October 7, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

How the U.S. election outcome could affect Canada's environment and energy future

Biden, Trump have deep differences — and each could significantly impact Canada

This story is part of a five-part series looking at how the policies of the two U.S. presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, differ when it comes to the major issues of interest to Canada, including energy, defence, trade and immigration.

The old truism that elections have consequences is doubly apt for the United States, a country whose politics reach beyond its borders. It's certainly so for Canada.

Specific policy issues in a U.S. election hold particular stakes for Canada, including energy and the environment, national defence, the border and migration and U.S. relations with China.

In advance of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 3, CBC will run stories on these five issues, and how they might play out if the winner is current President Donald Trump or his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden.

Our first instalment examines one of the most striking differences between them: energy and the environment.

If Biden wins

Biden drew attention in Canada for promising to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, then doubling down on it.

Rory Johnston, an energy analyst at Price Street in Toronto, said a president clearly has the legal power to revoke a permit. What's not clear to him is whether Biden would, in precarious economic times, actually cancel a big project, which would cost jobs and anger construction unions.

The Democratic nominee has a sweeping environmental platform that goes far beyond that one pipeline pledge.

For starters, he said he'd re-join the Paris climate accord on Day 1 of his presidency. Then he would convene, shame and potentially punish other countries that slack on their carbon emissions commitments.

Within 100 days, Biden said he'd hold a global climate summit to push countries to join the U.S. in toughening their climate objectives. He said he would also demand a worldwide ban on government subsidies for fossil fuels.

INTERACTIVE
Will Biden or Trump be the U.S. president? These states will decide

Biden also intends to grade countries on their performance. He promises a global climate change report, similar to the State Department's annual report on human rights and human trafficking. It would rank countries' performance in meeting their Paris commitments.

If that doesn't work, he's threatening to wield the stick of trade tariffs. Biden said he wants to impose what he calls "carbon-adjustment fees," or perhaps quotas, on carbon-intensive products from countries that fail to meet climate and environmental obligations.

It's not clear how many countries Biden would target. "We can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives," says Biden's platform.

Canada is projecting a lowering of emissions but not nearly by enough to meet its Paris commitment.

Implementing such a tariff could be tricky. To become embedded in U.S. law, it would have to get through Congress — and receiving the 51 to 60 per cent of votes required in the Senate would be a tall order.

Some trade analysts believe such a tactic would also be illegal protectionism under international trade law unless the U.S. imposed a similar carbon tax domestically — also a tall order.

However, other analysts say there's one tool Biden could use, which has become famous in the Trump era: declare carbon emissions a national security matter and apply the same trade weapon the current president used against foreign steel and aluminum.

Any regulatory moves could face another hurdle in a more hostile Supreme Court.

Speaking of the environment and trade, Biden is proposing a massive, $2 trillion green-infrastructure plan aimed at new transit, vehicles and a carbon-free power grid by 2035. Biden says the construction would be done by U.S. firms under Buy American rules.

He would also re-establish policies from the Obama era that Canada has signed onto, from methane and auto regulations to an Arctic drilling ban.

Gerald Butts, who was a former senior aide to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and worked on some of those agreements with the U.S, said Biden's climate policies go far beyond Obama's and reflect a growing recognition of the environmental threat.

"Biden's plan would have been unthinkable for a presidential nominee for a major party even one cycle ago," said Butts, now vice-chair of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

Bob Deans, a spokesman for the political action committee of the Washington-based Natural Resources Defence Council, called climate change a defining issue for this election.

"The American people are facing a stark choice in this election. Two completely different energy futures," Deans said. "We need to be reducing our reliance on oil and gas, not locking future generations into this climate nightmare."

If Trump wins

In his 2016 platform, Trump promised more oil drilling, more pipelines — and less regulation. He delivered that on several fronts.

Just last month he announced a border permit for a multi-purpose rail project that, if built, could eventually ship Canadian oil through Alaska.

Trump ditched a number of Obama's climate rules, and left the Paris Accord. (His pullout from the Paris agreement officially goes into effect the day after this year's election.)

Trump hasn't published a platform for the next four years. His campaign website simply lists things he's done to slash regulations and promote fossil-fuel development. He's promising no major policy changes.

"We would continue what we're doing," Trump told The New York Times, when asked about his overall second-term plans.

As far as Canada is concerned, that means a continued commitment to the still-unbuilt Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry nearly one-fifth of the oil Canada exports to the U.S. each day.

Johnston said that pipeline isn't, on its own, a make-or-break issue for the Canadian oilpatch, but it would help, he said.

He said the oilsands likely need two pipelines completed over the next few years out of the three major projects underway — Trans Mountain to the Pacific Coast, the Line 3 expansion to the Great Lakes and Keystone XL to the Gulf of Mexico — to avoid the type of transportation bottlenecks that have previously devastated Canadian oil prices.

"It's never ideal to be just at the limit of your [transportation] capacity," Johnston said.

Even with the current president's support, Keystone XL faces challenges. The ground has been cleared for only 100 kilometres of pipe to be laid inside Canada. A border-crossing segment has been built, and 17 pump stations out of an eventual 36 along the route are under construction.

That leaves the project about two years, many hundreds of kilometres and some legal and regulatory fights shy of completion. A Supreme Court decision this summer allowed a Montana ruling to stand, which forced the pipeline company to get permits for crossing waterways. Permit hearings were scheduled for late September in Montana and North Dakota.

It's an uncertain moment for oil — and the financial stakes for Canada are considerable. It's Canada's top export to the U.S., in dollar figures; Canadian oil accounts for about half of U.S. oil imports, following years of growth.

But energy giant BP projects that global oil demand has peaked.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects U.S. imports will flatten out and even decline a bit. That's happening as several automakers say they will keep building vehicles to the stricter emissions standards set in California — standards that are backed by Ottawa.

California, the largest U.S. vehicle market, recently announced it planned to ban sales of gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

Some of these changes in energy markets will proceed regardless of who's president.

Johnston's own projection? Barring a sudden change in the market, Canadian oil production will grow a bit for two to five years, then plateau at similar levels for decades.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-issues-canada-environment-1.5746288

On the same subject

June 22, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

Aerospace firm drops lawsuit against DND as defence officials award it multibillion-dollar contract
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen An Italian aerospace firm dropped a lawsuit against Canada over what it claimed was a rigged aircraft purchase shortly before the federal government awarded it a new sole-source deal potentially worth billions of dollars. But the Canadian Forces and officials with Italian defence company, Leonardo, say the ending of the legal action in May had nothing to do with the company being picked for a new project the same month. Leonardo has been selected by the Royal Canadian Air Force to upgrade its Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters and provide seven additional aircraft. It is estimated the project will cost taxpayers between $1 billion and $5 billion, a price tag that includes the purchase of simulators and support equipment. Leonardo had been fighting the Canadian government in Federal Court over its 2016 decision to award its rival, Airbus, a contract to build fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes as part of a $4.7-billion program. The company was asking the court to overturn the contract to Airbus and instead award the lucrative deal to Leonardo and its Canadian partners. It alleged the Airbus aircraft failed to meet the government's basic criteria. But that legal action was stopped in May just as the Canadian government was awarding Leonardo the new helicopter deal. The Department of National Defence suggested the decision to drop the lawsuit was not related to its decision to select Leonardo for the sole-source deal. “The Government of Canada's priority is to select a best-value package for the Cormorant Mid-Life Upgrade,” the DND noted in an email. “Decisions related to this procurement were made based on consultations with industry and our subject matter experts and follow standard procurement reviews.” But the sole-source deal to Leonardo caught the aerospace industry by surprise. The RCAF had asked companies just last year for informal proposals on how Canada's future search and rescue helicopter needs could be met. One firm, Sikorsky, went as far as launching a campaign to promote its civilian S-92 helicopter as a cost-effective solution. It proposed that it was cheaper to buy new helicopters than to upgrade the older Cormorants. The federal government acknowledged that it has now received correspondence from aerospace firms raising issues about the sole-source deal with Leonardo. “We have received some responses,” Pierre-Alain Bujold, a spokesman for Public Services and Procurement Canada, stated in an email. “PSPC officials are currently reviewing the responses, in collaboration with the Department of National Defence and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.” “Once this review is complete, officials will determine appropriate next steps and inform respondents accordingly,” Bujold added. But defence industry insiders say the review is simply for the sake of appearances and it is expected the deal with Leonardo will proceed. Leonardo officials said their decision to drop the lawsuit was made in April but it took until the next month before that process could be completed. The Cormorant fleet entered service in the year 2000 and the modernization would allow the helicopters to operate for another 25 years at least. One of Leonardo's subsidiaries was the original manufacturer of the Cormorants. The decision to sole-source the deal moved through the federal system quickly. On April 20, RCAF spokesman Maj. Scott Spurr stated the air force was still examining options on how to proceed and that the next phase of the project wouldn't come until 2019. But on May 24 the Canadian government announced it had decided to go with Leonardo on the exclusive deal. Department of National Defence officials say it was determined that it was more cost effective to stay with the Cormorant fleet as it is a proven aircraft the RCAF knows well. The upgrade program is expected to include the latest avionic and mission systems, advanced radars and sensors, vision enhancement and tracking systems. http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/aerospace-firm-drops-lawsuit-against-dnd-as-defence-officials-award-it-multibillion-dollar-contract
September 4, 2020 | Local, Naval, Land, C4ISR

PETER JENNINGS (ASPI): CANADA + AUSTRALIA IN THE INDO-PACIFIC
Q: In what ways has Australia's defence policy changed in the new strategic outlook? How has China responded? Peter Jennings: Australia has a tradition of producing what we call “defence white papers” every five years or so. [This one] is essentially a policy update that will change the current direction of Australian defence thinking in significant ways—increased spending on military equipment, for example. Strategically, we are going to prioritize our immediate region— the Indo-Pacific. For the past few decades our defence force has maintained a very close operational focus on the Middle East, but I think this is relative history which won't last for very much longer. The language of the Strategic Update is cautious and, in some ways, coded. There's no question that the language employed is a result of actions taken by a more assertive China. Government thinking was largely influenced by China's increased militarization of the South China Sea. Since 2015, China's military capacity has hastily extended into Southeast Asia, up to the coast of Indonesia. This is the strategic picture our government must consider. The update has shifted the focus towards our present defence force, with an emphasis on what can be done in the near-term to increase the range and hitting power of the Australian armed forces through a significant acquisition of anti-surface and anti-air missiles. We are also identifying opportunities for domestic production of those weapons here in Australia. We will be acquiring new submarines as well, the first of which will hit the water in 2035, with construction on some models extending into 2050. That is the future defence force. The update has been well received by most of Southeast Asia, including Indonesia. This is largely because there appears to be an unspoken census in the region that China is the number one problem. A strong Australia, capable of contributing to regional security is desirable in the Indo-Pacific. I think it was well received by the Pentagon. I'm unsure whether the White House has the attention span to focus on it too much, but [our] relationship remains reliable and in good order despite [current events]. I don't know if the defence update was particularly subject to criticism from China. That is partly because there is so much Australia is doing right now that China has criticized. I think the PLA would look at this and think “That is quite a sophisticated little organization.” The ADF is only 60,000 people strong. However, it is a very high-tech force and the Chinese find that quite interesting. At a political level, there is practically nothing our government can say or do at the moment that has not received disapproval from the CCP. Q: China has warned Canada that it will face consequences for it's so called interference in Hong Kong. What kind of pressure, if any, has Australia faced for its stance on the new security law? Do you see any parallels between our relationship with China? Peter Jennings: China has increasingly employed what has been termed “Wolf warrior diplomacy”, a style exercise to create an image of a more assertive, confident, and intervening China on the global stage. There are some close similarities but also some differences between the bilateral relationships Canada and Australia share with China. Canada is nowhere near as dependent on China as Australia is for trade. Canada does have a Chinese Canadian population as part of its diaspora, but I don't think it is anywhere near the size of our own [diaspora]. That's a factor, as are our geographies. Any country that pushes back or expresses disapproval of the treatment of Uyghurs or of the national security law in Honk Kong will receive the brunt of Chinese criticism. They may also find themselves subjected to various types of coercion via trade measures, which China will not hesitate to use as an instrument of its broader foreign policy. As a democracy that advocates for human rights and the international rule of law, Canada will increasingly find itself on the sharp end of Beijing's criticism. Australia is a model for this in a way. If Canada does what it should do, i.e. ensuring its 5G network is not vulnerable to high risk vendors from China, then this too will be badly received in Beijing. Democracies around the world shave to stiffen their spines and realize that this is the world that we are in for the moment. We can't let ourselves be too spooked by the tough talk that comes out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Global Times, or any of the other instruments utilized by the CCP to express its displeasure. We are aware of the case of the two Michaels currently being detained in China on espionage charges. Right now, an Australian named Yang Hengjun is on death row in China on drug smuggling charges. I make no judgement about the accuracy of the charges, but we oppose the death penalty here in Australia so that is an issue. Frankly what we have seen is a type of hostage taking. It is designed to quell the behavior of our government when dealing with China and to create another source of leverage or coercion that the CCP can use to exert pressure on us. You cannot safely criticize the CCP, particularly inside China and get away with it. Australia will continue to look after Yang's situation, but this is the China we are dealing with now. And as was seen with the [two Michaels], China is quite openly prepared to use coercive treatments such as these to make political points against countries. Q: What steps has Australia taken to address CCP influence on Australia's China policy, political parties, and universities? Peter Jennings: We've been working on this issue for about 4-5 years now. It could be argued that Australia used to be complacent about Chinese infiltration and influence. Some may observe we've now swung hard in the other direction, though I don't necessarily agree with that. Firstly, we have modernized our espionage and anti-interference laws which had not been modified since the 1960s. There is now a process whereby covert influencing operations, once identified, can be held legally accountable. Secondly, we have created what is known as the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme—a process whereby individuals and organizations must declare received funding from foreign sources. Particularly if that funding is used to shape and influence policy outcomes in Australia. At ASPI, we receive some funding from the United States, the Netherlands, the foreign and commonwealth office in the United Kingdom. We register those activities on the foreign influence transparency scheme. Now we are extending these practices more broadly to include universities and research institutions. Governments have, with great reluctance, put controls on the ability of political parties to receive foreign donations. We haven't successfully managed this issue in universities. The Australian university system is heavily dependent on funding from foreign students' fees. A significant number of those foreign students—several hundreds of thousands, are from China. This has done a lot to compromise the willingness of our universities to protect freedom of speech. There have been some ugly incidents that would indicate our universities, if presented with a principle or a dollar, will go for the dollar every time. There has been an explosion of research connections between Australian universities and Chinese institutions, which has grown in the hundreds over the five years. This has become a serious concern to the federal government and to our intelligence agencies. There is concern over the extent to which research is providing a vector for intellectual policy theft, espionage, and research designed to benefit the Chinese military intelligence establishment. Some universities acknowledge the problem and are adapting their business models, while others are in utter denial. Q: Australia was the first country in the Five Eyes to ban Huawei, there is now discussion about possibly banning other Chinese companies. What is the rationale or desired outcome behind these measures? As an ally, is Canada expected to follow suit? Peter Jennings: In 2018 Australia decided to exclude companies they referred to as “high risk” vendors from bidding into our 5G network. China was not specifically named, however a “high risk” constitutes a company that could be subject to control by a foreign government so it can use of technology for the purposes of espionage or inflicting damage to critical infrastructure. This decision ultimately excluded Huawei from our 5G network. A major impetus behind the government's decision was China's 2017 national security law, which stated that individuals and companies must assist the national security services if they are asked to and that they must hide that they have cooperated with the Chinese security services. Huawei is not subject to that Chinese law, but there is a very strong presumption at the government level that this is untrue. Far be it for me, an Australia, to tell the Canadians what to do. Canada needs to come to its own decision regarding the security of its network. However, I cannot see how Canada could, in the light of what the other Five Eye countries have done, conclude how it is capable of managing this situation with Huawei inside the 5G network. I very much hope that Canada will take the decision to exclude those companies. I think Canada takes a stand it will create opportunities for closer collaboration through the Five Eyes countries. What started as a vehicle for intelligence collaboration is broadening into a vehicle for policy collaboration. It would be very nice if Canada could continue to be a part of that grouping. Q: What kind of role is Canada expected to play with its allies to address and possibly help stabilize growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific? How could we be a better ally in the region? Peter Jennings: Canada is a valuable player in the Indo-Pacific because it is a successful multicultural democracy. Canada takes human rights as well as its international role in the world seriously. To have Canada playing this kind role, diplomatically and politically, in the Indo-Pacific is very welcome from an Australian perspective. I would like to see Canada do more, particularly in the Pacific in terms of military presence and cooperation with countries in the region. The Pacific is definitely a region of growing strategic importance. This likely won't lead to a massive reorientation of Canadian military thinking anytime soon, but I would just make the point that as a valuable partner, anything that Canada does in and with the region in terms of military collaboration is important. Where I think we should be doing a better job is talking to each other more effectively on issues like China. This is where the Five Eyes need to stick together. We must share internal thinking about how we are going to deal with the problem of this assertive, authoritarian state. What Beijing has been very effectively able to do is split coalitions. This weakens all of us and I think a more focused engagement that puts more substance into our bilateral relationships in a security sense would be valuable. I have been an advocate for closer bilateral relations with Canada for many years now going back to the time when I was in the defence department. I think there is always a risk involving Australia and Canada. We think we are so alike. We feel we have a familial type of relationship, but we do not actually do enough to push each other to be better, more effective partners. My message is, let's not be comfortable or content with just reaching for familial metaphors about how we can do things together. We need to work harder to be better and more effective partners. https://cdainstitute.ca/peter-jennings-interview-canadian-australian-collaboration-countering-china-in-the-indo-pacific/
June 16, 2024 | Local, Naval

HMCS Charlottetown deploys to become flagship of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2
Today, His Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Charlottetown departed Halifax, Nova Scotia, to join and assume flagship duties of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2) as part of Operation REASSURANCE in the Mediterranean Sea

All news