bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 12–13
The Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on Canada’s International Relations completed a year-long study of Canadian foreign policy in June. We asked two former foreign service officers, Don Munro and John Roberts, who went on to have distinguished careers as parliamentarians for their opinion of the Review.
The Report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada’s international relations – Independence and Internationalism – presented last June, should be read in conjunction with the Committee’s earlier interim report published in August 1985.
The first report deals — a bit gingerly — with the two key topics of trade with the United States and the strategic defense initiative. The second, larger report, discusses virtually all the rest of Canadian foreign policy in advocacy of what the Committee calls “constructive internationalism” that is, the interweaving of international responsibility with Canada’s basic national aims and support for the strengthening of the effectiveness of international institutions. Unfortunately, the Committee felt unable to review the operations of the Department of External Affairs — the task was logistically too unwieldy – though it did express the view that Canada is well served by its professional diplomats.
The House of Commons Committee on External Affairs, as it rarely has legislative proposals to consider, has not been an active forum for the discussion of Canadian foreign policy since the debates over the Trudeau government’s foreign policy initiatives in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The publication of these two present reports by the Select Committee is, therefore, a welcome initiative which, one hopes, will lead to a more active engagement of parliamentarians with foreign policy issues.
The reports bear both the virtues and defects of the process that produced them. A joint parliamentary committee strives for the highest degree of possible consensus from its disparate party members, — but this apparent consensus is often inflated by discounting disagreement through fudged language or expressing conclusions in an “on the one hand, on the other hand” basis and a parliamentary committee places a high priority on dialogue with the public.
The Committee recognized that it could not undertake either in depth original research or exhaustive analysis of the issue. It claims, however, the virtue of attacking the perception that foreign policy is formulated in ivory towers — a perception that will be news to those in the ivory towers — by asking Canadians for their thoughts on international relations. The range of asking was extensive, seeking wisdom far and wide — from as far afield indeed as 15 youngsters in a Sunday School class in Winnipeg.
Much of this participation is part of the cosmetics of the political process rather than a helpful basis for formulating foreign policy. Nevertheless, what one therefore loses in rigorous analysis through this participatory process, one hopes to make up in a clearer sense, of public attitudes. If this document reflects the public mood relating to Canada’s foreign policy, its conclusions are usually unsurprising, occasionally striking and blandest of Canadian descriptions — useful.
It would be naive to expect that a parliamentary committee dominated by government majority would adopt a position that constrained or embarrassed the government on the high profile issues of the bilateral trade initiative or SDI. The conclusions of the interim report on these two issues are of little help to policy makers. On bilateral trade, the Committee provides a potted history of trade relations, a selective set of quotations from witnesses on the alternative sides of the issues and a series of anodyne recommendations suggesting that a comprehensive multifacited trade policy would be a good thing, that the government act swiftly and decisively to implement a multidimensional trade initiative, reduce interprovincial trade barriers, promote bilateral and multi-trade discussions, increase trade with the United States, increase trade with other countries too and protect Canadian sovereignty. But the Committee rejected the necessities that it recommend on modalities or the priorities in achieving these admirable objectives. In short, the government was thus exorted to do good without much clear indication of what the good would be.
The Committee’s comments on the Strategic Defense Initiative are much more interesting.
One cannot read the report without sensing a profound malaise about SDI on the part of the Committee members. The Committee did conclude that “it is prudent and logical that the United States continue to do basic research into this area until such time as it is limited by treaty or other agreement”. But it outlined grave doubts about the production, testing and deployment of missile defense systems, and expressed strong support for the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. On other key points such as the question of whether the Canadian government should participate in SDI research, the Committee could come to no conclusion but clearly, reading between the lines, the Committee had grave reservations about the helpfulness of the SDI initiative.
The second report — Independence and Interdependence — covers the rest of foreign policy. The Committee believes that there are five major concerns of the Canadian public —international security, state of the economy, relations with the United States, human rights, and aid and development assistance — and provides short chapters on each of these subjects. The Committee also believes that the goals outlined in the 1970 government papers — “Foreign Policy for Canadians” — and the 1985 Green Paper are the appropriate ones for Canada.
Not surprising therefore, the report is generally a compendium of helpful suggestions on detail mixed with platitudes rather than a proposal for major shifts in policy. The Committee recommends, for instance, “mutually agreed and verifiable reductions of nuclear forces” and asserts that arms control, disarmament and defense policy should move in tandem but novelty is not necessarily a virtue in foreign policy — and the Committee presents a range of useful, if conventional, comments on trade liberalization, terrorism, peacekeeping and international development.
The very strong emphasis on Canada’s obligation to promote human rights throughout the world is noteworthy — it undoubtedly reflects the Committee view of the public’s concern for these issues and what is really remarkable, and welcome, is the very strong advocacy of a coherent arctic program as an integral part of Canadian foreign policy.
The chapter on Canada/U.S. relations should be required reading for all Canadian politicians, but while it is a superb description of how Canada should manage its relations with our southern neighbour, it does not consider what the purpose of the management should be. Is it in the interests of Canada, or the desire of Canadians, to move closer or to insulate itself over the longer term from the economy, defense policy and society of the United States? That is not a question that the Committee considers, much less answers.
One finishes reading the Committee’s report with both satisfaction that so much useful work has been done but, at the same time, frustration that there is not a clearer direction for those who make policy. In the end, the lack of analysis and the lack of definition of priorities, which reflect the Committee’s consensus approach, limit the value of the report. That raises some questions about the process the Committee followed. Surely its task should be not simply to hear witnesses, but to weigh the evidence before it. Perhaps it would be better in terms of both informing the public and providing more closely argued policy directions to have three reports outlining separate party views rather than an inconclusive majority report.
One cannot help remarking too, how much the approach to the definition of foreign policy objectives for Canada concentrates on the role of Canada in international affairs, rather than on the identification of our specific national interests. The Committee calls this the “persisting”, “generous and optimistic”, Canadian approach — “a determination to contribute to the development of the political and economic structures that became the foundation of the post-war world”. But as the balmy days of almost automatic prosperity recede into Canada’s past, we more and more need a sense of how Canada’s domestic interests are to be achieved in a more turbulent, more challenging international context.
As the chapter on the management of Canadian/U.S. relations shows, I believe, the focus on role and process is necessary, but not sufficient for the determination of foreign policy. Such an approach risks Canada being led into foreign policy positions which reflect the interests of others without a clear definition of our own needs. The difficulty in defining a foreign policy for Canada is a lack of direction or vision for the country internally. A country without a strategy for its own development and evolution will find it difficult to define its external purposes.
The joint committee can hardly be blamed for not finding a sense of purpose where none is to be found. It should be congratulated for turning out a useful resume of the range of issues before us.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 12–13. Read the rest of this issue →
