Excerpted from John Ivison National Post Saturday, February 5, 2011 Canada could be a very different place

In his excellent new paper: “Now for the Hard Part: Renewing the Canadian-American Partnership,” former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson offered some advice for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on the eve of his departure for Washington to sign a new perimeter security deal with President Barack Obama.

He quoted Daniel Burnham, the great Chicago architect, who once said: “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.” Mr. Robertson suggested that Mr. Harper should think big.

The new shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness may not stir anyone’s blood, since it is in essence an agreement to seek future agreement. But make no mistake: The Beyond the Border declaration has the potential to take Canada to the next rung of economic integration with the United States.

The specifics revealed at the press conference in Washington were limited to bromides about the creation of a Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council, which has been charged with the task of investigating why Cheerios on either side of the border have to have a slightly different formulation. But this deal is not solely consumed with ending the “narcissism of small differences” around regulation — it has the potential to be transformative for travellers, businesses and consumers

in ways that will be hailed by some Canadians and deemed unwelcome by others.

Mr. Harper acknowledged that the Washington declaration is a “starting point” for “an ambitious agenda.” He played down fears about Canada’s sovereignty being trampled by saying the deal is in the national interest.

Yet there’s no disguising the fact that if the border deal is carried to its logical conclusion, Canada will be a very different place than it is now.

On migration policy — possibly the biggest sticking point — the declaration states that the two countries will work together “to establish and verify the identities of travellers and conduct screening at the earliest opportunity.”

The intention is that fingerprints and retinal scans will become routine, leading to the evolution of an integrated entry-exit system, where entry into one country serves to verify exit from the other. This would require an unprecedented exchange of personal information.

The two countries already share watch-lists and passenger manifest lists for flights crossing each other’s airspace. But public opinion in Canada, already hardened by the Maher Arar case, may not welcome the sharing of more and more personal information with the Americans.

There was little detail available on how a perimeter security arrangement might work in practice, beyond a reference to increased cooperation across “air, land and maritime domains, as well as space and cyberspace.” This suggests that the NORAD joint air defence model may be adopted on land and sea. One practical example may be the emergence of joint customs facilities .

What else will it mean on the ground? Will Canada sign up to the Ballistic Missile Defence program that Paul Martin’s Liberal government snubbed? Will American ships patrol the Northwest Passage, which the U.S. considers an international waterway but Canada claims as an internal strait? If so, what does that mean for Mr. Harper’s Arctic sovereignty strategy?

In the run-up to a potential election, you might wonder why Mr. Harper is willing to risk the inevitable assault from the Left that he has sold the country’s soul for American gold. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff foreshadowed his line of attack by saying the deal has the potential to “betray Canadian values.” But Mr. Harper’s motives are transparent: jobs.

When the Americans stepped up security at the border after 9/11, they exerted extreme pressure on Canada’s trade jugular. A look at the tourism statistics give some indication of the impact. In 2009, overnight visits from the U.S. totalled 11.7 million, down from more than 17 million in 2002.

On the business side, border congestion has interrupted just-in-time delivery for products manufactured on both sides of the border.

The Harper government finally resolved that it had to act and found a willing partner in Barack Obama, who has his own reasons for wanting trade to flow more freely, not least his stated ambition to double U.S. exports.

The potential for a deal was greatly improved by the comradeship apparent between the Prime Minister and the President, who have cooperated effectively on thorny issues ranging from the auto bailout to Afghanistan.

In the end, the enthusiasm on display in Washington Friday could quickly turn to ennui. The Security and Prosperity Partnership was launched with similar fanfare by George W. Bush, Mexican president Vicente Fox and then-prime minister Paul Martin in 2005. It was a similar, if more modest, package but did not survive the departure of its signatories.

Geoffrey Hale, a professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge, said that this declaration appears more substantive than anything we’ve seen in recent years. In his opinion, its success or failure will depend on whether Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama are truly committed to ensuring they get results from the various working groups charged with implementing the declaration. “The SPP died of analysis paralysis, administrative overload and the absence of political will,” he said.

The other hurdle to success will be convincing Canadians and Americans that the deal really is in their respective national interests. We already know that the opposition parties here are intent on debasing the debate to the level of partisan demagoguery.

But Mr. Ignatieff and his party would be well-advised to listen to one of their own before rushing to judgment.

As John Manley, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and a former Liberal deputy prime minister, put it: “Sovereignty is enhanced when prosperity is enhanced.”

From Globe and Mail February 4, 2011 by John Ibbitson  Breaking down borders: Canada-U.S. trade and security

Much of the material used in this Folio comes from a draft paper written by retired diplomat Colin Robertson for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and the Canadian International Council. It is a look at what the agreements might look like once drawn up.

From Vancouver Sun February 4, 2011 by Barbara Yaffe Border-security talks politically dicey for PM

The Conservative government has released few details about the Washington meeting, the second such powwow between the two North American leaders.

Their discussions are expected to deal with a plan to “take economic integration between Canada and the U.S. to the next level,” reports former Canadian diplomat Colin Robertson, vice-president of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Robertson, in an article released Thursday, predicts a draft agreement for a security perimeter deal will be in place by November.

He says the goal should be to turn the 49th parallel into “a boundary, not a barrier,” and calls for a reintroduction of the principle of risk management.

A deal could see both countries’ military forces becoming interoperable, writes Robertson. It would feature cooperative deals on trade and border management, and include harmonization of government regulations and more intelligence sharing.

It also could force biometric scanning for all Canadians crossing the border.

“Sharing migration information is likely to be the major public sticking point in Canada — and a key requirement for the U.S.,” he predicts.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, created after 9/11, now has 200,000 employees and spent $56.4 billion in 2010.

In a bit of unfortunate timing, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report Tuesday highlighting perceived security weaknesses along the northern border.

Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman declared the northern border “unacceptably ineffective,” noting: “Canadians do have more lenient asylum and immigration laws than we do here.”

Robertson, in an article released Thursday, predicts a draft agreement for a security perimeter deal will be in place by November.

He says the goal should be to turn the 49th parallel into “a boundary, not a barrier,” and calls for a reintroduction of the principle of risk management.

A deal could see both countries’ military forces becoming interoperable, writes Robertson. It would feature cooperative deals on trade and border management, and include harmonization of government regulations and more intelligence sharing.

It also could force biometric scanning for all Canadians crossing the border.

“Sharing migration information is likely to be the major public sticking point in Canada — and a key requirement for the U.S.,” he predicts.

Critics also fear the deal could force more restrictive immigration and refugee policies on Canada.

The project, politically, is dicey for the PM. While Obama remains popular in Canada and a sit-down with the president could enhance Harper’s own standing, there’s a downside, especially in advance of a possible election.

The Liberal Opposition issued a news release Thursday condemning Harper for holding “clandestine meetings with American officials.”

According to foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, “Mr. Harper is leaving Canadians in the dark about a major decision that will potentially affect every aspect of their lives.”

Robertson makes no prediction about the outcome of today’s session. “The president told us that he loved us when he made his first trip to Ottawa,” he recalled.

“Now we will find out how much.”

Report offers ‘User’s guide’ to a new Canada-U.S. trade deal

Inside Politics Blog CBC February 3, 2011 by Chris Carter

A day before Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to meet U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House, the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute has released a report on the potential future of the bilateral relationship.r
The report (embedded below) by former diplomat Colin Robertson argues that in order to create “smart growth and jobs” in a post-NAFTA Canada, progress must be made in three key areas: “a common security perimeter, a rationalized regulatory regime that reduces red tape and a compatible approach to the stewardship and development of resources.” That last area includes a common approach to tackling climate change.

His report, titled ‘Now for the Hard Part’: A User’s Guide to Renewing the Canadian-American Partnership, then goes on to lay out a “plan of action” – both a way of getting things done but also what Robertson expects will actually happen, based on his research into what has been written and said on both sides of the border in recent decades.

The report envisions a much closer Canada-U.S. “partnership” than some Canadians might be prepared to accept.

Roberston says it will not be easy – he expects the Canadian debate “to be noisy” with “kabuki-like foreplay” – and says immigration issues will be one of the stickiest points for both sides, for different reasons.

Given the past battles over Free Trade and NAFTA, he is probably right, although much of this has flown under the public‘s radar so far – maybe his report will change that. But for all the potential for this to be a difficult course to navigate for a Canadian prime minister, Robertson ends his report by acknowledging that reluctance may be just as high on the U.S. side:

“The President told us that he ‘loved’ us when he made his first trip to Ottawa. Now we will find out how much.”

Now for the Hard Part

Excerpted from John Ivison National Post February 3, 2011 Egypt crisis opens door for oil sands

Colin Robertson, a former diplomat who is now vice-president at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, said Mr. Harper has to guarantee access to make it worthwhile. “It has to be big to be in Canada’s interests,” he said.

There is a large “green protectionist” lobby in the United States that considers the oil sands “dirty oil” that should be hit with a tax at the border to discourage its use. One bill, currently marooned in Congress, provides for a “border tax adjustment” for U.S. imports, based on carbon intensity.

A loophole in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement allows either country to impose tariffs on the other for health or environmental reasons. But, with a line being drawn around the North American continent in terms of security, and Canada already committed to harmonizing its carbon-reduction strategy with the United States, Mr. Harper could convincingly argue there should now be a common environmental standard for the two countries.

Excerpted from Globe and Mail Study gives Harper new clout in push to sell oil to U.S. SHAWN McCARTHY — GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER OTTAWA— From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Feb. 03, 2011

“Our powerful card is that we are safe and secure; we’re the safe upper north as opposed to the volatile Middle East,” said Colin Robertson, a former official at the Canadian embassy in Washington and now an adviser with McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP.

Mr. Robertson said he would expect the prime minister will raise the pipeline issue as part of their broader discussion on enhancing cross-border security and trade. “If we’re looking at a big deal, it’s got to be more than a security pact, it’s got to be an access pact, and that includes our pipelines and electricity grids.”

From CTV  Harper, Obama set to kick off border security talks February 3, 2011

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who has been consulting with government officials on the issue of border security, was less than optimistic about prospects for the negotiations.

“They want as much as we can give them, and we’re not going to give them as much as they want,” Robertson told The Canadian Press.

Regarding the summit delays, Homeland Security “wanted access to all migration records and a whole bunch of other stuff” but Canadian officials refused, he said.

“It’s been resolved sufficiently enough for us to move forward,” Robertson added.

Harper and Obama will set about trying to forge an agreement where their predecessors have failed, by attempting to strike a balance between the need to protect against terrorist threats and speed up cross-border trade.

From Winnipeg Free Press February 3, 2011

Harper-Obama “perimeter” border summit faces sovereignty speed bumps

By: Mike Blanchfield and Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

Despite the obstacles, Harper and Obama will formally kick off the negotiations Friday for a new, vaunted border framework in Washington.

“They want as much as we can give them, and we’re not going to give them as much as they want,” said Colin Robertson, the former Canadian diplomat who has been consulting with the Harper government on the issue.

Privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has not been consulted on the perimeter-security initiative, said her spokeswoman Anne-Marie Hayden.

She said the office would be “watching with great interest” and will be “examining the situation thoroughly to ensure that privacy considerations are taken into account.”

Harper and Obama will try to succeed where others have failed in the last decade — balancing the security imperative of preventing another major terrorist strike against an ever-thickening border that is slowing trade and commerce.

The two leaders are expected to announce their goal is to get a deal before the end of the year.

It would formally entrench joint operations on intelligence, law enforcement and migration, while allowing the unfettered flow of goods, people and services across the 49th parallel.

This latest attempt to open the border has been fraught with behind-the-scene delays because Homeland Security has demanded detailed travel data from Canada — information about who is exiting and arriving in the country, and who is merely passing through our airspace on flights.

“Homeland Security wanted access to all migration records and a whole bunch of other stuff. We said No,” Robertson said in an interview.

“It’s been resolved sufficiently enough for us to move forward.”