Introduction: Is Canada back? Brand Canada in a turbulent world

ABSTRACT

The Liberal Party’s surprise win in the 2015 federal election was partly due to an articulation of liberal internationalism that contrasted with Prime Minister Harper’s foreign policy vision. “Canada’s back” and “sunny ways” have been key themes for the Trudeau government’s branding of Canada, but rhetoric–reality gaps threaten to tarnish the brand. This article highlights issues in the relationship between articulated visions of Canada as a global actor, nation branding and domestic politics, noting the dangers of the politicization of the branding of Canada. It identifies key issues for evaluating the claim that Canada is back and introduces the articles in the special issue.

RÉSUMÉ

La victoire surprise du Parti Libéral lors des élections fédérales de 2015 a été due en partie à une formulation de l’internationalisme libéral qui contredisait la vision politique du Premier Ministre Stephen Harper. « Le Canada est de retour » et « la voie ensoleillée » ont été des thèmes clés de la labellisation du Canada par le gouvernement Trudeau, mais les écarts entre rhétorique et réalité menacent de ternir ce label. Cet article met l’accent sur le rapport entre les visions, telles que formulées, du Canada en tant qu’acteur mondial, la labellisation nationale et la politique domestique, en soulignant les dangers d’une politisation de la labellisation du Canada. Par ailleurs, il identifie les questions clés à aborder dans une évaluation de la revendication selon laquelle le Canada est de retour, et il introduit les autres articles de cette édition spéciale.

KEYWORDS:

• nation branding
• Brand Canada
• Canadian national identity
• brand politics
• Justin Trudeau
• Liberal Party of Canada
• Canadian foreign policy

Competing visions of Canada as a global actor were on display in the 2015 Canadian federal election. In the lead-up to the election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper portrayed the major opposition parties as soft on terrorists and not able to deal with complex global problems. Conservative Party ads mocked Liberal leader Justin Trudeau as an inexperienced leader, albeit with “nice hair,” who was “just not ready.”

The Conservatives ensured that foreign policy would be central to the election, emphasizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s strong leadership in turbulent and unsafe times, with a campaign slogan on their tour bus stating “Proven Leadership. Safer Canada. Stronger economy” (Furey 2015). They agreed to an historic leaders’ debate on foreign policy, presumably believing these differences would be made clear and to their advantage.

However, the evolving Syrian refugee crisis, and notably the Canadian connection with the unfortunate death of a 3-year-old child whose family was seeking to come to Canada, disrupted these plans. Instead of Harper’s strong stance on security and antiterrorism setting the tone, we witnessed a debate about the values Canada stood for in the world and a questioning of whether Canada in the Harper years lived up to so-called “Canadian values.” Earlier that year, Trudeau forcefully outlined his belief in the institutions that promote and protect Canadian liberties, especially the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in a speech at McGill University (transcript available from Wherry 2015). Trudeau argued that they required ongoing support and leadership, given attacks on liberties in the Harper years. His argument that “Canadian liberty is all about inclusion” was followed by his July statement that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Interestingly, during the election campaign, the Conservatives leaked audio of Trudeau saying this, seeing it as a weakness (CTV News 2015), yet Trudeau used this line against Harper with success during the foreign policy debate.

Trudeau’s articulation of liberal internationalism, carefully developed under the tutorship of Roland Paris (Coulon 2018, pp. 53–56), would inform Canada’s behavior as a good international citizen under a Liberal government; this, along with an economic platform seen as left of center, overshadowed Harper’s narrative. The Liberals also drew on New Democratic Party supporters who were critical of leader Thomas Mulcair’s mainstream economic platform and fearful of vote-splitting that could allow Harper to win again. Thus, the Liberals leapfrogged past the other two parties to become the surprise winners of the election (Nimijean 2015, 2017).

Trudeau, in his election night victory speech, spoke of “sunny ways,” suggesting that his government would offer a positive, constructive and even nostalgic vision of Canada. Not surprisingly, Canadians – and indeed much of the world – applauded when Trudeau stated the day after the election that “Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years. … Well, I have a simple message for you: on behalf of 35 million Canadians, we’re back” (cited in Bronskill 2015).

Trudeau’s optimism, idealism and personal style signaled a break with Harper’s efforts to transform Canadian foreign policy, hinting at a return to the role of helpful fixer that many Canadians identified with. Initial pronouncements on the environment, diversity and gender generated overwhelmingly positive political and media responses, such as Trudeau’s retort, “Because it’s 2015,” when asked why he had gender parity in his cabinet.

His messages also provided an opportunity to revamp Brand Canada. “Canada’s back” and “sunny ways” became the markers by which the Trudeau government wanted the world to see Canada. The idea of nation branding took the world by storm two decades ago as a strategy for improving a country’s economic prospects. Peter van Ham popularized the concept in foreign policy circles with an influential article in Foreign Policy, noting that “Smart states are building their brands around reputations and attitudes in the same way smart companies do” (van Ham 2001b, p. 4). He even suggested (van Ham 2001a) that state branding was a form of “playful” nationalism. The subsequent plethora of national and subnational branding strategies pointed to the concept’s salience as places sought to revitalize economically and increase their clout politically in an era of globalization and neoliberalism.

However, critics argued that nation branding was often devoid of policy substance and could deepen voter cynicism by failing to engage citizens in thoughtful deliberation (Rose 2010). Thus, it could be understood in terms of an ongoing privatization of foreign policy (Curry Jansen 2008) and the state (Rose 2010). Far from being a playful manipulation of symbols in a new form of nationalism, an emphasis on restoring the neoliberal national and strengthening it with symbols in an era of growing ethnonationalism has ominous overtones. As Curry Jansen (2008, p. 134) writes, “Nation branding is a monologic, hierarchical, reductive form of communication that is intended to privilege one message, require all voices of authority to speak in unison, and marginalize and silence dissenting voices.”

Canada in the Chrétien years implemented branding and public diplomacy strategies, including the well-publicized Team Canada trade missions, though its efforts were uneven, and analyses pointed to challenges and opportunities for enhancing these strategies (Nadeau 2004, Potter 2009). These ideas seemed to disappear during the Harper years, apart from occasional references about transforming Canada into a clean-energy superpower (Hester 2007, Way 2011), though this idea never took hold, given widespread criticism of Harper’s positions on the environment. The Harper government terminated one of Canada’s major public diplomacy programs, “Understanding Canada,” in 2012. However, the Trudeau government, circling back to the Chrétien years, revived the idea of an investment promotion strategy, “Investing in Canada,” with the minister even saying that he was “Canada’s chief marketing officer” (Blanchfield 2018).¹

Nimijean (2006) pointed to a connection between nation branding, the external projection of national identity, and domestic politics, arguing that constructions of Canada for external audiences increasingly informed domestic politics and, in the case of the Chrétien government, allowed for the selling of neoliberalism under the guise of “progressive” Canadian values. Other critical examinations of this connection have looked at multiculturalism and immigration (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002) and gender (Rankin 2012). Numerous foreign policy scholars (among others, see Nossal 2003, Stairs 2003, Howell 2005, Michaud 2007, Paris 2014) have explored the connection between national identity and/or values on the one hand, and foreign policy on the other. This brings us back to the link between Trudeau’s personal brand in the world, the values that underlie Brand Canada, the promotion of Brand Canada, and how Canada engages with the world.

Simon Anholt reminds us that nations must earn a good reputation; they cannot simply say that they have or deserve one. In other words, countries must act first. Anholt (2009, p. 90) offers a particular warning for countries like Canada:

When we’re talking about the middle powers, the issue is very often one of relevance; most people don’t care very much about most other countries, especially if they don’t possess a great deal of economic, military, political or cultural clout. Rather than asking themselves “what can we say to make ourselves more famous?” the governments of such countries should be asking “what can we do to make ourselves more relevant?”

In other words, relevance, supported by concrete action, is key to enhancing a nation brand, for values emerge out of action (Nimijean 2005b). Therefore, if Canada is to be back, as Trudeau vowed, what will need to be done post-Harper to reach this state? (Toope 2016). Does Trudeau’s celebrity and sustained rhetoric of liberal internationalism mean that Canada is back, or is it simply empty political messaging?

The Trudeau government envisions Canada as a country that promotes gender equality and development, migration and diversity, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, peacekeeping, and solutions to climate change that involve a balance between energy and the environment. The campaign to win a seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council reinforces a multilateralist vision of Canada, reflecting commonly held external perceptions of Canada as a helpful fixer in foreign affairs.

However, the Trudeau government appears to be perpetuating the “paradoxical nature of the Canadian identity,” resorting to articulating national distinctiveness by promoting values that emerged through past action; as public policy becomes less distinct, the exhortation of distinctive values is ratcheted up (Nimijean 2005b). Echoing Curry Jansen’s depiction of nation branding as a construct that marginalizes dissenting views, Trudeau’s “Canada’s back” statement hints at a political Achilles’ heel of the Liberals, namely arrogance, in arguing that its values are effectively one and the same as Canadian values, as the Globe and Mail (2016) editorialized. How did the millions of Canadians who supported the Conservatives feel when Trudeau declared Canada to be back, this despite his belief in the power of positive politics? As former Conservative cabinet Minister Peter MacKay asked, “Where in God’s name does this prime minister think we’ve been?” (cited in Akin 2016).

MacKay’s response points to an important question: beyond declaring that Canada was back, what actions would demonstrate this to be the case? As the value of brands is ultimately determined by audiences and markets, Trudeau’s rhetoric reshaped perceptions of Brand Canada. However, when actions or experiences do not live up to the brand promise, brands suffer. This is increasingly true of the Trudeau brand, due to rhetoric–reality gaps in several key files:

• On the environment, little progress has been made on achieving emissions targets, as noted in a major audit conducted by the federal Environment Commissioner, the federal auditor general, and nine provincial auditors general (Rabson 2018), and Trudeau is being challenged to defend his view that pipelines and improved environmental performance can coexist;

• Global Affairs Canada (2017) proclaims that “Promoting respect for human rights is at the heart of Canada’s international engagement,” and Trudeau speaks eloquently of his feminist foreign policy, yet the Trudeau government continues to defend the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia despite allegations of human rights abuses that contravene Canadian regulations and an ongoing crackdown on Saudi feminists (Morris 2018). In a 2016 interview, Trudeau stated, “Now, what goes into the brand of a country? Well, obviously it’s not just environmental sustainability and good health care for our workers. It’s also human rights and respect for individuals. So it’s part of Canada’s identity that we stand up for human rights” (cited in Wells 2016). Yet in the same interview, he suggested that Canada would look like a “banana republic” if it canceled the contract and would get a bad name in international circles – in other words, it would hurt the brand.

• Despite a longstanding pledge to return to active peacekeeping, it took the Trudeau government two years to finally decide to support the UN mission in Mali, though it appears to be far less than what was promised, and the government has not yet determined benchmarks for success (Naumetz 2018).

• Perhaps most significantly, Trudeau’s welcoming of Syrian refugees – “you are home” – informed the idea that Canada was back, as seen in David Parkin’s November 2015 editorial cartoon that graces our cover. This idea created a sharp contrast between Canada and the United States following Donald Trump’s election in 2016. After President Trump announced a controversial migration ban in January 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” While this cemented the fusion of Trudeau’s and Canada’s brand, the growing number of refugee claimants arriving at non-official border crossings since Trudeau’s tweet led to a large increase in inquiries from abroad that the government and diplomats abroad had difficulties addressing (Smith 2018). The influx of refugees since the tweet overwhelmed the system to the point that the government developed a new communications strategy seeking to discourage some people from coming to Canada. Thus, while social media have the potential to enhance public diplomacy and branding efforts, as discussed in two of our articles, it remains that once a tweet is made, the messenger can lose control of its meaning and interpretation. Political use of social media can therefore also negatively affect the nation brand.

This is precisely why Anholt warns countries not to exaggerate what they stand for but to demonstrate relevance. As he states, “A reputation can never be constructed through communications, slogans and logos; it needs to be earned” (Anholt 2009, p. 90).

The Trudeau government’s penchant for public relations and self-promotion also illustrates the tensions between promoting a nation brand, the execution of domestic brand politics, and the separation of government and state, as forewarned by Curry Jansen above. For example, Global Affairs Canada reportedly considered using “Brand Trudeau” to frame Canada’s engagement with peacekeeping (Blanchfield 2016), and the Canadian embassy in the United States purchased cardboard cutouts of Trudeau so that targeted audiences could have their own Trudeau selfies (Levin 2017).

The danger lies in linking political and state/citizen interests, promoting the idea that the country only has one voice. The brand espoused by Trudeau in the election and accepted by voters was quickly superseded by political celebrity and bureaucratic pursuit of the national interest that capitalized on this celebrity. However, successful and valuable brands emerge because they deliver on their brand promise; they fail when they don’t. In this case, rhetoric–reality gaps have led to a pushback of the Trudeau brand. Trudeau’s standing in the global media is diminishing, as seen in the furor over Trudeau’s poorly delivered quip about using “peoplekind” instead of “mankind.” The Daily Mail even asked if Trudeau was the world’s most “politically PC” politician (Leonard 2018). While many New York University students were excited that Trudeau received an honorary degree at their graduation ceremony in May 2018, some students argued that he was not deserving of this award, citing environmental policies that are harmful to Indigenous peoples, and the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia that is contributing to fatalities in Yemen (Meskhi 2018). Actress and activist Jane Fonda, noting Trudeau’s more forceful advocacy of pipelines since his election, said “I guess the lesson is we shouldn’t be fooled by good-looking liberals no matter how well-spoken they are” (cited in Associated Press 2017).

Thus, the Trudeau government’s branding strategy has been far from successful, in large part because of a failure to act in support of its vision of Canada as an engaged and constructive global actor. For example, Percival (2018) states that “On global health, Canada is not ‘back.’ …  The Trudeau government’s foreign-policy engagement has been high on rhetoric. …  While our rhetoric shines, our promises are beginning to sound hollow.” Carment et al. (2018) stated,

For a political party that promised to elevate Canada’s position in the world, the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau has achieved remarkably little in international diplomacy. In crucial areas such as climate change and strengthening international institutions, the government has underperformed or stalled.

A mid-mandate review of the Trudeau government's foreign policy record concludes that “The government’s actions and rhetoric have been inconsistent, at times contradictory and mostly focused on messaging and advancing the Liberal brand than fixing real problems” (iAffairs 2018). Perhaps Harper’s claims of inexperience were not far off the mark – not because Trudeau was not ready – but because of basic challenges in political management and public administration?²

Political self-promotion and mismanagement came to the fore during Prime Minister Trudeau’s controversial trip to India in February 2018. The trip, officially seeking to strengthen economic ties and promote the empowerment of women and girls, was lampooned because of the constant photographing of Trudeau and his family in traditional Indian clothing, photography that no doubt could be communicated to the important Indian diaspora in advance of the 2019 federal election. Additionally, domestic politics appeared to detract from security concerns when controversy erupted over the presence of Jaspal Atwal, a Canadian convicted of attempted murder of an Indian politician in 1986. It was even suggested that factions of the Indian government might have wished to embarrass Canada. Ultimately, the already strained relations between Canada and India became even more tense. Veteran Ottawa pundit Don Martin, observing that this was the third trip after which countries “have lowered their opinion of Canada as a result of prime ministerial visits,” stated “If this is Trudeau putting Canada back on the world stage, we should get off” (Martin 2018).

This points to the need for a critical analysis not only of the Trudeau brand but of its relationship with and impact on Canada’s brand globally. How prime ministers communicate visions of Canada to the world matters, not simply for messaging policy priorities to international actors, but also to Canadians who interpret rhetoric in terms of their own political values. Rhetoric–reality gaps can be temporarily overcome through the communication of values, as seen in the Chrétien case (Nimijean 2005a), or by the sheer popularity of a leader, as seen initially with Justin Trudeau both at home and abroad. However, as former Ambassador to China Mulroney (2018) argues, the India trip showed how a focus on personality and concerns over diasporic identities and domestic politics make it more difficult to get the type of foreign policy Canada requires, given the current global repositioning of regional powers.

Looking at domestic brand politics and their connection to Canada’s brand in the world therefore sheds light on the myriad challenges facing the evolution of Canadian foreign policy and a quest for more substance. This special issue of Canadian Foreign Policy Journal seeks to do just that. Contributors were asked to explore various dimensions of the intersection between domestic politics, national identity, and the challenges facing Canada as a global actor, and their articles and policy commentaries address many of the issues raised here. Three key issues emerge:

• We need to look at the rhetoric of government communications and how it communicates and politicizes values. For example, Finance Minister Bill Morneau hyped a large increase in development spending in Budget 2018 (“the largest new investments in international assistance in over a decade”), but the Canadian International Development Platform carefully demonstrated that this hardly addresses needs and that contributions as a share of the economy will actually decline (Bhushan 2018).

• How different is Trudeau’s foreign policy from the Harper foreign policy that he criticized? While the Trudeau government’s rhetoric is certainly different from Harper’s, have its actions been all that different? Is Ibbitson (2017) correct in arguing that there is considerable continuity once you go beyond the rhetoric?

• What would it mean for Canada to be back? It is not enough to simply declare that Canada is back. If Canada is to return to values that the government considers to be central to Canada’s role as a global actor, it needs to act in support of them. Has the government done so? If not, what can it do?

In our opening policy commentary, Alex Marland (“The brand image of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in international context”) provides the political context for thinking about Brand Canada in the Trudeau era. Inevitably, branding Canadian politicians abroad is connected to images of Canada, and these are subject to various interpretations. Significantly, he notes how Trudeau’s celebrity not only distinguished him from his predecessor, Stephen Harper; it attracted the attention of global elites. Yet celebrity is fleeting, in part due to political mismanagement and not living up to the brand promise, and in the end, Trudeau must retain the support of Canadians if he wishes to remain in power.

Stephen Brown (“All about that base? Branding and the domestic politics of Canadian foreign aid”) uses the lens of brand politics to further his analysis of the politics of Canadian development assistance. Brown reinforces the idea of a domestic–international nexus in brand politics by demonstrating that Canadian aid policy is increasingly driven by domestic political considerations, namely satisfying political bases, leading to a continuity in policy despite rhetorical differences. The politicization of aid, he notes, often reduces its effectiveness.

Heather Exner-Pirot (“Friend or faux? Trudeau, Indigenous issues and Canada’s brand”) examines how Canada’s relations with Indigenous peoples affect Canada’s brand. Canada’s generally positive international reputation diminishes when considering these relations, such as when prominent politicians deny or ignore Canada’s colonial past. Consequently, tensions in the relationship often play out on the international stage. Like Brown, she detects continuity across governments rather than difference.

Pat James, Richard Parker and Mark Paradis (“Predicting the North: Sovereignty and the Canadian Brand in the Arctic”) provide a critical examination of the rhetoric of “Canada’s back” by looking at the Arctic region. They describe the Arctic’s importance for Canada’s brand in the world, even though it is often ignored by politicians and policymakers. However, shifting geopolitics has led to a growing salience of Arctic issues for Canadian foreign policy and indeed for how the Canadian brand is perceived.

Nation branding and public diplomacy seek to influence key actors in target countries. In an era of heightened social media activity, how has Canada embraced social media to promote its brand? For example, the Trudeau government has spent approximately CAD$20 million advertising on social media in its first two years in power (Aiello 2017, Meyer 2018). Can these tools advance the brand? Two articles look at different dimensions of social media and digital diplomacy.

Kai Ostwald and Julian Dierkes (“Canada’s foreign policy and bureaucratic (un)responsiveness: public diplomacy in the digital domain”) examine whether the Trudeau government’s new orientation in foreign policy, including providing diplomats abroad with more latitude to act, is evidenced in social media activities. A detailed analysis of tweets from Global Affairs Canada Twitter accounts reveals that social media activity has not differed considerably from the Harper era. While there has been a change in atmosphere, there is a need to invest in digital diplomacy to achieve policy goals.

Evan Potter (“The evolving complementarity of nation-branding and public diplomacy: projecting the Canada Brand through ‘Twitter’ diplomacy in China”) looks at how the Canadian Embassy in China used Weibo to advance its agenda. Potter combines theoretical insights into nation branding and public diplomacy with a changing social media environment, suggesting that new opportunities present themselves for promoting the Canadian brand.

While Alex Marland opened the issue with an overview of the nature of political branding in an international context, hinting at some of the challenges that emerge with Trudeau’s celebrity, Jocelyn Coulon (“Où donc le Canada est-il de retour dans le monde?”) highlights the challenges that emerge when governments do not live up to the hype associated with the celebrity. He notes that the Liberal’s optimistic vision, carefully developed by a group of thinkers of which he was part, provided great opportunity for a meaningful transformation of Canada’s role in the world. However, Trudeau’s celebrity has not led to meaningful change to date.

The special issue concludes with a policy commentary by Daryl Copeland (“‘Canada’s back’: can the Trudeau government resuscitate Canadian diplomacy?”). He evaluates the claim that Canada is back through a broad sweep of post-World War II Canadian foreign policy. He notes that the Harper years saw a decline in Canada’s active engagement in global issues, but that, apart from constructive rhetoric, the Trudeau government has yet to indicate how it would return Canada to greater engagement. However, he argues that Canadians cannot just “look back;” thus, he offers a series of recommendations that would really put Canada “back” on the world stage.

Coulon and Copeland bring together the many themes and issues raised by the contributors, providing considerable insights into the politics of branding Canada. The Trudeau government’s rhetoric is distinct from the Harper government’s. As he promised in 2015, Trudeau continues to offer a compassionate and constructive voice on behalf of Canada; however, more often than not, deeds do not match the rhetoric. Why? We cannot say for sure, though Coulon offers a few possibilities.

Certainly, the Trudeau government demonstrates that domestic brand politics (Nimijean 2014) are alive and well in Canada. Per Anholt, if the Trudeau government truly wants Canada to be back as a constructive global actor, it should begin with a fundamental re-examination of what it does, what it wishes to do and what it must do. Then, and only then, will the plaudits come. Otherwise, disappointment is sure to follow.

Together, the authors have demonstrated that “Is Canada back?” is no longer the appropriate question; instead, we must ask, “What can Canada do to get back?” Arguably, there is considerable public support for the Trudeau agenda (Paris 2014). The challenge lies in focusing less on the brand and more on the doing. Only then will Canada be back. Otherwise, the Trudeau government, like the government that preceded it, will begin to hear, “Where is Canada?”

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank David Carment for his generous support and wise counsel in the development of this special issue. I would also like to thank Joe Landry and Sam MacIsaac for their considerable efforts in putting the issue together, the two external reviewers, and, of course, the authors for their thoughtful contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Richard Nimijean is a political scientist and a member of the School of Indigenous and Canadian Studies at Carleton University. He is a co-editor of the International Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue internationale d’études canadiennes. His research focuses on brand politics and the Canadian national identity.

ORCID

Richard Nimijean http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5811-4105

Notes

1 This initiative is off to a stuttering start, thus unintentionally harming the brand. It took 16 months for the government to unveil the agency following its announcement, and the agency’s website, http://www.investcanada.ca, was “under construction, stay tuned!” at launch in March 2018. Despite promises of a more engaged diplomacy, the Trudeau government has yet to restore “Understanding Canada,” and it continued the sale of Canadian embassies undertaken by the Harper government.

2 This is also true domestically, as the government faces ongoing important public administration challenges, notably the Phoenix payroll problem, the management of pipelines and a national carbon tax, the legalization of marijuana, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.