Canada's closed skies

By Chris Sorensen - Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

FREDERICK FLORIN/AFP/Getty Images

Irish discount airline Ryanair is advertising flights from London to Frankfurt (Hahn) for the equivalent of about $11, plus fees and taxes. There’s a few catches: one checked bag can cost an extra $38 and the small Hahn airport is over an hour away from the German financial centre by bus.

Continue…

Don’t pack the wrong passport

By Philippe Gohier - Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 12:20 PM - 5 Comments

Hélène Scherrer was looking forward to a week’s worth of sunshine when she packed her bags and headed to Mexico last month. What she got instead was a close-up view of the ongoing diplomatic spat between Canada and its southernmost NAFTA partner.

Continue…

Ask Andrew transcript

By Andrew Coyne - Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 12:56 PM - 12 Comments

• Andrew Coyne:
  Hello, everybody. Coyne here. Fire when ready.
• Crusk:
  Hi Andrew. In the past you have argued for a decrease in personal income tax, but why would a decrease in corporate taxes while maintaining high income taxes not be a better answer to productivity and equality concerns?
• Andrew Coyne:
  Well, of course, we could do both. Ultimately, all taxes are paid by people, so whether you cut corporate or personal income taxes is not hugely important — either way, what you want to do is make sure that the tax burden is spread fairly, and spread evenly, with as few exceptions or preferences as possible.
  What I’d really like to see is a rebalancing away from income taxes altogether, in favour of consumption taxes, which are far less damaging to economic activity.
• Critical Reasoning:
  Andrew, what are your thoughts on the Charles and Camilla visit? Do you think there is still a broad base of support for the monarchy in Canada?

Continue…

Michael Wilson, outgoing ambassador to the U.S., on Afghanistan, stubborn myths of 9/11 and why Americans are so easy to talk to

By John Geddes - Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM - 0 Comments

Michael Wilson’s 3½-year run as Canada’s ambassador to the United States ends this fall with the appointment of former Manitoba premier Gary Doer to the post. Wilson’s stint as the country’s highest-profile diplomat rounded out a remarkable public service career. As Brian Mulroney’s finance minister for seven years, and later minister for international trade, he was an architect of the GST and NAFTA. He’s also been a senior financial executive in Toronto.

Q: When you became ambassador in 2006, you already had long experience at the top level in Canadian politics and business. But Washington is on a whole other level. How did you find your feet there?

A: I had a number of people who I had dealt with during the ’80s and early ’90s when I was in government, so I had those contacts to start with. But the importance of the relationship between the two countries—we’re neighbours, largest trading partners, very close on foreign policy issues—means as Canadian ambassador you get exposed pretty quickly to a lot of people as you get into the job.

Q: Don’t you need to get all the right party invitations to fit into the Washington social swirl?

A: The social swirl, as you describe it, is not what I think some people think, that we go down there and we spend a lot of time with cocktails and canapés. Yes, there were parties, there were dinners and receptions that you would call social affairs, but they certainly did not dominate my time after hours, by any means.

Q: Who made a big impression on you?

A: There was a range of people there, and people that I very much enjoyed talking to and getting their views on things. Brent Scowcroft is one of the early ones that I went to, and he’s been around for a long time. Colin Powell is a very interesting fellow. Jim Jones, I got to know him before he became the national security adviser, so he was a very interesting fellow to talk to with his background. Some of the journalists in Washington are outstanding. David Ignatius of the Washington Post is one who I always thought was terrific. Martin Wolf from the Financial Times was always very good. Paul Volcker, I knew him back when he was the Federal Reserve chairman, so I enjoyed talking to him.

Q: What was your first day on the job like?

A: I arrived on the night of March 12, 2006. I got into the office at 8:30 in the morning. I was told I had a meeting with the number three person in the state department, Nick Burns, and he took me through the credentials process and said, “You should be at the White House at two o’clock.” I went through the credentials process with President Bush. At that time he said, “Look, we got some things we gotta do to improve the relationship between the two countries. The first of these is softwood lumber. Let’s get that one behind us right away.”

Q: And you hammered out a softwood lumber deal. But what about the other irritants, especially the border?

A: The relationship, as it has evolved on the management of the border, it’s awkward, it’s complex, but it is better. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative had been announced prior to my arriving there, and we were very concerned that there would be a lot of disruption and congestion at the border because we could see that the U.S. weren’t going to be ready and neither were we. We worked with the Bush administration to stretch out the time for implementation, and again worked closely with the Obama administration for the actual transition. Now, is it perfect? No, it’s not perfect, because there has been a decline in traffic. It’s hard to tell what’s related to the passport issue, what’s related to economy and what’s related to the strength of the Canadian dollar. But behind that the tone of the relationship is clearly better.

Q: How has having Canadian troops fighting in Kandahar coloured the relationship?

A: I’d have to say that the most important thing in the time that I was in Washington is our presence—both on the military side as well as on the development side­—in Afghanistan. That is clearly the best calling card that I had, whether I was meeting with people in the administration or people in Congress on either side of the aisle, and I’d hear it when I travelled around the country. It was highly appreciated and highly admired.

Q: Are you worried the Canadian government’s decision to withdraw from combat in Afghanistan in 2011 will cost Canada that cachet?

A: It is something that the incoming ambassador, Gary Doer, will have to address. I think the government­—I think Parliament—will have to address this, because there are implications for us. Obviously, there are implications for the relationship with the United States, there are implications for the relationship with NATO. So this is an issue that’s going to be front and centre for the government, for Parliament, for some time, as to how we handle this in a way that doesn’t undermine the terrific goodwill that we have.

Q: Should the government revisit the 2011 withdrawal date?

A: The indication is clear that the military presence is going to diminish significantly in 2011, but we will have people there. We have people from development agencies and we have to provide some form of protection for them.

Q: But do you think the decision to pull out of a combat mission is irreversible?

A: Well, that’s clearly the position that the government has stated. Now, I think that it is an issue that the government will have to address. We have built this strong position on the national security side as it relates to Afghanistan. Are there other things we can be doing in the world out there that will replace this, and do it in a way that maintains that strong position that we have built up? And that debate certainly has not taken place.

Q: As a veteran now of both capitals, how would you describe the difference between the cultures of power in Ottawa and Washington?

A: It’s night and day. Every country recognizes that the United States is their most important relationship. Well, if you’re sitting in Washington as a senior official in the administration, you’ve got all those countries there looking to you as their most important relationship. It’s one of the most interesting parts of being in Washington, how we fit Canadian national interests into that environment.

Q: So what’s the answer? How does Canada make its interests matter to American politicians?

A: One of the pieces of advice that I pass on to Mr. Doer—I got this from members of the administration—they told me, “The best way you can get to us is to talk to us on a multilateral basis, talk about the global issues. Help us get a better understanding. What are your observations on this issue from the Canadian standpoint, because that is helpful to us in understanding where we fit as the superpower.” And once you get talking to them on that global basis, then when you get around to dealing with the bilateral issues, the discussion moves more quickly.

Q: How frustrating has it been for you to have to deal over and over with the myth that some of the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada?

A: It started back shortly after 9/11 where some of the agencies who have national security responsibilities were trying to deflect the blame, and some of them put out the story that, well, these people slipped in from Canada. But very shortly after, the attorney general at the time said it is absolutely clear that none of the terrorists came through Canada, they came from third countries getting through the normal immigration system that the U.S. had at the time. So it is a frustration, but it’s easy for those sorts of ideas to get embedded in the general thinking of people.

Q: How can Canada fight back against initiatives that come out of Congress, rather than the White House, like the recent Buy America rules?

A: The Buy American thing, that was slipped in a by a couple of senators at the last minute. It wasn’t planned. We were watching because we felt that this was a real risk, and then suddenly it appeared in the final bill and we really had no warning about it except our own intuition. And these sorts of things can happen.

Q: You’ll be leaving Washington early in the Barack Obama era. How do you see his first term shaping up?

A: President Obama has really hit the ground running and has taken on an extraordinary range of issues, to the extent that there is a sense of overload of the system in Washington. The health care debate, the climate change debate, the financial regulation debate—these are very, very weighty issues. And you have these domestic issues at the same time as you have all the challenges that a superpower has internationally.

Q: What impressions of Americans as a people will you be bringing home?

A: The population is quite diverse. That wasn’t a surprise, but it was very interesting to see it and to feel it as you went to talk to people in different parts of the country. The Americans, though—they’re very easy to talk to.

Q: More so than Canadians?

A: I think so, I think so. Their patriotism, their nationalism, their love of politics, their love of sports, their feeling about their religion, their attitudes toward the military, their perception of themselves within the world—some of that is very admirable, some of it’s a little frustrating.

Q: As Canada’s representative in Washington, what are you most often asked about?

A: I guess there’s three things right now. One is health care, and you have people who are scandalized by the Canadian health care system, governments telling us how we should do our health care and so on, but you have other people saying, “Boy, there’s a lot of good things about the Canadian health care system.” The second area is, “How did your banks come through [last fall’s financial crisis] in such a strong position?” And the third area is in the different aspects of the housing markets in the two countries, because they see in Canada less boom and bust.

Q: How does Gary Doer’s background in provincial politics fit him for the transition to Washington?

A: In my experience, he has been in the United States more than any other of the Canadian premiers. There are four former governors in the Obama administration and he knows them all. So I don’t think we should have any worry; Canada’s voice will continue to be heard in many circles both within Washington but also in other parts of the United States.

Q: You’ve had plenty of chances to watch Alex Ovechkin play for the Washington Capitals. Is he better than Sidney Crosby?

A: Oh, they’re both marvellous players.

Q: But Ovechkin’s more exciting, right? Or is it too undiplomatic to say so?

A: Ovechkin, because he’s not with as strong a team, has gotta be a very impressive player.

Obama reconsidered

By The Editors - Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM - 11 Comments

Barack Obama’s presidential victory was an exciting moment for Canadians as well as Americans; we too thrilled in the prospect of a new era in American politics. Half a year on, that excitement is wearing off. The recent evidence from Washington appears contrary to our best interests. Should we be changing our minds on Obama?

The decentralized nature of American politics means Obama can’t be blamed for everything the U.S. government does, but he bears responsibility for broad directions and wields significant powers of persuasion. How he uses these powers (or doesn’t) is significant. Take trade relations.

Continue…

Deciphering Obama's "progressive trade agenda"

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM - 0 Comments

Former Dallas mayor, Ron Kirk, Obama’s nominee for US Trade Representative, had his Senate confirmation hearing yesterday. I went through the transcript today looking for clues about Obama’s trade agenda, which remains somewhat fuzzy.

“We seek to restore and build new bipartisan support for a progressive trade agenda for America.” Kirk told the senators. He also said, “I don’t come to this job with deal fever, and we’re not going to do deals just for the sake of doing so.”

Note to Michael Wilson: When he was asked about how he will build support for trade agreements among the US middle class, Kirk mentioned his plan to improve his office’s web site. Perhaps a phone call to Kirk’s head web geek could  solicit a link to these fact sheets put together by the Canadian Embassy that show state by state how many jobs are supported by trade with Canada. How many people know that 35 US states have Canada as their leading export market? Check out this cool map.

The WaPo’s take on Kirk’s testimony was: U.S. to Toughen Its Stance on Trade

Meanwhile, here are a few excerpts that relate to Canada, Nafta, softwood lumber and trade in general:

Continue…

When Barry met Steve

By Andrew Coyne - Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 7:44 PM - 91 Comments

Thoughts on the two leaders’ press conference:

1) They’ll get along fine. They’re similar in some ways: roughly the same age, both policy wonks, both pretty no-nonsense. I got the sense they respected each other. But they’re also different, especially … culturally. Obama’s a member, not so much of the upper class, as the inner: he’s comfortable with the Harvard/New York Times set, people who consider themselves the elite, never mind what anyone else calls them. That’s especially the case in Canada, given the Liberals’ long dominance here — hence the obvious sympatico between Obama and Ignatieff. Harper’s emphatically not of that crowd: as a Conservative, he’s one of the “outs,” at least in his own mind and certainly in his rhetoric.

2) But good relations can’t paper over policy differences, particularly on

a) Afghanistan. As evidence, Obama’s intervention to the effect that he did not “press” Harper to extend Canada’s troop commitment. If he truly didn’t want something from us, he wouldn’t make such a show of saying that he didn’t. Harper, for his part, ducked the question when it was put to him.

b) NAFTA and Buy America. They really weren’t on the same page here. And Obama has constituencies to deliver for.

3) Thought Harper was very strong on Canada being just as vigilant against terrorist attacks as the US. It’s true that at one point we were appallingly lax (no pun intended) on this, but that hasn’t been true for some years, and Americans, especially the American right, needed to hear it from him.

4) Not sure what this Clean Energy Dialogue means, but it’s wholly in keeping with everything we’ve heard from Harper to date: emphasis on technological solutions, carbon sequestration etc. I actually think the two leaders are quite close on this one. Obama is not going to impose a carbon tax, and US public opinion will not stand for any international agreement on global warming that does not include China and India. Which has been Harper’s position: a “Son of Kyoto” that was less stringent, but broader in application, than Kyoto. Remember that it wasn’t Bush who vetoed Kyoto. It was the US Senate. 95-0.

5) That said, Harper certainly didn’t take long to throw Bush under the bus. To listen to him today, you’d think that his government had been champing at the bit to tackle global warming, but was held back by those laggards to the south: “Canada has had great difficulty developing an effective regulatory regime alone … It’s very hard to have a tough regulatory system here when we are competing with an unregulated economy south of the border…. I’m quite optimistic that we now have a partner on the North American continent that will provide leadership to the world on the climate change issue and I think that’s an important development…”

White House briefing on Obama's visit

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM - 16 Comments

Officials from the White House and National Security Council just gave a briefing about Obama’s trip.

The bottom line seems to be:

1) On NAFTA: While Obama supports the idea of putting the labor and environment side agreements into the main Nafta agreement, he will not make any moves to actually do this (*for the time being) given that the world economy is too fragile and he does not want to send out a negative message on trade. “This is not time to give the impression that we are interested in less rather than more trade.”

2) On oil sands: Canada is an important partner on energy. Obama wants to work with Canada to improve carbon capture and sequestration of carbon emissions from the oil sands. Technology is the answer. There is $3.5 billion for carbon sequestration research in the stimulus bill that Obama signed today. (This should make Alberta envoy-to-DC Gary Mar’s day since an item in the Washington Post today used the words  Alberta and “the dirtiest oil on earth” in close proximity.)

3) On climate change: Obama will be accompanied by his climate czar, Carol Browner. He wants to talk to Harper about “building on” an idea for continental carbon emissions plan pitched to him by Mexican President Felipe Calderon at their meeting in Washington during Obama’s transition. Calderon’s plan apparently calls for a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050.  Calderon’s name was mentioned several times during the briefing. The Three Amigos approach lives.

4) On Afghanistan: Obama will not make a direct appeal for Canada to extend its troop presence. However, he will make clear that for the next month and a half he is holding a “strategic policy review” on Afghanistan and that the way forward will not require only military might, but also “all elements of our national power and all elements of national power of our friends and allies.” Sounds to me like an ask for Canadian help in training police or judges or some such thing.

It’s time to talk about North American integration

By Andrew Potter - Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 10:20 AM - 48 Comments

Now that Barack Obama has announced that he will make his first international visit to Canada, Stephen Harper should use the opportunity to rejuvenate an idea that has been shrivelling on the vine this past decade: North American integration.

For decades, the conventional political wisdom in Canada has been that it is never wise for a prime minister to get too close to the Americans, even when the sitting president is popular (as Bill Clinton was, for instance). You can put that wisdom to bed. Not only is our current Prime Minister about as popular as a Leafs jersey in a sports bar on Crescent Street, but the alternatives on display leave most of us cold as well. Meanwhile, Obama is far better liked up here than Stephen Harper will ever be. Harper’s best hope, if he wants a majority government, might be to get as close as he can to Obama and pray that some of the man’s popularity rubs off on him.

Continue…

What a recession feels like

By Philippe Gohier - Sunday, January 25, 2009 at 11:41 PM - 1 Comment

For many, life during the recession of the early ’90s is a distant, rapidly fading memory. And for anyone under 40, it’s the equivalent of a natural disaster in a far away place: You know it happened, and you know that it made many people’s lives miserable, but there’s no visceral connection to it, all of which makes it hard to truly grasp what life was like in the midst of it—and, by consequence, what might await Canadians this time around.

To describe the Bank of Canada’s economic forecast for 2009 as grim would be an understatement. The Bank expects the recession to peak sometime in the next six months, with no tangible rebound until 2010. “Our exports are down sharply,” Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney told reporters last week, “and domestic demand is shrinking as a result of declines in real incomes, household wealth and confidence.” In all, Canada’s GDP will shrink by 1.2 per cent in the coming year, he predicts. And yet, there was a sprinkle of good news amidst the bad: 2010 could turn out to be a banner year, with growth projected to settle at an “above potential” 3.8 per cent. In the meantime, 2009 will bring both the best and the worst of the recession. The wave will crest but it will also break—just like it did in 1992.

So what was Canada like in 1992? In a word: unemployed.

After steady increases in 1990 and 1991, the unemployment rate hit an eight-year high in 1992: a whopping 11.2 per cent for the year and a peak of 11.8 per cent that November. (An economic think tank suggested the rate would have topped out at 13.7 per cent had 345,000 people not given up altogether on their search for work.) Making matters worse, those who lost their jobs had few prospects for a quick turnaround: the average unemployment spell across the country was 22.6 weeks, a hefty 23 per cent increase from 1989. Ontario—and especially its crucial manufacturing sector—was among the hardest hit, accounting for more than 70 per cent of the country’s job losses. In all, 123 manufacturing plants shut their doors in 1992, leaving 250,000 highly-paid workers out of a job. One restaurant owner in Kitchener was overwhelmed with job applications after posting an want ad for a full-time cashier—at $6.50 an hour. “When you have 290 people apply for one position,” he said, “it makes you wonder what’s happening.” By the time the recession was officially over, 1.6 million Canadians were out of work and another 2 million were on welfare.

At the time, many blamed free trade for those staggering unemployment numbers. A Gallup poll taken in the summer of 1992 found that only four per cent of Canadians supported Canada’s free trade agreement with the U.S. and an overwhelming majority opposed its expansion into NAFTA. On both sides of the border, politicians opposed to the agreement gained significant traction. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals were handed a crushing parliamentary majority in 1993 partly on a promise to re-negotiate NAFTA. (The federal government would later consecrate the deal without pressing for any notable changes.) But no political figure benefited from the debate more than Ross Perot, whose quixotic campaign for the White House was epitomized by a plea to voters to listen to the “giant sucking sound” symbolizing flight of U.S. jobs toward Mexico.

Most of all, though, the wave of unemployment prompted a massive loss of confidence in the Canadian economy. An Angus-Reid poll of residents in 16 countries found Canadians were among the most pessimistic in the world: only 68 per cent expected the economy to improve in the next decade, while 27 per cent figured things would get worse; 60 per cent said they were struggling to get by and 65 per cent were afraid they wouldn’t be able to support themselves in their old age. Even those whose businesses were making money during the recession were aware of just how grim the prospects were for the majority of people. An industrial auctioneer interviewed by Canadian Press in late 1992 said he was making record profits selling off the remnants of failed businesses, but conceded that it was coming at a heavy price: “The last recession cut out the fat. This is cutting out the heart.”

Many of the same trends are re-emerging this time around. Last month, Canada’s consumer confidence level continued its three-month slide, dropping even lower than it did during the early ’90s. “I think what we have on our hands right now,” says Pedro Antunes, the director of national economic forecasting at the Conference Board of Canada, “is very much confidence-led decline.” According to the Conference Board’s report, Canadians have not only seen their financial situation worsen over the past six months, they expect things to become worse still in the near future. Another poll taken earlier this month found 23 per cent of Canadians are worried for their jobs and 33 per cent believe they wouldn’t be able to find work should they be laid off.

Meanwhile, the debate over NAFTA has made a brief reappearance and there are fears—unfounded, so far—that Barack Obama’s presidency could mean a return to protectionist trade policy south of the border. On the employment front, Canada’s job numbers have gotten tangibly worse over the past year. The unemployment rate, currently at 6.6 per cent, hit a three-year high in December—and there are worrying signs it will soon climb much higher, led by a steady decline in Canada’s, and especially Ontario’s, manufacturing sector. (TD Economics predicts Canada could shed as many as 251,000 jobs before the year is over.)

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf expects 2009 to be the year the underlying institutions that make up the global economy undergo a seismic shift. “Some entertain hopes that we can restore the globally unbalanced economic growth of the middle years of this decade,” Wolf wrote in a recent column. “They are wrong. Our choice is only over what will replace it. It is between a better balanced world economy and disintegration.” Should Wolf’s predictions prove true, it could very well signal an end to the boom-bust cycles that have characterized the economy for the better part of the last century and a half. But if the final year of the last severe recession is a reliable indicator, twelve months of massive unemployment, knee-jerk protectionism, and widespread panic may, in the end, not change much at all.

Mexico’s civil war

By Michael Petrou - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM - 3 Comments

Silver or lead? It is an offer that is difficult, if not impossible, to refuse for thousands of Mexican police, judges, and politicians tasked with confronting Mexico’s powerful drug cartels. The silver is bribe money. Lead is a bullet to the head—if the victim is lucky. The murders of uncooperative justice officials, and others who cross the cartels, have become increasingly gruesome of late. Beheadings are common.

For decades, during the 70 years that Mexico was effectively a one-party state run by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, a tacit understanding existed between drug cartels and members of all levels of government and state institutions that it was better to choose the silver. This does not mean that everyone from the president on down was on the take. But there was a pervasive lack of political will to confront the cartels, and when drug lords could count on politicians staying in office regardless of how many elections they might face, it made sense to seek mutually beneficial arrangements. Continue…

Divisoria Continental

By Andrew Potter - Monday, November 10, 2008 at 12:00 PM - 0 Comments

Item #38 on the Things To Read pile is Stephen Clarkson’s new book Does North America Exist?, a post-9/11 and post-NAFTA look at whether North America can be said to now “exist” in the same way that Europe exists — as a set of political and economic institutions that might provide the foundations for a new North American identity. 

Yet without even reading a word I think I can safely say that the answer to Clarkson’s titular question is No. I wrote something on this almost two years ago now for the magazine, lamenting the failure of something approximating a new North American identity to get an traction in this country – predictions of a new Here turned out to be far too premature.

To understand just how premature, consider this story – probably the single biggest non-Obama story to come out of the lower portions of this continent last week, and which has gone almost completely unremarked by the press or by our elected officials. Imagine if, say, a plane carrying Rob Nicholson or Stockwell Day were to crash into Rockliffe Park, killing a dozen or so government officials and more on the ground. And imagine if it happened against the backdrop of the government fighting a major domestic insurgency. That is, what if there was at least some reason to suspect they had been assassinated by criminal gangs. You’d think that this would be newsworthy to our NAFTA partners, no?

***

UPDATE: Reader Clarence S points out the Current did a show on this. Link here. 

Obama taps NAFTA architect

By John Geddes - Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM - 3 Comments

The first hard news of the Barack Obama era bodes well for Canada. Various U.S. media reports say the President-elect has asked Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a senior House Democrat, to be his chief of staff.

Emanuel is known in Washington circles as a smart political operator, who once worked as an inner-circle advisor to President Bill Clinton. For Canadians, the good news is that he was a key promoter of the North American Free Trade Agreement inside Clinton’s administration, and remains a thoughtful support of trade as a driver of prosperity, not a threat to economic security.
Continue…

Video: Van Loan in Obamaland

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, August 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM - 0 Comments

I caught up with Government House Leader Peter Van Loan at Invesco Field shortly before Obama’s speech. He gets points for standing in the middle of a crowded hallway and gamely talking into my MacBook, an experience he accurately described as “bizarre.”

▶

Of his conversations with Obama aides, he said: “Everyone we’ve talked to agrees that NAFTA has been very positive for both countries and they want to see it continue. … Everyone I’ve talked to says, no, any concerns about trade are not directed at Canada.”

Megapundit: It was war for oil after all!

By selley - Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 12:58 PM - 0 Comments

Must-reads: Henry Aubin and Margaret Wente on Henry Morgentaler; Gary Mason on Michael Byers.

Shouting into the wind
The politicians have fled Ottawa, but the opinions remain.

As soon as the next American president is inaugurated, the Toronto Star‘s James Travers says the Canadian government should be full steam ahead encouraging Washington “to adjust its current muscular enforcement model and return to the risk management approach”—that’s Traversian for loosening up on border security—and to “expand the NAFTA platform to open other markets.” Unfortunately, he notes, while John McCain is the presidential candidate more likely to be open to such discussions, cozying up to a Republican is a politically risky move. (And it’s official, we’re officially sick to death of this argument. Canadians are not going to reject border security negotiations because the man in the White House has elephant cufflinks.)

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe doesn’t have an awful lot that’s new to say about Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, but fundamentally she believes the backlash is worth the risk for a party that was desperate “to grab the spotlight on a prominent policy issue.” (Previous attempts, she notes—notably Stéphane Dion’s ironclad insistence on a February 2009 pullout from Afghanistan—didn’t end so well.) But she notes that one of the most trenchant criticisms of the Liberal plan, especially given the idea that it’s such sound policy, is the fact that it includes “poverty reduction measures.” One might reasonably ask: Is this meant to fight climate change after all? Or is it “a vehicle to steal votes from other left-wing parties”?

Continue…

While McCain Talks

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Friday, June 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM - 0 Comments

The Obama campaign is hosting a conference call for journalists: “As John McCain speaks in Canada today, United States Senator Sherrod Brown, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland will host a conference call to discuss how McCain’s support of NAFTA and “Bush mindset” on trade policies have contributed to the loss of a million American jobs.”

Obama: NAFTA not so bad

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 3:15 PM - 0 Comments

My friend, the wonderful Nina Easton, has an interview with Barack Obama in Fortune magazine that looks like a bit of a defensive move aimed at a business audience ahead of John McCain’s free trade speech in Ottawa tomorrow.

Nina writes: ” In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

Obama says he believes in “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.” ”

MORE

Did we all see this coming, or what?

The Lynch Report comes to life: Liveblogging Government Ops investigation into the NAFTA Leak Thing Investigation Investigation

By kadyomalley - Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 9:52 AM - 0 Comments

8:46:41 AM
After a flurry of last-minute changes to the schedule – literally, the most recent was at 7:30 this morning and, for all I know, it’s been rejigged again during the half hour or so it took to make it from my apartment to the Hill. It looks like today’s meeting is going to go into extra innings in order to accommodate a very special witness: PMO chief of staff Ian Brodie, who may or may not have unwittingly (or not so unwittingly) kicked off the whole NAFTA leak debacle by suggesting, during an off the record chat with CTV at the budget lockup, that either the Clinton or the Obama campaign had assured Canada that the anti-trade sabre-rattling by the two leading Democratic candidates was nothing but sound and fury to shore up support.

This, of course, led to the initial CTV report, which attributed the comments to a senior PMO staffer, later identified by ABC as Brodie, which, in turn, seems to have sparked the leak of a not-apparently-all-that-secret confidential memo prepared by Canadian consulate staff for the embassy, which eventually found its way to the Associated Press. The rest, as they say, is history. Well, history that is still happening, anyway. Technically, I think that means it’s “news.”
Continue…

BTC: Of course there's no sense speaking above our level

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM - 0 Comments

What must it be like to live in a grown-up country? I bet it’s nice. I bet they have exotic foods there. Like Marmite.

In any event, John McCain’s going to be in Ottawa on Friday. He’s going to give a speech. It’s going to be about North American free trade. He’s going to say he sees it continuing if he becomes president. And this is obviously a crisis.

Indeed, how shameful an event will this be for our country? So shameful that our Prime Minister, having refused to meet with the Republican candidate, will be out of town and has advised all but one cabinet minister and one backbencher to keep an equally safe distance. Continue…

The Commons: Those in mud houses

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM - 0 Comments

The government has plenty of promises, if few explanations, for the mess in Afghanistan

The Scene. Stéphane Dion—not to mention Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae and party whip Karen Redman—were not to be seen when Question Period began this day, the last Monday of this Parliamentary season. And perhaps there was some method in keeping him away.

With just a week left to tarnish this government’s reputation—or, rather, a week left to do so on business hours—the Liberals seem intent on leaving no alleged wrong unreferenced. Indeed, today offered a veritable buffet of the unappetizing—from Julie Couillard’s ambitious seductions to the Chuck Cadman tape to the in-and-out affair, NAFTAgate and the legal aspirations of Vic Toews.

So exhaustive and unrelenting was the opposition that Peter Van Loan, that solid champion of the public trust, was heard crying out for something more substantive. And if Mr. Dion is to announce this week the defining policy of his leadership—a boldly wistful plan that asks voters to put aside the individual needs of now for the sake of meeting a greater common good at some point in the unknown future—it is perhaps best at the moment to put some distance between him and this tawdry business of democracy.

Not, of course, that there weren’t legitimate issues to discuss this day. On the contrary. Just in time for summer, there are entirely new and serious questions to be asked about the country’s mission in Afghanistan. Continue…

Didn't I warn you guys about calling it NAFTAGate? – Liveblogging Gov't Ops

By kadyomalley - Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 10:49 AM - 0 Comments

Short version: Pack your bags, nameless PMO and Foreign Affairs officials, you’re coming to Ottawa. Motion to study the Lynch report passes easily, with barely a peep of protest from the government.

9:27:46 AM
Alrighty then. I’m back from the cafeteria; refreshed, renewed and ready for some hot government-on-opposition action.

A quick recap for those who missed the last liveblog: Government Operations and Estimates is about to begin debate on a motion from Liberal MP Mark Holland to look into the Lynch report on the Whole NAFTA Leak Thing, which is a clever bit of procedural sleight of hand, since it will allow the committee to investigate the leak without straying outside the bounds of its mandate.

Continue…

BTC: Sweet clarity

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 23, 2008 at 8:14 PM - 0 Comments

So the Prime Minister’s chief of staff did speak with at least one reporter in that budget lock-up. And he did pass on information he thought to be true about an American presidential campaign’s discussions with Canadian officials concerning NAFTA. But because he lacked firsthand knowledge of the discussions themselves and incorrectly identified the campaign in question, he didn’t do anything wrong.

Is that about right? Continue…

Careless whispers

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, May 23, 2008 at 5:12 PM - 0 Comments

Or rather, Chinese whispers. Remember that game? You whisper something in a friend’s ear. She whispers it to the person next to her, who whispers it to the next, and so on round the circle, until it comes back to you in some wonderfully mangled form.

There. I’ve saved you the bother of reading the Lynch report .

BTC: The Lynch Report is out

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 23, 2008 at 2:07 PM - 0 Comments

Reading it now. Here’s something.

“With respect to Mr. Brodie, the investigation has found no evidence, and no witness has come forward, to confirm or refute what Mr. Brodie claims was said between himself and the CTV News reporter from Ottawa at the Budget 2008 lock-up. However, based on the sequence of events, it appears probable that Mr. Brodie spoke to the reporter on the subject of NAFTA. Moreover, based on the knowledge the investigative team understands Mr. Brodie had at the time, it is possible that he shared information (which turned out to be incorrect) that Canadian officials in Washington had spoken to Senator Clinton’s campaign regarding NAFTA.”

Update I. Here’s what appears to be the most relevant part for Brodie and Michael Wilson. Continue…