| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
178195
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Department of External Affairs (DEA) has always been anomalous—more closely associated with the prime minister than any other department, yet also more independent from cabinet in its necessarily far-flung structure than any other department. The unique position of the DEA has meant that its influence has been closely tied to changes in the structure of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). This article examines the ways that the advisory capacity of the DEA has gradually been eroded, while the foreign policy advice from the PMO has concomitantly increased, in the period between the 1930s and the 1990s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
152495
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article uses the experience of Marcel Cadieux, the Canadian under-secretary of state for external affairs at the time, as a lens through which to understand the adaptation of the Department of External Affairs to the government of Pierre Trudeau during its first year-and-a-half in power. Drawing on Cadieux’s private papers, especially his diary, and other archival sources, it explores the prime minister’s attitude toward senior civil servants, his personality, and the review of national defence policy undertaken by the bureaucracy at his request. It concludes that the difference between Pierre Trudeau and Marcel Cadieux was essentially that between the brilliant politician who sought to redefine government and the consummately professional civil servant who believed in his department’s traditional role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
167994
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Denis Lenihan suggests that it is time to reassess the relationship between Alister McIntosh, Paddy Costello and the Department of External Affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
138291
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Three times in the span of 12 years (1968–1980), the foreign policy of the Canadian government was subjected to review by the Department of External Affairs. Although only the first of these efforts resulted in a white paper formally tabled as such in the House of Commons, subsequent reviews tended to follow the design of the first: a comprehensive examination of all aspects of the country’s foreign policy, led and coordinated by senior officials in External Affairs, drawing to varying degrees on expertise from other government departments and the private sector. In all cases, the reviews were intended to produce a document that would guide future policy. They served as useful tools not only for new governments seeking to differentiate their policies from those of their predecessors, but also for those in search of answers to challenges arising in the course of their mandates. This article analyzes the reviews undertaken between 1968 and 1980 and the circumstances that gave rise to them in an effort to account for the popularity of the white paper process among policymakers and to explore the process’s influence on policies subsequently pursued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|