Douglas L. Bland – författare

Canadian governments have not issued many policy statements on national defence since 1945. Most of those presented to Parliament were simple pronouncements of the status quo, especially after the early 1950s. Occasionally, however, ministers attempted to take defence policy in new, and sometimes radical, directions. This volume of Canada's National Defence critically examines five such sentinel policy papers: Defence 1947; White Paper on Defence, 1964; Defence in the 70s; Challenge and Commitment: A Defence Policy for Canadians; and Defence 1994. Douglas Bland stresses the importance of seeing the papers as declarations of intent made in the midst of ongoing policy and administration. Each white paper and defence policy, generally, had to contend with the attitudes and opinions of senior military and public service leaders who had, not surprisingly, their own views on policy. Ministers who challenged these views usually had to force policies forward against the opposition of soldiers and officials. In such circumstances, the policies seldom retain their original shape and intent once the minister departs. The history of policies declared in white papers, therefore, provides a glimpse at the realities of civil-military relations in Canada. The questions are, whose policy survives and why?

Volumes in the Canada's National Defence series present an annotated collection of government statements on defence policy and internal studies and reports prepared by senior military officers, defence officials, and consultants to governments and ministers from about 1945 to 1997. They trace the history of the ideas that give Canada's defence policy and defence organizations their unique character. If there is an enduring Canadian strategy for national defence, it is expressed in these papers. Volume 2: Defence Organization is a collection of eight documents on the organization of the national defence establishment. Covering the period from 1936 to 1990, the papers include Colonel Pope's Memorandum; The McGill Reports, The Glassco Report, Hellyer's Reorganization, The Management Review Group, The Fyffe Review, The Vance Review, and The Little/Hunter Study.

A surprise attack on the nation’s military bases and power stations sends the Armed Forces scrambling. When impoverished, disheartened, poorly educated, but well-armed aboriginal young people find a modern revolutionary leader, they rally with a battle cry of "Take Back the Land!" Theirs is a fight to right the wrongs inflicted on them by "the white settlers."They know they are too small to take on the entire country, but they don’t need to. Over a few tension-filled days as the battles rages over abundant energy resources, the frantic prime minister can only watch as the insurrection paralyzes the country. But when energy-dependent Americans discover the southward flow of Canadian hydroelectricity, oil, and natural gas is halted, they do not remain passive.Although none of the country’s leaders see it coming, the shattering consequences unfold with the same plausible harmony by which quiet aboriginal protests decades ago became the eerie premonitions of today’s stand-offs and "days of action."

A look at how a major confrontation between Canada and the First Nations could erupt, and how it might be prevented. There are few greater tragedies than a war waged by a society against itself. As Time Bomb shows, a catastrophic confrontation between Canada’s so-called “settler” and First Nations communities is not only feasible, it is, in theory, inevitable. Grievances, prejudice, and other factors all combine to make the likelihood of a First Nations uprising very real.Time Bomb describes how a nationwide insurgency could unfold, how the "usual" police and military reactions to First Nations protests would only worsen such a situation, and how, on the other hand, innovative policies might defuse the smouldering time bomb in our midst.The question all Canadians and First Nations must answer is this: Must we all suffer the disaster of a great national insurgency or will we act together to extinguish the growing danger in our midst?