Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: E.R. Campbell on October 21, 2015, 08:34:22

Title: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 21, 2015, 08:34:22
We'll be UNing it for sure within 12 months....in Africa.


I agree, this, rather than CF-18s in Iraq ...

                    (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.unmultimedia.org%2Fphoto%2Fmedium%2F314%2F31429.jpg&hash=f693c07162053dcf9a7f9bfe8ca05d53)

                         ... plus throwing a wee bit of money and lots and lots of warm words at climate change, seems to be the likely first "foundation stones" of a new Liberal foreign policy.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on October 21, 2015, 08:52:04
Why fight this....

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Finfocus%2F2011inphotos120611%2Fs_y37_14120482.jpg&hash=7aaba82c3f93b1a57cbdbcb0f4704eb4)

When you can fight this  ;D

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sunray22b.net%2Fimages%2Fafrican_infantry.jpg&hash=e6a3867417ae35015afce80986476e27)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 22, 2015, 12:39:12
Foreign Policy takes a look at Canada's new, Liberal, foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/21/justin-trudeau-liberal-canadian-foreign-policy-syria-climate-change/?utm_content=buffer28616&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Quote
(https://www.devex.com/images/press-page-logos/04-foreignpolicy.jpg?1443703730)
ARGUMENT
Justin Trudeau Is Putting the ‘Liberal’ Back in ‘Canadian Foreign Policy’

After nine years of Stephen Harper’s neocon act, a new, inexperienced prime minister is going to dial back Canada’s hard power ambitions on the world stage.

BY MATTHEW BONDY

OCTOBER 21, 2015

This story will feel familiar to Americans.

A young, idealistic, inexperienced liberal rides a wave of hope and change all the way up the polls and in to the halls of power. He seems genuinely embarrassed by the last guy’s conduct in office — at least in the realm of foreign affairs. Seeing his predecessor exercise hard power on the world stage, he ascribes to him not merely imprudence, but a disregard for the nation’s best traditions of global conduct. The credentials the new leader brings to the job are specious at best. But under the surface and in between the gaffes that emerging leaders are wont to make, is the outline of a new statesman, or at least the possibility of one.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR7leiTXAAAOsC5.jpg)

Yes, nearly seven years after Obama came to power, Canada is following America’s liberal lead in foreign affairs. On Oct. 19, Canada’s center-left Liberal party, led by 43-year-old Justin Trudeau from Quebec, surged from the ruins of its disastrous 2011 election showing to earn a majority of Canada’s federal parliamentary seats in the nation’s longest campaign since 1872. With an iron grip on the legislature and a clear mandate from Canadian voters, Trudeau, the eldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau — whose liberal legacy still looms large in Canada — is on track to be appointed Canada’s 23rd prime minister and form a government. In doing so, he’ll pick up where the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper left off after nearly a decade in office, departing from his predecessor in rhetorical nuance but building on the Conservative’s strong record on global affairs and economic management.

Under Harper, Canada’s foreign policy adopted a harsh tone, putting a greater emphasis on hard power over soft power and elevating economic diplomacy and free trade to the top of the agenda. At times, this was unpopular. But by and large, it was a success.

Canada’s economy arguably fared best among G7 nations during and after the great recession, due partially to Harper’s support for the nation’s huge energy sector. Under Conservative rule, Canada was deemed the second-best country in the world to do business owing in part to the Tories’ low-tax agenda. And in addition to maintaining one of the strongest financial sectors in the world, Harper enhanced Canada’s global economic engagement with a succession of new trade deals. (Some of them — like the Canada-European Union trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership — are still in pre-implementation phases.) Though Harper has been the object of unusual animus from his own country’s elites and his domestic political opponents for “staining” Canada’s international good name, in 2015 the Reputation Institute reported that Canada is the most admired country in the world.

This might be why, despite some heated and substantive exchanges between Harper and Trudeau during an election debate focused on foreign affairs, there is actually significant overlap between the two leaders in terms of substance, if not style. Both advocate for strong bilateral ties with the United States and both believe the Keystone XL pipeline should be part of that relationship. Both leaders are free traders — Trudeau all but came out in favor of the TPP as the Harper administration negotiated it. Both, in wildly different ways, believe humanitarian considerations should animate Canadian foreign policy, whether through Harper’s maternal health initiatives or, for Trudeau, through enhanced development goals.

Where Trudeau and Harper have most differed is in the use of military force, or hard power, in pursuit of Canada’s interests and values. In particular, the two leaders squared off on Canada’s role in the fight against the Islamic State.

On March 30, the Conservative government used its majority in the House to approve an expanded Canadian combat mission against the Islamic State, as part of the U.S.-led coalition effort. Soon after, Royal Canadian Air Force fighter jets were authorized to attack the terrorists not only in Iraq, but also in Syria, to prevent the latter from becoming a “safe haven” for terror, according to Harper.

Trudeau’s parliamentary address before the mission extension vote was credible and balanced in its tone. While his comments are not always so mature — he’s stumbled by jokingly praising China’s authoritarianism and accusing Harper of chronically “whipping out our CF-18s [fighter jets] to show how big they are” — his parliamentary comments on the Iraq-Syria mission expansion conveyed a serious, if perhaps idealistic, view of international law and global affairs. He laid out the conditions under which the Liberals would support military missions. (As of last night, according to Agence France-Presse, Trudeau has already notified President Obama that he’s withdrawing Canadian air power from the fight in Iraq and Syria, though Canadian trainers will likely remain in northern Iraq.)

Trudeau’s four “core principles” on military deployments should provide some insight into his approach once he fully takes the reins of power.

Per his statement on the vote:

     –One, Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises in the world.

     –Two, when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada.

     –Three, that the case for deploying [Canadian] forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.

     –Four, Canada’s role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help.


Placing humanitarian considerations at the top of the decision tree is notable — Trudeau has relentlessly slammed Harper on his predecessor’s management of the Syrian refugee crisis, calling for a much more ambitious Canadian response than the tentative, security-focused measures Harper authorized. Trudeau is justified in including mission clarity and reliable intelligence among his party’s conditions, since those factors should be table stakes for any discussion of military action anyway. The final factor, that Canadian missions need to best reflect the resources at the nation’s disposal, is the most politically fraught for a leader who has consistently taken a softer line on security issues than his predecessor. To advocates of a foreign policy rooted in hard power, it will look like an escape clause to potentially undermine any military action under any circumstances. After all, determining how “best we can help” will never be a merely utilitarian judgment in practice, but a political one. Until Trudeau grows into the role of prime minister and builds fluency in military affairs, he will need to remain on guard against that potential criticism from Conservatives.

To establish early credibility and his own foreign policy bona fides with Canadians and his global peers, though, Trudeau may choose not to play to the Conservatives’ strength on military issues. The decision to quit the airstrike campaign suggests as much. If the rookie PM can seize two upcoming diplomatic opportunities in particular, he could make serious progress tilting Canada back toward the peaceful, multilateralist power of his vision.

As fellow Canadian Geoff Dembicki argued in Foreign Policy earlier this month, Canada has an opportunity to shift the global dialogue on climate policy at December’s Paris summit. Politically, ushering in global policy progress at the summit could be a big, quick win for the new leader. The logic goes that Canada, as an advanced industrial economy with capacity for more ambitious climate action than it’s shown to date, is giving fossil fuel-dependent emerging economies an excuse to lag on climate control policies. By bringing Trudeau’s progressive environmental views to bear at the Paris summit, Canada could affect a tectonic shift in global climate politics.

Second, the United States recently achieved a diplomatic breakthrough to put peacekeeping back on the global agenda. Through intense lobbying, the Obama administration secured broad-based international support to enhance U.N. member states’ support for peacekeeping efforts by providing more troops and materiel. That’s music to Trudeau’s ears.

Canada is one of the principal architects of peacekeeping. Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, took over as prime minister from Nobel Peace Prize winner Lester B. Pearson, who helped broker a solution to the Suez Crisis in 1956. From then on, Canada’s global brand — and the Liberal party’s conception of Canada’s role in the world — became deeply intertwined with the concept of peacekeeping. This new U.S.-led effort could give Canada a high profile international role that, in Trudeau’s view, “must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help.”

By picking up the mantle of global leadership on these issues, while also building on his predecessor’s achievements on free trade, Trudeau could get a fast start on foreign affairs and fashion a global role for himself and for Canada that fits with his values and his party’s historic strengths.

And he wouldn’t even have to whip out his CF-18s.

Image credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 22, 2015, 13:21:36
In an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Glove and Mail, Derek Burney (http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/people/42473/derekhburney) and Fen Osler Hampson (https://www.cigionline.org/person/fen-osler-hampson) look at the foreign policy challenges facing our new, Liberal government:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/trudeau-to-get-a-quick-lesson-in-global-realities/article26912779/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
Trudeau to get a quick lesson in global realities

DEREK BURNEY AND FEN OSLER HAMPSON
Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015

Derek H. Burney was Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. from 1989-1993. Fen Osler Hampson is a distinguished fellow and director of Global Security at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and a Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University. They are the authors of Brave New Canada: Meeting the Challenge of a Changing World.

The world is highly volatile and Canada’s prime-minister-designate will quickly confront a series of challenges to our national interests. As the harsh global realities and potentially combustible situations assert centre stage, nostalgic sentiments about peacekeeping and United Nations-centred multilateralism will not provide much of a prescription for relevance or effect.

As Henry Kissinger pointed out last week in The Wall Street Journal, the geopolitical order of the past 40 years is in shambles. Following his essentially unchallenged dismemberment of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now, for the first time, engaging militarily in a political and security vacuum in the Middle East. He intends to become the regional kingmaker, supplanting the United States. Mr. Kissinger rightly says that Islamic State now poses the greatest immediate threat to stability, and its destruction “is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he once controlled.”

But the U.S.-led coalition effort against IS is in disarray. Prime-minister-designate Justin Trudeau has signalled a “responsible” withdrawal from the combat mission against IS, and given the meagre results of the mission to date, that may not be too difficult to finesse. But it will do little to eradicate the terrorist menace. Along with the cancellation of Canada’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program, this recall will not sit well in Washington, and will not square with Mr. Trudeau’s statements that Canada seeks deeper and closer relations with the U.S.

Mr. Trudeau’s formal debut on the world stage will come at the G20 Leaders Summit in Turkey on Nov. 15. He will get a first-hand glimpse at the refugee crisis that is engulfing and threatening to destabilize the social and political fabric of Europe. That gathering will be followed in rapid succession by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Manila Nov. 18-19.

Mr. Trudeau will then head to Paris for the UN climate change conference that begins Nov. 30. He promised that he would convene a First Ministers meeting to iron out Canada’s position before Paris, but time is short, and forging a national consensus on meaningful carbon reductions is a tall order. Canada should not repeat the mistake it made at the Kyoto climate summit many years ago, which was to agree to hastily improvised targets without calculating the costs or consequences of implementation. Given the fragile state of the Canadian economy and the weak price of oil, which the International Energy Agency forecasts will remain low throughout 2016, Mr. Trudeau will also have to act prudently.

But it is the bilateral agenda with Washington that will be Mr. Trudeau’s most immediate challenge. High on the list is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, signed by the outgoing Harper government; Mr. Trudeau will now be privy to the details. He will have to decide sooner rather than later that this is an agreement that he is prepared to endorse. If ratified – an open question in Washington – it will supersede NAFTA, and there is no going back.

Mr. Trudeau also confronts a list of thorny, bilateral irritants – U.S. restrictions on Canadian beef and on softwood lumber (the latest accord expired on Oct. 12), and Buy American provisions that discriminate against Canadian manufacturers. His challenge is not simply to change the tone of Ottawa’s dealings with Washington, but also to get Washington to change its own behaviour. If, as expected, Mr. Obama vetoes the Keystone XL pipeline, which Mr. Trudeau openly supports, that will become his problem. He would be wise to counter such a veto with a full endorsement of the Energy East pipeline that would at least give our oil exports more than a single, discount market. Americans understand leverage more than sentiment.

The prime-minister-designate would be well advised to initiate a strategic outreach to China in part to achieve a similar objective.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trudeau was a stunning success. But his energy, determination, sunny disposition and skills as a boxer will be even more in demand now. Foreign policy is a contact sport, and one that requires a clear strategy to win. As Sugar Ray Leonard once said, “I was painfully initiated into boxing, because the guys I fought were a lot bigger than me.” Welcome to the global ring, Mr. Trudeau, and, above all, don’t lead with your chin.


I wish we had a leader with more "bottom," but ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on October 22, 2015, 13:30:20
Quote
Trudeau’s four “core principles” on military deployments should provide some insight into his approach once he fully takes the reins of power.

Per his statement on the vote:
–One, Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian crises in the world.
–Two, when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada.
–Three, that the case for deploying [Canadian] forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispassionately presented facts.
–Four, Canada’s role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help.

Since point four will be mostly vapourware, limited manpower and time expired equipment, this makes points one through three moot.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 28, 2015, 13:36:34
British journalist and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Dan Hannan (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4555/Daniel_HANNAN_home.html;jsessionid=2A02B82F076F4ACAC3F2F49B5B68300E.node2), writing in the Washinton Examiner, says that, "The free world has lost its leader. In the absence of a vigorous American foreign policy, Canada's Stephen Harper supplied his own. For the better part of a decade, he energetically championed Western interests. He was serious about fighting terrorism, keen on free trade and prepared to deploy proportionate force in defense of freedom ... His defeat in last week's Canadian general election will be felt far beyond that sparse, chilly country. When other Western leaders fretted about Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, he gave his full backing to the Jewish state. When others dithered over Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he led international condemnation. Obliged to meet Vladimir Putin at a summit meeting, he was admirably curt ..."

We'll have to wait to see how the world, the big one outside of the beautiful young people in Montreal' and Toronto's café society, like Prime Minister designate Trudeau's foreign policies.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 02, 2015, 23:48:23
They like "Virtue Signalling", which is what most of the promises amount to.

They are much less interested in actual results, or the resources and work that needs to be done to achieve results, so long as they can always say they are for doing the right thing. So long as they can remain isolated from the results of their actions (or inactions in this case), they can continue to virtue signal their purity and belonging to the "correct kind" of people.

I wonder what they will do when George Orwell's "rough men" are no longer around to insulate them from the results of their choices?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 03, 2015, 14:21:58
British journalist and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Dan Hannan (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4555/Daniel_HANNAN_home.html;jsessionid=2A02B82F076F4ACAC3F2F49B5B68300E.node2), writing in the Washinton Examiner, says that, "The free world has lost its leader. In the absence of a vigorous American foreign policy, Canada's Stephen Harper supplied his own. For the better part of a decade, he energetically championed Western interests. He was serious about fighting terrorism, keen on free trade and prepared to deploy proportionate force in defense of freedom ... His defeat in last week's Canadian general election will be felt far beyond that sparse, chilly country. When other Western leaders fretted about Israel's 2006 Lebanon war, he gave his full backing to the Jewish state. When others dithered over Putin's invasion of Ukraine, he led international condemnation. Obliged to meet Vladimir Putin at a summit meeting, he was admirably curt ..."

We'll have to wait to see how the world, the big one outside of the beautiful young people in Montreal' and Toronto's café society, like Prime Minister designate Trudeau's foreign policies.


Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Why is that so much of the world's political pundits & MSM (outside Canada) voice similar prose? Yet the Canadian MSM says opposite? ???

Must be that the world view is wrong ::)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on November 03, 2015, 16:00:44
They like "Virtue Signalling", which is what most of the promises amount to.

They are much less interested in actual results, or the resources and work that needs to be done to achieve results, so long as they can always say they are for doing the right thing. So long as they can remain isolated from the results of their actions (or inactions in this case), they can continue to virtue signal their purity and belonging to the "correct kind" of people.

I wonder what they will do when George Orwell's "rough men" are no longer around to insulate them from the results of their choices?

I always tell people; "The Liberals were always much better liars than the Conservatives"
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 04, 2015, 15:53:33
In this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson looks at how the new ministers might shape Canada's new, Liberal foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/what-trudeaus-cabinet-appointments-signal-for-canadas-foreign-policy/article27102079/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
What Trudeau’s cabinet appointments signal for Canada’s foreign policy

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Nov. 04, 2015

Justin Trudeau intends to blend past Conservative and Liberal foreign policies into a single stream, with Canada once again a responsible environmental actor but also an aggressive free-trader.

By choosing Stéphane Dion as Foreign Minister, the new Prime Minister sends three messages. First, as a veteran of the Chrétien era and as a Quebecker, Mr. Dion’s appointment signals a return to a more pacific strain in Canadian foreign policy and a reluctance to become involved in foreign military entanglements. Mr. Dion will, with conviction, withdraw Canadian forces from the fight against the Islamic State. Future American presidents should expect a skeptical response when asking whether Canada is ready to join in the next military venture.

Unless, of course, that venture has been approved by the United Nations Security Council. Supporting the UN will once again be a priority of Canadian foreign policy, along with other multilateral forums such as the Commonwealth and la Francophonie. As well, expect a gradual rebalancing over time between the equal right of Israel to a secure existence and the Palestinian people to their own state.

Above all, combatting climate change is now a top foreign as well as domestic priority. In Paris next month, Mr. Dion will negotiate Canada’s renewed commitment to combat global warming. He, not Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, will head the cabinet committee on climate change. Fighting global warming has gone from last priority to first, as the federal government transitions from Conservative to Liberal.

Colin Robertson, a former diplomatic and current foreign-affairs analyst, observes that Canadian foreign policy has always balanced national interest with constructive internationalism. Under Mr. Harper, national interest held sway. “Stéphane Dion represents constructive internationalism,” said Mr. Robertson: a broad commitment to multilateral engagement, foreign aid (though little is known about the Minister of International Development, Marie-Claude Bibeau) and collective security.

But Canada’s stance won’t be entirely Pearsonian—far from it. Mr. Trudeau has signalled in the past his strong support for the new government in Ukraine, a position strongly buttressed by Chrystia Freeland, the new Minister of International Trade, whose background is partly Ukrainian. Canada under the Liberals will remain firmly committed to confronting Russian aggression and defending NATO’s eastern flank, a key priority under Stephen Harper.

(And by the way, Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan has four tours of duty under his belt as a member of the Canadian Forces – three in Afghanistan and one in Bosnia – and will hardly be an isolationist voice in cabinet.)

Ms. Freeland can also be expected to aggressively pursue and expand upon the trade priorities of the Harper government. Her first order of business will be to ratify the trade agreements the Conservatives negotiated with the European Union and the 11 nations of the Trans Pacific Partnership. She will seek to improve trade relations with China, while also pursuing other Asian and Pacific opportunities.

“He’s picked a very high-profile trade minister, who is articulate, savvy, with an international reputation,” observes Fen Hampson, director of the Global Security and Politics program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Many diplomats privately complained that, under the Conservatives, trade issues overwhelmed foreign policy. They hoped that with the Liberals back in charge trade would be returned to the back burner, Mr. Hampson observed. But by combining the veteran Mr. Dion with the aggressive newcomer Mr. Freeland, Mr. Trudeau is choosing not to choose between the Chrétien and Harper legacies.

“I think it’s going to be a bit of both,” said Mr. Hampson. “It’s going to be salt and pepper.”

Along with substance, expect also a change of style, an urbane cosmopolitanism that had gone missing in the Harper years and that will emphatically be back under this new team. Everyone who is anyone will be visiting Ottawa for an earnest discussion with (or lecture from) Mr. Dion, a scintillating debate with Ms. Freeland, and a quiet but elegant dinner with Mr. Trudeau.

If style matters as much as substance in foreign affairs, then that could be the biggest change of all.


So, more of this, which is inexpensive and low risk ...

     (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.cdn.talentegg.ca%2Fincubator%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FCanadian-Forces-jobs-travel-300x199.jpg&hash=ada7fb4bfc4abefd72332dfa076c37c0)

          ... and of this, which is a good thing ...

               (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.imagekind.com%2Fmember%2Faee53c8a-7e7e-4c82-8a9b-135a5bd5882c%2Fuploadedartwork%2F450X450%2F08a8c9cc-bac4-47d3-b3cc-219f5cf746a8.jpg&hash=dc77634651729f0dfee537732ca47901)

                  ... but less of this ...

                       (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.military.com%2Fmedia%2Fequipment%2Fcanadian-cf-18-600x400.jpg&hash=9c856b42b411dfdc939238a7f820adfe)  and this:  (https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/user-canada-afghan-500-9.jpg?quality=100&strip=info&w=500)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 04, 2015, 21:59:55
Since few people understand the relationships between the first two pictures and the second two, they will be left astonished at why there is a decline in all four of them together.....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 13, 2015, 12:50:32
Former Canadian diplomat (1967 to 2003), scholar and Liberal activist* Michael Bell (https://carleton.ca/npsia/people/michael-bell-2/) offers a Liberal triumphalist view of Canada's new foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
Canada’s new foreign policy: the end of ‘ideological fantasies’

MICHAEL BELL
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Nov. 13, 2015

Michael Bell teaches at Carleton University. He served as Canada’s ambassador to Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

We are at the beginning of a new era in Canadian diplomacy with the election of Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister. Our place in the international community is about to undergo a dramatic and positive change. The appointment of Stéphane Dion as the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a harbinger.

Although there will be many challenges, often insurmountable, and mistakes will inevitably be made, the new Prime Minister’s world view and his commitment to international norms could not be more different than that of his predecessor.

Stephen Harper, the world’s last neo-conservative leader, is no longer with us. His modus operandi in foreign affairs viewed the international community, most markedly characterized in his eyes by the United Nations, as a threat to his deeply held but exclusionist ideology. For him, the very concept of accommodation with others constituted moral relativism: a sellout.

The result: Canada was viewed abroad as an outlier, as a contrarian, as a force for disruption. Mr. Harper’s colleagues abroad found him most often difficult, if not impossible, to deal with. For the first time in our history, and to our great shame, Canada was voted down for a seat on the UN Security Council, so much had we lost the respect of others.

Life was miserable for Canadian diplomats at home and abroad, including those charged with UN affairs; we lost the chairmanship of UN committees traditionally ours for asking; we lost any role in its consultative processes. Mr. Harper and his long-time foreign minister, John Baird, snubbed the institution. Their political staffs: “The boys in short pants” were the enforcers.

With Mr. Trudeau’s election, those days are now past. For instance, after a single day in office, he called on Canadian ambassadors abroad to engage fully with the governments, civil society and media in their countries of accreditation.

In retrospect, it is astounding that the Canadian government’s aversion to evidence-based decision-making lasted as long as it did. It is astounding that diplomacy (most often a backstage craft) was confined to the dustbin. It was depressing that truth could never speak to power. It was intolerable that bureaucrats felt it necessary to ensure that analytical assessments were censored so that the ire of the man in power was not brought down on them.

With Mr. Harper’s electoral defeat, it now seems obvious that Canadians need engagement in a very complex world in which effective policies depend on a deep understanding of foreign cultures and reliable barometers of impending difficulties. We need more reliable eyes and ears out there, not fewer. My hunch is that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Dion will give us just that.

The quiet exceptionalism of Canada, a country almost all others in the past had respected and valued, has returned, harking back to the days even beyond those of the Prime Minister’s father, Pierre, to the internationalism that characterized the work and persona of Lester Pearson.

Canada will re-embrace its most natural calling of multilateralism. Whether over climate change, a policy that the Conservative government had gutted, or the work of the G20, where Mr. Harper defied consensus decision-making, or the United Nations, which he regularly castigated.

Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Dion seem determined to act. They should provide leadership and innovation and play the facilitating role that used to be this country’s hallmark; this would enhance, not sacrifice, the pursuit of our national interests. Canada’s culture of pragmatic and pluralistic politics will probably become the natural counter to rising extremism around a world, where positive exemplars are desperately needed.

Increasingly dangerous geopolitics in Ukraine, the Middle East and the South China Sea and the increasing need for multilateral co-operation on global health, economic and environmental issues mean that Canada’s role as a diplomat and facilitator is needed now more than ever. We are unlikely again to see the gratuitous insults directed by Mr. Harper toward Russian President Vladimir Putin. There are much more effective ways to make the point and change the setting.

On more specific issues – such as peacekeeping in Africa, taking in refugees, nuclear proliferation or the Israel-Palestine conflict – the change may not be rapid, but a recalibration will take place. More Syrian refugees will be accepted, a dialogue with Iran will be pursued and Canada once again, without sacrificing our friendship with Israel, will probably play a useful middle ground on Israel-Palestine. We will devote our efforts to constructive answers for suffering regions rather than ideological fantasies.

Some things will go wrong, but there are countries out there, such as Brazil and India or even those in the limping European Union, that will see much utility with an actor such as our new Prime Minster and his ministry; re-engaging, ready to play an active role, rather than sitting on the sidelines and barking while global affairs deteriorate.

A self-confident, socially adept and thoughtful Prime Minister with a feel for issues and a commitment to socially enlightened change. An intelligent, erudite Foreign Minister with a compelling, Cartesian intellect.

What a change.


In my opinion ~ worth exactly what you're paying for it ~ Mr Bell exemplifies a 'school of thought' that one former senior civil servant and university fellow characterised as having "a soft heart and a head to match."

His view of Prime Minister Harper's policy ~ "[he] viewed the international community, most markedly characterized in his eyes by the United Nations, as a threat to his deeply held but exclusionist ideology. For him, the very concept of accommodation with others constituted moral relativism: a sellout," ~ is, in fact pretty accurate, but how I wonder should one view an organization, like the UN, that allows a Saudi Arabian delegate to lead a key human rights panel (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/28/why-one-of-the-worlds-worst-human-rights-offenders-is-leading-a-un-human-rights-panel/)? Is it consistent with Canadian values? Or is it just plain crazy and proves only that we should we keep the UN at arm's length?

His view of Prime Minister Trudeau is that he is a "self-confident, socially adept and thoughtful Prime Minister with a feel for issues and a commitment to socially enlightened change." And that may be both fair and accurate, time will tell.

But his hope that "Canada will re-embrace its most natural calling of multilateralism. Whether over climate change, a policy that the Conservative government had gutted, or the work of the G20, where Mr. Harper defied consensus decision-making, or the United Nations, which he regularly castigated," is premature.

____
* Mr Bell was a member of Prime Minister Trudeau's campaign foreign affairs advisory team (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-enlists-ex-military-officers-ambassadors-to-advise-on-foreign-policy/article22107500/).


Edit: format
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 13, 2015, 13:17:35
Former Canadian diplomat (1967 to 2003), scholar and Liberal activist* Michael Bell (https://carleton.ca/npsia/people/michael-bell-2/) offers a Liberal triumphalist view of Canada's new foreign policy in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-new-foreign-policy-the-end-of-ideological-fantasies/article27248484/

In my opinion ~ worth exactly what you're paying for it ~ Mr Bell exemplifies a 'school of thought' that one former senior civil servant and university fellow characterised as having "a soft heart and a head to match."

His view of Prime Minister Harper's policy ~ "[he] viewed the international community, most markedly characterized in his eyes by the United Nations, as a threat to his deeply held but exclusionist ideology. For him, the very concept of accommodation with others constituted moral relativism: a sellout," ~ is, in fact pretty accurate, but how I wonder should one view an organization, like the UN, that allows a Saudi Arabian delegate to lead a key human rights panel (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/28/why-one-of-the-worlds-worst-human-rights-offenders-is-leading-a-un-human-rights-panel/)? Is it consistent with Canadian values? Or is it just plain crazy and proves only that we should we keep the UN at arm's length?

His view of Prime Minister Trudeau is that he is a "self-confident, socially adept and thoughtful Prime Minister with a feel for issues and a commitment to socially enlightened change." And that may be both fair and accurate, time will tell.

But his hope that "Canada will re-embrace its most natural calling of multilateralism. Whether over climate change, a policy that the Conservative government had gutted, or the work of the G20, where Mr. Harper defied consensus decision-making, or the United Nations, which he regularly castigated," is premature.

____
* Mr Bell was a member of ]url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-enlists-ex-military-officers-ambassadors-to-advise-on-foreign-policy/article22107500/]Prime Minister Trudeau's campaign foreign affairs advisory team[/url].

Sort of like Barack Hussein Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

The past few weeks have felt like I've been watching a Daytona 500 victory ceremony, you know, the part where Jeff Gordon gets covered in champagne.

There is so much self-flagellation going on it isn't even funny.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: GAP on November 13, 2015, 13:19:05
Lloyd Axworthy Ver. 2
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Jed on November 14, 2015, 00:00:33
Lloyd Axworthy Ver. 2


 :boke:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 14, 2015, 02:27:31
Bell's thoughts basically affirm my thought that it's back to "go along to get along".  Making the right, hard choices is beside the point.

>For the first time in our history, and to our great shame, Canada was voted down for a seat on the UN Security Council, so much had we lost the respect of others.

Apparently that really got up the nose of the palace courtier establishment.  I suppose they'll be admitted back into the circle of cool kids again, which is the really important thing.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Infanteer on November 14, 2015, 13:27:52
                  ... but less of this ...

                       (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.military.com%2Fmedia%2Fequipment%2Fcanadian-cf-18-600x400.jpg&hash=9c856b42b411dfdc939238a7f820adfe)  and this:  (https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/user-canada-afghan-500-9.jpg?quality=100&strip=info&w=500)

That was Mackenzie King's plan in 1938-39 as well.  Events in Paris, or something similar, may not give anyone the choice....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: FSTO on November 14, 2015, 14:36:19
Events my dear boy, events.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 14, 2015, 21:48:38
In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin, no friend to Prime Minister Stephen Harper or the Conservatives, suggests that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may need to abandon or, at least, modify some of the polices on which he campaigned and move closer to the Harper/Conservative foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/after-paris-attacks-trudeaus-soft-power-already-under-fire/article27264347/?click=sf_globefb
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
After Paris attacks, Trudeau’s soft power already under fire

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Nov. 14, 2015

The credibility of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy has taken a serious hit just as he embarks on his first foray to world capitals.

The Paris terror attacks are seen by many as testament to the need for hard power when dealing with the Islamic State – this while the new Canadian Prime Minister has been preaching, and was elected on, a soft power Liberal line.

Mr. Trudeau has pledged to withdraw Canada’s fighter jets from the U.S.-led mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. His plan instead is to increase humanitarian aid as well the number of Canadian soldiers training local forces like the Kurdish Peshmerga.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper frequently mocked this approach, saying at one campaign stop that “if your policy is humanitarian assistance without military support, all you’re doing is dropping aid on dead people.”

With 129 dead in Paris as a result of one of the worst terror outbreaks in decades, the pressure on Mr. Trudeau to change his position will now be enormous.

Canada’s contribution to the air strike campaign is a small one that does not put our military personnel in grave danger. It was hardly a big ask from the Conservatives to have the opposition parties come on board, but neither Liberals nor the NDP did so.

The Paris attacks also serve to put in question the Liberal government’s plan to quickly bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees. The Conservatives did not wish to go near that number in the short term, citing security concerns. Those concerns have just been dramatically heightened and if the Liberals push ahead with their plan, they are going to have a much harder time convincing the public that it is wise to move so quickly.

From the tone of comments posted on online news articles, public opinion is running strongly against the dovish Liberal plans. “Canada stands with the French people and is now in the process of gathering up all of our unicorns, rainbows and hugs to send to the French people,” said one poster. “Just don’t expect us to do anything, you know, like whip out our F18s or fight for our freedom.” Another wrote: “Good to know the Trudeau government and unmuzzled scientists and first ministers will be heading to Paris at the end of the month to talk about climate change, sunshine and butterflies.”

There were many calls for Mr. Harper, who may well be feeling a sense of vindication over what has happened, to return to the job.

An argument for Mr. Trudeau sticking to his pledges is that is that by a larger engagement against IS Canada becomes a higher priority target for its terror. The motive cited by one of the Paris terrorists was retaliation for the French government’s actions against Muslims. There is also the legacy of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Neither are favourably viewed by Canadians.

Mr. Trudeau’s position is particularly sensitive because he is a newcomer on the world stage. In the campaign there were questions about whether he had the foreign policy chops. He put some of those fears to rest with his performance at the Munk debate on foreign policy.

The Paris attacks took place on the very day the Trudeau government publicized its mandate letters for newly appointed cabinet members. For Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan there was little in the way of specifics, but the letter spelled out one top top priority – end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and Syria. Conservatives were quick to call for a debate and a vote in Parliament on the issue. That was hours before the Paris attacks.

A top adviser to Mr. Trudeau says his position on the airstrikes and the refugees will not change in view of the Paris bloodbath. But as the pressures ramp up, as they surely will, the new prime minister might indeed alter course. He won’t want to be seen as a flip-flopper. But when circumstances change, leaders of statesmanlike quality need to show a readiness to change with them. With the terror from Islamic State escalating, and with France promising to expand the war against the terror network, circumstances have indeed changed.

Yes, indeed, "events, dear boy, events."
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 14, 2015, 21:51:16
Yes, indeed, "events, dear boy, events."
And, as you've said elsewhere, a week can be a looooooong time ....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 06:55:07
There is some worry in the Liberal/Laurentian Elites anti-Harper camps about these events forcing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to back-peddle on his promises to make Canada, once again the peaceable, peace loving and peacekeeping country some dream it was, including, even, that staunch critic of Prime Minister Harper Terry Milewski who wrote this, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CBC News, for the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.radio-canada.ca%2F_files%2Fcbcrc%2Fimages%2Ffeature-boxes%2Fservices%2Flogo-cbc-news.png&hash=7d621adca8b7e70f617ec99c26a7ab7a)
Trudeau and ISIS: Is the bombing still a bad idea?
After Paris, prime minister ponders his pledge to end the air war on Islamic State

Terry Milewski · Politics

14 November 2015


On Thursday, eight days after Justin Trudeau took office, two CF-18 fighters with laser-guided bombs screamed above the desert city of Sinjar, in northern Iraq.

Below lay a crucial artery for the so-called Islamic State: Highway 47, the main east-west route between ISIS headquarters in Raqqah, Syria, and the ISIS-held city of Mosul, Iraq.

On the ground, Kurdish forces were mounting an assault on the ISIS garrison at Sinjar in a bid to cut its supply line. The Canadian pilots' task was to take out an obstacle to the Kurdish advance: an Islamic State unit dug in to the east of Sinjar at Tal Afar. A second target was an ISIS ammunition store close to Sinjar itself.

Both targets were hit. The counteroffensive worked. With the aid of the Canadian, as well as U.S., pilots, plus Canadian special forces trainers on the ground, the Kurdish forces drove ISIS out of Sinjar. It was hailed as a "liberation" by the remaining Yazidi community, who had been massacred and enslaved by the Islamic State.

But... what happened to Justin Trudeau's pledge to bring the CF-18s home and end their participation in the war on ISIS? And will that pledge survive the massacre in Paris?

1,700 sorties, and still flying

Canada's six warplanes, with an airborne Polaris tanker and two Aurora surveillance planes, arrived at a base in Kuwait just over a year ago, on Oct. 30, 2014. Since then, their contribution to the coalition has been modest but certainly not insignificant.

As of Wednesday — Remembrance Day — Canadian planes had flown 1,731 sorties, according to the Department of National Defence. Of those, 1,109 were combat missions by CF-18 fighters, although they take a cautious approach to releasing their bombs and return without dropping them about two-thirds of the time.

In addition, the C-150 Polaris tanker flew 302 sorties, pouring nearly 8,160 tonnes of jet fuel into coalition aircraft. The two Auroras conducted a further 320 reconnaissance missions, gathering intelligence on ISIS movements.

So they've been busy. Their mission was laid out by the Conservative government in a resolution authorizing it in October 2014. "Unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat ISIL poses to international peace and security, including to Canadian communities, will continue to grow," it said, using an alternate acronym for ISIS.

Since then, has the threat diminished? The bloodbath in Paris says no.

An easy solution?

Upon his departure from Canada for the G20 summit in Turkey, Justin Trudeau ducked the question of whether he would reconsider his plan to bring the CF-18s home.

"It's too soon to jump to any conclusions," he told reporters at the Ottawa airport.

Previously, though, he has struggled to explain just why he opposed the bombing mission. In an interview on CBC's Power and Politics on June 23, he said the Harper government had failed "miserably" to show why it was the right mission for Canada. Instead, he preferred to enhance humanitarian efforts and to beef up the training mission by Canadian special forces in Iraq.

Trudeau was asked, ​"If you don't want to bomb a group as ghastly as ISIS, when would you ever support real military action as opposed to just training?"

Trudeau dismissed the question.

"That's a nonsensical question and you know that very well," he said. "The Liberal Party has always — and I have always — been supportive of Canada standing up for its values and taking action when necessary."

Trudeau went on, "The question I have for this government, which has failed miserably to do this, is to demonstrate why the best mission for Canada is to participate in a bombing mission."

He also noted that Western military intervention often doesn't end well. "Whether it's Libya or whether it's Iraq, it doesn't necessarily contribute to the kind of outcomes that people would responsibly like to see, and what I've committed to stay away from is the kind of easy solutions in a very complex area that this [Conservative] government has specialized in."

Less than five months later, what now? Is the bombing still just an "easy solution"? Asked repeatedly when the CF-18s will come home, Trudeau has sidestepped the question, saying he will withdraw them sometime, but "responsibly" and in consultation with Canada's allies. He never says when.

Does that mean Trudeau will break his promise? Not necessarily.

Oddly enough, he could keep it by sticking with Stephen Harper's plan. As it stands, the deployment ordered by the Conservative government extends to the end of March 2016. Trudeau, then, could honour his pledge by simply saying they will come home after that.

And after Paris, who will complain that it's not soon enough?

Not packing yet

Canada's pilots, and 600 supporting troops based in Kuwait, sure don't sound like they're packing up. The mission "continues for the time being under the mandate previously directed by government," says a statement by National Defence spokesman Capt. Kirk Sullivan.

The Armed Forces, Sullivan goes on, "stand ready to implement government of Canada direction when it comes and will liaise with coalition partners to investigate options and transition our military operations in the region."

So we're not going to leave our allies in the lurch. We're integrated into a coalition and we're not going to bail out suddenly.

"We are part of an alliance," the statement concludes, "and we will want to ensure this is done in a co-ordinated manner."

Bugging out — or stepping up?

But it's hard to imagine that the alliance, under U.S. leadership, will scale back its assault on ISIS in the wake of the Paris massacre.

Already, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House intelligence committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, has told the New York Times that, "If this doesn't create in the world a fierce determination to rid ourselves of this scourge, I don't know what will."

Nor does it seem that ISIS is in retreat after the defeat at Sinjar. Rather, it's going global, bragging that worse is to come.

"This attack is the first of the storm," said an Islamic State statement hailing the Paris horror, "and a warning to those who wish to learn. Allahu Akbar!"

Trudeau, then, has an out. Withdrawing the planes now won't look good. But, for at least another four months, he can keep them flying — and still keep a promise that now seems like a liability.

And in March? A lot can change by then.

So the hope ~ and, yes, boys and girls, hope is a viable COA for political analysts ~ is that those "events" will only pressure the prime minister to see this "roto" of the mission through, for a few more months, and that other "events" will occur that will give him reasons to return to the days of yore, from ...

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthetruckingnetwork.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FCanadian.jpg&hash=e556499ca80bc3fbc07285d467d47106)   (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ceasefire.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2FPeacekeepingMonument.jpg&hash=5432369467e57f69a1f5ef8403bb3f28)
                                                          This                                                                                          to                                                            this
                    Which has been a staple of Canadian foreign policy                                               which is what Canadians imagine their foreign policy might have been
                          since Jean Chrétien was prime minister
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 07:44:58
But, Bill Curry, writing in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trudeau-makes-difficult-foreign-policy-debut-as-paris-attacks-loom-over-g20-summit/article27264034/), says, quite categorically that: "The deadly terror attacks in Paris will not lead Canada to change course on its two main policies in relation to Syria: welcoming 25,000 refugees this year and ending Canada’s bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria." He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 15, 2015, 07:53:51
He quotes a "senior official" from the PMO as saying that "the government stands by its refugee plan and its position on the role Canada should play in the Syrian conflict."
But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 08:04:39
But that's what PMO's will say until The Boss decides otherwise - wait & see ....


Yes, but as I said elsewhere (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120785.msg1400801.html#msg1400801):

     The promise was and remains politically important: it's about hope and change ... the reason so many people voted for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; but

     Keeping the promise could unleash a political disaster ~ a terrorist admitted under the programme sets off a bomb in Montreal, killing Canadians ~ which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government cannot hope to survive.

If I had to guess, at this very moment, I would suspect that he might (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 15, 2015, 08:14:10
If I had to guess, at this very moment, I would suspect that he might (can I be any less indefinite?) delay the refugee thing (maybe for quite a long time, hoping that the fickle public will forget the promise) and blame the security services but, still, pull the CF-18s out when this "roto" is finished.
And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised (http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/combat-mission-in-iraq/):
Quote
.... We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces ....
Meanwhile, David Akin has this (https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/665863529786949632) from on the road w/PMJT:
Quote
We’d love to ask him that but 2nd day in a row: Trudeau not talking to travelling press here.
New boss, same as the old boss(es), when it's convenient?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 08:18:39
And for maxiumum "we're not walking away effect," have plans firmly in place (and shared w/the public) about cranking up the training part of the mission against ISIS, also as promised (http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/combat-mission-in-iraq/):


Yes, it is politically possible to put "boots on the ground" in a low risk situation and still claim to be part of the allied coalition. My guess is that the Canadian media and public would like that solution: training and winter coats and food for refugees.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 10:34:25
So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT2084mWIAADCv4.jpg:large)

This G20 summit is "totally overshadowed by events in Paris, immediate security concerns and the fight against terrorism." (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/15/david-cameron-g20-summit-turkey-paris-attack)

But, Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff tweets:

     Katie Telford ‏@telfordk  42m42 minutes ago
     Proud to see @JustinTrudeau argue that climate change is a serious economic issue. #G20 #realchange cc @katepurchase
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:
I'm just soooooo proud that Justin Trudeau is my prime minister.  :cdnsalute: 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 15, 2015, 11:27:17
So, here he is at the G-20 meeting in Turkey:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT2084mWIAADCv4.jpg:large)

This G20 summit is "totally overshadowed by events in Paris, immediate security concerns and the fight against terrorism." (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/15/david-cameron-g20-summit-turkey-paris-attack)

But, Katie Telford, the prime minister's chief of staff tweets:

     Katie Telford ‏@telfordk  42m42 minutes ago
     Proud to see @JustinTrudeau argue that climate change is a serious economic issue. #G20 #realchange cc @katepurchase
.
.
.
.
:sarcasm:
I'm just soooooo proud that Justin Trudeau is my prime minister.  :cdnsalute:

I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: cavalryman on November 15, 2015, 11:56:06
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was experiencing the sweet joys of cognitive dissonance right now, i.e. the world isn't measuring up to his lofty ideals and expectations, and climate change isn't what's preoccupying folks.  I do hope the Canadian electorate are proud of their PM.  ::)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 12:01:18
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks. His speech on friday seemed to lack the normal performance value (he almost seemed shell shocked) and the response since then has been muted. Then this about him talking about global warming, which I can only imagine got a big "who cares". It almost seems as if he is desperate to stay on message and unable to adapt to a changing situation. Maybe it's not the case, but it certainly seems that the PM is having difficulty adapting.

Note- this is not to say that we should "whip out our cf-18s" irrationally, but some discussion on refugees (details on the plan, or reassurance that security checks, etc, will be taken) to reinforce why bringing refugees here is important in light of the attack on Paris would seem to be a prudent action to address real concerns. What is happening appears to be akin to the officer who has to stick to the time line and details vice understanding the intent and end state.


I think I might understand the politics of it ...

The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.

On the airplane some staffers, maybe the prime minister himself, said "What now? Do we need to reboot our policies? Should we keep bombing IS** in Syria? Should we really take 25,000 refugees?"

Gerald Butts (my guess) said something like: "Everyone sit down and take a deep breath. We don't know what's going on ... yet. Lee Hsien Loong* and David Cameron* don't really matter; they don't vote, but Lyin' Brian Mulroney was right, you know: in politics "ya dance with the fella what brung ya." In our case, the "fellas what brung us" to power don't want to hear about bombing ~ they don't like bombs nor do they like the people who drop bombs. They do like to hear about climate change and they want us to say and do things about climate change ... that matters, not Syria or Paris. We need to stay the course on getting out of the bombing business ... maybe we need to stay there for a bit longer, but sometime after Christmas we need to bring the CF-18s home. Refugees? I don't know. I've head the security briefs given to the prime minister; it may be prudent to slow the process a bit. Our base will not like it but we can blame the security services ... we're being forced to err on the side of caution, and all that. But, for now: we press on as we planned, as we promised ~ we do not commit to any new military adventures; we can offer some aid and lots and lots of words but we don't want to actually have to do anything ... yet. Remember after 9/11? Canadians demanded that we do something, and we, Liberals, did ~ we sent troops to Afghanistan and in just a few months Canadians were disillusioned with that mission. They wanted out. Our first step is to not commit to going in ... then our second step is get what we already have 'in' out again. Global warming is good; war is bad ... keep telling yourselves that because it is what will get us re-elected. Who knows? Maybe by Christmas El Niño will be causing havoc in all sorts of places and Canadians will think we were really prescient here."

_____

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F56488b762491f974028b5328-5184-3456%2Fap_278192844758.jpg&hash=f26fa827bc4c08b2ff92330eba0aa789)
* Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore is at the right end (other end from Prime Minister Trudeau) of the second row; UK Prime Minister David Cameron is 3rd from the left in the middle row.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 15, 2015, 12:05:59
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but the PM almost seems detached from the Paris attacks.
Let's not rule out a case of this ....
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbuguanjihia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2FFinger-to-the-Wind_Mbugua-Njihia.jpg&hash=f48a8db324168fa7eb9b36d44f456dcf)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Old Sweat on November 15, 2015, 12:52:36
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!

I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 15, 2015, 13:54:44

I think I might understand the politics of it ...

The Paris attacks came just as prime Minister Trudeau was about to leave for Turkey; the G20 speech was written. His immediate remarks were drafted, very, very quickly by his staff ~ they were OK, not bad, sympathetic but non-committal.

On the airplane some staffers, maybe the prime minister himself, said "What now? Do we need to reboot our policies? Should we keep bombing IS** in Syria? Should we really take 25,000 refugees?"

Gerald Butts (my guess) said something like: "Everyone sit down and take a deep breath. We don't know what's going on ... yet. Lee Hsien Loong* and David Cameron* don't really matter; they don't vote, but Lyin' Brian Mulroney was right, you know: in politics "ya dance with the fella what brung ya." In our case, the "fellas what brung us" to power don't want to hear about bombing ~ they don't like bombs nor do they like the people who drop bombs. They do like to hear about climate change and they want us to say and do things about climate change ... that matters, not Syria or Paris. We need to stay the course on getting out of the bombing business ... maybe we need to stay there for a bit longer, but sometime after Christmas we need to bring the CF-18s home. Refugees? I don't know. I've head the security briefs given to the prime minister; it may be prudent to slow the process a bit. Our base will not like it but we can blame the security services ... we're being forced to err on the side of caution, and all that. But, for now: we press on as we planned, as we promised ~ we do not commit to any new military adventures; we can offer some aid and lots and lots of words but we don't want to actually have to do anything ... yet. Remember after 9/11? Canadians demanded that we do something, and we, Liberals, did ~ we sent troops to Afghanistan and in just a few months Canadians were disillusioned with that mission. They wanted out. Our first step is to not commit to going in ... then our second step is get what we already have 'in' out again. Global warming is good; war is bad ... keep telling yourselves that because it is what will get us re-elected. Who knows? Maybe by Christmas El Niño will be causing havoc in all sorts of places and Canadians will think we were really prescient here."

...


It appears that I have guessed wrong. Bill Curry, reporting for the Globe and Mail from the G20 summit (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trudeau-stands-by-fast-track-refugee-plan-at-g20-summit/article27265196/) says:

     "Mr. Trudeau stood by the target at a leaders summit where the official agenda has been sidelined by the Paris attacks.

      “On the Syrian refugee crisis and the refugee crisis writ large, I’m pleased to say that Canada has tremendous examples of having integrated people fleeing for their lives from very difficult situations to become not only citizens but
      active contributors to Canada’s success,” Mr. Trudeau declared Sunday morning in response to an audience question following a speech to business leaders on the sidelines of the summit.

      “We will be accepting 25,000 Syrian refugees between now and January 1st and investing and ensuring that we will be empowering and integrating them into success and the paths for success that people around the world are hoping to see,” he said.

     Mr. Trudeau’s speech largely focused on his election campaign promises to boost economic growth through infrastructure spending, which he said fits with the international priorities of the G20."
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 15, 2015, 14:19:49
"An argument for Mr. Trudeau sticking to his pledges is that is that by a larger engagement against IS Canada becomes a higher priority target for its terror."

IOW, feed the crocodile, lest he eat us first.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 09:12:24
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will. After all he had had a pretty good (wild understatement) three or four months and then all at once, virtually as he was getting into the limo to go to the airport, three major terrorist attacks in Paris. Any one of them would have hijacked the news cycle and demanded a major part of his attention attention for the next several days, but three!!

I'm speculating here, but he and his inner circle just got a short, sharp seminar on major crisis management. One can only hope they do better next time, and also apply some sober second thought to their response.


Campbell Clark, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, suggests that the foreign policy path just got "darker" and "more tangled" for our "rookie PM" and his team:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/paris-violence-makes-path-darker-more-tangled-for-the-rookie-pm/article27267325/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
Paris violence makes path darker, more tangled for rookie PM

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 16, 2015

Justin Trudeau wasn’t sure Friday night if the Paris terror attacks would change his policies. “It’s too soon to jump to any conclusions,” he said. By Saturday, aides said the attacks won’t alter plans to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees or to withdraw from air strikes on Islamic State. On Sunday, at the G20 summit in Turkey, Mr. Trudeau avoided reporters, except for one shouted query.

It was, in mere hours after chilling events, an understandable reaction. It really was too soon to draw conclusions. On Monday, a new prime minister is still coming to grips with how much his world has changed in the hours since Paris.

Suddenly there’s a different test for this untested PM. Most leaders start out of their depth on foreign affairs – Stephen Harper was at first; so was Mr. Trudeau’s father, Pierre. It was almost unfair that Justin Trudeau had to begin, as a green PM, with a string of major global summits. Now, less than two weeks on the job, add a crisis that underlines a real security threat and sparks emotional reaction, that carries big risks abroad and at home, and offers many ways to go wrong.

Until now, every step his young Liberal government has taken, every signal, has been about a change in direction. Many Canadians were embracing those clear symbols. Now, rushed by harsh reality, Mr. Trudeau’s government must mix messages, too.

Think of how allies like France’s President Francois Hollande, who declared war on Islamic State, will speak to a Canadian PM who plans to withdraw from air strikes. That’s no minor matter when a close NATO ally feels under attack, and the world is moved to solidarity. Mr. Trudeau will this week meet U.S. President Barack Obama, leader of that coalition. His G20 host, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wants to establish a secure corridor in Syria. Mr. Trudeau seems to be traveling in the opposite direction.

Politically, Mr. Trudeau cannot easily turn back on high-profile positions he took in the election campaign he just won. A leader who calls an about-face in a crisis just weeks into office is sure to spread the view his positions were ill-conceived in the first place. No wonder Liberals say plans to withdraw from air strikes and resettle refugees will go ahead. But it will be more complex now.

Mr. Trudeau’s stance on air strikes was opposition positioning, a way to show voters that he was not as gung-ho about war as Mr. Harper. He never could explain it – he favoured sending troops to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces, but not six CF-18s to bomb.

His consolation now is there’s room for interpretation. He could wait months, even until the current mission mandate ends in March, before calling the jets home. He could withdraw with one hand while committing to fighting Islamic State with another, beefing up ground-force training and military support. That might placate allies – Mr. Harper launched a training mission in Afghanistan when he withdrew combat troops.

The plan to bring in 25,000 refugees by year’s end is a more potent symbol of change. The Liberals wanted to exhibit new compassion. They planned to make a virtue of the ambitious target despite suggestions it was logistically impossible. If they failed, they figured they’d get A for effort; if they succeeded, they’d show they had will that Mr. Harper’s government lacked.

But that will be questioned anew. Reports that one Paris attacker had registered as a refugee in Greece have raised new qualms about ISIS infiltrators. Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose quickly questioned the deadline: “Canadians are asking the question, ‘Can we do it this quickly in a secure way?’” she said Saturday.

The Liberals can note it would be cruel to punish Syrian refugees who fled Islamic State because of the Paris attacks. They can note that leaving kids who fled the Assad regime to grow up in camps won’t lessen extremism. On Sunday, Public Works Minister Ralph Goodale pointed out it’s easier to conduct security checks on families selected for resettlement than on migrants arriving on your shores, as in Greece. But he conceded nothing’s foolproof. Last week, the question was whether Mr. Trudeau’s team could meet its political deadline; now the question is whether it should.

Mr. Trudeau can’t just rely on the platform of change now. He had nine sunny days, and then a crisis changed the job.


I agree with Campbell Clark that it will be painfully difficult, practically impossible, to turn away from popular campaign promises so early in the mandate.

I also agree with many Conservative critics that those popular positions were ill-considered, even unconsidered: being designed, off the cuff, only to take progressive votes away from the NDP. But those opportunistic campaign promises worked, and now 40+% of Canadians expect Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to follow through. Let's be clear, most Canadians neither know nor care about bombing campaigns; even some members here, in a military forum, have expressed the view that our, Canadian, bombing was ineffective and will not be missed. Why should we have expected Candidate Trudeau and advisors Gerlad Butts and Katie Telford to have known differently. But, the fact is that he did promise, and a great many, arguably most Canadians want or expect him to keep his promises.

For the moment I am inclined to give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all the possible benefits of all my many doubts; he's a smart guy with smart advisors; he now has access to expert advice which was unavailable to him prior to 4 Nov 15; I hope he and his whole team will find politically acceptable ways to square the new circle which "events" have just redrawn.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: GAP on November 16, 2015, 09:34:25
Quote
I watched the PM's remarks Friday evening and was disturbed at what I saw. Hopefully I saw inexperience in the face of a rude awakening and not something worse like panic or paralysis of will.

Someone, anyone, needs to teach the silver pony proper diction and speachmaking.......

Standing up to the microphone like a breathless debutant, er ing and ah ing all through his speech makes him seem like a 13 year old asking for a date....it may be endearing to some of his supporters, but it does not come across as mature for a country's leader.....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 09:55:29
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey (http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/16/at-g20-trudeau-gets-a-warm-welcome-from-china) that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

     "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 16, 2015, 10:07:19
ERC, I tend to agree with Campbell Clark also, but personally, I think he missed one mark: Yes, most leaders are out of their depth in Foreign Affairs at first. But Trudeau senior never got out of this depth in my estimation.

And, I am very afraid Trudeau junior will be worse. He may have been a drama teacher, but he obviously can't act. When I saw him on TV from Ottawa just before flying out, I was dismayed: He looked  like he was smiling, happy to be in front on camera and his whole attitude seemed to be: Look I am going on this nice trip and this little Paris thing is not going to sour my mood.

Then I thought, OK, he got caught off guard - that happens -But no, he had that same look when we saw him in Ankara. Every other world leader look somber, even downcast, but here he was looking like a kid in a candy store, and being the only person there still peddling his "infrastructure for the world" economic development plan (which people who briefed him at Foreign Affairs before the trip must have told him did not interest the world, and that he should stick with what DFAIT developed for any PM in advance of this meeting).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 16, 2015, 10:11:14

Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

The first thing they'll insist on is probably for Canada to  stop bringing their human rights record up at every opportunity their was.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on November 16, 2015, 10:19:04
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey (http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/16/at-g20-trudeau-gets-a-warm-welcome-from-china) that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

     "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

China reaching out is a tremendous opportunity for Canada.  But the question of what they want is one we (the royal we) need to assess and understand before launching off.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 16, 2015, 10:36:01
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey (http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/16/at-g20-trudeau-gets-a-warm-welcome-from-china) that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

     "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

Quote
“Real change”? Why Power Corp, China (and maybe even Jean Chretien) are “back in the drivers seat” after Trudeau win.

http://www.ezralevant.com/real-change-why-power-corp-china-and-maybe-even-jean-chretien-are-back-in-the-drivers-seat-after-trudeau-win/

Justin Trudeau wasn’t kidding when he said communist China was his favourite country.

Trudeau’s transition team is being led by a top China lobbyist in Canada named Peter Harder. Besides being president of the Canada-China Business Council, Harder is on the board of directors of Power Corp.

That’s the massive company that was the power behind the throne of pretty much every Quebec politician for a generation.

Power Corp also has huge government contracts in communist China, including, for example, the contract for the Beijing to Tibet railway — a political project designed to swamp Tibet, by bringing in millions of ethnic Chinese settlers, to stamp out any lingering Tibet culture or politics.

Power Corp run by the billionaire Desmarais family. Andre Desmarais, the president of the company, married Jean Chretien’s daughter. Chretien went to work lobbying China literally within weeks of stepping down as prime minister.

So forget about civil liberties or democracy being part of the Canada-China discussion now that Trudeau is in 24 Sussex.

Now, many don't like Mr Levant and that's fine. However, possibly with the exception of the last sentence, he is stating nothing here that is not fact. I have always surmised that Power Corporation was always the real power behind recent Liberal governments(and possibly a Conservative one). Paul Desmarais helped prime minister Pierre Trudeau open up relations with China by becoming a founding chairman of the Canada China Business Council in 1978 and kept in close touch with succeeding prime ministers, no matter their political affiliation, including Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

Methinks the familial ties to the Trudeau clan have never been stronger.

But that's just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 16, 2015, 11:45:33
David Akin, of Sun Media, reports, from Turkey (http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/16/at-g20-trudeau-gets-a-warm-welcome-from-china) that "At G20, Trudeau gets a warm welcome from China."

He writes that:

     "China has welcomed Justin Trudeau into the international family of world leaders like a long-lost son.

      Trudeau and Xi Jinping, China’s president, met Monday morning on the margins of the G20 Summit being held here.

      Xi started off by saying China was grateful for what Pierre Trudeau did in 1970, when Canada became one of the first countries in the West to officially recognize the Communist government in mainland China.

      “That was an extraordinary political vision," Xi told Pierre’s son. "China will always remember that.”

      Xi’s extraordinarily warm greeting to Justin Trudeau, coming less than two weeks after he’d been sworn into the job, is in sharp contrast to Stephen Harper, who had to wait more than three years for a nice word from a Chinese president."



Trust me, this is a gift, one the Chinese perceive as being valuable, and China wants something in return.

How can PM Trudeau, with his stance on global warming, possibly get into bed with China, one of the worst (if not the worst) offender of CO2 emissions? Also, how does he square this relationship with China's human rights record when we are currently bringing in 25,000 refugees based on a humanitarian crisis?

Some will say that Harper engaged heavily in China, which is true. However, the Conservatives  heavily criticized the HR record of China and pulled out of Kyoto as it became apparent that without China, India, and the US signing on that Kyoto was pointless. I also wonder what a warming of relations means for previously blocked attempts by the Chinese to buy Canadian resources...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 11:51:14
ERC, I tend to agree with Campbell Clark also, but personally, I think he missed one mark: Yes, most leaders are out of their depth in Foreign Affairs at first. But Trudeau senior never got out of this depth in my estimation.

And, I am very afraid Trudeau junior will be worse. He may have been a drama teacher, but he obviously can't act. When I saw him on TV from Ottawa just before flying out, I was dismayed: He looked  like he was smiling, happy to be in front on camera and his whole attitude seemed to be: Look I am going on this nice trip and this little Paris thing is not going to sour my mood.

Then I thought, OK, he got caught off guard - that happens -But no, he had that same look when we saw him in Ankara. Every other world leader look somber, even downcast, but here he was looking like a kid in a candy store, and being the only person there still peddling his "infrastructure for the world" economic development plan (which people who briefed him at Foreign Affairs before the trip must have told him did not interest the world, and that he should stick with what DFAIT developed for any PM in advance of this meeting).

The first thing they'll insist on is probably for Canada to  stop bringing their human rights record up at every opportunity their was.


Agree, fully with both posts, OGBD.

I have, often, used Isaiah Berlin's famous fox vs. hedgehog (http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Fox_Hedgehog.html) analogy to suggest that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was true hedgehog: he decided, back in the mod to late 1940s, that nationalism was the cause of all the world's ills and he seemed to believe that Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Castroist communism was the leading edge of a "post-nationalist" world. I have also said, too many times to repeat, that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lacks gravitas, what the Brits call "bottom." I stick by that analysis.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 11:53:11
China reaching out is a tremendous opportunity for Canada.  But the question of what they want is one we (the royal we) need to assess and understand before launching off.


Agreed, again ... they will want something besides not being hectored about human rights.

Just because it's China doesn't mean, a priori, that what they want will be bad for us; but, equally, just because it's China doesn't mean it will be a good deal, either.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 11:57:09
How can PM Trudeau, with his stance on global warming, possibly get into bed with China, one of the worst (if not the worst) offender of CO2 emissions? Also, how does he square this relationship with China's human rights record when we are currently bringing in 25,000 refugees based on a humanitarian crisis?

Some will say that Harper engaged heavily in China, which is true. However, the Conservatives  heavily criticized the HR record of China and pulled out of Kyoto as it became apparent that without China, India, and the US signing on that Kyoto was pointless. I also wonder what a warming of relations means for previously blocked attempts by the Chinese to buy Canadian resources...


And I agree a third time ...

I also agree, in large part, with you recceguy; Power Corp and the Desmarais clan and a few others (think Onex as a CPC supporter) wield great, too great, behind the scenes influence in Canadian politics and policy.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 12:49:51
David Akin, Sun News, says, in an internet post from Turkey:

    "Just finished a press conference with the PM. He was pressed over and over and over to reconsider shutting down Canada's anti-ISIS combat mission. But over and over and over again he said, ain't gonna do it."
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 14:31:34
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-heralds-start-of-new-era-skirts-human-rights-in-meeting-with-chinese-president) Lee Berthiaume says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, "the government has committed to“step up” its training efforts in the fight against the Islamic State and will withdraw Canadian warplanes from Iraq and Syria before March.

     Speaking at the tail end of the annual G20 summit, where leaders from the world’s 20 richest countries had gathered for the past two days, Trudeau said Canadians “have expressed, certainly over the past months and within the election, that
     they wanted to see a ceasing of the bombing mission.”

     But he said they also want to see Canada continue to “engage robustly” in the fight against ISIL, which is why the government is planning to ramp up its efforts to train Kurdish and other local forces in the region to take on the extremist group.

     “We have made the commitment to step up our efforts training local troops, and that’s something that by all accounts is an important part of the military efforts against ISIL,” Trudeau said. “And I know Canada will continue to, and be seen
     to be continuing to, do its part in the fight against this terrorist scourge.”"


Many people, including Rosie DiManno in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/14/after-paris-now-is-not-the-time-to-cut-and-run-dimanno.html) think that "The world cannot stand shoulder to shoulder with Paris while standing down in Syria.

     That barefaced message must surely now have been brought home to nouveau Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose first act after winning office was to call off Canada’s military participation in the airstrike coalition against Islamic State
     in Syria and the swath of Iraq the group controls.

     A half-dozen aging CF-18s may be a paltry contribution to the U.S.-led operation but joining in the bombing sorties was still something of substance, of integrity. Not merely symbolic, either, though symbolism matters; being on the
     right side matters. That demands more than mouthed platitudes.

     That right side still includes opening doors to the miserable exodus of refugees fleeing civil war-ravaged Syria. It’s not their fault Islamic State has exported terror beyond the caliphate of its dreams to a precious and beloved European
     capital that had already once this year been targeted by agents of death."


The pressure to "stay the course" will grow stronger ... for a while. The pressure to keep campaign promises will also remain strong ... for a while. It will be interesting to see which prevails.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 14:34:56

Agreed, again ... they will want something besides not being hectored about human rights.

Just because it's China doesn't mean, a priori, that what they want will be bad for us; but, equally, just because it's China doesn't mean it will be a good deal, either.

I wonder how China feels about oil exports being restricted from Alberta due to a tanker ban in the North?

Quote
rime Minister Justin Trudeau has called for a moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic for B.C.'s North Coast.

Trudeau outlined the directive in a mandate letter to Canada's transport minister, Marc Garneau, on Friday. In it, he asked Garneau to formalize the agreement with three other ministries: fisheries, natural resources and environment.

It's unclear what impact a moratorium would have on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry bitumen from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. The project was approved in June 2014 with 209 conditions.

"This ban ends the dangerous Northern Gateway pipeline proposal," said Karen Mahon, from ForestEthics, an environmental group that advocates for the protection of B.C.'s coast. "Without tankers, crude oil has no place to go, that means no pipelines, no oil trains moving tarsands to the northern B.C. coast."

Enbridge said in a statement that despite the mandate for a moratorium on tanker traffic, it is confident the federal government will consult with 26 of 45 First Nations that have signed on with the project about what impact a tanker ban could have on them and also a perceived economic boost for Western Canada.


Enbridge describe the Northern Gateway project as having "one of the most exhaustive reviews of its kind in Canadian history."

"We have made significant process building support on the B.C. coast and along the pipeline corridor," said spokesman Ivan Giesbrecht.

"Along with the project's aboriginal equity partners, we are looking forward to an opportunity to sit down with the new prime minister and his cabinet to provide an update on the progress of our project and our partnerships with First Nations and Métis people in Alberta and B.C."

Still, Enbridge says the earliest the pipeline could be built is 2019, prompting some analysts to question whether the company is fully committed to the project given the obstacles it still faces.

The moratorium would require legislation and would no doubt prompt debate in the House of Commons.

The mandate letter from Trudeau comes a week after U.S. President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, saying it did not serve his country's national interests.

Both Trudeau and Obama will be part of the G20 meeting in Antalya, Turkey, this weekend and the United Nations climate change conference in Paris starting on Nov. 30

Also on Friday, Trudeau asked his minister of fisheries and oceans to re-open the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in Vancouver.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/crude-oil-tanker-traffic-moratorium-bc-north-coast-1.3318086


Tangential Comment:

One way around pipeline bans is long trains, short tracks.

Use pipelines to go where jurisdicition permits.  Use trains to jump the gaps - as in the US-Canada border.  AFAIK XL is cleared to the border in Canada and, internally, from the border in the US.  The issue is permission to build a pipeline across the border.   But know such restriction is in place on Warren Buffet's BNSF.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftarsandssolutions.org%2Fimages%2Fmade%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Farticle_images%2Foil_car_535_401.jpg&hash=10c106891ce75f4a429e83882428c118)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on November 16, 2015, 14:48:21
Many people, including Rosie DiManno in the Toronto Star.....
DiManno now thinks Canada should even have  a military, yet alone use it (for anything besides shoveling out her snowed-in Toronto bus stops)??!    :o


I certainly don't remember doing any hallucinogens today.
  :stars:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 16, 2015, 15:06:35
Michael Den Tandt, writing in the National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/michael-den-tandt-justin-trudeaus-reaction-to-the-paris-attacks-has-been-oddly-tone-deaf) suggests that, on this foreign policy issue, anyway, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is "oddly tone deaf." I disagree. I think it is, right now, just a matter of to whom he is listening.

He is not listening to the national media commentariat or the Conservatives, even the rational ones, he is, I think, listening to ...

               (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/luxtzu5j007hjcofvyi8.jpg)

                    ... and Prime Minister Chrétien is telling him that:

                         1. Military operations do not remain popular for long;

                         2. Campaign promises matter, you cannot keep them all but keep the ones you can; and

                         3. Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 15:10:53
....

                         3. Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm.

And it is easy to sleep safe and warm when you pull the blankets up over your head.....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 16, 2015, 15:24:32
And it is easy to sleep safe and warm when you pull the blankets up over your head.....


.......or you have a .38 Special Eskimo carving to threaten intruders with.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on November 16, 2015, 15:44:03
Ha only us old farts will know what you are talking about.  8)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 15:57:11

.......or you have a .38 Special Eskimo carving to threaten intruders with.

And a wife with the will to use it?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 16, 2015, 17:10:37
Quote
Canadians want to sleep, safe and warm, in their beds at night ~ principled foreign policy doesn't keep you warm

George Orwell:

Quote
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Less rough men, less sleep......
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 16, 2015, 19:07:06
George Orwell:

Less rough men, less sleep......

Problem:  If the rough men are effective the sleepers are ignorant of their activities and figure the rough men are an unnecessary expense and a social embarrassment.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Dimsum on November 16, 2015, 19:13:00
Problem:  If the rough men are effective the sleepers are ignorant of their activities and figure the rough men are an unnecessary expense and a social embarrassment.

    O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
    But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
    The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
    O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 17, 2015, 14:00:55
Africa is China's problem now. They want to develop it, they can take care of it.


Be careful what you wish for ...

Several of the world's leading economists and entrepreneurs are saying that Africa is the "next frontier" for global economic growth. Do we really want to leave it to China?

http://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/special-report/2014/10/13/afrasia-james-benoit-mauritius/
http://www.ibtimes.com/africa-poised-unprecedented-long-term-economic-growth-seven-drivers-could-transform-africa-worlds
http://www.g7g20.com/comment/emilie-dock-africa-an-engine-of-future-global-growth
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl283_e.htm
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/africa-future-global-automotive-sales-engine-growth-vaidyanathan
http://www.siasat.com/news/africa-india-can-become-engine-growth-world-says-jaitley-858422/

Now, you don't need to agree with any of those opinions~ and I, for example, would discount anything Pascal Lamay says (4th link), but can they all be wrong? The Indian finance minister (last link) doesn't think so ... he (India) wants in on the action.

Maybe some military/peacekeeping support to Africa is not a bad (economic) idea ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2015, 14:06:44
Maybe some military/peacekeeping support to Africa is not a bad (economic) idea ...
Wait for it ....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 17, 2015, 17:14:46
Even the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson cannot quite figure out why Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has decided to keep his campaign promise to withdraw from the air war against Daesh just now. His column is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-as-allies-gear-up-trudeau-ramps-down/article27287248/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
As allies gear up, Trudeau ramps down

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Jeffrey Simpson
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2015

If indeed the French are Canada’s “cousins,” as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described them, his government has a funny way of showing affection.

No sooner had Paris been maimed by terrorist attacks by the Islamic State than Mr. Trudeau reaffirmed that Canada would indeed be withdrawing from the direct military fight against Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq.

He did not say his government would reconsider in the light of the attacks. He did not say his government would consult with allies, including French “cousins.” He merely repeated what he had said in the election campaign: Canada is not withdrawing from the struggle against IS but from any direct military commitment. Canada, in other words, is “back” in a rhetorical sense, but not in a real one.

Distracted by more pressing matters, the government of our “cousins” said nothing, but the French (and other allies) cannot be amused by Mr. Trudeau’s decision. They are considering how to ramp up military efforts against the Islamic State; Canada is ramping down.

On Monday, at a meeting with reporters in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Trudeau was unable to explain coherently why Canada’s six C-18 fighter jets should be withdrawn from the fray. Instead, he underlined the utility of Canadian trainers working with Kurdish forces, as if that were the end of it.

To understate matters greatly, the battle against the Islamic State and other manifestations of jihadi terror will take a very long time, bring nasty developments of all kinds, and cannot be concluded by military means alone.

But it is difficult to imagine any scenario in which some military means will not be required, since IS has implanted itself in swaths of Syria and Iraq to which foreign fighters go for further indoctrination and training, resources are secured by selling antiquities, bootlegging oil, extortion and other criminal activities, and where a fierce ideology prevails that includes sex slavery of young girls, rampant executions and the most draconian imposition of sharia law ever seen in modern times.

Humanitarian assistance will, of course, continue to be necessary for the victims and dispossessed, but such assistance deals with the symptoms, not the cause, of IS-inspired turmoil. Training Kurdish fighters, as Canada has been doing, is of marginal use given the severity of the challenge involved in containing and curtailing the Islamic State. Canada, a bit player, has been doing a bit. Now it will do less, unless the Trudeau government recognizes the election campaign is over.

Figuring out how to combat IS must start with a threat assessment: How dangerous is the Islamic State? When the United States invaded Iraq, with all the doleful consequences that followed for that country and the region, the Bush administration completely exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein. He was reprehensible in many ways and had invaded Kuwait, but he also hated al-Qaeda and Iran and posed no threat to the United States, apart from being an irritant.

IS, however, is qualitatively different, in that the territory it occupies has attracted, and continues to attract, fighters from many countries – some as far away as Australia – where they are trained and further imbued with the hateful interpretation of Islam gone crazy. The Islamic State has also contributed to destabilizing, indeed one might say destroying, two states: Syria and Iraq, although other groups have helped in that destruction.

Just imagine a Middle East in which an IS proto-state became a fixture in the region, with an apocalyptic ideology of massive battles against apostates such as Shias, moderate Sunnis, Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in which the most barbaric of practices are used and justified in the name of Allah.

Now that IS-inspired people have brought down a Russian jetliner over Egypt, exploded a bomb against Shias in Beruit, and created carnage in Paris, the full horror of the Islamic State’s ambition and the barbarity of its ways have been brought home once again to all but the blind and ignorant. Perhaps, now, more countries previously believing themselves removed from the reach of the Islamic State will consider with others what to do, including militarily.

Nothing will make progress against IS easily or quickly. Between 20 and 30 groups, depending on the definition, in other countries now identify with IS. The cancer of Islamic jihadi movements has metastasized, a process that began about a quarter of a century ago. The sickness has more to do with internal convulsions within Islam – Shia/Sunni rivalries, struggles for influence (Saudi Arabia/Iran), fights within Sunni Islam – than hatred against the West, although there is plenty of that.

What compounds everything is the failure of too many Arab Muslim states to provide decent, representative government, protection of human rights and a reasonable standard of living for their people – failures chronicled in studies by Arab experts for the United Nations. With so much poverty, and so few prospects for improvement, no wonder handfuls of young Muslims are inspired by the perverse dreams of becoming a somebody by killing others and joining movements that purport to restore respect for and fear of Muslims.

Unless something changes within Islam, these sentiments are likely to grow if nothing else for reasons of sheer numbers. The Pew Research Center suggests that Muslims’ share of the world’s population, which stands at about 1.6 billion (or 23 per cent) today, will reach 2.8 billion by 2050. During the next four decades, the world’s population will grow by about 35 per cent; the Muslim population by 73 per cent.

The vast majority will be peaceful inhabitants of our world, but some, if the past quarter-century offers any guide, will not, so that the struggle against jihadi terror will be with us for a long time.


When a senior member of the Laurentian Elites says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was "unable to explain coherently why Canada’s six C-18 fighter jets should be withdrawn from the fray," then you know that the Liberal base is unsure of what's happening.

I continue to believe that one man's advice is paramount:

               (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fthestar%2Fnews%2F2007%2F04%2F15%2Fgay_rulings_stunned_chrtien%2Fjeanchretien.jpeg&hash=fce6a79bb2dbaf784b956bdbac52620a)

                    ... and Prime Minister Chrétien is telling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that Canadians will forgive him for not bombing people sooner than they will forgive him for breaking a popular campaign promise.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 17, 2015, 18:58:51
Written by Las of PolitiBrew.com His column is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://politibrew.com/politics/3503-le-dauphin-justin-trudeau-exclusive-article-by-las-canada


Part 1
Quote
Le Dauphin...Justin Trudeau: Exclusive Article by Las (Canada)
Written by Las
82 Comments
11-7-15 9:07 AM EST: Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the young Dauphin Justin Trudeau

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitibrew.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2Ftrudeau1.jpg&hash=dc95f7bee8b1e301b978a76d09c852cb)

Well, it's official. Yesterday Justin Trudeau was sworn in as Canada's 23rd Prime Minister. Trudeau's father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was Canada's 15th Prime Minister when he was sworn in back in April 1968. The swearing in ceremony was conducted at Rideau Hall, the residence of the Queen's representative, the Governor General. Outside were hordes of screaming and enthusiastic Obamaesque devotees crowded under a jumbotron for the occasion. Contrast this to the sober and understated swearing in for Stephen Harper when he first became Prime Minister in 2006.

Having just recovered after two weeks from the brutal molestation and rape of everything reasonable and fair in Canadian politics, I ran across a quote from Bill Whittle that jumped out at me. When I first heard it I initially thought he was talking about Justin Trudeau. Whittle said this:

"he is the ascended wet dream image of every progressive reporter and editor and publisher and any of these other idol worshiping adolescent girls that make up what was once the proud profession of newspaper men and he's walking kryptonite to spineless gutless ... cowards ..." (quote from Bill Whittle)

https://youtu.be/mvEhSkRG9f8

Whittle was talking about Barack Obama of course. But he could easily have been talking about Canada's new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Le Dauphin.
Rather than getting into the weeds about what Trudeau thinks, or the lack thereof, it may be instructive to take a look at the nature and characteristics of some of the forces and influences that have propelled Trudeau to the top. For our purposes we'll look at three of the main ones. The primary influencing factor is Justin's father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The second vehicle propelling him to power is the old Liberal Party infrastructure, namely the Liberal Parties of Canada and of Ontario. The liberalism emanating from these parties is an indication of the kinds of corruption and extreme liberal notions that we can expect from Trudeau.  Liberal Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is a provincial Premier who actively campaigned on Trudeau's behalf and against Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It was an unprecedented action. But Liberals simply don't care anymore. They don't care about ethics or morality; they don't care about precedent or propriety. The third vehicle propelling Trudeau to power is probably the most important: the establishment media.

Justin Trudeau is the first son of Canada's former Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. While Trudeau senior was a man of intellectual weight and presence, contrary to popular Liberal mythology, he was one of Canada's worst Prime Ministers. As in every personality cult, Pierre Trudeau is perceived by Canada's Liberals as a demigod. But his record is a disaster from which Canada has yet to recover. Trudeau senior was even perceived as a buffoon by some International leaders. There is a famous photograph of Trudeau mocking Queen Elizabeth behind her back with a clownish pirouette.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitibrew.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2Ftrudeau2.jpg&hash=66f4d16339aceabbeeb39b99326f2c13)

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau piled up massive federal debt (it grew tenfold during his tenure) which fell on the back of Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. Mulroney was forced to deal with Trudeau's debt through a goods and services tax which still haunts Canadians whenever they make a purchase with their hard earned dollars. Trudeau senior, like all Liberals of his bent, held a clichéd 1960's contempt for America. Richard Nixon is famously said to have called Trudeau "an *******" and a "son of a *****". Yet, at a state dinner in Ottawa in 1972, when Trudeau junior was just a few months old, Nixon toasted the baby's arrival and joked that he would one day become Prime Minister. This is the now famous "Nixon Prophecy".

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitibrew.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2Ftrudeau3.jpg&hash=f6151c5fae5a3ca9c7c5854836d9ba39)

Trudeau senior was responsible for dragging Canada into a constitutional crisis to cement his legacy at repatriating Canada's Constitution from Westminster. His obsession with Quebec not only alienated the country, his obsession with Quebec and the French language sought to strip Canada of every vestige to its British heritage and roots. Quebec would remain French, but the rest of Canada would be transformed into a multicultural mosaic. Trudeau's multiculturalism was enshrined in Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada's Charter, attached to the newly repatriated Constitution, is packed with a number of liberal projects including greater recognition of the French language, aboriginal rights and multiculturalism. And the Trudeau constitution has lead to an egregious and litigious human rights industry by judicial elites through judicial activism and powerful appointed judges. This is the Constitution so admired by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2012 interview for Egyptian Television where she denigrated her own US Constitution and envisioned the Canadian Constitution as a model for emulation. Pierre Trudeau sought to cement his legacy with a made-in-Canada Constitution.  The constitutional wrangling had the added benefit of political diversion while Canada was undergoing a Trudeau inspired stagflation.

Trudeau senior fancied himself an independent thinker and he certainly was. His brash self assurance rejected all ideas that did not comport with his own. Ready made or second hand ideas took a back seat to his intellectual novelties. In that sense, Trudeau was a consummate "progressive". Progressives flatter themselves on finding new ideas, reinventing things that don't need replacing, imagining unworkable solutions for non-existent problems. That was Trudeau. Canada would be shaped according to his imaginings. Trudeau put into practice "fundamental transformation". And Canada was crippled as a result. In a certain respect, Trudeau channeled his inner Donald Trump. While paying lip service to sitting MPs Trudeau quipped, "When they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they're just nobodies." When Trudeau left office for the last time in 1984 he quipped to the media, "I regret I won't have you to kick around any more."

It is often said that Trudeau Senior never met a dictator he didn't like. He was a great friend to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Castro of course attended Trudeau's funeral in 2000 and was much loved by Justin as well. In 1977, Prime Minister Trudeau said "that in certain countries and at certain times a one-party state would be preferable  ”I wouldn't be prepared to think I would be successful in arguing that for Canada at the present time, but such times might come, who knows?"

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitibrew.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2Ftrudeau4.jpg&hash=1b0b0dd04ab83267d77777382c5e6430)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/pierre-trudeaus-disastrous-record-is-finally-laid-out-for-all-to-see

Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. At a Liberal "women's only" fundraiser Justin Trudeau was asked what country he admired. China's basic dictatorship was his answer. Uncharacteristically, CTV made a very rare and critical news item from Trudeau's China comments:

https://youtu.be/l8wQrM5jTWc

Trudeau Senior certainly taught the younger Trudeau that Quebecers were de facto an expression of a superior culture in Canada and that the hayseed Albertans should never get power. It was the Quebec vote that entrenched Trudeau senior into power in Canada. He lost every fight outside of Quebec in the four federal elections he fought. Yet with the support of Quebec, he held onto power. It is the same Quebec vote that helped Trudeau Junior to such an overwhelming majority victory two weeks ago.

In an aside, it must be noted that part of the message of Justin Trudeau during the election was the "unfairness" of Canada's first past the post electoral system. Such a system, he and liberals in the media argued, elected Stephen Harper to a majority of seats with a minority of 39.6 percent of the popular vote. The only problem with this Liberal complaint is that Trudeau won his majority with a fractionally less popular vote of 39.47 percent. How did the media characterize the Trudeau win? "Trudeau Landslide!”  Landslide?   The media never called Harper’s 2011 election win a “landslide”. 

During the election, "strategic voting" front groups suddenly sprang up all across Canada. They were an integral part of Harper's defeat in this election. These front groups interfered with Canada's election and were funded with outside American money from the Tides Foundation, Avaaz of New York, and the Rockerfeller Brothers Foundation. These groups pushing the proportional representation meme during the election have suddenly disappeared after their man got in. It's funny how that works!

The second influencing power around Justin Trudeau consists of the raw political power of Ontario's ruling Liberals. I focus mainly on the Ontario Liberals because they are an already existing Liberal government ruling in Canada for the last ten years. And Ontario's Liberals have kept the home fires burning while the federal Liberal party was in the wilderness the last nine years. There is a photo taken during the 2013 Gay Pride even in Toronto that places Trudeau squarely in the middle of the Liberal Party progressive legacy. It epitomizes everything Canadians can expect from a Justin Trudeau Prime Ministership. In the photo on the left is the former Deputy Education Minister for Ontario Ben Levin. To Levin's left is the then Liberal Member of Canada's Parliament, Justin Trudeau. To Trudeau's left is Kathleen Wynne, the freshly minted Liberal Party Premier of Ontario (akin to a US State Governor). To Wynne's left is the former New Democratic Party Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae. Rae switched parties to sit as interim Liberal leader in Federal Parliament.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitibrew.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2Ftrudeau5.gif&hash=244b47d1fa1ff9bd773122fd7f45e882)

Premier Bob Rae's tenure running Ontario twenty years ago was a disaster. His legacy saw the tripling of Ontario's debt which saddled Ontario with higher taxes and with the highest marginal tax rates in North America. Ontario saw higher unemployment, and the downgrading of Ontario's credit rating twice. Kathleen Wynne, the present Liberal Premier for Ontario, is slated to bring disaster on Ontario in much the same manner as Rae. She already has one credit downgrade under her belt in July of this year by Standard and Poor’s.  Successive Ontario Liberal governments have not heeded the calls for spending control, Kathleen Wynne is continuing the Liberal legacy of her predecessor which has doubled Ontario's debt from the time when the Conservative's prudently ran finances for the Province.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 17, 2015, 18:59:55
Part 2

Quote
Numerous scandals surround Ontario's Liberal government to the tune of over a billion dollars. In classic Hillary Clinton fashion Wynne also is alleged to have scrubbed government computers of incriminating emails regarding the billion dollar gas plant scandal when she worked for former Premier McGuinty. Ontario's Liberals are also alleged to have paid millions of dollars to teachers unions to support Liberals against the Ontario Progressive-Conservative leadership of Tim Hudak. Liberal corruption also extends to bribing unfavoured Liberal candidates in favour of preferred candidates for the Liberal Party of Ontario. There is also the cozy relationship between the Ontario Liberals and the Ontario Provincial Police who have campaigned for Wynne against the Ontario Progressive-Conservatives. The corruption of the Ontario Provincial Police force has brought Ontario to a new low in politics. Of course all of this is not really covered by the mainstream media who act as Liberal Party Central when it comes to Liberal politicians.

Next, in this photo is Ben Levin. (Mug shot)    

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstorage.torontosun.com%2Fv1%2Fdynamic_resize%2Fsws_path%2Fsuns-prod-images%2F1297440522344_ORIGINAL.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bsize%3D420x&hash=81e148b25013519e1b5d70f56de925de)

Ben Levin, was Wynne's Deputy Education Minister when Wynne herself was the Education Minister under the Dalton McGuinty Premiership in Ontario. As part of McGuinty's government, Kathleen Wynne introduced a radical sexual education curriculum; the brainchild of Levin. The controversial curriculum insinuates age inappropriate sexual concepts and activities onto public school children. The sex ed curriculum also relegates the sexual act to simply an activity for pleasure unattached to love or marriage or responsibility. Although Wynne's boss, former Premier McGuinty scrapped Wynne's curriculum as a radical sexual agenda, Wynne reintroduced it when she became Premier. When Wynne reintroduced the curriculum under her Premiership, she implied that parents opposed to her program were homophobic. Wynne carries the great distinction of being Ontario's first Lesbian Premier.


But it gets worse. Ben Levin, the very man who designed the radical sex ed curriculum, now sits in jail for possession and making of child porn and for counseling to commit sexual assault. It goes without saying that with today's media, had Levin been Deputy Minister for a Conservative provincial government, there would have been no end of the controversy. Wynne, of course, faced no scrutiny from her palace guard media.

It is therefore fitting that this photo shows Trudeau enjoying the company of the most immoral, the most corrupt, and the most "progressive" that Canada has to offer. In leadership terms these people are winners for Canadian liberalism, but disasters for Canadians. Justin Trudeau sits in that esteemed company. And on top of that, he enjoys the same Canadian cult of personality enjoyed by his father Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Back in the 1960's it was called "Trudeaumania".

The third influencer in Trudeau's political world is the Media, although it can best be said that the Media doesn't actually influence Trudeau. The media carries this full blown cult of personality for him and influences the Canadian public on behalf of Trudeau. Evidence of this can be seen during almost any given news cycle. And yesterday's swearing in ceremony for the newly minted Prime Minister was no different.

CTV, Canada's second place broadcaster, displayed the full plumage of their modern day Trudeaumania even more than the state broadcaster CBC did. For the occasion CTV enrolled Craig Oliver, their star political commentator, to officiate for their audience. The decrepit Oliver was an old canoeing buddy of Justin Trudeau's father, back in the 1970's. He was enthusiastic in his effusion for the son of his old friend.

Oliver and his CTV co-host Lisa LaFlamme also couldn't help themselves in making disparaging comments about the previous Conservative government or about Steven Harper and his "secretive" and "partisan" cabinet. Oh... and according to this star broadcast pair, Harper's cabinet was just so unlike Trudeau's shiny new and conciliatory "reaching across the aisle" cabinet members. "Reaching across the aisle" eh! Canada's conservative American cousins are familiar with that term.
 
At one point, Oliver claimed that under Harper, Canada was so far behind on the environment and climate change docket that the new Trudeau government will be applauded globally. I'm sure it will! And Oliver even gave a plug for the new Trudeau government's promise to increase funding for the uber-progressive state broadcaster CBC. It's telling that Craig Oliver came to the defense of the CBC, despite the fact that he works for their competition. This proves that with liberals, ideology trumps any other loyalty. It's kinda like the notion that you're not really black unless you vote Democrat.

Joined at the hip to this pro-Trudeau cheer leading message was a strong anti-Harper narrative that borders on religious zealotry. It equals anything seen with Bush Derangement Syndrome in the US. And on the day of Trudeau's swearing in, like a dog on a bone, Oliver wasn't going to let it go. The run of the mill media message of Harper being a fascist and hating Muslims, and being divisive and being mean, included a massive coordinated campaign that painted Harper as silencing government scientists. The media were willing water boys for this narrative as well. And Oliver included it in his coverage. Hyper partisan and left wing government unions with their membership of progressive civil servants, trumpeted their disdain for Conservative policy.  Conservative policy was the catalyst for their hatred. Canada's civil service is packed to the rafters with appointees of past Liberal governments. This unofficial political elite, within the Federal Public Service, is a huge echo chamber of dissatisfaction, complaints, and grievances. And one thing they do know: they absolutely hate the Conservatives.

For example, many in the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada display what can be called the Paul Heinbecker mentality. Heinbecker was a former Canadian Ambassador to Germany and an appointee by Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney as a permanent Canadian representative to the UN. Heinbecker is critical of Canada losing a seat on the UN Security Council because of Canadian foreign policy which supports Israel against the hate of the UN anti-Israel mob. But Heinbecker is no Conservative, and he never misses an opportunity to bash Harper. Elsewhere in the civil service, "climate change" alarmism and extremism have morphed into a powerful and partisan driven campaign to out Harper as "anti-science" for "muzzling government scientists". During the election this led to the unseemly and ludicrous YouTube phenomenon of anti-Harper jingoism with flashmob like performances by Ottawa's partisan civil servants to sway opinion against Harper during the election.

As one Financial Post journalist explained, it’s more than Harper Derangement Syndrome, it’s Harper Derangement Frenzy (HDF), which is an upgrade to hurricane status from Harper Derangement Syndrome. It was identified several years ago by Lorne Gunter as “an ideological hatred of Prime Minister Stephen Harper that is so acute its sufferers’ ability to reason logically is impaired... media are emerging as the Harper government’s biggest political opponent, bigger than the New Democratic or Liberal parties.”

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canada-regains-title-of-most-reputable-nation-despite-harper-derangement-frenzy

Now back to Oliver at CTV. During the swearing in ceremony, some of his first words of commentary mused on what Trudeau's late father would be thinking about his son. Fair enough. Trudeau and Oliver were old friends. Wouldn't any dad be proud of his son becoming the leader of the country? But Oliver continued in Chris Matthews fashion. "This election has given the country a lift that is hard to imagine." Chris Matthews is the former Clinton operative, now MSNBC talking head, who famously quipped that he felt a thrill go up his leg when Obama was elected. So Harper was a drag on the country was he Craig? And Trudeau is the lift?
 
Co-host Lisa LaFlamme mused about Justin Trudeau's young daughter becoming Prime Minister some day. And she hoped that it doesn't take that long. In other media, The Huffington Post's Canadian headline was, "Justin Trudeau Kids: They Stole The Show At Their Dad's Swearing In." Such gushing enthusiasm strains all credibility. The establishment media isn't even embarrassed how partisan they've become. They aren’t even conscious of it anymore. 

Justin Trudeau was to the manor born. His formative years were spent at 24 Sussex Drive, the residence of the Prime Minister in Ottawa. But Trudeau Junior will have to wait a couple of years perhaps to revisit his old bedroom. 24 Sussex Drive will get a 10 million dollar face lift. Look! I'm not one of those griping that Trudeau wants a reno on his old digs. It's an official federal building after all. Imagine if 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue didn't get a much needed gut and rebuild during the Truman years! There are more important issues to express concern regarding Trudeau.

And Trudeau comes with lots of issues. Issues like radical liberalism in Canada. How is radical cultural liberalism expressed in the Liberal Party of Canada. What is the media's role in pushing radical cultural liberalism and pressuring the Liberal Party to influence policy? How will this affect Trudeau and to what extent will he be a witting or unwitting tool for radical social liberals? How much will Trudeau be drawn into the traditional corruption that under girds the Liberal Party of Canada? Trudeau has shown that he is not above taking money from Charities and even school boards for "speaking fees" when he was a sitting member of Parliament. Most MPs speak for free and no MP takes from charities or school boards. People usually give to charities. If Trudeau's ethics are already on shaky ground, what does the future hold?

As it stands, Justin Trudeau is already a walking cliché for extreme social liberalism in Canada. In the areas of assisted suicide, abortion, gay agenda issues, and marijuana he is already on record, He has banned pro-life Liberals in his caucus; they are not welcome in his party. He covers and deflects for Islamism in Canada. He visits extremist mosques and has attended a no-media-allowed Muslim conference. He will undoubtedly weaken Canada's immigration and refugee rules. He wants to import 25,000 Syrian "refugees" by Christmas. How much will Trudeau be influenced by the radical Islamist, Saudi born Omar Alghabra. Alghabra is Trudeau's main adviser on Muslim issues in his caucus.

Then there are the enormous costs for green energy schemes and projects planned by his chief adviser, Gerald Butts, a left wing radical environmentalist. Butts was instrumental in designing the Green Energy Act in Ontario that has made Ontario power the most expensive in North America. With a 17 billion dollar cash outlay for useless wind turbines in the province and seven thousand more expensive and useless turbines planned for the future, electricity rates will "necessarily skyrocket" using the words of Barack Obama. None of these turbines were even made in Ontario. How much will Trudeau coordinate and collaborate with an already corrupt Ontario Liberal government. What about the corruption of the Federal Liberal Party and its connections to Quebec influence peddling, corruption and crime. In contrast, the Conservatives - those evil evil evil mean nasty not nice Conservatives - are teetotalers compared to Liberals.

These are just a few of the influences surrounding Justin Trudeau. It's bad enough that Liberal corruption is back in town. Add to the mix influential Muslims who have Trudeau's ear; add to the mix the influence of naive politically correct white guilt laden Liberals itching to tackle refugee policy; add to the mix Trudeau's promise to go into deficit spending; add to the mix extremist social liberal policies and environmental schemes. Add them all up and pin them to the dash board. Now strap in! It is going to be a wild ride indeed.

Pretty well sums it up.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSibG20Tius-CdFa3rSwA0y2zWAzZzqlOJRUqmKfc4gQZIf6yd-g)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 17, 2015, 19:39:48
The thing is, the jets aren't being withdrawn - now.  In fact, they've stepped up their bombing.  This is Trudeau's way of satisfying his promise and our allies.  He'll probably keep the jets there until very close to the end of March.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 17, 2015, 19:47:11
Looked at that article.  Speaking of "National Debt", wtf are we getting all this money:

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/15/prime-minister-announces-infrastructure-funding-indonesia
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: PuckChaser on November 17, 2015, 22:19:54
Could buy a lot of stuff in Canada for $14.5 million.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on November 17, 2015, 22:34:14
Could buy a lot of stuff in Canada for $14.5 million.

Or, in another view, it'a about 0.7% of our annual trade with Indonesia.  Building goodwill with customers is generally a good idea.  And some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: PuckChaser on November 17, 2015, 22:40:45
Or, in another view, it'a about 0.7% of our annual trade with Indonesia.  Building goodwill with customers is generally a good idea.  And some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".

Bailing them out of their last Typhoon with the DART probably bought a lot more "goodwill" than a token amount of cash.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2015, 22:42:51
Looked at that article.  Speaking of "National Debt", wtf are we getting all this money:

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/15/prime-minister-announces-infrastructure-funding-indonesia
Likely the same place as this ....
http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cidaweb/cpo.nsf/vWebProjByPartnerEn/830A291C0D2DA5EA85257E140035ADB8
.... and all these other projects (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cidaweb/cpo.nsf/vWebProjByPartnerEn?OpenView&RestrictToCategory=World%20Bank&altcat=Banque%20mondiale).
.... more than just some of the funding will make its way back to Canada as Indonesia hires Canadian advisors and purchases Canadian equipment - these sorts of things are never "no strings attached".
FTFY - 't'was ever thus, Team Red or Team Blue @ the wheel ....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 18, 2015, 06:50:44
Seems like Hollande is serious about building a coalition to fight isil. Talking to  Russia Iran and the usa.

Disappointed he doesn't look like he's going to invoke article 5 of NATO but some action from Paris Moscow and Tehran is better than no action from Washington.

Wonder if he's looking at using ground troops. God I hope so.


I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my guesstimate of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.

Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
.
.
.
.
.
                    (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fthestar%2Fnews%2Fgta%2F2015%2F02%2F15%2Ftrudeau-and-chretien-mark-50th-anniversary-of-the-national-flag-of-canada%2Fchretien.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg&hash=8fad6d924c820754411b558f311f8298)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on November 18, 2015, 15:26:09
I saw that picture and the first thought I had was this

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fludumtheoria.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Fpalaptine.jpg&hash=bd5a137b82d4ea0e61a43ae670f31808)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 19, 2015, 00:57:42

I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my guesstimate of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.

Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
.
.
.
.
.
                    (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fthestar%2Fnews%2Fgta%2F2015%2F02%2F15%2Ftrudeau-and-chretien-mark-50th-anniversary-of-the-national-flag-of-canada%2Fchretien.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg&hash=8fad6d924c820754411b558f311f8298)


Looks like Le Petite Thug is taking him for ice cream to reward him after another good performance.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 19, 2015, 11:19:54
According to a story in the National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/obama-speaks-for-canada-saying-both-countries-will-soon-sign-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement), "Canada will soon sign onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama said, going further than the country’s new prime minister has committed.
     ...
     “We are both soon to be signatories of the TPP agreement,” Obama said. “That’s another area we can continue to have important discussions,” he said.

    “I know Justin has to agree with what’s happened, but we think that after that process has taken place, Canada, the United States and the other countries that are here can establish the high-standards agreement that protects labor,
     protects the environment, protects the kind of high value-added goods and services that we both excel in,” Obama said."


Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 19, 2015, 13:35:02
He's calling him Justin, not PM Trudeau, in the national press? And speaking for 'Justin'? Why do I picture him patting 'Justin' on the head while he's doing this?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 19, 2015, 14:30:53
This brings us right back to Edward's comment on lack of Gravatis. I'm sure the Young Dauphin is already being dismissed by others as well, and it is a bit shocking to see how quickly Canada's reputation as a "middle power", repurchased through years of blood and treasure, is evaporating.

For the Laurentian Elites this isn't perhaps an issue, their concern is to ensure economic and political power remains within the Montreal-Toronto corridor, so unless those pesky foreigners actually do something to Canada and Canadians, they probably won't care too much.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Jed on November 19, 2015, 19:37:44
This brings us right back to Edward's comment on lack of Gravatis. I'm sure the Young Dauphin is already being dismissed by others as well, and it is a bit shocking to see how quickly Canada's reputation as a "middle power", repurchased through years of blood and treasure, is evaporating.

For the Laurentian Elites this isn't perhaps an issue, their concern is to ensure economic and political power remains within the Montreal-Toronto corridor, so unless those pesky foreigners actually do something to Canada and Canadians, they probably won't care too much.

Isn't that the truth.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 19, 2015, 22:03:01
Isn't that the truth.

Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.

Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Jed on November 19, 2015, 22:05:18
Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.

Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.

I guess you see the glass as half full.  [:)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: cavalryman on November 19, 2015, 22:11:40
Is that like how George Bush always called Harper Stephen?  I take it that it's meant as endearment, not mockery.

Conservative partisans will see it otherwise, of course.
I'm sure Stevie called him Dubya...

Both GWB and PMSH were replaced by overgrown frat boys who promised hope and change.  The US have had to live with their choice for the last seven years, we've got four years of the APEC "Hottie" before us (Pace Enrique).  The people have spoken, and as usual, the people have shown the wisdom of Winston Churchill's quip about democracy.   ::)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 19, 2015, 22:31:23
I guess you see the glass as half full.  [:)

I usually do.  I was a Harper supporter through most of his time in office, but that started to waver in 2013.  He disappointed me in so many files.  I hope Trudeau does better.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 19, 2015, 22:33:31
Both GWB and PMSH were replaced by overgrown frat boys who promised hope and change.

Because both of them did a pretty bad job in the eyes of the people.  Harper was evidence allergic, and despite all of his talk, left DND funding at the same level that PMPM left it at (higher than Chretien, but less than he promised).  Trudeau needs to be given a chance, just as Harper was.  So far, he seems like far less an idiot than I thought he was at the beginning of the campaign.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 19, 2015, 23:24:10
Because both of them did a pretty bad job in the eyes of the people.

Some of the people. George W won 2 elections with roughly Obama's level of support
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: PuckChaser on November 19, 2015, 23:41:30


I hope Trudeau does better.

Hope is not a COA.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: cavalryman on November 20, 2015, 00:29:24
So far, he seems like far less an idiot than I thought he was at the beginning of the campaign.
I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.  Sure, he deserves his chance, but you'll permit me to cringe while he turns this country into a frat-boy mockery on the international stage.  At this point, all I can hope is that the backroom boys keep a tight rein on him.  Statesman-like he ain't.  You can blame Harper for many ills besetting the Conservative party, but at least he came across as a statesman on the international stage, not a boy barely out of short pants.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 20, 2015, 01:11:57
I'm going to take a wild guess that your expectations were pretty low if you think his performance at the G-20 and APEC were anywhere near adult-sized.

What exactly did he do that alarmed you so much, exactly?  He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rocky Mountains on November 20, 2015, 19:48:46
He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.  At APEC, he had very productive meetings.  The fact that people like him personally and that there is a certain celebrity to him doesn't make him a 'frat boy'.

$10 billion is an election promise, nothing meaningful.  Alberta gives Quebec $10 billion per year in equalization because we like them so much.  I see nothing but a frat boy - no substance.  You will rarely see hem answering questions in the House or even spoon fed media questions because of the Bozo eruption problem.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 20, 2015, 23:10:10
>He was praised at the G-20 for his infrastructure program.

It's going to achieve SFA.   About $2B of the proposed $10B "deficit" can be attributed to nuts-and-bolts infrastructure, which was all the talking heads talked about - a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).

$2B on top of what is already being spent is a rounding error; the other $4B of "infrastructure" has white elephantosis, and the remaining slush fund is most likely to wind up in a pork barrel.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2015, 23:13:09
Hey Brad, don't sweat it.

The youngster has got a brand new, never before used excuse.  The cupboards are bare and it is all the last guys fault.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/morneau-fiscal-update-1.3327571
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 20, 2015, 23:24:13
The Liberals own the current FY for four months, which is long enough to own the resulting balance.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 20, 2015, 23:26:25
a smokescreen for the other $8B ($2B "social" infrastructure, $2B "green" infrastructure, and $4B unattributed - doubling the CPC program accounted for only 6 of the 10).

First of all, your numbers are off.  The Liberal program sets aside new money for only 3 things - transit, green, and social infrastructure.

Second, it's 1.6B for each of those 3 things next year and the year after, and 1.1B for the each of the next two years after that.

Third - social infrastructure is things like hospitals, jails, schools, social housing, etc, etc.  Green infrastructure relates power projects and retrofits of existing infrastructure to make it more energy efficient.  Nice try though.

As for owning the current fiscal year (the Liberals actually own approx 5 months of it) - the projections provided today contain only spending and tax measures introduced by the Conservatives.  Almost none of the Liberal spending program, other than refugees and tax changes, starts until April 2016.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 20, 2015, 23:31:08
The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 20, 2015, 23:46:46
The FACT being, according to the PBO, is that we are in a surplus, a small one, but a surplus. I await the Trudeau Liberals answers to the Official Oppositions questions on how they managed to jig the numbers into a deficit.

The PBO, as it currently stands, has access to less info than Finance.  The Conservatives made sure of that when they created the office.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 20, 2015, 23:50:49
My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.

So right away there is a question - which was studiously ignored by the press - as to why the Liberals might need an extra $4B each year.  Given the desperation of the LPC and NDP to find money to buy good will, "slush fund" is the most reasonable hypothesis.

When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means; the LPC already stated their aims.  And in particular, "affordable housing" didn't mean "social housing" - when I searched for some details, I found the Liberal scheme was to somehow make housing more affordable for the middle class.  For example, one of their ideas was to free up federally owned land for development.  (As I wrote earlier on these boards, it'll be a neat trick if they can figure out how to release federally owned land for development in the Vancouver area without it immediately coming under several land claims.)

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

The pre-election projections were for a surplus.  If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 21, 2015, 00:00:44
My numbers are on.  The CPC program called for roughly $65 billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years and the Liberals promised to (almost) double it - $125B over 10 years was the figure repeated during the campaign.  The CPC spending was planned within a balanced budget; ergo, if the Liberals proposed to increase the commitment by $60B over 10 years the average deficit should not really be more than $6B even if the budget balance was on a razor edge.

No, they're not on:

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

Page 13

Quote
When "social" infrastructure was mentioned, the most common examples were "affordable housing" and "seniors centres".  You don't get to fill in the list of what you think it means;

Social Infrastructure is a subset of the infrastructure sector and typically includes assets that accommodate social services. As set out in the table below, examples of Social Infrastructure Assets include schools, universities, hospitals, prisons and community housing.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition%20social%20infrastructure

Words have meanings.

"Green" referred to airy-fairy generalizations which included "climate change" and "smart cities".  You may attach your own interpretation to those of course; to me, they mean "boondoggle" and "subsidies to otherwise non-viable businesses" and unwelcome future operating costs to whichever political jurisdiction is unfortunate enough to receive them (hence, white elephant).

Yes, those things are included:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

So are windmills and energy retrofits, especially in a Canadian context dealing with cold.

The Liberals then went on to say this- dedicating this specific amount of money to these particular things allows you to use the rest of the money (the money already allocated by the Conservatives) for traditional infrastructure projects.

Quote
The pre-election projections were for a surplus.

And the economy changed from April to now.  That's no government's fault.

 
Quote
If the mood of the country has changed since the election, that is the new government's coat to wear.  Governments are responsible for the economic morale of the country in terms of what they say and do, even if they don't touch a page of legislation.  If trash-talking the economy and proposing deficits has persuaded Canadians to shrink their spending and thereby sent projections down, that is the Liberals' own fault.

You do a lot of assuming for someone with so little in the way of facts on your side.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 21, 2015, 00:28:36
In the summary provided here (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/27/a-look-at-each-federal-partys-infrastructure-election-promises.html) we find:

"Liberals: Promise largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history. Plan would nearly double federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion — from current $65 billion — over the next decade."

and:

"New, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit infrastructure; social infrastructure (including affordable housing and seniors facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational facilities); and green infrastructure (including local and waste water facilities, climate resilient infrastructure and clean energy)."

Here (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-propose-modest-deficits-in-order-to-kickstart-the-economy/article26125406/) we find:
"The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years, touting a new infrastructure program as the best way to create economic growth and help balance the books by 2019.

Justin Trudeau’s pledge is putting the Liberal Party in a starkly different position than the Conservative Party and the NDP, which are both promising balanced budgets. Over all, the Liberals would boost federal infrastructure spending by $60-billion over the next decade, on top of the currently planned spending of $65-billion."

Confirmation here (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/a-full-list-of-all-the-promises-made-so-far-in-the-canadian-election-campaign):
"Aug. 27: Increase federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion, from the current $65 billion, over the next decade. Provide new, dedicated funding to provinces, territories and municipalities for public transit, social infrastructure and green infrastructure."

Some descriptions here (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-election-what-they-did-what-they-promise):
"Provide infrastructure funding for affordable housing, public transit, transportation, climate change and “smart cities.”"

Lots about social infrastructure here (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/affordable-housing/), including:
"We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."

You'll have noted that I cited what the Liberals said about "social" infrastructure, not someone else's definition.  What anyone else thinks doesn't matter; what the Liberals think does matter.

There are no "facts" about why fiscal projections have changed; only facts about what the projections are.  I'll stick to blaming it on human behaviour, which is always subject to influence by changes in incentives and anticipated outcomes.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 21, 2015, 00:37:40
BTW: I have no problem accepting the cited $1.675B figures for each of the "big 3".  My "$2B" was always a rough estimate based on the idea that there were 3 categories divided across $60B across 10 years.  That leaves $5B in each of the first couple of years' projected deficits to be explained, rather than $4B.  That might be somewhere in the "plan", but the point is this: the campaign humbug was essentially "the Liberals will go into deficit $10B in the first couple of years to fund infrastructure investment".  So now we're down to $1.675 on nuts-and-bolts, ROI-type infrastructure investment, as a smokescreen for much of what is either outright misallocation of capital or plain old pork and promises.

[Add]And you may have the last word, if you wish, since this is off-topic for the thread.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 21, 2015, 00:41:50
Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 21, 2015, 09:17:08
Much was made of PM Harper "pandering" to his base.  As much as PM Trudeau claims a mandate, in fact his adherence to his electoral promises in the face of stiff opposition from the populace at large, equally, could be described as "pandering" to his base.
No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO. 

What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 21, 2015, 12:06:56
No matter what colour the Team, Blue, Red or Orange, pandering to the base "our most loyal supporters" is part of the MO. 

What intrigues me is the feel of PMJT walking through molasses as he defends policy promise x (pick one) in light of new factors y and z.

Light on his feet, he isn't.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 21, 2015, 13:45:34

I suspect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not, at all, "disappointed" ~ gleeful is, in fact, my guesstimate of his reaction. Our prime minister wants "out," he doesn't want to be dragged farther "in," not, at least, without an explicit, unanimous UNSC call for direct action as cover.

Remember, please, who I think is whispering in his ear, showing him "the way" ...
.
.
.
.
.
                    (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fthestar%2Fnews%2Fgta%2F2015%2F02%2F15%2Ftrudeau-and-chretien-mark-50th-anniversary-of-the-national-flag-of-canada%2Fchretien.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg&hash=8fad6d924c820754411b558f311f8298)


And this, a UNSC Resolution (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/un-calls-for-all-able-member-states-to-join-fight-against-isis?CMP=share_btn_fb) that, explicitly and unanimously “calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures ... on the territory under the control of Isil [Isis]" coplicates matters. It would make it easier to stay in the coalition if that is what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wanted to do ... it makes it harder if, as I suspect, he and his advisors and most of his base really want out. I believe that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was serious in expressing his own sincere views (and those of his closest advisors) when he excoriated Prime Minister Harper for "whipping out his CF-18s."
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 21, 2015, 14:00:40

Lots about social infrastructure here (https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/affordable-housing/), including:
"We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need."


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.       
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 21, 2015, 14:02:28
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: mariomike on November 21, 2015, 14:13:06
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
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 21, 2015, 14:18:09
Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods? Why cant we put them in 24 Sussex, it is unoccupied and in better shape....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: mariomike on November 21, 2015, 14:35:27
Yeesh. Dixon City Bloods?

Even have their own Wiki page with references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon_Bloods
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 21, 2015, 15:00:15
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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/saunders-avert-extremism-before-it-start-by-building-betterneighbourhoods/article27403775/). 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.


Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 22, 2015, 07:38:57
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
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: suffolkowner on November 22, 2015, 09:42:40
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
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 22, 2015, 09:51:55
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZnfNKoSpo). 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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 22, 2015, 09:59:28

Here is a link to the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZnfNKoSpo). 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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 22, 2015, 10:41:19
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 (https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Chrystia+Freeland%22+site:hbo.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=TtFRVrypFIaqevWZhYgE), 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 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Andrew-Leslie%2888894%29), anyway  ;D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: ballz on November 22, 2015, 11:51:28
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 22, 2015, 12:03:44
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 22, 2015, 12:46:34
.... 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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 22, 2015, 13:43:39
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 22, 2015, 14:39:36
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: cavalryman on November 22, 2015, 14:55:21
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:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 22, 2015, 15:07:00
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.....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 22, 2015, 17:01:38
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 ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 22, 2015, 17:19:32
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.   
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 22, 2015, 19:49:15
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.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: quadrapiper on November 22, 2015, 20:13:48
...yes to helping to train anti-Daesh forces...
As a naif - good opportunity to gain influence/contacts/persistent presence in the less crazy circles in that part of the world, without the you-bombed-a-hospital/wedding party/whatever risks of the aerial campaign? Hasn't the UK made a long-standing practice of advisory and exchange personnel with various east-of-Suez states, as well as running their officer candidates through Sandhurst?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on November 22, 2015, 20:59:08
...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...

...and the corollary: A decision's a decision, isn't it? (around 2:30, but the lead up is rather good.) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUemV4brDU)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 23, 2015, 09:31:20
And now the MND joins in (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/defence-minister-sajjan-on-syria-assad-must-go-1.2669381#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=YmLILfN), enunciating government policy. CTV's Question Period is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's Real Time show on a US cable network, and the MND is closer to this sort of policy issue (Assad must go) than International Trade Minister Freeland is to the very broad social issue of tolerance and socio-cultural values.

We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~ Assad must go ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: mariomike on November 23, 2015, 10:09:29
That would also be reminiscent of the Somali slums we created here in Canada.  No Lessons Learned there.

Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,

In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.

Little Mogadishu
 It is well known that Toronto's Somali population clustered in the Dixon Road and Islington Avenue area of Etobicoke which was referred to as “Little Somalia.” What is not well known is that the six condominium buildings on Dixon Road were targeted by the City of Etobicoke.

 City officials need housing for the large influx of Somali refugees so they contacted all the condo owners who were renting their units for approximately $900 a month and promised them $1200 a month f they would rent to the Somalis refugees. An added sweetener was that the owners would receive their rent money directly from the city so the monthly rent payments were guaranteed.

 The owners dumped their existing tenants as quickly as they could to make room for the refugees. A large number of Somalians moving into these three condominium buildings. This immediate area, named Dixon City, provided a sense of community for the Somali immigrants.

 They did not mix well with the established owner-residents who resented their presence.

Social tensions
 The low-income Somalis shared their apartments with extended families and other immigrants so that an estimated 4,500 Somalis were living in a third of YCC #42s almost 900 apartments.

 The three buildings which were designed to hold 5000 grew to 9000 residents. The children played in the hallways and the Somali community would gather in the open courtyard in the late evenings to socialize.

 There were complaints of noise, vandalism, petty crime and overcrowded elevators. Owner-residents complained that the Somalis were urinating, defecting and smoking khat in the staircases.

 In return, the Somalis complained of harassment, based on racism, which they felt was intended to drive them out of the area.

A Place Called Dixon
 The social and economic tensions within YCC #42 were recorded in a CBC documentary, "A Place Called Dixon" that was aired on television in 1993.

 While it is true that there was a deep divide between the original white, European owner-residents and the brown skinned, Muslim newcomers, the documentary was criticized for showing extremists on both sides and unfairly portraying the owner-residents as racists.

Economic costs
 The overcrowding and led to complaints from building managers and property owners. The common element fees soared as the condo corporation had to pay for huge increases in utility bills, garbage pickups, maintenance costs, vandalism and repairs and replacements to the common areas.

 Security was increased and the guards had two police dogs, which they claimed were needed for their safety but were seen as an affront by the Somali residents.

 The unexpected economic burden created by the over-crowded units had to be shared by all of the unit owners. Property values plunged.

 I contend that the real problem at YCC #42 was not racial, cultural or religious but economic. The condo was overwhelmed by a low-income population who needed inexpensive housing. The absentee landlords, who rented their units, accommodated them. The owner-residents who had their life savings tied up in their units and could not afford to cut their losses and sell, would never be happy with how their dream homes turned out.
http://www.condomadness.info/YCC42-Dixon-City.html
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Jed on November 23, 2015, 10:16:31
Regarding lessons learned, or not learned, I read this,

In the late 1980's  political strife in Somalia lead to a flight of refugees, so that Somalia was the source of the second-largest number of refugee claimants in Canada in the early 1990's. By 1991 there were 9,000 Somali's living in Canada with the majority in Toronto and by the end of 1993, 13,872 Somalis were permanent residents in Canada.

Little Mogadishu
 It is well known that Toronto's Somali population clustered in the Dixon Road and Islington Avenue area of Etobicoke which was referred to as “Little Somalia.” What is not well known is that the six condominium buildings on Dixon Road were targeted by the City of Etobicoke.

 City officials need housing for the large influx of Somali refugees so they contacted all the condo owners who were renting their units for approximately $900 a month and promised them $1200 a month f they would rent to the Somalis refugees. An added sweetener was that the owners would receive their rent money directly from the city so the monthly rent payments were guaranteed.

 The owners dumped their existing tenants as quickly as they could to make room for the refugees. A large number of Somalians moving into these three condominium buildings. This immediate area, named Dixon City, provided a sense of community for the Somali immigrants.

 They did not mix well with the established owner-residents who resented their presence.

Social tensions
 The low-income Somalis shared their apartments with extended families and other immigrants so that an estimated 4,500 Somalis were living in a third of YCC #42s almost 900 apartments.

 The three buildings which were designed to hold 5000 grew to 9000 residents. The children played in the hallways and the Somali community would gather in the open courtyard in the late evenings to socialize.

 There were complaints of noise, vandalism, petty crime and overcrowded elevators. Owner-residents complained that the Somalis were urinating, defecting and smoking khat in the staircases.

 In return, the Somalis complained of harassment, based on racism, which they felt was intended to drive them out of the area.

A Place Called Dixon
 The social and economic tensions within YCC #42 were recorded in a CBC documentary, "A Place Called Dixon" that was aired on television in 1993.

 While it is true that there was a deep divide between the original white, European owner-residents and the brown skinned, Muslim newcomers, the documentary was criticized for showing extremists on both sides and unfairly portraying the owner-residents as racists.

Economic costs
 The overcrowding and led to complaints from building managers and property owners. The common element fees soared as the condo corporation had to pay for huge increases in utility bills, garbage pickups, maintenance costs, vandalism and repairs and replacements to the common areas.

 Security was increased and the guards had two police dogs, which they claimed were needed for their safety but were seen as an affront by the Somali residents.

 The unexpected economic burden created by the over-crowded units had to be shared by all of the unit owners. Property values plunged.

 I contend that the real problem at YCC #42 was not racial, cultural or religious but economic. The condo was overwhelmed by a low-income population who needed inexpensive housing. The absentee landlords, who rented their units, accommodated them. The owner-residents who had their life savings tied up in their units and could not afford to cut their losses and sell, would never be happy with how their dream homes turned out.
http://www.condomadness.info/YCC42-Dixon-City.html

Back to the Future IV.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 23, 2015, 11:28:06
We must assume, if there is any validity to our Westminster style of parliamentary government and accountability, that this ~ Assad must go ~ is Canadian Government Policy (writ large) and not just the opinion of the MND. In our system ministers speak for the entire government unless, on some social issue like "right to life" or even "toleration/accommodation" (s)he specifically says "this is my own, personal, view and not something I am saying on behalf of the government" (or even on behalf of the official opposition or my party).
And another practice under our system is that if a Minister of the Crown speaks out of turn, or speaks outside the government's lines, sanctions follow.  We'll see if such sanctions follow ....

Also, methinks she wouldn't have done that without Team Red's "child soldiers with Crackberries"* giving the nod.
.... In the present case, however, I note one thing: She was introduced as a "member of parliament" only ....
I thought the yellow bit, too, but I now stand corrected.  I listened to the whole segment this morning, and she was introduced as MP (first) and Minister (second). 

She doesn't sound bad (although I'm guessing media would have jumped on her more-than-hinting at Americans being dumb a LOT more if she was from Team Blue), but she's far from ministerial yet.

* - A term I've heard people far more cynical than me apply to political staff.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on November 23, 2015, 12:55:11
And now the MND joins in (http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/defence-minister-sajjan-on-syria-assad-must-go-1.2669381#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=YmLILfN), enunciating government policy. CTV's Question Period is a much more appropriate forum than Bill Maher's Real Time show on a US cable network

In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 23, 2015, 14:19:56
In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.


Fair enough and, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. She's now a minister of the crown: that's a HUGE change in status and responsibility and appearing on a US cable channels political-news-comedy programme shows, in my view, again, poor judgement on her part and on the part of the PMO. I have never thought much of Minister Freeland ~ not as a "journalist" and not as a politician: she is a very well educated and 'smart' woman but I think her instincts are wrong. I suspect that Minister Freeland really might not understand that what she's doing is wrong, but the PMO needs to reign her in ... or move her to the back-benches where, I think, she belongs.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 23, 2015, 15:21:08
In defence of Minister Freeland, she has been appearing on Real Time for years, long before becoming an MP.

Hate to say it; but that is NOT A DEFENCE. 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 23, 2015, 23:20:44
People old enough to know better are losing their grasp of propriety.  Being modern doesn't mean being a teenage buffoon searching for popular celebrity.  There is much to be said for the deportment and circumspection of earlier generations.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 24, 2015, 08:34:16
Greg Perry, drawing in the Ottawa Citizen, got the issue of bombing IS**/Da'eah, in particular, and the new Liberal foreign policy in general, just about right:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwpmedia.ottawacitizen.com%2F2015%2F11%2Fno-iptc-info-found16.jpeg%3Fquality%3D55%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall%26amp%3Bw%3D840%26amp%3Bh%3D630%26amp%3Bcrop%3D1&hash=36861be7bdb8a82f8bf542ca5a1ac125)
Source: http://ottawacitizen.com/gallery/editorial-cartoons-2
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 25, 2015, 16:24:09
Can someone, a Liberal supporter or apologist perhaps, translate this (https://twitter.com/globalnews/status/669547561221382144) for me, please?

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on November 25, 2015, 17:01:31
Certainly
“The recent incident does not fit our world view and party platform. We really have not thought about it and we love turkey, because yes well it’s yummy and filling, oh right yes we love that Turkey as well. We don’t really know what happen and still don’t know what to do other than move forward on a political promise made in a vacuum, I know I just smile and hope you notice the hair…..”
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: PPCLI Guy on November 25, 2015, 17:35:31
It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on November 25, 2015, 17:52:28
It was relatively fine until the last 20 seconds.....then gibberish

Relatively fine? Good lord, that was the most rambling attempt at a response I've heard in a long time.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on November 25, 2015, 18:19:54
He was just like the rest of us -- he had absolutely no idea how that sentence was going to turn out once he started it.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 25, 2015, 18:24:33
Pardon me for butting in. Did the PM say (at the end) that we are in a "mission to stabilize Syria" ?

My understanding (albeit obviously limited) was that we were part of a coalition that is intent on "degrading ISIL's fighting capability with a view to ultimately defeat them".

Did I miss something ???
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2015, 18:29:59
Canada now walking the centre line between Russia and Nato with a view to stabilizing Syria.  It is his dad's policy revisited.  Better a stable dictatorship than an unpredictable regime.

He and Junckers will get along famously, I am sure.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: AmmoTech90 on November 25, 2015, 18:52:20
Well we can't de-escalate Russian style since we ditched the Starfighters.

Quote
... Russia's embrace of what it calls a "de-escalation" nuclear strike in the case of a conventional military conflict that poses an existential threat to the country. The doctrine calls for Russia to respond with a nuclear strike. Russia's answer, in the case of such a conflict, is to drop a single nuclear weapon — one from the family of smaller, battlefield-use nukes known as "tactical" weapons, rather than from the larger, city-destroying "strategic" nuclear weapons. The idea is that such a strike would signal Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons, and would force the enemy to immediately end the fight rather than risk further nuclear destruction.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 28, 2015, 09:57:28
The Economist, in an article from the print edition (which is free to read) (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21678785-battle-against-islamic-state-must-be-waged-every-front-how-fight-back?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/howtofightback) suggests that "we" need to fight IS**/Da'esh "on every front."

The Economist says:

     First: know your enemy; and it suggests that ~

          The starting-point for a safer world is at home, with the right legal powers. Jihadists are often radicalised online, in small groups. They communicate electronically. When they travel, they leave a trail. The intelligence services need
          controlled access to these data. Terrorists thrive on secrecy, yet the security services may abuse their powers. The solution is a legal framework subject to political and judicial scrutiny.


     Don't scapegoat real, legitimate refugees ~

          The logic of turning away refugees is deeply flawed, practically and morally. Clearly, there is a risk of infiltration, and Europe should monitor new arrivals. But at least five of the Paris terrorists were European citizens, not refugees.
          Someone determined to blow himself up in a terrorist attack could always pay a people-smuggling network to get him in. Some of the refugees arriving on Greek islands were themselves the victims of jihadist violence, occasionally
          at the hands of Europeans who went to Syria to join IS. For Europe to put up a wall to Muslims would suggest that, as IS says, Europeans despise them all. That could be a pathway to terrorism, too.


     Fight IS**/Da'esh where it lives ~

          The case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow ...
          ... [but] the case for military action, then, is that the alternative is worse. And yet, partly because it has been a low priority, progress in America’s campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” IS has been agonisingly slow.

     Finally, "Talk, too" ~

           Military force is not enough on its own, though. It will make the rest of the world safer in the short run, but the critics are right that Islamic terror will end only when the Middle East lives in peace. The parallel aim, therefore,
          must be for regional powers to stop fighting through their proxies ... The diplomacy will not be easy and military action should not be forestalled by its lack of progress. But the pursuit of political settlements must be earnest and
          involve all the parties, including Russia and Iran.


By that measure Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's emerging foreign policy is only half right. It appeals to the left wing part of the Liberal base but it is out of step with geo-strategic reality in 2015.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 28, 2015, 17:37:38
In my opinion, this report from the Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/justin-trudeau-hopes-to-persuade-india-on-need-for-climate-change-plan) is another foreign policy fail for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

     "PARIS – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plans to meet with India’s prime minister on Sunday at the Paris climate conference to try to persuade him to get on board with the rest of the world on an ambitious plan to reduce
      greenhouse gas emissions.
      ...
      India and its population of more than one billion people is one of the world’s largest emitters, but it remains one of the countries that has been balking at hard emissions caps or absolute reductions ahead of the Paris conference
      because it’s worried about crippling its growing economy."


India is still in the process of moving from this ...

                         (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/22920/s300_traditional-cooking-stove.jpg) and this: (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsecurityatlarge.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FHyderabad1-300x185.jpg&hash=5bbe1173076c520616e82a09695f98ac)

                              ... to this:

                                          (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20090721%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D10939937%26amp%3Bw%3D%26amp%3Bfh%3D545px%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D%26amp%3Bpl%3D%26amp%3Bsq%3D%26amp%3Br%3D2009-07-21T125713Z_01_BTRE56K03SP00_RTROPTP_0_INDIA-R-D&hash=57c2374cad133dffc20fa0feab8b38a0)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is appearing to ask Indians to stop progressing so that we, in the rich, industrialized West need not pay the full price for climate change ... assuming that human industrial activity is, indeed, the primary driver. Of course, that not what he is asking ... but that's how it will look in Asia. Canada will look like it wants India to pay for our past mistakes. I'm not sure what the right answer is to all this climate change business, but I'm pretty sure that asking China and India to forgo the sort of "powered" lifestyle we take for granted cannot and will not be part of it.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on November 28, 2015, 19:55:33
Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 28, 2015, 20:20:43
Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G

G2G

From a map ERC reproduced on the PMJT - 100 days thread.

A problem that JT has is that Canada has already out performed all of its Kyoto, Copenhagen and Rio signing brethren. - And that with that eco-dinosaur (NB Humour Attempt) Harper in charge.

Canada is down 9.5% on emissions beating everybody in the Americas (North and South), everybody in Europe, Japan and Australia and Russia.  And working against the trend of the Middle East, Africa and all parts of Asia except Japan and Taiwan.

Canada's success has come not from government policy but from business investing in new plants with new processes and new equipment that are more efficient and increase profits.  This is most evident in the oilsands directly but is also evident in supporting industries like manufacturing, railway and road transportation. 



http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120785.175.html
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2011%2F2%2F10%2F1297340671284%2FCarbon-graphic-001.jpg&hash=ebf06d987d9a4d4fccaabc2dfab673e0)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 30, 2015, 13:38:11
Mr. Campbell, respectfully, I think there is a difference between "forego" and 'accept that while developing, your country has to consider that climatic responsibility is an aspect of a developed country's responsibility' and that both India and China cannot play both sides of the issue (we're still developing, we shouldn't bear the same burden -- we are developed, respect us).

I don't think that Canada is playing the 'tough guy on the block' here, Canada has recently committed to greater engagement in climate issues, and so could be seen in a "we're getting better on the issue, so too should you [India/China].

Regards,
G2G


That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.

India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.

Anyway, why should Modi agree to anything? China will not sign on to much of anything in the way of binding targets or quotas, neither will America ... who cares what Canada says and does?

But, take a look at this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/beijings-crazy-bad-smog-cloud-could-have-a-silver-lining/article27525738/
Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Fmedia%2Fwww%2Fimages%2Fflag%2Fgam-masthead.png&hash=19ff3553db0adc5a5af34a8cb80569c3)
Beijing’s ‘crazy bad’ smog cloud could have a silver lining

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Nathan VanderkKlippe
BEIJING — The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 30, 2015

When engineers were building the system that tweeted air-quality updates from the U.S. embassy in Beijing, they never expected it to hit 500, a number so far into the “hazardous” zone that it seemed apocalyptic.

So they set “crazy bad” as the automated description for an air-quality index of 500 and above.


It was a joke. They never expected it to happen – and could never have fathomed that those two words might help spur a radical new willingness in China to fight global warming.

In photos: Beijing chokes on smog as Paris climate talks begin (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/beijing-chokes-on-smog-as-paris-climate-talks-begin/article27526564/)

Then in 2010, the joke made global headlines when it suddenly appeared on Twitter, bearing the official imprimatur of the U.S. government. It was quickly deleted and replaced with “beyond index.”

It has since reappeared with depressing regularity – including on Monday, when by 9 p.m. the average Beijing air-quality index had reached 611. Southwest of the city it touched 938. Authorities halted construction work, shut down some factories and closed freeways. Schools cancelled classes.

The smothering blanket of air rendered the sun a dull orange and provided an ugly backdrop to the start of the Paris climate talks, where Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to lead a delegation eager to build consensus for strong new measures against global warming.

It’s a remarkable shift from earlier climate talks – such as those in 2009 that Beijing was accused of sabotaging.

The following year, the “crazy bad” air arrived.

Smog and climate change are in some ways different problems. Scrubbers can filter particulates from smokestacks and improve air quality. They don’t do the same for carbon dioxide emissions.

But in China, both have a common source – the profligate burning of coal – and the country’s fouled air, land and water tend to be lumped together as common byproducts of an era that prioritized economic growth above all else. The problem has grown so severe, and public awareness so acute (stoked in no small part by the U.S. embassy air-quality figures), that China’s leadership has declared war on pollution.

Every day, China’s choking smog kills 4,000 people.

But it may hold one of the keys to fighting climate change, in part because it’s so easy to see. It can be hard to visualize a slow-moving climate phenomenon. When the smog gets bad in China, the air itself is visible.

It’s an unambiguous symbol of the need for change, and it’s an important part of the reason China, now the world’s largest carbon emitter, has committed to a hard cap on its emissions by 2030. Beijing is now working to convince the rest of the world to agree to something similar.

A capital city smothered in noxious air is hardly the image China’s leadership wants as it arrives in Paris. But for world leaders in search of a climate deal, there might be a little good in “crazy bad.”


I have long maintained that "global climate change" is not a 'good' political issue ~ the merits of the case don't matter: it is too abstract, too far away, too frightening and too expensive.

Killer smog and pollution, on the other hand, are 'good' issues: people can see, smell and taste them and they can relate, directly to them.

Some of the answers may be politically sensitive: like allowing Chinese companies to buy up Canadian uranium mines (http://www.mining.com/china-eyes-canadian-uranium-miners-report/) to meet what will, of necessity, be an urgent demand for nuclear power in the not too distant future.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 30, 2015, 13:46:32

That is precisely the card prime Minister Modi played, today, in Paris ~ sorry, I lost the link and I'm too lazy to go search ~ when he said something like: we want to help but the higher priority must be that we continue to industrialize at a rapid rate because we need to lift millions out of poverty ~ he means as many millions as there are (rich and poor alike) in America and Europe combined, by the way.

India, especially is playing "catch up" with China which, given its abundant coal supplies is ten to twenty years ahead in rural electrification.

Anyway, why should Modi agree to anything? China will not sign on to much of anything in the way of binding targets or quotas, neither will America ... who cares what Canada says and does?

But, take a look at this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/world-insider/beijings-crazy-bad-smog-cloud-could-have-a-silver-lining/article27525738/

I have long maintained that "global climate change" is not a 'good' political issue ~ the merits of the case don't matter: it is too abstract, too far away, too frightening and too expensive.

Killer smog and pollution, on the other hand, are 'good' issues: people can see, smell and taste them and they can relate, directly to them.

Some of the answers may be politically sensitive: like allowing Chinese companies to buy up Canadian uranium mines (http://www.mining.com/china-eyes-canadian-uranium-miners-report/) to meet what will, of necessity, be an urgent demand for nuclear power in the not too distant future.

Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?

The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 30, 2015, 14:26:52
Technology to burn coal cleanly is there already, it's just expensive and will require higher electric bills.  The goal in China should be to guide them towards using scrubbing technology already available.  I wonder how many Chinese coal plants have precipitators or FGDs?  Or are they all firing on 1950s technology?

The only other option is Nuclear as their energy needs are too great for the economically unsustainable green technology we've hitched ourselves to.


Is this (http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/02/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/) what you mean?


How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?

China can pay a huge price, doesn't want to, but can ... and people ~ ordinary people ~ in Beijing are starting to get restless, I think.

India cannot pay ... I have this from 2013: India's total primary energy consumption from crude oil (29.45%), natural gas (7.7%), coal (54.5%), nuclear energy (1.26%), hydro electricity (5.0%), wind power, biomass electricity and solar power is 595 Mtoe.

India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 30, 2015, 15:25:15
If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.

Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 30, 2015, 15:27:53

Is this (http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/02/worlds-first-full-scale-clean-coal-plant-opens-in-canada/) what you mean?


How "clean" is clean enough? Is any level of "clean coal" acceptable to the climate activists?

China can pay a huge price, doesn't want to, but can ... and people ~ ordinary people ~ in Beijing are starting to get restless, I think.

India cannot pay ... I have this from 2013: India's total primary energy consumption from crude oil (29.45%), natural gas (7.7%), coal (54.5%), nuclear energy (1.26%), hydro electricity (5.0%), wind power, biomass electricity and solar power is 595 Mtoe.

India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

Disclaimer,

Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.

If they want to lower the amount of emissions produced from Coal-burning there are a number of things they could do:

1.  Use a higher quality coal as their fuel.  Not all coal is created equally, and some burns cleaner than others.  They should also stop combining coal with other fuels (petroleum coke for instance).  A lot of companies do this as a way to save money but it's terrible for the environment.

2.  Use a number of different technologies to improve their processes: electrostatic precipitation, flue gas desulfurization/decarbonation, etc...

3.  Improve the efficiency of their other systems i.e. build a better boiler system so you use less coal/fuel to generate the same amount of heat/steam.  Efficiency is a big thing, some of the most modern plants only really get around 34-35% fuel efficiency (meaning they only harness 34% of the total energy of the fuel they are using).

The process behind making electricity with fossil fuels is quite simple.  You pump water through a boiler, the boiler is heated using (insert whatever fossil fuel here), the heat generated from the boiler turns the water in to high pressure steam that is used to spin a turbine that generates electricity.  Want to really reduce carbon emissions?  Attack the disease, not the symptom and build a better boiler system!

If we had serious people working the problem rather than virtue signalling, then the Canadian response would be to sell as many Canadian nuclear reactors to India as possible (along with 20 year contracts for Uranium supply) to boost India's electrical output, raise millions out of poverty, establish trading relationships with Canada to a large, regional Anglosphere power and give us a new partner in an increasingly complex and hostile world.

Perhaps someday the Liberal Government will be "ready"; they only had over two years to prepare for this day....

This is what happens when you let lawyers and political "scientists" make decisions that are best left to engineers and real scientists  :nod:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 30, 2015, 15:40:48
Disclaimer,

Before I decided to pursue a career in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, I worked as a coal-handler for the New Brunswick Power Corporation, so lets just say I know a thing or two about making power with Coal  ;D.  If I hadn't decided on a military career I would have definitely pursued a career in Power Engineering and I may yet do so.

If they want to lower the amount of emissions produced from Coal-burning there are a number of things they could do:

1.  Use a higher quality coal as their fuel.  Not all coal is created equally, and some burns cleaner than others.  They should also stop combining coal with other fuels (petroleum coke for instance).  A lot of companies do this as a way to save money but it's terrible for the environment.

2.  Use a number of different technologies to improve their processes: electrostatic precipitation, flue gas desulfurization/decarbonation, etc...

3.  Improve the efficiency of their other systems i.e. build a better boiler system so you use less coal/fuel to generate the same amount of heat/steam.  Efficiency is a big thing, some of the most modern plants only really get around 34-35% fuel efficieny (meaning they only harness 34% of the total energy of the fuel they are using).

The process behind making electricity with fossil fuels is quite simple.  You pump water through a boiler, the boiler is heated using (insert whatever fossil fuel here), the heat generated from the boiler turns the water in to high pressure steam that is used to spin a turbine that generates electricity.  Want to really reduce carbon emissions?  Attack the disease, not the symptom and build a better boiler system!


I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.

I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.

I'm not arguing against it ... I'm just unsure if 'clean coal" is not, perhaps, an oxymoron.

But, if it can be made to work at reasonable costs then the social benefits ~ jobs ~ of mining and using coal are enormous.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 30, 2015, 15:52:57

I was in Datong, in China's Shanxi Province, where one of China's larger coal mines is located. The production is impressive, to say the least, and so are the side effects: there is coal dust everywhere, it is all pervasive ... and it will be for generations, even after the mines are closed. Over 35 years ago I was stationed in the Netherlands, at AFCENT HQ in Brunssum. We had a lovely home in an idyllic little town called Hoensbroek ... the only thing was that every morning we had to wipe the coal dust off our white lawn furniture, there were little black spots (coal dust in the dew) everywhere and that was more than 20 years after the Dutch coal mines had all closed! I'm told that now, over 60 years, two generations, since the mines closed the coal dust still covers everything.

I am somewhat skeptical about "clean coal," despite its promise.

I'm not arguing against it ... I'm just unsure if 'clean coal" is not, perhaps, an oxymoron.

But, if it can be made to work at reasonable costs then the social benefits ~ jobs ~ of mining and using coal are enormous.

Coal Mining is dirty, no question, but so is uranium mining or any other mining for that matter.  When I say "clean coal" though, what I mean is a coal that burns better.  Think about it like a camp fire.  If I throw a bunch of softwood in to a fire, it's going to burn very hot but the wood is going to burn very quickly which means I will end up having to use a tonne of wood to keep the fire going.  Compare this to if I were to burn a hardwood, hardwood burns for a long time and once the fire is going, it stays very consistent.

The same principle applies when burning fossil fuels.  If you use a crappy source of coal, oil, natural gas, etc... you will need to burn more of the stuff to generate the same amount of energy which drastically increases the amount of emissions you generate.  You need to use a higher quality fuel supply or find a way to improve your boiler's ability to trap heat.

China is the industrial bread basket of the world and heavy industry has a huge energy requirement.  Fossil Fuels and Nuclear are the only real economically feasible options to meet that requirement, unless you're Canada and have an abundance of uninhabitable land and water for hydro-electric projects.

 

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 30, 2015, 16:48:47
Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

Which does China have in such abundance? (Two of the world's largest coal mines are in Inner Mongolia.) What about Alberta?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Old Sweat on November 30, 2015, 16:59:01
Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on November 30, 2015, 17:00:18
One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. This limit is somewhat flexible, if you add other stages to the process (essentially adding another "Carnot cycle" to extract some of the left over heat energy), but there are cost and practical limits to what can be done to extract more energy.

Batteries and fuel cells are not limited by the Carnot theorem, since they are electrochemical systems, but since the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is 20-25X that of even the most advanced batteries, we will be seeing hydrocarbons and coal in service for a long time to come. If it were somehow possible to use coal directly in a fuel cell, then you would see much higher conversion efficiencies.

Since we want to stay warm and ensure Canadians are not living in poverty, then *we* need to embrace mature, low cost energy sources, of which coal is number one in terms of energy density, versatility (you can build a coal plant anywhere) and cost, and not try to punish other people who are doing the same. Yes, coal is dirty and has lots of issues, but then freezing in the dark is not an acceptable COA either....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: GAP on November 30, 2015, 17:12:29
If they used the basic Geothermal initial heating, THEN used supplementry heat eg: coal, gas, etc.....then the overall used would reduce.

There was an article a long while back about using exchangers ("Carnot theorem"? ) in the stacks, to the point the boiler was up over 60% effective....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on November 30, 2015, 17:27:25

...India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

Well, we did give them a Chalk River-like breeder in the 50's and CANDU 200's in the 60's, so it's not like we weren't helping them.  ;)

Well played by PM Modi to put the 'helping escape the binds of poverty' flavour on putting emissions controls off for his grand children to deal with.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 30, 2015, 19:38:09
We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog

Actually, as a resident of those London Fogs, remembered fondly (I still enjoy the smell of diesel fumes and soot), the issue in London was never about Hard Coal (Anthracite) versus Soft Coal (any grade down to and including lignite or Brown Coal).

No British boiler man would have tolerated Brown Coal in his boilers - far too much water and tar.  That is the stuff that is used to fire Saskatchewan and German coal plants.  British power plants were fired by various grades of Anthracite mined in the North of England and the South of Scotland.  They were marginally poorer than the Pennsylvania coals.

The problem in London was just the sheer volume of coal fires.  Take a look at an English city scape and count the chimney pots.  Everyone of those had a fire place attached - one per room.  All of them burning coal inefficiently.

The problem was partly solved by converting people from coal to coke, created as a co-product with coal gas from coal.  The real solution came with the electric heater.

Even now, to my knowledge, central heating is a minority solution in the UK.

Centralizing the burning of coal so that the burning can be managed efficiently and the wastes/byproducts also managed is a perfectly feasible solution.

Steam technology really is the heart of the heat and power industry - whether it is coal, diesel, gas, uranium or geo-thermal that is the primary heat source.  The one industry that hasn't figured that out yet is the renewable industry. 

You can also boil water with windmills and solar panels - and you can store that energy as hot water under pressure - just like geothermal energy.

If I am going to be stuck with these ruddy windmills cluttering up my sightlines and killing birds then for gawdsake somebody make them worthwhile and attach them to a proper steam plant and create a renewable geothermal facility.

Aaargh - nudder sore point found. :)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 30, 2015, 20:03:15
One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. ....

With respect:

Boiler efficiencies typically run in the 85% range for carbon fuel boilers and >95% for electrically fired boilers.

The 33% applies to converting thermal energy into motion.  Diesel engines for example.

If you give me a supply of hot water under high pressure from any source, I can find a turbine that will use the steam generated when the hot water goes from the high pressure source to low pressure.  And I will find a use for the low grade heat in the water after it has condensed in the low pressure zone.  That water can be recycled and reheated to create high pressure hot water by any fuel known to man - including by turning a windmill into a simple boiler by taking the electrical wires from the generator on top of the mast and attaching them at the bottom of the mast to either a resistance coil, or even just a couple of electrodes, immersed in a closed container of water.

This stuff isn't rocket science - it is just that most folks seem to have forgotten who the Watt (http://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Watt) was named for.

Wind to turbine - 25% efficient
Turbine to electricity - 95% efficient
Electricity to boiler - 95% efficient
District electric CHP plant - 70 to 90% efficient.

You could just as easily find the heat by burning the coal in-situ and leaving all the carbon underground.

http://swanhills-synfuels.com/  - insitu coal gasification
https://www.google.com/patents/US3379248 - insitu coal combustion
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 01, 2015, 08:01:53
Canada's new, Liberal Foreign Policy is rather neatly summed up by Rick McKee in the Augusta Chronicle:

          (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.augusta.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperphoto%2Fsuperphoto%2Ftoon_72.jpg&hash=617101a190ea51886e1eff2bb6927a8c)
          Source: http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2015-11-19/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon-0
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 01, 2015, 09:16:59
I think the Liberals, but also the Conservatives and the NDP and their confrères across the political spectra from Australia to Zambia, have missed the foreign policy boat ... it isn't climate change, although that's one driver, nor is it terrorism, although that, too, is a driver, it is the prospect of another historic, world changing, great migration (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,121202.msg1401988.html#msg1401988).

The migrants are going to come, in HUGE numbers, from the world's 75 or so poorest and most vulnerable countries ~ from the Central African Republic, which is at the bottom of everyone's list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita) through to, say, Fiji, which might suffer a lot from climate change ~ and they are going to aim to settle in the 30 or so richest and most liberal places like Luxembourg, Norway, the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Czech Republic.

The people in the 75 'worst off' countries are, overwhelmingly, poor, dark skinned, culturally unsophisticated (to put it mildly), poorly educated and willing and able to work hard. They are not, by and large, Muslim, although some are. Some, perhaps many will have socio-cultural customs that range from strange, to us, to abhorrent. (Female genital mutilation and "honour killings," for example, are not, by and large, Muslims things: they are African and (sometimes) Asian customs that transcend religions.)

Dealing with climate issues might offer some very temporary, stop gap "relief" to a few countries ~ but famines are more likely to be caused by bad governments than bad climates. But, I suspect that the 100,000 people in small, poor (162 of 185 on the World Bank's list (where 185 is the poorest)), low lying Kiribati are going to need resettlement when the sea levels rise ...

               (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radioaustralia.net.au%2Finternational%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fra_article_feature%2Fimages%2F2009%2F09%2F7%2Fr207120_790426.jpg&hash=13e8b4102c6789e44d5892851885b9e5)

Dealing with terrorism and despots might help stem the tide of refugees from some countries, but we need to be clear that many so-called political refugees seeking protection from wars and insurrections are, in reality, just ordinary people who have had enough, who have given up on Afghanistan and Benin and Chad and Djibouti and so on ... and want to come to Australia and Belgium and Canada and start again.

In the past 50 years the US led West has focused on, first, dealing with the USSR, and, now, dealing with the Middle East. In the process we, the West, have given China nearly carte blanche in Africa which is a treasure house of resources and wealth that we all need.

In the next 25 years China and India will add another 750 million people (about the entire populations of North America and the EU, combined) into the global "middle class." Those people will want to consume resources. Who will control the resources? Australia and Canada and the USA are well positioned, ditto Brazil and some other South American countries, but Africa is the mother lode.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rocky Mountains on December 01, 2015, 12:40:37
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on December 01, 2015, 13:01:44
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920
Trying to get foreign politicians to change your politicians' minds?  NOT on, no matter how much you don't like the bosses. 

Treason, though?  The Criminal Code (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-16.html) talks more about trying to kill the Queen, overthrow governments or assisting an enemy at war with Canada - not all disloyal f**ks are treasonous.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 01, 2015, 16:29:40
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920


Neither issue ~ middle level civil service hatred of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in official Ottawa, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them.

     (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
      on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.")

Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on December 01, 2015, 16:43:10
Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.

Alan Gotlieb wrote a piece in the Globe a week or so ago, calling for the restoration of the Foreign Affairs mandarins as senior diplomats (vice political appointments to Washington, London and Paris).  It was (to be charitable) a rather shallow, self-important piece of puffery.  I suspect Canada's friends would rather an ambassador who can call the PM to address an issue of mutual concern over a well-rounded career diplomat whose connections may reach the level of the DM.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on December 01, 2015, 18:35:20

Neither issue ~ middle level civil service hatred of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in official Ottawa, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them.

     (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
      on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.")

Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.

If you can't trust the water-bearer to carry water where and when you want it why on earth would you give them any water to carry or keep them on strength?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on December 05, 2015, 15:12:20
Ministers don't run the department, so they can only do so much. Proving absolute disloyalty may be difficult and an issue the Union will contest for sure. frankly if your not willing to obey the lawful directions of your elected government, then your in the wrong business.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on December 05, 2015, 16:07:08
So you are saying that Harper was right all along?  That his dominance of the House did not eliminate the Opposition?

Or - putting it another way:  Even paranoiacs have enemies.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 06, 2016, 10:37:57
What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote on the CDAI website (https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/waiting-for-a-credible-strategy) ought ot be required reading in Ottawa for ministers and the commentariat. The key point he makes, and one that bears repeating, over and over, is that Canada needs coherent foreign and defence policies, not Minister Dion's abstract plans.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on January 06, 2016, 11:31:05
What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote....
:goodpost:

From the summary paragraph:
Quote
Canadians will want to know if government is inclined to slide back into aimless soft power and naïve liberal internationalism, or whether they have a more realistic world view and notion of modern conflict management.
I suspect that the Liberals want 'a' (because it feels good), with any dabbling in 'b' (because it's necessary) being due more to Allies' pressure than to any understanding of modern international conflicts.  Time will tell.

Quote
Whatever the decision, it must be derived from a coherent hierarchy, topped by a clear policy, leading to a credible strategy with achievable objectives. In the end, it must all be sufficient to justify putting Canadians in harms way.
This, as highlighted by ERC, is the critical, currently absent, bit.  It's also the piece I feel will be the most disappointing if/when the government gets to it. Annunciating concrete policy, amongst its other purposes, facilitates holding the government accountable.  Avoiding that... awkwardness... suggests that amorphous foreign and defence policy "plans" may be the more likely way ahead.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Old Sweat on January 06, 2016, 11:57:26
Well said, JM, except that you may attribute a clarity of thought and purpose to them that I fear is far too optimistic. I may be cynical, but to my mind the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 06, 2016, 12:05:20
On the topic of Naive Liberal Internationalism, here is an excellent piece from renowned South African private military contractor, Eeben Barlow:

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/africa-must-stop-demilitarising-its_2.html (http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/africa-must-stop-demilitarising-its_2.html)
Quote
AFRICA MUST STOP DEMILITARISING ITS MILITARIES

Having sat through numerous debates and discussions on ‘peacekeeping’, I have always been surprised and disappointed that this costly and failed approach to security and stability is, for some very (not so) strange reason, still being advocated and encouraged. 

The truth is that without sustainable peace, Africa will never see real development and prosperity. Economic development and stability is ensured by good governance, law and order, and the application of sound policies. But if the policies and approaches are wrong, no amount of strategy and tactics can provide peace and stability.
 
Ending a conflict or war can only be assured when the state has the political will and the military might—and will—to engage the enemy. This must result in the enemy or threat being decisively beaten, and begging and pleading for mercy to save it from complete annihilation. This requires a strong and capable deterrent force with strong military policies in place.

If a government cannot negotiate from a position of total strength, it is merely giving the adversary time to rebuild and rearm its forces and continue the conflict.  Besides, the terms of negotiation must be dictated by the government and not by the enemy or threat. Indeed, it must be an unconditional surrender or nothing at all. During negotiations, the enemy or threat must be subjected to intense intelligence scrutiny to ensure that the call to negotiate was not a deception measure aimed at reducing pressure on the crumbling threat forces.

A well-trained, well-equipped, well-led and disciplined armed force, correctly postured and able to rapidly project decisive force, is a significant deterrent to an armed adversary. So why have some African governments decided to demilitarise their armed forces and instead turn them into ‘peacekeepers’?

The mere thought of ‘peacekeeping’ when and where a conflict or war is raging is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal. But in order to remain politically correct, and in the good books of the UN and those governments driving the (failed) peacekeeping approach, this new form of ‘un-warfare’ has taken hold in some African governments whilst emasculating their armed forces.
 
Simultaneously, it has expanded the current and future market for ‘peacekeepers’ and other ‘partnership forces’ to enter fragile and troubled countries—the results of which, to date, have been catastrophic, disgraceful, and disastrous to say the least. The numerous scandals created by these forces have simply added to the already tarnished image of the ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘partnership’ approaches.

Besides, if peacekeeping was such a valuable tool in the arsenal for halting the spread of conflict and war, why aren’t these forces standing between the warring parties in Nigeria, Libya, Cameroon, Niger, Burundi, and so forth? And if they are there, such as in Mali, South Sudan, Somalia—why aren’t they keeping the peace?

Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces.  Soldiers have now become ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘nation builders’ and time and money is spent on irrelevant ‘free’ training programmes supposedly aimed at keeping the peace and building nations—especially where there is no peace and governments have become fragile or failed. Soldiers have become quasi-policemen as opposed to fighting men who can and will fight to annihilate armed opposition or enemy forces.
 
The demilitarising of African armed forces has had serious knock-on effects such as a lack of intelligence gathering capacity—especially HUMINT, an inability to fight to decisively end conflicts and wars, a neglect of doctrine development and training, the neglect of essential combat equipment along with the procurement of unsuitable equipment, a watering-down of essential combat skills, the acceptance of bad advice, and so forth.  

This, however, suits those powers who have encouraged a mission diversion to ‘peacekeeping’ as they are guaranteed that African governments and their armies will be required to call for foreign help when the wheels fall off. And fall off they will—and are.
 
Anyone who dares criticise the farce of ‘peacekeeping’ is shouted down and viewed as a warmonger. It is, after all, not politically correct to criticise a failed approach that gives violent and murderous threat forces—viewed by many in the West as ‘moderate terrorists’, ‘pro-democracy fighters’ and ‘freedom fighters’—the advantage. Also, ‘human rights’ have overridden common sense as national armies are expected to show tolerance and understanding to the very people trying to kill them, murder and terrorise the populace, destroy infrastructure, and collapse the government.

The ‘peacekeeping’ mantra has become a dangerous cancer that is eating away at the combat effectiveness of African armies—and it is subsequently endangering the populace, destroying societies, and eroding the stability of states.

For Africa to survive in an ever-increasing turbulent environment, be independent, and ensure the safety and security for its people, the concept of ‘peacekeeping’ needs to be given a very serious rethink. 

Perhaps the time has come for African governments to stop demilitarizing their armed forces and instead redefine their missions—away from peacekeeping and towards enemy and threat identification, deterrence, targeting, and annihilation.

After all, that is what the armed forces are supposed to do—isn’t it?

You could probably replace African with Canadian and this piece wouldn't need to be altered very much.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on January 06, 2016, 12:12:51
.....the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being that last guy, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 06, 2016, 12:16:00
Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being that last guy, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thicktoast.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fpeace.jpg&hash=02f5ee53673478d9da9454245f688ae9)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on January 06, 2016, 12:26:28
Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces

I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F33cxf6s.png&hash=e0406b45a78fbc9c0a044093fdcb9080)

There are the added benefits of having your potentially problematic fighting-aged males dealing with their testosterone in someone else's country. 

And for the UN, Africans patrolling Africans is a much better image than having those 'white, colonial oppressors' doing it....regardless of the chronic scandals, malfeasance, and incompetence.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 06, 2016, 12:41:26
Humphrey & JM:

There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.

The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 06, 2016, 12:58:51
I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F33cxf6s.png&hash=e0406b45a78fbc9c0a044093fdcb9080)

There are the added benefits of having your potentially problematic fighting-aged males dealing with their testosterone in someone else's country. 

And for the UN, Africans patrolling Africans is a much better image than having those 'white, colonial oppressors' doing it....regardless of the chronic scandals, malfeasance, and incompetence.

The part you noted in yellow is exactly what I think he meant when he said "cajoled and hoodwinked"

I see peacekeeping and the money that comes with it as basically another form of bribery.  Of course Mr. Barlow and his company are also in direct competition with the UN for business from African governments so his viewpoint ins't completely altruistic. 

He is indirectly telling African governments their money would be better spent hiring him and his cohorts (actual Africans) to solve their problems rather than a bunch of unproven outsiders.  Given some of his successes, I think he has a pretty good business case.

Humphrey & JM:

There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.

The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.



Chris,

I'm glad you picked up on that  ;)

There is also an interesting little message he gave to a CBC reporter who requested an interview with him  ;D.

I'll say it now, I'm a big fan of Mr. Barlow.  I've been following his blog for a number of years and have read pretty much every post he has ever made.  I also own his first book "Against all odds" and have pre-ordered his upcoming book "Composite Warfare".  I'm particularly interested in his views on the profession of arms and the concept of warfare he calls relentless pursuit.



Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 06, 2016, 14:09:44
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F33cxf6s.png&hash=e0406b45a78fbc9c0a044093fdcb9080)

The one thing I find curious about that graph, given the imprecision of the x-axis, is that the UN budget appears to have shot up circa 1992-1994 - or roughly the time that Jean Chretien decided to get Canada out of the Peace-Keeping business.

Can I infer that prior to 1992 Canada, amongst others, contributed standing forces to meet emergency situations when and as necessary?  And that after 1994 they started chucking dollars at the problem, effectively buying "indulgences" and leaving the locals to their own devices?

That UN Aid money would, in my humble opinion, be much better employed, in putting the capabilities back into the forces of the contributing nations.

I believe the UK is coming around to that position.

Foreign Aid money used to fund British military operations abroad
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379139/David-Cameron-keen-to-give-foreign-aid-to-war-zones

Foreign Aid money used to resettle refugees in Britain
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/refugee-crisis-uk-foreign-aid-budget-to-be-spent-housing-people-in-britain-george-osborne-says-10488561.html

Britain is using the 0.7% of GDP model which results in a budget of some 12 Bn UKP  vice a defence budget of 2.0% of GDP.

In Canada with a Defence budget of 1.0% of GDP a "Foreign Aid Budget" of 0.7% would supply a pool of funds from which military operations could be financed.

And if the government/military knew that those funds were available then projects like air transport, logistics ships, truck fleets, communications, IMPs, shelters - all of which benefit the ability to react immediately to international disasters - could be funded.  The fact that, in time of war, they could also be commandeered for combat purposes - is entirely immaterial and a happy coincidence.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on January 07, 2016, 09:53:16
Mr. Pook, I'm not sure "standing force" would be the best description.  Perhaps 'forces available to support IGO sabilization activities' would be more accurate.  Although I have in the past, pointed out data (UNPK itself) that shows a fundamental reduction in Canada's contributions to UN PK ops after PM Chretien assumed power (IIRC, dropping from #1 under Mulroney to, by memory, #32 when Chretien left), I will note that much of Canada's 'available PK forces' were otherwise engaged in UNSCR-supported, BUT, NATO-executed peace-making ops (IFOR, SFOR, etc...).  So, troops were assigned in numbers not far off the late 80s/very-Ealy-90s, just not firefly under the UN's 'operational' mandate.

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 07, 2016, 12:39:51
Mr. Pook, I'm not sure "standing force" would be the best description.  Perhaps 'forces available to support IGO sabilization activities' would be more accurate.  Although I have in the past, pointed out data (UNPK itself) that shows a fundamental reduction in Canada's contributions to UN PK ops after PM Chretien assumed power (IIRC, dropping from #1 under Mulroney to, by memory, #32 when Chretien left), I will note that much of Canada's 'available PK forces' were otherwise engaged in UNSCR-supported, BUT, NATO-executed peace-making ops (IFOR, SFOR, etc...).  So, troops were assigned in numbers not far off the late 80s/very-Ealy-90s, just not firefly under the UN's 'operational' mandate.

Regards,
G2G

Would those "UNSCR-supported, NATO executed peace-making ops" have been funded under UN peace-keeping budget though? 

Another coincidental event of the era would have been the formation of the African Union in 1999 and the concomitant funding of the African peace-keeping efforts.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on January 08, 2016, 00:34:54
Would those "UNSCR-supported, NATO executed peace-making ops" have been funded under UN peace-keeping budget though? 

Another coincidental event of the era would have been the formation of the African Union in 1999 and the concomitant funding of the African peace-keeping efforts.

Only if the op is a UN-op.  IFOR and SFOR, while supported mandate-wise by a UN Security Council Resolution, were not funded by the UN.

Some (primarily Western) nations will pass a significant portion of the UN's per-soldier payment to the nation(s), through to the soldiers.  The trend with other nations, however, is that the soldier gets very little additional stipend, and the majority of the money from the UN is retained by the particular nation's government.

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on January 08, 2016, 11:25:47
....the soldier gets very little additional stipend, and the majority of the money from the UN is retained by the particular nation's government.
Kleptocracy is such an awkward term....but's it's how much of the 'third world' works.


Nigeria, as a light-hearted romp through the heart of darkness:

Percentage of Nigerians earning less than $1/day rose from 55% (2004) to 61% (2014), while millionaires have increased by 44% to 16,000 -- overwhelmingly government and military leaders.  Yet Boko Haram continues to run amok, while the UN says " :tsktsk: "


Globe & Mail, 17 June 2014 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/boko-haram-insurgency-exposes-nigerias-extreme-economic-inequality/article19175409/#dashboard/follows/.).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 08, 2016, 12:18:20
Kleptocracy is such an awkward term....but's it's how much of the 'third world' works.


Nigeria, as a light-hearted romp through the heart of darkness:

Percentage of Nigerians earning less than $1/day rose from 55% (2004) to 61% (2014), while millionaires have increased by 44% to 16,000 -- overwhelmingly government and military leaders.  Yet Boko Haram continues to run amok, while the UN says " :tsktsk: "


Globe & Mail, 17 June 2014 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/boko-haram-insurgency-exposes-nigerias-extreme-economic-inequality/article19175409/#dashboard/follows/.).

Nigeria is an interesting case, in that corruption and criminal activity is pretty much considered a legitimate form of business there.

Going back to my earlier post for a minute:

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120802.msg1409759.html#msg1409759 (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,120802.msg1409759.html#msg1409759)

I believe Eeben Barlow's message I posted was largely directed at the Nigerian government and military establishment.  His company, STTEP, has some recent history with them and he worked closely with them when he was involved in Sierra Leone in the 90's.

Another good book to read, if you're interested in learning about the Nigerian military corruption is a book called "Gunship Ace: The Wars of Neall Ellis, Helicopter Pilot and Mercenary"

See book here:  http://www.amazon.com/Gunship-Ace-Neall-Helicopter-Mercenary/dp/1612000703 (http://www.amazon.com/Gunship-Ace-Neall-Helicopter-Mercenary/dp/1612000703)

Although not specifically about Nigerians, Ellis ended up having to work with the Nigerian Army in Sierra Leone, so his dealings with them are detailed extensively in the book.  My takeaway from it all was "don't ever trust a Nigerian".

Ellis actually recounts how he eventually went about underminning the Nigerians after he found out they were working with the people they were supposed to be protecting Sierra Leone from.  A very interesting look into the world of UN Peacekeeping corruption.  Another reason I never understand why Canadians get all hot and horny about UN Peacekeeping?   :dunno:

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on January 08, 2016, 12:21:34
NigeriaMontreal is an interesting case, in that corruption and criminal activity is pretty much considered a legitimate form of business there.

We're no saints either...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 08, 2016, 12:23:53
We're no saints either...

Don't worry DP!  I've read the book and got the inside scoop!

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51m1es141%252BL._SX331_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=4f4955717248640d585753f3600834a8)

EDIT:

It was only after reading "Mafia Inc." that I realized Gelataria protection rackets could be so lucrative  ;D

DON'T PAY THE MAN!  NO MORE SORBET FOR YOU!

This book is also one of the sources I use to justify my great disdain for the Liberal Party of Canada, as their paw prints are all over the Italian mob.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on January 08, 2016, 12:51:05
This book is also one of the sources I use to justify my great disdain for the Liberal Party of Canada, as their paw prints are all over the Italian mob.

Well, they weren't the ones taking "consulting" payments in cash for an alleged pasta business, while still sitting as a member of parliament.  Because an Oliphant never forgets.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 08, 2016, 12:57:38
Well, they weren't the ones taking "consulting" payments in cash for an alleged pasta business, while still sitting as a member of parliament.  Because an Oliphant never forgets.

True!  Although I suppose corruption crosses political boundaries in Quebec.  The difference being, Montreal is a Liberal stronghold.  Brian Mulroney was a Red Guy disguised in Blue.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: dapaterson on January 08, 2016, 13:05:40
And so was Sir John A during the Pacific scandal?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 08, 2016, 13:10:25
And so was Sir John A during the Pacific scandal?

Och sure he wuz.  Did ye no ken that he fought as a Liberal Conservative and his backing came from all those Scots in Montreal's Golden Square Mile?  We're just as capable as ony of cutting a sharp deal.    [:D :piper:

Edit - It has always been a great source of amusement to me that the Anglos that Francos generally pretend to despise were, by and large, Scots.  I have no problem with the English taking the blame.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rocky Mountains on January 12, 2016, 16:12:03
Edit - It has always been a great source of amusement to me that the Anglos that Francos generally pretend to despise were, by and large, Scots.  I have no problem with the English taking the blame.

Only the French would accuse the Scots of speaking English.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 23, 2016, 14:27:50
Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ottawa-brings-fresh-vibe-to-festering-age-old-issues-in-middle-east/article28360460/) about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."

But change will not come too soon, said a senior Liberal ...

               “First we want to make sure we’ve got the Jewish vote back,” he said.

It's so nice to see principle back in foreign policy, isn't it?  ::)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on January 23, 2016, 14:49:00
Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ottawa-brings-fresh-vibe-to-festering-age-old-issues-in-middle-east/article28360460/) about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."

I am wondering whom those "legitimate partners in the region" may be?  Will they give legitimacy to what were otherwise considered 'Failed' or 'Terrorist' States by previous Governments?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 23, 2016, 15:52:01
Well, we cannot, at least, fault our Liberal friends for not telling the truth. An article in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ottawa-brings-fresh-vibe-to-festering-age-old-issues-in-middle-east/article28360460/) about the new, Liberal foreign policy in the Middle East closes with a brief mention of Israel and Minister Dion's assurances that Israel "had nothing to worry about from Canada strengthening its relationship with the other legitimate partners in the region."

But change will not come too soon, said a senior Liberal ...

               “First we want to make sure we’ve got the Jewish vote back,” he said.

It's so nice to see principle back in foreign policy, isn't it?  ::)

No racism there, eh?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Ostrozac on January 23, 2016, 16:18:34
I am wondering whom those "legitimate partners in the region" may be?  Will they give legitimacy to what were otherwise considered 'Failed' or 'Terrorist' States by previous Governments?

They are definitely talking about UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; these are the three nations that are either confirmed customers of LAV 6.0 or have been kicking the tires. It may also include Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan -- who we are, of course, currently training and arming.

UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not currently threats to Israel -- none share a border with Israel, all three share Israel's distrust of Iran, and all three nations are, in fact, currently fighting a nasty war in Yemen against Iranian allies. A war that may be spurring their interest in modern wheeled IFV's.

And as for Canada's terrorist-supporting adversaries in the region? Well, that's traditionally Iran, who is a close ally to Iraq. And as to what our long term policy goal is in Iraq/Iraqi Kurdistan? Well, I don't think anyone really knows. Is it to remove ISIS and cement Iranian influence from Afghanistan to Lebanon, influence backed by a Russian veto at the UN? That's not a good plan from Israel's perspective.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 23, 2016, 16:52:46
I would add Jordan and Oman to the mix.  They are both VERY solid.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on January 23, 2016, 18:35:11
Yes; but what of their views on the Palestinian State, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Libya, and a few others?
 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Ostrozac on January 23, 2016, 19:17:47
Yes; but what of their views on the Palestinian State, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Libya, and a few others?

The views of the Liberal Party? I'll take a stab at it. There are no votes or dollars in supporting (or even talking about) Palestine or Libya. Lebanon, on the other hand, is a potential gold-mine politically due to the diaspora presence in Canada and the numerous Canadians living in Lebanon (more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut), but it is also full of traps, particularly for politicians inexperienced in foreign affairs. Giving the Lebanese Army lots and lots of guns is already being done by the US and Saudi Arabia, and the collaborative/coalition nature of Lebanese politics makes working with their government very interesting, as Hezbollah has seats in parliament and members at the cabinet table.

I think the Liberals would like the Government of Canada to be more heavily and publicly involved in Lebanon, but they don't have any real ideas on how to do it.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 23, 2016, 22:54:51
>more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut

Canadians who were born in Canada or immigrated to Canada from countries other than Lebanon, or Lebanese holders of Canadian-passports-of-convenience?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Ostrozac on January 24, 2016, 11:36:51
>more Canadians live in Lebanon than in the Yukon or Nunavut

Canadians who were born in Canada or immigrated to Canada from countries other than Lebanon, or Lebanese holders of Canadian-passports-of-convenience?

Conducting a census is illegal in Lebanon (another of their fun quirks!), so it's mostly guesswork from me, but I'd expect the Canadians in Lebanon have a similar breakdown to the ethnic Lebanese-Canadian community, which StatsCan places as half born in Canada, half born in Lebanon.

But it doesn't really matter what flavour of citizens they are -- it's a large community of Canadians that guarantees: first, Canadian politicians are interested in Lebanon because of votes and second, there is a military/security interest in Lebanon, because the next time they get into a war, there are thousands of our citizens caught in the middle of it (just like in 2006).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 24, 2016, 12:45:56
Conducting a census is illegal in Lebanon (another of their fun quirks!),

Not illegal, just very difficult politically.

They had so much trouble with the last one carried out in that nick of the wood a little more than 2000 years ago.  You know, back there, when you have a census, everybody has to travel back to the town of their ancestors to register. And the PR flack you would get if, perchance, some poor pregnant women  gets there, can't find any room at the Motel and ends up giving birth in the parking garage at the back ... All hell would break loose.

 ;D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 24, 2016, 12:46:31
Canadians in Lebanon who are Lebanese who came to Canada, got citizenship, and returned to Lebanon, are passport-of-convenience "tourists" and I'm not inclined to worry about their welfare.  If that describes most of the Canadians in Lebanon, then we certainly should not take any extraordinary measures that we are not taking to protect Canadians who are abroad anywhere else.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on January 24, 2016, 13:47:16
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcanada.immigrationvisaforms.com%2Fupload%2Fcanada-passport.jpg&hash=4929b523e72e3b11fd0393012ae5d1eb)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0187/2004/products/m4_small_grande.jpg?v=1448982759)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MilEME09 on January 24, 2016, 13:56:22
IMO if you stay in canada just to get a Canadian passport then leave immediately and never return i'd call that fraud and grounds to have it revoked.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: PuckChaser on January 24, 2016, 19:12:32
The Liberals would call that policy you suggest as two-tier citizenship, and we should be so gracious to have these people choose to abuse us.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 24, 2016, 19:23:52
There's nothing inherently wrong with two-tier citizenship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Citizenship_Act_1946).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 07, 2016, 19:56:57
Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jjmccullough.com%2Fcomics%2F20160207.gif&hash=322e8452375b59703f7e855dfc719917)
Source: http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2016/02/07/puppet-show/

I guess it's clear enough that it's our military that's being jerked around by two untested political neophytes who are being controlled by one of Premier Kathleen Wynne's henchmen ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on February 07, 2016, 22:37:49
Foreign policy really does not matter to Gerald Butts et al, because the Liberal vision is essentially to treat Canadians as cows to be milked for the benefit of the LPC and its cronies.

Now if we could convince them that foreigners should be milked for the benefit of the LPC and their cronies, then things will become different....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 07, 2016, 23:49:30
Cartoonist, commentator, and author J.J. McCullough gets it in one:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jjmccullough.com%2Fcomics%2F20160207.gif&hash=322e8452375b59703f7e855dfc719917)
Source: http://www.jjmccullough.com/index.php/2016/02/07/puppet-show/

I guess it's clear enough that it's our military that's being jerked around by two untested political neophytes who are being controlled by one of Premier Kathleen Wynne's henchmen ...

Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:

A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;

B. Assist the Americans in ensuring hegemony under American leadership for North America. We do this already with NORAD, but if this is our strategy than we need to do MORE in terms of Air superiority, naval forces, and cut back on army/expeditionary capabilities. This is more or less what the Canada First Defence Policy attempted to do. It would involve a lot of investments in the Air Force and Navy;

C. Canada can attempt to become part of another hegemony to attempt a balancing of power. Canada could, in theory, align more closely with outside nations to balance US power. Without a real US threat outside of doing this and a lack of will to purchase the military required to do this, it's a non option. Canada benefits too much from American protection and economics to align outside of economic means.

There are other combinations and options, but these, to me, are the major ones as of this time.

At this point, it appears that we're attempting to do all three without doing any well. We dont enough army to make a proper expeditionary force, nor enough air force and navy to properly assist in US hegemony in North America. We see some of C with the attempt to create free trade agreements with nations around the world as a means of lessening our dependence on the US.

Which strategy is the best right now? I would say B, but we'll see how it goes. I just hope that the government puts out a real strategy!
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lumber on February 08, 2016, 14:58:10
Realistically, Canada has very limited foreign policy options when you get down to it. With the US foreign policy currently focused on creating a global hegemony vice attempting to create a regional hegemony or concert of nations/power balancing, Canada can:

A. Assist the US in creating a global hegemony under US leadership, which involves going to fight the wars of reassurance (what Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc were in essence; activities to convince key allies that America could AND would fight to secure their interests so they wouldn't need to develop large militaries of their own). This would require a strong expeditionary army which I doubt the LPC is interested in;

B. Assist the Americans in ensuring hegemony under American leadership for North America. We do this already with NORAD, but if this is our strategy than we need to do MORE in terms of Air superiority, naval forces, and cut back on army/expeditionary capabilities. This is more or less what the Canada First Defence Policy attempted to do. It would involve a lot of investments in the Air Force and Navy;

C. Canada can attempt to become part of another hegemony to attempt a balancing of power. Canada could, in theory, align more closely with outside nations to balance US power. Without a real US threat outside of doing this and a lack of will to purchase the military required to do this, it's a non option. Canada benefits too much from American protection and economics to align outside of economic means.

There are other combinations and options, but these, to me, are the major ones as of this time.

At this point, it appears that we're attempting to do all three without doing any well. We dont enough army to make a proper expeditionary force, nor enough air force and navy to properly assist in US hegemony in North America. We see some of C with the attempt to create free trade agreements with nations around the world as a means of lessening our dependence on the US.

Which strategy is the best right now? I would say B, but we'll see how it goes. I just hope that the government puts out a real strategy!

What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs.

The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
b. US gets tired of our **** and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Flavus101 on February 08, 2016, 15:55:01
What about the economic repercussions to option D?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lumber on February 08, 2016, 16:55:36
What about the economic repercussions to option D?

Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 08, 2016, 17:35:34
Oh the reprecussions are quite promissing. We sell off all of our military gear to help lower the national debt (12 x $1bn warships would make a big dent!). We keep our procurment plans in place, but respec them for whichever foreign military wants them.
But if we really want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.

You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >:D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 08, 2016, 21:27:30
What about option D? Let do like Switzerland and just become Neutral. Except, instead of Switzerland, who uses conscription and a mountainous geography to make themselves looks like a porcupine (not very big, but seriously, not worth the trouble), we use a couple vast oceans and our proximity to the US for the same purpose. Get rid of the military and just stay out of everyone's affairs.

The only bad outcomes of this that I can think of are:
a. abysmal reputation in the world for not helping out;
b. US gets tired of our **** and invades Canada... which would mean I no longer have to steal US Netflix, so I guess this is kind of a good thing...

I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on February 09, 2016, 05:26:28
Option "D" has been the default position of the NDP for decades, and was also the preferred option of the Sun King (until various fellow members of NATO let him know just how much was going to be at stake, including trade and international influence. Suddenly buying some Leopard 1 MBTs to replace the Centurions and so on became an option again).

Considering how the alliance reacted to Canada's suggestion of pulling out of the combat role against ISIS, do you really want to see that again on a larger scale?

As well, there is this quote to consider:

It takes but one foe to breed a war, and those who have no swords can yet die upon them
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 09, 2016, 09:06:25
I don't always like his work, but today's Michael deAdder hits the spot.

9 Feb 2016 Chronicle Herald Cartoon (http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2016-02-09-editorial-cartoon)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lumber on February 09, 2016, 09:51:00
But if we really want to be neutral (like Switzerland or Austria), we'd have to build a military force that would take on ANYONE wanting to take a serious poke @ Canada - including the U.S.  Your plan would make us less than neutral, but a slave to whoever has the biggest military willing to pimp us out protect us.

You think bilingualism is bad -- how's your Mandarin Chinese?  >:D

I always wanted to learn Mandarin!

But my point was that unlike Switzerland, we wouldn't need a really big military because we're so damn far away. We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).

I'll assume that you're being sarcastic. What do you see our real strategic interest as? And in any scenario do you not see our interests being underwritten by the US (such as they were by Great Britain up until 1950-ish)? Canada is a small player in a big pond. For us to have any influence internationally we require enough military to meet a mission, but need to decide the mission.

It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 09, 2016, 10:02:01
We'd piggy back off the US, and just assume that they wouldn't want the Chinese or Russians controlling Canada (realistically the only two that could possibly conquer us, even if we didn't fight back).
That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.
It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.
And an interesting "far end of the spectrum" alternative to consider & discuss - especially that bit in yellow.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Dimsum on February 09, 2016, 10:16:00
That's not really "neutral", then - more like a colony of the U.S.

I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lumber on February 09, 2016, 10:34:20
I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.

See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 09, 2016, 10:54:44
See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

Even then no one hates the ABs, except of course the Aussies lol And maybe the chicken people errr... French.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Dimsum on February 09, 2016, 11:15:29
See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?

Because we'd start saying "fush und chups" instead of "fish and chips"?   ???
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: cavalryman on February 09, 2016, 11:17:41
See! Perfect example! No one hates New Zealand (unless you're a Rugby fan; Go All Blacks!). Why can't we be more like our Kiwi brethren?
We'd need about 340 million sheep for starters (10:1 ratio in NZ)...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 09, 2016, 11:20:57
I'd say it's more like the Australia-NZ relationship; with no fighter aircraft of their own, Australia (in effect) protects NZ's airspace.
That is an interesting comparison - any idea how much "arm twisting" there is in that relationship with one country about 5 times bigger than the other (as opposed to our approximate 10:1 difference with our big American neighbour)?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 09, 2016, 12:50:45
It is not a good comparison.

First of all, there is no agreement between the two nations for Australia to defend the air space of New Zealand.

Second, New Zealand is alone, in the middle of nowhere (and not at the centre of the action - they are not really "middle-earth") with minimum 1000 km of water from its nearest neighbour - which happens to be Australia. It does not stand astride any air routes (save when you are actually going there) and in particular, does not stand astride any area that would be considered an air vector of advance for anyone trying to attack Australia (no one is coming over Antartica).

New Zealand is not a threat to Australia, and vice versa. With little in terms of natural resources (unless you are into sheep farming) that would attract invaders attention, thousands and thousands of Km of water protecting it, an Army with tactical transport and naval surveillance assets in sufficient number, New Zealand has enough to discourage any one who would be stupid enough to try something. As a result, Australia doesn't bother, nor does Australia keep any air assets - air or ground surveillance (radars - early warning systems, etc.) or fighters in New Zealand.

Canada, on the other hand stands astride all the major air routes to the US, and definitely astride the air vectoring corridors for any attack by likely enemies such as Russia or China.

Any absence of air defence in Canada, relying on the US umbrella would by necessity mean that the US would - without asking permission or negotiating any thing, trust me on that - move in where they see it required for their own protection to install radars, fighter bases and missiles sites. None of these would take into consideration what happens to the Canadian population if and when ...
At that point, we cease to be a sovereign country, and it would not surprise me in such circumstances to hear voices in the US that would raise a higher ruckus than the old battle cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight".

Our independence as a country requires that we acknowledge the security needs of our neighbour to the South and do what is required to either address them or to participate to the extent necessary to ensure that our interests are heard and accommodated to the maximum extent possible. There is no such inter-relationship required between Australia and New Zealand as what happens to N.Z. does not affect the defence posture of Australia.

As for our relationship with the US in defence matter, its basis what very simply stated in two simple reciprocal political undertakings taken shortly before WWII, which encapsulate both the relationship and the mutual interests in the defence of North America:

In 1938, in a speech at Queen's University, F. D. Roosevelt simply stated: "I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened ... ", to which Mackenzie King replied a few days later at a speech in Woodbridge, ON: "our obligation as a good friendly neighbour ... is to see that ... our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it and that ... enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or  air to the United States, across Canadian territory".

IMHO, doing anything less for either country would be to abdicate its responsibilities to its own citizenship as these undertakings, in both cases, are in the superior interest of each nation.

 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on February 09, 2016, 13:46:09
...In 1938, in a speech at Queen's University, F. D. Roosevelt simply stated: "I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened ... ", to which Mackenzie King replied a few days later at a speech in Woodbridge, ON: "our obligation as a good friendly neighbour ... is to see that ... our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it and that ... enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or  air to the United States, across Canadian territory".

IMHO, doing anything less for either country would be to abdicate its responsibilities to its own citizenship as these undertakings, in both cases, are in the superior interest of each nation.

...and recent Governments have all reviewed the "GoC - Lessons Learned" files, including this discourse between respective Heads of Government, and fully form policy and governance detail keeping these "agreements" in mind...   ;)

Cheers
G2G

 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 09, 2016, 14:13:25
Actually, the statement of policy was formally turned into an Agreement, the Ogdensburg Agreement, which is still in full force and effect today.
Title: Obama hosts Trudeau in state visit
Post by: S.M.A. on March 10, 2016, 17:07:37
Relevant for this thread: Let's see if Trudeau's visit actually yields progress on cross-border issues such as information sharing and trade (e.g. Lumber etc.)

Canadian Press (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pms-first-speech-u-audience-lets-not-live-090030641.html)

Quote
Trudeau, Obama share warm moments during PM's official visit to U.S.

Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
The Canadian Press
March 10, 2016

WASHINGTON - A warm moment in Canada-U.S. relations unfolded on the White House lawn Thursday, one marked by small talk, big fanfare and a plan to see President Barack Obama address Canada's Parliament before he leaves office.

The day began with a elaborate bit of bilateral cinematography: a military brass band, a cannon salute and hundreds of flag-waving onlookers greeting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in town for the first state dinner involving a Canadian in 19 years.

The leaders greeted the crowd along the rope line while their wives chatted nearby. A relaxed, wisecracking Obama make some jokes about American hockey dominance while noting how long it had been since a similar Canada-U.S. event.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on March 11, 2016, 14:35:36
I'm kind of looking forward to the first State dinner between the Young Dauphin and President Trump... >:D

I also predict rough handling at the hands of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on March 11, 2016, 14:48:04
I'm kind of looking forward to the first State dinner between the Young Dauphin and President Trump... >:D

I also predict rough handling at the hands of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on March 11, 2016, 15:24:15
Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchowderheadbazoo.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8345282f769e2010535c59fc3970c-pi&hash=6cc2a4bc19412ba3ddaf9a49d8b7ddb5)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on March 11, 2016, 15:45:44
Trump has zero chance at the presidency ....
I just love  absolutes, especially when dealing with things like humans... or politics.    :pop:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on March 11, 2016, 16:24:51
From the Chronical Herald

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthechronicleherald.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fch_article_main_image%2Fbm_cartoon%2FBruce%252003%252011%25202016%2520RGB.jpg&hash=a65ba846a71df448672f67af953f36ba)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 11, 2016, 16:43:28
Trump has zero chance at the presidency even if he becomes the candidate...the GOP is as likely to work against him as they are for him. Time to "let 'er go"

Yup. Just like there is no way in hell that Ontario or Alberta would ever elect a NDP government.

Never, ever bet on what voters will do.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 11, 2016, 16:48:00
From the Chronical Herald

Try get your picture bigger next time George. I forgot how much fun it is to move my mouse all over the screen to see a picture a tenth at a time. :P
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on March 11, 2016, 16:57:11
Try get your picture bigger next time George. I forgot how much fun it is to move my mouse all over the screen to see a picture a tenth at a time. :P

Yeah.....Been trying to figure a way to shrink it without copying it to my computer...... [:-[

[EDIT:  Happy Dance.  Found a smaller version.   [:D  ]

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2016, 18:07:19
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthechronicleherald.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fch_article_main_image%2Fbm_cartoon%2FBruce%252003%252011%25202016%2520RGB.jpg&hash=a65ba846a71df448672f67af953f36ba)

Code: [Select]
[img width=400]http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/ch_article_main_image/bm_cartoon/Bruce%2003%2011%202016%20RGB.jpg[/img]
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on March 15, 2016, 00:53:50
Found something while rereading an old issue of the Canadian Military Journal (Vol 15 No 4 Autumn 2015) in an article entitled "Prescriptions for Defense". (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no4/page59-eng.asp)

The article starts with a historical background outlining some of the recommendations and prescriptions for Canadian defence and international security policy offered in the preparation of the 1994 "White Paper", especially from a group called "the Canada 21 Council".

Some of what they propose seems to have become policy almost by default, as defense budgets eroded steadily due to inflation and lack of recapitalization, and some of the policy prescriptions seem to have been mirrored in the election rhetoric of the LPC, in particular the claimed lack of desire to have offensive strike capabilities as the reason to reject the F-35.

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no4/page59-eng.asp

Quote
in the new strategic context there was “no obvious need to maintain the wide range of air, ground, and anti-submarine conventional forces needed to repel a military attack” and that in any event, the Canadian defence budget “today cannot not meet the rapidly increasing costs of a modern, high-technology military. Unless policy is changed quite radically, the result will be that Canada will have simply a miniature model of a traditional ‘general purpose’ military force—one with just a little of everything, but not enough of anything to be effective in any conceivable situation.”

To the Canada 21 Council, the “new global circumstances” and the “reality of financial stringency” demanded a restructured military establishment “that would be capable of assuring our territorial sovereignty, assisting in the protection of North America, and participating in common security operations to a greater extent than is possible now.” The protection of territorial sovereignty, a task falling primarily upon the air force and the navy, required “an ability to know what is going on within our borders, in our airspace, and in our contiguous oceans.” By contrast, participating in common security operations, “usually under the aegis of the United Nations, implies having reasonable numbers of combat-ready, well-trained troops, with fully adequate equipment, able to respond to requests in well-defined circumstances.” The Council advocated the “adoption of a Canadian policy that would specify the level of military operations above which Canada would decline to participate,” adding that it did “not believe that Canada either wishes to or could afford to maintain armed forces that would be capable of undertaking a peace enforcement role against modern, heavily-armoured military forces.” Moreover, “if we wish to expand and improve the armed forces’ ability to support common security missions, while also protecting territorial sovereignty, operating the search and rescue system, maintaining stand-by forces for aid to the civil power, and being prepared to act in national disasters, we must find the necessary resources by reducing or eliminating some current roles. This, in turn, implies the reduction or elimination of some of the armed forces’ traditional military capabilities.”

Now the motivations are a bit different (especially the desire by Gerald Butts etc. to turn funding towards domestic clients and pro Liberal riding's), but the end results will be the same, highly constrained capabilities and a lack of ability or desire to participate in larger coalition efforts. Look for more "Virtue Signalling" behaviours, including expanded "Blue Beret" missions to promote the peacekeeping mythology.

Sadly, if anything, traditional peacekeeping missions are even less likely now, and the proliferation of inexpensive cast off Soviet era tanks ranging from T-55 to T-72s in large numbers around the world (along with Chinese knock offs) mans that we are more likely to encounter modern, heavily-armoured military forces, rather than less.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: S.M.A. on March 31, 2016, 13:44:08
A little too early to call this a "thaw" ?

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dion-foreign-policy-russia-1.3510941)

Quote
Trudeau government signals thaw in relations with Russia
Policy of refusing to engage 'only punishing ourselves,' Stéphane Dion tells university audience


By Evan Dyer, CBC News Posted: Mar 29, 2016 5:29 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 30, 2016 6:02 PM ET

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion outlined the Liberal government's new approach to foreign policy in a speech in Ottawa Tuesday in which he denounced the Harper government's decision to disengage with Russia over Ukraine.

Canada's foreign minister seemed to signal a shift in relations with Russia Tuesday in a speech at the University of Ottawa.

Stéphane Dion was discussing his philosophy of "responsible conviction," which he says will guide his choices at the helm of Global Affairs Canada.

He says Canada will follow its principles, but do so in a pragmatic manner, on files ranging from the war against ISIS to climate change.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 31, 2016, 14:00:15
The PM has just been invited to visit Cuba as well.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: S.M.A. on April 02, 2016, 01:50:16
The threat of nuclear terrorism revisited:

Canadian Press (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pm-canada-offer-42m-help-protect-nuclear-material-192621863.html)

Quote
PM: Canada will offer $42M to help protect nuclear material from terrorists
[The Canadian Press]
Alexander Panetta,
April 1, 2016

WASHINGTON - World leaders watched a video of a hypothetical nuclear terrorist plot Friday as they closed out a two-day summit dedicated to ensuring such a calamity never comes to pass.

More than 50 countries made commitments to the nuclear-safety cause — including Canada, which promised $42 million for global efforts to protect fissile materials.

The summit was the last of four organized during the presidency of Barack Obama. He'd made the issue a priority amid signs that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups were actively seeking nuclear weapons.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on April 02, 2016, 10:16:11
The threat of nuclear terrorism revisited:

Canadian Press (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pm-canada-offer-42m-help-protect-nuclear-material-192621863.html)

I did not find this offensive when I first read the title.  I now find it offensive that we are spending all that money, not on upgrading our own security, but in sending it to other nations, some of which are corrupt and likely to funnel it off elsewhere.  I seriously am at a loss as to trying to figure out when this Liberal Government and all its' spending will stop? 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on April 02, 2016, 10:26:02
It will stop when the public become tired of it and take the trash to the curb.  Just like they did in October past.  Will it really be better afterwards?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on April 02, 2016, 12:07:45
... I now find it offensive that we are spending all that money, not on upgrading our own security, but in sending it to other nations, some of which are corrupt and likely to funnel it off elsewhere ...
I don't recall a whole heap of objection to $28 million being spent "not on upgrading our own security, but sending it to other nations" in 2014 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pledges-28m-at-hague-summit-to-combat-nuclear-terrorism-1.2585306) (or even more than that in 2012 (http://www.international.gc.ca/department-ministere/plans/dpr-rmr/dpr-rmr_1213.aspx?lang=eng)) - or is the risk of nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands so much less now than then, so this funding isn't needed as much?   ;)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 02, 2016, 12:08:46
The PM has just been invited to visit Cuba as well.

Well Fidel is a old family friend. He attended Sr Trudeau's funeral.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Thucydides on April 02, 2016, 21:36:25
I wonder about the obsessive need for the Liberals to be admired by dictators and third world thugs.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jmt18325 on April 02, 2016, 22:22:24
That's akin to; when did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 02, 2016, 23:56:08
It's always possible for money to simply find its way into the hands of organized criminals who happen to run countries, but the goal of keeping a tight accounting of radioactive materials is worthwhile.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on April 03, 2016, 08:43:47
I wonder about the obsessive need for the Liberals to be admired by dictators and third world thugs.
This isn't just a Team Red thing (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-defending-military-deal-with-saudi-arabia/article26550145/) - another example here (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/trade-deals-as-tensions-with-china-continue/) (a country listed in the top ten of countries of origin for refugees accepted to Canada in 2014 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-refugees-by-the-numbers-the-data-1.3240640#admitted2014), and top 15 countries of origin for refugees in 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG.OR?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc)).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on April 03, 2016, 10:33:06
This isn't just a Team Red thing (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-defending-military-deal-with-saudi-arabia/article26550145/) - another example here (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/trade-deals-as-tensions-with-china-continue/) (a country listed in the top ten of countries of origin for refugees accepted to Canada in 2014 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s-refugees-by-the-numbers-the-data-1.3240640#admitted2014), and top 15 countries of origin for refugees in 2014 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG.OR?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc)).

320 from the US in 2015?  Makes me think that this data is not that accurate, and including legitimate immigrants.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 03, 2016, 10:38:09
Look at the World Bank data, George:

In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on April 03, 2016, 12:18:18
Look at the World Bank data, George:

In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?

I'm curious about the one individual driven to escape from the rigours of life in Iceland.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on April 03, 2016, 12:31:24
Actually; it makes you wonder what they use as a definition of "refugee".
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on April 03, 2016, 12:35:40
Look at the World Bank data, George:

In the 2011-15 period, it claims that there were 95 refugees that came FROM Canada, which is according to them 5 more than came from Saudi Arabia in the same period. Does this make sense to you?

That must have been after the Alberta provincial elections.    ;D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 03, 2016, 13:26:37
I'm too lazy to follow the link today.  Are those simply head counts which include refugees moving through successive countries en route to final settlement?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on April 03, 2016, 13:44:06
Actually; it makes you wonder what they use as a definition of "refugee".
From the page in question:
Quote
Refugees are people who are recognized as refugees under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol, the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, people recognized as refugees in accordance with the UNHCR statute, people granted refugee-like humanitarian status, and people provided temporary protection. Asylum seekers--people who have applied for asylum or refugee status and who have not yet received a decision or who are registered as asylum seekers--are excluded. Palestinian refugees are people (and their descendants) whose residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948 and who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. Country of origin generally refers to the nationality or country of citizenship of a claimant.
I'm too lazy to follow the link today.  Are those simply head counts which include refugees moving through successive countries en route to final settlement?
Could be, according to the UNHCR stats for Canada since 2012 (http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/asylum_seekers_monthly/EnvdZ2). 

Anyone have any objections to the Canadian stats now?   ;D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on April 03, 2016, 13:53:53
SO?  Let's clean up our "Homeless" problem by declaring them all refugees, and the Liberal Government can then make their quota and save on the security checks, etc. as these people are already in country.    [:D   >:D   [:D




[Edit.  I'll blame it on spellcheck.]
Title: Canada could be pressed into reopening NAFTA
Post by: S.M.A. on May 25, 2016, 01:34:25
Both Bernie Sanders and Trump seem to be appealing more to the protectionist fringes of their respective parties, which won't bode well for Canada-US trade:

Canadian Press (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-could-pressed-reopening-nafta-u-lawmaker-says-212811071.html)

Quote
Canada could be pressed into reopening NAFTA, U.S. lawmaker says
[Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press]

May 24, 2016

WASHINGTON - Canada might be forced to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement if the next U.S. president insists upon it, a Washington lawmaker said Tuesday.

The California congressman said the northern neighbour is so trade-reliant on the U.S. that it couldn't easily ignore an American ultimatum on revising the deal.

"We could walk away from NAFTA any time," said Darrell Issa, who sits on different congressional committees dedicated to intellectual property, foreign affairs and trade. "We've always been able to."

Every major candidate for president has expressed support for changing NAFTA. Republican Donald Trump is a virulent, decades-long critic of trade deals which he's repeatedly said he would change; Democrat Bernie Sanders has been equally critical; and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has occasionally expressed support for reopening NAFTA.
(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on May 25, 2016, 11:35:31
In which case we better go full steam ahead on terminals and pipelines. Perhaps cutting some of the ties might be good for us in the long run.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on May 25, 2016, 11:38:46
In which case we better go full steam ahead on terminals and pipelines. Perhaps cutting some of the ties might be good for us in the long run.

Colin - that is a big statement coming from you.

Dead serious.  Not wanting any heat.  If we are to get oil shipped off of your coast what is the best route and what is the best port?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on May 25, 2016, 12:54:11
Funny you should ask http://www.kitimatclean.ca/news/
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MilEME09 on June 24, 2016, 23:29:07
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/if-canada-is-really-back-it-needs-some-backbone/

Quote
If Canada is really back, it needs some backbone

During the high-anxiety run-up to the shocking Brexit vote, it was hard to get a Canadian politician to shut up about it. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he made no “bones” about his support for the Remain side. Ministers Bill Morneau and Stéphane Dion spoke openly about the dire consequences of the U.K. leaving the European Union. Meanwhile, Conservative MP and former House Speaker Andrew Scheer felt compelled to write an article supporting the Leave position. It got to the point where a foreign political leader who didn’t intervene in the domestic politics of Britain looked downright irresponsible. But ask these same people to give their view on Donald Trump and they seize up faster than a Brussels bureaucrat can straighten a banana.

The issues are not dissimilar. The Brexit debate hinged on concerns about trade and economic prosperity, mixed with nativist fears about immigration, security and nationalism: Trump issues to the max. The U.K. is Canada’s third-biggest trading partner, and the vote will hurt our economy. But the U.S. is our largest partner, and Trump’s anti-NAFTA, anti-immigration, volcanic rhetoric poses a significantly higher threat to Canada’s free trade and stability. So if the dangers of the Brexit justified the intervention of Canada’s leaders, shouldn’t Trump?

Apparently not. If a good politician is someone with an opinion carefully prepared to contain no ideas, then Trump has made masters of Ottawa’s mandarins. “I have great faith in the American people and look forward to working with whoever gets elected in November,” Trudeau said when asked about Trump. Yawn. But understandable. In 1967, when Charles De Gaulle blurted out “Vive le Quebec libre,” English Canadians were ready to burn baguettes.

Loads of international law supports butting out of another sovereign state’s business, from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to the UN principle of non-intervention. Respect for sovereign rights has been the cornerstone of peacemaking and globalized trade, but the world has moved beyond the dated concept of non-intervention. The public now expects its leaders to raise issues of human rights or the environment—in public—during any bilateral trade meeting. Globalization has made domestic human rights, and worker rights, fair diplomatic game.

Trump, however, is proving to be an exception. So far, only Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has dared criticize him. I spoke to her after the Orlando massacre and she said Trump’s policies were “dangerous.” A few days later she went to Washington and doubled down, calling Trump “divisive” and “destabilizing for the continent.” It is high-risk stuff coming from the leader of a province that depends so heavily on trade with the U.S., but she took the risk because her principles overruled political strategy. Isn’t that the kind of politician we want? Isn’t that leadership?

The person who ought to be leading on these files is Stéphane Dion, minister of foreign affairs, but recently he stood mutely as the Chinese foreign minister berated a Canadian journalist for asking a question about human rights. Dion was rightly pilloried.

Dion clings to his so-called doctrine of “responsible conviction,” now Canada’s foreign policy blueprint. The phrase derives from the philosopher Max Weber’s distinction between the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility. It is meant to help Dion gauge the real-life consequence of action based on ideals. While it is refreshing to have a minister grounded in theory, it has revealed him to be a vacillating featherweight, a man who can’t decide whether he stands by selling arms to the Saudis or not, and who has humiliated himself in the debate over the Yazidi genocide.

Earlier this month, Dion voted against a Conservative motion asking the government to recognize that ISIS was committing genocide against 400,000 Yazidis in Iraq. ISIS itself announced its genocidal intentions. In March, John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state declared it was genocide. Not Dion. Dion was steadfast on the day of the vote, and the day following the vote: no genocide. On the third day of the controversy, Dion did a complete 180, and said it was in fact a genocide. What changed? Not the evidence. The blood of Yazidi children, women and men was practically drenching the reports sitting on his desk. No, it was the appearance of a UN investigative report that changed his mind. #leadership.

The Brexit debate revealed that Canadian leaders will intervene in other countries’ affairs of to a degree, if we believe it protects our interests. Dion could salvage some credibility by challenging Trump on the issue of refugees and immigration, a file on which Canada has shown real leadership. If Trump was using words like “Jews” or “blacks” or “Italians” instead of “Muslims,” would we want Dion to step up and say something? Of course we would. Dion should join Wynne and risk breaking protocol. If Canada really is back, as Dion has bragged, it needs some backbone. So far he has shown none. Trump could be his chance.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 24, 2016, 23:56:15
Mr. Dion, is to my mind a classic Liberal minister with his useless, ineffectual, dithering.  I cannot imagine that knob as PM.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: S.M.A. on June 28, 2016, 16:20:02
A fig leaf from Trudeau to Peña Nieto ?

Toronto Star (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/28/canada-to-lift-visa-for-mexican-visitors-mexico-to-allow-canadian-beef.html)

Quote
Canada to lift visa for Mexican visitors in deal before Three Amigos summit

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada is dropping its visa requirement for Mexican visitors as of December 2016, while Mexico has agreed to open its markets to Canadian beef.

Tues., June 28, 2016

OTTAWA—Canada will lift the visa requirements for Mexican citizens that have become a diplomatic sore spot between the two countries, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Tuesday.

At a joint press conference with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto Tuesday morning, Trudeau said the requirements which limited Mexican nationals’ travel in Canada would be lifted by Dec. 1.

At the same time, Mexico has agreed to open their markets to all Canadian beef exports later this year.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: GAP on June 28, 2016, 19:24:35
Forget the Syrians....here come the Mexicans.....again....
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2016, 18:50:13
And meanwhile -

The Brexit impact on CETA

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/686645/EU-Brussels-Canada-trade-deal-in-doubt-individual-nations-Brexit-EU-referendum-politics

Jean-Claude says Oui to Chrystia

Quote
Bureaucrats had hoped to act as a tacit EU superstate, rubber stamping the plan on behalf of members and even nations beyond the EU borders.

But, emboldened by Britain's Brexit vote, nation states were today in revolt forcing the European Union into a dramatic re-think.

Quote
Despite the Britich Brexit vote serving as a huge red flag that nation states are vehemently opposed to losing their sovereignty to an unelected Brussels bureaucracy Juncker last week said he believed there was no need to involve parliaments

Martin Schulz wanted a more powerful, overarchin EU government but nation states want more autonomy

Candian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had hoped for a quick EU deal

But Matthias Fekl, France’s trade minister, said it was “unbelievable” that Brussels had been planning to treat the deal as a decision for an overarching EU body.

He added: “I find it even more hallucinatory only a few days after the result of the British referendum that one could envisage this type of procedure at the level of the European Commission."

Romanian politicians have already threatened to oppose the deal because Bucharest is not receiving visa reciprocity from Ottawa.


Juncker’s self-serving decision to act as a superstate has now put the CETA deal in doubt.

Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s trade minister said: “If the EU cannot do a deal with Canada, I think it is legitimate to say: Who the heck can it do a deal with?”

The U-turn flies in the face of EU top chiefs’ calls for "more Europe", and each nation will now get to decide on the groundbreaking deal to stop it being forced through by the European Commission.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada has been on the table since 2009.

But it is now in doubt as 40 national and regional assemblies will need to approve it.


It is claimed the deal will increase bilateral exports of goods and services by €26billion annually but it appears nations have chosen their own sovereignty over financial gain.

Democracy may be breaking out all over.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MCG on August 12, 2016, 14:41:59
I found this an entertaining read, and linking to this sites appreciation of "events, dear boy" is the recognition that Canadian leaders rarely have the option of picking the defining foreign policy issues of thier time in office.

Quote
How Trudeau's foreign policy could blow up in his face
It starts with the usual bad luck … and a President Trump

Michael Petrou
iPolitics
12 Aug 2016

Politicians can only rarely follow through on long-term, big-picture foreign policy plans. The world shifts and changes in unexpected ways, and leaders adjust.

Here, for example, is a now almost unrecognizable George W. Bush during a 2000 presidential campaign debate with Al Gore:

“I’m worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use ... I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, ‘We do it this way, so should you.’”

9/11 made Bush an imperialist. His successor, Barack Obama, was going to end Bush’s wars, “reset” relations with Russia and pivot America’s foreign policy focus to the Pacific. America is still in Afghanistan, is in Iraq again and relations between Moscow and Washington are as frosty as they’ve been in a generation. The Pacific will have to wait.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau entered office with a vague and rather self-important foreign policy goal — to “restore constructive Canadian leadership in the world” and, more prosaically, advance Canada’s interests. Details included improving relations with the United States and Mexico by reducing trade barriers and lifting the Mexican visa requirement, increasing support for United Nations peacekeeping operations, restoring ties with Iran and mending frayed relations with Russia.

There was scant mention of terrorism or security threats in Trudeau’s mandate letters to either Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion or Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan: Trudeau instructed the two to end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and Syria (where Canada had been bombing the so-called Islamic State) and refocus on training local forces and humanitarian efforts. Canadians, he said, wanted Ottawa to make a contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world, and Trudeau’s government would support those aspirations.

Trudeau hasn’t been blown far off course — yet. He’s enjoyed a sun-setting political romance with Obama. Visa requirements for Mexicans will be lifted by the end of the year. All indications are that Canada will soon join at least one UN peacekeeping mission in Africa.

But the world shifts under Trudeau’s feet, too. If the prospect of a “reset” with America didn’t moderate Russia’s behaviour, it should have been obvious that a friendlier prime minister in Ottawa wouldn’t either. It hasn’t.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is ever more belligerent. Fighting between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine is intensifying. Putin has vowed that a supposed incursion by Ukraine into Crimea (which Russia invaded and annexed two years ago) “will not go unanswered.”

Russia continues its military support for the murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. And now he’s staged a genuine reset with Turkey, a NATO member state which last year shot down a Russian plane that had briefly entered Turkish airspace.

Under President Recep Erdoan, Turkey is in the midst of a massive purge of those suspected of involvement in an attempted coup last month. Almost 70,000 people — including soldiers, journalists, teachers and judges — have been arrested, suspended or fired, numbers that suggest Erdoan is as interested in crushing dissent as he is in serving justice to those behind the coup attempt.

A NATO member state is sliding toward dictatorship, and its president is cozying up to NATO’s primary adversary. These would be worrying developments for Canada at the best of times. These are not the best of times — especially given the potential for a political earthquake in the United States.

America has always been the cornerstone of the NATO alliance. It will not continue to fill that role if Donald Trump becomes president. Among Trump’s many flaws is his lackadaisical commitment to protecting NATO allies, combined with a bizarre affection for Putin. A Trump presidency — which is a prospect Canada cannot responsibly discount — would embolden Putin and upend the security framework that has kept peace and order in Europe for decades.

This, even more so than the growing international reach of Islamic State, would have implications for Canadian foreign policy priorities, placing demands on Canadian military resources and diplomatic energies.

Contributing to UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, winning a spot on the UN Security Council, developing a North American environmental agreement, leading the global fight against climate change — these are all important goals, and if Trudeau has his way, they'll form the framework of his foreign policy agenda.

But, like other leaders before him, Trudeau won’t get to choose which foreign policy issues define his time in office. All he can do is choose how he responds to them. Trouble is brewing — in Eastern Europe, Turkey, Syria and, most alarmingly, the United States. Trudeau will be hard-pressed to avoid it.


The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/11/how-trudeaus-foreign-policy-could-blow-up-in-his-face/
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on August 12, 2016, 15:01:34
Contributing to UN peacekeeping operations in Africa, winning a spot on the UN Security Council, developing a North American environmental agreement, leading the global fight against climate change — these are all important goals....
Let's see.....likely disagree.....strongly disagree.....disagree.....and....strongly disagree.    Next.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on August 12, 2016, 20:18:36
Das schwerpunkt - Georgia.

Title: Trudeau sees chance for "reset" in Canada-China relations
Post by: S.M.A. on August 29, 2016, 11:53:40

Remember what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8FuHuUhNZ0)? "... the admiration I have for China because, uh, their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to ..."


Trudeau will have to walk a fine line between offending China and offending any constituents back in Canada such as Falun Gong exiles whose parents or relatives were killed and harvested for their organs while imprisoned in China.

Canadian Press via Global News (http://globalnews.ca/news/2907996/china-sees-new-opportunity-with-justin-trudeau/)

Quote
China sees ‘new opportunity’ with Justin Trudeau in charge
By Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press   

OTTAWA – With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau set to embark on his first official visit to China, the Chinese government is trying to ease concerns about its human rights record as a way to encourage a deeper business relationship with Canada.

The economic superpower sees last year’s election of Trudeau’s Liberal government as a “new opportunity” to strengthen business ties between the two countries, China’s ambassador to Canada told The Canadian Press.

For both sides, the expectations around Trudeau’s week-long trip are high.

Trudeau, who leaves for China on Monday, will focus on building the economic connection between the two countries. On Friday, he described the trip as something of a “reset” in the relationship.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lightguns on August 29, 2016, 12:02:16
Trudeau will have to walk a fine line between offending China and offending any constituents back in Canada such as Falun Gong exiles whose parents or relatives were killed and harvested for their organs while imprisoned in China.

Canadian Press via Global News (http://globalnews.ca/news/2907996/china-sees-new-opportunity-with-justin-trudeau/)

I strongly suspect that he will view China the way his daddy viewed Cuba.  This will be the tone of the conversation for Canada; remember how Cuba went from human right abusing dictatorship to the poor little country that took on the USA in Canadian Liberal circles in the 70s.  I think he considers himself his daddy's legacy.   
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on August 29, 2016, 13:34:26
China ratching up the ante. I suspect it has less to do with safety or quality, then to put the screws to Trudeau to see how he reacts. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-23/inventing-canola-no-help-for-canada-as-china-changes-import-rule
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on August 29, 2016, 13:48:33
......put the screws to Trudeau to see how he reacts.
Possibly as a bargaining chip in a completely unrelated field. 

As a random example, China could  say "we'll modify this agricultural requirement for our good Canadian friends.....IF you back our South China Sea claims."  In such a hypothetical case, a $2B Canadian export would likely carry more election campaign weight than maintaining international norms.    :dunno:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on August 29, 2016, 16:43:31
Not of course that China would ever stoop to such tactics......... [lol:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on August 29, 2016, 19:07:38
Nor any other first world nation wanting ply its own resources globally like, say....asbestos... :whistle:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: S.M.A. on August 31, 2016, 13:33:05
No figures yet on what this current govt. will commit to the new AIIB:

Canadian Press (http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-signals-intent-to-join-china-led-bank/ar-AAigYWs?li=AAggv0m&ocid=ACERDHP15)

Quote
Canada signals intent to join China-led bank
Canadian Press
Andy Blatchford
9 hrs ago

BEIJING - Justin Trudeau has officially submitted Canada's application to join a controversial new international infrastructure bank led by China — an initiative the Asian country hopes will help build its economic credibility around the world.

China founded the US$100-billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank late last year to provide other countries in the region access to capital for investments in projects in areas such as transportation, power and telecommunications.

The Canadian government made the announcement after Trudeau met with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday in Beijing, but did not immediately specify how much money it would put into the new bank.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on August 31, 2016, 13:40:12
As a random example, China could  say "we'll modify this agricultural requirement for our good Canadian friends.....IF you back don't actively oppose our South China Sea claims." 
Even that as a fall-back would be good news for the Chinese.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lightguns on August 31, 2016, 13:43:06
Even that as a fall-back would be good news for the Chinese.

How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on August 31, 2016, 13:59:38
How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?
In politics, as in everything ...
(https://media.makeameme.org/created/COME-NOW-EVERYONE.jpg)
If you consider it a balancing act, if you make more people/interests happy with what we get than what we give up, it's still a winner (politically, anyway).

Also, if you want to parse "actively oppose", if Canada whines, but doesn't, say, join any joint international action against China on that particular issue, that may be enough to keep everyone happy -- here's what was said (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1102379) about the court decision, but what's been done to fight China's position/possession?  Here's some options, for example, the U.S. could consider (from a paper last updated last year (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44072.pdf)) to show the range of things that could be done:
Quote
...
•  stronger U.S. statements to China about the consequences for China of continuing the land reclamation activities, and more generally, changing the U.S. tone of conversation with China;
•  better publicizing China’s land reclamation activities and other actions in the area, as well as their potential implications for international law and the treatment of the global commons, to the public and governments in the region and globally;
•  opposing land reclamation activities in disputed waters by both China and other claimants;
•  strengthening the capacity of allied and partner countries in the region to maintain maritime domain awareness (MDA), coast guard patrols, and fishing fleet operations in the area;
•  further strengthening U.S. security cooperation with allied and partner countries in the region, and with India, to the point of creating a coalition for balancing China’s assertiveness;
•  increasing arms sales to Taiwan; and
•  increasing U.S. Navy operations in the region ...
The "did we win? calculus would require the political Info-machine to very carefully consider what you brought up in yellow.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: ModlrMike on August 31, 2016, 15:08:39
...and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?

The Filipino communities in Manitoba might have something to say about the issue.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on August 31, 2016, 15:32:25
How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?
You're talking law, rationality, and several dispersed ridings.  I was referring, hypothetically, only to an economic reality.

.....In such a hypothetical case, a $2B Canadian export would likely carry more election campaign weight than maintaining international norms.
By the next election, perhaps some people may look at the deficit and say  ":facepalm:"  -- although I honestly don't hold out a lot of hope.

The government may  need to look at what they have salvaged.... like a $2B export market.


As for the US, see Trudeau 1.0 and Cuba;  China is a variation on a theme (although they are an actual risk, if not threat.... unlike Cuba)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Loachman on August 31, 2016, 16:24:08
How can one not actively oppose those claims when they have no basis in international law, your largest trading partner does oppose, and you have huge ethnic populations from concerned nations in your stronghold ridings?

Because it's 2016?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on August 31, 2016, 16:30:14
Sooner or later somebody is going to have to decide to do something and will discover that somebody is opposed.

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on August 31, 2016, 17:45:35
Sooner or later somebody is going to have to decide to do something and will discover that somebody is opposed.
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pastthepressbox.com%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2Fforthewin.jpg&hash=b5ea4ed4222b0213ddd13e0b3af67d88)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on September 26, 2016, 14:16:37
Ummmm?   :-\ 

Don't we have enought USELESS Departments already?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Quote
The HILL TIMES
Defence and Security
Harper government ‘messed up’ jet-replacement process, that’s why things are slow: Sajjan (http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/09/26/canada-doesnt-need-f-35s-says-former-cf-18-fleet-manager/81473)
'We should have replaced our fighters a long time ago, and now we’re dealing with another potential capability gap for our air force,' says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

By CHRISTOPHER GULY, RACHEL AIELLO
PUBLISHED : Monday, Sept. 26, 2016 12:00 AM

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he’s moving as fast as a he can on finalizing a plan to replace Canada’s fighter jets but that the previous Conservative government “messed up” the process and that’s why things are taking so long,

“We’ve been moving on that as quickly as possible, but this file is extremely complex and it had been thoroughly, if I can say, messed up from the previous government and it has slowed things down,” Mr. Sajjan (Vancouver South. B.C.) said in an interview with The Hill Times last week. “We should have replaced our fighters a long time ago, and now we’re dealing with another potential capability gap for our Air Force.”

He said something would happen on this file “sooner rather than later” in terms of deciding on a process for picking a replacement to Canada’a aging fleet of CF-18s.

Last week, the House of Commons National Defence Committee recommended that the government decide on a CF-18 replacement within the next 12 months.

Mr. Sajjan the government has to “make sure we have the right aircraft for our men and women. And it was only last November since we formed government, but replacement of the fighters was something we knew is a necessity.”

Meanwhile, man who once saw oversaw the lifecycle management of Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets says the Liberals should stick to their 2015 campaign commitment and not purchase the F-35 stealth fighters the former Conservative government wanted.

“We do not need the F-35,” said Paul Maillet, a retired Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) colonel who as an aerospace engineering officer was responsible for the military’s fleet of CF-18 Hornets.

He said that Canada would “pay far too much and get far too little” for Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II at a time when Justin Trudeau’s government is shifting the country’s military focus to peace operations.

The results of an independent audit by accounting firm KPMG, released in late 2012, pegged the cost of buying and maintaining 65 F-35s at $45.8-billion over a 42-year period. Mr. Maillet said the price tag is a lot higher in the U.S., which now considers the F-35 the standard for fighter jets.

“It will cost the Americans more than a trillion dollars, and it’s the most expensive military project ever,” he explained. “Yet we’re nearing the end of an era of manned fighter aircraft, and there’s a lot of overlap going on with unmanned drones right now.”

Mr. Maillet, who before his 2001 retirement from the military served as director of defence ethics at DND, said Canada doesn’t need stealth fighter jets to protect national sovereignty or contribute to United Nations or NATO peace missions.

“If we are no longer doing bombing campaigns in the Middle East, our money should be better spent elsewhere.”

He said DND could focus on providing transport or troops to a “peace and security response” to global and domestic situations, and made that pitch in a written submission as part of DND’s public consultation to develop the country’s new defence policy.

Mr. Maillet, who now works as an international development consultant, has called for “aligning” Canada’s national defence and foreign affairs policies, and creating a federal “Department of Peace” that could include establishing an “Office of Peace, Violence Prevention, Mediation, and Reconciliation” within DND or Global Affairs Canada.

At DND, “this could mean a robust military force-based constabulary response … [with] boots on the ground that are not afraid to share the risk and sacrifice of those non-combatants not able to protect themselves,” wrote Mr. Maillet in a document he sent to Mr. Sajjan and members of the Defence Policy Review Ministerial Advisory Panel, including Mr. Maillet’s one-time boss, retired Gen. Ray Henault, former chief of the Defence staff.

“It is time for a historic change of world view and mindset towards how we task, fund, train, and employ our military,” Mr. Maillet said.

He said if needed, Canada could opt for a lighter aircraft, such as the Saab Group’s Gripen—not dissimilar to the CF-18—and use the jets to patrol all three of Canada’s coasts without having to set up offshore bases to accommodate the larger, more expensive F-35s used in bombing missions Canada no longer supports.

Yet, Queen’s University political studies professor Kim Nossal said Canada is responsible for protecting North America with the U.S. under NORAD, and that “the only aircraft that some people are saying will be acceptable to the Americans is the F-35.”

“The RCAF has always flown whatever the Americans have flown since 1960, after the Avro Arrow got canned the year before,” said Prof. Nossal, a fellow in the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen’s.

“The federal government knows the only plane that the United States air force, marines, and navy is going to use over the next 20 to 25 years is the F-35,” which has become a “political football” tossed around by both the Liberals and Conservatives.

He said Stephen Harper’s government “made the right choice” when in 2010 it announced that it would acquire 65 F-35s, “but the Conservatives screwed up how they did it.”

Instead of bringing the opposition on board and committing to a fair competition for the CF-18 replacement contract—in the same way Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal government did when it chose the CF-18s—the Conservative government “decided to play a little gamesmanship” and pursue a sole-source deal with Lockheed Martin, according to Prof. Nossal, who’s written a book called Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada, to be released by Dundurn in December. The book includes an examination of the “F-35 fiasco.”

He said the Liberals “returned the favour by politicizing the issue of F-35 costs,” which originally were set at $9-billion, but eventually climbed after Auditor General Michael Ferguson had a closer look and KMPG was later brought on board to identify the true cost of the procurement. “The Harper government abandoned the program and sent it back to the drawing board, and little was done,” said Prof. Nossal.

However, he said the full cost of the aircraft, from purchasing it to maintaining it, would cost $1-billion a year.

Since 1997, the federal government had contributed more than $311-million toward the development of the F-35s, which in turn has generated $812-million US in contracts to Canada’s aerospace industry, The Canadian Press reported in July.

Prof. Nossal said that not proceeding with the F-35 purchase would “almost definitely end those long-term benefits of being in the Lockheed Martin global value chain.”

Withdrawing from the F-35 program would also leave the federal government on the hook for as much as $346.7-million US, according to DND documents obtained by Postmedia News.

But Lockheed Martin is still in the game, and was one of five companies that responded to the Trudeau government’s call for finding a fighter-jet replacement to the CF-18. The other four firms are: Dassault Aviation for its Rafale; Eurofighter GmbH on its Typhoon; Saab (Gripen); and Boeing Co.’s Super Hornet, which is an aircraft the Liberals reportedly considered acquiring through a sole-source contract over the summer.

That latter fighter jet will soon be out of production, Prof. Nossal noted, and in his view the other three aircraft won’t meet Canada’s primary obligations under NORAD.

Mr. Maillet expects that pressure to choose the F-35 will also come from the RCAF’s fighter-pilot community that “always wants the best and shiniest” aircraft.

But he added that procurement should be subservient to military strategy, and “buying the best bomber in the world” doesn’t fit the government’s policy on moving Canada from a combat role to a peace player on the world stage.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

Timeline

1980: Canada decides to buy 138 CF-18 Hornets from McDonnell Douglas.

1997: Liberal government invests $10-million in the U.S.-led, nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter program, involving Lockheed Martin, to develop a new fighter jet.

2000: Canada upgrades the CF-18s to keep them flying until 2020.

2010: Conservative government announces it intends to buy 65 F-35s from Lockheed Martin.

2012: Auditor general and KPMG say costs will be significantly higher.

2015: Liberals say they won’t buy the F-35s if they form government.

2016: Liberal government launches public consultation on defence policy review and a new competition for the next-generation fighter jet.





More on LINK (http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/09/26/canada-doesnt-need-f-35s-says-former-cf-18-fleet-manager/81473).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on September 26, 2016, 14:44:38
.....procurement should be subservient to military strategy....
Sure would be sweet to have one of those -- you wouldn't even have to say "White Paper," because that's probably offensive to someone.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Lightguns on September 26, 2016, 14:48:09
"Mr. Maillet, who now works as an international development consultant, has called for “aligning” Canada’s national defence and foreign affairs policies, and creating a federal “Department of Peace” that could include establishing an “Office of Peace, Violence Prevention, Mediation, and Reconciliation” within DND or Global Affairs Canada."

Geeez, bet he bought into the peacekeeper myth with his life savings.......  Another dis-interested observer and we should take his word for it. 
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MARS on September 26, 2016, 15:07:05
Every time the blame is placed on the previous government, I am reminded of the "three envelopes" joke that was told to me on my assumption of Command.  Although in politics, perhaps there are more than three envelopes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/joke-the-three-envelopes_n_1635781.html

Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on October 08, 2016, 21:21:40
Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-azer-conservatives-iran-1.3795671)

So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Hamish Seggie on October 08, 2016, 21:28:23
Trudeau blames Tories for complicating Azer case by cutting ties to Iran (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-azer-conservatives-iran-1.3795671)

So now it is Harper's fault that Stephan Dion is a disrespectful Minister who insults the Mrs. Azer in the House?

Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 08, 2016, 22:29:08
Our grandkids will be blaming Harper when they are my age..... :facepalm:

Don't you mean Trudeau's grandkids?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 28, 2016, 11:22:03
$112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpm.gc.ca%2Fsites%2Fpm%2Fthemes%2Fpm_trudeau%2Fimages%2Fcanada-coat-of-arms.svg&hash=e6194a8956da1eb99723918d15833ef5)   JUSTIN TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

The Prime Minister announces significant support for Africa and La Francophonie at the XVI Summit of La Francophonie (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-africa-and-la-francophonie-xvi-summit)

Antananarivo, Madagascar
November 27, 2016

While attending the XVI Summit of La Francophonie in Madagascar, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today announced that the Government of Canada will provide $112.8 million for international aid projects that will benefit several African countries and Haiti.

This funding will contribute to projects that aim to fight climate change, empower women, and protect their rights. It will also be used to stimulate economic growth, which will create job opportunities for young people and women, and to counter terrorism and prevent radicalization.

During the Summit, the Prime Minister held discussions with his counterparts from countries of La Francophonie on issues related to the Summit’s theme – Shared Growth and Responsible Development: Conditions for Stability Around the World and Within La Francophonie.

The Prime Minister also highlighted that Ontario has been granted observer status in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). This bolsters Canadian representation in the OIF and will provide greater exposure for Franco-Ontarian communities on a global scale.

Quote

“Canada’s participation in the Summit is in keeping with our desire to revitalize our commitment to La Francophonie and Africa. Working together with other member and observer States and governments, we can better address the numerous challenges that face members of La Francophonie, from climate change, to gender inequality, to human rights – including LGBTQ2 issues. Canada congratulates Madagascar on a successful Summit of La Francophonie.”
—Rt. Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada


Quick Facts

  • Africa plays a leading role within La Francophonie. The previous two summits (Kinshasa in 2012 and Dakar in 2014) took place in Africa. African countries account for 29 of the 54 full members.
  • In addition to Ontario, La Francophonie also welcomed Argentina and South Korea as observers, and New Caledonia as an associate member.
  • The governments of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario are represented at the XVI Summit of La Francophonie respectively by premiers Philippe Couillard and Brian Gallant, as well as by Marie-France Lalonde, Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs (Ontario).

Related Product

  • Fact Sheet: The Prime Minister announces significant support for international aid while attending the XVI Summit of La Francophonie (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-international-aid-while-attending-xvi)
Associated Links:
  • Major La Francophonie Events – 2016 Francophone Summit in Antananarivo, Madagascar (http://www.international.gc.ca/franco/event-evenements.aspx?lang=frahttp://www.international.gc.ca/development-developpement/humanitarian_response-situations_crises/foodassistance-assistancealimentaire.aspx?lang=eng)
  • Canada in La Francophonie (http://www.international.gc.ca/franco/index.aspx?lang=eng)
  • XVI Summit of La Francophonie 2016 (http://www.francophonieantananarivo-2016.mg/) (Available in French only)



Official statement LINK (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-africa-and-la-francophonie-xvi-summit).
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 28, 2016, 13:52:20
$112.8 million to be sent outside of Canada.
And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time (http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/) without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-international-aid-while-attending-xvi) in Niger?  ;)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: George Wallace on November 28, 2016, 14:06:51
And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time (http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/) without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-international-aid-while-attending-xvi) in Niger?  ;)

One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:   Foreign Aid Portal (http://cidpnsi.ca/foreign-aid-data/)



Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 28, 2016, 14:10:51
One more link on Canada's Foreign Aid:   Foreign Aid Portal (http://cidpnsi.ca/foreign-aid-data/)
That's where my first link came from.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 28, 2016, 14:23:41
And?  Team Blue sent all kinds of $ outside of Canada all the time (http://cidpnsi.ca/canadas-foreign-aid-2012-2/) without many complaints around these parts.

Or are you against the $500,000 for "Counterterrorism and prevention of radicalization to violence" (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/27/prime-minister-announces-significant-support-international-aid-while-attending-xvi) in Niger?  ;)


Bingo!

For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...

Look, I am a card carrying Conservative; more than that I donate enough money that I am a member of the Party's so-called Leaders Circle* but I do not believe that everything CPC was or is, automatically, right and proper; nor do I believe that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are all devilish idiots ... that's why I refuse to engage in political discussions in Army.ca ... both the Conservative and Liberal partisans are, generally, just mindlessly spouting the (internet) party lines.

I do not think Canadians chose well in 2015, I hope they will come to their senses in 2019. But Justin Trudeau is neither a fool nor the devil incarnate. He is my prime minister, too, even though I want that to change, and I think that he deserves some respect and some benefit of the doubt, too.

___
* The Conservative Party eschews the apostrophe in its Leaders Circle bumph so I don't know if I'm in a circle around the leader (a Leader's Circle) supporting and protecting him, or in a circle of leaders (a Leaders' Circle) doing something else ... no "circle jerk" jokes, please  :D  consider that a pre-emptive strike!
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on November 28, 2016, 14:47:49
Bingo!

For many, many people, who react rather than think, anything and everything done by Prime Minister Trudeau must be wrong and bad and ill considered and wasteful and so on while anything done by Prime Minister Harper must have been right and good and principled and productive and, and, and ...
And I'll also be honest enough to admit that there are more than a few out there who think the same re:  PM Harper - or any Team Blue coach.

All that said, some advice from "Red Dawn" ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 28, 2016, 15:16:13
My name's Dave and I'm a liberal hater. My political awakenings happened around the time of Trudeau Snr. That likely set the pattern. After his first term I had gained a visceral hate for all things (Canadian political) liberal and socialist. Have they done some good stuff. Probably. Have the conservatives fooked it? Absolutely, you only have to look at Mulroney, who acted more like a liberal than a conservative. Right down to the money scandals.

I miss a lot of what the liberals actually say. Given my extreme dislike, for them, I can't get through an article without losing my mind. It's almost become an automatic reflex. Yes, I rant and rave here against them (and other places) and sometimes I get it right.

Like golf, one good shot makes you keep coming back and trying again.

So, I guess, all that to say, if you read one of my posts and it doesn't point to research or a complete understanding of the subject and just sounds like a rant, it likely is and questioning me about it won't provide any solace, as I likely only gave it a cursory look.

Trudeau doesn't impress me. At all. He's putting on the show of a leader but has to leave the real work to the back end Laurentian Elites that are making him perform like a seal. He's a mental midget that screws up everytime he goes off the script that his handlers gave him. 

So, yeah, he's Canada's PM, which makes him mine also. However, the one thing the liberals can't do, is make me like or feel good about it.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Brad Sallows on November 28, 2016, 16:32:43
I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".

If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.

So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 28, 2016, 17:04:13
I'm never sure what to make of it when people say/write "my PM" or "my president".

If someone were to say "my king", I'd infer that the speaker regards himself as a subject.  In a democracy, that relationship is not the case.  You can still say, "my {leader}" (servant of the people), but it's a little ambiguous.

So I prefer "the PM", not "my PM".

It's simple, really, he is the fairly, honestly, elected leader of my country and while no one would be happier than I if (when) he fails on political grounds I do not want to see him fail, over and over and over again, on policy grounds.

When he fails Canada suffers, maybe not much, but it does ... I am willing to see us all pay a price for his political demise, but I hope that at least some of his policies are not failures.


Edit: two typos
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on November 29, 2016, 11:27:40
I just got to explain to a bunch of adult Chinese ESL students, how projects are reviewed and approved in Canada. I explained that the Public Service is not supposed to be political and serve the government of the day. That this is my 4th government and as long as they give us lawful direction we will do our best to carry it out and that major decisions are political in nature. I could tell by their questions that they were struggling to grasp the difference, the 2 biggest is that our political masters come and go and that the PS is not heavily entwined in the political side, to get anywhere in China you must belong to the party.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: MCG on November 30, 2016, 15:40:52
Is the military component of our foreign policy currently about doing just enough with what we have so that we are not asked to do it with more?
Quote
How Canada’s defence money is spent
David J. Bercuson
24 Nov 2016

In early July, Justin Trudeau’s government announced that in 2017 it will dispatch a “battle group” of 450 soldiers to command one of four North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) brigades that are being formed in the NATO countries that border Russia, particularly the Baltic states and Poland. The Canadian contingent will be going to Latvia for six months, to be replaced by other Canadian contingents, as necessary, for as long as NATO believes they are warranted. The other brigades will be commanded by Britain, the United States and Germany.

The aim of the deployment is ostensibly to aid those countries in the event Russia takes military action against them. In fact, those brigades are not meant to defend anything as much as to provide a tripwire that, in the event of a Russian attack, will kick in Article V of the NATO treaty which provides for common defence among all NATO members.  How do we know this? Because a NATO brigade’s life expectancy will be very short indeed if Russian forces launch an all-out attack. The four brigades are thus far more a symbol than they are effective defence; with or without those brigades, a Russian invasion of any NATO country is supposed to spark off a NATO military response.

Nevertheless, they will send a clear signal, symbolic or otherwise, that Russia ought not to believe that even though these NATO nations are on the far eastern fringe of NATO, they will not be defended to the same extent that Germany or France would. And it is a sure sign of Canada’s ongoing commitment to NATO under the new Liberal government that the commitment was eventually made, even though it came after many weeks of open U.S. and NATO pressure on Canada to participate.

Many questions remain about the mission: what kind of a force does Ottawa have in mind when it talks about a 450-member “battle group”? For over 25 years the Canadian Armed Forces have used the term “battle group” in the same way that other nations use the term battalion group. These formations add a core battalion of infantry—generally about 600 soldiers—accompanied by other units such as engineers, medics, mortars and/or heavy machine gunners. The battle groups that Canada fielded in Afghanistan and, earlier, in the Balkans were generally from 750 to 900 men and women. So what exactly does the government mean by a 450-person battle group?

Of course many of the details may not have been worked out yet (the decision was only made in July) and presumably people at National Defence Headquarters will have these and other issues worked out before the deployment. But one is already crystal clear: by undertaking a high profile mission, a small one to be sure but an important one for NATO, Ottawa is demonstrating its response to critics, both domestic and international, who say that Canada’s defence expenditures of roughly .8 per cent to one per cent of GDP (as opposed to NATO’s desired two per cent of GDP) are inadequate. From the beginning of the Liberal mandate, the minister of National Defence has said that it is not so important how much Canada spends; what really counts is how Canada’s defence money is spent.

In other words, to keep Canada’s critics off Ottawa’s back–especially Americans who speak of Canada as a free-rider—this government has undertaken at least two missions that Washington is, or will be, well aware of: (1) increasing Canada’s logistical, training, special forces, and surveillance troops on the ground in the Iraq/Syria theatre and (2) commanding a brigade in Latvia and contributing a significant chunk to it. Of course, Canada did pull its six-pack of CF-18s from the Iraq/Syria theatre in order to keep Prime Minister Trudeau’s election promise, but then another six-pack is now to accompany Canadian troops to Latvia.

At this point in its mandate, the only consistent defence policy that the government seems to be pursuing is just that—undertaking small, but high profile missions (especially in Washington) to keep our No. 1 ally from focusing too much on our anemic defence spending. It’s not a bad idea and one that Canada could get away with. It should at least hold off serious U.S. criticism until the new president assumes office and Canada’s new defence policy review emerges as a serious, cohesive policy that Canadians are ready to support financially. 
 
https://legionmagazine.com/en/2016/11/how-canadas-defence-money-is-spent/
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on November 30, 2016, 16:05:50
Sounds more like a plussed-up Combat Team?  ???
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 30, 2016, 16:40:49
Sounds more like a plussed-up Combat Team?  ???

Bde HQ and Sigs Sqn with a D&E Coy?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Good2Golf on November 30, 2016, 16:46:01
Bde HQ, ASIC and Sigs Regt (-) Sqn with a D&E Coy?

FTFY.  ;D
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Chris Pook on November 30, 2016, 16:49:45
Sorry, lost count of the requisite numbers of pips and crowns to be deployed.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: sandyson on November 30, 2016, 22:02:36
The proposed deployment to Latvia is strikingly similar to sending two battalions to reinforce Hong Kong before World War II.  Fewer people but this time the equipment would be lost as well.  (The battalions' equipment was sent separately and late. It was redirected away from the battle.)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rifleman62 on November 30, 2016, 23:31:11
The equipment went to the Philippine and lost anyway.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Journeyman on December 01, 2016, 10:14:31
.....and Canada’s new defence policy review emerges as a serious, cohesive policy that Canadians are ready to support financially.
      :rofl:
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on January 18, 2017, 12:21:29
And, via the PM's Info-machine (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/01/18/prime-minister-canada-announces-parliamentary-secretary-minister-foreign-affairs), the newest player in Canada's foreign affairs mix ...
Quote
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the appointment of Andrew Leslie, Member of Parliament for Orléans, to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In this new position, Mr. Leslie will assume special responsibilities for the Canada-U.S. relationship and play a critical role in building ties with the new U.S. administration.

Mr. Leslie was first elected in the Orléans riding in 2015. As a retired Lieutenant-General, he has a strong background in public service. His dedicated service has been recognized both domestically and internationally on numerous occasions during his 35-year career with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Leslie, currently the Chief Government Whip, will take up his responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary on January 30, 2017. His successor as Chief Government Whip will be announced in the coming days.

Quote

“I thank Andy for his outstanding service as Chief Government Whip, and I am delighted he has agreed to take on the role of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs with special responsibilities for the Canada-U.S. relationship. As a retired Lieutenant-General with years of experience working with the U.S., I know he has the necessary relationships and experience to help establish a constructive dialogue with the new U.S. administration.”
- Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
Statement and bio also attached in case link doesn't work.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on January 19, 2017, 08:19:58
Interesting post (http://bit.ly/2jCjvAg) (also attached in case link doesn't work) to a blog maintained by an Aussie who someone claims to be a KGB recruit now living in Moscow (https://books.google.ca/books?id=oqzgy4wevXEC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=%22john+helmer%22+moscow&source=bl&ots=yc4MqKWQvi&sig=06DNnZsf6qr2OaUU8gqLPUUXv70&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMy-b-lM7RAhUGQyYKHTKDDwc4FBDoAQgmMAI#v=onepage&q=%22john%20helmer%22%20moscow&f=false) and who claims Holland and Australian troops were going to attack Russia over the MH17 shootdown (http://johnhelmer.org/?p=15859) on Canada's newest foreign minister ...
Quote
Chrystia Freeland (lead image), appointed last week to be the new Canadian Foreign Minister, claims that her maternal family were the Ukrainian victims of Russian persecution, who fled their home in 1939, after Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin agreed on a non-aggression pact and the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. She claims her mother was born in a camp for refugees  before finding safe haven in Alberta, Canada. Freeland is lying.     

The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland’s maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo)  Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp.  During the German Army’s winning phase of the war, Chomiak celebrated in print the Wehrmacht’s “success” at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda, at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero ...
And if the author of this post is such a chaser of oligarchs in Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Helmer_(journalist)) - why is he still alive and posting generally pro-Russian stuff?

So far, only been picked up by one pro-RUS outlet (http://russia-insider.com/en/victim-or-aggressor-chrystia-freelands-family-record-nazi-war-profiteering-and-murder-crakow-jews) -- with plenty of anti-Trudeau comments.

#HistoryOrDezinformatsia?
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Fishbone Jones on January 19, 2017, 16:37:50
Trudeau's foreign policy is quite easy to understand.

Whenever another country mentions Canada, Trudeau gives them millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars. That's about it, nothing else to see there.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 06, 2017, 13:15:21
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-trudeau-meeting-expected-soon-as-ministers-reach-out-to-cabinet-secretaries/article33896998/

Quote
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who commanded troops in Afghanistan, will drop by the Pentagon on Monday to meet his U.S. counterpart, retired four-star Marine Corps general James Mattis. The two former military commanders are expected to discuss the fight against the Islamic State and what additional responsibilities the Americans might expect of Canada within NATO and the North American Aerospace Defence Command [NORAD].

Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?
Quote
Mr. Sajjan can be expected to seek guidance on whether the U.S. will continue to stand with Ukraine, given Mr. Trump’s comments about mending relations with Russia. Since Mr. Trump moved into the White House, there has been a surge in violence in Ukraine that is threatening to overturn a ceasefire in the three-year-old conflict.

Canada first deployed about 200 troops to Ukraine in the summer of 2015 to help train government forces after Russia annexed Crimea and began aiding separatist forces in Ukraine’s Donbass region. The mission is set to expire at the end of March, and Ottawa has been non-committal on an extension despite public appeals from the Ukrainian government.

Mr. Saijan will also ask Mr. Mattis what the U.S. thinks of Canada sending up to 600 Canadian peacekeepers to Mali, a deployment now on hold until Ottawa has secured American support. Command of the 13,500-troop UN mission in Mali is now vacant, and the UN has been waiting since December for confirmation that Canada will nominate a general for the post.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: FSTO on February 06, 2017, 13:53:50
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-trudeau-meeting-expected-soon-as-ministers-reach-out-to-cabinet-secretaries/article33896998/

Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?

More than a bit I would say.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 08, 2017, 11:51:45
Not taking a shot at our Defence Minister, but is the underlined a bit of a reach?
Well, if he had more than one person reporting to him, it would be technically correct.  In terms of general understanding of what being a "commander" is about, though, if he was a liaison officer (not to take away from the value of such work), yeah, it is a bit of a stretch.

In other news, I know this'll (https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/08/canada-campaign-team-security-council-bid/95015) vastly reassure & cheer up a lot of people around here ...  >:D  ;D
Quote
Global Affairs Canada has established a dedicated team to work on the government’s goal of winning a two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council beginning in 2021.

Eight people are working on Canada’s bid for the Security Council, with six at headquarters in Ottawa and two at Canada’s permanent mission to the UN in New York City, according to the foreign ministry.

Jocelyn Sweet, a spokesperson for Global Affairs, wrote in an email that the team is “tasked with co-ordinating at headquarters, at the UN in New York, and across our diplomatic network to support the international engagement of the prime minister, ministers, and diplomatic representatives.”

She said the team, which has been put together using existing resources, “provides senior officials advice on how Canada can most effectively strengthen its international engagement, particularly with respect to this important multilateral forum.” She added that “staffing requirements to support Canada’s engagement at the UN and resource allocations will evolve over time.” ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 08, 2017, 12:12:33
Why 2021? Next fixed election is Oct 2019. Are the Liberals, if they gain a seat, going to attempt to have another election timed so that Canada is slotted for the Presidency so they than brag Trudeau not only gained a  seat for Canada but the Presidency? Most Canadians are too dumb to know anything about the UN.
Quote
The presidency of the Council is held by each of the members in turn for one month, following the English alphabetical order of the Member States names.
Quote
Canada — non-permanent member of the Security Council during the following years:

    1948 – 1949

    1958 – 1959

    1967 – 1968

    1977 – 1978

    1989 – 1990

    1999 – 2000
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Underway on February 11, 2017, 22:39:45
Well, if he had more than one person reporting to him, it would be technically correct.  In terms of general understanding of what being a "commander" is about, though, if he was a liaison officer (not to take away from the value of such work), yeah, it is a bit of a stretch.

In other news, I know this'll (https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/08/canada-campaign-team-security-council-bid/95015) vastly reassure & cheer up a lot of people around here ...  >:D  ;D

In general terms I was technically a commander in Afghanistan as well.  *in commanding voice*  "Hey Cpl, while you're getting a coffee get me one too!  One sugar!".   Odds are though he ran an Int cell and had a number of IntO's and/or IntOps working for him.

It's good at least that he has some deployments to point too.  Helps get traction with the opposite number in the US, who would probably not respect a non-military minister as much.  We will have to apply asymmetric politics(copyrighted by Underway) with this particular administration in order to get stuff done in our best interest.
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 13, 2017, 15:25:56
- edited to add link now available -

PM's statement from the CAN-USA meeting in D.C.  (https://goo.gl/ykRXA7)(email version attached) - highlights mine:
Quote
Joint Statement from President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

February 13, 2017
Washington, D.C. (États-Unis d’Amérique)

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held their first official meeting today in Washington, D.C. and affirmed their longstanding commitment to close cooperation in addressing both the challenges facing our two countries and problems around the world.

No two countries share deeper or broader relations than Canada and the United States. We are bound together by our history, our values, our economy, our environment, and our resolve to improve the lives of our citizens. Our close relationship and ongoing collaboration allow us to successfully meet any challenges we may face over the coming years, and to build a prosperous future for the people of both countries.

Neighbours in Growing our Economies

We recognize our profound shared economic interests, and will work tirelessly to provide growth and jobs for both countries. Canada is the most important foreign market for thirty-five U.S. States, and more than $2 billion in two-way trade flows across our shared border every day. Millions of American and Canadian middle-class jobs, including in the manufacturing sector, depend on our partnership. We affirm the importance of building on this existing strong foundation for trade and investment and further deepening our relationship, with the common goal of strengthening the middle class.

The United States and Canada also recognize the importance of cooperation to promote economic growth, provide benefits to our consumers and businesses, and advance free and fair trade. We will continue our dialogue on regulatory issues and pursue shared regulatory outcomes that are business-friendly, reduce costs, and increase economic efficiency without compromising health, safety, and environmental standards. We will work together regarding labour mobility in various economic sectors.

Given our shared focus on infrastructure investments, we will encourage opportunities for companies in both countries to create jobs through those investments. In particular, we look forward to the expeditious completion of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which will serve as a vital economic link between our two countries.

Energy Security and Environment

U.S.-Canada energy and environmental cooperation are inextricably linked, and we commit to further improving our ties in those areas. We have built the world’s largest energy trading relationship. We share the goals of energy security, a robust and secure energy grid, and a strong and resilient energy infrastructure that contributes to energy efficiency in both countries. We collaborate closely on energy innovation, particularly in the clean energy sphere. As the process continues for the Keystone XL pipeline, we remain committed to moving forward on energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs while respecting the environment.

We also look forward to building on our many areas of environmental cooperation, particularly along our border and at the Great Lakes, and we will continue to work together to enhance the quality of our air and water.

Partners in Keeping our Border Secure

We recognize the security of our borders as a top priority. Together, we address security at our shared border and throughout our two countries, while expediting legitimate and vital cross-border trade and travel. We demonstrate daily that security and efficiency go hand-in-hand, and we are building a 21st century border through initiatives such as pre-clearance of people and integrated cross-border law enforcement operations. In addition, our two countries are committed to a coordinated entry-exit information system so that records of land and air entries into one country establish exit records for the other.

Recognizing the success of pre-clearance operations for travellers, we commit to establishing pre-clearance operations for cargo. We intend to accelerate the completion of pre-clearance for additional cities and continue to expand this program. Not only will these efforts enhance efficiency at our shared border, they will also strengthen our shared security. In the spirit of a more efficient and secure border, we will also examine ways to further integrate our border operations, including analysis of the feasibility of co-locating border officials in common processing facilities.

Because we share a strong concern about the increase in opioid-related deaths, our countries will work together on common solutions to protect our people from opioid trafficking.

Given the integrated nature of the infrastructure that supports our intertwined economies, cyber threats to either country can affect the other. We therefore commit to further cooperation to enhance critical infrastructure security, cyber incident management, public awareness, private sector engagement, and capacity building initiatives.

Allies in the World

We are indispensable allies in the defence of North America and other parts of the world, through NATO and other multilateral efforts. Our troops have time and again fought together and sacrificed their lives for our shared values. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) illustrates the strength of our mutual commitment. United States and Canadian forces jointly conduct aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning in defence of North America. We will work to modernize and broaden our NORAD partnership in these key domains, as well as in cyber and space.

The United States welcomes Canada’s recently announced decision to launch an open and transparent competition to replace its legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. The United States also welcomes Canada’s decision to explore the immediate acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft as an interim capability to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement is ready. Canada appreciates the cooperation of the United States to facilitate these processes.

The United States values Canada’s military contributions, including in the Global Coalition Against Daesh, and in Latvia. Together, we are harnessing all elements of national power to achieve the goal of degrading and destroying Daesh through our military operations to deny it safe havens and to build the capacity of local partners, stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters into the Middle East region, cut off access to financing and funding, counter the Daesh narrative, and support the stabilization of communities liberated from Daesh.

Empowering Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders

It is a priority of both countries to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workforce. We are committed to removing barriers to women’s participation in the business community and supporting women as they advance through it. As part of this effort, we are creating a Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. We expect this initiative to promote the growth of women-owned enterprises and to further contribute to our overall economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the enhanced integration of our economies.

The Way Forward

We share a commitment to continue to strengthen our ties for the benefit of our mutual prosperity and security. We look forward to our cabinets following up on today’s meeting with further discussions in their respective areas of responsibility. Our countries deserve our full commitment to increased economic growth, which we will deliver. The partnership between the United States and Canada will continue to be unique and a model for the world.

PMO Media Relations:
613-957-5555
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 13, 2017, 17:24:57
And from the Whitehouse info-machine - highlights mine ...
Quote
Readout of the Vice President's Meeting with Canadian Ministers (https://goo.gl/3QRe2M)

Vice President's Meeting with Canadian Ministers

The Vice President met this afternoon with a team of Canadian ministers and their U.S. counterparts in conjunction with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's visit to Washington. The participants in the meeting from Canada included Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance William Morneau, Minister of Transport Marc Garneau, and Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan. The Vice President was joined by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, Acting Deputy Secretary of State Tom Shannon, and members of the Vice President's staff. The Vice President emphasized the importance of the U.S. bilateral relationship with Canada and underscored the need to deepen our cooperation on issues related to trade and investment, border security, and the fight against global terrorism, including the counter-ISIS campaign. The Vice President also discussed the U.S. government's continuing commitment to NATO, and he and the Canadian ministers discussed their expectations for the Munich Security Conference later this week, where he will be traveling to engage with a wide range of NATO allies on issues related to European security. Following their private discussion, the Vice President and the Canadian ministers joined the President and other members of the U.S. and Canadian delegations for a working lunch hosted by the President in the State Dining Room at the White House.
Quote
Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Roundtable with Women Entrepreneurs (https://goo.gl/HlGae5)

Cabinet Room

12:13 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I'm honored to be here with Prime Minister Trudeau, whose father I knew and respected greatly.  And he gave me a picture of myself and your father, and what a great picture.  I will keep that in very special place -- at the Waldorf Astoria, together. 

We're going to launch the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs.  We have some of the great ones in this room -- and business leaders.  We have so many great women leaders around the table today, and we're going to go through your names exactly, because many of you I know, some of you I don’t, so I want to find out all about you. 

Women, as you know, I can say that from my past life, I had so many women executives who were phenomenal -- phenomenal -- and really helped me a great deal in business.  So it was really fantastic.  They play a tremendously important role, women in our economy.  Women are the primary source of income in 40 percent of American households and households with children under the age of 18.  In order to create economic growth and lots of very good, well-paying jobs, we must ensure that our economy is a place where women can work and thrive.  And I think that's happening in the United States much more so, and Ivanka is very much involved in this.  And I appreciate you being involved in it. 

And I know, Justin, in Canada it's happening big league, and it's very important.  We need policies that help to keep women in the workforce and to address the unique barriers faced by female entrepreneurs -- and they are unique.  We need to make it easier for women to manage the demands of having both a job and a family, and we also need to make it easier for women entrepreneurs to get access to capital.  And I guess pretty much all entrepreneurs, we have to help them out, because the system is not working so well for entrepreneurs getting capital.  But it's in particular difficult for women, so we're going to get access to markets and access to networks. 

And I look forward to hearing your advice.  We're going to go around the table, and I want to really learn something today.  And again, it's a great honor to be with you.  And, Justin, I can say on behalf of our country, it's an honor to be with you.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Thank you, Donald, for welcoming us.  And I’m really excited about launching this, sitting around the table here with a number of successful executives who just happen to be women.  One of the things that I’ve been lucky enough to do over the past year in New York and Beijing and across Canada is sit down with women CEOs, women executives to talk about both their successes and the challenges they’re facing that are particular, but also how, of course, we create more paths to success for women across our community and across our society.

Whenever I sit down with a woman executive, I know that she has had to overcome significant barriers that exist, and therefore is likely to have greater insight into how to help reduce those barriers for others, but also be a formidable contributor to the success of business and her economy.

So I think for me, it’s not just about doing the right thing, it’s about understanding that women in leadership positions is a very powerful leverage for success, for business, for communities, and for our entire economy. 

(Speaks in French.)

It’s a great pleasure to sit with you now and to hear from your extraordinary leadership. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.  So how about we start with Ivanka, we go around the room.  Ivanka, you might just want to say a couple of words.

MS. TRUMP:  Welcome.  I’m honored to be here, and really looking forward to hearing from each of you who serve as tremendous role models for me and so many other business leaders.  (Inaudible) our countries can lend some tremendously valuable perspective as we think about the unique challenges that entrepreneurs, women in the workforce, female small-business owners are confronted with each and every day.  And as we think about how we level the playing field for this generation and for the next.

So thank you for being here.  And I look forward to hearing from you today.

MR. FARRELL:  Thank you.  I’m Dawn Farrell and I’m from a company called TransAlta, which is located in Alberta, where you're going to build the Keystone Pipeline.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  A big chunk of it, that’s right.

MS. FARRELL:  So thanks for the opportunity to contribute to this important dialogue, and a dialogue that we’ve had for 100 -- over hundreds of years.  My company is in the business of making electricity.  We generate electricity from coal, natural gas, and also from renewable sources -- wind, hydro and solar.  We have operations in Canada, the United States and in Australia. 

And, really, for us to excel, we have to be excellent at operations, engineering, finance and trading, and we have to excel in the public policy dialogue that happens around energy.  And I’ll talk about that as part of today, because we’ve done some excellent work with the Trudeau government.

Now, future jobs in our space absolutely depend on growth.  There’s no question of that.  And I truly believe for there to be future opportunities for women, we have to have growth, because the more jobs there are, the more opportunities.  And collaborations like this where we break down barriers and simplify, and build trust and build confidence -- because I think businesses invest when there’s confidence.  And my hope is that’s what comes out of here. 

Now, for us, having operations in Canada and the United States makes us absolutely more competitive.  Our Centralia operation, which is in Washington State, is one of the most competitive plants.  They have twice won our most coveted award for plant of the year.  But the reality is, teams of people from the United States and teams of people from Canada cross the border often to work with each other to share and to -- so that we can excel as a company overall.  So it's huge --

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That's good.  Well, we're going to go around.  Thank you.  Good job.  Boy, she did a hell of a job.  (Laughter.)  Wow, no wonder she's successful.  (Laughter.) 

Monique, thank you.

MS. LEROUX:  Monique Leroux.  I am the chair of the Board of the Quebec Investment Fund and the chair of the Economy Council of the province.  I'm also a board member of large, global corporations like S&P Global, Michelin, and Couche-Tard, which is a very interesting Canadian company.  Each of those organizations, of course, have significant businesses in the U.S. and also employs a lot of people in this country.

I feel really honored and privileged to be part of the council.  I would like to thank you for this great opportunity.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.

MS. LEROUX:  We have long history of cooperation, and I think that for the woman agenda it will contribute a lot for our great countries. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you, Monique.  Appreciate it.

MS. LEE:  My name is Tina Lee.  I'm CEO of T&T Supermarket.  We're Canada's largest Asian supermarket chain.  I employ 5,000 staff and serve 500,000 people across the country every week.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Wow.  Fantastic.

MS. LEE:  Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.

MS. STEPHENSON:  I'm Carol Stephenson.  I'm on the board of directors at General Motors, and I don't think that General Motors needs any introduction.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, we had -- Mary Barra was here last week, and she's terrific.

MS. STEPHENSON:  She is.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

MS. LUNDGREN:  I'm Tamara Lundgren.  I'm the president and CEO of Schnitzer Steel Industries, which is one of the world's largest recyclers of metal products, sold to steel mills around the world.  I also sit on the board of Parsons Corporation, which has been a big participant in the public-private partnerships in Canada.  And I sit on the board of Ryder, which goes back and forth between the U.S. and Canada over 400 times every day.  And lastly, I'm the chair of the board of the Portland branch of the 12th District Federal Reserve Board.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Very good.  Thank you very much.

MS. ALLAN:  Hello, Elyse Allan.  I'm vice president of GE, as well as GE's operations in Canada.  And we're a digital industrial company.  We have business in 190 countries in the world.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.  That's good.  Good, thank you.

MS. VERSCHUREN:  I'm Annette Verschuren.  I'm the CEO of NRStor, which is an energy storage development company.  Half of my career I've worked with U.S. based companies -- Home Depot, (inaudible) and Michaels -- craft store.  I think that our countries are so absolutely bound together by our people, our resources, our trade.  Linda Hasenfratz and I worked for many years on North American competitiveness and found ways in which we could get products and services and people through the border efficiently because, as you know, we're the biggest trading partners in the world.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we're going to be working on that very closely over the next very short period of time.  There are some new things happening that can be very good.  Thank you very much.

MS. SWEET:  Hello, I'm Julie Sweet.  I'm CEO of North America for Accenture, responsible for both the U.S. and Canadian businesses. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.

MS. HASENFRATZ:  Hi, I'm Linda Hasenfratz.  I'm CEO of Linamar Corporation.  We're a diversified manufacturing company.  We have 57 plants and 25,000 employees around the world, including right here in the U.S. and, of course, also heavily invested in Canada.  We've doubled our workforce in the U.S. over the last five years.  We've also doubled our workforce in Canada over the last five years and have a lot of exciting opportunities for growth.  We're mainly in the auto parts and access equipment sectors.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  Thank you, everybody.

END
12:24 P.M. EST
Whitehouse version of joint statement also attached -- in case you don't believe the PM's version  ;)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 14, 2017, 07:09:24
And the World Socialists' take (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/02/14/trtr-f14.html) on the Trump-Trudeau meet ...
Quote
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau travelled to Washington yesterday for his first face-to-face discussions with US President Donald Trump. At their conclusion, Trudeau and Trump vowed to enhance the longstanding military-security and economic partnership between the Canadian and US ruling elites, by intensifying their joint war preparations and by integrating Canada into an aggressive US-led North American trade bloc.

The joint statement that Trudeau and Trump issued at the end of three hours of meetings and a working lunch declared, “no two countries share deeper or broader relations.” It then went on to outline plans for closer collaboration, including in “growing our economies,” “energy security” and “border security.” In its most significant section, the statement stressed the joint military operations of Canada and the US. It declared the two countries “indispensable allies in the defense of North America and other parts of the world, through NATO” and—in a reference to Canada’s role in the US war in the Middle East and support for the US military build-up against China in the Asia Pacific—“other multilateral efforts.”

The statement pledged that Ottawa and Washington “will work to modernize and broaden our NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] Partnership.” It also praised Canada’s plans to buy new fighter jets and its leading role in the US-led campaign of NATO aggression against Russia. Canada is leading one of four “forward deployed” NATO battalions on Russia’s borders in the Baltic States and Poland.

At their joint press conference, both Trump and Trudeau emphasized that the Canada-US partnership was forged in war, with Trudeau making specific reference to the two imperialist world wars of the last century, the Korean War and the Afghan War.

“American and Canadian troops,” declared Trump, “have gone to battle together, fought wars together and forged the special bonds that come when two nations have shed their blood together.”

The militarist tone reached a highpoint, when Trump, after sharply denouncing North Korea for its missile launch over the weekend, declared, “We have problems just about everywhere around the globe.”

Trudeau, who with the support of the trade unions won election little more than a year ago by appealing to popular anger with Stephen Harper’s hard-right Conservative government, was at pains to praise Trump and demonstrate his government’s eagerness to work in close collaboration with the most right-wing administration in American history—an administration that in the name of “America First” intends to wage trade war and massively expand US imperialist violence ...
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 14, 2017, 07:51:56
And finally, the President's and PM's remarks (https://goo.gl/RMxSwd), in case nobody's found anything to pick on from the previous posts  ;D ... (1/2)
Quote
Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Conference

East Room

2:16 P.M. EST

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Prime Minister Trudeau, on behalf of all Americans, I thank you for being with us today.  It is my honor to host such a great friend, neighbor, and ally at the White House, a very special place.  This year, Canada celebrates the 150th year of Confederation.  For Americans, this is one of the many milestones in our friendship, and we look forward -- very much forward, I must say -- to many more to come.

Our two nations share much more than a border.  We share the same values.  We share the love, and a truly great love, of freedom.  And we share a collective defense.  American and Canadian troops have gone to battle together, fought wars together, and forged the special bonds that come when two nations have shed their blood together -- which we have.

In these dangerous times, it is more important than ever that we continue to strengthen our vital alliance.  The United States is deeply grateful for Canada’s contribution to the counter-ISIS effort.  Thank you.  And we continue to work in common, and in common cause, against terrorism, and work in common cooperation toward reciprocal trade and shared growth.

We understand that both of our countries are stronger when we join forces in matters of international commerce.  Having more jobs and trade right here in North America is better for both the United States and is also much better for Canada.  We should coordinate closely -- and we will coordinate closely -- to protect jobs in our hemisphere and keep wealth on our continent, and to keep everyone safe.

Prime Minister, I pledge to work with you in pursuit of our many shared interests.  This includes a stronger trading relationship between the United States and Canada.  It includes safe, efficient, and responsible cross-border travel and migration.  And it includes close partnership on domestic and international security.

America is deeply fortunate to have a neighbor like Canada.  We have before us the opportunity to build even more bridges, and bridges of cooperation and bridges of commerce.  Both of us are committed to bringing greater prosperity and opportunity to our people.

We just had a very productive meeting with women business leaders from the United States and Canada, where we discussed how to secure everything that we know the full power of women can do better than anybody else.  We know that.  I just want to say, Mr. Prime Minister, that I'm focused and you're focused on the important role women play in our economies.  We must work to address the barriers faced by women and women entrepreneurs, including access to capital, access to markets, and, very importantly, access to networks.

In our discussion today we will focus on improving the ways our government and our governments together can benefit citizens of both the United States and Canada, and, in so doing, advance the greater peace and stability of the world.

Mr. Prime Minister, I look forward to working closely with you to build upon our very historic friendship.  There are incredible possibilities for us to pursue, Canada and the United States together. 

Again, thank you for joining us, and I know our discussions will be very, very productive for the future of both countries.

Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you very much for joining us. 

I'd first like to start by extending my sincere thanks to President Trump for inviting me down to Washington.  Any day I get to visit our southern neighbors is a good day in my book, particularly when it's so nice and warm compared to what it is back home.  We are suffering under a significant winter storm that's hitting our Atlantic provinces particularly harsh, so I just want to send everyone back at home my thoughts as they shovel out, and impress on everyone to stay safe.

(As interpreted from French.)  The President and myself have had a very productive first meeting today.  We had the opportunity to get to know one another better, and, more importantly, we had the opportunity to talk about the unique relationship between Canada and the United States.

(In English.)  Ends on both sides of the 49th parallel have understood that the bond between our nations is a special one.  No other neighbors in the entire world are as fundamentally linked as we are.  We've fought in conflict zones together, negotiated environmental treaties together, including 1991's historic Air Quality Agreement.  And we've entered into groundbreaking economic partnerships that have created good jobs for both of our peoples.

Canadians and Americans alike share a common history as well as people-to-people ties that make us completely and totally integrated.  Our workers are connected by trade, transportation and cross-border commerce.  Our communities rely on each other for security, stability and economic prosperity.  Our families have long lived together and worked together.  We know that, more often than not, our victories are shared.  And just as we celebrate together, so too do we suffer loss and heartbreak together.

Through it all, the foundational pillar upon which our relationship is built is one of mutual respect.  And that's a good thing, because as we know, relationships between neighbors are pretty complex and we won't always agree on everything.  But because of our deep, abiding respect for one another, we're able to successfully navigate those complexities and still remain the closest of allies and friends.  Make no mistake -- at the end of the day, Canada and the U.S. will always remain each other's most essential partner.

And today's conversations have served to reinforce how important that is for both Canadians and Americans.  As we know, 35 U.S. states list Canada as their largest export market, and our economies benefit from the over $2 billion in two-way trade that takes place every single day.  Millions of good, middle-class jobs on both sides of the border depend on this crucial partnership.  Maintaining strong economic ties is vital to our mutual success, and we're going to continue to work closely together over the coming years so that Canadian and American families can get ahead.

(As interpreted from French.)  As we know, 35 U.S. states list Canada as their largest export market and our economies benefit from the over $2 billion in two-way trade that takes place every single day.  Millions of good, middle-class jobs on both sides of the border depend on this crucial partnership.  Maintaining strong economic ties is vital to our mutual success, and we’re going to continue to work closely together over the coming years so that Canadian and American families can get ahead.

(In English.)  I'd like to highlight just a few of the specifics that President Trump and I discussed today.  At the end of the day, the President and I share a common goal.  We both want to make sure that hardworking folks can go to work at a good job, put food on the table for their families, and save up to take a vacation every once in a while.  That’s what we’re trying to do here.

Today, we reiterated that our nations are committed to collaborating on energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs while respecting the environment.  And, as we know, investing in infrastructure is a great way to create the kind of economic growth that our countries so desperately need. 

In that same vein, we know that ensuring equal opportunities for women in the workforce is essential for growing the economy and maintaining American and Canadian competitiveness on the world stage.  As such, the President and I have agreed to the creation of the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.  This initiative is more than just about dollars and cents.  This is about ensuring that women have access to the same opportunities as men, and prioritizing the support and empowerment of women who are senior business leaders and entrepreneurs.  In doing so, we’ll grow the Canadian and American economies, and help our businesses prosper.

(As interpreted from French.)  Finally, President Trump and myself have agreed to work together to fight against the traffic of opioids across our border.  The rise of illegal use of opioids in our society is nothing less than a tragedy.  We will do everything we can to ensure the safety of Canadians and Americans. 

Ladies and gentlemen, President Trump:  I know that if our countries continue to work together, our people will greatly benefit from this cooperation. 

(In English.)  History has demonstrated time and again that in order to tackle our most pressing issues, both foreign and domestic, we must work with our closest allies, learn from each other, and stand in solidarity as a united voice.

With a level of economic and social integration that is unmatched on the world stage, Canada and the United States will forever be a model example of how to be good neighbors.  Winston Churchill once said, “That long Canadian frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, guarded only by neighborly respect and honorable obligations, is an example to every country, and a pattern for the future of the world.”  That, my friends, is the very essence of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

I look forward to working with President Trump over the coming years to nurture and build upon this historic partnership.  Once again, it’s a tremendous pleasure to be here in Washington.  Merci beaucoup. 

(...)
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: milnews.ca on February 14, 2017, 07:53:10
2/2 (https://goo.gl/RMxSwd)
Quote
... PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay, we’ll take a couple of questions.  Scott Thuman.  Scott. 

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You just spoke about the desire to build bridges, although there are some notable and philosophical differences between yourself and Prime Minister Trudeau.  I’m curious, as you move forward on issues from trade to terrorism, how do you see this relationship playing out?  And are there any specific areas with which during your conversations today you each decided to perhaps alter or amend your stances already on those sensitive issues like terrorism and immigration?

And, Prime Minister Trudeau, while only in its infancy so far, how do you see this relationship compared to that under the Obama administration?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we just began discussions.  We are going to have a great relationship with Canada, maybe as good or better, hopefully, than ever before.  We have some wonderful ideas on immigration.  We have some, I think, very strong, very tough ideas on the tremendous problem that we have with terrorism.  And I think when we put them all together, which will be very, very quickly -- we have a group of very talented people -- we will see some very, very obvious results.  We're also doing some cross-border things that will make it a lot easier for trade and a lot better and a lot faster for trade.

We have -- through technology, we have some really great ideas, and they’ll be implemented fairly quickly.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  One of the things we spoke about was the fact that security and immigration need to work very well together.  And certainly Canada has emphasized security as we look towards improving our immigration system and remaining true to the values that we have.  And we had a very strong and fruitful discussion on exactly that.

There’s plenty that we can draw on each other from in terms of how we move forward with a very similar goal, which is to create free, open societies that keep our citizens safe.  And that's certainly something that we're very much in agreement on.

Tonda MacCharles.

Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister.  And, Mr. Prime Minister, could you answer in English and French for us, please?

A little bit of a follow-on on my American colleague’s question.  President Trump, you seem to suggest that Syrian refugees are a Trojan horse for potential terrorism, while the Prime Minister hugs refugees and welcomes them with open arms.  So I’d like to know, are you confident the northern border is secure?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  You can never be totally confident.  But through the incredible efforts -- already I see it happening -- of formerly General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, we have really done a great job.  We're actually taking people that are criminals -- very, very hardened criminals in some cases, with a tremendous track record of abuse and problems -- and we're getting them out.  And that's what I said I would do.  I’m just doing what I said I would do when we won by a very, very large Electoral College vote.

And I knew that was going to happen.  I knew this is what people were wanting.  And that wasn’t the only reason, that wasn’t my only thing that we did so well on.  But that was something was very important.  And I said we will get the criminals out, the drug lords, the gang members.  We're getting them out.

General Kelly, who is sitting right here, is doing a fantastic job.  And I said at the beginning we are going to get the bad ones -- the really bad ones, we're getting them out.  And that's exactly what we're doing.

I think that in the end everyone is going to be extremely happy.  And I will tell you right now, a lot of people are very, very happy right now.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Canada has always understood that keeping Canadians safe is one of the fundamental responsibilities of any government.  And that's certainly something that we're very much focused on. 

At the same time, we continue to pursue our policies of openness towards immigration, refugees, without compromising security.  And part of the reason we have been successful in doing that over the past year -- welcoming close to 40,000 Syrian refugees -- is because we have been coordinating with our allies, the United States and around the world, to demonstrate that security comes very seriously to us.  And that's something that we continue to deal with.

(As interpreted from French.)  It is clear that if you want to have a healthy and secure society or safe society, you have to make sure that you maintain -- that you focus on security.  And we have welcomed refugees from Syria.  We have been very successful, but we have always taken our responsibility toward security very seriously.  And our allies, including the United States, understand this focus very well.  And they have done so since the very beginning.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:   Caitlin Collins (ph), please.

Q    Thank you.  President Trump, now that you've been in office and received intelligence briefings for nearly one month, what do you see as the most important national security matters facing us? 

And, Prime Minister Trudeau, you've made very clear that Canada has an open-door policy for Syrian refugees.  Do you believe that President Trump’s moratorium on immigration has merit on national security grounds?

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Okay.  Thank you.  Many, many problems.  When I was campaigning, I said it’s not a good situation.  Now that I see it -- including with our intelligence briefings -- we have problems that a lot of people have no idea how bad they are, how serious they are, not only internationally, but when you come right here.

Obviously, North Korea is a big, big problem, and we will deal with that very strongly.  We have problems all over the Middle East.  We have problems just about every corner of the globe, no matter where you look.  I had a great meeting this weekend with Prime Minister Abe of Japan and got to know each other very, very well -- extended weekend, really.  We were with each other for long periods of time, and our staffs and representatives. 

But on the home front, we have to create borders.  We have to let people that can love our country in, and I want to do that.  We want to have a big, beautiful, open door, and we want people to come in and come in our country.  But we cannot let the wrong people in, and I will not allow that to happen during this administration.  And people -- citizens of our country want that, and that's their attitude, too. 

I will tell you, we are getting such praise for our stance, and it's a stance of common sense -- maybe a certain toughness, but it's really more than toughness, it's a stance of common sense -- and we are going to pursue it vigorously.  And we don't want to have our country have the kinds of problems that you're witnessing taking place not only here but all over the world.  We won't stand for it.  We won't put up with it.  We're just not going to let it happen.  We're going to give ourselves every bit of chance so that things go well for the United States.  And they will go well.  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  Canada and the United States have been neighbors a long time, and Canadians and Americans have stood together, worked together at home and around the world.  We've fought and died together in battlefields in World War I and World War II, in Korea, in Afghanistan.  But there have been times where we have differed in our approaches, and that's always been done firmly and respectfully.

The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.  My role and our responsibility is to continue to govern in such a way that reflects Canadians' approach and be a positive example in the world.

Richard Latendresse. 

Q    Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.  I'll ask my question in French first and then, for you, I'll -- again in English. 

(As interpreted from French.)  Mr. Prime Minister, if I heard you correctly, you said that Canadian businesses, Canadian workers are concerned for their businesses and for their work and jobs concerning the renegotiation of NAFTA.  So what guarantees did you get from this government that we will keep our jobs and our businesses in the renegotiation of NAFTA?

(In English.)  Mr. President, again, during the last three months, you have denounced NAFTA.  You have talked over and over about the Mexican portion of the agreement, very little about the Canadian one.  My question is in two short part is, is Canada a fair trader?  And when you talk about changes to NAFTA concerning Canada, are you talking about big changes or small changes?  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU:  (As interpreted.)  First of all, Richard, thank you for your question.  It is a real concern for many Canadians because we know that our economy is very dependent on our bonds, our relationship with the United States.  Goods and services do cross the border each way every single day, and this means a lot of millions of jobs for Canadians, and good jobs for Canadians.  So we are always focusing on these jobs, but there are also good jobs, millions of jobs, in the United States that depend on those relationships between our two countries.

So when we sit down as we did today, and as our teams will be doing in the weeks and months to come, we will be talking about how we can continue to create good jobs for our citizens on both sides of the border.  And during this exercise, we continue to understand that we have to allow this free flow of goods and services, and we have to be aware of the integration of our economies, which is extremely positive for both our countries.  And this is the focus that we will have in the coming weeks and months to come.

(In English.)  Canadians are rightly aware of the fact that much of our economy depends on good working relationships with the United States, a good integration with the American economy.  And the fact is, millions of good jobs on both sides of the border depend on the smooth and easy flow of goods and services and people back and forth across our border. 

And both President Trump and I got elected on commitments to support the middle class, to work hard for people who need a real shot at success.  And we know that by working together, by ensuring the continued effective integration of our two economies, we are going to be creating greater opportunities for middle-class Canadians and Americans now and well into the future.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree with that 100 percent.  We have a very outstanding trade relationship with Canada.  We’ll be tweaking it.  We’ll be doing certain things that are going to benefit both of our countries.  It’s a much less severe situation than what’s taking place on the southern border.  On the southern border, for many, many years, the transaction was not fair to the United States.  It was an extremely unfair transaction.  We’re going to work with Mexico, we’re going to make it a fair deal for both parties.  I think that we’re going to get along very well with Mexico; they understand and we understand.

You probably have noticed that Ford is making billions of dollars of new investments in this country.  You saw Intel the other day announce that because of what I’ve been doing and what I’m doing in terms of regulation -- lowering taxes, et cetera -- they’re coming in with billions and billions of dollars of investment, and thousands of thousands of jobs.  General Motors, likewise, is expanding plants and going to build new plants.  Fiat Chrysler was at a meeting where they’re doing the same.  Jack Ma -- we have so many people that want to come into the United States.  It’s actually very exciting. 

I think it’s going to be a very exciting period of time for the United States and for the workers of the United States, because they have been truly the forgotten man and forgotten women.  It’s not going to be forgotten anymore, believe me.

So our relationship with Canada is outstanding, and we’re going to work together to make it even better.  And as far as the southern border is concerned, we’re going to get that worked out.  We’re going to make it fair, but we are going to make it so that everybody is happy.  It’s very important to me. 

Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)   

END
2:42 P.M. EST
Title: Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
Post by: Colin P on February 14, 2017, 11:27:24
I am no fan of the Liberals or JT, but I will give them credit for handling the US election and the new administration in a mature and pragmatic manner and making sure ht right people were at the table to show the US what Canada means to them. It's also an important lesson on the value of taking part in international missions, not just UN ones.