The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Has Canada Forgotten Its Military History?

Episode Date: November 12, 2024

From the trenches of Korea to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, "Forgotten War" has detailed these post-World War II conflicts through the eyes of Canadian veterans who were there. But do Canadians know much if anything about this history? Has our peacekeeping past become more myth than reality? And from the days as a middle power punching above our weight, has Canada lost its place in the world? For the final episode of "Forgotten War", Steve Paikin and a panel of historians consider Canada's relationship with this history and the increasingly unstable world we face in 2024.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From the trenches of Korea to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, our series, Forgotten War, has detailed these post-World War II conflicts through the eyes of Canadian veterans who were there. We were getting pretty close to their line when our sergeant said, stop, we're in the middle of a minefield. Just as I was going down, Clouffe was hit by a bullet. It went through his helmet and through his mouth. So when I arrived there, he opened his mouth and he had the bullet in his tongue. And we started laughing, crazy, you know, you react in those circumstances. You get into an observation post or a position where they're aiming an RPG at you and you have to wait till we have effective fire to fire back? I mean there won't be

anything left to fire back if that thing goes off. These interviews raise a number of questions. Do Canadians know much, if anything, about this history? Has our peacekeeping past become more myth than reality? And in 2024, has Canada lost its place on the world stage? Joining us now for more on that. In Chelsea, Quebec, Carrie Buck. She's the former Canadian ambassador to NATO and senior fellow at the University of Ottawa. And with us here in our studio, Timothy Sale, former Canadian ambassador to NATO and senior fellow at the University of Ottawa.

And with us here in our studio, Timothy Sale, professor of history and director of the International Relations Program at the U of T, author of Enduring Alliance, a history of NATO and the post-war global order. And Arne Kislenko, who's a professor of history at Toronto Metropolitan University. And it's great to have Arne, you back here. Timothy, you here for the first time. And former Ambassador Buck, great to have you on the line joining us as well from points beyond.

Great to see you again too. I want to start with this question. I want all three of you to weigh in on this. Arne, we'll have you go first. My sense is we know a decent amount about the history of our military involvement in World War II. How would you characterize what Canadians know, Arne, about our post-World War II military engagements? Well, to be succinct, virtually nothing.

I come right out of the gates saying honestly that I don't think we pay virtually any attention to that. Certainly not in a lot of classes that I'm familiar with, nothing directly. And in part it's because I think the narratives are quite different, right? Canada's service in places like Korea, those Canadians that volunteered for Vietnam, our engagements later in the 1990s, they didn't fit the narrative of sort of clean victory of morally and ethically correct wars. They were nasty in a lot of ways, politically nasty as much as anything else. And I think Canadians maybe are innately uncomfortable with that, particularly where we weren't peacekeepers

as the myth goes. So I think they're really largely neglected. That's been my experience on the front lines as a professor in the Peruvian trenches, but also just in general with the Canadian public. I don't think we pay any attention to that sort of stuff. Carrie Buck, what's your take on that? Well, I think the stories we tell ourselves about what Canada does internationally on the military front have shifted over time.

I agree that the history isn't well known in detail, but we do have a national narrative. So I think in the beginning, it was about Canada and Canadians seeing themselves as a middle power that punched above its weight. And that's the two world wars. And I'd add Korea to that. But then this shifted when peacekeeping was introduced and classical, easier, kind of more neutral peacekeeping.

We saw ourselves as an honest broker and a peacekeeping nation. And I think that shifted again over time. I think today's narrative is slightly different. We understand the world's more complex. And when we deploy to those complex, pretty violent environments like Afghanistan, overall there's, you know, largely majority Canadian support for that. It waxes and wanes over the course of deployment. So I think those narratives about who we are internationally have shifted over time.

Timothy Sale, what say you? I agree generally that Canadians don't know too much about this military history after the Second World War. I think people have a sense maybe depending on their generation of a few key peacekeeping moments, but there's not a lot of awareness of what the Canadian military was doing for these decades and decades after the Second World War. And I think that's a shame because even when those forces were not deployed as part of peacekeeping operations or other military operations, they were still serving a purpose and they were still shaping the world they live in.

And so Canadian military operations after the Second World War, I think, have shaped our world more than Canadians realize. Aron, tell me if I'm reading too much into this. But the United States, a country born out of a revolution which has been mythologized and reported on, and historians have really dug their teeth into that over decades and decades. Our country got started because of an act of the British Parliament. Not quite the same in terms of myth-making.

Does that mean we've got something missing from our cultural or historic DNA, which therefore leaves us a bit on the sidelines when it comes to knowing what we're talking about here? I think so for sure. I think Canadians generally are always kind of prone to defining themselves in the not being American context and in a lot of ways that celebration of military history, rightful as it may be in the United States, strikes some Canadians as being a bit excessive, as being sort of nationalistic, maybe too patriotic. I always you know joke my students that when they go abroad for the first time they'll carry a very small

Canadian pin as opposed to a big flag on their backpack, right? So I think Canadians are innately uncomfortable with what they may see as kind of, you know, overdoing it in that sense. And that may be part of our DNA as we downplay our role militarily. I would just argue that we do it so thoroughly that a lot of Canadians, even in classes that are about the First and Second World War, which both him and I teach, are sometimes shocked to hear about how Canada had its own beach at D-Day or how it had the two largest ports in the Second World War. And that's where I think we've maybe become too prone to that tendency. Kerry Buck, when you were the ambassador, did you sometimes feel you didn't have the

DNA that, oh, I don't know, the American ambassador or the French ambassador or British ambassadors had because of the histories of their country compared to ours? Well, okay. History hits us in that we're not on the Security Council. So, you know, we don't act and think like the US, the UK, or the Brits, sure. But I don't think that we are totally ignorant or totally uncomfortable with the notion that we deploy military forces abroad in a way that's sometimes dangerous and that can have a pretty serious, usually positive

impact on the state of the world. I think Canadians have been comfortable with that persona earlier, as I said, right after the wars. And I think that we've been comfortable periodically, for instance, with the Afghanistan deployment, with the idea that, you know, we'll engage militarily and we'll engage militarily and will engage militarily in places where Canadians might get hurt. Your origin story, Timothy, does that affect the way we look at things? I think it's a malleable story, the changes.

I think that Canadian history shows that Canadians will rally, will fight when their leaders ask. So I see it less of a cultural DNA situation and more a political situation where leaders don't see a benefit in describing Canada to Canadians in this way. Mind you, you know when Stephen Harper was prime minister, he put the royal back in some of our institutions. Does that suggest he was a little more on the ball on this than others? Well, I think that if you're to look over the last couple of decades and look at

political leaders from both parties, you'll see in the actual funding to the defense it has been on the downswing and I think you need to look at the dollars. Follow the money, right? That's right. That's what Woodward and Bernstein said, follow the money. Let's look at a clip here. We have been rolling out this series called Forgotten War. This is from episode one. We're going to introduce you to a guy named Romeo Daly. He's 19 and he volunteers to go to Korea. Think about that. Think about the 19 year olds you know today and whether they would simply go halfway around the world to volunteer to take part in a war. I

mean it's astonishing. And he's one of the first Canadians sent to a mobile army surgical hospital after being hit by a grenade. Sheldon, roll it if you would. When I came home, got on a train in B.C., went to Toronto where my mother lived. When I got to Union Station in Toronto and I got off the train, hit the platform, there was my mother. No military, nothing.

The Canadian government did not treat us well. We wanted a volunteer medal for Korea. Canadian government says no. We said you've got thousands of volunteer medals in Ottawa from the Second World War. Can't give them to you. Why not? That'll insult the Second World War soldiers. Now this is more than 60 years ago and you can tell he is still, can I say this, he is still pissed at the treatment he received all those decades ago.

Why did we not take that military engagement seriously in this country? Do you mean the Korean War in particular? I think because it was distinctly not part of this narrative of Canada being neutral and kind of a middle power, that was early in the stages of that development. But you know, we were cold warriors and I think often Canadians maybe aren't comfortable with that or don't know that. But the entire history, not just Korea, but moving forward, Canada was a very strong ally. It served, of course, in major multilateral organizations like NATO, often very close

to the American position on things. And it was a really nasty war. And of course it's a war that led to the most Canadians that were killed in combat outside of the First and Second World War. And it's not a clean narrative, especially when the end result of Korea is still with us. It kind of ended in a tie, didn't it? It ended in a tie, you know, in a horrific one, to be blunt. So I think it's uncomfortable, but I did want to point out I watched all the clips

that I was sent about this great series. And that is a common theme. A lot of the veterans from Korea moving forward have that sense of being forgotten, of being alienated in a very personal sense. And I think that's something that maybe as Canadians we need to really fundamentally address out of respect. Well, OK, let's follow up on that.

Timothy, why do you think we need to remember the events of more than 60 years ago today? Well, the Korean War has shaped our world for the Cold War era and still today. We have to remember that it was because of this Korean War, so this conflict really on the other side of the world from Canada, that Canada ended up sending forces to NATO Europe in the early 1950s.

So the fact that we'd have Canadians in Europe for decades and now of course with NATO today, that commitment, those institutions, they were all shaped by the Korean War. So it's a hugely important part of understanding that whole post-war era and our world today. Kerry, I don't even think we called it a war back then. And sometimes when I look at monuments, it doesn't say Korean War, it says Korean conflict. Does that suggest a continuing lack of respect for the people we sent over there to fight on our behalf?

I don't think... Well, first off, I'm not a historian and I wasn't alive during the Korean War. Well, actually the war continued, so I suppose it was. But, so I can't really look at it from a historical perspective, but I do think it's part of that almost binary approach we take in that when we deploy internationally, there'll be public support for it. And that does go back to politics and political leadership, I think. There will be public support for it. And that does go back to politics and political leadership, I think there will be public support for it.

No doubt there was for the Korea deployment at the time. But at the same time, our national narrative, well, we'll admit that sometimes we'll go abroad in robust military deployments. For the most part, we do see ourselves as a more peaceable country. And so maybe that's the reason why, not a justification, we don't have the big fanfare that over the US history, for instance, returning vets were usually accorded.

Timothy, can I get you on that, Timothy, the notion that it wouldn't, we didn't call it the Korean War, call it the Korean War. We called it the Korean Conflict. Does that suggest a lack of respect for the sacrifices made by those who participated? I think it reflects when that war happened. It was five years after the end of the Second World War. War was unpopular. It was called a police action at the time.

President Truman lost his job in the United States over this war. It was deeply unpopular at the time. So politicians, leaders at the time, were trying to avoid describing this as a war. There's talk of possible use of atomic weapons. It was an awful war, as Arne said. So from its origins, really, the Korean War has been sort of swept under the rug in a way.

And I think we're still dealing with that legacy today. This is Arne, the classic historian's question. So here goes. Do you think there are consequences to us as a country if we don't know about this stuff? That's my whole life. That's my job description in life right there. Absolutely.

And it really angers me as I get older and older, I lose patience. Because I feel like we historians have to justify why we exist as if history is some sort of trivial pursuit or quaint little hobby that you might have and it's outrageous frankly we live in a country where you know the the pains of history are very evident to some people you know First Nations people for example so I don't know why we need reminders that history

everywhere is really powerful there are multiple narratives and great debates to be had. But if you don't understand your history, you don't appreciate it, or God help us all, you totally ignore it, absolutely, as some people do, that is going to be a major problem. You have no ability to listen, to understand other people. And history doesn't repeat itself, I don't agree with that old cliche. But it does echo. But there's rhyme. Yeah, there's rhyme.

Rhymes and echoes. And in that case, it behooves me why people sort of trivialize it. Especially if you just shook your own family tree, as I always say to my students, stuff comes out that helps identify you as a person. Now do that on a national scale, where all of us have narratives, we need narratives, all nations cultivate narratives and myths to boot So, you know imagining you know that this is on and listen who do they turn to when the world goes to hell? You bring on historians to make sense of the Russian invasion of Ukraine or whatever

So, of course, it's I think it's the most important thing ever. But what do you expect coming from my historian? Well, I do expect that answer. That's good. But let me let me follow up with you in that regard Do do you think we have? Well, I do expect that answer. That's good. But let me follow up with you in that regard. Do you think we have, I don't know, for responsibility is the right word, but an obligation, I don't know what, as a citizen, to kind of understand this better? Because illiberal democracies, leaders of illiberal democracies all over the world, and hopefully not to the south of us, all over the world, use history for their own authoritarian purposes. And am I going too far by saying,

if we understand this and know this better, we might not be under the throes of that kind of authoritarianism? I agree. That's right. When a leader gets up and says, this is our history, this is our past, it's our destiny, too, what are we supposed to make of that? That has a very strong pull on humans, I think,

to be told this is got connection with history. But we need to be able to gauge whether it's actually true. And so we need to have the context, we need to have the understanding of our past, I think to immunize ourselves in a way against leaders who tell us, well, this is our history, this is our future. Part of our history is peacekeeping.

Most Canadians, I think, know about that, and we want to do a little exploring on that front right now. Let's start with this quote from author Dan Gardner, whom we've had on this program many times, good guy, who writes, We Canadians love to see ourselves as the world's peacekeepers. Our soldiers wear blue berets, not helmets. They carry binoculars instead of rifles. They don't take lives.

They save them. War and killing, the enemy is for Americans. Peace and protecting the weak is the Canadian way. That's Dan Gardner on his website. Let's do a clip now. Sheldon, if we can, let's roll. This is Sandra Perrin, Canada's first female infantry officer. She was deployed in the Balkans to both Bosnia and Croatia in the early 1990s.

Roll it if you would. Our mandate to keep peace when peace did not exist was very challenging. What peace is there to keep when they're firing each other and we're stuck in the middle with big white vehicles that have basically targets on them? UN troops were also limited by the rules of engagement. They could fire only if they were directly fired upon. When you get into a observation post or a position

where they're aiming an RPG at you and you have to wait until we have effective fire to fire back. I mean, there won't be anything left to fire back if that thing goes off. That's another excerpt from Forgotten War. We encourage everybody to go to our website and find that Forgotten War. Google it. It's well worth watching. Carrie Buck, going to start with you on this round here. How do you think we should understand this country's peacekeeping history? Well, it makes some sense that our national narrative focuses on what I'll call classical peacekeeping. Those deployments where there's already a peace to keep, you've got

lightly armed troops deployed, and they're only allowed to use force and self-defense. But in the history of peacekeeping, there were, you know, that was a relatively, it was a period where there, I think there were about 13 missions. And it's a period that shifted a number of decades ago. And I think that Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, those larger scale peacekeeping missions were part of a second wave, a second generation of peacekeeping that was in much more complex environments

where troops were deployed when guns were still firing and there was no peace to keep. And these much more complex deployments required not just military, but, you know, governance experts, human rights experts, D miners, people who could help restore justice, negotiate peace. And to be honest, those in the early 90s, the latter half of the 20th century, those UN missions overstretched, they overreached and they weren't as successful as the earlier expectations had hoped.

So it kind of makes sense that we stick with our narrative about Canada as a peacekeeping, benign nation in the classical peacekeeping sense, but that's not today's reality. Timothy, I'm going to follow up with you on that. To the extent we have any myth making in this country as it relates to our military, it's about peacekeeping. More myth than reality in your view? Well, peacekeeping is a reality, but it's a proportion or a portion of Canada's reality

in the post-war era. These missions occurred, they were very important for Canada on the world stage, for the people and the places that peacekeepers were sent, but they're just a fraction of what the Canadian military was doing as a part of NATO, as a part of NORAD. And so I appreciate that we recognize the history of peacekeeping, but I think we need to put it in relationship to Canada's broader military efforts in the post-war world. Well, let's do a little comparing and contrasting here, Arn. Okay, we talked about Korea already.

If we go back to the 50s and 60s, we're talking about our engagement in Egypt, in the Suez Crisis, the Middle East. We talk about Lester Pearson, who became prime minister based on a, you know, a heck of a successful run as the foreign minister, Nobel Prize winner in Cyprus. We've got the largest contingent of troops in the United Nations there. You know where we're at today. What was Canada's role in the world? How were we seen back then? Well, we were seen as a as a sizable power and in a lot of ways, not just sort of by the United States and our predictable partners, but also by other nations in the world right. Canada played a significant role in things like the ICC and the International Control Commission in Indochina which failed but Canada was was hunted out for that role. We did

receive a lot of attention having you know Lester Pearson win the Nobel Peace Prize and that's where that myth I think really took took weight and we did we did if I'm not mistaken think something like 10% of UN forces, peacekeeping forces, were Canadian at the height. So, you know, there is truth to that myth. The problem is, as Tim points out, is that it is really a narrow slice. If you talk to any generals, I've had the great pleasure of meeting and talking and reading a lot of generals, and some of them are pretty categorical. They say peacekeeping is a sideline. A sideline?

A sideline, that it's not really what the Canadian military is designed to do. It's not what it has done. That's evidence of things like Korea. And even in these stabilization, I think is the better term than peacekeeping, the stabilization roles they played in the former Yugoslavia, it was ugly.

There were serious combat moments. So this is where that myth kind of falls apart. Canada has been, and I think frankly should be designed with real military engagements in mind, not that peacekeeping is in because people die in peacekeeping. So that, that's where I, I'm not going to say it's an absolute myth and it's totally contrived, but the reality is that Canada has had far more, uh, serious military obligations. And that's where that myth becomes slightly dangerous.

We imagine ourselves to be peacekeepers when we have other obligations and other roles to play. There was this expression that we used to hear a great deal, Timothy, saying that Canada was one of those countries that punched above its weight when it came to international affairs decades ago. They don't say that about us anymore, but they did back then. Was it accurate? That's right. Yes, absolutely. There was a period, and especially when we think about Canada's great diplomats being on the world stage. You've mentioned Lester Pearson and the fact that Canadians were listened to. But it wasn't just because those diplomats were smart and had wise ideas.

It's because Canada was also making a real contribution on the military side of things. So there were Canadian forces deployed abroad in Europe, around the world, peacekeeping, yes, but also in NATO. And that is what gave strength to the Canadian voice on the world stage. So you can't just have the diplomacy without the battalions to back it up. You mentioned NATO. Let's go to our former NATO ambassador for a comment on this. Were we, you know, were we seen back in the day as being a more reliable defense

partner for the Western world and for the NATO Alliance in particular? Well, if you look at everything we did, yes, there was a period, for instance, on UN peacekeeping way back when where we were consistently among the top contributors. Right now, if you only take that slice of UN peacekeeping, I think we're around 76 in the world.

There are roughly about 25 people deployed. I mean, it's just nowhere near any kind of leadership position. But you can't just take that slice. You look at the whole of the deployments, and including at NATO. So in NATO, right now, I'd say we're in pretty good odor. Aside from the 2% and defense spending issue, we actually deploy some very, very important assets to NATO and that is appreciated.

So two things, Afghanistan, when we were there, we still, I think, we took the hardest job in Kandahar and that was respected. Even when we pulled out, I don't think our international reputation was tarnished that much. The fact that we went back into, posted semi-permanent troops in Europe after many decades of being absent with the command in Latvia, the NATO sec gen said to me, I cannot overstate how important it is for Canada and for NATO

that you took command of this battle group in the Eastern flank. So I think our reputation is solid. I don't think we've necessarily lost our place. I think what's happened is that the world, the environment in which we're operating has shifted so radically that we're a much smaller voice amongst a much larger group of countries demanding space in the international stage. That's part of it. We've also severely under invested in our diplomacy and defense over the years, and we're paying the price for that now. We're much more cautious than we used to be on diplomacy. We used to lead a lot more with ideas. Landmines, Suez, maternal and child health and the list goes on. I don't

see as much of that right now. It's an era of caution and retrenchment and I say that in a nonpartisan way because I wrap that back through at least the current government, the previous government at least. Let's continue on this line of inquiry because we want to show another excerpt now from Forgotten War. And we want to introduce you to Major General Alain Forin, who was awarded the Star of Courage in 1974 for his actions in Cyprus. We're going to play a clip and come back and chat. Sheldon, if you would, the clip. Forin believes the Canadian Armed Forces can still play an integral role in stabilizing the world, much as they did in Cyprus. But he sees an under-resourced military that is not what it once was. I don't see the future, you know, being rosy. That's unfortunate. The world is here, you know,

it's surrounding us, So if problem arise somewhere, it will have an impact on us eventually. And if you're not able to try to help them, then that problem will become yours at one point or another, whether you like it or not. Before I ask you guys a question, what a chest full of medals, eh? Was that something?

That guy's been around. He has seen the world. I remember we used to have a guest on this program named Matthew Fisher. He was the longest serving foreign correspondent for Canadian News Service ever in Canadian history. Died, I guess, a few years ago. And he used to have this line. He'd say, there is no country in the world that does less and says more than Canada.

He did not mean it as a compliment. Timothy, is he right? Well, I think maybe to Kerry's point earlier, I think we're actually saying less and less as well as doing less and less on the world stage. And it feels like we're frozen in a way. What is Canada's position on some of these great issues of the world? War and peace. So I think we're doing less.

It seems like we're saying less. And I think governments maybe are even saying less to Canadians now about what is our role here? What can we do in the world? How does that quote sound to you, Arn? You know, it might be a little bit excessive, to be honest with you. I think Canada still has a very important role to play.

We can regain it. That's the way that I would sort of frame it more optimistically. And I think Kerry is right. Like, we forget the Canadians served with absolute distinction in Afghanistan. As messy and as horrible and, you know, not the right conclusion for most Canadians as it was, our armed forces, when called upon, have been excellent. They've been spectacular. And we should never forget that.

That really troubles me that we do. And that includes right down to the rank and file, all those men and women serving. And of course, our commanders in the field, they did a great job. So we can get back to that place, because the world, do I need to tell you this, Steve, that the world isn't very nice sometimes.

You don't say. It's not very pleasant. And I think Canadians tell you this Steve that the world isn't very nice sometimes. You don't say. It's not very pleasant and I think Canadians suffer from this idea that somehow we can get through it without those commitments that we have, not just to NATO, NATO is top of the mind given its impact, but also to ideas, human rights for example. When the next country goes to hell, Canadians will scratch their heads and say we should do something about it. My students do it all the time. We should intervene.

And I always really uncomfortably point out, what do you mean by intervention? Are you personally going to go, no, you're going to send armed forces. And now we're in a position where they are terribly equipped, where we have a critical shortage of recruits, like something like 16,000 short, I think,

is the latest stats. And we don't even do the peacekeeping, Kerry pointed out I think if I'm not mistaken there are like 27 peacekeepers like so our commitments to NATO and deployment in places like Latvia today are significant but we're asking them and we're probably asked them in the future to do a job that we're not actually prepared to provide them with the tools and that's outrageous. Kerry Buck in light of the events of last week, there's a new president coming in in the United States.

And I wonder whether, what kind of role do you think Canada can play in the world while it tries to figure out its relationship with the new president? Well, I think that compared to the first term, President Trump's second term will be much more predictable, much more isolationist and likely more damaging. I think to the key institutions and the alliances that we've relied on since, you know, the beginning of Canada, the guardrails and the gloves are off. So where does that leave us?

What can we do in our bilateral relationship? You know, we have to be pragmatic, deepen our use of doughnut diplomacy, where we use all the levers at our disposal across the country, across governments, private sector, to deal with their counterparts, to squeeze Washington, to do what's in Canada's interests, is going to be much, much harder. Then on the global front, what can we do? Well, honestly, we can't do a lot to constrain or even mold where a Trump presidency would go on the global stage.

But I would argue that we need to, okay, I'll be less than diplomatic. We need to grow up a bit. We need to redefine our own kind of strategic sovereignty. Do a conscious exercise to define what our assets are and what our vulnerabilities are under a Trump presidency, and then work to diversify. What are our assets? We actually are trusted. There was an Ipsos poll last year saying what country in the world will do the most good

over the next decade? And Canada was number one for 80% of the people across 30 countries. That's an asset for us, right? We're, in a way, we still got that trust and that confidence. And Canada was number one for 80% of the people across 30 countries. That's an asset for us, right? We're, we're in a way, we still got that trust and that capacity to reach out to other countries in between countries when we want to push something that's in our interest. So we have a few assets that, and traditionally we've been a thought

leader, we can come up with ideas, create tables that people will come to. So those are assets, but our vulnerabilities are worse with the Trump presidency. I'd start with the Arctic and climate security to begin with. We should be diversifying our security relationships, building an Arctic pillar in NATO, NATO working more with our Arctic allies, for instance, to help to mitigate our over-reliance on the U.S. that we've read over, you know, decades and reinvest in diplomacy and defense. Must confess, I've never heard that expression, doughnut diplomacy before,

but it feels appropriately Canadian to use. Exactly right. Well done. Well done. Let's follow up on that. Arne, new Trump administration, Trump administration 2.0 coming in. What do you see for us? Well, Trump's whole thing is to be unpredictable, right?

So I guess we can be predictably unpredictable when you talk about Trump. He's made it pretty clear that he has dismal views on NATO in particular and on everybody not contributing to it. So I think front and centre we're going to hear about that. And Canada is going to have to up its game in that respect regardless. But I couldn't agree more with Kerry. We have our own strategic objectives.

The Arctic seems to me to be top of that list. And Canada should be proverbially muscling up in respect of its own defense and security interests regardless of Trump. Go buy a dozen new subs? Is that not a good plan? I know it's complicated. And of course, once you talk about procurement issues,

everybody starts talking about social welfare programs And I totally understand that like this is the reality of being Canadian being a democracy But here comes the pointy stick of history and contemporary international relations It's an ugly world and Canada does by its own regard have interests and obligations Including outside of Canada to help people in the world. And we cannot possibly do that without procurement. We're not equipped.

Our armed forces are suffering in so many ways. And it is very political. Carrie's very deft at handling it because of her former position. But it's a political stick. I don't know. She said grow up. Grow up is great. That would be, I'd say something probably worse than that.

But that's the reality. I know it's not savory for everybody, but we need to actually understand the world in which we inhabit this space, and the roles and obligations we have. And at the end of the day, that is going to require us to beef up our military. Timothy, what do you see?

I see that there's no place to hide for Canada. So there's no hope of just keeping our head down, and everything will be fine. So instead, it's facing and cooperating with, working with the United States and thinking of the United States as a long time ally of Canada. How can we work with the United States rather than personalizing the relationship? I think that's going to be key. But when it comes to procurement and if Canada is going to spend more money on defense, then there needs to be a national conversation. There needs to be national leadership.

This isn't something that you can do behind closed doors. Canadians need to be brought on board with this and understand why they're going to be paying the costs of these expensive new platforms, if that's what's going to happen. Got a couple of minutes left here, and let me ask each of you for, I don't know, 30, 40 seconds on this, admittedly,

a bit of a touchy-feely question, but what do you think we need to remember from our Canadian military historic past, if that's not redundant to say, I suspect it is, that can help us navigate our way through what is an increasingly, I was going to use a word, but I will not, let's just say screwed up world today. Carrie Buck, you want to start on that? Oh, that's a $6 billion question. let's just say screwed up world today. Carrie Buck, you want to start on that? Oh, that's a $6 billion question. I think we can, I don't want us to have a nostalgia about the past, but I think if we could inject

into our national conversation that sense of pride about what we've achieved with deployment of our military and I'd say diplomatic assets. What we've achieved internationally that isn't all about us being a boy scout and helping others. It walks straight back to our national interest because what happens abroad, bad things that happen abroad unless resolved or contained, they hit us. They hit our security and they hit our economy directly. You know, the Russian invasion of Ukraine should have taught us that.

So I'd like us to remember that it matters to our interests and yes, our values when we deploy abroad, militarily and diplomatically, and that we can make a difference. And we have made a difference in our history. Timothy. I would like Canadians to remember that peace is expensive. So Canada spent a lot of money during the Cold War

to maintain relatively large military forces so that they wouldn't have to fight. And so recognizing now in a very complicated world, it might be very expensive for us to remain not at war. Freedom isn't free. That's the line I hear. Freedom is not free. Arne put a bow on it for us.

Listen, I'm a big fan of nostalgia on this particular place. Canada fought not all the time and in every instance, but we fought on the right side of history, particularly in the Second World War. And Canadians need to remember that the institutions and ideas that we have today, as corny as it sounds, were paid for. And I don't know why we're so uncomfortable saying,

you know, because they were a different generation, a different, no, they paid for it. A lot of were paid for. And I don't know why we're so uncomfortable saying, you know, because they were a different generation, no, they paid for it. A lot of them paid for it with their lives. And they helped us build institutions and ideas that we now represent globally. So when Canadians talk about human rights overseas, remember that we actually do defend them,

and there may be an occasion where we have to defend them. So I'm a big fan of being nostalgic. We have to be open and honest about it all. But I would use the phrase make Canada great again, except it's been rather tainted in the last few years. We can't regain our authority and our respect and I think Canada should strive to that no matter who's in government. Let me just take 20 more seconds to say it is November 11th but we are not wearing poppies and we want to explain that because some people will wonder why aren't we on Remembrance Day wearing poppies. And the answer is because when you go to a ceremony at 11 o'clock in the morning

after it is over you are supposed to take your poppy off and leave it at the monument there, leave it at the wall, leave it at the obelisk, whatever. So by the time the evening comes we are poppiless. That's the explanation. That was a great discussion, you three. We do have our shot there. Carrie Buck, our former NATO ambassador in the national capital region, let's say, in Chelsea, Quebec. Arne Kislenko from Toronto Metropolitan University. Timothy Sale from the University of Toronto. Thanks so much, you three. Thank you.