Justice Beyond the State: Transnationalism and Law, Sept. 20-21, Windsor University [Conference Announcement]

What...My Verizon Phone Will Work on Both Sides of the Canada-U.S. Border? Verizon May Enter the Canadian Marketplace, Ending One of the Most Recognizable Canada-U.S. Digital Border Barriers

One of the most recognizable Canada-U.S. border barriers may soon fall.

So, are you one of the many cross-border travelers who detests either (a) having two phones or (b) adjusting to life without your Verizon cell phone?

Well, your stress may soon be over. (Oh, also, Canadians may see more options for watching NHL and NFL games.)

From Michael Geist TheStar.com:

Reports that U.S. telecom giant Verizon may be preparing to enter the Canadian market has sparked considerable speculation on the likely impact of a company with a market cap greater than Bell, Rogers, and Telus combined. While much of the discussion has centered on wireless pricing, the more significant development may be the shift toward a single North American communications market.

...

The prospect of a Verizon entry into Canada would put a single communications market into overdrive. On the telecom side, Verizon could use its Canadian network to change the approach to roaming in North America altogether, since it would be uniquely positioned to offer a single U.S. and Canadian network. 

The company could move to eliminate roaming fees for U.S. and Canadian customers, while offering cost-competitive U.S. and Canadian roaming together for international providers establishing wholesale roaming agreements. Such a plan would obviously be attractive to the corporate sector as well as regular cross-border travellers, leading to the gradual elimination of roaming and long distance charges for calls throughout North America.

On the broadcasting side, Verizon holds exclusive U.S. rights to both the National Football League and the National Hockey League. Those rights are currently held by BCE in Canada, but a Verizon entry into Canada could shake things up. Verizon could presumably complicate the BCE rights by offering free access to NFL and NHL games to Canadian customers when they travel to the U.S. More interestingly, it could make a play for joint U.S.-Canada rights in the future, moving closer to an elimination of the geographic divide on content rights.

...

With satellite radio and Internet video already close to a single market, regulatory reform to longstanding policies such as simultaneous substitution a possibility, and the geographic lines on telecom, content, and broadcast distribution all increasingly blurred, the big question may be whether Canada is closing in on a common North American communications market.

RIP RIM's Blackberry Playbook; Update on RIM's Non-Demise Demise

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Canada's tech-juggernaut, Research in Motion ("RIM"), now trading as Blackberry, is still adapting to the new world of mobile devices, but its still on path to release a new generations of devices--which can hopefully return this company to premier status.

(Check out Justin McNeil 2012 post The Decline and Fall of the Blackberry Empire.)

First, WSJ reports on Blackberry's 1st quarter loss (and likely 2nd quarter loss), because of Venezuelan foreign currency restrictions.  

(Learn more about Venezuela's long-standing currency issues in this handy Economist article.)

And, yes, Blackberry continues to lose subscribers, but it has the cash to push out its new generation of phones.

But, even when Blackberry does stuff right, that doesn't mean success in this heavily competitive global marketplace for mobile devices.

From Lance Ulanoff's excellent op-ed in today's Mashable, Blackberry PlayBook Is as Good as Dead:

Today, BlackBerry (the company formerly known as RIM) essentially put a nail in the PlayBook coffin by announcing that it would not be converted to the new Blackberry 10 OS. That mobile OS is clearly the future of the company. QNX, though, bought and now developed by BlackBerry, is the past. 

In a Q1 2014 earnings press release, BlackBerry CEO Thorsten Heins outlined the company’s near-term strategy: “Throughout the remainder of fiscal 2014, the company will invest in BlackBerry 10 smartphone launches, and the roll out of BlackBerry Enterprise Service 10, to continue to establish the new BlackBerry 10 platform in the marketplace.”

...

Will Blackberry ever build another tablet? If Heins can turn BB10 and its flagship phones into a success, then yes. But the signs are not promising. From the earnings statement:

“The smartphone market remains highly competitive, making it difficult to estimate units, revenue and levels of profitability ... Based on the competitive market dynamics and these investments, the company anticipates it will generate an operating loss in the second quarter.”

With this kind of fiscal outlook, it’s unlikely the company will invest heavily in new initiatives like rebooting its 7-inch tablet product line. 

So, PlayBook, it was nice knowing you. You were, in fact, impressive and innovative for your time. Your features like cards (at least on a tablet), swipe from bevel, true multitasking, wireless content sharing and more have all been copied by more successful mobile companies.
I guess you can take solace in that.

Video: Yesterday's WWC Cyber-Security Event Featuring U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

Watch yesterday's Woodrow Wilson Center event on on Cyber-Security and public-private partnerships.

For a good, if now out-dated, recap on public-private partnerships & cyber-security, check out this Feb. 2011 article by Lawrence P. Farrell Jr.

Sequester's Bite: House Dem. Report Details U.S. Cutbacks to Critical Canada-U.S. Spending Priorities

BTBObserver shines light on a recent report documenting sequestration's impact on federal agencies, highlight cuts that affect the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship:

The House Committee on Appropriations Democrats released a report detailing the considerable impact sequestration is having on important federal programs. 

Below are excerpts from the must-read report pertaining to the Canada-U.S. relationship:

Airport safety and wait times: …Sequestration reduced Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) FY 2013 appropriated dollars by approximately $600 million, which required CBP to reduce overtime for CBP Officers (CBPO) beginning in early March. These cuts have already led to significant increases in wait times at air ports of entry. (Page 5).

Overall, USCG expects to have approximately 20-50 percent fewer assets in the offshore patrol areas for migrant and drug interdiction at various times over the next several months. The Coast Guard expects to submit a reprogramming request in the next few weeks that will mitigate some of the impacts, but will likely not completely restore planned interdiction patrols. (Page 6).

Ports of Entry: As noted above, sequestration reduced Customs Border Protection Officer (CBPO) overtime availability at the Nation’s ports. This slows the movement of goods across the border and impedes U.S. capacity to facilitate and expedite cargo, adding costs to the supply chain and diminishing global competitiveness.

Land border truck wait times have increased significantly.

• Del Rio and Mariposa both reported wait times of 120 minutes; normal wait times average 15 minutes for both locations.
• Pharr Cargo reported wait times of 105 minutes; normal wait times average 15 minutes.
• Detroit Fort Street Cargo reported wait times of 60 minutes; normal wait times average 5 minutes.
• Other POEs with wait time increases: Nogales, Peace Bridge, Progreso, and Rainbow Bridge. (Pages 18-19).

Maritime cargo also faced delays: LA/Long Beach reported container release delays of 144 hrs (6 days) and Port Everglades and Miami Seaport reported container delays up to 48 hours. And cruise ships saw the effects of reduced CBPO overtime. Los Angeles and Port Everglades reported increased processing times of 6.5 hours; normal processing time is 4 hours.

Sequestration will also affect Border Patrol coverage between ports of entry, but DHS is still attempting to find additional savings. CBP expects to submit a reprogramming notification soon to mitigate some of these impacts and to prevent the need to furlough CBPOs for an estimated 3-4 days. (Pages 18-19).

Read the entire report here.

Canada Needs Three Arctic Ports - Fmr. Canadian Northern Forces Commander

The Hill Times offers this editorial from Pierre Leblanc, former Canadian Northern Forces commander and current President of Canadian Diamond Consultants, Inc., urging Canada to construct three Arctic ports:

Canada needs three ports in the Arctic: on its West Coast, in the centre of the archipelago, and on the East Coast.

There is near-unanimous agreement that the Arctic is warming at about twice the rate of global warming elsewhere. There is also clear evidence that the arctic polar ice cap is fast disappearing. Human activity in the Arctic is increasing exponentially as the Arctic becomes increasingly accessible. Maritime traffic has grown significantly.


The U.S. Coast Guard has reported that commercial maritime traffic through the Northern Sea Route along the Russian Coast increased tenfold between 2010 and 2012. Canada’s Northwest Passage was free of ice in 2007, years ahead of scientific predictions. It has been free of ice every summer since.

There is growing interest in harvesting the natural resources that have been shielded by the permanent polar ice cap. This will naturally lead to further increases in human activity and a greater incidence of search and rescue operations and maritime accidents. Such incidents could lead to an environmental catastrophe, in what is recognised as a very fragile environment with a short vertical food chain. Almost any major accident in the Arctic will affect the “human security” of its inhabitants.

...

Nunavut Premier Eva Aariak has stated that one of the anchors of sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic is having healthy communities. By investing and developing ports such as those proposed, the federal government could put concrete action behind Minister Leona Aglukkaq’s stated desire to develop the Arctic during Canada’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council. It would create a significant number of long term well-paying jobs for the communities in and around those ports. “Build a road and they will come” it is said. In the Canadian Arctic, ports will attract business. In so doing, Canada would also improve greatly its ability to deal with SAR [search and rescue] and marine pollution and meet its international commitments.

Flashback: Canada's Role in the U.S. Civil War

The Globe and Mail offers up Tim Cook's favorable review of John Boyko's new work Blood and Daring:  How Canada Fought the American Civil War and Forged a Nation.

Some interesting facts re: Canada and the U.S. Civil War:

• 40,000 = # of Canadians who fought in the Civil War.
• 12,000 = # of Civil War Draft dodgers who made Canada home.

But, most interesting, is Boyko's apparent contention that it was during America's bloodiest years that Canada, under John A. Macdonald government, truly became a nation.

From Tim Cook's review:

Relations between Canada and the North were not helped by the open gloating of many Canadians and their newspapers over the fast-collapsing republican experiment to the south. But far more damaging was the harbouring of Confederate terrorists who set up home in various Canadian cities, especially Montreal and Toronto, and then launched cross-border raids.

There were calls throughout the North for American troops to cross the border in retaliatory expeditions and to abrogate trade treaties. Canada barely stood the pressure. While the story here is firmly set in the past, one cannot help but draw parallels to terrorist and border threats in the early 21st century.

Even after the cessation of hostilities in 1865, the threat continued, with Irish-American Fenians storming into Canada in the ludicrous dream of capturing it and holding it ransom so that Britain would be forced to set Ireland free.The raids were enough to topple an anti-Confederation government in New Brunswick and eventually led to that colony entering into Confederation with Nova Scotia, Canada East and Canada West, on July 1, 1867.

Blood and Daring is a fast-paced read, and Boyko skillfully weaves together the complex and conflict-filled Canadian, British and American wartime policy, with John A. Macdonald emerging as the nation-building hero that he was, fending off American threats of annexation and holding off weak-willed British politicians who sought to cut Canada loose. That Canada survived was probably against the odds, but this nation has a habit of doing that.

Canada's cool COOL Trade War with the United States

The posturing over U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) rules continues!

I know, just what you needed to get your Monday kick-started...

(Note:  I really want to interview the people in the Dep't of Agriculture that drafted the original and now reworked COOL, or MCOOL, rules.  I feel like they'd give a delicious bureaucratic description of this very technical, but very live trade issue between two of the world's friendliest nations.)

Check out BTBObserver on Canada's latest COOL retaliatory warning shot.

Canada's Securities Plan C (aka Flaherty's Folly): After Defeat of National Regulator, Failure of Cooperative Federal-Provincial Approach, Harper Settles on Skimmed Down National Securities Regulator

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

There's nothing like talking securities regulation to get the morning juices flowing!

But, then again, seeing as increasingly more Canadians and Americans mood follows market swings (FYI-this is not a good life plan), perhaps it will?

And, anyway, it gives you the opportunity to see just how weird Canada is.

Out of the world's major economies, Canada is the only nation that does not have a federal securities regulator.  Instead, it leaves the regulation of financial trading instruments--whether they be stocks, bonds, the markets they are traded in, or dreaded derivatives--to provinces.

It's a quirk of history and federalism, and one that the Harper government had been assiduously trying to change.  

Harper tasked Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty with creating a national regulator. 

First, Flaherty spent years developing, vetting, and constitutionally scrutinizing a plan for a national securities regulator.

Result:  the Canadian Supreme Court (understandably, in my opinion) torpedoed it.

Then Flaherty then spent a about a year trying to get a joint provincial-federal substitute. 

Well, the verdict's in:  Flaherty's folly is over.

Reuters reports on Canada's Securities Plan C:  Give up; federalize the securities slice they can; move on. 

Canada is pushing ahead with plans to create a new but watered-down version of a national securities regulator as its campaign to create a more powerful watchdog like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission appears to be headed toward failure.

The Conservative government's new plan would bypass the country's powerful provinces and focus on detecting market risk, sources familiar with the process told Reuters. This alternative, however, is unlikely to impress investors and the financial industry given its limited powers and the potential for duplication and more bureaucracy, industry officials say.

Ottawa has tried for decades to replace a patchwork of 13 provincial regulators with a single agency more in tune with today's globalized markets, arguing it would reduce costs and give it more clout to deal with the cross-border effects of reforms like the U.S. Volcker Rule.

For background on Canada's unique approach to securities regulation, and the failure Canadian legislation aiming to create an aggressive national regulator, read Securitizing Canadian Federalism:  The Supreme Court of Canada and the Proposed Canadian Securities Reform Act [2011]. 
.

Why Crossborder Infrastructure Matters: BTB & Skagit River I-5 Bridge Collapse

By Keith Edmund White

On Thursday, May 23rd, the Skagit River Bridge collapsed, bringing down a critical trade link between Canada and the United States.
It may not be surprising, then, that a week latter Canada and the United States gave an official roll-out to the Canada-United States Border Infrastructure Investment Plan (BIIP). (BTB Observer blogs on the roll-out here, and provides a nice link to the actual plan).

Last Thursday, the NYTimes reported

on the impact of the collapse to the town of Burlington, WA:

The malls are still open, and the cars and trucks creeping through town day and night along the detour routes are testament that the highway corridor, though temporarily crippled, is still in use. But now the people are not coming to buy, and they are mostly not stopping. The message by the state to avoid the area to help ease congestion, and the news images of stalled traffic and twisted steel, have created a secondary collapse, business and political leaders here said, in a community that was poised this year to finally break through, back to prerecession health.

...

That a 160-foot section of highway bridge could catastrophically fail without causing serious injuries — cars into the river, passengers treated and released — is still a source of head-shaking wonder. About 70,000 vehicles used the half-century-old steel truss bridge every day, and the evening rush had barely ebbed when, around 7 p.m. last Thursday, a truck’s oversize load struck a girder, crumpling the structure in a chain of events still being investigated by federal authorities.

State transportation officials said this week that they are hoping to have a temporary spanin place by mid-June, with a permanent fix later this year. But they also cautioned that the temporary bridge — truckloads of components began arriving this week — will be constrained in its use and capacity, with a reduced speed limit. Detours for oversize vehicles will remain in place for months.

The United States has a D+ infrastructure problem. Perhaps the increased attention of this collapse, and the international attention it brings can ensure, at the very least, vital border crossings are maintained.
In any case, it shows that the Canada-U.S. relationship plays an important and daily role in the lives of Americans and Canadians, alike. And getting Canada-U.S. priority issues done right not just secures economic growth in both nations, and works to protect lives.

Chinese Software Counterfeiting Alone Costs U.S. 2.1 Million Jobs

From an op-ed by fmr. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Jon Huntsman, Jr., '12 Republican presidential contender, in yesterday's WaPo:

The scale is staggering. The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, which we co-chaired, estimates that the total revenue loss to U.S. companies is comparable to the total value of U.S. exports to all of Asia. U.S. software manufacturers — a sector in which this country leads the world — lose tens of billions of dollars in revenue annually from counterfeiting just in China, where the problem is most rampant. The U.S. International Trade Commissionestimated in 2011 that if IP protection in China improved substantially, U.S. businesses could add 2.1 million jobs.

We agree with Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of U.S. Cyber Command, that the ongoing theft of U.S. intellectual property is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”

Canada Losing It's Sci-Tech Advantage?

For a nation that had punched well above its weight in the sci-tech sector, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council's latest report isn't good news.

But Canada can just count on its booming natural resources sector...forever?

Highlights from Wells' column and the STIC Report that suggest Canada may be losing its sci-tech edge:

• If it manages to push Canada up 7 spots in international rankings of research intensity, the country will be back where it was, compared to peer countries, on the day Stephen Harper became prime minister.
• "So Canada has more scientists than ever, and each is able to do less science than she would have been able to do a decade ago."
• "The ability to deploy our talent to best advantage—to maximize the impact of people’s knowledge and skills in our labour force and our society—is equally important...in the services sector, Canada’s performance is mediocre when compared to other OECD countries. In manufacturing, the picture is dismal—the HRST share of the manufacturing labour force is among the lowest in the OECD." (STIC Report, Chapter 7) 
• "At the beginning of this century, Canadian business R&D funding stood at 1.05 percent of GDP, and it has fallen fairly steadily to 0.81 percent in 2011." (STIC Report, Chapter 3)

From Paul Wells' praiseworthy column in Maclean's:

The good news is that on pure science, Canada continues to perform better than most other countries. “With a share of only 0.5 percent of global population, Canada accounted for 4.4 percent of the world’s natural sciences and engineering publications in 2010. This positions Canada eighth after countries with significantly larger populations: the U.S., China, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, France and Italy.”

The bad news is that Canada is letting its science advantage fritter away, as if that could somehow help its private-sector R&D gap close. In 2007 Canada continued to rank first among G7 countries in HERD, or R&D expenditure in the higher-education sector. But as I have argued elsewhere, it’s increasingly useful to consider the G7 as an international losers’ club. It’s the U.S., Japan and Old Europe. When you throw Canada into the larger pool of 41 countries STIC looks at — countries with a bit of mojo, like Brazil, India, China, Poland, Israel and Sweden — Canada has fallen from third in 2006, to 4th in 2008 — to 9th in 2011. “With their significant investments in research and higher education,” this panel writes, “other countries are catching up and overtaking Canada.”

Between 2006 and 2010, the annual number of science PhD graduates in Canada grew by nearly half — a lagging reflection, I suspect, of the formidable growth in science capacity in Canada between 1997 and 2002. A generation of students came of age at a time when Canada was developing an international reputation as a relative science oasis. They had their university careers and came onto the job market. But it’s a shaky market now. This larger cohort of scientists is searching for stagnant or declining grant budgets. Success rates for research grant applications are falling. So Canada has more scientists than ever, and each is able to do less science than she would have been able to do a decade ago.

It’s a peculiar situation. The government has known, since its first year in office, that the private sector is not doing enough applied research. Its response has been to put the brakes on pure research in universities. The result has been that the weakness has continued to aggravate, while the strength has been put in danger. At Davos more than a year ago, Harper said his government would “continue to make the key investments in science and technology necessary to sustain a modern competitive economy.” It’s not clear what he meant by “continue.” It is true that recent changes at the National Research Council are designed to bolster, or accompany, or synergize with, or somehow prop up private-sector applied research. I can only wish the NRC luck. If it manages to push Canada up 7 spots in international rankings of research intensity, the country will be back where it was, compared to peer countries, on the day Stephen Harper became prime minister.

America's Likely U.S. Trade Representative Brings Deep Canada-U.S. Experience

iPolitics offers this insight into Michael Froman, the White House's nominee for United States Trade Representative:

With a doctorate from Oxford, Froman has been a friend of the president since their days at Harvard law school — of which he’s also a graduate.

Most recently, however, he’s played a sherpa role in the lead up to G-8, G-20, and APEC summits, and Schwab maintains he’s got the president’s full attention.

“They’ve got a USTR who clearly has the president’s ear,” Schwab followed. “I think the key is to get him in place as soon as possible.”

Scotty Greenwood — a senior advisor at the American-Canadian Business Council — told iPolitics that in addition to being extremely intelligent, Froman also has a great grasp of the Canada-U.S. relationship, having done a lot of work behind the scenes to drive forward the Beyond the Border and regulatory cooperation initiatives.

“He was the U.S. sherpa for G-20 and G-8 as well as APEC, and what that means is there are lots of opportunities for him to — from the point of view of the National Security Council and advisor to the president — to coordinate the White House interaction with the prime minister,” she said.

“Because of all the multilateral get-togethers that Canada and the U.S. are both part of, the president and the prime minister had quite a large number of opportunities to interact with each other right after the president was elected. So Michael Froman was in the middle of all that.”

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Makes 'The Daily Show'

Canada's newest cross-border celebrity?

Comedy Central's Canada High clip summary: "Mayor Rob Ford is either the victim of malicious video editing, or has decided to clean up Toronto by smoking all its crack himself."

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stephen Harper Highlights BTB in Interview with Robert Rubin

From the Council on Foreign Relations A Conversation with Stephen Harper's Q&A session:

GORDON GIFFIN: So my -- really, my question is, is there a chance of a much bigger initiative between our two countries at some point, to break down the anachronistic rules that impede economic efficiencies in North America, some of which have been done in Europe? I'm not talking about creating an EU with a large governance or anything, but the economic efficiencies.

Last thing I'll say, when I was in Canada working on things like this, I found the impediment to that to be an insecurity in Canada about dealing with the United States, that we were somehow going to assimilate Canada. I don't see that anymore. I think Canada's much more self-confident in dealing with the United States and the world. So if that's the case, is there a chance at doing a bigger deal going forward?

HARPER: Well, Gordon, let me just begin by just repeating -- I know you're familiar with it -- some of the things we are doing, because I think we do have some significant initiative going forward.
We have the -- what we call the Beyond the Border Initiative where we are attempting through a series of individual initiatives and investments and closer cooperation between border authorities, to make things more seamless at the border and to push a lot of -- you know, inspections out around the perimeter of North America to try and arrange our affairs so that, as we say things, are -- things are -- you know, may enter twice, but are inspected only once. And we're doing some of those things.

We also have a parallel initiative called the Regulatory Cooperation Council, where we've identified 29 areas to create greater consistency and harmonization of regulations and more importantly, in my judgment, especially for our side, is to find ways in those areas where we will prevent regulatory -- unnecessary regulatory difference and duplication going forward, where we try and identify some of those things in advance, try and change some of the processes.

And I should mention one very specific project of international cooperation, which is the president just issued a permit for the Detroit River International Crossing, which this is financed largely by Canada, but this will be -- this is a huge piece of infrastructure in what is -- and we often forget the size of this relationship -- what is the largest single trade corridor in the entire world, the Detroit-Windsor trade corridor.
So we have some important initiatives going forward. Could they lead to something systemically more integrated? Look, I think on our side, they could. I think on our side, they could. I agree with your assessment. I think the view -- we had a watershed election in 1988 over the free trade agreement with the United States, and the opponents argued that whether economic integration with the United States -- greater economic integration and trade would lead to wealth or not, it would cause Canada to lose its political independence and identity.

What we've seen is it has led to vast increases in cross-border trade without any such loss of political independence or identity. In fact, this past year, as you know, we've been celebrating the War of -- the War of 1812, which --
RUBIN: I know. (Chuckles.)

HARPER: -- permanently established this -- (laughter) -- this independence and separate identity. So I think that -- there will always be opponents in Canada, but I think that is a real minority view now.

I think the resistance to this kind of thing's far more in the United States than in Canada, for reasons that -- and maybe, Bob and others, for reasons you would better fathom than me. 

Some of it's post-9/11 security concerns, but I've never seen -- the United States in the past decade is -- the sensitivity here about sovereignty and the negative assessments I often read of NAFTA -- completely counterfactual assessments of NAFTA -- I think, are the real barriers. I think the real barrier to making some of these arrangements broader and more systemic in terms of the integration are actually on this side of the border.

Canada-EU Stalled Trade Deal: Can the Tories Deliver on Free Trade?

Well, it was supposed to be done in 2012.

From today's The Globe and Mail:

The Harper government is pushing hard to secure a trade deal with the European Union before the Commons adjourns in June, an achievement the Conservatives sorely need to demonstrate they can ink ambitious accords that reduce Canada’s reliance on the United States.

Ottawa is in a race against the clock now that the European Union is turning its attention to a separate accord with the United States – a development that threatens to overshadow EU negotiations with Canada.

...

But time could be working against Canada. Ottawa’s long-delayed trade deal with South Korea stands as a reminder of what can go wrong when Canada fails to beat the United States to the punch. “The Canada-Korea free-trade deal was absolutely in the last stages and was completely set aside when Korea started to negotiate with the U.S.And the U.S. completed and Canada still languishes,” said Ted Haney, president of the Canadian Beef Exporting Federation.

The Tories are under pressure to deliver. Almost since taking office, they have talked of signing major trade agreements that diversify commerce away from the slow-growing United States but have so far failed to land one significant accord that would underpin what has become a major pillar of the Harper economic strategy. Negotiations with India and other big economies have also made little progress.

Another issue that may be a sticking point:  European bans on fracking could be challenged under a Canada-EU free trade pact.

Will U.S. Energy Greening Stiff Canada? If It Does, U.S. Will Alienate an Ally and Probably Just Promote Self-Defeating Green Policies

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

When we think of Canadian energy, Keystone XL reigns supreme.  But did you know about the abundant hydropower the U.S. gets (and could get more of) from Canada?  In short, efforts to find sustainable 'green' energy alternatives are great.  But stiffing Canada in the process only alienates a partner and makes it more likely that government subsidies or other protections to green projects won't work on the global marketplace.

“Even green protectionism is protectionism nonetheless.” - Jim Prentice, former Conservative cabinet member, 2006-10 (Minister of Industry, Environment, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Most Americans sympathetic to protective trade practices usually think of combating low-cost Chinese goods, not blocking our lucrative crossborder trade with Canada.

And most Americans concerned about the environment, wouldn't think that 'greening' the United States means protective trade practices.

But Jim Prentice, former Conservative three-time cabinet official from 2006-10 and now CIBC Vice President, reminded a Halifax audience of three important developments:

• North America is on the verge of being energy independent
• How the United States goes about promoting green energy could essentially lead to U.S. energy protectionism that directly affects Canada
• Canada's energy sector will rejuvenate Canada's Atlantic provinces.

From The Globe & Mail: 

“If we play our cards right, there will be profound opportunities for Atlantic Canada and for our country as a whole,” he told the Maritimes Energy Association in Halifax, according to a text of his speech.

But he said Canadians can’t take access to the U.S. market for granted.

Rather, Prentice warned that they should be vigilant about signs of protectionism coming in the form of low carbon fuel standards or regional requirements to use specific amounts of renewable energy.

“Canada must continue to fight for a continental energy marketplace that is free of national and sub-national impediments. Interventions by government, while well meaning, are nevertheless potentially damaging and counter-productive,” he said.

In short, Canada offers the United States a rich and diverse set of energy. And, frankly, both countries should to looking at a regional--not national--approach to energy.

Why? Well, because we share rich deposits of natural gas and oil along our shared border. And hydropower already links of nations.

But there's also this:  Shorting our critical energy player who can already provide abundant high and low-carbon energy sources to prop up U.S. energy production is likely to not even make the U.S. more 'green' in the long-term   

Instead, 'green' U.S. policies should incorporate the dynamics of its Canadian partner, so that both nations can focus their resources in ways that benefit both--and lead to lasting energy providers in both nations that can compete internationally.  The other option, making U.S. green energy policy in a vacuum--and ignoring the rich energy we can get from Canadian oil and hydropower--just means the policies the U.S. support just won't be the best fit for North America, or match the business dynamics of the global energy marketplace.

In short, the United States should ensure that it continues to use Canada as a partner to promote sustainable energy solutions.   The other option not only alienates a critical ally, but also makes it less likely that U.S. green initiatives will stick in the long-term. 

Is the Keystone XL Pipeline Irrelevant?

Will building Keystone only save $5 a barrel or oil?

According to a State Department report, rail (or rail/tanker combo) is a viable alternative to Keystone XL.

From the Washington Post's Brad Plumer:

There are also the economics to consider. The State Department report estimates that shipping Alberta’s heavy crude by pipeline costs about $10 per barrel, with rail in the $15 to $18 per barrel range. Yet some producers are telling Reuters that shipping by train to the Gulf Coast could cost as much as $30 per barrel.

Now, even at those higher prices, shipping tar sands by rail can still be viable — it all just depends on the demand for oil and available alternatives. Here’s one illustrative example: In March, refiners in Texas could buy Mexico’s Mayan heavy crude for around $106 per barrel. Meanwhile, Canadian heavy crude was selling for about $83 per barrel up north. At those prices, for tar-sands product to be competitive down in the Gulf Coast, transport costs would need to stay under $23 per barrel. Not impossible, but harder without a pipeline.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to predict what will happen. If the White House does block Keystone XL, that will certainly make life more difficult for tar-sands producers at the margins. There’s a reason why Canada’s oil industry strongly supports this $5.3 billion pipeline project. But it’s impossible to say for sure that the industry won’t find a way to bring that extra oil to market — especially since the rewards are so lucrative.

“There’s no test case,” writes Schor. “Either Keystone XL will get approved or it won’t.” And how you think about this question goes a long way toward how you think about the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline.

What I find most interesting is the selective cost and environmental comparisons of Keystone XL pipeline pathway alternatives and "no action" (i.e. no pipeline alternatives .  

But instead of summarizing, how about I just give you this link to the whole report, and show the "no action" alternative report section below:

Colin Robertson Urges Canada to Embrace "Digital-Age Diplomacy" Towards U.S.

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Can Canada magnify its influence in the United States through Blackberries, not consulates?

Colin Robertson uses the dust-up over a proposed U.S. government study on a new border fee to urge a revamp of Canada's U.S. diplomatic strategy.

Or as he puts it, "wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests."

But how? In the face of tightening budgets, Canada has cut its consulate offices, the traditional way foreign offices advocate for their foreign policy interests and build strong bilateral ties.

Robertson's answer: ditch the office, take the blackberry.  From his The Globe and Mail editorial, whose title regrettably distracts from Robertson's main argument:

The lesson we can draw from both the DHS kerfuffle and the bridge saga is that we need to wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests.

We need a thousand points of contact to complement our embassy and our consulates. This means taking our game to the States because by the time a problem reaches Congress we are fire-fighting.

Recent budget paring in Canada has reduced our consulates in the United States to fifteen. Yet, what we need is representation in every state. We can do it, within budget, by doing diplomacy differently.

Recruit talent from the Canadian expatriates who are already living in each state. Let them practice digital-age diplomacy. Drop the black tie for a BlackBerry and a working knowledge of new media.

With some exceptions – our embassy’s prime location on Pennsylvania Avenue is crucial, and the Los Angeles consul-general’s residence is a second home for Canada’s entertainment industry – these diplomats can work from their homes or incubator offices to spot opportunities for trade and investment.

[Note: I suspect many of these digital diplomats--Canadian or not--will be opting for iPhones over Blackberries.]

I think Robertson's editorial starts a good discussion for all world capitals on how nations can assert their interests in the 21st century. Dispatching staff to various locations, assuming that plane fare and gas reimbursements don't eat away at office savings, does seem to make sense whether its foreign subnational governments, small and medium-sized business, or ex-patriots a point of contact.

And going with Canadian expatriates makes sense as well.

But, as a biased American citizen, I would be remiss if I didn't stress the advantages of enlisting Americans in  any future Canadian digital diplomacy.

DHS Budget: White House Proposes Overall Cut, Biggest Surprise Loser? Coast Guard

So the White House's budget calls for overall cuts to DHS.  But will Congress stick with them?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor in Chief

Mickey McCarter does an excellent job rounding out the White House's budget--something I had hoped to do in more detail, but after two weeks I'm throwing in the towel.

But, keep in mind, that it was Congress that actually kept FY13 spending level at FY12 levels, shielding DHS from sequester.

And with the recent events in Boston, I will not be surprised if attempts to bolster homeland security spending don't find bipartisan support in Congress.  (Note:  Just look at the Massachusetts Democratic primary for John Kerry's former Senate seat.)

Yet, that makes a big assumption:  that Congress will actually pass a FY14 budget, and not punt through continuing resolutions--a move which may or may not affect current agency spending levels. 

Oh, and then there's sequestration.

From McCarter's article on the overall budget:

The White House Wednesday unveiled its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies, calling for $39 billion in discretionary funds for DHS, a reduction in its overall budget.


In a separate proposal pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Disaster Relief Fund would receive $5.6 billion.

The administration compared the overall proposed numbers to enacted levels in FY 2012 as it did not have final numbers for FY 2013, which only were decided on at the time of the signing of a FY 2013 consolidated spending bill on March 26. As compared to final FY 2012 levels, DHS discretionary spending would be down 2 percent in the budget proposal.

...

According to the Homeland Security 2014 Budget in Brief, most DHS agencies would experience budget cuts of five to eight percent, which is in addition to the sequester imposed on the department -- should the sequester continue.

And his article focusing on the tough decisions Napolitano is asking Congress to make:

The increase in spending at the DHS S&T Directorate would go toward fully funding the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kan., Napolitano said.

The facility is necessary to replace the failing Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which soon will not be able to support national requirements to defend against threats posed by biological agents, Napolitano said.

"This innovative federal-state partnership will support the first Bio Level 4 lab facility of its kind, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that is central to the protection of the nation's food supply as well as our national and economic security," Napolitano said in her testimony.

The state of Kansas already has put up $320 million to build the center, Napolitano said. DHS must respond with its portion of the funding, totaling $714 million.

"At some point, we have to bite the bullet," Napolitano said of finishing NBAF construction.

The Buddy-less Study? Proposal to Study a Possible U.S. Border Fee Gets Another Opponent

Keith White on growing Congressional opposition to a White House proposal to study the impact of adding a new crossborder fee.

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Bill Owens (D-NY) has pledged to "explore all legislative options" to prevent a proposed DHS study on the "feasibility and cost" of a new border fee at northern and southwestern U.S. border crossings.

Who thought a boilerplate study would generate such buzz?

But when the study relates to slapping a new fee on crossborder travel between the United States and Canada, pushback is to be expected.

A New Canada-U.S. Border Fee? Prospect of a New U.S. Fee Worries Both Sides of the Border

Will the United States slap travelers with a new fee when crossing the Canada-U.S. border?

The White House's proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget includes boilerplate directing DHS to study the "feasibility" of imposing a new Northern and Southwest cross border fee.

Beyond the Border Observer, a blog from the Woodrow Wilson Center's Canada Institute, provides some useful background and roundup of critical responses in Canada and the United States. 

Think Canada-U.S. Trade Issues Are Settled? Think Again.

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

With all this blog's focus on the Canada-U.S. trade and economic relationship, I realized some readers may think:   Canada-U.S. trade issues are so 1992.

Well, just look at what barriers remain between the United States and Canada.

Here's a description of Canadian barriers to U.S. trade (go to pages 53-61):

And for the Canadian perspective, check out this 2008 report (pages 19-21):  (Question:  Anyone know if there's been an update?)

A summary of these findings will be highlighted latter.  

But one take-away is obvious:  NAFTA didn't end trade issues between Canada and the United States.

Mowat Centre and CUSLI Talk Stress Need for a Binational Approach to Ensure a Vibrant Great Lakes Future

A new group is working to ensure the Great Lakes Region is seen as the Fresh Water Coast, and not the Rust Belt.

Last week's Toronto Star highlighted the launch of The Council of the Great Lakes Region (CGLR).  

The goal:  secure a bright future for the the Great Lakes Region by bringing together the many public, private, and non-profit groups in the region, identify keys issues facing the region, and then develop and implement solutions.  

Whether its encouraging tourism, pushing policies in the public and private sphere that foster advanced manufacturing, addressing climate change, or pushing regulatory alignment in this bi-national trading hub, The Council of the Great Lakes Region (CGLR) has its work cut out for it.

David Kocan and Matthew Mendelsohn, directors of the Canada-U.S. Law Institute and the Mowat Centre, respectively, and CGLR launch committee co-chairs, talked CGLR and Great Lakes water levels in last Thursday's Toronto Star:

People on both sides of the border know that the health of the economy and the ecosystem on one side of the border will impact those on the other side. But no organization has a mandate to focus on the future of the binational region.

Infrastructure, energy, investment attraction and tourism are just a few of the issues where closer co-operation would benefit people on both sides of the border. Some of the first issues the new council will tackle will be water levels, infrastructure renewal and border improvements.

The future is unpredictable, but looking forward 25 years, the communities around the Great Lakes are a good bet to be among the best places in the world to live. But we must steward that common future together, with smart regulatory, policy and planning choices.

Until now, the region has not had a voice. With the founding of the Council of the Great Lakes Region, it finally does.

Snap Summary: CUSLI Nexus, Day 2, Energy Panel - Shared Energy Resources and Strategies in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region

A diverse group of energy experts shared presentations on the changing North American energy relationship.  The main takeaway: Canada-U.S. energy relations are changing, and whether its short-term energy development to meet current needs, or long-term shifts to green energy through coordinating North American power generation, sustained Canadian-U.S. engagement will be critical.

Julie Dill:  “Energy Is Good for the Region…[and building] a Strong and Sustainable Future”

Natural Gas Is Here, And With It Energy Will Flow to the Great Lakes Region Increasing Not From Alberta but from the Great Lakes Itself and the Northeast.

Snap Summary: CUSLI Conference 2013, Day 2, Bridge Builders Panel

The panel, chaired by Mowat Center Director Matthew Mendelsohn, discussed the great challenges facing the Great Lakes Region.  From just this emerging list of Great Lakes priorities, its clear ha there is a need for an organization like The Council of the Great Lakes Region (CGLR) is bring together experts and decision-makers to ensure a bright future for the Great Lakes Region.

Water and Non-Native Invasive Species.  Former Ohio Governor Robert Taft stressed water and non-native invasive species, noting the region’s core interdependence does not just derive from deep economic ties, but from geography and natural resource distribution.

Jobs.  Former Mayor of Toronto David R Miller gave a three-pronged proposal to generate jobs in the Great Lakes Region.

Snap Summary, CUSLI Conference Panel 3 – The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region in the Era of Global Competition

The Canada-U.S. economic relationship is fundamentally different with the raise of new major economic powers.  And public policies, whether workforce training or deciding how much foreign State-owned industries (read: China) can buy into domestic industries.

The panel participants:

Jim Dickmeyer, U.S. Consul General in Toronto (Chair)

Renato Discenza, C Suite Leader in Private and Public Sector

Kasi V. P. Rao, Kasi Rao Consulting Inc.

P. Kelly Tompkins, Executive Vice President for Legal, Government Affairs and Sustainability, and Chief Legal Officer,  Cliffs Natural Resources and President, Cliffs China

Christopher Smille, Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs at Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Douglas Porter, BMO Capital Markets

The Global and Canada-U.S. Economic State of Play:  U.S. Looking Up, Canada Down a Touch, Great Lakes is a Critical Economic Player

Douglas Porter, of BMO Capital Markets, kicked off the panel with a presentation on the state of the global economy.

CUSLI Conference: Lunch Time!

Panel #2 – Snap Shot Summary: Water Governance in the Great Lakes Region

The Great Lakes can't solve all environmental threats facing the Great Lakes, but it can set an example for other regions and nations to follow.  And check out the Great Lakes Futures Project.

A pre-Q&A summary of the second panel of the CUSLI 2013 Conference.

Participants: 

• Lana Pollack, Chair of the U.S. Section, International Joint Commission (Chair)
• Andy Buchsbaum, Regional Executive Director, Great Lakes Regional Center, National Wildlife Federation
• Tim Eder, Executive Director, Great Lakes Commission
• Gail Krantzberg, Professor and Director of the Dofasco Centre for Engineering and Public Policy, School of Engineering, McMaster University
• Jeffrey Mears, Environmental Area Manager, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
• Rear Adm. Michael Parks, District Commander, Ninth  U.S. Coast Guard District (Discussant)

Past Successes, and Current Successes:  The Great Lakes, Great Lakes Compact, and the Invasive Species Threat

CUSLI Conference 2013 -Great Lakes Region - Panel 1: Economic Tranformation and Bi-National Cooperation

The 2013 Conference is underway.  Right now focus is on the launch of the Council of the Great Lakes Region (CGLR).

CGLIR is being launched.  And a panel of six distinguished experts in different areas of the Canada - US relationship are chatting about the importance of Canada-US organizations coming together to map out strategies to maximize the Great Lakes economic potential.

David Crane's 3 Challenges for the Great Lakes Region, and Where CGLR Must Make a Difference to Be Relevant

David Crane, of the Toronto Star, in typical fashion got to the heart of the matter.  For CGLIR to succeed it most identify and then help bring together problem solvers to tackling economic challenges in the region.

He mapped out three such challenges:

The 'Eerie' Great Lake: Erie "Most Debris-Ridden of the Great Lakes"

Lake Erie doesn't glow in the dark, but today's Atlantic makes me worry.

From The Atlantic:

Lorena Rios-Mendoza, an oceanographer at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, is one of the scientists who've plunged the polluted depths of American lakes. Her team recently sampled sections of Lake Erie – which can't seem to catch a break these days, what with its mercury infection and rashes of poisonous algae – and discovered that the water's been invaded by great quantities of microplastics mostly smaller than grains of rice. Specifically, they measured concentrations between 1,500 and 1.7 million particles per square mile, which is 24 percent greater than what they found in the Atlantic Ocean's debris field.

...

This survey comes on the heels of another effort by researchers at the State University of New York, who found that Erie was the most debris-ridden of the Great Lakes. (Lesser-populated areas around Superior and Huron had less plastic pollution.) One of the scientists in that project noted that the material seems custom-built to stay off the public's radar: “People became aware of plastics in the oceans and waters in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and the great Pacific garbage patch. But from far away, bits of plastic look just like the water. So it’s not so noticeable or recognized in the greater topic of plastics in the environment.”

Ambassador Bridges Goes Corrosive: Michigan Considers Permitting Hazardous Materials to Cross

May not seem like a big deal. But anything that could affect cross-border trade on the Ambassador Bridge could have huge ramifications. Why? From Bloomberg Business Week:

Twenty-five percent of U.S.-Canada truck freight moves across the bridge, some $82 billion worth of goods every year. That’s more than the U.S. exports to Germany or Japan.

So, in the trade world, this is a huge deal, one if it involved federal actors would be all over WaPo and the NYTimes.

So let’s check out the details of this proposed policy change, which would give hazardous waste truckers another option besides the Detroit-Windsor Truck ferry.

From yesterday’s Hill Times article: 

The Detroit International Bridge Company, which owns the Ambassador Bridge, is seeking permission from the Michigan government to let trucks carrying gas, propane, and other flammable and corrosive chemicals across the bridge.

…
Under the proposed new rules, trucks carrying gases and chemicals would require Ambassador Bridge escort vehicles to make the trip across the span with them.

…

Every day, more than 8,000 trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge, which is Canada’s busiest border crossing, noted Minister of Transport Denis Lebel (Roberval-Lac Saint Jean, Que.) in a column for this week’s transportation policy briefing in The Hill Times.

If the bridge is allowed to carry hazardous materials, the increase in truck traffic would likely be just a few dozen more vehicles a day, said Mr. Stamper.

The bridge carries 25 per cent of Canada-U.S. merchandise trade, worth almost $500-million a day, according to the bridge company.

…
Commercial vehicles crossing the bridge pay a toll of between $3.25 and $5.25 an axle. At current rates, which don’t include a premium for hazardous materials, a typical semi-trailer truck with five axles would pay $26.25 to cross the bridge one way.

Check out the MDOT hazardous waste transportation study here.

Alberta's 'Green' Talk: A Serious Plan to Combat Greenhouse Gases, or Gambit to Secure U.S. Keystone XL Approval?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Alberta, Canada's oil production heavyweight, is pushing for increased carbon production taxes and seeking to slash GHG emissions.  Apparently, Ottawa is surprised.  Yeah, I thought I was reading an exceedingly dry Onion article.  Oh, wait...it's a plan offered by Alberta's Environment Minister...that is not endorsed by Alberta's Conservative government.  OK, the sky's not falling.  So the real question:  Are Alberta's Conservatives looking green to win Keystone, and then offer up a dead-on-arrival plan?

Is McQueen's  carbon plan for real?

The Globe and Mail reports (or hypes up?) a recent carbon tax and reduction plan offered by Alberta's Environment Minster:

The Alberta government has quietly presented a proposal to sharply increase levies on carbon production and force large oil-industry producers to slash greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 40 per cent on each barrel of production, a long-term plan that has surprised Ottawa and industry executives with its ambition.

Alberta Environment Minister Diana McQueen stunned a recent meeting in Calgary attended by senior oil executives and her federal counterpart, Peter Kent, with the proposal, which goes well beyond anything Ottawa or the companies contemplated, industry and government sources said Wednesday. The three sides are engaged in intense negotiations, with the industry warning that regulations that are too onerous could undermine the competitiveness of the oil sands sector as it seeks international investment. to drive production growth.

...

[Alberta Premier Alison Redford/Diana McQueen's boss] and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are under considerable pressure to introduce regulations for the oil industry to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The Cynical Read:  Looking Green Key to U.S. Keystone Approval.  My guess is that this plan has one main audience:  the United States.  If Alberta looks 'super' green, it makes it easier for Keystone to get approved.  The catch:  the plan will be so long-term that the 'carbon pain' won't be felt until Alberta's Progressive Conservatives or either out of office or filled with new leaders.

Cynical Read 2.0:  What 'Great' Timing!  Oh, and this is a pretty well-timed leak, given that Alberta oilsands environmental data is about to be released. 

Yeah, yeah...but maybe the plan's for realies?  Ha.  This March 2013 Globe and Mail article shows just how blistering the Alberta's environmental hot potato is.  

The main takeaway:  Alberta Premier Redford will take heat for any real carbon tax increase, let alone steep reductions, unless (1) they come online way into the future and (2) secure Keystone XL in the short-term.  

And Redford's opponents, Alberta's Liberal Party and the strong provincial party Wildrose, are happy to exploit Redford's tough spot whatever way they can. 

Something tells me that Redford's Alberta critics and Keystone critics are going to react to news of Redford's Green Plan 2.0 with some help The Who:

But it might just get Alberta Keystone.

From the Globe & Mail ,March 2013 article on Alberta Conservative's environment-Keystone XL headache:

The Alberta government’s climate-change plan was under scrutiny Tuesday, a day after comments Ms. Redford made in Ottawa were interpreted as a call on the federal government to follow Alberta’s lead in putting a price on carbon.

...

The Premier quickly backed away from those remarks, saying that’s not what she meant, but was grilled in Question Period by the opposition. At one point, she scolded the provincial Liberals – a party that last year proposed what would ultimately be a $1.8-billion-per-year provincial carbon levy – for “saying that our environmental record in Alberta isn’t good enough. That’s not good for Alberta, and it’s not good for Canada.”

Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said a higher carbon price would help pave the way for pipelines. “If we actually dealt with the environmental issues that we face, we could get our pipelines to the U.S. and the West Coast. It’s hurting us not to do this right,” he said.

...

The Premier was said to have called on the federal government to follow Alberta’s lead and introduce a price on carbon. Her office later said she was misunderstood, issuing a clarification and then making Ms. Redford available to speak to reporters in Edmonton on Tuesday. “I am in no way advocating any sort of national carbon tax. That’s for other governments to decide,” she said.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith nonetheless accused the Premier of advancing a plan that “would see Alberta’s vast resource wealth sucked out of this province and pumped into Ontario and Quebec.” Ms. Redford later fired back. “The suggestion that that’s what the conversation was about [in Ottawa Monday] is absolutely absurd, but I don’t expect anything more from the opposition,” the Premier said, later noting that Ms. Smith said just last year that the “science isn’t settled” on climate change.