-
6. From Paul Hellyer through Pierre Trudeau
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
chapter 6 From Paul Hellyer through Pierre Trudeau If a Canadian saw an admiral, let’s say in the front lobby of the Hotel Fort Garry, he would hand him his bags because he would think the admiral was the bell-boy. colonel yoram hamizrachi One of the main themes underlying civil-military relations in Germany was fear of a resurgent armed forces that could represent a danger to the civilian population: in Canada the populace ignored the military and saw little use for it in the furtherance of national interests. For many Canadians, the armed forces were a unnecessary and expensive organization, useful only during wartime. With the advent of nuclear weapons and the balance of terror, the Canadian military became less and less important. What difference would it make if the Canadian military showed up during an exchange of nuclear weapons? The answer for many Canadians was, “none.” The development of Canada’s political-military culture has been influenced by issues that make the Canadian experience different from that in Germany, the U.S., and Russia. First, foreign policy and defence policy have seldom held high priority in the minds of most Canadians. As one author put it, “For the last hundred years or so, Canadian leaders and the people they represent have not had to concern themselves about direct security threats to Canada.”1 The lack of interest in security policy and the military is evident in the memoirs of the various prime ministers.2 Second, Canada’s defence policy has always been vulnerable to domestic concerns, and it has tended to be an irrational undertaking. As one of the country’s former chief of the defence3 staff commented: The formulation of explicit and detailed policy is never a simple or easy matter, and in some circumstances may not even be desirable; that, however, should be a matter of choice. Canadian defence policy, conversely, has probably never 138 Canada represented a deliberately chosen course of strategic direction, or a thoughtfully integrated element of national purpose and objective.4 According to General Theriault, Canadian defence policy is seldom the result of a carefully thought-out, planned strategy, rather it is often a budgetary afterthought or, as Jeff Tasseron put it, “defence policy is largely an adjunct to other elements of governmental concern.”5 Money is allocated, not to carry out a certain mission, but to replace worn out weapons or hire more soldiers. Then, the military budget is the first place Canadian politicians look when it comes to cuts, something that would not happen in the U.S. or Russia.6 Senior Canadian military officers have never had the predictability that is so critical for planning military operations. As a result, key weapons programs have often been delayed or cancelled. Hence, the military often has been unable to carry out the tasks assigned to it by the political leadership, either because it does not have the requisite weapons systems or the personnel. Third, Canadian politicians are generally ignorant when it comes to defence issues. They almost never have a military background. They accept a position of authority because the prime minister has asked them to, and in general have used it as a stepping stone to a higher political position. When they leave the defence portfolio they know as little about defence as they did when they arrived. They don’t stay for four or five yeas as has been common in the U.S. or Russia. They are not competent to deal effectively with senior military officers , and often are not respected by the uniformed military. Their lack of expertise also undercuts their ability to represent military concerns abroad and to other members of the cabinet. Fourth, in contrast to most American and Russian leaders, Canadian politicians “when in opposition seem unable to resist the temptation to use national defence policy as a whip against the government, and governments seem unable to see national defence as more than a liability against which they must protect themselves.”7 Fifth, there is a belief among many Canadians that they do not have to do anythingto ensure theirowndefence. TheUnitedStatesisacloseneighbor, and any country that would try to invade Canada would quickly come up against the U.S. military. Even when the U.S. political leadership might not respect the Canadian political leadership, Washington would not permit another country to invade Canada. [3.138.120.17] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 20:06 GMT) From Paul Hellyer through Pierre Trudeau 139...