is an English as an Additional Language (eal) and cultural four-week summer camp, which has averaged 150 students for the past five years. The vast majority of students are juniors/seniors and the program draws students from over thirty-five countries in Asia, Europe, and Central/ South America. Of the 2017 graduating grade 12 class of 212 students, 88 chose to stay and study in Canada with Nova Scotia attracting 56 students (personal communication, Nova Scotia International Student Program n.d.). The program has been governed by the participating English-language school boards. However, in 2017, the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Education decided to combine the program with its overseas schools group. This would allow for greater collaboration with other departments, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship or Nova Scotia Immigration, Labour and Advanced Education, and Intergovernmental Affairs.

policies and initiatives for the retention of international students The nexus between immigration, labour markets, and international students was recognized by the province with the Nova Scotia Office of Immigration’s launch in April 2011 of a new immigration strategy with a goal of welcoming 5,000 new Nova Scotia residents by 2015 and 7,200 by 2020 (see Province of Nova Scotia 2011). The importance of international graduates to achieve these targets was acknowledged. The One ns report (Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy 2014), the result of province-wide consultations, reinforced this linkage together with a goal of 7,000 immigrants a year by 2024.10 With significant additional resources provided by the province and the road map from the One ns report (Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy 2014), we are now witnessing greater cross-sectoral policy alignment and increasing partnership with the federal government. For example, increases in the caps on the Provincial Nominee Program (pnp) were made, and the Atlantic Growth Strategy and the Atlantic Immigration Pilot were launched. The retention of international students is now a key provincial policy priority, and there are various estimates as to how many pse students stay in the province following graduation. Retention rates of

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


2–4 percent are often cited, including by the provincial government and the One ns report (Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy 2014), which refers to 5 percent with a target of 10 percent. In contrast, mphec (2014) has suggested that up to 32 percent remain in Nova Scotia two years following graduation,11 presumably on work permits. Certainly an increasing number of international student applicants are seeing Nova Scotia as a career destination and seeking permanent residency, given the ease of gaining a work permit following graduation. In 2017, 450 international graduate nominees were processed and new programs introduced to address labour market shortages, including an International Graduate Entrepreneur Stream, the first of its kind in Canada. This immigration pathway is open to graduates from Nova Scotia universities who have started a viable business and intend to settle permanently (personal communication, Nova Scotia Immigration 5 February 2018). Atlantic Immigration Pilot A three-year pilot program was unveiled in July 2016 as a part of the Atlantic Growth Strategy, a federal and interprovincial initiative to stimulate the region’s economy. Launched in April 2017, with an initial allocation of 2,000 nominees to the region by the federal government, of which Nova Scotia was allocated 792, it confirmed the policy alignment of immigration, labour markets, international graduates, and economic prosperity. The pilot is an employer-driven program requiring employers who have labour needs to seek eligibility and to have vacancies endorsed without a labour market impact assessment. There are three streams, two of which cover skilled programs and the Atlantic International Graduate Program. The latter will assist employers if they wish to hire international graduates straight out of university/college. Applicants will receive priority processing at the federal level of less than six months and quicker access to a work permit while awaiting their permanent residency. The alignment of immigration and international students was further demonstrated with the launching in 2016 of two new innovative pilot programs – Stay in Nova Scotia and Study and Stay – to encourage international students to study, work, and possibly immigrate after they graduate. These pilots were recommended by the Student


J. Colin Dodds

Recruitment and Retention Working Committee under the Department of Labour and Advanced Education’s Innovation Team. The membership includes the recruitment representatives of the universities and nscc. EduNova is the lead on these programs with both provincial and federal government (acoa) funding. Stay in Nova Scotia Stay in Nova Scotia attracted 150 final-year university and nscc applicants from twenty-four countries into its first cohort. Fifty-two were selected and completed the program in July 2017 (Smith 2016). Mentoring (including one-on-one mentoring from business and community leaders), other professional connections, and a focus on career skills are built into the program. In addition, EduNova has partnered with a private sector recruitment firm to assist in matching students with jobs, and a job voucher provides an incentive to employers to offset the costs of hiring. The goal is to achieve an 80 percent retention rate one year after graduation. At present it is too early to assess if this has been achieved, but a second cohort is currently going through the program. The program is now being extended into other Atlantic Canada provinces. Study and Stay The complementary program Study and Stay was established with a start date of September 2017, aiming to recruit a total of fifty students each year from China, India, and the Philippines to study in Nova Scotia’s post-secondary institutions. All three countries have been leading applicants for the pnp (a total of 40.1 percent in 2015) and the new Atlantic Immigration Pilot program referenced earlier. For China, Nova Scotia’s second largest export market, this reflects the existing success in recruitment and increasing trade ties, particularly with the launch in 2016 of the province’s China Engagement Strategy.12 India and the Philippines were seen as promising new recruiting export markets, where middle-class families were expected to be predisposed to want their children to study and remain in Canada. Similar to the Stay in Nova Scotia program, students receive mentoring and career support through EduNova during their studies, again with the expectation that they will choose to remain in Nova Scotia.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


The hope with both these pilots is that the program expectations of retention will be met and they will be scalable to larger cohorts of students. Association of Atlantic Universities’ Recruitment of Potential STEM Students Recruitment of potential stem (science, technology, engineering and math) students from the United States is another outcome of the Atlantic Growth Strategy. The Association of Atlantic Universities (aau), in partnership with Global Affairs Canada (gac) that designed the program and with acoa funding under the Business Development Program, supported a pilot social media advertising campaign in the fall of 2017. With a target of key states as recommended by gac, Canada aims to attract potential undergraduate and graduate stem students to the region’s universities. Prospective applicants will be directed to the EduCanada platform to learn more about Atlantic Canada and its universities and programs. Other Nova Scotia Initiatives In Nova Scotia, there is an array of other initiatives, some long-standing, to welcome international students. For example, the mayors of Cape Breton and Halifax organize welcome events in September each year for international students. Others aim to encourage and assist them to find work or start their own business and stay after graduating. For example, the Connector Program of the Halifax Partnership, the city’s economic development agency, supported by the Royal Bank of Canada since 2017, links recent immigrants and international students to business and community leaders. Another example is an innovative partnership between McInnis Cooper, a Halifax-based law firm, and Venture for Canada, a non-profit group founded in 2014 to assist new university and college graduates, including international students, to find jobs in some of the leading start-ups in the country. McInnis Cooper provides pro bono legal training and services and invites entrepreneurs as speakers to share their experiences. In 2017–18 there were forty fellowships in Atlantic Canada of which thirty-nine were in Halifax and one in Cape Breton; six fellows were international students. With a range of business and government partners, fellows can


J. Colin Dodds

work for two years at business start-ups to gain first-hand knowledge and experience to hone their entrepreneurial skills.

the future: strategic policy imperatives for universities and the nova scotia provincial government The initiatives and data speak to the success of Nova Scotia’s outreach in ie and its attraction of international students. Coupled with those students from out-of-province, Nova Scotia’s claim to be “Canada’s education capital” has merit. International students, as forecasted by the nsche in 1998, have added to the diversity of the campuses in Nova Scotia and to local communities, supporting the global citizenship argument. However, the stark fact is that without the out-of-province students and international enrolment of the past fifteen years, and in the absence of any balancing provincial funding or radical rationalization,13 the university system would be a shadow of what it is today. Gardner Pinfold (2011) provided a warning that there could be a tipping point from the unintended consequences of reduced provincial government support for the universities and their increased reliance on tuition revenue. The report authors argued this could “jeopardize the quality of the learning experience provided for students [with the] … real potential to negatively affect one of the province’s highest and most promising export industries, resulting in a substantial negative economic impact … [by] reducing their regional, national and international competitiveness (Gardner Pinfold 2011, 16). The strains on the university sector from provincial operating grant shortfalls are already apparent with the government bailouts of some universities.14 However, there are signs that the provincial government is renewing its commitment to the university sector. For example, as part of its innovation agenda, it has been matching federal Canadian Foundation for Innovation funding and in March 2017 it established the Research Nova Scotia Trust with injections of $45 million to date to expand the universities’ research capacity and innovation ecosystem. Additionally, an updated memorandum of understanding due in 2019 between the provincial government and the universities may have addressed base operating funding and infrastructure needs.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


For the universities, the ongoing challenge will be how to balance the national/global citizenship case of international enrolment with the business case that further increases in enrolments of international students will be needed for survival. While the growing middle class in many emerging economies would confirm a continued upward demand for cross-border higher education, one has to be cognizant of the potential evolving market trends in China in particular. Although the allure of studying abroad is still strong, China is investing heavily in its own university system by expanding capacity and designating some of its top universities as “double first class” so as to be among the top ranked in the world. As a result, Chinese parents have more domestic opportunities for their children. If they are looking at overseas study destinations, tuition is not necessarily the issue as increasingly they have the purchasing power to be more selective and are seeking national and global brands. This trend receives some support from the recent graduation data of the Nova Scotia curriculum schools in China as outlined earlier, where Nova Scotia has, for the past few years, drawn less than 20 percent of the graduating grade 12 cohort choosing to study in Canada. Saudi Arabia, in recent years, has been the second largest source of international students to Nova Scotia largely funded by the King Abdullah Scholarship Program. While we were in the twilight period of this program, its abrupt suspension will have an immediate financial impact on already stretched university budgets. These trends are occurring at a time when Nova Scotia universities are facing increased competition from universities in other Canadian provinces who were slower to develop international student recruitment but are now making significant investments in recruitment initiatives in China, South East Asia, and South Asia. If international enrolments are at or close to a peak and then decline, which appears to be the case at some Nova Scotia universities,15 this would spell budget issues unless new markets can be developed that have the scale, equivalent purchasing power, and/or government scholarship programs. Additionally, while the nexus between international students and immigration has been recognized in Nova Scotia, and the two pilot projects that include the emerging markets of India and the Philippines are evidence of this, their current scale is too small to address any significant enrolment declines. One can also ask the question as to whether international differential fees are at cross


J. Colin Dodds

purposes with this strategy of diversifying recruitment to growth markets that do not necessarily have the ability to pay and aligning this with retention and immigration. This argument has been advanced by Students ns (2013).16 The scale of international enrolments in some universities, and their concentration and continuing international demand in key disciplines such as Engineering, Computer Science, and Finance/ Accounting, raise the question as to whether there should be a limit on international enrolments by program and/or institution similar to the original enrolment corridors proposed by nsche in 1998. Lambert and Usher (2013) and Usher (2018) have pointed to the potential for a reduction in quality from the overcrowding of classrooms and the draw on other campus services. However, mphec (2014), in a survey of 2012 graduates from Maritime universities, found 92 percent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of education received, and 95 percent were happy with class size. Certainly the universities in Nova Scotia have to date been able to compete nationally and globally based on the quality of their learning, campus environment, and r&d initiatives.

conclusion Nova Scotia, with its long-standing and varied international outreach, has been at the forefront of creating a successful and perhaps unique knowledge services export trade across K–12 and pse. Its significant enrolment of out-of-province and international students, I would argue, has simultaneously assisted nation building within Canada and global citizenship. However, the increasing reliance of the universities on tuition revenue from domestic and international students has shifted the provincial funding of university education to a more private-public model and has exposed systemic sustainability risks. Nova Scotia has not developed a specific ie strategy that has led to its success. Rather, this success can be attributed to a series of provincial policy decisions and intra-preneurial initiatives within and outside of government contributing to a remarkable policy coherence. For the university sector, the turning point was the adoption in 1998 of a new provincial funding formula. This provided the financial incentive to recruit international students, and federal acoa funding assisted with further developing partnerships to expand international recruitment and engagement.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


The successive accommodating federal policy on study permits and work visas has played a key role in assisting the flow of international students to Nova Scotia. The same is true for the increase in provincial pathways to the pse sector from the Nova Scotia International Schools Program and the Nova Scotia International Student Program, which broadened the internationalization of education in the province. The emergence of China’s economy in particular, followed by the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, accelerated the flow of students over the last decade. Canada faces a very competitive and dynamic global marketplace imperative, in which higher education is the global currency. Europe has seen pan-government structural shifts, including now a move to create a European Higher Education Area, and other national governments, such as that of China, are committing significant investments to their higher education systems. Fortunately, Canadian public policy at both federal and provincial government levels has shifted to recognize the need for both more partnerships and greater policy alignment of labour markets, immigration, trade/investment, and innovation. This has moved the debate and policy actions for Nova Scotia from developing standalone provincial ie strategies into a shared and broader context, with the pse and K–12 sectors playing key roles. The Stay and Study and Stay in Nova Scotia pilot programs for Nova Scotia confirm an inter-sectoral provincial approach linking international student recruitment and immigration as well as a closer working relationship with the federal government. For Nova Scotia, and potentially other provinces/territories, to compete in the emerging higher education and business world order will require a continuing strategic provincial, interprovincial, and federal policy dialogue and partnerships, including those with the private sector that go beyond what we have seen in pse since 1867. fatdc’s Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy (2012) called for just such partnerships to fund Canadian students to study abroad. Their report saw this as a key strategy both to enhance the global citizenship cause of ie and also to develop a cadre of global talent to assist Canadian trade/investment agenda. This is still a work in progress. The pan federal-interprovincial Atlantic Prosperity Initiative now provides an embryonic regional model for cross-sectoral initiatives that could be expanded to include a pilot program to fund study abroad opportunities. Additionally, the announcement in February


J. Colin Dodds

2018 of the five regional superclusters, of which Atlantic Canada is hosting the Oceans Cluster, has the potential to propel Canada to be one of the global leaders in research, commercialization, trade, and investment. Nova Scotia will likely be a talent magnet for international faculty and graduate students, thus further enhancing the internationalization of Nova Scotia’s education sector.

notes 1 These annual Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs are held throughout the world. In 1995, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences, and it is now on display at Thinkers Lodge, a National Historic Site in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. 2 The nscc was founded in 1996 from an amalgamation of vocational and technical colleges, although it can trace its roots back to 1872. 3 U15 is an association of fifteen Canadian public research universities. 4 In 2017, Cape Breton University had the highest percentage of international students with 34.6 percent, followed by Saint Mary’s University (33.1 percent), nscad University (24.6 percent), and Dalhousie (21.4 percent). By contrast, Acadia University had 13.6 percent and St. Francis Xavier University 6.6 percent. (See aau 2017.) 5 Cape Breton University in 2004 established the Canadian International College in Cairo, where students can gain a degree across a range of disciplines or they can choose to complete their degree in Sydney. A more recent example is the Sobey School of Business of Saint Mary’s University that established a joint BComm degree in Finance with Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai. It is taught in English in China and has come from a very successful 2+2 program. Many other universities in the province have a range of 2+2, 3+1, and 1+3 programs, particularly with Chinese partners. 6 These include the founding of the cove, the Centre for Ocean Ventures and Entrepreneurship in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and the announcement in February 2018 of a federal-private sector co-funded Ocean Supercluster based in Atlantic Canada to position Canada to be a global leader in the knowledge-based ocean economy. 7 The Gardner Pinfold (2018) study, prepared for the Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (camet), indicated that, in 2017, the average spending by international students on education and healthcare in Nova Scotia was $39,439.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


8 There were exceptions: students of diplomats and students sponsored by international development agencies such as Canadian International Development Agency. The differential fees remitted to the mphec were then included in the provincial operating grants to the universities. mphec was established in 1974 and its role has changed over time, although it is still at arm’s-length and is accountable to the Maritime provincial ministers. It has responsibilities for post-secondary education and it recommends approval of new programs and program deletions and changes (see nsche 1997, 1998). 9 The guiding principles, apart from the justification for funding international students within the enrolment corridors, included statements that qualified students should have access to post-secondary education, that the allocation of funding should reflect the costs to the universities, that the “unique characteristics of each institution” should be recognized, and this policy shift would minimize the need for significant tuition increases ... and thereby control debt loads for students” (nsche 1998, 3). 10 The report addressed the challenges facing the rural areas of the province that have been particularly hard hit by the decreasing and aging population. The Université Sainte-Anne, Cape Breton, Acadia, and St Francis Xavier universities play key roles in their respective communities in that regard, and the retention of international graduates could go a long way to arrest their aging populations. 11 The figure of 32 percent comes from students who were living outside of Canada for at least twelve months prior to enrolling. It is subject to error +/7.5 percent. 12 The strategy focuses on the province’s competitive strengths in five areas: energy, tourism, ocean technology, information technology, and education (see Nova Scotia 2016). 13 Nova Scotia did embark on a rationalization policy in the 1990s that saw the closure of education programs at Dalhousie and Saint Mary’s Universities as well as the Teachers College in Truro. At that time, discussion ensued as to the revival of a University of Halifax that had existed for a short time in the 1880s or a University of Nova Scotia. Subsequently, the Technical University of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College were merged with Dalhousie University in 1997 and 2009 respectively. 14 These include the nscad University and Acadia University. 15 The universities that have seen a drop include both urban (Mount Saint Vincent and Saint Mary’s) and rural (St Francis Xavier and Université Sainte-Anne).


J. Colin Dodds

16 The whole issue of tuition, whether international or domestic, has been an ongoing topic of debate for the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations who point to student debt loads and the European model of free tuition. Even in the United States, this is now a political issue with Senator Sanders proposing legislation in this regard to promote the best-educated workforce to compete in the highly competitive global economy. The Labour Party in the United Kingdom is promising the same, if elected.

references aau (Association of Atlantic Universities). n.d. “Annual Preliminary Enrolment Survey.” aucc (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada). 2007. Knowledge Exports by Canadian Universities. Ottawa: aucc. /cneec/articles/auccknowledge_exports_2007_e.pdf. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy. 2012. International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. /impact-2016/index.aspx?lang=eng. Gardner Pinfold. 2011. Export Value of Nova Scotia Universities, submitted to the Council of Nova Scotia University Presidents (consup). Halifax: Association of Atlantic Universities. /default/files/documents/CONSUPReports/Export%20Value%20of %20NS%20Universities_Final.pdf. – 2017. Export Value of Nova Scotia Universities submitted to the Council of Nova Scotia Universities. /files/documents/CONSUPReports/University%20Export%20Value %20NS%202017.pdf. – 2018. Economic Impact of International Students in Atlantic Canada. Halifax: Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training (camet). Lambert, J., and A. Usher. 2013. The Pros and Cons of Internationalization: How Domestic Students Experience the Globalizing Campus. Toronto: Higher Education Strategies Associates.

Internationalization in Nova Scotia


content/uploads/2013/10/Intelligencebrief7-HESA-internationalizationFINAL-WEB.pdf. mphec (Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission). 2014. “Graduate Survey Results.” September. – 2017. “Enrolment Survey 2016–2017, Table 5B.” /research/enrolment.aspx. Nova Scotia. 2016. Partnering for Success: The Nova Scotia – China Engagement Strategy. Halifax: Government of Nova Scotia. /china/NS-CHINA-ENGLISH.pdf. Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy. 2014. Now or Never: An Urgent Call to Action for Nova Scotia. Halifax: One Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia. Premier’s Office. “New Immigration Strategy Will Help Employers, Communities,” press release, 29 April. /news/smr/2011-04-29-Immigration/. nsche (Nova Scotia Council on Higher Education). 1995. Report on University Financing. Available from Higher Education Branch, Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education. – 1996. Proposal for a New Funding Program. Available from Higher Education Branch, Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education. – 1997. Discussion Paper on the Development of a New Funding Formula for Nova Scotia’s Universities. Available from the Higher Education Branch, Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Higher Education. – 1998. “Nova Scotia Council on Higher Education Recommendations on a New University Funding Formula for the Distribution of Operating Grants. Higher Education Branch, Department of Labour and Advanced Education.” /UnivFF.pdf. Savoie, D. J. 2010. Invest More, Innovate More, Trade More, and Learn More: The Way Ahead for Nova Scotia. Halifax: Government of Nova Scotia. Smith, B. 2016. “Wendy Luther, EduNova, Canada.” The pie News, 2 December. Students ns. 2013. International Students and the Future of Nova Scotia Universities. Halifax: Students ns. 809d8e5b9847fe6e/t/5cf020485c31630001a5cbea/1559240777446/2013International-Students-and-the-Future-of-Nova-Scotias-UniversitiesAmended.pdf. Usher A. 2017. “The Growing Importance of Fee Income.” Higher Education


J. Colin Dodds

Strategy Association (hsea), 11 September. /the-growing-importance-of-fee-income/. – 2018. “How Many International Students Is Too Many?” Higher Education Strategy Association (hsea), 2 February. Vincent, D. 2018. “Saudi Arabia Orders its Foreign Students Out of Canadian Schools.” Toronto Star, 6 August.

10 Internationalization of Education in Nunavut: A Legacy of Inuit Diplomacy Patricia Gaviria

introduction Inuit have arguably been one of the most successful Indigenous groups in leveraging a transnational position to advance their rights. Transcending nation states, Inuit political agency has created an under-researched space for exploring the internationalization of education in Canada as it pertains to the recognition of Inuit rights in two directions: inward and outward. The literature on the internationalization of education often uses these designations as measures of mobility (i.e., inward and outward mobility of students, faculty, research projects, programs, and institutions), the integration of an international dimension into different aspects of education (i.e., curriculum, teaching, research, and services), or interconnectedness (i.e., knowledge transfer, learning networks, etc.) (de Wit and Hunter 2011; Hawawini 2016; Knight 2015; Leask 2014). Here, I use these terms to cast a light on the ways international relations between Inuit and the nation states of which they are citizens project into education as follows: (a) inward: refers to the use of international covenants to push governmental compliance on commitments related to the advancement of Inuit knowledge, language, and culture through public education; and (b) outward: refers to the building of an Arctic space to address global issues affecting Inuit, including environmental and climate change, maritime boundaries, and resource-based economic development.


Patricia Gaviria

The signature of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which led to the creation of Nunavut in 1999, was indeed the result of marked activism by young Inuit fighting for the recognition of Inuit rights. Over twenty years into its existence, it is worth asking whether Nunavut’s education policy taps into the international space Inuit uphold. This question arises from the governance context where Inuit aspirations are intrinsic to Nunavut public affairs. Indeed, while Nunavut is constituted as a public government within established traditions of Canadian governance, it accommodates Inuit self-government principles (Loukacheva 2007). Owing to the land claims settlement, Nunavut’s governance integrates Inuit authorities and joint territorial-Inuit-federal boards. Among Inuit and land claims organizations in Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. represents Inuit under the Nunavut Agreement to ensure that other parties to the Nunavut Agreement meet their obligations.1 In consideration of Nunavut’s governance intricacies, in this chapter I attempt to map the internationalization activities embedded in Nunavut’s education landscape. In the first section, I present a conceptual framework to guide this pursuit. In the second section, I outline the methodology I used to trace Nunavut education trajectories as they pertain to my research queries. In the third section, I discuss my findings, focusing on the governance factors that contribute to and/or hinder the creation of an international space for Nunavut’s education.

internationalization of inuit rights and education: a framework Over the past three decades, Indigenous peoples’ movements around the world have made their rights an important component of international law and policy. One of the biggest accomplishments of Indigenous diplomacy is the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights (United Nations General Assembly 2007). Of particular importance is the right to self-determination by virtue of which Indigenous peoples are regarded as right-bearing collectivities entitled to freely determine their political status (United Nations General Assembly 2007, Article 3). However, while self-determination is a component of international law, there are no provisions for the recognition of sub-state groups as separate people. As international law safeguards nation states’ territorial integrity, the right to self-

Internationalization in Nunavut


determination is interpreted as the right to self-government within the confines of state territorial integrity (Gudelevičiūte 2005; Morgan 2004; Primeau and Corntassel 1995; Rosenau 1997; United Nations General Assembly 2007, Article 4). Under this particular interpretation, international rights covenants apply to matters relating to Indigenous internal and local affairs (Engle 2010). The negotiation of the right to self-determination, however, often trespasses national boundaries. This is not only because Indigenous peoples are often citizens of different nation states, as is the case with Inuit peoples, but also because Indigenous diplomacy concerns issues of global magnitude (e.g., exploitation of natural resources and environmental security) (Henriksen 2001; Ladner and Dick 2009; Lâm 2000; Shadian 2010). While there has been a push to recognize sovereign actors other than nation states (Agnew 2005; Rosenau 1990), the international relations literature falls short of recognizing indigenous peoples’ diplomacy in the anarchic international system.2 As Hayden King (2017) put it, the field has yet to acknowledge the ways in which indigenous peoples reimagine their collective relationship within and beyond the borders of settler states. This ongoing reimagining extends Indigenous peoples’ arenas of action from the local to the international, contesting the architecture of the modern system of states (Escárcega 2010; Lâm 2000; Otto 1996). In this new landscape, we are challenged to look at Indigenous peoples’ spaces of engagement as independent yet contingent to the international system of nation states (Cox, 1998; Niezen 2000; Shadian 2010; Shaw 2002).3 As presented here, Indigenous diplomatic efforts to assert the right to self-determination have two distinct international dimensions. The first one works inwardly as Indigenous peoples advocate for their rights, appealing to international covenants. The second one works outwardly as Indigenous people move in the international scene engaging alongside nation states on issues of global magnitude. These two dimensions should serve us well to define the internationalization of Inuit rights as it pertains to education in Nunavut. The creation of Nunavut was the result of the mobilization of young Inuit in Canada’s Eastern Arctic to join the growing call for political redress of Inuit grievances. In 1971, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada began to pursue a land claims settlement in Nunavut. Within five years, it presented the Nunavut Land Claim in 1976 to the federal government. The claim included a proposal for a new territory that inte-


Patricia Gaviria

grated an Inuit political development component (Crowe 1999). The case for a territory found fertile grounds in 1982 with Canada’s newly repatriated Constitution Act, reaffirming the status of claim settlements (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982).4 The same year the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut (now Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) replaced Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to further negotiations on behalf of Inuit of Nunavut. A final agreement was reached and ratified ten years later, providing certainty and clarity on Inuit land, water, and mineral rights in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Signed on 9 July 1993, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Act put Inuit on Canada’s political map. Nunavut is a public government overseeing all Nunavummiut, and a de facto Inuit self-government by virtue of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 1993). As a territory, the Government of Nunavut has unique jurisdictional rights that no other Indigenous peoples in Canada have. For instance, no other province or territory in Canada has Indigenous jurisdiction over education. Hence, in constitutional terms, Nunavut has laid new groundwork in the post-European contact era when Indigenous people have otherwise not had full control over education (Aqukkasuk 2009). How has education for Nunavummiut and Inuit Nunavummiut played out in this constitutional reality? Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which deals with Inuit representation in government employment, is the only provision related to Inuit education. Of particular interest is the requirement of fluency in the Inuit language for applying to jobs in the Nunavut government (Canada 1993, Article 23.4.2.). I single out this provision as such a requirement taps into Aboriginal rights in Canada and international covenants on Indigenous language and education rights. In other words, the use of international covenants activating the inward dimension presented here are constitutionally bound. The operational terms of this inward dimension are defined by the use of international bodies of states to overcome domestic issues regarding Inuit rights. Thus far, I have explained how Inuit in Nunavut enjoy constitutional certainty of their rights legitimizing the inward international dimension I propose for the framework of this study. Equally, I contend, there is certainty for Inuit in Nunavut to access the international arena outwardly as their rights are granted without prejudice to Indigenous claims outside the settlement area. Here, however, the weight of Inuit diplomacy leverage is de facto rather than de jure.

Internationalization in Nunavut


Rodon (2014) argued that Inuit diplomacy has emerged with the continuous development of a common identity, an Inuit space, and an acquired international status reframing the Arctic region. As early as 1977, Inuit living throughout the Arctic organized themselves as the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which over time evolved into the Inuit Circumpolar Council (icc) representing over 150,000 Inuit from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka. icc is mostly concerned with issues facing Inuit, namely gas and oil development, climate change, protection of language, knowledge and culture, settlement of land claims, and political autonomy (Rodon, 2014). As Shadian (2010) argued, icc provides a collective transnational identity holding a space for Inuit to participate in international affairs as non-state political actors while positioning them as “stewards” on issues concerning Arctic sustainability.5 icc is actively involved in different international fora of which the Arctic Council is the most relevant. This intergovernmental forum provides a space for Inuit to have their own voice. See, for instance, the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignty in the Arctic, where Inuit have defined themselves as: a people (Article 1.3), Indigenous peoples (Article 1.4), Indigenous peoples of the Arctic (Article 1.5), citizens of Arctic states (Article 1.6), Indigenous citizens of Arctic states (Article 1.7), and Indigenous citizens of each of the major political subunits of Arctic states (Article 1.8) (icc 2009). Most of icc’s declarations and statements relating to education are circumscribed to the protection and promotion of Inuit culture and language grounded in international covenants under the United Nations umbrella. There are two particular declarations that have promoted an Arctic space for education. Emphasizing knowledge and research, the Nuuk Declaration of 2010 mandates the council’s engagement in Arctic science and research and strongly recommends interfaces between Inuit and Western systems of knowledge. Regarding student mobility, the Nuuk Declaration mandates the promotion of exchanges and the sharing of education practices to improve a culturally appropriate curriculum (icc 2010). These commitments were reaffirmed in the Kitigaaryuit Declaration of 2014, when icc announced a Circumpolar Inuit Education Summit for 2018 (icc 2014). What is the relationship between Nunavut and icc? Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. is a member of the icc Canada board of directors.6 As a representative of Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries,

Policy anchors


Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Article 23) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Government of Nunavut Federal government of Canada United Nations Forum on Indigenous Issues

Outward international dimension: International activity to build a pan-Arctic education space through student mobility and knowledge sharing

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Article 5) Inuit Circumpolar Council Declarations Nunavut Arctic College mandate

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Inuit Circumpolar Council Arctic Council Territorial Government of Nunavut Federal government of Canada Nunavut Arctic College Nunavut Research Institute

Research query 2: To what extent has the outward international dimension been accounted for within the Nunavut education policy context?

Inward international dimension: The use of international bodies of states to overcome domestic issues regarding Inuit rights

Research query 1: How has the inward international dimension operated in Nunavut from 1999 to now?

International dimensions of education in Nunavut

Table 10.1 Research queries by international dimension, policy anchors, and actors

228 Patricia Gaviria

Internationalization in Nunavut


Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has the constitutional leverage to influence the internationalization of Inuit education in Nunavut. The operational terms of this outward capacity would be defined by the actual development of a pan-Arctic education space through knowledge production and sharing. The international status Inuit have achieved through the international rights regime and the delineation of an Inuit space in the Arctic region has created an important space to look at the internationalization of education in its inward and outward dimensions. Following these dimensions, I proposed two research queries (see table 10.1).

methodology As presented in the framework, I divided my analysis into inward and outward international dimensions against the backdrop of the evolution of Nunavut’s education system since its creation until 2017. The chronological analysis of legislation and documents in relationship to the proposed framework was expanded by the documentation of governance interface issues as revealed in news releases and other public fora. The selection of policy documents and news releases was informed by off-the-record conversations with key actors in Nunavut with whom I have had a sustained conversation following my research work on Inuit self-determination and post-secondary education (pse) (Gaviria 2014). Documents were organized by query and by chronological order. I applied different analytical lines in the reading and sequencing of documents to record the ways in which existing policies have provided for international education (ie) as it pertains to Nunavut. In table 10.2, I present the list of key documents and analytical lines that substantiate my findings. Once I organized information using these broad analytical lines, I revised the sequence of events to document the presence or absence of policy levers to advance the inward and outward international dimensions of education in Nunavut. This led me to the study of two cases, one per research query. To examine the inward international dimension, I followed the trajectory of developing a K–12 made-inNunavut curriculum. To examine the outward international dimension, I followed Nunavut Arctic College’s capacity to take up panArctic initiatives for knowledge sharing.

Analytical lines

Operational definitions of Inuit rights as they pertain to education Connections between Inuit rights and international and policy anchors Connections among strategies, reports, and acts Cross-sectoral interactions

icc Declarations 1998–2014 (icc 1998, 2009, 2010, 2014) Consolidation of Nunavut Arctic College Act (1988) Consolidation of Scientists Act (1988) itk National Strategy on Inuit Education (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2011)

Relation of international initiatives and icc declarations Arctic knowledge production and sharing Student mobility

Research query 2: To what extent has the outward international dimension been accounted for within the Nunavut education policy context?

The Bathurst Mandate Pinasuaqtavut (Nunavut 1999) Nunavut Department of Education Bilingual Education Strategy (2004–08) Nunavut Department of Education annual reports (2009–10; 2011–12; 2013–14; 2015–16) Conciliator’s Final Report 2006 (Berger 2006) Consolidation of the Education Act (2008) Consolidation of the Inuit Language Protection Act (2008) Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (Ferguson 2013) “Bill 37 Proposal” (Nunavut 2017)

Research query 1: How has the inward international dimension operated in Nunavut from 1999 to now?


Table 10.2 Documents and analytical lines by research query

230 Patricia Gaviria

Internationalization in Nunavut


findings Nunavut’s Inward International Dimension: Use of International Covenants to Overcome Policy Gridlock in Curriculum Development The most salient issue in the development of Nunavut’s public education has been that of advancing a system that is true to Inuit cultural and language rights. The trajectory of this development indicates the use of international recourse to push the territorial government toward committing to a bilingual system grounded in Inuit knowledge. Prior to the creation of Nunavut in 1999, Inuit of the Eastern Arctic were the first in the Northwest Territories to gain local control over education. During the eighties, the Eastern Arctic operated under the mandate of three autonomous Inuit school boards driving an education founded on Inuit ways of knowing and Inuit languages (McGregor 2010). When Nunavut was created, the new territorial government dissolved the Inuit boards and transferred all education programs and services to the Nunavut Department of Education. The first government plan, Pinasuaqtavut (Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 1999), carried forward the spirit of the Inuit boards. It committed the new territorial government to the realization of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in the education system and a fully functioning bilingual and bicultural society by 2020. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, also known as Inuit knowledge, was later codified into eight guiding principles that would guide education legislation, policy, and programming (Nunavut. Inuit Qaujimajatuqanginnut Task Force 2002; Timpson 2009). Table 10.3 outlines these principles. As Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit was being codified in policy terms, the Government of Nunavut commissioned a study on the language of instruction for Nunavut schools. In the resulting discussion paper, Aajiiqatigiingniq, Professor Ian Martin found that the bilingual model inherited from the Northwest Territories provided students with an insufficient foundation in their first language and a too-sudden immersion in a second language. This affected student persistence, high school graduation, and employment (Martin 2000). This study informed the 2004–2008 Nunavut Bilingual Education Strategy that provided a four-year framework for achieving comprehensive bilingual education in the territory grounded on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Nunavut. Department of Education 2004).

Patricia Gaviria


Table 10.3 Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit guiding principles Principles


Inuuqatigiitsiarniq Tunnganarniq Pijitsirniq Aajiiqatigiinniq Pilimmaksarniq /Pijariuqsarniq Piliriqatigiinniq /Ikajuqtigiinniq Qanuqtuurniq Avatittinnik Kamatsiarniq

Respecting others, relationships, and caring for people Fostering good spirit by being open, welcoming, and inclusive Serving and providing for family and/or community Decision-making through discussion and consensus Developing skills through practice, effort, and action Working together for a common cause Being innovative and resourceful Respecting and caring for the land, animals, and the environment

As the K–12 curriculum development and implementation plans to achieve the bilingual strategy were underway, Justice Thomas R. Berger was appointed as conciliator to explore new approaches to the second implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.7 In his final report, published in 2006, Justice Berger focused on Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. He referenced two United Nations Special Rapporteurs on the situation of Inuit in Nunavut (1995 and 2005). Reflecting on the failures of the current system, Justice Thomas R. Berger recommended a new education system to realize the Bathurst Mandate and the Bilingual Education Strategy (Berger 2006). Momentum was building for a fully fledged bilingual education system with the production of the K–12 curriculum. In consultation and collaboration with elders, educators, and community experts, the Department of Education wrote the foundational and implementation documents grounded on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. The made-in-Nunavut curriculum development found legal grounds with the passing of the Inuit Language Protection and the Nunavut Education Acts of 2008. The Inuit Language Protection Act guarantees the right to education in the Inuit language (Consolidation of Inuit Language Protection Act 2008). The Nunavut Education Act stipulates that “the public education system in Nunavut shall be based on Inuit societal values and the principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit” (Article 1.1), and that the language of instruction shall be the Inuit language and either English or French (Article 23.1) (Consolidation of the Education Act 2008). The Nunavut Education Act came into force in July 2009 with a phased implementation apply-

Internationalization in Nunavut


ing to all grades by the 2019–20 school year (Consolidation of the Education Act 2008, Article 28). A first review of the act was set to occur in the 2011–12 school year but was put on hold until the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut was tabled in November 2013. Focusing on the implementation of the Nunavut Education Act, the audit found that the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Education had not adequately managed most aspects of the implementation of the act that specifically pertained to bilingual education. Citing the lack of resources to meet the schedule for the Nunavut Education Act, the Auditor General recommended adapting resources from outer jurisdictions for use in the Nunavut education system (Canada. Office of the Auditor General 2013). In response to the Auditor General’s report, and fitting its recommendations, the Department of Education issued a framework for updating the curriculum. In this document, the Government of Nunavut presented a plan, effective for the 2014–15 school year, to adopt curricula from the Northwest Territories and Alberta, including the adoption of an English Language Arts Curriculum into the new K–6 Inuktitut Language Arts Curriculum (Varga 2014). With this movement, the Government of Nunavut was signalling a different direction than the one set by the Language and Education Acts. Perhaps the most salient feature in this story is the Department of Education’s proposed amendment to the Education and Language Acts in March 2017 (Bill 37) extending the deadlines for full delivery of bilingual education from 2019 to 2029 for grades 4–9 and beyond this timeline for grades 10–12 (Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2017b). The following references to the United Nations’ covenants substantiated opposition viewpoints as submitted to the Standing Committee on Legislation Bill 37 (Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. Standing Committee on Legislation 2017): (a) Nunavut has committed to the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (United Nations General Assembly 1989) especially with respect to Articles 29 and 30 that speak specifically to Indigenous peoples and education, a commitment that was neither addressed in Nunavut’s 2008 Education Act (Consolidation of the Education Act 2008) nor in its amendment proposal; (b) Nunavut has committed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 61/295), specifically Article 14, which guarantees Indigenous peoples the right to an education in their


Patricia Gaviria

own language; (c) the Nunavut Languages Commissioner’s Address to the United Nations International Expert Group highlighted the decline in the use of Inuktut (United Nations 2016); and (d) the “unesco Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger” (unesco 2018) has rated Inuktitut (in Baffin and Kivalliq Regions) as “vulnerable/unsafe” and Inuinnaqtun (in Kitikmeot region) as “definitely endangered.” Nunavut’s Standing Committee on Legislation recommended Bill 37 should not proceed further in the legislative process (Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2017b). In early September 2017 Nunavut Education Minister Paul Quassa made a final attempt to save Bill 37 but Members of the Legislative Assembly voted against a motion to bring it forward for debate (Sponagle 2017). The trajectory of achieving a made-in-Nunavut curriculum reveals a process of asserting Inuit language and culture as the bedrock of Nunavut’s government. In reviewing this trajectory, the inward internationalization of education is revealed by the use of international covenants during key moments of policy gridlock. Such use has been activated not only by Inuit organizations under the umbrella of Inuit Tunngavik Inc. but also by actors who have entered the formal public governance channels connecting the territory with the federal government, as is the case of influential reports from the conciliator and the Auditor General of Canada. Nunavut’s Outward International Dimensions: Nunavut Arctic College and the Inuit Pan-Arctic Agenda As stated in the framework section, icc promotes the advancement of an Arctic education space by means of Inuit student mobility and knowledge sharing. Understanding the path from icc declarations to Nunavut internationalization policies and programs requires delineating some territorial links. As an icc board member, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. is a key actor in bringing icc declarations to life in Nunavut. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., in turn, links to public institutions to advance Inuit aims as coded in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. One such public institution is Nunavut Arctic College, an important actor in making the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement operational in terms of pse. As the only pse institution in the territory, Nunavut Arctic College can be regarded as the sole actor with the constitutional weight to carry forward the outward international dimensions stated in icc declarations.

Internationalization in Nunavut


How does Nunavut Arctic College figure in Nunavut’s commitment to Inuit education? In 2004, when the new territorial government organized its action plan for the second Legislative Assembly8 along Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles, the college’s board of governors adopted the territorial direction in the development of their newly mandated multi-year strategic plans. In doing so, it defined its constituents: Whereas the Board of Governors of Nunavut Arctic College recognizes that Inuit are the vast majority of students at the College; and whereas the Board also recognizes that Nunavut is unique in Canada in that it came into being at the behest of the Inuit through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; therefore be it resolved that Inuit ways of learning and knowing, Inuit traditional knowledge and Inuit culture shall be the foundation for all programs, all curricula and designs for capital projects of the College, effective immediately; be it further resolved that any academic programs or curricula so developed shall to the greatest extent possible be delivered in Inuktitut or Inuinnaqtun; and be it further resolved that any academic programs or curricula so developed must also adhere to stringent academic standards and preserve the principle of transferability of credits to other learning institutions. (Nunavut Arctic College 2004) Nunavut Arctic College aims at making training and education accessible and relevant for Nunavummiut across twenty-five communities and carrying out its mandate to increase Inuit representation in government positions. Over time, the college has shaped its mission statement to reflect the importance of bringing an Arctic dimension into its mandate: to strengthen the people and communities of Nunavut by providing life-long learning opportunities for Nunavummiut adults by appropriately delivering quality career programs developed with input from our partners throughout the Arctic, and by making the benefits of Inuit traditional knowledge and southern science more accessible (Nunavut Arctic College 2008). I reviewed two specific areas of the college where Arctic partnerships are actively displaying an outward international dimension: student mobility and research activities. At first glance, Nunavut Arctic College does not appear to be a hub of Arctic student mobility. However, a closer look reveals that students seem to participate in different


Patricia Gaviria

exchange programs related to their field of education. I chose to focus on programs under the umbrella of the University of the Arctic, a partner of Nunavut Arctic College for over a decade. Aside from offering all online programming free of charge for all Nunavummiut, Nunavut Arctic College participates in University of the Arctic Thematic Networks, the Student Ambassador Program, and the Arctic Academy. Such programs go beyond student mobility by tapping into knowledge sharing and creating a dialogue between local people and the production of science. While there has been no report on enrolment trends regarding student mobility, the fact that these programs are active at the college’s expense demonstrates the college’s commitment to participating in Arctic knowledge platforms learner by learner.9 Research is an important area to examine when looking at Nunavut’s outward international dimension in education. Here the key actor is the Nunavut Research Institute. Under the umbrella of Nunavut Arctic College, the Institute is mandated to liaise and coordinate broad-scale science projects in Nunavut. Playing a key role in the development of research, the Nunavut Research Institute is set to facilitate and promote Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, science, and technology as a resource for Nunavummiut (Nunavut. Nunavut Legislative Asssembly 2017a). I identified two important ways in which the Nunavut Research Institute engages in research activities that carry an outward internationalization dimension. These activities are research licensing and research partnerships. The Nunavut Research Institute is responsible for licensing all research projects that fall under the Scientists Act. As such, it is responsible for screening and permitting various types of research activities in accordance with federal, territorial, and land claims stipulations. All research projects (approximately 900 per year) from all over Canada and abroad have to follow such stipulations as a commitment to meaningful Inuit engagement and effective knowledge mobilization (Nunavut Research Institute 2015). Through different partnerships, the Nunavut Research Institute is now involved in teaching and learning through the Environmental Technology Program. This program is invested in the transmission and production of scientific knowledge that links economic development, environmental change, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (interview, 1 September 2011). The Nunavut Research Institute engages in various Arctic-related research partnerships. Three of these have had, or are likely to have, long-lasting influence: the International Polar Year Program, Arctic-

Internationalization in Nunavut


Net, and the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. The Nunavut Research Institute was a host of the International Polar Year Program. Funded by the Government of Canada, this forum brought together Nunavummiut, polar scientists, policy-makers and academics, government, and industry representatives, providing an opportunity for knowledge sharing. The six-year program led to meaningful engagement of Inuit in northern scientific research and helped incorporate Inuit knowledge into International Polar Year projects (Canada. Indigenous and Northern Affairs 2012). ArcticNet is part of the Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada. It brings together international research teams, Inuit organizations, northern communities, and policy-makers “to study impacts of climate change in the coastal Canadian Arctic” (ArcticNet 2017, n.p.).10 The Nunavut Research Institute has not only licensed ArcticNet projects based in Nunavut but also facilitated the collaboration of Nunavut Arctic College faculty, staff, and students, providing clear paths for knowledge sharing (ArcticNet 2017). In turn, ArcticNet brings funding to support student salaries and northern researchers as well as logistics and analytical work at the Nunavut Research Institute (Rynor 2017). For the 2017–20 business cycle, the Nunavut Research Institute will collaborate with the Canadian High Arctic Research Station to build research capacity in Nunavut. The Canadian High Arctic Research Station is expected to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge of the circumpolar regions, including the Antarctic. In doing so, it is mandated to engage scientists and Inuit knowledgekeepers who reflect the ethnic, linguistic, and regional diversity of the Arctic region (Canada. Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act A 2014; Canada. Polar Knowledge Canada 2017; Nunavut. Nunavut Legislative Asssembly 2017a). The vulnerability of international initiatives that support student mobility and bridge Inuit and Western knowledge as it pertains to Arctic science in Nunavut becomes apparent as one surveys the life cycle of different programs. For instance, federal funding for the University of the Arctic was significantly reduced in 2011 (cbc 2011). With no national agency for scholarships, tuition waivers for exchange students are reliant on Nunavut Arctic College’s capacity and hence vulnerable to institutional shifts (interview, 3 September 2011). Arctic research partnerships are equally vulnerable. Indeed, the federal government’s International Polar Year Program terminated on 31


Patricia Gaviria

March 2012 and has not been replaced by a similar initiative to sustain Northern science capacity related to climate change and the health and well-being of Northern people (Canada. Indigenous and Northern Affairs 2012). ArcticNet’s federal funding is due to end in 2018. Although it is nearing the end of its last cycle, no decisions have been made about any new funding commitments (Akin 2017; Rynor 2017). Other research projects licensed by the Nunavut Research Institute are also experiencing funding cuts. The funding for the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research Program, for instance, was not renewed in the 2017 budget, which brought to an end unfinished projects in the High Arctic (Corfu 2017). Undoubtedly, federal timebound funding seems to curtail the sustainability of collaborative endeavours advancing the transnational Inuit spaces from the political to the scientific. The fact that student mobility and research partnerships are project-specific and over-reliant on federal funding and inter-institutional engagement limits the capacity of a community-oriented college to engage and benefit from the transnational space Inuit have established. This, I argue, has to do partly with constitutional blind spots and partly with institutional capacity. The fact that the only article of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Canada 1993) that relates to education circumscribes it to Inuit representation in government positions dismisses the possibilities for education advancement by means of knowledge production and mobilization across the Arctic. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement’s shortcomings in terms of Inuit education and knowledge, along with the federal trade-oriented approach to ie markets, makes Nunavut’s outward initiatives “insignificant” to the national agenda.11 This is exacerbated by the fact that Inuit international engagements, approaches, and contributions are completely overlooked in Canada’s ie strategy (Canada. fatdc 2014). In this context, Nunavut Arctic College’s capacity to expand its international activity from research licensing to collaborations and partnerships on its own is limited. Legal and policy links are indeed missing the potential of the de facto outward international dimensions granted by Nunavut’s geopolitical position and Inuit action.

conclusion In this chapter, I showed how inward and outward internationalization dimensions operate in Nunavut’s education policy. Inward internationalization is coded in international covenants that are called

Internationalization in Nunavut


upon when policy gridlock signals failures in complying with and advancing constitutional Inuit rights. Outward internationalization is the product of de facto inter-institutional partnerships supported by research grants making Inuit and northerners active collaborators in the production and sharing of Arctic science. In presenting how international dimensions intersect with Nunavut’s education system, I see an opportunity to define the internationalization of education from the vantage point of Inuit peoples and to reveal the blind spots in the cross-sectoral policy areas that federal, territorial, and Inuit actors have created. There is, indeed, more than meets the eye when one looks at how the international rights regime is used as a platform to leverage Inuit rights in Nunavut’s hybrid system of governance. Conversely, the lack of legal and policy provisions for outward international activities in education prevents the system from building on the critical mass embedded in programs and projects engaging Nunavut Arctic College and, specifically, the Nunavut Research Institute. In Rodon’s (2014, 21) words, Inuit “have actively participated in the construction of the Arctic region.” Their work around Inuit rights and environmental stewardship has created a solid stage that both Inuit organizations, such as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and government institutions, such as the Nunavut Arctic College and the Nunavut Research Institute, already employ. Making explicit the internationalization activity in the education sector, as framed here, opens up a cross-sectoral policy area where territorial, federal, and international organizations can formally interconnect to support local capacitybuilding and enrich education the Inuit way. The way forward, I believe, is that of formally recognizing Nunavut’s ie activity and building place-based policies that hold a space for enduring collaborations in research, innovation, and education.

notes 1 The predecessor of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, signed the historical Nunavut Agreement with the Government of Canada in 1993. 2 Anarchy in international relations theory is a concept holding that the world system lacks a sovereign worldwide government. There is thus no hierarchically superior coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system like there is in domestic politics (see Gilpin 2002; Morgenthau 1973).


Patricia Gaviria

3 Contingent sovereignty is an emerging concept in international relations theory, which challenges the norm of non-intervention in the internal affairs of countries. Scholars on Indigenous rights regimes have started to examine this concept as the process of political interaction between Indigenous peoples, governments and the international institutions safeguarding their rights. 4 Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “Certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to aboriginal peoples” (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982). 5 Examples where Indigenous stewardship has been written into legislation include the Brundtland Report, chapter 26 of Agenda 21, ilo 169; the United Nations Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues; and the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (pops) (Shadian 2010, 488). 6 The icc board of directors comprises the elected leaders of the four land claims settlement regions: Inuvialuit, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, and Nunavut. 7 The conciliator dealt first with the arrangements for the ongoing funding of the boards and commissions responsible for the management of land and resources in Nunavut (Berger 2006). 8 At the time the college aligned with government strategic aims and principles, a Supplementary Appropriation Bill (Bill 2 - Supplementary Appropriation (O&M) No. 2, 2004–05) was approved in the Legislative Assembly for “one-time bridge funding” to address the college’s deficit and to assist it “in implementing recommended improvements in management effectiveness and accountability.” A territory-wide consultation process took place during 2005 to define the terms of such improvements (Alagalak and Barnabas 2006). 9 Since the launch of University of the Arctic in 2001, the federal government had contributed less than $4 million to develop university programming. In 2011, federal funding was cut to about $150,000 from more than $700,000 a year. Nunavut Arctic College decided to continue with the partnership despite funding cuts (cbc 2011; University of the Arctic 2017). 10 ArcticNet supports 1,150 researchers, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and others at 34 Canadian universities and 20 federal and provincial agencies and departments. It is also the key collaborative conduit to 150 international organizations in 12 different countries (ArcticNet 2017). 11 In fact, Canada’s 2014 ie strategy deemed ie benefits insignificant to the territories in terms that compounded international students’ impact on economic growth and employment (Canada. fatdc 2014).

Internationalization in Nunavut


references Agnew, V. 2005. Diaspora, Memory and Identity: A Search for Home. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Akin, D. 2017. “With a Key Arctic Research Project Set to Close in 2018, Trudeau’s Science Minister Considers Next Steps.” National Post, 18 January. Alagalak, D. and L. Barnabas. 2006. Standing Committee on Health and Education. Report on the Review of Nunavut Arctic College. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut. /Hansard_20060614.pdf. Aqukkasuk, T. 2009. “The Nature of Inuit Self-Governance in Nunavut Territory.” Senior honours thesis, Hanover: Dartmouth College. ArcticNet. 2017. “Rationale and Current Research Projects.” ArcticNet, 25 September. Berger, Thomas R. 2006. Conciliator’s Final Report: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Implementation Contract Negotiations For the Second Planning Period. Vancouver: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. ?wbdisable=true. Canada. 1982. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c. 11. – 1993. Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act [S.C. 1993, c. 29]. v. II, c. 29, 1259–62. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs. Canada. Canadian High Arctic Research Station. 2014. Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act A, Statutes of Canada, c. 39, s. 145. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf. Canada. Indigenous and Northern Affairs. 2012. Evaluation of the Government of Canada Program for International Polar Year. Ottawa: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. 42927/1380125828382. Canada. Office of the Auditor General. 2013. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut – 2013. Number 52. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. /internet/docs/nun_201311_e_38772.pdf. Canada. Polar Knowledge Canada. 2017. 2017–2019 polar Funded Projects List.


Patricia Gaviria

cbc. 2011 “Feds Cut Funding to University of the Arctic.” cbc News – North, 18 October. Consolidation of Inuit Language Protection Act, Statutes of Nunavut. 2008, c. 17. Consolidation of Nunavut Arctic College Act. R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. A–7. Consolidation of the Nunavut Education Act, Statutes of Nunavut. 2008, c.15. Consolidation of Scientists Act. R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. S–4. Corfu, N. 2017. “Arctic Research Lab to be Mothballed as Federal Grant Expires, Dal Physicist Says.” cbc – Nova Scotia, 29 June. Cox, K.R. 1998. “Spaces of Dependence, Spaces of Engagement and the Politics of Scale, or: Looking for Local Politics.” Political Geography 17 (1): 1–23. Crowe, K. 1999. Nunavut 99. Iqaluit, nu: Nortext Multimedia Incorporated and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. De Wit, H., and F. Hunter. 2011. “Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalization of Higher Education.” In Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development, edited by S. McGrath and Q. Gu, 340–58. Abingdon: Routledge. Engle, K. 2010. The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strategy. Durham, nc: Duke University Press. Escárcega, S. 2010. “Authenticating Strategic Essentialisms: The Politics of Indigenousness at the United Nations.” Cultural Dynamics 22 (1): 3–28. Gaviria, O.P. 2014. “Inuit Self-Determination and Postsecondary Education: The Case of Nunavut and Greenland.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Gilpin, R. 2002. “A Realist Perspective on International Governance.” In Governing Globalization: Power, Authority and Global Governance, edited by D. Held and A. McGrew, 238–48. Cambridge: Polity. Gudelevičiūte, V. 2005. “Does the Principle of Self-Determination Prevail Over the Principle of Territorial Integrity?” International Journal of Baltic Law (2): 48–74. Hawawini, G. 2016. The Internationalization of Higher Education and Business Schools: A Critical Review. Singapore: Springer. Henriksen, J. 2001. “Implementation of the Right of Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples.” Indigenous Affairs 3: 6–21. icc (Inuit Circumpolar Council). 1998. Inuit Spirit of Global Partnership. Resolutions. (site discontinued). – 2009. A Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Sovereignity in the Arctic.

Internationalization in Nunavut

243 – 2010. Nuuk Declaration. – 2014. Kitigaaryuit Declaration. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. 2011. National Strategy on Inuit Education. Ottawa: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. King, H. 2017. “The Erasure of Indigenous Thought in Foreign Policy.”, 31 July. Knight, J. 2015. “International Universities: Misunderstandings and Emerging Models?” Journal of Studies in International Education 19 (2):107–21. Ladner, K., and C. Dick. 2009. “Out of the Fires of Hell: Globalization as a Solution to Globalization – An Indigenist Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 23 (1–2): 63–91. Lâm, M. 2000. At the Edge of the State: Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination. Ardsley, ny: Transnational Publishers. Leask, B. 2014. “Internationalizing the Curriculum and All Students’ Learning.” International Higher Education 78: 5–6. Lehman, J. 2004. “Social Engagement and the Transnational Research University,” speech, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, dc, 16 December. Loukacheva, N. 2007. The Arctic Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Martin, I. 2000. Aajiiqatigiingniq: A Report on Language of Instruction Volumes 1 and 2. [Iqaluit, nu]: Nunavut Department of Education. McGregor, H. 2010. Inuit Education and Schools in the Eastern Arctic. Vancouver: ubc Press. Morgan, R. 2004. “Advancing Indigenous Rights at the United Nations: Strategic Framing and its Impact on the Normative Development of International Law.” Social & Legal Studies 13 (4): 481–500. Morgenthau, H. 1973. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf. Niezen, R. 2000. “Recognizing Indigenism: Canadian Unity and the International Movement of Indigenous Peoples.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 42 (1): 119–48. Nunavut Arctic College. 2004. Board of Governors Resolutions, Motion # BG-101-2004.


Patricia Gaviria

Nunavut Department of Education. 2004. 2004–2008 Bilingual Education Strategy. Iqaluit, nu: Department of Education. http://www.tunngavik .com/documents/publications/2004-2008-Bilingual-EducationStrategy.pdf. – 2017. A Guide to Bill 37 – An Act to Amend the Education Act and Inuit Language Protection Act. Iqaluit, nu: Department of Education. – 2018. Annual Reports. Iqaluit, nu: Department of Education. Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. 1999. The Bathurst Mandate: Pinasuaqtavut: That Which We’ve Set Out to Do. Iqaluit, nu: Government of Nunavut. – 2004. Supplementary Appropriation (Opperations and Maintenance), no. 2, 2004–05 S. Nu. 2004, c. 11. – 2017a. Business Plan 2017–2020 Government of Nunavut and Territorial Corporations. Iqaluit, nu: Government of Nunavut. – 2017b. “Standing Committee on Legislation to Recommend that Bill 37 Not Proceed.” Iqaluit, nu: Government of Nunavut. Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. Standing Committee on Health and Education. 2006. Report on the Review of Nunavut Arctic College. Third Session, Second Legislative Assembly. Nunavut. Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. Standing Committee on Legislation. 2017. Submissions Received on Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Education Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act. Iqaluit, nu: Government of Nunavut. Nunavut. Inuit Qaujimajatuqanginnut Task Force. 2002. The First Annual Report of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqanginnut Task Force. Iqaluit, nu: Government of Nunavut. – 2008. Sivummuaqatigiitta Corporate Plan 2008–2013. Iqaluit, nu: Nunavut Arctic College. Nunavut Research Institute. 2015. “Research Licensing in Nunavut.” Nunavut Research Institute. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 1993. Our People Our Land. Iqaluit, nu: nti. Otto, D. 1996. “Subalternity and International Law: The Problems of Global Community and the Incommensurability of Difference.” Social & Legal Studies 5 (3): 337–64. Primeau, T., and J. Corntassel. 1995. “Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’ and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing ‘Self-Determination.’” Human Rights Quarterly 17 (2): 343–65.

Internationalization in Nunavut


Rodon, T. 2014. Inuit Diplomacy: Reframing the Arctic Spaces and Narratives. Waterloo: Centre for International Governance Innovation. Rosenau, J. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press. – 1997. Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World. Cambridge, ny: Cambridge University Press. Rynor, B. 2017. “Arctic Research at a ‘Crossroads’ as Network Funding Winds Down.” University Affairs, 5 April. /news/news-article/arctic-research-crossroads-network-funding-winds/. Shadian, J. 2010. “From States to Polities: Reconceptualizing Sovereignty through Inuit Governance.” European Journal of International Relations 16 (3): 485–510. Shaw, K. 2002. “Indigeneity and the International.” Journal of International Studies 31 (1): 55–81. Sponagle, J. 2017. “‘The Bill Is Dead’: Nunavut mlas Vote Against Debating Bill 37.” cbc News – North, 17 September. Timpson, A. 2009. “Rethinking the Administration of Government: Inuit Representation, Culture and Language in the Nunavut Public Service.” In First Nations, First Thoughts: The Impact of Indigenous Thought in Canada, 199–228. Vancouver: ubc Press. unesco. 2018. “unesco Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger.” United Nations General Assembly. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, 20 November, 3. – 2007. Resolution 61/295, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 13 September. United Nations, Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. International Expert Group Meeting. 2016. Indigenous Languages: Preservation and Revitalization: Articles 13, 14 and 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Address Prepared by Sandra Inutiq, Nunavut Languages Commissioner. New York: United Nations PFII/2016/EGM. /2016/egm/Paper_Inutiq2.pdf. Varga, P. 2014. “Nunavut Jump-Starts Education Reform with Three Big Changes: Reforms to Curriculum, Student Evaluation Start in 2014– 2015.” Nunatsiaq News, 24 March. /65674nunavut_jump-starts_education_reform_with_three_big _changes/.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

11 International Education Policy in Ontario: A Swinging Pendulum? Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

introduction Despite frequent references to developing an international education (ie) strategy,1 unlike many any other Canadian provinces, Ontario does not have an ie strategy for its post-secondary education (pse) sector as of April 2018. However, the absence of an official ie strategy has not deterred the province from engaging in ie activities. Ontario boasts among the highest enrolments of international students in the country (43.2 percent of the approximately 124,000 international students in Canada for the year 2014 [Canada. cic 2015]), has been engaged in multiple international partnerships at the governmental and institutional levels (Sá and Sabzalieva 2016; Trilokekar, Safdar, et al. 2014), and has developed economic and immigration policies that aim at facilitating the attraction and retention of international students (Trilokekar and El Masri 2016a; Trilokekar, Safdar, et al. 2014). Thus, the Ontario story raises questions about what is meant by policy: Is it essentially a published government document (i.e., a text)? Does the absence of a formal pse government policy/strategy document suggest the absence of an ie policy in Ontario’s pse sector? This chapter is about the Ontario story. Drawing on two sets of data2 derived from twelve semi-structured interviews with federal and Ontario government politicians (premiers and leaders of opposition parties) and bureaucrats from different ministries involved directly in ie policy-making, this chapter examines where and how ie has taken shape in the province’s pse sector.

International Education Policy in Ontario


Our primary focus is to understand how ie as policy has emerged and evolved in Ontario, that is, the decision-making aspects of the policymaking process, its context, structure, agendas, and actors. Whereas the Ontario pse sector consists of universities, colleges, and private career colleges, this chapter is primarily focused on the provincial government and its relations with the university sector in developing an ie policy. The chapter provides a brief historical narrative and identifies six key themes that speak to the unique characteristics of Ontario’s ie policy, namely: (1) people, power, and position; (2) economy and global competition; (3) shifting federal-provincial relations; (4) parochialism: a recurring undercurrent; (5) universities in the lead; and (6) managing risks.

an overview of international education policy development in ontario The 1980 Four Motors for Europe3 agreement signed under the Liberal government led by David Peterson (1985–90) has been identified as the historical beginning of the province’s ie activity. The first agreement was signed by the Ontario government in 1986 with BadenWürttemberg, Germany, followed by the agreements with RhôneAlpes, France, and Lombardy, Italy, in 1989, and Catalonia, Spain, in 1990 (Wolfe 2000). These agreements included co-operation in many fields, including education, where a number of student exchanges for university credit were established. To manage these exchanges, an ie branch was set up with a director within the ministry. The Four Motors continued to flourish, even during the initial years of the newly appointed New Democratic Party (ndp) government (1990– 95) (Wolfe 2000). During this period, presidents of Ontario universities were noted as actively participating in meetings with their counterparts from the Four Motors to discuss ie activities, such as supporting academic exchanges, interregional conferences, and seminars on specific subjects sponsored by the partner universities (Featherstone and Radaelli 2003). According to a former Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (maesd) employee, Ontario exchange students under the Four Motors agreement were provincially funded in 1993 (interview, 13 May 2011). However, during the following years of the ndp government (i.e., 1994–95), enthusiasm for the Four Motors program waned as part of a broad program of expenditure restraint


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

(Rachlis and Wolfe 1997). In 1994, health coverage for international students, which was formerly covered under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, was eliminated (cfs 2017). This was a period of cutbacks for ie that became even more severe under the subsequent Progressive Conservative government. Under the Michael Harris government (1995–2002), the Four Motors bilateral exchange programs were terminated in 1999, a move that “decimated and devastated” Ontario’s international engagement efforts (interview, 27 May 2011). The Harris government introduced another very important policy shift: deregulating international tuition fees. Whereas international students had previously not paid differential tuition fees in Ontario, this changed in 1996, when the government declared international students ineligible for government funding (interview, 27 May 2011). Ironically, following this policy change, Ontario witnessed one of the highest growths in its international student body (see figure 11.1). Upon assuming office, Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal leader from 2003 to 2013, announced a review of the public pse sector led by former Ontario premier Bob Rae. The Rae Report resurrected the province’s ie initiatives, with the Ontario government responding through its Reaching Higher (2005–06) program, allocating $6.2 billion investment over five years in pse, including funding for ie. The period between 2006 and 2010 has been described as “exciting times, there was money allocated to it [ie] … things were going well and it had a bit of a flagship status” (interview, 16 June 2017). In 2007, the ministry re-established the former bilateral student exchanges that were closed down under the Harris government (i.e., exchanges between Ontario and Rhône-Alpes, France, as well as BadenWürttemberg, Germany) and added two new ones (with Maharashtra and Goa in India and Jiangsu in China). It established a new Ontario International Education Opportunity Scholarship program to fund approximately 800 students to study abroad. An emphasis on balancing incoming and outgoing students was important. As a ministry officer stated, “So while international students may choose Ontario as a destination, we also wanted to provide an opportunity for our domestic Ontario students to study abroad” (interview, 5 July 2011). In addition, it funded twenty-five student refugees through the World University Service of Canada program4 in partnership with Ontario institutions (interview, 5 July 2011).

International Education Policy in Ontario


Figure 11.1 Ontario international student enrolment, 2000–14 Source: Weingarten, H.P., M. Hicks, and G. Moran 2016.

In terms of international student recruitment, the province allocated $1 million to an international marketing campaign, which included creating a “Study in Ontario” website page and additional support to Ontario pse institutions to attend fairs/conferences (interview, 5 July 2011). Subsequently, in the 2010 Open Ontario budget, the government committed to a target increase of 50 percent of international students. It was during this period that the provincial government negotiated and worked with the federal government to approve an off-campus work permit program for international students. Additionally, an International Strategic Opportunities Program was established ($150,000 over three years) targeting its initiatives to priority countries namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, China, and India. As a ministry administrator stated, “It was on an upward trend in terms of interest within the ministry and the government overall” (interview, 16 May 2011). Among the newer initiatives was the Trillium Scholarship program, announced in 2010 (allocated in the budget year of 2011), which aimed to attract the best seventy-five international students each year to Ontario for PhD studies. With funding of $40,000 annually, the program was viewed as being more robust and providing greater longevity than buying “magazine ads and billboards or go[ing] to trade shows” (interview, 13 May 2011). It was envisioned as a program


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

important to developing Ontario’s international network and global prestige (interview, 13 May 2011). The Trillium Scholarship, however, created a huge political debate and was taken up by the media as “a scandal because the Opposition said … [the Liberal government is] spending more money on foreign students than on domestic students” (interview, 16 June 2017). The following year, 2011, Ontarians witnessed a provincial election where international student funding “became an election issue” (interview, 16 June 2017). Although the liberal government was re-elected, its approach to ie became more conservative due to fiscal pressures following the global recession along with the opposition it received for the Trillium Scholarship program. Hence, “a lot of the support that Ontario was providing to a lot of … institutions was cut” (interview, 16 June 2017). In 2012, the government introduced the International Student Recovery Fee, deducting $750 per international student (except for PhD students) from each institution’s operating grant allocation (mtcu 2012a). This was a time when ie status changed from “flagship … [and] became a submarine” (interview, 16 June 2017). In 2013, a new Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne was elected. During this time, “It [ie] has not been as high profile … but international has never fallen by the wayside” (interview, 5 July 2011). Ontario’s changing policy approach to ie has been described as a “pendulum,” where “they [the Ontario government] were all the way in it [between 2006 and 2010] and then they were backing off [between 2011 and 2014/15], and now they are starting to swing back into it” (interview, 16 June 2017). In 2015, after years of lobbying by Ontario universities, the government permitted the use of up to 25 percent of allocated public funding to support international graduate students. A year later, the 2016 Ontario budget allocated funds for “develop[ing] a comprehensive post-secondary ie strategy that will seek a balanced approach for attracting international students and new partnerships, and promoting international experience opportunities for Ontario students” (Ontario. Ministry of Finance 2016, 109). In June 2015, the Ontario Ministry of Education released Ontario’s Strategy for K–12 International Education, noting that this policy document would be followed by one for the pse sector (Ontario. Ministry of Education 2015). In February 2016, maesd released a discussion paper, “Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario,” soliciting feedback from the pse sector and the public through written submission as

International Education Policy in Ontario


well as a series of focus groups across the province. maesd has yet to release the outcomes of the consultation process.

six key themes on policymaking in ontario An analysis of Ontario’s history on ie (1980–2016) policy developments, supported by the individual interviews in this study, revealed six key themes that help to explain how and why ie policy in Ontario has taken certain directions. People, Power, and Position Trilokekar, Shanahan, et al. (2013) suggested that understanding individuals and their positions with respect to power is necessary to understanding pse policy-making. Specific individuals or groups of individuals can be important drivers of policy by virtue of the particular positions they occupy in the government and/or the access they have to those in power. The Ontario story of ie is largely a story of people in power, their personal experiences, and how these have shaped their values, preferences, and policy orientation. Premiers are the key stakeholders who have played a central role. As one administrator stated, “So what I’m suggesting is … [that] sometimes the ministry [is] much more interested in it [ie] because the premier was interested in it” (interview, 20 July 2017). Peterson, Rae, and McGuinty could all be considered “internationalists.” Peterson’s commitment to an internationally competitive Ontario economy supported student exchange programs for Ontario students with the Four Motors. In speaking about Rae, several officials recalled him as someone who “believes in [the] importance of international experience” (interview, 16 May 2011). Rae himself spoke about his background and how it influenced his commitment toward ie, saying, “We’re all the products of our upbringing [his father was a diplomat]. I went to an international school when I was in high school. I was in the first class that wrote the ib history exam in 1964 … When I came back to Canada, I went to U of T, then went back to Oxford and came back to Canada again. So for me, international education is a yes” (interview, 27 May 2011).5 Rae was a firm believer that all students should have an international experience. “If you look at exchange programs, it’s the wealthy kids who get to go because their parents can afford to send them to Europe or China


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

or wherever. There’s very little financial support for that” (interview, 27 May 2011). Premier McGuinty was likened to former premier Peterson as someone with “a real belief that Ontario’s future lay in an investment in global relationships” (interview, 25 May 2011). Besides, he was “very interested in education. I mean, he has called himself the education premier” (interview, 25 May 2011). An official contended that, ie “really became his sort of signature item for a period of time” (interview, 20 June 2017). His interest in ie was linked to his personal background as well as those of his officials and advisers. “From the stories that I’ve heard, they hosted an international student in the McGuinty house when he was a student. It was a student from China. So he had a very personal and enriching experience that way. I also think one of his children had a very positive experience, so that that was helpful” (interview, 16 May 2011). He was said to have also been influenced by his deputy minister Steenkamp, who himself was an international student, and his policy adviser Alex Johnston, daughter of David Johnston, former president of University of Waterloo, was a strong internationalist. This was not the case with former premier Harris. One official explained that, for the Harris government, pse and ie were not “core business … [I]t was horrible. For years the Germans would come and say, Why are you cutting this [referring to the Four Motors student exchange program] … [They would] want to meet with [the] minister but he was too busy so they’d meet with [the] director. We had nothing to tell them. Harris government had no interest in international – it was just all about the taxpayer” (interview, 16 May 2011). Scholars applying a political economy and party politics approach have shown that political parties have distinct preferences concerning higher education policy and that these preferences are translated into policies when these parties come into government (e.g., Ansell 2010; Garritzmann 2015; Jungblut 2016a, 2016b). The Ontario story suggests that a political leader’s commitment to ie seems to come from an overall ideological commitment to pse but mostly from a very direct and personal experience with ie. As one of Ontario’s former premiers reminds us, “[Do not] underestimate the impact of human experiences on shaping policy and priorities. So, policy on its own can be dry and academic, but the best policy I always thought was informed by some life experience and powered by some passion” (interview, 4 August 2017).

International Education Policy in Ontario


Knowledge/Economy and Global Competition Globalization forces have framed several policy issues in the pse and ie sectors. Perhaps most importantly, globalization has resulted in policy directives that concern multiple policy domains, such as trade and commerce, the labour market, education and training, the economy, and immigration. This has led to a convergence, overlap, or collision of policy matters previously considered to be exclusively domestic or international, or federal or provincial. As a senior federal politician noted, “This [ie] isn’t just about education. This is about the economy, immigration, our innovation, and our overall capacity to succeed as an economy” (interview, 25 May 2011). A glimpse into history suggests that ie as a component of trade and the economy is not new. The mid-1980s were considered a period of rapid and dramatic economic change in Ontario, with Peterson’s commitment to developing Ontario’s international competition a key to its economic strategy approach. Hence, when the Four Motors for Europe approached Ontario for an agreement, the Peterson government was drawn to their example as engines of growth (Wolfe 2000) and signed on with great interest and commitment. This focus on growing the Ontario economy through global competition was taken up after Peterson most fervently under the McGuinty government. Reflecting back, a government official stated, “I do think that the increasing competitive environment must have been a spark here. In some ways, I think the rise in China and India has been very significant because that’s where they prompted a lot of engagement on the trade front. Education seemed like an increasingly important economic sector, and a clean sector as well in terms of an environmental impact” (interview, 25 May 2011). Speaking of this time period, another official stated, “There were some folks who believed that relationships had to expand beyond the US. That was never more evident than the fiscal crisis, beginning in the fall of 2008, and the impact on the manufacturing economy in Ontario. You had these rising superpowers in India and China, so you saw the premier’s missions. He went to China in 2006, 2008, and 2011. India was 2007, and late 2009 or early 2010” (interview, 16 May 2011). Interestingly, officials stated that Premier McGuinty wanted big businesses, like Nike, to join his economic and trade missions, but instead he had far better success with Ontario post-secondary institutions who said, “‘pick us, pick us,’ and by default they made up a good percentage of the group. They made deals, but


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

that wasn’t his main interest” (interview, 16 May 2011). This was the beginning of an era when education became a core business in Ontario’s trade missions. There was a shift from the Peterson era in which education moved from being part of cultural exchanges to being one component of strengthening international trade relations, to slowly but surely being viewed as a core business within Ontario’s trade sector. In addition, pse took prominence because “in the current global environment, investment in human capital is the most important investment that you can make. An economy like Ontario’s, which is going through a major transition, from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge economy, that investment in human capital was [considered] important” (interview, 25 May 2011). Thus, ie received a new wind, resulting in a context where, as another official stated, “Anybody with a real interest in post-secondary inevitably turned their mind to international education for a number of reasons. To remain locally competitive, you obviously have to be in the game of international education” (interview, 16 May 2011). The link between ie and the provincial economy grew over time – with international students directly contributing over $7 million to the Ontario economy in 2014 (Canada. gac 2016) – such that, as another government official stated, ie was talked about “as an economic sector, a driver of gdp and a creator of jobs to make the argument for the investment. It has also become an important source of revenue for institutions in times of declining or flat funding” (interview, 25 May 2011). Thus, the rationale of the new knowledge economy, political discourses of globalization and global competition, and revenue generation became the raison d’être of ie, with officials concerned that “you don’t compare yourself to the guy down the street. You’ve got to say, who’s doing this best anywhere in the world, and how do we match that? That’s got to be the new standard … Is Canada doing as good of a job as Australia and the Brits?” (interview, 27 May 2011). Shifting Federal-Provincial Relations On the subject of ie, an interviewee remarked, “A long-standing irritant in the federal-provincial-territorial relationship is the way in which the federal government has not engaged provinces and territories in international issues which involve areas of provincial jurisdiction, education being the prime one” (interview, 13 May 2011). With

International Education Policy in Ontario


ie spilling over distinct policy domains and its increased link with economy and immigration issues, one observes a shift in thinking about ie as public policy. One interviewee stated, “I think that the federal government has a very legitimate role to play [in ie] because of the economy” (interview, 27 May 2011). Not only is a federal role regarded as legitimate by some, there is also increased recognition of a need for collaboration and co-operation among the provincial and federal levels of government. “My understanding … was that there was a very antagonistic relationship between the provinces and immigration. A lot of that started to change with the implementation of the off-campus work permit program. Now this was an initiative that was Canada-wide. It meant that Canada was going to be more competitive in the international sphere for international students, because we were going to be able to offer something equal to or more than other competitor jurisdictions. So … I’ll say that it was a period of growing co-operation” (interview, 13 May 2011). Another interviewee explained, “[We saw] immigration signed agreements with the provinces, and the provinces signed agreements with the institutions. So the province was co-delivering or coadministrating the program and the reporting mechanisms for the program. The institutions all report to the provinces, and the provinces report to the federal government. There was an inherent design element of the program that forced collaboration and co-operation” (interview, 13 May 2011). The increased global competition for recruiting international students was certainly an important reason why the provincial and the federal governments started working together. As one interviewee put it, both government levels shared aspirations for “similar outcomes”: “People who are deciding to go abroad are typically choosing the country first … Once you understand th[at] it’s hard to get a provincial minister to give up his trillium for a maple leaf, but it is the reality of the situation” (interview, 13 May 2011). An official made a poignant point: “I always remember my first nafsa [educational event], because we had a giant Ontario pavilion. There was an Alberta pavilion, a Quebec pavilion, and a sort of rest of Canada pavilion. This Australian guy came up and said, ‘Why does Canada insist on airing its constitutional dirty laundry at a trade fair?’ And that actually sort of incited me to become much more interested in the federal initiative, because it [the fragmented marketing approach] didn’t make sense” (interview, 13 May 2011).


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

Another official stated, “We also started to see what our competitors were doing in Australia, the UK, the US, and New Zealand, where there are national efforts in promoting education. While they may not have the same sort of federal framework, we just started to see that they were really reaping the benefits of promoting themselves as a jurisdiction first and then as institutions and provinces second” (interview, 16 May 2011). Improving student visa processes, off-campus work permits, postgraduate work programs, and the introduction of immigration pathways for international students brought increased alignment both across the two levels of government and among different ministries (e.g., those related to education, immigration, and the labour market). Describing the relationship as “more functional,” an officer cautioned that the path moving forward was not any smoother because “each [policy arena] requires its own navigation, so I wouldn’t say that one is necessarily easier” (interview, 25 May 2011). While collaboration with the federal government has increased, there has been another dynamic development within the Canadian federation. With each province pursuing its own internationalization strategy, there is heightened competition between the provinces, “a natural race to the top” (interview, 13 May 2011), with a concern when certain provinces are able to offer specific advantages. For example, in speaking of Nova Scotia, an official stated, “EduNova drives me nuts, because they receive federal funding through the Atlantic Opportunities Development Agency … I think it was St Thomas a couple of years ago, got $750,000 for marketing. So when the Ontario market for budgeting is $1 million amongst 44 institutions and the feds are giving $750,000, that’s the nonsense that drives me nuts” (interview, 13 May 2011). Others gave the example of Manitoba “that can afford to have a tuition rebate scheme for graduates, where Ontario can’t,” and noted that “Newfoundland and, I think, Saskatchewan provide provincial health insurance benefits to international students that Ontario doesn’t” (interview, 13 May 2011). While Ontario is concerned about benefiting from “Canadian” global competitiveness, it is equally concerned with national competition from other provinces, clearly demonstrating the inherently contradictory and complex nature of policy-making. Parochialism, a Recurring Undercurrent Scholars have reminded us that policies are embedded in social, historical, and political contexts (Gale 1999) and that each policy file

International Education Policy in Ontario


assembles multiple discourses from multiple voices in circulation, each tangling with one another (Goldberg 2005; 2006). Some discourses may be consistent with each other and others may conflict as they struggle and compete for predominance (Goldberg 2006). In Ontario, the perspectives of local taxpayers and an undercurrent of parochialism have always shaped ie policy development. In speaking about the success or failure of ie, some government officials suggested that “the average taxpayer, the general public, are not strong supporters of internationalization” (interview, 13 May 2011). As another official explained, “[The] taxpayer doesn’t care about such programs. It’s wonderful for international exchanges, building profile, so many good reasons to do it. Taxpayers would say it’s a waste of money because … it doesn’t put food on their table or pay their bills, or build a road” (interview, 16 May 2011). Officials have recognized access to pse as an issue that matters to taxpayers and that defines acceptance or resistance to ie. An official explained, “The whole issue of displacement of domestic students [is central] … if you say that we’re going to have five places for international students, and that means less for Canadian or Ontario students, that’s a political dead-end. I think that you have to say that we’re adding additional spaces and no places will be taken from Ontario students … In addition to that, this additional program [recruiting international students] will also pay for itself, which it should” (interview, 27 May 2011). Another official stated, “You know that people have personal experiences of their son or daughter not having got admission into a specific program or university … It’s a very visceral domestic political issue and it’s a very difficult one to get around in the context where access is challenging … So there’s this challenge and this political reality that whole political parties have had to deal with. It’s an extremely difficult issue” (interview, 25 May 2011). Officials cited two specific examples of resistance. The first was in 2011, when “there was some concern when Saudi Arabia … was training some of their physicians at our medical schools and they were in a sense creating additional spots, and that caused a great deal of concern because I mean the public didn’t understand it … They [Saudi students] were not taking Canadian spots. Basically, if we had one hundred spots, then Saudi Arabia was saying, well, we will buy ten extra and we will send our students” (interview, 20 June 2017). The announcement of the Trillium Scholarship was cited as another example of how the Opposition and the media derailed an important ie


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

initiative, making Premier McGuinty and others in his cabinet “gun shy” about ie. Telling the story, an official stated, It went all the way back to Robert Birgeneau, president of U of T, who said we need money for international students, for the best and brightest PhD students. Every other jurisdiction does this and we need to as well. The presidents had been advocating for it. We designed it [with a lot of advice from university representatives]. However, before anyone had a chance to do any marketing or figure out a communications strategy, the premier just announced it one day when he was in Hong Kong. Oh, by the way [he said in a speech] we have this new program [Trillium]. It was a disaster. (Interview, 16 May 2011) For the most part, the McGuinty government was criticized for diverting taxpayer money to international students when domestic students faced high tuition, increased debt loads, and challenges with access to post-secondary institutions. As an official stated, “[T]he terrible, terrible result [was that it] made government gun shy on international strategy. They don’t even mention international any more” (interview, 16 May 2011). Parochialism has also been reflected in the more recent acceptance of international students as a pool of potential future citizens. Immigration and labour market needs are major domestic policy issues in Ontario, and international students with Ontario education and labour market experience are seen as a solution to this particular domestic matter (Trilokekar and El Masri 2016b). A crude cost benefit analysis applied to this particular issue appeals to the Ontario public. As one official stated, “There are views out there … [that] immigrants are consuming more and more services than they actually produce” (interview, 25 May 2011). As long as international students pay higher fees, contribute to the local economy, and then continue their contribution by working in the labour market, they are seen as more valuable immigrants than those that “seem to cost more than they contribute” (interview, 25 May 2011). ie appeals as long as it meets a domestic policy agenda and appeals to local policy actors (Steiner-Khamsi 2004).

International Education Policy in Ontario


Universities in the Lead Shubert, Jones, and Trilokekar (2009, 9–10) suggested that “Canadian universities have made independent decisions related to their internationalization agenda, with surprisingly little involvement or interest from the federal government.” This holds true in their relationship with provincial governments as well. In recalling the first ie initiative with Four Motors, an official stated, “The government might have called the universities and asked, ‘Would you guys like to do this?’ A number of institutions probably already had agreements with their partner institutions, so this wasn’t such a leap. Some of these are very well-established schools that have had partnerships for a very long time” (interview, 13 May 2011). Government officials made several comments that suggest they regarded universities as front-runners of the ie agenda. For example, an official stated, “Universities and colleges have been doing this a lot longer than the government ever had … At best, the government could play a facilitative role, but the product at the end of the day was the individual colleges and universities … The government doesn’t recruit, admit, teach or graduate, so arguably we never have to talk to a student. I don’t mean that in a flippant manner” (interview, 13 May 2011). The government relies on advice from specific individuals in the university sector. When government officials were tasked with developing an ie strategy under Premier McGuinty, they “had no idea. We were scrambling – we were making stuff up. So it came to us, and we said, ‘What’s our strategy?’ With my staff, we started having focus groups with people in universities who were knowledgeable … I started an advisory group with three people from colleges and three from universities” (interview, 13 May 2011). They credited specific administrators who supported them all the way through. They felt the same way about developing study abroad programs and later the development of the Trillium Scholarship. Referring back to the Rae Report, an official stated, “He said in his report that every student should have the opportunity to study abroad. This came from university sector – they wanted this” (interview, 16 May 2011). Similarly, the Trillium Scholarship was a result of universities’ lobby efforts. An official stated, “The fact that Trillium was announced wasn’t just some whim. That was universities’ number-one want in terms of furthering the international agenda. So the


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

government didn’t just willy-nilly choose to create a PhD scholarship. In fact, the amount was very much a part of the input received by institutions” (interview, 16 May 2011). Interestingly, when the Harris government completely shut down the programs with the Four Motors, “the universities decided those programs were so useful they decided to run them themselves so they put together a little secretariat and attached a levy to all universities based on the number of students they had” (interview, 28 April 2011). Here was another example where the universities took the lead when the government closed the shop. However, as a result of the government pulling out of these programs, there was increased differentiation among Ontario universities with the larger urban and more active ones continuing to independently fund their international engagements, and the smaller regional schools focused on their parochial interests (interview, 28 April 2011). Overall, in terms of governmentuniversity relations, an official stated, “How was policy formed? It was integrated, it was robust, and it reflected the wants and needs of the [university] sector. In some ways, government just has to get out [of] the way, but if it can provide leadership, promoting [the] Canadian brand, helping institutions market themselves … Institutions are really leading the way” (interview, 16 May 2011). Managing Risks The officials interviewed differentiated between two roles for maesd: a partner who supports pse institutions in their internationalization initiatives and a regulator who manages risks associated with internationalization activities. Whereas the ministry’s role as a partner seemed to be welcome, its role as a regulator created tensions with pse institutions. An official noted, “I probably see a role for government a little bit different than I did ten years ago because international students represent significantly more … That has significance and it has impacts on planning and on capital … [T]here is a challenge then as to how do you manage that? You have encouraged growth for so long, but at what point has the balance tipped? And is that institution supporting the international students appropriately? And are they becoming overly reliant on revenue attached to those international students?” (interview, 16 June 2017). In revisiting the accountability agreements with institutions, maesd has updated the Strategic Mandate Agreements to include

International Education Policy in Ontario


questions on the institutions’ goals in terms of ie. Officials acknowledged that this new exercise is causing a lot of anxiety at pse institutions as “historically, when the ministry asked them [universities and colleges] about something it means that we want to regulate it. So, we have a lot of questions about are you going to regulate tuition fees, are you going to regulate … the proportion of students that are there.” Although this official argued that “it is not the intention to regulate, it is more the intention to understand,” the possibility that the government might intervene in the future was not excluded (interview, 4 July 2017). An official asserted that “I would be lying if I said that there weren’t some elements of risk out there that people were concerned about” (interview, 4 July 2017). The official hoped that the Strategic Mandate Agreements as well as the upcoming ie strategy would address some concerns around whether or not there is a level of international student proportionality that makes sense, whether posing some limits on international student fees is needed, and whether there are any risks to the Ontarian pse sector reputation. An official noted, “There are nearly a hundred thousand international students in Ontario colleges and universities and there are tremendous benefits attached to that, and we should ensure that we protect the brand and the reputation that Ontario has. And there have been one or two irritants that we have had to deal with, and we are working through to ensure that that sort of promise that is made of a solid and high-quality education is received by both international and domestic students” (interview, 16 June 2017).

conclusion A peek into history suggests that Ontario has had an ie policy since the Peterson era, although it has taken different forms, precedence, and vitality over time. The most robust engagement with ie was probably during Premier McGuinty’s time, with ie being more incorporated into a broader pse strategy. During this time Ontario witnessed a more balanced approach between supporting inbound and outbound student mobility. There was funding put toward both initiatives with a genuine recognition of the importance of financial assistance, especially for Canadian students to pursue study abroad opportunities. However, when the government allocated money toward the Trillium Scholarship, there was considerable backlash from the Opposition, the


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

general public, and the media at large. Is the Ontario story one in which the government has perhaps been ahead of its time? Or is it one that reflects the limitations of ie, given recurring undercurrents of parochialism and nationalism as we see in other country contexts, such as the United Kingdom and the United States today? The Ontario story is about rising and waning interests in ie, much like a swinging pendulum. True to Howlett, Ramesh, and Perl’s (2009) perspective, the dynamics of policy subsystems, institutional regimes, and policy paradigms have influenced the trajectory of ie policy development in Ontario. Six key themes emerged from the Ontario story. First, policy actors, especially people in leadership positions (in both the government and university systems) have been essential to how and why ie policy was taken up, with those who had personal international experiences committed to ie policy. Second, the economy, and global competition in particular, have provided the raison d’être for ie. Third, Canada’s federal system has been a continuous source of tension and opportunity, with increased policy alignment and collaboration between federal and provincial governments in light of global competition. Fourth, institutionally, universities have been held in high regard by the provincial government. The government has always acknowledged university autonomy and leadership in ie and has seen its role as that of a facilitator of university-led initiatives. However, undercurrents of parochialism, fifth, and perceived risk in increasing ie, sixth, have acted as contravening forces limiting the growth of ie policy and containing the autonomy of universities. The Ontario story reaffirms what Shanahan, Axelrod, et al. (2016, 132) have claimed as “the complex and contextualized nature of policymaking”: a process ,“shaped by unique features such as governance structures, legislative frameworks, as well as societal organization, and the values or philosophies embedded therein. These distinctive features … interact in various ways with key policy determinants: people (their power and positions), internal and external environmental forces, and public opinion.” Interestingly, the Ontario story suggests that ideology has mattered but has not been the defining force in policy direction. Policy supporters of ie have usually been supporters of pse more broadly; however, over time, what one notes is a convergence across different party ideologies to principles of neo-liberalism. Officials noted how, even if the Liberal government prioritized ie as a strategy, they did this assuming that revenue for ie and for university shortfalls in general

International Education Policy in Ontario


would come primarily from international student recruitment, not from increased investment revenue from government coffers, as might have been the case in the 1970s and 1980s. The alignment between ie and the economy has been so tightly knit that even the pse officials speak now of needing a better connection between the Ministries of Education and Economic Development and Trade. To return to the question of policy: Is it a government document or text? Our analysis suggests that policy is far more than a written strategy document. Our conclusion is that the Ontario story lends credence to the notion of policy as discourse and practice, where the “notion of policy [goes] beyond a narrow conception of policy as documentation and more fully renders the context of practices as one of policy production” (Gale 1999, 395). It suggests also that discourse is everywhere and circulates in different bodies/arenas such as government, professional organizations, authorities, and the policy elite, to advocates, community organizations, and individuals themselves who participate in disseminating and creating discourses. ie has been institutionalized through many practices whether on the maesd level or in the pse institutions without the need for a policy document. While the government may be an important policy actor among a diverse group of policy actors, the ways in which policy gets taken up, (re)interpreted, resisted, or converted is largely defined by the nexus or network of local policy actors.

notes 1 The Ontario government has repeatedly made references to developing an ie strategy for its pse sector. In 2008, Philip Steenkamp, former deputy minister of the Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (maesd), announced that the Ontario government was in the process of developing an internationalization strategy (Steenkamp 2008). In 2012, maesd officials made reference to an “emerging post-secondary education international strategy” (Ontario. mtcu 2012b, 5). In 2015, Ontario’s government published Ontario’s Strategy for K–12 International Education, with the government announcing plans for a second phase of the strategy focusing on pse (Ontario. Ministry of Education 2015). As a follow up, maesd released a discussion paper in 2016 titled “Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario” (Ontario. mtcu 2016). Although this paper was released in early 2016, more






Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

than two years later there has been no official updates on the outcomes of the consultation process nor has an official strategy been released yet. The first set of interviews was conducted during 2009–2012 by the first author as part of a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada funded project, “Making Policy in Canadian Postsecondary Education Since 1990.” The second set of interviews was conducted between June and September 2017 by the second author as part of her PhD research, funded by a Joseph Bombardier Scholarship, focusing on ie policy-making in Ontario during the period of 2005–2017. Four Motors for Europe is a network of four highly industrialized and research-oriented regions (in Rhône-Alpes in France, Baden-Württemberg in Germany, Catalonia in Spain, and Lombardy in Italy) that was formalized in 1988 to increase economic and social co-operation between the regions. Education is one of the fields of co-operation among other sectors. World University Service of Canada is a Canadian non-profit organization dedicated to improving education, employment, and empowerment opportunities for youth around the world. Bob Rae has been specifically identified as an interviewee, as that was his preference. Rather than anonymity, he wanted his quotes attributed to him.

references Ansell, B.W. 2010. From the Ballot to the Blackboard: The Redistributive Political Economy of Education. Cambridge, ny: Cambridge University Press. Canada. cic (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). 2015. Facts and Figures 2014 – Immigration Overview: Permanent Residents. Ottawa: cic. Canada. Global Affairs Canada (gac). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. /impact-2016/index.aspx?lang=eng. cfs (Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario). 2017. Extending ohip to All Students. Toronto: Canadian Federation of Students – Ontario. Featherstone, K., and C. Radaelli. 2003. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gale, T. 1999. “Policy Trajectories: Tracing the Discursive Path of Policy Analysis.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 20 (3): 393–407.

International Education Policy in Ontario


Garritzmann, J.L. 2015. “Attitudes Towards Student Support: How Positive Feedback-Effects Prevent Change in the Four Worlds of Student Finance.” Journal of European Social Policy 25: 139–58. Goldberg, M. 2005. “Ideology, Policy and the (Re)Production of Labour Market Inequality: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Access to Professions and Trades.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. – 2006. “Discursive Policy Webs in a Globalization Era: A Discussion of Access to Professions and Trades for Immigrant Professionals in Ontario, Canada.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 4 (1): 77–102. Howlett, M., M. Ramesh, and A. Perl. 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 3rd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Jungblut, J. 2016a. “From Preferences to Policies in Coalition Governments: Unpacking Policy Making in European Higher Education.” Public Policy and Administration. Advance online publication. https://journals.sagepub .com/doi/10.1177/0952076716679223. – 2016b. “Re-Distribution and Public Governance: The Politics of Higher Education in Western Europe.” European Politics and Society 17: 331–52. Ontario. mtcu (Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities). 2012a. “Memorandum: Multi-Year Funding Outlook.” 3 April. http://www – 2012b. “Ontario’s pse International Education Strategy,” presentation to the Ontario Association of International Educators (oaie). – 2016. “Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario: International Strategy for Postsecondary Education,” press release, 24 February. .ca/pepg/consultations/international_education_strategy.html. Ontario. Ministry of Education. 2015. Ontario’s Strategy for K–12 International Education. K12.pdf. Ontario. Ministry of Finance. 2016. Jobs for Today and Tomorrow: 2016 Ontario Budget. Rachlis, C., and D. Wolfe. 1997. “An Insider’s View of the ndp Government in Ontario: The Politics of Permanent Opposition Meets the Economics of Permanent Recession.” In The Government and Politics of Ontario, edited by G White, 331–64. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sá, C., and E. Sabzalieva. 2016. Public Policy and the Attraction of International Students. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, oise, University of Toronto. Shanahan, T., P. Axelrod, R.D. Trilokekar, and R, Wellen. 2016. “Policy-Making in Higher Education: Is a ‘Theory of Everything’ Possible?” In Researching Higher Education: International Perspectives on Theory, Policy


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Amira El Masri

and Practice, edited by J. Case and J. Huisman, 132–50. New York: Routledge. Shubert, A., G. Jones, and R.D. Trilokekar. 2009. “Introduction.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 6–15. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company. Steenkamp, P. 2008. “The Development of Ontario’s Internationalization Strategy.” Canadian e-Magazine of International Education 1: (3). Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2004. “Globalization in Education: Real or Imagined?” In The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending, edited by G. Steiner-Khamsi, 1–6. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Trilokekar, R.D., and A. El Masri. 2016a. “Canada’s International Education Strategy: Implications of a New Policy Landscape for Synergy between Government Policy and Institutional Strategy.” Higher Education Policy (29): 539. doi:10.1057/s41307-016-0017-5. – 2016b. “The ‘[H]unt for New Canadians Begins in the Classroom’: The Construction and Contradictions of Canadian Policy Discourse on International Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education. 13 (4): 666–78. doi:10.1080/14767724.2016.1222897. Trilokekar, R.D., S. Safdar, A. El Masri, and S. Colin. 2014. International Education, Labour Market and Future Citizens: Prospects and Challenges for Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development. Trilokekar, R.D., T. Shanahan, P. Axelrod, and R. Wellen. 2013. “Making Postsecondary Education Policy: Toward a Conceptual Understanding.” In Making Policy in Turbulent Times: Challenges and Prospects for Higher Education, edited by P. Axelrod, T. Shanahan, R.D. Trilokekar, and R. Wellen, 330–58. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Weingarten, H.P., M. Hicks, and G. Moran. 2016. Understanding the Sustainability of the Ontario Postsecondary System and its Institutions: A Framework. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www %20the%20Sustainability%20of%20the%20Ontario%20Postsecondary %20System.pdf. Wolfe, D. 2000. “Networking Among Regions: Ontario and the Four Motors for Europe.” European Planning Studies 8 (3): 267–84.

12 Population, Power, and Place: International Education Policy on Prince Edward Island J. Tim Goddard

introduction Prince Edward Island, widely known as the Island, is Canada’s smallest province, with an area of 5,656 square kilometres and a 2016 population estimated at 148,649 (Prince Edward Island. Statistics Bureau 2016). Known as Abegweit (“cradled on the waves”) by the Mi’kmaq people, and in 1534 described by Jacques Cartier as “the fairest land ’tis possible to see!,” the province is currently branded by the Tourist Board as the “Gentle Island.” Like the sunscreen that visitors are encouraged to apply liberally for masked protection, this description masks the imperfections of the place. The early years of the twenty-first century have seen rapid changes to the demographics of the Island, with continued out-migration of young Islanders and an increased level of immigrant newcomers (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration 2017a; Prince Edward Island Statistics Bureau 2016). To compensate for gaps in the employment pool, agriculturalists and fish processors among others, supported by the local municipalities to whom they pay taxes, have argued strenuously for the skilled and critical worker legislation to be more generously applied (cbc 2017a; Tiya 2017). Provincial policies have increased access for economic immigrants under a revised Provincial Nominee Program (pnp). Aggressive recruiting by local postsecondary institutions has led to a rapid increase in the number of international students, with enrolments increasing between 2014 and


J. Tim Goddard

2016 by 15.6 percent at the University of Prince Edward Island (upei) and 26 percent at Holland College (cbc 2017b; Yarr 2017a). This chapter examines the interaction and impact of these local, provincial, and federal policy decisions on the internationalization of postsecondary education (pse) within the socio-economic context of Prince Edward Island.

provincial context Prince Edward Island, along with the other Atlantic provinces of Canada, exhibits many of the demographic indicators of a community in crisis. Such indices are related to issues of population demographics, educational achievement, employment, and food security. The strategic and operational questions that emerge from and interact with these socio-economic realities are found in policy arenas contested by federal, provincial, and local jurisdictions. Prince Edward Island has an aging population with a median age of 42.8 and almost one-third aged 45–64, a situation exacerbated by large numbers of younger people moving off-Island for work (Canada. Statistics Canada 2014). The September 2017 unemployment rate of 9.5 percent was 1.2 percent lower than the previous year but was still far higher than the Canadian mean of 6.2 percent (Prince Edward Island. Statistics Bureau 2015; Workpei 2017). School achievement rates are low, as measured by international large-scale assessments such as Program for International Student Assessment (Wright 2013), and elevated levels of illiteracy exist within rural communities. The cultural fabric of the Island is also changing rapidly, with Island-born residents being outnumbered by interprovincial migrants from across Canada, including many retired adults, as well as economic and refugee immigrants. In addition, the Indigenous population is beginning to increase with growth in the Mi’kmaq community and an increase in the number of Indigenous peoples moving to the Island (Canada. Statistics Canada 2007; Yarr 2017b). The Island is starting to diversify its economy, but there remains a persistent reliance on natural resource extraction such as fishing, farming, and logging (Rural Development pei 2010). Incomes are generally low, with 58.8 percent of Islanders having total annual earnings of under $29,999 (Prince Edward Island. Economic Development and Tourism n.d.), and pockets of extreme poverty across the Island are evident when 11.4 percent of Island households report moderate or severe food insecurity (Tarasuk, Mitchell, and Dachner 2014).

International Education and Prince Edward Island


These issues of an aging and culturally evolving population, low economic circumstances, high levels of adult illiteracy, poor academic achievement, and increased degrees of food insecurity combine to establish the social context within which government policy is implemented. Since 2008, the emergence of international education (ie) as a growth sector on Prince Edward Island has indicated governments’ desire to address the above-mentioned issues in a meaningful way.

context of post-secondary education Three public institutions offer pse on Prince Edward Island: Collège de l’Île, Holland College, and upei. They are each contemporary manifestations of institutions that claim histories going back to the early 1800s. In 1969, the Government of Prince Edward Island, following a critical study of its pse institutions, concluded that a merger to form a provincial university was needed (upei n.d.-b). The result was the religiously based Prince of Wales College (Protestant) and St. Dunstan’s University (Catholic) were merged into upei, located in Charlottetown, which in 1983 expanded with the establishment of the Atlantic Veterinary College (upei n.d.-a). That same year, 1969, Holland College, an institute of applied arts and technology that offers courses in several communities across the island, was established. To provide pse to the Acadian community, the Société Saint-Thomasd’Aquin founded the Société éducative, which, in 1994, in partnership with Nova Scotia’s Collège de l’Acadie, began to provide adult training services in French. In 2008, the partnership was permitted to elapse and the Collège de l’Île became the French-language community college of Prince Edward Island (Collège de l’Acadie n.d.). Collège de l’Île is based in western Prince Edward Island, the Acadian heartland, but also offers programs in Charlottetown. The modern history of pse on the Island focuses on these three institutions, which collectively seek to meet the needs of local students as well as those from the region, across Canada, and internationally. As Collège de l’Île has not yet sought to develop a strategy to increase international enrolment, the focus of this chapter is on upei and Holland College. Internationalization as a policy issue within the realm of higher education has emerged from the evolution of numerous factors interacting among these institutions and is manifest through several poli-


J. Tim Goddard

cy arenas – those of rurality, population, and environment are the three main sectors addressed in this chapter. Rurality According to Statistics Canada, a rural area is anywhere that is more than an hour’s drive from a place with 10,000 people (Du Plessis, Beshiri, et al. 2001). Such a definition does not work for Prince Edward Island, where only the extreme tips of the province are more than a one-hour drive from the census agglomerations of Summerside (population: 16,153) or Charlottetown (population: 64,487) (Prince Edward Island. Department of Finance 2016, 4). These two Metropolitan Census Areas constitute over half the population of the province. However, the marketing of Prince Edward Island focuses on white farmhouses sunlit among the green fields, red soil, and blue ocean, a picturesque representation of an idyllic rural environment. Such an image does not show those demographic indicators of communities in crisis described above. There is no reference to closed schools, to bankrupt farmers, to unemployed fishery workers, or to family homes left to decay when the older generation has passed away and no children are left who wish to live in the rural areas. Indeed, the focus is on the essence of rurality as perceived from an urban perspective. It is presented as “other,” as oppositional to the norm, which is urban in nature. This binary perspective can lead to dissonance and resistance, where “deficit” policies are considered too negative for the rural community, and “romanticized” policies are considered contrary to the lived experiences of the community. These varied notions of rurality have contributed to the development and implementation of ie policy. The government has viewed growth in the number of international immigrants, especially of families with children, as crucial to the continued economic well-being of rural Prince Edward Island. Most new immigrants, however, are from urban centres in their home countries and find even the province’s capital city of Charlottetown to be “small and quaint” (recent immigrant, personal communication, 12 June 2018). To be offered an opportunity to settle in a much smaller farming community is difficult for highly educated young people who seek the bustle of a cosmopolitan community.

International Education and Prince Edward Island


Population There are several distinct factors affecting population in a small province such as Prince Edward Island, described briefly here. First, the job market is relatively finite in nature, and so employment is hard to find. There are limited opportunities, and people who live on the Island resent being “passed over” for work simply because they lack what are perceived to be (un)necessary qualifications. For two related reasons there is resistance to post-secondary institutions “bringing in” students from off-Island. First, there is a fiscal argument – basically, “Why are our taxes being used to educate outsiders?” Second, there is the opportunities argument that off-Island students are taking places – and, ultimately, jobs – from Islanders. These arguments are exacerbated when the off-Island students happen to be from outof-country as well. Kinship ties among Islanders are extensive and are more strongly aligned than in many parts of Canada. The “origin myths” are still recounted, with families knowing whether they descended from French, English, Irish, or Scottish settlers, and the circumstances of that settlement. People receive awards and recognition for having “century farms” or being descended from the original settler populations. Place-based identity is linked to religion, to original language (Gaelic, French, English), and to clan membership. Families are linked by marriage and community, and these ties influence employment opportunities, party support for government, and so forth. Off-Island students, especially those from other countries, find these kinship barriers hard to penetrate (Zhang 2017). This is true not only in social arenas but also in educational activities such as picking study groups or becoming a member of a club. Population density appears relatively high simply because Prince Edward Island does not have a sparsely populated northern hinterland. Using 2011 census data, Statistics Canada (2014) reported a population density for the Island of 64 people per square kilometre (ppkm2). By contrast, Ontario and British Columbia were reported at 3.7 ppkm2. Such data reflect the vast northern regions in those provinces, a feature absent from Prince Edward Island, whose limited lands are all fully utilized. The birth rate is low and there is a long tradition of young people leaving the Island for work. In recent years, a number of those who


J. Tim Goddard

left in the 1980s have returned to the Island as retirees (Institute for Island Studies, personal communication, 17 June 2018). The social experiences of international students are impacted by this relative lack of young people, and, as a result, a tendency to cluster in homogeneous ethnic groups can evolve. Finally, the Indigenous presence on the Island is becoming more visible. This is partly due to population growth, not only within the Mi’kmaq community but also with an increasing number of other Indigenous peoples from across Canada moving to the Island. It is also due to the wider public conversation regarding Indigeneity in Canada, which was prompted by the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the wide media coverage of the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. There is a growing call for the ending of all forms of discrimination that Indigenous peoples face in Canada, not just racism (whether overt or covert) in a general sense but specific instances, including the lack of equitable access to pse. This issue is simmering under the surface of conversations across the Island, with some Mi’kmaq residents starting to wonder aloud (various, personal communications, 2016–18) why there are spaces for international students but not for them. Environment The Island is not exempt from feeling the effects of pollution. Windborne contaminants are received in the form of precipitation, dissolved in rain or snow. Many farmers practice single-crop farming (e.g., potatoes, corn, soya beans) and the intensity of these methods results in a heavy concentration of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. While these are applied under strict conditions, sudden extreme weather events can result in significant run-off that, it appears, leads to fish kills (Yarr 2017c). There is also a growing concern that agricultural chemicals are accumulating in groundwater aquifers and other reserves, with a potentially harmful effect still to emerge. The agriculture industry has argued that such concerns are emotional rather than scientifically based and that no statistically significant cause-effect relationship has been established (Guardian 2018). The other major environmental concern facing the Island is climate change, and particularly the impacts of global warming. In addi-

International Education and Prince Edward Island


tion to the greater number of extreme weather events experienced, there is also the growing impact of sea level change. The rise in sea levels is not only eroding the Island’s coastal perimeter but also is predicted to change the landscape significantly, with some models forecasting that the province could become two or three islands within the next fifty years (clive n.d.). An earlier impact is likely to be increased salinization of groundwater and contamination of coastal wells, which will not only affect human consumption but also reduce the agricultural value of coastal land and make it more attractive to new residents, including immigrant families. Rural populations hoping to benefit from increased numbers of young people seeking education is another contextual factor affecting ie policy initiatives on Prince Edward Island.

international education and policy issues These questions of rurality, population, and environment must be understood as forming the crucible into which higher education policy is introduced and implemented. Although conceptually distinct, they are interrelated in practice. The direct economic impact of ie services on the Island was nearly $13 million in 2008 (Grant Thornton 2012, 26). The same estimates show a direct gain of seventy jobs and a net contribution to the provincial gdp of $4,313,000, all from international students. That said, there is no provincial policy on ie per se. The premier, in his mandate letters to the new ministers of Rural and Regional Development (MacLauchlan 2017a) and Workforce and Advanced Learning (MacLauchlan 2017b), made no reference to internationalization as a strategy. Such a strategy was implied in one line, which requested that the minister for Workforce and Advanced Learning “lead the improvement of settlement services for newcomers with the objective of building further retention success in the Province.” Otherwise, there was no reference to any group beyond “Islanders.” The responsibility for attracting international post-secondary students to Prince Edward Island lies with the institutions themselves, and the provincial government then facilitates settlement of graduates through the Graduate Stream of the pnp, which is administered by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism (Prince Edward Island. Economic Development and Tourism n.d.).


J. Tim Goddard

International Students Recruitment efforts have focused on both direct and indirect methods of attracting international students. upei and Holland College have both identified international recruiters as specific positions within their student services area. These institutions have invested in travel costs to support representatives who are attached to provincial trade missions (Prince Edward Island. Innovation pei 2017) and senior administrators who regularly travel to host alumni receptions and urge local recruitment efforts. Target markets for the university have included China, Africa, the Middle East, and South America (upei 2014, D8) and, for Holland College, the Bahamas, the United States and Mexico (cbc 2017c). These are not exclusive territories, as both institutions draw students from all areas and indeed often a recruiter from one will take materials from the other with them on a trip (ie administrator, personal communication, 2016). In some cases, for example China and the Middle East, these markets match with provincial trade strategies to increase exports, particularly of seafood such as lobster. In others, notably the Bahamas and the United States, the markets reflect a long association between Prince Edward Island and the area. The latest available data, from 2008, show a substantial number of international students at the high school level (16.5 percent), but the majority are at university (72.7 percent) and other post-secondary institutions (6.3 percent) (Canada. gac 2016, 19). Additionally, both Holland College and upei have established language training programs so that otherwise qualified students, those whose academic marks are acceptable, can receive “conditional acceptance” status and enrol in these programs to upgrade their English proficiency prior to beginning their academic studies. The institutions have also entered into agreements with third-party organizations who directly recruit individuals to private English-language schools in Canada, for a fee. These individuals are provided with an English-language training program, completion of which is accepted by the Canadian institution as meeting the entry requirements for post-secondary study. As a result of these efforts, the number of international students on the Island has risen exponentially in recent years (cbc 2017b; Yarr 2017a). Preliminary data from the Association of Atlantic Universities (aau n.d.) showed that in September 2017 the total enrolment at upei was 4,127 students, of whom 1,008 (24.4 per-

International Education and Prince Edward Island


cent) were full-time visa students. This was a significant increase over a short period of time. Holland College’s student body currently has 14 percent consisting of international students (cbc 2017c; Holland College, personal communication, July 2018). For post-secondary institutions, international students are a welcome revenue source to offset the declining number of domestic students. In addition, these students pay a differential fee, which is often double the domestic tuition. According to the latest official figures (upei 2017), some 23.8 percent of upei students were of international origin. The social media presence of both Holland College and upei reflects this diverse and multi-ethnic community. (Currently, Collège de l’Île focuses on francophone Canadian students and does not have an international recruitment strategy to attract international students.) These students are encouraged to participate in local life. Many have decided to stay on the Island after graduation and to establish their own economic initiatives. The data have shown that “in Prince Edward Island, the retention rate [of international students] rose from 11 percent in 2013 to 15.4 percent in 2015” (Neatby 2018, A2). The number of local students eligible for pse in the Maritimes is in decline (mphec n.d.) and has been since the turn of the millennium. Efforts to address this shortfall, and thus maintain institutional capacity, have developed through three stages. At first, a period of intense regional rivalry saw institutions competing against each other for new enrolments (upei president, personal communication, November 2008). As the number of eligible students in the region was both finite and diminishing, the second stage saw recruiters targeting other parts of Canada, such as Alberta and Ontario, which were perceived to have an oversupply of students. Alumni were urged to host “alma mater” events to show potential students that future success was quite likely if one graduated from pei institutions (upei chancellor, personal communication, May 2010). As a result, while the undergraduate enrolment of Maritime students in local universities declined by 12 percent in the first decade of the new century, the number of out-ofprovince students rose by 28 percent (mphec n.d.). However, not enough individuals made the transition. This led to a decrease in business expenditures, and a fall in tax revenues, which resulted in less public funding available to post-secondary institutions (upei 2013, 4). Consequently, tuition costs began to rise (Canadian Press 2014) as institutions struggled to maintain programs, and staff and faculty


J. Tim Goddard

numbers were reduced through processes of retirement and retrenchment (Ross 2013). Provincial Nominee Program It is important to note that immigration has been a means to bring not only people but also capital investment to the Island. Under the pnp, potential immigrants were required to invest a significant sum in Island businesses and, in return, were “fast-tracked” to Canadian citizenship. Although many of these investors subsequently left Prince Edward Island and relocated to a larger centre, such as Toronto or Vancouver, their investment dollars remained within the Island’s economy. Recent revisions to the pnp are part of the reason that the number of primary applicants who “landed” on Prince Edward Island increased from 42 percent (2007) to 75 percent in 2011 (Grant Thornton 2012, 20). Indeed, from 1999 to 2007 it is estimated that pnp nominees constituted more than half (56.2 percent) of all immigrants to the province (Pandey and Townsend 2010, 7). New immigrants can obtain 100 percent or partial ownership of a business by investing a minimum of $150,000 in a new or existing business, and by providing an escrow deposit of $200,000. In return, they receive permanent residency status on their arrival to the province (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration 2017a, 1). The $200,000 deposit has been the subject of some controversy. It is returned, without interest, when the applicant meets certain conditions. These include residing on the Island for a specific period and operating a business for at least twelve consecutive months (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration 2017a, 2). Some individuals have apparently forfeited this deposit by leaving the province and moving to other Canadian communities, while others have simply established a “false residence” on the Island and used the process as a means of obtaining residency status in Canada (Tutton 2018). Only a third (36.6 percent) of the landed primary applicants to the pnp from 2000 to 2008 were still residing on Prince Edward Island at the end of that period (Canada. cic 2011, 71). Nationally this was the second lowest rate after Newfoundland and Labrador (22.9 percent), and well below the Atlantic average of 56.4 percent. Provinces such as British Columbia (96.4 percent) and Alberta (95.3 percent) saw the highest numbers of primary applicants continuing to reside in their province

International Education and Prince Edward Island


of nomination. The provincial government of Prince Edward Island has been able to use these “lost deposits” to help balance the budget, and the immigrants have maintained their permanent residency status. This has led some to argue that the pnp permits people to “buy” this status, which after four years leads to Canadian citizenship. Economic Impact In recent amendments, Prince Edward Island’s government has expanded the pnp to include a Labour Impact Category that is linked to graduation from the province’s heis. The Graduate Stream within this category is “employer driven and provides opportunity for Prince Edward Island employers to hire a recent graduate from a recognized accredited Prince Edward Island university or college” (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration 2017b, 1). The program permits graduates to apply for permanent resident status once they have completed six months of work for a pei employer. The impact of these recruitment efforts has been significant. pei went from having the lowest percentage of international post-secondary students in Canada in 1992, to having the sixth highest in 2008. The numbers have continued to increase since then (Canada. Statistics Canada 2010). The decline in Island-born youth and young people, both through a lower birth rate and increased out-migration, has also led to a need for workers who are not necessarily university graduates. The federal Temporary Foreign Workers Program currently provides for 1,000 people per year to work mainly as caregivers and seasonal agricultural or fisheries workers (cbc 2017c) – an increase from 139 in 2005 (cbc 2014). This federal initiative is not the only avenue for businesses to recruit workers, as two other sections of the pnp, the Skilled Worker Stream and the Critical Worker Stream, permit Island employers to fill both high-skilled and low-skilled positions respectively. In both instances, these must be shown to be positions “that they are unable to fill through the local job market” (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration n.d., n.p.). The requirement in both instances is that the worker is offered a long-term position, one that either has permanent status or else is for a minimum two-year contract. Applicants must show that they can “demonstrate a genuine intention to settle in pei” (Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration n.d., n.p.). It is by combining these three policies that Prince Edward Island has been able to counter the prevailing demographic trends. An


J. Tim Goddard

increase in the number of international students, international graduates, and both skilled and critical workers has helped maintain a stable workforce. There has also been a substantial economic benefit. As one report noted: “Investments made by newcomers have brought much needed capital into Island businesses, enabling capital investments, growth, and job creation. The investments made through the [Provincial Nominee] Program have been estimated to total $106 million, with a gdp impact of $60.4 million, and federal and provincial tax contributions estimated at $11.5 million, supporting 1,273 full time jobs” (Grant Thornton 2012, 34). Immigration levels have continued to rise, with Charlottetown now one of the top ten “landing destinations” for new immigrants (Canada. cic 2011, 42) in Canada. Many of the established new immigrants on Prince Edward Island, of whom 94.7 percent of those welcomed between 2005 and 2009 were admitted as part of the pnp (Canada. cic 2011, 39), are now sponsoring their families to come to Canada.

analysis There are significant cross-cutting issues that highlight the interaction of these policies. Three specific ones – political power relationships, the changing academic experience, and land limitations – are addressed here. Socio-Political Power Relationships The question of socio-political power relationships on Prince Edward Island is directly tied to the demographic structure of the Island. I would propose that there are basically four types of Islander, as described in the following categorization. First, there are the bili (Born Island, Live Island),1 people who were born on the Island and who live and work on here. Second, there are biwa (Born Island, Work Away), people who were born on the Island but who left and have established lives elsewhere. They have no lasting physical presence on the Island but feel a strong tribal affinity to the province. Third, there are bich (Born Island, Came Home), those who were born on Prince Edward Island, left and established lives elsewhere, then retired and came home to the Island. Finally, there are the cfa (“Come From Aways”), that group of non-Islanders who have moved to the province. cfa is a term commonly heard in the Atlantic

International Education and Prince Edward Island


region and used, sometimes in a derogatory manner, to describe anyone who is an outsider to the community. There are three sub-groups here: those who are fellow Maritimers from neighbouring provinces; those who have moved from elsewhere across Canada; and those who are new immigrants from an international location. Each group can also be divided into three segments: those who moved to the Island for work; those who are dependents (children, partners) of the workers; and, those who moved to the Island to retire. Of interest here, however, is that most of the people in elected positions at the local, municipal, and provincial levels are bili. There is a growing dissonance between them and other residents of the Island – especially the cfas and the bichs – with respect to expectations for lifestyle, governance, and community. Those newcomers or returnees who express a desire for services and amenities they experienced elsewhere in Canada are effectively told that “if you want those things, go back to where you were.” In the tightly knit communities of Prince Edward Island, the idea that change should be initiated by outsiders is difficult for bilis to embrace. On the Island, these public and private spheres of community blur into each other in ways not seen in other provinces and generate questions of legitimacy and authority for incomers and returnees alike. For international students, the overall exclusion that all cfas experience across the Island is exacerbated by the exclusion they feel as newcomers to a different land, a sentiment not restricted to Prince Edward Island (Li and Que 2015; Stewart 2011). The Academic Experience A second area of concern is the impact that changing demographics are having on the higher education experience. For many of the international students who travel to Prince Edward Island to study, one of the key reasons for that decision was to have a “Canadian educational experience.” This does not always happen. One problem that arises is that international students from the same cultural group often cluster into specific programs of study. As a result, there are fewer domestic students in that class, and so the goal of broadening views and perspectives is not achieved. This issue is exacerbated by the close kinship networks and socio-political power imbalance on Prince Edward Island described above. In addition to academic isolation, making friends with local students is also an issue


J. Tim Goddard

(Guo and Guo 2017), as in addition to perceived language gaps there are many cultural differences in expectations regarding social activities. As one student in a graduate cohort consisting wholly of international students from China explained (personal communication, January 2017), rather than having a Canadian experience, he felt he was having a Chinese experience in Canada. Conversely, some domestic students who view upei as “their” university have found it difficult to reconcile this with classes where a quarter or more of their fellow students are from different countries. There is an imbalance in the realization of expectations for the higher education experience. There is also an imbalance in student backgrounds. Most of the domestic students who attend upei come from the bili and cfa communities described earlier. The international students tend to be drawn from either the socio-political elites within their home countries, who can afford the international fees required to send their children to study overseas, or from academic elites who are awarded scholarships to attend university (Guo and Guo 2017; Sabic-El-Rayess 2016). As a result, they are disheartened to realize that, although their fees are welcomed, they are not fully embraced as equal participants in the institution. Indeed, Zhang (2017, 3) reported that “an examination of the university policies and documents at upei does not show that internationalization is identified as an institutional priority as indicated in its mission and vision statements.” Although the recruitment of students is an institutional priority, this focus does not appear to carry through to the arena of policy development and implementation. There is a danger that a sense of increased tribalism will become more entrenched as student diversity increases in post-secondary institutions. As students experience a greater number of nationalities among their peers, so they may retreat to the “known” group and isolate themselves in the comfort of the known rather than “outsider” group. Efforts to minimize this possibility must be taken in the immediate future, before numbers reach a tipping point, or there is a danger that the post-secondary campus will become little more than a collection of cultural self-interest groups that do not address the issues of isolation, alienation, marginalization, and low self-esteem experienced by international students in Canada, and indeed globally (Guo and Guo 2017, 854). In the view of the author, strategies to increase interaction and collegiality between domestic and international students are an expensive but urgent necessity. To date there is scant evi-

International Education and Prince Edward Island


dence that this is a priority for post-secondary institutions on Prince Edward Island. Land Limitations A third issue is the limited and finite nature of land in an island province. Intensive farming and logging activities over the centuries have seen provincial Crown land reserves reduced to fewer than 2 percent of the total land area (Neimanis 2013). Additionally, the reduction in actual physical land caused by erosion and rising sea level runs counter to the economic imperative to attract more people to Prince Edward Island. Attempts to increase the population through immigration, or by better aligning the job market with available human resources, result in more people requiring homes and land. This is leading to higher patterns of urban density and concomitant pressures on local resources. In some places, land has been expropriated for highway expansion, and at the same time, large agricultural and industrial companies are seeking larger land areas, increased access to groundwater through deep-water wells, open mining and fracking to extract sub-ground resources, and so forth. With a finite and reducing amount of land, it is likely that these pressures will collide with significant implications for policy implementation as a growing population experiences a lack of space on which to settle. Such conflicts are contrary to the messages conveyed by international student recruitment and settlement policies that are publicized by post-secondary institutions and the government. These messages stress the rural and bucolic nature of the province and, in effect, entice international students and new immigrants to a place which does not exist in reality.

conclusion In this chapter, I have described three principal elements of the socio-economic context on Prince Edward Island – rurality, population, and the environment. I then presented three ie policy issues that are embedded in this context. Specifically, these related to the increased number of international students at the post-secondary level, the pnp, and the impact of the increased workforce population resulting from these policies. Finally, I conducted an analysis of three cross-cutting issues: socio-political power relationships, the academ-


J. Tim Goddard

ic experience, and land limitations posed by the finite extent of an island environment. The provincial government has tried to use federal immigration policy as a means of growing the population of the Island, specifically by increasing the number of interprovincial and international immigrants. The pnp has led to an increase in the number of investor class migrants who have affected the provincial economy. Concurrently, post-secondary institutions have exercised strenuous efforts to maintain enrolments, and offset funding reductions, by linking with provincial initiatives and using trade missions as a vehicle to establish new source countries for international student admissions. An unanticipated outcome of these actions has been a change to the university experience as perceived by both domestic and international students. upei, for example, has transitioned from a provincial institution with a dominantly local enrolment to a university where nearly one in four students is of international origin. In 2008, Vice-President of Academic Development and Acting Registrar Dr. Vianne Timmons was quoted as stating that “by 2010, the university expects that international students will make up 10 percent of the student population” (upei, 2008, n.p.). By 2011, this target was surpassed: 71.4 percent of the enrolment was of Island origin and 11.7 percent was of international students (upei 2012). Over the decade since 2008, the trend has continued, so that figures for the 2017 enrolment show 54.9 percent of the students were from Prince Edward Island, 21.3 percent from other Canadian provinces, and 23.8 percent were international students (upei 2017). As described above, these changing demographics have led to a series of social and academic challenges to the student experience. The changing population demographics on the Island are leading to greater social adhesion among different language and cultural groups. Students from China, the Bahamas, and elsewhere now form significant cultural blocks within both upei and Holland College. They are challenging local traditions related to the structure and operation of the institutions and are demanding a greater voice in the development of policy related to the student experience (Zhang 2017). This, in turn, is leading to pushback from domestic students who sometimes find it hard to adapt to greater cultural diversity in their classrooms. In effect, increased globalization is resulting not in a more inclusive and diverse community but in greater tribalism. As cfas settle on the Island, so their social and residential communities

International Education and Prince Edward Island


tend to be drawn from their own heritage. At the same time, those bili communities which have existed on the Island for generations are becoming more closed, especially among the older generations. The implementation of local, provincial, and federal policy decisions on the internationalization of pse within the social context of Prince Edward Island is diverse and under-examined. The interaction of these policies is affecting heis, and the province at large, in unanticipated ways. If the local-centric, perhaps parochial, views of Island students are replicated among family members, then there is a danger that opposition to continued growth in the enrolment of international students versus the domestic population will emerge at the ballot box. Post-secondary institutions are cautioned about the need to develop a well-articulated plan for enrolment growth that does not rely solely on a revenue stream market model. Rather, any internationalization plan should also address the social and academic challenges that emerge from such a model. The plan must focus not only on revenue generation but also on the expenditures required to support the integration of international students within the Island community, both within their post-secondary experience and post-graduation.

note 1 These acronyms are meant to be descriptive and not exclusive. Although cfa is a commonly used term, the others are introduced here for the first time by the author.

references aau (Association of Atlantic Universities). n.d. “Survey of Preliminary Enrolments.” cbc. 2014. “pei Leads the Way with Temporary Workers.” cbc News, 22 May. – 2017a. “Construction Workers Needed on P.E.I., Says Industry.” cbc News, 2 February. – 2017b. “International Student Numbers at All-Time High for Holland College.” cbc News, 17 October.


J. Tim Goddard

edward-island/holland-college-students-international-newcomers1.4358761. – 2017c. “Migrant Workers Demand Improved Rights.” cbc News, 28 October. Canada. cic (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Evaluation Division. 2011. Evaluation of the Provincial Nominee Program. Ottawa: cic. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2016. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2016 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. _IntEd_Report_eng.pdf. Canada. Statistics Canada. 2007. Population 5 Years and Over by Mobility Status, by Province and Territory (2006 Census) (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia) [Data set]. http://www (site discontinued). – 2010. “A Changing Portrait of International Students in Canadian Universities.” Education Matters: Insights on Education, Learning and Training in Canada 7 (6). /11405-eng.htm. – 2014. “Province of Prince Edward Island.” Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census. Last modified 24 October 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc .ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-pr-eng.cfm?Lang=eng &GC=11. Canadian Press. 2014. “Tuition Fees Jump by 3% on Average in Maritimes: Report.” Global News, 5 September. /tuition-fees-jump-by-3-on-average-in-maritimes-report. clive. n.d. Provincial Coastal Erosion Monitoring Project http://projects.upei .ca/climate/research/. Collège de l’Acadie. n.d. “History.” /history (site discontinued). Du Plessis, V., R. Beshiri, R.D. Bollman, and H. Clemenson. 2001. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin 3 (3). /n1/pub/21-006-x/21-006-x2001003-eng.pdf. Grant Thornton. 2012. Prince Edward Island Provincial Nominee Program: Evaluation Results. PEVALU2012.pdf. Guardian. 2018. “Brookfield Gardens Headed Back to Court in P.E.I. Fish Kill Case.” Guardian (pei), 5 February.

International Education and Prince Edward Island


/news/local/brookfield-gardens-headed-back-to-court-in-pei-fish-kill-case183517/. Guo, Y., and S. Guo. 2017. “Internationalization of Canadian Higher Education: Discrepancies between Policies and International Student Experiences.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (5): 851–68. doi:10.1080/03075079 .2017.1293874. Li, X., and H. Que. 2015. “Integration and Career Challenges of Newcomer Youth in Newfoundland in Canada.” fire – Forum for International Research in Education 2 (3): 44–61. MacLauchlan, W. 2017a. “Mandate Letter to the Minister of Rural and Regional Development.” Prince Edward Island. Executive Council Office. (site discontinued). – 2017b. “Mandate Letter to the Minister of Workforce and Advanced Learning.” Prince Edward Island. Executive Council Office. https://www force-and-advanced-learning-mandate-letter (site discontinued). Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (mphec). n.d. “Table 4: Total Full Time Equivalent (fte) as of December 1st, by Province, Institution, and Registration Status, 2012–2013 to 2016–2017.” Enrolment. .aspx. Neatby, S. 2018. “International Aid.” Guardian (pei), 10 July. Neimanis, V.P. 2013. “Crown Land.” In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published 18 May 2011; last modified 16 December 2013. Pandey, M., and J. Townsend. 2010. “Provincial Nominee Programs: An Evaluation of the Earnings and Retention Rates of Nominees,” working paper, University of Winnipeg, Department of Economics. http://ion Prince Edward Island. Department of Finance. 2016. Prince Edward Island 42nd Annual Statistical Review, 2015. Charlottetown: Department of Finance. Prince Edward Island. Economic Development and Tourism. n.d. “About: Economic Development and Tourism.” https://www.princeedwardisland .ca/en/department/economic-development-and-tourism/about. Prince Edward Island. Innovation pei. 2017. “Trade Mission to China.” Published 27 March. /innovation-pei/trade-mission-china. Prince Edward Island. Office of Immigration. 2017a. pei Provincial Nominee


J. Tim Goddard

Program – Business Impact Category. Charlottetown, pe: Office of Immigration. – 2017b. “pei Provincial Nominee Program – Labour Impact Category.” Charlottetown, pe: Office of Immigration. – n.d. “Immigrate to pei as a Worker.” https://www.princeedwardisland .ca/en/topic/immigrate-pei-worker. Prince Edward Island. Statistics Bureau. 2015. “pei Unemployment Rate, 2014 (Seasonally Adjusted).” Published 8 July 2016. /photos/original/pt_lfs.pdf. – 2016. “pei Population Report.” /publication/pei_population_report_2016 (site discontinued). Ross, R. 2013. “upei Cuts 35 Jobs.” Guardian (pei), 22 May. http://www.the Rural Development pei. 2010. Rural Action Plan: A Rural Economic Development Strategy for Prince Edward Island. Montague, pei: Rural Development pei. Sabic-El-Rayess, A. 2016. “Merit Matters: Student Perceptions of Faculty Quality and Reward.” International Journal of Educational Development 47 (1): 19. Stewart, D. 2017. “Vicious Words from Souris Mayor Toward Complaint of Dangerous Debris.” Guardian (pei), 28 June. .ca/news/local/vicious-words-from-souris-mayor-toward-complaint-ofdangerous-debris-60035/. Stewart, J. 2011. Supporting Refugee Children: Strategies for Educators. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Tarasuk, V., A. Mitchell, and N. Dachner. 2014. Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2012. Toronto: Research to Identify Policy Options to Reduce Food Insecurity (proof). Tiya. 2017. “Canada Needs Skilled Workers to Settle in Prince Edward Island’s Rural Areas.”, 4 August. https://canadianvisa .org/blog/blog-category/news/canada-needs-skilled-workers-settle-princeedward-islands-rural-areas/. Tutton, M. 2018. “Siblings Charged in P.E.I. Immigration Probe, Raising New Questions About pnp.” cbc News, 9 May. /canad/prince-edward-island/pei-immigration-charges-1.4654764. upei (University of Prince Edward Island). n.d.-a. “A History.” http://www – n.d.-b. “Prince of Wales College.” – 2008. “upei Enrolment Holding Steady,” press release, 14 March.

International Education and Prince Edward Island

287 – 2013. “Operating Budget, 2013–2014.” Finance. /operating_budget_2013-2014.pdf. – 2014. “Short-Term Enrolment Management Plan (Preliminary).” Office of the President. _Planning_Framework_D.pdf. – 2017. upei by the Numbers. Charlottetown: upei. /president/upei_by_the_numbers_2017.pdf. Workpei. 2017. “Analysis.” /unemployment-rate/. Wright, T. 2013. “P.E.I. Students Score Last in International Assessment Testing.” Guardian (pei), 4 December. /local/pei-students-score-last-in-international-assessment-testing-96120/. Yarr, K. 2017a. “upei Sees Enrolment of Island Students Drop: mphec.” cbc News, 8 February. /pei-upei-enrolment-1.3972132. – 2017b. “Indigenous Population Growing Quickly on P.E.I.” cbc News, 25 October. indigenous-population-census-1.4371338. – 2017c. “Pesticides Probable Cause of Most P.E.I. Fish Kills, Provincial Data Shows.” cbc News, 30 October. Zhang, Y. T. 2017. “Visitors or Stakeholders? Engaging International Students in the Development of Higher Education Policy.” Master’s thesis, University of Prince Edward Island.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

13 International Education as Public Policy in Quebec Diane Barbarič

introduction For Quebec, international education (ie) is – and always has been – a provincial policy area; the international aspect of education is simply an extension of the province’s domestic jurisdictional authority. By viewing policy in this way, Quebec policy-makers and politicians are faithfully executing what has come to be known as the “Gérin-Lajoie doctrine,” which has guided the province’s international relations and public policy arena for over fifty years (more on this later). However, while ie as a public policy in Quebec has been around since 1965, its study had yet to be done. To date, scholarly literature on internationalization in Quebec postsecondary education (pse) has tended to focus on the institutional level, both the college (cégep) sector (Bégin-Caouette 2012, 2013) and the university sector (Picard and Mills 2009). Studies on internationalization and ie in Canada as a whole, including higher education public policy-making, have tended to focus on Canada’s federal system of government, policy-making as a process, and the inherent challenges associated with the coordination of higher education policymaking at the national level (Axelrod, Trilokekar, et al. 2011; Jones 2009; Shanahan and Jones 2007; Trilokekar 2009, 2010; Trilokekar and Jones 2013; Trilokekar, Shanahan, et al. 2013; Viczko and Tascón 2016). Additionally, Trottier, Bernatchez, et al. (2014) have done an excellent job of providing a comprehensive look at the evolution of the post-secondary policy environment in Quebec from 1980 to 2010,

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


while Gendron (2016) has done a great job of reviewing the important role of missionaries and ngos in Quebec education prior to 1960. Finally, there is an extensive array of historical and political science literature on international relations in Quebec (see Behiels and Hayday 2011). What is missing in the higher education literature is the examination of ie as a public policy in Quebec and its impact on federal, provincial, and intergovernmental relations, including both domestically (federal-provincial) and abroad. This chapter aims to begin that discussion and is divided into three sections: first, Quebec’s coming of age during the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s and the pivotal role that the advent of ie played in the ascendancy of the province onto the world stage; next, the federalprovincial tensions sparked by Quebec’s fierce guarding of the ie policy file; and finally, the shifting role of ie in current provincial public policies.

quebec’s coming of age in the quiet revolution Without entering into the contentious debates on the place of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec history (Gagnon and Sarra-Bournet 1997; Gélinas and Ferretti 2010; Rocher 1994), it is safe to say that the death of Quebec’s three-term premier in 1959 marked an important turning point in the province’s social and political history. Prior to his passing, under his Union Nationale government (1944–59), Quebec public policy had largely focused on domestic matters, with a large societal role reserved for the Church. Education, which had been deemed to be a religious matter in 1869 and taken out of the public sphere in 1875, was still decided along denominational lines in 1959 by either a Roman Catholic committee or a Protestant committee in the Churchcontrolled Department of Public Instruction (Quebec. Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec 1963). The 1960 provincial election ushered in an unprecedented era of modernization, urbanization, and secularization, known as the Quiet Revolution. In 1960, Jean Lesage’s Quebec Liberal Party was elected on a change platform. Lesage was a Université Laval–trained lawyer and former federal cabinet minister. Upon coming to power, his government embarked on a vast enterprise of institutional reform. Taking a social democratic political approach and Keynesian economic approach,


Diane Barbarič

Lesage’s Liberal government became much more interventionist in the province’s affairs and much more outward looking. The 1960s was also the decade of decolonization. On the francophone side, as French colonies successively gained their independence, France, under President Charles de Gaulle, sought to establish new relations with them. It was in this context that the French governmental apparatus seemed to rediscover Quebec after a 200-year absence. The timing was perfect. In Quebec, Georges-Emile Lapalme sought actively to develop cultural relations for the province. Lapalme was the former leader of the provincial Liberal Party, had been named deputy premier within Jean Lesage’s newly elected Liberal cabinet, and was the impetus behind the creation of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, of which he became the first minister in 1961. (As a reminder, at the time, cultural relations referred to a way of influencing politics and extending national interests and identity abroad. Today, we would speak more in terms of soft power [Nye 2004].)

new beginnings In 1960, hot on the heels of the Liberal victory, Lapalme undertook an official visit to France. With the support of the French government, namely cultural minister André Malraux, who was himself encouraged by President de Gaulle to take an interest in Quebec, he established a Maison du Québec (House of Quebec) in Paris. Inaugurated the following year as the Délégation générale du Québec (dgq) (the Quebec General Delegation), it became the permanent representation for Quebec in France and a few years later attained diplomatic status in all but name (i.e., having all the privileges but not on the official diplomatic roster). The inauguration was attended by Premier Jean Lesage and provided the opportunity for Lesage’s first meeting with President de Gaulle. Thanks to this permanent presence in Paris and increasing transatlantic visits and missions, ties between Quebec and France were strengthening. In 1963, the dgq’s new commercial attaché was tasked with concluding an arrangement for Quebec civil servants to receive training at the prestigious École nationale d’administration (ena) (French National School of Public Administration). According to Morin (1965, 179), the arrangement was concluded and started that year but not formalized in writing, and then the federal government demanded the right to intervene and change the conditions as needed. Thomas (1984, 421)

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


had another version of the story. He wrote that the “Department of External Affairs played a constructive role in the negotiations,” while Meren (2012, 213) claimed that Ottawa did not know that Quebec and ena “had already reached an agreement in principle” and that “the subsequent federal participation appeared to Quebec officials to be a blatant attempt to outflank the province.” In the end, an exchange of letters did occur but at the federal level, not the provincial as had been hoped, and the arrangement now involved civil servants from both Quebec (either eight or ten, reports vary) and Ottawa (two). Regardless of the exact details, the stage had been set: education would be the field in which federal-provincial wrangling and increasingly acrimonious brinksmanship would play out. The country had already started to get a taste of this bitter federalprovincial feud with Quebec’s role in the founding of the Association des universités partiellement ou entièrement de langue française (Association of Partially or Entirely French-Speaking Universities) in 1961, now the 845-member global network of francophone higher education institutions known as the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (Francophone University Association). Created under the impetus of key governmental advisers to Jean Lesage’s provincial government and partly funded by the province, this project became the stepping stone for Quebec’s involvement in educational assistance to French Africa. The Department of External Affairs naturally felt that Quebec was going beyond its jurisdictional authority and encroaching on foreign policy, a federal domain for which it was the sole voice for Canada. As expected, the file became contentious and tensions persistently escalated over a number of years. However, on the plus side, thanks to the ongoing quarrel, Ottawa was forced to adopt a more balanced approach to educational assistance for newly independent African nations (no longer disproportionately focusing on anglophone countries of the former British Commonwealth), ultimately resulting in a more than twenty-fold increase in the federal educational assistance budget for francophone Africa. (See Gendron [2001] for a thorough and detailed account of this dispute.) Things started to come to a head on 4 February 1964, when the Quebec government, via its then minister of Youth, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, concluded its first-ever international exchange of letters (a type of international agreement): an engineering trainee exchange program with the French organization the Association pour l’organisation des stages en France (astef) (Association for the Organization of Intern-


Diane Barbarič

ships in France), thus marking the first time that a Quebec ministry had entered into an international arrangement with a foreign entity (Échange de lettres entre le ministère de la Jeunesse du Québec et l’Association pour l’organisation des stages en France (astef) concernant un programme de coopération technique 1964). One year later, Quebec public policy went international – via education.

the advent of international education public policy in quebec On 27 February 1965, Quebec signed its first-ever intergovernmental agreement (entente) with a foreign country: the Entente entre le Québec et la France sur un programme d’échanges et de coopération dans le domaine de l’éducation (1965) (referred to here as Education Agreement). To indicate its importance and to ensure maximum symbolic value, the Education Agreement was signed at the ministerial level. The choice of signatories was deliberate. For Quebec, the agreement was signed by both Paul Gérin-Lajoie, then deputy minister for Quebec and also the province’s first minister of Education since 1875, and Claude Morin, deputy minister for Quebec’s new Ministry of FederalProvincial Affairs. This choice of signatories signalled that the agreement was important at the highest political levels both substantively and in terms of constitutional prerogative. On this latter point, GérinLajoie and Morin, in their respective capacities as deputy ministers, doubly represented the Quebec premier (Lesage had kept the new intergovernmental portfolio for himself and was therefore also the minister for federal-provincial affairs). On the French side, the agreement was signed by the minister of Education and also a high-level official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In terms of format, the Education Agreement was quite distinct. To begin, its unorthodox preamble recounted in detail the series of bilateral talks that had taken place in the seven months leading up to the signature of the agreement, including the meeting in November 1964 at the highest governmental level for each jurisdiction: between Quebec premier Jean Lesage and French president Charles de Gaulle. The preamble therefore, instead of recounting the motivations and objectives for concluding the agreement, served to proclaim the close transatlantic co-operation that had developed between Quebec and France in the province’s exclusive area of responsibility: education. As

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


for content, in an equally uncommon composition, the agreement could be summed up as comprising four broad categories: people-topeople exchanges (students, researchers, and academics), curriculum development (K–12 and post-secondary), degree recognition (to facilitate student exchanges), and the creation of a Standing Committee on Franco-Quebec Co-operation (to oversee implementation of the agreement, ensure close and sustained relations between the two parties, and guarantee the success of this first-ever international public policy venture for the province) (Entente entre le Québec et la France sur un programme d’échanges et de coopération dans le domaine de l’éducation 1965). On the same day the agreement was signed, Canada and France proceeded with an exchange of letters whereby the federal government, via its Department of External Affairs, assented to the entente (Gotlieb 1966; Lawford 1967). Interpretations of this assent are legion in light of the high-profile provincial-international agreement signing. For the purpose of this chapter, however, what is most important is the subsequent action Quebec took six weeks later.

the gérin-lajoie speech: quebec on the world stage Quebec fully and publicly assumed its place on the world stage as an autonomous actor in its areas of jurisdiction on 12 April 1965. On that day, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, a Rhodes Scholar and Oxford Doctor of Laws graduate specializing in Canadian constitutional amendments, deputy premier, and minister of Education, gave a historic speech in Montreal to the Montreal consular corps. In it, he essentially laid out Quebec’s new approach to public policy. Referring to how Quebec was profoundly transforming the political and power balance in Canada, and using the recently signed Education Agreement with France as an example, Gérin-Lajoie affirmed that, from that moment forward, Quebec fully intended to use all the power granted to it in the Canadian constitution in order to achieve its aspirations as a society that he qualified as “unique and distinct in North America” and whose collective conscience was just awakening. The key sentence is the following: “Dans tous les domaines qui sont complètement ou partiellement de sa compétence, le Québec entend désormais jouer un rôle direct, conforme à sa personnalité et à la mesure de ses droits.” (In all areas that are completely or partially of its jurisdiction, Quebec henceforth intends to play a


Diane Barbarič

direct role, consistent with its personality and to the extent of its rights)1 (Quebec. Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie 2017a, n.p.). That sentence has been paraphrased as “le prolongement externe des compétences internes du Québec” (roughly translated as “the external extension of Quebec’s internal competence”) and is commonly referred to as the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine. In short, while the Education Agreement between Quebec and France was indeed the province’s first ie public policy, it was also the province’s first international public policy ever. Perhaps most importantly, though, the 1965 Education Agreement became the springboard for the Quebec government to embark on international relations with foreign governments, all within the limits set out for it in sections 92 and 93 of the Canadian constitution.

federal-provincial relations and international education policy Needless to say, Gérin-Lajoie’s speech was like a bombshell dropped in Canada’s political, constitutional, and legal circles. It also clearly set the stage for ensuing federal-provincial and international relations. Ottawa’s Reactions to the Gérin-Lajoie Speech and Quebec’s Response This unprecedented move by Quebec sparked a flurry of articles in both the francophone and anglophone press, numerous debates in the House of Commons, and countless speeches regarding treaty-making powers in Canada (see Gotlieb 1968; Lawford 1967; Morin 1965). As it turns out, in terms of ie public policy at the federal level, Ottawa had been well on its way to concluding a legally binding framework for a cultural agreement with France. (Remember that cultural relations formed part of foreign policy and encompassed a wide range of activities, including academic relations.) That cultural agreement was signed seven months later. On 17 November 1965, Canada’s Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Ambassador of France signed the overarching Cultural Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic. Articles 2, 3, 4, and 10 of the agreement are of particular interest to this chapter. Articles 2 and 3 cover facilitating post-secondary academic and student mobility; Article 4

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


refers to seeking ways to grant degree or diploma recognition; and Article 10 establishes a new Joint Canadian and French Commission (Accord culturel entre le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement de la République Française 1965). Therefore, content-wise, the CanadaFrance Cultural Agreement (treaty) clearly covers the same domains as the previously signed Quebec-France Education Agreement, with the exception of curriculum development. The remaining Articles deal with art and culture (Articles 1, 5, and 6); science and technology (Articles 1 and 7); and administrative affairs pertaining to international finance, entry visas, study permits, and residency permits (Articles 8 and 9). What needs to be mentioned, though, in order to better understand the political tensions surrounding this federal framework agreement (treaty), the preceding Quebec-France Education Agreement (entente), and the then forthcoming Quebec-France Cultural Agreement (entente) is the exchange of letters between Canada’s Secretary of State Paul Martin and the Ambassador of France François Leduc, which is appended to the Canada-France Cultural Agreement. In Martin’s letter, it is written that the Canada-France Cultural Agreement covers all future ententes that Canadian provinces may enter into with France in the fields covered by the treaty (i.e., education, art, culture, science, technology, and various administrative questions). Interestingly, and highly unorthodox in diplomatic exchanges, it then instructs the French government how it (the French government) must act if any such bilateral relationships occur in the future, namely: “In such a case the French Government will inform the Canadian Government.” The letter then goes on to stress that federal authorization will be necessary for such international agreements concluded at the subnational level: “The authority for the Provinces to enter into such ententes will stem either from the fact that they have indicated that they are proceeding under the Cultural Agreement and the exchange of letters of today’s date or from the assent given them by the Federal Government” (Accord culturel entre le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement de la République Française 1965, n.p.). Normally, the above paragraph would not have raised too many eyebrows. However, in the politically charged atmosphere in which the agreement was signed, and a mere one week before the cultural agreement between Quebec and France would be signed, it was inevitably perceived as the federal government declaring its absolute jurisdictional authority in what had clearly become a high-stakes turf war.


Diane Barbarič

Cognizant of the power dynamics at play, and certainly not an innocent bystander in the minefield that had become the Quebec-CanadaFrance triangular relationship (Meren 2012), the French ambassador, agilely mastering diplomatic language, simply “took note” of the contents of the letter, therefore neither accepting nor rejecting them. The following week, when Quebec and France signed their own cultural agreement, the two parties made a point of not referencing the Canada-France Cultural Agreement. Instead, they referenced their 1965 Quebec-France Education Agreement! Therefore, not only had the federal framework agreement been excluded from the Quebec-France agreement but, for all intents and purposes, the federal government itself had been shut out of the new bilateral relationship between Quebec and France. (It should be noted, however, that in response to a note from the French Ambassador that day, Martin assented to the France-Quebec Cultural Agreement [Bonenfant 1970].) Quebec was therefore indeed proceeding autonomously on the international front in its areas of jurisdiction, as Gérin-Lajoie had announced in his speech earlier that year, and the province’s first ie public policy had effectively become the foundation on which future intergovernmental relations between the Government of Quebec and the Government of the French Republic would be built. Since that momentous year, Quebec has signed 133 agreements with France. On a wider scale, as of 7 November 2017, the provincial government has signed 767 international agreements with “a foreign government or one of its departments, an international organization, or an agency of such a government or organization” (Quebec. Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie 2017b, n.p.). Of those, 229 (30 percent) have been in education and training. Quebec Government’s Reactions to Canada’s International Education Strategy By the time the federal government released its first-ever ie strategy for Canada in 2014, ie had already been firmly implanted as a public policy in Quebec for fifty years. As far as the Quebec government was concerned, it had also clearly established that ie was a provincial responsibility. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the Quebec government flatly rejected the ie strategy upon its release (Arsenault 2014). Reminiscent of the Duplessis government refusing direct federal funds for Quebec universities in the 1950s and demanding financial compensation instead (Racine and Rocher 2010), the separatist

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


Marois government did the same when the ie strategy came out, reminding Ottawa that it was once again intruding on an area of provincial jurisdiction (Quebec. Cabinet du ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur 2014; Quebec. Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes 2014). In fact, in addition to the hundreds of international agreements in education and training that the province had signed, the Quebec Ministry of Education had also already released an ie strategy for the province back in 2002 (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec 2002). Furthermore, Quebec has had an advisory council on education since 1964: the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (cse). In accordance with its mandate to advise the minister(s) in charge of Education and Higher Education on education-related issues, the cse had also already published two advisory reports on internationalization for the Quebec post-secondary system before the ie strategy was released (Brochu and Brisson 2013; Picard 2005). Ottawa’s new foray into this field was therefore very unwelcome in a province that was already catering to the ie needs of its population and had indeed been doing so for the past half century.

current international education policies in quebec The development of ie public policy is continuing in Quebec quite apart from anything the federal government may be doing in this area. However, whereas ie for its own sake may have been the thrust in the beginning, as the government apparatus in Quebec has matured, so has its public policy-making. Now, ie policy can be found as a component within other larger sectoral policies. Four sectors are briefly explored below, focusing notably on where ie as a public policy currently falls within the larger policy context of each: pse, youth, research, and international relations. These sectors have been chosen because they are still the most closely aligned with Quebec’s original educational and “cultural” mission of ie public policy. This role, however, is shifting, as is shown below. Post-Secondary Education In fall 2013 (the most recent date for which information is available), 36,620 international students were enrolled in the Quebec postsecondary system: 32,778 in universities and 3,842 in colleges (cégeps)


Diane Barbarič

(Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur 2014a, 2014b). French students were by far the majority of this public, comprising 38 percent of the international students in universities and 49 percent in cégeps. Chinese and American students followed in a distant second and third in universities, at 9 percent and 8 percent respectively; Chinese and Moroccan students came in a distant second and third in cégeps, at 9 percent and 5 percent respectively. That semester, a total of 307,548 students were enrolled in Quebec universities and 221,526 in Quebec cégeps (Canada. Statistics Canada n.d.). International students therefore counted for 11 percent of all university enrolments in fall 2013 and less than 2 percent of cégep enrolments. Why discuss international post-secondary student enrolment here? Because the Quebec provincial government has a long-standing and extensive policy exempting certain international students enrolled in post-secondary institutions in Quebec from paying differential tuition fees (i.e., they pay the same fee as Quebec students). In addition to forming part of Quebec’s ie public policy, this program also advances four other programs and policies in the province: (a) Quebec’s cultural agenda, by including students “enrolled in French Language and Literature or Québec studies at the undergraduate level”; (b) its immigration goals, by extending this status to “spouses and children of certain temporary workers”; (c) its humanitarian program, by including refugees and protected persons; and (d) its international relations strategy, through the signing of bilateral arrangements granting a differential-tuition-fee exemption quota to certain countries (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur 2018a, 2018b, n.p.). On this latter point, examining the countries with which Quebec has negotiated these arrangements quickly reveals their political nature. For 2016 (the latest year for which information is publicly available), 936 differential-tuition-fee-exemption places were divided among 39 jurisdictions and entities: twenty-five members and one observer in the International Organisation of La Francophonie, three South American countries (Brazil Colombia, Peru), three independence-minded subnational regions in Europe (Bavaria, Catalonia, Flanders), Germany, Italy (perhaps due to the privileged relationship between Quebec and Lombardy), Algeria (part of francophone North Africa but not a member of the International Organisation of La Francophonie), Israel, Mexico, China, and the Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur 2016). France is not part of this

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


differential-tuition-fee-exemption contingent. Through two separate bilateral arrangements, French students were exempted from differentiated fees in 1978 (Échange de lettres entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de droits de scolarité 1978; Échange de lettres entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de droits de scolarité [niveau universitaire] 1978). Under these bilateral arrangements, French students were also not subject to a quota, which has not been without its problems. It was estimated that 12,500 French students were enrolled in the Quebec university system in 2013 (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur 2014b). The following year, in the midst of austerity measures in Quebec, talks began at the highest political levels (i.e., between the premier of Quebec and the president of France) to raise the university tuition fee for French students (François 2014). Despite the political backlash that this provoked on both sides of the Atlantic, and the highly visible media firestorm that this sparked in both Quebec and France, talks continued and a compromise fee arrangement was found whereby French students enrolled at the bachelor level would see their tuition fee raised to the rate of Canadian (non-Quebec resident) students, but would continue to pay Quebec student rates at the master and doctoral levels. The new undergraduate student fee was a three-fold increase for French students, but it was still substantially lower than the rates paid by other international students. As a sign of the political importance given to this file on a bilateral level, throughout the negotiation process the dossier was maintained at the ministerial level, and the new fee structure was announced jointly by the Quebec minister of International Relations and La Francophonie and the French minister of Foreign Affairs. The new agreement was touted as granting a “unique and privileged treatment” to French students and it was signed in Paris by the premier of Quebec and the prime minister of France (Entente entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de mobilité étudiante au niveau universitaire 2015). The new fee structure came into effect in September 2015. The political symbolism of a privileged relationship with Quebec was not lost on other francophone jurisdictions around the world. In April 2018, after two years of talks, the same university-level tuition fee arrangement was concluded between Quebec and the French


Diane Barbarič

community of Belgium (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles) and it was also signed at the highest echelons of political power for each jurisdiction: the premier of Quebec and the minister-president of the French community of Belgium (Entente entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la Communauté française de Belgique en matière de mobilité étudiante au niveau universitaire 2018). In addition to the differential tuition fee exemption policy, the Quebec Ministry of Education and Higher Education has also developed a number of programs and partnerships to facilitate international experiences outside of Quebec for its students, including grants for short-term studies, internships, vocational training, and research stays abroad (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur 2018c, 2018d). These activities support the ministry’s “internationalizing Quebec education” strategy, the aforementioned ie strategy for the province from 2002, which comprises four broad components: education and training, mobility, exportation of educational expertise, and influence and positioning (Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec 2002). It is still the most recent document to date. Youth On the youth front, Quebec has had a high-level Secrétariat à la jeunesse (Youth Secretariat) since 1983. This unit sits within the Executive Council of government and reports directly to the premier. In Quebec, youth (defined as people aged 15–29) is currently a priority transversal policy file. The secretariat’s main functions are to ensure youth policy coordination across government through its inter-ministerial youth committee and to ensure that current and future youth concerns are considered within government policies, notably via an ingenious youth impact clause built into briefs submitted to cabinet. In March 2016, the Quebec government unveiled The 2030 Québec Youth Policy covering five strategic objectives or policy domains: health, education, citizen engagement, employment, and entrepreneurship (Quebec. Secrétariat à la jeunesse 2016). Interestingly, ie as a public policy within this large, overarching one is found under employment (not education, as one might have thought). It focuses on encouraging and supporting international student exchanges and internship experiences abroad with the dual goal of contributing to personal and intercultural development, and helping prepare Quebec youth to enter the labour market (Quebec. Secrétariat à la jeunesse

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


2016, 62). This new rhetoric seems to signify a shift in the government’s aim for student mobility. Quebec had long been the holdout province in Canada, successfully resisting the pervasive neo-liberal language found in federal-level ie documents. With The 2030 Québec Youth Policy, however, it appears that the province is moving away from its original educational and soft power objectives and espousing a decidedly more economic purpose. The 2017–18 provincial budget has allocated $205 million over five years to the Secrétariat à la jeunesse for the implementation of the 2016–2020 Youth Strategic Action Plan, the first five-year phase of the youth policy (Quebec. Ministère des Finances 2017). Of that, $27.8 million (13.5 percent) is earmarked for international mobility programs for Quebec youth (Quebec. Secrétariat à la jeunesse 2018). Research On the research side, Quebec’s three research funding agencies, Nature and Technologies, Health, and Society and Culture, had incorporated ie into their 2014–17 strategic plans. For each of them, this had generally translated into three strategic objectives: (a) international student mobility, comprising funding for outbound mobility for Quebec students and also attracting international students to Quebec; (b) increasing international research collaboration; and (c) promoting Quebec research excellence at home and abroad. However, although the establishment of an internationalization strategy had been written into each strategic plan, according to each agency’s 2016–17 annual report, its development was suspended in order to align with Quebec’s new International Policy (see below) (Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies 2017; Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé 2017; Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et culture 2017). International Relations Finally, ie still finds a home in the province’s international relations strategy. Released in April 2017, Québec’s International Policy focuses on three strategic orientations: making Quebecers more prosperous; contributing to a more sustainable, just, and secure world; and promoting creativity, culture, knowledge, and Quebec’s specificity (Quebec.


Diane Barbarič

Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie 2017c). ie forms an integral part of the first and third orientations. Under the first orientation (making Quebecers more prosperous), ie policy takes a decidedly more inward-looking turn, focusing on student and youth mobility to attract and retain international students, and the development of a forthcoming strategy to internationally promote educational opportunities in Quebec. Under the third orientation (promoting creativity, culture, knowledge, and Quebec’s specificity), in the internationalization of knowledge section, emphasis is placed on encouraging two-way researcher mobility, increasing access to international funding opportunities, strengthening international research co-operation, and promoting Quebec research expertise and the Quebec research environment in order to attract leaders of top research networks as well as start-ups to the province. In the cultural section of the orientation, the policy stresses showcasing Quebec expertise in the development of Frenchlanguage-learning tools as well as the continued promotion of francophone and francophile cultures and Quebec studies abroad (with a particular focus on the Americas). It is perhaps more interesting to note, however, just how deeply the international relations policy is rooted in the advent of ie as public policy in Quebec, as well as how far ie has evolved as a public policy in the province. In their introductory remarks to the policy, both the premier of Quebec and the Quebec minister of International Relations and La Francophonie refer back to Gérin-Lajoie’s foundational speech in 1965 that set the province on its path to pursuing international relations and developing international public policy within its constitutional areas of responsibility, starting with education. The 2017 international relations policy is therefore firmly set in this line of continuity. Where the transformation of ie as a public policy in Quebec becomes evident, though, is in its dispersion throughout the international relations policy and also the same policy’s references to both the 2016 Québec Youth Policy and the programs that fall under the purview of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education’s internationalization strategy (e.g., differential tuition fee exemptions, grants for student mobility abroad, etc.). Acknowledging that international is now a part of virtually every public policy sector in the province, the ministry intends to establish a new “ministerial table” to oversee this file all the while allowing government departments and agencies “to act internationally in their respective fields on behalf of

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


the government, in coordination with mrif [the Ministry of International Relations and La Francophonie]” (Quebec. Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie 2017, 72). This is undoubtedly the most explicit indication we have to date of how we can expect ie public policy to continue to evolve in the province: as a public policy in its own right within the field of education and as a public policy component within larger sectoral public policies.

conclusion In Quebec, ie as a public policy has come a long way since 1965, when it was first conceptualized and tested as a way for the Quebec government to extend its jurisdictional authority beyond Canada’s borders. It is now incorporated into larger sectoral policies, serves multiple objectives, and has become an integral part of the public policy-making process itself. It is still, however, a source of tension in federal-provincial relations. One has only to attend an ie trade event anywhere in the world to see that Quebec has its own kiosk quite apart from the Canada Pavilion in which other provinces are found and also its own “brand,” therefore eschewing the federal government’s pan-Canadian brand for ie promotion. For Quebec, ie is neither a part of federal foreign policy nor is it federal trade policy touching on education; it is education policy extended internationally. In Canada, since confederation, education policy-making has been the exclusive purview of the provinces. In Quebec, since 1965, that purview has been expanded to apply beyond the province’s borders. It is still education policy but it has drifted into a policy field we now call international education.

note 1 All translations are my own, unless otherwise indicated.

references Accord culturel entre le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement de la République Française. 1965. ?id=100736&Lang=fra.


Diane Barbarič

Arsenault, J. 2014. “Stratégie d’éducation internationale: le gouvernement Marois critique Ottawa.” Le Devoir, 22 January. /politique/quebec/397934/strategie-d-education-internationale-legouvernement-marois-critique-ottawa. Axelrod, Paul, R.D. Trilokekar, Theresa Shanahan, and Richard Wellen. 2011. “People, Processes, and Policy-Making in Canadian Post-Secondary Education, 1990–2000.” Higher Education Policy 24 (2): 43–66. Bégin-Caouette, Olivier. 2012. “The Internationalization of In-Service Teacher Training in Québec Cégeps and Their Foreign Partners: An Institutional Perspective.” Prospects 42 (1): 91–112. doi:10.1007/s11125012-9221-2. – 2013. “Think Locally, Act Globally: Comparing Urban, Suburban, and Rural Colleges’ Internationalization: The Case of the Cégeps.” College Quarterly 16 (4). Behiels, M.D., and M. Hayday. 2011. “Quebec on the World Stage.” In Contemporary Quebec. Selected Readings and Commentaries, edited by M.D. Behiels and M. Hayday, 755–60. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Bonenfant, Jean-Charles. 1970. “Les relations extérieures du Québec.” Études internationales 1 (3): 72. doi:10.7202/700038ar. Brochu, E., and G. Brisson. 2013. Un monde de possibilités: l’internationalisation des formations collégiales. cse (website). https://www.cse.gouv.qc .ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2013-05-un-monde-de-possibiliteslinternationalisation-des-formations-collegialessommaire.pdf. Canada. Statistics Canada. n.d. Table 37-10-0011-01 (Formerly Cansim 4770029) Postsecondary Enrolments, by Program Type, Credential Type, Classification of Instructional Programs, Primary Grouping (Cip_Pg), Registration Status and Sex, Annual (Table), Cansim (Database). Date modified 9 August 2018. [Data set]. /a26?lang=eng&id=4770029. Échange de lettres entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de droits de scolarité. 1978. https://www.mrif Échange de lettres entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de droits de scolarité (niveau universitaire). 1978. Échange de lettres entre le ministère de la Jeunesse du Québec et l’Association pour l’organisation des stages en France (astef) concernant un programme de coopération technique. 1964. /Engagements/1964-01.pdf.

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


Entente entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la Communauté française de Belgique en matière de mobilité étudiante au niveau universitaire. 2018. Entente entre le gouvernement du Québec et le gouvernement de la République française en matière de mobilité étudiante au niveau universitaire. 2015. Entente entre le Québec et la France sur un programme d’échanges et de coopération dans le domaine de l’éducation. 1965. https://www.mrif.gouv François, Catherine. 2014. “Droits de scolarité des étudiants français: litige entre Hollande et Couillard.” Radio-Canada, 1 November. Gagnon, A.-G., and M. Sarra-Bournet, eds. 1997. Duplessis: Entre la Grande Noirceur et la société libérale. Montreal: Editions Québec Amérique. Gélinas, X., and L. Ferretti, eds. 2010. Duplessis, son milieu, son époque. Quebec: Septentrion. Gendron, R.S. 2001. “Educational Aid for French Africa: And the CanadaQuebec Dispute over Foreign Policy in the 1960s.” International Journal 56 (1): 19–36. – 2016. “Education and the Origins of Quebec’s International Engagement.” American Review of Canadian Studies 46 (2): 217–32. doi:10.1080/02722011.2016.1187971. Gotlieb, A.E. 1966. “Canadian Practice in International Law During 1965 as Reflected Mainly in Public Correspondence and Statements of the Department of External Affairs.” The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 4: 260–306. – 1968. “Canadian Practice in International Law During 1967 as Reflected Mainly in Public Correspondence and Statements of the Department of External Affairs.” The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 6: 252–78. Jones, G.A. 2009. “Internationalization and Higher Education Policy in Canada: Three Challenges.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 355–69. Toronto: Lorimer. Lawford, H.J. 1967. “Canadian Practice in International Law During 1965 and 1966 as Reflected in Public Statements.” The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 5: 294–352. Meren, D. 2012. With Friends Like These: Entangled Nationalisms and the Canada-Quebec-France Triangle, 1944–1970. Vancouver: ubc Press. Morin, Jacques-Yvan. 1965. “La conclusion d’accords internationaux par les


Diane Barbarič

provinces canadiennes à la lumière du droit comparé.” The Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3: 127–86. Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs. Picard, F. 2005. L’internationalisation: Nourrir le dynamisme des universités québécoises. cse (website). /2020/01/50-0449-AV-internationalisation-dynamisme-universites.pdf. Picard, F., and D. Mills. 2009. “The Internationalization of Québec Universities: From Public Policies to Concrete Measures.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 134–53. Toronto: Lorimer. Quebec. Cabinet du ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie. 2014. “Bilan de la réunion du Conseil des ministres de l’Éducation du Canada – Le ministre Pierre Duchesne réaffirme la compétence exclusive du Québec en éducation,” press release.—-le-ministre-pierre-duchesnereaffirme-la-competence-exclusive-du-quebec-en-education513810061.html. Quebec. Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec. 1963. Rapport Parent. Rapport de la Commission royale d’enquête sur l’enseignement dans la province de Québec. Première partie ou Tome I: Les structures supérieures du système scolaire. uqac (website). http://classiques _1/rapport_parent%20_vol_1.pdf. Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies. 2017. Rapport annuel de gestion 2016–2017. /documents/10179/489743/RAG_NT_2016-2017.pdf/11fb49d0-efcb-41bfaf2f-916fc3ee52e5. Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé. 2017. Rapport annuel de gestion 2016–2017. /489770/RAG_SA_2016-2017.pdf/88d0c583-4dd6-47b1-93f442a64f4ce586. Quebec. Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et culture. 2017. Rapport annuel de gestion 2016–2017. /11326/449032/RAG_SC_2016-2017.pdf/784d429f-1788-4a37-9a16a2fbdeaa86b2. Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec. 2002. To Succeed in Internationalizing Québec Education: A Mutually Advantageous Strategy.

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec

307 /aff_intern_canadiennes/strategie_a.pdf. Quebec. Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur. 2014a. Étudiants internationaux inscrits dans le réseau collégial – Automne 2013. /documents/Ministere/acces_info/Statistiques/Etudiants_internationaux _collegial/Etudiants_intenationaux_Collegial_2013.pdf. – 2014b. Étudiants internationaux inscrits dans le réseau universitaire – Automne 2013. /librairies/documents/Ministere/acces_info/Statistiques/Etudiants _internationaux_universitaire/Etudiants_intenationaux_Universitaire _2013.pdf. – 2016. Liste des pays, incluant une organisation internationale, à qui le gouvernement du Québec accorde des exemptions de droits de scolarité supplémentaires. _intern_canadiennes/Pays_signataires-Quota-2016.pdf. – 2018a. Exemption from Differential Tuition Fees. /20180113195505/ – 2018b. Exemptions accordées en vertu des ententes de coopération signées entre le gouvernement du Québec et des gouvernements étrangers. – 2018c. Expériences hors Québec. /universites/etudiants-a-luniversite/experiences-hors-quebec/. – 2018d. Programme de bourses pour de courts séjours à l’extérieur du Québec à l’intention des élêves en formation professionnelle (pbcse). /programme-de-bourses-pour-de-courts-sejours-pbcse/. Quebec. Ministère des Finances. 2017. Budget 2017–2018. Jeunesse: Accompagner la jeunesse québécoise dans son parcours vers le succès. /Budget1718_Jeunesse.pdf. Quebec. Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie. 2017a. Allocution du ministre de l’Éducation, M. Paul Gérin-Lajoie: Québec, hôte officiel du Corps consulaire de Montréal.


Diane Barbarič

/Ministere/Historique/Doctrine-Paul-Gerin-Lajoie/allocutions-discoursofficiels/pgl1965/. – 2017b. “International Agreements.” /ententes-et-engagements/ententes-internationales. – 2017c. Québec’s International Policy. Québec on the World Stage: Involved, Engaged, Thriving. /relations-internationales/publications-adm/dossier/Relations_internatio nales/PO-politique-internationale-2017-EN-MRIF.pdf?1576261532. Quebec. Secrétariat à la jeunesse. 2016. The 2030 Québec Youth Policy: Working Together for Current and Future Generations. https://www.jeunes – 2018. Synthèse du cadre financier. /cadre-financier.asp. Quebec. Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes. 2014. “Le gouvernement du Québec s’oppose à la stratégie d’éducation internationale du gouvernement Harper et demande une pleine compensation financière,” press release. /secretariat/salle-de-nouvelles/communiques/details-en.asp?id=226. Racine, J.-C., and F. Rocher. 2010. “Duplessis vu d’Ottawa.” In Duplessis, son milieu, son époque, edited by X. Gélinas and L. Ferretti, 263–84. Quebec, Canada: Septentrion. Rocher, Guy. 1994. “Review of Québec 1945–2000. Tome 2: Les intellectuels et le temps de Duplessis by Léon Dion.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 27 (2): 363–5. Shanahan, T., and G.A. Jones. 2007. “Shifting Roles and Approaches: Government Coordination of Post-Secondary Education in Canada, 1995–2006.” Higher Education Research and Development 26 (1): 31–43. Thomas, D.C. 1984. Jean Lesage and the Quiet Revolution. Toronto: Macmillan. Trilokekar, R.D. 2009. “The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (dfait), Canada: Providing Leadership in the Internationalization of Canadian Higher Education?” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 98–118. Toronto, Canada: Lorimer. – 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. doi:10.1007/s10734009-9240-y.

International Education as Public Policy in Quebec


Trilokekar, R.D., and G.A. Jones. 2013. “Finally, an Internationalization Policy for Canada.” International Higher Education 71 (Spring 2013): 17–18. Trilokekar, R.D., T. Shanahan, P. Axelrod, and R. Wellen. 2013. “Making PostSecondary Education Policy: Toward a Conceptual Framework.” In Making Policy in Turbulent Times. Challenges and Prospects for Higher Education, edited by P. Axelrod, R.D. Trilokekar, T. Shanahan, and R. Wellen, 33–58. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Trottier, C., J. Bernatchez, D. Fisher, and K. Rubenson. 2014. “pse Policy in Quebec: A Case Study.” In The Development of Postsecondary Education Systems in Canada. A Comparison between British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, 1980–2010, edited by D. Fisher, K. Rubenson, T. Shanahan, and C. Trottier, 200–90. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Viczko, M., and C.I. Tascón. 2016. “Performing Internationalization of Higher Education in Canadian National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (2): 1–18.


Diane Barbaric

The Backstory


Internationalization Policy: Organizational Actors, Networks, and Discourses



On the House

14 Tracing Controversies in Internationalization: National Actors in Canadian Higher Education Melody Viczko

What are the politics through which universities engage with national actors on internationalization? Contemporary internationalization involves increasing connections between university strategies and actors in international trade, industry, and corporate communities. As a result, the coordination of the multi-level, multi-actor, and multiissue context of higher education is becoming increasingly more politicized (Chou, Jungblut, et al. 2017). Furthermore, the increasing dominance of neo-liberal rationalities in universities has created the conditions by which little space is made for any agenda outside of the economic gains of the knowledge economy (Brown 2015). The salience of the multi-level governance (mlg) lens taken up in this book is that it allows us not only to interrogate university connections as agreements and partnerships but also to examine the politics of how these actors associate and which issues bring them into alliance. What are the issues that drive university associations in internationalization, and in what ways do these issues constitute universities as actors in higher education? In this chapter, I explore the issues that bring three national-level actors into the internationalization of Canadian higher education: Mitacs for its Globalink program that supports researcher mobility, Universities Canada (uc) through its support for European-Canadian research partnerships, and an emerging innovation hub involved in the Canadian federal government’s Innovation Superclusters Initiative. To do so, I draw on the concept of controversy mapping to


Melody Viczko

examine the politics of association that take place between these actors. Controversy suggests there are “alternate efforts of competing networks of actors to ‘frame’ the reality and enroll others” (Jolivet and Heiskanen 2010, 6748). The notion of controversy mapping itself entails a necessary engagement with discussion, alternatives, possibilities, and conditions when such tensions are absent. Controversy mapping, then, becomes an important site for examining the politics of internationalization and how universities’ roles and positions are constituted through their co-entanglement with these national actors through internationalization issues. In this chapter, I argue that although universities have formed tight relations with these national actors, university institutional engagement in challenging national agendas is quite limited. That is, the politics of their engagement involve very little controversy-making but rather focus their efforts on priveleging federal government agendas. I begin this chapter with a review of the term controversy and the political project of mapping issues in internationalization. Then, I bring forth a discussion about the current context of internationalization in higher education, suggesting that the notion of controversy mapping allows for examination of how universities themselves have been taken up and engage themselves in contemporary neo-liberal conditions. I draw on the work of Wendy Brown (2015) and Peter Scott (2011) to trouble the ways in which universities are engaged as entrepreneurial actors, involving a politics of organization in higher education that produce relations between universities and national policy actors. Here, a key argument I make is that universities are, through their associations with different national actors, mediators of economic engagement for national policy actors. In other words, as Wright and Oberg (2008) have suggested, universities are steered to produce agendas of the state, far from being autonomous actors that contribute to the social debate needed in democratic citizenry. In the conclusion, I seek to illustrate how universities play a mediating role in their associations with these issues. They are engaged in politics that leave them, by and large, as agents of the neo-liberal state, rendered nearly silent in debates of internationalization that might provoke a more fulsome dialogue on the role of the contemporary universities in educating for democratic life rather than merely economic gain.

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


controversies as a means of mapping the politics of internationalization Venturini (2009) has argued the utility and saliency of the concept of controversies as a means for mapping social public debate. Specificially, Venturini (2009) reflected on the work of Latour (2005), who developed the cartography of controversies as a method for researchers. This work was mostly embedded in the field of Science and Technology Studies with the purpose of employing the theoretical work of actor-network theory to map social debates. The social mapping of the cartography of controversies has been taken up in many social science and technology disciplines, but not to any great extent in education and even less so in the area of higher education research. The purpose here is to explore the concept of controversy, as it helps us to map the actors involved in higher education. The effort at controversy mapping in this chapter goes beyond naming actors in the relations but is rather focused on examining the associations of actors, their interests, and their activities, to understand how their engagement as social actors is reality-forming. In this case, by examining the association of national actors in higher education as they work on advancing particular issues, we may be able to map the politics by which they engage and how the politics of these associations work to shape internationalization processes and governace in higher education. Controversies are shared uncertainties, showcasing disagreement and tensions in how realities are produced (Venturini 2009). Jolivet and Heiskanen (2010, 6748), in writing about the social debates about wind energy practices and fields, argued that the notion of controversy suggests there are “alternate efforts of competing networks of actors to ‘frame’ the reality and enroll others.” In a similar thought, Venturini (2009, 261) earlier elaborated, “Controversies begin where actors discover they cannot ignore each other and controversies end when actors manage to work out a solid compromise to live together. Anything in between these two extremes can be called a controversy.” Controversy mapping shows us tensions that exist in discourses but also in the realities that are performed through them. Consequently, the lens of controversy is powerful for “observing the social world and its making” (Venturini 2009, 6), a process for examing the politics in how the social world is formed. Here, we are reminded that the focus


Melody Viczko

of this research should be not actors and issues as fixed entities, but rather the performative nature of what gets produced through social debate and public discourses. Indeed, Venturini suggested the orientation of controversy mapping in research requires that we engage in exploring “the making” of our social world, the actions, the activities, and the relations: “In a few words, when you look for controversies, search where collective life gets most complex: where the largest and most diverse assortment of actors is involved; where alliances and opposition transform recklessly; where nothing is as simple as it seems; where everyone is shouting and quarreling; where conflicts grow harshest” (Venturini 2009, 5). Importantly, though, in any political mapping there is a necessity for also considering silences, spaces in which the competing of networks becomes silent, where there is a lack of debate. In this chapter, my effort is to explore some of the national actors and their roles in the governance of higher education by examining their involvement in constituting the issues that bring actors together through internationalization. I invoke the concept of controversy mapping here, not to suggest that controversies do exist, but to argue that looking for them is necessary for understanding the ontological politics (Mol 1999) involved in how issues and actors form these alliances and oppositions that Venturini calls attention to. That is, controversy mapping is, at its heart, concerned with understanding the politics of engagement, the politics of what issues gather us and shape our engagement in higher education. The consequence of this is to not only understand where power lies in contemporary governance relations but also to ignite a more fulsome conversation about what roles different actors play in constituting realities of internationalization. To do so, a discussion on the political context in which the higher education institution (hei) is located is necessary.

neo-liberalism and the entrepreneurial university: tracing controversies My discussion about the engagement of national-level organizations is steeped in understanding the influences of internationalization practices on public higher education governance. At the heart of this discussion is a concern for the intersections between higher education as an arena in public life (as a [somewhat] publicly funded

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


institution) and the role of heis in democratic societies (Viczko and Shultz, 2016). I draw attention to two pieces of work on this topic that have provided important considerations of how internationalization is influencing higher education governance by describing the context in which associations in internationalization are formed. First, I am drawn to the compelling, critical arguments that Wendy Brown (2015) took up in her book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, in which she argued that neo-liberal rationality has become so pervasive in contemporary institutional life that it constitutes more than an ideological position. Rather, informed by Foucauldian post-structuralism, she argued neo-liberal rationality has become the sole rationality by which all institutions, including higher education, have come to be governed. Here, she argued that market values and metrics are all-encompassing, disseminated to every sphere of life, so that the only subject that prevails is that of homo economicus, the economic subject, whereby all decisions are taken up through the rationality of what makes economic sense. As she stated, this neo-liberal economic governing rationality “formulates everything, everywhere, in terms of capital investment and appreciation, including especially humans themselves” (Brown 2015, 176). Brown (2015) argued there are four effects this rationality has on higher education, particularly the liberal arts, but I would argue such effects can be felt across contemporary heis. First, the notion of public goods, whereby publicly accessible and publicly provisioned privelege is given to institutions of learning and social spaces, is rare in both reality and in thought. Important in this concept is that market metrics shape human conduct, and government is thought of as an “alternate market actor” (Brown 2015, 176). Second, democratic principles of equality, autonomy, and freedom become redefined as market principles, as Brown suggested, “Democracies are conceived as requiring technically skilled human capital, not educated participants in public life” (Brown 2015, 177). Third, all subjects, including citizen subjects, are constituted as interested in selfinvestments for human capital development. Self-investment should be for human capital alone, reducing the subject to one without choice or freedom in self-determination, working against liberal principles to do so. Fourth, education is exclusively about captial enhancement, not for developing citizens or culture, but for positive return on investment for how subjects should engage with the consumption of higher education.


Melody Viczko

The disappearance of the public nature of education is something to which Brown aimed her critique. Public goods are increasingly unimaginable in higher education. Questions arise as to why public funds (meaning government funding) should be allocated to schools, at all levels of education, rather than the cost of education being borne by those who “consume” it. Consequently, citizens are rendered here as investors in higher education, citizens as consumers, not as “members of a democratic polity who share power and certain common goods, spaces and experiences” (Brown 2015, 176). I see this effect as an important aspect in which contemporary higher education currently emerges because, as Brown indicated, it renders students as self-investing human capital. Knowledge is sought for capital enhancement, or for the benefit of human, corporate, or financial gains. As Brown (2015, 177) stated, “Human capital is distinctly not concerned with acquiring the knowledge and experience needed for intelligent democratic citizenship.” To summarize, what we see, then, is the priveleging of homo economicus, the economic subject, with the demise of homo politicus, the political subject, and therefore the essentializing of economic rationalities as governing higher education decisions and communities, positioning heis not in the role of educating for democracy but for capital. A second piece of interesting literature here is the descriptive work of Peter Scott (2011), who conceptualized three ideal types of university through a historical look at internationalization work. He suggested these types as the classical university that emerged in the nineteenth century, the modern (or mass) university in the second half of the twentieth century, and the entrepreneurial university currently struggling to dominate the higher education arena in contemporary times. While Scott engaged in a temporal review of internationalization through university typology, I want to focus here on the emerging, struggling entrepreneurial university that Scott situated as toiling to establish itself. Here, the knowledge “industry,” he stated, is global business; higher education is a “market” game rather than a social project, and students are viewed as customers. While I think Scott has done well to capture the essence of this institution, his position that this entrepreneurial university is struggling to establish itself as the dominant form denotes some fluidity as universities are working toward the designation of global institutions. Such fluidity calls into question, more openly than Brown (2015) does for example, the extent to which universities have succeeded in becoming centres

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


for exchange of resources. Metcalf (2010) argued that, in the Canadian context, this naïve view is no longer possible. Rather, drawing on the work of Slaugther and Leslie (1999) about how academic capitalism has taken over universities in their unrelenting resource-seeking behaviours, Metcalf has warned that the marketization focus in Canadian higher education no longer makes Canada the exception to the global dominance of academic capitalist activity. Scott’s (2011) description of the entrepreneurial university construes universities as rational actors engaged specifically in their own development, even if engaged on a global scale. To more fully situate the hei, Brown’s (2015) work shows us the extent to which the university is one actor among many in a social project at play, a project that aligns with Metcalf’s (2010) argument from nearly a decade ago. Here, Brown’s admonition that the neo-liberal’s stealth revolution has been undoing the demos, including the role of heis in the creation and ongoing recreation of the demos, is important. That is, the entrepreneurial university’s project is indeed a social project, one aimed at the economization of higher education, whereby neo-liberalism as a governing rationality “disseminates market values and metrics to every sphere of life” (Brown 2015, 176). Why does this matter? If we accept Brown’s (2015) position that neo-liberal rationalities have taken hold of universities, why should we continue to work toward universities that educate for a democratic citizenry? What are the implications of cultivating the public debate about internationalization? Brown has suggested we turn to the concept of bare democracy, the acknowledgement that democracy itself may be of various kinds and leanings, but what matters is that, at its core, every form of democracy is concerned with the power of the demos for self-rule. Here, importantly, self-rule suggests people are free from domination by the rule of others. The notion of others, here, is significant, as the very word creates boundaries over what matters in goverance. It is this that should be at the core of our concern in understanding and interrogating the associations of actors engaged in internationalization and the implications of university engagement with them in terms of understanding universities’ own self-rule as part of the demos. The notion of controversy mapping is helpful here, looking for the politics of debate, in this case in heis that are engaged with actors through internationalization. The politics of these associations are important for understanding the efforts at constituting the reality by


Melody Viczko

which internationalization is practised in heis themselves. Consequently, I suggest we consider using the concept of controversy to ask two questions central to this chapter: what are the issues that drive university associations in internationalization, and in what ways do these issues constitute universities as actors in higher education given contemporary neo-liberal dominance in our governance?

research study and methodology This chapter builds upon a broader project that began with mapping the role of non-state actors in Canadian internationalization in 2017. Working with a team of research assistants, we mapped issues of internationalization, such as student mobility, research partnerships, exchange, and curriculum development. We analyzed organizations’ public documents related to internationalization, such as policies or strategies on internationalization, descriptions of partnership agreements, articulated principles for ethical practice, financial statements, etc. We also collected information from websites, meaning that we were searching digital data in order to understand what these actors do, and how they connect with others and situate themselves in the world of internationalization. To begin, we read through the texts to examine how internationalization was addressed and then, using a guiding framework by Shore and Wright (2011), we aimed to document the institutional actors, issues, and objects of internationalization in a spreadsheet. We looked for key terms and concepts that were used to construct internationalization as a phenomenon in the texts, which documented the key issues and actors in each text. We also created a commentary section noting how these actors, issues, and objects were discursively situated in each text about internationalization. We provided both direct quotes and summaries of the ways in which internationalization was constructed through the language of the text. We used multiple coders as a process for triangulation as multiple investigators (Denzin 1978; Merriam 2009), so that each organization was coded by two research team members. In this chapter, I branch out to examine three specific institutions, beyond those originally studied. To do so, I gathered texts specific to key initiatives from each of these three actors, as featured on their websites. In reviewing the texts, I examined the institutional actors, issues, and objects of internationalization related to each initiative.

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


My concern here was to examine the “issuefication” (Rogers 2013; Rogers, Sánchez-Querubín, and Kil 2015) of internationalization in each organization’s text, with a concern for mapping the ways in which each organization contributed to the public debate about what internationalization is in the Canadian post-secondary arena. Document analysis has limitations about what can be known, but we must also not minimize the extent to which texts can be important sites for exploring policy realites. Websites have become significant spaces for organizations in this digital era in which researchers are beginning to advance arguments that do away with the divide between the real and virtual (Rogers 2013). That is, in this context, we learn about organizations and their roles in the post-secondary arena by examining digital representations of their associations.

mitacs: mediating research(er) mobility as an issue of internationalization Mitacs is a national non-profit organization that connects industry with post-secondary education (pse) in Canada through collaborative industry-based research internship programs. The organization began as a network in 1999 through the Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada. Mitacs, a federal program, is currently jointly administered by the three research-granting agencies of the Tri-Council. This actor funds several programs for researcher mobility, aimed at undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral positions mostly focused on internship or experiential learning. These programs are aimed at mobility but related to international research partnerships between researchers and industry partners in Canada, and international research institutions and industry connections in target countries (not limited here to universities but also national and private research institutions). The Globalink program connects international undergraduate and graduate student researchers with institutional and industry partners in Canada, and connects Canadian undergraduate and graduate student researchers with partners abroad, reinforcing two-way mobility for researchers and knowledge exchange. In 2017, travel between Canada and key countries including Brazil, China, France, India, Israel, Korea, Mexico, and Tunisia (Mitacs n.d.-b) had been accomplished since the beginning of the program across 2,200 research partnerships.


Melody Viczko

A search of media releases related to the topic of the Globalink program on the Mitacs website in the year 2017 alone showcases an extensive repertoire of Memorandums of Understanding and partnership agreements, such as those detailed below: (a) In November 2017, the Canadian federal Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development hosted a trade mission to India, resulting in a renewed agreement between Mitacs and India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development, as well as a new partnership agreement between Mitacs and the Science and Engineering Research Board to focus on industry and business-focused research, including students’ research experiences (Mitacs 2017b). (b) In June 2017, a partnership agreement was signed between the Shevchenko Foundation and Mitacs, related to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (Mitacs 2017e), promoting student mobility between the two countries. (c) In May 2017, Mitacs and Campus France expanded their partnership agreement to “support bilateral industrial research internships for graduate students in Canada and France” (Mitacs 2017c, para. 1), with funding for forty students from each country to participate in industrial research partnerships with Canadian and French companies. Concurrently, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Mitacs and the Government of France about the France-Canada Research Fund for ten graduate research internships for three years (Mitacs 2017e, para. 5). (d) The China Scholarship Council and Mitacs Globalink renewed their partnership agreement in February 2017 to support student research opportunities, with research exchanges in Chinese universities for 200 Canadian students, travel and twelve-week research internships for Chinese students, and one- to two-year fellowships for Chinese postdocs at Canadian universities (Mitacs 2017d). Mitacs’s status is that of a non-profit organization, independent from government but funded predominantly through federal government money, that is public funds, to operationalize and manage

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


partnerships that “strengthen connections, improve economic performance, and create jobs” (Mitacs n.d.-a, para. 3). Partnerships are featured extensively as an organizing principle for Mitacs, as it “support[s] industrial and social innovation in Canada” (Mitacs n.d.a, para. 1). Its work takes place through “a robust leadership team” with twenty-five offices across Canada with a “coast-to-coast business development team dedicated to building and supporting new partnerships” (Mitacs n.d.-a, para. 4). These partnerships are based upon “innovation-focused internships” (Mitacs 2017a, para 3). In its press release on the allocation of new federal funding for its work, Mitacs ceo and Scientific Director Alejandro Adem stated that this investment from the federal government would “improve Canada’s innnovation performance … with work-integrated learning experiences and promoting innovation across all sectors of the economy” (Mitacs 2017a, para. 6). Federal government funding to Mitacs has been on a steady upward trajectory since its inception. In 2007, Mitacs was first mentioned in the federal government budget, with the announcement of $4.5 million in funding for building partnerships between industry and university researchers (Mitacs n.d.-c), even though the organization had received prior funding from federal and provincial governments and industry investors. In the 2017 federal budget, Mitacs was allocated a staggering $221 million over the next five years to support the growth of their research internship programs. While Mitacs operates as an independent organization, it is notable that the funds for industry-pse partnership mobility programs have been allocated to neither industry nor pse sectors; a third actor is funded to mediate this relation. The issue of internationalization through the work of Mitacs is one of mediation, brokering relationships between industry, universities, and the federal government. As an organization outside of higher education (and at arm’s-length from government), the issue of internationalization through Mitacs is one of mediation, performed by different actors involved in the process. Students, through their mobility, mediate relations between research and industry partners in targeted countries and the federal government’s desires for enhanced roles for universities in the knowledge economy. Mitacs programs broker federal government coffers and industry and foreign national government monies for research.


Melody Viczko

universities canada: national coordination as an issue of internationalization uc is a member organization for ninety-six university presidents in Canada that positions itself as “the voice of Canadian universities” (uc n.d.-a, para. 1). The organization lists four central activities in its mandate that each speak to its engagement in bringing issues of higher education to the national level in Canada: to advocate for Canadian universities at the federal level; to provide a forum for discussion and engagement on issues in higher education; to advance student supports with online information and student scholarships from private sector actors; and to foster collaboration between universities, governments, private and public sector actors, and international partners (uc n.d.-b). Its board of directors consists of twelve university presidents, principals, and rectors, as well as the president of uc. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada was the predecessor to uc, before it rebranded itself as uc in April 2015. The particular focus on uc in this chapter is its role as partner in the era-can+ project (October 2013 to September 2016), with four research centres/agencies in Europe (Italy, Germany, France, and Austria) and, in Canada, the Public Policy Forum and the former federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (now named Global Affairs). This project was aimed at Canadian collaboration with the European Union, related to the European Union’s latest Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (fp7) and subsequently Horizon 2020. Horizon 2020 represents the biggest European Union research program with nearly €80 billion in research funding from 2014 to 2020 (European Commission n.d.). European researchers were able to participate in project funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the major funding councils funded through the federal government. Through the partnership agreement of era-can+, Canadian organizations participated in the European Union Framework program. These organizations included research institutions, small and medium enterprises, and ngos. The projects formed through this agreement focused on nuclear energy, enviroment, health,

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


aerospace, big data, and marine and Arctic research as the main themes of the partnerships (European Commission 2018). There were three interconnected pillars to era-can+: (1) to foster policy dialogue to enable international research partnerships; (2) to enhance research and innovation co-operation between transatlantic partnerships; and (3) to stimulate coordination of a series of studies, programs, and networks between the European Union and Canada (era-can+ 2016a). Joining as a partner in 2013 at era-can+’s inception, uc served to promote collaboration between its member institutions and European Union researchers through science, technology, and innovation opportunities in research. In this capacity, uc played a role in coordinating information sessions in Canada about the era-can+ initiative in Canada, including a session on a “Nano for Food” EUCanada Roundtable in 2015. At this roundtable, uc hosted twentythree European and Canadian representatives from higher education, industry, and government to examine nanotechnologies in the food chain (era-can+ 2016b). The focus of the event was targeted to the nanotechnologies industry, with a series of recommendations for policy-makers in Canada and the European Union, including that “Canadian policy makers (from Health Canada, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and Global Affairs Canada) meet to discuss how to better coordinate their work in this sector” (era-can+ 2016b, 2). Of note here is that the recommendations focused explicitly on the work that needs to be done by the federal government for coordinating industry and research relations. However, the role of universities in doing so was not mentioned at all. In other words, while the major national organization representing universities was the only official Canadian partner in era-can+, which served as the host of this roundtable, universities as an issue were left completely out of the report. Research as a term was mentioned throughout the document, including the need for interdisciplinary approaches and the connections between researchers and industry partners, but universities as research institutions themselves were not at all recognized. Relying on public documents about the involvement of uc in eracan+ did not allow for a substantial qualitative analysis of the extent to which uc or individual universities played a role. However, this analysis did illustrate how uc acts as a mediating body between federal government priorities aimed at developing trade relations


Melody Viczko

with countries in the European Union and industry partners both in Canada and the European Union. As a member organization of universities, uc acts as a broker institution, connecting university institutions with the trade mission of the federal government. uc’s involvement at this level signifies the ways in which universities envision themselves as players in the federal government’s agenda for trade and innovation. However, the extent to which universities themselves are embedded in this space is not visible. With a focus on lobbying for more coordination of federal agencies and departments, the issue in era-can+ for internationalization was aimed at the organization and structure of the federal government. That is, internationalization here focused on a need for national-level coordination of international research relations.

clusters, incubators, and hubs: innovation as an issue of internationalization The profile of the innovation agenda in Canada was raised in 2017 when the Liberal federal government tabled its budget, dubbed the Innovation and Skills Budget, with a goal to propel Canada as a global leader in innovation. A key component of this agenda involved postsecondary institutions, including colleges and universities, forming strong associations with industry. This agenda built on recent moves from the Canadian federal government to tie trade to internationalizing higher education in building the knowledge economy (for further discussion of the federal government’s strategy see Trilokekar and El Masri 2016; Viczko and Tascón 2016). More specifically, a most recent telling case of the federal government’s force to push hei engagement with industry was the announcement of the Innovation Superclusters Initiative funding of $950 million for university-industry partnerships. The initiative was targeted at “building stronger connections – from large anchor firms to start-ups, from post-secondary institutions to research and government partners” (Canada. isedc 2018, para. 2) in the construction of “new” forms of industry parternships. These industry- and business-led partnerships were initated through a competitive process in which fifty applications of promising clusters were reviewed, with five initiatives receiving funding. The government definition of supercluster is indicative of the desire for these businessled pse-private sector partnerships to bridge relations with interna-

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


tional corporate entitites. The Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development played a lead in the launch and conceptualization of these clusters as “a geographically defined innovation ecosystem that demonstrates collaboration and business relationships between firms. With a critical mass of large and small companies, postsecondary and research institutions, and other innovation actors, a cluster can result in supply-chain benefits, encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration, drive competition and business specialization, and help to attract ‘anchor’ companies from around the world” (Canada. ised 2017, 33). Indeed, international partnerships featured significantly in the conception of these superclusters with “a significant commitment to partnering with industry and supporting the success of leading domestic and global companies that choose to innovate in Canada” (Canada. ised 2018, para. 2). The applicants were required to indicate up to five strategic advantage activities in which the cluster would engage aiming for gaining global benefits, such as the ways in which particular outcomes of the superclusters would connect Canadian innovation to international capital and contacts. As Innovation, Science and Economic Development minister Bains declared at the announcement of the winnings bids, this investment would put Canada “front and centre in the global innovation race” (Samson 2018, para. 9). While close to a dozen Canadian universities were mentioned as partners in the successful superclusters at the time of the application, uc president Paul Davidson indicated, “Our members across the country look forward to being key partners in these superclusters to help drive innovation and growth in our changing global economy” (Samson 2018, para. 16). However, not all media attention for the release of the superclusters was positive. Sá, professor at the University of Toronto, in writing a series in the University Affairs online magazine, was skeptical that the initiative could deliver beyond the rhetoric of catchy innovation clichés (Sá 2018, para. 7), suggesting the program “is a poorly conceived initiative that promises too much and specifies too little, and that such carelessness is hard to justify for a billion-dollar program.” As director of the Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, Sá is well positioned to judge the prospects of the initiative in the university arena. In this piece, he called attention to the role of universities in the initiatives to date, one similar to the role uc played in the era-Can+ initiative, that of a mediator. Sá wrote, “To begin with, universities were by no means minor


Melody Viczko

players in the application process … they were conveners of conversations among firms that had not collaborated before, but that the universities had linkages with”; however, he was critical of “the vagueness of the information available on each supercluster” (Sá 2018, para. 3), with more work yet needed to operationalize these collaborations. By showcasing the role of collaboration in the Innovation Superclusters Initiative, I want to draw attention to micro-actors at the intersections between innovation and higher education in the Canadian landscape: incubators and innovation hubs, such as mars Discovery District, which was a co-applicant on the Advanced Manufacturing Supercluster in Ontario. mars Discovery District (mars) is an incubator in Toronto, self-described as “the world’s largest urban innovation hub” (mars 2015, 1). As a space in internationalization, mars provides a base for entrepreneurs, start-ups, and innovation communities “with access to networks and capital” (mars 2015, 9). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to fully expand on the vastness of activity at mars. Rather, in bringing this actor to the fore, I want to show how universities, as sites of research, are woven into a vast network of actors and capital through the work of clusters, incubators, and innovation hubs. These have become increasingly present in higher education, for example, the Vector Institute (Toronto) and Velocity (Waterloo), as the innovation issue is brought to the centre of internationalization. To examine how innovation hubs serve as bridges between innovation and higher education, I focus attention here on mars. In its financial audit of 2017, mars reported a revenue of over $50 million, with over $2 million in grants from the federal government through the Canada Accelerator and Incubator Program to support programs aimed at establishing “a critical mass of business incubators and accelerators in Canda, capable of promoting higher output of successful, innovative, high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises” (mars 2017, 11). This contribution may be minor in comparison to the reported $1.3 billion in revenue and $3.5 billion in capital generated between 2008 and 2016 (mars 2018). The capital for innovation through opportunities to collaborate with transnational corporations and international small- to mid-size enterprises is immense in contemporary higher education when viewed through heis’ involvement in the research agenda of the superclusters and other innovation projects. That is, mars hosts a wealth of companies from across the globe in its creative spaces, creating a context in which

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


innovation in the Canadian landscape meets international partners. The ways in which innovation actors such as mars have created the space for universities to engage with immense capital for research is increasing. The president of the University of Toronto serves as a board member for mars, along with several ceos and directors from the industry sector. In these spaces, the issue of innovation dominates all relations; that is, the capacity to engage in the discourses and material manifestations of innovation become essential to what is meaningful in higher education. While innovation hubs are known as hotspots for connecting entrepreneurial mindset with researchers and venture capital opportunities, their involvement in higher education has not been well studied, and the work of the superclusters and their actors as new spaces are only now emerging in the Canadian arena. However, as researchers, we ought to see these as hotspots not only for innovation but also as sites for investigating how the issue of innovation shapes legitimacy in internationalization, and the power of the discourse of innovation shapes the assocations that form.

locating higher education institution engagement in controversy-making: making visible the political The above examination of three national-level actors brings us back to the questions posed earlier: What are the issues that drive university associations in internationalization, and in what ways do these issues constitute universities as actors in higher education? I proceed in this section by tackling each of these questions in order. The first question aims at identifying some of the key issues of internationalization. By examining the work of these three nationallevel actors, I have shown how the issues of researcher mobility, national coordination, and innovation draw universities into associations around internationalization with not only these national actors but also, quite importantly, federal government agendas, mediated through material relations of funding research partnerships. Mitacs’s presence in the pse landscape is the material manifestation of the increasing state control of higher education through federal government agendas (Viczko and Tascón 2016). uc’s engagement in lobbying and faciliating the conditions for federal government coordination priveleges spaces for federal government agendas and initiatives. Finally, the superclusters


Melody Viczko

and innovation hubs that have recently drawn so much attention have brought significant capital from the federal government into university internationalization. The domination of an economic rationality that Brown (2015) so astutely described is visible in these material relations as associations form around these issues. The second question, though, aims to make visible the politics of associations that are formed as heis are pulled into the issues of these national organizations. Controversies function to spur social debate, to uncover diversity of opinion and perspectives, to shape what realities are performed. Is there controversy taking place in the issues that have drawn associations between the universities and these national agendas? There are two ways we may look at this. First, we may see these national actors as individual organizations, groups of people with interests in advancing particular issues at the national level. Engagement can be cast as lobbying or strategic partnership building, efforts to get the attention and support of valuable sources of capital. In this context, we might view them as individual organizations, as rationalist actors with rationalist goals working toward advancing their own interests. A second way to view these national-level actors, though, is to see them as actors engaged in forming the social debates in higher education by mapping the issues in which they are associated to the work of universities. In this way, we shift from viewing them as individual organizations toward seeing the politics of their relational realities, situating them in “the existence of a thick mesh of relations among the statements circulating in a debate” (Venturini 2009, 9). Where are universities in this debate? The coordination of federally funded mobility and research programs works to privilege federal agendas of innovation. While others have argued a tenous connection between heis and federal government internationalization policies (see Trilokekar and El Masri 2016, for an example of tensions between federal policy and institutional strategy), the issues of researcher mobility, national coordination, and innovation bring this relationship to life, perhaps not through policy text, but certainly through material relations, such as funding. These issues constitute the federal presence across a constitutional divide that is often upheld in Canadian discourses about the jurisdictional problems of federal engagement in educational governance (Jones 2009). Less than a decade ago, Wright and Oberg (2008) theorized the way in which the Danish state maintained its

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


control over universities, amid its premise of freeing heis to have power over governance issues in contemporary neo-liberal discourses that suggest decentralization in higher education. However, as the scholars pointed out, the state engages in steering at a distance, whereby its policy priorities and agendas are realized not through imposed means but material steering (Shore and Wright 2011). In a similar way, we see here how these assocations between these actors work toward solidifying federal control in higher education. We are reminded of Metcalfe’s (2010) challenge to the argument that national actors’ power is limited in Canadian higher education because provinces and territories hold constitutional roles in education. Rather, as she contends, the relations of academic capitalism are visible through the funding opportunities that guide university engagement. Metcalfe called for more research to showcase these relations, to dispel the notion that Canada remains free from academic capitalism. The notion of controversy provides a lens to do this, to search for the political conditions in which universities might challenge national government dominance. The result of doing so is insight into how little space there is for universities to engage in the critique of controversy-making. There is a politics of engagement here, as universities have become closely associated to federal agendas of innovation, mobility, and partnership that focus on economic and material benefits. Such engagement bounds university engagement in spaces aimed aside from the democratic education needed, as Brown (2015) argued, to stand up to the neo-liberal state and its effects on higher education. The controversy here is the silence of universities in provoking such a debate. That is, rather than instigating controversies by their engagement with the national actors on these issues, we see them become active only in their mediation, and not in sparking the struggles over meaning that are so productive through controversy-making. By seeing these national-level actors as relationally situated in creating agendas of internationalization in higher education, we are better able to view their contributions to the higher education arena. That is, their presence and actions are not passive. They contribute to how higher education is constructed and performed through their efforts to form associations with university actors and to frame what internationalization is about. Internationalization has become a key space in the expansion of the economic rationality of higher education. The associations formed through the engagement of these national-level


Melody Viczko

actors in internationalization have enmeshed universities firmly as necessary for carrying out economic agendas. Still, Brown (2015) reminded us that the dominance of economic rationality ought to continue as a key concern for those engaged in higher education governance. Internationalization ought to be a site for universities to challenge this rationality, but as they are engaged in these issues, we see the politics of their engagement here requiring their going along without disruption. That is, their associations have rendered the economic path for internationalization quite smooth. We need more attention to the engagement of national actors in university internationalization, not to describe their activity alone, but to examine how the relations formed through their association with universities and other actors constitute what it means to engage in higher education. There is a role for research to not only showcase these relations but also to examine what they do. My hope here is that controvery mapping can continue to be used to study the competing efforts to frame the realities of internationalization, not as rationalist outcomes but rather as controversies in the making in which universities can participate. This approach could allow universities to actively contribute to the outcomes of international partnerships that broaden the work of internationalization beyond economic means and to consider the democratic needs of international engagement.

references Brown, W. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone. Canada. isedc (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada). 2017. “Innovation Superclusters: Program Guide.” Programs. Last modified 12 October 2017. /00003.html. – 2018. “Innovation Superclusters Initiative.” Programs. Last modified 4 September 2018. Chou, M., J. Jungblut, P. Ravinet, and M. Vukasovic. 2017. “Higher Education Governance and Policy: An Introduction to Multi-Issue, Multi-Level and Multi-Actor Dynamics.” Policy and Society 36 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080 /14494035.2017.1287999.

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


Denzin, N.K. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. era-can+. 2016a. “About.” Archived October 2016. /about (site discontinued). – 2016b. Report from “Nano for Food” EU-Canada Roundtable. Archived October 2016. /Nano-for-Food-Roundtable-report-May-27.pdf. European Commission. n.d. “What is Horizon 2020?” Accessed 12 March 2018. Jolivet, E., and E. Heiskanen. 2010. “Blowing Against the Wind: An Exploratory Application of Actor Network Theory to the Analysis of Local Controversies and Participation Processes in Wind Energy.” Energy Policy 38: 6746–54. Jones, G.A. 2009. “Internationalization and Higher Education Policy in Canada: Three Challenges.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 355–69. Toronto: James Lorimer. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. mars (mars Discovery District). 2015. “Place Matters.” mars (website). Accessed 12 March 2018. – 2017. “Financial Statements March 31, 2017.” mars (website). https://www _Audited_Financials_March_2017.pdf. – 2018. “Our Results.” mars (website). Accessed 12 March 2018. Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Metcalf, A. 2010. “Revisiting Academic Capitalism in Canada: No Longer the Exception.” Journal of Higher Education 81 (4): 489–514. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0098. Mitacs. n.d.-a. “About Mitacs.” Mitacs (website). Accessed 12 March 2018. – n.d.-b. “Globalink Research Award.” Accessed 12 March 2018. – n.d.-c. “Timeline.” Mitacs (website). Accessed 12 March 2018. http://www – 2017a. “Federal Budget 2017: Targeted Investment in Work-Integrated Learning,” press release, 22 March.


Melody Viczko

/news-release/federal-budget-2017-targeted-investment-work-integratedlearning. -- 2017b. “Canada and India Strengthen r&d Networks with Mitacs,” press release, 15 November. – 2017c. “Mitacs and France Expand r&d Partnership for Economic Growth,” press release, 9 May. – 2017d. “Mitacs and the China Scholarship Council Expand Relationship,” press release, 22 February. – 2017e. “New Agreement to Strengthen Ukraine-Canada Research Networks,” press release, 9 June. Mol, A. 1999. “Ontological Politics.” In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, 74–89. Oxford: Blackwell. Rogers, R. 2013. Digital Methods. Boston: mit Press. Rogers, R., N. Sánchez-Querubín, and A. Kil. 2015. Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. http://www.oapen .org/search?identifier=569806. Sá, C. 2018. “The Superclusters Promise Plan Promises More Than It Can Likely Deliver.” University Affairs, 20 February. _campaign=4a61691205-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_21&utm _medium=email&utm_term=0_314bc2ee29-4a61691205-425345581. Samson, N. 2018. “Canada’s Much Anticipated ‘Supercluster’ r&d Groups Unveiled.” University Affairs, 16 February. /news/news-article/canadas-much-anticipated-supercluster-rd-groupsunveiled. Scott, P. 2011. “The University as a Global Institution.” In Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, edited by R. King, S. Marginson, and R. Naidoo, 59–75. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgard Publishing. Shore, C., and S. Wright. 2011. “Conceptualising Policy: Technologies of Governance and the Politics of Visibility.” In Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power, edited by C. Shore, S. Wright, and D. Pero, 1–26. New York: Berghahn. Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. 1999. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

National Actors in Canadian Higher Education


Trilokekar, R.D., and A. El Masri. 2016. “Canada’s International Education Strategy: Implications of a New Policy Landscape for Synergy between Government Policy and Institutional Strategy.” Higher Education Policy 39 (4): 539–63. uc (Universities Canada). n.d.-a. “About.” Universities Canada (website). Accessed 3 March 2018. – n.d.-b. “Priorities.” Universities Canada (website). Accessed 3 March 2018. Venturini, T. 2010. “Building on Faults: How to Represent Controversies with Digital Methods.” Public Understanding of Science 21 (7): 798–812. doi:10.1177/0963662510387558. Viczko, M., and L. Shultz. 2016. “Reflections on Assemblage in the Governance of Higher Education.” In Assembling and Governing the Higher Education Institution: Democracy, Social Justice and Leadership in Global Higher Education, edited by L. Shultz and M. Viczko, 439–43. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Viczko, M., and C.I. Tascón. 2016. “Performing Internationalization of Higher Education in Canadian National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (2): 1–18. Wright, S., and J.W. Oberg. 2008. “Autonomy and Control: Danish University Reform in the Context of Modern Governance.” Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 1 (1): 27–57.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

15 Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

introduction Internationalization has become a priority in higher education institutions (heis) across a wide variety of countries including Canada, where the vast majority of heis now identify internationalization among their top strategic priorities (aucc 2014). Since the early 2000s, many provincial governments have developed their own international education (ie) policy frameworks, and in 2014 the federal government released its first ie strategy, identifying ie as “critical to Canada’s success” and “at the very heart of [Canada’s] current and future prosperity” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 4). In this chapter, we examine the role played by Canada’s federal government in utilizing ie to advance its own economic, citizenship, and immigration goals through the promotion and regulation of international students to Canada’s heis, as well as the role of Special Interest Groups (sigs) as policy mediators between the federal government and heis. We highlight how the roles and relationships of the various policy actors within the internationalization policy network, especially the federal government and sigs, demonstrate how the network as assemblage is heterogeneous, shifting, and asymmetric. To do so, we provide an overview of the concept of policy networks, present policy network analysis as our theoretical framework, and outline the research methods for our case study of internationalization at one Ontario hei. The case study approach allows us to focus on the micro-processes involved in the enactment of internationaliza-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


tion policy in order to gain a sharper understanding of the workings of internationalization policy networks. We map out the actors in the internationalization policy network and then use network analysis to problematize the relations between actors. Following Ball (1994, 10), we define policy in a cyclical way as “text and action, words and deeds … what is enacted as well as what is intended.” Moreover, policies are complex and often contradictory textual products of compromise between, for example, governments, institutions, and sigs. Theorizing the policy network as assemblage allows us to see not only the connections and power-infused relations between various policy actors, such as the federal and provincial governments, sigs, and internationalization policies within the network, but also the ways in which the network has changed over time. In this way, our study is important in illustrating how ie policy is enacted through complex and changing networks of actors, rather than through hierarchical and linear processes.

policy networks: an overview Given the networked nature of today’s globalized world, social science researchers have turned to the concept of networks to understand social relations and social change. Social networks are constituted by relationships and connections between various actors (e.g., individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, policies). Katzenstein (1976) first used the concept of policy networks in his research on foreign economic policies. Since then, there has been an explosion of research using the concept of policy networks as a specific kind of policy-making structural arrangement (Pal 2014; Rhodes and Marsh 1992; Wu and Knoke 2013). By 2000, policy network theory had become “a major approach to the study of public policy making in Canada and elsewhere” (Howlett 2002, 235), but has only been taken up in a limited way among higher education policy researchers (e.g., Viczko and Tascón 2016). Policy network theorists have directed their attention to the micromacro relationships between state and civil society, the organization of interests in society, and what difference certain patterns of relations make to policy outcomes (Pal 2014; Rhodes and Marsh 1992). Further, some researchers have also used the term policy communities to study “all actors or potential actors with a direct or indirect interest in a policy area or function who share a common ‘policy focus,’ and who,


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

with varying degrees of influence, shape policy outcomes over the long run” (Coleman and Skogstad 1990, 25). Pal (2014), however, has pointed out the limitations of this approach in that it does not adequately capture the different relations and connections between social actors. Thus, the term policy network has been used more widely to describe the properties that characterize “the relationships among a particular set of actors that forms [sic] around an issue of importance to the policy community” (Coleman and Skogstad 1990, 26). Globalization processes associated with the intensification of trans-border movements of capital, goods, people, cultural products, services, and information, and related technological shifts in modern society, have provided the conditions for the spread and study of policy networks. Thus, over time, the focus of policy network research has shifted from centrally focused policy-making to multilayered policy processes, from top-down hierarchies to grassroots, bottom-up influences on the policy-making process, from policy formation and outcomes to policy implementation and enactment (Wu and Knoke 2013).

theoretical framework While there are numerous approaches to policy network analysis, we used the concept of network as a method for mapping social relations within the field of higher education internationalization policy (Ball 2007; Ball and Junemann 2012). Three related ideas are central to our conceptualization of policy networks: assemblage, power, and governance. The concept of assemblage refers to the coming together of, and relations between, different elements or heterogeneous objects to form a whole (Callon 1990; Gorur 2011; Müller 2015). Most contemporary theorists using the term have been inspired by the work of Deleuze, who viewed assemblages as being “composed of heterogeneous elements or objects that enter into relations with one another. These objects are not all of the same type. Thus, you have physical objects, happenings, events, and so on, but you also have signs, utterances, and so on” (Bryant 2009, n.p.). Within an assemblage, the relationships of component parts are neither stable nor fixed. Rather, assemblages are relational, in which the heterogeneous and individual parts have agency and are implicated with one another. Assemblages are also fluid and in flux; they can both come together to form territorial organizations and they can

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


mutate, transform, and be displaced or replaced (Müller 2015). There is also a temporal aspect to assemblages. As Marcus and Saka (2006, 101) noted, “[t]he time-space in which assemblage is imagined is inherently unstable and infused with movement and change.” Understanding a policy network as an assemblage shows us how policymaking and implementation now involves a wide variety of actors that change over time and connect people, objects, and locations (Gorur 2011). Assemblage thinking enables understanding of how various actors come together around policies, how they are related to one another, and how they enable and/or disable change. Focusing on policy networks and policy as text also draws our attention to power relations between and among the actors. As Rhodes (1997, 10) asserted, policy networks tell us ‘“Who rules?’, ‘How do they rule?’ and ‘In whose interests do they rule?’” Conceptualizing networks within a power framework allows us to see how power relations are enacted and productive. Power is considered inherently relational as different actors seek resources and advantages from others. As Wu and Knoke (2013) explained, policy exchanges arise from political, economic, and/or ideological power imbalances. Furthermore, as Ball (1994, 20), argued, policy texts “enter rather than simply change power relations.” Thus, it is important to understand the broader contexts, which are often characterized by conflict and struggle, within which internationalization policies are formulated and enacted. Finally, policy networks constitute a new form of governance: “a mix of all kinds of governing effects by all manner of socio-political actors, public as well as private; occurring between them at different levels, in different governing modes and orders” (Agranoff, McGuire, and Silvia 2013, 361). In essence, networks, rather than top-down hierarchies, have become the primary mode of governance in modern societies and studying them can enable us to understand policy more precisely. Following Ball and Junemann (2012) we focused on the how of governance: how policy is being done through policy networks, by whom, and with what effects. Network governance is said to bring new solutions to seemingly intractable public policy issues by catalyzing many different sectors (public, private, and voluntary) into action. In this way, governments redefine themselves as “facilitators engaged in value chains, working through markets rather than acting as autarkic doers who owned, operated and produced everything themselves” (Wanna 2009, quoted in Ball and Junemann 2012, 6). However, although it is clear that policy is now being “done” through


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

such strategic alliances, it is important to acknowledge that such interdependencies are often filled with tensions and asymmetries.

research methods Here we outline the qualitative research methods used to carry out this case study, noting that Al-Haque (2017) collected the bulk of the data as a part of his doctoral dissertation research.1 For this chapter, we focused on mapping the internationalization policy network, and drew upon a selection of data from the original study. To understand how internationalization policy is being done, we focused on one particular institution, Central University (cu),2 a large, public, researchintensive university in Ontario, to understand the complex, microprocesses associated with policy-making and enactment. cu has a strong commitment to internationalization and is deeply invested in research and knowledge production, markets itself as a top institution for foreign students, and has released a series of strategic documents that seek to advance the university’s global profile. This case of a higher education internationalization policy network allowed us to map out the key actors involved in internationalization policies. We could then uncover and problematize changing governance strategies and connections between heis and provincial and federal governments, as well as other policy actors such as Special Interest Groups (sigs). The first data source consisted of interviews with ten mid- to seniorlevel cu administrators who were identified as playing key roles in advancing cu’s internationalization agenda. These included the university president and several vice-provosts, program directors, and deans, as well as a Registered Immigration Consultant and Student Adviser [henceforth ric/sa]. All of the semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2015 and lasted between thirty and sixty minutes. The interviews highlighted key actors from multiple levels of governance responsible for enacting internationalization policies at the institutional and government levels. To protect the anonymity of our participants, we have referred to them by pseudonyms and have modified their official titles. The second data source consisted of policy documents related to higher education internationalization. At the university level, this included the cu’s Strategic Plan and its complementary Internationalization Action Plan for 2014–19. We examined the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (cmec 2011) report Bringing Education in Canada

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


to the World, Bringing the World to Canada: An International Education Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories. Given that our case study focused on Ontario, we examined the Ontario government strategy titled Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario (Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2016). At the federal level, we looked at the report International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity (Canada. fatdc. 2012) and Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014). Using the notion of “policy-as-assemblages” as a guide, we identified the key actors assembled around internationalization, immigration, and citizenship policies by doing a textual analysis of policy documents and extracting data from interview transcripts. Furthermore, interview data was coded into themes and analyzed in relation to each other. Thus, our interview data and policy documents together enabled us to map out and analyze the current field of policy network actors within the higher education internationalization policy assemblage.

mapping the higher education internationalization policy network Our data demonstrated that the higher education internationalization policy network is constituted by a variety of policy actors including the federal government, provincial governments, sigs such as the Canadian Bureau for International Education (cbie), and individual heis.3 Over the past twenty-five years, individual heis as policy actors have embraced internationalization as a strategic goal, developing official internationalization policies and strategies. Since the early 1990s, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (aucc)4 has tracked member institutions’ international activities in order to understand how they have contributed to the integration of an international and intercultural dimension to teaching, research, and community service on Canadian campuses. According to the 2014 (aucc) survey, 96 percent of Canadian universities identify internationalization as part of their strategic planning and 82 percent view it as one of their top five priorities. Almost 90 percent of respondents reported that the pace of internationalization on their campus had accelerated during the previous three years, with emphasis on undergraduate student recruitment, forming strate-


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

gic partnerships with overseas heis, and expanding international academic research collaboration (aucc 2014). As one university president asserted in another study we carried out, “You can’t really be a university president, probably anywhere in Canada … without being interested in internationalization” (Larsen and Al-Haque 2016, 419). cu reflects these trends. cu’s Strategic Plan and its complementary Internationalization Action Plan serve as the framework to direct and promote its internationalization vision. The Strategic Plan calls for the university to embody a “world-class research and scholarship culture” and engage with “international partners” including foreign research and educational institutions. Additionally, the Strategic Plan seeks to increase international undergraduate student enrolment, echoing the university’s Internationalization Action Plan, which aspires to “develop a comprehensive and strategic international graduate student recruitment plan,”5 and provide more support to international students through the university’s International Office. Our data also revealed several key policy actors involved in the internationalization policy network at the university level. These included individuals such as the university president, who provides the strategic direction and vision for internationalizing the university, as well as the vice-president international, and various program directors and deans. The International Office, which aims to direct and support the university’s international strategy, also plays a role in the network. It does this via various activities and initiatives to foster international and intercultural learning opportunities, enhance global awareness and activity, and recruit and support international students. The latter goal consumes much work and attention within the office, especially among the immigration consultants who now advise international students on immigration regulations. Before 2014, university sas supported international students by answering their immigration-related questions. However, after changes to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, only licensed immigration consultants have been able to offer advice (S. Kobe, Director of Internationalization at University Medical School, personal communication, 19 August 2015; Tamburri 2015). Thus, these immigration consultants have more recently entered the network as new policy actors. While Canadian heis have been internationalizing since the 1990s, provincial governments began to engage in internationalization policy-making more recently. Like other provinces, Ontario is a policy network actor within the context of higher education inter-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


nationalization. In 2016, the government released a discussion paper titled Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario, outlining its recognition of the importance of internationalization for Ontario universities, which “not only positions Ontario as a destination and partner of choice but also showcases Ontario as a leader on the global stage” (Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2016, 4). University administrators in our study expressed optimism about developing the provincial internationalization strategy. Noting that other provinces have higher education internationalization strategies, cu’s president explained: “I’m glad that our province … is going to have one … This simply means that there will be more capacity to implement some of the ideas that we have put forth” (personal communication, 23 July 2015). Provincial support for ie is also evidenced through the work of cmec. Among other things, cmec’s mandate involves coordinating and supporting provincial and territorial input into international discussion of educational policy issues. cmec, as a policy network actor, has been actively involved in promoting Canadian education abroad with the aim to increase the numbers of international students in Canada. To this end, cmec (2011) published its International Education Marketing Action Plan, aiming to increase the numbers of international students studying and remaining in Canada and provide more opportunities for Canadian students to study abroad. More recently, the federal government has migrated into the field of higher education internationalization policy with a distinctive emphasis on the potential of international students to enhance the Canadian economy. In 2014, the federal government introduced its ie strategy titled Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014). The ie strategy commits to marketing Canadian education abroad and outlines Canada’s goals to become a competitive destination for international students and researchers to its heis. It demonstrates how the federal government views ie as a cross-cutting public policy priority, recognizing that it underpins Canada’s diplomacy, trade, and immigration objectives, and the country’s global standing. For example, the document begins by claiming that “[i]n a highly competitive, knowledge-based global economy, ideas and innovation go hand in hand with job creation and economic growth” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 2).


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

Recent federal government migration into the internationalization policy network has occurred primarily through the work of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (cic) and related immigration consultants as mentioned above. University administrators in our study noted that cic is a significant actor in creating, regulating, and implementing policy related to recruiting (i.e., study permits and visas) and retaining foreign students in Canada. cic was viewed as “the decision maker” (J. McKinsey, Executive Director of Strategic Projects, personal communication, 14 July 2015), always doing “whatever they want” (E. Doherty, ric/sa, personal communication, 3 July 2015), and having “a huge impact in terms of visa processing” (M. Brown, Administrative Director of Entry-Level Language Program, personal communication, 26 June 2015). A number of participants expressed concern about the lack of cooperation and communication between the federal government and the university, especially with respect to international students. When asked about the amount of communication that universities have with cic, Doherty shared that “in terms of direct communication from the universities to the cic, I don’t think it happens … [It] is oneway communication” (ric/sa, personal communication, 3 July 2015). For example, even cbie was not apprised of the changes to immigration and citizenship regulations (S. Kobe, Director of Internationalization at University Medical School, personal communication, 19 August 2015). “I just think the federal government hasn’t really been consulting with universities with respect to immigration policies,” said Dr McDonald, vice-provost of Society of Graduate and Professional Studies (personal communication, 3 July 2015). Even the university president felt that there was little co-operation and communication between the federal government and universities. He explained that “the opportunities are very minimal” for universities to voice their opinions and concerns, because they are not seen as “serious stakeholders in that sort of conversation.” According to the president, every so often, members of the federal government would reach out to the university, but most of the time, the university was only able to react to government policy changes. The president concluded that the “government still doesn’t see the universities … as institutions that are instrumental to their immigration policy” (personal communication, 23 July 2015). Other key actors mentioned during our interviews were sigs such as cbie and Universities Canada (uc). Through the promotion and sup-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


port for partnership programs, internships, scholarships, exchanges, and ie research, uc supports member universities’ internationalization initiatives. uc has also been actively involved in fostering debate to contribute to policy-making in the country. “Global Connections,” for example, has become a uc policy platform, involving the promotion of internationalization initiatives on higher education campuses, publication of reports on ie, and conducting regular surveys, as noted above, to determine the extent of internationalization at Canadian heis (aucc 2014). cbie is a national organization with a mandate to help facilitate Canada’s ie goals, including the provision of support services to students from developing countries, programs for internationally mobile Canadians, and cross-border institutional relationship-building (cbie 2015). cbie supports both provincial governments and university presidents to promote “a grassroots, build-it-up approach [to] find common ground about the best ways to promote Canada and have a considered internationalization strategy” (C. Forrester, director of cu’s International Office, personal communication, 11 September 2015). cu’s Vice-Provost International Dr. Joelle McLean highlighted the role of sigs by claiming that: “Universities Canada is a lobbying body to the federal government. And it … is continuously lobbying the government on behalf of universities in Canada with respect to these matters. And the other body is cbie. They lobby the Canadian government and [cic] with respect of these matters” (personal communication, 4 August 2015). One specific example of the advocacy work of cbie stands out. We noted above the involvement of federal immigration consultants on higher education campuses. Prior to sig advocacy and involvement, these consultants were expected to be well versed in immigration regulations relating to all classes of economic migrants. sigs helped “reach an agreement with Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council … the federal body that regulated the training, licensing and practices of immigration consultants” (Tamburri 2015, n.p.) to create a new certification program (known as the Regulated International Student Immigration Advisers program). As a result of this advocacy work, consultants now only need study legislation and procedures related to international students and are licensed to work with international students. These policy changes have made it easier and faster for universities and their immigration consultants to serve the special needs of international students (S. Kobe, Director of Inter-


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

nationalization at University Medical School, personal communication, 19 August 2015).

discussion: internationalization policy network as assemblage Conceptualizing the internationalization policy network as an assemblage allows us to see the shifting and fluid nature of the network over time. heis in Canada have, for almost twenty-five years, engaged in various internationalization initiatives and developed their own internationalization policy strategies as evidenced by aucc surveys dating back to the early 1990s. These surveys and subsequent reports have demonstrated the array of activities related to teaching/learning, research, and community service that have taken place at the grassroots university level to further internationalization policy goals. Of note is the fact that they pre-date provincial and federal government internationalization strategic plans by at least fifteen years. Thus, we can see how individual Canadian heis have been agents in devising and enacting their own institutional internationalization policies since the 1990s, independent (initially) from government internationalization policies. However, the central role of heis in terms of internationalization policy has shifted over time as additional players have entered the internationalization policy arena. Provincial governments, through their constitutional obligation to oversee the functions and governance of higher education, are a recent set of internationalization policy network actors with the development, mostly over the last decade, of their own internationalization policies (e.g., Alberta, 2009; British Columbia, 2012; Manitoba, 2009). In addition, the federal government has even more recently entered into the domain of internationalization policy despite the fact that higher education is, constitutionally, under the mandate of provincial and territorial governments, as the editors outline in their introduction to this book. Some have argued, however, that the federal government has a much longer history of involvement in the area of ie. This illustrates the ways in which policy assemblages change over time. Trilokekar (2010), for example, has detailed the history of the role of the Department of External Affairs with respect to overseas development assistance and international cultural relations in the context of ie. The role of overseas development assistance, especially during the 1960s, result-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


ed in increased international activity in Canadian heis. The Department of External Affairs also established the Canadian Studies Abroad Program, fostering transnational student and faculty exchanges, as well as university-to-university linkages. Also, through the Canadian International Development Agency’s overseas development assistance,6 individuals in Canadian universities were deployed as technical assistant personnel to developing countries throughout the 1970s and1980s. However, we argue that something substantially different has occurred in the ie policy landscape since the release of the federal government’s 2014 ie strategy. While one could argue that the internationalization policy assemblage has long included the federal government, the nature of federal involvement in internationalization policy has changed markedly over the past five to ten years. Most of the earlier federal government initiatives in the area of ie focused either on development assistance or promoting intercultural relations between Canadian and international universities. Recent federal government incursions into higher education internationalization have been less reflective of a development and international relations focus, but rather aimed at enhancing Canada’s global economic competitiveness through the recruitment and retention of particular international students. Specifically, the federal government, as our case study demonstrates, has now intruded into the internationalization policy field via the work of university-based immigration consultants with the aim to use universities to further its own economic, citizenship, and immigration policy agendas. Thus, the approach to ie has shifted as has the role of heis, which are now viewed as vehicles through which to further federal government citizenship, immigration, and economic policy. In mapping the changing nature of the internationalization policy network, we can see how internationalization policies, once the purview of heis, are now delivered through a mix of “strategic alliances, joint working arrangements, networks, partnerships and many other forms of collaboration across sectoral and organizational boundaries” (Williams 2002, quoted in Ball and Junemann 2012, 6). This reflects not only the changing nature of policy networks over time and place (Coleman and Skogstad 1990), and how they operate as assemblages that are neither fixed nor stable but also a new federal approach to internationalization directly aligned with citizenship and immigration policy.


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

Why then has the federal government become involved in internationalization policy within higher education, which is under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in Canada? The emergence of the federal government as an actor within the higher education policy networks has been motivated by a desire to use ie to meet federal citizenship, immigration, and related economic goals. Canadian federal governments have always viewed higher education in relation to their own responsibilities for national, including economic, well-being. The federal case for involvement in higher education “has repeatedly invoked the senior government’s responsibility for national economic policy including human resource development, and for the educational and occupational standards that ensure citizens’ inter-provincial mobility and equity” (Fisher, Rubenson, et al. 2014, 14). It is thus unsurprising that the federal government’s ie strategy promotes an economic rationale for internationalizing higher education, seeking to give the country a “competitive advantage” in today’s knowledge economy, and placing a heavy emphasis on recruiting international students and researchers from “priority markets.” Moreover, the ie strategy is a key element of the federal government’s broader Global Markets Action Plan, which “weaves the education sector and the Strategy into Canada’s economic diplomacy and trade promotion activities” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 9). The term weave highlights the connectedness of higher education internationalization, economic, and citizenship/immigration policy networks. Provincial internationalization strategies, while supporting a wide range of internationalization activities, ultimately align with the federal government’s ie strategy with respect to the economic value of international students to Canada’s economic needs. The strategies also focus on promoting each province as a destination of choice for international students. Ontario is fully committed to this endeavour. “The province is looking to develop a postsecondary ie strategy that not only positions Ontario as a destination and partner of choice but also showcases Ontario as a leader on the global stage” (Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2016, 3), and is “interested in hearing from … colleges, universities” (Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2016, 10). Furthermore, the title of cmec’s International Education Marketing Action Plan illustrates a focus on recruiting international students and marketing higher education within the context of internationalization.

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


Mapping out the changing relationships between the various actors in the internationalization policy network also sheds light on power relations among actors, and how these relations become enacted. As we have seen above, the federal government’s internationalization strategy and, to a large degree, provincial internationalization strategies, reflect a neo-liberal economic approach to internationalization, focusing on the economic advantages of recruiting highly skilled international students from key markets to benefit the Canadian economy. To this end, the federal government has entered the internationalization policy assemblage, shifting the balance of power from heis and, to some degree, provincial governments, to the federal government itself. Specifically, within the context of internationalization vis-à-vis immigration and citizenship, the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration legislation means the ability to regulate which international students are able to come to (and stay permanently in) Canada and which are not. In 2014, the federal government introduced changes to Canada’s Citizenship Act, which include tightening federal control over which international students are able to come to Canada and, if desired, gain permanent residency status (and the processes associated with it). They also dictated that only registered immigration consultants at universities could offer immigration advice to international students (Tamburri 2015). Our study showed further that, through the enactment of immigration policy at the institutional level, the federal government has enhanced its role within higher education through cic. Universities are expected to abide by the country’s federal laws, including regulations around international student recruitment and immigration advice. Our findings above illustrate the ways in which administrators in our study were critical of the federal government’s involvement in internationalization policy, and noted that the university lacked the capacity to voice concerns to the federal government on laws that influenced international student recruitment and retention. Overall, our findings illustrate the ways in which policy is enacted in relationally asymmetric ways and is fraught with tension, at least from the perspective of university policy actors. Moreover, the enactment of internationalization policy across multiple sites illustrates how certain actors have privileged positions to advance their agendas over other actors’ agendas, for example, the federal government championing an economic approach to internationalization.


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

Policy networks as assemblages enable governments to fulfill their policy agendas more effectively by relying on non-governmental actors, such as universities. The clearest example here is how the federal government has entered the policy domain of higher education internationalization via the development of its own ie strategy and the work of cic and related on-campus immigration consultants. Following Pal (2014), we argue that the federal government’s migration into the policy field of ie aims to address federal economic and related citizenship and immigration policy goals, as opposed to broader idealistic or educational goals such as international co-operation, global citizenship, personal growth, and self-actualization (Stier 2004). These latter goals are emphasized, at least rhetorically, within cu’s own internationalization Strategic Plan with its focus on “diplomacy of knowledge” as a vehicle to encourage global citizenship and awareness. That said, it is important to note that cu’s strategic plan also focuses on the recruitment of international students, a group largely viewed in terms of revenue generation for heis, which also reflects an economic approach to internationalization. Through these processes, we see the emergence of new forms of governmentality, illustrating what Ball and Junemann (2012) called the shift from government to governance. The federal government has entered the internationalization policy network to utilize actors such as heis and immigration consultants to further federal economic, citizenship, and immigration goals. This reflects what Agranoff, McGuire, and Silvia (2013) claimed is a trend for all levels of government to rely upon other governments, private sector actors, and nonprofit organizations to plan, implement, and manage “government” services and programs. These new forms of governance entail a diffusion of power. We see this with the shifting nature and diffusion of power across the internationalization policy assemblage, which once consisted primarily of heis and now involves many actors ranging from federal and provincial governments to sigs. Thus, we see how policy as text “posit[s] a restructuring, redistribution and disruption of power relations” so that different people, organizations, or institutions “can and cannot do different things” (Ball 1993, 13). One of the key findings of this study is the role sigs such as cbie and uc play in connecting the federal government to heis within the context of internationalization, citizenship, and immigration policy. Scholars have argued that sigs play a critical role championing policy interests and causes and are often instrumental in influencing pol-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


icy agenda setting, making, and implementation through their lobbying and advocacy work (Grossmann 2012). As such, sigS are integral components of policy networks, often able to exploit the policy process to influence government-level change. Our interviews indicated that these actors were aware of the role cbie and uc play in continuously lobbying the government on behalf of universities with respect to internationalization, citizenship, and immigration policy. Because the policy process is messy and uncertain when various levels of governance and actors are involved, sigs help reduce uncertainty by dictating what issues will be included or excluded from the policy agenda, and strategizing about where, when, and whom to lobby (Richardson, 2000). In the context of this study, national-level sigs such as cbie and uc functioned to advance the needs of heis, international students, and outbound Canadian students. These organizations have a vested interest in working with a variety of stakeholders to ensure that policies are created to advance the needs of heis and international students. This study has shown how sigs such as cbie reached an agreement with the federal Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council to support heis and the federal government in developing a program for immigration consultants working on university campuses. These activities highlight sigs’ mediating influence over federal legislation and their ability to lobby on behalf of universities to support international students seeking permanent residency after graduation. Because sigs are better connected with the federal government than individual universities, they can also act as bridges and platforms to support the universities. University administrators highlighted the sigs as “champions” who liaised between educational institutions and government agencies to push for policies that helped universities support international students’ access to information about immigration. Administrators felt that the sigs’ Ottawa location played a role in bridging between heis and the federal government. Thus, we see how cbie and uc advocated on behalf of universities for policy changes and facilitated relations between government and the university. Simply put, cbie links the university with policy network actors such as the cbie-drafted immigration consultant certification program and the federal Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council. This strategic policy network produces two effects. First, it reinforces the role of sigs as mediating actors in the internationalization assemblage. Second, this policy network solidifies the federal govern-


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

ment’s position and power through on-campus immigration consultants within the internationalization assemblage. In other words, cbie not only facilitates the flow of relationships between the federal government and the university but also enables the flow, dispersal, and enactment of the federal government’s power within the assemblage. While policy is now enacted through such strategic alliances, these interdependencies are not symmetric. In studying policy networks, Ball and Junemann (2012, 8) explained that we should not underestimate or overestimate the “continuing effectivity of the powers of the state” or “treat the state as an undifferentiated whole.” In the exercise of governance, the state acquires new forms of power, which illustrates what Ball (2007) called governmentality. Moreover, the involvement of sigs in internationalization policy is not benign. Viczko and Tascón (2016, 13), in their research on Canadian higher education internationalization policy, argued that “cbie’s policy document emphasizes the association between higher education institutions and industry as a central outcome of the internationalizing processes in higher education.” Thus, cbie’s appeal to the federal government “advances the role of industry into the national policy landscape for internationalization while also legitimizing the role of the national government in shaping higher education strategies.” By looking directly at the work done by the university’s immigration consultants, we can understand how the actions of cbie privilege the role of the federal government and its concern for economic trade. Through the university’s federally regulated immigration consultants, the federal government establishes power within heis to address its economic-driven citizenship and immigration policy goals. These goals benefit heis such as cu as well, given their strategic focus on the recruitment and retention of international students. Immigration consultants working on university campuses ensure that international students abide by and adhere to Canada’s citizenship and immigration policies. This policy network in turn privileges the enactment of the federal government’s internationalization policy that commoditizes higher education as a means to advance the Canadian economy. This analysis also illustrates that sigs function as mediators actively involved in facilitating the relationship between the federal government and heis, a relationship fraught with tension. While it is not within the scope of this chapter to highlight these tensions at length (see Viczko and Tascón 2016 for more analysis on the contentious relationships that exist between cbie, the federal govern-

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


ment, and heis), this chapter focuses specifically on the relationship between citizenship, immigration, and higher education internationalization. Through the policy network that encompasses the university’s immigration consultants, cbie’s immigration consultant certification program, and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, cbie connects the university and the university’s internationalization strategy with the federal government. This cements the role of the federal government as a key actor within the internationalization policy assemblage.

conclusion Our theoretical framing of policy networks as assemblages has allowed us to understand policy as a changing, relational assemblage of actors interconnected, often in asymmetric ways. In order to map the actors involved in internationalization policies, this study used a case study approach of one public Ontario university. Our interview data, supplemented by policy document analysis, highlighted the key actors in the higher education internationalization network. Our analysis revealed an assemblage of policies from both the federal and provincial governments, intergovernmental bodies such as cmec, federal bodies such as cic, and sigs such as cbie, constituting the higher education internationalization policy network. Using the concept of policy network as assemblage, we were able to understand better the relationships between these actors and the flow of influence, especially the role of the federal government as establishing primacy over international higher education policy through immigration and citizenship policy. Through mediation efforts facilitated by cbie, the Canadian federal government has established itself as a key player in higher education internationalization. In doing so, the federal government has moved into the internationalization policy domain - a domain once considered the purview of provincial governments and heis within their jurisdictions - to further its own economic and citizenship and immigration agendas. We have shown how the assemblage is heterogeneous, with policy actors such as cu and sigs promoting an educational vision of internationalization, at least rhetorically, while simultaneously aligning with the government’s economic focus in terms of recruiting international students. This raises further questions about the nature of internationalization as a public policy issue in Canada and the extent to which individual


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

heis, provincial governments, the federal government, and nongovernmental actors such as sigs will have influence over ie in years to come.

notes 1 The initial study was much broader in scope, drawing upon documentary and interview data in its examination of a wide range of actors assembled around university internationalization, federal international education, and citizenship and immigration policies. 2 All names of institutions and individuals involved in the study are pseudonyms. 3 This network was mapped out based on our data and thus inevitably some actors are missing. For example, we acknowledge the role of international actors such as global ranking schemes, unesco, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in influencing higher education but note they are not included, as they were not mentioned by our participants or in the policy documents examined. Thus, while our data provided a boundary around the network under study, we recognize the relational and porous nature of the assemblage. 4 The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (aucc) was renamed Universities Canada/ Universités Canada in 2015. 5 Although the quoted passages are accurate, cu’s Strategic Plan and its complementary Internationalization Action Plan are pseudonym titles to uphold the integrity of agreed upon confidentiality, hence the absence of citations for these two documents in this chapter. 6 Canadian International Development Agency was a federal government organization that administered foreign aid programs in developing countries. It was disbanded in 2013.

references Agranoff, R., M. McGuire, and C. Silvia. 2013. “Governance, Networks and Intergovernmental Systems.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, edited by E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, 361–73. London: Routledge. Al-Haque, R. 2017. “The Relationship between Federal Citizenship and Immigration Policies and the Internationalization of Higher Education

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


in Canada.” PhD diss., University of Western Ontario. /etd/4676. aucc (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada). 2014. Canada’s Universities in the World – aucc Internationalization Survey. Ottawa: aucc. Ball, S.J. 1993. “What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes.” Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 13 (2): 10–17. – 1994. Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. – 2007. Education plc: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education. New York: Routledge. Ball, S.J., and C. Junemann. 2012. Networks, New Governance and Education. Bristol: The Policy Press. Bryant, L.R. 2009. Deleuze on Assemblages. Larval Subjects (blog). 8 October 2009. Callon, M. 1990. “Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility.” The Sociological Review 38 (S1): 132–61. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy. 2012. International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc ?lang=eng. – 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. /overview-apercu-eng.pdf. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2015. Internationalization Statement of Principles for Canadian Educational Institutions. http://cbie .ca/our-network/become-a-member/internationalization-statement-ofprinciples-for-canadian-educational-institutions/. Coleman, W.D., and G. Skogstad, eds. 1990. Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada: A Structural Approach. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman. cmec (Council of Ministers of Education of Canada). 2011. Bringing Education in Canada to the World, Bringing the World to Canada: An International Education Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories. Ottawa: Council of the Federation Secretariat. Fisher, D., K. Rubenson, T. Shanahan, and C. Trottier, eds. 2014. The Development of Postsecondary Education Systems in Canada: A Comparison between


Marianne A. Larsen and Rashed Al-Haque

British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, 1980–2010. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Gorur, R. 2011. “Policy as Assemblage.” European Educational Research Journal 10 (4): 611–22. Grossmann, M. 2012. “Interest Group Influence on US Policy Change: An Assessment Based on Policy History.” Interest Groups & Advocacy 1 (2): 171–92. Howlett, M. 2002. “Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990–2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 235–68. Katzenstein, P. 1976. “International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States.” International Organization 30: 1–45. Larsen, M., and R. Al-Haque. 2016. “Higher Education Leadership and the Internationalization Imaginary: Where Personal Biography Meets the Socio-Historical.” In Assembling and Governing the Higher Education Institution, edited by L. Shultz and M. Viczko, 403–24. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Marcus, G.E., and Saka, E. 2006. “Assemblage.” Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2): 101–09. Müller, M. 2015. “Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space.” Geography Compass 9 (1): 27–41. Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. 2016. Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Pal, L.A. 2014. Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times. 5th ed. Toronto: Nelson. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rhodes, R.A.W., and D. Marsh. 1992. “Policy Networks in British Politics: A Critique of Existing Approaches.” In Policy Networks in British Government, edited by R.A.W. Rhodes and D. Marsh, 1–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, J. 2000. “Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change.” Political Studies 48 (5): 1006–25. Stier, J. 2004. “Taking a Critical Stance Toward Internationalization Ideologies in Higher Education: Idealism, Instrumentalism and Educationalism.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 2 (1): 1–28.

Canadian Internationalization Policy Network as Assemblage


Tamburri, R. 2015. “University Officers Can Resume Providing Immigration Advice to Foreign Students.” University Affairs. Trilokekar, R.D. 2009. “The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (dfait), Canada: Providing Leadership in the Internationalization of Higher Education?” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G. Jones, and A. Shubert, 98–118. Toronto: James Lorimer and Co. – 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. Viczko, M., and C.I. Tascón. 2016. “Performing Internationalization of Higher Education in Canadian National Policy.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (2): 1–18. Wu, C.-Y., and D. Knoke. 2013. “Policy Network Models.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, edited by E. Araral Jr., S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, and X. Wu, 153–63. London: Routledge.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

16 Who Speaks for International Education? An Ontario Case Study Amira El Masri

introduction International education (ie) is a multi-sector, multi-actor, and multicontext phenomenon that increasingly engages and mobilizes diverse policy discourses. The literature on media and educational policies has highlighted the media’s role in leading and framing public opinions, setting political agendas, and shaping policy processes through the choice, timing, and framing of stories/news (Saraisky 2015; Stack 2007). This chapter investigates the media’s role in “reorder[ing] the political landscape,” “framing policies in terms of conflict,” and influencing “how politics is conducted” (Hajer 2009, 5). It presents findings of a qualitative case study investigating the (re)construction of ie as a post-secondary education (pse) policy issue in Ontario in print media from 2005 to mid-2017. Using Hajer’s (1995) Discourse Coalition Framework (dcf), the study attempted to answer the following questions: What are the dominant and less dominant “storylines” that shape the media’s construction of ie in Ontario? What are the power dynamics between them? Who are the discourse coalition members that mobilize these storylines?

discourse coalition framework dcf conceptualizes politics and policies as struggles for discursive dominance where discourse facilitates/restricts actors in their

Who Speaks for International Education?


attempt to impose and persuade others to support their definitions of the social world (Hajer 1995). Discourse is defined “as a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer 2006, 67). dcf introduces the concept of discourse coalitions to refer to “the ensemble of (1) set of storylines; (2) the actors who utter these story-lines; and (3) the practices in which this discursive activity is based” (Hajer 1995, 65) over a particular period of time. Those storylines cluster knowledge, position actors, ascribe praise/blame, and construct policy problems/solutions (Hajer 1995). dcf contends that actors are attracted to storylines that “sound […] right” because of their plausibility, the perceived credibility of the actors mobilizing them, and/or the discursive practices in which the storylines are shaped (Hajer 1995, 63). Coalition members do not necessarily know each other, share interests, or coordinate efforts to influence policy-making. Policy actors and their efforts are constrained/enabled by social, economic, and political contexts. They engage in argumentative practices where language is (re)produced in a struggle for “discursive hegemony” (Hajer 1995, 59). Within this perspective, policy-making creates a sense of community that triggers ordinary citizens “to reflect on what they really value” (Hajer 2003, 88). Once this trigger is activated, they move from being “political activists on ‘stand by’” to “politically involved” (Hajer 2003, 88). They contribute to the discursive struggle by subscribing to, empowering, or hindering certain discourses. Discursive hegemony, which leads to policy change, is achieved when a storyline achieves coherence and credibility, dominates the discursive space (discourse structuration), and is reflected in institutional practices and policy documents (discourse institutionalization) (Hajer 1995). To examine how storylines are developed and coalitions formed, dcf proposes the use of Argumentative Discourse Analysis where a researcher examines what is said, by whom, to whom, in what context, and if/how actors’ discourse changes in different contexts (Hajer 2006). dcf allows for a close examination of the diverse discourses that are mobilized within the ie policy arena and identifies actors that generate and are attracted to different ie discourses, their relations, and discursive practices in a variety of spaces and at different scales.


Amira El Masri

methodology This study focused on the three highest readership newspapers in Ontario: the Toronto Star (a regional newspaper), the Globe and Mail, and the National Post (national newspapers) (Newspapers Canada 2016). The following search engines were used: Globe and MailToronto/ Quebec edition (ProQuest), cbca Complete (Education), Canadian Research Index (Microlog), Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies, and Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database. Based on a scan of the newspapers’ keywords, I developed a list of key search words such as “international education,” “internationaliz(s)ation,” “international/foreign students,” “student/faculty exchange/mobility,” “study abroad,” “academic partnerships,” “international education strategy,” “international education policy,” “foreign/international faculty/scholars/academics,” and “branch/offshore campuses.” The search was limited to pse, higher education, universities, and colleges and to the period of 2005 through mid-May 2017. The final corpus consisted of 414 articles. Following the principles of Argumentative Discourse Analysis, I coded the contents of the newspaper articles, identifying key discourses/storylines, those uttering them, and the socio-economic political contexts, rather than their general themes.

findings ie is presented in the media as an imperative in the current globalized world. The media is invested in comparing Canada’s/Ontario’s performance in ie to other international/national ie jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. It is also invested in Canada’s/Ontario’s relationship with emerging powerhouses, particularly China, India, and Brazil. ie tends to be discussed in the media in the context of and as a response to global, national, and provincial events and policies, a finding that was also reported by Whyte, Beelen, et al. (2016). Coverage of ie increases with events such as global turbulences (e.g., US elections and Brexit), recent changes in national immigration policies (e.g., the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and Express Entry) and the release of policies/reports by either federal or provincial governments (e.g., the Federal ie strategy and the Ontario Trillium Scholarship program). This explains the upward trend in the number of articles that deal (directly or indirectly) with ie (figure 16.1)1 as it is linked with multiple recent global, national, and provincial events.

Figure 16.1 Total of ie-related articles and corresponding major global, national, and provincial events

Who Speaks for International Education? 361


Amira El Masri

Examining the documents, policies/regulations, reports/studies, and programs that attracted the media’s attention in relation to ie showed that those commissioned/conducted by federal government agencies drew the most attention (153 instances). Since education is a provincial responsibility, the federal government’s involvement with ie occurs through economic, immigration, and foreign trade and foreign relations policies. Unsurprisingly, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (cic) is in the media’s spotlight (67 instances), as it is the federal entity that regulates the entry of international students, faculty, and scholars; their work in Canada; and transition to citizenship. Reports/studies (commissioned) by Global Affairs Canada (gac), the federal entity that oversees Canada’s foreign relations and international trade, also received a lot of attention (57 references), particularly with reference to its Economic Impact of International Education in Canada report (2009), the Advisory Panel’s International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity (2012), and Canada’s first federal International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity (2014). Provincially, 2010 was a pivotal year, with financial and budgetary policies (e.g., the Throne Speech, the Open Ontario Plan, and the Trillium Scholarship) attracting the most attention (20 instances). Reports/studies by the Canadian Bureau for International Education (cbie)2 were more successful in attracting the media’s attention than those conducted by pse institutions (14 versus 4). The media’s construction of ie tended to be more responsive to the federal/provincial governments’ reports and policies. National organizations’ reports/studies were more successful than provincial ones in attracting the media’s attention. Although education is a provincial matter, ie, more frequently than not, was discussed and framed in the media as a national issue.

storylines In analyzing the media’s coverage of ie between 2005 and mid-2017, three storylines emerged: (a) internationalize: it is good for the economy; (b) internationalize, yet manage the risks; (c) internationalize: it is Canada’s gateway to the world (henceforth referred to as Economy, Risks, and Gateway to the World respectively). All storylines agreed that ie is desirable in the pse sector. However, there were convergences and divergences in their definitions and approaches to ie, its rationales, and its activities. The more multi-interpretative a storylines is,

Who Speaks for International Education?


the more appealing it becomes, increasing its ability to attract “actors with different or at best overlapping perceptions and understandings” (Hajer 1995, 63). Internationalize: It Is Good for the Economy This was the most dominant storyline in terms of presence and ability to attract numerous and diverse coalition members (in terms of both scale and space). Economy promotes ie as an imperative in the current global knowledge economy. Throughout the period examined, this storyline evolved in scope, assembling four main discourses (business and trade, innovation, financial incentives, and labour and immigration), all of which link ie to the domestic economy (see figure 16.2). The first discourse, emerging in 2005, highlighted the role ie played in enhancing Canada’s/Ontario’s business and trade opportunities. ie was a must for developing/maintaining global business networks, developing an understanding of emerging markets, fostering international trade relationships, helping Canada/Ontario become a business hub, and building a globally experienced skilled labour force needed for Canadian/Ontarian local-going-global businesses. ie here was viewed through the lens of student mobility (international student recruitment and study abroad), the internationalization of curricula, and the development of branch campuses as well as academic research partnerships. A consistent coalition member of this discourse was business schools (administration, faculty, and students), particularly Schulich School of Business at York University, Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, the Ivey Business School at University of Western Ontario, and Smith School of Business at Queen’s University. To maintain and enhance Ontario’s economic competitive edge in this global economy, business education should “mirror the borderless business world today” (Brent 2006, n.p.). In 2012, the federal government joined this coalition through gac’s Advisory Panel Report and the federal International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity where the “educational brand [is linked] with trade diplomacy” by “promot[ing] education and trade together to foreign partners” (Bradshaw 2014, n.p.). International and national employers and recruiters, particularly banks, financial services, and high-tech companies, perpetuated this

Figure 16.2 Evolution of Economy storyline and its four main discourses in the media

The shading reflects the intensity of this discourse in the media. The darker the shade, the more intense this discourse was in the media. The emergence/intensity of the discourse in the media was linked to global, national, and provincial events represented in the boxes on the top.

364 Amira El Masri

Who Speaks for International Education?


discourse to highlight their need for a labour force with international exposure. It is interesting to note that the majority of journalists mobilizing this discourse were specialized in business/economics, national affairs, politics/foreign policy, and science/technology. The second discourse emphasized the role of ie in advancing Canada’s/ Ontario’s innovation and research agenda and its ability to compete in the current global knowledge economy. ie was necessary in “[m]aking Canada an innovation powerhouse” (Chakma 2014, n.p.). This theme emerged in the media in 2007, coinciding with the federal government’s Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage Strategy. The media celebrated the government’s investments in the Canada Research Chairs Program (aiming to attract/retain the best scholars) and its funding of research councils that promoted engagement in international research partnerships. In this discourse, ie was seen through domestic and international talent recruitment /retention (researchers, faculty, and graduate students), research partnerships, and universities’ international reputations as centres of research and innovation. This discourse stressed the fact that international students “[add] brainpower to research projects” (Brown 2015, n.p.). Its main champion was Mitacs,3 especially through its Globalink program (2009) that aimed to attract talented international graduate students. Research-intensive universities, most of which belong to the U154 (e.g., University of Toronto, Queen’s, McMaster, and Western), mobilized this discourse to lobby for funding related to federal/provincial research/graduate studies and partnerships (e.g., Brazilian Science without Border’s,5 2012; Ontario’s new funding model for graduate international students,6 2015). Ontario’s Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (maesd) mobilized this discourse in its Differentiation Policy Framework (2013), which signalled differentiated funding between research- and teachingfocused universities. This discourse was also perpetuated to advocate for/against immigration policies that were perceived to help/hinder attracting/retaining foreign researchers, faculty, and graduate students (e.g., the introduction of PhD/ma streams in the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program,7 2010; the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,8 2013). Immigration lawyers and talent acquisition consultancies, which support universities in their international hiring, perpetuated this discourse, arguing that “when it comes to certain positions … in the academic world, having international experience and skills can only


Amira El Masri

enhance our competitiveness” (quoted in Chiose 2015, n.p.). This discourse was also mobilized by business/economic, national, political affairs, and science/technology journalists, and university professors of economics and political and computer science, who warned that Canada has to decide to either “pursue global leadership in r&d or be bystanders … watching the world pass us by” (Olive 2009, n.p.). The global turbulences of 2016 such as Brexit in Europe and decisive United States elections were seen as an opportunity for Canada to attract global top talent. The third discourse revolved around the financial incentives for ie which, although present in the earlier years examined by this study, gained precedence as of 2009. Governments faced financial challenges due to the global recession, which were reflected in pse institutions’ shrinking/tighter budgets. Within this context, the federal government released its commissioned report titled Economic Impact of International Education in Canada (2009), quantifying the economic contribution of international students to the Canadian economy in terms of revenue and job creation. gac’s Advisory Panel Report on Canada’s International Education Strategy (Canada. fatdc 2012) and the federal International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity (Canada. fatdc 2014) perpetuated the same discourse. cic reproduced this discourse as an impetus for creating international student–friendly immigration regulations that helped attract more international students (e.g., the International Student Program;9 the second iteration of the Express Entry Program10). Whereas ie, particularly international student recruitment, as a means to generate economic benefits was instigated by the federal government, it was adopted immediately by the provincial government. Former Ontario premier McGuinty was frequently cited referring to gac’s 2009 report as well as to Australia’s success making ie “its third-largest industry” (quoted in Howlett 2010, n.p.). As Canadian pse institutions were desperate for financial resources, international student recruitment was constructed as “one bright spot” (Lam 2010, n.p.). However, there were disparities between these institutions. Those outside the Greater Toronto Area that were facing declining enrolments found international student recruitment to be financially rewarding. Institutions in the Greater Toronto Area already at/near enrolment capacity argued that without the government’s investment in capital expansion, international student recruitment would be an extra burden (Church 2010). School boards similarly faced with

Who Speaks for International Education?


declining enrolments and financial challenges perpetuated this discourse and engaged in pathway partnerships with pse institutions in an attempt to distinguish Canadian/Ontarian schools and universities from their national and international rivals in the race to attract international students who “bring … in much-needed new revenue” (Sieniuc 2014, n.p.). It is worth noting that while the federal and provincial governments instigated the financial incentive discourse in relation to international student recruitment, it was pse institutions that instigated it in relation to branch campuses (e.g., York University’s Schulich School of Business in India and Algonquin and Niagara Colleges’ in Saudi Arabia) as “government money … is dwindling and there is a need to raise capital from new sources” (pse administrator quoted in Alphonso 2012, n.p.). The fourth discourse focused on international student retention, constructing these students as an excellent source of skilled labour and a solution to Canada’s aging population, low birth rate, and skill shortage. Although there were brief references to this theme as early as 2007, this discourse gradually shifted to view international students as ideal or “model immigrants” in 2012 (cic minister quoted in Cohn 2012, n.p.). International students were constructed as “among the most fertile source of new immigrants for Canada. By definition, they are educated. They speak English or French … They know something about the country, so they should be first on our list of people who we court to come to Canada” (cic quoted in Zilio and Chiose 2016, n.p.). This gained precedence in 2012 with the release of gac’s Advisory Panel Report on Canada’s International Education Strategy followed by the federal International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity in which Canada’s fierce competition with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for foreign talent was highlighted. Whereas gac set the goal of retaining international students, cic operationalized it by “eas[ing] international students’ path to permanent residency” (Zilio and Chiose 2016, n.p.). This discourse was also supported by ministries of industry and finance as well as different economic advisory boards. Ontario’s provincial government picked up this discourse in 2009 (e.g., the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program). Employers also emerged as actors that highlighted the need to attract highly skilled workers, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, in order to “put a dent in


Amira El Masri

Canada’s growing skills gap” (Toronto-based employer quoted in Cryne 2016, n.p.). When cic announced the first iteration of the Express Entry Program, which withdrew the advantage international students had over other immigrants in applying for citizenship, immigration lawyers became politically involved and emerged as unconventional actors perpetuating the Economy storyline in their argument against it. A Toronto-based lawyer said, “The new system is flawed … we want people who went to school and have work experience in Canada. These people are already fully integrated. And now we are ignoring them. It is just bizarre” (quoted in Keung 2015, n.p.). Whether lawyers became involved to serve their self-interests (international students are their fee-paying clients) or because of their genuine belief in the value of international students is unknown. Regardless, they contributed to the Economy storyline. Internationalize, Yet Manage the Risks This discourse was built around the risks associated with ie that should be mediated. The Risks coalition attracted three main discourses: protect international students from victimization, protect Canadians from foreigners, and protect the quality of the learning experience at Canadian/Ontarian pse institutions. Whereas the first argument was present throughout the years examined, the second two emerged in 2010, coinciding with the emergence of discourses and policies that constructed ie as a source of financial revenue and talent acquisition (see figure 16.3). Protecting international students from victimization was a discourse present as early as 2005. Initially, this discourse focused solely on dubious and shady practices of some private educational institutions (colleges, recruitment agencies, and language schools). The media repeatedly reported on “unscrupulous [private] operators of degree mills that cater to the foreign market and don’t meet proper accreditation standards” (Church and Boesveld 2010, n.p.). Some public institutions expressed concern that “a few bad apples in the system” would tarnish the reputation of the whole sector and its ability to attract international students (Keung 2007). Internationally, embassies/ consulates, foreign media, and parents of international students spoke out. For example, in 2007, the Chinese government and media warned citizens against Canadian unregistered, unaccredited, or substandard private institutions.

Figure 16.3 Evolution of Risks storyline and its three main discourses in the media

The shading reflects the intensity of this discourse in the media. The darker the shade, the more intense this discourse was in the media. The emergence/intensity of the discourse in the media was linked to global, national, and provincial events represented in the boxes on the top.

Who Speaks for International Education? 369


Amira El Masri

cic and maesd emerged as regulatory bodies that protected international students by “crack[ing] down on sham colleges” (Keung 2012b, n.p.). maesd responded by developing the Private Career Colleges Act in 2005 with almost yearly updates afterwards. However, following government announcements of goals to increase the number of international students, this discourse gained a new dimension as faculty members and domestic students expressed concern over public pse institutions exploiting international students and treating them as “cash cows … to make up for gaps in revenue” (Brown 2014, n.p.). The media also reported on incidents of misleading /overpromising marketing by a few public colleges (see Hall 2015; Jones 2012) and the effects of labour strikes at public pse institutions on international students’ ability to complete their degrees. The Risks discourse was perpetuated in 2011/2012 following high-profile cases of homicide involving international students. Foreign media and parents employed this storyline, questioning the safety of their children and whether international students in Ontario/Canada would face racist incidents similar to those that erupted in Australia in 2010 (see Keung 2012a; Morrow and Wingrove 2011). Protecting Canadians from foreign competition was a discourse that intensified with the release of policies proposing increasing international student recruitment (e.g., Open Ontario; the federal ie strategy) and/or funding of international students (e.g., the Trillium Scholarship). Members of this coalition argued that policies targeting fee-paying students had attracted a “new wave of brash, rich Asians looking for safe place to ‘park their cash’” (Hutchinson 2014, n.p.). Foreigners used the international student visa to gain access to labour/housing markets and permanent residency. Hence, they threatened the integrity of the immigration system, competed with domestic students in the job market, and jeopardized the stability of the housing market (as some engaged in house flipping). Furthermore, international students competed for pse space and funding as well. This discourse intensified and became politically charged when funding for international students using taxpayers’ money was proposed. Once announced, the Trillium Scholarship for international doctoral students (2010) was critiqued heavily by Opposition parties who argued that the Ontario government was “out of touch with recession-weary Ontario families” and that it should invest in its own students who suffered from “high tuition fees and not being able to afford the cost of their education” (quoted in Bradshaw 2010, n.p.).

Who Speaks for International Education?


The president of the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation contributed to the Risks storyline by arguing that Ontario should invest in Indigenous youth rather than “sweetening the financial pot for foreign students” (quoted in Brown 2011, n.p.). Although the Risks storyline did not succeed in shutting down the Trillium Scholarship, it did influence subsequent government willingness to dedicate funds to international students in order “to avoid the firestorm it faced … [with the] Trillium scholarship” (Chiose 2014, n.p.). Whereas cic was an active Economy coalition member, it frequently switched coalition membership, joining the Risks coalition, whenever there were concerns over the integrity of the immigration system. cic became the entity that “weed[ed] out ‘disingenuous’ international students” (Keung 2012b, n.p.) and ensured that Canadians and permanent residents had the first opportunity at jobs. This discourse was mobilized with the introduction of changes to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the first iteration of the Express Entry Program. Protecting the quality of learning experiences was the third discourse in this storyline. It emerged in 2010 as a response to policies that constructed ie as a tool to generate revenue. This discourse focused on activities such as international student recruitment and the creation of branch campuses and partnerships, and was championed mainly by pse institutions and faculty members. The Council of Ontario Universities and Colleges Ontario argued that federal /provincial governments’ hefty goals of attracting international students should be matched with investments in support mechanisms and expansions to maintain the quality of education for both domestic and international students, particularly in pse institutions that were at (almost) full capacity (Bradshaw 2014; Church 2010). The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations called on the government and pse institutions’ administration to work together to boost international student support aid as well as maintain a reasonable student-faculty ratio. This would ensure that Ontario did not “award degrees that are inferior to degrees elsewhere” (quoted in Church 2010, n.p.). Members of this coalition frequently referred to the challenges the Australian pse sector faced in terms of declining quality, tarnished reputation, and financial instability. Quality carried different meanings for different Risks coalition members. It meant enriching cultural and education experiences for domestic and international students,


Amira El Masri

as well as maintaining strong admission requirements for international students to ensure that they were up to the Canadian academic standards. It also meant managing workloads for faculty who were “stretched by the demands of the institutions” abroad (Brent 2006, n.p.); avoiding the dilution of the Canadian brand abroad; and ensuring that Canadian institutions did not to engage in internationalization activities that were against Canadian values (e.g., concerns over academic freedom in partnerships with Confucius institutes [2013] and operating male-only branch campuses in Saudi Arabia [2016]). On a financial level, critics, mainly professors of economics and a few psis administrators, warned that pse institutions might (have) become too dependent on a volatile ie market. Internationalize: Canada’s Gateway to the World This storyline, presented as early as 2005, consisted of two discourses: the educational value of ie and the role of ie in shaping Canada’s/Ontario’s global image. Unlike the previous two storylines, the Gateway to the World storyline did not witness major shifts throughout the period examined. It constructed ie as a two-way stream where collaboration and partnership between different countries were fundamental to exchange knowledge, develop global citizenship, and build cultural bridges between countries. Members of this coalition included post-secondary institutions (administration, faculty, and students) and special interest groups (sigs) (e.g., uc, Council of Ontario Universities and Colleges Ontario, Mitacs, and cbie). With the exception of articles that focused on the value of study abroad experiences, this storyline was rarely presented in the media in isolation. It was mostly presented as a secondary storyline supporting a more dominant one (Economy or Risks) (see figure 16.4.). The education discourse perceived ie as the major force shaping pse institutions nationally and globally (Shoukri 2010). It transformed education and world perspectives and provided students and faculty with access to diverse learning communities where “[t]he classroom [becomes a] … global village” (Bitt 2012, n.p.). ie improved the quality of education by enhancing the interaction between people, facilitating the transmission of civilization, knowledge, and culture, and allowing youth to learn how to navigate the world successfully and peacefully. Other benefits included building global academic, scientific, business, and social contacts, new

Figure 16.4 Evolution of Gateway to the World storyline in the media

The shading reflects the intensity of this discourse in the media. The darker the shade, the more intense this discourse was in the media. The emergence/intensity of the discourse in the media was linked to global, national, and provincial events represented in the boxes on the top.

Who Speaks for International Education? 373


Amira El Masri

research, and language skills, as well as developing personal traits of self-confidence and self-reliance, and personal enrichment. Ultimately, it helped in developing “globally competent graduates” and fed into local and international communities fostering vibrant intellectual and cultural environments (Randall 2016). Although this discourse highlighted the importance of different ie activities, there was a special focus in the media on student mobility (international student recruitment and study abroad for domestic students). Interestingly, whereas this discourse was used to support government policies pertaining to international student recruitment, it was used to advocate/lobby for more funds/support for domestic students to study abroad. cbie was a strong advocate of study abroad in the media, as were post-secondary institutions’ administrators, faculty, and students from diverse disciplines (e.g., Business, Education, Political Science/International Relations, History, and Languages/Arts). Parents of Canadian students joined this coalition, arguing that studying abroad “broadens your horizons. It helps you see how other people cope. It opens your mind” (quoted in Leong 2013, n.p.). Of the unconventional actors perpetuating this discourse were private investment counselling firms. They argued that studying abroad exposes students “to new cultures, languages and people,” yet it comes “with a hefty price tag” that families need to plan for ahead of time through creating Registered Education Savings Plans for their children (Nairne 2010, n.p.). Investment counselling firms’ interest in study abroad could potentially be seen as a marketing strategy to attract possible clients. The second discourse within the Gateway to the World storyline emphasized the role of ie in building Canada’s global image. As globalization has transcended national boundaries, alignments and collaboration between countries do not happen through “pompous diplomatic agreements” but through diplomacy of knowledge and “through person-to-person interaction” (pse administrator quoted in Campbell 2012, n.p.). This discourse perceived ie as a channel for promoting Canada’s/Ontario’s reputation as a country “of inclusion, diversity and multiculturalism” (pse senior administrator quoted in Chiose 2017a, n.p.). Canada built its image as “a middle ground between the United States and Europe,” offering the technology and innovation of the United States along with the safety of Europe (pse faculty quoted in Chiose 2017b, n.p.). Education was perceived as “quiet diplomacy” and “soft power” where countries, through their

Who Speaks for International Education?


scholars, researchers, and students, engaged in dialogue and friendly argumentation to address conflict resolution (McWhinney 2010). ie helped Canada fulfill its role in the international community through providing academic support programs and scholarships to developing countries. Education could do what politics could not; for example, a faculty exchange program maintained academic relations and dialogue between Canada and North Korea, “one of the world’s most closed countries” (Hopper 2013, n.p.). This discourse was frequently used to support/oppose Canada’s foreign policies. For example, it was used to oppose the decision to move the old Canadian International Development Agency (which led/financed many Canadian philanthropic educational initiatives in different parts of the world) to become a part of the expanded Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in 2014. O’Neil (2014, n.p.) critiqued this shift as it “de-emphasized matters like human rights and poverty alleviation” to be more aligned with trade and investment. With recent turbulences hitting different parts of the world (e.g., the refugee crisis, stringent immigration rules, Brexit, and the decisive United States election in 2016), Canada “is seen as an increasingly rare bright light on the world stage” (Gertler 2016, n.p.). During this globally turbulent time, Canada became “a kind of foster home” offering support to academics and students around the world (pse senior administrator as quoted in Chiose 2017a, n.p.). In 2016, this discourse was used to critique the operation of men-only branch campuses and Canada’s trade relationship with Saudi Arabia, “which has an abysmal reputation for its treatment of women, dissidents and prisoners” (Chase 2016, n.p.).

conclusion This study focused on the media’s construction of ie during the period from 2005 through mid-2017 in Ontario and identified three main storylines: (a) internationalize: it is good for the economy; (b) internationalize, yet manage the risks; (c) internationalize: it is Canada’s gateway to the world. Each succeeded in assembling a variety of coalition members and multiple interpretations/discourses, which, while different, supported the overarching shared storyline. Championed by the federal and provincial governments, the Economy storyline attracted diverse actors who agreed, despite their different rationales and approaches, that ie was good for the Canadian/


Amira El Masri

Ontarian economy. Research-intensive universities and Mitacs championed the innovation discourse, business schools promoted business /trade, gac advocated for financial incentives, and cic championed immigration benefits within that storyline. Similarly, whereas the federal immigration regulatory entity (cic) and the provincial pse sector regulatory entity (maesd) remained the dominant promoters of the Risks storyline, this storyline attracted different pools of actors with different understandings of the nature of these risks and their mitigation. Some (e.g., the media, students, and sending countries) saw the victimization of international students, others (e.g., opposition parties, cic) felt that ie exposed domestic students to foreign competition, and yet others (e.g., faculty) saw it as jeopardizing the quality of the educational experience. The Gateway to the World storyline assembled two discourses, education and global image, and had the least diverse coalition membership, mainly pse administration, faculty, and students. While the Economy storyline was the most hegemonic, influencing policy-making, there were instances where the Risks storyline initiated policy change. The Gateway to the World storyline, on the other hand, was mobilized more often than not to support one of the two more dominant storylines. The Economy hegemony can be attributed to three reasons. First, the media’s coverage of ie was strongly linked with government policies, the champion of the Economy storyline, which gave this storyline precedence in the media. Second, unlike the other two storylines, Economy managed to be more coherent and “routinized,” leading to discourse structuration where central actors were persuaded by, or forced to accept, the rhetorical power of a new discourse and use it to conceptualize the world (Hajer 1995, 56). The majority of the newspaper articles that discussed ie made reference, briefly or extensively, to one or more aspects of the economic benefits of ie. Interestingly, there were multiple instances where opposing coalitions reiterated some aspects of the Economy storyline, unintentionally contributing to its power, dominance, and “reification” (Hajer 1995, 56). For example, despite their calls against international students’ treatment as “cash cows” and unregulated student fees, student groups reiterated the financial contributions of international students to the Ontario economy, citing the federal government’s commissioned report Economic Impact of International Education in Canada. These

Who Speaks for International Education?


statements by student groups became part of the discursive map and resulted in unintended political effects in furthering the power and dominance of the Economy storyline. Third, the Economy storyline achieved institutionalization both on the federal and provincial levels (e.g., the ie strategy, immigration policies facilitating international student work and retention, the Open Ontario Plan, the Trillium Scholarship, and changes to international student graduate funding). The Risks storyline also was successful in imposing its interpretation of the risks associated with ie, leading, in some cases, to policy change. For example, the discourse on the victimization of international students by some private career colleges reached structuration with its extensive media coverage, along with concerns voiced by international students and their countries. This discourse was institutionalized by the development, and frequent updates, of Ontario’s Private Career Colleges Act. On a federal level, this discourse achieved institutionalization with changes to the International Student Program and Temporary Foreign Worker Program. These were aimed at maintaining the integrity of the immigration system and protecting domestic students from foreign competition in the Canadian labour market. The Express Entry program was an instance where the Economy and Risks storylines struggled for discursive dominance. Whereas the Risks storyline achieved hegemony when the government withdrew privileges for international students when applying for citizenship, it was soon overpowered by the Economy storyline when the second iteration of this program reinstated those privileges and reiterated the value of international students to the Canadian economy. Hence, the Risks storyline’s ability to influence policy-making was linked to its ability to align its discourse with the Economy storyline, and its ability to politicize the discourse constructing governments as privileging foreigners over domestic students (e.g., funding and access to the labour market). One could argue that the dominance of the Economy and Risks storylines in the media’s coverage of ie could be attributed to the fact that the media generally gravitates toward news that is new, controversial, and has an immediate impact on the public’s lives and interests. Economy and Risks coalitions provided this type of news. ie in these two storylines was discussed mostly in concrete


Amira El Masri

materialistic ways, highlighting quantifiable and mostly short-term benefits and risks of ie. The Gateway to the World storyline focused on abstract ideas and unquantifiable long-term benefits of ie, which do not appeal to the “medialogic” of making news: “pitting protagonists against antagonists … [and] seeing exposing alleged conflicts as a journalistic success” (Hajer and Strengers 2012, 298). Hence, further research11 is needed to examine the dynamics of storylines, coalition members, and their discursive practices that influence policy-making. Although all three storylines were present in the media throughout the years examined, their power and dominance varied, as ie discussion in the media is strongly influenced by global, national, and provincial socio-economic political contexts. dcf provides a valuable lens to examine ie policy-making. In this study, it proved to be a useful tool to account for the different discourses that were produced by diverse players, disciplines, and fields such as immigration, the economy, and foreign affairs. dcf helped reveal unconventional actors who were members of the public and/or politicians who were not necessarily engaged in discussions pertaining to pse and/or ie, yet became politically active and contributed to the ie discourse to support “their own particular interests” and perspectives on ie (Hajer 1995, 14). Those diverse actors (re)produced certain storylines and fought for or against a certain construction of ie without necessarily orchestrating their actions or sharing deep values (Hajer 1995). Through mobilizing certain storyline(s), these actors contributed to the storylines’ hegemony. The concept of storylines and discourse coalition members helped account for those who perpetuated a particular storyline while masking the rationales behind their support, reducing discursive complexity and facilitating agreement on policy construction. dcf provided a framework to explain the fluidity in coalition membership that accounted for the contradictions that policy actors could show. It acknowledges that the same actors can mobilize different storylines in different contexts or even unintentionally contribute to the dominance of an opposing storyline. However, as these statements become part of the discursive place, they can have their (un)intended political effects in the argumentative struggle to impose a certain way of (re)defining ie. Finally, dcf provides a tool to develop a nuanced understanding of how global, national, and provincial political, economic, and social contexts help ie storylines emerge, gain/lose momentum, and/or align with other storyline(s).

Who Speaks for International Education?


notes 1 Data captured for 2017 was for the period from January to 15 May 2017, with a total of twenty-one ie-related media entries. The 2017 figure is an estimate extrapolated based on the last four years’ intra-annual trends: average occurrences between 16 May and 31 December for the years 2013 to 2016 was 59 percent. The same average was applied to extrapolate the number of occurrences for the balance of 2017. 2 cbie is a national, not-for-profit, non-governmental membership organization dedicated exclusively to IE, promoting global learning by mobilizing expertise, knowledge, opportunity, and leadership. 3 Mitacs is a national, not-for-profit organization supporting research-based innovation through working closely with partners in industry, academia, and government. 4 U15 is a collective of Canada’s self-declared research-intensive universities. It represents its members’ interests in research and research funding primarily to provincial and federal governments. They distinguish themselves as universities that foster the development and delivery of long-term, sustainable higher education and research policy in Canada and around the world. 5 Science without Borders, funded primarily by the Brazilian government, aims to send Brazilian students to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics internationally. The Brazilian government pays domestic rather than international graduate fees. As Canadian universities did not succeed in convincing the federal and provincial governments to share the funding, some universities opted to foot the bill, offering Brazilian graduate students discounted tuition. 6 The Ontario government agreed to extend graduate student funding to international students, allowing universities to use up to 25 percent of allocated public funding to support graduate international students. 7 Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program is an economic immigration program designed to help Ontario meet its labour market and economic development priorities. In 2010, an immigration path for international students with a PhD/ ma obtained from a publicly funded university in Ontario was introduced. Unlike most streams in the program, applicants through the PhD/ma streams can apply without securing job offers. 8 New regulations for foreign workers took effect on December 31, 2013. As a result, universities have to explain why a Canadian candidate was not hired for a position and outline a transition plan with details on how they will reduce their reliance on temporary workers. Universities argue that this hinders their ability to recruit international faculty and attract the best minds.


Amira El Masri

9 The International Student Program enabled international students to stay in Canada for up to three years following graduation, giving them more time to gain Canadian work experience prior to applying for permanent residency. It also reduced their Canadian work experience requirement for residency from twenty-four to twelve months. 10 The Express Entry Program, introduced in 2015, is an electronic application management system that applies to most of the immigration routes. In its first version, the program did not give extra points to applicants for their education in Canada. This was perceived to be counterproductive to Canada’s efforts to attract and retain international students as it withdrew an advantage they had in the previous system over other applicants. Amendments were introduced in its second iteration (2016) in which applicants with Canadian education received extra points. 11 This chapter is part of a larger study examining different data sources to shed light on ie policy-making in Ontario.

references Alphonso, C. 2012. “Where in the World are Canada’s Universities?” Globe and Mail, 12 October. Bitt, M. 2012. “The Classroom as Global Village.” National Post Financial, 27 March. Bradshaw, J. 2010. “Cost of McGuinty’s Foreign Scholarships Sparks a Row.” Globe and Mail, 9 November. – 2014. “More Foreign Students Wanted.” Globe and Mail, 16 January. Brent, P. 2006. “Foreign Students Flock to Canada: Schools’ mba Programs Make the Grade for Newcomers: Universities’ High Rankings Draw People from Around World. Toronto Star, 18 February. Brown, L. 2011. “Native Grads Could End Brain Drain, Leaders Offer.” Toronto Star, 14 June. – 2014. “International Students or ‘Cash Cows’?” Toronto Star, 11 September. – 2015. “International Students Add Brainpower to Research Projects.” Toronto Star, 13 August. Campbell, C. 2012. “Canadian Universities Bridge Foreign Student Tuition Gap to Attract Thousands of Brazilian Students.” Globe and Mail, 23 March. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2012. Advisory Panel Report on Canada’s International Education Strategy. Ottawa: gac. .aspx?lang=eng. – 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge

Who Speaks for International Education?


Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatc. http://interna Chase, S. 2016. “Ontario Colleges Operating Men-Only Campuses in Saudi Arabia under Scrutiny.” Globe and Mail, 21 January. Chakma, A. 2014. “Making Canada an Innovation Powerhouse.” National Post, 26 February. Chiose, S. 2014. “Ontario Considering Funding for Foreign Graduate Students.” Globe and Mail, 19 October. – 2015. “Canadian Universities Urge Ottawa to Relax Foreign Worker Program Rules.” Globe and Mail, 15 February. – 2017a. “Universities Canada Speaks Out Against Trump’s U.S. Travel Ban.” Globe and Mail, 29 January. – 2017b. “Canadian Universities See Surge of International Students.” Globe and Mail, 14 May. Church, E. 2010. “Colleges Seek Answers on Foreign Enrolment.” Globe and Mail, 25 March. Church, E., and S. Boesveld. 2010. “Ontario Takes Aim at Unapproved Universities that Target Foreign Students.” Globe and Mail, 10 April. Cryne, S. 2016. “Talent is Global Today and Canada Needs to Adapt.” Globe and Mail, 4 November. Cohn, T. 2012. “‘Young People Like These Can be Model Immigrants’: Kenney Wants More Foreign Students to Make Canada Their Home.” National Post, 9 November. Gertler, M. 2016. “A Strategic Moment for Canada.” Globe and Mail, 21 July. Hajer, M. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. -- 2003. “A Fame in the Fields: Policymaking and the Reinvention of Politics.” In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, edited by M. Hajer and H. Wagenaar, 88–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – 2006. “Doing Discourse Analysis: Coalitions, Practices, Meaning.” In Words Matter in Policy and Planning: Discourse Theory and Method in the Social Sciences, edited by M. van den Brink and T. Metze, 65–74. The Netherlands: Utrecht. – 2009. Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hajer, M., and B. Strengers. 2012. “Who Speaks for Climate Change: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 25 (2): 298–300.


Amira El Masri

Hall, D. 2015. “Ex-Students Sue College Over Online Program.” Toronto Star, 18 August. Hopper, T. 2013. “North Korea’s Canadian Classroom.” National Post, 2 January. Howlett, K. 2010. “Ontario Stakes Its Recovery on Education.” Globe and Mail, 9 March. Hutchinson, B. 2014. “Vancouver Being Transformed by New Wave of Brash Rich Asians Looking for Safe Place to ‘Park Their Cash.’” National Post, 12 December. Jones, A. 2012. “Foreign Students Win Class-Action Lawsuit against Toronto College for Misleading Course Description.” National Post, 21 November. Keung, N. 2007. “Reputation of Canada’s Private Colleges Takes a Hit; Ontario Law Aims to Repair Damage after China Warns Students about Education Scams.” Toronto Star, 15 February. – 2012a. “Overseas Parents Fret Over Students.” Toronto Star, 23 July. – 2012b. “Foreign Students who Aren’t ‘Genuine’ Won’t be Given Visa.” Toronto Star, 15 August. – 2015. “Foreign Students Left Behind in New Express Entry Immigration Program.” Toronto Star, 21 March. Lam, E. 2010. “Failing Grades: Canadian Schools are Desperate for Cash. Foreign Students are One Bright Spot.” National Post, 10 January. Leong, M. 2013. “Back to School by Plane.” National Post, 13 September. McWhinney, E. 2010. “I Remember.” Globe and Mail, 10 April. Morrow, A., and J. Wingrove. 2011. “Liu’s Death Hits Nerve with Foreign Students.” Globe and Mail, 23 April. Nairne, M. 2010. “The Global Student.” National Post, 10 September. Newspapers Canada. 2016. Circulation Report: Daily Newspapers 2015. Newspapers Canada. /2015-Daily-Newspaper-Circulation-Report-REPORT_FINAL.pdf. Olive, D. 2009. “Researching and Developing Ways to Save Canada’s r&d: New Brain Drain to U.S. Could Start Sapping Us of Our Brightest Minds and Our Innovative Potential.” Toronto Star, 17 May. O’Neil, P. 2014. “$20M Plan Aims to Lure Foreign Students: Branding, Higher Fees Help Support Canada’s Universities.” National Post, 15 January. Randall, A. 2016. “Globally Competent Graduates.” Globe and Mail, 15 June. Saraisky, N.G. 2015. “Analyzing Public Discourse: Using Media Content Analysis to Understand the Policy Process.” Current Issues in Comparative Education 18 (1): 26–41. Shoukri, M. 2010. “Universities Change with the Times.” Toronto Star, 29 October.

Who Speaks for International Education?


Stack, M. 2007. “Representing School Success and Failure: Media Coverage of International Tests.” Policy Futures in Education 5 (1): 100–10. Sieniuc, K. 2014. “Schools Ease Standards to Draw More Foreign Students.” Globe and Mail, 13 August. Whyte, T., K. Beelen, A. Mierke-Zatwarnicki, C. Cochrane, and P. Loewen. 2016. What’s the Story? National Media Coverage of Higher Education in Canada. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Zilio, M., and S. Chiose. 2016. “Ottawa Looks to Ease International Students’ Path to Permanent Residency.” Globe and Mail, 14 March.


Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Glen A. Jones

17 Across the Divide: Critical Conversations on Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

We need to learn again how five centuries of studying, classifying, and ordering humanity within an imperial context gave rise to peculiar and powerful ideas of race, culture, and nation that were, in effect, conceptual instruments that the West used to both divide up and to educate the world. (Willinsky 1998, 2–3)

introduction The internationalization and Indigenization of higher education have become recognizable features in the Canadian higher education landscape. Internationalization has grown to be a high priority for higher education institutions (heis) reflected in their strategic plans and policy documents. Of Canadian universities there are 95 percent that include internationalization in their strategic plans, and 82 percent identify it as one of their top five priorities (cbie 2016). Indigenization began somewhat informally over forty years ago with Indian Control over Indian Education (nib 1972). Most recently, following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (trc) report (Canada. trc of Canada 2015a), the movement has gained renewed focus with higher education intentionally committing to the work of reconciliation through Indigenization efforts. As scholars and practitioners in the fields of internationalization (Beck) and Indigenous1 education (Pidgeon), and as colleagues in a Canadian faculty of education, we observed how we were set up in

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


adversarial positions, competing for institutional and government resources. In policy discussions or strategic planning at our institution, the internationalization agenda was often prioritized over Indigenous education, further emphasizing the perceived and real divisions between Indigenization and internationalization. Although, in our view, it is of greater moral, ethical, and educational importance, Indigenization often lacks the profile, resources, and organizational support that internationalization enjoys. In our scholarship, we have identified deep-rooted problems relating to each of our fields. In internationalization, key among them are tokenism and the marginalization of Indigenous values and perspectives central to Indigenization. In Indigenous education, problems have arisen from the harms of an economic agenda, silence on cultural difference, and the neglect of educational values pertinent to Indigenous ways of knowing and being within internationalization efforts. Recognizing the colonial roots of the university system (Battiste 2014; de Wit 2002; Dolby and Rahman 2008; Naidoo 2010) and the legacy of colonization at home and abroad, we asked ourselves if our efforts to seek principled internationalization and Indigenization had more in common than we realized. This chapter represents an important missing dialogue between the Indigenization and internationalization of higher education in the Canadian context. In it, we argue that a wholistic,2 decolonial framework drawn from Indigenous values and principles could advance a principled internationalization of higher education. We begin with a grounding in a popular definition of internationalization, followed by a discussion in which we argue that internationalization is connected to, and even rooted in, imperialism. We next provide an overview of Indigenization. We then articulate its role in decolonizing the hei and consolidating the common need for decolonizing across internationalization and Indigenization processes on Canadian campuses. This discussion includes a description of a wholistic decolonial framework, which leads into a consideration of how this framework could guide policy decisions on internationalization.

understanding internationalization We begin our discussion on internationalization with definitions. The terms international education (ie) and internationalization have been used interchangeably by practitioners, educators, and scholars


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

(Knight 2004), and notably so in the Canadian context. Canadian scholar Jane Knight’s definitions of internationalization have been very influential in the field, not just in Canada but internationally. Observing that the early definitions of internationalization reflected what she termed an “activity approach” to internationalization, describing the various activities that can be designated international, her definition (first described in 1994, and subsequently updated in a study in 2003) reflected a “process approach”: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight 2003, cited in Knight 2004, 11). She used the terms international to denote the relationships between nations, intercultural to show the diversity of internationalization at home, and global to express the scope of the process (Knight 2004, 11–12). Acknowledging that there are other definitions in use (e.g., Hudzic 2011), in this chapter we specifically refer to the Knight definition. It is the most influential one in Canadian higher education institutional strategic plans, and often the primary theoretical perspective relating to internationalization that has guided the crafting of institutional and provincial policy on internationalization. However, as Beck (2009; 2012; 2013) has argued in previous work, the Knight definition of internationalization does not account for the complexity that is referred to, but not analyzed within, research or practice. Furthermore, as it means “different things to different people,” the definition has been used to legitimate an uncritical adoption of a range of approaches under the umbrella of internationalization (Hunter 2016). Accordingly, these conceptual and theoretical weaknesses make internationalization susceptible to dominant ideologies such as neoliberalism, and align it with new forms of imperialism, as we argue below. It is worth noting that the European scholars de Wit and Hunter (2015) created a new definition to counter this inadequacy They added the notion of intentionality, and directives toward equity and social justice outcomes, to Knight’s definition, defining it as “the intentional process of integrating an international intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of postsecondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit and Hunter 2015, p.3). The point we wish to establish is that definitions of internationalization are contested, and neither value-neutral nor objective.

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


internationalization as an imperial project The scholarship of Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2006) framed our continuing argument on the links between internationalization and imperialism. Smith (2006) articulated the connections between the terms imperial and colonial, noting that colonialism is but one aspect of imperialism. She categorized the latter into four forms: (1) economic expansion, (2) “the subjugation of ‘others,’” (3) an idea that is manifested in and experienced through diverse forms, and (4) “a discursive field of knowledge” (Smith 2006, 21). Some aspects of these categories can be traced in the ideas and activities of internationalization. The beginnings of internationalization in its contemporary form, referred to then as international education (ie), can be traced to international development assistance following the Second World War (Pengelly 1989; Scott 2000). Educational assistance, in the form of technical expertise, program and curricular development, and student and faculty exchange programs, was among the first international activity in the higher education sector in Canada (Pengelly 1989; Trilokekar 2010), establishing the somewhat stereotypical Canadian identity as the “benevolent” helper (Jefferess 2008). International activity was focused on North-South relations (de Wit 2002), and was supported by federal policy on international development assistance, known as humane internationalism (Trilokekar 2010). These policies also promoted the inflow of international students from the Global South, and visits of Canadian faculty to universities in the Global South, reproducing colonial patterns of international mobility and the universalization of Western values and knowledge, and reifying students from the South as objects of development (Schendel and McCowan 2015). As Pengelly (1989, 23) noted wryly, “The implications and ethics of transferring Western technologies into other cultural settings” were not discussed in those early days of international programming, and “colonialism and imperialism are seldom discussed directly and, in the rare instances when they are, international education activities are absolved of such possible negative outcomes.” There is an extensive body of literature discussing the connections between development and imperialism (e.g., Lee, Maldonado-Maldonado, and Rhoades 2006; McCowan and Unterhalter, 2015; Rist 2008; Sachs 2010; Shahjahan 2013; Tikly 2004; Unterhalter and Carpentier 2010), which supports our argument on the imperial


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

logics connected to these early Canadian higher education and international activities. Tracing Canadian international engagement from these beginnings through the 1990s, one can see a perceptible shift away from a service orientation (itself not without critique) to a market model – “aid to trade” (Johnstone and Lee 2014; Trilokekar 2010). This shift, driven at the institutional level through intensified international student recruitment, is significant in the ways that it has shaped and continues to influence higher education policy and practice into what is recognized as a neo-liberal orientation (Marginson 2004; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). Stier (2004) argued that an instrumental ideology has created a strong connection between education and economic growth, where the economic prowess of a country is consolidated through a labour force that is positioned to be competitive through high education levels, intercultural skills, and flexibility to function in a complex global environment. While developments in higher education appear to provoke innovation and creativity in how universities respond to global change, unintended consequences are apparent, such as deepening inequities relating to access (Unterhalter and Carpentier 2010), brain drain for low-income countries, benefits accruing to Western/Northern universities and nations (Rizvi and Lingard 2010; Tikly 2004), and the hierarchical relations arising from the so-called “neutrality” of the knowledge society (Naidoo 2010). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review further the extensive literature connecting globalization to internationalization, except to identify how these analyses explain Canadian internationalization, with its dominant focus on international student recruitment and revenue generation from international students. These policy directions, visible largely in institutional internationalization policies and provincial documents (e.g., the bc strategy), were taken up in the long-awaited first Canadian federal strategy on ie (Canada. fatdc 2014). Its very title is revealing: Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. The document is rife with the language of competition: the strategy aims to “maximize economic opportunities for Canada,” engage with “new and emerging markets,” and attract “the best and brightest international students” (Canada. fatdc 2014, 5); one of its key strategies is “branding Canada to maximize success” (10). In Marginson’s (2006, 35) analysis, these strategies promote unequal relations among universities and nations, and “the often uni-

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


directional flows of people, capital and knowledge associated with those inequalities – are necessary to global competition.” Further, the advancement of internationalization is heavily reliant on and embedded in initiatives such as the global university rankings (see Stack 2016) and the promotion of the Canada brand. Using Smith’s (2006) categories of imperialism, internationalization policy has promoted economic expansion, through globalization and its attendant neo-liberal characteristics, in what Tikly (2004) described as the new imperialism. Eurocentric systems have become the tool of subjugation that suppress diverse knowledges and ways of being. The rhetoric of global citizenship, and intercultural and international knowledge, produce the discourse that creates the unassailability of internationalization. Stier (2004) argued that this has led to the common idealistic rationales of internationalization, describing how these “taken-for-granted” conceptions of internationalization as “being good for everyone” influence practice.

indigenization Indigenization, a movement dating back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, notably through Indian Control over Indian Education (nib 1972), has more recently been brought into renewed focus following the trc’s (Canada. trc of Canada 2015b) Calls to Action. Specific to this work, Indigenization as a decolonizing policy framework is aimed at wholistically supporting Indigeneity and Indigenous success through cultural empowerment – the meaningful systematic inclusion of Indigenous knowledges, languages, and cultures (Pidgeon, 2016). One way this work is being taken up within heis in Canada is through the Indigenization of institutional policies, led by Indigenous peoples or co-written with them, such as Aboriginal strategic planning documents (e.g., at Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia, Nipissing University, Western University, and Memorial University). A 2016–17 scan of every public Canadian university and college found that the majority of Canadian universities and colleges (~ 95 percent) have some form of Indigenous student affairs unit on their campuses (up from 45 percent, based on earlier work by Pidgeon in 2001). Alongside these units, institutions have developed cultural protocol policies (e.g., for smudging and sweat lodge practices), Aboriginal admission policies (in terms of reserved seats, proportional repre-


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

sentation, or pathway programs for admission), and funding policies (e.g., third-party billing where institutions work with third-party funders). The Colleges and Institutes of Canada have been working together on implementing an Indigenous Education Protocol for Colleges and Institutes. The Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association (, representing Aboriginal institutions in British Columbia and other Aboriginal institutions across Canada (e.g., First Nations University, Blue Quills College), has centralized Indigeneity from policy, programs, and services and is an exemplary role model of how to do such work with integrity and resilience. Furthermore, institution-wide policies are now influenced by institutional responses to the Calls of Action, notably in the area of curriculum to redress the truth of residential schools and broaden Canadians’ understanding of the complexity of this history within contemporary Canadian society. For example, Simon Fraser University’s 2017 Walk This Path with Us, in response to the trc’s (Canada. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015b) 94 Calls to Action, specifically called for curriculum reform across the university to support reconciliation.

indigenization as a decolonizing project Institutions of higher education have played a central role in perpetuating the violences of modernity. (Andreotti, Stein, et al. 2015, 30)

Decolonization must begin with acknowledging the impact of colonization on Indigenous peoples. Marie Battiste and others have written extensively on the impact of colonization on the Canadian education system and the impact this, in turn, has had on Indian control over Indian education. Higher education has been a tool of colonization and has had direct impact on the entire lived experiences of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, as education, health, law, and other societal structures were all entangled in attempts at genocide and assimilation (Canada. Royal Commissions. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996). Indigenous people’s relationship with higher education was tumultuous and scattered for the first hundred years due to federal policies (i.e., Indian Act 1876, since modified to be the Indian Act

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


[R.S.C., 1985, c. 1–5]) and the impact of residential schools on the educational pathways of Indigenous peoples (e.g., low skill, menial labour positioning) (Canada. Royal Commissions. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996; Stonechild 2006). In 1876, the Indian Act dictated the federal government’s relationship with First Nations in Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1–5); while education for the rest of Canadians falls under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government is responsible for K–12 First Nations education for on-reserve First Nations. It is important to note that the federal government does not see a legal obligation to pse for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples. Consequently, particular to higher education, the Indian Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1–5) does not include specific mention of federal support for pse, while this policy enfranchised any First Nations person who pursued higher education from 1876 to the 1950s (i.e., they lost their status and consequently federal support). Later amendments (1951 and 1985) to the Indian Act dealt with issues of enfranchisement that were deemed discriminatory (Canada. Royal Commissions. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996; Stonechild 2006). Furthermore, during the residential school period, universities were sites of further colonization whereby professionals (such as teachers, lawyers, and social workers) were trained to see the “Indian problem” rather than value and support Indigenous ways of knowing and being in relationship to education, law, and social work practices (Canada. Royal Commissions. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996; Canada. trc 2015a; Stonechild 2006). Marie Battiste (2013; 2014) has called for the decolonization of education to become a tool of empowerment for Indigenous peoples. This has called on members of Canadian society to re-centre Indigenous ways of knowing and being within Canadian society. In the education system, this commitment extends to curriculum, pedagogy, programs, and policies. Indigenization has further extended this call to see systematic transformation of a colonial educational system through dismantling colonial practices and power and centring Indigenous knowledges and ways of being across institutional policies and practices (Alfred and Corntassel 2005; Pidgeon 2014, 2016). Lived experiences and the interconnection of relationship to place are central to ideas of Indigenization that challenge heis to acknowledge their location, on oftentimes unceded Indigenous lands, and their own histories of colonization. The question being posed across institutions in this country is, What does Indigenization mean? Also, more importantly,


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

HOW do we Indigenize (and hence, decolonize) our policies, practices, and programs without them becoming tokenist acts of representation and cultural appropriation? These same questions can be posed in international contexts. How do we recognize the original peoples of the places we visit as “visitors” and how do we truly decolonize international policies, programs, and practices so that we engage in respectful and mutual educational relationships across and within borders? From our perspective, we see decolonizing heis as the recognition of the ongoing oppression maintained in colonial Settler-Indigenous contexts, relationships, structures, and systems, as well as an interrogation of power relations in imperialist contexts locally, nationally, and globally. In both international and Indigenous contexts, we need to recognize and address what Smith (2006, 23) has called “the reach of imperialism into ‘our heads,’” leading to “a need to decolonize our minds, to recover ourselves, to claim a space in which to develop a sense of authentic humanity.”

addressing concerns through the deans’ accords The Association of Canadian Deans of Education (acde) created a policy initiative in the form of accords on matters of educational importance. They serve as both a critique of the status quo and a call to action for principled practice. As the preamble to the accords state: “It is hoped that the Accords, taken individually or collectively, may also serve as useful guidelines … and as reference points for development and enabling public policy” (acde 2014, 1). Nationally, the Internationalization Accord (acde 2014) was developed by the acde after their work on the Indigenous Education Accord (acde 2009), whose relational development process influenced how acde approached the Internationalization Accord. We enter into this broader conversation on international policy – the focus off this book – from the accords themselves, which prompted important policy shifts for internationalization. More importantly, as demonstrated by the process used to create the accords, internationalization has much to learn from Indigenization.

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


The Accord on Indigenous Education (acde 2009) Drs Jo-ann Archibald, John Lundy, Cecilia Reynolds, and Lorna Williams, Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars from across Canada, were the leaders on the development of the Accord on Indigenous Education. Their collective efforts built upon the work of those who came before in advocating for policy changes in the approach to Indigenous education (e.g., the 1972 Indian Control over Indian Education; the 1996 rcap report). While the trc (Canada. trc of Canada 2015a; 2015b) reports occurred after this accord, they share a common spirit and intention – all of these documents articulate the need for the decolonization of our educational systems to support Indigenous learning across the lifespan. Education (and, specifically, teacher education) is held accountable by specifying that each teacher education candidate complete their training with clear competencies related to Indigenous education. The accord clearly names “the processes of colonization have either outlawed or suppressed Indigenous knowledge systems, especially language and culture, and have contributed significantly to the low levels of educational attainment” (acde 2009, 2). Articulated within the principles of social justice, respectful collaborations, multiple partnerships between educational and Indigenous communities, and the diversity of Indigeneity across the country, “the vision is that Indigenous identified cultures, languages, values, ways of knowing, and knowledge systems will flourish in all Canadian learning settings” (acde 2009, 4). The goals of the Accord on Indigenous Education can be seen as interrelationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples across faculties of education, Indigenous communities, schools, and other educational organizations. All of these are responsible for Indigenous education across the curriculum, through pedagogy, policies, and practices (e.g., assessment) and for the meaningful and respectful inclusion of Indigenous languages, cultures, research, and leadership across this system. Within these goals are clear directions of acknowledging power and colonial practice, understanding oneself in relation to others, and the centrality of Indigenous knowledges to Indigenous education and learning. The accord seeks to right the past wrongs of the Canadian education system, starting with teachers and educational leaders in our K–12 system and, in turn, directly influencing how faculties of education guide others within higher education as to how to take up their


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

responsibilities for and commitment to Indigenization. The next section speaks to how these decolonizing approaches were also present within the development of the Internationalization accord. Accord on the Internationalization of Education (acde 2014) The Internationalization accord, similar to the Accord on Indigenous Education, grew out of concerns raised by scholars (in the field of international and global education) about prevailing practices of internationalization. In taking leadership in this call to action, the acde identified values that would support a “principled internationalization.” The accord identifies the broad concerns, namely, the impact of the market-driven economic orientation of internationalization, the rapid increase in student mobility affecting “the capacity of institutions to respond to service demands in ways that are socially accountable” (acde 2014, 2), and the challenges faced by educational institutions through the increasing complexity, uncertainty, and inequity in social conditions. The accord names risks associated with internationalization that are connected to the above concerns, which include the uncritical adoption of exploitative practices based in profit-seeking systemic exclusion, personal and social disruption, neocolonial practices, and the risk to participants engaged in international activities. Among the many benefits of internationalization are the potential for “enriching and enhancing educational experiences for all students” (acde 2014, 2) and, most importantly, the possibilities for systemic change. The accord promotes five principles: (1) economic and social justice and equity across contexts and sites of educational practice; (2) reciprocity as the foundation of internationalization; (3) global sustainability; (4) intercultural awareness, ethical engagement, understanding and respect; and (5) equity of access to education (acde 2014, 6). It goes on to outline implications for practice that arise out of these principles. Common to both accords is the potential for systemic change inherent in their approaches. For example, the intent to change educational practices of teachers to improve educational experiences for all students, whether international or domestic, or Indigenous or nonIndigenous, is common to both. One can argue that the principles of intercultural awareness identified in one are strongly connected to the respect for Indigenous ways of knowing and being promoted in

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


the other. In fact, the common principles of social justice and equity, respect, ethical engagement, and reciprocal understanding further support our argument that a wholistic approach will strengthen policy and practice in each area. In the spirit of these accords as national policy directive for faculties of education, there are lessons for the rest of the higher education community. The identification of common principles, strategies, and approaches in the accords is a good starting point. We argue more specifically for the adoption of decolonizing strategies as an important policy task for internationalization, and one that cannot be separate from Indigenization. As we observe and learn from those working to change our educational system to be more inclusive and respectful of Indigenous ways of knowing and being, it is clear that the work we are embarking on cannot be tokenist (Pidgeon 2016), simply a metaphor (Tuck and Yang 2012), or seen as “others’” work (i.e., deferring responsibility) (Pidgeon 2016). We are all responsible. That responsibility must extend from our own practices to the broader ways in which we engage within our institutions, and in particular, it must extend to the ways in which we work with various communities in ie.

learning from indigenization and decolonization Meaningful change, the true transcendence of colonialism, and the restoration of indigenous strength and freedom can only be achieved through the resurgence of an indigenous consciousness channelled into contention with colonialism. (Alfred 2009, 48)

To build on Alfred’s (2009) quote, and “to assert and regain humanity” (Smith 2006, 26) internationalization also must be put into contention with colonialism for this work to have meaningful change; Indigenization provides important lessons in this regard. Tuck and Yang (2012, 3), for example, provide an important cautionary note, arguing that “decolonization is not a metaphor. When metaphor invades decolonization, it kills the very possibility of decolonization; it recenters whiteness, it resettles theory, it extends innocence to the settler, it entertains a settler future. Decolonize (a verb) and decolonization (a noun) cannot be easily grafted onto pre-existing discourses/


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

frameworks, even if they are critical, even if they are anti-racist, even if they are justice frameworks.” As Tuck and Yang have reminded us, it is also possible for these critical conversations to be misread and taken up by settlers as a way of “owning” the work that lies ahead. In truth, settlers are responsible for the work of decolonizing themselves (indeed, working within Indigenous and international contexts requires this), and it is no longer acceptable to have token responses to the inclusion of Indigeneity in higher education (Pidgeon 2016). We are not advocating for speaking for others; we are not advocating for the taking up of Indigenous worldviews by non-Indigenous as their own. We are suggesting that learning from and within the Indigenization movement would help move internationalization from operating as a tool of the oppressor to a tool of decolonization. The work of decolonization is, as Tuck and Yang (2012) argued, unsettling, and internationalization requires an unsettling to advance it toward the preferred futures identified in the Deans’ accord. We suggest that one such way of unsettling can occur when we look to Indigenous theoretical frameworks, grounded in place and cultural understanding, to re-centre internationalization in core values of educational importance. The Indigenous wholistic framework (Pidgeon 2008; 2016) is one such framework that provides visual representation of the interconnections of the physical, emotional, cultural, and intellectual realms with the interrelationships of self to family, community, and nation while fundamentally grounded in place. This framework, surrounded by the 4Rs (Kirkness and Barnhardt 1991), centres on the respect of Indigenous knowledges, reciprocal relationships, relevance, and responsibility to guide us in implementing Indigenization throughout the post-secondary system, including internationalization processes. (See figure 17.1.) The decolonizing task is complex and multi-layered. We are reminded that policy and processes taken for granted, often hidden in plain sight, reflect the “deep structure which regulates and legitimates imperial practices” (Smith 2006, 28). In the emerging awareness and recognition of the interconnectedness of Indigenization and internationalization, we are mindful that the integration of decolonization by settlers and their institutions could be a strategy based on avoidance: “[It] is one way the settler, disturbed by her own settler status, tries to escape or contain the unbearable searchlight of complicity, of having harmed others just by being one’s self. The desire to reconcile

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


Figure 17.1 Indigenous wholistic framework

is just as relentless as the desire to disappear the Native; it is a desire to not have to deal with this (Indian) problem anymore” (Tuck and Yang 2012, 9). Therefore, as internationalization must not be complicit in this avoidance, there are critical questions for those of us engaged in internationalization to ask of ourselves and our field: what would the decolonization of internationalization policy and practice look like if we made respectful, equitable, and ethical relationships foundational to the policy framework and enactment? Wane, Shahjahan, and Wagner (2004, 500) argued for “walking the talk” in ie, as a critical analysis of the impact of Eurocentric institutions in establishing what is of value in the academy through “the indoctrination of students into a Western system of thought.” They continued, “If development work is to be conducted in an ethical manner, we must interrogate the implications of an educational system that reifies Eurocentric systems of thought, while simultaneously devaluing indigenous knowledges and multiple ways of knowing” (Wane, Shahjahan, and Wagner 2004, 500). When we reflect on the Indigenous wholistic framework and the 4Rs in relation to decolonizing internationalization, several lessons come to mind. First, central to this work is understanding and


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

acknowledging the territories upon which one is doing this work. It is necessary for the respecting and clear positioning of the colonial relationship to these lands and peoples to become part of the consciousness raising of the decolonizing work ahead for internationalization. The principles of relevance and reciprocity should make us stop and reflect upon our intentions. How are those intentions articulated (or hidden) within international policy itself, and how do we then use such policies? What are we, who are involved in international work, attempting to learn, know, or understand? Who benefits from this work? Who is present/involved? Who is left out of the conversation? When internationalization policy is being developed in areas where Indigenous peoples live and reside (e.g., articulating agreements between two institutions in two different countries), where are the Indigenous faculty, staff, and students in the policy process? How do we centre Indigenous knowledges and ways of being within international contexts? We pose these questions for reflective discussion as a means to advance internationalization toward principled practices.

toward decolonizing internationalization We need spaces to collectively step back and ask questions about the limits of resistance that [are] produced within the same modern/colonial imaginary we seek to contest: What kinds of futurities do we want from universities, and for ourselves within them? To what extent has the dominant global imaginary shaped these desired futurities, and what kinds of harms would be required to achieve them? Furthermore, what if it is not possible for universities (in their modern institutional form) to fulfill these desires? Alternatively, if we let go of these desires or at least loosened our grip on them, without necessarily exiting the university, what else might become possible? (Stein and Andreotti 2015, 178)

In considering internationalization as an ongoing colonial project, we are compelled to think about the implication of this statement – to consider how proposed solutions can transcend the reproduction of colonization and move us forward toward “preferred futures” (acde 2014). This chapter reflects our stepping back to see what is possible, and in this imaginary of the decolonial project, to seek to understand the futurity of internationalization as revisioned through Indigenization.

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


We understand the limitations of a conversation in text, as even in the writing of this chapter, our thinking and conversation shifted as it should, becoming more complex, and even complicated. This conversation will continue through the readers of this volume. We hope it will bring forward ways in which Indigenous education and internationalization are not competing but journeying together in decolonizing our institutional policies and practices for a future that supports diversity, difference, and equity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, locally and globally. This “discussion” is, for us, a “reaching the edge of our knowing and being – and jumping with our eyes closed” (Andreotti, Stein, et al. 2015, 36). In asking ourselves what decolonization would entail, we are intentionally moving beyond the traditional idea of reform (Andreotti, Stein, et al. 2015). We are intentionally challenging the imperial agenda and influence over internationalization through the 4Rs of the Indigenous wholistic framework. The following represents some of our own working through of what this might look like as a policy agenda. Respect for Different Ways of Knowing and Being While Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) were specific in their reference to Indigenous knowledge(s), respect for diverse ways of knowing and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples are very much applicable to the work within ie. We, particularly those of us from Western culture, must take a step back to question what we know, how we know it, and what we understand in relation to those we work with. Our policies must also be based on this principle of respect. How would federal policy on internationalization then reflect and honour the different ways of knowing, and the different philosophies, cultures, and experiences, that push us beyond “us-them” differentiation and help us truly to understand ourselves in relationship to others? What is the language that needs to be evident in federal policy to move beyond competition toward a more collaborative, relational model of internationalization? Responsibility to Land and Peoples This principle leads us to understand self in relation to others, and to intercultural knowledges that allow us to understand our own social locations and work alongside others who are culturally dif-


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

ferent. How might we understand location and place in our work; for example, whose territories are we working within, and what protocols subsequently need to be respected within this work as a visitor or host on Indigenous lands? In reflecting on how federal policy on internationalization would need to shift, one obvious direction would be for the policy to acknowledge clearly the territories and peoples within the context of ie. As many institutions in Canada now have territorial acknowledgements as part of their protocol for opening official events, including this acknowledgement on course syllabi, for example, would be a step forward. However, what also must occur is education about why such acknowledgements are important – what are the stories of the peoples and lands this acknowledgement is meant to evoke? Without those teachings, the acknowledgement becomes lost as a “thing we must do” rather than something we must understand. Reciprocal Relationships Institutional policies and practices directly impact students as do federal and provincial policies. How might we integrate principles of reciprocity that challenge the Indigenous-settler relational norms, and how might this result in changing international student experiences? In working/studying/researching internationally or at home hosting international students, what is the quality, purpose, intention, and goal(s) in our working with others? Are we being reciprocal in those relationships (e.g., questioning not only what we can gain from the experience but what we offer to share in return)? The principle of reciprocity goes beyond “give-and-take”; it is more about respecting the sharing of knowledges and experiences, and understanding that each person involved in the relationship has something to contribute and something to learn. Taking this intentionality forward, particularly in institutional internationalization policies, will directly influence our practices. Relevant Policies, Programs, and Services Policies must clearly articulate intent to decolonize (i.e., as we discussed earlier, the move to make visible the hidden curriculum). For example, could Canadian federal policy aimed at increasing Canada’s economic and human capital diversity through the recruiting of inter-

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


national students shift away from an economic driver to a genuine valuing of difference as an important element of being and knowing? Again, what would that policy look like in practice? Could we shift from discourses of the “good” immigrant as a moral imperative to a centring of Indigenous wisdom traditions? What are the shifts in our program goals and outcomes and curriculum that need to be made to ensure that domestic and international learners will have wholistic and relevant educational experiences?

as the conversation continues In this chapter, we attempted to (re)shape the conversations within internationalization, particularly policy and practice, as a decolonial project. The ideas emerged from our own critical conversations about how we need to (re)think the policy conversations on internationalization in terms of Indigeneity and the 4Rs. Locating and recognizing Indigeneity in its rightful place is, we argue, key to setting internationalization on a decolonizing track, although the strategies of decolonization will not necessarily be identical (nor should they be) or taken up in the same ways (again, nor should they be) within Indigenous education. What is key is that we see both of these forms of education as inherently part of the larger educational system with which we are all in relationship. We are, therefore, moving Indigenization toward Indigenous sovereignty and decolonizing internationalization as we strive to enact the relational change needed to decolonize the educational system, including higher education policies and practices. Our call for the Indigenization of internationalization directly challenges the “imperial reach” (Smith 2012) of current policies and seeks to unsettle and (re)conceptualize internationalization policy. Using the examples of the Accord on Indigenous Education and the Accord on Internationalization of Education, we acknowledged the lessons learned from the Accord on Indigenous Education process that directly influenced the development of the latter accord, and also identified parallel values from which to bridge the conversation between internationalization and Indigenization. We were also mindful of the responsibilities of various levels of government and institutions to the Calls for Action (Canada. trc of Canada 2015b) and to the key policy actors that must now undertake reconciliation work within internationalization, such as policy developers, international educators, student affairs practitioners working in ie, researchers who are located internationally, and interna-


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

tional students themselves. We call on readers to begin these conversations across diverse policy sectors and to ask what decolonization of internationalization might look like if we placed Indigenous peoples, their lands, knowledges, principles, and practices at the centre of a reimagining of internationalization. What might be possible? We look forward to continuing the conversations.

notes 1 The terms Indigenous and Aboriginal are used interchangeably within this chapter, recognizing the problematic histories of both terms. Canada’s first peoples – First Nations, Métis, and Inuit – represent over sixty different nations and unique cultural and linguistic groups. Indigenous is more encompassing of all first peoples globally and recognizes the shared histories of colonization but also, more importantly, the interconnectedness of Indigenous ways of knowing and being. Aboriginal has been used historically within Canada to refer inclusively to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit and should not be mistaken for Australian Aboriginal peoples. 2 We intentionally spell wholistic with a w to reflect the interconnections and interrelationships of Indigenous ways of knowing and being as a whole (Archibald, Selkirk Bowman, et al. 1995; Pidgeon 2008). This intentional spelling reflects Indigenous ways of knowing that see the whole, and the interrelationships of self to others, which include the physical and spiritual dimensions.

references acde (Association of Canadian Deans of Education). 2009. Accord on Indigenous Education. Ottawa: acde. /uploads/sites/7/2017/08/Accord-on-Indigenous-Education.pdf. – 2014. Accord on the Internationalization of Education. Ottawa: acde. Alfred, T. 2009. “Colonialism and State Dependency.” Journal de la santé autochtone 5: 42–60. Alfred, T., and J.J. Corntassel. 2005. “Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism.” Government and Opposition 40 (4): 597–614. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x.

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


Andreotti, V.D.O., S. Stein, C. Ahenakew, and D. Hunt. 2015. “Mapping Interpretations of Decolonization in the Context of Higher Education.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, & Society 4 (1): 21–40. Archibald, J., S. Selkirk Bowman, F. Pepper, C. Urion, G. Mirenhouse, and R. Shortt. 1995. “Honoring What They Say: Post-Secondary Experiences of First Nations Graduates.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 21 (1): 1–247. Battiste, M. 2004. “Animating Sites of Postcolonial Education: Indigenous Knowledge and the Humanities.” Plenary address at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Winnipeg, mb, 29 May. %20education%20indigenous%20knowledge%20and%20the%20humani ties.pdf. – 2013. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Saskatoon: Purich. Beck, K. 2009. “Questioning the Emperor’s New Clothes: Towards Ethical Practice.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G. Jones, and A. Schubert, 306–36, Toronto: James Lorimer. – 2012. “Globalization/s: Reproduction and Resistance in the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Canadian Journal of Education 35 (3): 9–23. – 2013. “Making Sense of Internationalization: A Critical Analysis.” In Critical Perspectives on International Education, edited by Y. Hebert and A. Abdi, 43–60. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Canada. fatdc (Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada). 2014. Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing Our Knowledge Advantage to Drive Innovation and Prosperity. Ottawa: fatdc. Canada. Royal Commissions. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Gathering of Strength. Vol. 3 of The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Royal Commissions. /e448/e011188230-03.pdf. Canada. trc (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) of Canada. 2015a. Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. http://www.trc .ca/assets/pdf/Honouring_the_Truth_Reconciling_for_the_Future_July _23_2015.pdf. – 2015b. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. /assets/pdf/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf.


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2016. A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education 2016. Ottawa: cbie. %20Learning%202015%20-%20high%20res.pdf. De Wit, H. 2002. Early Globalization and the Economic Development of the United States and Brazil. West Port, ct: Praeger. De Wit, H., and F. Hunter. 2015. “The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe.” International Higher Education 83: 2–3. Dolby, M., and A. Rahman. 2008. “Research in International Education.” Review of Educational Research 78 (3): 676–726. Hudzic, J. K. 2011. Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. Washington, dc: Association of International Educators (nafsa). Hunter, F. 2016. “Rethinking Internationalization.” Keynote presentation at the conference Internationalizing Higher Education: Past Practices and Future Possibilities, Vancouver, 26–9 July. Indian Act. R.S.C. 1985, c. 1–5. Jefferess, D. 2008. “Global Citizenship and the Cultural Politics of Benevolence.” Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices 2 (1): 27–36. Johnstone, M., and E. Lee. 2014. “Branded: International Education, 21st Century Canadian Immigration, Education Policy, and the Welfare State.” International Social Work 57 (3): 209–21. Kirkness, V.J., and R. Barnhardt. 1991. “First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R’s: Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility.” Journal of American Indian Education 30 (3): 1–15. /24397980. Knight, J. 2004. “Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales.” Journal of Studies in International Education 8 (1): 5–31. Lee, J.J., A. Maldonado-Maldonado, and G. Rhoades. 2006. “The Political Economy of International Student Flows: Patterns, Ideas, and Propositions.” In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 21, 545–90. Netherlands: Springer. Marginson, S. 2004. “National and Global Competition in Higher Education.” The Australian Educational Researcher 31(2): 1–28. – 2006. “Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education.” Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 52 (1): 1–39. Naidoo, R. 2010. “Global Learning in a Neoliberal Age: Implications for Development.” In Global Inequalities in Higher Education: Whose Interests Are We Serving?, edited by E. Unterhalter and V. Carpentier, 66–90. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Decolonization, Indigenization, and Internationalization


nib (National Indian Brotherhood). 1972. Indian Control of Indian Education. Ottawa: nib. Pengelly, B. 1989. “The Development of International Education Activities in British Columbia Colleges 1978–1988.” Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia. Pidgeon, M. 2008. “It Takes More than Good Intentions: Institutional Accountability and Responsibility to Indigenous Higher Education.” PhD diss., University of British Columbia. /cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0066636. – 2014. “Moving Beyond Good Intentions: Indigenizing Higher Education in British Columbia Universities through Institutional Responsibility and Accountability.” Journal of American Indian Education 53 (2): 7–28. – 2016. “More Than a Checklist: Meaningful Indigenous Inclusion in Higher Education.” Social Inclusion 4 (1): 77–91. doi:10.17645/si.v4i1.436. Rist, G. 2008. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. 3rd ed. London: Zed Books. Rizvi, L., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge. Sachs, W. 2010. “Introduction.” In The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. 2nd ed. Edited by W. Sachs, xv–xx. London: Zed Books. Schendel, R., and T. McCowan. 2015. “Higher Education and Development: Critical Issues and Debates.” In Education and International Development: An Introduction, edited by T. McCowan and E. Unterhalter, 275–93. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Scott, P. 2000. “Globalization and Higher Education: Challenges for the 21st Century.” Journal of Studies in International Education 4 (3): 3–10. Shahjahan, R. A. 2013. “Coloniality and a Global Testing Regime in Higher Education: Unpacking the oecd’s ahelo Initiative.” Journal of Education Policy 28 (5): 676–94. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and the New Economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, L.T. 2006. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. New York: Zed Books. – 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. New York: Zed Books. Stack, M. 2016. Global University Rankings and the Mediatization of Higher Education. London: Palgrave MacMillan UK. Stein, S., and V. Andreotti. 2016. “Cash, Competition, or Charity: Interna-


Kumari Beck and Michelle Pidgeon

tional Students and the Global Imaginary.” Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research 72 (2): 225–39. Stier, J. 2004. “Taking a Critical Stance Toward Internationalization Ideologies in Higher Education: Idealism, Instrumentalism and Educationalism.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 2 (1): 83–97. Stonechild, B. 2006. The New Buffalo: The Struggle for Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education in Canada. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Tikly, L. P. 2004. “Education and the New Imperialism.” Comparative Education 40 (2): 173–98. Trilokekar, R.D. 2010. “International Education as Soft Power? The Contributions and Challenges of Canadian Foreign Policy to the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Higher Education 59 (2): 131–47. – 2015. “From Soft Power to Economic Diplomacy? A Comparison of the Changing Rationales and Roles of the U.S. and Canadian Federal Governments in International Education.” Research & Occasional Paper Series. Berkeley: University of Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education. Tuck, E., and K.W. Yang. 2012. “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40. Unterhalter, E., and V. Carpentier. 2010. “Introduction: Whose Interests Are We Serving? Global Inequalities and Higher Education.” In Global Inequalities in Higher Education: Whose Interests Are We Serving?, 1–39. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Wane, N., R.A. Shahjahan, and A. Wagner. 2004. “Walking the Talk: Decolonizing the Politics of Equity of Knowledge and Charting the Course for an Inclusive Curriculum in Higher Education.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies 25 (3): 499–501. Willinsky, J. 1998. Learning to Divide the World: Education at Empire’s End. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.


International Education as Public Policy: The Canadian Story Merli Tamtik, Roopa Desai Trilokekar, and Glen A. Jones

International education (ie) has become a major area of government policy throughout the world, but ie policy has received relatively little attention within the Canadian research literature. Our objective for this book was to address such an important gap in the literature, a knowledge gap that has become increasingly salient given the depth and breadth of ie initiatives that have emerged in the last decade. ie has shifted from a policy issue on the margins of government interest and attention to receiving wide recognition as one of Canada’s most important industries. Given the complexity of ie policy in the context of Canadian federalism, we invited leading scholars from across the country to share their most recent research and scholarship on policy developments and trends. We gave our authors a degree of freedom to choose their particular focus for how best to analyze these policy contexts and trends within a common framework of multi-level governance (mlg). Our aim for this book was to illuminate the particular “local” or “Canadian” version(s) of ie policy, providing insights from various educational contexts (e.g., higher education, K–12, universities and/or colleges), and to tell the Canadian story in regard to who in Canada has engaged with ie, and when, how, and why. Several common themes of ie policy contexts were identified across the chapters; however, distinctive themes also emerged that open up a venue for further scholarly research. One of the more distinctive themes emerging from this Canadian story is the largely bottom-up approach to policy development. Canadian post-secondary institutions and schools have been at the fore-


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

front of ie policy initiatives, well ahead of the provincial/territorial governments and the federal government. While institutional-level initiatives at provincial universities, colleges, and schools are referenced across several chapters, the book primarily focuses on the federal/provincial role in internationalization policy and how this has shifted over time, given global and local pressures as well as the role of an increasing number of non-governmental actors. Within the Canadian context, the federal government took an unprecedented step in 2014 when it announced its first-ever national strategy for ie. By then, however, most provincial governments had already developed their own provincial strategies that culminated in the provincial/territorial joint effort of introducing an International Education Marketing Action Plan for Provinces and Territories in 2011. When the federal government announced an ie strategy, this shift signified a changed landscape within the Canadian federal context, as education is the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Several chapters in this book provide clear evidence that the federal government has shifted from its earlier “hands-off” position to a more “hands-on” approach to ie, essentially moving into an area of provincial jurisdiction by attempting to impact education policy directly. While ie appears to be pushing the boundaries of constitutionally determined policy areas, there has been increased policy alignment among the governments. And while undertones of Canada’s decentralized federal structures and systems have continued to pose challenges for policy coordination and co-operation, largely (and perhaps like never before in the history of Canadian ie) there has been increased collaboration across the two levels of government, with the possible exception of Quebec. This seems a striking anomaly and contradictory to earlier policy trends, but the research presented in this volume confirms that there has been an increased alignment in the definition of, approaches to, and expected outcomes for ie between the two levels of government. ie has become a national policy goal essential for Canada’s global competitiveness. With an emphasis on attracting and training human capital, filling the skills gap, and selling educational services abroad, the federal and provincial/territorial governments share mutual interests in ie. Bounded by the market logic of a global knowledge economy, achieving these objectives requires increased co-operation between governments.



The seventeen chapters across the three sections of this book uniformly confirm that ie has become a policy area of strategic importance in Canada. While the authors provide a detailed account of the nuanced differences in policy rationales and policy approaches by jurisdiction and region, the current agenda for ie is largely defined in terms of Canada’s economic and nation-building interests. Canada has been described as a latecomer to the global stage in regard to ie policy (European Parliament 2015). Given the global trends and major policy shifts within the Canadian context traced in our book, we question if Canada still remains an exception and anomaly: does it now more closely align with the global policy convergence trends characterized in the international research literature? By examining these questions, the book not only contributes to the Canadian literature on ie policy, but it also makes a very important contribution to a broader ie literature on national policy approaches to an arena that many governments now view as a highly competitive global industry. In the following sections we summarize the key findings of this book in relation to the three main objectives that were articulated in the introductory chapter.

understanding the emergence of international education as public policy Within the Canadian context, the story of ie policy has primarily been enacted at the local level (see table C.1). Interestingly, however, there have been different historical drivers related to the emergence of ie policy across the provinces and territories. For example, in 1965, the Quebec government began to utilize ie policy as a mechanism for extending its jurisdictional authority beyond Canada’s borders. For Indigenous peoples in Nunavut, the international policy dimension was directly linked to the fight for self-determination – appealing to international agreements and engaging in global issues alongside other nation states. For Manitoba, the focus on ie emerged as a necessity for providing enhanced multicultural experiences to local students and creating supports for the first international students who had accompanied their parents coming to work in Manitoba. For Newfoundland and Labrador, ie, initially not high on the agenda, moved to the forefront in the 1990s as a policy approach to address the challenges of an aging population, weak economy, and extremely low lev-

International Education and Intergovernmental Coordination unit in Ministry of Advanced Education International Education Branch established in Ministry of Education (1987) International Education Branch established in Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade Unit (2001), dissolved in 2017 Atlantic Education International unit in Department of Education and Early Childhood Development No government unit

International Programs in Nova Scotia (K–12) in Department of Education and Early Childhood Development


British Columbia


New Brunswick

Newfoundland and Labrador

Nova Scotia

Government unit in charge

Table C.1 Overview of the provincial ie policies

No separate document. IE is part of immigration policy regulated currently through “Atlantic Growth Strategy” (2016)

No separate document. IE is part of immigration policy regulated currently through “Atlantic Growth Strategy” (2016)

No separate document. IE is part of immigration policy regulated currently through “Atlantic Growth Strategy” (2016)

“International Education Strategy of the Province of Manitoba (2009–2013)”; “International Education Act” (2016)

“British Columbia’s International Education Strategy” (2012)

“The International Education Framework” (2009), Alberta Designation Requirements (2017)

IE policy document


Total: 523,971

Saint Mary’s University branch campus of Beijing Normal University in Zhuhai: curriculum abroad (e.g., uae, China

College of the North Atlantic in Qatar (2002), no curriculum abroad

Curriculum abroad (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, St. Lucia, Turkey)

Curriculum abroad (China, South Korea, Bangladesh, Egypt, Thailand)





Curriculum abroad (e.g., China, 145,691 Poland, South Korea, Japan, Qatar, Egypt, Thailand)

University of Calgary, School of Nursing in Qatar; curriculum abroad (Mexico, Bermuda, Jordan, uae, Qatar, Oman, China, Hong Kong, Macao, Cambodia)

Offshore education

Number of intern. students in 2016i

410 Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

No government unit

Ministry of Education (for K–12 sector), Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development (for PSE sector)

Department of Workforce and Advanced Learning

Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec

Department of International Education, Ministry of Education and Learning Department of Education



Prince Edward Island




Data source: Canada. gac. 2017.

No government unit

Northwest Territories

Curriculum abroad (e.g., China, Egypt, Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong, St. Martin, Trinidad and Tobago)

No separate document for education

“Post-Secondary International Education Strategy”

“To succeed in internationalMcGill University Desautels izing Québec education: A mu- Faculty of Management, mba tually advantageous strategy” program in Japan (2002). A new strategy is in preparation as of 2017.

No separate document. IE is Curriculum abroad (Japan) part of immigration policy regulated currently through “Atlantic Growth Strategy” (2016)

“Developing Global Opportunities: Creating a Postsecondary International Education Strategy for Ontario” (2016), discussion paper to be developed into a strategy; “Ontario’s Strategy for K–12 international education” (2015)

International dimension is regulated by Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Article 5), Inuit Circumpolar Council Declarations, Nunavut Arctic College mandate

No separate document.








Conclusion 411


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

els of immigration. In Ontario, ie was included as part of a provincial strategy that aimed to enhance regional economic and social development in the 1980s. In the same decade, British Columbia began to view ie as a mechanism for global competitiveness and increased trade relations with the East, and as a source of revenue generation. As such, ie policy emerged to address context-specific needs in different historical contexts within Canada’s provinces and territories. Although the origins of ie policy interests across the provinces are unique to their specific historical, demographic, economic, and cultural circumstances, there are two key factors that have shaped the development of ie as an important public policy arena that continue to underscore contemporary policy discussions. First, most Canadian provinces view the need to attract skilled, highly educated workers as vital in the context of an aging and, in some cases, declining population. International students are generally regarded as perfect candidates for employment purposes because of their Canadian education credentials, proficiency in at least one official language, and relevant work/study experience in Canada. This priority is reflected in the federal government’s strategy but also across all provincial ie policy approaches. Several recent provincial policy initiatives have been directly focusing on establishing pathways for international students from higher education to the labour market. For example, in 2016, two new innovative pilot programs (Stay in Nova Scotia and Study and Stay) were launched in Nova Scotia to encourage international students to study, work, and possibly immigrate after they graduated. In 2017, the new government of Newfoundland and Labrador released an immigration strategy outlining a range of new programmatic initiatives to support international student retention after graduation. The Atlantic International Graduate Program within the Atlantic Growth Strategy will assist employers to hire international graduates after they complete a university or college credential. These are just some examples of policy initiatives that directly link provincial objectives of population growth and human resource development with the employment and immigration of international student graduates. Second, ie is now widely acknowledged as a key Canadian industry with important economic and international trade implications. In 2016, direct international student expenditures contributed $15.5 billion to the Canadian economy, which translated into supporting approximately 140,010 jobs in 2015 (Canada. gac 2017). ie services



are now Canada’s sixth largest export industry (Canada. gac 2017). Therefore, government documents often refer to ie as an “industry” that brings significant economic benefits to the provinces. This is increasingly reflected in organizational arrangements within government, such as the amalgamation of the Canadian International Development Agency with the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in 2013. At the provincial level, the Manitoba International Education Branch used to be part of the Manitoba Competitiveness, Training and Trade unit, and was housed in the same building. Further evidence of the business orientation associated with ie is the focus on recruiting students who have entrepreneurial skills and a business mindset. Several provincial policy initiatives (e.g., in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec) have targeted international graduates who possess start-up capital and entrepreneurship abilities, allowing them easier access to Canada’s permanent residency programs and strategies. Related to this trend in ie is the increasing level of activity in the K–12 education sector. While research on ie policy and practices has largely focused on the post-secondary education (pse) sector, there is a small but increasing enrolment of international students in Canadian elementary and secondary schools. There were 56,090 international students enrolled in Canadian schools in 2015, an increase of 121 percent since 2013 (cbie 2015). This trend, which seems global in scope, raises a series of complicated policy issues, such as the need to develop new visa regulations for minor students, to regulate relationships with host families, and to consider immigration consequences. It creates a need for increased administrative supports for those minor students and their families to create relevant learning experiences. In addition, provinces are focusing on those students who have completed or are in the process of completing their Canadian high school diploma abroad. While there are some examples of pathway programs already in place among selected schools and post-secondary institutions (e.g., Ontario), governments and educational institutions are in the process of establishing broader pathway programs with postsecondary institutions that would impact the higher education sector in Canada. Another trend within the “industry” of ie, albeit minor compared to the above two trends, is the growth of offshore education projects. Examples of branch campuses of Canadian post-secondary institutions include Newfoundland and Labrador’s College of the North


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

Atlantic campus in Qatar, the University of Calgary’s (Alberta) School of Nursing in Qatar, and Ontario’s Georgian College campus in Chandigarh, India (see table 3.1 in chapter 3). Provincially accredited schools that offer provincial K–12 curriculum abroad are flourishing. The provincial governments are usually involved in inspecting, certifying, and regulating these schools. Most recent developments within the provincial governments include developing pathway programs for those students educated overseas to enter Canadian pses. These initiatives contribute revenues to provincial education budgets and address longer-term provincial human resource needs. This volume also focuses on the roles of the multitude of actors who shape public policy related to ie in Canada, a topic that has received surprisingly little attention in prior research. As mentioned above, the provincial chapters allude to the growing role of Ministries of Education and, in particular, school boards as they increasingly engage in international student recruitment initiatives. In particular, chapter authors discuss the role of non-governmental organizations, special interest groups, and especially the media in shaping the current policy networks and public discourses around ie. Depending on stakeholder interests and preferences, ie has been viewed as an economic tool, a risk factor, or Canada’s Gateway to the World, as per chapter 16 by El Masri. The media in particular have played a powerful role in framing national narratives on international students, activating previously latent political interests, stimulating government action, and, in a general sense, shaping public imaginaries and current discourses around ie in Canada. In comparison to these policy actors, however, there is almost an absence of the voices of other highly relevant stakeholder groups, such as student, teacher, and faculty associations. In prioritizing ie as policy, Canada seeks to benefit from globalized competition for skilled talent and increased mobility. It is aiming to utilize its current pro-immigration policies against a global rise in antiimmigration trends, perhaps setting itself once again as an anomaly. Particularly in comparison to policies in the United States under the current Trump administration, and the rising anti-immigration sentiments in the United Kingdom and Australia (Canada’s top competitors), it perceives its global attractiveness rising. Trudeau, currently prime minister, has helped further Canada’s image internationally, reminiscent of Canada’s golden years of internationalism during the Pearson era. How Canada’s shifting global geopolitics has changed our nature of engagement with ie remains unclear. What is clear is that, in



positioning ie as a tradable industry, Canada has moved away from its historical development agenda and a concern over global inequalities and poverty reduction (Trilokekar 2009) toward neo-liberal market policy regimes. With this relatively new focus on competing to “attract and retain the world’s best and brightest,” ie as public policy in Canada has emerged to become a mechanism for pursuing economic growth, essentially following the path of many other countries. Surprisingly, there is little by way of policy focus on research and innovation as a crucial avenue for enhancing Canada’s economic growth, which has largely been left in the hands of individual universities and faculty members. The policy focus has been more heavily concentrated on the recruitment and retention of international students.

international education as a cross-sectoral policy area ie as a policy area is now functionally driven, meaning that it crosses paths with several other policy sectors such as, for example, trade and commerce, labour, education and training, research and innovation, and immigration. What are the implications of this cross-sectoral policy approach to the internationalization of higher education? As demonstrated across the chapters, because of this cross-sectoral approach, internationalization now involves a wide variety of stakeholder groups with diverse interests and goals. Given this context, it is important to develop coherent policy approaches in order to avoid wasteful duplication between federal and provincial government initiatives, or approaches that further the objectives of one policy sector but unintentionally stifle the initiatives of a second. Successful policy development requires both horizontal coordination (across policy sectors within one level of government) and vertical (between the levels of government). This point has been repeatedly emphasized in both federal and provincial policy documents, yet the limited effectiveness of formal policy coordination mechanisms, given the particular peculiarities of Canadian federalism, continues to be an issue of considerable concern. Horizontal coordination across policy areas within governments tends to happen organically without an institutionalized mechanism, based on the emerging issues. For example, at the federal level, ie has been linked with the goals of the Global Markets Action Plan, emphasizing cross-sectoral connections with international trade, innovation,


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

and immigration policy. There have been several initiatives put in place to ensure closer coordination within the federal ministries (e.g., Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and Employment and Social Development Canada) including International Student Visa Programs and immigration pathways (Canadian Experience Class). At the provincial level, there has been evidence of close day-to-day working relationships across government departments, but the extent of these activities and sectors has varied. For example, Alberta has taken steps to integrate ie within its broader education and higher education strategies. In Manitoba, provincial government cross-sectoral interaction has taken place within finance, health, and trade. In Ontario, improving student work, visa, and immigration processes for international students has increased alignment among ministries, including education, immigration, and labour. As Barbarič noted in chapter 13, a clear coordination mechanism has been put in place in Quebec: the Secrétariat à la jeunesse (Youth Secretariat) ensures youth policy coordination across government units through an inter-ministerial youth committee, including the policy domains of health, education, citizen engagement, employment, and entrepreneurship. However, not all provinces have effective policy coordination mechanisms related to ie. Limited policy coordination capacity within the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has effectively left the coordination of key aspects of ie in the hands of Memorial University, raising interesting and problematic questions about the implications for higher education when universities begin acting as direct policy arms of governments. Horizontal coordination across provincial governments happens formally through the Provincial/Territorial Consultative Committee on Education-Related International Activities. This committee works collaboratively across provinces and territories to coordinate provincial positions on topics in ie. Cross-sectoral learning across provinces also happens informally, primarily through documenting best practices, stimulating competitiveness, collaborating, and ensuring policy uniformity across the provinces. Vertical coordination across the levels of government has been, like horizontal coordination, driven by policy problems. These challenges have frequently been addressed by short-term working committees. An important exception is the Federal-Provincial Consultative Com-



mittee on Education-Related International Activities, a permanent committee created in 1986 to enhance policy conversations across government levels. As noted by Larsen and Al-Haque in chapter 15, the Canadian Bureau of International Education (cbie) and Universities Canada (uc) are the other key actors that have served coordinating functions by bringing together institutional actors, facilitating debates through conferences, conducting surveys, and producing policy papers. Lavenex, Lehmkuhl, and Wichmann (2009) have distinguished between hierarchy, market, and network modes of governance for policy coordination. These categories are helpful in analyzing the nature of vertical policy coordination in Canadian ie. Hierarchy is a mode of cross-sectoral policy governance characterized by a strongly legalized and institutionalized interconnection between governments. This type of coordination is mostly practised through institutionalized programmatic mechanisms driven by the federal government. Visa regulations that support provincial quotas for international students are examples of this type of governance. Another example is the federal government’s Designated Learning Institutions, whereby provincial governments were required to prepare standards and consequently a list of Designated Learning Institutions to create a nation-wide mechanism for overseeing the quality of educational providers accepting international students. At the local level, universities have often hosted immigration consultants on their campuses to support federal immigration policies related to international students. The “market model” of governance describes a mode of coordination characterized by the relative weakness of formal relationships and the dominance of market pressures. This governance model has had a direct impact on policy coordination across governments in Canada. Immigration, employment, and trade are core priorities for both provincial and federal levels of government that help to ensure global competitiveness for the country. A specific example of this type of collaboration is a working group involving both the federal and provincial/territorial governments established for developing the EduCanada brand to market education services abroad. In addition, the federal government has developed ways to work with individual provinces along the lines of a market model. EduNova in Nova Scotia serves as an example of a brand partially funded by the federal government that aims to advertise Nova Scotia and its education services abroad.


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

The “networked” mode of governance describes formally symmetrical relationships. Coordination in a network type of interaction requires a certain degree of institutionalization and the existence of central coordination structures. Despite the dominance of the federal agenda, other stakeholders have to agree with the selection of topics in order to co-operate. This mode aligns with the mlg approach. As Sharma forcefully argues in chapter 3, despite some tensions, the federal government is now fully engaged in multi-level networked governance practices, negotiating immigration agreements with the provinces, working with different subnational units (including smaller cities and rural communities) on multiple issues, and coordinating policy with a growing number of non-state stakeholders. Both the federal and provincial governments have common goals of attracting foreign students and supporting their transition into permanent residency. This networked collaboration is featured among the Atlantic provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador), which are working with the federal government to develop interprovincial co-operation activities across policy sectors. With significant additional resources and a road map developed through the networks’ strategic policy document, these provinces are witnessing greater cross-sectoral policy alignment and increasing partnership with the federal government. This same level of mlg is not observed when it comes to policy initiatives that promote international research collaborations, as noted by Tamtik and Sá in chapter 4. While research policy is recognized as a mechanism for attracting talent, facilitating innovation, and supporting economic growth, there have been few instruments put in place to support a cross-sectoral approach to research policy. The prevalence of market and networked modes of governance raise important questions concerning the federal government’s capacity to steer coordination processes through rational decision-making and planning. While the federal government holds the ultimate power over key policy issues, coordination has primarily been achieved through sectoral functional policies driven by actors’ shared common interests, rather than through pressures to follow federal strategic plans (e.g., the internationalization strategy). As observed by numerous chapter authors, the strongest cross-sectoral links are emerging between ie, immigration, and economic policy as they align functionally with Canada’s demographic and labour market needs in the context of globalization. In the immigration



arena, there are now agreements between the federal and provincial governments that give provinces a greater role in recruiting, selecting, and attracting immigrants, including international students, according to regional economic needs. Such arrangements enable a province to build its economic competitiveness through local leading industries, matching its industry needs with particular experiences that people bring. Each province and territory is able to develop its own priority areas. For example, Alberta is targeting people with engineering skills; British Columbia is looking for people in the tourismhospitality sector; New Brunswick is pursuing people whose first language is French. Overall, cross-sectoral collaboration and co-operation is dependent on the federal governments’ ability to attract provincial and local interest and create incentives for co-operation. If, as suggested in many of the chapters in this volume, governments are increasingly relying on international students as future immigrants, then institutions of higher education, which have always had the ability to determine which international students they will accept, are effectively playing a role in selecting the next generation of Canadians. Institutional recruitment strategies, including decisions to focus international student recruitment efforts on specific countries or regions, will have implications for the composition of Canada’s immigrant population. At the same time, this increasing dependence on higher education as a mechanism for attracting new immigrants may, over time, provide the higher education sector with greater influence over the broader internationalization policy agenda, including furthering institutional interests in international research collaboration and partnerships, and outbound student mobility.

the impact of international education on canadian federal-provincial relations With the increase in both horizontal and vertical cross-sectoral collaboration, it has become apparent that ie has brought federal and provincial/territorial governments closer together. As Trilokekar and Jones note in chapter 1, there is a greater policy alignment and a more unified voice emerging across the two levels of government and across policy sectors. While political ideology and foreign policy directions under various political leaders have differed considerably, Canada is at the juncture of adopting more nimble and flexible policy approaches in federal-provincial relations.


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

Based on the evidence presented in this volume, we argue that the federal government is gradually taking an important steering role, acting as both a catalyst and a partner for guiding and supporting ie policy across the country. Shared powers and interests over immigration and economic policy have seemed to serve as the primary glue fostering closer working relationships across the governments, with the federal government often devolving its traditional roles, such as immigration, to the provinces. With limited direct jurisdiction over education, however, the federal government has used indirect ways to shape discourses in ie. Adopting mlg approaches to policy, the federal government has taken a role in working with (individual) provinces, negotiating immigration agreements, funding policy initiatives (the Atlantic Growth Strategy, EduNova marketing tools), and engaging with different subnational units (including smaller cities and rural communities) on policy issues. It also has played a significant role in facilitating policy discussions with a growing number of non-governmental stakeholders. Federal funding for various policy initiatives (e.g., the Innovation Superclusters Initiative) has helped to engage stakeholders and drive the agenda. Nevertheless, it is the provincial governments and local education institutions that ultimately remain the sites that shape how ie policy is realized in Canada. Several contributors to this volume express concerns that the federal-provincial/territorial agenda for ie has been too closely aligned, leading to practices that are driven by economic agendas and market modes of governance. Stein, in chapter 6, notes that the dominance of neo-liberal market logic in the realm of public education in British Columbia is effectively naturalizing and depoliticizing the international student revenue generation practices carried out by the provincial government and educational institutions. With a differentiated notion of access for domestic and international students (the latter being admitted in greater numbers over time and based on their ability to pay), is the largely public Canadian educational system transforming into a parallel tiered private system? How will this dramatic policy shift eventually impact national-level discourses on access and equality of educational opportunity? Knutson in chapter 8 and Goddard in chapter 12 note how international education practices are defined narrowly through the lens of immigration, leading to limited understanding of other international education initiatives and restricted resources to support them. While policy leaders have regularly argued that international students con-



tribute to the educational experiences of domestic students by providing greater diversity on campus as well as “global perspectives,” the shift within the Canadian context toward rapid marketization, privatization, and commodification certainly raises questions about the responsibility of higher educational institutions to issues of social justice and equity, as this shift prioritizes internationalization initiatives that reinforce rather than challenge unequal and unethical global power relations. The question of power becomes crucial in mediating stakeholder relationships in higher education. Given that the federal government has the opportunity to exercise “the power of a state” and shape local institutional frameworks, it also has the opportunity to cement the government’s role as a key actor in ie policy. It has become apparent that post-secondary institutions have developed close associations with federal agendas through the emergence of innovation, mobility, and partnerships programs, and related funding initiatives. Viczko argues in chapter 14 that these processes have drawn university engagement away from spaces of democratic education that are needed to fulfill the public purposes of education. While there is an increased alignment between the federal and provincial governments in ie, the political influence of territorial governments has not been sufficiently examined by scholars. Canada’s changing national context and greater demands for Indigenous self-governance could easily challenge the current policy alignment between the federal and provincial governments. As Beck and Pidgeon suggest in chapter 17, the voices of Indigenous peoples, and their lands, knowledges, principles, and practices, are gradually becoming central within Canadian society. There is a need, therefore, to fundamentally (re)define internationalization; it cannot continue to be understood as a nation-building enterprise embedded in a Western imperial mindset of resource extraction and resource imbalances. The full impact of the territorial and Indigenous governments on Canada’s ie policy is yet to be seen. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the perceptions of Canadian citizens – students, parents, and society at large – are also important to ie policy, and these perceptions are heavily influenced or shaped by the media. The media have been playing a growing and important role in centralizing the importance of ie policy within the Canadian context. As El Masri notes in her examination of the three major daily newspapers, the coverage of ie in the post-secondary sector almost doubled


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

from 2005 to mid-2017. She notes how this coverage highlighted specific aspects of ie, referenced select actors, and often positioned ie through the proxy of international students. Similarly, Stein demonstrates in chapter 6 how the media often have pitted international students against the overall economic well-being of domestic students, often igniting what we might argue is an underlying current of parochialism, a “Canada or Ontario first” narrative that transcends broader goals and principles for internationalization. This public concern that the “international” is somehow displacing the “domestic” is far from new (Jones 2009), but it is ironic considering Canada’s rising image under Trudeau as an open, progressive, and internationally committed nation. The media’s growing role in shaping ie policy through public perception is most evident in the “gun shy” attitude adopted by the Ontario government following the public backlash to the McGuinty announcement of the Trillium Scholarship for international students.

implications and future research directions In this book, we have taken a policy approach to understanding the role ie plays in the Canadian context. Policy texts are important as they inherently normalize our understandings and guide practices as powerful “regimes of truth” (Butler 2005, 23). Therefore, the way in which Canadian governments’ ie policy has been framed has had a direct impact on the Canadian K–12 education sector and pse practices. The dominant theme within the current Canadian governments’ ie policy has been a narrow focus on internationalization as an economic tool. To be fair, provincial policy documents have mentioned the broader benefits of ie, noting, for example, the importance of gaining experience of other cultures, languages, and ways of knowing. Some provincial policies have directly addressed the significance of the intercultural aspects of those exchanges (e.g., Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba). However, the actual practices supporting these policy principles have been left unstated, raising the possibility of a disconnect between policy texts and practice. There is very little by way of counter discourses or narratives that challenge the perception of ie policy as a benefit to Canada’s national competitiveness. Further, while the research literature has positioned ie as a tool to enhance the quality of student learning experiences (as per de Wit 2011), and while this approach may play a role in institutional prac-



tices, there is little evidence that this perspective underscores ie policy or resource allocation. Canada’s ie strategy centralizes the national economy, prosperity, success, opportunity, competitiveness, leadership, and innovation. At one level, framing internationalization as a policy at the heart of a nation’s current and future prosperity eliminates the possibility of questioning or challenging its worth, but at many other levels, this positioning is problematic in that it legitimizes the internationalization of higher education as a tool to reinforce societal exclusion (not inclusion); class hierarchy (not equity); political borders (not mobility); and global competition (not reciprocity). It reinforces what Stein and de Andreotti (2016) have referenced as the dominant global social imaginary, steeped in notions of colonialism, Western supremacy, and imperialism. Scholars have noted that we are witnessing the emergence of an “international education marketplace” phenomenon at a school and post-secondary level (Altbach 2015; Ball and Nikita 2014). It is characterized by student and parent consumerism of educational services, schools acting like businesses selling their programs, and the use of marketing and branding strategies to promote educational programs abroad. For Canada, it raises an issue of whether educational institutions are continuing in their role of serving a public good or whether the balance has shifted in favour of catering primarily toward private interests. Both Stein and Viczko emphasize in chapters 6 and 14 respectively the importance of problematizing these aspects of ie and call for more attention to democratic roles for public educational institutions in Canada. To move toward more equitable policy and practice in ie, we need to question whether the local voices are powerful enough to challenge the dominant policy perspective in regards to internationalization. Beck and Pidgeon, in chapter 17, identify a pressing need to focus attention on the ethical practices associated with ie, to move away from viewing ie as another form of (neo)colonial practice. These activities need to be considered through ethical decolonizing practices that respect culture, language, and diverse ways of knowing. The authors observe that there are currently two parallel discourses in institutional frameworks regarding internationalization and Indigenization. To overcome these siloed conversations, we need to build on strengths in both discourses by respecting culture, language, and land. Learning from and within the Indigenization movement can help


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

move internationalization from operating as a tool of the oppressor to a tool of decolonization. Overall, the future research directions in ie need to include not only changes in governments’ policy and practice but a focus on various institutional contexts. For example, research presented in this book points to the need to go beyond the traditional ie research contexts of post-secondary and university education. As demonstrated in this book, the K–12 school-level policy developments present a new complex web of institutional dynamics that need to be more closely examined. The K–12 sector is more regulated than the post-secondary sector and may therefore be more directly impacted by government policy. Furthermore, the perspectives of international students and their families are often excluded from policy discussions even though they are directly impacted by ie policies. Similarly, it is important to pay more attention to the ie trends in the college sector, including not only student mobility but also engagement at the faculty level in both teaching and research. The emergence of a multitude of new pathway programs for international students to access pse is another area that deserves more scholarly attention. We know little about the role and impact of non-governmental organizations on internationalization processes, and the perspective of community organizations on ie is currently absent. In this book, we found that the mlg theory was a useful framework, as it draws attention to stakeholder interactions in a comprehensive way by examining the interrelatedness and interdependencies between stakeholder groups. It thus provides a new understanding of the policy dynamic in ie. However, there is a need to go beyond governance theories to understand internationalization and apply a more critical, decolonizing perspective to understand the power dynamics and the ethical dilemmas it involves. Where is the Canadian story of ie headed? In our view, the current narrative positions ie as essentially an international student policy designed to address domestic human resource needs. It is this precise interest in international students as future “ideal” (as opposed to groups identified as “not ideal”) permanent residents (Trilokekar and El Masri 2017) that has served as the primary policy driver for federal and provincial/territorial governments to invest in current ie strategies. While post-secondary institutions may not engage with this policy imperative directly, they are indirectly implicated as agents of immigration, screening and preparing Canada’s future labour force.



Given this dominant rationale, the story of ie in Canada is becoming increasingly ironic in the context of Canada’s shifting international position, and the federal government’s interest in using a “soft power” approach through “renewed … attention on its traditional areas of expertise including a focus on human rights, environment, promotion of equality, peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid. Such issues are more compatible, in Trudeau’s mind, with the inherent identity of Canada’s progressivism” (Cantin 2016, para. 4). As such, Canada’s evolving positioning within a rapidly shifting global context calls for a broader debate on “who” we engage within the context of internationalization, and whom we partner with; “why” we engage in internationalization in the context of our broader humanitarian visions; and “how” we approach internationalization in the context of a post-colonial world both at home and abroad. As policy-makers, scholars, and practitioners, we have to uncover assumed priorities, values, and other inherent assumptions if we are to harbour hope of reimagining our engagement with the world. Only then can we reimagine the internationalization of higher education as a tool to reinforce inclusion (not exclusion); equity (not class hierarchy); mobility (not political borders); and compassion and reciprocity (not competition). Canada is at an important crossroads in advancing its leadership through ie, “as a principled and progressive actor in international politics, back as a pacifist and moderate player in global issues and back as a nation open to the world” (Cantin 2016, para. 15). Only then can we open a new chapter in the story of Canada’s ie policy.

references Altbach, P. 2015. “Higher Education and the wto: Globalization Run Amok.” International Higher Education 23: 2–4. Ball, S.J., and D.P. Nikita. 2014. “The Global Middle Class and School Choice: A Cosmopolitan Sociology.” Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 17 (3): 81–93. Butler, J. 2005. Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press. Canada. gac (Global Affairs Canada). 2017. Economic Impact of International Education in Canada: 2017 Update. Roslyn Kunin and Associates, Inc. Ottawa: gac. /impact-2017/index.aspx?lang=eng.


Tamtik, Trilokekar, and Jones

Cantin, M.-O. 2016. “A Year under Trudeau: The Fundamental Shifts in Canadian Foreign Policy.” Journal of International Affairs. 16 December. cbie (Canadian Bureau for International Education). 2015. A World of Learning: Canada’s Performance and Potential in International Education 2015. Ottawa: cbie. De Wit, H. 2011. “Internationalization Misconceptions”. International Higher Education (64): 6–7. /viewFile/8556/8321. European Parliament. 2015. Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament. /etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf. Jones, G.A. 2009. “Internationalization and Higher Education Policy in Canada: Three Challenges.” In Canada’s Universities Go Global, edited by R.D. Trilokekar, G.A. Jones, and A. Shubert, 355–69. Toronto: James Lorimer. Lavenex, S., D. Lehm