On ‘working’ the Canadian message in Washington

Canada’s Keystone XL pitch goes into overdrive

Officials have been averaging a trip to Washington every two weeks in 2013, but some insiders warn that they could be wearing out their welcome.

by CHRIS PLECASH |  The Hill
Last Updated: Wednesday, 05/01/2013 9:43 am EDT

Federal officials are stepping up efforts to make the case for the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington D.C., but some experts warn that the frequent public visits could be doing more harm than good.

Between federal Cabinet ministers and Western Canadian premiers, Canadian representatives have been averaging a trip to Washington every two weeks in 2013, with a focus on making the case for the Keystone XL pipeline and addressing concerns over Canada’s environmental record.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver (Eglinton-Lawrence, Ont.) is the latest federal minister to make the trip. Mr. Oliver was in the U.S. capital on April 24 and 25 to speak at the Center for Strategic International Studies and meet with senior officials in the Obama Administration, including Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and U.S. State Department under secretary Robert Hormats, as well as the chairs of the House and Senate Energy and Commerce committees.

In a teleconference following his speech last week to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he accused former NASA climatologist James Hansen of “exaggerating” the impact of oilsands development on climate change, Mr. Oliver told media that part of the reason for his visit was to dispel “myths” about Canada’s environmental record.

“It’s important to be here because Washington is presenting an important opportunity to have a fact-based discussion about Keystone XL which will enhance national security and environmental cooperation, create jobs, and foster long-term economic prosperity,” he said.

Mr. Oliver’s trip came two weeks after Environment Minister Peter Kent (Thornhill, Ont.) was in Washington, D.C., to attend the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy and discuss Canada’s environmental record.

Two days before Mr. Kent’s visit, it was Alberta Premier Alison Redford, along with Environment Minister Diana McQueen and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Cal Dallas making the rounds in Washington.

Ms. Redford, who also attended the National Governors’ Association winter meeting in Washington in February, spoke at the Brookings Institute during her latest visit and more recently contributed an op-ed to Congressional newspaper Roll Call making the case for Keystone XL and highlighting her province’s commitment to sustainability.

“We await the State Department’s decision on the project, and we know approving the Keystone XL pipeline is the choice of reason,” Ms. Redford wrote.

Canadian officials have been going out of their way to get Washington’s ear on Keystone now that the U.S. election is over and the State Department’s Environmental Impact Assessment for the TransCanada project has been released.

While official visits are essential to diplomacy, it’s unclear whether the frequent appearances are helping or hurting the case for Keystone XL.

Retired diplomat Colin Robertson told The Hill Times that it is important for Canadian officials to maintain their presence in Washington and complement the work done by Canada’s diplomatic mission.

“If you’ve got a big issue, you have to play by Washington rules, not Canadian rules,” said Mr. Robertson, a former minister of Canada’s Washington Embassy and former consul general in Los Angeles. “That means being in Washington and being up on the Hill, going to the think tanks, being visible to make your case, and talking to editorial boards.”

Even if Keystone isn’t the primary reason for a ministerial visit to Washington, the project is still likely to be discussed informally, Mr. Robertson said.

“It may not be on the official agenda, but it certainly is our number one ask,” he said. “You’re never sure which intervention you make is actually going to be the one that persuades them.”

David Manning, who was appointed as Alberta’s Washington envoy in February, agreed that it is important for Canadian officials to be “incredibly active” with U.S. officials in making the case for Keystone XL, but also avoid getting caught up in U.S. domestic politics.

Mr. Manning, former president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and a former deputy minister of energy for Alberta, said there’s been a conscious effort to keep Ms. Redford’s Washington meetings “bipartisan.”

“When [Premier Redford] came down, we were very careful that her meetings were bipartisan,” Mr. Manning said in an interview with The Hill Times. “Alberta thinks that a bipartisan approach is critically important. The issue has become somewhat partisan — this is Washington.”

U.S. politics has become intensely partisan in recent years and at points in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, Keystone XL risked becoming a serious campaign issue. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney went as far as saying that he would approve Keystone XL “on day one” of his administration.

President Obama turned down the initial Keystone XL proposal in January 2012, but TransCanada reapplied with an alternate route soon after. The President did approve TransCanada’s 780-km long Gulf Coast line from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf Coast in March, 2012. Construction began last August and the line is expected to be in service later this year.

If approved, the 1,897-km keystone pipeline would have the capacity to deliver up to 800,000 barrels of western crude daily to Steele City, Nebraska where it would feed into existing pipeline infrastructure bound for the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The federal government made a deliberate effort throughout the U.S. election campaign to avoid making statements on Keystone that would be used as political fodder.

Mr. Oliver said that the government is going out of its way to be “respectful of the U.S. process.”

“They certainly have welcomed our involvement and in a number of cases have encouraged us to continue in that regard. I haven’t had any signals, direct or indirect, nor to my knowledge has anyone else in the government, that the advocacy on our part is unwelcome,” Mr. Oliver said.

However, one Washington-based consultant said on background that the Keystone XL debate has led numerous U.S. state and federal lawmakers to address “ill mannered letters” to President Obama, and that attacks by Keystone advocates in the U.S. have done little to help the project’s chances for approval.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall recently made a point of joining 10 U.S. governors in signing a letter to President Obama urging that Keystone XL be approved “swiftly” — a move that the source described as “not helpful.”

The source said that visits by federal and provincial officials are important, but they needed to be “measured” in their frequency and tone.

“You can only go to the well so many times and one has to be really careful,” the source said. “What’s really valuable is the visits by senior public servants who have come to Washington. They know the details, they know the science and the economics, and they’re speaking to counterparts who ministers aren’t talking to.”

The consultant is optimistic that Keystone XL would likely be approved, and added that in the meantime, Canadian officials need to continue to talk about their environmental efforts because the President “doesn’t want to be the guy making the case for Canadian environmental policy.”

“Every time the Prime Minister has talked to [President Obama] in a bilateral discussion or on the margins of an international meeting, the Prime Minister has been very direct on this and very straight and consistent in talking quietly to the President,” the source said. “The President gets it, but he doesn’t want to be the guy to defend [Keystone].”

One former diplomat was more blunt on the recent public push from Canadian officials.

“[F]amiliarity breeds contempt,” said the ex-foreign service officer. “Visitors from Canada constantly importuning Congress and the Executive Branch can be perceived as somewhat tiresome at best, counterproductive at worst.”

There is greater consensus over Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer’s ability to represent Canada’s interests in Washington.

Mr. Robertson said that the former Manitoba premier “gets it” when it comes to working with the U.S. on shared interests.

“[A]s premier he was constantly going south of the border,” said Mr. Robertson. “That’s paid off in spades because governors he got to know when he was premier are now people like [Homeland Security Secretary] Janet Napolitano, Agriculture Secretary [Tom Vilsack], and Health and Human Services Secretary [Kathleen Sebelius].”

Mr. Manning credited the ambassador for being “a strategic operator.”

“We have an ambassador that understands provincial issues, this is his background,” he said.

cplecash@hilltimes.com

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, May 1st 2013 | Tags: , ,
Posted in Newspaper

Ballistic Missile Defence under review

Excerpted from Michael Woods in the Ottawa Citizen April 22, 2013

U.S. reportedly asks Canada to join missile shield

OTTAWA — The United States has reportedly asked Canada to join an anti-ballistic missile shield, resurrecting a potentially thorny political issue in this country.

The request, as reported Sunday by CTV, comes amid heightened concerns over North Korea, which has been levelling bellicose rhetoric at the United States of late…

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay would neither confirm nor deny the report that the U.S. had approached Canada about participating in a missile-defence shield.

“Canada has declined to participate in ballistic missile defence in the past. We constantly review the security situation internationally,” spokesman Jay Paxton said in an email to Postmedia News on Sunday.

Appearing on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews also declined to confirm or deny the report.

“I think we need to have a broader discussion about that, and I’m not prepared to venture an opinion at this time,” he said.

“What I can say is co-operation with our allies, especially in relation to a terrorism-related threat, is absolutely essential to keeping Canadians safe.”

In 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government declined to join the United States’ missile defence program, prompting ire from the Bush administration.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat, said it’s now in Canada’s best interests to participate in an anti-ballistic missile shield with its southern counterpart, in light of changing global security considerations and improved technology.

“To me, it’s an insurance policy,” said Robertson, vice-president and senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. “You hope you never have to use it, but you want to be sure that you’re protected.”

Robertson, who is also a distinguished senior fellow at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said although North Korea’s actions have been garnering attention, the larger long-term threat could come from Iran, whose nuclear program is continuing despite strict international sanctions.

“The Americans are reasonably comfortable that they have the capacity to head off anything (from North Korea),” he said. “But if something came over the pole from Iran, that’s a different dimension, and that would also potentially be a more serious threat to Canada.”

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar, speaking on CTV, said Canada should “not act as if we’re going to have missiles sent at us tomorrow” and instead should press China, North Korea’s foremost ally, to pressure the isolated dictatorship into changing course.

“In 2005, it was not just Paul Martin that said no. Canadians overwhelmingly said no to this approach,” he said.

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, April 22nd 2013 | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Newspaper

Does the Harper Government Have a Foreign Policy?

Excerpted from IPOLITICS Mar 8, 2013 5:32 pm  |

Panelists at the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa Friday highlighted the difference between the implementation and communication of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s foreign policy strategy.

The session — titled, “Does conservative foreign policy need an overhaul?” — was hosted by Colin Robertson, vice-president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, Friday morning at the Ottawa Convention Centre. Robertson was joined by panelists Carlo Dade, senior fellow at the University of Ottawa’s School for International Development and Global Studies, Mark Cameron, former director of policy at the PMO, Monte Solberg, former minister of citizenship and immigration, and Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute.

Robertson’s first question — is there a Harper foreign policy? — directed the discussion for the remainder of the session.

For Staples, the answer is simple. If Harper has a set foreign policy strategy, Canadians don’t know what it is.

“It seems to not necessarily follow predictable lines,” said Staples. “They really seem to be, as many foreign policies are, determined by domestic concerns, whether it’s in regards to throwing your political opponents offside or to satisfy a particular constituency.”

Staples said the influence of domestic policy on foreign policy is not uncommon nor particularly unique to Canada.

In the context of Latin America, Dade said the Harper government does seem to have a foreign policy strategy for this region. Dade was the last executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), Canada’s now-defunct Latin American think tank which fell victim to government cuts in 2011.

“I’d like to give the government credit. We’re in an unbelievably good position in the Americas. How we wound up here, I can’t answer,” said Dade. “We don’t have a strategy so we can’t argue facts or evidence before us.”

Cameron said that while Harper has an articulated foreign policy, it hasn’t always been consistently applied. He said it’s hard for the Harper government to balance longtime Canadian values with Canadian interests abroad.

“Our values like freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, these are things that we believe in but we clearly can’t project those into 180 countries around the world,” said Cameron.

Cameron cited the fact that Canada participated in a military mission in Libya but refuses do the same in Syria as an example of the Harper government’s poorly communicated foreign policy.

However, panelists agreed that Harper has articulated one aspect of his foreign policy effectively — his government’s stance on Israel’s right to defend itself.

“I think there is one thing that the prime minister has done to set Canada apart. He’s made it clear that he’s not prepared to just go along with other countries in the world, even at the cost of not sitting on the UN Security Council for instance,” said Solberg.

On Israel and the Middle East, however, Dade cautioned Canada against following the U.S.

“Canada is not the United States. Sometimes we forget this. Our interests are not as broad, they’re not as far. In terms of hard national interests, in the Middle East, we don’t have them. Sometimes I question our involvement,” said Dade.

During the Q&A period of the session, a participant asked the panel what Harper’s foreign policy legacy might be. Staples said that while he believes Harper has yet to clearly outline his foreign policy, that doesn’t mean it’s too late.

“It’s now time to find some sort of push, some sort of diplomatic keynote initiative … in order to distinguish themselves,” said Staples. “It might be the Arctic, it be might global disarmament, it could be something else, but I think they need to find that in the years ahead.”

Panelists also highlighted the need for an increased conservative presence in the foreign policy discussions of the academic world, including universities and think tanks. Solberg noted this would require the financial support of business and philanthropy…

Excerpted from National Post Carlo Dade March 3, 2013 Moving Toward a Conservative Foreign Policy

One of the surprises at the just-completed 2013 Manning Networking Conference was that the event featured a panel on the oft-ignored area of Canadian foreign policy. Even more encouraging was that it was standing room only.

The first question posed to the panelists — “Does the government have a foreign policy?” — was the most interesting. To the uninitiated, the answer would seem to be an easy “yes.” We have diplomats, embassies, a foreign affairs minister and all the other trappings of a functioning foreign policy. But many in the crowd knew better, and you could even hear a few dismissive snorts when the question was posed.

The panel, which included former Conservative cabinet minister Monty Solberg, former Harper Prime Minister’s Office director Mark Cameron, myself and Steven Staples from the left-leaning Rideau Centre, did its best to offer a nuanced answer. But it’s a complicated issue — and a serious one for Canada’s future prosperity and standing in the world.

Of course, Canada officially has a foreign policy and engages in diplomacy with other nations, both directly and through multi-lateral institutions. But the consensus on the panel seemed to be that the government, and the broader conservative movement from which it springs, don’t so much have a foreign policy as a vague foreign-policy vision, dressed up with a mish-mash of policy ideas.

What conservatives lack, both in and out of government, is a coherent explanation of a set of priorities, with a detailed list of objectives to achieve these priorities and an accounting of what resources will be expended to accomplish this. In other words, a strategy.

What also became apparent was that, beyond maintaining good relations with the U.S. and a general focus on defence and national security, the Canadian conservative movement lacks the people and institutions to develop such a strategy. What foreign-policy experts can be found on Canada’s right-wing are almost exclusively focused on those two areas.

Make no mistake — these are important issues, especially in the contemporary Canadian context.

But they are not the only issues of concern in today’s increasingly globalized world. The inability of conservatives to articulate well-researched and fully developed foreign policy ideas beyond managing our relationship with Washington and seeking international stability and Canadian domestic security, is a major blow to the credibility of the Canadian conservative movement at home and certainly abroad. These weaknesses are well known in Washington, Brasilia, Beijing and other capitals. Canada is a fully advanced, thoroughly complicated modern state. We can’t just wing our foreign policy on the fly. Yet, do conservatives in this country really know what a conservative foreign policy would even look like? What would its priorities be? How would it be distinct from those advanced by the opposition parties?

These are serious questions, but not only are they not being answered, it’s unclear that there’s anyone to ask.

The lack of a strong conservative foreign-policy establishment in Canada is becoming a self-sustaining cycle. There are so few right-leaning foreign policy experts in Canadian universities and think tanks that even while more and more Canadian students major in global affairs and international relations, they are only exposed to one side of the political spectrum. And when the media goes looking for experts to comment on government policy or international affairs, they are left with a deep pool of leftist and centrist voices, but almost no conservatives.

The Harper government has done a credible job managing Canada’s foreign policy during challenging times. But even among supporters of the Conservative party, there is recognition that this has been largely based on luck: We’ve been making it making it up as we go along, which has been the analysis of the U.S. embassy in Ottawa. The lack of a consistent and coherent plan, combined with cuts to our foreign-affairs spending as part of the government’s overall cost-cutting efforts, threaten to leave Canadian interests exposed if we should find ourselves needing to respond to a diplomatic situation that we are not remotely equipped to handle.

At the conclusion of last week’s conference in Ottawa, Preston Manning discussed the weakness of Canadian conservatives with regard to the environment and the need for the movement to start developing more capacity, more responses; a constructive conservative vision for what is arguably the greatest challenge facing the country and the globe.

The same argument applies to the need for conservatives to start developing that ability with regard to foreign policy. Signing free-trade agreements and sending troops and ships to the world’s trouble spots is only a small part of what it should be doing on the world stage.

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, March 8th 2013 | Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Newspaper

Canada-Europe Trade Deal and the US

Excerpted from A Canada-Europe trade deal represents a great opportunity. Can we seize it? by John Ibbitson Globe and Mail February 13, 2013

…Now the Americans also want a free trade agreement with Europe. Canada is already ahead of them. An agreement on CETA was due in December. The new deadline is March or April.

With the United States about to take centre stage, Canada risks being pushed off the stage entirely, unless it can wrap up the talks by April at the very latest.

“We’d better get our act together and conclude these negotiations quickly,” said Colin Robertson, the former diplomat who now writes and advises on trade issues, “because all of the oomph and energy on the part of the Europeans is going to immediately shift to what they see as the bigger game: the US-EU negotiations.”

As Mr. Robertson pointed out, in the last decade Canadian dithering froze this country out of a free-trade agreement with South Korea, once the Americans stepped in to do their own deal.

The reason for the delay on the Canada-European agreement is that CETA would be a very 21st-century deal. Rather than simply lowering tariffs on manufactured goods, it aims to open up government procurement to foreign bidders, to lower agricultural tariffs and to enhance patent protection, especially in pharmaceuticals…

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, February 13th 2013 | Tags: ,
Posted in Newspaper

On Ambassador Jacobson

Excerpted  Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News January 23, 2013 Obama to replace ambassador with ‘clout’

Jacobson handled border security issue

U.S. President Barack Obama will be sending a new ambassador to Canada this year, a move that could have ramifications for Canada-U.S. relations.

On Tuesday, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa said it’s expected Ambassador David Jacobson’s term will not be extended. Traditionally, they said, two-term presidents send a new ambassador to Ottawa for the second term. They added that no decision has been made on Jacobson’s successor, or exactly when that new ambassador will be appointed.

The departure of Jacobson, who arrived in Canada in October 2009, could leave a significant hole.

He is a former Chicago lawyer who was a senior fundraiser for Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, and has continued to have clout with the president.

Jacobson has been a leading player in helping Canada and the U.S. smooth over some bilateral irritants. Perhaps most significantly, he was a crucial force behind advocating for the Canada-U.S. border deal that tightens security while also speeding access at the border. He has also developed a strong personal rapport and working relationship with Gary Doer, Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who once worked at Canada’s Embassy in Washington, said in an interview Tuesday that the bilateral relationship benefited thanks to Jacobson.

Jacobson was unknown to most people when Obama won his first presidential election. He had been Obama’s deputy finance chairman during the campaign.

In the first few months of Obama’s presidency, he worked in the White House Personnel Office, helping the president fill dozens of diplomatic postings before his nomination as ambassador.

“Jacobson, because of the personal relationship, clearly had clout,” said Robertson. “You want an American ambassador who can pick up the phone and get through to the White House – to the president or the chief of staff. And Jacobson had those attributes.”

The major accomplishment during Jacobson’s term was the achievement of a “Beyond the Border” agreement signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Obama.

Under the deal, both governments are embarking on pilot projects to adopt a joint “perimeter security” approach to protect the border.

In addition to guarding against terrorism, the Canadian government hopes the agreement will ease cross-border traffic congestion so that the two countries can trade goods on time.

Robertson said he doesn’t think the deal would have been struck without Jacobson’s work behind the scenes.

“The prime minister was pushing it, and Jacobson intervened a couple of times with the White House.”…

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, January 23rd 2013 | Tags:
Posted in Newspaper

On the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel

Excerpted from Embassy New Baird, MacKay US counterparts could be Vietnam vets.by Sneh Duggal Wednesday, 01/09/2013

United States President Barack Obama’s picks for his next secretaries of state and defence are good for Canada because both bring with them years of experience and some knowledge about their northern neighbour, say former diplomats and other observers….

Mr. Obama announced Dec. 21 that he had chosen 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry to become the next secretary of state. Mr. Kerry is a Massachusetts Democrat and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He would replace US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has said she will not seek a second term.

On Jan. 7, the US president also announced his pick of former Republican senator Chuck Hagel to replace US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who announced the same day that he was stepping down.

If their nominations are approved, it would mean that two of the Obama administrations’ most internationally-focused secretaries would be Vietnam War veterans. Mr. Hagel would be the first Vietnam vet to lead the military.

The US Senate would need to confirm both nominees.

Foreign Minister John Baird “looks forward to working with Senator Kerry to continue building on the important relationship with our closest ally, biggest trading partner, and next-door neighbour,” wrote Joseph Lavoie, a spokesperson for Mr. Baird, in an email to Embassy.

Mr. Baird was quick to send out congratulatory remarks to Mr. Kerry on Dec. 21. The foreign minister sent out two tweets: the first one congratulated Mr. Kerry, while the second read that “I would also like to wish @JohnKerry the best of luck during the confirmation process—and I hope to see him soon.”

‘Knowledge of Canada’

Adam Chapnick, deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College, said it would be important for Canada that Washington push through the confirmation process as quickly as possible.

“We have an interest in a stable, predictable international order, so having either of the positions…unfilled for any significant period of time is therefore not helpful to us,” Mr. Chapnick said.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson said that if their nominations go through, it would be important for Mr. Baird and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to make personal contact with their American counterparts quickly.

This could mean a telephone call of congratulations, “followed by a personal meeting preferably in Washington rather than at a multilateral forum where they will be besieged by others with the same objective,” said Mr. Robertson, who is currently a senior strategic advisor with McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

“I think it’s always good to have experienced knowledgeable practitioners and Hagel and Kerry are both of those, and they also both have some knowledge of Canada,” Mr. Robertson said.

“These are the kinds of appointments that will work to a good relationship, you want people like this, and you don’t want people that are having to learn everything from the start,” he said, noting the importance of both having the president’s confidence.

Those following Canada-US relations and politics say that Mr. Kerry’s approval process should go smoothly…

Mr. Robertson said Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel’s interactions with their Canadian counterparts would likely be more bilateral on the defence side and more multilateral on foreign affairs topics.

He said that in both cases they would start with issues such as what is happening in Syria, how to deal with Iran, and then other places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Myanmar…

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, January 8th 2013 | Tags: , ,
Posted in Newspaper

On Border Update

Excerpted from Border deal just part of agenda in ‘make or break’ year by JOHN IBBITSON

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail Monday, Dec. 17 2012

Few paid any attention on Friday to the one-year report card on the new Canada-U.S. border agreement. The terrible shootings at Newtown understandably shoved everything else aside.

That report shows the Harper government and the Obama administration still struggling to fulfill the promise of the Beyond the Border agreement on travel, trade and security.

Trade is the issue on which the Conservatives want to be judged. (They certainly prefer it to military procurement.) And 2013 is shaping up as the pivotal year in casting that judgment.

The Harper government will either open Canada more fully to the world, or we’ll simply muddle along. In this economic environment, muddling along simply won’t do.

Among other things, rules are now in place so that passengers with cross-border connections no longer have to check their baggage twice, and there is the pilot project that permits imports bound for the U.S. market to be examined in Prince Rupert, B.C., and then shipped south with no further inspections on the principle of “cleared once, accepted twice.”

But John Manley, the former foreign minister who now heads the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, observed that “the two governments are still negotiating the terms of a comprehensive preclearance system for land, rail and marine cargo even though that plan was supposed to be finalized,” by this month.

He wants both sides to put their back into accelerating and expanding a continental inspection regime.

Not fair, responded David Jacobson, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

“The overwhelming majority of what we said we were going to do, we did, and for the ones that aren’t on schedule, there were good and valid reasons why they didn’t get done,” Mr. Jacobson told The Globe’s Paul Koring.

But making progress on thinning the Canada-U.S. border is only one aspect of an agenda that will make 2013 a “make or break year,” said Colin Robertson, the former diplomat who now studies and writes on trade issues.

The Harper government is also supposed to be in the very last stages of concluding a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union. The final issues – on agriculture exports and intellectual property protections – are proving to be the most difficult. If a deal is to be done, ’twere well it were done quickly, for the Europeans and Americans are now looking to negotiate an agreement, and once those talks are started, the Europeans will focus on nothing else.

Canada is finally part of the even more ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership talks, which would create a new free-trade sphere that would link nations in North and South America, the Pacific and Asia. An accord will be reached in 2013, or not at all. And Canada and India have committed to concluding a free-trade agreement in 2013.

The Conservatives face plenty of resistance to their trade agenda. For every action to make it easier and cheaper to sends goods across the Canada-U.S. border, there’s the reaction of a Congress or an administration looking for new fees and charges to help offset the chronic budget deficit.

Powerful lobbies continue to press for agricultural, pharmaceutical and other protections, which complicate trade agreements.

Still, the Conservatives are trying. As Mr. Robertson observes, the report card can point to an increased willingness on the part of Canadian and U.S. officials to harmonize safety and other regulations, so that products manufactured in one country can be sold in both.

If the Harper government can continue to make progress on the Canada-U.S. border, conclude a trade deal with Europe, another with India, and maybe be part of a Trans Pacific agreement, that will make 2013 a good year.

Excerpted from  New border security deal has made Canadians, Americans safer and better off: U.S. ambassador by John Ivison National Post Dec 14, 2012

OTTAWA — Canadians and Americans are safer and better off as a result of the perimeter security deal signed last December by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

David Jacobson pointed to two initiatives he said have increased efficiency at the border – reduction in wait times at airports because of the NEXUS trusted traveller program and mutual recognition of air cargo that means less missing baggage on connecting flights.

He said the choice is not between security or efficiency. “They tend to be the same thing.”

Mr. Jacobson was speaking as the two governments reported “significant progress” on their plan that aims to “thin” their border.

In the first annual report on the “Beyond the Border” and regulatory co-operation programs, they said there has been improved coordination on border management, cyber-security, the NEXUS plan and air cargo security.

“This puts real meat on the bones of what the President and the Prime Minister promised. And we aren’t done yet,” Mr. Jacobson said.

John Manley, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, was less glowing in his assessment.

“To be perfectly honest, it’s more promising than actual results. There are signs that good things are happening but it will require more work,” he said.

He said it remains a difficult challenge to get sovereign nations to think about fluidity at the border as if it were an inter-state or inter-provincial boundary.

Free trade has reduced tariff barriers, but both sides still charge fees for some services, like product inspections.

The council pointed out the goal of pre-clearing goods on the factory floor remains unfulfilled. At the launch last year, both sides touted a pilot project in Prince Rupert, B.C., where goods landed were checked and loaded at the port, then shipped by rail to Chicago, without being re-inspected at the border in Minnesota.

Mr. Jacobson said the need for legislation on both sides of the border has slowed down the rollout of that initiative.

Colin Robertson, a former diplomat and close observer of the Canada-U.S. relationship, said there was nothing new in the progress report but it was a useful taking stock exercise. He said it was significant “Beyond the Borders” still bears the imprimateur of the U.S. President, which sends the message down the chain of command it is a priority.

The target when the deal was struck was to reduce border costs by $16-billion a year – or 1% of gross domestic product.

Mr. Jacobson said the focus on the border highlights a trading relationship that is going from strength to strength. Two-way trade between Canada and the U.S. rose by 38% — or $181-billion — in the last two years.

“Last year alone, Canadian exports to the U.S. increased by $41-billion,” he said.

“Canadian exports to China increased by $4-billion. I think it was Mark Twain who said ‘rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.’ ”

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, December 15th 2012 | Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Newspaper

On Governor General Johnston visiting Latin America

Governor-General quietly expands ‘invisible’ role before trade trip to Mexico

Heather Scoffield The Canadian Press Published Friday, Nov. 30 2012, 9:59 AM EST

When David Johnston takes on a cabinet-level trade assignment this weekend in Latin America, it will be a showcase for what could be the unoffical slogan for his vice-regal reign: bland is beautiful.

The Governor-General is quick to point out he means bland as in an effective – if stealthy – exercise of his powers as the Sovereign’s representative in Canada.

“This office probably works best when it is rather invisible. Not terribly much involved in controversy. Out of the mainstream of politics. And, I suppose, somewhat bland,” Mr. Johnston said in a Rideau Hall interview prior to leaving for Mexico City.

Make no mistake: Mr. Johnston knows he lacks the panache and media punch of his two most recent predecessors, Michaelle Jean and Adrienne Clarkson. And it doesn’t bother him a bit.

He’s exchanged the effervescent public profile of those who came before him for something else: access to the prime minister on policy issues.

The trade-off has been a dearth of media attention. Mr. Johnston’s office has been quietly lobbying the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa to pay more attention to his scheduled events.

Still, it would be a mistake to confuse “bland” for “vacuous,” warns foreign policy analyst Colin Robertson.

“He lacks the charisma of his predecessors, but intellectually, he’s a rock star,” Mr. Robertson said. “The big shift is that Harper has confidence in Johnston. They talk.”

The white-haired former law professor and university president was tapped by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2010, when minority governments were the norm and constitutional questions an ever-present element of Canadian politics.

Amid today’s calmer political waters, though, Mr. Johnston is quietly expanding his other roles – promoting volunteerism, travelling the world and speaking about how Canada should become a “smart and caring nation.”

Mr. Johnston, who is writing a manual on Canadian securities regulation in his spare time, is unapologetically geeky about his passion for international trade and innovation.

He’s also a details person: Mr. Johnston meticulously rehearsed his ceremonial Grey Cup kick-off at least 100 times, perfecting his strike to the point that he could barely walk down the stairs the next day.

So when Mr. Harper asked him to go to Mexico, Peru and Guatemala, he methodically set about learning not just the intricacies of the region’s economics and politics, but also carefully assessing how his own presence can complement the efforts of other Canadian business and political leaders.

“One tries to get to know the countries one is visiting as well as one can,” he said, describing how he works in tandem with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office to determine goals and priorities.

“It’s not a one-off. It’s many different parts working in harmony.”

Mr. Johnston fully appreciates the pomp and circumstance. His overriding goal in visiting Mexico is to “pay respect” to the democratic election of Enrique Pena Nieto – the head of the traditional ruling party PRI, which lost power in 2000 after 71 years at the helm.

For the PRI to make a legitimate comeback, said Mr. Johnston, “that’s a great victory.”

But once the ceremony is over, Mr. Johnston’s hard work begins.

He said he intends to start by buttonholing several of the other 75 foreign leaders at the ceremony to discuss bilateral relations. Then, he’ll turn his attention to increasing two-way trade trade and investment. He also hopes to find more ways to share Canadian expertise in mining, justice, policing and governance.

He is travelling with a sizable entourage of senior officials, members of Parliament, business and education representatives, a judge and several ambassadors.

When he gets back, he’ll be reporting, in detail, straight to the prime minister. The two men speak and share ideas regularly, but after a foreign trip, Mr. Johnston has a formal responsibility to check in.

“When I come back, [I need to] be pretty candid and say, ‘Yep, this is going well,’ or, ‘No, this is not going well and here’s where we have to adjust our approaches,’” Mr. Johnston said.

The governor-general’s trip to Latin America should be the beginning of a larger Canadian attempt to revive its relationship with the region, Mr. Robertson said.

“The flag isn’t as present as it could be.”

In Guatemala, Mr. Johnston will be looking at how Canada can help the country’s police and judicial system to deal with the drug trafficking that is destabilizing the entire region.

Ottawa’s decision to send the governor-general there is exactly the right level of engagement at this point, Mr. Robertson said.

Mr. Johnston’s staff have a thorough understanding of what’s at stake there, and can make some solid recommendations for a path forward, he added.

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, November 30th 2012 | Tags: , ,
Posted in Newspaper

On the US Ambassador to Canada

Precedent says US envoy might soon be packing his bags

But don’t plan the farewell party yet, US Embassy warns.

Ally Foster
Published: Wednesday, 11/14/2012 12:00 EMBASSY

With the US election over and Barack Obama secure in the same job for another four years, US Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson might be packing his bags soon—if past precedent is any indication.

Despite Mr. Obama’s re-election as president on Nov. 6, US government procedure requires that Mr. Jacobson submit his resignation by Mr. Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

According to Steven Pike, a spokesperson for the US Embassy, “when the president is re-elected, political appointees by tradition are expected to offer to resign, and submit a resignation letter on the president’s desk.”

That resignation can either be accepted, or rejected, as all political appointees serve “at the pleasure of the president,” explained Mr. Pike, who added: “It is very rare for ambassadors to continue into the second term of the same president.”

But don’t start planning the farewell party yet, cautioned Mr. Pike, who explained that ambassadors often remain at their posting for some time while a replacement is found. He said the US Embassy has no idea when Mr. Jacobson might have to bid adieu.

Even still, since the 1990s, the longest US envoy posting to Ottawa has been four years.

A lawyer by trade, Mr. Jacobson was a Chicago-based Democratic fundraiser for Mr. Obama before being appointed to his current position. His appointment was slowed by a Senate hold, as a tool for pressing an unrelated issue, Embassy reported. Mr. Jacobson arrived in 2009 more than eight months after Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

And while Canada-US analysts Fen Hampson and Derek Burney published a piece in June 2012 that claimed that Mr. Obama had “lost Canada,” other US watchers say that Mr. Jacobson has been a critical player in improving relations over the past three years.

Goldy Hyder, general manager of the Ottawa arm of the public relations and lobbying firm Hill and Knowlton Strategies, said he is “cautiously hopeful and optimistic that [Mr. Jacobson] can stay a little bit longer.”

He added: “That would be great for Canada-US relations. But if not, I think he can leave with his head held high.”

Mr. Jacobson’s close connection with Mr. Obama has served as a benefit to Canada, Mr. Hyder said.

Sought win-win solutions

Mr. Jacobson has not only looked out for American interests in Canada, but also worked hard to find a win-win situation for both countries, he argued.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat in the US, agreed.

“He has the two things which I think every American ambassador has to have to be successful in Canada,” he said. “First, the confidence of the president and the ability to get to the president and members of the administration…Secondly, to truly understand what Canada is about and where we’re coming from.”

Mr. Jacobson has always looked for ways to “connect the dots” between American and Canadian interests, said Robertson.

Mr. Robertson said the Beyond the Border action plan has been executed effectively largely because Mr. Jacobson took a strong lead in Ottawa for the US government, and really pushed the issue.

Mr. Robertson also applauded Mr. Jacobson’s extensive travel in Canada.

Mr. Jacobson pledged to visit all 10 provinces in his first two months posted to Canada, and then made it his New Year’s resolution for 2010 to visit the territories.

Mr. Jacobson also does a good job of listening, said Mr. Robertson. He added that he has heard that Mr. Jacobson has a very close relationship with Canada’s ambassador to the US, Gary Doer.

“He’s got a superb network which he’s developed,” said Mr. Robertson.

Mr. Pike said it would be too premature for Mr. Jacobson to do goodbye interviews.

Mr. Jacobson wrote on his Oct. 2 blog post, on his three-year anniversary as Mr. Obama’s top man in Ottawa, that he has the best job in the American government.

“I have learned to cross country ski and curl,” he wrote. “I have rooted for your sports teams—unless they are playing ours,” he added.

“I have eaten your food and drunk your wine. I’ve come to love Tim Bits.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Jacobson is receiving the 2012 Sue M. Cobb Award For Exemplary Diplomatic Service on Nov. 14, the embassy confirmed.

The award is presented to a non-career diplomat each year to honour outstanding leadership and management skills having a significant effect on bilateral or multilateral relations.

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, November 14th 2012 | Tags: ,
Posted in Newspaper

On the US Election

From Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun, October 31, 2012

Canadians won’t see much change in Canada-U.S. relations no matter who squeaks by the presidential finish line first in next Tuesday’s vote.

Few cross-border irritants are at play these days in the crucial bilateral relationship.

And Prime Minister Stephen Harper would probably get along with Republican contender Mitt Romney as well as he does with Barack Obama.

“Ideologically, Romney and Harper would be more likely to have much in common,” observes Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat in Washington, D.C., “although Harper deep down may be more libertarian, and Romney more country-club old-school Republican.”

Polls consistently show Canadians have a special fondness for Obama. Even in the province most ready to embrace Romney – Alberta – the Republican trails Obama in support by a 50 per cent to 19 per cent margin, according to a recent Harris-Dec-ima poll. Whether it’s President Romney or Obama, the reality is Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. is set to continue declining.

A February 2012 report by TD Economics projected that by 2020, shipments to the U.S. would account for two thirds of total Canadian exports – down from 85 per cent in 2002.

A more robust Canadian currency, a thickened border, the recession’s impact on American spending – all have taken a toll. But, the TD report noted, Canada has been turning its trade focus to emerging markets.

While exports to the U.S. are down 14 per cent in the last 10 years, Canadian exports to China have doubled and exports to Europe have risen 83 per cent.,,

The 2006 softwood lumber agreement has been extended to 2015 and the Pacific Salmon Treaty has been renewed until 2018.

Canada and the U.S. these days are working on a Beyond the Border Initiative, signed in February of 2011 by Harper and Obama, aimed at easing border flows and making North American products more competitive.

If Romney becomes president, the border efforts probably would get re-jigged and rebranded, says Robertson.

“With Obama we get some continuity.”

But it’s likely that, even with Obama and certainly under Romney, Canadian cabinet ministers would have to adapt to a raft of new U.S. secretaries.

A shame, perhaps, after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Foreign Minister John Baird have developed such positive dealings with Janet Napolitano and Hillary Clinton.

As for TransCanada’s XL pipeline to carry Alberta oil to Texas refineries, Romney says he’d approve it on “Day 1.”

Obama, of course, nixed the project last year – for fear of upsetting Democrat-leaning environmentalists – but he’s widely expected to give it the go-ahead if re-elected. Interestingly, the issue of greatest potential import to most Canadians relates to a particular U.S. domestic challenge: prospects for a so-called fiscal cliff of automatic tax and spending cuts by year-end unless politicians quickly agree on a deficit fix.

“This is really serious,” says Robertson, with obvious implications for the stability of the American economy and its consumers’ buying power.

“It would be easier for a Republican president to deal with the Tea Party,” in the quest for an orderly deficit fix.

“Can an Obama with a very weak re-endorsement persuade a recalcitrant … House with a large majority of [anti-taxers]?”

Comments Off

Colin Robertson, October 31st 2012 | Tags: , ,
Posted in Newspaper
« Older Posts