Defining Canadian Security: Continuities and Discontinuities

Abstract

Introduction With every new prime minister coming into office in Canada, observers of Canadian foreign policy have become accustomed to calls for a foreign policy review: Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1968, Brian Mulroney in 1984, Jean Chretien in 1993, and upon taking office in December 2003, Prime Minister Paul Martin. Foreign policy reviews are instruments utilized by leaders to differentiate their governments from previous ones, signaling a regime change in Ottawa, not only to Canadians at home but also to world capitals abroad, particularly Washington. Indeed, the prime minister's perception of his or her predecessor's handling of the Canadian-American relationship will often color the direction of the current leader's even if they are of the same political party. If the relationship is perceived as too close (i.e., Ottawa is seen as having become dependent on Washington), as was the case with Lester Pearson and Brian Mulroney, the successors seek distance or independence from the United States. If the relationship is perceived as too distant (i.e., Ottawa is seen as having strained relations with Washington), as was the case with John Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau, and Jean Chretien, the successors seek closer ties with their southern neighbor. Not surprisingly, given Chretien's decision not to support the U.S.-led war against Iraq in March 2003 as well as the anti-American/anti-Bush comments made by the former Prime Minister's staff, ministers, and backbenchers, (2) Martin came to office wanting to repair Canadian-American relations. Accordingly, less than five months in power, the Martin government released a major policy statement in the midst of an international policy review to be led by then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bill Graham. Hailed by the government as Canada's first comprehensive national security policy, (3) Securing an Open Society: National Security Policy (4) was released by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) Anne McLellan, just prior to Martin's first meeting in Washington with President George W. Bush on April 30, 2004. The timing, as media commentators pointed out, (5) was impeccable; and its contents, as Opposition members asserted, (6) could not be anything but familiar to the American administration. Yvan Loubier, a Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament (MP), highlighted that when the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale, met with American Treasury Secretary, John Snow, outside of meetings on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington on April 25 (that is, just before the policy was publicly released) and presented new security Mr. Snow said that he was satisfied and that the United States would be satisfied, because the policy looks very similar to what the Americans themselves are doing regarding national security. (7) Yet, by the time Martin called an election for June 28, 2004, the overtly friendlier tone to Washington began to change. Faced with a newly united Conservative Party which brought together the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties under the leadership of Stephen Harper, the Martin Liberals launched a campaign embracing familiar Canadian nationalist arguments predicated on preserving Canadian differences from the United States. Because the Conservatives sought closer Canada-U.S. relations, and with the increasing unpopularity of the U.S.-led war against Iraq among the Canadian populace, the Liberal mantra for the election became Choose your Canada. In one of the very first Liberal television ads, Martin explicitly states: You can have a country like Canada or you can have a country like the U.S., but you can't have a country like Canada with the taxation levels of the U.S., not without risking the very social programs, the institutions and values that make us us. Martin continues: want to be different. We don't want to be American; we want to be Canadians. …