Home Washington Secretariat ACSUS

The Secretariat, the Provinces and Canada-US Relations

DRAFT Notes for use at 18TH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR CANADIAN STUDIES IN THE UNITED STATES
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 16-20, 2005

Colin Robertson
Minister (Advocacy) and Head (Washington Advocacy Secretariat)
Canadian Embassy, Washington

Let me begin with a brief explanation of the Secretariat. It’s an experiment in advocacy aimed at Congress and the states. PM Martin created it as an integral part of the Embassy, to serve provincial and legislator interests through ongoing advocacy and liaison, including regular reporting to the provinces and annual reporting to them in their capitols. They set the following objectives for me: timely information and early warning; a rolodex of who counts on Capitol Hill; more, coordinated action with our growing network of consulates across the United States.

We report to Ambassador Frank McKenna, with dotted line accountability to the premiers, the Canada-US Interparliamentary Group, and the PM’s parliamentary secretary for Canada-US relations. Within the Embassy, the Secretariat includes the public relations group (media, learning and research, and culture) as well as our units responsible for congressional relations and provincial and legislative affairs.

Some observations after 15 months of operation:

1. Any discussion of the provinces and international affairs needs to start with a look at the constitution. Foreign policy clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the parliament in Ottawa and, effectively, our executive branch. In matters of foreign policy and defence, the executive branch determines policy. And in foreign and defence policy it is essential that we speak with one voice.

2. International affairs goes beyond foreign policy, especially when it ventures into trade and immigration, both shared responsibilities, and, when it touches on education and the environment, falls squarely within provincial competence. So when it comes to the conduct of international relations the provinces (and arguably the states) have legitimate interests to pursue.

3. When conducting international affairs, the greatest advantage to both province and national governments accrues when we get our act together, when our messaging and objective(s) are the same even if we speak with many voices and in different fora. Indeed, we increase our liklihood of success when we use our various entry points.

4. In advancing Canadian interests, joint development of messaging and then staying on message makes sense. We've developed better tools to track legislation and determine our investment and trade interests at the state and congressional district level that we share with the provinces. The PM invited the premiers to situate within the Embassy: Murray Smith has spoken to the Alberta experience. During the Devils Lake debate Manitoba engaged a contractor. Now she’s working on the passport issue.

5. The relationships between provinces and states, especially those between premiers and governors, are the hidden wiring of the Canadian American relationship. A relationship that can be increasingly characterized as 'intermestic': where issues blur between the traditional 'foreign affairs' responsibilities of the two federal governments, and that within the jurisdiction of the 63 state and provincial/territorial governments in North America. Cooperative instruments between states and provinces now number more than 300 and cover everything from mutual support on fire-fighting to cooperation on life science research.

6. Institutions matter, especially when you are the smaller partner. From a Canadian perspective the more we create at every level – be they sub-regional between state and province or even at the municipal and county level, the better for Canada. For institutions create the conditions for ongoing discussion and, in the case of disagreement, are the best place to effect compromise and consensus.

7. Relationships count. This is why regular dialogue between governors and premiers are important. Nothing beats a personal relationship and the advantages of meeting your peers the governors individually and through joint meetings in the West and New England. Or at the legislator level through the regional associations like the National Council of State Legislators, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region or bilaterally like between Manitoba and North Dakota. Politics in the US is vocational and, with term limits, there is increased movement from city/county to state to federal legislatures and off-ramps to the executive. There are ten governors now sitting in the Senate, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Mike Leavitt of Utah sit in cabinet, four of the last six presidents were governors. Fifty of the 80 new members in the 109th Congress served in local levels of government.

8. Increasingly, most of the fires we fight in Washington begin at the state or provincial level: a mad cow in Alberta, a water diversion in North Dakota, oil drilling in Alaska. And as we’ve long known in lumber, whenever our market share in weanlings or wheat expands or threatens, redress is sought from local legislators. Ours is an asymmetrical relationship: nearly half our GDP depends on access to America while for America the GDP generated through trade with Canada is about 4%. Institutions, conventions and ongoing dialogue are the way we ‘level the playing field’. The FTA and NAFTA initiated over a decade of prosperity and we want to take the next step. The Security and Prosperity Partnership opens that door. Tariffs matter less. The agenda will be about things like regulations and standards; much of them fall under state and provincial jurisdiction. The process won’t succeed without active involvement.

9. At home we have a problem with growing ‘anti-Americanism’. It’s fueled by the headlines that distort the reality of the 96% of our trade that passes without problem. Cries of retaliation forget the hard fact that we need them more than they need us. And that economic integration generates our prosperity. Each province now trades more with America than inter-provincially. The premiers and their ministers can help to put in perspective the ‘American relationship’ and the fact they’re our biggest customer. Rather than getting mad, we need to develop better early-warning and defensive mechanisms when we make market gains and threaten American producers. Because they’ll seek redress. Identifying allies who’ll counter calls for protection is important.

10. In Washington, we’re taking an activist approach. Ambassador McKenna is leading the charge, taking on Newt Gingrich and Lou Dobbs and anyone else who gets it wrong. On Devils Lake we ran a daily war-room with Manitoba. As I learnt in California, our efforts were always more successful when we worked with the provinces. I could rely on them for the facts and figures that constituted our ammunition in preventing, for example, the California legislature from prohibiting use of our timber because it was ‘old growth’ or our salmon because they were from a fish farm. Because we speak with many voices and in different fora, we learnt the importance of getting the message right and sticking to it. We have no ‘Canada’ lobby so we’re working to create one beginning with the ‘star-spangled’ Canadians. We need your help to reach them. To work with them as a network, to give them the facts they want about Canada, and to motivate them as a base in the United States. We launched Connect2Canada.com on July 1st. 20.000 have signed up so far. I hope you will too.

Finally, as you will have noticed we are being more strategic about our grant and enrichment investments. We are delighted by the emerging American studies network in Canada that Michael Hawes is coordinating. Just as we draw on the learning and research communities in Washington, we learn from you. I think, for example, of Earl Fry and his work on NAFTA and especially his famous map that pointed out most states had GDPs bigger than many countries. Your research can significantly support the policy development process.