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.

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.

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]. 
.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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:

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.

'These Boots Made for Walking' or 'I Got You Babe'? Canadian Chamber of Commerce Pushes Canada to Diversify it's U.S.-Heavy Trade

CUSLI-Nexus talks Canada-U.S. trade relationship, with the help of some classic 60s tunes! 

The Canadian Business Journal (CBJ), an excellent and free resource to catch up with Canadian business issues, offers a Canadian Chamber of Commerce article that reviews Canada's Top 11 impediments to international competitiveness (go to page 18).

Top on the list:  Human resources.  Canadian businesses are having trouble attaining the skilled work-force they need.

But, also of note, was the Chamber's addition of trade diversification, especially in energy (cough, Keystone).  (Note:  This 'Top 11' list built off the Chamber's 'Top 10' list in February.)   

So is the Chamber telling Canada change its U.S. lullaby to this Nancy Sinatra classic?

From the Chamber's CBJ article:

Some other takeaways from the issue overall: 

• Canada as Resource King.  From the selection of articles, Canada's resource industry dominates Canada's business scene.
• Canada Should Up Trade Diversity, But Loving Microsoft.  While pushing trade diversification, especially in energy, note the cover story on Microsoft Canada.
• Business and the public sector.  Business issues are social issues:  (1) note the absence of concern over healthcare costs, unlike in the United States, and (2) the need for Canada to train its workforce (or bring in skilled immigrants).  Impact:  government policies are business issues. 
• Canada and the United States:  'I Got You Babe?'  I hate to repeat myself, but the defining issue in Canada-U.S. relations isn't whether they diversify their trade partners.  Rather, it's whether both nations harness their relationship in order to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.

BTB 2.0? Stakeholders Crowdsourcing Site Promises Increased Collaboration and New Ideas for BtB and RCC

From BtBObserver, who reports on the new BtB crowdsourcing site Idea Scale: 

Have an idea to make the Canada-U.S. economic and border relationship run smoother? Crossborder stakeholders want to hear your ideas. And they may just shape the work of the Beyond the Border (BtB) Initiative and the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC).

Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), Canadian American Business Council, U.S. Chamber and other US-Canada partnering organizations have launched Idea Scale, a crowdsharing website where crossborder enthusiasts can post and comment on ideas to improve the Canada-U.S. regulatory relationship.

Check out Idea Scale here.  Whether sharing ideas or just monitoring the mystical art of crossborder regulatory transformation, the site is definitely worth regular visits.

WaPo Misses a Tree for the Forest: Is Canada the Biggest Sequester Winner?

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

WaPo misses the mark, and Canada may be the sequestration-avoidance winner.

Today the Washington Post (WaPo) reports on how one federal program 'beat' the sequester, highlighting Department of Agricultural's ability to snag meat inspectors funding. WaPo's take on the strategy: If one Agricultural program could win, so can others; ergo, sequester isn't playing out the way we want.

Well, the conclusion's sound: Sequestration isn't playing out the way some commentators said it would. But seeing as sequestration really starts today, it seems a little early to be writing sequester's post-script. And sequester 2.0, i.e. next year's cuts called for in the 10-year cost-cutting plan, still have to be played out.
But, less impressive, is WaPo's omission that the FY13 continuing resolution that enshrines sequester in the final six months of the current fiscal year (FY), which one Agr. program avoided, came along with four new FY13 appropriation packages.
So, really, Defense, Homeland Security (DHS), Commerce/Justice/State, Veterans Affairs/Military Construction all 'beat' sequestration to varying extents. In fact, DHS got roughly the same agency-wide funding as it did last budget cycle.
I doubt these agencies will be asking Agr. Secretary Tom Vislack for sequester advice any time soon.
To sum-up: WaPo mistakes a tree for the forest, and--in so doing--misses the gravity of sequestration's interesting FY13 implementation. And then WaPo gets tree myopia, and doesn't really illuminate sequestration's 10-year 'loop'.

But, perhaps more interesting to readers, is figuring out what country has benefited the most from FY13's unusual sequestration implementation.Given the extensive military acquisition, trade, and border security relationship between Canada and the United States, maybe WaPo should cast Canada as sequestration's Biggest Winner.

Healthcare: The Canadian Fiscal Crisis that America Would Love to Have

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Canada's provinces are beginning to rein in healthcare spending, which means they are putting the breaks on near-double digit percent annual increases.  Sure, this is the beginning of a decade-delayed 'new reality' regarding raising healthcare spending.  But, as Keith White reports, if Canadian spending on healthcare constitutes a crisis, it's a crisis the United States would love to catch.

Jeffrey Simpson at The Globe & Mail highlights a big shift in how provinces are dealing with healthcare spending, and the possibility that provinces may need to start coming to gripes with containing healthcare spending.

After a decade allowing healthcare budgets to increase, all provinces, save one (i.e. Quebec), are holding back on healthcare spending.  Why?   Budgets are shrinking; healthcare costs are raising; and, after years of avoidance, provincial debts have to be reckoned with.

But the lurking sense of 'doom and gloom' in Simpson's article could easily bemuse an American observer.

BTBObserver Highlights Evolving Canada-U.S. Economic Relationship

The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is still going strong, it's just changing.

From Woodrow Wilson's Beyond the Border Observer, highlighting a profound take-away from a Financial Post article detailing a still-strong Canada-U.S. trading relationship:

Wednesday’s Financial Post has a fascinating piece on the importance and changing nature the Canada-U.S. economic relationship.  With so much attention paid to diversifying Canada’s trade portfolio, its importance to emphasis the unique and lasting value a close Canada-U.S. economic partnership has for both nations.

The driving question in Canada-U.S. trade isn’t whether Canada and the United States look for new traders partners.  Rather, it’s whether they harness their relationship in order to succeed in the 21st century global marketplace.

Can You Be Pro-Free Trade and Increase 1,000+ Tariffs? Sure, Just Ask Canada

Nailing down a nation’s trade policy can be tricky. 

 Just look at the trade policies of Canada under conservative Prime Minster Stephen Harper. 

Sure, Canada’s Conservative government is pushing regional and bi-national trade pacts.

But, in Canada’s latest federal budget, there are 1,253 tariffs increases. The fiscal impact: adding $300 million to Canada’s ~$5 billion in existing tariff revenues.

Read all of Stephen Gordon’s excoriation in Maclean’s here. (Note: Terence Corcoran’s Financial Post article earlier this week makes the same point). Below are some highlights:

...Yes, there were those 37 tariff reductions, but there was also the measure to ‘modernize’ Canada’s General Preferential Tariff (GPT) regime by ‘graduating’ 72 countries from the GPT; imports from these countries will now face higher tariffs. Mike Moffatt estimates those 37 tariff reductions will be accompanied by 1,290 tariff increases. By my count, there are 84 GPT countries, but I still haven’t been able to track down a list of which countries will be removed from the GPT (Update: Mike Moffatt informs me 12 of these already have separate agreements with Canada, so that brings it to 72). The budget does name some examples: Korea, China (second-most important source of imports to Canada), Korea (seventh) and Brazil (twelfth), and the GPT countries as a group account for more than 20 per cent of imports. This measure is expected to generate some $300 million in extra revenues, on top of about $5 billion in existing excise duty revenues.

So instead of a unilateral reduction in tariffs, the government is planning a unilateral increase. This is not how a pro-trade government behaves. (Imports from the countries with which the Conservatives have negotiated free trade agreements are dwarfed by those from China alone.)


…

I still can’t get my head around the truly bizarre notion that low tariffs are a subsidy to other countries on the part of Canadian taxpayers, especially since raising tariffs requires Canadian taxpayers to cough up an additional $300 million a year to the government. But if we needed any more evidence that this government is not serious about free trade, here it is. Instead of viewing cheaper imports as a way of increasing consumers’ purchasing power, the Conservative government views them as a problem to be solved.

After seven years in power, the Conservative trade legacy consists of higher tariffs and more obstacles to foreign investment. The Council of Canadians must be thrilled.