Nine years ago this fall, the leaders of the three major federal parties at the time gathered on a stage in Toronto to debate foreign policy. The resultdiscussionit seems a bit strange now.
The topics discussed – Canada’s contribution to the fight against ISIS, the refugee crisis in Syria, the Conservative government’s anti-terror legislation – are not trivial. But India only received passing references. Donald Trump, who had announced his candidacy for president of the United States four months earlier, was not mentioned at all. Neither does China.
Literally and figuratively, these are different times.
Canada’s relationship with China is defined by “panda diplomacy,” No “hostage diplomacy.” “Foreign interference” has not yet entered the popular lexicon. And there is no reason to ask party leaders how they would react if they found out accusation that its allies have waged a campaign of violence and extortion against Canadian citizens on Canadian soil.
The last nine years should be humbling for anyone who thinks they can predict what will happen in the next nine years. But the extraordinary revelations and accusations of the past week – from the expulsion of six Indian diplomats to the prime minister’s challenge to the Conservative Party in its foreign interference probe on Wednesday – underscore how the world has become a more dangerous place for Canada, due in part to This. to national leaders who have no objection to acting aggressively towards this country and its citizens.
The National’s At Issue panel outlines Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s testimony about foreign interference and escalating diplomatic problems with India. Plus, how the Liberals are dealing with increasing unrest in the caucus.
“Today’s world is more uncertain and less safe than ever and the answer Canada needs to provide is to strengthen the rule of law and the international rules-based order that protects us all,” said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. on this week’s foreign interference probe.
Even if the prime minister’s comments tend towards hyperbole – the world was certainly less safe during the two world wars – it is safe to say that Canadian society is now facing threats that could not have been predicted in 2015. Accepting that reality is still proving difficult.
Challenges posed by an uncertain world
For example, there is a strange tendency in our politics and pundits to assume – whenever Canada has a dispute with another country – that Canada is in the wrong, or that Canadian officials need to apologize and make amends. The past nine years – from Donald Trump to China to India – have pushed that Canadian reflex past breaking point.
Regardless, Conservatives will no doubt say that the Liberals have failed completely in meeting this challenge. And the Liberals may have to admit they weren’t prepared for what has happened – or unfolded – in recent years.
But the Liberals can clearly demonstrate their efforts to minimize the threat posed by Trump through renegotiating NAFTA. The Liberal Party government also finally assembled an international coalition to publicly shame China over the imprisonment of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.
Much of the current infrastructure for dealing with foreign interference was built by the Trudeau government. And it was the Liberals who set up a national security committee made up of MPs – something the Harper government rejected.
The Liberals could also say that the foreign interference inquiry has failed to uncover the massive cover-up alleged by the government’s critics. But the investigation still revealed significant deficiencies in information sharing and a political system that is not yet fully capable of addressing the threat.
For months, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been happy to point fingers and make heavy accusations. But by refusing to get a security clearance that would have allowed him to review classified information himself – while arguing that it would limit his ability to go after the government – he left himself vulnerable to the attacks Trudeau launched on Wednesday.
If foreign interference is a threat to the Conservative Party — the national security committee report in June contained accusations Indian intervention in the Conservative leadership race — Conservative leaders should want to know the details. While Trudeau may now be accused of politicizing national security issues, his testimony before the commission also challenged Poilievre to confront one of the real challenges of our time.
Canada and the new global chaos
These challenges are unlikely to magically disappear when Trudeau leaves office. And while it’s unwise to try to predict how the next nine years will play out, it seems wise to plan for further uncertainty.
Adam Chapnick, a defense and foreign policy expert at the Royal Military College of Canada, argues that the challenges of this era can be viewed through two possible frameworks.
On the one hand, he says, this may be due to a lack of respect for international norms and institutions and a greater willingness on the part of some countries to act harshly towards middle-sized countries.
On the other hand, he added, perhaps Canada’s standing in the world has diminished to the point that “more powerful countries with interests different from ours no longer take us seriously enough to fear that acting harshly against us would be a violation of anything. international norms.”
There may be some truth to both ways of looking at the situation. Whatever happens, current conditions appear to demand more from Canada – not only better protection for Canadian institutions and citizens, but also greater contributions to the world as a whole and the maintenance of strong alliances.
Of course, the impacts of climate change will continue to diminish and will likely lead to new impacts migration and refugee crisis.
The world abroad is now becoming increasingly difficult for us to consider as a secondary problem. The problems posed by this world are becoming more difficult to overcome.
All of this demands more from Canada’s leaders – starting with the ability to view classified information. And it gives federal party leaders more to discuss whenever they gather on stage to discuss foreign policy.
