You can also find the summary report for this challenge here. Download the full conference summary report here.
Following a tumultuous decade book-ended by the events of 9/11 and a harrowing financial crash, the world today is a very different place than it was a mere ten years ago. This is in sharp contrast to the economic, security and democratic gains that marked the roaring ‘90s.
Nevertheless, progress was made across a number of key global social indicators, and the number of armed conflicts continued to decline around the world. Economic growth in many developing countries has been impressive, often outpacing those recorded in the industrialized North by a healthy margin. At the head of the class were the so-called BRIC countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, whose super-charged economic expansion boosted the living standards of billions of people and transfixed investors and observers alike.
Yet, the relentless march of globalization has become an ever more complex journey. Tough security measures put in place to combat global terrorism, and the fallout from the financial and economic crises are redrawing the figurative boundaries between states, in the process slowing down the transnational flow of money, goods, people and ideas after years of explosive growth. The stalling of the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization, the willingness of only a few NATO countries to engage in a combat mission in Afghanistan, are two vivid examples of multilateralism under th
You can also find the summary report for this challenge here. Download the full conference summary report here.
Following a tumultuous decade book-ended by the events of 9/11 and a harrowing financial crash, the world today is a very different place than it was a mere ten years ago. This is in sharp contrast to the economic, security and democratic gains that marked the roaring ‘90s.
Nevertheless, progress was made across a number of key global social indicators, and the number of armed conflicts continued to decline around the world. Economic growth in many developing countries has been impressive, often outpacing those recorded in the industrialized North by a healthy margin. At the head of the class were the so-called BRIC countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, whose super-charged economic expansion boosted the living standards of billions of people and transfixed investors and observers alike.
Yet, the relentless march of globalization has become an ever more complex journey. Tough security measures put in place to combat global terrorism, and the fallout from the financial and economic crises are redrawing the figurative boundaries between states, in the process slowing down the transnational flow of money, goods, people and ideas after years of explosive growth. The stalling of the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization, the willingness of only a few NATO countries to engage in a combat mission in Afghanistan, are two vivid examples of multilateralism under threat.
Global dynamics will always have a major impact on Canada – a relatively small and open economy, and one of the most trade-reliant in the world. As a middle power, we cannot succeed through isolation. Our country can play a significant and constructive role in shaping new institutions in support of trade and global cooperation. It is equally clear that if we sit on the sidelines, the world will not stand still waiting for us.
Members of The Canadian Armed Forces, Canadian diplomats and other civilians working on development have distinguished themselves. Too often they have sacrificed their lives in their efforts to improve conditions for the people of Afghanistan, while at the same time combating terrorism. Canadians are rightly proud of their accomplishments.
And yet, many observers feel Canada is missing other opportunities to engage with old partners and especially new ones in government-to-government relations, multilateral fora, business relationships, and in partnerships to promote exchanges on higher learning. Our multi-cultural population at home and networks of Canadians abroad are enormous, untapped assets in building a stronger presence in the world, thereby advancing our own well-being as well as that of our partners.
We know the world will continue to change because in a few short years, population growth in India and China will create over 1 billion new consumers. The need to engage in the markets of the future has become widely accepted, yet Canada is losing its export market share to competitors. We’re not only losing job opportunities today, until we reverse this trend, we stand to fall further behind tomorrow. Canada must go where the growth is. China could replace the U.S. as the world’s largest economy in the coming years, and other emerging Asian giants, like India, are far outpacing the rest of the world in terms of economic growth.
Canada is uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of this global shift. Our geographic location and history allow us to act as a bridge between the older industrialized economies of the EU and North America, and the world’s emerging economies. Situated north of the U.S., while sharing the Pacific Rim with Asia, not only makes Canada a geographic bridge between east and west, but our partnership in NAFTA makes us a gateway to the North American free trade zone.
We need to ask ourselves, how do we leverage our historic political ties with Europe and successive waves of European immigration that have facilitated friendly relations with members of the European Union? How has Canada’s leadership role in the Commonwealth and in la Francophonie helped foster close relationships with the emerging member economies? How do we tap into the expertise of our large Indian and Chinese Diasporas that provide us with unique personal ties and insight into the historic cultures that are now re-asserting themselves on the world stage?
Our presence in the world matters more than ever, because in an increasingly unpredictable global economy, decisions taken all over the world can have a direct impact in our communities, on our livelihoods and on our environment. That future depends on understanding, and caring about what is going on in the world around us, and having an ambitious yet clear-eyed set of priorities and the will to advance them over the long term.
Canada at 150: Rising to the Challenge is about the future. Michael Ignatieff is inviting leading thinkers and doers from across Canada and around the world to grapple with what kind of country Canada can be – and should be – when we mark our 150th birthday in 2017, and to ask what must be done today to get there. The objective is not to advance simple solutions, or short term tactics. Rather, the conference will start a national dialogue about the big issues that will determine the future well-being of Canadian families, individuals and urban and rural communities.
I suggest that we perform an `audit’ on the current position that Canada holds on the world stage and compare it to our purported Canadian `Ideals’.
I believe Canadians in general mourn our loss of credibility, social responsibility, civility, and pursuit of Human Rights for all. The last of these seems to be open to debate and that, in my opinion, demonstrates that Canadians no longer understand the concept.
The world is a small place. Corporations make decisions that were formerly reserved for governments. These decisions impact the world’s population intimately. The Canadian Government, in conjunction with active participation from ordinary citizens (who often feel they haven’t the knowledge and credibility to be involved), must change its culture and model of debate to motivate and assist this to happen. It’s not impossible. If there ever was a time for this to happen, it’s now.
An old-fashioned way for this to happen is for MPs to use 10 per centers less and provide opportunities for discussion at the local level more. Actually getting out to do something other than ceremonial photo ops, will most certainly keep MPs informed in a macro and micro fashion. Hopefully this will result in legislation that is Canadian in spirit and is not a copy of another country’s. Hopefully this would persuade people who understand that politics is a public service to fling their hat into the ring and dissuade those who see it as a career stepping stone.
Considering the terrible effect voter apathy can bring about, I see an active and respected role of participant as a way to demonstrate that politics is not a game for some and a burden for others.
By including in a real way, the average Canadian, whose views are as worthy as any, no matter whether one agrees or not, I believe an added bonus would be the generation of more respect for politicians in general.
I see Canada as country in crisis. The decreasing divide between church and state places us in a situation that I expect most of us were not expecting.
We have a magnificent country full of gifted, generous people. Let’s use the gifts of the many instead of the skills of a few.
Let’s put forward a model of a country that is ready to do the harder work of governing with its population, rather than despite it.
I would like to agree with Patricia. I think we need to examine the role that Canada has traditionally played on the international stage and we need to do the hard work of returning to the important role we have played in the past. Canada should be a leader in the area of the environment, we should not be an anchor in efforts to bring about real change in the area of global warming.
We also have to examine the role we are playing in development and partnership with countries in the Global South. At this point, it is extremely difficult for Canadian NGOs to work constructively with CIDA. CIDA is cutting grants to programs like Kairos and the Canadian Government is destroying organizations like Right and Democracy.
This is not the role we should be playing. My ‘big idea’ would be to reinvigorate CIDA to create a new organization that has a plan to reach the 0.7% GDP target within the next ten years. This new organization should also have a much enlarged Partnership Branch so that Canadian development organizations like Oxfam Canada, Ploughshares, Kairos and Development and Peace can become world leaders and innovators in the field of Development.
Well said to both of you.
As we position the country to resume a more active place on the world stage there is much relevance the an over-used notion attributed to Gandhi, ‘we must be the change we wish to see in the world’ Our domestic politics needs to be much more respectful than it has in the past, then we can full embrace a more robust role in the diplomatic world. Likewise as we seek to encourage developing economies to follow a greener path so to should find ways to focus of own economy down that same path. The resources we spend on military operations in Central Asia should be wound down as soon as possible, if not sooner, and redirected to social and environmental causes on the world stage. If we can’t turn to corner on the carbon economy here at home…it would be hypocritical in the extreme to be wagging fingers at the third world telling them that they need to change their ways. Lecturing people about the importance of clean waters while we continue to destroy water-sheds by mining the dirty oil sands…does noth for our crediblity. Telling countries to drive clean cars while we subsidize our own suburban asphalt economy should stop
I agree with both of these big ideas and they are doable pretty quickly IF the will is there.
I believe that will exists. One only has to discuss the current Canadian perception of our country’s activities to realise that there is a deep yearning to return to behaving in the way most Canadians behave in their daily lives – on their best days.
The CIDA/KAIROS/Rights and Democracy/Status of Women scandals are not of our making. Those who know no better may not understand the intricacies of the functions of these groups but they know in their hearts that their work demonstrates what we stand for in the world’s eyes.
We are starved for a chance to act on our ideals but there are ways. There are definitely ways, and despite the naysayers amongst us, one thing Canada is is idealistic. That’s not a bad thing.
In the midst of economic globalization and ecological confrontations, national identity can be most valued, perhaps, in many different situations, even essential.
In the middle of global organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, and even international religious bodies such as the World Council of Churches, identity and questions about who we are as Canadians among the people of the world and how we are to be as citizens of a national landscape are critical for discernment and discretion and direction for 2017 and beyond.
Thus, CITIZENSHIP within the Commonwealth of Nations, could be a valuable subject of debate, and discussion in the Conversations of CANADA 150.
As Canada is one of the original members of the Commonwealth, it claims good government, justice, democracy, human rights and freedom as essential for national identity along side international relationships. As technology provides the means of easy international mobility like never before, who we are as global citizens needs to be considered with personal awareness of Canadian national claims and the place wehre we are in the world among all peoples.
How dowe cross boders with integrity and honesty? How do we intersect with those who claim a different geogrpahic territory as exclusively belonging to them with respect and dignity? What standards do we follow when boundaries tend to divide rather than bring different understandings together in harmony and peace, in fairness and wellbeing? How is the unifying potential of ecumenology harnessed while as the same time contain its capacity to divide.
How can a deep level of appreciation and acceptance be achieved for the plurality of various traditions, legends, narratives, customs, colours, cultures, and creeds?
In what ways are policies and proclamations of immigration impacted with a visible and tangible form of a common citizenship of the Commonwealth and the world?
As Canada looks to 2017 and beyond the nation looks to a spirit of cooperation, partnership, and understanding. With vision and wisdom, with vibrancy and vivacity perhaps a common citizehsnip among all the peoples of the Commonwealth could be within the realm of possibility and a new version of national/global citizenship could evolve.
I am interested in how Canadas small-l liberal value system can best operate in the world with countries and cultures with significantly different, if not directly opposing values. I give the example of how homosexuality is treated within the Anglican Communion whereby the Canadian and American dioceses have a far more accomodating approach to the acceptance of homosexuals in the church than do the African churches. There are many other examples in the world involving the clash, or potential for clash, of religion, civilization and culture. Canada seems to have come to an internal accomodation with the acceptance and celebration of multiculturalism, but how can that be translated to the world stage? Not just in how Canada deals with other countries and cultures but how Canada might be able to bring its own success to the world to hopefully allow accomodation amongst differing groups in the world.
I would like to point something out that is related to this article. Maybe we should study/audit if there’s room to inject more compassion in our foreign policy. I understand the need to protect ourselves from being taken advantage of, but lately there have been a number of cases where Canadian citizens and the citizens of other countries were mistreated (or allegedly mistreated) by Canadian authorities abroad. For example:
1. Maher Arar tortured in Syria
2. Abousfian Abdelrazik stuck in Sudan
3. Suaad Mohamud Haji stuck in Kenya
4. Govt. refused to seek clemency for Ronald Smith on death row in the US
5. Omar Khadr’s charter rights were violated
6. My uncle, ant and their two little kids from India wanted to attend my sister’s wedding in Toronto in January 2010. However, they were denied entry visas. They claim that it was without any specific explanation.
I have always been proud to be a Canadian because of what we have meant to the rest of the world. Everywhere I have travelled (over thirty countries) Canada is spoken of with admiration and even envy. Despite our problems we are perceived to have a country that works for everyone. We are seen as a nation of peacemakers, peace builders and peacekeepers.
Unfortunately, in the last 20 years Canada’s international performance and reputation have waned. In particular, our influence on United States foreign policy, our contribution to international security, and our role in development have deteriorated. However, we can still make a tremendous difference, if we choose to, and, if we make our choices effective. There are distinct opportunities for Canada in our changing world, but they call for a clear strategic focus where we can make a serious contribution.
For us to make a difference, we will have to develop a differentiated international policy, decide on a few areas, invest deeply and become indispensable. In this chosen arena Canada should be considered pre-eminent, in terms of experience, capabilities, and resources.
Canada’s interests are not narrowly within our borders or merely things within our sovereign control. We have a profound interest in a world that works. Our cultural mosaic has given us a real stake in every corner of the globe. Refugees come here from everywhere and close relatives of Canadians die in virtually every conflict in the world. When famines or tsunamis or conflicts happen, or when children die, or women continue to be marketed, we have an obligation to take an interest in these issues.
This is part of who we are. It has led to Canada’s defining role in the creation of UN peacekeeping, the international trading system, the pioneering of official development assistance, the International Criminal Court, the land mines treaty, the fight against apartheid, the Rio conference on the environment.
However, our institutions need to be renewed if we are to continue to make a real difference in the world. Power in the world is changing. There are new forces rising and asserting themselves. These forces are about changes in political, military and diplomatic power, and perhaps most significantly, they are about the ability to define the future.
The end of the Cold War changed the dynamics of foreign policy in Western countries as economics replaced politics and our interests became more mercantile. While the dominant agenda was no longer defense against an armed and dangerous enemy, neither did it become poverty alleviation, development, or human rights, as many of us had hoped. Instead the priority became trade and economic growth. DFA became DFAIT. Governments chose to believe that trade would combat poverty and that the free market would release energies which were inherently democratic. But, that hasn’t worked out so well.
Now, we recognize again that the world is not so simple, or so safe. We still acknowledge the centrality of trade and economic policy, but clearly, from Pakistan, to Palestine, to the Sudan and beyond, economic policy is not enough, nor is military policy enough.
In Canada, NFTA reinforced the shift towards economic policy. It brought benefits, but accelerated Canada’s deepening identification with the U.S. A business agenda came to dominate the political debate. If the Canadian symbol had previously been peacekeeping, or pension and health reforms, or international campaigns for arms control, the symbol now became ‘Team Canada Trade Missions’.
Yet, for all of our effort, growth and innovation, Canada has relatively less influence in trade and economics than we had in politics and diplomacy. Economic power reflects sheer size; diplomacy depends more on imagination, alertness and reputation.
According to projections by Goldman Sacks, in 40 years Canada’s economy, though respectable, will be roughly same as those of Vietnam and the Philippines. In this changed world will we be in the G-8; will we even make the cut of a G-20? Will we be able keep our seat in the inner circle of countries that define international trade, military and diplomatic policy?
The answer is ‘No’ if we narrowly focus on trade and economic policy, or define our international profile by military presence, or lock ourselves into our own continent. However, it is very probable that we will remain an influential country if we renew our trusted activist, diplomatic and development credentials. But, we must act quickly and significantly.
When Canada has been most effective internationally, it has been because we pursued two priorities at the same time. We worked hard on our friendship with the United States, and we worked hard on an independent and innovative role in the wider world. Our access to Washington adds real clout to our actions in other countries because of our perceived influence with our powerful neighbor. And, our reputation in the developing world has traditionally been an asset to the U.S. because where they often generate envy or fear; Canada has built partnerships and trust, and earned respect.
As the world’s religious and cultural and economic divides grow deeper, the critical international skills, now and for the foreseeable future, are the ability to draw differences together, to form alliances, to find common ground, to manage diversity, and to generate trust; all of which are the traditional and genuine signatures of Canada.
Despite the diplomatic reversal of the last few years we are not yet subject to the negative stereotypes of the U.S. We are seen as the other North America and we need to put that in our window. As well, we have more capacity than most developed nations to build and enlarge relations with the cultures and societies whose influence in the world is growing.
That is because so many of those cultures are a dynamic part of our own identity. Whether it is South Asian, overseas Chinese, African or Caribbean diasporas, we have a disproportionately high and innovative refugee population. And, we have earned and kept the respect of the developing world, including many Islamic counties who regard us as being respectful of their cultures. So, there is an unusual opportunity, and a clear need, to play a more active role in international affairs.
The three departments with explicit international focus are National Defence, CIDA and Foreign Affairs. DND accounts for 8.29% of federal program spending, CIDA 1.39% and DFAIT 1.0%. However, the DND budget is being increased dramatically and CIDA’s held steady, while FA is being cut by 17% per year; this at a time when diplomacy is more important than ever.
Globalization means that, inevitably, international factors have more impact on national decisions. Our government’s response, however, has been to disperse authority over those globalizing issues to a multitude of ministries, operating without a clear focus.
This gives rise to many questions. For example: Who set the government’s initial China policy? Who is really running the so-called ‘3-D/Whole of Government’ approach to Afghanistan? Who decided to spike spending on National Defence and slash it on diplomacy and development? Why are we becoming increasingly militarized and abandoning diplomacy?
The government’s 2005 International Policy Statement calls for a greatly expanded initiative in human security and peacebuilding:
•develop the 3-D (defence-diplomacy-development) approach in conflict and post-conflict situations in which FAC, DND and CIDA would work together in “whole-of-government” strategies; these departments would work closely with CSOs (civil society organizations) dedicated to this work
•establish a Stability and Reconstruction Task Force (START) in FAC
•establish a $100 million Global Peace and Security Fund to provide assistance to failed and fragile states, as well as resources for post-conflict stabilization and recovery
•expand the work of the Canada Corps in promoting human rights, democracy and good governance
•support the to-be-established UN Peacebuilding Commission and a Peacebuilding Support Office to provide capacity for faster, more efficient peacebuilding operations.
More questions. Given this emphasis on integrated peace and security operations, how would such operations be coordinated? The Department of Finance has the guiding hand on economic issues, but why is there no guiding hand on political and diplomatic issues? How can Canada be coherent or effective in dealing with the transforming phenomena of globalization? It isn’t a whole of government process unless someone has the time and the mandate to lead, and both the PCO and the PMO have other preoccupations.
We need a new department — the Department of Peace- to provide the essential focal point in government and end the highly diffuse nature of peace building at the present time. The Minister would be a voice in Cabinet who could fundamentally alter the nature of debate and decision-making towards a culture of peace and nonviolence both on domestic and foreign issues and would provide the long-range thinking required to address the root causes of violence.
A significant change in the world has been the increased role and authority of NGOs and activists, individuals and organizations, ranging from the International Crisis Group, to the Gates, Carter and other foundations, to human rights and environmental movements. These new actors focus both on conflicts and the causes of conflict and are very often more nimble and less constrained than governments or large institutions like the UN. They help to transform the way the world faces its problems.
These non-governmental agencies are trusted more than traditional institutions. A recent BBC-Globescan poll of respondents in 17 wide ranging countries found the net rating of NGOs was +32, national governments –1, global corporations –5. However, trust in even NGOs is declining. None is a white knight and none has the authority to act for others. These forces powerfully complement the work of governments and international institutions but they don’t replace them.
Sovereign states still make the critical decisions to cut or increase budgets, to respect or break treaties, to send or withdraw troops, to pay or withhold membership contribution, to confront or ignore crises. So the challenge and opportunity is to marry mandate with imagination, to combine the capacity-to-act of government with the creativity and energy of these independent forces. That is what happened in the fight against apartheid, the signing of the land mines treaty and in a wide range of less publicized initiatives. We could make that a practice – a Canadian practice.
The creation of a Department of Peace would bring a renewed focus to what has made Canada great. It would provide the opportunity for a rethinking of our priorities and a reorganization of our government to better manage in our rapidly changing world. It would reestablish Canada as a locus of global peace promotion by convening international summits and conferences, and provide a template for others countries to follow in their quest for peace. It would build on our proven strengths and ensure our continued and necessary role in the world.
The Minister of Peace would be a voice in Cabinet who could fundamentally alter the nature of debate and decision-making towards a culture of peace and non-violence both on domestic and foreign issues, and would provide the long-range thinking required to address the root causes of violence.
International interest is significant. Three nations, Solomon Islands, Nepal and Costa Rica, have already established Ministries of Peace and the global movement is expanding. In September I attended a Global Alliance conference in Costa Rica with almost two hundred people from forty countries, all working on Department or Ministry of Peace initiatives.
Canada can lead the way.
I’m impressed with the quality of comments just from the commenters!
If this is an example of the thoughtful concepts we will see coming out of the Conference, my faith in Canada’s future will be greatly restored.
Thanks for your views; I agree Canada’s expertise and contributions in diplomacy and social development should be expanded and fully funded. Lillian Tetreau
As legend has it, Lester Pearson’s deep interest in an independent Canadian flag was stimulated during his Nobel-Prize-winning Suez crisis diplomacy of the 1950s. Some countries were reluctant to see Canada play a peace-keeping role in the crisis, because, with a Union Jack still in the corner of its red ensign, it was still essentially just a somewhat grandiose colony of Great Britain, one of the parties to the dispute. Down the road somewhat in 1965, Prime Minister Pearson finally gave the country its own maple leaf flag — while Mr. Diefenbaker’s Conservatives gave a last gasp of vain protest against a further loss of quasi-colonial status.
As it grapples with the new and different challenges of the 21st century, Canada is facing a parallel issue, over the very last whiff of quasi-colonial status symbolized by the continuing presence of the British monarch as the country’s official head of state (albeit represented by a governor general, who, in some more democratically selected incarnation, could without doubt do the job all by herself — or himself, as the case may be).
A recent editorial in the current incarnation of the Russian journal Pravda, at the time of the Vancouver Olympics, suggested how the British monarchy in Canada is thwarting a stronger Canadian international profile in the year 2010: “The abject cruelty shown by Canadian soldiers in international conflicts is scantily referred to, as indeed is the utter incapacity of this county to host a major international event, due to its inferiority complex, born of a trauma being the skinny and weakling bro to a beefy United States and a colonial outpost to the United Kingdom, whose Queen smiles happily from Canadian postage stamps.”
http://olympics.thestar.com/2010/article/771298–russia-whines-about-cowardly-canada
In our public planning for Canada 150, we ought to be including the development of some forum for constructive free and democratic debate on just how we are going to replace the British monarch as Canadian head of state, at the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. As BC Liberal; candidate (and snowboarding gold medalist in an earlier Olympics) Ross Rebagliati has wisely urged: It is “time for Canada to stand alone … it boils down to Canadians wanting to be Canadians and not have another country … set the standard or path for Canada.”
Peace making, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding are three main values that have defined us as Canadians since the World War 2. However, in the first decade of 21st Century we are seeing a steady erosion of these values under present government, gradually shifting from our self-perception and international image as peace champions to a country that now heavily relies on militarism for resolution of conflicts, celebrating wars and warriors. This has taken us on a wrong path supporting those who use principles such as ‘Responsibility to Protect’ as means of pre-emptive intervention via UN Security Council for marching into other sovereign states to curb terrorism. Result has been prolonged expeditionary type stays in foreign lands involving waste of scarce financial resources and loss of lives of soldiers and innocent civilians killed as collateral damage.
The important 2000 UN-UNESCO declaration that wanted the past decade (2000-2010) to be ‘Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for Children’ has gone unheeded. Without any govt funds and institutions dedicated to building peace, the Culture of Peace initiatives have been led by an under-resourced voluntary sector in most countries including Canada. Problems of preventing violence and wars in 21st Century need to be dealt with in a more creative ways than in the last century. There is an opportunity for Canada to take lead in that through instituting a strategic focus within the government for creating a Culture of Peace and Nonviolent Resolution of Conflicts. Preparing for peace requires similar level of effort as preparing for war. Instead of last hour crisis management, the federal government needs dedicated resources and expertise for conflict prevention in the same way as it does for preparing Canada for a military engagement. We need a similar institutionalised approach to recruit, train and deploy trained personnel for peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.
This would require a corps of professional peace specialists trained in prevention, mediation, and reconciliation who are respected internationally for its impartiality, fair play, knowledge, adherence to norms of international law and human rights. The missing strategic focus for nonviolent peace within the federal government can be created through a Federal Department of Peace bringing together key components of peace spectrum headed by a Cabinet level Minister. This would enable PM to get a balanced view before making decisions of national and international importance.
A Department of Peace is not an outlandish idea. Remember early 1970s when last time the machinery of government was significantly overhauled by Liberal leaders Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau to respond to challenges of that era introducing new institutions and programs for manpower, immigration, regional expansion, urban affairs, science and technology, and environment. That is what the electorate in 2010 is waiting from political parties — to think ‘out of the box’ and present a genuine alternate approach to peace and security.
I too was proud to be a Canadian. I worked in a rural community in southern Africa in the 70’s, on the anti-apartheid movement in the 80’s and the environment in the 90s – now my focus is on sustainability and how to consider policy through the lens of sustainability – where the environment and social justice has as much weight as the economy. A Department of Peace is a great initiative. We used to have an Ambassador for Peace (Doug Roche). War does not work. It is costly. Resources in terms of people and money could be spent on other priorities. I hope we can work together to regain our role of the honest broker and helpful fixer on the world stage. Peace is not just the absence of war but the presence of justice.
We should implement a policy that would encourage and support university students, before the last year of their university course, to spend at least one semester volunteering with a NGO or other aid agency delivering aid oversees or in remote communities. Ultimately, if every university student did this, we could within a single generation, fill our boardrooms with people who have experienced the life-altering experience of seeing the importance of Canada’s role in the international community, and who have seen the effect of their goodwill. I cannot think of a single government intitiative that could have such a profound effect on supporting the values that Canadians so identify with — values that hearken back to Lester Pearson’s days when Canada’s role in peacekeeping quickly became a backbone of Canadian identity, and a value that is squarely in the Liberal tradition. What a different Canada this might be if most engineering students spent a semester with Engineers Without Borders, or interns spent a year with Doctors Without Borders, or agricultural studnets spent a semester with UNESCO. I believe that this is something that would support students (I envision financial support for students in the final year, in return for the donation of their semester to the organization), bring Canada international acclaim for its dedication to humanitarian causes, and fundamentally change the world view of people who wiill be the next generation of decision makers. What a wonderful legacy for the next Liberal government to leave.
I am told that Canada’s Department of National Defense spends $200 million dollars a year for training of all combined military cadet program. How wonderful it would be have to a program of similar magnitude and benefits in the civilian sector for peace youth service, aimed at what David mentions above..
Canada has been a wonderful country as far as its immigration policies is concerned.I am a permanent resident in Canada.How wonderful it would be to have certain policies developed in order to provide jobs to the skilled workers as soon as they land here.For instance a teacher can be made to clear an entrance test for getting into the teaching line rather than waiting for years together.I personally think it is a wastage of human resources to a great extent.Canada should try to get the maximum benefit from the intellectuals who come here as skilled workers.Later on they can even upgrade themselves as and when required in their respective fields.The Liberals must try to devise such kind of policies.
War, war, war is not working as a policy solution to conflict and our particular method, industrialized warfare, can’t even win against IEDs. We need things like Departments of Peace and Civilian Peace Services both at home and abroad to ensure that we have other mechanisms at our disposal to resolve conflict. We have machinery for armed warfare and security, but nothing for peacebuilding (what we had has been eliminated by the Conservatives). We had a focus on governance in CIDA (nothing for Canada), but the Conservatives got rid of that too.