Graduation Address

"Notes for an Address by Allan Gotlieb, Ambassador of Canada to the United States of America, 'Some Thoughts on Canada/United States Relations'" (24 May 1985). (UA Case 67, Box 2)

Lieutenant Governor Stanley, President Downey, Honoured Guests, Faculty and most importantly, Students and Parents, I am delighted to be with you today to share in this Spring Convocation exercise.

Convocations are exciting happenings, not only because they celebrate a successful accomplishment, but also because they mark an adventurous new beginning. At the outset, let me congratulate you on your academic achievements and extend my very best wishes for the challenging road that lies ahead.

By honouring me today and by inviting me, as your Ambassador to Washington, to speak to you on this happy occasion, you have made a gesture that exemplifies the important historic facts that you and your city are celebrating in this Bicentennial year.

"200 Years Proud" is a fitting theme for these celebrations. In it are embodied many years of fruitful Canada-US relations, going back to the time when the United Empire Loyalists landed here in 1783, however bleak the prospects might have seemed then. Your loyalist ancestors, with their ideals and resourcefulness, changed the complexion and development of Canadian culture, outlook and business from that time to the present.

200 years ago Mrs. William Blaine’s plea for the establishment of an academy led to the passing of an Order-in-Council on December 13, 1785 and the subsequent creating of a Provincial Academy of Arts and Sciences modeled on that of King’s College of New York.

That the roots of your great university are embedded in such history is but another reason why I am so appreciative of the friendliness of your invitation.

I would like to share with you today a few thoughts about my job, and how I perceive this great neighbour and ally of ours to the south.

I know of your keen interest here in Canada/U.S. relations, linked, as you are, to New England and your southern neighbours, by geography, by trade, by demography, by climate, and culture.

Cooperation has always been one of the key themes as is exemplified by regular meetings between Maritime Premiers and the North Eastern Governors, including the one that will take place next June 16th in St. Andrews. Has anyone ever tried to calculate how many New Brunswickers have dual citizenship along the border from St. Stephen up to St. Francois? What closer ties could exist between two countries?

Today, scholars and laymen alike, once they inquire into the nature of the Canada-US relationship, come quickly to realize that they are dealing with the most intimate, complex and multi-faceted international relationship in the world.

The economic dimensions alone are staggering by virtually any standard of comparison.

In 1984, our two-way trade exceeded U.S. $113 billion. Just the increase in Canadian exports to the U.S. last year exceeded the total of Canadian exports to Europe and Japan together. Not only are we the biggest export market for the U.S. in the world – taking some 21% of all of their exports – but we are also the fastest growing and probably the most open market for U.S. exports.

U.S. total exports to Canada grew by more than 20% in 1984 and 85% of these were manufactured. In fact on a global basis we took some 25% of all U.S. exports of manufacturing. No wonder two million jobs in the U.S. depend directly on exports to Canada.

It is also fair to say that almost every aspect of Canadian national life is now affected in some measure by our relationship with the United States. There are literally thousands of treaties and understandings between us, ranging in subject matter from the defence of the North American continent to the importation of Racoon dogs.

The overall quality of our relationship is excellent and Prime Minister Mulroney has an outstanding personal relationship with President Reagan as was exemplified in the recent Quebec Summit. I doubt if any two major industrialized nations have a better relationship.

I would be misleading you, however, if I did not say something about some of the factors which occasionally complicate the relationship. Most of them relate to the complexities of the American system, such as the principle of separation of powers in the U.S. governmental process, in other words, the system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

That is to say that many of our bilateral problems emerge from United States law-making processes – in the legislatures, regulatory bodies and the courts – themselves operating, of course, entirely within U.S. law but sometimes arising without sufficient consciousness of the wider international implications of their results.

The end result is that a great deal of U.S. foreign policy towards Canada is not really its foreign policy at all but its domestic policy. Put another way: U.S. foreign policy towards Canada is largely an aggregation of domestic political and economic thrusts. And so, inevitably, we are drawn into the American domestic process, whether we like it or not.

Let me set out for you three main variables which set the context in which our interests must be dealt with in the U.S.

The first of these is what might best be described as the public mood in the United States. It is in turn reflected in the kinds of impulses which manifest themselves in American political institutions.

There is, I believe, a newly developed or resurgent sense of patriotism and pride in the U.S. today which is a product of many things. It stands as a marked contrast to the public mood of a decade ago which was confused and confounded by the traumas of Watergate, the Vietnam War and the Oil Crises of the 1970’s.

What I mean, in a broad sense, is that Americans feel they are not going to be pushed around any more, by foe or by friend.

The Administration remains committed to an outward-looking trade and economic policy with the rest of the world. It is extremely positive about its relationship with Canada and the new Canadian government.

But the point is that it is not with the Administration that we have many, if not most of our problems. It is with Congress, which more specifically reflects the public mood. This is particularly true in the area of trade where strong protectionist impulses are being felt throughout the land.

That brings me to the second factor representing an area of difference: the institutional. As I mentioned, in the United States, there is a unique system of checks and balances which divides power among the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary. Within these institutions themselves, particularly within the Congress and to some extent the Executive, there is also a certain decentralization or fragmentation of a sort that I sometimes describe as the doctrine of the Sub-separation of Powers.

In a nutshell two of three branches of the American Constitutional Triad – the Administration and the Congress – are each composed of a sub-set of often competing component parts.

The Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is not a monolithic and homogeneous mass.

Quite the contrary and particularly in the context of our relations with the U.S. which often get bound up in the domestic political process.

The Administration is in fact affected by competition from within and between different departments and agencies each with their own turf to patrol and each with a piece of the Canadian action.

These dynamics and the interests they reflect have a major and far reaching impact on our relations not withstanding the coherent desire in the White House and the State Department to safeguard and nourish the bilateral relationship’s larger and longer term value.

There are potentially any number of administration departments and agencies which can have an input on any given issue. This is particularly so, if the issue at hand is not on the President’s personal agenda. And how many can be?

In the area of international trade, for example, the range of Administration players can be almost overwhelming.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) looks at general trade policy and relations. So does the State Department – perhaps from a broader political or foreign policy perspective. The Commerce and Treasury Departments are also an integral part of this process. So too is the Pentagon if the question relates to East-West trade or trade in strategic goods. We can’t of course forget the Agriculture Department if the question touches on New Brunswick potatoes.

It is no secret – watch the U.S. TV news at 7:00p.m. or read the U.S. papers – to see how often, how grand, and heroic are the battles among these entities.

Then there is the third variable – the difference in the regulatory systems of our respective countries. Our different geography, demography, climate, linguistic and ethnic mix and cultural heritage, and a whole lot of other features, have required our respective governments to deal over the years with specific development problems in ways suiting our respective national circumstances.

One system is not necessarily better than another, but there are significant differences in the systems. We have seen that in times of economic difficulty, these differences can be mis-diagnosed in public political moods as representing threats.

The institutions can translate these threats into retaliatory actions. Thus we had last year’s trucking "war" between our two countries, major problems over steel pipes and tubes and our large-scale soft-wood lumber dispute which continues to this very day.

Even as economic recovery took place in the U.S. it did not do so evenly across the U.S. and some major industries in the U.S. never recovered at all. Clearly some areas are more affected than others and growth will continue to be uneven. All of these factors have an impact on the Congress. But the Congress on which they impact is a very different one from 20 years ago.

First in importance – it is decentralized to the point that the power of Congress itself is sub-separated – as I just mentioned. Up until some 15 years ago the Congressional leadership, through the seniority system, could much more easily control the chambers and particularly, block legislative initiatives which were not deemed convenient or desirable.

The Administration could put together deals and rely on Congress to respond, on most issues of national interest, to the Administration’s lead. That is no longer true, for many reasons.

Among other developments, I would cite the diminished discipline of political parties, the emergence of political action committees (the PACs) and the surge in single interest constituencies, bringing pressure – often in a highly sophisticated manner – on legislators.

Further, the impact of television on political campaigns which, as we have seen again in 1984 has encouraged greater self-reliance and independence among members.

The end result is an institution which responds more directly and immediately to regional and local pressures from their specific electorates. These are the same electorates which I earlier described as nationalistic and among whom protectionist sentiment is strong.

A good example of this is a resolution introduced last May 2 by a number of U.S. Congressional representatives urging the President "to step up his efforts to equalize that relationship (i.e. Canada/US trade) which is now an egregiously lopsided one that is detrimental to many American industries."

This resolution was co-sponsored by six congressmen/women from different States, who, demonstrated some strong sentiments about our exports to the U.S. For some it was fish or potatoes or lumber, for others it was fresh vegetables or pork. We are, perhaps, lucky that none of them brought up the fact that there is a particular "moose on the loose" from this very city running across all 50 states.

What this resolution exemplified however is the highly specific nature of complaints be it sector, region or industry specific. These are the people that vote and finance elections in the U.S. and Canada doesn’t have any votes in Washington.

But we have an active and public diplomacy. We try to determine who our American or foreign allies are and with them we try to impress legislators, or their constituents or other players, with the wisdom of not taking action against Canadian interests.

We explain to them that Canadians are fair traders. We abide by the rules and we want an open and cooperative trading environment. If either side can be shown not to playing fair in a particular instance, then it is reasonable that the rules be applied to ensure that that particular trade is fair. That is why we both have anti-dumping and countervail rules. But the fact is Canada is a fair trader, we play by the rules and we will continue to act as fair traders.

As one of the world’s largest exporters, we really have no choice. Self-interest requires it. We also explain that if the U.S. is protectionist towards Canada such actions can hurt American interests. For instances, efforts to stop Canadian lumber exports that are competitively priced can only lead to rising costs and ultimately to a loss of jobs in the U.S. construction industry. Protectionist measures could also lead to higher costs for consumers of potatoes, fish or port products.

I hope to have been able to demonstrate to you some of the complexities that affect Canada’s most important economic relationship. Given the enormous implications of the U.S. in Canadian life, such understanding is, I am convinced, not only important to Canadians; but it is essential.

You are now off to begin challenging careers here, out west or in central Canada. But whatever you end up doing or wherever you end up establishing more permanent roots, there will always be a mention of Canada/U.S. relations in your daily newspaper or on the nightly news. You are stepping into a world full of challenges, at a time in history where major issues that will have a bearing on your future are being debated; be they arms control, Canadian foreign policy or a new trading agreement with the USA. So it is important to know and understand how the U.S. system works and how, in particular, it can effect our economic life. And, when you see an opening, bring your views to these debates.

You who are graduating here today will most certainly have the chance in late life to contribute to the destinies of this province and to our great country. But our destinies will always be affected by the fact that we share a continent with a great democracy to the South. It is therefore of biding importance that on both sides of the border, we strive to understand each other’s systems and societies, that we each of us give our neighbour and friend the benefit of the doubt in times of trouble.

It is especially important that we both go about resolving disputes, when they arise, with patience and understanding and in the unique spirit of historic friendship that characterizes our two nations.

To all you graduates, who completed your courses of studies today, I wish you every success for happiness and fulfillment in the future. To your great university which has today honoured me so kindly, I am humbly grateful.

Thank you.