Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982

by Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
The interwar years witnessed a people at crossroads with the meaning of Canadian identity and unity.  One definition or viewpoint restricted the meaning of the term Canadian to the "disparate partnership" between the former British and French colonists who have come to share its name and the principles for which it stands (Falconer, 1925).  According to Falconer's (1925, p.603) outline of history, the two underlying principles of Canadian unity were " -  attachment to Great Britain, and a determination not to be absorbed, in the United States, the second, except in the case of Quebec, being derived from the first." A second viewpoint extended this partnership to the non-British and non-French element because, as Hurd (1928) concluded, "Canadians have a common bond of unity in Canadian citizenship.  That was broad enough to include Canadian nationals of every race and of every tongue.” (p.627) The latter viewpoint came in response to the glowing fervour about "...an insistence on the existence and recognition of a Canadian race." (Hurd, 1928, p.615) Officiating the "one-race nation” or melting-pot concept became futile given "bona fide differences" in the extent of language acquisition (note that the Parliament and records of Canada are officially bilingual), in fertility (and mortality) rates and in the extent of intermarriage between the British and French elements and the "average foreign race" when compared to either group in the majority on the same behavioural indices. (Hurd, 1928)
Consequently, the melting pot concept  fell  wayside to the appearance of a new interpretation of the continuing press for assimilation, introduced by Foster (1926, p.135) in these words:

In many minds the term "assimilation" is confused with amalgamation.  Does the former necessarily imply intermarriage - the fusion of races?  Is not assimilation rather the incorporation into our national life of all people within our borders for their common well-being.  Is it not the working together side by side for the common advancement, each race contributing something of value and so slowly but surely evolving a new people enriched by the diversity of its origin?

This alternation of questions and answers germinated additional interest and appreciation for the "mosaic" concept of Canadian culture - some of it significantly enough, from publicists and various service agencies working to facilitate immigrant adjustment (Ukrainian Community Development Committee - Prairie Region, 1986, p.8; Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, 1987, p.16). Serious study and growth in research with persons grouped round this centre of interest emerged in the 1930s (Swyripa, 1978, p.45). In any case, the pioneers round this concept forced themselves to learn through their own studies about the "mosaic" of traits and backgrounds of groups immigrating to Canada (Swyripa, 1978, p.41). These studies not only uncovered the many and various experiences in our national history which shaped the perceptions and attitudes of new Canadian arrivals, they also served as a direction ­indicator as to what is or may be inherited from a group's culture to enrich Canada (Swyripa, 1978, pp.41-42). Fourteen years after the initial questions were posed, there was a small congerie of agencies and programmes experimenting with ethnocultural groups and cultural maintenance (e.g. the Advisory Committee on Cooperation in Canadian Citizenship) ­regrettably, "...with little support from government." (Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba, 1988, p.12) By 1946, citizenship training programmes evinced a change of direction, at least in purpose.  Formally, they aimed to foster positive social relationships between  the  various  ethnocultural  groups. Informally, however, these courses merely initiated “. . . the process of assimilation." (McLeod, 1975, p.27)
Nevertheless, except for the more recent infamous internment and dispossession of West Coast Japanese Canadians during wartime (Richardson, 1990, p.174), it was in the years following World War II and under the combination of internal and international pressure, that the different aspirations and expectations of ethnocultural minority groups (e.g., cultural pluralism, structural change and recognition of their contribution to developing Canada) came to be more tolerated (Creighton, 1970, p.301,306,311; McLeod, 1975, pp.27-28; Richardson, 1990, pp.180-183; Task Force on Multiculturalism in Manitoba, 1988, pp.12-13). Only under sustained pressure and after the federal government implemented the Multicultural Policy was there official recognition and support for cultural pluralism in Canada and general statutory protection of ethnocultural minority languages guaranteed in Section 38 of the Official Languages Act (Statutes of Canada, 1969,c.54).
The twin policies of official bilingualism and official multiculturalism stemmed  from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism's inquiry into and

". . . report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution" (Order-in-Council, 1963).

A positive by-product of these recommendations later found expression in Sections  97 and 98 of the Official Languages Act (1988), as amended. The amendments granted additional rights and services in “English and French or any languages of the aboriginal peoples of Canada” provided for in the Official Languages Ordinance and Languages Ordinance of the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act, respectively (Statutes of Canada 1988a, c.38).
In 1971, Canada was officially declared to be multicultural.  The federal policy of multiculturalism took effect and was directed toward  "preserving human rights, developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation, reinforcing Canadian unity and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework" (Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, Multiculturalism, 1987, p.11).  The endorsement came after ethnocultural minority leaders forcefully rejected the terms of reference espoused by the Commission, “an equal partnership between the two founding races”, “Anglophone”, “Francophone” and especially “biculturalism” (Heyman, 1978; Lupul, 1978), words and attitudes impervious to the cultural being and contributions of “other ethnic groups” who, “...came to Canada during or after the founding of the Canadian State” (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1967, p.xxvi).” The “other” Canadians and Aboriginals, for comparison, outnumbered those of French ancestry in seven provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories by a ratio of about 7 to 1 and outnumbered the British population in the three Prairie Provinces and the Territories, according to data from the 1971 census (Hlynka, 1981, pp. 22-23).  Such regional variation was part and parcel of Canada’s history of settlement, geographic evolution and political organization. It compelled the Government to add to the Commission’s mandate a clause requiring the Commission to take “into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution” (Order in Council, 1963). This added mandate also resulted in Volume IV of the Commission’s 1969 Report, The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1969).
 
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism finished  its work March 31, 1971.  An official response to the multilingual and multicultural recommendations contained in Volume IV of the Commission's Report emerged in the House of Commons on October 8, 1971 with Prime Minister Trudeau's announcement of implementation of a policy of "multiculturalism within a bilingual framework." The Prime Minister revealed to the House ". . that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although, there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other” (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545). This statement of policy committed the federal government in four ways: helping cultural survival and group development, overcoming cultural barriers to full participation, promoting creative encounters and cultural interchange in the interest of national unity and assisting immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages (House of Commons, 1971, p.8545).  It is unfortunate to note that, while implementation of official bilingualism proceeded through legislation, official multiculturalism was merely Government policy and had no legislative base.  Furthermore, government assistance to “cultural survival and development of ethnic groups” proceeded only to the extent “that a given group exhibits a desire for this,” while no such condition was placed upon the ethnocultural majorities or official language groups (House of Commons, 1971, p.8581).
Subsequent legislative affirmations espoused equality between the ethnocultural majorities and ethnocultural minorities and equality of conditions for all Canadians.  Of overriding importance were The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, a consolidation of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 and The Constitution Act, 1982.  Consolidated as of October 1, 1989, it contained various direct amendments (i.e. repeals, amended provisions, substitutions) and indirect amendments (i.e. alterations by United Kingdom Parliament, additions by Parliament of Canada, alterations by the Legislatures), spent provisions, a general procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, and a general amendment renaming the British North America Act, 1867 to the Constitution Act, 1867 (Department of Justice Canada, 1989).
The Acts consolidated what leaders-governments-after-next historically strived to promote and protect: basic human rights.  Canada's record of' safeguarding these rights, was divided into three periods, each moulded by a set of mechanisms specific to the time and culture of the period (Greene, 1989): first, the period, from 1867 to 1960, of contentious action or inaction on the part of the judiciary to effectively invoke or negate the existence of "an implied bill of rights" (of civil liberties principles) inherited from the U.K.'s unwritten constitution by virtue of the principle of legislative supremacy pursuant to the preamblary statement in the original Constitution Act, which reads as follows:

(29th March 1867.)            
Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom (Department of Justice Canada, 1989, p.1);

second, the period between 1960 and 1982, in which the first Canadian Bill of Rights was born to failure because of a judiciary reluctant to negate the principle of legislative supremacy; and, third, the period, from 1982 up to the present, which interrupted the narrow judiciary actions and interpretations mindful of civil liberties associated with the first two periods in light of the form and spirit effected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Greene's (1989, p.38) review of the circumstances leading to the adoption of the Charter showed that it acts as the "key-instrument" in the Government's concerted nation-building strategy that evolved from 1967 to 1982:

• • to create the conditions that would encourage a stronger national identity to counteract the forces of provincialism;
  • to patriate the constitution (end the role of the U.K. Parliament in the constitutional amendment process, and provide for an entirely Canadian amending procedure); and
  • to extend language rights and to create new ‘mobility rights’ so that Canadians would feel at home in any province and would not be deterred from moving within the country (Greene, 1989, p.38).

Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012

Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1867-1920

 By Ihor Cap, Ph.D.

THREE YEARS AGO WHEN IN ENGLAND, I VISITED ONE OF THOSE MODELS OF GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE WHICH THE HAND OF GENIUS, GUIDED BY AN UNERRING FAITH, HAD MOULDED INTO A HARMONIOUS WHOLE.  THIS CATHEDRAL IS MADE OF GRANITE, OAK, AND MARBLE.  IT IS THE IMAGE OF THE NATION I WISH TO SEE CANADA BECOME, FOR HERE I WANT THE GRANITE TO REMAIN THE GRANITE, THE OAK TO REMAIN THE OAK, THE MARBLE TO REMAIN THE MARBLE. OUT OF THESE ELEMENTS, I WOULD BUILD A NATION GREAT AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

Sir Wilfred Laurier
Prime Minister of Canada
1896 - 1911

The significance of Laurier's statement quoted above was not merely  an acknowledgement of the inherent linguistic, cultural, and racial plurality of Canada.  Nor was it simply a challenge to his contemporaries to recognize the pioneering contributions to nation-building of all three elements or forces of Canadian society.  The main significance of the leader's visionary statement was that it provides his contemporaries with the 'social architecture' for catapulting the three elements of Canadian society into a more equitable partnership of participants and builders, rather than survivors and victims, of the future.

In the confluence of two earlier forces (the British and French settlers) "...that have shaped our Canadian character must surely be seen the force of two additional tributaries adding to the majestic flow of our culture and our civilization" noted the former Governor-General designate, Edward Schreyer, in his inaugural speech delivered in 1979 (Hlynka, 1981, p.43). One, of course, was  the Aboriginal (Native) peoples, Canada's First Nations.  The other was the multiplicity of settlers with origins other than British, French or Native.  Census data show (see Table 1 in Mallea, 1990, p.4) that in 1871, just four years after Confederation,  Canada's total population (comprises only Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario) numbered about 3 million, 486 thousand people.  Additional data show that 60.5 percent of this population were of British origin, compared to 31.1 percent of French, 0.7 percent of Native and 7.7 percent of Canadians that were none of these.  The general picture of Canada changed considerably in the new century.  By 1911, the total population of Canada (excludes Newfoundland) numbered about 7 million, 207 thousand people.  Those of British origin comprised 55.5 percent of the total population, compared to 28.6 percent of French, 1.5 percent of Native and 14.4 percent  of Canadians that were none of these.  The latter group's contribution to nation building coincided most clearly with the settlement of the Prairie region (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) between Ontario and British Columbia, and the economic and  political  successes of Canada in the new century (Bryce, 1928, p.44; Schroeder, 1990, pp.38-58; Yuzyk, 1983, p.303).
 
With  Alberta  and  Saskatchewan (formerly The North-West Territories) obtaining provincial status in 1905 (The National Atlas of Canada, 1974, p.86), Canada attained its ultimate extent in territorial aim and virtually its final framework of political organization (Lewis, 1913, p.200; Webster's New Reference Library, 1988, p.1087). One year later, when ". . the exports of wheat exceeded those of cheese in value" (Ruddick, 1913b, p.676), the country embraced an economic  metamorphosis from the historically cheese-paring driven economies of 'Old World Canada' into the wheat, wheat flour, flax-seed and barley, and oats-producing economies of the new central 'West'.  Creighton (1970, p.105), Professor and Historian, evaluated the national significance and impact attributed to the framers of 'the last best west' land policy in these words:

It had always been assumed, as an article of faith, that immigration and western settlement would ultimately make the nation; and now, to the immense pride and satisfaction of everybody, this was happening .... The nation's production of wheat, which had been only 55,572,000 bushels in 1901, rose to 231,237,000 in 1912.  Western Canada was well on its way to becoming one of the greatest granaries in the world .... But western settlement had been only one of the national policies and its successful realization was only a part, though a most important part, of Canada's spectacular success.

To be sure, the impulse of immigration and settlement of the Prairie region was a conditional element in meeting the additional exigencies of Canadian manufacturing and railroad building (Creighton, 1970, p.25; Gordon, 1910. p.106). Of no less importance, then, in shaping state behaviour and the political organization of Canada (1905) were the Native peoples.  Although Native labour power was not momentous into the vicinity of the original union of the four older provinces of Canada (1867), “...the fact that Native people still controlled or contested control of large areas of putatively Dominion territory (on the prairies until the 1880s and in the north until much later) shaped the national lands policy (not to mention policy toward Native people) well into the twentieth century" (Abele and Stasiulis, 1989, p.240).
More important than the gross earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway which according to Skelton (1913c, p.199) grew to 104 million by 1912 (30 million in 1901), more important than the total import and export values which had nearly quadrupled by 1912 after reaching an "axial point" (Bennis and Nanus, 1985, p.13) of 125 million in 1895 (Skelton, 1913 c, p.239), and even more important than the perceived need for bolstering the Canadian navy and exercising military operations were the omnipresent "problems" of continued immigration and the kind of immigrant who was to ". . become part and parcel of the Canadian people" (Scott, 1913b, p.589) and by greater cleavage between majority and minority.
If  the election of, then, municipal reeves and councillors of Ukrainian origin (Public Archives Canada, 1979, p.7) and the legal or customary educational-linguistic rights gained by ethnocultural minorities in 1872, 1873 (Skelton, 1917, p.454), 1897 (Skwarok, 1959, p.57), and 1901 (Skelton, 1917, p.456) can be interpreted as recognition of the general wealth accompanying minority labour and/or their integration into Laurier's more elastic image of Canadian identity then Ukrainians, like other minorities, seem  to relieve themselves of illusion as their legal or customary rights receded with every economic and political consolidation.
 
Significant in the development of the Naturalization Act was the newly prescribed educational qualification (Skelton, 1917, p.442) requiring "an adequate knowledge of either the English or French languages" (Statutes of Canada. 1914, c.44, s.2) of all candidates seeking naturalization.  This qualification was closely tied in with the disappearance of the bilingual system of teaching (e.g. German-English, Ukrainian­-English, Polish-English) in the Prairie region in 1916 (Skwarok, 1959, p.90). As immigration and bilingual instruction at this turn of the century increased (e.g. some 400 predominantly or all-Ukrainian schools alone by 1915) so did public pressure against the "Bi-lingual Schools" campaigns of Ukrainian teachers (Skwarok, 1956, p.90, 106).  In 1916, the newly elected government of Manitoba closed the bilingual schools and the scarcely translated Ukrainian­-English reading books for elementary school use, ". . which were still in boxes yet unopened - Dr. Thornton, Minister of Education orders them burned" (Gospodyn, 1990, p.11).  Morton (1968, p.358)  stated that "...public opinion came to hold  strongly that Canadian nationality was threatened in Manitoba by the linguistic chaos in the schools." It seems ironic, in the light of the preceding statement, that the Naturalization Act of 1914 not only prescribed an additional two years' to meet the five-year residency requirement in Canada but granted, British, not Canadian, citizenship (Yuzyk, 1983, p.305).
The required educational-linguistic qualification and type of citizenship granted in the Act (1914) reflected  the on­going determination and power of the majority group to assimilate newcomers from countries with languages, skin pigmentation, customs or ideals unlike their own (Lewis, 1913, p.187,202; Scott, 1913b, p.531,569,578,589). Scots and Presbyterians had the largest stake in the prevailing socioeconomic order (Martynowych, 1983, pp.34-35). Fearing "another Quebec" may yet evolve in parts of western Canada, Presbyterian spokespersons advocated rapid Anglicization and assimilation of the South-East Europeans (especially Slavs) whose massive influx "...at once imperilled western Canada's status as a 'godly bastion of the British Empire' and challenged the Presbyterians to assume the burden of ‘uplifting' the 'benighted foreigners"' (Martynowych, 1983, p.36; Owen, 1985).  Filling up the west with settlers from old Canada and "Returned Canadians" from the United States (Lewis, 1913a, p.202; Scott, 1913b, p.558,563), a safeguard favoured by French nationalists of Quebec (Lewis, 1913, p.187), ensured that the region remained British in character and visibly white.
The "utilitarian mentality" (Li, 1988, p.12,37,39) of industrialists and politicians of the day eroded support for non-white arrivals and, in the process, exacerbated the behaviour of whites toward them (Lampkin, 1985, p.663; Bibby, 1990, pp.25-27). Chinese labour, for example, was considered useful even necessary to CPR railway building.  However, upon its completion in 1885, an Act to restrict and regulate Chinese immigration into Canada (Statutes of Canada, 1885, c. 71)rendered them racially undesirable. With few exceptions, an entry tax of $50 on every person of Chinese origin was set (Statutes of Canada, 1885, c.71, s.4), and raised to $500 in 1903 (Lampkin, 1985, p.664). In 1906, a stipulation limiting the number of Chinese immigrants in any vessel to "one such immigrant for every fifty tons of its tonnage" (Statutes of Canada, 1906, c.95, s.9) remained with effect from 1885.  The Vancouver riot of 1907 was illustrative of the renewed hostile public behaviour toward their perceived threat to occupational competition (namely cheap Asiatic labour) and of British Columbia's willingness to extend similar idiosyncrasies of separation (e.g. segregating Chinese students from white students) and assimilation to the province's classrooms (Li, 1988, pp.32-33). The intensification of such idiosyncrasies prompted this and other provincial governments to legislate the exclusion of Asiatics from enfranchisement and certain professions (i.e. law and pharmacy), to enact de facto discriminatory restrictions affecting the hours of operation of Asiatic businesses and laws to prevent the employment of female labour (i.e. white or Indian) in their businesses (Li, 1988, pp.28-29).

Similar to the experience of other non-white western arrivals, the entry of black Americans was stymied by those invoking Section 38 of the 1910 Act respecting Immigration which prohibited the landing " . . . of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada"(Statutes of Canada, 1910, c.27, s.38). This notwithstanding, the black experience was particularly harsh for Canadian-born in eastern Canada - notably, Nova Scotia - where most blacks settled.  Especially "...hard were the discriminatory practices in education by which School Acts from 1811 to as late as 1954 ensured that some black children in many communities received no schooling at all and others only inferior schooling in separate black schools", reported Lampkin (1985, p.655). Accordingly, the prevailing ideology of segregation and assimilation facilitated the more "useful and meaningful" (Sharzer, 1985, p.551) "acculturation and civilization" (Powless, 1985, p.604) policy pursued by government for the re-education and re-socialization of Aboriginal (Native) peoples in Canada.  The goal of such a policy operated on the assumption that Natives must forfeit their past (Sharzer, 1985, p.552). In considerable measure, the educational objectives of living and earning a living in society channelled Natives and immigrants of both sexes into options that were not qualitatively different from the occupations of their parents (Martynowych, 1983, pp.46-47; Powless, 1985, pp.603-604; Li, 1988, Table 3.2).

According to Buckland        (1985, p.148), Ottawa-based researcher and social policy analyst,  “. . . these policies coincided    with   ideologies    of racial  superiority     and inferiority and beliefs about the 'suitability' of certain ethnic groups for certain types of work.  Thus, the Chinese were brought in to build the railroads, the Ukrainians to pioneer and cultivate the Prairies, and so on." The period between 1914-1920 was as much indicative of a reluctancy to forfeit such beliefs as it was of a 'social architecture' going completely amiss.  During World War I, the government deemed it expedient, necessary and even "...desirable considering the lack of opportunity for employment" (Order in Council of the 28th of October, 1914) to make orders, proclamations and regulations to permit exit, arrest, detain, register or monitor the control of over 80,000  "alien enemies"  (most  of whom were Ukrainian), and their press in Canada (Proclamation of  15th  August, 1914;  Order  in  Council  of  the  20th  of  September, 1916; Luciuk, 1988, p.7; Order in Council of the 6th of November, 1914).  Another 5,000 to 6,000 allied  Russian occupied Ukrainians and enemy Austrian occupied Ukrainians, presumably sympathetic to Austria, were kept for several years in one of 26 internment camps across Canada - in spite of 10,000 voluntary enlistments in the Canadian war effort (Melnycky, 1983; Yuzyk, 1983, p.305; Luciuk, 1988).  In some cases, they were dismissed from employment; their language and press outlawed (Public Archives Canada, 1979, pp.5-7; Luciuk, 1988, pp.25-27).

Moreover, in 1917 the government incapacitated legally from voting federally all conscientious objectors to combatant military service (i.e. Mennonites and Doukhobors) and aliens naturalized after March 1902 if they were "born in an enemy country" or if they spoke "a language of an enemy  country" (The War-time Elections Act, 1917, c.39, s.154). A woman could be admitted to vote but only if she ". . qualified as to age, race and residence, as required in the case of a male person in such a province" or Territory and, as the case may be, was related to someone serving or having served in any of the naval or military forces of Great Britain or of Canada in the aforementioned war (The War-time Elections Act, 1917, c.39, s.33).

Author Information:
Ihor Cap, Ph.D.
Ihor Cap is a member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Canada.
Related Articles in This Series
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1920-1982
Building the Canadian Mosaic: A Survey of Historical Developments, 1982-2012

The Polar Bears and Other Arctic Animals of Churchill Manitoba

By Ihor Cap


Photo by Ansgar Walk (Own work) [CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

A little more than 800 people live in the town of Churchill. It is located at the estuary of the Churchill River at the second-largest bay in the world, Hudson Bay.  This far most northern tip of the province of Manitoba receives thousands of tourists yearly. It has high auroral activity because it resides just below the Auroral Oval. That means you will get the best northern lights show on earth!  It also has three ecosystems converging to provide a splendid diversity of plant and animal life, Marine, Tundra, and Boreal Forest.  
The town has a varied wildlife that attracts over 270 bird species, the beluga whales, caribou, foxes, gyrfalcons, hare, lemming, ptarmigan, snowy owls, and the ever-popular polar bears. However, it is the white furry creatures that have helped generate more interest in Churchill as of late to help it become the “Polar Bear Capital of the World.” See what makes this place so special to so many people in Manitoba below.

EzReklama Churchill ManitobaVideo Playlist The Via Rail passenger train from Winnipeg’s Union Station travels to the Churchill railway station 3 times a week. This 1,700 km (1,100 mile) trek takes an estimated 40 hours. There are no service roads going in or out of Churchill. The other option is to fly from Winnipeg to the town of Churchill. There are several daily service flights available to and from Winnipeg airport to take you to the Churchill airport and back.
Bed and Breakfast Operators in Churchill Manitoba
BEAR’S DEN
Contact: Gord & Lynn Martens
Address: 10 Bernier Street - Churchill, Manitoba
Phone: (204) 675-2556
Website: www.churchillbearsden.piczo.com
Email: glbears@mts.net
Open during the months of October and November only.
BLUE SKY BED & SLED
Contact: Gerald Azure and Jenafor Ollander
Phone: (204) 675-2001
Website: http://ww.blueskymush.com
Email: jgaazure@mts.net
MEMORIES BED & BREAKFAST
Contact: George & Stella Davis
Phone:  (204)675-2962
Email:  thedroobs@hotmail.com
MIKE & MYKELEN’S B & B
Contact: Mykelen Korchynsky
Address: 51 Selkirk Street, PO Box 1093 Phone: (204) 675-2773
POLAR BEAR B & B
Contact: Don Gould
Address: 26 Hearne
Phone: (204) 675-2819
Email: mailto:polarbearbandb@yahoo.com


TOUR COMPANIES

There are several tourist operators to make your experience in the Churchill area even better. They offer everything from dog sled rides, ice flow tours, birdwatching, kayaking, snorkeling, in addition to the expected boat and bus area tours.

Blue Sky Expeditions - Dog sled rides tours. email: jgaazure@mts.net

Charlie’s Dog Sled Tours - dog sled rides near the DeneAboriginalVillage.

Great White Bear Tours - Tundra vehicle operators that provide polar bear tours. Email Great White Bear Tours.

Lazy Bear Lodge Tours - Group packages, day-trips, summer bus tours, boat tours,  whale watching, kayaking, snorkeling and lazy bear tundra bus tours in the fall. Email: lazy@mts.net

Nature 1st Tours – Polar bear day tours, bus and hiking, birding tours, nature walks. . Email: nature1st@mts.net 

North Star Tours – Original tour company. Town and area bus tours. Email: nortours@mts.net 

Polar Bear Alley – Hiking and polar bear tours. Day hikes too. Email Polar Bear Alley.

Sea North Tours – Beluga whale watching, Fort tours, ice flow tours, kayaking and snorkelling. Email: seanorth@mts.net 

Tundra Buggy Adventure/Frontiers North - Tundra vehicle tours, polar bear tours. Email: wapusk@mts.net 

Wapusk Adventures - Dog sled tour operator. Email: wapusk@mts.net 

Churchill, Manitoba Reading Online References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Manitoba http://www.churchill.ca/about/main

About the Author:

Ihor Cap is a Web Author and Dad