Is Canada Ready for a New Brand?

The CIC's report on Canadian foreign policy is thoughtful and thought-provoking. But does any of it really matter?

Last week, the Canadian International Council (CIC), Canada’s leading foreign policy think tank, released an excellent new report, "Open Canada: A Global Positioning Strategy for a Networked Age". The paper is refreshing in its breadth, in its scope, and in the quality of its recommendations.

From their emphasis on a whole-of-society approach to failing states, to their acknowledgement of the importance of Mexico to Canadian strategic interests, to their call to expand NORAD’s responsibilities to deal with the Arctic, the report’s authors exhibit a level of reason and thoughtfulness that makes this publication one that deserves to be read.

And by adding more controversial recommendations – such as going forward with carbon pricing immediately, shifting the responsibility for humanitarian assistance from CIDA to what they would call the Department of International Affairs, and swearing in the leader of the federal Official Opposition and three additional designates as privy council members – the authors demonstrate a welcome aversion to the political partisanship that has typically interfered with the strategic pursuit of Canada’s national interests.

The call for greater federal spending on research and development is less new, but equally appealing. And it is delightful to learn that the panel of advisors that contributed to this report included members as young as 28, suggesting a real effort to devise recommendations that will resonate across generations.

Nevertheless, one must question whether, in the grand scheme of Canadian politics, any of this really matters.

The answer depends on the CIC’s ultimate purpose in commissioning the report. If the aim, as the CIC implies, was to stimulate dialogue among the relatively small class of individuals who study and debate foreign policy either in the classroom or in their professional lives, then, yes – Open Canada should be welcomed and read carefully.

If, however, the authors hoped to change government policy, there is reason to be less confident.

The enthusiasm of the panellists towards questions of Canada’s place in the world is exceptional. While most Canadians feel tremendous pride in their country, such pride does not typically translate into a commitment to active involvement in the politics of world affairs.

There was no public outcry, for example, in response to the Harper government’s recent decision to target national defence and international development spending in its first efforts to reduce Canada’s multi-million dollar deficit. (It is worth noting that the British government has exempted development assistance from its preliminary austerity measures.) Nor have cuts to the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade been protested seriously.

Perhaps most telling, in the last federal election, Canada’s televised leaders’ debates virtually ignored foreign affairs, a decision that would shock members of any other G8 country.

As a result, while Open Canada will be read and discussed among the “usual suspects” (and perhaps somewhat more broadly because of the CIC’s efforts to reach out to a younger generation), there is little here to suggest that its broader recommendations – particularly the ones that place demands upon the federal treasury – will infiltrate the political agenda. Nor is there reason to believe that Canadians will criticize their government for ignoring it.

In summary, while there is no denying the value of Open Canada, a critical question remains unanswered: What will it take to convince Canadians and, by extension, the government in Ottawa, to take international affairs more seriously?

Thus far, no one has been able to figure this one out.