Justin Trudeau - Timelines

[McG]

More calls for Trudeau to put details (as opposed to just faces) on his defence vision/policy:

Time for Trudeau to explain defence and foreign policies
On the defensive: Garneau critical of Conservatives, but where do the Liberals stand?
Matthew Fisher
Vancouver Sun
06 Jan 2015

It seems I struck a nerve in examining the Liberals' foreign and defence policies last week. Marc Garneau, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, rebutted my column at length in Saturday's National Post.

I greatly admire Garneau. He has a distinguished record of public service in the Royal Canadian Navy, as an astronaut, as leader of the Canadian Space Agency and now as a parliamentarian - a far more robust resumé than his leader. As a Canadian who spent 31 years overseas and in conflict zones, I welcome Canadian politicians speaking out on foreign and defence issues. They usually dodge or fudge on these subjects, fail to follow up, or talk nostalgic nonsense about Canada's purported halcyon past.

I am certain Garneau had no part in advising Justin Trudeau when the Liberal leader said he admired Communist China because "their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime." Nor can I imagine that Garneau briefed Trudeau before the Liberal leader made a joke about the Harper government's intention to "whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are."

Garneau called me out for saying the Liberals had not spoken out against China's aggressive policies in the South China Sea when, as he rightly pointed out, the Harper government had done "precisely nothing" about this. Perhaps he had not read columns I wrote only last month from Australia about the Harper government's woeful inattention to security issues in the Pacific Rim.

On Iraq, Garneau questioned the efficacy of the coalition's bombing campaign, which Canada is part of, and suggested Ottawa play to its strengths by training Iraqi troops to defeat Islamic State and by being involved in humanitarian aid.

The truth is that the bombing campaign opposed by the Liberals appears to have stopped Islamic State's rapid march across Iraq. It has made a crucial difference to besieged Yazidis in northern Iraq and seems to have been the key factor in liberating an important dam from what are arguably the most ruthless jihadists ever.

Moreover, a modest number of Canadians are already helping train Iraqi troops and, as UN officials told me when I visited refugee camps in the region, Canada has been a model nation in supporting humanitarian efforts there.

I guess it is churlish to recall that the Liberals, who support training Iraqi forces, opposed Canada taking a lead role in training Afghan troops after the combat mission in Kandahar ended. The Liberals wrongly predicted at the time that this assignment would lead to more Canadian casualties there. To support his contention that the

Liberals are internationalists, Garneau cited a party proposal that Canada send a peacekeeping mission into the dangerous quagmire of the Central African Republic.  Good luck selling that idea to voters after Canada's peacekeeping experiences in Somalia and Rwanda.

Nevertheless, I guarantee you that a Trudeau government will send troops on a mission to Africa whether or not it makes sense - and likely will not - because they are desperate to resurrect "peacekeeping" and "multinational" initiatives as the foundation of Liberal foreign policy. Back to the future!

Mostly, though, Garneau criticized Conservative initiatives, rather than flesh out his own party's thinking on international matters. That thinking can be found on the Liberals' official website. Under "what we stand for," they share their leader's vision on "foreign affairs and defence." There's very little there. Go see for yourselves. Liberals say they would treat veterans better. They say "Canada should be a world leader at multilateral institutions," exporting expertise, "providing development aid" - things we already do. There is not a single word on defence, although defence spending is the biggest departmental expenditure - nearly $19 billion this fiscal year.

There is also a confusing solitary photograph illustrating the foreign affairs part of the website that shows a Canadian general looking at a U.S. navy helicopter.

The only web reference to foreign affairs or national defence at the Liberals' biennial conference in Montreal last year is a resolution demanding undefined "tangible support" for Ukraine to assist its transition to democracy, and the admonition that the prime minister should "make clear to any foreign power not to interfere with nor undermine the will of the Ukrainian people."

The conundrum for the Liberals is that to wrest power from the Conservatives they have to convert New Democrat voters, most of them neutralist/pacifist types. That goes double for Quebec, of course, where the Liberals must take dozens of NDP seats to have any chance of forming the next government.

In the tradition of John Manley, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, some Liberals are thoughtful about foreign affairs. Garneau is one. So is Chrystia Freeland, the MP for Toronto Centre, who has been a foreign affairs columnist and editor for Reuters and the Financial Times. Another would be Harjit Singh Sajjan, if he can get elected for the Liberals in Vancouver South. Sajjan saw combat during three tours in Afghanistan and is held in high regard by Canada's top Afghan general, Jon Vance, and by American generals he served under.

Garneau would probably make a good prime minister, but he dropped out of the Liberal leadership race before voting day and threw his support behind Trudeau - after earlier criticizing Trudeau's lack of policy proposals. During this time of global tumult, it is Trudeau's ideas, not Garneau's, that voters will want to hear.

Next month's gathering of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute brings together senior military officers, diplomats, bureaucrats, academics and industry heavyweights to discuss Canada's place in the world. That conclave would provide an ideal opportunity for Trudeau to outline his international vision for Canada, to answer questions about his admiration for China's dictatorship, and to explain why he used a juvenile sexual reference to dismiss the dispatch of CF-18 Hornets to help fight Islamic terrorists in Iraq.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is untrue that the Liberal party does not keep its promises regarding the CF.

Remember Chretien's helicopters?

 

[a_majoor]

Based on the Young Dauphin's published statements, he is good with Chinese authoritarian rule, has no issues with Russia invading Ukraine (thought it was the appropriate matter to make jokes about on TV) and feels deploying military force to fight ISIS barbarians reflects some sort of psychological issue.

So I think we have a good understanding of his view of the military and foreign policy.....

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Based on the Young Dauphin's published statements, he is good with Chinese authoritarian rule, has no issues with Russia invading Ukraine (thought it was the appropriate matter to make jokes about on TV) and feels deploying military force to fight ISIS barbarians reflects some sort of psychological issue.

So I think we have a good understanding of his view of the military and foreign policy.....

So pretty much this?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Based on the Young Dauphin's published statements, he is good with Chinese authoritarian rule, has no issues with Russia invading Ukraine (thought it was the appropriate matter to make jokes about on TV) and feels deploying military force to fight ISIS barbarians reflects some sort of psychological issue.

So I think we have a good understanding of his view of the military and foreign policy.....

In fairness, M. Trudeau must fight a "two front war:" he must, simultaneously, beat the Reds (the NDP) on his left flank and the allies (the CPC) on his right (Western) flank. That was tricky for some pretty good strategic thinkers in the 1940s, it's still tricky today.

His musings, to date, have, it seems to me, been aimed at his left flank ~ both at the NDP and at the big, strong, anti-America/anti-military wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

M. Trudeau's dilemma is worsened because Canadians seem, to date, to approve, broadly (albeit, probably not deeply) with Prime Minister Harper's strategy of doing just a few bits and pieces.

 

[MilEME09]

I suspect the Liberals might know that, and at present are wanting to simply bounce back rather then hope for a chance at taking government, I suspect we might end up with a situation of the Liberals and NDP trading a few seats the next election. No party in my opinion is positive for DND any more, we are a political tool used when seen fit. It is more a case of which party will do the least amount of damage to DND and the CAF.

 

[a_majoor]

Re reading the election 2015 thread, talking to people who are connected to various parities and looking at other sources, I am coming to the conclusion that the entire election really revolves around two areas: 905 and Quebec. (not that it takes a real pundit to figure that out  )

It seems unlikely that the CPC is going to make big gains in Atlantic Canada, nor the Liberals dislodging the CPC in the West, so we are really reduced to two key battles: the Liberal/NDP cage match in Quebec (with a possible Quebec party acting as a spoiler), and the CPC digging in the 905 belt to retain their hold on Ontario.

The issue of the military will have virtually 0 impact on either campaign, so in some sense it really does not matter what the Young Dauphin, Tom Mulcar or Stephen Harper actually think. Voters don't care and the actual number of military voters is so small and dispersed that they effectively have no impact at all. This is rather strange and sad; Canada has spent more blood and treasure on military operations since the Korean War in the last two decades, and the evolving world situation is fraught with more changes and dangers than it has seen for a long time (take your pick, some analysts are comparing it to the period prior to the start of WWI, and the other popular meme is Cold War II) so you would think that the issues of Defense of the Realm should be up for discussion.

While this should be a possible opening for anyone who is quick off the mark and clever enough to come out with a well thought out defense strategy for the public to see and discuss, given the unfortunate information environment we live in (use of "narrative", "Gotcha" journalism, poll tracking, etc.) the risk isn't that defense won't be examined, the risk is that anyone who advocates for something will be shot at from all angles and for things which are so completely out of arc (think of the scientist who landed a space probe on a comet recently; his press conference was interrupted by someone who complained about the shirt he was wearing) that it is hardly worth taking a position. Far better to say nothing or expend a few platitudes than be caught in the vortex.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I always wondered about that word "Pundit"

Interesting history via Wiki

Origins

The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (paṇḍitá), meaning "knowledge owner ". It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin caste but may also refer to the Siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, Ascetics, Sadhus, or Yogis.

From at least the early 19th century, a Pundit of the Supreme Court in Colonial India was an officer of the judiciary who advised British judges on questions of Hindu law. In Anglo-Indian use, pundit also referred to a native of India who was trained and employed by the British to survey inaccessible regions beyond the British frontier.

 

[McG]

More calls for the Mr Trudeau's stance on foreign and defence policy, but I am not sure I am a fan of the "liberal internationalism" that this article describes for him to endorse.

Trudeau must address foreign policy; He must define himself before Tories do it for him
Andrew Cohen
Ottawa Citizen

The conventional wisdom is that foreign policy and national security do not matter in elections in Canada, and the wisdom is conventional for a reason. Historically, it's true.

But Canada is not immune from the world. Cascading events - terrorist attacks, the collapse of oil, ISIL's advances, Russia's adventures - demand a response. Stephen Harper understands the value of foreign issues and security in politics. He sees a vulnerability in Justin Trudeau that he will exploit - if Trudeau lets him.

Trudeau's biggest challenge on the road to 24 Sussex Drive is proving he is up to the job, demonstrating to Canadians who like him personally that he has the intellect and judgment to manage this big, rich, complex country.

His advantage is a lively antipathy among voters to Harper. Trudeau has emerged as a threat on the strength of his manner, his name and his party; if his father could declare "the land is strong" in 1972, he can say "the brand is strong" in 2015.

But when it comes time to choose, in a campaign Trudeau will have to prove he has what it takes to stand beside the president in the Rose Garden. He will have to show he has gravitas.

He is missing opportunities to do that. After his cavalier comment on the CF-18s last fall, he avoided the debate on ISIL in Parliament three days later. Thomas Mulcair spoke for an hour; Trudeau deferred to his foreign affairs critic.

The thinking is there are no votes in foreign policy. So Trudeau isn't doing what opposition leaders traditionally do in the pre-election period to establish credibility - in his case, taking positions now to insulate himself from criticism later that he is inexperienced and untutored.

Trudeau has been to Washington. But he should be visiting New York, Paris, London, Tel Aviv and Beijing this winter. He should be meeting his political counterparts and be seen to be discussing issues with leading authorities.

He should, by now, be offering his view of the world. Go to a synagogue or mosque and talk evocatively about religious freedom. Go to a university and talk about Canada as trader, humanitarian and mediator. Give a well-publicized, thoughtful speech reflecting, personally, on how you see things as a teacher and traveller. Assure Canadians you're doing some thinking.

Fifteen months ago, Trudeau created a panel of experts to examine defence and foreign issues. Waiting for a campaign to disclose policy may be good tactics, but bad strategy.

In remaining silent, Trudeau fails to define himself before the Conservatives declare him "not ready." He misses an opportunity to weave Canada and the world into a larger election narrative asking Canadians to take back their country from a government that has detached it, in ways big and small, from the Canada they knew.

Beyond Trudeau's opposition to the air campaign against ISIL - to which his party offered no alternative - he has said little on the world. What are the principles and values that would guide his government?

Trudeau can embrace the liberal internationalism that has defined Canada since 1945. He can say that his Canada will return to the United Nations as a constructive critic, rather than ignore the Security Council and withdraw from its conventions. That Canada will reopen its embassy in Iran and support the multi-power nuclear talks. That Canada will support Israel passionately but not uncritically. That Canada will battle ISIL, with air power if necessary. That it will revisit peacekeeping creatively in the 21st century and take 20,000 refugees from Syria.

Trudeau can say that he will restore the dignity of diplomacy, and he should plan to send heavyweights like Bob Rae to the United Nations and Irwin Cotler to Israel. He can promise to give our diplomats real resources instead of selling their residences.

If Trudeau is to be seen as a person of substance, he has to begin now, showing he is at home in the world.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

foreign policy is Trudeau weakness and the NDP's. Both are only fit for internal politics. Trudeau would likely do well running in Provincial politics, people can clearly see he is not ready for the big leagues. Chretien was tough and smart and he used that to his advantage, notice how his popularity improved after he roughed up the heckler, that was pure gold for him. Trudeau tried with the boxing stunt, not bad but still it's a controlled fight and no one thought he was going to get pounded into the ground. Now had he done MMA with a opponent that did not hold back, then people' s opinions might change.

 

[Rifleman62]

From the article:

But when it comes time to choose, in a campaign Trudeau will have to prove he has what it takes to stand beside the president in the Rose Garden. He will have to show he has gravitas.

Both Trudeau and Obama are alike: Both are always looking for a raised stage to stand on so the masses can applaud them.

As I stated before: Can you see Trudeau on the "world stage" with the other leaders in the world? I cannot.

 

[a_majoor]

From the article:
Both Trudeau and Obama are alike: Both are always looking for a raised stage to stand on so the masses can applaud them.

As I stated before: Can you see Trudeau on the "world stage" with the other leaders in the world? I cannot.

Of course the Young Dauphin cannot even allow himself to be interviewed by a Sun Media journalist, if he wilts under that much pressure imagine him in the same room as Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping.

IT would be amusing if it wasn't so frightening

 

[OldSolduer]

That would be a disaster of epic proportions. He'd be laughed at.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

He would make a speech at the UN saying "That's not fair" in the whiny 6 year old kind of way

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Justin Trudeau’s hidden agenda

While the federal Liberals continue to maintain strict silence over the details of their election platform, some worrisome elements are beginning to slip out.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison revealed elements of the plan to Postmedia’s Lee Berthiaume in London, where the party is holding a caucus retreat. Referring to a recently-announced agreement between the Quebec government and the Caisse de Dépot et Placement, he suggested the Liberals see Canadian pension plans as a convenient source of money to finance the party’s ambitious infrastructure program.

The Liberals have made clear that they view a national program to rebuild roads, bridges and transit as a key means of stimulating job-creation and economic growth. Although they have attached no firm figure to the plan,  the party approved a resolution in March calling for spending of up to 1% of GDP a year, or about $20 billion.  Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, an ally of federal leader Justin Trudeau, this week argued for combined federal and provincial spending of $100 billion a year.

The challenge is where to find the money, without pushing the country deep into deficit again. Mr. Brison hinted at the party’s thinking when he told Mr. Berthiaume much of the work could be done “off the government balance sheet” by tapping funds from pension plans, including the Canada Pension Plan, into which all working Canadians contribute.

“There are other ways of working with the pension funds to do something really big on infrastructure and at the same time create a more competitive economy,” Mr. Brison said.

“If you look at the CPP [investment board], Omers, Teachers, AIMCO – pension funds in Canada are building infrastructure around the world. Is there the potential to engage them, and to engage global pension funds, in helping us to rebuild our infrastructure in Canada? I believe there is that potential.”

He referred specifically to the Quebec agreement, under which the Caisse, Canada’s second-biggest pension fund manager after the CPP, agreed to take on ownership of selected government infrastructure projects, which it will plan, finance, execute and operate.  In effect the province is privatizing projects before they’re built, but always with the same owner.

As Mr. Brison noted, pension funds often invest in infrastructure such as toll roads, airports or other revenue-generating projects. They are seen as less risky and more predictable than financial markets. As the National Post editorialized recently, there is no problem with this as long as the fund has the ability to operate wholly independent of the government, and is able to make decisions based solely on their potential to generate a maximum return for the pensioners it serves. But there’s real reason to doubt this would be the case in the Liberal scheme.

Pension plans exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools.

The Caisse has long had a close and co-operative relationship with the government, unique among Canadian provinces. Other provinces should be wary of adopting a similar practice. Ontarians already have reason to be concerned at Ms. Wynne’s plan to introduce a new Ontario-only retirement plan, which her government says could be used to provide capital for “Ontario-based projects.”

Pension plans, it needs to be repeated, exist for the benefit of the pensioners, not for governments in search of cheap and easy capital pools. While Mr. Trudeau will no doubt insist his Liberals would maintain a strict hands-off approach to the CPP, allowing it to make investment decisions free from government influence, recall that previous Liberal governments also pledged to abolish the GST, enforce the Kyoto protocol and create a national daycare system. None of which came to pass.  Governments routinely break promises made while out of power, particularly where finances are concerned. There is no reason to believe Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals would be any different.

Opponents long claimed Prime Minister Stephen Harper harboured a “hidden agenda.” Now we know the Liberals are the ones with the covert plan: to use Canadians’ pensions as a handy means to finance election promises.  Canadians considering a vote for Mr. Trudeau may want to consider whether they’re willing to bet their retirement income on him.

--------------------------------------------------------

As for Mr Brison, and how important his constituents are to him, I know personally of one serving members wife who tried to contact him during a time of extreme trial in this families' life which was service-related. 

She called, emailed the Constituency Office.  He never returned a single word to her.  Not even "I am sorry, but I can't help you with this".  Well done, Liberals. 

If you think a Liberal-lead DND and VAC will care more about serving members, veterans and their families, you go ahead and think that.  Just be prepared to be disappointed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The agenda itself - to increase public spending - is in plain sight.  What they (Liberals and NDP alike) would like to hide (from) are the pay-for methods.

Much election sparring stems from one central theme: the Conservatives have deliberately squeezed government revenue sources as much as they could to make it harder for parties out of power to buy votes with promises.  The Liberals and NDP can't promise to throw a party with a budget surplus that isn't there.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think the theory of pension funds investing in infrastructure is essentially sound. What it depends upon is that those investments occur offshore where foreign governments provide the return on investment. For us to invest in domestic projects will mean that we have to use our tax revenue to provide he profits to the pension plan, effectively doubling the cost of the projects for Canadians.

 

[a_majoor]

I think the theory of pension funds investing in infrastructure is essentially sound. What it depends upon is that those investments occur offshore where foreign governments provide the return on investment. For us to invest in domestic projects will mean that we have to use our tax revenue to provide he profits to the pension plan, effectively doubling the cost of the projects for Canadians.

Perhaps the ultimate irony of that plan is we would have to find the foreign "Mike Harris" who is building needed infrastructure like the 407 on time and on budget so *our* investment would pay off. It worked for Spain when they bought the 407, but sadly there is no Spanish Mike Harris providing infrastructure or other investments in Spain.....

 

[The Bread Guy]

PM's take on Justin's take on the military:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has accused the Liberal leader who aims to replace him of harbouring a "deep distrust" of the Canadian military.

Harper made the charge at Justin Trudeau in an interview with London, Ont. radio station AM980 on Sunday.

The prime minister's discussion with host Andrew Lawton centered on Bill C-51, the Conservative government's recently tabled anti-terrorism legislation, and Canada's mission in Iraq.

Liberals and New Democrats voted in October not to join the U.S.-led effort against militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). After some prodding by Lawton, Harper was directly critical of the Grit leader.

"I do think Mr. Trudeau's comments around the time of the [Iraq] debate indicate a deep distrust and, frankly, dislike of the Canadian military that I think runs very deep in some elements of that party and with him," Harper said at one point in the exchange. "And that's up to him to explain."

(....)

a former Canadian Army commander now running for the Liberals in the next federal election has dismissed Harper's claim as "nonsense."

Retired general Andrew Leslie, who advises Trudeau of defence issues and foreign affairs, and will run in the riding of Ottawa-Orleans, told The Huffington Post Canada Wednesday that Harper's remarks show why change is necessary.

"Mr. Harper is once again, because he doesn't have any facts to back up his assertions, resorting to a personal attack," he said.

Leslie said that Trudeau has a "great understanding" of the military, listens to a host of experts, and is deeply passionate about veterans' issues. Meanwhile, former soldiers are suing the federal government and money "desperately needed" by the Canada's armed forces is being taken away as Tories target the deficit, he said.

"They can't even get their act together enough to replace the army's fleet of trucks," he said. "How tough can it be to buy a fleet of trucks?"

Leslie said the prime minister has also allowed the size of the core of the army to drop to one-third less than what it was three or four years ago and “choked off recruiting” for the reserve force.

"Mr. Harper's track record for defence since the end of the Afghan war has been abysmal," he said ....

 

[Cloud Cover]

"They can't even get their act together enough to replace the army's fleet of trucks," he said. "How tough can it be to buy a fleet of trucks?"
Leslie said the prime minister has also allowed the size of the core of the army to drop to one-third less than what it was three or four years ago and “choked off recruiting” for the reserve force.
"Mr. Harper's track record for defence since the end of the Afghan war has been abysmal," he said ....

Can't argue with that....