Canada's "de facto head of state."

Just recently during a speech in Paris Michaelle Jean, Canada’s Governor General, referred to herself as Canada’s “head of state,” immediately sparking controversy throughout the Canadian government. For those of you who are unaware, Queen Elizabeth II is actually Canada’s head of state – not our Prime Minister. Without going into the gritty details on what the Governor General actual does, because to be honest that sometimes escapes me, she is more or less a representative of the Queen for Canada and carries out mostly ceremonial and constitutional duties.

At a first glance, this doesn’t seem like such a big deal. But as Paul Dewar stated in the Ottawa Citizen soon after the speech, “It should be cleared up real quick that the Queen is the head of state... When I taught Civics in my class, that’s who is the head of state.”

No wonder Canadians are confused, not only about their own history, but about how their government works: the people who are supposed to be running it don’t even understand the basic fundamentals and principals of our political system. Furthermore, the Ottawa Citizen also went on to state that according to the Dominion Institute of Canada 92 percent of Canadians were unaware that the Queen was Canada’s head of state.

Shocking? Not really given the apathetic nature of most Canadian people to think twice about their own political system.

Some say we’re an independent nation defined by Vimy Ridge or the Statute of Westminster, but this recent hiccup makes me wonder are we always going to be a nation held on a invisible leash free to wander only when mother says it’s okay to go out and play?

- Ty

The Rise of the Savage

While the title falls into an old stereotype that we assume has fallen into the history books, a discussion today regarding Native claims and rights has sparked my suspicion that we still have the savage running around in our thoughts. Let me set the table for discussion; the conversation surrounded the failing attempt by the Ontario government to properly educated their students in the French Canadian language. Certainly this is not debatable, and among the active participants this notion was very heavily agreed upon. So in a change of subject, yet still very heavily related, I mentioned the overlooked claim that the First Nations have to language rights. How wrong of me to do so!

Little did I know but I brought up, as Trudeau might say, a "sacred cow." The amount of backlash towards suggesting that First Nations groups have a greater claim to injustices when it comes to language rights, was appalling. It is apparently wrong to think that if the Quebecois have a claim to language rights so do the Native minorities. Now of course the reasonable argument was made that, there are simply too many to learn or expect to learn. This is true but easily countered with the idea of learning the language of the traders; the universal language used to trade between groups. But another argument was made that they are useless since no one else uses them, and yet in Ireland Gaelic is still taught and in Universities abroad Latin is alive and kicking. Nevertheless my intent was not to suggest a massive campaign to enforce the teaching of Native languages in the schooling systems of our provinces (there are far to many complications for that), but instead and to the form of the Language Acts a.k.a. Bilingualism, I was suggesting that these groups be included in the federal spectrum, that we acknowledge who was here first, if we are acknowledging who was here second and third.

It appears that while Canadians are coming to terms and overlooking the stereotypes that have been long associated with Quebec (sovereignty, special statues, and so on), little has been done to make Canadians aware of the true founders of this continent. It appears that the savage still runs wild in the minds of the majority; but look no further then your mirror to see who the real savages are.

Z.R. Nissen

The Canadian (History) Pandemic

As I sat down this morning to start my daily readings I came across something that shocked and appalled me. The Globe and Mail had an excellent piece on the lack of teaching of Canadian History within the High School classroom's all over Canada. Appropriately, they called the article, "Canada is failing history." The entire article is worth a read, but these facts alone were enough to make me cringe:

"The results, found in the just-released Canadian History Report Card (the full report is available at report-card.dominion.ca), are troubling. The institute's analysis of provincial and territorial curriculums revealed that:

• Four provinces failed and deserve the F they received;
• No province received an A;
• Only four provinces - Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia - require Canadian history as a mandatory course in high school. The others do not;
• Most provinces simply offer courses in “social studies,” catch-all courses that generally ignore Canadian history (with the notable exception of British Columbia)."

Now of course being a history student immediately makes me biased, however, how can a nation who claims to be so proud of their "peacekeepers," multiculturalism and way of life know next to nothing about their own history? Are people simply falling into the stereotypes that are brought up when a snippet of our nation's past is seen on a ten minute CBC video clip? Maybe. Or is it perhaps because we as Canadians tend to be too humble and choose to ignore our accomplishments and sacrifices that have helped create this country we call Canada today? There is no right or wrong answer other than that Canadians don't know or seem to care about their past.

The Dominion Institue nailed the issue right on the head,

"The Dominion Institute recommends that a core body of knowledge and terms of national significance be developed and included in all history curriculums across the country. It is unacceptable to think that students can graduate from high school without learning about the First or Second World War, Canada-U.S. relations or about the history of aboriginal Canadians."

In my opinnion that's a generous statement. What about the entire history of French-English relations in Canada? The execution of Thomas D'arcy McGee and Louis Riel? What about the founding of the West and the war of 1812? Of course, it would be naive to think that all of these events could be covered in a one year high school history class, but maybe that's the problem - one credit in our nation's history is simply unacceptable.

Our youth and even elderly are not nearly as educated as I would imagine our American counterparts are in their own history. American history is ingrained in the minds of American youth through history books, countless Hollywood movies, memorials and commemorations. Of course, some say that Americans are "too" patriotic, whatever that's supposed to mean, but one thing is for sure we as Canadians are not patriotic enough when it comes to celebrating our history.

Regardless, Canadians cease to care or remember their own history because it isn't placed within most people's reach. You have to look, research, read and understand the glorious past that this nation has. So while you're drinking beer, spending cash on fireworks and lighting up the BBQ this coming Canada Day (July 1st) take a second and learn something about our history. For if we don't start too, I fear it may be lost forever in our apathetic shadow.

Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canada-is-failing-history/article1184615/

- Ty

René Lévesque Bio Pic on the CBC

Well I was fortunate enough to tune into the CBC last night, and what might I find? Well the continuation of the René Lévesque bio pic. Now I was unfortunate enough to have missed the first part (aired some two years ago), but I was lucky to catch the second part (both airings last night and tonight). Now like many of my fellow Canadians who had been watching the NHL playoffs, there was not one mention of the continuation of this series among the many beer commercials. But luckily I caught it anyway.

Now I have a slight problem with the biography, well maybe multiple slight problems, so where do I start? Well first I have a feeling that the emotions and atmosphere have been lost in the English version. It looks as though the best take was probably in French, leaving the actor to try and recapture that moment in a language slightly unfamiliar to him. Furthermore if you are going to recapture a moment as significant as the defeat speech after the 1980 referendum, then why not show the original footage, after all its not as though the CBC does not have it. Then again that is something I have been looking for in bio films altogether.

Next, what happened to Colm Feore? Is he too busy to reprise his role as Trudeau? Well I guess so, because they had to find another actor to play the part; just a slight let down.

Aside from the poor acting and some slightly off casting, this program did deliver in a way that is truly commendable. While the name Lévesque in Québec is as well known as the hockey franchise, the same cannot be said in other areas of the country. Far to many times while reading Graham Fraser's book "René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois in Power" was I asked "who is that?" while when reading a book with Trudeau's name little was asked because it is Trudeau. Nevertheless, this documentary does educate those lucky enough to have caught it, on who René was and what he was fighting for.

Ironically while I criticize the acting, I have for the first time seen René in a light that truly is not conveyed in the written words. For the first time I find myself saying "oh poor René." Of course this holds many questions as to how accurate the acting is and what message is being portrayed, but maybe for the first time the story of a Québécois has been portrayed to all masses without the usual negative stigma associated with French politics. However only time will tell. Let us hope that next time this appears on television there is some advertisements because this story needs to be heard outside of Québec and those few who watch the CBC.

Z.R. Nissen

The Arctic.

“ MOSCOW – Russia is reportedly planning to create a dedicated military force to help protect interests in the disputed Arctic Region.” From: The Canadian Press, March 27, 2009.

“On Feb. 18, two Russian Tupolev TU 95 bombers were turned away from Alaska and the Yukon about 200 kilometres from Canadian and U.S. airspace. Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned of “increasingly aggressive Russian actions around the globe and Russian intrusions into our airspace.”” From: The Canadian Press, March 27, 2009.

“In order to protect its assets, Moscow says one of its main goals will be the establishment of troops “capable of ensuring military security” in the [Arctic] region.” From: BBC News, March 27, 2009.

While most of the North American population waits for the “terrorists” to strike Canada is slowly losing its foothold in the race for the Arctic and its resources. Stephen Harper has pledged to stop these sorts of intrusions into Canadian boundaries, but how long will it be until the troops in Afghanistan have to come home only to be deployed back out?

At least Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist, is thinking about the sovereignty and independence of our nation:

“How can Canada ensure the peaceful use of the Arctic and allow respect for human right to radiate from the circumpolar North? I propose revitalizing an old idea with a “made-in-Canada” notion that was born in our northern land claims: an Arctic treaty that charges circumpolar indigenous peoples with the stewardship of the Arctic for the continued benefits of humankind...” From: The Globe and Mail, May 29, 2009.

Her idea may be a bit too idealistic, but it’s better than sitting back and watching Canada lose its own sovereignty at the cost of other nations imperialistic motives.

How long will it be until the Cold War becomes a reality?

How long will be until the leaders of this country open their eyes and see that our own front door is being knocked upon by foreign imperial powers?

How long until more Canadians die for the cost of economics?

Oh well, maybe this time they’ll be fighting for something worth dying for – our own sovereignty.

- Ty

This Week: The Mulroney Inquiry

Just a reminder for our readers; in the coming week the Mulroney inquiry is gaining steam again.

This coming week Brian Mulroney will be taking questions over the course of four days (a substantial increase from the short four hour questioning period previous). Just a brief recap; Karlheinz Schreiber has admitted that some of his testimony has been false; Brian Mulroney has admitted he took money from Schreiber but not illegally; Kim Campbell has denied any involvement in the Mulroney governmental affairs; and most recently the Conservatives have distanced themselves from Mr. Mulroney claiming his is no longer a member of the party.

This looks to be an interesting week.

Z.R. Nissen

Book? Do You Mean MacBook?

Well it has certainly been a while since I have posted, which is partially due to the work load school provides in the final month of the winter semester. However now that the summer is here, I will hopefully find more time to write. To start off this new period of posting I would like to highlight a recent issue which seems to be plaguing the discussion circles and popular media in Canada.

On a recent episode of the new cartoon comedy based on the well known SCTV skit "The Great White North," the writers of Bob and Doug tried to describe the problem high school students face in the new era of education. Their conclusion, the new teaching methods imposed by high schools and their boards of education have resulted in a dumbing down of students. Essentially Bob and Doug show that learning needs to be done from the books rather then the new teaching techniques (which where showed as rewording Shakespeare into "hip" street lingo). While the show failed in enjoyable comedy, much likes its much older counterpart, the show does hit on a very real problem.

Among the many conversations with my fellow students, it becomes apparent that our generation (which should be called Generation Tech) has become dependent on the glowing screen of a computer, and the vast amount of resources it provides. I certainly remember that, much like any other student who was researching a history topic in high school, the internet was the only way to go; books were far to "outdated" and did not provide nearly enough accessible information via links and endless amounts of text that could be easily quoted (copy and paste). Now I do not want people to think that this meant plagiarism, because that is far from it. What I do mean is, students no longer have to learn the information, but rather read, memorize and spew or in the case of papers; read, copy, and paste.

This leads into the recent article in the Globe and Mail which was brought to my attention by a friend. While I agree with some of the arguments provided, I want to offer some other reasons for the sudden "dumbing" of a generation. Margaret Wente describes that students are no longer expected to go beyond the minimum which has now resulted in minimal efforts becoming standard. The minimal efforts by some have then resulted in the extended efforts of others becoming skewed. As a result our Universities have been overrun by the increased enrolment of students whom only 60-80% deserve to be there. Which helps the explain the sudden decrease in class size come 2nd year.

However Wente does not describe why students are falling behind. As I previously mentioned students have become heavily reliant on the accessibly of information through the internet. As a result students are reading less because they can easily text search an electronic document. But the problem is not that students are using these sources, rather that they are being taught to rely only on these sources in high schools. Teachers in an attempt to access the new learning style of Tech children have been teaching them to fail. By allowing students to only provide information taken from the internet, they are teaching students to rely on techniques that will not help them in their future academic adventures.

In a discussion with one of my professors, she described how the grades of students have gradually fallen in terms of marks on papers. But in an ironic turn of events students have become better at the oral presentation of the same information. Essentially students have taken a complete reversal and have become media based in their language. It is no wonder that I could by the recent Trudeau biography for only $8 at my local Chapters.

Because students have fallen away from reading, they have lost their ability to learn the craft of writing. Not only hurting their marks but also their experiences in University. Like anything else, one needs to practice to become skilled at something; and writing is no different. The state of the current student is an out of shape writer who choses not to exercise by picking up a book and reading from beginning to end.

Z.R. Nissen

A Lost Voice

On September 12, 1759, the British army under General James Wolfe defeated Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, and the French army on the Plains of Abraham which marked the end of French dominance in North America. Now, 250 years later, an event that marks the first step in the founding of Canada will not be celebrated because it has become apparent that our country is willing to put nationalism before its own history. Canada’s history will once again disappear from the grasps of the general public and find itself amongst a shadow of controversy, because of a group of individuals who feel that re-enacting the famous battle would be a disgrace to their French ancestors.

The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was too take place this summer with 2000 individuals in full costume, detailed right down to replica weapons. However, because of the growing safety concerns, and the threats of violence that have been issued by the protestors, the re-enactment has been cancelled. Andre Juneau, head of the National Battlefields Commission, has claimed that he’s received about 150 threatening letters which he turned over to Quebec authorities. Furthermore, the Battle of Saint-Foy, often referred to as the Battle of Quebec, has also been cancelled due to the recent controversy that has been brought forward by the protestors. The Canadian media has done an astounding job of voicing the concerns of those who are protesting the event, such as the Parti Quebecois, but what they have failed to address is the impact this has on Canadian history and history alone.

I was surfing the web a few evenings ago and came across a website dedicated to the commemoration of the Battle of Gettysburg, the pivotal battle of the American Civil War. It was the high number of casualties, more than any other during the American Civil War, which finally broke General Lee and the Confederates. Too this day it is still commemorated, re-enacted, and more importantly, remembered for its significance and place in American history. Now, I am not completely naive and I do realize that Quebec is its own independent province with its own provincial government – but they are part of a whole nation. Our history needs to remain collective and the Seven Year’s War is part of that history. Should Canadians be deprived of learning about the trials and tribulations of their own history in a way other than reading a history book? Forget the fact that the Seven Year’s War is considered by many as the first global war and that our ancestors were a part of that. It’s our past and it needs to be remembered, whether we like it or not; we need to remember what actually happened – not what others want to remember.

Historians interpret historical events and their impact on individuals in the political, social, and economical context. Canada is geographically a large nation, with a relatively short history – it cannot afford to pass on these interpretations for the benefit of its future if Canada wishes to keep its history collective, rather than watch its own past break apart. History helps us understand where we are today by illustrating the founding of government, its institutions, and more importantly, the people that helped create this nation. It gets sticky, however, when history is interpreted and bent to conform to the passions and beliefs of a certain group or individual.

The protestors are upset not only because the Battle represents the loss of French dominance in North America, but it is often seen by many as the beginning of British or English oppression in North America. Furthermore, some have claimed that we should be celebrating “positive” events in Canadian history, ones that avoid controversial issues and one that look at our entire nation as a whole.

Fair enough, but what about taking into account the Quebec Act of 1774, an act approved by British parliament that gave the French the right to practice Catholicism and restored French Civil Law for private judicial matters? This doesn’t seem like a whole lot of British oppression too me. In fact, it seems like the beginning of a nation built around the idea of compromise.

The re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham is noted to possibly still continue, but as Horst Dresler, president of the Quebec Historical Corp, stated – it won’t be held in Quebec because of the fear of violence that has been addressed by protestors towards the issue. Should the protestors have a right to protest? Absolutely. Should their voices and concerns be heard within the media? Most definitely. But threatening violence and using intimidation is not an acceptable way to go about protesting such a concern. A compromise can be made – something Canada and its leaders tend to be very good at. Succumbing to the opinions of others while leaving the rest of the public without a say should not happen in any democratic country. The Canadian federal government needs to recognize the fragility of an event such as this and work with those who oppose it to find a common ground in which we can all celebrate our history. The Canadian federal government also needs to think about its own history and clear its eyes of the French, English political smoke-screen. Because without a compromise- where is history’s voice in all of this?

History is always going to have victors and losers; we’ve seen that with great historical events such as the Battle of Thermopylae, the French Revolution, the American Civil War and both World Wars. These conflicts, unfortunately, are followed by the loss of life. Most of the time it is those who suffer defeat who lose the most. The Seven Year’s War was no different, it had both a victor and loser, the British and French, with casualties on both sides, and the impact it made was a milestone in both Canadian and British North American History. To refuse to commemorate such an event is to let the past escape us. As Canadians we need to celebrate our history collectively. History needs advocates and more importantly a voice, because without those who stand up and chose to learn and teach it, history itself may simply become lost in the intangible web of the past.
- Ty

Recession, Depression, or Welcome Back to the 1980's?

There is no way of getting around the topic in today's society; we are in a recession - but this is no depression. While there have been comparisons made of the current state to that of the "dirty thirties," there are a few key differences that set this recession apart from that of the 1930's, instead placing it into the heart of the 1980's financial collapse. First, socially we are in a different place. We have a social welfare system, that while not perfect, does create opportunities to prevent complete poverty (at least in theory). Second, our current economic system has been developed to prevent such major economic crashes like that of the thirties. National banks have been established and federal supervision has been created, to prevent the excessive credit lending that helped produce the Great Depression.

Another, and probably one of the most important differences, is the shift from an agricultural to industrial society. During the thirties, Western Canada had faced a major series of agricultural nightmares which placed many farmers into a position of economic turmoil. While the Auto Industry is mirroring this, our reliance on fashionable automobiles is not as great as our reliance on wheat and food sources. Instead, as the '80s proved, vehicles are only nice to drive to get food and not produce it. Furthermore, our understanding of the economy has a solid following (both within private institutions and our own government), and we are not in a period where Social Credit could win an election.

It is very well understood in our current decade that spending to a deficit is not going to place the nation into a state of financial ruin. Keynesianism is a solid model and has been used for decades and helped weather the financial collapse under Pierre Trudeau in the 1980s. Keynesianism (most simply put) is the economic model which states: spending in time of economic hardship is necessary for the development of an economy, and the continuous development of a society. Furthermore, a government must spend to prevent the complete collapse of the society. The model also describes: in times of economic prosperity the government must save - in short "buckle up" its belt. The goal being to save for hard times and to pay off debt that could have accumulated in a previous recession. This model has been used with success but has also faced criticism over the need to spend into deficit.

It must be noted that the depression had no such theory accepted by the federal or provincial governments. Instead the common action was to wait and see what would happen. We are very much past the "don't ask and we won't tell mentality" that was dominant of the early half of the twentieth century. We are also past the socialism scar that prevented many need based families from looking for or receiving help. We are in a period of time were political groups such as the NDP are present to provoke action for the "little guy." This is a period in time were social initiatives are well ingrained and accepted into the fabric of society. However there is still much work the needs to be done before we can say "hello prosperity."

The current budget put forward by the Conservative government, while appearing to have this model in mind, is arguably the opposite. While the goal of the budget is declared to increase spending and provide relief for lower income families, the overall help it stands to provide is limited to those who do not need it. To further complicated the issue, this new budget puts at risk many provinces who would stand to lose substantial income due to being locked into a single system (currently certain provinces are given the choice of what budget they would follow, allowing a greater amount of economic freedom, and the ability to retain profits from such economy boosters as off shore oil drilling) - a system that could potentially devastate the financial situation of these provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador along with Quebec would be at the top of this list.

It must also be noted that the budget helps those who are in the higher income brackets to a greater degree then those at the lower end. The budget proposes to increase the starting minimum salary of each taxable bracket. The lower tax brackets may only see a $1000 dollar increase, while those making a more substantial amount of taxable income would see an increase approximately 4 times that amount. While the intention seems to be in good faith, this budget appears to be a last ditch effort to hold onto power and prevent a no confidence vote from taking place in the House of Commons.

Had the conservative government taken a more social Keynesian model, much like President Obama, then Canada would have stood to leave this recession faster than previously predicted. The protectionism model proposed by Obama stands to either propel the United States out of the problem or throw it farther into the fire. Now protectionism in the past has proved to be a dangerous and ineffective model, however this was done at a different time and under a different economic global society. Also the United States being one of the economic powers can, potentially, survive without the help of other nations. Canada on the other hand has no such ability and still must heavily rely on the financial gains provided within the trading markets. Nevertheless, today this may prove to be the spark the United States needs to turn the proverbial clock backwards. However for Canada, while economists predict an end to this "chaos" come 2010, economic models need to be developed to help those in need. Without a working class, the elite will have nothing to make their profits from. Helping the affluent cope is of no use if there are no riches at the end of the dark tunnel. Hopefully this budget proves to help, and the Liberals keep their word on accountability, otherwise this recession could last longer and hurt more then need be.

- Z.R. Nissen

What Happened To The Political Animal?

It appears that in today's culture, association with politics places oneself into the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of civility. Politicians today are comparable to lawyers when it comes to public appreciation. However at one time in society being a politician was a civil duty; an act to show one's faith in culture. It was a goal set for children who were believed to be the brightest and best in their classes. This, however, has disappeared from our culture of present day, but why such hard feelings? What has caused this rift between civil duty and civility?

Up until the end of the 20th century, boys were being pushed into law, medicine, or business; then eventually politics would follow suit. It was for the most part the goal of every businessman to be in control of the situation which surrounded them. Politics was a way to improve business while improving society. Let this not lead one to think that politicians across time have always gone into politics for the good of their fellow citizens, because this was far from the case. Sir John A. Macdonald only joined the political arena to better his own law career and to try and gain greater business across the province. It was not until tireless years being an MP that Macdonald came to decide what was best for the nation was a nation apart from Britain.

Others, however, have taken to a different stroke when entering politics. Trudeau, for example, had always had his goals set on the political arena and bettering this nation. It was always his goal to repatriate the constitution and improve the lives of his fellow Canadians. He was a politician with a philosophical mind, which resulted in his "Just Society." Aside from those who planned great things, politics at one point attracted the best the nation had to offer. Lester B. Pearson would be the prime case; a man for all to look up to and a true citizen of example. But today there is no such drive of our brightest and strongest to enter the political arena, instead they disappear to other prospects of our neighbour to the south.

Canada is left with, as a result, the choice of dumb over dumber and the weak over the weakest. We no longer have politicians that are willing to take a chance for the greater good. We are instead resolved to watch a "leader" who does what the public tells him to do; a politician run by public opinion. There is no real solution to this problem. Certainly there is no way for every Canadian to change their perspective, otherwise issues of the past would have been easily resolved. Instead the question must be pondered, what happened to the political animal?

- Z.R. Nissen

Canada and Peackeeping.

Suez and the myth.

---

In 1957 Lester B. “Mike” Pearson would win the Noble Peace Prize for his actions in diffusing a crisis in the Middle East for what would later be coined as the Suez Crisis. Pearson’s political maneuvering to get a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) would from there on out coin Canada as a “peacekeeping” nation. Canadian blue berets would participate in peacekeeping missions from Cyprus to Rwanda, gaining international recognition for their international diplomacy, rather than their military aggression. The myth of peacekeeping would grow in Canadian citizen’s minds and too their liking as for many, it helped define Canadians in many ways. It made them different then their war-driven southern, neighbours and it established Canadians as lovers – not fighters. However, Canada wasn’t always portrayed this way, as prior to 1956/57 – we were and idealistically a completely different nation.

---

South Africa.

---

Once upon a time a man by the name of Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada from 1896-1911, made a compromise with our British imperialist mother. It was 1899 and the British were going to war with a group of South African Dutch farmers known as Boers. This conflict would later become known as the South African war and some would even call it Britain’s Vietnam as it took nearly half a million British soldiers to defeat the poorly equipped, yet highly tactical Boers. In short, Laurier made a compromise with the British to send 1000 volunteers to South Africa to help fight the war (another 6000 volunteers would eventually end up going), in doing this Laurier hoped to keep French and Anglo relations steady. The French wanted nothing to do with what they saw as another one of Britain’s imperialist wars, and the French could relate more to the oppressed Boers than they could to their British counterparts. In contrast, the British loyalists living in Canada wanted Canada to make more of a contribution and wanted Canada to send more men – after all Britain was Canada’s mother, and when mom needed help – you damn well gave it to her. The war would end in 1902 with the Boers defeat and 89 Canadians killed in action. However, four Canadians would win the Victoria Cross for the service in South Africa and from here on out – Canada would play key roles in some of the world’s largest military conflicts.

---

WW1, WW2 and Korea.

---

In the First World War Canada would put over 600, 000 soldiers on the battlefields of Europe and 61, 000 would never return home. Canada would play “ready, aye ready” next to Britain, while succeeding in major battles such as Passchendaele and Vimy Ridge. The First World War, some have claimed, helped define Canada as a nation – whether or not this is true, I’ll leave it up to you. However, at a time when our population was a mere 8 million and 600, 000 of our citizens were overseas fighting; we were a nation of war, not a nation of peace or of peacemaking. Similarly, in World War Two 1.1 million Canadians would serve in the navy, army or air force and 45, 000 would never return home, while 54, 000 would return wounded. On August 19, 1942 5000 Canadians also participated in the disastrous raid of Dieppe, a small coastal off of France, in which a 1000 Canadian troops would be killed and nearly 2400 more captured. German submarines would sink ships off the cost of Nova Scotia and would perch themselves in the gulf of the St. Lawrence – we were fighting for our security and freedom. We were also a nation at war. We were fighting for the security of Canada – in World War Two, war became a home front reality for Canada and Canadians. It became a reality that if Britain fell, we could be next, we needed to protect ourselves and most importantly, we needed to fight. Finally in the Korean War (1950-53) almost 27, 000 Canadians served with 516 losing their lives and another 1000 coming home wounded. Canada was a nation of war, ready to fight and prepared to make the sacrifices that come with war. WW1, WW2 and Korea were all conflicts in which Canadian troops fought and in which some paid the ultimate price for. Peacekeeping had yet to exist in the mind of Canadians, but with the brilliant political actions of Lester Pearson in 1956 – something unprecedented happened. Canadians became afraid of conflict. Afraid of fighting for something they believe in.

---

Fast-Forward: Afghanistan.

---

Just over a 100 Canadians have died in Afghanistan since we decided to join the conflict. Approximately 2500 men and women are currently overseas fighting a war that most Canadians know nothing about, and until we do leave – Canadians are going to die and most who will watch on their TV will simply be enraged by another Canadian causality in another “useless” war as some have claimed. But the reason I think that Canadian citizens are so enraged at what’s going on in Afghanistan is not because they see at is merely “pointless,” but because they still have this notion that we our peacekeepers. That we are still the good old boys who run around in our blur berets hoping to stop the world from destroying itself one mission at a time. Now I’m not saying I agree with the war in Afghanistan, or that I disagree, I’m merely stating an observation. If the Canadian people want our soldiers to peace keep and not involve themselves with these conflicts that they see part as United States imperialism, then we better start spending on defense and security. Or if Canadians want more development in Afghanistan, then action needs to be taken and this notion of peacekeeping needs to be put on hold for the time being. I’ll admit, I’d rather a large Canadian peacekeeping contingent in Darfur (in my opinion we should have had one there years ago) than troops in Afghanistan and wouldn’t it be nice if we could put together a some kind of peacekeeping force through the United Nations to send to the Gaza Strip right now? But we can’t. We’re stuck in Afghanistan because our government is broke and refuses to spend any money on our military to properly fund our troops. Canada, its people and its leaders need to wake up and start to realize that this isn’t the glory days of blue berets and Noble Prizes – as much as I wish it was. This is a different kind of world. If we want to peace keep, we need well trained troops with the proper equipment to do the job with. Michael Ignatieff, the new leader of the Liberal party, summed this all up best in an article he wrote in 2003, “You can’t do any development, you can’t get any order in these societies unless you have combat power on the ground. This is the new reality we are in and this is the reality we have to do something in Canada to fix it and you can’t fix it by spending 1.1 percent of GDP on national defence…” [1] - Ty

---

[1] I took this quote from: J.L. Granastein. Whose War is it? (Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.,): 2007, 44.

A Visit to the North.

A Visit to the North.

---

Well it looks like President-elect Obama will make his first international visit to Canada after his inauguration on January 20, resetting the tradition between the two countries. Something George W. Bush opted out on when he made his first international visit to Mexico back in 2001. Many people seem to brush over the importance of this symbolic gesture and the history it entails. The relationship between Canada and the United States has always been one of change, some Prime Ministers and Presidents have gotten along, such as Mulroney and Reagan or Chretien and Clinton while others have utterly despised each other such as, Kennedy and Diefenbaker or Nixon and Trudeau. However, regardless of the relationship between the leaders of Canada and the United States, this day and age calls for compromise between the two nations.

---

Compromise.

---

Whether it’s the global economy, trade, North American security, global security, the environment or many of the other issues President Obama and most likely Prime Minister Harper are going to have to tackle – Canada and the United States need each other right now. With the economy in such turmoil and with Canada and the United States being the two biggest trading partners in the world, now is not the time for judgment nor is it the time Canadians to hide behind their anti-American cloaks. Compromise is what will need to be established between the two leaders. Obama is a young, energetic, intelligent man and while Harper without a doubt is intelligent, I fear their personalities and views on situations such as Afghanistan may not be the same. Furthermore, our own country is facing its own crisis within its own parties and if the drama continues I fear we may push our southern allies away. I mean who could blame them? The last few months have shown that all of the parties behave more like children than political bureaucrats. This is a time for compromise. We need compromise so that both nations can re-build their economies, and we need compromise so that each nation listens to one another and works to establish political solidarity in both Canada and the United States. Without compromise I fear more men and women may lose their lives without their being any changes being made in both Iraq and Afghanistan and without compromise I fear we could be wading in the shadow of 1930 all over again.

---

“Good-and not too cozy.”

---

Although Canada and the United States need to embark into 2009 on the feeling of compromise, we as Canadians must remember that we are a sovereign nation and we have our political crisis going on at home right now. On January 26 we’ll find out whether the parties have decided to put the Canadian people first or their own ambitions, but until then we must sit and wait in anticipation. We have our own nation and our problems and we as Canadian people need to make sure we resolve our own issues at home. Our economy is starving and a budget hasn’t been put forward, men and women are still dying in Afghanistan will their families witness minimal change to the country that their fellow soldiers are in. I’m not offering a solution, but something needs to be done. However, the United States is going to be there – they most likely always will, but we must always stay separate and remain independent in our thoughts, politics and values. Jean Chretien said it best about Canada – U.S. relations after his first visit to Washington. Relations he stated were, “Good-and not too cozy.” Just the way they should be.

- Ty

I am a Canadian.

In a recent history lecture (not pertaining to Canadian history) a professor bluntly stated in reply to a student that not all primary government document sources are boring, but that, Maybe in Canada they’re really boring. I was shocked – here’s an academic who has dedicated their entire life to the field of understanding and interpreting the past and they had to nerve to make such a naive statement. It’s no secret that the majority of Canadians find their own history and current events boring – who could blame them? I mean, when you have a neighbour with such a rich, controversial and revolutionary history as the United States – Canada’s history becomes a mere shadow. It’s no wonder that we as Canadians don’t have a single national identity because half of us don’t even know where were from; it’s like that old cliché saying, “You don’t really know where you’re going, until you know where you’re been.”

---

When Zo and I got to talking about this blog I thought here’s our chance. Here’s our chance to do our part for our country. Granted, not everyone studies history and mind you not Canadian history at that, but I think it’s important that people understand that Canada is important and so is our history. As a nation we’re much more than the Canadian beer commercials on T.V. during the intermission of the hockey game. We might not be an old nation – in fact we’re young, but this country has seen both the ups and downs that any major global player has. We were there for both the World Wars – with Canadians losing their lives in both conflicts, we were there for the depression of 1930, we stole the international stage in 1956 when a man by the name of Lester B. Pearson diffused a crisis in the Middle East that almost spawned a global conflict (Pearson would win the Noble Peace Prize in 1957 for his actions in the crisis). We would go to Afghanistan to fight the war on terror and whether you agree with it or not we’re still there and Canadian soldiers are still fighting and losing their lives. My bottom line is that we have a place in this world as Canadians. We always have. Our history is as a rich as any other nation and hopefully through this blog I’ll be able to tackle some of the topics I enjoy the most.

---

I love Canada and I love Canada’s history. There’s much to be said about the apathy in this country and about this nations own identity and historical representation. We aren’t just peacekeepers, compromisers, anti-Americans or beer drinkers. It’s much more complex than a few labels – well that’s how I feel anyway and I look forward to sharing with you my thoughts and feelings on both the benevolent and flawed virtues of this elaborate nation some of us call home.

---

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”John Diefenbaker (From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960.)

---

- Ty.

New Year: Same Old Canada.

Well, it is a new year, yet the same old Canada remains. That is why within this new year Canada Libre emerges. Canada Libre is the beginning of what we hope brings a new conscious mind to Canadians in regards to our nation. This will be a place for thought, opinions and ideas. While we will try to remain objective, as good historians do, some bias may appear. Nevertheless this site will allow for discussion both between the authors and its readers. We encourage our readers to post responses to the subjects presented, we also hope that our readers will spread the reading base by passing our little endeavour onwards, a pay it forward one may say.

Those close to me know very well of my passion for Canadian politics and the dualism's within out society. As you can see from my brief bio, my interest is within Quebec history and the life and political career of Pierre E. Trudeau. Now of course, this interest relates to many subjects within Canadian history and politics, but does have some limits. That is why I have teamed up with my long time friend. With our collective effort we will hopefully bring a fully rounded approach to our views of the present, future, and days of old.

- Z.R. Nissen