Has Fred missed his moment?

U.S. Senator Fred Thompson announced yesterday that he will kick off his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination on September 6th. This is not quite a declaration of his candidacy, but there has been no doubt for months that Thompson will run for the nomination. Even though Thompson is seen by many Republicans as a "Reagan-esque," strong-on-values candidate in a field of social liberals (Rudy Giuliani) Mormons (Mitt Romney) and wafflers (John McCain), and even though Thompson consistently places second or third in national and primary polls, he has not yet declared his candidacy for the nomination.

And you know, I can't explain why not. What is Thompson waiting for? In July there was real buzz about him: his celebrity, his appeal to bedrock values-voters, his polling numbers, etc. And yet, the only news we've been getting from his campaign has been tales of numerous staff departures. July came, and went, and still no declaration. He inexplicably decided to sit-out the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa earlier this month, where he would have been sure to take down a second-place showing or better. Instead, Mike Huckabee, a previously lifeless candidate, scooped up the second place spot behind Mitt Romney (due to a lack of participation from any other viable candidates), thus injecting the Huckabee campaign with buzz, media attention, and new life.

And apparently Fred's numbers have started to dwindle a bit. From the Fix:

...after a month of negative press centered around a number of staff departures, Thompson finds that momentum blunted somewhat. The inside-the-Beltway crowd -- in truth, never Thompson believers -- seem to be convinced that his moment has passed. Polling, both national and in key early states, shows Thompson in the game but falling slightly from his numbers in mid to late June and early July.

Has Fred missed his moment? No: he remains a powerful candidate, and one to watch closely. But I think he ranks third place now, behind Giuliani and Romney, whereas in July he might have tied Giuliani for second place. He's lost some momentum, and the Thompson campaign should be kicking itself for not striking when the iron was hot.

RIM and Microsoft - should Ottawa intervene?

RIM stocks were up today due to a rumour floating around Bay Street – Microsoft might be interested in buying RIM.

Oh God, not RIM. Could it be? Could the “darling” of Canadian tech companies really fall under foreign ownership? From the CBC:

"Microsoft has been mentioned as a possible buyer," Frederic Ruffy, an analyst at options education firm Optionetics, told Reuters. "According to speculation, the software giant might be interested in RIM in response to Google's recent announcement that it is interested in making its own mobile phone operating system, which would compete with Windows Mobile."

Of course, this likely won’t amount to much, and similar rumours have floated around in the past. One analyst said told reporters, "I can't even count the number of times we've heard that over the last three years.'' So it's probably nothing. The markets have been too responsive to speculation lately.

Still, it gives one pause. Last week, Stelco, the last remaining plant of the “independent Canadian steel industry” was sold to become a subsidiary of U.S. Steel. I seem to read quite often about Canadian companies being bought-out by larger U.S. or Chinese conglomerates, though I rarely read about ownership papers floating Northward. Should we be concerned about this?

Maybe. After all, the Canadian government loses important legislative authority over the corporation if its headquarters moves from Waterloo to New York City. We might reasonably suppose that a U.S.-owned RIM would be less likely to hold down roots in Waterloo, or even in Canada as a whole. Then there’s the whole question over whether Canada should retain sovereignty over its finite natural resources. And we certainly don’t want Canadian firms to make selling-off to foreign interests their ultimate business strategy.

But on the other hand, it’s not like Canada loses everything in a foreign takeover. The now-foreign-owned company will still employ our citizens and pay taxes on assets in our country. And as long as we strive to keep Canadian worker’s competitive in the global economy, that’s not likely to change. And in fact, previously Canadian-owned companies might do even better under foreign ownership, thus benefiting Canadian workers and industry.

But the more important consideration is this: do we really want the government to step in and forbid shareholders from selling their own companies? Business owners invest a lot in their companies. They own them. Shouldn’t they be able to sell their assets if they think the price is fair? Aren't our financial markets based on this concept? Think about what would happen to investor confidence if Ottawa suddenly began stepping in to deny majority shareholders their right to sell. Are we comfortable with this?

I’m bothered by foreign ownership of Canadian companies, but not to the point where I think the government should step in and forbid such activity. Loss of national control is one of the tradeoffs of the global economy – you surrender some control, but gain some efficiency. It might make us uneasy, but remember that foreign ownership does not imply the deterioration of the Canadian economy, or the exporting of Canadian jobs.

The gist, in my view: asking the Canadian government to step in, freeze assets, and forbid the sale of Canadian companies could seriously undermine our financial markets and our reputation as a world-class economy. We should think long and hard before going down this road. I’m not sure this type of intervention is good, or warranted, even though the prospect of losing a company like RIM to foreign ownership makes me uneasy.

The SPP: no cause for concern

From the Council Of Canadian's document Behind Closed Doors

Recently, Prime Minister Harper played host to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), an annual meeting of the North American leaders to discuss issues of cross-border trade, security, and other juicy elements of the trilateral relationship. The SPP is hated by some, valued by others, and ignored by most.

So what’s it all about? Is the SPP as secretive as its opponents suggest? Is it driven by business interests, pushing for deeper North American integration? What actually came out of this year’s meeting? And did Stephen Harper wear another embarrassing vest?

My blanket answer: opponents of the SPP should chill out. Citizen interest groups like the Council of Canadians deserve to be given a voice in the process, it’s true. But the SPP’s detractors aren’t going to be taken seriously if they keep touting this “grand corporate conspiracy” rhetoric. The SPP is useful in ironing out wrinkles in the North American partnership, healthy for continued continental growth, and an utterly un-sexy and un-scary institution. This conspiracy stuff just won’t wash, as I hope to show.

The Case of the Detractors: A Highway to Nowhere?

Several citizens groups, led primarily by Maude Barlow and the nationalistic Council of Canadians, have many complaints about the SPP and the way it does business. They accuse it of being anti-democratic, driven by corporate interests, and dragging Canada down a dangerous path of energy depletion and water diversion. I read through their publication Behind Closed Doors: What they're not telling us about the Security and Prosperity Partnership to check out their talking points, and while they do make some good arguments (particularly that the door is closed to citizen groups and lobbies), it seems to me that most of their fears are unwarranted, premature, or lacking in substance. Here are their main complaints, with my comments:

1.) The SPP is un-democratic

“The SPP is the political manifestation of a corporate plan for economic and security integration that was never voted on in any country… Meanwhile, the public and most of our publicly elected officials have been left out of the picture completely.”

Part of this complaint is fair, and part of it is overstated. To suggest that the SPP is a “corporate plan” is taking things too far. Yes, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives plays an advisory role in the process, but that doesn’t imply that it is driving the debate. At the end of the day, the leader’s get to decide what to talk about and implement, and guess what? They were elected.

And besides, I think it’s good to get the business community involved in the process. For instance, if Canada is going to keep plugging away at its “smart border” ideas to provide border security and easy trade, we need the business community in our corner, telling Washington that they’re prepared to make the adjustments, that they value ease-of-access borders, etc. I think the talks likely benefit from private-sector involvement.

However, it’s only fair that if the business sector is involved, the citizens groups should get their say, too. Would it have been too much for the leaders to meet with Maude Barlow and other interest-group leaders to involve them in the process? And Harper’s refusal to accept the petition submitted by the protestors in Montebello was arrogant, disrespectful and low. Real low. No wonder they feel marginalized. Let’s allow for some civic participation, huh?

2.) The SPP is an “Energy Grab” (Maude's words)

“Canada and Mexico have agreed to give U.S. oil companies an even tighter grip of both countries’ resources in return for vague assurances that the U.S. won’t shut the border to our goods. In Canada, that means guaranteeing a fivefold increase in tar sands production, no matter what the consequences for the environment and public health – and even if it makes greenhouse gas reductions impossible.”

Now hold on a second. I’ve read the 2007 SPP meeting declaration, and I don’t remember reading anything about a 5-fold increase in tar sands production. I’ve also poked around some of the past summit declarations and agendas, and even though the Council of Canadians asserts that “a fivefold increase in tar sands production is actually built right into the SPP,” I can’t find reference to this anywhere. It seems weird that an increase in energy production would be “built right into” the SPP – especially since the SPP isn’t a document or agreement; it’s just a meeting. And besides, isn't the decision to increase oil production in the hands of the companies pumping the oil? The Prime Minister doesn't force companies to increase their oil production. How could this have been an agreement? And where was it agreed to? Does anyone know what they’re talking about here?

And anyway, if you’re against the development of the oilsands for environmental reasons, why bother attacking the SPP? Why not lobby for stronger environmental regulations? It seems strange to attack the SPP (which actually aspires to promote environmental cooperation between its members) because of the oil sands development. After all, the oilsands would be tapped with-or-without the SPP’s existence.

And besides, the oil sands are extremely valuable to the Canadian economy. Is it wrong to sell energy to the United States? Certainly not. We need environmental protection, to be sure, but can’t we have the SPP also? Calling the SPP an “energy grab” just doesn’t wash.

3) The SPP is destroying Canadian sovereignty over fresh water

“There is very little mention of water in publicly available Security and Prosperity Partnership documents ... But we know from several leaked documents from U.S. groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies that bulk water exports and other contentious issues related to water management have been discussed in trilateral talks linked to the SPP.”

Uh-huh. Does this sound like something you want to get worked up about? Some unnamed people, “linked” in some way to the SPP, talked about bulk water exports. What they talked about is not mentioned. Meanwhile, Harper has said to the Canadian public that “Canada’s water is not for sale.” Cause for concern? I don't think so.

4) The SPP “extends Bush’s War on Terror”

Now this one really takes the rhetoric too far. From a speech by Maude Barlow:

“The SPP extends George Bush’s War on Terror, with its fixation on bombs, mortars and bibles, to Canada and Mexico.”

Strong words. Her evidence? Canada has merged its no-fly list with that of the United States. Yep. That’s it. But no, that's not an overstatement. The day these lists were merged, I can tell you that I felt a strange affinity for bombs, mortars, and bibles. And now I know why. It’s because the SPP extended the War on Terror right to my doorstep. We may as well be in Iraq.

Like, is this lame or what? It’s this kind of laughable overstatement that makes the citizens groups sound goofy, and keeps them from occupying a reasonable, legitimate place at the SPP’s table.

And oh yeah, you’ve probably read about this NAFTA Superhighway, a “road to nowhere” that’s supposedly “four football fields wide” and spans all three countries. Totally untrue of course, but even the Council of Canadians makes mention of something similar.

This year’s outcome? Boooooring

Now, it seems to me that if you want to judge whether or not the SPP is silently and steadily destroying the Canadian nation-state, you should look at what it has actually achieved to that end. So let's briefly look at this year's achievements toward "deep integration." I checked out the 2007 SPP Joint Declaration, and found that this year the good people of North America got:

- a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza
- a Regulatory Cooperation Framework
- an Intellectual Property Action Strategy
- a Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology

Wow, is anyone else shaking in their boots? Looking at those wildly ambitious achievements, I can't help but feel compelled to sing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. Now that we have a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, I'm convinced the Canadian state is not long for this world.

Hardly. So here’s my view on the SPP: it’s bland, it’s bureaucratic, it’s pragmatic, it’s valuable, and it’s very un-scary. I’ve read through the nationalistic talking points. I’m not concerned. And while I sympathize with the fact that these groups should be listened to (which is precisely why I have tried to treat their arguments seriously here), I think they shoot themselves in the foot when they treat the SPP like some mysterious corporate conspiracy. Moderate yourselves, guys, and I promise you’ll be taken more seriously.