Trudeau frees the foreign diplomats.

[I Think]

It is being reported that Trudeau sent a letter to Canada's foreign ambassadors telling them that Canada would rely on their judgement.
It marks an end to the Harper muzzling of diplomats, an end to pre approved speeches and pre approved meetings.
One can only hope he frees up the scientists and others who were being muzzled by the last prime minister.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has unshackled his top diplomats.

Trudeau sent a letter Wednesday to the ambassadors and high commissioners of Canada's foreign missions telling them he and his cabinet will be relying on their judgment and insight to advance Canada's foreign policy goals.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press, tells them that Wednesday marks a "new era" for Canada's international engagement, and they have a critical role to play.

The letter marks a reversal of the strict message control that the Harper Conservative government imposed on its most seasoned diplomats over much of the past decade.

That included having speeches vetted and meetings approved by Ottawa, as well as crafting detailed talking points for events taking place in foreign countries.

Senior diplomats, including the former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, have been subjected to message event proposals by the Conservatives — detailed planning documents created in Ottawa that laid out details and key messages for speeches and public appearances.

Trudeau's letter doesn't specifically refer to the Conservative message control, but it opens with one very direct message of its own.

"Today begins a new era in Canadian international engagement," he writes.

"You are experienced, skilled professionals, and some of Canada's best assets internationally. Under my leadership, you will have a government that believes in you and will support you in your work around the world."

The message was well received by top ranking diplomats around the globe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/05/trudeau-relaxes-conservative-control-of-diplomats-urges-them-to-engage_n_8477032.html

[Gone_Fishin]

"You are experienced, skilled professionals, and some of Canada's best assets internationally. Under my leadership, you will have a government that believes in you and will support you in your work around the world."

I didn't think you'd be praising Gordon Campbell. Interesting.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

I didn't think you'd be praising Gordon Campbell. Interesting.

Why not ? I voted for him.

[Rwede]

Why not ? I voted for him.

*removed*

[Glacier]

Lots of conservatives voted Liberal or NDP this time around, so it's not out of the question for SmokeOnTheWater to vote for a non-Harper conservative government in the past or the future.

I think that the muzzling of dissenting voices was Harper's downfall. Instead of getting rid of dissenting voices, it just made those voices stronger and with more resolve. We see the same thing taking place in Europe over the migrant crisis. Angela Merkel had a "live mike" incident the other day when she was sitting beside Zuckerberg, and asked him if he could make Facebook delete any posts by people opposed to bringing in more refugees. Of course, everyone should know from the Harper experience that is will only make the voices strong and more rabid in their resolve to not be silenced.

Trying to quash dissenting voices is never a good idea. Let's hope that Trudeau never starts playing this game.

[Rwede]

Trudeau whipped his caucus over a year ago, before he was even elected.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/justin- ... onscience/

What makes anyone think he'll allow a dissenting opinion? This is the federal Liberal party, in 2015, which is the same as Chretien's old party.

[flamingfingers]

^^From the article above:

Now, what if he vowed to whip a vote to legalize euthanasia? I suspect the outcry would at least equal the current controversy.

The difference, if we accept my guesses, might be in that the laws around same-sex marriage and the death penalty seem “settled” in their current state—no such law exists for abortion and legalizing euthanasia would require explicitly changing the current law.

That’s a reasonable distinction, but it doesn’t work for the purposes of determining what qualifies as a matter of conscience. So let’s turn this around. If Mr. Trudeau should permit a free vote on abortion, what else should Mr. Trudeau permit a free vote on? Same-sex marriage? Capital punishment? Prostitution laws? The legalization of marijuana? Safe-injection facilities? Stem cell research? War?

The notion of morals, as noted above, complicates matters insofar as you can imagine it being applied to various areas of public policy. At the very least, I can imagine it being applied to decisions involving military combat, but you could probably find ways to argue that moral calculations could be included in deciding environmental regulations or changes to the tax code or judicial sentencing guidelines. Of course, the Liberal party, and other parties, might not be particularly divided on such issues—free votes might not be seen as necessary to appease the personal convictions of Liberal MPs or, for that matter, the MPs in other parties.