Trump targets Canada's dairy farmers under NAFTA

U.S. President Donald Trump promised, during a visit to Wisconsin a cheese-making state that he will defend U.S. dairy farmers who claim they are being hurt by Canadian protectionist trade policies.

dd Imag

Under the present NAFTA agreement Canada's dairy sector enjoys protection by high tariffs. There are also production controls that ensure the prices for products are sufficient for farmers to make a living. The Canadian dairy system is not a free-market system but involves supply management by the Canadian Dairy Commission(CDC):

The Canadian Dairy Commission (French: Commission canadienne du lait) is a Canadian government Crown corporation created in 1966 under the Canadian Dairy Commission Act (1966–1967). According to the Act, CDC is mandated to "provide efficient producers of milk and cream with the opportunity to obtain a fair return for their labour and investment, and to provide consumers of dairy products with a continuous and adequate supply of dairy products of high quality."The CDC also chairs the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee that coordinates industrial milk supply in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is responsible for the CDC. The U.S. and some other countries hate the system since global companies want a purely market-based system in keeping with neoliberal policies in the interests of global corporations.

Trump said in Kenosha, Wisconsin: "We’re also going to stand up for our dairy farmers. Because in Canada some very unfair things have happened to our dairy farmers and others.” While Trump did not detail his concerns he said that his administration would call the Canadian government led by PM Justin Trudeau to ask for an explanation. The explanation is that there would be no NAFTA without protections for aspects of the economy that are supply-managed such as dairy products. Negotiators worry about the political fallout from any attempt to do away with the system. The system is described here:In total, there are about 17,000 Canadian farms that operate under Supply Management; this is about 8 percent of all farms in Canada. The dairy industry is the largest of the three supply-managed industries in Canada, with 11,280 farmers operating in 2016 [6]. There are about 2,700 poultry farmers, and fewer than 1,000 egg farmers. Dairy is the largest industry of the supply-managed industries, but it is also Canada's third largest agricultural commodity in terms of farm cash receipts, making it a significant commodity for Canada [7].

Trump again threatened to eliminate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if it cannot be changed in the way he wishes. Trump said: "It's another typical one-sided deal against the United States and it's not going to be happening for long." Trump naturally emphasizes negative effects of NAFTA on U.S. workers but it has had negative effects in Mexico and Canada as well. The appended video from 2006 shows some of those effects. If NAFTA is reopened for negotiation then Mexico and Canada should demand changes — not just the United States.

Some of the demands that Canada should make are listed by the Council of Canadians: "... if the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to be renegotiated, then it must be fundamentally changed, meaning at minimum its investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), energy proportionality, and water as a good, service and investment provisions must be removed. We also argue that the negotiation process must be done in an accountable and transparent way that includes public consultations." The proportionality provisions prevent the Canadian government from ensuring that there are sufficient supplies of goods to supply Canadians before exports of those goods are allowed. The proportionality provisions apply to oil and gas:

"The deals say that Canada must maintain at least the same level of oil and gas exports to the United States as it had supplied for the past thirty-six months. Only if Canadian consumption is cut proportionately, and then only in times of crisis, could the Canadian government claim jurisdiction over its own energy resources."

So far there has been complete silence as to what changes the Trudeau government is seeking in NAFTA. Neither the U.S. nor Canadian government have suggested that the negotiation process be transparent and accountable, or that there will be any public consultations. Usually trade deals are held behind closed doors with mainly government and corporate representatives taking part.

Canada to share information about Canadians traveling overland to the US.

A development of the recent meeting of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Barack Obama is that Canada will share with the US information on Canadians traveling overland to the states. The U.S. will reciprocate.

Thomas Walkom, writing in the Toronto Star, notes that in the U.S., national security is a key issue and Canada is considered suspect. He points out that Obama's first homeland security chief, Janet Napolitano, insisted that the 9/11 attackers came through Canada, even though evidence seems to contradict this. The announcement of the agreement was made not by Trudeau but by Obama.

The Canada Border Service already provides Americans with data on third-country citizens and Canadians who are permanent residents who travel overland to the U.S. However, the information consists of only basic data such as name, date of birth, and point of entry. Walkom remarks that federal privacy commissioners have pointed out that information sharing can be dangerous.

In 2011, the then privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart pointed to the Maher Arar case, "in which Canada’s sharing of faulty information with the U.S. led to the arrest, rendition and torture of an innocent Canadian citizen. She also cited the cases of three other Muslim Canadians who had been subject to torture abroad in part because of Canada’s too-casual approach to sharing information." The results of the Arar inquiry can be found here. A more readable summary can be found here. Arar received compensation of $10 million from the Canadian government, no doubt to avoid a possible court battle. While the inquiry found that Arar was not a terrorist, he is still on the no-fly list in the U.S. He was deported or rather rendered to Syria because the U.S. claimed he was part of an Al Qaeda cell. Canadian RCMP intelligence authorities had provided the U.S. with raw unvetted intelligence data on Arar to the US. The U.S. refused to cooperate with the Arar inquiry. To his credit, the right-wing Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day still said he believed Arar to be innocent even after U.S. authorities showed him classified information supposed to show his guilt.

The new system was to have been already in place last July but has run into delays. It is part of the Beyond the Border program. Walkom describes it as an attempt to build a kind of wall around North America. The current federal privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien refused to comment on the program until he knows exactly what the Trudeau government is proposing.

Canada and the U.S. have rather conflicting aims in the program. Canada's main aim is to have faster border crossings to help facilitate Canada-U.S. trade and tourism while the U.S. wants to ensure that its borders are secure.

The plan envisions joint law enforcement teams along the border. However, practical problems immediately arose. Who has jurisdiction if a U.S. agent shoots and kills a suspect but on the Canadian side of the border? As Walkom sees it the two sides have conflicting views of the border:Ottawa wants what it calls a thin border to allow easy passage of people and goods back and forth. As evidenced by last week’s announcement, it is willing to sacrifice some of the privacy of its citizenry in return for this.

Washington, however, wants a thick border that would make it harder for terrorists to enter the U.S.

So while it is happy to receive information from Ottawa and even give back some in return, it is not willing to substantially relax its guard.Walkom worries that the result will be a still difficult border to cross while there will be an increased likelihood more Canadians will end up on a US security list. However, pre-clearance processes should make crossing quicker for many.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale claims the border security changes Trudeau and Obama agreed to are designed to make crossing the border "smoother." He said that the new rules would impact preclearance procedures, information sharing. and no-flly lists in both countries:"The most important thing is an expansion in pre-clearance, This is the ability to clear American customs and immigration procedures before you leave Canada, so that once you arrive in the United States … there's no further checking of passports and so forth."There is already preclearance at a number of Canadian airports including at Calgary, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Trudeau and Obma agreed to add more members to the list. The government is also examining pre-clearance for train routes.

Canadian Civil Liberties Directory Executive Director, Sukanya Pilly, claimed the increased sharing of information could have negative impacts:"When you collect a huge amount of information about an individual, it can result in profiling." However, Goodale claimed that the government had been careful about privacy issues and the information was non-intrusive. Goodale also said that the two countries will share information on their respective no-fly lists: "(Canadian and American no-fly lists) are not up until this point shared with each other," he said. "This arrangement will make it possible for that to happen." Under the new agreement, Canada will also work with the U.S. to develop a better way of "getting people off the list if they ought not to be there," Goodale said. "We need an effective redress system," he said.

The border tracking system was originally promised back in 2001 as part of the perimeter security pact. There is to be a working group set up within 60 days to work out errors of identity on the no-fly lists of the two countries.

Canadian Democracy Promotion equals Promotion of US foreign policy and political warfare.

THere will not be much about this in the mainstream media and what news there will be will be filled with great applause at our mission to promote democracy globally. Of course many US NGO's and in particular the National Endowment for Democracy have acted to destabilise regimes not liked by the US and promote pro-US political groups everywhere. This is fom this site.

Foundation for “Political Warfare”
Takes Cue from U.S. Strategy
Anthony Fenton
Indicating further integration with its closest neighbour and ally's foreign policy priorities, the Canadian government is in the advanced stages of establishing a foundation to promote liberal democracy, akin to the controversial U.S. National Endowment for Democracy.

Last December, the minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper quietly tabled in parliament a bipartisan blue panel report titled, “Advisory Panel Report on the Creation of a Canadian Democracy Promotion Agency.” The panel is recommending that the government create the Canadian Centre for Advancing Democracy, with a proposed budget of between 28 million and 65 million U.S. dollars per year.

Since it assumed power in 2006, Harper's government has touted its commitment to placing democracy promotion as “one of the four core principles of its foreign policy.” Speaking recently in Davos, Switzerland, as global elites gathered for the World Economic Forum, Harper included democracy promotion among the issues which “require the close cooperation of friends and like-minded allies.”

Steven Fletcher, Harper's minister of state for democratic reform, said he was given the responsibility to “construct and implement” the new democracy foundation. To do so, his office gathered “experts in the area of democracy promotion.” Now that their report has been tabled, Fletcher told IPS that the government “will be plotting the appropriate course,” but would offer no timeline on when it may be legislated.

Canada already has an array of existing organisations that promote democracy abroad. In 2005, the then-Liberal government established the Democracy Council, which is an informal forum of Canadian organisations actively involved in democracy promotion who meet biannually. Once in power, the Conservatives kept the Democracy Council in place, and accelerated Canadian collaborations with the U.S., including funding several National Endowment for Democracy (NED) related projects.

Stealth Policies
Dennis Pilon, a professor of politics at the University of Victoria, says the Harper government is “taking a lot of their cues from the Americans, particularly the Republicans,” and adds that they conduct a lot of their policies “by stealth.”

“And I think this [democracy foundation] is an example of the stealth; they think that a democracy institute will allow them to more effectively integrate their efforts with the United States, which will then allow them to gain all sorts of kudos and points with the Americans,” Pilon said.

Fletcher said the new foundation “will be a made in Canada agency that will complement what other countries are doing but it will be run by Canadians to explain the importance of democracy...in emerging and post-conflict countries.”

Recent developments also follow an extensive study on democracy promotion that was conducted by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2007. The Committee's final report declared, “The creation of a new foundation to carry out our nation's democratic development efforts is the most significant recommendation resulting from our deliberations.”

Two federal parties, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, issued “dissenting opinions” against the report. The Bloc cautioned that “the types of measures recommended in this report may lead to political interference in the domestic affairs of another country,” while the NDP warned, “'Democracy' promotion can be, and has frequently undermined indigenous democratic processes around the world, when abused for the partisan foreign policy purposes of an external state.”

Fletcher told IPS that the dissenting opinions are “just not valid. This will be an arms-length agency to help countries develop democracy, and we know that democracy is the best way to empower people.”

In a statement e-mailed to IPS, the NDP's foreign affairs critic, Paul Dewar, said “It's rather ironic for the government to be pitching the creation of a democratic development organization at a time that our parliament has been shut down by the prime minister.”

Instead of returning to session as scheduled on Jan. 25, Harper suspended parliament until Mar. 3, following the conclusion of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Critics say he did so to suppress debate over allegations that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan handed detainees over to Afghan security forces who, in turn, tortured them.

Mark Neufeld, a professor in the Department of Political Studies at Trent University, said Canada's role as an “occupier” in Afghanistan precludes it from promoting democracy there.

“You can argue the occupying and intervention legacy of Canada in Afghanistan means that it can never be a democracy promoter there. People will never trust us to be some kind of neutral purveyor of good governance along a democratic model. We've been there mainly propping up a government that's not democratic.”

Several U.S. experts have indicated that a Canadian democracy foundation would be welcomed. In the Standing Committee's report, former USAID consultant and advisor to the NED, Gerald Hyman, was described as stressing to committee members “that there is a role for Canada...where the U.S. carries a lot of counter-productive baggage...[Hyman] acknowledged that Canada can do things that the U.S. cannot.”

Robert Pee, who is completing a PhD on the NED and the use of democracy promotion as a tool of “political warfare” at the University of Birmingham, attributes such sentiments to the “tactical flexibility” that such a Canadian foundation might provide as a complement to U.S. efforts.

In an e-mail to IPS, Pee explained,

“Such a foundation would be able to operate more under the radar than the NED itself; thus, it seems likely that its creation would result in a division of labour between it and the NED, with the Canadian foundation working in areas that are too 'hot' for the NED to touch.”

Political warfare, says Pee, citing since-declassified definitions produced by Cold War U.S. policy planners “is the employment of all the means at a nation's command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives.”

Created in the waning days of the Cold War by President Ronald Reagan, since then the NED “continues its core mission of protecting U.S. national security interests.” The Barack Obama administration has continued to provide the NED with unprecedented levels of funding.

One danger for the Canadian foundation lies in the possibility that it will emulate the NED's mission. A document dating to 2006, obtained by IPS from Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs through the Access to Information Act describes the little-known Democracy Council as an “incarnation of earlier models such as NDI (National Democratic Institute) and NED in the United States.”

As Pee told IPS,

“The issue is that the NED does not decide which groups it will support on the basis of determining which group would be best for the ordinary people of the country concerned, but on the basis of which group would best serve the strategic or economic interests of the United States.”

Pee offered a warning for Canadians, where “citizens will find that their taxes are being used, not only or primarily to implement their own government's 'political warfare' programmes – which would be bad enough – but largely those 'political warfare' programmes which the U.S. would like to see carried out as part of its foreign policy. Thus, Canadians will be paying to implement the foreign policy of the U.S.” •

Anthony Fenton is an independent researcher and journalist in British Columbia, Canada, who covers Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. This article first published by IPS.