On August 23, 2020, the leadership contest of the Conservative Party of Canada ended with Erin O’Toole defeating Peter MacKay, the presumptive leader, on the third ballot, thereby replacing Andrew Scheer and becoming the third leader of the CPC. Like all political leaders, O’Toole is guided by an image of Canada that is and one that will be should he lead the Conservatives to victory in the next general election. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the foreign policy outlined by O’Toole during the leadership contest, as well as in his first few months in the position. The image being crafted by O’Toole is the common “handyman”, someone who is competent, professional, trustworthy and dependable but someone more comfortable with repair rather than construction or design. This is in contrast to Justin Trudeau, who is depicted as a photogenic leader more worried about hashtags, tweets and likes than making hard decisions, a “poster boy”.

Since the end of World War II, the political geometry of the international system has shifted from the bipolarity of the Cold War to the unipolarity of the post-Cold War period and is currently undergoing another shift in polarity.

Let's be honest. Canada and Canadian decision-makers have had it relatively easy. For its entire history, Canada has inhabited an international order entirely comprehensible and navigable by Canadian policy-makers.

Shortly after coming to power in October 2015, Justin Trudeau declared that Canada was "back", that the last decade under Stephen Harper in which Canada "lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world" was over. Trudeau was going to return Canada to the "general continuity" in Canada's approach to international relations which characterized the 1945-2006 period and was broken by the Harper government when it took office. This paper will demonstrate that the Harper government attempted to shift the ethical concerns of the Canadian government from a focus on collective concerns of international society to one which prioritized self-reliance and self-responsibility. More specifically, Stephen Harper advanced a narrative - personal responsibility internationalism - which challenged the internationalist narrative which had been subscribed to and supported by the "bipartisan consensus" of both Liberal and Conservative governments in the post-war period. The argument will be developed in three parts. The first section discusses narratives and the role they play in guiding a state's foreign policy. The next two sections examine humane internationalism and personal responsibility internationalism, outlining their main tenets, tracing their origins and discussing briefly some of the ways they have been reflected in the practice of Canadian foreign policy.

This article examines the construction of Canada's postwar international identity and how that identity continues to influence Canadian foreign policy, especially with the United States. Furthermore, the article illustrates how changes in Canadian policy necessitated by the Trump Administration may impact Canada's international identity in the future. The article argues Canadian policy makers have consistently constructed an international identity in opposition to the United States and continue to use the US as a reflective tool in shaping their own policy. The first part of the article briefly examines the concept of state identity outlining both type and role variants and their relevance to foreign policy and this is followed in the second part by a discussion of Canada's postwar international identity.

Governments, upon assuming office, most often seek to refocus foreign policy according to the preferences of the new prime minister and the primary means of accomplishing this has been to release a white paper outlining the priorities of the new government. This article will demonstrate that discussions of trade issues reinforce existing studies questioning the innovation and impact of white papers. The purpose of this analysis, however, is not to dwell on the utility of white papers and foreign policy reviews but instead search for a deeper understanding of why trade policy is discussed in an unoriginal and superficial manner. The focus of the article is on the period from 1968 to the present.

(2009). Constructing a middle power: Ideas and Canadian foreign policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal: Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 77-93.

Conventional wisdom holds that governments matter - i.e., that a new government, particularly one of a different political party, will make substantial changes to the policies of the state it was elected to lead. The focus of this article is whether party affiliation matters in determining Canada's priorities and policies in its relationship with the United States. It will compare policy statements and performances of Liberal, Progressive Conservative, and Conservative governments from the advent of the Trudeau Liberal government in 1968 to the present and will argue that party affiliation has had little impact on Canada's US policy over this period. The analysis will proceed in three parts. In the first part, the Canada-US relationship will be discussed briefly. This will be followed by an overview of the economic priorities of Canadian governments concerning the US from 1968 to the present, as gleaned from major policy statements such as white papers and speeches. The final part of the article will set out some of the reasons why party affiliation has had little substantive impact on Canada's policy with the US over the last 40 years, including the limited electoral salience of issues with the Canadian public, the difficulty of packaging positions concerning the increasing complexity of issues in parties' electoral platforms, the private sector character of trade, and the increasing intrusiveness of agreements to which Canada is a signatory.CANADA-US TRADE: A BRIEF OVERVIEWCanada has always been a trading nation. International trade, especially bilateral with the US, is an increasingly important component of Canada's economic health and, therefore, a concern to all political parties. That matters to Canada has long been understood: in 1942, Hugh Keenleyside wrote that for Canada, trade and other economic factors are fundamental to ninety percent of all international relations.1 Almost 40 years later, these same sentiments were voiced by an official in the Department of External Affairs when he remarked that Canada's foreign policy is 90 percent oriented toward and commerce.2 In addition to the importance of international to Canada, it needs to be stressed that policy is not singular but rather plural in character. Each province and sector has different needs and expectations concerning Canada's economic relations with the US, as well as the rest of the world.Canada consistently leads the G8 states in terms of exports as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). What this means is that Canada more than any other member ofthe G8 relies on exports for its economic health. Access to the US market is of prime importance. Exports to the US over the 2001-07 period accounted for 84.5 percent of total Canadian exports, on average. This was an increase from 80.8 percent for the 1990-2000 period, from 73.5 percent over the 1980-89 period and from 68.6 percent over the 1970-79 period. Illustrating the importance ofthe American market as a source for Canadian exports, according to export data for 2007, eight American states would rank as Canada's top export destination if they were to be considered as separate markets and not part of the US.At the provincial level, Canadian provinces became increasingly dependent on international exports for their economic health over the 19972006 period. Ontario was the most economically integrated into the global economy, leading Canadian provinces in terms of percentage of GDP accounted for by the export goods and services (47.8 percent) over this period. Nova Scotia, conversely, was the least integrated province with an average of 25.6 percent of its GDP coming from the export of goods and services over this time.3 Examining provincial with the US, all provinces were exporting more to the US in 2007 than in 1998. This increase in integration with the American market was led by Ontario which sent an average of 90. …

The electronic, peer-reviewed Occasional Papers on Public Policy series, published at acsus.org by the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, is designed to highlight ongoing research in Canadian domestic and foreign policy at the federal, provincial, and city levels. ACSUS invites submissions on issues of public policy that pertain to cross-border relations between Canada and the United States, or policies in one of these countries that have implications for the other. As with ARCS, the e-journal is multidisciplinary and encourages submissions from all fields of policy inquiry. Ideally, papers will be four to eight pages in length (double-spaced) and should be submitted electronically to: Professor Michael Lusztig, Department of Political Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275; mlusztig@smu.edu. The first in the Occasional Papers on Public Policy series is published in the pages that follow. The four occasional papers in this volume address a wide range of matters important to both the United States and Canada. In a recent survey of the Canada-U.S. relationship, Munroe Eagles noted that the popular impression for many Americans was that Canadians were of step with their more conservative neighbor to the south (Eagles 2006, 821). John Herd Thompson made a similar claim in his review of the bilateral relationship over the 1994-2003 period, writing that Canadians are perceived by some Americans as being wing wimps (Thompson 2003, 17). One area in which Canada may be regarded as out of step with the United States, and Canadians as left wing wimps, is the issue of marijuana. There are real and noticeable differences between Canada and the U.S. in the way each side deals with the issue of marijuana. The following pages examine the marijuana issue in terms of the growing volume of the drug being smuggled into the United States from Canada, the increased potency of the strains of marijuana grown in Canada, and the differences in judicial deterrents adopted to penalize possession and cultivation. This is followed by a look at a couple of possibilities that have the potential to transform the marijuana irritant into the marijuana problem in Canada-U.S. relations. The amount of marijuana being produced in Canada and then illegally exported to the United States is of increasing concern to all levels of American law enforcement. While British Columbia (B.C.), Ontario, and Quebec are all of concern to U.S. officials, British Columbia presents the largest source of Canadian marijuana for the U.S. market, so the discussion will focus primarily upon that province. The marijuana cultivation industry in B.C. is thriving, as demonstrated by the fact that the province accounted for almost 40 percent of all growing operations found by law enforcement officials in Canada in 2003. the last year for which full data are available (CCJS 2004). During that year, the province also had the highest rate of cultivation incidents in Canada, at 79 per 100,000 people. What this means is that 79 marijuana cultivation operations were found for every 100,000 people in the province. This is nearly triple the national rate of 27 per 100,000 people, and 33 higher than second-place New Brunswick, at 46. More marijuana cultivation facilities were uncovered by Canadian law enforcement officials in B.C. (3274) than in all of the other provinces combined (2564), except Quebec (2939), in 2003 (CCJS 2004). In their study of the B.C. marijuana growing industry over the 1997-2003 period, Darryl Plecas, Aili Malm, and Bryan Kinney identified over 25,000 cultivation operations uncovered by police officers in the province (Plecas, Malm, and Kinney 2005). In terms of the monetary value of marijuana, it is estimated that the annual wholesale value of the provincial industry is approximately C$6 billion, or what is equivalent to about 5 percent of the annual provincial gross domestic product. …

Almost a decade ago, Kim Richard Nossal wrote an article concerning the growth of international relations (IR) as a discipline within the Canadian academy.1 In the paper, Nossal argued that the study of IR and Canadian foreign policy (CFP) had undergone growth spurts in the 1970s and 1980s and that, partly as a result of that growth, both fields had become more Canadianized. The purpose of this paper is to update and extend that part of Nossal’s analysis that concerns the study of CFP within the Canadian academy. In assessing the current state of CFP, the paper borrows from Imre Lakatos the notions of progress and stagnation to characterize a field of study.2 The concepts of progress and stagnation are not directly applicable to the study of IR in general,3 or CFP in particular, as the criteria outlined by Lakatos pertain more to the natural than the social sciences. Nonetheless, what is relevant is the idea of a field of study, including CFP, falling somewhere along a continuum marked by the poles of progress and stagnation. The issue, then, becomes what criteria are used to determine progress and stagnation. A progressive field of study is one which is characterized by a professoriate who:

The crashing of planes into World Trade Center in New York City and Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on September 11, 2001, altered instantly thinking about itself and other states in world. Gone was view that United States was shielded from foreign incursions and problems. The tragic events of September 11 punctured America's sense of invulnerability (Daalder and Lindsay 2005, 77). This article examines emergence of new image of as security threat United States in aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks. It then argues that this new image, challenging traditional image of as friendly, benign neighbor, has significant policy implications for Canada, particularly in terms of making of policy in United States. For most part, is country that excites little interest in United States. That is often overlooked by is not recent phenomenon but rather is longstanding characteristic of relationship between these countries. In 1920, upon taking up his as staff writer for Toronto Star, Ernest Hemingway wrote of opinions and views of [the] American concerning Canada. This average American, Hemingway noted, had a vague idea of Canada (Hemingway 1985a). Twenty-seven years later, Leslie Chance, then head of Canadian Consular Division of External Affairs, in letter then Under Secretary of State for External Affairs Lester Pearson concerning opening of consulates in United States, noted that foremost task of new consulates was to lift Canadian image from its humiliating position in U.S. (Page 1977, 62). Dean Acheson, former U.S. secretary of state, in his 1969 review of bilateral relationship, wrote that Americans take for granted (Acheson 1969, 134). Similarly, in 1981, former Canadian diplomat John Holmes wrote of one persistent problem for being that the US forgets about us (Holmes 1981, 73). Later, in 2003, John Herd Thompson, professor of Canadian Studies at Duke University, in his review of Canada-U.S. relations over 1994-2003 period, wrote that Americans don't know or care much about Canada (Thompson 2003, 17). This was followed by Derek Burney, Canadian ambassador U.S. from 1989-2003, who noted that very few spend much time concerning themselves with Canada (Burney 2005, 48). Finally, David Leal, associate professor of government at University of Texas, titled his lead article for symposium on in October 2006 issue of PS: Political Science and Politics, Canada: The Unknown Country. In article, Leal wrote, I have noticed that asking scholars care about Canadian politics is like asking them get physical or eat more vegetables. Everyone agrees these are probably good ideas, but there is often certain reluctance comply. Leal continued: If you want someone look at you quizzically, just say 'I've become interested in lately' (Leal 2006, 813). Part of reason for this lack of interest in is due lack of coverage of in media (Belch 2004; Flournoy et al. 1992; Husselbee and Stempel 1997). Unlike Canada, where most Canadians live within narrow band stretching along border, only about 5 percent of live close enough Canadian border pick up Canadian radio or television broadcasts (DePalma 2001, 11). Americans, then, rely on domestic media sources for information concerning Canada. In his examination of news media in Canada-U.S. relationship, Brian Buckley noted that there has been scant coverage of by media and that serious studies of US media portrayals of and Canadian issues are rare (Buckley 2003, 94). For print media, recent study of six newspapers by Chris Belch found that overall coverage of was particularly limited. …

La zléa n’est pas qu’un simple accord de libre-échange ; il s’agit plutôt du canevas d’une nouvelle architecture régionale incorporant libre-échange et démocratie afin de rehausser le niveau de sécurité au sein de la région. La principale considération du Canada en ce qui concerne cette nouvelle architecture régionale est la création d’une collectivité ordonnée sur le plan politique et économique. Nous avançons ici que, pour le Canada, l’objectif de la zléa est de contribuer à la création d’une communauté des Amériques, que le premier ministre Jean Chrétien a appelé « una gran familia ».

Between 1988 and 2000, a series of comprehensive surveys were administered to the editors of Canada's daily newspapers, in order to obtain their views concerning Canadian news reportage of international events. The 1995 data demonstrated an editorial perception of a marked decline in the quality and quantity of international news coverage. The 2000 data pointed to a partial recovery. Canadian editors, however, remain convinced that it is only in local news reporting that newspapers have a comparative advantage over other mass media. This study acknowledges the reversal that may have occurred following the events of September 11, 2001; the series will resume with the aim of charting editorial perceptions following those events.