The Scandal over Canadian Foreign Policy/Defence Scandals

Two things have been embroiling Defence Minister Peter Mackay and Foreign Minister John Baird this week.

The man is too pretty to fly economy.

First, Mackay has been in hot water over his supposed use of private airplanes for travel – up to a total of $3 million dollars worth.

Second, John Baird has been in trouble for demanding special gold business cards which are different from the regular ones used be pretty much everyone else. (I ran into Jim Flarhety a few weeks back and I have his business card. He uses the normal one.) The extra-special cards were $400. (You can read the story in this hilarious Globe and Mail piece.)

There has been a lot of ink spilled over these two stories this week. In total, we’re talking about $3,000,400. Would I like $3,000,400? Yes. I really would. But is this a substantial amount of money in the great scheme of the Canadian budget? No.

In fact, the real scandal here is the fact that these issues are the scandal.

Canadian foreign policy is directionless. There is no grand vision, no idea of our place in the world... other than as a British colonial possession from sometime during the late 19th Century. It is comprised of a series of unfinished trade agreements and reacting to events in the world, only when we really have to. Baird’s sole experiment with boldness at the UN Conference on Disarmament was a total embarrassment and a disaster.

The Department of National Defence is now in a period of transition and contraction. One can only assume that this will mean even less resources for peacekeeping training and activity. But don’t worry – we have stealth skidoos.

There have been other scandals this week – A Canadians detained or prevented from returning home in Sudan and Libya. What did the government know? Who cares! John Baird WANTS GOLD ON HIS BUSINESS CARDS. Stephen Harper is worrying about "Islamicism" - as opposed to the Islamist threat to Canada. Genius - but don't worry, I'm sure no one noticed. (I'm glad he's so familiar with that which comprises the number one threat to Canada. Sleep well kids.)

Earlier this year I posted a list of 12 foreign policy questions that I would have liked the major parties to answer during the election. I do not think I am any closer to answering most of them. Our media is so often attracted by the quick scandal rather than the big picture, and I do wonder if any of these are even being asked? But maybe the public just better understands and is more interested in the scandals over shiny objects.

The Economist on Canadian vs American attitudes towards immigration

This is how you have to write your immigration test.

The Economist’s "Democracy in America Blog" has a fascinating (and flattering?) look at Canadian attitudes towards immigration.

As a matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.

Read more »

Standing Up for Multiculturalism? or “Where I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister of Canada and that the dirt won’t come off.” (Duck of Minerva)

I have a post up at the Duck of Minerva on multiculturalism, Canada and the UK. It was inspired by a column in the Toronto Star today on Steven Harper's surprisingly robust defence of multiculturalism (especially against Gilles Duceppe) in the Canadian electoral debates.

I'm not a huge Harper fan, but I think he spoke, well and forcefully for multiculturalism. Ignatieff is good on these issues and human rights (I've read enough of his stuff to know), but to his credit, I think that Harper may have done a slightly better job at keeping it "riz-eal" for the Canadian public.(So not necessarily a better argument, but perhaps phrased better.)

Finally, I'd not consider myself an expert on multiculturalism, but I so like to think that I have read a good chuck of liberal theory. And as a Canadian, I've been exposed to the idea for some time. I really do believe that UK PM Cameron has it wrong. Multiculturalism isn't some kind of ultra-pluralist relativism (and no one should be able to define it that way - advocates or detractors). Used as a facilitator of exhange and integration, I think it can be a good way of promoting integration and having a healthier and safer society.