The View From Washington

Introduction:

Honoured guests, Head Table guests, members of The Empire Club, ladies and gentlemen. Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., has been the address for several distinguished visitors in the history of The Empire Club. Our guest today is distinguished among them for being the first Canadian. As well, he was on hand for the opening of his Chancery and he was its first resident. It covers a quarter of a million square feet, has an art gallery, auditorium and library, and is Canada's'home away from home' in America's capital. And it's just down the street from the White House. But Derek Burney is not here as the tour guide of Canada's Embassy. Rather, he is here as our country's worthy representative to the most powerful nation on earth.

Mr. Burney is a native of a Canadian city which doesn't exist any more, an honours graduate of Queen's University and a language graduate of the Study Centre in Tokyo. As an officer of Canada's External Affairs department, he has represented our country in New Zealand and Japan and as an ambassador in Korea.

His administrative challenges have included the running of the Summits in Ottawa in 1981 and in Quebec in 1985. He has been the Associate Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of our country. Since January of this year he has been our, "man in

Washington," at a time in our history when good relations have never been more important, or the strength of our representation more vital. Remembering John F. Kennedy's words, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate", Canadians can be proud to have a man of Derek Burney's stature represent our country.

On your behalf I welcome Canada's Ambassador to the United States of America, the Honourable Derek Burney of Fort William, Ontario.

The Hon. Derek Burney:

After almost a year as Ambassador to the United States, I have developed a number of views that I want to offer you today: First, a view of my job;

Second, a view from my job;

Third, a view of Canada as seen from Washington.

My underlying objective, I admit at the outset, is to impress upon you a message of some relevance to your own attitudes as Canadians.

As to my view of my job, it is really quite simple. I am in Washington to represent Canada, to protect and advance Canada's interests in its relations with the United States, and to influence American attitudes in the light of Canadian objectives.

Representing Canada would be a tough job if I had any doubts or fears about Canada's identity. Well, I have none at all. Some of my fellow citizens might say that such an attitude is un-Canadian and disqualifies me for the job. Most of them, however, would join me in saying that a representative who doesn't know what he represents should catch the next plane home.

I for one refuse to accept the idea that Canada is still an adolescent, pondering what it wants to be when it grows up. Canada is grown up. Canada is you and me and all of us who choose to be Canadians. Choice defines us and frees us, while fixed formulas would trap us like flies in the amber of history. That is why I believe Sir Wilfred Laurier gave the best one-line definition of Canada I have ever heard. "Canada is free", he said, "and freedom is its nationality." Certainly that is the definition I bear in mind in approaching my job as Canada's ambassador in Washington.

Canada is free, among other things, to make as much or as little as it wishes of its relations with the United States. We can be as close or as distant as we care to be, barring only the dictates of geography. We can accept or reject American ideas and America policies as we please. Whichever course we choose, we exercise our freedom so long as we make our choice in the light of informed opinion and our own best interests.

We limit our freedom, however, if we merely define Canadianism in anti-American terms. Perhaps the worst thing about prejudice is that it narrows one's range of choice. There is no freedom in automatically equating the belittlement of the United States with the magnification of Canada, or in asserting pseudo-differences out of some compulsion to look different.

There is no freedom in these attitudes: no freedom, no sense, and no profit. And anyone who can find a scrap of identify in such thinking has found an identity that is too small and too shortsighted for me to share. So, when I went to Washington last January I carried with me a strong sense of Canada and of Canada's independent interests. But my baggage also included a realistic recognition of the interdependence of Canada and the United States and the interests we have in common.

Not surprisingly, I believe that Canada's relations with the United States are of the highest importance to us. I do not define Canada by reference to the distance or closeness of that relationship, any more than I define Canada by reference to the faults or virtues of the United States. But I am convinced that the relationship constitutes our greatest single national interest beyond our own borders.

We live on trade, and 75 percent of our trade is with the United States. We are joint stewards of the North American environment with the United States, partners in North American defence, and allies in the defence of Europe. One of our key channels of influence on the world stage is the influence we can have on decision-makers in the United States.

On every front, the relationship is vital to us. This state of affairs does not trouble me. And if it did, my response would not be to treat the relationship as something less than it is. Refashioning geography is beyond our powers. Besides, a more remote location from the United States would entail costs and losses that few Canadians would wish to bear--even in exchange for whatever psychological uplift might be thought to flow from a new location.

Canada is what it is, where it is. We do not have to isolate ourselves to be ourselves. We are different from Americans, and we know it. Great differences in size alone are enough to make us different--not size in terms of landmass but rather in terms of population, wealth and power.

The challenge for us in "Living with Uncle" is to manage the power imbalance in ways that serve our interest and reflect our unique role. It is not easy.

Special interests have primacy in the U.S. political process and the fragmentation of power in the U.S. system gives these interests many avenues for influence. We are obliged to play the power game in Washington the best way we can--by earning influence of our own. We succeed best by vigorously pressing legitimate claims of partnership, not by squeezing every last drop of disagreement from real or perceived differences of approach. After all, there is a difference between attention gained and influence exercised.

The distinguished Canadian diplomat, John Holmes, had many observations about both Canadians and Americans. Let me cite one sample: Holmes once wrote that "Canadians have a sour reputation for nauseous holiness and hypocrisy" and, he added, "Our rhetoric too often outpaces our contribution:' Holmes was equally pungent in castigating Americans whose greatest sin, he believed, was overstatement. "They are blessed and cursed with a messianic complex", he wrote. "We would find it easier to acknowledge their great services to mankind if they would not insist on their moral uniqueness." If managing power imbalances was not enough of a challenge, just try blending holiness with moral uniqueness!

How do we work at influence? We seek access at all levels in Washington. Through access we influence American opinion and American action. We practice advocacy diplomacy and we seek to build alliances with American constituencies. That is the stuff of Canadian diplomacy in Washington and the main part of my job.

Through it all we try to demonstrate that what is good for Canada is often very good for the United States as well, and that what is good for us both can be good for the world.

I never cease to remind Americans--in the administration, in the Congress, and among the general public--that we provide by far their largest single market, as they provide ours. They are vulnerable to our sins against the North American environment, as we are vulnerable to theirs. They need our cooperation for their defence, as we need theirs. And our independent voice in world councils can be helpful to them, as theirs can be helpful to us. And that is how I see and do my job in Washington.

Let me turn now to the view from my job and give you a ~, brief report on the Washington scene.

Harry Truman is often quoted as having said, "if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog." (I brought one with me) But if you want entertainment, you don't have to buy tickets to a football game at JFK stadium or to a hockey game at the Capital Centre. In Washington, as one observer put is, "Politics is the only sport for grown-ups--all other games are for kids:"

Well, President Bush has now been in office long enough that we have a fair measure of the major players and of the way the game is going. The President remains very popular. According to a recent poll, 76 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, and a very respectable 29 percent stroAgly approve. (Those are ratings other politicians dream about). George Bush has lived up to expectations as a pragmatic and knowledgeable political leader. He knows Canada well, has an excellent rapport with the Prime Minister, and is sensitive to Canadian concerns. And he has surrounded himself with highly capable advisers of a similar bent.

But power is shared in Washington and President Bush is not scoring all the points. Nor does he always control the ball, or the puck. Until recently, the Congressional situation allowed him to take the lead in such areas as drug abuse, child care, education, the environment, and foreign policy. The Democratic majority in the Congress, however, is now recovering from a fractious first six months largely dominated by ethical issues, and is challenging the President's leadership.

As to "goals for" on the scoreboard, the President was able to obtain Congressional approval for his plan to rescue the shattered U.S. savings and loan system. He has support for his drug strategy, for his proposed clean air act, and for his bold move toward cutting conventional forces in Europe. These are impressive achievements. And certainly Canada can be gratified that the President scored so well on the environment and arms control.

As to "goals against" or "shots on goal", the President has been under fire from some quarters--and has earned plaudits from others--for his stand against federal funding for abortions. He has been frustrated on his stand in favour of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the American flag. He has been criticized for his caution in response to events in Panama and in Eastern Europe. And he has suffered reversals in his move to cut the capital gains tax. Consensus is never easy to achieve in Washington--which just goes to show you how different we are from the Americans! Legislative progress has been slow on Capital Hill, and issues are beginning to pile up on the agenda. There is clearly a pentup demand for more effective government action in such areas as drug abuse, education, and reform of the economic infrastructure. The administration wants to respond, within the limits of the budget, but it is not yet certain what Congress will support.

Health care is another matter of increasing concern to individuals, insurers, care providers, employers, unions, and all levels of government in the United States. Some Americans look northward for answers to their problems in this field, while others believe that we have more problems than answers to offer. The only unifying factor is anxiety about the costs of health care--which are higher than they are in Canada, even for a system that is less than universal. There is some irony in this Washington focus given what we heard in Canada a year ago about the purported threat to the Canadian health care system under the Free Trade Agreement.

On the economic front, the Washington mood is mixed. The economy has continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace. Unemployment remains low and inflation has been kept at bay. Bpt the statutory targets for reducing the budget deficit appear increasingly unreal in political terms. The basic problem regarding the budget deficit was well expressed by one American journalist. In his words, "We (Americans) elect Democrats to congress to give us stuff. We elect Republicans to the White House so we won't have to pay for it." (I think the man was joking!)

The U.S. trade deficit is equally intractable and protec.-tionist pressures are unrelenting. While the Administration maintains its commitment to liberalized trade, no fewer than 810 bills with trade-restrictive provisions have been introduced in the first nine months of the present 101st Congress--as compared with 599 and 379 bills respectively in the first nine months of the 100th Congress and the first nine months of the 99th Congress. (I give you these figures just in case anyone is keeping score).

Foreign investment is also a matter of growing unease in Washington. The Japanese takeover of Columbia Pictures and of Rockefeller Centre set off echoes that were oddly familiar to Canadian ears. There is a general malaise in the Washington air regarding current shifts in the economic power structure of the world. This malaise could all too readily be translated into further restrictions on foreign investment in the name of national security. The Administration is alert to this risk and is seeking to contain it. And we at the Embassy remind all concerned that such restrictions--apart from limited agreed exceptions--would contravene the FTA.

On the foreign policy front, the stunning developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have fired the hopes of Americans and Canadians alike. History is not dead, as some American theorists say; history is on fast forward. There is also some risk that it ?night shift into the replay mode as old ethnic divisions begin to manifest themselves in some areas of Eastern Europe. President Bush, along with all Western leaders, faces an enormous challenge in responding to these changes. He is being told he should be cautious, and also told he is not responding fast enough. He is being told to keep up defences, and to cut his defence budget; to maintain strictly commercial relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and to provide economic assistance. President Bush is in close touch with his summit colleagues and, last evening, had a thorough review with our Prime Minister about what is happening and how the West should respond. Stand by now for an extraordinary weekend in East/West relations.

On the North American front, Prime Minister Mulroney and President Bush are both personally committed to a strong bilateral relationship. They have met five times this year--unprecedented in itself. And they are often in touch by telephone and by letter. Their chief cabinet officers also meet regularly to review bilateral concerns. Talk about access! There you have it. And that sets the tempo and the tone for the relationship as a whole.

For too many years, acid rain has been the one anomaly in „, our otherwise exemplary record of environmental cooperation. Now Congress and the Administration are working together on a bill to control acid rain. Now a bilateral accord on this problem is in sight. Talk about progress! This is one case where Canadian persistence--anchored by the facts and by actions of our own--is paying off. We are now approaching the first anniversary of free trade and, at this very moment, John Crosbie and the U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills, are reviewing the record in Ottawa. Certainly some of the apocalyptic forecasts we heard in Canada before the agreement came into effect have not materialized. The agreement is now being judged--more legitimately, I might add--on its economic merits and its real purposes. After all, the agreement was not intended to make Canada and the United States more alike. Rather, it was intended to reinforce the comparative strengths of our two economies, to remove tariff and non-tariff handicaps to trade between Canada and the United States, and to provide better rules and better umpires to discipline the world's largest two way trade relationship. And that is what it is doing. The agreement is not foolproof: there are differences to reconcile and irritants to resolve, and much work left to complete.

We know too that there are sceptics on both sides who are anxious to demonstrate that the agreement is not fulfilling expectations. I welcome such scrutiny, I welcome even more the efforts being made by the private sector in Canada to seize the opportunities available under the agreement--the increased investment and the increased production that can flow from an even larger and more certain U.S. market. (Yes, that is a commercial!) And yes, there are real successes to highlight. I am obviously pleased that we have concluded a new package of faster tariff cuts covering hundreds of items and involving more than $7 billion of trade. This is tangible proof that the agreement is working in the manner intended.

Have you noticed that a lot of our differences seem to revolve around questions of proportion? For example, Canada has difficulties with oversized knotholes in U.S. plywood. The United States complains about undersized lobsters from Canada. And now we may have a problem with oversexed moose. According to recent press reports, hunters in Maine are outraged that their bull moose are being lured across the border by hunters from Quebec with a special talent for the cow moose love-call! (There is nothing in the FTA that will help on misleading advertising). More seriously, the unique dispute settlement mechanisms of the FTA are being tested by both sides--and we are both going to have to learn to live with their verdicts, imperfect as even they may be. This does not mean that we Canadians are going to win every time. Nor is the judgement of any one panel the litmus test for the agreement as a whole. Let's leave the litmus paper to the chemists in their laboratories. The real measure of success will be whether our two economies emerge stronger, healthier and more competitive as a result of the agreement, and whether we can, on the strength of this agreement, check the forces of protectionism. The process will take time and effort. The agreement needs time to take root and bear fruit. Its obligations must be respected and its spirit nurtured by both governments. And, I submit, it is very much in our interest--Canada's interest--to see to it that the agreement does work. The politics of nuts and bolts, or hogs and logs, or shakes and shingles and the like may not be as captivating as the politics of war and peace, but they are very much the stuff of Canadian diplomacy in Washington today. And that is as it should be.

And now for my third message--a view of Canada as seen from Washington--a topic I approach with some caution. No diplomat should indulge too freely in what might be called interference in the domestic affairs of his own country. But I must say that the view of Canada, as seen for Washington, is a bit mixed. How's that for a diplomatic opening?

We are seen, in some quarters, as a solution constantly in a search of a problem. We seem a bit melancholy, even sour, ', about our lot in life as Canadians--a fate, incidentally, which others with real problems would envy. We seem to have difficulty celebrating our success as Canadians or finding grounds for enthusiasm in what we have as Canadians. That, I must confess, is as difficult for your representatives abroad to understand as it is puzzling to foreign observers.

How ironic it is that others see Canadians in much more positive terms than we often see ourselves. It may have something to do with our history, our environment (those cold winters?) or our penchant for belittling our own success and our own heroes. You know the story about the Maritime lobster fisherman, carrying a pail of lobsters up from the wharf. Another fisherman notices there is no lid on the pail and warns that some of the lobsters may escape. Oh no, says the first fisherman--these are Canadian lobsters; as soon as one makes it to the top, the others'll drag him down. Well, I digress!

But I want you to know we-are seen in a very positive light in Washington--a positive light that we have earned because we are doing very well these days as Canadians in the United States. We all know about the success of the Seagrams and the Olympia and Yorks and other Canadian Mega-companies in the United States. But what about the smaller ones?

Well, take Amherst Aerospace, for instance. This company, operating out of Nova Scotia, has a workforce of over 300 people who are highly skilled in the production of aircraft detail parts and sub-assembly work. Amherst Aerospace is designated by Boeing as a world-class supplier: small but smart, and growing. Its U.S. sales have gone from $3 million in 1986 to over $4 million so far in 1989. That represents about 30 percent of the company's total sales.

Or look at the approximately two dozen Canadian women's wear firms from Quebec and elsewhere that have set up distribution ventures in the United States this year for the first time. The U.S. distributor for one of these firms--Northwear Fashions of Montreal--projects first-year sales of $9 to $11 million for its "Dash" line of women's outerwear. Incidentally, according to a report in Women's Wear Daily the bilingual labels required under Canadian law "add some extra flavour in the US." How's that as a plus for bilingualism? Think about it.

Another success story is represented by Calgary-based Keyword Office Technologies. Keyword has developed a -unique software that allows users to maintain compatibility between different office computer systems. About 70 percent of its products are exported to the United States, where its sales in 1989 will be in excess of $10 million. Over the next few years it expects to benefit from sales of $18 million as a subsupplier under the mega-contract awarded this year to AT & T by the U.S. Air Force.

Did you notice, by the way, that each of the examples I have just given you come from outside Ontario? I thought there would be merit in giving that kind of survey in Toronto. (At least that is what I was always taught in Thunder Bay).

The fact is that we can and do compete. The quality of production, the quality of service, the quality of life right here in Canada are world class--whether we notice it ourselves or not. When I look at the exuberant diversity of Canada, when I see that diversity integrated by a sense of shared experiences and a shared enjoyment of our Canadian liberties--I grow more convinced than ever that there is no need for any wringing of hands about identity. When I look at Canadian companies expanding into the United States and taking on all comers, when I see the front-page coverage given to Canadian investors in the American press--I grow more convinced than ever that there is no need to fret about being "smaller" than the United States or about our ability to compete.

We are as small or as big as we choose to be. We have every reason to be confident about our identity as Canadians and confident about our capacity to compete. In the words of Andrew Coyne, "We must be great or perish". Now that's a rallying cry for all Canadians--not enough perhaps to get your mind off the GST, Meech Lake, or the cost of housing in Toronto. But I urge you to take a longer, bolder, prouder view of your own country.

Toronto is a vital part of our greatness today. And I hear that not from Torontonians but from every American who has come to Toronto in recent times. You have every reason to be enthusiastic Canadians. Just remember--what you are seeing in Eastern Europe today is the first expression of the freedom and hopes that we in Canada take for granted. Countries and peoples are clamouring for what we already enjoy.

As we approach the final decade of this century we really have no reason to be melancholy and no advantage in thinking small. Take a good look at what we have as Canadians. Put a premium on our strengths, your strengths. Take pride in what we are and what we do as Canadians. Draw strength from our proximity to the United States. It is, in a sense, one of our great national resources. Turn it to your advantage. Above all, appreciate the freedom, diversity and tolerance that mark us best as Canadians. Help to preserve these most precious qualities of our life. And let a few of those lobsters--undersized though they may be--climb up to the very top. Give them a little boost from below.

The appreciation of the meeting was expressed by Hershell Ezrin, Senior Vice President, Corporate and Public Affairs, The Molson Company Ltd. and a Director of The Empire Club of Canada.