NAFTA: The gift that keeps on giving

Photo by CP

Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Toronto recently.

Well, it's Friday and we're all in a good mood, so let's give this FreeTrade Fridays category a whirl.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently reminded the U.S. that tampering with NAFTA may not be such a fine idea for American consumers. His comments came after Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama warned they wouldn't shy away from renegotiating the deal to get a better deal for American workers. The PM's point is the United States has a pretty good energy deal in the North American Free Trade Agreement and might want to leave it alone

How good? Well, Canada can't reduce energy exports to the U.S. even in times of shortage, according to Article 605 of the agreement (scroll down). Merely one of a series of restrictive clauses, it commits Canada to continue exporting proportionally to the U.S. - no matter what.  Here's what it says:

Article 605: Other Export Measures

Subject to Annex 605, a Party may adopt or maintain a restriction otherwise justified under Article XI:2(a) or XX(g), (i) or (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of an energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, only if:

a)the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific energy or basic petrochemical good made available to that other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure, or in such other representative period on which the Parties may agree;

b) the Party does not impose a higher price for exports of an energy or basic petrochemical good to that other Party than the price charged for such good when consumed domestically, by means of any measure such as licenses, fees, taxation and minimum price requirements. The foregoing provision does not apply to a higher price that may result from a measure taken pursuant to subparagraph (a) that only restricts the volume of exports; and

c) The restriction does not require the disruption of normal channels of supply to that other Party or normal proportions among specific energy or basic petrochemical goods supplied to that other Party, such as, for example,between crude oil and refined products and among different categories of crude oil and of refined products.

In other words, the spigots must stay open. And there's more: Canadians aren't allowed to pay less for oil and gas than Americans pay for exports.

Did the third amigo go along with this section? Not on your life. No señor. And it's only one of the exemptions demanded - and retained - by Mexico when it negotiated the free trade deal with the U.S. and Canada.

Annex 605

Exception to Article 605

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the provisions of Article 605 shall not apply as between the other Parties and Mexico.

The Ottawa-based Centre for Policy Alternatives says the energy provisions don't make sense for Canadians because, among other reasons, "we are running out of natural gas . . . and import 49 percent of the oil we consume," while shipping two-thirds of Canadian oil and 60 percent of Canadian gas to the U.S.  Earlier this week, the centre released a joint report with the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute that concluded the only solution for Canada is to pull out of the "proportionality" provisions.

I'll return to this subject in future posts, including the energy section, but if you are a free trade nerd like me, here's the entire NAFTA text for bedtime reading. Don't blame me if you can't sleep afterwards.

Good reading.

Living in the brave new world of climate change

CP PHOTO

CAE president Derek Burney in 2002

When Derek Burney talks, opinion-makers listen. He's been a senior mandarin at External, chief-of-staff in Brian Mulroney's PMO, ambassador to the United States, CAE Inc. president and member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's independent panel on Afghanistan. He holds numerous strategic directorships and serves as a visiting professor and senior distinguished fellow at Carleton University.

There are few smarter or tougher than Burney, whose demeanour evokes a more taciturn Dick Cheney. Currently, he's also examining U.S.-Canada relations, which makes his perspective on that subject particularly valuable in our neo-NAFTA era. Recently, he wrote an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail, under the headline, "Our free trade priorities needn't include Mexico." He suggested Canada should look beyond NAFTA and Mexico to new bilateral initiatives with the U.S. His analysis clearly recognized the potential impact of climate change in the future on greater oil and gas development and the expansion of transportation routes, including across the far north. As Burney explained:

"Despite the legal differences between Canada and the U.S. over the status of the Northwest Passage and on claims pertaining to the Beaufort Sea, the agenda should also include Arctic security. The prospect of climate change could make this a more efficient, as well as a more exposed, transit route and Canada and the U.S. have a common interest in developing a co-operative framework for both the commercial and the security dimension of increased traffic."

Sounds like a plan.

The Downside?
Couldn't the Pentagon be under water by then?

Justice Harry LaForme: A man for our time

TONY BOCK/TORONTO STAR

Mr. Justice Harry LaForme, seen May 28, was recently appointed commissioner of the federal body set up to investigate the issue of alleged abuse in residential schools in Canada.

It's going to take courage; he understands that. Justice Harry LaForme expects this new appointment of his will take everything he has, and then some, as he embarks on what will likely be the most rewarding — and painful — period of his life. He is chair of the new Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Today was gorgeous in Toronto and, from a Star boardroom overlooking Lake Ontario, the painful realities of his undertaking seemed very far away indeed. But after talking about his life as a Mississauga Indian and his appointment as the first aboriginal appellate judge in Canada, LaForme , 61, came to the hard part. He expects to hear accounts to "sear" his very soul, and he doesn't expect ever to forget them.

It will be his difficult duty — as for others on the commission — to listen to accounts of aboriginal survivors (and their families) of a brutal system that took approximately 150,000 children from their homes, beginning in the 19th century and ending in 1996. He says the aim was "to kill the Indian" in these children or, put another way, "to remove the influence of the wigwam." There are survivors and, in the lexicon of international human rights, there are the "disappeared" — children who never came home and whose whereabouts are unknown.

He is at the very beginning of this endeavour. His team hasn't even worked out a schedule for cross-country hearings. He doesn't know how it will unfold — whether the term "genocide" will be used to describe long years of forced assimilation in Canada, or whether Canadians can expect to see images of forensic scientists down on their hands and knees shifting through dirt at remote sites, as they have in, say Guatemala. He knows only that he won't shy away from anything in seeking the truth.

LaForme, like many journalists, has heard stories of alleged assault and murder, with bodies tossed into unmarked graves, undiscovered to this day. Again, he stresses: he just doesn't know how this enterprise will unfold or what they will uncover.

Of one thing, however, he is certain. He wants to see reconciliation as well as truth, meaning there should be a cosmic shift in how First Nations people see themselves and their history and, less importantly, how they are seen by others. He believes Canadians are up to the task, no matter what occurs during the next five years. From his perspective: "I've never never been disappointed with Canadians when they've come face to face with the truth."

Let's hope he is not disappointed.

Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride

Welcome to my Political Decoder blog. I've been thinking about doing this for some time but undertaking it is your fault. It was reader reaction to a recent story that ultimately pushed me to this insanity. The story ("The dark underside of 'Oprah's Big Give' ") prompted about 100 readers to write to me and, while it was tremendously gratifying to know I'm being read, it took the whole weekend to respond to everyone. A blog, I thought, there's the ticket. Readers would be able to see comments by other readers and I wouldn't have to spend summer weekends hunched over my laptop. Besides, being part of a community is the point of the Toronto Star website with its blogs. So, if you feel so inclined, post a comment. Or not. Just remember: be nice.

Writing the Oprah piece made me reflect on things Canadian and, given that I'm national affairs writer, this blog will be "as Canadian as possible under the circumstances." (That line, legend has it, won a Star contest to complete the fragment, "As Canadian as. . . ") Under what circumstances? Dunno. Whatever moves me.

Like other bloggers, I have categories, but I see these as rough guidelines and have every intention of colouring outside the lines. Don't rely on me to get you to Flin Flon by Family Day. "FreeTrade Fridays" could be Tuesdays; "The Downside" could turn into one big giggle.

Like Bette  D. on party night (with her would-be successor baring her teeth in the parlour) I promise to give it as bumpy a go as I know how. Enjoy yourselves and, for me, hope for the best. As the old chief says in Little Big Man : "Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't." 

I'll offer my first official post later today (can't say much except it's an exclusive, very, very exciting) but for now, I'll slip you an amuse-bouche to tide you over.

(With a nod to the great Joe Martin, let's call it,

UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT:

Yes, yes, the City of Toronto is rolling along with its new bin program. Lucky, lucky us. The smallest blue recycling bin takes the equivalent of one of the old blue boxes, while the small grey garbage bin takes one bag.

But get this. According to the City, "the bin design requires a false bottom to maintain the height required for automated collection." That's for the smallest bins.

Now, there's "truthiness" for you.

I could be wrong, but it sure looks to me like the false bottoms are there for a different purpose entirely: to prevent residents from stuffing in more gum wrappers or orange peels than officially mandated for a particular small bin, before moving up to the next bin in size - and price - like obedient citizens. The medium blue bin takes two of the old blue boxes and the medium grey takes a bag and a half of garbage.

Who comes up with such deviousness?  More money from taxpayers and, for landfills of the future, lots and lots and lots more plastic.

Now there's green thinking to make us all proud.

Check it out for yourselves at the City's site - and weep.