The recent toppling of a statue of Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, in Montreal has brought out the worst in too many Canadians.
 
The initial culprits this time – the statue has been targeted before – justified their behaviour at an otherwise peaceful protest as follows:
 
“We offer this action in solidarity with the Indigenous peoples of Tio’tia:ke, Turtle Island and across the globe, and all those fighting against colonialism and anti-Blackness in the struggle for a better world.”
 
Although I sympathize with their desire for a better world, I can’t imagine how they thought their actions would help get us there.
 
For one, the vandalism took attention away from the original intent of the demonstration – a call for police reform.
 
Second, although I don’t claim expertise in this area, it appears to me that the deliberate violation of Canadian law runs counter to the spirit of reconciliation.
 
As I understand it, Gusweñta, or the Two Row Wampum treaty (the meaning of which is meant to guide the management of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and European settlers) stipulates that “each nation will respect the ways of the other as they meet to discuss solutions to the issues that come before them.”
 
Third, the protestors prompted, as could have been expected, a barrage of puerile and unnecessarily partisan responses that have inflamed matters further.
 
When pressed, the prime minister was less confrontational, noting that “We are a country of laws and we are a country that needs to respect those laws, even as we seek to improve and change them.” But he stopped there, never offering a way ahead.
 
At least Premier Jason Kenney proposed a solution – Alberta would repair the statue and have it installed in Edmonton on the grounds of the provincial legislature – but his pledge to mobilize the power of the state against what he called “roving bands of thugs” was (quite understandably) interpreted by critics as just another act of colonialism.
 
The lack of empathy from all sides is disturbing.

Those claiming to seek an end to systemic discrimination need to understand that to effect lasting change in a liberal democracy you must appeal to citizens from across the political spectrum.
 
Resorting to deliberately provocative, illegal, activities when you aren’t satisfied with the pace of change will only set your cause back.
 
At the same time, passionate defenders of Sir John A. Macdonald’s political legacy must stop underplaying the extent of the trauma caused by the residential school system.
 
It is unreasonable to ever expect survivors of residential schooling to privilege the prime minister’s critical role in negotiating Confederation and managing our country in its early years over his callous approach to Indigenous peoples and communities.
 
How do we move forward?
 
I’m partial to the suggestion that the statue be restored and placed in a museum (or statue park) where Macdonald’s legacy could be properly contextualized and debated.
 
In the longer term, we might draw lessons from the experience of Yale University.

In 2016, when it faced calls to rename campus buildings that memorialized divisive figures, Yale formed a Committee to Establish Principles on Renaming.

Its final report – a product of four months of consultation and reflection – is thoughtful, inclusive, and thorough.
 
I recognize that the emotions in the case of Macdonald run particularly deep, and that statues aren’t names on buildings, but unilateral, deliberately divisive “solutions” get us nowhere.
 
Surely, we can do better.
 
***
 
If you’d like to read some good Canadian political history, check out the work of Penny Bryden and Matthew Hayday. Bryden is working on a much-needed history of the Prime Minister’s Office. Hayday is writing a biography of Joe Clark. On Indigenous issues, I’m consistently impressed by the work of Douglas Sanderson.

To be notified of my next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

The WE controversy will likely be recalled as one of the Trudeau government’s greatest failures.
 
Just about everything about the Canada Student Service Grant Program (CSSG) – an effort to compensate students up to $5000 for up to 500 hours of volunteer service during the summer of 2020 – stunk.
 
From the very idea of paying students to volunteer, to paying them less than minimum wage, to outsourcing the administration of the program at all, to outsourcing it to a charity with close ties to senior members of the government, to the failure of said members to recuse themselves from Cabinet discussions of the program, to the failure of just about everyone in Ottawa to realize that the charity itself was a questionable enterprise, one cannot help but wonder how any of this could have possibly happened.
 
(For a timeline of the controversy, see here.)
 
It is therefore hardly surprising that in the aftermath of WE Charity's withdrawal from the administration of the program, the Liberals have lost popular support, the prime minister’s personal approval ratings have declined, and the minister of finance has been replaced.
 
What I find more interesting is that support for the opposition (pick a party – this post is not a criticism of anyone in particular) has hardly budged.
 
It seems to me that, in the rush to catalogue the government’s failures with the CSSG, not enough attention has been paid to the disappointing response of the rest of Canada’s political parties.
 
While we have certainly been told repeatedly that the scandal “reeks of corruption,” I suspect that the less partisan among us would have liked to hear someone recognize that, ultimately, the checks and balances of our liberal democracy preserved the integrity of our system of government.
 
Thanks to the combination of a free press that kept digging and a minority Parliament that refused to stop asking questions, a government program that was flawed in every which way was stopped in its tracks.
 
A constructive response from the opposition might still have reminded Canadians that they made the right choice by denying the government a majority.
 
But it might then have pivoted to what seems to me to be the most significant challenge that the controversy (or scandal, if you prefer) has revealed:
 
The consequences for elected officials who fail to declare a conflict of interest are failing to deter behaviour that risks undermining public faith in our liberal democratic process.
 
Once Canadians begin to question, collectively, the integrity of their elected representatives, our entire political system becomes vulnerable to exploitation not just from within, but by external rogue actors as well.
 
There is no easy solution here.
 
Issuing even significant fines to those found guilty by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner would punish parliamentarians of lesser means relatively more severely than it would those who can easily afford to pay.
 
Any sort of automatic dismissal from office would run counter to basic democratic principles.
 
And waiting for the public to decide the fate of an individual member’s misconduct during the next election risks sending the message that, in the immediate aftermath of the violation, the perpetrator gets a free pass.
 
Part of the opposition’s job is undoubtedly to oppose, but I suspect that critiques of the government of the day are more likely to resonate when they leave Canadians hopeful of what new leadership might provide – not just cynical about the political process as a whole.
 
On this front, all four of the opposition parties have disappointed. It is no wonder that their polling numbers have hardly moved.
 
***
As soon as I learned of its publication date, I asked the Canadian Forces College's library to order Memorial University professor Alex Marland’s Whipped: Party Discipline in Canada. It will be released by UBC Press next month. Marland understands Parliament’s political culture in a way that few others do. Until Whipped arrives, the second edition of Susan Delacourt’s Shopping for Votes: How Politicians Choose Us and We Choose Them is worth another look. For an academic examination of the role of the opposition in Canada, see David E. Smith, Across the Aisle: Opposition in Canadian Politics.
 
To be notified of my next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
 
 
 
 
 
 

On July 31st, Canada achieved a significant foreign policy victory. It wasn’t flashy; it had little to do with Ottawa’s commitment to a feminist approach to world affairs; and Canadians are unlikely to see or feel its results directly any time soon.
 
But that’s how diplomacy generally works.
 
Diplomats set the conditions for national success by building relationships, nibbling around the edges of conflict, and reaching obscure agreements with allies, associates, and sometimes even adversaries, to preserve a system of rules and laws that is consistent with Canadian national interests.
 
The July 31, 2020 supplement to Canada’s 2016 Statement on a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes – now endorsed by Australia, Benin, Brazil, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the EU, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Singapore, Switzerland, Ukraine, and Uruguay – has effectively prevented the World Trade Organization (WTO) from imploding, for the time being.
 
Let me explain.
 
According to its website, the World Trade Organization “is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations… The goal is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.”
 
When a member-state believes that international trade law has been violated by another country, it can appeal to a three-person WTO arbitration panel.
 
If either state-party is unsatisfied with the ruling, they can then appeal to the seven-member WTO Appellate Body, which makes a final, binding decision.
 
Appellate Body judges are appointed by WTO member-states for four years. They can be re-appointed once.
 
(For an accessible summary of all of this, take a look at this great article in the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage).
 
The WTO’s arbitration system began to break down in 2011 under the Obama administration. Washington’s disappointment with an American judge led it to block her re-appointment.
 
The move was disturbing, but not critical, as Washington appointed another judge in her place, and life at the WTO continued.
 
But when the Office of the US Trade Representative blocked a non-American judge in 2013-14, things got more complicated. For all intents and purposes, America had exercised a veto over a WTO Appellate Body appointment.
 
True, every member-state has always had such power, but the unwritten rules of diplomacy had dictated that no one would use it (based on the assumption that only qualified judges would be nominated through an apolitical process).
 
The Trump administration – which seems to believe that every international organization is unfair to the United States – has since used that same veto power to block every recent potential appointment to the Appellate Body in an effort to choke the WTO out of existence.
 
WTO rules indicate that the board cannot function with fewer than three active judges. In December 2019, Washington’s ongoing veto left it with just one.
 
Canadian governments have long understood that Canada benefits when its trade disputes are resolved through transparent legal processes. The alternative, “might is right,” will never be ideal for a country of less than 38 million in a world of almost 8 billion.
 
And while Ottawa has acknowledged the WTO’s many flaws, it has rightly privileged reform over annihilation.
 
In response to Washington’s actions, Global Affairs Canada established the Ottawa Group, a coalition of 12 countries plus the European Union that pledged to devise proposals for reform.
 
In the midst of these broader negotiations, in July 2019, Canada and the EU finalized their own, pre-emptive, interim bilateral solution.
 
Essentially, they set up a private appeals board to settle disputes between them in the case that the WTO Appellate Body could no longer function.
 
The success of the Canada-EU agreement appears to be linked to the Ottawa Group's recent break-through.
 
The 17 signatories to the July 31st supplement have established a Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement – comprised of a pool of 10 arbitrators – to replace the Appellate Body until its minimum membership is restored.
  
The solution is hardly perfect – for one, Japan has yet to sign on – but it does preserve a broad, international commitment to a rules-based order.
 
It is a prime example of Canadian diplomacy at its best:

Hard work, relationship-building, careful negotiation, and compromise have bought the WTO and the international community some time.
 
Hopefully, this interim measure will hold until Washington rediscovers that it, too, is best-served by the rules-based international order that it so carefully designed 75 years ago.
 
***
 
When I have questions about international trade, I contact the University of Lethbridge’s Christopher Kukucha. For the history of the WTO’s predecessor organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, check out Western University’s Francine McKenzie’s book, GATT and Global Order in the Postwar Era.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
 
 

Should Canada ban China’s Huawei Technologies Company, the world’s leading telecommunications supplier, from involvement in our fifth generation (5G) wireless networks?
 
The Canadian government has been struggling with this question ever since Beijing passed a new intelligence law in June 2017. Article 7 of the legislation dictates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”  
 
It appears, then, that Beijing could demand that Huawei spy on Canadians through their own networks.
 
That’s certainly what the Americans think. (They first banned Huawei years ago and have increased their pressure on the company over the last 12 months.)
 
Apparently, so do senior Canadian military officials. Australia has already banned the company, as have Japan and, most recently, the United Kingdom.
 
The British decision was taken largely in response to new sanctions announced by Washington that restrict organizations from exporting key technologies to Huawei, thereby limiting the company’s capacity to do business.
 
Washington has also made it clear that should Huawei become involved in Canada’s emerging 5G network, our access to intelligence within the Five Eyes alliance would no longer be guaranteed.
 
(The Five Eyes include the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The first three countries have banned Huawei; New Zealand has thus far turned down every application from Huawei for involvement in its network.)
 
China’s disappointing international behaviour in recent years has convinced me (and, according to Angus Reid, at least 78% of Canadians) that it is not in Canada’s interests to allow Chinese technology anywhere near our critical infrastructure.
 
And yet, I hope that our allies do not ultimately compel us to officially ban the firm from involvement here.
 
It seems to me that banning Huawei risks bringing a degree of credibility to Beijing that Washington does not intend.
 
It could suggest to some states in the wider international community that if Western firms cannot compete on a level playing field, we resort to brute force to get what we want.
 
Such an aggressive posture creates a narrative of Beijing as victim, which it can use in efforts to promote Huawei as a credible partner elsewhere.
 
Ideally, Canadian telecommunications firms would not need to be directed to stay away from an enterprise that threatens our national security.
 
It would nonetheless be prudent for Ottawa to create criteria for investment here that make it all but impossible for Huawei to put forward a competitive bid on any opportunities to work on 5G networks.
 
We should aim to create incentives for the leadership at Huawei to be resentful of their own political masters. Better that they blame Beijing, and not Washington, for their lack of access to Western markets.
 
I therefore hope that Washington continues to tolerate the Trudeau government’s endless delay in coming to a final decision on a Huawei ban. I’d much prefer to see the company fail to secure contracts in Canada on any merit other than an American edict.
 
***
 
On Canada and China, I enjoy the work of Wendy Dobson and Paul Evans. Both were also delightful to deal with when I edited International Journal.

To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Last week, the Trudeau government announced that Bob Rae would be Canada’s next permanent representative to the United Nations.
 
(Disclaimer: Mr. Rae has been a regular guest in my class on Canadian government and strategic decision-making and has said very kind things about my last two books.)
 
Two thoughtful journalists, Paul Wells of Maclean’s and Martin Regg Cohn of the Toronto Star, have come to virtually opposite conclusions about Rae’s appointment. I find it difficult to fully agree with either of them.
 
According to Wells, Rae might be “a gifted deliverer of impromptu remarks,” but he is not a career diplomat, and the posting to New York requires more than just a sharp intellect and superior negotiation skills.
 
The UN is “an infernally complex place. The rule book is as thick as the Manhattan phone directory, and much depends on whom you know.”
 
Perhaps it might have been prudent for the Liberals to choose from among the many seasoned professionals at Global Affairs Canada for this particular job.
 
In contrast, Regg Cohn draws attention to Rae’s time as Ontario’s 21st premier, suggesting that “There is no better preparation for the pinstripes brigade in the puffed up diplomatic corps than to run a province.”
 
Add to that his international experience, including his recent work on behalf of the Trudeau government looking into the plight of the Rohingya, and Regg Cohn can’t imagine a better choice.
 
I agree with Wells that Rae lacks UN experience, and my own research confirms that navigating the UN’s written and unwritten rules of behaviour takes time for even the best-prepared diplomat.
 
But I also concur with Regg Cohn’s suggestion that, in temperament and intellect, Rae will be an excellent fit in New York.
 
My problem with both analyses is that we don’t really know what Mr. Trudeau wants from his new UN representative. Without that understanding, I don’t think it’s possible to evaluate the quality of the appointment.
 
In recent history, there have been at least four kinds of successful Canadian permanent representatives in New York.
 
Stephen Lewis was an NDP political activist, lacking in formal diplomatic experience.
 
But his Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, was looking for someone with an edge, particularly when it came to denouncing apartheid in South Africa. He got exactly that.
 
Yves Fortier, one of Mulroney’s closest friends and business associates, succeeded Lewis.
 
He, too, had no formal background at the UN, although he was a world-renowned arbitrator.
 
In Fortier, Mulroney sought someone he could trust implicitly while Canada was on the UN Security Council.
 
To compensate for Fortier’s lack of UN experience, Philippe Kirsch, one of Canada’s foremost diplomats, stayed on in New York as deputy permanent representative and took responsibility for the operational management of the delegation.
 
Fortier had the humility to defer to Kirsch on issues of procedure and protocol, and was generally a pleasure to work for. Moreover, his close relationship with the prime minister produced instant credibility at the negotiating table. No career diplomat I have spoken to resented his presence.
 
Fortier was followed by Louise Fréchette, an official with 21 years’ experience, including a number as part of Canada’s UN delegation in Geneva.
 
Fréchette was so well-regarded across New York that she later served eight years as the UN’s first deputy secretary-general.
 
Finally, in 2011, the Harper government appointed Guillermo Rishchynski Canada’s UN ambassador.
 
Rishchynski used the mediation skills he had developed over nearly 30 years as a foreign service officer to keep the low profile that his prime minister expected of him without compromising Canadian national interests.
 
That most readers won’t recognize his name suggests that he, too, succeeded.
 
Bob Rae has Lewis’ ability to effect change, Fortier’s gravitas, and the necessary deference to the diplomatic establishment.
 
He lacks Fréchette’s UN experience, and is unlikely to keep his head down.
 
He could be an excellent choice if his skill-set matches the policy objectives that the Trudeau government has presumably established for his time in New York.
 
But if Rae was selected for political purposes – as a fig leaf to the Liberal old guard, for example – the decision to pass over a number of eminently qualified career public servants is harder to justify, and morale at Global Affairs Canada is likely to suffer as a result.
 
***
 
For another perspective on this issue, take a look at what Susan Delacourt has written. And if you’d like to delve more deeply into the history of Canadian diplomacy, consider just about anything published by the late Greg Donaghy. Greg was an outstanding scholar whose kindness and generosity will be deeply missed across Canada’s academic and professional diplomatic community.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Ever since Canada lost its bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, an overwhelming number of Canadian analysts have been calling for a comprehensive foreign policy review (see also here and here and here).
 
According to the University of Calgary’s Jean-Christophe Boucher, some are even advocating a Royal Commission.
 
I was not comfortable when Canadian Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne proposed to “launch a white paper on Canada’s feminist foreign policy” four months ago.
 
And while I don’t agree that Canada’s Security Council election defeat represents the global rejection of Canadian foreign policy that critics have made it out to be, even if it does, I still wouldn't think that the time was right for a foreign policy review.
 
Historically, foreign policy reviews conducted under minority governments have sputtered.
 
Prime Minister Joe Clark tried one in 1979, but it was cancelled when his government fell unexpectedly a couple of months later.
 
Prime Minister Paul Martin tried in 2005. His review made it to press, only to be archived a few months later when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took power.
 
It’s also an election year in the United States, and Canada’s close ties to the US – economically, militarily, historically, and geographically – mean that the policy of the next administration will have a critical impact on Ottawa’s international realm.
 
To conduct a foreign policy review before we are certain of who will sit in the White House and control the Senate next year seems imprudent.
 
These reasons don’t begin to take into account the logistics of launching a review in the midst of Global Affairs Canada's efforts to deal with the impact of a pandemic while working remotely.
 
Nor do they consider how Canadians will pay for the findings of the review. (These sorts of exercises always conclude that Canada should do more in the world.)
 
None of this means that Canadian foreign policy is in a good place.
 
Critics are correct in suggesting that Ottawa’s searing rhetoric has failed to align with its more guarded international commitments.
 
But doing something is not the only way to address this discrepancy. For now, the best solution might be to simply cut down on the sloganeering.
 
Our government could do worse than dispensing with all of its talk of Canadian global leadership; avoiding the further politicization of foreign policy through its deliberate and unhelpful branding efforts; and empowering the outstanding people at Global Affairs Canada and in other departments with international responsibilities to promote and defend Canadian national interests.
 
We can start thinking more seriously about the future of Canadian foreign policy on November 4th, 2020. But I still don’t see the value of undertaking a formal review until one of our political parties commands a majority in the House of Commons.
 
***
 
If you’re interested in learning more about Canadian foreign policy reviews, take a look at the work of David Malone, William Hogg, John Noble, and Randolph Mank. I wrote something about the origins of Canada’s feminist foreign policy here, but for a real expert’s take, check out the work of Rebecca Tiessen.

To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

The excellent public policy magazine, Policy Options, graciously published my response to Canada's defeat in its bid for a two-year seat on the UN Security Council. I cannot praise the editorial team, including Jennifer Ditchburn and Evangeline Sadler, enough for the way they improved my rushed first draft. You can find the article here.

 Last week, Peter Donolo, a long-time Liberal political strategist, wrote a scathing critique of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to a media query about US President Donald Trump’s tasteless reaction to the violent death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer.
 
Given the broad consensus among Canadians that the president’s conduct has been contemptible, Donolo questioned the merits of Trudeau’s 21-second pause, which was followed by a refusal to call out Trump directly. 
 
Donolo justified his condemnation by drawing heavily from Trudeau’s own words.
 
The prime minister claimed that his job was (1) “to stand up for our interests,” and (2) “to stand up for our values.”
 
And while it was certainly not in Canada’s interests to risk the president’s wrath by scorning him publicly, Donolo wondered whether the PM’s refusal to criticize Trump personally meant that he had failed on the second front.
 
“If we only find our voice when there is no risk,” he concluded, “then we are not truly sovereign.”
 
I don’t agree with Donolo - conscious decisions not to act are just as much acts of a soveign state as are actions themselves - but by invoking the idea that the role of the prime minister is to stand up for the values of Canadians, Trudeau brought this criticism upon himself. (The unnecessarily dramatic 21-second pause didn’t help, either.)
 
In 2017, then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland articulated a vision for Canada on the world stage that, presumably, also represented the views of our prime minister:
 
“Now, it is clearly not our role to impose our values around the world,” she said. “No one appointed us the world’s policeman.”
 
Admittedly, Freeland went on to suggest that it was the government’s duty “to clearly stand for these rights both in Canada and abroad,” but how she explained standing for, rather than Trudeau’s standing up for, is critical:
 
“It is our role,” she said, “to set a standard for how states should treat women, gays and lesbians, transgendered people, racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious minorities, and Indigenous people.”
 
We stand, in short, by our actions, and those actions must begin at home.
 
As the prime minister is well-aware, when it comes to racial inequality, Canadians have little to brag about.
 
In that context, Trudeau was right not to take the media’s bait and wax smugly about the US president.
 
Moreover, those who support fundamental change in America should be grateful that he held his tongue.
 
At present, Republicans are divided over President Trump’s conduct. Those internal divisions are part of what is enabling what appears to be a normative shift in US society.
 
Criticism of the president by a Canadian prime minister (who cannot recall how many times he has dressed up in blackface) might well have spurred Republican Party members to reunite in opposition to foreign meddling in their country’s internal affairs.
 
The White House communications team could have used Trudeau to distract the public from the situation on America’s streets.
 
In sum, it is hard to imagine a worse time for self-righteous indignation in Canadian foreign policy.

​The best response to President Trump is to get our own house in order.
 
***
Brian Bow continues to do excellent research into Canada-US relations. On race, why not take a look at the work of Laura Madokoro.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

This past Saturday, thousands of Torontonians flocked to Trinity Bellwoods Park, a delightful, family-friendly space not too far from the lakeshore.

Photos taken that afternoon, showing over 10,000 Canadians virtually on top of one another, reflect a population seemingly oblivious to the pandemic surrounding them.

Toronto’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Eileen de Villa, condemned the behaviour of the revellers as “selfish and dangerous.”

A city spokesperson promised that by-law officials would be out in full-force the following day. (They were.)

In the meantime, the number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario is spiking, with Toronto leading the way.

How could this happen?

I suspect that part of the problem was caused by a group of disgruntled, perhaps entitled, Torontonians using an example set for them by some of our political leaders as justification to overlook municipal and provincial rules around physical distancing.

In early April, we learned that PM Justin Trudeau had visited his family at the Prime Minister’s summer residence at Harrington Lake barely hours after he had called on the rest of us to stay home for the weekend.

We never received a convincing explanation as to why seemed to be one set of rules for most Canadians and another for the prime minister and his family.

That same weekend, after urging Ontarians not to visit their cottages, Premier Doug Ford drove up to his own summer residence to “check on the plumbing.”

Rather than apologizing, Ford attempted to rationalize his trip. He drove alone; he didn’t stop along the way; he didn’t visit anyone; and he was genuinely worried about a flood.

Why someone from the area could not have checked the cottage on his behalf was never made clear.

Strike three came on Mother’s Day.

While Ontario public health officials continued to order provincial residents to stay away from anyone who lived outside of their household, Ford invited his two daughters who do not live with him to visit the family home for some quality time.

The premier’s justification this time was that we should all use our own best judgment in interpreting the advice from Public Health.

When leaders in other countries have behaved similarly, some have been forced to resign.

In Canada, there were no consequences for Trudeau, nor have there been any for Ford, now a repeat offender.

This context does not excuse Torontonians’ shoddy behaviour at Trinity Bellwoods. They put the health of their fellow residents at increased risk and might well have extended the length of our lockdown.

It might, however, explain how such a situation could occur, and suggests that it could happen again.

Both the prime minister and the Ontario premier have managed elements of the Canadian response to COVID-19 admirably.

But when it comes to consistently matching their words with their actions, they have made significant mistakes.

It seems to me that, at least in Toronto, these errors have undermined the critical message that our public health officials have been sending.

If Trudeau and Ford want to restore Torontonians’ commitment to flattening the curve, they should start by following Toronto Mayor John Tory's lead, and offering all Canadians a sincere apology.

***

Like many Canadians, I have been impressed by the work of Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia’s Provincial Health Officer, throughout the pandemic. Her calm, thoughtful presence has been reassuring. Dr. Deena Hinshaw’s work as the chief medical officer of health in Alberta has been equally inspiring.

To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.

Last week, Rob Oliphant, parliamentary secretary to Canadian Foreign Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, spoke to The Hill Times about the “massive and complicated repatriation effort,” undertaken by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) in response to the current pandemic.

Oliphant noted that the personal relationships that Minister Champagne had established with his ministerial counterpart and officials in Morocco during a visit in January was critical to GAC’s ability to help more than 1,000 Canadians stranded there get home.

According to Oliphant, his own and Prime Minister Trudeau’s personal visits to Ethiopia earlier this year were similarly critical to GAC’s successful efforts to arrange flights out of Johannesburg and Cape Town.

It's worth recalling that those visits to Africa were initially controversial. Critics suggested that the Trudeau government was engaged in a vanity project to secure a seat on the UN Security Council.

In this context, Oliphant’s revelations illustrate not just the importance of effective diplomacy, but also the challenge of making that importance clear to the Canadian public.

Particularly in times of crisis, international relations is all about personal relationships. Our diplomats use the capital they have accumulated through their relationship-building efforts to advance and defend the national interest.

Put another way, world leaders don’t have a lot of time for favours during a pandemic. If you need something from them, and they don’t already know you, it’s probably too late.

The problem when it comes to building public support for diplomacy is that best diplomatic practices are a lot like insurance: the costs (embassies, receptions, official visits) are clear immediately, but the benefits are only incurred later, and typically when the average Canadian is too preoccupied to appreciate the work that was necessary to produce them.

To make matters worse, contemporary populist movements have promoted a disdain for elites and their expertise. Many Canadians have been conditioned to question the purpose and value of our diplomats and their efforts.

Nonetheless, diplomacy has proven time and again that it can save lives.

When we face the financial reckoning that is sure to arise in Ottawa when this pandemic is finally over, let’s hope that the critical work of Global Affairs Canada in getting so many stranded Canadians home is not forgotten.

***

The most convincing essay I’ve read on the value of diplomacy was written by the novelist and humourist, Sondra Gotlieb, as a chapter in Diplomacy in the Digital Age, a quasi-academic collection dedicated to her now late husband Allan, one of Canada’s foremost 20th century diplomats.

If you do take a look at the book, be sure to also check out “Professionals and amateurs in the diplomacy of the age of information,” by one of our finest scholars, Denis Stairs.

And a shout-out to the University of Toronto’s Brendan Kelly. His book, The Good Fight: Marcel Cadieux and Canadian Diplomacy was just awarded the 2020 Dafoe Prize, recognizing “the best book on Canada, Canadians, and/or Canada’s place in the world.”

Cadieux was another one of Canada’s great diplomats. His own book, The Canadian Diplomat, is another tremendous resource.

If those books aren’t enough, you can find some of mine here, here, or here.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.