LEARN FROM ICELAND

With the new session of Parliament now underway, an interesting little debate has emerged regarding the purchase of a new fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces. The aircraft under consideration is the F 35 Lightning 11 fighter being designed by Lockheed Martin. Price of the project is to be around $9 billion for approximately 65 aircraft.

There has been some concern expressed in pages of Maclean's and other publications about the process of deciding which jet to buy and how transparent the process actually has been. Clearly, the government has not been totally forthcoming with the Canadian people on this project, since very few of us even knew the government was considering spending this money on a replacement for the now ageing F 18 Hornets. When pressed by the media to explain why we need a new fifth-generation stealth fighter, Defence Minister Peter McKay could not provide a rational answer as to the role and purpose of the fighter. The debate continues.

What is more at the core of this discussion is the attitude of Canadians towards their military generally. We have expressed pride and support when it has been needed, as in Afghanistan where our troops have been subjected to some of the heaviest fighting in the war. But, on the whole, our military has been subjected to yawning indifference. Rick Hillier described this attitude very well in his book "A Soldier First". Canadians would prefer to ignore its military until it is needed, and would prefer not to spend large sums of money to acquire the equipment it needs to do its difficult job. We seem content to ask them to risk their safety in antiquated equipment and keep them understaffed, even in times of severe need.

Maybe we don't even need a military at all, some would argue. After all, we're a huge country, we can't be invaded by anyone except the Americans or the Russians. The Americans would never invade us, and would never permit the Russians to do so.

What is often forgotten by supporters of this line of thought is that, if a nation does not take the steps to defend itself, or to assert its sovereignty, that nation is seriously in danger of losing it and being subjected to the wishes and whims of other nations.

Consider Iceland. This small northern nation has no permanent military. It maintains a national police force that includes a counter-terrorism unit, called the Viking squad, and has a coast guard of about 4 small patrol vessels to offer search and rescue and fishery supervision. Other than that, they are not interested in creating a military force. They are, on the surface, a peaceful people living in a peaceable land.

But Iceland has never attained its ultimate wish of being truly neutral, of being left alone. It has been under the control of Denmark and Norway early in its history. It was occupied in World War Two by the British and then the Americans. Both of these "allied" nations occupied Iceland due to fears of Nazi Germany occupying the small island. The Icelanders did not invite the British and Americans to defend them. Indeed, there were small riots in Reykjavik protesting the occupation. The Americans returned in the 1950's during the Cold War, and forced Iceland into joining NATO, again due to fears that Iceland would be occupied by the new enemy, the Soviets. The Americans stayed until 2006.

In another example of foreign bullying, Iceland and Great Britain were involved in three so-called "cod wars", which were actual confrontations between vessels of the Icelandic coast guard and British fishing trawlers and then warships of the Royal Navy. Several incidents of ships ramming each other, and actual live ammunition fire took place. The British refused to recognize Iceland's intention of maintaining a 200 mile zone of control over its fishery: Britain maintains, to this day, that the zone is international and wants to enter it to mine the fishery for its own purposes. An uneasy agreement is in place today, quite possibly because the Icelanders finally decided to fight and shoot back : because of this action, Britain recognizes the zone... for now.

The lesson in the Icelandic experience is that if a nation demonstrates an unwillingness to defend itself with real equipment and trained personnel, other nations will take care of that for it. Some may argue that Iceland has benefitted from the rather benign occupation and interaction with British and US forces. But our recent trip to Iceland convinced us that Icelanders have a quiet but no less real distrust of foreigners. They are in NATO officially, but really would rather not be there. To be sure, Iceland has a puny population of only 300,000 people: could they really muster much of a military? Probably not, but if they tried, perhaps the occupations of the past, and the cod wars would not have happened.

Canada must continue to maintain a sound military. We are not a nation that will go throwing its military weight around conquering others and forcing them to submit to our tyrrany. It's not in our nature. But, if we are to be taken seriously as a nation, if we are to exert our own sovereignty and decision making on our own future, if we are to safeguard and guarantee our land and citizens, and if we are to participate in legitimate military activities around the globe ( coalitions against aggressors, peacekeeping, humanitarian activities ) we must have the necessary equipment. Is the F35 the best new fighter for our air force? Probably. Do we need it ? Yes. Why? Because you never know what lies ahead in this complex and often violent world. We must grow up and not have debates on the need for fighter aircraft. It is needed for the same reason cities need police and other security services. Some people refuse to act in civilized and respectable ways and impinge on our desire to do so. If the world was perfect, we'd have no wars: we'd also have no crime, accidents, fires, and criminals either. Let's live in the real world. Buy the planes, and keep upgrading our armed forces. Act like a real country.

A TALE OF TWO VISIONS

When Pierre Trudeau defeated the infamously short-lived government of Joe Clark in 1980, one of the lasting phrases Trudeau used to describe his come back victory was "Well, welcome to the 1980's". That phrase is remembered by all of Trudeau's admirers as a statement of the lasting power of his vision, the strength of his character, and the confidence of Canadians in our most charismatic prime minister. Trudeau is the subject of numerous books, articles, and scholarly treatises. He is remembered as a flawed but talented leader, a man of great vision, who saw Canada as a united, bilingual, progressive society, a model for the entire world. He favoured a strong central government which would speak for all Canadians, who would enjoy all rights and freedoms enshrined in a made-in-Canada constitution featuring a Charter of Rights. The federal government, Trudeau reasoned, was the sole voice for all Canadian issues and values. Only federally could the aspirations of all Canadians be realized and protected. The Constitution and Charter were finally realized in the early 1980's and still exist today.

Joe Clark didn't exactly fall into oblivion after his electoral defeat. He continued to serve as an important minister to his successor, Brian Mulroney. Greatly admired by many Canadians, he has, however, paled in comparison to his more flamboyant rival. He became something of a joke to many, and the common phrase used to denote disrespect for the honest but dull leader was "Joe Who"? There may be books on Clark, but they are hard to find, and, I must admit, I have not read a single book about him. As for Trudeau, I have read, at last count, five, and hope to acquire John English's second volume of his life story soon. I enjoy reading about Trudeau, a completely fascinating figure.

As mentionned above, Trudeau articulated a vision of what Canada could be. Whether one admired or tetested him, there is almost unanimous agreement that he had a vision, and, if it had come to complete fruition, it would have put him in the forefront of world statesmen. Clark's vision of Canada was completely different. He tried to articualte a "community of communities" vision, meaning that Canada was a loose federation of different regions of the country, linked together by common values and a desire to work co-operatively on common issues. Not a very inspiring or "sexy" vision. Trudeau was able to mop the floor with Clark's ideas mainly because of his personality and reputation, more than the logic of the debate. Many Canadians shared Clark's idea, but they were swamped by the spell of the man Richard Gwynne called the "northern magus." Clark, therefore, goes down in history as one of Canada's biggest political losers.

Fast forward to 2010. This past week saw the most recent meeting of the "Council of the Federation", an organization of the ten provincial premiers and three territorial leaders. This group meets twice a year to discuss issues of common concern. This group has been meeting like this since 2003, when Jean Charest, the current "prime minister" of Quebec formulated the idea. His provincial and territorial colleagues have enthusiastically met twice a year since. Noticeably absent from this meeting is the federal government, represented by a prime minister or any other minister of the crown. It seems that the premiers and leaders are satisfied to discuss things of great interest to Canadians without the presence of their federal government. Issues discussed include improving internal trade, environmental matters, improving literacy, and bettering relations with governments in the United States. Indeed, the premiers and leaders have, on at least one occasion, attended a meeting of American governors, a situation similar to the Council of the Federation.

The question which emerges from all this, of course, is this: if the Council of the Federation meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern to all Canadians, why do we have a federal government? If the premiers and leaders reach consensus on an issue, all they have to do is pass legislation to that effect in their Legislative Assemblies: as long as the legislation among all jurisdictions is identical, or at least mostly similar, problems can be solved without resorting to a federal government, at least on issues that are within the perview of provincial and territorial governments. Even there, the lines become murky: if the premiers and leaders meet with American governors more frequently and act accordingly, both federal governments can, theoretically, be by-passed. Thus, the provinces can act in the supposedly federal sphere of international relations. Already, the Council of the Federation seeks to expand "provincial" trade beyond Canadian borders to other countries.

At the end of the day, this sounds more like a "community of communities" approach to matters of common concern to Canadians. Whether it is a good thing or not will be the subject of a future blog. But right now, it looks like Joe Clark is the big winner in the legacy of which vision of Canada should prevail. Joe Who? Now we know!!

WHEN IS A NATION NOT A NATION?

A discussion of what a "nation" is , is a sure-fire way to raise emotions and temperatures. Most of us suscribe to the notion that a nation is a geographic entity, easily spotted on a map, recognized by other such entities. But if one speaks to groups of people who live within these entities on the map, one may receive different interpretations of what a nation is.

Canada is a perfect example of the dilemma. On a map, it is a huge blotch, occupying roughly half of the land mass of North America. No problem, right? Now we know what a Canadian is, a person living within that big blotch.

Not so fast. Inside the Canadian blotch, a veritable United Nations of people live together. All races, religions, nationalities and languages are represented. So, it follows that these people must constitute something other than a "Canadian" nationality. But, if that is true, who then is the "true Canadian?" Enter that debate at your peril !!

The truth is, Canada is populated by more than one nation. This idea has gained currency only in the last couple of decades. Before that, Canada was white, largely English-speaking, largely Protestant and incredibly dull and boring. The "French" were sucessfully confined to Quebec, New Brunswick or northern Ontario, and the aboriginals were largely ignored. Many people long for a return to that time, but I am not one of them. I find Canada in its current form an incredibly fascinating place, truly one of the most interesting places on earth in its complexity. Never a dull moment here.

Sadly, one of the nations living in our blotch have been treated shabbily recently. The Iroquois Nationals are a talented lacrosse team and they represent the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Confederacy. These people are rightly a sovereign nation, and have proudly borne their own passport whenever they travel. But in the 2010 World Lacrosse Championships, their passport has inexplicably been denied by the authorities in Britain, the host country of the tournament. The result: the Nationals have had to remain at home, taking a principled stand on their sovereignty and nationhood, but paying a huge price by not playing the game they invented and gave to the world.

Strangely, the Canadian government has remained silent on this issue. The US government tried to intervene, with no less a person than Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State trying to intercede on the Iroquois' behalf. But not a word from Canada... why? I will tell you why. Canada does not want the Iroquois to be fully recognized abroad as a sovereign nation because it will strengthen their claims here at home. Even as I write these lines, the years old stand off at Caledonia continues. And we all remember blockades at Deseronto, Ipperwash and the infamous seige at Oka and Kanesetake and Kannewake in Quebec. The Iroquois have an historic and legitimate claim to sovereignty which Canada seems reluctant to recognize. Did we silently ask the British to ignore the passport in order to send a quiet message that the Indian Wars are still on, and that Canada will dictate the terms of reference, not the Iroquois?

The whole affair is shameful and an embarrasment to all of us. If Canada is to be a shining example of how people of many nations can live together in peace and co-operation, working for the common good and the welfare of all people ( in the true and strict definition of the word "welfare"), then our government should have spoken loudly and strongly in support of the Iroquois in their assertion of nationhood. But that would have been the right thing to do: when has the Canadian government, especially in its current form, ever done that?

2017: A MODEST PROPOSAL

In my last offering, I recounted fond memories of our Centennial Year, 1967. It was certainly a grand time to be Canadian, and I wondered aloud if any plans were being made for the sesquicetennial, coming up in 2017. Two years ago, I emailed our illustrious Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, asking what, if any plans were being put in place. I received a form email from an assistant deputy minister, thanking me for my inquiry and wishing me well in all my future endeavours.... basically blowing me off and all but saying that nothing was in the works. Typical !!

I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person who thinks about these things. I mean, everyone has their concerns and issues. Me? I guess I have little better to do than wonder about expressing a heartfelt affection for my country, a country into which I was not born, but have embraced fully and without reservation. There are far more important things to think about, I certainly agree, than another reason to promote ourselves and hope all the world loves us, like the recently completed Vancouver Olympics. Who needs another World's Fair? Been there, done that, and quite well, as we all recall. Centennial Caravans reminding us of our history, our story, and all the things we had to overcome and achieve as a people? Well, history is boring and no one would be interested in visiting that again? Centennial projects? I guess we do this all the time now, what with infrastructure spending as common as blackflies in spring.

No, it's pretty clear that re-doing the stuff we did back in 1967 is just not cool or sexy for today's sophisticated Canada. So, maybe these are the things we should try to accomplish in time for our country's sesquicentennial. We have seven years, so we'd better get started.

1) Resolve all outstanding grievances with First Nations people. That doesn't mean giving in to all their demands. After all, they have become just as skilled as anyone else in formulating demands to be negotiated. But the federal government has been dragging its feet far too long. Let's recognize them for who they truly are: sovereign nations with ancient traditions and wisdom equalling and perhaps surpassing ours. Let's do what is necessary to remove the status of wards of the state, and give them land and control over the revenue on and under the land. Let's make these reserves achieve full provincial status and invite them to join fully in the future of Canada.

2) Invest heavily in green technologies. Make Canada a world leader in research and development in areas such as alternative fuels, green transportation systems, and more complete recycling programmes. We keep hearing that this is the technology of the future, with new jobs attached to it: let's commit ourselves to pioneering this technology, instead of waiting for others to do it, and sell it to us.

3) Re-commit to universal health care and public education. Reject the neo-conservative drive to sneak private health and education in the back door by undercutting the public services. These things used to give us a respected reputation abroad: let's renew this. Put more money into our schools and universities, hospitals and research centers. Canadians pioneered such advancements as treatments for diabetes: imagine if we could do the same for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS and other neurological disorders.

4) Invest in youth initiatives. Bring back such worthwhile things as Katimavik and the Company of Young Canadians. People around the world respect a nation that is willing to send its young people abroad to learn and help others in need. We get more mileage out of this type of "army" going forth than we do from a real army.

Well, there are more things to add to the list, but that's enough for now. No one with any real decision-making power is going to read this anyway, so why bother? Maybe we'd be better off with another Olympics or World's Fair.... maybe an international sesquicentennial Curling Bonspiel is what we need. 2017? Hurry hard !!!

THE SPIRIT OF '67

Pierre Berton called 1967 "the last good year." In his book of that name, he recreated the sense of pride and wonder all Canadians had in our country in our centennial year. Those of us who are old enough to remember 1967 would probably nod our heads in unison at that notion. It was, indeed, a very good year.

The Canadian Centennial was a year-long celebration of all things Canadian. Schoolkids, natually, got into the spirit in a huge way. I have distinct memories of all of us talking excitedly about the Centennial and how it was to be a party to last all year long. What I don't clearly remember, but Berton describes in great detail, is that there were more than a few detractors who said that the celebrations would be a waste of taxpayers' money, an organizational fiasco, and that we'd not be able to pull off all the things that were being planned. We'd look like fools to the rest of the world.

Well, to say the least, the Centennial went off bigger and better than anyone could have predicted. In many ways, it was a type of Canadian renaissance. Berton describes all the significant achievements of Canadians who were creating, experimenting, building, and doing in that time. Our country progressed in leaps and bounds.

Each town and city encouraged its citizens to begin a "centennial project" , and some of them were among the most bizarre imaginable. A town in the Maritimes began the year by burning all the wooden outhouses: why? Because the centennial project for that town was to install a sewer system and modern flush toilets. A town in the Prairies built a UFO landing pad for its project in order to encourage aliens to visit. After the scoffing laughter died down, people began to realize that aliens had indeed visited: tourism grew enormously because "aliens" wanted to visit this crazy little town with the landing pad. Sheer genius !!

In my home town, Brantford Ontario, we had two centennial projects: an new city hall, which was ultra-modern in design ( for the time, and it still looks sharp today ) and a multi-purpose arena, the Civic Centre. Both were needed because their predecessors were severely antiquated. All across Canada, libraries, schools, hospitals, infrastructure of all kinds, were constructed in a frenzy of modernization. It moved us forward rapidly and spectacularly into the late 20th century.

And then there was the big stuff: the Centennial Caravan and Centennial Train, which visited all parts of Canada, bringing the story of our history, our land, and our people to the people. There were re-enactments of history such as the great coast-to-coast canoe trip, retracing the route of the early fur traders. And the biggest of all was Expo 67, a monumental world's fair that many say is still the best that's ever been. Montreal emerged as a world city because of Expo and the world came to Canada to marvel at our achievements and determination to actually do the fair. Islands were built in the St Lawrence River, and the architecture and spectacle of the fair was like none ever seen before.

When 1967 faded away, we still had the Centennial spirit for a few more years, until the reality of the October Crisis in 1970, the PQ victory in 1976, various economic melt-downs, and regional jealousies reared their ugly heads. For a while, we were united, we were bragging, we were doing great things, and we were looking ahead to a better future. It was fun while it lasted.

In 2017, Canada will celebrate its Sesquicentennial, or our 150th birthday as a nation. For just about all of us over 30, it will be the last meaningful anniversary. In a future blog, I will offer some suggestions how we can mark the occasion, and, in a way, try to recapture the spirit of 67.

CONFESSIONS OF A TRAVELHOLIC

I freely admit to one and all that I have been, at times, a travel idiot. I followed the crowd, did all the "things to do while in Paris", and collected more souvenirs than I could possibly look at in a lifetime. Eifel Tower? Been up, twice. Changing of the Guard? I could probably do their routine as well as the guards can. Beer in Munich? Oh yeah, way too much. Join tour groups? At the drop of a hat. Didn't want to miss anything, you know.

It came from being young, active, and wanting to see everything. I liked the idea of backpacking through Europe with good buddies, looking for adventure, and finding precious little of it. I was hooked into the mandatory things. And so, for many years, I thought travelling meant visiting all the art galleries, battlefields, bars and restaurants in every major city I could get to. I thought that, when I visited London, I had seen England: visit Paris and you come to know France: get drunk in Germany and you are an expert on the German soul.

Utter nonsense.

It's hard to say exactly when the conversion began, but it surely dawned on me as the sun rising in the morning. I had logged many miles in airplanes, trains, busses, cars and had seen absolutely nothing that mattered much. I was a tourist-prisoner, trapped in an invisible cocoon which I created myself and kept me from learning about people and lands. I thought I was a good traveler, but, in reality, I was an astronaut wrapped in a space suit of my own fears and prejudices.

Later trips in my life have yielded far better results. I have seen marvellous things and, best of all, have talked to real people who actually live in these places. I have learned about single malt whiskeys and Scottish independence from real Scotsmen. I have learned that I actually know very little about the struggles of aboriginal people from Hopi and Navajo with whom I have shared breakfast . I have walked across Arctic tundra and seen fresh muskox hoof-prints and listened to stories of surviving a trek to the North Pole with an actual Arctic explorer who was also my camp host and dinner companion for a week.

I know now that Ayers Rock is actually Uluru, that you have to choose a pub very wisely in Dublin, that kangaroo has to be cooked absolutely correctly or it becomes rubber, and that if you wish to find God, a canyon in Utah or Arizona, or a rainforest in Alaska are far better places to find Him than Notre Dame or Westminster Abbey.

When I told some of my buddies about my upcoming Iceland trip, I was pleased that I wasn't assailed with the "What the hell are you doing that for?" reaction. Instead, I was greeted with interest. They wanted to know what I would do there. I shrugged and told them I wanted to see the land and meet the people. I want to learn about Iceland, and how a strange isolated little island could become one of the best, most advanced, most civilized countries on earth, perched on top of land that can be best described as a science project only half completed. I will be in Reykjavik, of course, .... but only for three days. Then, Lou and I will get in a car and get out of town as quickly as we got out of Las Vegas two years ago.

I still like to visit the big cities and see historical monuments. But only for a little while. Then I get hungry or thirsty and want to find a place to sit and relax and drink coffee or beer where the locals go. I want to see the sky over a new country. I want to walk on different ground. I want to see anything that is not normal, for me. Now THAT'S travelling.

PRONGER SHOWS THE WAY

To be honest, I've never been a huge Chris Pronger fan. He always came across as a border-line goon, slightly unstable, and far too sure of himself. He actually became something of a liability to Team Canada at the 2010 Olympics, revealing that he had lost some speed, and had to accept a role of a 6th defenceman, spelling much younger players like Keith, Seabrook and Doughty.

In the Stanley Cup finals, however, Pronger has come to the fore as a colourful and impactful player. I am slowly becoming a fan. Consider these two items:

First, Pronger is a refreshing breath of fresh air when it comes to media interviews. Too often in sports, the "interview" is nothing more than a fishing expedition combined with a cliche fest. Reporters try to unnerve players and coaches and provoke them into fits of anger and petulance which they can fit into neat sound-bites for their evening newscasts or fit into a column. In return, players and coaches seldom rise to the bait: they offer up the usual list of sports cliches and end up saying nothing. Reporters then use these bits of nothing to fuel speculation ( usually their own ) on potential strategy, impending moves, festering rifts and feuds etc.

Pronger, on the other hand, has fun with the media. He often ridicules the repetitve and hackneyed questions of reporters. He smirks and challenges them to re-phrase or ask another question. When a reporter is wrong or guessing, Pronger lets them know. When a reporter asks a legitimate question, as Elliott Friedman does on Hockey Night in Canada, Pronger offers honest and often inciteful answes. Not bad for a big rube from Dryden, Ontario.

Secondly, Pronger's play in the front of the Philadelphia net, specifically against Dustin Byfuglien ( how on earth is that pronounced "Bufflin" ?) is a throw-back to the tough and interesting days of pre-lockout, pre-new NHL that many of us like. Pronger and Byfuglien have been waging war in that zone, cross-checking and elbowing each other like two gladiators. Amazingly, the referees have been letting that go, and the result is intense and courageous competition between two evenly-matched competitors. It has been great to watch.

Pronger's defensive zone play supports a contention of mine for the "new" NHL. Why not create a zone in front of the net, say 10 feet wide and ten feet in front of the goal-line, where defencemen can keep the area clear for their goalies by moving stationary forwards like Byfuglien who merely stand still, using their huge size to screen the goalie? I'm not advocating slashing or hacking at a forward, but certainly using strength to move him aside and keep him honest. In return, the forward should be allowed to try to "muscle" his way into this zone. Competition? You bet !!

Thus, Chris Pronger has shown us the way for the "new" NHL to be a better, more entertaining game.