View Answers

Question 2: The 1995 Policy Review and Since

Amid recent global changes, should Canada continue to endorse a balanced ‘three pillar’ approach to its foreign policy objectives, or should the current balance be adjusted?

	Excerpt	Contributor	Date
view	Canada is a country of immense resources and should not be worried about trade. We import beef yet we are rich in beef. These manipulations are purely economic and only add to the coffers of a few while making the whole world poorer. Security is not a consideration in a world where our technologies	1941	2003-05-02 01:13:01
view	April 30, 2003 The Honourable Bill Graham Minister of Foreign Affairs A Dialogue on Foreign Policy Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2 Dear Minister Graham, I am pleased to contribute to this foreign policy dialogue o	CanadianCouncilofChurches	2003-05-01 21:50:01
view	The Government of Canada needs to rethink its “three pillars” approach—namely, the promotion of prosperity and employment, the protection of our security within a stable global framework and the protection of Canadian values and culture. We need to ask what kind of global relations make Canadian pr	CCIC	2003-05-01 21:11:17
view	I would see an integrated framework with values as primary as making more sense than the “three pillars” approach, especially when some parts of the policy as outlined in the paper are contradictory. Having said this, I think the three interrelated aims the pillars represent are good ones, but in th	annag	2003-05-01 21:01:38
view	In consideration or recent global changes, it would appear that Canada should adjust and expand the "Three Pillar" approach in order to take into consideration some of these changes. Protection of our security within a stable global framework should take into consideration our special relati	1903	2003-05-01 20:50:44
view	The "Three Pillars" approach seems overly simplistic and selfish. Employment is an internal issue, not necessarily a global one. I would applaud the protection of resources, the respect of individuals, and the assistance of other nations in need. I agree with the promotion of prosperity,	1905	2003-05-01 20:50:24
view	Yes, with qualifications. The pillars should support and re-inforce each other. Protection of our security and promotion of prosperity should not conflict with promotion of the values and culture that Canadians cherish. This will have implications for what means we take to protect our secur	1900	2003-05-01 15:41:19
view	: the protection of our security within a stable global framework; the promotion of prosperity and employment; and the promotion of the values and culture that Canadians cherish. Of these three pillars we would benefit by: promoting the protection of EVERYONE'S SECURITY in the world. We	1899	2003-05-01 15:01:17
view	Peaceworks prefers that the three pillars of foreign policy be: Human Rights Sustainable Development/environmental preservation Demilitarization The human rights of individuals are routinely placed in jeopardy by military activity. Active warfare destroys the civic structures w	1897	2003-05-01 15:01:04
view	I do not agree with the three pillars approach. Security is viewed too narrowly. I would be more interested in seeing security include food security (ensuring there is enough food for all Canadians and for all inhabitants of the world, and that that food be safe to eat--that is to say not geneticall	efuchs	2003-05-01 13:55:59
next »

Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca