Evidence of meeting #8 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mexico.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Clarkson, perhaps in a more comprehensive way, as Mr. Grenier mentioned, you said that Canada has lost considerable importance militarily, economically and politically. There's also the rise in markets, related to the rise of emerging markets. There have also been a number of changes, with the arrival of a new U.S. administration.
In view of all these factors, and in light of these losses, shouldn't Canada review its own foreign policy? Shouldn't it be updated, precisely taking into account these important changes that Canada is currently facing?
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
What is your question, exactly?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Canada's foreign policy should be reviewed, updated, upgraded, because I would say it's a bit deficient, considering all the new factors that have arisen on the international scene, including the arrival of the Obama administration. Before becoming foreign missionaries, perhaps we should review our domestic policy.
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
Madam, I believe the government is reviewing its main international policy area, that is to say the war in Afghanistan. At the same time, it's clear that Mr. Obama, although he is sending more soldiers to that country, is reviewing his policy as well, if he is starting to negotiate with certain factions of the Taliban. The most important thing that Ottawa is doing is probably to review that policy. Now the Prime Minister is admitting that we can't win.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
You also mentioned the terrorism paradigm. In the current circumstances, are Canada and Mexico increasing or reducing U.S. power? Are they contributing to this American strength?
4:10 p.m.
Stephen Clarkson
I'll answer in a general way. Canada and Mexico are the two most important countries in terms of building the U.S. economy, as a result of our markets, our resources, our oil and our labour. Canada and Mexico are very important to the United States, even though the U.S. does not recognize that fact. I say that because Canada and Mexico can negotiate with Washington with less fear and greater confidence. Now, Washington also acknowledges that its security depends on Canada and Mexico. Two years ago, Mr. Bush signed an agreement, the Merida Plan with Mexico, to provide very significant assistance to Mexican forces to fight the drug cartels. Now Washington recognizes its reliance on its neighbours, and that gives Ottawa and Mexico greater weight in the negotiations.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for appearing here today. I'll be splitting my time with Ms. Brown, and if there are a few minutes left, with Mr. Lunney.
I'll make a statement here and ask a question, and maybe you can answer after we've finished our rounds here, to try to get a little more in.
You mentioned trade to the United States and perhaps lessening our involvement with Mexico. But given the recession and the security, the thickened border between Canada and the United States, and the past convenience of shipping rail straight through into Mexico, we no longer have all of that convenience. It's getting more and more difficult. When we were shipping to the Caribbean through the States and from Florida, we had it.
So wouldn't we rather be increasing our opportunities by doing more from our Atlantic and Pacific ports down the seaboard of the United States for easier access? Then we would be staged to go to the Caribbean--to Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago, and other areas. Also, by going down to San Diego in the United States, you'd be staged to do direct shipment to Mexico. Wouldn't that be an opportunity?
If that is a multi-level approach to trade and expanding our presence with the United States and through it, is it complicated by NAFTA or any of our other agreements?
I'll pass this over to Lois.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Professor Clarkson, you talked about the things that have changed, and you said specifically that we've lost importance in some dimensions: militarily because of NORAD and economically because we're relatively smaller. But the comment I found really interesting was that we've lost significance politically because we don't cause trouble.
For a number of years our relationship with the United States was not on the best footing. For the last three years, I would say, we have made an attempt to repair that relationship. Maybe you could comment about this statement that we don't cause trouble. Do you think we are moving into a new era because we are rebuilding our relationship with the United States and trying to create a relationship of cooperation?
I think Mr. Lunney has a question too.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
Mr. Goldring, I think the answer is yes. Obviously, transportation by sea is very efficient and important to develop.
On the question of causing trouble, I'd like to refer to a very important member of the honourable member's party, namely, Mike Harris. When the Great Lakes governors and the federal government of the United States made a deal among themselves about how to divert water from the Great Lakes, there was consternation in Ontario. It happened that Mike Harris approved a company exporting huge amounts of water from Lake Superior. I think that caused so much consternation in Washington that they came to renegotiate with Ontario and Quebec a much better deal about the conditions for diverting water.
My point is that when they saw we could do damage to them--and I'm not advising that we figure out new ways to harm them--they took notice. One of our problems is that we are such good boys that compared to Mexico, China, and North Korea, they don't need to pay attention. That causes a dilemma. We are very good boy scouts. We don't want not to be good boy scouts, but it does mean they don't really care.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm not certain his questions were simply for Mr. Clarkson.
Mr. Grenier or Mr. McRae, did you want to comment?
4:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Laval University, As an Individual
Yes.
On Mr. Goldring's point, there are only two countries that have land borders with the U.S., and that's a huge advantage because we can ship by truck. No other country has that advantage. If we're using sea routes out of B.C., for instance, on the west coast, that puts us in direct competition with all of Asia. The last time I looked at this, our seaports were quite congested on the west coast, and we're trying to do something about that now. The distances are very great. If you think of the manufacturing centre of Canada, it's still in Ontario and Quebec. I don't know that this is such a great idea.
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Donald McRae
I have one qualification on getting their attention by being a bad guy. That did not work on the west coast with Pacific salmon. In fact, we overfished in order to punish the United States and we punished our own fishery as a result. I think we have to be very cautious about trying to make a grandstanding movement. There may be a context where it works. In another context it may not work at all.
To follow up on Mr. Grenier's point, my view is that the economics of whether trucking or shipping will be the better way to go will drive it. But I agree with Mr. Clarkson that we can't simply establish a relationship with the United States and ignore Mexico. We can't turn the clock back on NAFTA. Therefore, we have to use both routes with Mexico and with the United States in order to maximize the opportunity we have under NAFTA.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
March 9th, 2009 / 4:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our guests for being here today and taking the time to present to the committee.
Mr. Clarkson, maybe I'll start with you. As I was hearing your comments, I was nodding my head, particularly around the comments on the war on terror and how that needs to be re-examined. I think that's already happening in Washington, thankfully. Some of the measures we've taken remind me of the Maginot Line. We set up and put in billions of dollars, and it has not necessarily been to the greatest effect. Others will say, no, it's kept us safe. I'm not sure; the jury is out on that. If it's to challenge that, as you say, to shift the paradigm, we need a win.
When we look at NAFTA there have been problems, as you've stated, and perhaps Mr. McRae might challenge that a bit, in terms of “we've got it, so use it”. But if we're looking for a win in terms of, at least, bilateral--and maybe I'll talk about Mexico in a minute--we've had them in the past. The most recent, clear win was when we dealt with acid rain. It was an activist government. It was a Conservative government. When we look at that model, would it not behoove us to really get engaged on the environment? Cap and trade is the model that's being presented to us. If not that file, then which file would it be, in your opinion?
4:20 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
Well, I personally agree that it would be very good if Canada had a progressive position on the environment--or at least as progressive as Mr. Obama's--but both the Liberal and Conservative governments have had a completely.... Well, not the Conservatives; the Liberal government had a completely duplicitous position on Kyoto. The Conservative government was much more open. But in our relationship to that major international issue, we were very regressive.
For Canada, it's not that we can have a win with the United States on that. We would have to change our own line and become better environmentalists before Mr. Obama would pay much attention to us. At the moment, the big problem is the huge environmental catastrophe called tar sands. It's a terrible contradiction. They want our oil, but they are in effect outsourcing their pollution to us. How we deal with that in the shorter term, when technologies are not going to solve the problem, is a mystery to me.
How do we get a win with Mr. Obama? That's not clear to me. But in terms of the suggestion that we take a general approach that is supportive of his efforts in international councils, I think that would probably establish a new record of cooperating with the United States on issues where they are taking a good line, such as the environment. But that requires us to change our spots.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
No disagreement from me on that.
Mr. McRae, and perhaps Mr. Grenier as well, we had my good friend Tom d'Aquino here recently. We were discussing the SPP. I was surprised to hear him say that it is essentially dead. And we've had other witnesses come forward. You've mentioned the side agreements on environment, on labour, and on NAFTA. Mr. Obama suggested when he was here--certainly it was a different tone from his campaign--that he'd like to see those folded in. There were suggestions that this wouldn't be a huge step to put them into the formal agreement and not the side agreements.
I'm wondering if you have any comments. The first issue is the fact that the SPP is dead--thankfully, for some of us, because no one really had an “in” on it anyhow--and the second issue is the side agreements being folded into NAFTA.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Donald McRae
On the SPP, I have less to say. Those who say it's dead are probably right.
On folding the side agreements into NAFTA, I think that's something that may well be attractive to the United States. As a candidate, Obama talked rather boldly about changes to NAFTA. Obviously that is unlikely to happen. But rolling the side agreements into NAFTA looks like a change to NAFTA. Remember, we got the side agreements because President Clinton wanted some window dressing to justify the fact that he had opposed NAFTA and now was actually agreeing to it. This would be history repeating itself, to some extent.
The question is whether something worthwhile would come out of it. Folding it into NAFTA, we'd be doing what? Would we be keeping the same provisions, so that we can have complaints being made and the governments narrowing it down and nothing much coming out of it, or moving it into something more substantive, so that the issues of labour and the environment aren't taken seriously in the NAFTA agreement? That's a big challenge, but I think it's a worthwhile challenge.
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Laval University, As an Individual
The business of folding side agreements into NAFTA goes back to Mr. Clinton, as Mr. McRae just mentioned. I don't think Canada has anything to fear from that. Obviously, as Mr. Clarkson just pointed out, on the environment we would have to upgrade our current policies, but we had policies in the past that would have accommodated that very well.
It means also, of course, that you get trade sanctions if you violate provisions on the environment or the rights of workers. That has never been done anywhere. That would be very new, quite new. Even in the WTO context, it just doesn't happen.
We may want to think about this very hard, but basically these things are directed at Mexico. They're not directed at us.
4:25 p.m.
Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto
Mr. Chairman, can I add one word about the SPP?