Climate and Trump

“If Mr. Trump does decide to pull out, then it is going to make it more difficult for us to proceed with the carbon pricing as Mr. Trudeau and the premiers have envisaged,” said Colin Robertson, who is now a vice president and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, in an interview with BNN Monday.

“However, there is a lot going on at the next level down between provinces and states,” he added, using California as an example of a state taking a different approach on climate than Trump with its cap-and-trade system. “The relationship California has, for example, with Quebec and Ontario on cap-and-trade – that will proceed.”

The Paris Agreement, which took effect November 4, 2016 and saw 195 parties signing the agreement  with147 ratifying, aims to keep the global average temperature below 2 degrees celsius and to limit rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Robertson warned that the Canadian government and provinces need to be mindful of competitiveness when it comes to climate policy, but noted that many companies are already making changes with the environment in mind.

“My sense is the climate train has left the station around the world and even in the United States – particularly at the state level – there’s an awful lot going on,” Robertson said. “Companies are making decisions now in terms of the switch to natural gas from coal because it makes good economic sense.”

Over the weekend, Trump said in a tweet he would make a decision on the Paris accord sometime this week.

I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!

Comments Off on Climate and Trump

NATO Brussels Summit

A Primer to the Brussels NATO Summit

by Colin Robertson
CGAI Vice President and Fellow
May, 2017

DOWNLOAD PDF


Table of Contents


Executive Summary

On May 25-26, NATO leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first multilateral forum in which President Donald Trump will be in attendance, and where much of the focus will be following his varied comments on NATO. From its original 12 members, NATO now stands at 28, including many former Warsaw Pact nations, and has operated in Afghanistan, performed anti-piracy missions, and taken part in humanitarian operations as well.

Despite these successes, President Trump, both as a candidate and since, has called on the Alliance members to increase their share of the burden, symbolized to him by the two percent goal. There are six big-ticket items which will be discussed at the summit:

  1. NATO readiness to reinforce collective defence, including investing in capabilities;
  2. Defence spending;
  3. Relations with Russia;
  4. Deepening partnerships and maintaining NATO’s open door policy;
  5. Afghanistan; and
  6. ISIS and Terrorism.

It is expected that President Trump will again forcefully push for all members to meet the 2 percent of GDP spending on defence commitment. In return the other leaders will expect a clear commitment to collective defence. As leaders meet, new Pew Foundation survey numbers reveal strong support among the populations of NATO member countries for both the Alliance itself and, more importantly, collective self-defence.

TOP OF PAGE


Introduction

Presidents and prime ministers will meet in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday (May 24-5, 2017) in a summit meeting of the 28 partner nations. The focus will be on U.S. President Donald Trump, appearing in his first formal multilateral forum. It will also be the first meeting for France’s new president, Emmanuel Macron.

The conference takes place against a complicated backdrop; upcoming elections in the United Kingdom and Germany, the recent elections in France and the Netherlands, the Brexit negotiations, the ongoing campaign against ISIS, turmoil in Syria, questions about Afghanistan, the continuing migration from the Middle East and North Africa, the latest Greek bailout, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarianism in the wake of the recent constitutional referendum, the continuing Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine and improved Russian military capacity, Chinese elbowing in on the South China Seas, North Korean nuclear and missile testing, increasing cyber-attacks, including those that shut down parts of Britain’s health services and a new terrorist incident at a concert in Manchester.

NATO leaders will dedicate and then meet in the organization’s new, multi-billion euro headquarters. A section of the World Trade Center – The 9/11 and Article 5 Memorial – the only time in its history that NATO invoked Article 5, the mutual defense clause, will be unveiled by President Trump. A section of the Berlin Wall, underlining how NATO kept the peace during the Cold War, will be dedicated by Chancellor Angela Merkel. Critics say the new headquarters also reflects the challenges confronting the Alliance: it is behind schedule and over-budget.

BrusselsNATOSummit1.jpg

TOP OF PAGE


What is NATO?

NATO is a military and political alliance constructed around the principles of collective security, democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. It has 28 members including Canada, the United States and most European nations, as well as a host of Euro-Atlantic partner nations. NATO represents half of the world’s economic and military power. As Secretary General Stollenberg observes, “no other superpower has ever had such a strategic advantage.”

In the wake of the Second World War, the victors set up a series of international institutions. The foremost was the United Nations, with universal membership designed to advance human progress and prevent the “scourge of war”. Responding to what Winston Churchill described as the “iron curtain” descending “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic,” the western alliance set up a collective security agreement called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

In the words of its first secretary general, Lord Ismay, NATO was to “keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in.” A collective security agreement, an attack on one would be considered an attack on all, enshrined in Article 5. NATO was also designed, at Canadian insistence, to have an economic dimension to promote trade, investment, and commerce between the members (Article 2).

The agreement was signed in Washington on April 2, 1949. Its original membership included twelve countries – the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In signing the agreement Canadian External Affairs Minister Lester Pearson said that Canadians “feel deeply and instinctively” that the treaty is “a pledge for peace and progress”.

The Alliance expanded: Turkey and Greece joined in 1952, West Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982. France left the military alliance in 1967 but rejoined in 2009. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, NATO membership is now 28 countries – most of the former Warsaw Pact countries, including the Balkan states created with the dissolution of Yugoslavia (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Montenegro will join when its membership is ratified by all member countries and Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are on NATO’s membership action plans, a kind of waiting-room for membership. Georgia and Ukraine have declared an interest in joining NATO and at the Bucharest summit (2008) NATO said the door was open although, since 2010, Ukraine has not formally pursued membership.

NATO is headquartered in Brussels, where former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg leads its Secretariat with Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, a former U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security NATO military operations are headed by two commanders: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR) based in Brussels is currently U.S. General Curtis Scaparrotti; and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), based in Norfolk, Virginia, is currently French General Denis Mercier.

Member nations are represented in both the NATO council and military committee and legislators meet annually in the NATO parliamentary assembly. A Canadian has never held the post of Secretary General but Canadian General Ray Henault, a former Chief of Defense Staff, served as Chairman of the Military Committee from 2005-2008.

TOP OF PAGE


What has NATO done?

NATO has three core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security.

For its first 40 years NATO’s purpose was to deter Soviet aggression. Today, arguably, it is to deter Russian aggression. Canadian troops were stationed in Europe, mostly in Germany.

With the end of the Cold War, NATO shifted to help the former Soviet-bloc countries embrace democracy and the market economy.

Since 1989, NATO has also become involved in a series of out-of-theatre missions. Over 150,000 troops served under NATO command in six different operations on three continents, including counter-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

NATO forces were involved in bringing peace to the Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo), operations that continues today. NATO forces, under the umbrella of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), have been present in Afghanistan since 2003. There have been operations around Iraq (1990-1) and a training mission (2004-11). In 2005, NATO assisted in the relief efforts following the Pakistan earthquake. In recent years, NATO has also provided support to African Union peacekeeping missions in the Sudan and Somalia. NATO led the U.N.-sanctioned Libyan campaign (Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR in 2011), maintaining a no-fly zone and conducting air strikes against the Gaddafi regime. Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard directed that air campaign.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2014 presented NATO with a renewed challenge, while events on its southern flank – in North Africa and the Middle East – require ongoing attention.

TOP OF PAGE


President Trump and NATO

All eyes at the summit will be on President Trump, who arrives as part of his first official trip abroad, which also took him to Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Vatican, and finally Brussels.

NATO leaders usually meet in the aftermath of the election of a new American president, as it is the U.S. that provides the muscle for the organization. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Mr. Trump called NATO “obsolete”, warned the Allies that they would have to carry more of the load, and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Since his election his statements on NATO have reflected a more traditional U.S. stance. During his meeting in April with U.N. Secretary General Jens Stollenberg, President Trump re-affirmed U.S. support for NATO saying the Alliance was “no longer obsolete” but declared that “NATO members meet their financial obligations and pay what they owe.”

Vice President Mike Pence and the senior security and defence team all support NATO. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Defence Secretary James Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly – all served as generals in the U.S. Forces. His Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was CEO of Exxon. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, his ambassador to the United Nations, has been vocal in her criticism of Russia.

At the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President Pence said “the United States of America strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in our commitment to this trans-Atlantic alliance”. He also reiterated Mr. Trump’s message that the Allies need to pay their “fair share…That pledge has gone unfulfilled for too many for too long and erodes the very foundation of our alliance.”

The U.S. effort leading to the Brussels summit was handicapped by the lack of senior personnel in the U.S. Administration. Many posts at the National Security Council, Pentagon, State Department, as well as ambassadors, including to NATO and most of its member nations, have yet to be named, let alone confirmed by the Senate.

TOP OF PAGE


Big Ticket Items

1. NATO readiness to reinforce collective defence, including investing in capabilities

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and intervention in Syria have underlined the need for NATO readiness, including a rapid, combat-ready expeditionary force with attention to cyber defence and maritime security. As NATO scholar Julian Lindley-French and Admiral (ret’d) James Stavridis, former SACEUR, have argued “Article 5 collective defence must be modernised and re-organised around cyber-defence, missile defence and the advanced deployable forces vital to contemporary defence.”

2. Defence spending

The United States shoulders three quarters of the alliance’s operating budget. U.S. presidents and cabinet secretaries have consistently encouraged NATO members to spend more.

The American argument is expressed well in the valedictory remarks to NATO (June 10, 2011), of former U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates, who warned, “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

Speaking in February to his fellow defence ministers Defence Secretary James Mattis said “America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defence.

Defence spending in 2000 for most NATO members was 2 percent of GDP but it then steadily declined. According to NATO figures released in March, 2017, only five of the 28 members meet NATO’s target of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defence: the U.S., the U.K., Poland, Greece and Estonia. The U.S. spends 3.61 percent on defence and the U.K. 2.17 percent, based on NATO figures for 2016, while Germany spends 1.2 percent, France 1.7, Italy 1.11 and Spain 0.9. By NATO’s estimates for this year, Canada will spend 1.02 percent of its GDP on defence.

3. Relations with Russia

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea violates the U.N. charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and Russia’s 20-year old commitment “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”.

With the end of the Cold War there was hope that Russia would eventually become a NATO partner and in 2009 NATO and Russia signed an accord to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.” Like the Obama ‘reset’ it has not worked out as planned. The NATO-Russia Council, created in 2002, meets in the belief that “in times of tension, dialogue is more important than ever.” NATO has responded to the changed security environment by enhancing its deterrence and defence posture.

President Putin wants to create a sphere of influence on his frontiers and, through the creation of his Eurasian Union (a free-trade customs union between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus), a counter-weight to NATO (and the European Union). Ukraine is not his first incursion into a neighbour’s territory. In 2008, at his instruction, Russian forces invaded Georgia and occupied the South Ossetia region.

4. Deepening partnerships and maintaining NATO’s open door policy

NATO’s partnerships, born out of its 1990 London summit focused first on the former Soviet bloc nations (many of whom are now full members), then on crisis management in the Balkans, and, since 9-11 on wider partnerships now including more than forty nations around the world – including Afghanistan, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. At its peak, the ISAF mission in Afghanistan included 22 partner nations. Partnership does not include the security guarantee of Article 5. Ukraine and Georgia want membership in NATO and at the Bucharest summit in 2008 NATO encouraged this, but NATO enlargement is controversial and there is discussion of different architecture to guarantee security.

A wise persons report (2016) commissioned by the Finnish government concluded that Finland and Sweden should stick together, whatever the decision, but that membership would provoke Russia. It described Russia as an “unsatisfied power” that “has made unpredictability a strategic and tactical virtue, underpinned by an impressive degree of political and military agility.”

5. Afghanistan

NATO has been involved in Afghanistan since the U.N. Security Council authorized the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that operated from August 2003 to December 2014. ISAF was NATO’s longest mission employing more than 130,000 troops from 51 NATO and partner nations, including Canada. A new NATO-led mission (Resolute Support) was launched in January 2015 to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions.

In his meeting with Secretary General Stollenberg in April, President Trump said he would like more NATO members to re-involve themselves in Afghanistan.

While Canadian Forces left Afghanistan in March 2014 after a twelve-year campaign and the loss of 161 men and women, Canada continues to support a number of programs and activities.

NATO’s current mission in Afghanistan, RESOLUTE SUPPORT, was launched to train, advise and assist the Afghan security forces and institutions in January 2015. A total of 39 countries (and all NATO members with the exception of Canada and France) have contributed a total of 13,459 troops at last official count.

6. ISIS and Terrorism

President Trump told Secretary General Stollenberg during their April meeting in Washington that he hopes that “NATO will take on an increased role in supporting our Iraqi partners in their battle against ISIS.” In his first major foreign policy address abroad (May 21), President Trump told Arab leaders in Riyadh that the fight against terrorism ‘‘is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between those who seek to obliterate human life and those who seek to protect it.’’

TOP OF PAGE


What results can we expect from the Brussels summit?

NATO Leaders will want to hear President Trump explicitly confirm his commitment to Article 5.

President Trump’s pronouncements aside, reinvigoration of the Alliance begins with political will, and this is a hard commodity to coalesce.

President Trump will reiterate his demand that the Allies spend 2 percent of GDP on national defence, the target originally set by NATO in 2002. Without an agreed strategy on what the spending is to support, binding commitments before 2020, the date set at the 2014 Wales summit, are unlikely.

Commitments would have to include actual capability requirements as well as agreement to make those resources available for combat. The Afghan and Libyan missions were handicapped by the caveats imposed by some NATO members on use of their personnel and equipment.

President Trump will likely push for NATO to formally join the anti-ISIS coalition. Germany is reportedly pushing back against the idea but some form of NATO commitment may be forthcoming. In meeting with reporters last week Secretary General Stollenberg said ““Allies who are arguing in favour are pointing to the fact that by joining the coalition NATO could send a clear message of political support.”

TOP OF PAGE


Canadian involvement at the summit?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be pressed about Canada’s financial commitment to NATO. During his address to Parliament in June 2015, President Obama also pushed Trudeau for more spending, saying not once, but three times that “NATO needs more Canada.

BrusselsNATOSummit2.jpg

Mr. Trudeau is likely to respond to President Trump as he did during his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in February when he said that “there are many ways of evaluating one’s contribution to NATO” noting that Canada has “always been amongst the strongest actors in NATO.”

Trudeau will likely cite Canada’s leadership of a multinational NATO mission in Latvia (a commitment he made at the Warsaw summit in 2016), as part of broader Canadian support to Operation REASSURANCE, and note the “significant procurement projects” — especially the ongoing construction of new warships and the purchase of fighter jets – and Canada’s renewed activist internationalism.

BrusselsNATOSummit3.jpg

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told Parliament that the Defence Policy Review – which may include new spending for defence – is scheduled to be announced on June 7.

In practical terms under Operation REASSURANCE, Canadian fighter jets patrol the Baltic skies, and since April 2014 Canada has deployed five Halifax-class frigates in support of NATO reassurance measures. Canada is providing humanitarian and Special Forces support to a U.S.-led multinational effort to support pro-Iraq forces battling the Islamic State.

In terms of readiness, Canadian forces already have achieved significant interoperability on land, air and sea with the U.S. through NORAD, our binational aerospace and maritime surveillance agreement, and through both joint exercises and active operations in theatres like Afghanistan and Libya, and now in Latvia.

TOP OF PAGE


Public Opinion and NATO

Public opinion continues to support NATO.

A spring 2017 Pew Research Center survey of six EU nations (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom), the U.S. and Canada finds positive views of the military alliance.

Asked about their own country should militarily defend a NATO ally (i.e. Article 5) if embroiled in an armed conflict with Russia, there is strong support in the Netherlands (72 percent), Poland (62 percent), United States (62 percent), Canada (58 percent) and France (53 percent), to living up to their mutual defense commitment as a member of NATO.

BrusselsNATOSummit4.jpg

 

BrusselsNATOSummit5.jpgTwo-thirds of Canadians hold NATO in high esteem, a rise of 10 percent since 2015, with rising support across demographic groups and with strong support amongst the major parties: Liberal Party (75 percent), Conservative Party (74 percent) New Democratic Party (65 percent).

Germany has the fourth-largest defense budget in NATO, but only 40 percent of Germans believe they should come to the aid of an ally with. More than half (53 percent) do not support such aid.

BrusselsNATOSummit6.jpg

In a 2015 survey a third of those surveyed said their country should increase its national defense spending, while nearly half (median of 47 percent) want to keep spending the same and 14 percent favor decreasing defense spending. The figures for Canada were 31 percent increase spending, 52 percent stay the same and 13 percent saying decrease spending.

A Gallup survey in February, 2017 revealed 80 percent of Americans support the Alliance. When Gallup first asked Americans about their views on NATO in July 1989, 75 percent thought the alliance should be maintained. This percentage dropped to 62 percent in 1991, months before the Soviet Union’s formal collapse, staying at that level during NATO 1995 intervention in the Bosnian War.

BrusselsNATOSummit7.jpg

TOP OF PAGE


About the Author

A former Canadian diplomat, Colin Robertson is Vice President and Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and Executive Fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. He is Senior Advisor to Dentons LLP working with the Business Council of Canada. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University. He is a member of the advisory councils of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute and the North American Research Partnership and participant in the North American Forum. He is a past president of the National Capital Branch of the Canadian International Council. He is an Honorary Captain (Royal Canadian Navy) assigned to the Strategic Communications Directorate. He writes on international affairs for the Globe and Mail and he is a regular contributor to other media.

TOP OF PAGE


Canadian Global Affairs Institute

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute focuses on the entire range of Canada’s international relations in all its forms including (in partnership with the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy), trade investment and international capacity building. Successor to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI, which was established in 2001), the Institute works to inform Canadians about the importance of having a respected and influential voice in those parts of the globe where Canada has significant interests due to trade and investment, origins of Canada’s population, geographic security (and especially security of North America in conjunction with the United States), social development, or the peace and freedom of allied nations. The Institute aims to demonstrate to Canadians the importance of comprehensive foreign, defence and trade policies which both express our values and represent our interests.

The Institute was created to bridge the gap between what Canadians need to know about Canadian international activities and what they do know. Historically Canadians have tended to look abroad out of a search for markets because Canada depends heavily on foreign trade. In the modern post-Cold War world, however, global security and stability have become the bedrocks of global commerce and the free movement of people, goods and ideas across international boundaries. Canada has striven to open the world since the 1930s and was a driving factor behind the adoption of the main structures which underpin globalization such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and emerging free trade networks connecting dozens of international economies. The Canadian Global Affairs Institute recognizes Canada’s contribution to a globalized world and aims to inform Canadians about Canada’s role in that process and the connection between globalization and security.

In all its activities the Institute is a charitable, non-partisan, non-advocacy organization that provides a platform for a variety of viewpoints. It is supported financially by the contributions of individuals, foundations, and corporations. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institute publications and programs are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Institute staff, fellows, directors, advisors or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to the Institute.

Comments Off on NATO Brussels Summit

House Committee International Trade: The relationship with Mexico

Standing Committee on International Trade


NUMBER 069 
l
1st SESSION 
l
42nd PARLIAMENT 

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 18, 2017

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

 

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My remarks will cover the upcoming trade negotiations, the Canada-Mexico relationship, and the need for middle powers like Canada and Mexico to stand up in support of the rules-based, liberal international system.

    With regard to the North American accord, we need a new North American accord. NAFTA worked to the benefit of all three parties—Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico—but it is time to bring the NAFTA negotiated before the digital age and the arrival of e-commerce into the 21st century.

    The trans-Pacific partnership would have largely accomplished this, but the Trump administration has withdrawn from this Obama administration initiative, so we need to adjust to the current circumstances. A new agreement would include and set the standards in emerging areas like e-commerce and the growing digital trade. We can also make improvements to integrate into the agreement standards on labour and the environment.

    We need to address labour mobility, including the mutual recognition of accreditation. Then we can make maximum use of the talent pool that North America enjoys, but that we need to harness, to make us the most competitive region in the world. This means provision for trade adjustment so that those who are displaced by trade decisions or by efficiency improvements in automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence are guaranteed the opportunity to improve their skills or have training in another area. In doing so, we have the opportunity to create, just as NAFTA did in its time, the new model for trade agreements: a realistic but progressive trade agreement that gives a helping hand to those who are displaced or who lose out.

    A trilateral trade negotiation leading to a new North American economic accord would respect the sovereignties of the three nations. It would be a very different model from that of the European Union with its centralized and heavy bureaucratic oversight. Rather, we would continue with the current approach of ad hoc working groups to ensure and evergreen the agreement to allow for continuous improvement in areas like transportation.

    In the coming weeks, we’ll hear a lot of noise and nonsense about Canada and Mexico out of Washington. We need to distinguish between what is real and what is theatre. To paraphrase the great Gretzky, we need to go “where the puck is going”, and keep our eyes on the net and on the goals that we want and can score.

    With regard to Canada-Mexico, NAFTA transformed the Canada-Mexico relationship from one of cordial distance based on a shared neighbour into that of family. Today, there is an annual, increasing flow of two million Canadians to Mexico, especially during the winter months. Canadian investment, mining, manufacturing, and banking have increased manyfold, while trade has more than tripled—even faster than with our traditional partners in Europe and Japan. Today, Mexico is our third-largest trading partner, but it’s not reciprocal. Mexican investment in Canada never took. There is one notable exception: Grupo Bimbo’s acquisition of Canada Bread in 2014. It now operates 17 bakeries and employs over 4,000 across Canada.

    The imposition of the visa in 2009 affected more than half of Mexican travel to Canada, effectively chilling tourism, study, and investment. The lifting of the visa this past December and its replacement with the electronic travel authorization has resulted in a significant increase in Mexican travel to Canada. We are already reaping rewards and more tourists, but we should be doing more in terms of tourism promotion. We expect more students, especially given President Trump’s comments about building a wall on the Mexican border. We should encourage recruitment visits here by middle and high schools, university and vocational schools, and provincial education ministers.

    Beyond students, we could do a lot more in joint research projects in manufacturing and agri-food. In the longer term, ease of entry into Canada would also generate more investment, but we need to target Mexican investment that matches Canada. Most promising are the automotive and automotive parts sector and the energy and energy services sector.

    Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2050, Mexico will overtake China in terms of per capita GDP. There is already a middle class of 40 million in Mexico. Mexico is our springboard into the potential of the Americas. We already have preferred observer status in the Pacific Alliance that includes Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Chile. In the short-term, before the end of the year, Prime Minister Trudeau should lead a “Team Canada” mission with premiers, business leaders, and university presidents to Mexico to deepen Canada-Mexico relations and to underline our solidarity with Mexico in negotiating a new North American accord.

    The picture of solidarity, Mr. Trudeau with President Peña Nieto in Mexico City, would be appreciated in Mexico. Its significance would also be recognized in the United States, and it would give encouragement to our many allies in the Congress, the states, the business community, and even within the Trump administration.

  (1545)

    A vigorous partnership with Mexico is already working to our mutual benefit, but we still have to realize the full potential of the Canada-Mexico relationship.

    In terms of worry about middle powers, we live in a world of disarray. The rules-based, liberal international system and supporting architecture that Canadians helped engineer in the period after the Second World War has kept the peace and created the conditions for extraordinary growth and prosperity. Today, it is under strain and in need of reform and rejuvenation, and the middle powers need to step up. China and Russia would like to see a return to spheres of influence and a concert of great powers. This would not serve Canadian or Mexican interests.

    The United States, which guaranteed this system and built it on its military might, wants more burden-sharing by like-minded states. This we must do, because the hard truth is that the U.S. carries and sustains the system under which Canadians and Mexicans have thrived. We need to stand up with like-minded middle powers such as Mexico and reaffirm our support and commitment to the rules-based, liberal international system. A new, progressive approach to sustainable trade and labour mobility in partnership with Mexico and other democratic middle powers is the place to begin the necessary reform and rejuvenation.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Comments Off on House Committee International Trade: The relationship with Mexico

NAFTA and Agriculture

ThePigSite.com - news, features, articles and disease information for the swine industry

Lobbying to Save NAFTA Proving Effective

18 May 2017

Manitoba Pork Council

Farm-Scape is sponsored by
Manitoba Pork Council and Sask Pork

FarmScape is a Wonderworks Canada production and is distributed courtesy of Manitoba Pork Council
and Sask Pork.

CANADA – The Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says lobbying efforts from both within the United States and from Canada and Mexico to salvage the North American Free Trade Agreement are showing results, Bruce Cochrane writes.

Since the election of US President Donald Trump the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement has been in question.

Colin Robertson, the Vice President and a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, observes trade is important to the United States, especially to US agriculture.

Colin Robertson-Canadian Global Affairs Institute

There was a faction within the White House, probably led by Mr Bannon and involving Peter Navarro who now heads his Trade and Industry Office in the White House, was encouraging the President to rescind the North American Free Trade Agreement but there was pushback from within the White House.

As within any administration there are various factions, led by probably Mr Cohn and Jared Kushner his son in law.

When word got out that this plan was to rescind the NAFTA, it was leaked up on Capitol Hill where the reaction was quite negative on both sides of the aisle.

Both Democrats and Republicans, Republicans like John McCain who chairs the important Armed Services Committee and most importantly within the farm community in what we would call Trump states, those states in the Midwest that voted for Mr Trump.

Ohio, Iowa Wisconsin, they pushed back and said no, don’t rescind the NAFTA because it’s working for us.

The agriculture community has responded to word that the NAFTA might be ending and this will play out.

This is not something that will be settled today.

This is like a moving picture.

We’re never sure on any day where things is going.

The Canadian and Mexican efforts to point out that trade works well not just for Mexico and Canada but for the United States, I think, is starting to show some result.

Mr Robertson remains optimistic.

He notes Canadian efforts to remind the Americans of how much trade with Canada matters to the United States have had an impact.

ThePigSite News Desk

Comments Off on NAFTA and Agriculture

Softwood Lumber

BALONEY METER: Canadian negotiations selectively optimistic

Andy Blatchford THE CANADIAN PRESS
May 18, 2017 – 6:43pmHistory tells tales of both parties adapting to neighbours

Comments Off on Softwood Lumber

South Korea and Canada

South Korea is a natural fit for closer trade ties with Canada

In his congratulatory message to newly elected South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to “deepen relations between our two countries.” It’s the customary diplomatic bromide for these occasions, but with South Korea, it should mean more.

Our only free-trade agreement (FTA) in Asia is with South Korea. Negotiated after nearly a decade of discussions, it gives Canada preferential treatment into a market of 50 million consumers. It has opened up new opportunities, especially for beef and lobster sales, but we should be making more out of it. With few natural resources, beyond the resourcefulness of its people, and the gateways of Incheon and Busan, the South Korean economic miracle is based on innovation, adaptation and entrepreneurial spirit. These are all qualities successive Canadian governments are keen to encourage and develop at home.

Mr. Moon plans to visit Washington in the coming weeks. Mr. Trudeau should invite Mr. Moon to include a Canadian stopover to plan the “how and what” of deepening relations. A renegotiation of the North American free-trade agreement may be at the top of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, but he also wants to renegotiate the “horrible”Korea-U.S. free-trade agreement (KORUS). Mr. Moon would almost certainly welcome any advice from our Prime Minister on the management of Mr. Trump.

The FTA provides a framework and platform, but the meat of these deals comes from deepening our business-to-business ties. The South Koreans are keen to develop partnerships in sectors including medical devices, smart cars and e-commerce as well as in the practical application of artificial intelligence and robotics, all areas in which Canada has interest and growing competence.

The private sector will be key. South Korea’s International Trade Association (KITA) with its 71,000 members, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, is a natural starting point for Canadian business. KITA has 10 overseas offices. One of our goals should be to have KITA open a Canadian office.

But it’s the North Korean situation that is first on Mr. Moon’s to-do list and the main purpose of planned trips to Washington, Beijing and Tokyo. The North Koreans have played the international community for 20-plus years, promising concessions, all the while building their nuclear arsenal and ballistic-missile capacity. The United States has declared an end to its “strategic patience.” All options are now on the table.

To further complicate things for the South Koreans, Mr. Trump says he wants Seoul to pay for the billion-dollar terminal high altitude area defence system (THAAD), while China regards THAAD as provocative. Diplomacy is needed now more than ever.

Canada has a real interest in containing the North Korean nuclear threat. North Korean missiles aimed at the United States, given their faulty trajectory, could easily land in Canada. It’s a strong argument for Canada to sign onto ballistic missile defence in the forthcoming Defence Program Review.

Canada has frozen relations with North Korea and increased sanctions for their nuclear arms perfidy. But would a Canadian presence in Pyongyang give the international community another set of eyes, ears and voice? Canada has place and standing in Korea.

A Canadian missionary created the first Korean-English dictionary. A Canadian doctor to one of Korea’s last monarchs, founded what is now Yonsei University. During the Korean War (1950-53), Canada fielded the third-largest contingent in the UN Forces. The Gapyeong Canada Memorial commemorates the more than 500 Canadians who gave their lives. Canadians still serve with the United Nations Command overseeing the armistice with North Korea.

The people-to-people ties continue to grow. Last year, the Korean Government opened a Korean Cultural Center in Ottawa with its activities including a lively K-Pop gala. At well over 200,000, the Korean-Canadian diaspora is the fourth largest outside of South Korea, with most living in Toronto and Vancouver. There are 25,000 Canadians in South Korea, many teaching English as a second language.

Chasing the big, shiny markets in Asia – China, India and Japan – is understandable, but they also have their challenges. Like the four-leafed clover in the Tin Pan Alley jingle, South Korea has been overlooked. With the Moon Jae-in administration in place, it is time to give South Korea another look.

Colin Robertson is a former Canadian diplomat, and is vice-president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He recently participated in a Korea Foundation-sponsored program in South Korea

Comments Off on South Korea and Canada

The Order of the Aztec Eagle

THE SENATE

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the chair.

Prayers.

SENATORS’ STATEMENTS

 

Colin Robertson

Congratulations on Appointment to Order of the Aztec Eagle

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, it is always praise for Canada when a Canadian is awarded an international tribute.

At a special ceremony last week, His Excellency Agustin García-López, Mexican Ambassador to Canada, presented Colin Robertson with the Order of the Aztec Eagle, the highest honour the Government of Mexico can bestow on a foreigner. Maureen Boyd, Colin’s wife was also honoured.

My pride in witnessing this presentation was huge. My heartiest congratulations and thanks go to Colin and Maureen for their commitment and ongoing international work for Canada. This honour is especially timely, marking a particularly positive commitment between partners when the future of NAFTA is in question and the need to retain relationships so important.

Colin Robertson has long been heralded for his knowledge and insights into Canada’s place in the world. Personally, watching Colin’s career evolve over the years has been a treat. My husband gave him his first job in the Manitoba Archives when Colin was a University of Manitoba undergraduate. He worked with the then recent transfer of the Hudson’s Bay Archives from London, and joined us for many dinners and TV specials.

A Canadian diplomat for 30 years, Colin is now Vice President and Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; an Executive Fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy; and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Carleton’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. He sits on many advisory councils, including the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, and the North American Research Partnership. An Honorary Captain of the Royal Canadian Navy, assigned to the Strategic Communications Directorate, he is also on the Deputy Minister of International Trade’s NAFTA Advisory Council. You will have read his regular columns on foreign affairs in The Globe and Mail.

(1350)

His understanding of the importance of cultural diplomacy is deep, unwavering in support for arts and culture as a critical tool for Canada’s goals and profile abroad. That was evident when he was Cultural Attaché in New York, in the Canadian mission in Hong Kong, at the UN, Consul General in Los Angeles, and the first Head of the Advocacy and Legislative Secretariat at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

He has supported many international cultural exchanges involving Canadian creators, musicians, dancers, writers, exhibitions and performing arts groups. Canada-Mexico artistic relationships are long-standing. Mexico’s Frida Kahlo and our own Emily Carr have been featured in major international exhibitions. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet recently performed in Mexico and Canada’s National Gallery has a number of exhibitions in the final planning stages.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, I very much want to thank to our friend, Colin Robertson, this visionary diplomat who contributed so much to Canada, and congratulate him on this honourable distinction that he was awarded.

[English]

Colin Robertson, a consummate diplomat, is a champion for Canada of whom we should all be proud. He is a silent hero who has worked tirelessly over many decades to advance the interests of Canadians while respecting those of our international partners.

Garcia Lopez me hug

Former Mexican Ambassador Agustin Garcia Lopez Loaeza embraces former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson after presenting him with the Order of the Aztec Eagle award at the official Mexican residence in Ottawa on May 4. The Hill Times photograph by Sam Garcia

me Thai ambassador

Mr. Robertson, left, speaks with Thai Ambassador Vijavat Isarabhakdi, right. The Hill Times photograph by Sam Garcia

Comments Off on The Order of the Aztec Eagle

Arctic Council

Canada-Russia-U.S. tensions could overshadow Arctic Council meeting

Foreign ministers gather for daylong summit on environmental issues, but broader talks likely By Katie Simpson, CBC News Posted: May 10, 2017 7:12 PM

Canada’s foreign minister is joining her Russian and U.S. counterparts Thursday for an intimate gathering to discuss environmental concerns in the north.

Related Stories

But the conversations on the sidelines of the Arctic Council meeting will likely be of great interest, given the growing political tensions between the three largest participants.

Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are among the eight political representatives attending the meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska.

The sit-down comes at a time of growing international instability.

A government source with direct knowledge of the summit said Canada is keen to stick to the issues on the agenda, but acknowledged there will likely be opportunities for “real conversations” in private on other topics.

Tensions in the room

The ongoing investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election could easily become a source of friction in Alaska, but there are also concerns involving Canada that could emerge.

Ottawa’s relationship with Moscow certainly hasn’t grown cozier in the wake of Freeland’s appointment as foreign minister.

Arctic Report Card

A fisherman drives a boat near the Arctic Circle in Ilulissat, Greenland. Northern issues are on the agenda at Thursday’s Arctic Council meeting, but other topics may be discussed on the sidelines. (Evan Vucci/Pool/Associated Press)

In March, she was targeted in a smear campaign appearing on pro-Russian websites that link her grandfather to Nazi Germany. When asked about the articles, Freeland warned Canada should be prepared for Russian attempts to destabilize its democracy.

Before she even took on the role, she was already subject to Russian sanctions, which ban her from travelling to the country. In 2014, Russia announced a series of retaliatory measures against Canadian officials after Canada levelled sanctions against Russia for its actions in Crimea.

Freeland and Lavrov have crossed paths before, but never in such close quarters.

Anti-trade rhetoric

Meanwhile, the Canada-U.S. relationship has changed dramatically. Since Donald Trump took office, Ottawa launched an intensive charm offensive to ensure key aspects of the Canada-U.S. relationship, like trade, continue to thrive.

Despite those efforts, Canada has been on the receiving end of Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric.

One former Canadian diplomat is urging Freeland to hold frank discussions in private with her counterparts, to speak to some of these growing issues. 

“Often the most important part of these are not what’s discussed in a public roundtable … it’s what takes place in the corridor, that’s what counts,” said Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat.

Softwood and hacking

Robertson expects Freeland to seek out a private discussion with Tillerson, to address the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. Canada is threatening multiple trade actions against the U.S. in response to new duties imposed on Canadian softwood. 

“I think she’ll ask for a readout on where things are at,” Robertson said, adding Tillerson will likely want the same. 

Russian hacking is another issue Robertson thinks should be raised if Freeland is able to secure a private discussion with Lavrov.

Cabinet Retreat 20170123

Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland is representing Canada at the Arctic Council meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, Thursday. (Todd Korol/Canadian Press)

“We’ve got an election in Britain coming up, an election in Germany, where certainly all the signals are the Russians are playing their games again,” Robertson said. “So I think it is appropriate for Canada to raise this concern, and it’s appropriate to do it foreign minister to foreign minister.”

Arctic agenda

Freeland’s office said Canada will push several key issues at the meeting, including “advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” especially when it comes to addressing mental wellness, education and climate change.

According to a statement, Freeland will also look for a path to building a sustainable Arctic economy, and ways to encourage and preserve “science-based decision making.”

Whatever political tensions emerge at the summit, the government official said Canada is more than willing to co-operate with all Arctic nations on issues of mutual interest.

Comments Off on Arctic Council

Close Canadian ports to US goods

Canada shouldn’t tweak the eagle’s beak: Former diplomat

Colin Robertson, vice president at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a former diplomat, says that a B.C. minority government complicates everything from LNG and thermal coal to investment in the province. He also says that the B.C. government should be careful about threats about U.S. coal exports.

05/10/2017 – 11:15 AM EDT

Comments Off on Close Canadian ports to US goods

Keep Doors Open at all levels

TRENDINGLotto Max | Real estate | Donald Trump | Harjit Sajjan | The New War on Cancer

‘Very unusual’ for White House to try using Trudeau to influence Trump, say observers, but ‘expect more’

Marie-Danielle Smith | May 9, 2017 7:16 PM ET=-

OTTAWA — It is a matter of course for officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and the White House to keep lines of communication open between them, but observers say it was “very unusual” that Trump administration staff last month encouraged Justin Trudeau to try to influence their boss.

In late April, it appeared President Donald Trump was giving serious consideration to scrapping NAFTA, the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico that he has repeatedly called the “worst ever.” (It remains unclear whether he was seriously considering it or whether it was a bluff.)

Canadian government sources told the National Post Monday that a White House official took it upon themself to call Trudeau’s office amid Trump’s pondering, asking PMO staff to have Trudeau give Trump a call, so the pro-trade prime minister could talk the president out of withdrawing from NAFTA.

The Canadian Press then reported it had been Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, the husband of Ivanka Trump and a key White House adviser, who had called Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford.

The Associated Press confirmed that Kushner had been on the Washington end of the line, but cited an unnamed White House official who claimed the Canadians had instigated the call after news of the preparation of a draft executive order that would dismantle the trade agreement was leaked to news outlets.Regardless of who dialled first, what the reports have in common is a seeming attempt by Kushner to influence Trump, without his knowledge, via a foreign head of government — and close co-operation between the camps to facilitate a call that Trump would later cite as a reason for choosing to renegotiate, rather than kill, NAFTA.While calling on a foreign government to influence the president is “unusual,” it probably doesn’t break any formal rules or laws, according to one legal expert.

“I don’t think there’s a crime here,” said Carlton Lawson, a law professor at the University of California, Davis. The U.S. has a law called the Logan Act, which prohibits citizens “without authority of the United States” from trying to influence foreign governments in “disputes or controversies” involving the U.S. It was passed in 1799 after a Philadelphia state legislator, Dr. George Logan, tried to negotiate directly with French officials to undermine the foreign policy of the party that controlled Congress and the White House. But, Lawson said, the act is ambiguously worded, and not once in its 218 years on the books has it been used to prosecute somebody.

Besides, Lawson said, “the optics would look terrible” for Trump to indict a member of staff, and he wouldn’t fire Kushner, though he “might yell at him.”

Steve Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, said it’s “very unusual” that “staffers are using media and other countries to win policy battles.”

“I think it is dangerous because outsiders are being asked to manipulate the president,” he said, noting Kushner must have had “high comfort with Canada” to feel he could set it up.

Saideman said Trudeau should be careful and remain neutral as often as possible — it might not always be in Canada’s interest to poke at Trump when the White House requests it. “Expect four more years of this,” he added.

Eddie Goldenberg, who served as a senior adviser and then chief of staff to prime minister Jean Chrétien from 1993 to 2003, said “there is nothing normal about this White House” and the Trump White House is acting “in a way that nobody has ever before.”

In the past, he said, calls between the American president and the Canadian prime minister would be jointly organized by their national security advisers. It wasn’t “call me in five minutes,” he said. “It was always organized in advance. Usually they knew to a certain extent what they were going to be talking about.”

It’s not clear, he said, to what extent the White House thinks it can use Trudeau to influence Trump. “But there’s no question in my mind, if the president of the United States wants to talk to the prime minister of Canada, the prime minister should respond. … You make the call.”

Colin Robertson, a former diplomat who served in the U.S. and a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said “smart” Canadian administrations have historically established close ties with American counterparts.

Gary Clement/National Post

Gary Clement/National Post

Robertson said under past administrations, it was “fairly normal” for officials to contact each other ahead of time to set up calls between their bosses, and “not uncommon” for staffers to have conversations that weren’t known to the president and prime minister — “the principals don’t need to be informed.”

Being able to have a “frank conversation back and forth” is especially important with an unpredictable president south of the border.

When troubling news leaks, staffers should be comfortable enough with each other that they can “phone across” with such clarifications as, “hey, … don’t get spooked by this, or don’t get angry about this, let me put this in context,” said Robertson.

“You keep as many doors open as you can.”

Comments Off on Keep Doors Open at all levels