Preston Manning, President and CEO, Manning Centre for Building Democracy
When President Barack Obama comes to Ottawa, one of the concerns he'll be expected to address is the perceived threat of American protectionism.
It isn't just the prospect of Congress including a Buy American provision in the economic stimulus package, a prospect Mr. Obama has already sought to diffuse. As a huge exporter of resources, goods and services to the United States, Canada's concerns lie deeper than that.
Will Mr. Obama, for example, be obliged to pay off his large political IOUs to protectionist unions such as the United Auto Workers - sacrificing auto-sector jobs in Windsor and Oshawa to protect jobs in Detroit?
And will the U.S. increasingly bar selected imports from Canada, not by the imposition of traditional tariffs but through the application of health and environmental protection measures that have the same effect? This is 21st-century protectionism - an approach against which traditional dispute-settling mechanisms, such as those in the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, provide little defence.
Rather than beginning their relationship on defensive or retaliatory ground, there would be great merit in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's and Mr. Obama's focusing their discussions on a strategic objective that offers mutual benefits and whose attainment requires free and open trade and co-operation between us. That objective is a Canada-U.S. partnership to achieve sustainable continental energy security - cutting North American dependence on offshore petroleum resources, increasing the availability and deliverability of North American based energy, and further reducing negative environmental and social impacts of North American energy consumption and production.
Support for such a strategic partnership would be enhanced by the following:
1) Recognition of the "stimulus value" of pursuing "shovel ready" energy development and transportation projects;
2) Recognition of Canada-U.S. energy trade as a "model" that should be continued and emulated rather than threatened by protectionist or retaliatory talk in Washington or Ottawa;
3) A stronger commitment by both countries to bringing science, technology and innovation to bear on the responsible and sustainable development of all energy sources;
4) A stronger commitment on Canada's part to renewable energy development;
5) Provision of a reasoned response to the "dirty oil" argument used by some in Congress as a basis for restricting the importation of petroleum produced from oil sands.
The best response to the "dirty oil" argument is to ask those who use it what they consider to be "clean oil." Surely they cannot mean oil from those parts of the world, particularly the Middle East, where security of supply can only be guaranteed by vast military expenditures and military action if and when armed hostilities break out, even if such supplies have a lower carbon footprint than petroleum products derived from oil sands. Oil mixed with blood is not "clean oil."
The major "externalities" associated with the production of petroleum from the Athabasca oil sands are environmental and social. Responsible decision-makers in both government and industry believe that these externalities are extremely serious, that extraordinary efforts must be made to mitigate and eliminate them, and that the cost of doing so should ultimately be incorporated in the cost of the petroleum and petroleum products derived from them.
But the great "externality" associated with Middle Eastern petroleum - and petroleum secured from many other violence-prone regions of the world - is military defence plus the vast environmental and social disruptions created when military defence turns into armed conflict. How much are our American friends already paying to defend not-so-clean oil supplies from the Middle East - $50, $70, $100 a barrel?
If even a small portion of such expenditures were redirected into financing the mitigation and elimination of the environmental and social impacts of oil sands production and northern gas development here, wouldn't North America end up with a more secure and sustainable continental energy supply at lower cost?
