Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy

[George Wallace]

well, one unanticpated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin. 

That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada.  No Lessons Learned there.

 

[mariomike]

That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada. No Lessons Learned there.

Dixon City?
http://www.condomadness.info/contents-YCC42.html

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods? Why cant we put them in 24 Sussex, it is unoccupied and in better shape....

 

[mariomike]

Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods?

Even have their own Wiki page with references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_Bloods

 

[Edward Campbell]

well, one unanticipated outcome of the above will be slum housing on Federal lands, something the Federal government already cannot deal with competently on First Nations lands. It is this type of thing that created the large Muslim ghetto's in France, where miscontent and malfeasance, in fact downright hatred of indigenous French people, is part of the social culture. Way to go Pierre Justin.   

edit to add, just to get this back on track, if one thinks these things will not affect Canadian foreign policy, they better get their head out of the sand. it will be immigrants who settle on these developments. These places could be breeding grounds for a large future problem where the disaffected and unsatisfied rise up and strike here and at home.     

See this long piece by Doug Saunders in the Globe and Mail. I don't agree with everything he says but, based on my own observations and, admittedly limited experience, I agree that ghettos are a very bad idea and they create more social problems than they solve. Again, based on just my own observations, the Dutch are light years ahead of the rest of us in this regard.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, argues that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau both wants to and is, already, managing to change the tone but not the substance of Canadian foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-seeks-to-shift-canadian-foreign-policy-with-world-debut/article27422112/
My emphasis added

Trudeau seeks to shift Canadian foreign policy with world debut

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Nov. 21, 2015

Justin Trudeau is an “instinctive internationalist” who in one short week has transformed the way Canada is seen by the world.

And as he seeks to return Canada to its Liberal tradition of multilateral engagement, at least in part, the Prime Minister is signalling that a new generation is taking charge of the country’s foreign policy.

Prime ministers typically come to power by campaigning on domestic issues, only to discover that much of their time is occupied by foreign policy. In that sense, Mr. Trudeau was thrown into the deepest of deep ends by being required to attend four global summits – the Group of 20 meeting in Antalya, Turkey, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Manila this week, with the Commonwealth meeting in Malta and climate-change negotiations in Paris coming in the days ahead – almost immediately after being sworn in as Prime Minister.

All four summits were darkened by the attacks in Paris that threw into question the Liberal commitment to bring in 25,000 Middle Eastern refugees by Christmas.

Nonetheless, with two summits down and two to go, Mr. Trudeau has performed impressively, especially in his relations with U.S. President Barack Obama.

“What we’re hearing is that there is a good relationship developing between the President and the Prime Minister,” said Janice Gross Stein, a specialist in international relations at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.

Both sides swiftly dispensed with potential irritants – Mr. Obama announced that he would not approve the Keystone XL pipeline, even as Mr. Trudeau affirmed that Canada was withdrawing its fighter jets from the air campaign against the Islamic State – which allowed the two leaders to focus on their shared commitment to stimulating their economies and fighting climate change.

Beyond policy, the two established an easy rapport marked by casual banter in private as well as in public.

Pointing out that his hair is now much greyer than it was when he assumed the presidency, Mr. Obama warned Mr. Trudeau at a press availability: “If you don’t want to grey like me, you need to start dyeing it soon.”

“So young and yet so cynical,” Mr. Trudeau retorted.

Mr. Obama appears to have accepted with grace his new status as the second coolest politician on Earth.

The President has “been eclipsed at an Asian economic forum by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 43, the so-called #APEChottie” because of “his dashing good looks and windswept hair,” The Washington Post declared on Friday.

Even Philippine journalists were caught up in the wave, screaming and waving at Mr. Trudeau as though it were 1964 and the Beatles had come to town.

Most important, in terms of establishing good relations with allies, other leaders appear to have accepted Mr. Trudeau’s election-campaign commitment to withdraw from the air campaign against the Islamic State. Government sources say neither Mr. Obama nor any other world leader directly asked him to reverse that decision.

Mr. Trudeau’s debut has not been entirely flawless. He struggled to remember Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s name and referred to Japan as China during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe before quickly correcting himself.

But the word coming from the summits is that the Prime Minister has handled himself with aplomb in bilateral engagements, demonstrably at ease in the company of foreign leaders and remarkably well briefed on issues for someone so new to the job.

“He is an instinctive internationalist,” observed Paul Evans, a specialist in Asian-Pacific issues at University of British Columbia. “His upbringing was not as inward-looking or parochial as that of many Canadian leaders. This is a person whose consciousness is cosmopolitan.”

Having just come back from a visit to Shanghai, Mr. Evans said Chinese officials told him that, when Xi Jinping met Mr. Trudeau, the Chinese leader declared: “I knew your father and we knew you when you were a three-year-old.”

For Len Edwards, who retired as deputy minister of foreign affairs in 2010 after shepherding the Group of Eight summit in Huntsville, Ont., and G20 summit in Toronto, Mr. Trudeau’s assured debut on the world stage has been invaluable.

“At these conferences, he’s going to meet absolutely everyone that matters,” he said. “And they won’t have high expectations. They know he’s the new guy. … He has a lot of rope in these early days to get to know these leaders before he has to get into the heavy lifting around issues.”

That forgiveness will probably extend to the Paris summit on climate change that begins at the end of the month. By declaring Canada’s determination to take meaningful action to fight global warming, and by bringing the premiers and opposition leaders with him in a public show of solidarity, Mr. Trudeau may have inoculated his new government against accusations that Canada, once again, is all talk and no substance.

Paris “is not a summit where we will necessarily make any final commitments,” Ms. Gross Stein said. Rather, a “big-tent delegation” will convince other world leaders “that Canada is willing to engage, is willing to contribute and is credible.” Detailed plans will be worked out in the months ahead.

Pierre Trudeau sought to shift Canadian foreign policy toward lessening Cold War tensions while giving a voice to the aspirations of developing countries. That policy largely failed. But Prof. Evans wonders whether Justin Trudeau might be about to try something similar.

“For Trudeau’s dad, accommodation and a middle-power role in ending the Cold War is very similar to the challenge that Trudeau Junior faces in dealing with the transition, not between the Soviet Union and the West, but between rising powers, especially China, and an American-centred world order that is no longer sustainable,” he posited.

But it is early days for that. Mr. Trudeau still has not had time to put a foreign-policy team fully in place, let alone to work through how his foreign policy will differ from that of his predecessor, Stephen Harper.

In fact, while markedly different in tone, the Liberals may well follow the Conservative line on substance. Mr. Obama made it abundantly clear in Manila that he hoped and expected the new Canadian government would ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement involving Canada, the United States and 10 other Pacific nations that Mr. Harper initialled in his final weeks as prime minister.

While also ratifying the Conservatives’ free-trade agreement with Europe, Mr. Trudeau is likely to continue to shift gradually toward an Asian and Pacific orientation in Canadian economic and foreign policy. Mr. Harper evolved toward that stance in his decade in power. Mr. Trudeau, who spent years living in British Columbia, has it in his bones.

In foreign as well as domestic policy, these early days of the Trudeau government are marked by goodwill and an aura of decisive action. But those actions are easy, as the new government reverses the least popular measures of its predecessor. The tough stuff – new trade negotiations, fighting the war on terror, fighting climate change while also protecting the energy sector, and travails not yet dreamed of – lie ahead.

But for now, Mr. Trudeau can congratulate himself on a singularly successful debut on the world stage. Just not ready? Hardly.

With a report from Bill Curry in Manila.

Style matters. Prime Minister Harper was respected but not, I suspect, much "liked" by his confrères in e.g. the G7, APEC, NATO, G20 etc. Being "liked" can pay big dividends and it comes at a small cost ... but not everyone is "likeable," are they?

The key, however, is the substance. And the real substance is the Canada EU trade deal and the TPP. Yes, the fight against Daesh etc matters, and so does being a leader in dealing with refugees, but, in the long term peace is more likely to be secured by trade and investment than by force of arms.

My personal opinion is that Canada should look for ways to do more, not less, in the battles against Daesh, but I suspect that issue will be overshadowed by other "events" before too long.

 

[suffolkowner]

Just watched Chrystia Freeland on Bill Maher and all I can say is wow. Is that a government position, just seemed to be a little clueless, living in fairytale land. I guess that's the danger of not staying on talking points

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just watched Chrystia Freeland on Bill Maher and all I can say is wow. Is that a government position, just seemed to be a little clueless, living in fairytale land. I guess that's the danger of not staying on talking points

Here is a link to the video. I agree with some of what Minister Freeland says; she and Sen King are more right than wrong ... Sen King is a bit more "right" than Minister Freeland. My concern is less with what Minister Freeland says than with the fact that a Minister of the Crown is an a US TV show. Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?

I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money. This is, in my personal opinion, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Here is a link to the video. I agree with some of what Minister Freeland says; she and Sen King are more right than wrong ... Sen King is a bit more "right" than Minister Freeland. My concern is less with what Minister Freeland says than with the fact that a Minister of the Crown is an a US TV show. Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?

I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money. This is, in my personal opinion, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.

Not just any TV show either, a satirical comedy show.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is she speaking on behalf of the government? She's the Minister of International Trade, is what she is saying an expression of Canadian government policy?

Very good question - although what she's saying still sounds like it fits inside the government messaging aide-memoire.

I suspect Minister Freeland might have some sort of contractual arrangement with Mr Maher, if so then she ought to cancel it, even if it costs the government some money.

Methinks she's just one of "the usual suspects", based on how often she's listed on the hbo.com page, and she's appeared as an MP, so I suspect she doesn't have a "contract" per se.  If there is any kind of deal, though, I agree.  Available as a guest is OK, but linked, not so much. 

All that said, the "Real Time" staff should have identified her as a Minister, not just an MP.

This is, in my personal opinion, inappropriate. She's entitled to her views but now that she's a minister she needs to give Canada, and the world, the views of her government ... or resign from the cabinet.

Nothing she said is far enough outside the lines to put her in conflict with the Team Red master lyric sheet.  Besides, selfie-worthiness notwithstanding, even PMJT would have SOMETHING to say (or even do) to her if she was playing too far outside the fence - or at least the whip, anyway  ;D

 

[ballz]

I actually wish more of our politicians would go on shows like this (I very much wish we had a Canadian equivalent of Real Time) and The Hour, etc. Bill Maher may identify as a comedian but Real Time is much more of a politics show with a flavour of comedy than it is a comedy show with a flavour of politics.

I find these shows really expose the person, their strengths, their weaknesses, their principals, their logical flaws, etc. This show in particular has a way of unmasking the person. I'd be real interested to see someone like Stephen Harper, someone whom I think most Canadians always felt they didn't quite connect with or understand, go on Real Time. I always wished he would go on The Hour.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The only problem I have, ballz, is that she's a minister and when she speaks in public or on the air we must assume she is speaking as a minister and enunciating government policy. I did not have HUGE problems with what she said, although I think she got led into a couple of rhetorical traps by Mr Maher, but I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some policy guidelines tomorrow.

I know American politicians do this on a regular basis, and Prime Minister Harper did things with e.g. Rick Mercer, but our system, cabinet government in a Westminster type parliament, gives ministers great powers and makes their every public word subject to question and analysis.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some policy guidelines tomorrow.

1)  If that's the case, then we have more evidence of not exactly great comms from Fearless Leader & Co. on down.
2)  If I had to bet a loonie, this isn't the only Minister whose every public word is sifted by The Machine for guidance re:  what happens next - take the refugee thing, for example.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I really hope PMHairstyle has a long lasting policy of letting his ministers go on shows like this. This video of Freeland with Maher is a keeper. (The dumbness of Americans", her inability to distinguish between culture and religious law, dismissing the dangers of radical Islam, somehow thinking that can be mixed into the scheme of diversity.) These are foolish, naive,  dangerous people we now have in power.

 

[a_majoor]

But just remember the criterion that she and every other minister of the Crown was selected on....."Because 2015!"

If there is a backlash or any questioning on what she said (or why such an obvious dud was chosen for such an important position), expect the questioner to be shut down quickly and savagely with a "because 2015" type of response.

 

[cavalryman]

I give it 6 months at best before the Trudeau PMO goes into full message control mode on the Liberal caucus members, just like the Conservative PMO did.  :nod:

 

[OldSolduer]

I give it 6 months at best before the Trudeau PMO goes into full message control mode on the Liberal caucus members, just like the Conservative PMO did.  :nod:

And the MSM will most likely play right along.

Because we know they are unbiased.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Look, I don't think there were many people less pleased than I when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals won a majority. I doubt his "bottom," his fitness to lead a G7 nation, and I seriously doubt the ethical fibre of the party apparatus behind him.

That being said, he enunciated some pretty clear foreign policy objectives during the campaign. I don't agree with his priorities but they are well within what I would call the political centre in Canada: no to bombing; yes to helping to train anti-Daesh forces; yes to refugees; no to slowing the (overly) ambitious schedule; no to the F-35, but yes to some new fighter; yes to a renewed navy; and climate change is the No. 1 challenge of the day. There's nothing dangerous about those policies; I might think they're misguided, even ill-conceived but I will not brand them dangerous.

For better or worse, a plurality of Canadians who bothered to vote, 40% of 69% of our fellow citizens, chose Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals. Yes, we ought to examine and critique his policies on their merits but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deserves our respect, as a person, as our prime minister, and he deserves a chance to show us that his policies make sense.

My  :2c: anyway ...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The only problem I have, ballz, is that she's a minister and when she speaks in public or on the air we must assume she is speaking as a minister and enunciating government policy. I did not have HUGE problems with what she said, although I think she got led into a couple of rhetorical traps by Mr Maher, but I am abou 99% sure that a DM and a couple of ADMs and two or three directors general are parsing her every word, right now, on a Sunday, to see if they have to issue some policy guidelines tomorrow.

I know American politicians do this on a regular basis, and Prime Minister Harper did things with e.g. Rick Mercer, but our system, cabinet government in a Westminster type parliament, gives ministers great powers and makes their every public word subject to question and analysis.

I am with ERC on this one, you youngsters out there may not remember this but in the early 60's, a new Finance minister made an innocuous reply to a question about the value of the Canadian dollar in a scrum in Ottawa and answered "Personally, I'd like to see it lower", or words to that effect, and the dollar plunged by almost 10 cents overnight. What ministers of the crown say matters. It matters to those charged with carrying out policy (remember the line from the documentary Yes Minister!: You can't change government policy once it's been announced.) and it matters to those who have their fingers on the Canadian economy.

In the present case, however, I note one thing: She was introduced as a "member of parliament" only (in fact, they didn't specify which parliament and she first speaks after a quote from PM Cameron, which could lead some people to think she was from England, until they heard her). As such, she is entitled to her opinions and views and was she not a minister, her attendance would be perfectly legitimate. But, since she accepted to become a minister of the crown, and since she is attending an American (foreign) talk show in the USA, she is presumed to present the foreign policy position of Canada, and foreign affairs usually takes the view that ANY foreign affair statement must be vetted almost word for word to make sure it conforms to current positions.

Now somebody here commented on American politicians attending these type of shows, and it is true. However, I note that they are usually attended by politicians that are part of the legislative branch, i.e. the senators and representatives. And these people do not "run" the US - the executive branch does. And the executive branch attends the serious "talking head" shows, but rarely the lighter fare ones such and M. Mayer's show. When they do (rare, and usually just the president/vice-president or governors) it is because they are running for reelection, and there is an understanding that they will only speak on the upcoming election and what they intend to do in their next mandate. 

 

[George Wallace]

I really hope PMHairstyle has a long lasting policy of letting his ministers go on shows like this. This video of Freeland with Maher is a keeper. (The dumbness of Americans", her inability to distinguish between culture and religious law, dismissing the dangers of radical Islam, somehow thinking that can be mixed into the scheme of diversity.) These are foolish, naive,  dangerous people we now have in power.

Definitely did not show any moral or ethical backbone.