|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
View Answers
Question 2: The 1995 Policy Review and SinceAmid 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? |
|
| Contributor: | 1876 |
| Date: |
2003-05-01 10:19:49 |
| Answer: |
I would like to see a better integration of the three pillars of security, prosperity and values. For example, promoting human rights and prosperity for all the world's people is an essential long-term investment in both security and prosperity for Canada. Yet Canada's foreign aid as a percentage of GDP is lower than that of some other countries.
I would like to see prosperity and employment further defined to include ALL Canadians, and not rely on discredited trickle-down economic theories. This means negotiating enforceable labour, health and environmental standards in international trade agreements, similar to those of the EU. It also means better programs for Canadians who lose their jobs as a result of structural adjustment, particularly those who no longer qualify for EI (contract workers, homeworkers, many part-time workers, self-employed). No Canadian should be left behind as a result of Canada's trade policies. This would mean better integration of the goals, values and working relationships between federal departments, and between the federal government and the provinces/territories.
Foreign policy concerning security and prosperity should reflect our values. I recommend expanding consultations with human rights organizations. Our values should also be applied to domestic policy. We should not claim to be superior on the international stage when we have Aboriginal peoples with lower life expectancies, homeless people, and one fifth of all Canadian children living in poverty. There is no excuse for a wealthy country like Canada to have people living in these conditions. This makes us less credible when we talk about human rights. We should lead by example. |
|
|
|
|
