excerpted from Canada should come back to earth about cross-border shopping

      Comments Off on excerpted from Canada should come back to earth about cross-border shopping

From Neil Reynolds Globe and Mail  Canada should come back to earth about cross-border shopping May 18, 2011

U.S. trade policy analyst Daniel Ikenson got it right a couple of years ago when he proposed a long-overdue revision of product origin labels. They should all read, he said, “Made on Earth,” to reflect the fact that almost nothing is manufactured in a single country any more. What good is it to calculate the dollar value of China’s exports, he said, when other countries account for more than half of it? Global economic integration, he said, has made national trade policy and national trade statistics obsolete…

Take one relatively minor – that is, relatively easy – border issue: the amount of goods that Canadians may bring back duty-free from cross-border shopping trips to the United States. Here is a simple way to show Canadians that integrated borders mean a more tangible economic relationship with the States. Yet, as The Globe and Mail reported last week, the federal government has told the U.S. that it will not increase these nuisance exemptions.

Earlier this year, former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson proposed that the government increase these exemptions tenfold: raising the one-day allowance from $50 to $500 per person; the three-day allowance from $250 to $2,500; that longer-stay allowance from $750 to $7,500. For most Canadians, these higher allowances would eliminate the us-versus-them hassles of cross-border shopping – and permit customs agents to spend less time on “looking for bottles of duty-free whisky,” as a Senate report exhorted in a 2007 report, “and spend more time trying to identify people who might be a genuine threat.”

With largely integrated economies, the historic reasons for these anachronistic regulations between Canada and the U.S. no longer exist. Compared with the trade that crosses the border every day, the tax revenue extracted from shoppers is insignificant. Cross-border customs agents monitor a minor part of Canada-U.S. trade. It should be enough to know that these “Made on Earth” goods have been happily “Bought on Earth” as well…

On Wikileaks, the Arctic and Diplomacy

      Comments Off on On Wikileaks, the Arctic and Diplomacy

CTV National News: Roger Smith on the scandal When Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks about arctic sovereignty, the U.S. government hears just that — talk interviewing Colin Robertson

The United States thinks Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tough talk on Canadian Arctic sovereignty is little more than chest-thumping meant to attract votes, according to a new WikiLeaks cable.

The diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa was posted today by the online whistleblower.

The cable said the Harper government has done little on its Arctic promises but has made domestic political gains regardless.

“Conservatives make concern for ‘The North’ part of their political brand . . . and it works,” says the note, entitled “Canada’s Conservative Government and its Arctic Focus.”

“The message seemed to resonate with the electorate; the Conservatives formed the new government in 2006.”

The cable, which is dated January 2010 and bears the signature of U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson, pokes fun at Harper’s statements regarding the Arctic.

“The persistent high public profile which this government has accorded ‘Northern Issues’ and the Arctic is, however, unprecedented and reflects the PM’s views that ‘the North has never been more important to our country’ — although one could perhaps paraphrase to state ‘the North has never been more important to our Party.'”

The cable notes some of Harper’s promises have long been forgotten, such as building armed icebreakers and Arctic Ocean sensors.

“Once elected, Harper hit the ground running with frosty rhetoric,” the notes says, referring to his 2006 election.

“Harper (who was still only Prime Minister-designate) used his first post-election press conference to respond to the United States Ambassador’s restatement the prior day of the longstanding U.S. position on the Northwest passage.”

The note says Harper once again brought out the Arctic issue for the 2008 campaign, but failed to bring it up even once during a January 2010 hours-long meeting with U.S. Ambassador Jacobson.

“That the PM’s public stance on the Arctic may not reflect his private, perhaps more pragmatic, priorities, however, was evident in the fact that during several hours together with Ambassador Jacobson on January 7 and 8, which featured wide-ranging conversations, the PM did not once mention the Arctic.”…

The U.S. embassy did not comment on the matter, but the U.S. went into damage control earlier in the year, warning more of the embarrassing documents would be made public by WikiLeaks.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson said the fallout won’t affect Canadian-American relations.

“This stuff is coming, some of this may be embarrassing, it’s certainly embarrassing to us but it doesn’t change how we want to do business with you,” Robertson said of the U.S. position.

Embracing the Americas Starting with Mexico

      Comments Off on Embracing the Americas Starting with Mexico

Excerpted from May edition Policy Options Embracing the Americas, starting with Mexico

If Canadians needed a wake-up call to the power of regional blocs and the pace of political integration within the European Union, we got it last fall with our failure to secure a seat on the Security Council as a member of the Western European and Other Group (WEOG). The message is clear: we aren’t European. It is time we recognized geography and embraced our place in the Americas.

We’ve created the most successful bilateral relationship in the world with the United States. It will always be our primordial relationship. But our usually comfortable alignment with the colossus has meant that we’ve been reluctant to look further south on the continental map. The US has never thought this way and the since the earliest days of the Republic they’ve always been active in the Americas and the Monroe Doctrine (1823) has been one of the most durable and longstanding element in American foreign policy.

The combined populations of the Americas south of the Rio Grande gives them the potential over the coming decades to develop into a market as important as that of the EU, China and India. Growth rates are predicted to be 4.1 per cent a year for the next five years – double that of the G8 economies. The Chinese get it and are making significant investments. And with China competing with America for influence, there are geo-political reasons for our making our presence felt because we also have significant interests in the Americas. Yet, as a recent report conducted by our Department of Foreign Affairs concluded, we need “more concrete evidence on the ground of Canada’s interest.” Our relevance in the region will also be measured in terms of our capacity and willingness to participate in the broader social, political and economic agenda.

The Bank of Nova Scotia opened its first branch outside of Canada in Kingston, Jamaica in 1889 and Canadian banks are now found throughout the Caribbean. Our Foreign Direct Investment in the Americas outside USA is three times that in Asia. We’ve created a network of FTAs, far more in Latin America than in Asia: with Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile, Colombia, Peru. The Panama FTA is before Parliament and we are negotiating with Honduras, Caribbean Community and we’ve started discussions with MERCOSUR. We are now the number one investor in Chile. Despite bumps in the road, we have a growing strategic relationship with Brazil, the bookend to Mexico in Latin America. In terms of aid and development, we are committed to Haiti for the long-term.

By embracing the Americas we also play back into our principal relationship with the United States because when successive administrations, especially since Ronald Reagan, think strategically about the Americas, they think start with the trilateral relationship of Mexico and Canada. We should do the same and start our embrace of the Americas with Mexico.

Foreign Policy under the re-elected Conservative Government

      Comments Off on Foreign Policy under the re-elected Conservative Government

Prime time Politics with Martin Stringer May 9, 2010: Outgoing foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon gave his farewell address this morning to diplomats and bureaucrats in Ottawa. Cannon, who was defeated in last week’s election, is leaving the post after two and a half years.And what happens now for Canadian foreign policy and international trade now that the Conservatives have a four-year majority, with the NDP as official Opposition? Martin Stringer speaks with Colin Robertson, vice-president of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, and Michael Hart, a trade expert at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

Excerpted From Weekly Standard

      Comments Off on Excerpted From Weekly Standard

Triumph of the Conservatives

Are they now the natural governing party of Canada?

Fred Barnes

May 16, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 33 Weekly Standard

Who’s the most powerful conservative leader in the Americas, north and south? That may sound like a trick question, but it’s not. The answer is Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister who triumphed last week in an election that all but destroyed two opposition parties, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois (BQ)….

Relations with the United States were not a major issue in the campaign. There was no U.S.-bashing, even from the left-of-center NDP and Green party. But dealing with the Obama administration is a top item on Harper’s agenda.

Since he became Conservative party leader in 2004, Harper, 52, “has practiced [former Conservative Prime Minister] Brian Mulroney’s golden rule for the conduct of relations with the U.S.—we can disagree without being disagreeable,” wrote Colin Robertson, vice president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. “Now he needs to follow the second Mulroney dictum—Canada’s influence in the world is measured by the extent to which we are perceived as having real influence in Washington.”

Harper has succeeded in building a solid relationship with President Obama. He never criticizes the administration, at least publicly. Now he needs Obama’s cooperation on two issues.

When Harper visited the White House in February, he and Obama announced the Declaration on a Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, an idea first broached, post-9/11, by President Bush. It would require a new agreement to ease travel restrictions between the United States and Canada, but is yet to be implemented. Also, economic regulations need to be harmonized.

The second issue is a proposed pipeline, the Keystone XL, to carry oil from northern Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas. The United States imports twice as much oil from Canada as it does from Saudi Arabia and Mexico combined, and the Keystone XL pipeline would allow us to rely even more on Canada, a friendly and nearby ally.

The problem, however, is that some environmentalists claim this is “dirty oil,” which contributes far more than other oil to global warming. It’s not true, but the argument has support in the Obama administration’s outpost of environmental extremism, the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the pipeline would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, it must be approved by the State Department. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems willing to sign off, but the president also needs to be on board. Harper delivered a personal appeal to Obama at their February meeting and made the case for the pipeline at their joint press conference. The president was silent on the matter. Rejection of the pipeline would be a devastating blow to Harper, his party, and Canada….

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Energy relationship and Canada-US Security

      Comments Off on Energy relationship and Canada-US Security
CTV Powerplay with Don Martin May 6 with Scotty Greenwood and Colin Robertson Scotty Greenwood, a senior advisor at the Canadian-American Business Council and Colin Robertson, a former Canadian envoy to the U.S. discuss the implications the oil spill in Alberta will have on proposed pipeline projects in the states.

Advancing Canadian interests with the US

      Comments Off on Advancing Canadian interests with the US

From Embassy Magazine, May 4, 2011 Advancing Canadian Interests with the USA

Apart from a couple of tropes about the “Americanization” of our gun registration in the French language debate and Ralph Nader’s warnings about “deep integration,” one of the most remarkable features of this campaign was the absence of any reference to Canada-US relations and February’s Washington Declaration.

In the final days, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reminded Canadians that one in five Canadian jobs is linked to our trade with the US. He reaffirmed February’s pledge to reduce cross-border congestion through the creation of a perimeter security shield and tackle the regulatory thicket that impedes our shared competiveness. Now he and President Obama must act and get it done.

With Parliament likely to return to pass the budget, we should make passage of the copyright legislation a first order of business. This, the top American “ask,” is essential to attracting continuing foreign investment, especially given the challenge of our rising petro-dollar. Copyright protection is also a trade policy key to both the Canada-EU trade deal and our entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The original intent for the perimeter security agreement was to have an action plan by mid-June. This week’s Republican presidential candidates’ debate is a reminder that the US electoral clock is ticking and with it the window of opportunity for the border deal. To re-ignite the process, the leaders should appoint personal envoys to run interference and keep the schedule on track. Former ambassador to Washington Derek Burney or former BC premier Gordon Campbell both know how to get it done.

Premiers, who played a critical role in securing last year’s procurement reciprocity agreement, must be brought into the tent because they share constitutional authority for implementation. This would be a good opportunity to resurrect the First Ministers conference and demonstrate visibly to Canadians why this deal is in our interest.

Success in the US will depend on the support of state governments and premiers are our bridge to governors. Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger and Nova Scotia counterpart Darrell Dexter have a special mission: to convince Opposition Leader Jack Layton on why US trade puts bread on the table and sustains union jobs. The return to profitability of GM, Ford and Chrysler—the auto sector is our most integrated industry—is a case study in sensible collaboration between labor, business and government.

The Canadian business community is already onside and they’ve done valuable homework in laying out what needs to be done.  But the American business community needs to step up to the plate. Their participation is necessary because they are best placed to point out to Congress and state legislators the 8 million American jobs and billions in investment that depend on trade with Canada.

Then there’s the irritants and crises that require the full-time attention of our capable ambassadors, Gary Doer and David Jacobson. For American “wise man” George Shultz, former US secretary of state, managing the Canada-US relationship is like tending a garden. “The way to keep weeds from overwhelming you,” he wrote in his memoir, “is to deal with them constantly and in their early stages.”

On the American side, President Obama must be satisfied with the election results. In Prime Minister Stephen Harper he has a proven, reliable partner who has been returned to power with a stable, secure government. His Administration has dilly-dallied on the XL Keystone pipeline permit but it now appears that this will happen by the fall. We should learn from this lesson and invite the administration to look at all our connections: rail, electrical grids, pipelines, roads and bridges. Our mutual international competitiveness requires us to take these beyond the control of narrow interests.

Nowhere is the abusive power of special interests more perniciously illustrated than in the protracted opposition by the operator of the Ambassador Bridge to the construction of the Detroit River International Crossing. With a quarter of our trade passing through this gateway, it is time for President Obama to intervene.

There are other “weeds” that need tending, including the New York State ballast water regulation that would effectively curb shipping on the Great Lakes and the ongoing pollution risk to the Red River from Devils Lake.

Prime Minister Harper has practiced Brian Mulroney’s golden rule for the conduct of relations with the US: We can disagree without being disagreeable.  Now he needs to follow the second Mulroney dictum—Canada’s influence in the world is measured by the extent to which we are perceived as having real influence in Washington.

Influence requires a vigorous diplomatic and intelligence service bringing perspective on issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change and the continuing economic crisis. It means more effort in regions where we have shared interests, especially the Americas. Or where we can bring special insight, as in China and India, where smart immigration policy has given us so much of their diaspora. Or fora where the US is absent and we have the ability to lead, like the Commonwealth and Francophonie.

Real influence also depends on being a reliable partner in collective security and helping the US bear the global burden of primacy, as we did by putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan, planes in the air over Libya and taking a lead role in the reconstruction of Haiti. The Canada First Defence Strategy will maintain our capacity by investing in new kit including ships and fighter jets.

With his win, Stephen Harper achieves new place and standing amongst global leaders. But our international leverage hinges on tending the garden next door. With his strong mandate, Prime Minister Harper can move quickly to advance Canadian interests and North American competitiveness. Now it’s up to President Obama to demonstrate his commitment to good neighbourliness.

Canada-US relations: next steps

      Comments Off on Canada-US relations: next steps

excerpted from Maclean’s ‘The U.S. and Canada—singing in harmony? U.S. and Canadian business groups are urging their governments to coordinate rules and ease restrictions’ by Luiza Ch. Savage on Monday, May 2, 2011

Time is running out, according to Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat to the U.S. In a speech prepared for a border conference in Bellingham, Wash., he warned Ottawa that the governments have a year until presidential politics take over, and with it, a reluctance to talk trade. “The American election cycle will effectively shut down the process in January with the onset of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries,” he said. In many key battleground states, he noted, “NAFTA is a dirty word.”

Canada-US Trade needs nurturing

      Comments Off on Canada-US Trade needs nurturing

The United States and Canada: trade that needs nurturing

COLIN ROBERTSON

Special to Globe and Mail Update Published Tuesday, Apr. 26, 2011

Canada-U.S. relations have not figured much in this election. As Sherlock Holmes said of the dog that did not bark in the night, this is one of the “curious incidents” of the campaign. That Canadians like Barack Obama a lot more than George W. Bush is partial explanation. Mr. Bush was a convenient pinata for the anti-American set, while Obama still represents – for most Canadians if not for Americans – hope that we can believe in.

The Liberals, in particular, have so far resisted the temptation to play the anti-American card as we witnessed from Paul Martin in the 2006 campaign and Stéphane Dion in the 2008 campaign. Michael Ignatieff has a sophisticated sense of the United States that is closer to earlier Liberal leadership from Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Lester Pearson than Pierre Trudeau to Mr. Dion. As Mr. Ignatieff wrote during Mr. Obama’s visit in February, 2009, “We can either complain about unsolved problems or seize the opportunity to excite him with the possibilities of partnership.”

Stephen Harper could easily employ these same words. The PM deserves praise for launching the Washington Initiative around perimeter security and regulatory reform in February. Better border management was promised during the 2009 visit, but in contrast to the administration attention devoted to their southern border, this disappeared into the Potomac fog. Since 9-11 the border has thickened. Drones now fly overhead and Homeland Security has tripled the staff who stand guard. There are new fees. Given American finances this trend will only accelerate without overriding policy direction. Meanwhile, both governments add to the tyranny of small regulatory differences that impose cost and inconvenience on everything from baby seats to the Cheerios that U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson eats for his breakfast.

Such actions further devalue what has been the most successful trading relationship in the world. Cars constitute 15 per cent of our exports; 80 per cent of the components we use are imported from outside (mostly the U.S.), while 85 per cent of what we produce is exported (mostly to the U.S.). Assembly requires criss-crossing the border seven times – with inspection on each crossing. Meanwhile, boatloads of cars and parts coming from Japan, Korea and China are inspected only once. So much for encouraging North American competitiveness.

Nor is the Washington Initiative a sure thing. The Harper government has defined the vision, yet little has been offered in terms of concrete objectives and even less in terms of public consultation.

Both of us have unfinished business. The top American “ask,” also an impediment to the Canada-EU Accord, has been new copyright legislation. It has failed to pass in either of the last two Parliaments. We want a presidential waiver for the Keystone XL pipeline. The long delay reflects the administration’s ultramontane attitude toward the oil sands, with protectionist “encouragement” from otherwise uncompetitive energy “alternatives.” The threat of American environmental oversight would be a blatant application of extraterritoriality that we haven’t seen since Helms-Burton and Cuba.

Then there is the clock. New Hampshire’s January primary starts the American election cycle that will effectively close our window of opportunity. The hope was to finish the preparatory work by June, but the election has intervened. There is little evidence that the Obama administration is using this time to manage interagency consultation and congressional outreach. Nor is the U.S. business community engaged. Their involvement was critical to the free-trade agreement.

Finally, there is the President. Mr. Obama wants to generate jobs by doubling U.S. exports. It makes sense to begin with your biggest trading partner, but there is little to suggest that he accords Canada the same strategic priority as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did.

Mr. Obama has reached out to China and Europe and has taken trade delegations to India and Brazil, but not to Canada. His re-election will depend on his ability to create jobs. In his congratulatory call to our next prime minister on the evening of May 2, Mr. Obama should re-ignite the initiative and get it done before the snow falls in Concord.