Canadian Economic Policy and Institutions

Instructions: You are an economist working for a federal government department. Note that the
department for which you work is NOT designated for you. You will need to decide the most
appropriate department to which you will write the briefing note. The briefing note will thus need
to be tailored to the mandate of the department that you choose. The Minister of your department,
who is in a minority government situation, needs to decide whether to support or not support his/her
colleagues in Cabinet concerning discussions on Canada’s continued collaboration with
international economic institution including increasing, decreasing, or keeping the number of free
trade agreements between Canada and the rest of the world unchanged.
The context is as follows. The Liberal government is in a minority situation and requires the
support of at least one other party. The Liberals have usually relied on the NDP for support;
however, the NDP’s foreign policy and economic positions are criticised by some as being “halfbaked” – see articles below. As an unbiased economic policy analyst, you are asked to write a
formal 2 to 3-page briefing note (approximately 1000 - 1200 words) seeking a decision from the
Minister, based on your recommendations, on action regarding the support for or opposition to the
Minister’s colleagues in Cabinet concerning Canada’s traditional support for world institutions
and trade agreements. That is, does Canada continue its current collaboration with world
institutions and continue engaging in free trade agreements, reduce its engagement or enhance its
engagement?
Note that the Minister has read the two articles below. Your briefing note should present economic
arguments based on facts and may require an extension, (which may include agreement or
disagreement) of the information found in the articles. Base your recommendationson fundamental
economic theory learnt in class throughout the semester. Do not shy away from addressing
environmental issues, historical issues, trade issues, financial issues, and so forth, if appropriate.
Of importance, your briefing note should clearly state options and your recommendation for
continued engagement (status quo), increased engagement, or decreased engagement.
Time limit: See Moodle
Materials allowed: You are free to use any material including laptop, notes, access to the
Internet, etc. Your only restriction is communicating with anyone.
Article 1 : https://nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-zivo-can-the-ndp-be-trusted-to-take-
Fall 2021 Canadian Economic Policy & Institutions ECON 319
Page 2 of 5
foreign-policy-seriously
Adam Zivo: Unserious NDP faction wants to abolish the military and pull out of NATO
Will the New Democrats humour anti-war activists at the party’s policy convention this
weekend?
Publishing date: Apr 07, 2021
At the New Democrat Party’s policy convention this upcoming weekend, voices from all across the
left will be heard — for better or worse. As usual, the NDP’s fringes have used this opportunity to
call upon the party to commit to withdrawing Canada from NATO, or even to abolish the military
completely. They’ve done so by proposing policy resolutions which, if given sufficient priority, will
be debated at the convention, and, if sufficiently popular, will be incorporated into the NDP’s
platform.
Both proposals were put forth by party members based in downtown Toronto, and each drips with
the stereotypes of the far left. The anti-NATO proposal refers to the alliance as a tool for “U.S.
client regimes” and “resource plunder.” Similarly, the abolition proposal considers militaries and
war to be “a historic institution with no place in modern society,” arguing that the Canadian Armed
Forces’ members should be retrained and absorbed into the civil service, enhancing social
services. The demilitarization proposal looks to countries like Iceland, Costa Rica and Samoa as
case studies of success — as if Canada’s security challenges were comparable to those of a
microstate.
Together, the resolutions show a remarkable ignorance of the nature of international power. They
serve as a reminder that a non-trivial faction of the NDP’s base can’t be trusted to take foreign
policy seriously. This should be concerning for all Canadians. The NDP was the country’s official
opposition not so long ago. Now that it props up the Liberals’ minority government, it continues
to have some influence on federal policy. The NDP is the conduit through which radical activists
can undermine Canadian security interests, if the party lets them.
The resolutions show a remarkable ignorance of the nature of international power
Thankfully, it mostly hasn’t. When Jack Layton was the NDP’s leader a decade ago, he focused
on instituting reforms that could give the party a credible chance at governing. Real power has to
deal with real problems in the real world, and so he squelched delusional voices that believed, for
example, that conflict can be avoided by simply asking nicely. Among improvements in other
policy areas, Layton affirmed his support for NATO and for the conscientious use of military force.
His reward was a crescendo of support, carrying the NDP to historic levels of influence.
His successor, Thomas Mulcair, followed in his steps, with mixed results.
The NDP’s current leader, Jagmeet Singh, has been less interested in building upon the lessons of
Fall 2021 Canadian Economic Policy & Institutions ECON 319
Page 3 of 5
the Layton days. Instead, he seems preoccupied with cosplaying as Bernie Sanders, copying trendy
leftist positions from the United States in an attempt to bolster enthusiasm within his base. Singh’s
foreign policy stances remain fairly ambiguous and he hasn’t yet made any indications that he
wants Canada out of NATO, but Canadians deserve clarity. Will he steer towards the relatively
pragmatic politics of the Layton era, or will he expedite the party’s decline by enabling radicalism?
For some, it may be perplexing why anyone would be hostile to pacifism. Indeed, the NDP once
espoused a kind of pacifism that you could respect, even if you disagreed with it. In the late 1980s,
the NDP opposed NATO membership on the basis of sovereignty, and believed in fully
Canadianizing our military. Such a view may underestimate the importance of international
alliances, but it at least acknowledges the necessity of hard power in international affairs.
More recent strains of pacifist activism are not like this. Canada’s “peace” movement is driven
not by the love for peace, but rather by a kind of civilizational self-loathing that is as juvenile as
it is obsessive. Operated by a small but dedicated cadre of academics and social miscellanea, it
produces and disseminates propaganda that serves, more than anything else, to justify the
atrocities committed by autocrats abroad.
Last weekend, cognizant of the upcoming policy convention, I attended an anti-NATO event
organized by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute. It was apparent that, within their world, any
crime can be apologized for so long as it scores points against Canada and the West more broadly.
To them, China is a benign power that is not engaging in cultural genocide against Uyghurs (as a
China scholar, let me assure you that this is wrong). Venezuela’s brutalities towards its own people
are excusable and criticism of it is an act of imperialism. In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi should have
been given the freedom to massacre the popular uprising against his dictatorship.
Preventing Serbia’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians was a tragedy. In Syria, Bashar Assad
is not a bad guy because, as one faction of the Syrian freedom movement is jihadist, the entire
freedom movement is illegitimate. Furthermore, according to these activists, Russia’s
destabilizing shadow-war on Ukraine is actually NATO’s fault, because the 2014 Ukrainian
revolution, which ousted the corrupt and Russophilic Viktor Yanukovych, was obviously
orchestrated by the CIA, provoking a blameless Russia. Eastern Europeans support NATO not
because of legitimate grievances against Russian imperialism but because, unable to think for
themselves, they have simply been duped by the CIA and vaguely-defined “corporate interests.”
These are the beliefs of the Canadian peace movement. So long as you can vilify the West, war is
peace, and genocide, repression and war crimes are acceptable, even desirable. Intellectually and
morally bankrupt, these activists shield themselves from introspection by maintaining a tightly
controlled echo chamber, where even the NDP, their greatest political ally, is considered
compromised.
Nonetheless, the peace movement manages to get itself heard sometimes. Bombarding society with
Fall 2021 Canadian Economic Policy & Institutions ECON 319
Page 4 of 5
disinformation and half-baked analysis, it sweeps up the impressionable and ignorant. It thrives in
the nooks of leftist media landscapes, thwarting, as best it can, criticism of foreign crimes. At the
policy convention, the NDP will have the opportunity to once again repudiate thissmall, but loud,
faction. Hopefully it will.
National Post
Article 2: https://canadians.org/analysis/ndp-builds-trade-policy-montreal-convention
NDP BUILDS ON TRADE POLICY AT MONTREAL CONVENTION
Stuart Trew
7 years ago
The NDP has expanded its position on trade so that the party would not negotiate NAFTA- and
FIPA-like investor-state dispute settlement processes into trade deals, and would preserve the
right of municipal governments and key provincial agencies "to include local content and other
local economic development requirements as part of their procurement policy." Delegates to the
NDP's convention in Montreal this weekend voted on the changes, which were supported at the
mic by MPs Libby Davies and Don Davies, who is also the party's trade critic. "Great to see
strong support for stopping I/S/D (investor-state dispute settlement) in trade agreements &
support for local govt's. Keep drug costs down," tweeted Libby Davies on Sunday afternoon as
the vote passed unanimously. With the additional two clauses, the NDP policy on Fair Trade
(section 4.5 of the policy book) now reads like this. New Democrats believe in:
a. Defending Canadians' economic interests, particularly in terms of foreign investment and
takeovers.
b. Promoting trade agreements that include enforceable standards for human, workers' and
women's rights and environmental sustainability, and that protect public services.
c. Subjecting all proposed international trade agreements and international treaties to a
Parliamentary vote and ratification through the legislative process.
d. Demanding more accountability and transparency in international trade organizations, such as
the World Trade Organization (WTO).
e. Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to protect Canadian
sovereignty, especially in investment and energy security.
f. Regulating the flow of international capital and reducing financial speculation.
g. preserving the rights of municipal governments and provincial entities such as Hydro Quebec
and Manitoba Hydro to include local content and otherlocal economic development requirements
as part of their procurement policy