THE SILHOUETTE

With the red-coated, country bumpkin Mounties that appear on American television with exaggerated Newfoundland accents as the precedent for Canadians’ outward projected image, it’s no wonder Canadians are self-conscious about our national identity.

The elaborate closing ceremonies to the 2010 Vancouver Olympics earlier this year were a good-natured tribute to our ability to poke fun at ourselves, with Michael Bublé patriotically singing “The Maple Leaf Forever” in a Mounties uniform, surrounded by gigantic inflatable beavers and maple leaves, dancing lumberjacks and canoe paddlers.

As Canadians we’re told that when visiting abroad we should sew a flag on our backpacks in order to be treated with courtesy, and in order not to be mistaken for an American.

We’re told that people love Canadians. Spending four months abroad this summer has provided me with new insight to people’s opinions of Canadians.

People have mistaken me for an American plenty of times since my arrival. I speak to a lot of people on a brief, superficial level because I work behind the counter in a café bar. When I smile politely and correct them that I am Canadian, their eyes widen and they take a step back, waving their hands in apology.

I don’t blame them for the misidentification; my accent is the same as what they hear on American television. But their reaction is interesting because they are almost unanimously similar: horrifically apologetic.

No one jokes about us living in igloos, or asks if I know their friend John from Vancouver. Instead, I hear plenty of jokes about maple syrup, the “owt and abowt” thing (we really do say it), and jokes repeated from How I Met Your Mother’s ongoing lighthearted teasing of the Canadian character on the show.

And apparently we consume more juice than any other country in the world, according to several English students I’ve spoken to. Who would have thought?

But people seem genuinely interested in Canadians. In Paris, a tall, lanky man who sold me a nectarine at a fruit stand asked if it was possible to see me later when he found out I was Canadian.

I also saw “The Canadian Pub,” a faded green-canopy-covered patio right along the Seine, so Canadiana must be appealing in some way.

One afternoon my mother and I were long desperate to find a bathroom wandering the Luxemburg Gardens, and after dejectedly seeing several “fermé” signs slung across the doors of toilettes, we finally found one adjoining a café. We descended the stairs and a large woman sat behind a table was collecting 40 cents for the use of the washroom. We paid and joined the line, holding our breath, hoping that the queue would move quickly. Suddenly, a young boy strode past the line in a beeline for the men’s urinal section, to which the large woman called out “garcon!”

The boy’s mother, who was still in the doorway, said “Thomas, come back here.” The large woman explained in French that the boy’s mother would have to pay for the use of the facilities.

The tanned woman, in a North American accent, her hair short, bleached blonde and spiked around her gold earrings, loudly complained “Oh are you kidding me? This is ridiculous.” She rooted around her purse. “I don’t even have any money. Are you serious?”

Her voice was one of elaborate exasperation. In both whiney and aggressive tones she continued her expressions of outrage and disbelief at the incredulity of the situation, while Thomas and his sister looked on from the stairs.

The short queue averted their eyes in embarrassment while the large attendant looked apologetically at the woman.

The blonde woman continued her tirade and managed to get a few more complaints in there before she took her children up the stairs, their bladders unrelieved.

My mother and I discussed it later walking through the gardens as we watched three young children attempt to separate two pigeons who were doing their best to mate.

“The thing is,” my mom pointed out, “I got into the airport in Barcelona and the bathrooms cost 50 cents, so I thought, ‘Oh, you have to pay to use public bathrooms here’ and I paid it. Why wouldn’t she just assume that things were different here?”

More importantly, how did she manage to get all the way to a park in the middle of Paris with her two children, without already having discovered that public bathrooms generally cost money? And how was it that she didn’t have any money on her? She was what I can only assume was the stereotypical American tourist, with a sense of entitlement and appall by different ways of doing things, in order for her to act that way.

Her accent sounded more American than Canadian, but I’m well aware that there are rude Canadians out there, somewhere. On a bicycle tour with my brother through Amsterdam, there was a group of five men on a stag trip.

When the tour began carefully weaving its way single file through the multitude of cyclists within the bike lane, directionless tourists crossing them and abrupt interruptions by cars, these men sped ahead and passed other members of the tour to congregate at the front of the tour, swarming our tour guide and frequently speeding ahead of him.

A sunny good-natured New Zealander tour guide dealt with these keeners well, but their aggressive eagerness, as well as their desperation to stay cool into their mid-thirties, was so annoying. My brother and I repeatedly made fun of them throughout the tour, like when they made the entire tour stop to wait for them while they each got free t-shirts that were being handed out on the street by Heineken.

At the small Dutch farm we cycled to, we saw how wooden clogs were made. One of the stag attendees continued to ask probing, complicated questions about the process, as if he was immediately about to open his own clog business.

One of the others challenged the demonstrator to finish the shoe on the spot. They weren’t bad people, just obnoxious, and annoying.

When we saw how cheese was made they each held out their hands for extra free samples, and my brother and I rolled out eyes at their tacky Americaness, when the patient cheese maker asked where everyone was from. One of the stag men answered, “Canada.”

My brother and I looked at each other in horror, before answering that we too, were Canadian.

At the break one of them came over to talk to their fellow Canadians, and upon finding out that we were from Hamilton, all five of them descended on me. As it turns out, they were from Hamilton. Not only were the most obnoxious people I’ve met so far (this was before the lady in the French bathroom) from Canada, but they were from my tiny part of Canada. Oh yes, two of these men had attended Parkside High School in Dundas growing up, and two of them had attended McMaster.

But our reputation precedes us still. On a tour in Edinburgh, the host made a special mention of Canadians. We were standing in the stone courtyard behind a pub to hear some literary history, and in the interests of time our host instructed us to leave our glasses on the table near the patio door.

“Now,” the grey-haired host told us in his thick Scottish accent. “Whenever I tell groups to do this it’s always the Canadians that have trouble following these directions.” Bewildered, I looked at my friends, two of whom were also Canadian. “Canadians always have trouble leaving their glasses outside because they can’t bear to make more work for the bar staff, so they always bring their glasses inside, right up to the bar.

It is true, that many people are delighted to find out that I am from Canada. They’ve heard that it is beautiful, they are planning a visit or have already been there. The boring truth is that Canadians are generally polite and courteous, and the world over knows us that way. It is a nice way to walk around the world, with the feeling that you’re from some well liked, albeit dorky, club. People know you, and what’s more, they like you already.

And every time I politely ask for a glass of juice everyone exchanges knowing glances, “Oh, typical Canadian.”

Related posts:

1. Europe on a shoestring brings travel down to a science
2. Editorial: A nation-defining moment

Sil Analyst

Unemployment dropped another 0.1 percentage points the week of Mar. 8 to 12 in Canada. With 21,000 newly employed the current unemployment rate is 8.2 per cent.

The driving factor for February was an increase in full-time workers – where 60,000 people found work. The majority of those jobs were that of public sector employees.

            Other increases were seen in accommodation and food services, building, and other support services; manufacturing; health care and social assistance; and natural resources. Additionally, many of the gains were seen in men 55 and over. The men 55 and over age group saw a drop in unemployment by 0.6 percentage points to 7.1 per cent with the increase of 26,000 jobs. Statistics Canada attributes much of this growth to a significant portion of the working population entering the 55 and over group.

            Little change was seen in unemployment for the youth (24 and under) age group. Further, the losses that were seen for February were all in part-time employment. Attributing to the job losses were the retail and wholesale trade sector; the finance, insurance, real estate and leasing sector, and other services sector.

            The lowest unemployment in Canada was found is Saskatchewan. With 4,100 newly employed the provinces unemployment rate sits at 4.3 per cent. Ontario, currently sitting at 9.1 per cent, saw little change in February. The province has seen a growth of 1.4 per cent since May 2009.

            Other news for the week was statistics on foreign control in the Canadian economy for 2007. However, Canada continues to give up its assets in manufacturing and oil and gas. The 10.6 per cent increase contributed to the 9.9 per cent overall increase of foreign interest in Canadian firms.

            The largest share of foreign control is in manufacturing. Foreign interest in this sector sits at 52.8 per cent compared to 46.8 per cent in 2006.

            The US dominated this asset control – 54.7 per cent of foreign interest was that of the US. The majority of these interests were in motor vehicles and parts; wood and paper, and primary metals.

            The majority of the foreign interest decline was from Germany. 2.1 per cent was dropped, but consequently picked up by US interests.

            Finally, Canadian international merchandise trade statistics were released. Canada posted a $799 million trade surplus as exports increased 0.5 per cent and imports dropped 1.7 per cent.

            The major exports were metals and alloys (8.4 per cent) and chemicals, plastics, and fertilizers (8.9 per cent). Also, 9.0 per cent growth was in seen in consumer goods such as apparel, footwear, toys, medical and pharmaceutical products.

Related posts:

1. Employment numbers up for January
2. Canadian economy on the mend

To give an idea of the tone of the anthology, BP founder Hal Niedzviecki writes in the introduction, “These stories are outcasts…They are anti-literature. By and large, they read ragged, lacking the refinements of metaphor, magical realism, and perfect epiphany on the prairies. A few of them might even be badly written. On purpose? By accident? Who really gives a fuck. This is Broken Pencil. We’re not trying to win awards, launch the writers Oprah wants you to read, or really do anything at all.”

The material and writing styles of the stories vary greatly, being anywhere from a well structured narrative focusing on one character, such as in the story “Camp Zombie,” or a couple pages of fragmented sentences, as found in “Too Much Mean Me.” It is this absolute variety and uniqueness of short stories that makes this compilation so enticing, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone, as it has something for everyone. There are some stories that I found to be undesirable, such as “Dandruff,” which is boring and says nothing to me. But overall with about fifty stories, a few bad ones are entirely expected. Many of the stories are focused on developing a central character that feels so real and interesting that they stay with you long after you finish the story, and these types of stories are the ones that stood out the most to me.

One story that I thoroughly enjoyed was “Small Game Hunter.” It is the story of a twenty-something guy who is living a dead end life, stuck working at a factory for his girlfriend’s father. It’s a story driven by anger, mostly the main character’s anger towards his dull position in life, the tedious frustration of being stuck, and his  resulting self loathing. He then gets a break when uploading recorded joke raps he and his friend were making to a website. People start listening to what he defines as “OK Rap” and their group, Sons of Prozac, become so popular on the website that they get invited to Calgary to perform at a show. The main character appears to be very stunted in his growth; a guy who comes off deep but only in secret – in his narrative – and outwardly is only a factory worker. As a reader, it is easy to sympathize with him and lament his losses as he seems destined to remain in his dull life.

Another well developed character is Gord from the story “Band Names.” Gord is a laid back, striving musician who has gone months without a job and has been working painfully slowly on his current musical project “The Key to All Mythologies.” This story is simply a day in the shoes of Gord, who feels like such a real person that when the story ends you just want to know more. You want to witness Gord on different levels of his character, see how he makes out later down the road or how he got to where he is in life, and you get this curiosity all from one short story. Unfortunately no great event or situation takes place, so it could also be read as an unsatisfying story that doesn’t go very far. Personally though, I enjoy it as the character profile that it is.

Or take another character, Juan from “Yes Man.” It’s a story of a guy who will do anything you ask, no matter how horrible, written with very crude and blunt language. The story’s first line reads: “Juan put a Flintstones toothbrush up his ass in the parking lot behind the Westview Mall in daylight because some boys told him to.” This character profile is written from the perspective of another character, which explains the forward and open commentary.

This kind of shocking content should be expected from these stories. As I have already mentioned they contain content that usually would not be printed. And this restriction, removed of taboo language or content, is what gives them so much room to breathe, and makes them so different and fresh. The narrative styles feel so different from the norm found in popular books, making them genuinely unique.

Take a story written from the perspective of a girl in grade nine about the local serial rapist. In this story she encounters what she believes to be the rapist currently terrorizing the town, and goes through several agonizing panics about her own safety and that of her sister throughout the day. While she appears nonchalant to the outside world, inside she is anxiously confiding her fears to the reader. This traumatic situation and the repression of the main character make an interesting – if not nerve-racking – narrative and character to read about.

A great mix of material here, I would highly recommend giving this alternative Canadian literature a try.

•Robert Evans

Related posts:

1. Slowly Downward: A Collection of Miserable Stories
2. Lauren Kirshner Discusses Her Recent Work ‘Where We Have to Go’

After watching the Canadian Men’s Hockey beat up on the Russians, the place erupted into a singing of the national anthem. Something so far from Canadian as I knew it two months ago.

So what’s the difference? We bring the biggest party into our own backyard and all of a sudden we become the biggest patriots, how does that work? And more importantly, should we?

Well why not? Isn’t this country far overdue for a little bravado? A little hoo-rah, we’re red and white, take it or leave it.

Why not? We’ve been apologetically pathetic when it comes to patriotism for far too long. Take, for example, every world cup. Every four years, second-generation Italians, Brits, Portuguese, Spanish, and the rest adorn their car in their parents’ parents’ flag, pretending to be apart of the celebration. They couldn’t tell you what city Ronaldo was from, but they’d be more than happy to paint the town if Portugal won.

So this is a long overdue celebration. What is a Canadian? Who cares? Right now, a Canadian is a white/brown/black/green kid with a Sidney Crosby jersey on their back, cheering on Ice Dancers and Lugers. We’ve stopped asking who we are and started cheering for what we are.

Enter, the “Own the Podium” debate.

Much has been said about the supposedly “un-Canadian” campaign; that to state that we should “Own the Podium” is too “American,” too arrogant, conceited and bigheaded.

Think of it this way: this nation, the second largest nation in the world, has yet to have a nation-defining moment. No civil war, no great history (arguably), no traditions and no unanimous celebration. The last thing we had was in World War I, where Canadians defined ourselves as the ultimate shock troopers when the took Vimy Ridge. We woke to the British up to that we were a nation, and not just a commonwealth. Filled with adrenaline and fear, our great grandfathers jumped over the trench to define a nation, only to be a footnote in Canadian history. We, as a nation, rarely rally around a moment that could have defined us. It was too singular, too non-inclusive for our multi-cultural nation.

Yet here we are – standing between pride and prejudice – with half the nation ready to define themselves as Canadians, and the other half thinking our stating our goal as “best in the world” too narrow-minded, too intolerant, too American.

I’ll gladly stand up for round three and four of “O Canada” just to know that some people in this large country were brought together by this single event. To know that we, as a nation, can move forward with an identity. Yes, we are polite, but we are the best in the world.

We’re proud, we’re red and white, and we’re Canadian. I think I’ll order one more pitcher, and one more round of “O Canada.”

Related posts:

1. Editorial: Choose to help
2. Editorial: The General’s last bullet

The “Conversation with Michael Ignatieff,” as it was known in its Facebook group, featured Alex Sevigny, professor of communication studies and multimedia and French, as the host. The afternoon’s events consisted of a brief introduction of Ignatieff by Vice President and Provost Ilene Bush-Vishniac, a 10-minute talk by Michael Ignatieff, followed by an hour-long question and answer period and finally conclusions and a brief meet and greet period.

Convocation Hall — the site of the forum — was filled with students, staff, faculty, and community locals; sitting behind the podium where Ignatieff spoke was a group of students bearing McMaster sweaters and scarves.

Ignatieff welcomed and received both Liberal and non-Liberal supporters. In his general speech, he stressed the importance of youth voting—citing that, in the last election, only one out of five 18 year olds voted. He also criticized Prime Minister of Canada and Leader of the Conservative Party Stephen Harper for his proroguing of parliament on Dec. 31, 2009. Under the approval of Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean, Parliament will remain shut down for two months, until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Following his brief address, Igantieff opened up the floor for questions and answers. Notable topics covered included Canada’s role in helping development in Africa, Canada’s torture allegations of Afghan detainees, funding for mature students, Canada’s role in curtailing climate change, energy alternatives and policies, and policies regarding youth unemployment.

Leading the question period was the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities Suzanne Costa—in French—and referred to the financing of culture and the humanities. Ignatieff managed to answer the question—also in French—in a well-articulated manner, gaining the approval of the audience with his support for an increase of funding of Canadian artists and of the liberal arts. Ignatieff continually repealed his image of being an elitist, adducing to his years as a freelance journalist as justification and support for his claim.

An accusation was thrown at Ignatieff by pHD candidate Rebecca Strung regarding his apparent support of torture in Afghanistan due to his American academic record. Ignatieff swiftly dismissed the allegation by replying: “If you read The Lesser Evil, if you read my published work on the issue of torture and interrogation, I think it is impossible to believe that I defend torture in any form whatever. I hope that’s very clear. There can be no equivocation about it.”

Continuing on the topic of torture in Afghanistan, Ignatieff reported: “Stephen Harper shut down Parliament precisely because we are asking the questions that were making this government nervous. And they’re questions in my view about the government; they’re not questions about the conduct of Canadian military forces….What we’re saying is that the government of Canada has not done the due diligence necessary to make sure that Canada has no part in torture conducted by Afghan authorities.”

The final question—when Canada should aim to return to a balanced budged—received overwhelming applause from the audience was. Ignatieff replied by talking about the importance of sustaining healthcare and lowering the current 17 per cent youth employment.

Ignatieff managed to cater many of his answers to students by touching on the topics of education and youth employment. He received much applause from the audience in Convocation Hall along with a warm “thank-you,” and walked away sporting the token McMaster sweater that was given to him as a gift on behalf of the university.

Ignatieff’s cross-country campus tour spans a week. The University of Toronto Mississauga and the University of Ottawa are the only other two Ontario universities being visited on the tour.

Related posts:

1. Minority governments on the Hill
2. Canada Heats Up In December

This year, Canada celebrated its 91st annual Remembrance Day memorial service to honour our troops lost and living. Two of the many ceremonies held yesterday took place in downtown Hamilton and on campus at McMaster.

In Hamilton, the memorial was held at downtown Gore Park and Cenotaph, at the area of the park named Veteran’s Place. This year, despite the cold and windy weather, there was a substantial crowd gathered to pay homage to their fellow Canadians. By the time the ceremony started, the crowd was stretched from the edges of the buildings on King Street East and filled the park.

Waiting in the crowd before the ceremony started, seven WWII military planes flew over Jackson Square Park in honour of their fellow patriots. As the planes flew over, the crowd cheered and many veterans turned to each other with faces lit up and began naming the plane models and types, sharing a few stories about their experiences as members of the Canadian forces.

The ceremony started just before 11 a.m. with introductions to those involved in the ceremony, the key figures in this years’ memorial were Mayor Fred Eisenberger, the Hamilton Veterans Committee and Deacon Bruce Lacillade as the Officiating Clergy. Others involved in the memorial were the Silver Cross Mothers, Bev McCraw and Linda Learn. The ceremony included several hymns, wreaths laid on the cenotaph, the traditional reciting of “In Flanders Fields” by John McCrae followed by the Last Post and the two minutes of silence. This was followed by a lament and a reveille performed by the Dundas Concert Band and the East Hamilton Strings.

The speakers expressed their appreciation for all of the youth and children that were in attendance. The ceremony even included a pop-rock song entitled, “Canadian Heroes” by a local band was played at the end of the service. The speaker noted that some may find this song unconventional for such a traditional day of remembrance, but that, if they listened to the words, people would realise that the song fit the occasion just perfectly.

After the final remarks, the crowd slowly dispersed as many walked up to the cenotaph to look at the wreaths that had been laid and to speak with friends and family that they knew.

At McMaster, the Remembrance Day ceremony was held in Convocation Hall and was organized by the McMaster Alumni Association. The ceremony followed a similar progression to the one at Gore Park, with a hymn, welcoming message and prayer. This memorial also included the Last Post, lament, reveille, and two minutes of silence. Those involved in the service included Peter George, president of McMaster, and the president of the McMaster Students Union, Vishal Tiwari.

In addition to the traditional services, a reading of the Honour Roll, a list of former and present McMaster students who died fighting for Canada, was read. George read the names of 56 students who perished during WWI and WWII, and two that have died in the Afghanistan war. George thanked and remembered those lost in war and said, “Rest in peace for we have not forgotten the price you gave for our freedom.” This year Charles Johnston and the Alumni Association are building biographies of those listed in the McMaster Honour Roll so that they may be remembered further.

Both Remembrance Day services paid great tribute to those who have fought and sacrificed much for Canada, for those who lived and for those who did not. Although the attitude of the memorials is sombre, they include aspects of peace, hope, democracy, and freedom that are uplifting and encouraging of Canadian patriotism. The speakers maintained that the importance of Remembrance Day is to not focus on the concept of war and suffering, but to focus on what emerged from that war, which is peace, freedom and nationalism to honour those who bravely gave their life and service to the preservation of what Canadians value.

With Files from Lily Panamsky

Related posts:

1. Hamilton remembers
2. Peace and war website

When’s the last time you actually stopped to think about Canadian television? I’m thinking that maybe some Communications or Cultural Studies student is probably writing a paper on it right now, but for the most part…, well, you get the drift. This ain’t no Marshall McLuhan “the medium is the message” piece though, it’s about our country and what we’re producing.

My question to you: is Canadian content worthy enough to pay for? Well, the big three (Global, CBC, and CTV) think so, demanding that cable subscribers such as Rogers pay them for the free programming they provide, thus taxing us in the process. Does that make any sense? Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t these stations been like, readily available for decades? I’m sure everyone has witnessed the snowy static of a cable-less television, where the default lies in watching hockey, or, if you’re lucky, The Simpsons.

When I think of Global, I think of their Sunday night cartoon line-up. With CTV it’s typically American Idol and some other dreary excuse for entertainment. CityTV, doesn’t even count. Hey, wait a minute, aren’t all these byproduct of the good ol’ USA? To be fair, CBC does show hockey still, right?  Honestly, I’d be hard pressed to name a quality Canadian program. For every Dragon’s Den there’s a Battle of the Blades, or, dare I say, Canadian Idol? Damn you Ben Mulroney! Can someone tell me how this man is relevant, and why he has two shows?

Why do these broadcasters insist on alienating themselves with an already essential service that produces such dribble? They should know better. Adding insult to injury, this supposed TV tax with their “save local TV” ad campaign is pathetic in its attempt to produce sympathy. I’ve seen bad, but this is beyond bad. Expanding by a whole two minutes on the usually allotted time for a commercial, we are subjected to an earnest country boy, guitar in hand, singing his case to save our stations. I haven’t got to the worst of it yet.  The commercial is over-mixed, the initial lyrics of the song are drowned out by an overbearing piano score, leaving most dialogue inaudible. What we’re left with is an under-lit production, striving for comedic intentions but coming up desperate. References to cows, lemonade stands and a Ron Burgundy knock off is simply sad. How ironic, a Canadian TV ad that fails due to its creative and technical shortcomings.

Why, in an economic recovery, would three organizations of such clout propose such outrageous intentions? What’s really at stake here? Little Mosque on the Prairie? Frankly, I could do without it. Believe me, I love my country and believe in diversity, I just wish Canadian funding would translate into something that produced dynamic results, a product worthy to say the least. What are we so afraid of? Offending the conservative mindset? Yet, we produce a show so amateur in its authenticity of depicting the Muslim culture, we risk having our entertainment industry become the laughing stock to the rest of North America. Oh wait, too late. Thank god for TIFF (The Toronto International Film Festival), the Quebec film industry, and David Cronenberg to name a few of only a handful. If not for them, we’d lack any international credibility.

Since we’re on the subject of films, let me just tie it in for a moment. Showcase, Canadian run station and division of CanWest Media Inc presented at one time, a diverse collection of world films that were shown every Friday night. What happened? American content began to creep in. Goodbye Ingmar Bergman, hello CSI: Miami! What was once a vital chance to view hip art house fair, has now been gutted to incorporate mainstream blandness. I’ll give Showcase a little cred – fulfilling their Can-Con quota, they brim their schedule with endless episodes of Kenny vs. Spenny and Trailer Park Boys. Good or bad, at least it’s Canadian.

As for films, TVO has picked up where Showcase left off in its efforts to present unique cinema every Saturday night. How do they do it? TVO is a publically funded station.

Broadcasters claim cable companies are reaping all the benefits, reportedly taking in revenue of 10 billion dollars for 2008. Broadcasters, wanting in on this action, are taking their efforts to the CRTC. What will this mean if they get their way? Roughly ten extra dollars a month added on to our cable statements.

Ok, I tell you what, I’ll part with 10 dollars a month, as long as they bring back that delightful Jonathan Torrens and his much beloved Jonovision to the Canadian conscience. Damn, that was a good show.

•Myles Herod

Related posts:

1. Jumping The Canadian Shark
2. canadian nostalgia

How we got to where we are today started when minority government seemed to go on a hiatus from 1974, until Paul Martin’s Liberals won the first minority election in 25 years in 2004. Following this, a minority federal government has seemed to be a recurrent theme. After the Martin government, Harper took over in 2006 with another minority, ending a 12 year Liberal rule. Harper’s Conservatives were the longest running uninterrupted minority in Canadian history, in power for 937 days. This lasted until Harper prorogued government and triggered another election in 2008. After this election, Harper returned with another minority, the Liberals appointed a new leader, Michael Ignatieff and now Canada is faced with another non-confidence vote. Further, Montreal MP Denis Coderre’s resignation from his position as the Liberal Party’s Quebec Lieutenant has been likened to “a political suicide bomb” against Ignatieff and may shape up another change in the leadership of the Liberal Party.

During the last session of Parliament, the members of the opposition parties, Stephan Dion of the Liberal Party, and Jack Layton of the NDP, signed an agreement in December 2008 to support Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois to attempt to defeat Harper’s minority government.

A few days later, Harper went to Governor General Michäelle Jean to suspend (prorogue) parliament for about a month (it resumed in late January), a move which avoided a confidence vote in the House which would have toppled Harper’s government. This move on Harper’s part was followed by much criticism from the Duceppe, Layton, and Dion, the coalition that thought that Harper had lost the right to govern.

In March 2009 Dion decided to step down as Liberal leader, and a Liberal leadership race began. Both Duceppe and Layton praised Dion’s decision. Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Dominic LeBlanc were in the running for the new Liberal leadership. Ignatieff took the position as interim leader in January, and at the Liberal Leadership Convention in May, his position was officially ratified.

According to Peter H. Russell, University of Toronto Professor Emeritus, the major problem as to why minority governments are not working now is because the Members of Parliament “don’t have a plan B.” The main point that Russell made, when addressing a fourth year political science seminar at McMaster University on Tuesday September 29, was that the leaders now are all banking on a majority and will not comment on their plans for another minority government. Russell said that it is important for the parties to have a backup plan, because it is looking like another minority is in Canada’s future. Russell knows that the parties need to be more realistic when addressing their plans for the upcoming session in Parliament and only planning for a majority is not being realistic.

Another problem that Russell noted was that Canadian politics has reduced the Governor General to a “rubber stamp.” He also said it is important that the Governor General act as a referee and not just approve whatever it is that the Prime Minister requests (referencing Harper’s request to prorogue government in December 2008).

A third problem that Russell talked about was the idea that if Proportional Representation was the system of government this minority government would not have been a problem. Proportional Representation is where the seats in the House of Commons reflect the votes more directly, as opposed to granting one winner in the First Past the Post system (also called Single Member Plurality) that we currently use in Canada, where the winner has just over half of the votes. Russell said that with Proportional Representation, a minority government is the norm, and governments need to cooperate and to work together in order to achieve any action. This idea is supposed to be more representative of all of the political groups in the House of Commons, and gives a little bit bigger voice to parties like the Green Party, NDP, and Independents. This system is, however, criticised for being more time consuming because it takes longer for decisions to pass in the House of Commons. Russell said that many people like the Proportional Representation idea because they feel that it better encourages cooperation in the House and more holistic representation of Canadians.

Minority governments have not always been as unstable as the minority governments in the last five years. Historically, there were minority governments in Canadian federal elections in 1962, 1963, 1965, 1972 and 1979. Pearson’s minority government won over the NDP in 1963-65 and 65-68 and made significant expansion of Canadian social programs. Also, Trudeau’s minority government in 1972-1974 made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians. Trudeau’s government nationalized the health care plan with the support of the rest of the House. It appears only to be a trend of the past several years to have a minority government that is less stable than minority governments traditionally were.

When asked the reasons why the recent minority governments are more unstable than the minority governments in the 1970s, Russell said, “technically we had two, Trudeau’s and Clarks. Trudeau’s worked well… he had a house leader, who could work well with the NDP leader David Lewis, and they had a good way of working together on policy. It would last as long as they wanted it to last. It lasted until the liberals smelled a majority, so they put cheese in the trap; it seems like this is what Harper thinks now, that he can get a majority.”

What’s next? Russell went on to say that people need to ask the leaders what their “plan B” is, and who will they be prepared to cooperate with. It is important, said Russell, to ask leaders, “how are you going to keep Canadians from going to the polls? And how are you going to make a minority government work if you don’t get [the majority] that you want?” Russell stressed that a minority government again, is very realistic for Canada.

Related posts:

1. 2008 Federal election analysis
2. Meet the new boss

Canada started the tournament out strong against the favorites for this year’s title: the always-dangerous Americans. Canada seems to be at it’s best whenever these two met, kicking off the 2006 tournament by playing the role of David with their slaying of the Goliath Americans. Just over 42,000 fans filled into the Rogers Center to see the two North American teams duke it out.

Canada’s Achilles heel heading into this year’s tournament was their pitching. The likes of Jeff Francis, Erik Bedard, Ryan Dempster, Rich Harden, and Eric Gagne all opted out of this year’s tournament due to injuries or club commitment. Canada went into the tournament without a bona fide MLB starter on it’s roster, the closest being Blue Jays pitcher Scott Richmond who currently is battling for a spot at the back of the Jays rotation. Canada sent Mike Johnson to the mound for it’s first match, while the Americans countered with 2007 Cy Young winner, and two-time all-star Jake Peavy.

Canada’s big bats kept the game close. Every time the Americans put some distance between the two, the Canadians battled back. Joey Votto led the way going 4-5 with 2 RBI and 1 HR. Dodger’s catcher Russell Martin also drove in one going 2-4, while Boston Red Sox fielder Jason Bay drew 3 walks. Canada took it down to the wire, cutting the American lead 6-4 in the 7 before both teams went scoreless in the 8. Canada was able to put up one more run in the ninth off of closer JJ Putz, but that was all they could muster, falling short 6-5. It drew recognition from all within the tournament. “We showed a lot of heart out there. You weren’t expected to beat these guys,” said Martin after the game.

Canada dropped into a must-win game against the Italians on Monday. In a surprise move Canadian manager Ernie Whitt opted to start Vince Perkins – a player with no major league experience – over Toronto Blue Jays pitcher Scott Richmond. It was a tactical decision by Whitt who was hoping to save Richmond’s arm for the Tuesday game that would decide the second team to advance out of the pool. The Italians showed Whitt it was not a wise decision to overlook them.

Perkins was chased in the third after surrendering three runs over those innings. Perkins’ lack of control showed as he issued four walks over the three innings. After falling behind 4-0 Canada was able to cut the lead in half with two RBI’s thanks to a double to left by Jason Bay. It proved all the Canadians could muster. The Italians earned those runs back in the seventh taking the game 6-2 for the upset. The big hitting Canadians proved to be anything but big hitters, leaving 11 stranded. Justin Morneau went 4-5 but was unable to drive any in. DH Joey Votto summed up Canadian loss after the game saying, “From my experience, it was the most emotional, most disappointing loss I’ve ever been a part of. It’s really, really disappointing. I think it’s going to take some time to recover from this.”

The Italians glory was short lived after getting blown out of the water 10-1 by Venezuela the following day. The same day, another underdog managed to make it out of the first round stage as the Netherlands upset the favorites the Dominican Republic for the second time in this year’s tournament. The Dutch kicked off the tournament with a 3-2 upset over the Dominicans after putting up three runs in the first. They then followed it up by holding the Dominicans scoreless through nine before coughing up one run in the eleventh. Against all odds they were able to tack on two run in the bottom of the eleventh to take the game. After the Netherlands fell to Puerto Rico and USA lost to Venezuela on Wednesday, round two is set to go for these four in Miami on Saturday. The Netherlands kicks off with a 1:00 EST start against the Venezuelans, which will be followed at 8:00 EST by the USA against Puerto Rico.

The questions are now swirling as to where Canada heads in terms of personnel decisions going into the future. Some are calling for the dismissal of manager Ernie Whitt after his pitching decision backfired on him on home turf. While it may be time to move on, the fact that Canadian pitchers have the WBC low on their priority list must not be overlooked. The emergence of Bedard, Harden, Dempster, and Francis as keys to their clubs rotations has meant a “play-it-safe” strategy as the players opt to not risk injury. Bedard is just coming off a season which he spent a good part of on the DL with discomfort in his pitching shoulder. Francis on the other hand just had season-ending shoulder surgery at the end of February to repair the labrum and clean up the rotator cuff in his left shoulder. The bright spot for Canada was the 20-year-old Seattle Mariners right-handed prospect Phillippe Aumont. Aumont – a highly regarded 11 overall pick back in 2007 – showed maturity beyond his age after battling out of a pivotal bases loaded, no-outs jam in the seventh in the game against the Americans. Aumont brought the 42,000+ crowd to their feet after getting Curtis Granderson to strikeout with a curveball. His emotions weren’t hidden either as he pumped his fist in excitement on the way to the dugout. The future remains bright for Canadian baseball fans who only wish the national pride showcased by their youth would be prominent in the established Canadian major-leaguers.

Related posts:

1. Mac baseball getting set for playoffs
2. Baseball semis

A replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to counter climate change, is set to be mapped-out in December 2009. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and put into full effect in 2005, with 141 countries ratifying it. The main stipulation of the protocol was to limit greenhouse gas (GH) emissions. To date, there are a total of 183 countries that have endorsed the agreement.

“Greenhouse gases” are naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere, and are responsible for warming the planet about 33 degrees (Celsius) higher than the temperature would be otherwise. They constitute only one percent of the atmosphere, but cover and warm the Earth like a blanket. Water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and fluorocarbons are the most abundant atmospheric gases. 

The heating effect occurs because short-wave solar radiation passes through the atmosphere and hits the surface of the earth, which causes long-wave infrared radiation (heat) to rise from the surface. Some of the radiation attempting to travel back to space gets trapped in the atmosphere by atmospheric gases. The GHG effect is a natural process on the planet, but it has been amplified since the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18^th century.

A 2007 report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared climate change—or more specifically global warming—to be “unequivocal,” and “most likely” due to human activity. The report stated that the Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 0.74 degrees over the past century, and is projected to further rise by 0.2 degrees every decade if we continue to over-emit greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to this exaggerated GHG effect, simply because it is the gas most often emitted through human activity. The burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—releases excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As this excess gas builds up, it traps more infrared radiation and overheats the Earth. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) attributes over 60 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect to carbon emissions.

The areas that are most responsible for global warming are the industrialized countries in North America and Europe. The Kyoto Protocol recognized that industrialized countries must be the ones to abate and reverse global warming, and thus committed 37 developed countries, including Canada, to carbon emission limitations and cutbacks. The plan involves reducing GHG emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels between the years 2008 and 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol introduced the Clean Developing Mechanism (CDM), a system that allows one of the 37 countries committed to lowering GHG levels to establish an emission-reduction project in a developing country and receive free carbon credits—also referred to as certified emission reduction (CER) credits. This program, the first of its kind, is meant to provide relief to those countries that cannot combat climate change on their own.

When the first period of the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, the 15th annual UNFCCC Conference of Parties will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, to determine another international climate agreement. There will also be at least three other major UNFCCC conferences during that year.

The problem, however, is that the members from the 192 countries present at the conference must all agree on a Copenhagen Protocol that will successfully replace its predecessor. This may prove no easy task.

The Economist speculated that the only agreement to come from the conference would likely be the agreement to continue brainstorming. What’s more, UNFCCC itself has admitted that they lack the funding needed to properly address the climate change issue. The Secretariat of the UNFCCC released a financial report that estimated the required funds to maintain current global GHG emission levels in 2030 to be about USD $200-210 billion. They are seeking additional monetary support, particularly from private investors, that may not come.

Funding or not, environmental organizations have already recognized many visible effect of global warming. One notable effect is the intensification of already extreme climates. Droughts, floods, and tropical storms are becoming more severe with each passing decade. In fact, the Economist stated that over the past two decades, recorded disasters have doubled from 200 a year to 400 a year, and that nine out of every 10 disasters are now climate-related. Furthermore, BBC News announced that ice in the Arctic is retreating to unprecedented levels. Sea levels are rising and intruding into other bodies of water, introducing saltwater into previously freshwater areas.

The UNFCCC reported that climate change has been observed in at least 420 physical processes and biological species or communities. Such changes include earlier mating seasons in animal species and the migration of some plant species to remain in the same temperature zone. It also described how global warming is aiding the spread of vector-borne diseases—diseases transferred from one individual to another by arthropods. Malaria and cholera are making further advances into Africa, dengue fever and Lyme disease are spreading in the Tropics and Africa, and the West Nile virus—originally a tropical disease—has found its way to North America.

Unfortunately, the areas that are the least responsible for global warming are the areas that suffer the most from it. Developing countries in Africa and in the Tropics are the most vulnerable to climate-induced changes, for they lack the basic resources to handle weather-related disasters. The developing world faces disease and shortages of food and water, and most economic development is fettered by climate change.

The United States, the biggest producer of GHGs, is responsible for a quarter of excess emissions, but has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the country claims to be fighting climate change on its own terms. American President-elect Barack Obama has promised to cut GHG emissions by establishing a cap and trade system. Large companies throughout the country will have a limit to the amount of GHGs they can emit, and if they are under the limit, they may sell their “credits” to other companies. Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and seven western States have signed onto the Western Climate Initiative, a collaboration planning on implementing the first transcontinental cap and trade system.

Much like the US, Canada is facing growing pressure to reduce global warming. The country emits one of the highest percentages of GHGs, on both a per capita basis and per dollar of GDP basis. The 2009 Climate Change Performance Index—produced by the organization Germanwatch and the Climate Action Network of Europe—ranked Canada as the second worst country (out of a total of 60) on fighting climate change. The country has had a few issues regarding the Kyoto Protocol in recent years. Under the agreement, Canada was targeted to reduce GHG emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. CBC News reported that the country will be unable to meet these requirements by 2012. Stephen Harper dismissed the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme” in 2006, according to the Toronto Star, and vowed to focus on a “Made in Canada” approach to global warming.

Harper announced in October 2008 that Canada would allot $100 million to assist the countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including those in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Canada also recently implemented the “Turning the Corner Plan,” a course of action designed to reduce GHGs by 20 per cent from 2006-2020. Regulations of Canadian GHG emissions are to be finalized this upcoming year and put into play in 2010. Nevertheless, The Edmonton Sun admitted that Canada’s role in the upcoming Copenhagen conference is still undecided.

If all goes according to plan this year, Canada’s initiatives will increase its rank in the Climate Change Performance Index, and perhaps more importantly, the world will see the development of a Copenhagen Protocol that will continue the fight against global warming. Keep those fingers crossed, UN.

Related posts:

1. Truth Issues
2. Hamilton 350 fights climate change