1NC Canada CP

The United States Federal Government should enter into a binding consultation agreement with Canada on _____________________

Consultation with Canada on Mexican economic engagement

Ayon et al. 9 (David R. Ayon, is a political analyst and writer, who serves as a Senior Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Los
Angeles at Loyola Marymount University and as the U.S. Director of the Focus Mexico/Enfoque Mxico Project. Robert Donnely, is Program Associate of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute and was previously the Coordinator of the Justice in Mexico Project at the University of San Diego's Transborder Institute. Dolia Estevez, is a career journalist who currently writes tor Poder magazine and El Semanario and serves as the consulting coordinator of the U.S.-Mexico Journalism Initiative at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Eric Olson, is Senior Advisor to the Security Initiative of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute and has held senior positions at the Organization of American States, Amnesty International, and the Washington Office on Latin America. Andrew Seele, is Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute and an Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University. THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO: Towards a Strategic Partnership, January 2009, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards%20a%20Strategic%20Partnership.pdf)

Crises offer challenges and opportunities for long term strategies. The current downturn highlights, perhaps more than other times in the past, the need for better macroeconomic policy consultation and short-term crisis management mechanisms to avoid sudden shocks to the economies of both countries by developments that take place on either side of the border. History shows us that each country benets from its partners success and each is diminished by the others problems. The United States has a vested interest in Mexicos economic and social stability and long-term health, given the impact that Mexicos economy has on U.S. exports and on migration. Financial mismanagement and insufficient regulation in the United States have had a direct impact in Mexico. And although good macroeconomic management has allowed Mexicos economy to grow gradually since the late 1990s, the lack of attention to crucial structural reforms, including rule of law, competition policy, tax collection, labor laws, primary and secondary education, energy and monopolies have limited the potential for growth and highlighted weaknesses in Mexicos economy.23 Insufficient investment in
infrastructure and human capital

create long-term drags on the Mexican economy and, in turn, limit the potential for economic

growth, with secondary eects on the U.S. economy. While these are

essentially matters of domestic policy in each country, both governments have a vested interest in improving communication , pursuing a more viable process of engagement on macroeconomic policy and maintaining a critical dialogue about the need for sound economic policies in both countries. Given the importance that bilateral economic integration has for economic growth and development in both countries, the two governments could do far more to maintain highlevel attention on the best ways of managing this relationship. hee principal institutional framework for economic dialogue in recent years has been the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP); however, the issues related to security have almost always trumped those related to prosperity, and the design of the process has largely excluded most important stakeholders in the economic relationship between the two countries. Similarly, the labor and environmental commissions, which were designed parallel to
NAFTA, have been left to languish with insufficient funding and unclear mandates. The North American Development Bank (NADBank), created as a parallel tool for development for Mexico and the United

. A new U.S. administration brings the opportunity to deepen the process of consultation and dialogue and to assess the
States, has only a limited mandate and is far from meeting the larger challenges the two countries face

effectiveness of existing bilateral institutions. "The two countries, together and in partnership with Canada , have an opportunity to design new institutional arrangements that ensure high-level communication and problem-solving on economic issues and allow them to address major challenges that economic integration produces. Mexico and the United States would benet from an enhanced dialogue on economic policy, including closer consultation
in dealing with economic shocks.

Much of the work that needs to be done on each side of the

border to invigorate both economies requires unilateral action by each government, but ongoing dialogue between them could help encourage cooperation. Policy options include: Keeping the bilateral relationship in mind when pursuing measures to stabilize the economy during a crisis. Because major shifts in monetary and scal policy in one country can have sharp effects on the other, prior consultation can mitigate secondary effects across the border. Institutionalizing periodic consultations between the Secretary of the Treasury and Mexicos Finance Minister through regular yearly meetings with their Canadian counterpart . Extraordinary meetings can be called for in moments of crisis .

Canada says yes and the CP avoids the link to politics

Brister 12 (Dr. Bernard Brister is an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada where he teaches
strategy and international relations in the Department of Political Science and Economics. His research interests include North American security in an Asia-Pacific context and global energy strategies. Forget Al-Qaeda: Think Mexico Next Great Threat to Canadian Security, November 2012, http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Forget%20AlQaeda%20Think%20Mexico.pdf)

How would such a proactive and comprehensive approach to continental security be received by the two partners in the process? One could speculate that it would be received with enthusiasm by both but for different reasons. To the extent that the Canadian contributions aligned themselves with established Americans strategies and measures, the United States would welcome the approach for all of the reasons provided previously and for the added benefit that it would reduce the commitment of American resources. Having Canadian participation would also provide political cover domestically and internationally with the associated positive political effects. That this type of
cooperation is already under consideration by Canada and the United States is evidenced by the discussions between US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Canadian Minister of National Defence Peter McKay on joint military co-operation relating to continental defence, including anti-drug efforts and weapons control at their meeting in Halifax on 18 November, 2011.33

Mexico would likely welcome Canadian

participation

as well if only for the reason that it would reduce American participation and presence on issues of vital Mexican interests. This

position is supported also by the fact that Mexican public opinion polls since 2004 have consistently put Canada at, or near, the top of the list of most popular foreign countries by both the general public and the informed elite that regularly considers Mexican foreign policy.34 While the implementation of a visa requirement may have dampened this affection somewhat, a large portion of the Mexican population see Canada as a positive example of a smaller state that has successfully resisted integration with a more powerful neighbour and maintained its sovereignty in the face of sometimes daunting pressure.35 There may also be some benefits and synergies for the Mexicans in the ways that Canadians approach governance, security and judicial issues. Lastly, the Mexicans may appreciate what is often a less intrusive approach to providing assistance to our friends and allies.

There would also be several benefits to Canadian interests of adopting this strategy. First, it would put Canadians at the table when issues central to continental security are discussed with the result that Canadian governments would be informed and current on the thoughts and actions of their continental allies and in the best position as possible to influence their actions and decisions in those areas vital to Canadian interests. Such participation in a variety of security, governance, and
judicial capacities would also provide invaluable experience and develop expertise in addressing threats and situations that while not directly affecting Canadians at present, clearly threaten to do so in the future. Along these lines, Canada would be doing what it has always done in the realm of national security, addressing the threat before it actually reaches our shores, or in this case, our borders.