U.S. Ambassador to Canada hints at interfering with Canadian domestic policy
9 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The U.S. ambassador to Canada has hinted that Washington may try to convince the incoming Liberal government to maintain a combat mission against ISIS, even though prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau has vowed to end it.
"I don't actually want to presume an outcome here," Ambassador Bruce Heyman told CBC News chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge. "He hasn't formed his government, and we'd like the opportunity to come in and sit down with the government and talk about the broad aspect of the coalition and what we're trying to get accomplished."
Mansbridge asked Heyman if he was suggesting the U.S. would like the opportunity to lobby Ottawa to continue with the existing mission.
"What I'm really saying is I'd like the opportunity at every file with every minister to sit down and have a conversation," Heyman said. "Develop a relationship so that we can sit across the table and talk about opportunities. And where there are differences, have a good understanding for each other of where we see things differently and work to really good outcomes that work for both of us."
Canada has deployed CF-18s to take part in the U.S.-led coalition's airstrikes against ISIS. But Trudeau has said he wants to pull those fighters, provide more humanitarian aid in Iraq and Syria and have Canada's military involved in training missions, not bombing missions.
Trudeau, who spoke with U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday, said they discussed Canada's role in the mission and that the president "understands the commitments I have made around ending the combat mission."[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bruce-heyman-u-s-ambassador-isis-mission-1.3282732[/url]
Interference from America is neither new nor surprising. The fact that the US would go apeshit has been used as an excuse for years on why Canada's weed laws had to stay as they are (or get tougher) no matter how many Canadians voiced their opposition to continued prohibition. (That one isn't working so well anymore, thanks WA and CO.)
Is decision on combat mission literately on the other side of the globe a domestic policy really?
When you said "hints at interfering with Canadian domestic policy" you were implying something far more sinister than trying to talk the new Government into staying on board.
This is like the most normal thing ever. Anyone getting angry about this is a moron.
Sorry Canada if our country is being dicks...
Eh I wouldn't call it interfering, the new pm hasn't been in office yet and they are wanting to rapidly change their military strategy, its not unreasonable for us to want them to not do that yet until they have a better picture of what exactly is going on
Isn't this interfering with foreign policy, not domestic?
[QUOTE=Craigewan;48958845]Isn't this interfering with foreign policy, not domestic?[/QUOTE]
This is 'US interfering with Canada's domestic policy' the same way Germany objecting to the NSA spying on Merkel was 'Germany interfering with US domestic policy'.
It's not domestic policy when it affects your neighbors, and negotiating or collaborating is a far cry from interfering.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.