12

To the world beyond our borders


 

Shauna Sylvester reflects on Michael Ignatieff’s speech in Ottawa this week.

Some might argue that a speech at the Canadian Club does not a platform make, and they may be right. But when was the last time we heard a national political party leader use a major speech to address global issues? Even during the worst global economic recession in decades, all speeches were domestically focused.

I know that every Poli Sci 101 course says that “elections are always won on domestic issues,” but I’m not convinced – if no global issues are raised, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. What I have noticed, is that fewer Canadians are going to the polling stations, especially younger Canadians. While the reasons for this are complex, I think every political party should be looking at how they can speak to more Canadians. Given that Canadians are focused more globally than their government, perhaps it’s time for federal political parties to wake up and see the world.


 

To the world beyond our borders

  1. I'm still undecided about Ignatieff, but his speech to the Canadian Club seemed to me to tick all the right boxes. If we're ever to become less dependent upon trade with the US, it will only be by developing trade in those areas that are emerging as major players in the world economy – China and India.

  2. From an Ignatieff skeptic – I'll admit – it had flair – and it got the message over – why do we need an election?
    Because we have in government right now a group of people determined to take Canada away from what it does best – abandoning friends and commitments around the world – because it does not fit the ideological mindset.
    That is reason number one for an election – and all four opposition parties will be using that argument – to some degree.
    BUT – Ignatieff has to go further down the route he has described – and map out the policy steps needed to get us there.
    That will be the differentiator – what makes people think – I want to vote for this party – again…
    I still think

  3. From an Ignatieff skeptic – I'll admit – it had flair – and it got the message over – why do we need an election?
    Because we have in government right now a group of people determined to take Canada away from what it does best – abandoning friends and commitments around the world – because it does not fit the ideological mindset.
    That is reason number one for an election – and all four opposition parties will be using that argument – to some degree.
    BUT – Ignatieff has to go further down the route he has described – and map out the policy steps needed to get us there.
    That will be the differentiator – what makes people think – I want to vote for this party – again…

  4. I do not disagree that Mr. Ignatieff chose an important subject for his speech last Monday. Neverthelss, I was extraordinarily disappointed with the speech primarily because it was so shallow coming from a man who tries to project himself as a bit of an expert in that area.

    The speech rehearsed old platitudes, some of which seemed to jump right out from the pages of Trudeau's Foreign Policy for Canadians (whichI had a hand in writing so I know it well), and trumpeted stale ideas. Many of his writings on foreign policy in the past have been far more imaginative than the pabulum her served up on Monday.

  5. I do not disagree that Mr. Ignatieff chose an important subject for his speech last Monday. Neverthelss, I was extraordinarily disappointed with the speech primarily because it was so shallow coming from a man who tries to project himself as a bit of an expert in that area.

    The speech rehearsed old platitudes, some of which seemed to jump right out from the pages of Trudeau's Foreign Policy for Canadians (which I had a hand in writing so I know it well), and trumpeted stale ideas. Many of his writings on foreign policy in the past have been far more imaginative than the pabulum her served up on Monday.

  6. I preferred Harper's speech to business and government in NY – his pride in Canada showed a diplomat in action, not a critical pontificator.

    • I'm sorry, I just can't get over Harper and diplomat in the same sentence. I'm sure his speech was very good, we must thank the writer.

  7. I think his speech was revised and not an honest assessment. As a leader of a political party he abandoned his views and beliefs to pander to a Canadian audience.

    What did he say in 2005 in Ireland about our peacekeeping?

    [youtube wwDLjXb6FCM&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDLjXb6FCM&fe… youtube]

    • Indeed. One of the most foolhardy Canadian politicians on military matters since Stephen Harper.

      • Do you have a link or an article to support your position?

  8. All I hear are the same old platitudes and generalizations that use up a lot of words but have little real meaning or substance. Iggy if you want to show us something give us something with some meat on the bones otherwise it is same o same o~!

    • Problem for him is, no where can he find in the Canadian history books, a Conservative PM that won re-election after having governed in a recession.
      No where in the history books is there a divided left with Libs sitting in opposition, united right in government and the BLOC captivating Quebec.
      Original thought is required.

Sign in to comment.