Tag Archives: Lester Pearson

O Canada … Oh, grow up

June 18, 2016

HMCS Toronto flies a Canadian flag in the Arabian Gulf during Operation Altair with the US Navy, a 2004 mission to monitor shipping in the Arabian Gulf. Photo by MCpl Colin Kelley, Canadian Armed Forces

HMCS Toronto flies a large Canadian flag in the Arabian Gulf in 2004. Photo by MCpl Colin Kelley, Canadian Armed Forces

The year was 1964, and many Canadians were furious.

Although it had been a subject of heated debate already, on June 15th, 1964, then prime minister, the late Lester B. Pearson, and his Liberal government introduced a motion to stop using the “Red Ensign” flag, which prominently featured the Union Jack, and give Canada a flag of its own.

Well, the fat hit the frying pan, and six months of the most heated and nasty debate in Canadian history began.

I know a little something about this because my family was a part of it. My dad, Jim Regan, was a press officer for Pearson. One of his many jobs was helping to sell the idea of a new flag. It was brutal. Neither side would give an inch to the other. I remember dad coming home from work many days looking exhausted.

Please chip in at least .27 cents to continue reading. Real journalism — reporting and analysis — is not free. Details below, or click here.

In September of that year, Pearson agreed to have a committee consider the flag question. The Conservatives, under John Diefenbaker, thought they had won the day, as the history of “committees” examining politically explosive questions in Canada is not a particularly vigorous one. But after many meetings, both public and private, and lots of suggestions from Canadians, by October 22nd the choice was down to two flags: The “Pearson Pennant”  or one submitted by historian George Stanley, with a single red maple leaf on a white background with two red borders. We all know which flag won.

(Years later dad told me that Pearson was very disappointed that his flag didn’t win, but that he was so anxious just to get it all over with he strongly backed the new one.)

Then followed two more months of raucous debate, until December 15, when the Pearson government invoked closure and a vote was held. Our new flag was approved by 163 to 78. Queen Elizabeth officially proclaimed it in February of 1965, when Pearson and Diefenbaker were in London for the funeral of Winston Churchill.

Now, 50+ years later, the Canadian flag is one of the most recognizable flags in the world. Canadians are rightly proud of it. And the queen has apparently survived the ‘insult.”

A photo from Lester Pearson to Tom Regan's father: "To my constant conductor and guide, Jim Regan. Lester Pearson, Christmas 1963."

A photo from Lester Pearson to Tom Regan’s father: “To my constant conductor and guide, Jim Regan. Lester Pearson, Christmas 1963.”

When I was older, I asked my dad about the flag debate. He laughed and said it was “brutal and fierce.” He said many Canadians accused Pearson of trying to destroy the country, of ridiculing our heritage, of insulting the queen. And that was the polite stuff. There were a few death threats and the like. Dad said one of his happiest days working for Pearson was that December day when the flag was approved and it all went away.

I bring up the flag debate in the context of the decision to change two lines in Canada’s nation anthem, to make it more gender neutral.

It’s deja vue all over again, to quote Yogi Berra. And if you ask me, some Canadians need to grow up a bit.

Seldom has so much ink and indignation been spilled over such a simple matter. Making Canada’s national anthem more open to all people is of course a good idea. It is the very essence of Canada itself and one of the things that separates us from other nations (particularly the US).

And here’s even a better reason … to update a phrase Justin Trudeau used when asked about why his cabinet was 50% men and 50% women: because it’s 2016.

Of course, the main rallying cry of the ‘traditionalists’ – “Political correctness! Political correctness!” – was sounded. Well, if political correctness means changing two words to include a majority of the people who live in Canada, then, yeah, sign me up. I think it bends more towards political inclusiveness.

The whole national anthem debate reminds me very much of the flag debate in this way:

Back in 1964, Canada was becoming a different place. We were just starting the real debate about the place of Quebec in our country. Canada was increasingly forging its own identity on the international stage. We were just about to move into a debate on universal healthcare. Pierre “Trudeaumania” was just three years away. We had fewer and fewer meaningful ties to Great Britain. Those opposed to the new flag just saw it as another attempt to undermine the “natural” order that has been in place for so long, that had served the old guard so well for so long.

It’s much the same with the anthem. Canada is not what it was even 10 years ago. The country is much more inclusive to people of all genders and sexual orientations. The patriarchal musing of the previous version of the anthem just don’t work anymore. There is another Trudeau, who won power on a wave of a desire for change. And those who are opposed to the change are, by and large, opposed for the same reason. They don’t want this new Canada.

But it’s done. It may take a while for Canadians to get used to it. But I’ll wager that 50 years from now, Canadians will be just as proud of their gender-neutral national anthem as they are of their flag.

More information:

Why Canada is changing its national anthem, Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0616/Why-Canada-is-changing-its-national-anthem

Copyright Tom Regan 2016

Contact Tom Regan:  motnager@gmail.com

Tom Regan Tom Regan has worked for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and with the National Film Board in Canada, and in the United States for the Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, and National Public Radio. A former executive director of the Online News Association in the U.S., he was a Nieman fellow at Harvard in 1991-92. He is based near Washington, D.C.

Return to Tom Regan’s page 



Facts and Opinions is a boutique journal of reporting and analysis in words and images, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O is funded only by you, our readers. We are ad-free and spam-free, and do not solicit donations from partisan organizations. To continue we need a minimum payment of .27 for one story, or a sustaining donation. Visit our Subscribe page for details, or donate below. With enough supporters each paying a small amount, we will continue, and increase our original works like this.

F&O’s CONTENTS page is updated each Saturday. Sign up for emailed announcements of new work on our free FRONTLINES blog; find evidence-based reporting in Reports; commentary, analysis and creative non-fiction in OPINION-FEATURES; and image galleries in PHOTO-ESSAYS. If you value journalism please support F&O, and tell others about us.

Posted in Also tagged , |

Justin Trudeau inherits an international freeloader

JONATHAN MANTHORPE: International Affairs 
October, 2015

It was easy for prime minister designate Justin Trudeau to tell the world that Canada “is back” as an eager and reliable partner, but it will take a large and consistent investment in time, effort and money to make that come true.

During his nine years in power Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his gang — defeated in the Oct. 19 election — undoubtedly shovelled in the dirt and danced on the grave of Canada’s international standing and involvement. However, the procession to the gallows was choreographed as much by the Liberals as the Conservatives.

Canada’s recent decline into insignificance on the international stage began with the election of Jean Chretien’s Liberal government in 1993. The Harper regime has merely continued and accelerated an already well-established trend.

But, as always, chaos presents opportunity.

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau gives his victory speech after Canada's federal election in Montreal, Quebec, October 19, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau gives his victory speech after Canada’s federal election in Montreal, Quebec, October 19, 2015. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

In many ways, Trudeau and the new Liberal government are fortunate coming to office at this time when the whole associated field of Canada’s foreign, defence, trade and development aid policy is a wasteland. It will make it easier for the government to push aside the inevitable calls for Canada to rediscover the era of its blue-helmeted military forever at the beck and call of the United Nations, re-establish Canadian diplomats as the world’s favourite marriage guidance counsellors, and restore Canadian aid agencies as the pre-eminent missionaries to the grass huts.

Canada has been able to indulge in middle power kitten-cuddling because it has been a freeloader protected by what can be called the North Atlantic Ascendancy. Canada and Canadian foreign policy have benefited, at least since the Second World War and arguable the country’s entire life, from being a younger brother in a club of the major European and North American powers. But that era is coming to an end. The culture of the Enlightenment, which has flowed out of Europe and the United States for two centuries, is and will be increasingly challenged by the cultures of Asia, Africa, Latin America and, perhaps in the future, the Middle East.

China, India, South Africa, Brazil and others don’t and won’t run international institutions with the same cultural morality that has dominated under U.S. and European leadership. We are already getting a glimpse of the future with China’s Asia Infrastructure Bank, whose rules and regulations don’t follow the same ideals of probity common to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Canada can no longer count on the unstinting support of Europe and the U.S. or that that support, when offered, will be definitive. That’s especially true in defence, except during the two world wars, where since the founding of Canada nearly 150 years ago we have expected first Britain and then the U.S. to defend our sovereignty and nationhood while we indulged our interests elsewhere.

Pierre E. Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chretien, and Pearson. Photo: Library and Archives of Canada via Wikipedia

Pierre E. Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chretien, and Lester Pearson. Photo: Library and Archives of Canada via Wikipedia

Historian Jack Granatstein has written several withering analyses of the destruction of the Canadian military by successive governments of both major parties, starting with Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s pursuit of “the unwarranted primacy of peacekeeping.”

Granatstein argues that both Liberal and Conservative governments have taken advantage of Canada’s position in the heart of the North Atlantic alliance to avoid any serious consideration of the country’s national interests and how to sustain them.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are coming to power at a time when the dwindling prominence of Canada’s traditional allies and protectors means that debate of these issues of national interest and purpose cannot long be avoided without dire consequences.

A report published this week is a useful reminder of just how much standing Canada has lost in the last 25 years as a player on the international stage.

The report by Robert Greenhill and Megan McQuillan, published by the Canadian International Council, looks at the history of the two most easily assessed aspects of foreign policy commitment – spending on defence and development aid – and finds a deplorable record. When compared with our own historic record in these two areas, with the commitments of our partners in the G7 group of industralized countries and with the efforts of similar middle power nations, Canada is an appalling laggard. Indeed, the report labels Canada a “free rider:” a leech on its friends and allies without making any significant contribution to the joint endeavours.

Bracketing defence and development aid spending together as a measure of Canada’s “global engagement,” the analysis found that our spending on those two areas is barely 1.2 per cent of gross domestic product, less than half the 2.4 per cent of GDP in 1990.

“Canada’s global engagement today is the lowest in the G7, the lowest among medium-sized open economies and the lowest in modern Canadian history,” says the report. “We have been laggards for years: today we rank last. We are the least committed to global engagement of our international peer group.”

What heightens the impact of this unsavoury picture is that we have also been lying to ourselves and to the international community about our commitment. “For the last quarter century,” says the report, “we talked in one direction and walked in the other. We talked global engagement while walking away from the already modest commitments we had made in the past.”

The report’s authors compared the history of Canada’s development aid spending with similar middle powers Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. Historically, our development aid spending has ranked in the middle of that group. But since the early years of the Chretien government in 1995 our performance has declined and since 2011 we have been dead last among this peer group.

It’s the same story in defence spending. Among the peer group only Switzerland has a lower defence budget as a proportion of GDP. And landlocked Switzerland has no navy – Canada has the world’s longest coastline – and its army is composed primarily of militia units.

The picture is equally grim when Canada’s global engagement is compared with partners in the G7 group of industrialized nations; the U.S., France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan.

Our defence spending has always been below the G7 average and for the last 20 years we have been second last to Japan, which has constitutional restrictions on its military. But since Harper came to office Canada has been on a rush to the bottom and last year we overtook Japan to grab last place in G7 defence spending as a proportion of GDP.

On development aid, for decades Canada scored well above the G7 average and we ranked number one or two among the seven nations for all but two of the 20 years prior to 1995. Since then, however, the commitment of successive Liberal and Conservative governments has slipped and we are now well below the G7 average.

Report authors Greenhill and McQuillan calculate that for Canada to meet the average spending among the G7 countries, peer middle powers and its own historic record, budgets for defence and development aid need to be boosted by about $14 billion, 50 per cent more than current spending. And for Canada to be able to justifiably call itself a leader in global engagement, development aid and defence budgets need to be doubled with an additional $30 billion year.

It is unlikely that this spending will be a priority for the new Trudeau government. But a re-evaluation of Canada’s national interests and how the country will operate in the emerging world of multiple centres of economic, diplomatic and military power should be high on the agenda.

Copyright Jonathan Manthorpe 2015

Contact: jonathan.manthorpe@gmail.com

Welcome to Facts and Opinions. Try one story at no charge and, if you value our work, please chip in at least .27 per story or $1 for a day site pass, using the “donate” button below. Click here for details. 
Manthorpe B&WJonathan Manthorpe is a founding columnist with Facts and Opinions and is the author of the journal’s International Affairs column. Manthorpe has been a foreign correspondent and international affairs columnist for nearly 40 years. Manthorpe’s  nomadic career began in the late 1970s as European Bureau Chief for The Toronto Star, the job that took Ernest Hemingway to Europe in the 1920s. In the mid-1980s Manthorpe became European Correspondent for Southam News. In the following years Manthorpe was sent by Southam News, the internal news agency for Canada’s largest group of metropolitan daily newspapers, to be the correspondent in Africa and then Asia. Between postings Manthorpe spent a few years based in Ottawa focusing on intelligence and military affairs, and the United Nations. Since 1998 Manthorpe has been based in Vancouver, but has travelled frequently on assignment to Asia, Europe and Latin America.


Facts and Opinions is a boutique journal of reporting and analysis in words and images, without borders. Independent, non-partisan and employee-owned, F&O is funded by you, our readers. We are ad-free and spam-free, and do not solicit donations from partisan organizations. Real journalism has value. Thank you for your support. Please tell others about us, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Posted in Also tagged , , , |