Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy

[Edward Campbell]

It may be the EU trade deal that saves us, in the end. The Europeans fight very, very hard to protect their closed markets but they hate it when anyone else closes their own market - as we do with our egg and dairy marketing boards. The EU is challenging our many and sundry trade barriers, mostly erected by provinces, including the egg and dairy ones. If we really want a free trade deal with the EU we may have to do, finally, what we should have done years ago decades ago: remove many of our harmful, protectionist trade barriers. Will that cost us some jobs? Yes, without a doubt. Will that, also, create many, many more new and better jobs? Yes, again.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, ”good laudy Miss Maudie”, not everyone is ignoring the obvious benefits of the Canada/EU trade deal. In fact Maude Barlow, who can usually be trusted to be on the wrong side of most issues, is aghast, indeed she is shocked, SHOCKED at what’s going on according to this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/what-you-dont-know-about-a-deal-you-havent-heard-of/article1859216/

What you don’t know about a deal you haven’t heard of

MAUDE BARLOW

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

In coming days, Canadian and European officials will intensify negotiations on a new trade agreement most Canadians have never heard of. The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is by far the largest free-trade deal this country has ever undertaken.

If it goes through, CETA will open up the rules, standards and public spending priorities of provinces and municipalities to direct competition and challenge from European corporations. Ottawa refuses to even discuss the environmental implications, but a recent trade sustainability impact assessment commissioned by the European Commission has sounded alarms in several areas.

The report says the kind of liberalizing trade deal envisioned will lead to increased European investment in the Alberta tar sands, and thus to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman has sounded a similar warning in a recent legal opinion, noting that CETA will give corporations the right to ignore or challenge existing or new rules aimed at reducing the current heavy footprint of the tar sands. He posits that the Conservative government sees international trade regimes as an important tool for defeating efforts to address climate change.

The impact assessment also warns that CETA will open the door for European water utilities, such as giant transnationals Suez and Veolia of France, to privatize Canadian public water services and raise rates. Such companies would be able to challenge local water conservation and source protection rules, as well as bottled water bans, as unfair barriers to trade.

Any increase in commodity exports to Europe will place a greater strain on groundwater in Canada, which is already a leading “virtual” water exporter, sending massive amounts of surface and groundwater out of the country in agricultural products. Our current net export of water in grains alone is totally unsustainable, equivalent to twice the Athabasca River’s yearly discharge.

The report also singles out a possible negative impact on northern and first nations communities as the deal opens up massive new industrial, mining, forestry and energy development, leading to “water, air and soil contamination.” Europe is seeking a comprehensive and aggressive global approach to acquiring the raw materials needed by its corporations. At its heart, this deal is a bid for unprecedented and uncontrolled European access to Canadian resources.

This includes fish. The EU is seeking to remove export restrictions and foreign investment limits from Canadian processing plants, as well as increased access to Canadian ports to bring the raw fish back to Europe for processing. Europe has overfished its own waters and is seeking uncontrolled access to ours; the impact report warns that CETA will likely lead to overfishing, especially in the Atlantic.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association warns of another threat posed by this deal. The text on “regulatory co-operation” calls for further harmonization of regulatory measures and requires both jurisdictions to agree before more protective and progressive rules can be adopted. It will now be twice as hard in Europe and Canada to bring in new rules and standards to protect the environment.

Finally, CETA will likely have a NAFTA-type investor-state enforcement mechanism, which means that European corporations will have the same right that U.S. companies now enjoy to sue the Canadian government if it introduces new rules to protect the environment. Gus Van Harten of Osgoode Hall Law School and David Schneiderman of the University of Toronto’s law faculty warn that this tool emphasizes investor protection over government policy in environmental protection, and provides a powerful new means for large corporations to frustrate regulatory initiatives without a comparable mechanism to police these same companies.

A new study of NAFTA’s Chapter 11 dispute mechanism, by Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, found that since NAFTA, Canada has paid $157-million and Mexico has paid $187-million to corporations that challenged their domestic laws, while the United States has yet to pay out in any challenge against it. Canada should expect a similar outcome if it goes up against European transnationals.

CETA is the wrong model for Canada and Europe. Unlimited growth and economic globalization are killing the planet. CETA serves the only profit interests of the big business community. We can do better.

Maude Barlow is national chair of the Council of Canadians

Imagine, provincial and municipal spending being opened up to competition, Oh, the horror!

Hurry quick. The shy is falling
http://www.kudelka.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/98_chicken_little...

 

[Journeyman]

Trade lawyer Steven Shrybman has sounded a similar warning....

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/authors/steven-shrybman  Ah, a Steven Staples fellow-traveller. Check.
[I accept that when I see policyalternatives.ca, with their unabashed track-record of skewing, if not completely ignoring facts, I'm predisposed to shoot the messenger]


Admitting my ignorance, this is a chicken-little approach I'd not yet seen:

Any increase in commodity exports to Europe will place a greater strain on groundwater in Canada, which is already a leading “virtual” water exporter, sending massive amounts of surface and groundwater out of the country in agricultural products.

Yes, I'm aware of us selling water to the States; but how cunning of those damned Harper-ites to smuggle drinking water out of our latte-makers.... in corn on the cob!!

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Admitting my ignorance, this is a chicken-little approach I'd not yet seen:Yes, I'm aware of us selling water to the States; but how cunning of those damned Harper-ites to smuggle drinking water out of our latte-makers.... in corn on the cob!!

I almost hate to admit this but, in a way, she's (almost) right. Modern, industrial farming, especially on the prairies, is more water intensive than earlier, less efficient techniques. So, in a way, we are exporting water when we sell food. But, what is not clear to me ('cause I'm no expert, either), is that while the water per acre has gone up (there is data on that) has the water per bushel or peck or ton or whatever gone up, too? We know water per acre is up but so is crop yield per acre ... I don't know the respective rates and I'm too lazy to do the research. Someone, anyone, Bueller?

But we 'exported' water, under the table, as it were, when my grandfather harvested rapeseed back in the 1920s and '30s; why is it a problem now? I guess it's a good thing we don't export rice (we don't, right?) because that's a really water intensive crop.

 

[Jed]

I am pretty sure we export wild rice from Northern Sask.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am pretty sure we export wild rice from Northern Sask.

Yep, of course we do.  :-[  I forgot about wild rice.

 

[GAP]

you can't store grain with a high water content...it is purposely dried HERE in CANADA down to 11-13% moisture content, otherwise it will rot in the graineries....

It's okay to ship water via grain to the US....we get all of North & south Dakota's winter water here in Manitoba...so it evens out...heck, I'll bet we even use some to irrigate our crops, just to send it back!! (just like swapping spit with the Americans  ;D )

 

[Journeyman]

It's okay to ship water via grain to the US....we get all of North & south Dakota's winter water here in Manitoba...so it evens out...heck, I'll bet we even use some to irrigate our crops, just to send it back!!

So you're not on Maude Barlow's Christmas card list either, eh?  ;D

 

[GAP]

I was happily reading the article, starting to questions things, then I looked at the author.....THAT PRUNE!!

I never did finish reading the article.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm going to take a slam at this one, because for once it is close to my lane.... ;D

The way you make money in the food industry is to sell air, water, starch and sugar: in that order.

The cheapest ingredient is air (in particular the hot air that marketing spews but that is by the bye) as in the air that inflates your bags of chips, the air in the can that isn't completely filled and the air that makes your ice-cream so nice and smooth and light.  Your liter of ice cream is 50% air.

The next cheapest ingredient is water.....and it is lovely to play with because it is everything.  If you bring home a kilo of steaks....you are bringing home 750 g of water.  You bring home a kilo of lettuce ..... you are bringing home 950 g of water.  You bring home a liter of beer, soda or milk .... you are bringing home less water than in that kilo of lettuce (something between 850 and 950 g of water there).  Even a kilo of corn flakes contains 3 to 4 g of water.  In an industry where margins are in the 2 to 7% range (and 7 is generous) 1% retained water can make a significant improvement in the bottom line (increasing the margin from 3% to 4% is a 33% increase in profitability).

Cereals (bulk commodity) usually contain about 10 to 15% moisture with the target being in the 12 to 13 range. 

So yep, Maude's correct.  We sell food.  We sell water.

Having said that.  We buy food.  We buy water.

Now while we may ship 130 g of water down south in a kilo of grains we also import 950 g of water in a kilo of lettuce (and all other fruits and veggies).

Given that both wheat and lettuce really only supply carbohydrates (with much of the carbs in lettuce being useless indigestible cellulose - say 20% of the 5% total solids) then we are actually trading wet carbs for damp carbs.

50 g of lettuce carbs in 950 g of lettuce water
870 g of wheat carbs in 130 g of wheat water

To get the same food value in lettuce that we export in wheat we need to import 870/50=17.4 times more lettuce than wheat - or import 17.4 kg of lettuce for every kg of wheat we export.  That means that we are importing 16.5 kg of water in lettuce while we export 130 g of water in wheat.

We owe California 16.37 kg of water ....

Time to crank up that irrigation ditch.

Maude, as usual, tells half a tale.  It's hard to tell which is the worse: to assume she is unaware of the other half, or to assume she knows the other half but chooses to withhold it.

Short form: if Maude's agin it, I'm fur it. ;D

Edit: I see I'm not alone here...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) Of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a survey of Harper's foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-harper-doctrine-conservative-foreign-policy-in-black-and-white/article2057886/

The Harper Doctrine: Conservative foreign policy in black and white

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011

A few years ago at a conference in Washington, an American diplomat asked a Canadian journalist a blunt question.

“Why doesn’t Canada show up any more?” he wanted to know. “You’re just not at the table like you used to be.”

Canada under Stephen Harper is, emphatically, back at the table – pounding it, actually, while loudly brandishing what could be called the Harper Doctrine.

Tuesday, the House of Commons will debate and approve extending participation in the NATO mission in Libya. That mission is led by a Canadian general. Libya is one of two countries in the region to which Canadian forces are committed, though the mission in Afghanistan is winding down.

Not that long ago, the Canadian military had been starved to the brink of extinction, the federal government had been forced to cut back on peacekeeping commitments, foreign aid was all aspiration and little execution, and our diplomats trumpeted soft power because we had no other kind to offer.

Today, Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.

The Prime Minister reflected this new reality in his triumphalist speech to the Conservative party faithful on the weekend, where he articulated Canada’s approach to the world in a single, potent sentence.

“We know where our interests lie and who our friends are,” he declared, “and we take strong, principled positions in our dealings with other nations, whether popular or not.”

He didn’t call it the Harper Doctrine, but we can. It is startling both in its boldness and its utter lack of nuance.

Under the Harper Doctrine, Canada doesn’t just support the state of Israel. It supports Israel four-square, without reservation.

It doesn’t contribute to NATO and United Nations missions by sending a rusting destroyer or some other token measure. The army has been re-equipped, the air force is being re-equipped, the navy will be re-equipped, despite plans to rein in the dramatically enlarged defence budget. And this government doesn’t hesitate to send that military overseas in the service of Canadian and allied interests.

The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values – so no funding for abortion or for aid groups seen as soft on Israel.

The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north, even as it seeks closer integration with the United States on security and trade.

And to execute the Harper Doctrine, Canada has for the first time in a decade a powerful new foreign minister who has the ear of the Prime Minister and who intimately shares his world view. John Baird could be in that job for a while, unlike the seven in ten years who came before.

Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine: Its slavish adherence to Israel, they say, renders Canada useless as an honest broker in Middle East conflicts.

For them, the billions spent on bringing the military up to grade could have been used to bring the deficit down more quickly, or to reduce inequalities within Canadian society; the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are simply modern imperialism dressed up in humanitarian garb; Canadian assertions on Arctic sovereignty are unenforceable and wrong in international law, while negotiating a continental security perimeter with the United States will further compromise sovereignty.

For these critics, the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.

The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.

But at least Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.

A couple of quibbles:

1. Ibbitson says, “Canada has the political will and military muscle to back up a new and more militant foreign policy.”

Neither is true, at least not as “true” as he suggests. The Government of Canada has the political will but it is not at all clear that it has convinced the country. It isn't so much that most Canadians are opposed – although many, many are – but rather that, unlike say their American, Australian and British counterparts they are somewhere between disinterested and isolationist.

The “military muscle” is stretched too far now, and will be even further stretched if this government does not improve, vastly, upon the financially inadequate Canada First Defence Strategy – which promises, by my calculations, to reduce the share of GDP which is devoted to national defence.

2. Ibbitson says, ”The Harper Doctrine aggressively asserts Canadian sovereignty in the far north ...” which is true, as far as it goes. But, he fails to mention that the Harper Government has not translated those assertions into actions, which require dollars.

Beyond those points, which are not minor, I agree with Ibbitson: ”Canada has a foreign policy again. No one is asking where Canada has gone any more.”

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Some other points that need to be put in perspective are:

'the empty-headed belligerence of the Harper Doctrine lay behind Canada’s humiliating defeat in its bid for a seat at the Security Council.'

When, in fact, there were too many other variables, including the EU to gain more control and the incessant meddling of Iggy and the Stooges, parroted by a biased media. No party in Canada could have bought us a seat during that round.

'The Harper Doctrine permits real money to be spent on foreign aid, but that aid must mirror core Conservative values'

This point can easily be compared to when the libs were in power. It's just the way politics works.

'Harper's detractors in the opposition parties, on university campuses and among some nongovernmental organizations abhor everything about his doctrine'

Of course they do. There's nothing in it for them and Opposition parties, for the last 7 years, have been 'opposing' no matter how much sense policies made because they come from the Conservatives. University campuses are a cesspool of radicalism and just plain empty headed sheep being herded by hippy era educators.

'The Harper Doctrine is so categorical, and so starkly at odds with NDP and Liberal values, that foreign policy could increasingly become a polarizing element in Canadian politics.'

And that is why, Canadians overwhelmingly elected such a strong Conservative government this time around, because they were tired of those same hollow, wishy washy NDP and Liberal values, that Trudeau, Chretien, et al have been snake oil selling to Canadians for so long.


Of course Ibbitson has never shied away from trying to make Harper the boogey man in the closet, even if he has to resort more spinning than a spider on crack.

edit - spelling

 

[Redeye]

I am interested to see how Harper's Israel stance shakes out, it's kind of embarrassing that we look like we're on the wrong side of things vis-a-vis our allies, and the common sense that suggests only a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations.  I don't know if that's in step with average Canadians, and the point about honest broker status is somewhat valid, although I don't think we've ever really had that so much as we've built a sort of cultural myth about it.

As for recceguy's claim about why Canadians elected the government they did - I suspect foreign policy had little to do with it.  I'm not even convinced there was much positive that attracted them to the Conservatives so much as the Liberals having a completely uninspired campaign (and hey, a couple years of ads smearing their leader couldn't have hurt, either).

I do have a feeling that "post-Afghanistan", a lot more interest will be paid to foreign policy.

 

[Old Sweat]

I would agree that foreign policy did not play a part in this election. The only time I recall where foreign and/or defence policy really mattered in my lifetime was in 1963, where the Liberals campaigned on accepting the nukes we had contracted for.

I think the pre-1967 border, while logical on paper and to the "no compromise is too great to achieve an agreement, especially if we don't have to sacrifice anything," crowd, ain't going to fly with the Israelis, especially given the advances in weapon systems since 1967. As a Canadian soldier serving in 4CIBG at the time, the major lesson learned was how easily the Israeli Centurions with bascially the same 105 mm main gun and armour we were using handled the Egyptian and Syrian Soviet tanks. That however has zip to do with today's foreign policy, and I suspect the government adopted this policy on principle, not pragmatism. This must have caused a mass attack of the vapours in the Pearson Building.

And I am with you on your third point, although the thrust may not be quite what you might wish.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As for recceguy's claim about why Canadians elected the government they did - I suspect foreign policy had little to do with it.  I'm not even convinced there was much positive that attracted them to the Conservatives so much as the Liberals having a completely uninspired campaign (and hey, a couple years of ads smearing their leader couldn't have hurt, either).

Nonsense.

Suspect what you will. After all, we're all just speculating.

Perhaps I was seeming too specific, tying my statement to the foreign affairs topic, but the fact that Canadians found they liked the Conservative policies, as a whole, far and above the same old same old of the others, certainly had a huge and obvious bearing on the election outcome.

As for smear ads, that would connotate something sinister. All those ads did was tell the truth, harsh as it was. I saw them more as infomercials. The Conservative ones stood out simply because the attempts made by the NDP and liberals were so amateurish and they didn't have the supporter donations to sustain a long run. Certainly not the fault of the Conservatives that far more people donated dollars to them.

Now personally, I have no problem with it, but obviously, some people just can't seem to handle the truth. Abhorrent though it is to some But hey, it would be boring if we all went around in lock step. 

 

[Redeye]

As for smear ads, that would connotate something sinister. All those ads did was tell the truth, harsh as it was. I saw them more as infomercials. The Conservative ones stood out simply because the attempts made by the NDP and liberals were so amateurish and they didn't have the supporter donations to sustain a long run. Certainly not the fault of the Conservatives that far more people donated dollars to them.

Please.  They were quotemined smears.  Find something Ignatieff said, excise it from the context in which he said it, and then suggest something about him that was patently untrue.  It's hardly a new tactic.  And yes, everyone does it, sure, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Redeye]

I think the pre-1967 border, while logical on paper and to the "no compromise is too great to achieve an agreement, especially if we don't have to sacrifice anything," crowd, ain't going to fly with the Israelis, especially given the advances in weapon systems since 1967. As a Canadian soldier serving in 4CIBG at the time, the major lesson learned was how easily the Israeli Centurions with bascially the same 105 mm main gun and armour we were using handled the Egyptian and Syrian Soviet tanks. That however has zip to do with today's foreign policy, and I suspect the government adopted this policy on principle, not pragmatism. This must have caused a mass attack of the vapours in the Pearson Building.

It certainly doesn't seem to resemble any sort of a pragmatic approach.  Certainly, from a strategic point of view, pre-67 borders without some horsetrading won't fly, but there's a fairly large subset of Israelis that seem to be quite alright with that as a starting point.  It seems obvious to me that the only viable solution is to allow a functioning Palestinian state to get on its own feet and that Israel will need to make concessions to do so.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And yes, everyone does it, sure, but that doesn't make it right.

You keep saying that, however the Conservatives are the only ones that you ever try call on it when you drag out the old smear ad thingy. Always them, never the others. Hardly an unbiased approach.

 

[Redeye]

You keep saying that, however the Conservatives are the only ones that you ever try call on it when you drag out the old smear ad thingy. Always them, never the others. Hardly an unbiased approach.

The Libs did it with the asinine "soldiers ... on the streets ... with guns ..." ad a few years ago.  I didn't see a really good example from either other party during the campaign, but I also avoided seeing any of the ads as much as possible.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It certainly doesn't seem to resemble any sort of a pragmatic approach.  Certainly, from a strategic point of view, pre-67 borders without some horsetrading won't fly, but there's a fairly large subset of Israelis that seem to be quite alright with that as a starting point.  It seems obvious to me that the only viable solution is to allow a functioning Palestinian state to get on its own feet and that Israel will need to make concessions to do so.

The main problem with getting a Palestinian state up and going and "on it's feet", is that neither side can play nice long enough to do so. 
The palestinians attack the Israeli's, Israeli's react, etc.  Hamas and the other groups currently running the Palestinian government, in my opinion, have no real interest in establishing peace.