NEWS AND VIEWS

A critique on the declining influence of UCC

by Lubomyr Y. Luciuk

We all know the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) is a relic of what it used to be. Once it had some influence in Ottawa. Now it has next to none. It is invisible in the national media. And it has only a lingering and dwindling ability to enthuse what's left of the organized community. In part that's because there hasn't been a UCC leader of consequence in decades. As for those who claim the UCC represents over 1 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, we all know that's not true. So, by the way, do the folks in Ottawa. Our community has become an utterly rudderless, ineffectual and non-influential entity on the Canadian scene.

Once upon a time things were different. There used to be over 150 UCC branches across the country. Today there are 25 left. I'd bet half exist only on paper. Sing along with me: "Where have all our Ivans gone?"

What to do? Reform the UCC! Bright idea, but I've been hearing talk like that for about a quarter century. It still hasn't happened. And I don't think it will. But if we let the UCC totter further, into what some might regard as its well-deserved senility, I believe we will only end up having to create a new national organization that is willing, able, and ready to articulate and defend our particular interests as Canadians of Ukrainian heritage.

What principles should inform this Canadian Ukrainian Council, which I hear will be called into being in Toronto this October if the UCC doesn't evolve? Here are some ideas which the UCC would do well to embrace at its upcoming congress, sparing everyone the trouble of having to craft a new national body. This list of essential reforms is by no means exhaustive but, if adapted, just might save the UCC.

• One person, one vote: If you pay an annual membership fee you should have the right to vote, once. You should be able to vote by proxy if you cannot attend an annual or triennial national assembly. Anyone who identifies with the community should be able to join. Inclusiveness and democracy shouldn't be novel ideas for Canada's Ukrainians in the 21st century.

And as for the "Big Five" (or whatever number of these pretend organizations there still are out there), they should not have any influence beyond the number of their members who join and pay the same annual membership fee that you or I do. We don't need bogus claims about national stature. We need actors, not make-believers.

• Pro-active and project-driven: There are issues that are of special relevance to our community. These will change over time. At present, in my view, the two most important are the problems arising from the unjust denaturalization and deportation proceedings the government has deployed and securing redress for the internment operations of the World War I period. Both issues have a lot to do with the good name of our community.

Not everyone will agree that these are the most important matters we need to consider. Fair enough. For my part, I have no interest in multiculturalism, heritage language programs, or putting up statues celebrating "pierogies" or "kovasa." A free and open vote at a national congress could fix priorities and determine a realistic agenda. And, as I've said, issues will come and go, reflecting the commitments and passions of our members.

Meanwhile, we have to avoid wasting limited resources trying to address national issues that each of us, as Canadian citizens, goes our separate way on, like, for example, whether there's any need for an elected Senate or recognizing Quebec's distinct society in the Constitution. Obviously, there's no unity on such matters within our ranks, nor is there any need for consensus.

A national organization for Canadian Ukrainians should articulate our interests as a community and concentrate its attention and lobbying efforts only on those issues that affect us as Canadians of Ukrainian heritage.

• Conflict of interest rules: Anyone who wants to lead our community should declare her or his Canadian party allegiance and, while in office, understand that they are precluded from advancing that party's agenda within the Ukrainian Canadian community. An elected president should represent our membership, not the Liberals, Canadian Alliance, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats, or Bloc Quebecois.

If someone wants to run for a Canadian political office, let them. But our organization should not be a stepping stone for a patronage appointment, nor should its senior officers be the handmaidens of the government, regardless of which party is in power. We must be independent. I have a sneaky suspicion that we haven't been, not for a long time.

• Neutral is neutered: We have issues that must be championed. We need to take stands, publicly, and if that pits us against municipal, provincial or federal governments, or other organizations or constituencies, so be it. Some of our "leaders" have hidden behind the word "neutral" far too long, not being forthright on where we stand and why we have emasculated ourselves.

Before every federal election we should make our views clear on any and all government policies that we do or do not support, and urge our members to vote accordingly. If we can muster enough voting power to unseat an MP, or even better, a Cabinet Minister, then believe me, we will be listened to thereafter. We should not be afraid to reward, or punish, members of any government, from any party, that do not respond to whatever reasonable requests we put before them.

And why aren't we cultivating the "new boys on the block" in Canadian politics? We should be looking for allies wherever we can find them, not just sticking to our traditional corners. The mainstream parties have all but abandoned us. Those who dispute that should try inviting the prime minister to address the UCC congress this October, asking him to speak about that 1993 promise he made about helping us secure redress. He won't. We'll be lucky if the government sends the under-secretary to the third secretary for fisheries to talk about "men in sheepskin coats." Some pretend that having some backbencher of an MP show up at a UCC congress to talk about nothing that has anything to do with us represents a great boon. Rubbish.

Here's a novel idea. If the PM won't come, invite the leader of the Opposition. I bet he'd show up. And tell him that we want to hear his party's views on redress, or denaturalization and deportation, or, even better, on both. We'd certainly get media attention. They might even take note in Ottawa and start treating us with a little more respect.

• Defined roles: A leader should lead. Her staff, or his, should run HQ. If we have a president mandated to set strategy, we should expect subordinates to be competent enough to arrange the day-to-day functioning of the office; they should be trusted to develop and implement the policies the leader sets, having been empowered to do so by a national congress.

If a president wants to approve every letter that goes out, must vet each word that is uttered, has "just got to know" what everyone is doing, then nothing gets done, which is exactly what has happened in the UCC for many years now. We today have UCC committees that do nothing, or next to nothing, and chairs of committees that won't act, react or speak unless their president approves. How Soviet of us.

• New branches: One of the most critical roles of a leader is to enthuse his followers and attract new members. There are lots of people in our community, right across Canada, who do good work "for the cause" but don't belong to the UCC, or any other so-called "national group." Getting them to join and form or revive branches across the country should be a top priority. If we had dozens of active branches across Canada, we could then claim, with some credibility, to be representative and influential, and that would generate its own momentum.

Right now the UCC branches that still carry on are not attracting younger members and are uncoordinated in their efforts. they are repositories of some important accumulated wisdom and experience that is, alas, draining away. If we don't attract many new members and form a lot of new branches, we cannot claim that the UCC is anything but a remnant of the past. Ask yourselves: When was the last UCC branch formed? None in my memory.

• National assemblies: Only once in its history did the UCC ever hold its triennial congress outside of Winnipeg (that was in Toronto in 1946). You don't build a national organization by staying in one place. National assemblies should be held in alternate cities every three years, in order to broaden public and community awareness of the organization, attract new members, and give members a chance to see more of Canada and meet other members in their home regions, all adding impetus to the emergence of a truly national body.

In between these national gatherings we need to develop a network through the Internet that allows members, no matter where they live, to keep informed on a regular basis about what they can or need to do on the issues we have collectively identified as critical. Perhaps it's also time to downgrade the Winnipeg HQ to the status of a provincial or regional office and base the UCC in the political, economic and media capital of Canada, which is Toronto, like it or not.

• English vs. Ukrainian: That the lingua franca of today's world is English should be obvious. While retaining the language of our heritage has deep and understandable meaning for some, doing so by making a Ukrainian language ability the litmus test of belonging means excluding many who have only a rudimentary ability or no proficiency at all in Ukrainian.

While all documents generated by our organization should be in English, Ukrainian and French, our working language realistically has to be English, which, by the way, is the situation that prevails in most other similar ethnic groups in Canada, or at least those that wish to be effective. Does anyone believe the Canadian Jewish Congress works in Yiddish or Hebrew?

• A Canadian focus: Since 1991 an internationally recognized Ukrainian state has existed in Europe. It has paid scant attention to the Ukrainian diaspora, save when it has needed us to secure advantages for itself. If we are to become an effective body within Canada we must concentrate on domestic issues. This does not mean abandoning Ukraine, nor should we be neutral on issues there. But it does call for a focus, and Canadians of Ukrainian heritage want that concentration to be on what concerns us here.

Canada is our home, not Ukraine. By becoming an ever more efficient organization in Canada, we will, in time, be able to parlay that influence in the foreign affairs arena. But we must be strong here. First things first. Perhaps we could also start asking the 50 million Ukrainians over there to start helping us over here. That'd be nice for a change.

• Gender issues: For 60-plus years the UCC has been run by priests or other men. Isn't it time for a woman to give it a whack? She couldn't do worse, and my guess is she might do better.

Having put these thoughts into the public arena I now withdraw. I have no expectation that this commentary will result in any reforms of the UCC, although the last few defenders of that body will no doubt release great clouds of obfuscating fog as they rally under its tattered parasol, ignoring reality.

Years ago, when a number of us were undeservedly turned out of the UCC, we formed the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association (UCCLA). Since then we've completed many important initiatives, such as helping ensure that the wrongs done to Canada's Ukrainian community during this country's first national internment operations are not forgotten. Go to Banff, go to Nanaimo, go to Spirit Lake, go to Brandon, go to Kapuskasing, even wander around Winnipeg at the next UCC congress, and you will find plaques that the UCCLA and its supporters placed there in our continuing efforts to right this historical injustice.

In doing so we have often enjoyed the support of UCC branches and other members of our community. Why do they help the UCCLA? Because they recognize that we're believers in the same simple gospel that motivated great Ukrainian Canadians like the late Bohdan Panchuk. "Do something!" he said. We do. The UCC doesn't. We aren't afraid to take a stand. The UCC is. Or, at best, it waits so long that by the time it does mutter something it's too late.

Sometimes, of course, UCCLA makes mistakes. But we never act unless we believe what we are doing is in the best interests of the Ukrainian Canadian community. True, we don't attend many banquets. We don't have paid staff. We're all volunteers. It actually costs each of us to belong to the UCCLA. And certainly we aren't an "umbrella group." We can't, don't and won't claim to represent a million people. We're not that vain. All we are is relevant. The UCC hasn't been, not for a long time. And, I'm truly sorry to say, that's not likely to change.

Lubomyr Luciuk Ph.D., is author of "Searching For Place: Ukrainian Displaced Persons, Canada, and the Migration of Memory" (University of Toronto Press, 2000), and serves as director of research for the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association. This commentary represents his personal opinion, not necessarily that of the UCCLA or any of its members or supporters, including those in the UCC.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, August 26, 2001, No. 34, Vol. LXIX

| Home Page |