THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 33, Season 7
S unday, April 22, 2018
Host: Eric Sorensen
Guest Interviews: Representative John Faso, Laura Dawson,
Minister JasonKenney, Minister Andrea Horwath
Location: Otta wa
On thisSunday, talks heat up on the NAFTA file, with high level ministerial meetingsexpected again this week in Washington. With progress towards a deal, congressionalrepresentatives in the U.S. are calling for dairy restrictions in a new NAFTAdeal. We’ll find out why.
Then, Albertaintroduces legislation to restrict the flow of oil and gas to B.C. And Ottawavows new jurisdictional measures to build the Trans Mountain pipeline: whatimpact the pipeline politics will be having on federal provincial relations.
And injust over six weeks, voters go to the polls in Ontario. The NDP has tabled itselection platform. Will it be enough to convince voters to make the party leaderAndrea Horwath, the new premier?
It’sSunday, April 22nd. I’m Eric Sorensen, and this is The West Block.
So, arewe close? Canada’s lead minister on NAFTA was in Washington this past week.Chrystia Freeland i s going again this week. The push is on to wrap up a deal.Auto rules of origin, is the big file they’re working on, but where does thatleave one of the most contentious issues? Canada’s supply management in thedairy sector is a deal breaker for some Americans. Several senators and membersof congress have written letters to the U.S. trade representative, insistingthat this country bring down what they call ‘Canada’s dairy wall’. They arethreatening to withhold their support of NAFTA in Congress.
Joiningus now from Albany, New York is Republican congressman John Faso.Rep resentative Faso, you and your colleagues are saying that New York State dairyfarmers ar e in a crisis. Is the crisis because of your overproduction and notbecause Canadians buy their own expensive milk?
Representative John Faso: Well, it really is two-fold.One, there is an oversupply of milk worldwide. There’s no doubt about that, butit’s very clear also that until the Canadians establish this Cass 7 milksystem, which is really a protectionist scheme about a year and a half ago, theNew York dairy farmers and from dairy farmers from other U.S. states wereselling the ultrafiltered milk in Canada. That has basically been closed out. Weestimate that New York farmers alone have lost between $50 and $60 million thisyear because of protectionist policy on Class 7 milk that Canada and itsprovinces have implemented.
Eric Sorensen: Canadian negotiators say the U.S.subsidizes its agriculture in other ways with government loans and such. Isthere any give on that side or is it just that supply management has to begiven up on this side?
Representative John Faso: Well, I think what we have todo is recognize that the U.S. and Canada are good friends, and allies, andneighbours and we’ve got to be serious about the negotiation. I think theallegation about the U.S. subsidization of dairy farms is actually misplaced.We have an insurance system in place that frankly, hasn’t been very effective.We’re trying to fix that now in the House Agriculture Committee in the 2018Farm bill, but we have other conservation programs that encourage betterfarming practices, better use of the land, environmental protection, waterprotection. I’m sure Canada does the same thing.
< /p>
Eric Sorensen: How big is this for the U.S. dairy? Is ita must-have for American negotiators?
Representative John Faso: Let me say this, that membersof Congress and the House and the Senate have been pressing the White Housevery strongly on the plight of our dairy industry and what is going on, andwhat we perceive to be the unfair treatment on Class 7 milk that has originatedin Canada over the last year and a half. And as good fr iends and allies and neighbours,I hope that we can come to a reasonable accommodation here because our farmersare hurting.
Eric Sorensen: If the U.S. had joined the Trans PacificPartnership (TPP), there is a dairy quota provision in there. It’s a placewhere U.S. producers could be filling that quota.
Representative John Faso: Yeah, I think the U.S.—frankly,I’m a Republican, but I think the Republican administration has made somemissteps on trade. A lot of the rhetoric has been not helpful and I do think,though, the administration is focused now properly on trying to get a NAFTAagreement done. It’s very important that we have a strong trading relationship withthe best international friend that we have and that is Canada. And it’s veryimportant that we get this done quickly.
Eric Sorensen: I don’t know how much Pre sident Trump isdelving into the NAFTA details, but he does seem to know that dairy matters bigtime to Wisconsin. He visited there and that Wisconsin matters big time in thepresident’s electoral map. Do you think that’s a factor in what’s coming downfrom the administration, like I need this one?
Representative John Faso: Well, I couldn’t really tellyou. I don’t know. I’m not privy to the thinking there. But let’s just say thaton all of these issues, when we have trade issues internationally, certainlyagriculture is often the first area within the U.S. domestic economy to feelthe pinc h, becau se we are such a major agricultural producer in commodityproducts and products like dairy. So we have 40 per cent of our dairy exportsgo to Mexico and it’s very important that we have, again, a strong NorthAmerica Free Trade Agreement that can be modernized and updated to accommodate theneeds of all three nations. But I’m hopeful that our friends to the north will understandour concern about their dairy practices.
Eric Sorensen: Congressman Faso, thanks very much fortalking to us.
Representative John Faso: Thank you very much.
Eric Sorensen: So, what is at stake for Canada’s dairyindustry and what kind of final NAFTA deal is taking shape?
< span>&nb sp;
Joiningus now from Washington is Laura Dawson, Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’sCanada Institute. Ms. Dawson, clearly the Americans know our supply managementsystem. Canada has given up quota in other trade deals. Are we clearly going tohave to give up something to the Americans?
Laura Dawson: I think it’s been long expected thatCanada will have to give up something in the NAFTA deal on supply management. Wecan see a trajectory of that through the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement, theTrans Pacific Partnership (TPP), so we expect that some quota is going to begiven up in this deal as well. The ques tion is what can Canada get paid for it?What kind of concessions can they extract from the other side, in order to giveup this politically sensitive sector? Now, I don’t see that we’re going to haveto give the whole thing away, but I can see that some additional quota is goingto have to be offered if this deal is going to be successful.
Eric Sorensen: And is it as simple as Wisconsin? Becausefor Donald Trump he’s not a detail man, but he knows the electoral map andWisconsin’s important to him and dairy’s important to Wisconsin and he needs awin.
Laura Dawson: Yeah, absolutely. President Trump needswins in this NAFTA. He needs wins that are visible to his base. I mean thething is not so much from the U.S. perspective that Canada has protectionistpolicies in dairy. The U.S. has a whole bunch of protectionist policies in itsegg sector as well. The problem is sometimes a new product will sneak throughthe hedge row. There’ll be a new product out there that’s not listed on Canada’ssupply management list and so something like this high protein milk ingredient thatthe Wisconsin dairy farmers have been supplying to Canada, suddenly that accessis cut off. That’s what’s really the probl em. Not that they could never export toCanada, but they have been exporting and now their ability to export’s been cutoff and to the U.S. that looks very unfair and very arbitrary.
Eric Sorensen: Well suffice it to say, a change would havean impact on the Canadian dairy industry. Minister Freeland has been down toWashington this past week. She’s going again this week. Things seem to bemoving very quickly. What kind of deal do you see is now taking shape?
Laura Dawson: I continue to be a bit of a skunk at thegarden party. People are telling me oh, it’s going to be settled any day now. Ilook at what’s actually been covered. About six of 32 very difficult, verycomplex chapters have been closed. I’m looking at a negotiation that normallyshould take about nine months to a year to complete. Now it’s really hearteningthat the last week or so has put a lot of momentum so that we could get throughimportant issues. Maybe we’ll see a breakthrough on automotive rules of origin,but we have all sorts of political theatre, political noise to do with the U.S.Congressional midterms, to do with the Mexican presidential elections and theseare something to be reckoned with, but I� �m not s ure Canada is willing to accepta politically expedient deal that doesn’t give it all the things that it needsin a modernized NAFTA.
Eric Sorensen: And yet doesn’t Canada have someadvantages if the U.S. is in fact, wanting to move things along quickly, thenwe get some leverage we might not otherwise have?
Laura Dawson: I don’t know. I’m not sure I’m hearing it’sgive and take from the U.S. I still hear take and take. I still hear them: yeswe want a quick deal, but we’re not willing to move on those poison pillissues, the sunset clause, the government procurement, the rules of origin inauto sector, the gutting of the dispute settlement mechanism. I think untilCanada gets some movement on those important and sensitive issues, they’re notreally inclined to just warp this deal up in a bow and say here you go.
Eric Sorensen: Could we see something that is a memorandumof understanding (MOU), then? Just again, that gets something in place beforewe get into these elections in Mexico and midterms in the U.S.
Laura Dawson: Yeah, we could. I mean I don’t want to—youknow, never say never, but we did this with the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement.We did an agreement in principle when we were really eleven twelfths through thatnegotiation. And even doing that early agreement in principle still came backand had some backlash for the Harper government. So I’m not sure when we aremuch less further along in the NAFT A, again , like 30, 40 per cent through, whywould there be any negotiating benefit saying Canada, yes we agree to agree. We’reagreeing in principle, we’re not going to walk away from the table. For the smallerparty in the negotiation, that really takes away a lot of leverage for Canada.The only reason why they might be swayed is that a lot of Donald Trump’s tweetsand actions have had an effect in Canada. They are generating instability; investorsare keeping their hands in their pockets. So that uncertainty is a factor infavour of an early settlement for Canada, but I just don’t see that Canada iswilling to give away that much leverage today, for an agreement that’s soimportant to them.
Eric Sorensen: And I guess we’ll see this week if we’reany closer with these talks speeding up as they are. Laura Dawson in Washington,thank you.
Up next,pipeline politics: the battle in the west to move Alberta’s oil and what it’sdoing to federal-provincial relations.
Eric Sorensen: Welcome back. What a battle that’s takingshape in western Canada. Alberta plans legislation to restrict the flow of oiland gas to B.C. Saskatchewan is doing the same. Plus, Ottawa will introducemeasures to strengthen federal jurisdiction over B.C. Is this the beginning ofa constitutional crisis? And what will this do to interprovincial relations?
Joiningus now from Edmonton is Jason Kenney, former federal cabinet minister andleader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta. And Jason Kenney, you’re noshrinking violet when it comes to hardball politics, but on this file there area lot of Albertans who want a strong response. What would you say is a strongbut reasonable prescription?
Minister Jason Kenney: I’ve said si nce the NDP came tooffice in Victoria, that we need to have a strategy beginning with diplomacyand persuasion, but if that doesn’t work, we need to demonstrate there will beconsequences if that NDP government violates the Constitution, the rule of law,free trade within Canada and a tax not only Alberta, but Canada’s vitaleconomic interests. I suggested that if persuasion didn’t work, we would startwith something like a wine boycott. The premier came around to that in January.And then I suggested we could ramp it up to things like safety inspections onB.C. goods passing through Alberta because if they won’t allow us to export ourkey product, why would we allow that to go without a response? I’ve alsosuggested everything up to and including questioning why B.C. gas gets to movethrough pipelines in Alberta toll-free, and including turning off the taps,using the power that Peter Lougheed adopted 38 years ago to fight PierreTrudeau’s National E nergy Pr ogram, and I’m pleased to see that Premier Notley,while she initially ridiculed the idea has come around to making it her own withlegislation before Alberta’s legislature now.
Eric Sorensen: It strikes some that to see Conservativesin Alberta not opposing greater federal intervention in your backyard, but doyou see it as extraordinary times?
Minister Jason Kenney: Well, this is not reallyfederal intervention. We’re asking the federal government to exercise what iswithout a doubt its exclusive constitutional jurisdiction, which is theregulation of interprovincial pipelines. In fact, I’ve called on the federalgovernment for sake of greater clarity, to invoke a special power that’s beenin the Constitution for a century and a half, the declaratory power, Section92.10(c), by declaring the Trans Mountain pipeline as being for the commonadvantage. Or, I’ve suggested they could bring forward legislation, whichapparently they now intend to do, just asserting federal paramountcy, federalauthority, in this area. So look, we respect provincial jurisdiction and wantto fight for that. For example, our jurisdiction to regulate the production ofupstream oil and gas that the Feds are now trying to ge t into. But we alsorespect federal jurisdiction in ensuring free trade, particularly on criticalinterprovincial infrastructure projects like a pipeline.
Eric Sorensen: Is a constitutional battle essentially underway?I mean we failed in the past, this country, Meech, Charlottetown, etc., toresolve a real clarity on provincial powers. And now we seem to be facing justthat kind of an issue. And you could premier a year or so from now and how areyou going to manage that?
Minister Jason Kenney: Well yes, I do think isbecoming a constitutional crisis. You have a provincial government, which isillegally asserting a power, to violate federal jurisdiction, to attack thecountry’s national economic interest basically to say that it can at whim,decide what products are exported from one of Canada’s two major coasts. I meanthis is ridiculous. This is a complete violation of the whole concept of Canadafrom Confederation as an economic union. And if this is allowed to stand, whatdoes it say about this country? Why is it easier to move, for example, oil andgas through the 28 sovereign member states of the European Union than betweentwo neighbouring Canadian provinces with completely integrated economies and economi cinteres ts? So we cannot allow this to stand, and Justin Trudeau could stop thistomorrow if he was serious about asserting federal authority. For example, justtwo weeks ago, he negotiated a $4 billion discretionary transfer to B.C. forinfrastructure. They’re negotiating over a billion for job training. Why would theyreward a government that is refusing to allow a $7 billion privateinfrastructure investment and is committed to killing jobs by killing thispipeline?
Eric Sorensen: Are you running out of time, though, interms of getting this approved? Kinder Morgan makes it sound like Canada doesn’twork for them and may not work for private industry. With court cases coming,with Indigenous protests potentially, it feels like there’s not enough time to geta deal that will work for everyone.
Minister Jason Kenney: I hope that’s not right, but Ishare your concern, Eric. The strategy of the opponents of economic progresshas been deaf by delay, proposed provincial regulations, endless consultations,NDP municipal governments and B.C. refusing to grant permits, there’s hundredsof permit applications by Kinder Morgan to the provincial government that aremoving as slow as molasses. By the way, the vast maj ority of First Nationsalong the Kinder Morgan pipeline, virtually of them support this project and they’vebenefitted from the Kinder Morgan pipeline that has been delivering energy tothe lower mainland for the past six decades. Unfortunately, there’s a small numberthat are lawyered up and that are just in a constant as part of the strategy ofdeath by delay, the illegal protests are also part of that in which the federalNDP and Greens have engaged. So I am concerned and Kinder Morgan’s been veryclear about this. They say that the project may be “untenable”. They’ve givenus a deadline; it’s just four weeks away. We cannot assume that they arebluffing. Trans Canada pipeline killed Energy East for similar reasons and withit the dream of energy independence. They called the bluff of governments. Let’shope it doesn’t come to that on this project that represents hundreds ofbillions of dollars of future value to the Canadian economy.
Eric Sorensen: Well, as it turns out, a pipeline isputting the federal to the test. We’ll see where it goes. Jason Kenney, thankyou.
Minister Jason Kenney: Thank you very much, Eric.
Eric Sorensen: Up next, for the next seven weeks, twoparties expect to battle to form the next government in Ontario. But is there athird party that could surprise them both?
Eric Sorensen: Welcome back. The Ontario election is lessthan seven weeks away. It’s widely seen as a referendum on Kathleen Wynne’sLiberal government, or the Conservative Opposition led by Doug Ford who’sleading in the polls. But is there a third way with the NDPs Andrea Horwath? Remember,28 years ago, an unpopular Liberal government, a PC party with a brand new leaderand Ontario voters turned to Bob Rae and the New Democrats for the first andonly time in the provinces history. Could lightning strike again?
Joiningus now from Queens Park in Toronto is NDP Leader Andrew Horwath. Ms. Horwath,thank you for joining us. The polls say that you are personally more popularthan either Ms. Wynne or Mr. Ford, but your party lags behind you. What is thebiggest hurdle for you to persuade Ontario videos beyond that first 20, 25 percent, to vote NDP?
Minister Andrea Horwath: Well, I mean I think peoplehave a big choice ahead of them. Lots of folks are saying that Kathleen Wynneand the Liberals are not going to conti nue to g overn this province. So thenthere’s a choice that people have and I believe that the New Democrats andmyself bring a choice for change for the better. Mr. Ford is going to drag thisprovince backwards and people have to make that decision. And I think that whenthey see our message that things don’t have to be the same way as they have benfor a long time, you don’t have to keep switching between Liberals andConservatives, between bad and worse. You can have hope for the future of thisprovince. They, I think will be looking at us very seriously.
Eric Sorensen: That sounds like you’re already trying toset up a dynamic where it is you versus Doug Ford if you could just pushKathleen Wynne aside. We saw that your platform calls for more deficits. Is thatalso a way of not letting the Liberals outflank you on the left the way that theNDP was outflanked in the federal election three years ago?
Minister Andrea Horwath: Well, you know, I think firstand foremost, Kathleen Wynne has already pushed herself aside. I mean I don’tthink that there are many Ontarians who are happy with Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals.I think that’s pretty clear and so now the choice is between—I really dobelieve that between myself and Mr. Ford. And you know there certainly somethings in our platform that Liberals will say they have in their budget aswell, but the difference is we believe everybody deserves Pharmacare, not justfolks who are below the age of 25 and above the age of 65. We think dental careactually needs to be available for people, not just a rebate or a refund forservices that people can’t afford in the first place. So, we’re excited aboutour platform because not only does it provide these things that people need andthat will help make life better for folks, but we also show how we will pay forit. Unlike Kathleen Wynne and unlike Doug Ford, we believe the wealthiestamongst us and the most profitable corporations are going to have to help us topay for these services. And they are not interested at all in asking theirwealthy friends to pay a little bit more.
Eric Sorensen: I travelled on the campaigns with Bob Raeand David Peterson back in 1990. You really didn’t see the change coming untilvery late in the campaign. Do you see a tipping point that would have to come,say late in the campaign, and maybe not immediately that will move this andmove you into a position to be able to actually win?
Minister Andrea Horwath : Well, I mean I’m not so surethat I have the crystal ball. I don’t know that anybody does. But what I cantell you is I’m proud of our platform. I know that families out there arehaving a hard time. I know that people are not filling their prescriptions. Iknow that people are worried about the state of our long-term care system. Theywant hydro to be back in public hands. They want to make sure our hospitals don’thave people lined up in stretchers for days on end in a situation that lacks privacythat lacks dignity. These are things that we can fix. These are problems that KathleenWynne has created and look, Doug Ford and his cuts, they’re not going to fixthose problems.
Eric Sorensen: Kathleen Wynne has described Doug Ford asDonald Trump North that he’s a bully and he’s bringing smear tactics to Canada.Do you agree with her?
Minister Andrea Horwath: Well, you know what? Those twocan fight amongst themselves and get down into the mud. I’m going to be focusedon what I think can change for the better in Ontario and that’s what ourplatforms all about. And that’s what I’m all about as a leader. I thinkgovernment should be about putting th e people at the heart of every decision youmake and using public dollars and the public purse, if you will, to make lifebetter for Ontarians. And that’s where I’m going to stay focused.
Eric Sorensen: One of the issues that arises is a splitof the vote in the progressive vote, let’s say. And if that were to happen, it’spossible that you could then see out of that, not just a Conservative governmentbut a Conservative majority government. What would that mean for progressivevoters?
Minister Andrea Horwath: Well, you know, I think thatthat’s the story that’s played out in a couple of past elections But this time,you know, Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals are already, you know, a party that peopledon’t want to have governing the province anymore. I mean people don’t wantKathleen Wynne as the premier anymore. I believe that folks have already madethat decision. That’s certainly what people are telling me on the ground andwhat I’m hearing everywhere I go. And so that dynamic is not the same this timearound. It’s quite a different scenario and people are not looking at KathleenWynne as the premier. There’s going to be a new premier in the premier’s chaircome June 7th and tha t decisi on has to be made. Is it going to bemyself or is it going to be Doug Ford?
Eric Sorensen: We shall see. Andrea Horwath in Toronto,thank you.
Minister Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Eric. Take are.
Eric Sorensen: And that’s ourshow for today. Thanks for watching. I’m Eric Sorensen. See you next week.
Comments