Thoughts on a Canadian republic

Even though it’s a reality I’ve lived with for years, sometimes, I admit, it seems hard for me to believe that, technically, I live in a kingdom. That seems like a storybook idea, or something from centuries ago. I suppose it’s because kings and queens seem so remote from real life and politics, where once they held centre stage. But it’s a fact. Canada is a constitutional monarchy.

My history of monarchist sentiment

Coming by this reality was kind of a shock for me. When I was very young, just starting school, my Saturdays were spent watching cartoons coming up out of the States. As this was the early 70s, Schoolhouse Rock was like mother’s milk for me, and part of that was the lead-up to the bicentennial. All those songs about the formation of the US and the revolution were knit into my bones like calcium and strontium. I thought those songs were about me. I guess I knew I lived in Canada, but I didn’t have an idea of what a country was, as separate from another. So I didn’t see a contradiction. I remember I had a friend named John, a kid from England, and I teased him (bordered on picking on him) about what his country did to “mine”. At some point, my mother straightened me out. No, the USA was not our country. And, in fact, the evil guys in red in those cartoons? They were our guys. Do you remember that scene in The Omen II when Damien realizes he’s the antichrist? Well, I can relate. But, like him, I got over it. I learned to go with it.

So I went kind of hard the other way. I was still trying to figure out what our place was relative to other countries. When I was in grade nine, I remember our history teacher having to disabuse several of us in the class (including me) of the notion that, at some time during World War II, Winston Churchill had come over to be the prime minister of Canada... I don’t know where I got that idea, but I was surprised to find out it wasn’t true. That, and that we were no longer members of the British Empire, because it had effectively ceased to exist as such when our parents were still in school. Such were the vagaries of my understanding of Canada’s place in the world well into my teens.

But I did learn that Canada had, at least in part, forged itself in opposition to the US, and in loyalty to the UK. That we’d fought two wars against the States to maintain our independence, and narrowly avoided a third; the threat of which led to the creation of the modern federal state that is Canada. I became intensely interested in politics. For a while I was a member of a federal political party. I dug the monarchy, the ties it gave us to countries like ours, and I went for anything with a Union Jack on it. And that’s where I was for a long time. It cooled, slowly, but it lingered. Still does, I guess. Probably always will.

Lately, though, I’ve been considering the status of the monarchy in Canada. I’ve had to admit that it’s a justifiable sore spot with French Canadians, for whom having a British monarch as their head of state is a constant reminder of an extremely unhappy moment in their history. To be honest, when I think of it now, I have to credit them with a lot of patience. Likewise, I’ve had to recognize that most new Canadians, from different lands, could not possibly be expected to hold the monarchy in the same reverence as Canadians of British heritage like me. They might like it, they might even support it, but I can’t honestly demand they should feel it in their bones. It must make them feel like imperial step children... yes, fully and officially Canadian, but somehow, second class. I know I’m not speaking for everyone, but I suspect that must be a common sentiment where the monarchy is concerned.

And I’ve had to face a kind of embarrassing political oddity about Canada. Now, I wasn’t born in Ireland; my grandmother was. But that entitled me to become an Irish citizen by foreign birth registration, and I finally got off my ass and did it not quite ten years ago now. As such, I’m technically eligible to hold the office of President of Ireland, should I meet the other constitutional requirements. What I mean to say is, there’s nothing to stop me. But here, in the country where I was born and raised, and whose citizenship I have always held, I can never be the head of state. Nor can any other Canadian. Our head of state lives in another country, chosen from among a small number of people in one family, according to the laws of another land that we never had a hand in drafting. I mean, it’s kind of neat to have a queen and all in the Space Age, but the realities of Canada’s constitutional situation are, frankly, faintly humiliating for a country that’s existed for nearly 150 years, and has ostensibly been a peer to the UK on the international stage for just about 80.

And I finally decided yesterday, while laying it all out over a few beers with my friend P-Doug, that it’s time for that to change. Sitting there in a faux British pub in a faux British kingdom, I came to the realization that I’d gone over to “the dark side”. I went into the pub a jaded monarchist, and walked out a hopeful republican.

Peculiarities of the Canadian Constitution with regard to the Monarchy

Canada was established as a constitutional monarchy in 1867, in the British North America Act, which served as our constitution (in part) and still does. Because it was an act of the British Parliament, only Britain could amend it. Whenever we wanted to change our constitution, we had to ask another country to do it for us. And that was the way of things right up to 1982. That year, we patriated the BNA Act from Britain and renamed it the Constitution Act, 1867. It was immediately amended by the Constitution Act, 1982, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not much changed about the BNA Act in all this; the new sections simply clarified how we would go about amending our own constitution from then on, and read in the other various statutes and documents that also form part of the Canadian Constitution.

One of those statutes is the Act of Settlement, 1701. This is also an act of the British Parliament, and designates the person of the monarch, and the conditions for acceding to the throne. This is a part of Canada’s constitution, but we can’t amend it. It’s someone else’s law to change. Technically, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, pledges the British not to change the Act without the unanimous consent of the other countries that share the Queen as head of state (the sixteen countries that are today called the Commonwealth Realms, of which Canada is one). The Act of Settlement is what decrees that Prince Charles will be the next King of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc. All but one of those countries are not able to change the nature of that law. As stated, Britain has promised not to change the Act without the agreement of the other countries, but the fact remains that they could.

One of the stipulations of the Act is that no Catholic, and no one married to a Catholic, can accede to the throne. No Catholic can ever be the head of state of Canada, where that denomination is the largest in the country. A few years ago, a man named Tony O’Donohue challenged the constitutionality of that in the Ontario Superior Court. The court ruled that the Constitution cannot contradict itself. Its provisions, where seemingly contradictory, serve to qualify one another. So Canada is nation of freedom of religion, albeit one where there is a religious qualification for the nation’s highest executive office. That’s the law of the land. And because of the Statute of Westminster, even if fifteen of these countries agreed to change that, it would just take one to veto it. Effectively, we’re locked into this and cannot ourselves change it.

Another odious aspect of the Constitution is the amending formula where the Monarchy is concerned. Nearly every other change to the Constitution can be ratified by being passed in both houses of Parliament, and by seven of the ten provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population of Canada. But not where the Monarchy is concerned. Changes to Monarchy in Canada require the unanimous consent of Parliament and all ten legislatures. And changes to the section that stipulates that also require unanimity. It’s a padlock on a padlock. All future generations of Canadians were saddled with this provision in 1982 by a group of WASP males born between the wars when the Union Jack was still flying over Parliament Hill. To me, that’s increasingly outrageous, and vastly undemocratic. No matter how many Canadians might like to change it, it would prove nearly impossible to muster that level of agreement. A mere handful of traditionalists could hold back the will of the vast majority of the people if they merely chose to.

That’s what republicans in Canada are up against: a rigged system and foreign law. I’m hardly joking when I say that by far the easiest way for Canada to disestablish the Monarchy would be for Britain to get rid of it.

My preferences for a Canadian head of state

Nevertheless, it’s worth discussing the project and giving some shape to the idea. So here I’d like to propose my own model for a truly Canadian head of state.

The easiest and most natural thing to do would be to simply take the office of the Governor-General, who represents and acts on behalf of the Queen in Canada, and convert it to a Canadian Presidency. In this, it would not resemble the US Presidency. The job is largely ceremonial, and has few real executive powers except to rein in the government. This is a balance that works extremely well, for the most part, for numerous Commonwealth countries; monarchies and republics. Few of them vest much real power in the head of state, be that the Queen or a president.

One of the things valued in the Queen is her experience due to her length of service. When I was discussing this with P-Doug, the matter came up, and to my delight and surprise, we both independently concluded the identical same time frame for a presidential term: 10-12 years. Whether or not the officeholder would be eligible for more than one term is something the country could work out. But such a long term would enable a Canadian president to preside over and work with several Parliaments. At least three, and possibly more, would fall within the span of a 12-year term. Canadians would get used to a certain person representing the country for roughly half a generation, and then it might be someone else’s turn. Aside from the duration of the term, this is very much like the character of the Irish Presidency (7 years, renewable once; so actually, at potentially 14 years, not altogether different from what I’m proposing).

As to the means of selecting the person, I personally favour a process in which a committee draws up a list of suitable candidates, which would then be voted on by the Senate. The nod might go to the candidate with the plurality, or perhaps there might be run-offs until one candidate had a clear majority of the votes. I’m reluctant to suggest direct election, because that would tend to imply a democratic mandate that could have the tendency to expand the powers of the presidency over time (particularly with the example of the US Presidency right next door) and put it at odds with the House of Commons, something I’d strenuously work to avoid.

The candidate for the presidency might be something like the following: a Canadian citizen (of course), having reached a certain age (35? 42? etc.), who, while preferably versed in or experienced in the workings of the Canadian government, should not have been a member of any political party for an appreciable length of time immediately prior to his or her appointment (say, 5 years). The office should be politically neutral, as the office of the Governor-General (not to mention the Queen herself) is currently. When I think of someone who would make an ideal candidate, the late Pierre Burton, popularist historian and raconteur, the author of numerous standards on Canadian history, springs to mind. Others like Desmond Morton, or authors on Canadian themes like Margaret Atwood and Roch Carrier, also strike me as admirable choices. This is something I feel we could do.

I’d like to sum up by saying that I still admire and respect the Queen, our heritage and traditions, our membership in the Commonwealth (which we should, of course, maintain), and that I’m not foaming at the mouth to see this project achieved. But I do believe that the days of Canada as a constitutional monarchy are justifiably numbered, and that we should put some thought into giving the institution a respectful retirement. I do feel that the head of state of this country should be of and from this country. Someone, if not born here, then at least raised here, with a love of Canada and the instinctive understanding of its cultures, politics, and aspirations that come from longtime residency; living and working every day in the land of one’s nationality, one’s home. Dear as she is, that’s something Queen Elizabeth can only ever furnish to Britain, but never to Canada.

I think it’s time for us to take that last, final step to becoming our own country, and no one else’s. Yes; finally, I do agree.

Today I became a republican

...I think.

It started out mostly just arguing some fine points of the Constitution (where it touches on the Monarchy) with guys on YouTube. When discussing those points this afternoon with P-Doug at The Haggis and Fossil, I came to the realization that the idea didn't distress me anymore... that there were a lot of reasons I agreed with for going ahead.

Pretty much all my life I've been a monarchist, and quite an avid supporter of the institution for much of my youth. My ideas have slowly changed in recent years, to the point where, at some point today, the scales began to tip the other way. And I think I'm ready to stand up and advocate a Canadian republic. It doesn't sound so strange to me anymore.

Anyway, I'll sleep on it, and tomorrow morning I'll collect my thoughts and impressions and try to give them some form here on City in the Trees.

Canada In My Pocket

Sweet song performed during a ceremony of the celebration of the 45th anniversary of the Canadian flag (Feb. 15) on Valentine's Day, 2010, in the centre court of Markville Mall near Unionville in Markham, Ontario.

The song is called Canada In My Pocket, and these are the lyrics:

Chorus:
I've got Canada in my pocket
A little bit of history
A penny, and a nickel
And a quarter and a dime
Mean a lot to you and me
It's more than pocket money
They're the symbols of our land
They're pictures of important things
For which this country stands

The maple leaf, the maple leaf
Is a beautiful sight to see
It waves 'hello'' to us below
From the top of a maple tree
And with every year that passes
It grows like you and me
So should we all grow straight and tall
Like the lovely maple tree

The beaver, oh the beaver
Is a beautiful sight to see
He's a happy, furry animal
Like a teddy bear with teeth
He's never ever lazy
He works all night and day
Building houses for his family
He's got no time to play

The schooner, oh the schooner
Is a beautiful sight to see
It's a great big wooden sailing ship
That can sail across the sea
It brings to other countries
The things their people need
And brings back things
Like chocolate bars
And books for us to read

The caribou, the caribou
Is a beautiful sight to see
He's a really big strong animal
I'm sure you'll all agree
He looks like Santa's reindeer
And he loves it when
The wind blows cold
So he lives up north
With the polar bears
'Cause he likes the ice and snow

C'est fini, penses-tu?

Lately I've been noticing these Tory attack ads that go after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. There are some things they say that hit the mark. It still doesn't sit well with me that this man could live pretty much my entire life in the United States, have referred to it as "my country", and then presume to parachute back here after decades, scoop the Grit leadership, and presume to run the country. Fair enough.

But the foul against him is the complaint he was ready to form a coalition with other parties (namely, the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois). It's disturbing because it assumes -- or worse, actually speaks to -- a profound ignorance on the part of average Canadians of our own system of government. Coalition governments are typical in parliamentary democracies; in other less staid and boring than our own, they're often the norm.

The crux of the matter is the suggestion that Ignatieff was ready to form a coalition with the Bloc, a party whose platform technically includes seeking the eventual separation of Quebec from Canada by peaceful, democratic means. This is especially galling given that the Bloc flowered directly from the deal with the devil the Tories made in the 1980s to get Mulroney elected twice. They wrangled these people into the Progressive Conservatives by issuing a flurry of constitutional cheques their right-wing asses couldn't cash, and when those formerly soft separatist in particular and Quebeckers in general realized it, the blowback was fearsome. Anyone over 10 in 1995 remembers what I'm talking about.

And so this morning, the sweetest tidbit of all. Facing a non-confidence vote in the Commons that would have defeated their government and forced an election (yet another), the Tories have had their bacon pulled from the fire by...? Guess who. You guessed right! The Bloc Quebecois, who have agreed to support the government in the upcoming confidence vote.

I'm counting the seconds until those "Ignatieff wanted to form a coalition with the Bloc" ads evaporate from the airwaves. How about you?

Canadian, Please

You don't see much of this kind of thing in this country, but I thought it was a hoot. I didn't know it was possible to boast in a self-deprecating way, but here it is. :) Yeah, another Canadian innovation: the un-boast. :D

The way back is the way forward

The saying goes that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. To that I would add: or to forget how to. History can be a liberation.

I read a column today in The Globe and Mail... I forget who it was by, but the gist of it was a maudlin retreading of that tired old saw that it really didn’t matter how right we might be doing things in Canada, we’re joined at the hip by Fate to the United States and we’ll only be as well as it is sick.

Is that what we fought for as separate colonies in two continental wars? Is this why we finally came together to forge a new nation and common nationality a hundred and forty years ago? To imagine we have no future, no destiny, but that of the nation we’ve had to work so hard to remain distinct from?

A couple of weeks ago, I was in a used bookstore in rural Ontario. I came across a nice softcover book of Ontario’s history from 1610 to 1985. For the past week or so I’ve been reading it about half an hour in the mornings. And I came across some figures that were truly eye-opening.

In the middle of the 19th Century, before Confederation, the United Province of Canada (what had been Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and would become Ontario and Quebec respectively in Confederation) had a reciprocity agreement with the United States. Partly because they were sore at Britain for its conduct during the Civil War, and partly because they believed Canada’s separation from the US and adherence to the British Empire “unnatural” and only encouraged by reciprocity, the US unilaterally terminated the arrangement in 1866. And do you know what happened?

Canada promptly and obligingly curled up and died. Right?

Wrong.

Canada found other markets. And prospered.

In an age before the first prop-engine freighter ever took the skies, before refrigeration and air conditioning, when rail and sail were still the only ways to get it from here to there, this country (or what was to become this country) turned away from the easy, lazy continental trade we’ve decided is the centre of the universe, and actually hustled and found markets elsewhere.

In 1870, 51% of all Canadian exports were going to the US, and only 38% was going to the United Kingdom (the balance going pretty much to the rest of the Empire). But by 1916, 61% of our export trade was going to the UK and only 27% to the US. Even by 1937, the figures were about even: 41% to the US and 38% to the UK.

Now I’m not suggesting we can simply fall back on Mother England as our alternate to trade with the United States. But let’s remember... there’s a whole lot more to the world than just the United States, and if they’ve been rich and they’ve been close-by, that’s been convenient. But times change, and as they did before, so we must adapt. Our own history shows us what’s possible. If they could do it back then, with the incredible obstacles that time and distance represented for them, what right have we to fall back whining that the end of all good things is upon us? The EU is well-heeled, has nearly twice the number of consumers as the US, and looks upon us favourably (seal-clubbing notwithstanding; and we'll reserve comment here on fox hunting and bullfighting). China, India, and even much of South America are on the rise. These are places that will need our resources and can easily absorb the excess manufacturing output of a relatively smaller nation like ours. What I mean is, it really wouldn’t take that much of the world to pick up the slack the US is leaving behind for a country the size of Canada – if we’ll just get up off our asses and get in the game instead of moaning on the sidelines.

We did it before, and we can do it again. By all means, let’s wish the US well, but let’s not consign ourselves to the role of some Roman slave obliged to open his veins to share the fate of a humbled master. We have our own national life to lead, and our own stars to follow.

After all, wasn’t that the point in 1776, 1812, and 1867?

The province of Turks and Caicos?

This is from the March 2nd, 2009 issue of The Ottawa Citizen. I've been hearing about this proposal since I was in high school. We want it, they seem to want it... why does it never bloody happen? Nova Scotia's legislature even passed a vote, in 2004, to let the Turks and Caicos join that province if they ever join Confederation, sidestepping the unanimity requirement for new provinces in the Constitution (besides, with a population of only 30,000, it's unlikely the Turks and Caicos could actually form a viable province on their own).

Read on...
-----------------------------------------
The province of Turks and Caicos?

MP champions special ties with Caribbean nation to boost trade, ability to deliver aid

By Donna Jacobs, Citizen Special
March 2, 2009

Suppose Canada built itself a deep-water port in the turquoise waters of the Caribbean.

Suppose that port opened up a new market for Canadian goods -- more than 120 million people live in the Caribbean and nearby Central and South America.

Suppose Canada enhanced the port with a regional free trade zone.

Suppose Canadian ships carried northward duty-free tropical produce and products from the Caribbean and Latin America. In some locations, food rots for lack of shipping and export markets.

Suppose these ships returned with Canadian durable goods -- now scarce on southern shelves.

Suppose the port, unaffordable for Caribbean countries, boosted their standard of living and bolstered hemispheric security.

Suppose the port doubled as a Canadian military operations base for countries wanting help to patrol their waters and to interdict the Caribbean's robust trade in smuggled arms, drugs and people.

Suppose Canada used the port as an aid base when hurricanes strike.

Suppose Canada fills a vacuum of influence where China, Cuba and -- bolstered by Iran -- Venezuela have stepped in with medical aid, cheap petroleum, schools and factory construction.

Suppose Canada did all this with its usual low-key, good-cop approach to world politics and regional strife, drawing on the goodwill that comes from its 100-year trading relationship in the Caribbean. (Canada's direct investment holdings in the Caribbean-Latin American market in 2007 totalled $87.2 billion.)

For years, Edmonton East Conservative MP Peter Goldring has been campaigning for this all-purpose "Canadian platform" on South Caicos Island. The Turks and Caicos lie north of the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

In the 1970s, Turks and Caicos knocked on Canada's front door.

The English-speaking nation asked to become Canada's 11th province. It was ultimately turned down. Strange in today's multicultural Canada, says Mr. Goldring, but concerns over racial and cultural integration figured in the decision.

In the late 1980s, with some 90 per cent of their population in favour, Turks and Caicos asked again for a "special relationship" with Canada. In 2003, with 60 per cent in favour, Turks and Caicos renewed its request.

The Turks and Caicos -- comprised of two groups of islands -- are independent, but remain a British overseas territory.

For many Canadians -- and everyone else -- Caribbean life is a beach holiday. But, says Mr. Goldring quietly, "the Caribbean can get away on itself, if you do not give it care and attention."

- - -

Indeed, he's taken a lot of kidding for championing the Turks and Caicos -- similar to Edmonton in distance from Ottawa -- as a Canadian territory.

"I'm concerned that the idea is being taken too lightly," he says. "People find a lot of humour in it."

Skeptics are concerned over the prospect of massive migration from the Caribbean or the risk that winter-weary Canadians would overwhelm the islands. Mr. Goldring says both concerns can be handled -- think of Hawaii and the U.S. or of Quebec's provincially-tailored immigration standards.

And the port proposal is not merely a matter for Turks and Caicos. Ambassadors to Canada from Barbados and Cuba, and politicians in Dominica and St. Lucia, have championed more deep-water trade with Halifax which, he says, after touring the Halifax port, has "lots of capacity."

Historically, he adds, two Canadian ships used to ply between the islands. And though Canada's presence has diminished, it staged its Haiti-bound UN troops in 2004 through Turks and Caicos.

"We could have an aid program, a DART unit, an emergency aid unit. I visited Granada after Hurricane Ivan came through and it was very evident we didn't have the capacity to help."

He's visited some 10 Caribbean countries over the years. In Haiti, he toured the Montreal-based Gildan Activewear plant, which pays about 5,000 people double the minimum wage to produce clothing.

In a post-9/11 world, now contracting with global recession, he says, Canada needs to realign its trading routes and methods.

"Too much attention has been focused on the Asian Giant," he says. "And it's getting harder to get products into the U.S. We should be looking at other alternatives."

Mr. Goldring's focus dovetails with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's policy, reinvigorated with last week's announcement of more Canadian aid, more trade and further political co-operation with the Caribbean and Latin America.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon just returned from Brazil. Peter Kent, minister of state of Foreign Affairs for the Americas, just returned from Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, host of the Summit of the Americas in April.

Beyond Canada's burgeoning trade in the region, the Caribbean has strategic importance, Mr. Goldring says: "You have to be aware of what potentially could go wrong if places like Venezuela and Cuba were forced to align themselves with Communist China.

"Canada gives aid money to China (CIDA gave $37.2 million to Chinese organizations in 2008) and China turns around and builds the schools and hospitals and sports stadia -- with their name on it -- in the Caribbean," he says. "So we have to shake our head, because that is hugely influential."

In recent years, China built a duty-free zone in St. Lucia. (The island turned to Taiwan for help in 2007, angering China and halting its hospital construction.) And in Guyana, China built the headquarters of CARICOM, the Caribbean common market, along with a convention centre.

Canada's friendship with Cuba also carries strategic benefit. While Canada "walks a line with the U.S.," which has a trade embargo on the island, the U.S. appreciates Canada "as a stabilizing element," says Mr. Goldring

"When I visited Cuba two years ago, the Cuban people said, in no uncertain terms, that they believe they're still at war with the U.S. while Canadians are very, very well-liked."

As for the military, he says the Canadian Forces sends a frigate to the Caribbean for annual military manoeuvres, making a regional base there useful.

Mr. Goldring is right: Canada does need to take the Caribbean more seriously.

Ireland Park, Toronto

Matching a set of Rowan Gillespie's statues in Dublin, called "The Departure", this set in Toronto, called "The Arrival", commemorates the 38,000 Irish famine emigrants who arrived here in Toronto in 1847, at the foot of Bathurst Street, at what is now called Eireann Quay. The park was opened by Irish President Mary McAleese in 2007.

Death or Canada

Death or Canada. That's what they called it. P-Doug invited me to come with him to see it, and I remarked to him at the time, half in jest, that had the destination been the US, they probably would have come up with a less gloomy title; one that made the choice sound more palatable, even flattering. Death... or Canada. Well...

Of course, that's being flippant. The documentary, and the book that accompanies it, are actually about the arrival of about 38,000 Famine Irish in Toronto in the summer of 1847. Toronto, at the time, had a population of about 20,000. The documentary makes the point that an equivalent emergency in our own times would imply the introduction of nine or ten million people to this city in one season. And that of those, about a quarter of a million would die of typhus, or the like, in our midst.

It was showing last night at the Bloor Cinema around 7 p.m. There were brief presentations, before and afterward, by some of the people responsible for the film or getting the word about it out. The film itself was the story of the people who chose to flee Ireland for North America, and in particular, the tragic story of the Willis family, who departed as a family of seven, and whose story ended with only the mother surviving. Suddenly the title "Death or Canada" didn't seem like such a strange one to me anymore. Thousands died on the way over, and thousands more in isolation once they arrived. Conditions on the ships were such that one of the presenters said it's less surprising that so many died, as it is that so many actually survived.

It's also the story of colonial reactions to the influx. Some people fled the city for the safety of lodging with rural relatives. But others, doctors, nurses, public officials, and even Toronto's first Catholic bishop, an Irish Nova Scotian named Michael Power, died in the service of the sick and dying, while scores of others risked their lives.

Today, at the foot of Bathurst Street, is Ireland Park, where statues by the Irish sculptor Rowan Gillespie greet the new city with the emotions of the long-ago people they represent. Here, in stone quarried in County Kerry, Ireland, they are engraving the (known) names of the 1,100 or so Irish who died on the shores of Lake Ontario... currently about 675, but growing as research brings them to light.

On the way out, I bought the book, and we were all given a free copy of the inaugural issue of Irish Connections Canada (a re-inauguration of The Toronto Irish News, now going nation-wide). The documentary, in all its power and sobering impact, will be shown on The History Network on March 16th, on the eve of St. Patrick's Day.

The presenters included Eamonn O'Loghlin, the editor of Irish Connections Canada; Professor Mark McCowan, who wrote the book the started the project; Robert G. Kearns, Chairman of the Ireland Park Foundation; and two others whose names for the moment escape me, but who I will fill in as soon as I'm able.

N.B. (March 9) Much to my embarrassment, the producer himself has reminded me of the names of the two others on stage that evening. They were Dr. Donald Low of Mt. Sinai Hospital and the film's executive producer, Craig Thompson. I searched for the Doctor's name but most of my searches brought up the name of a SARS doctor here in Toronto who died in the effort to defeat the disease, rightly garnering him much mention (that unfortunately obscured the search for Dr. Low's name). I'd like to thank Mr. Thompson for reminding me of the names I overlooked, and doing so with good grace. :)

Red, white, and natural blue

Red, white, and natural blue, originally uploaded by Lone Primate.

I was at the mall the other day to buy a picture frame, and as I came out, I was greeted by the sight of the wind catching the 18' flag flying over the parking lot, trailing out into an absolutely clear blue sky. On a whim, I pulled out the G9, put it on continuous shooting, and shot about three dozen stills of the flag as it did its thing. I think this was the best of the lot. It took nearly no work in Photoshop to get it looking like this; this is nearly how it looked right out of the camera. I added the artsy border in PhotoScape, and posted it.

Best of all, I printed the shot, as treated here, with my new Canon inkjet printer, and the print I got was so beautiful it gave me pause. I couldn't believe I'd gotten such beautiful work out of an off-the-cuff shot and a $99 printer. Though I say it myself, I was struck by just how professional the final effect was.

I've always liked seeing our flag with strong blue. Originally, the flag was supposed to feature blue bars at either end, rather than red, as well as a sprig of three maple leaves (as in the bottom of the shield of the coat of arms)... the design was ridiculed by Red Ensign-favouring traditionalists as "the Pearson Penant", but it led directly to the design that was adopted at the end of 1964, that first flew officially on Feb. 15, 1965... which you see at the top of this post. That said, it wouldn't be my flag now if they changed it (and there are such proposals). It is what it is; I grew up with it the way it is and I wouldn't change a thing. But I wouldn't mind much, either, if we had adopted a flag with blue on one bar, or both, I guess.

Canadians for a Progressive Coalition

Trade pact with the EU?

I'm not seriously expecting this to come to pass, but I have to say, it's the most surprising news I've seen reported about Canada's future economic prospects in a long time. This was reported this morning in The Globe and Mail.

Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA

Plan to lift barriers for goods and labour to be discussed at summit after election

September 18, 2008 at 2:00 AM EDT

LONDON — Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy with the 27 nations of the European Union, with preliminary talks to be launched at an Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after the federal election.

Trade Minister Michael Fortier and his staff have been engaged for the past two months with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and the representatives of European governments in an effort to begin what a senior EU official involved in the talks described in an interview yesterday as “deep economic integration negotiations.”

If successful, Canada would be the first developed nation to have open trade relations with the EU, which has completely open borders between its members but imposes steep trade and investment barriers on outsiders.

The proposed pact would far exceed the scope of older agreements such as NAFTA by encompassing not only unrestricted trade in goods, services and investment and the removal of tariffs, but also the free movement of skilled people and an open market in government services and procurement – which would require that Canadian governments allow European companies to bid as equals on government contracts for both goods and services and end the favouring of local or national providers of public-sector services.

Previous efforts to reach a trade pact with Europe have failed, most recently in 2005 with the collapse of the proposed Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement.

But with the breakdown of World Trade Organization talks in July, European officials have become much more interested in opening a bilateral trade and economic integration deal with North America.

A pact with the United States would be politically impossible in Europe, senior European Commission officials said.

A newly completed study of the proposed deal, which European officials said Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided not to release until after the election, concludes that the pact would increase bilateral trade and investment by at least $40-billion a year, mainly in trade in services.

Ottawa officials say they have overcome what they see as their biggest hurdle: the resistance of provincial governments to an agreement that would force them to allow European corporations to provide their government services, if their bids are the lowest.

Although Ottawa's current list of foreign-policy priorities does not include European issues, European and Canadian officials say Mr. Harper has been heavily engaged with the proposed trade pact.

The two governments have completed a detailed study of the proposed agreement that will be unveiled shortly after the election, should the Conservatives win.

Both Ottawa and Brussels have had staff work on a draft text for a deal they had hoped would be introduced at a Canada-EU summit, to be attended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Mr. Harper in Montreal on Oct. 17. France currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, and Mr. Sarkozy has said that he hopes to make economic integration with Canada one of his accomplishments.

Last Wednesday, a top Ottawa trade official wrote to Mr. Mandelson to propose “the launch of comprehensive negotiations toward a closer economic partnership at the Canada-EU Leaders Summit, to be held on October 17,” and stressed that all 13 provincial and territorial governments had agreed to the proposed pact at a July 18 meeting in Quebec City.

Because of the election, Mr. Harper appears to have decided not to unveil a full text of the proposed agreement, but instead to use the summit to inaugurate the trade talks with the launch of a “scoping exercise” that will quickly set the goals of the pact and lead to formal “comprehensive trade and investment negotiations” to begin in “early 2009,” according to communications between senior Canadian and European officials examined by The Globe and Mail.

Proponents, including all of Canada's major business-lobby organizations, are in favour of the deal because it would open Canadian exporters to a market of 500 million people and allow the world's largest pool of investment capital into Canadian companies without restrictions.

Because Canada's fractious provinces have killed attempts at a trade pact in the past, Europe is demanding that Canada accept a more far-reaching agreement than Canada and Europe had attempted before, in an effort to win a stronger commitment, EU officials said.

Major “deal-breaker” conditions, officials said, include full agreement by all 10 provinces, especially on the issue of European companies providing government services, and what are known as “geographic indicators,” which forbid products such as champagne and feta cheese to be produced under those names outside their nations of origin. Controversially for Canada, this may soon be extended so only English producers can use the name cheddar on their cheese.
However, both sides agree that there is far more political will to negotiate a major deal, on both sides than there ever has been.

“I am far more optimistic this time than I've ever been in the past. … I feel very confident that we will be able to launch something on Oct. 17 that will give us a better chance than we've ever had before to get a full deal in place,” said Roy MacLaren, head of the Canada-Europe Round Table, a pro-trade business organization that has been heavily involved in the negotiations.

As a trade minister in the Jean Chrétien government and later as a diplomat, Mr. MacLaren was involved in several previous attempts at a Canada-EU pact.

Remember Meech?

Actually, I think this political cartoon by Steve Nease from July 24, 1992, was prompted by the second round of constitutional talks that led the country nowhere good and came within a hair of shattering Confederation a few years in 1995 later when Quebec held its second referendum on quitting Canada. I've always found this cartoon a laugh, but really, Mulroney and his "roll of the dice" were nothing to laugh about.

The future ain't what it used to be

Canada will join U.S. by 2010, futurists say
(Toronto Star, July 23, 1992)

WASHINGTON (CP) - Quebec will separate from Canada in 1996 and the other provinces will join the United States by the year 2010, predicts the U.S. World Future Society.

"There are no longer any economic reasons to force Quebec to stay in Canada," write group members Marvin Cetron and Owen Davies in a book called Crystal Globe, which makes sweeping predictions about the world's future.

In a chapter titled "55 United States and Quebec," the Washington-based non-profit research group forecasts that after Quebec leaves Canada in 1996, the four Atlantic provinces will join the U.S. as a single state.

Later, the authors say, Ontario will be admitted to the U.S. as a state and the Western provinces, which will have more in common with their southern neighbors, will form two more states.

The book also predicts Cuban leader Fidel Castro will join the Western powers, Israel will give up the occupied territories to make peace in the Middle East and Japanese economic might will decline rapidly.

The concept of a bilingual, bi-cultural Canada will fall apart, the authors predict, because English Canada is not prepared to five Quebec any more powers, he collapse of the Meech Lake constitutional accord in 1990 is cited as a case in point.

Giving Quebec a veto over the rest of Canada is "a privilege that 20 million Canadians are not ready to give."

Redrawing the country into four or five semi-autonomous zones isn't expected either, the group says, because Quebec and Ontario would dominate and that would be opposed by the West and the Atlantic provinces.

An independent Quebec would be as affluent and populous as Switzerland, and three times as large, the book points out. And the new country would have no problem negotiating a free trade deal of its own with the United States.

Down the Humber and back

I had two adventures kayaking on the Humber last summer. The first time, P-Doug took me down there and introduced me to the pastime. I'd never done it before, but I was delighted to find how naturally it came to me. That time, we were guided down from Bloor to the mouth of the river at Lake Ontario, and then back again.

The second time was in September when my friend R-Lang was visiting from New England. That time didn't go as well for me. I had a devil of a time keeping up, largely because I couldn't keep the kayak straight. I eventually suspected that the stabilizing fin hadn't deployed, which turned out to be the case (it was jammed with sand). I finally had to turn back on my own and fight the thing back to the landing ground, where I cut my palm open falling into the water getting out of the thing, and spending about an hour and a half waiting for P-Doug and R-Lang to return.

Oddly enough, that second experience didn't sour me on the whole thing. I managed to keep my perspective — pretty rare for me, actually — and put to down to an anomalous occurrence that need not spoil things the next time out. And I was determined there would be a next time out.

Well, happily, that came last Saturday. I drove down to meet up with P-Doug and his missus, G, and we all went to St. Lawrence Market, where I availed myself of 6 lbs. of ground chicken (parceled off Monday night into 17 packages to be eaten over the next few weeks), a spicy pineapple-cranberry spread that's nice on toast and quark (a soft German spreadable cheese with no fat content, just milk protein), and my favourite hot sauce, Z: Nothing Beyond. After that we dropped off G back at home and then took the subway down to Old Mill Station, aiming for the 1 p.m. launch. We missed that, but I honestly didn't mind because I was perfectly happy to go at our own pace, rather than be led around.

Just like the second time I went, I brought my cameras. This time, I had the G9 and the infrared S70, as well as my cell phone and PhotoTrackr. I had everything in a little shoulder bag, all packed up in sandwich bags in case I fell in or otherwise got wet. This was, to be honest, of limited utility. To use the G9, I had to take it out and expose it to the elements (though I had the neck strap on, so unless I actually fell overboard, nothing much was going to happen to it). Using the S70, I kept it in the sandwich bag, which had the advantage of guarding it and rending it likely to float, but had the disadvantage of causing glare at certain angles and increasing the risk I'd drop it because there was no way to use the wrist strap and the bag itself was smooth and difficult to hold. I never dropped either one, but I was constantly aware I was risking a lot of money every time I took a shot that wasn't from the chest.

We got to the river around quarter after one and out on it around half past. I spent a lot of time messing with the cameras, taking shots and some movies that turned out pretty nicely in places, I think. P-Doug slowed down a couple of times to let me catch up, but I think eventually he decided that my shutterbuggery (if I can use that term) was bound to hold me back more or less constantly and he drifted down at his own pace. In truth, it's hard to keep in lockstep on a river anyway, unless you're a voyageur. We linked up a few times, especially at the first marsh where he lingered rather longer than I did. By that time, the sunny midday had taken on a decided overcast, and there was a sense of rain in the air, but it didn't seem overwhelming.

I think it was just after the second marsh, as I headed down towards the bridges with a decided pace, that I realized I'd left P-Doug behind. I was around a bend at that point so there was no way I could gage just how far back he might be... I waited for a few moments, but when I didn't see him, I figured he was taking his time at the second marsh and I just pressed on to the bridges and the mouth of the river. I enjoyed the sense of accomplishment in getting there again, and I'd decided to wait for P-Doug there, but right around the time I got turned around, the rain started. I had no idea how bad it was going to be, and the wind was really picking up. I had most of an hour's trip back, too, so I pretty quickly gave up on the idea of waiting around and I headed back. Turned out to be just well because I never did bump into him on the way back.

The rain was never more than showers, really, but it fell for about fifteen, twenty minutes and I was convinced it was probably going to get worse. I was paddling pretty steadily, pausing when my arms tired. I noticed that it was mostly my left arm that seemed to tire, probably because I'm right-handed. The trip back always seems longer than the trip down (of course, you're going against the current, however slight) and I felt the pressure to get back before it really opened up on me. But it never did.

As I was approaching the landing ground, just above Bloor Street, I could see P-Doug's distinctive hat atop a figure beside another. Conversing, I figured, with the kayak owner. I wondered how long he'd been waiting. But as I was closing in, I happened to notice a deer on the east bank of the river. She noticed me, too, but didn't run away. I had to get a picture of her. I circled back, and took a number of shots. Then, I turned on the video function and got a wonderful 30 second movie of her as she wander away, and then loped off as the subway train arrived with its distinctive racket. I then turned back to end the excursion.

We headed back on the subway to rejoin G and all went to my place to watch Miller's Crossing and enjoy a spaghettini and sausage dinner, courtesy of P-Doug and his culinary skills. A pleasant day all around. Even for the deer, I bet.

It was a bad idea 50 years ago...

Toronto trustees narrowly approve black-focused school
CAROLINE ALPHONSO AND JAMES BRADSHAW
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
January 30, 2008 at 12:49 AM EST

TORONTO — In a tight vote, Toronto District School Board trustees Tuesday night approved a contentious proposal for a black-focused school that opponents argued would be the equivalent of segregation.

The 11-9 vote in favour came after an evening of impassioned pleas both for and against the school from community members, including one from the mother of slain 15-year-old Jordan Manners.

Tuesday night's vote means that an alternative Afro-centric school will open in the city in September, 2009, but its location and grade levels are still to be determined.

I've thought about it, and while I understand the intentions behind it, I'm opposed to this. I think it's a very, very bad idea. We need more interaction and more inclusion in a society like this, not less. I'm sorry, this is segregation. It will promote different standards. It will lead to disparities in resource allocation — perceived, if not real. It will exacerbate the alienation already fostered by race when it makes that very aspect a matter of public policy. This does not serve the community interest. Where does it lead us? Chinese schools? Indian schools? Arab schools? Nordic schools? Is this good for Toronto? Is it good for Canada?

I agree that the teaching in schools is too Eurocentric. At least it was 20 years ago when I was there. There was discussion of what happened in Europe leading to the European colonization of the Americas and then our role in several European wars. Little was said of Asia; nothing of Africa outside of the slave trade. That should change. This country is forged of threads from around the world; it is in the interests of every Canadian to understand the history, trends, and motivations of every culture and society that has come to these shores to contribute. We need to learn about one another, because it's now about learning about ourselves. Breaking off from one another to go to our own rooms and stare at our own pretty navels is not the answer. As has been demonstrated concerning Eurocentism, it is, in fact, the problem.

Two Nights in a Toronto Hotel

Just like the name says. I've just spent two nights downtown on business, put up in one of the city's premier hotels. My second hand Canon PowerShot G9 arrived on Wednesday, just in time for the fun... enabling me to take several time lapse movies of the wonderful views to be seen from the hotel.

Music by the Canadian comedy team of MacLean & MacLean (rest in peace, Gary).

On US war resisters

On Thursday, December 6th, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration passed the following motion:

That the Committee recommend that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.

The vote was 7:4 in favour. It should be noted that noted that no Tory voted for the motion; no non-Tory voted against it.

The Champions

In relation to my order for René Lévesque's memoirs, I got thinking about a series I remember from my high school days, produced by the NFB and CBC (and broadcast by the latter) in the mid-80s. The series was collectively titled The Champions, and chronicles the parallel rises of René Lévesque and Pierre Trudeau and their clashes in the 70s and 80s. I found them in the catalog of the Toronto Public Library, so I now have them on request. It's been years, probably since the early 90s, since I've seen the series, running about three and a half hours, and I'm really looking forward to watching it again.

Part one is called Unlikely Warriors, and tells the story of these two men up to 1967, when Lévesque, who'd been a provincial minister in the Quebec Lesage government, split to form the Parti Québecois, and when Trudeau joined the federal Liberal cabinet under Mike Pearson.

Part two is called Trappings of Power, and tells the story of Trudeau's early years as prime minister (including the October Crisis), and Lévesque's rise to premier in Quebec, and the lead-up to the referendum. Since these first two parts were completed in 1978, they leave the question of result of the 1980 referendum hanging. I can barely remember those times, but I do recall the gloom of those days, constitutionally. Not the best time ever to be Canadian.

Part three, The Final Battle, was completed in 1986, in the wake of each of these men leaving power. It tells the story of the referendum struggle and the subsequent patriation of the Constitution from Britain, something that still causes us headaches today. What I recall from this part is the poignant footage accompanying Trudeau's "walk in the snow" at the end of February, 1984, the night before he announced his resignation from office.

Since the broadcast of this series, each man has passed on. Their legacy remains and affects our lives to this day, and far into the future. I would strongly recommend this series to anyone who wants a better understanding of the constitutional eggshells upon which we tread so very lightly in this ongoing experiment in tolerance and cohabitability we call Canada.

Qu'est-ce que vous pensez?

I think it was my post a few days ago about the census with regard to Quebec that got me thinking about separatists again, and more specifically of René Lévesque. In spite of his goals, I always kind of admired him and I could never bring myself to really dislike him. There was just something about him that made it impossible, for me at least. But I started wondering, what was it that brought him to the personal realization that Canada didn't work for Quebec, that it needed to be separate? And what kind of an insight would knowing that answer give me into the hearts of minds of separatists generally? So I thought, well, he must have written his memoirs... and indeed he did, published just before he died. They've been translated into English, and so I went looking for them and found a decently-priced copy on Amazon.ca and ordered it. I'm really looking forward to reading it, and perhaps remarking on it here.