Foreign policy statements—and, namely, white papers—offer diplomats, civil servants, and the general public, as well as international actors (friends and foes alike) an understanding of what motivates a country to engage in international issues. They are fundamental government declarations intended to direct the policy process toward its political and operational objectives. Is history embedded in the message these statements carry? And, if so, how is history used? Relying on Brands and Suri’s typology and framing categories (factual/normative), this article explores white papers issued by governments led by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin Jr., as well as the 2017 House of Commons statement by Justin Trudeau’s foreign affairs minister, Chrystia Freeland. Based on Canada’s tradition of Pearsonian internationalism, we hypothesize that the factual use of history would prevail. We find this to be the case, but with important nuances.

外交政策声明（即白皮书）为外交官，公务员，普通大众以及国际行为者（无论是朋友还是敌人）提供了理解，从而激发了一个国家参与国际事务的动机。它们是政府的基本宣言，旨在将政策过程引向其政治和运营目标。这些语句所携带的消息中是否嵌入了历史记录？而且，如果是这样，如何使用历史记录？依靠品牌和Suri的类型和框架类别（事实/规范），本文探讨了由Pierre Elliott Trudeau，JeanChrétien，Paul Martin Jr.领导的政府发布的白皮书，以及Justin Trudeau的外国人在2017年下议院发表的声明事务大臣克里斯蒂亚·弗里兰（Chrystia Freeland）。基于加拿大皮尔逊式国际主义的传统，我们假设对历史的实际使用将占上风。我们发现情况确实如此，但有一些细微差别。