Says Industry, Science and Technology Critic Marc Garneau

The issue of net neutrality is a global one. Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users.

Positive development in a country which has a very active media censorship bureaucracy. Net neutrality has been part of the Green Party platform since 2007. The NDP followed in 2008. Now only the Conservatives (and of course the People’s Political Power of Canada and other nutcase parties) are lagging behind. For the sake of my fellow countrymen who suffer terribly at the hands of the communications monopoly, I hope the Conservatives cave sooner rather than later.

Net neutrality and digital copyright management has become a greater topic of concern in Canada over the past couple of years. See Michael Geist’s site for more information.

Famous movie critic Roger Ebert has a bone to pick with the history behind X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a Fox movie that came out in theaters last weekend, and which is a story about the origins of the Marvel superhero Logan/Wolverine and his conflict with his half-brother Victor/Sabertooth. The two men are mutants with healing powers that slow, or even stop, aging, and the opening scenes show them fighting in wars across the last two centuries of American history.

Their story starts in “1840—the Northwest Territories of Canada,” a neat trick, since Canada was formed in 1867, and its Northwest Territories in 1870. But you didn’t come here for a history lesson. Or maybe you did, if you need to know that Logan and Victor became Americans (still before they could be Canadians) and fought side by side in the Civil War, World War I, World War II and Vietnam. Why they did this, I have no idea. Maybe they just enjoyed themselves.

Yeah, as I just got finished saying elsewhere, Hollywood is very disappointing when it comes to accuracy, especially when considering that it would take such minimal effort to get it right.

Canadian Defence Minister Peter McKay has finally come out to dampen speculation that he may be in the running to be the next secretary general of NATO. This has come out on the heels of news that America has thrown its hat in with Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen for the post.

I have been watching this news since last January, when The Economist outed McKay as one of the three contenders for the top job. The current SecGen is leaving this summer and next month American President Barack Obama will be having his first meeting with the Allies. Having a freshly minted leader to show off to the president would be a nice start to renewing an old relationship. Having that leader be a North American for the first time would be… I don’t know… a nice change?

Since the article in The Economist the Canadian press has been wondering if McKay was running for the job and who was supporting him. I thought it wasn’t too likely since McKay is still young and active on the Canadian domestic political scene. The leader of the the Conservative Party has been having troubles of late, and McKay is close enough to fill his shoes if need be.

Nevertheless, a couple of weeks back I spoke with a European scholar of NATO who is currently at a prestigious Canadian university. He noted that the naming of McKay “speaks to the respect that Canada has earned in the alliance since 2001.” But he also had a message that may ring familiar to longtime CA readers:

It also speaks to an argument that I have long made and that is that this is all not really new. John Manley was in the ring once before and if he had wanted that job, he probably could have gotten it by having the Prime Minister use some of Canada’s political capital in Brussels to push that through. Manley was certainly well connected and respected in Washington. And virtually nothing happens in NATO without the US if it chooses to lend it its ear for a second or two. Thus, Canada has had influence in the alliance [a] long time before 9/11; it mattered and had a certain reputation that other states admire.

Imagine that: something new is actually something old. And like the last time round, it looks like the Canadian candidate will not push for the job. Mr. Rasmussen is a fine choice, and as our scholar friend pointed out, he is a particularly hot candidate for the Europeans considering his handling of the Mohammed caricature incident in Denmark. All luck to him in Afghanistan and New Europe alike.

A Military History of Canada by Desmond Morton (5th ed.)

Like all nations, the history of Canada is closely entwined with the experience of war. The early settlers fought indigenous natives for survival and profit. Soon they were battling one another over profit and religion. Survival of the Canadiens and Canadians alike depended on defending against the enemy to the south, more organized and fuelled by it’s manifest destiny. The war experience continued in the 20th century as Canada found itself allied with it’s old southern enemy to fight against evil in the Old World — twice. Then the cold war and all that entails. Now, in the 21st century, Canada finds itself in Afghanistan.

Canadian history has been about an existence between spheres of influence both externally (between the UK and the US) and internally (between Anglos and Francos). As a small power it has had the chance to punch above it’s weight on the international stage. But domestic limitations including its population, politics and internal identity crisis have time and again undone any lasting prominence on the global stage.

Desmond Morton covers all of these topics in an unsatisfyingly thin volume that finds itself somewhere between a popular history and a rigorous academic work. The book is not unsatisfying due to length (it weighs in at around 350 pages), but rather in the way it is written. A single volume history of 400 years must undoubtedly brush in broad strokes, but Morton insists on including certain (and ineffectual) details that take away from the central story. For the beginner, confusion quickly ensues as Morton tends to namedrop and gloss over important events without explanation. This makes the book tedious to read, particularly for the uninitiated.

However I cannot say this book is a total write-off. It would be ideal for a third or fourth year university class on Canadian history. It ties together all the disparate events one would learn about in detail in previous semesters, putting each event in relative context. The book is more of a catalog of events in chronological order, with a far-seeing social commentary, rather than the definitive book on Canadian military history, an approbation sometimes used to describe the book.

Now, to start on my next book.

Unsatisfied with the fact that the Conservative Party was not unseated at the last federal election (and in fact had its minority government strengthened) the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have formed an historic coalition and will take the reigns of power in Canada. The Coalition will add together its total of 163 seats in the house and overtake the minority rule of the Conservative Party who have just 143 seats. There is a total of 308 seats in the Canadian parliament.

The coalition will take down the government with a vote of no confidence on Monday. Stephane Dion, the potential new prime minister of Canada (and loser of the last federal election and his party’s confidence — he has already promised to step down from party leadership in May) will inform the governor general Michaelle Jean that he has secured enough parliamentary support to form a new government. The GG must either approve the new government or call an election.

YOUNGHUSBAND SAYS CALL AN ELECTION!

True, an absolute majority of the Canadian people did not vote for the Conservatives but a relative majority did. The people that voted for the Liberals, NDP and Bloc did not vote for a coalition. Federal elections are not decided after the fact, at the whim of political parties. This political monster of Frankenstein will need a public mandate. If no vote is called I can only assume that the Canadian political system has somehow fallen under the influence of chavismo.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper shuffled his cabinet today, replacing his fallen foreign minister with David Emerson. Emerson is a well-experienced manager who is looked upon favourably by analysts and others. Former foreign minister John Manley was quoted as saying, “He’s been a very steady performer. He will bring adult supervision to the Department of Foreign Affairs.”

Manley might be simply referring to the previous foreign minister, Maxime Bernier, who is under intense scrutiny for leaving sensitive documents at a former girlfriend’s house. The girlfriend was found to have links with the Hell’s Angels.

However I think Manley’s comments can be applied more generally to DFAIT as a whole. DFAIT has suffered a number of scandals in the past year including the NAFTA leak which jeapordized Barack Obama’s presidential nomination, and an official publicly bad-mouthing an Afghan leader. Foreign Affairs has been falling apart in recent years. The interdepartmental battle with the Department of National Defence over who takes the lead in Afghanistan has taken a toll on the bureacracy. Rank-and-file have been leaving Foreign Affairs like senior executives have been leaving Yahoo.

I hope Emerson has a positive influence on my country’s foreign policy. Emerson is good on trade, with experience battling the Americans over softwood. He is positive on relations with China, contrary to the prime minister. Most of all he has much experience running large organizations. He may be the right man to get DFAIT’s act together. Unfortunately, he may not have enough time to make much of a difference. Emerson crossed the floor to the Conservative Party from the Liberals after being voted in 2006, thus he has little to no political base. Once he is gone, the Conservatives don’t seem to have anyone of Emerson’s calibre to replace him.

Kotare (aka “the strategist”) discusses a potential conventional submarine fleet for New Zealand using the new “entry-level” compact sub models coming out of Europe. This might be good news for Canada, which is losing millions on its sad submarine fleet. Only one of the four used diesel powered submarines we purchased from the UK is operational — the others are in dry dock.

Submarines are an important piece of kit for Canada’s interests in the Arctic. Rob Huebert of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies — where I have previously spoken on sealane security — calls submarines “valid” and “necessary” technology. Mr Huebert also points to Asia Pacific as a region with growing submarine procurement.¹ I have compared the submarine fleets of Northeast Asia before, and they do indeed put Canada to shame. Cheap, compact submarines is the direction Canada should go to replace its current shoddy fleet, especially in an era of disintegrating equipment and tight budgets due to the war in the ‘Ghan.
_________

Neuve Chapelle, Ypres, Somme, Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele. This is where Canada first came onto the international scene, the fields where our country was forged. Out of a population of just over 7 million, 66,944 were killed and 149,732 were wounded. Never forget their sacrifice.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has followed the examples of Chancellor Merkel and President Bush in angering China by receiving the Dalai Lama at Parliament. The Western powers know that China can’t throw too big a tantrum over these meetings with the 2008 Olympics coming up, so they are getting their kicks in while they can.

Out of the meeting Harper got another chance to piss off the Chinese, delineate himself from the Liberals (who under Chretien never met with the DL) and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other Western powers. All the Dalai Lama got was a khata embroidered with a maple leaf. But I guess by definition material things don’t mean too much to him. Also, last time round he got Canadian citizenship…

Ultimately does this mean anything? Not likely, China has its own plans for Tibet. But we really won’t know how this affects relations with the West until after 2008. The Chinese have long memories. Just ask the Japanese.

According to a recent article in the NY Times, Georgia — population 5m — has more than doubled its troop levels in Iraq from 850 to 2000. And those troops aren’t lollygagging about in a Halliburton pantry in the Green Zone. These boys are patrolling the Iraq-Iran border.

Now, look at Canada — population 34m — which has hit its limit of 2500 troops for Afghanistan and is considered to be “overstretched.” I know this may not be a fair comparison since I am unsure of how/why Georgians join their military (regardless of the 18 months of obligatory service). Yet somehow I still think that Canada could field a lot more than it is. Compare these stats from the CIA World Factbook:

Georgia manpower fit for military service (2005 est.):

• males age 18-49: 827,281
• females age 18-49: 903,791

Canada manpower fit for military service (2005 est.):

• males age 16-49: 6,740,490
• females age 16-49: 6,580,868

According to the Georgian defence ministry website Georgia has 26,902 soldiers (including 6873 conscripts) to Canada’s 62,000 Regular Force members. So why can’t Canada field more troops? There might be some institutional differences to be considered. For example when a Canadian soldier gets sent off for a 6 month rotation, first they have to go through 1.5 years of pre-deployment training. After deployment they return for 1~2 months of “decompression,” then finally they have to catchup on courses and training etc that was missed while deployed. A lot of planning goes into keeping a constant 2500 Canadians in the ‘Ghan. I wonder what the deployment cycle of the regular Georgian soldier is? I can only imagine… Regardless, I am certain there is some major room for improvement in the Canadian Forces.