Alan Gotlieb, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States,
has written in this regard that "There is a similar phenomenon occurring
in various ways at the provincial level with officials of neighbouring states."
And there is this kind of range of contact between the US and Canadian private
sectors as well.
Again, this doesn't mean there aren't problems and risks in
the relationship we continuously must work at resolving.
Of course, there are always new dimensions and new aspects
of the fabric forming the Canada/US relationship. Sometimes new strands
are added - sometimes there are stretches in that fabric - hopefully never
leading to any serious or permanent tears or rips.
A few months ago Canadian federal Environment Minister David
Anderson expressed concerns about what could be the effect of the proposed
new American federal government rules for coal-burning power plants in the
Eastern United States on the extent of transboundary air pollution, from
that country to Canada.
[ Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General for the State of New
York, wrote not long ago to now Ontario Premier McGuinty that, AI was very
interested to hear that you have pledged to expedite the conversion of several
coal-fired power plants owned and operated by Ontario Power Generation.
This is an issue of great concern to New York. I have previously asked both
your predecessor and the Government of Canada to work to phase out, or control
the emission of, (these) Ontario coal-fired power plants."]
Attorney General Spitzer, and the Attorneys General of a number
of other eastern states in the United States of America also apparently
have concerns similar to those of Minister Anderson about the proposed new
United States rules for coal-burning power plants. Spitzer and his colleagues
have gone, to the US Federal Courts to stop the implementation of these
new US rules.
Air pollution can be, and is being carried thousands of miles,
and is being deposited through the air above, on the lands, waters and people
of the United States and Canada. And as I have noted, this air pollution
is not simply a one-way flow.
The currents carrying the pollution through the air do not
recognize man-made borders, nor does the pollution of water, or other environmental
issues like alien invasive species (AIS). AIS are a worldwide, as well as
a North American, concern.
Water basins like the Great Lakes and that of the Red River
of the North cross and straddle the man-made international Canada/US boundary.
That boundary obviously did not exist when these basins were being created
millions of years ago.
One can ask - are existing bilateral mechanisms like the North
American International Air Quality Agreement and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, sufficient to deal with issues involving the ecosystems on which
our existence on this continent, and on this earth, depend?
I should mention that under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, the US and Canadian governments which are the signatories to
it, must carry out a full review approximately every 6 years - that is after
every 3rd IJC Biennial Report. They are now working on the format for this
review, the degree of public involvement and timing.
We will know more about the format and timetable for this
review after the Commission makes public its 12th Biennial review of the
progress of the two national governments in carrying out their obligations
under that agreement.
Scripture says "without vision, the people perish."
But how do we define vision? What should the definition be of a vision for
Canada's future in North America and its relations with the US? To start
with, Scripture also says "love thy neighbour, as thyself." If
this applies to Canada and the United States as it surely must, then this
must involve a two-way street between them.
For Canada, therefore, its people may well say there a need
for some questions about how far we apply that scriptural maxim? After all
the English poet and clergyman, George Herbert, wrote in the early 1600s
"Love your neighbour, yet pull not down your hedge!"
As I've said most Canadians want to respond constructively
to the security and trade concerns of their American neighbour, which are
largely Canada's as well. However, they want to do so in a way that responds
to their approach to public policy and their values related to that approach.
How can this best be done? Some have called for some kind
of grand Canada-US bargain - a new overarching treaty and a new resulting
bi-national institutional structure arising from it. This would supposedly
head off or resolve all disputes that could impede the back and forth flow
of goods and people between Canada and the US.
However, observers have questioned whether such an arrangement
would be possible or even desirable. Wouldn't this require a willingness
to negotiate and reach such a deal, not only on the part of the US President
and his administration, but also the Congress (especially the Senate), and
not just their Canadian counterparts?
What would the American side want from Canada as the price
for all this in terms of our sovereignty and the ability of ourselves as
Canadians to make decisions about our lives and territory?
Would the US side be willing, under any circumstances, to
give what Canadians would in effect be asking for? That is - what would
amount to a real limitation on current US sovereignty, as it pertains to
US relations with Canada, administrative, legal and political. This would
be, if it happened, not just on matters like softwood lumber and durum wheat
- the subject of long standing disputes - but on the whole range of our
relationships.
I suspect the US Congress in particular and various interest
groups, industry or regionally-based, would not accept this. It's likely
they would (also) want the border to continue for their own domestic reasons.
This would be true even though slow downs or blockages of
movements of goods and people back and forth across the border would be
highly damaging to large numbers of Americans, not just Canadians. Those
blockages and slow downs would impact adversely on groups of US consumers,
industries, individual companies and regions in the United States. Since
so much of the Canadian economy is formed by subsidiaries of companies owned
and based in the United States, the damage in the short and long run would
be to the bottom line of the US-based parents.
Now there could be, instead of a grand bargain, a number of
more limited arrangements seen as sufficiently beneficial to both sides.
Well, we already have one good precedent - the Smart Border Accord is an
existing example of a constructive, specific US/Canada initiative. This
is what the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary on Canada-US relations
suggested in a recent speech.
Also if the US administration, likely requiring the concurrence
of the Senate, and the Canadian government agree, an expanded role in dispute
settlement or the avoidance of disputes could be created for the International
Joint Commission - a broader one than at present. The Boundary Waters Treaty
would in fact not have to be amended to do this.
The operative clause (clause 9) enabling the two governments
to give the Commission references or formal requests to look into matters
and make recommendations, is not in fact limited to matters of water and
air, but on any subject of concern to the people on both sides of the border.
The Canadian Association of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council
on National Issues) has proposed this kind of expanded role for the IJC.
Such an expanded role would likely require a different kind
of Commission than the present one. For example, with a larger number and
perhaps a different kind of Commissioners, more expert staff - with a broader
range of expertise than at present - and a larger budget.
Another alternative for change in bi-national institutions,
suggested by the Association of Chief Executives, is that there could be
a number of commodity, product-specific or region-specific, smaller IJCs.
What should be the vision for these kinds of initiatives?
There are the words oft quoted of the American poet, Robert Frost, in his
poem "Mending Wall". In it, Frost's farmer-neighbour tells him,
"Good fences make good neighbours". But Frost in his poem replied
"Before I build a wall I'd ask to know what I was walling in or walling
out, and to whom I was like to give offence. Something there is that doesn't
love a wall, that wants it down." But in spite of these concerns, Frost
and the farmer-neighbour, work together. Frost says in his poem, AI let
my neighbour know beyond the hill; and on a day we meet to walk the line
and set the wall between us once again. We keep the wall between us as we
go. To each the boulders that have fallen to each."
In the poem, Frost and his neighbour work together. They walk
side by side. But each on their own side of their common wall to repair
and rebuild it. Because, the farmer insists, "good fences makes good
neighbours."
But centuries before Frost wrote this poem in fact, in the
early 1600s, one E. Rogers wrote "A good fence helpeth keep peace between
neighbours. But let us take heed, we make not a high stone wall to keep
us from meeting." So let's strive in developing our relationship to
do nothing that will keep us - Canada and the US - "from meeting."
[ But why we have to look back hundreds of years to get advice
on a new vision for Canada-US relations? The answer is: these thoughts have
stood the test of time and if they speak in a meaningful way, now and for
the future, I don't think there is anything wrong with citing these words
again. ]
So a new vision for Canada-US relations, broadly defined,
I think for Canadians, must include being effective stewards for ourselves
and our grandchildren, of that great mass of lands and waters we call Canada.
Also, this vision must include our joint responsibilities
as Canadians with our great friend and neighbour, the United States. This
means we must understand and respond to its domestic concerns, as we ask
it to understand and respond to ours. Also, we must recognize how we share
responsibility for North America's lands and waters - not just with the
US, but also with Mexico.
As well, this vision must recognize that we share with the
United States and other like-minded countries, in helping other peoples
of the world, achieve peace, stability and freedom as a foundation for their
success in the fight against hunger and disease, and for decent standards
of living. We want this for them and to help ensure, the well being of ourselves,
our children, and our grandchildren.
For us and for them, all this can and will be our vision for
a mutually beneficial relationship between Canada and the United States,
as two strong, but independent yet inter-related friends, neighbours and
allies.
