Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

What the Canadian election means to Barack Obama if he wins

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Chad Rubel

You probably didn't watch C-SPAN's coverage of the CBC from Canada in its coverage of the Canadian federal elections. And even if you did, you might wonder how last night's results affect the U.S. and our presidential race.

Stephen Harper was elected to another minority government in Canada last night. It's a stronger minority government, 143 seats of a possible 308. After the last election, Harper had 126 seats.

The Liberals, who have been in the charge for most of the last 45 years, now have 77 seats, a whopping 26 seats down from the last election. THis is the fewest seats the Liberals have had since 1984.

The key issues between the two countries are oil, immigration, trade, border crossings, Afghanistan, and for a lack of a better word, terrorism. Canada is the U.S.' largest trading partner and the U.S. gets more oil from Canada than any other country, including Saudi Arabia.

In the last 45 years, there have often been polar opposites in charge of the two countries: Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau, Bill Clinton and Brian Mulroney, George W. Bush and Jean Chrétien.

So the prospects of Barack Obama and Stephen Harper getting along are entirely possible. But there was hope on a number of fronts that the Liberals could run a better race, but Stéphane Dion ran a terrible race, and likely won't be back as the opposition leader.

If the Liberals had won, there was hope that talks on border crossings, trade, and "terrorism" would go smoother and more commonality would be found.

Harper had, as CBC's Rex Murphy said last night, the perfect storm last night: weak Liberal leader, an improved Green Party, and improved New Democratic Party. And he still couldn't get a majority.

But Harper will try and run the government like a majority. For what it's worth, Harper had been able to run a minority government for the last two years with fewer seats. And now he has more power.

The implications of Harper not having a like-minded person in the White House are unknown. Harper, having been ignored by Bush, has tried to come up with policies, especially on "terrorism," to try and please Bush. And Bush has pretty much ignored him.

Bush wasn't really paying much attention to Canada even before 9/11 and the Iraq War. Then-PM Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq. If you think that snub is petty, think of John McCain and Spain. Even if you don't believe his handlers that McCain knew what he was saying to the reporter, the McCain campaign believes Spain should be punished for not keeping troops in Iraq. And yes, Spain has troops in Afghanistan.

If Obama wins in November, he needs to be pro-active with Harper right away. Harper will have the upper hand, but Obama needs to be direct on what we need and want, while also understanding where Canada is coming from.

McCain has been on Canadian soil in 2008, and Obama's Canadian connection was the talk about reopening NAFTA. Obama definitely would need to schedule a trip very soon after taking office.

Obama can also expect some animosity. Traditionally, Canadian prime ministers don't like to be seen as being too chummy with U.S. presidents. That didn't bother Harper with Bush, but with Obama, Harper will likely develop a different tone. And Obama needs to be ready.

Obama also needs to be welcoming on trade issues, and perhaps offering a few concessions (think softwood lumber). And Obama needs to be clear with Harper that trade needs to flow easier between the two countries. Border crossings have a lot to do with trade, since trucks bring lots of products back and forth.

All of this would have been much easier with Obama and Dion (or anybody but Harper). But it can be done: Harper wants attention from a U.S. president, and Obama wants to work well with Canada.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS


Nafta

I find it interesting that there has been no discussion in the US media over the implications of Canada's current negotiation with the EU over a free trade agreement. This agreement will be all encompassing including labor mobility. Canadians have not been happy over the unfair treatment in disputes such as softwood lumber when even after winning at the WTO, it was forced to negotiate a settlement. So much for free. My guess is that Canada would be quite happy to renegotiate and remove the clauses guaranteeing energy exports to the US. The energy guarantee could probably leveraged to a greater extent in Europe. Trade need to be stable and industries cannot be left to the whim of politicians who decide they want to not honor or tear up agreements. What will this mean? Less energy security. BTW...if not for energy, the US would have a trade surplus with Canada.

Obama and Harper

It is somewhat ironic that the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president could be very good news for Stephen Harper. President Bush is as unpopular in Canada as he is everywhere else in the world and the slogan "Harper = Bush" was a common sight in Canada for the last month or so.

On the other hand, Senator Obama is widely admired and being seen with him and being seen to work well with him would improve Harper's image.

There is certainly room for cooperation. Harper is going to have to move further to the left if he wants to win a majority and the political spectrum in Canada and the United States are so skewed that what are considered liberal planks in the Obama platform would pass as moderate to conservative in Canada.

However, Obama will have to move quickly to take advantage of post-election good will. One of the hard facts of Canada - U.S. relations is that the really contentious issues arise in areas like international trade and agriculture where the pressures of domestic politics leave both the President and the Prime Minister with very little room to maneuver.

Border crossings

Actually, it is not correct that "Obama needs to be clear with Harper that trade needs to flow easier between the two countries". The border problems are almost entirely due to unilateral American "security" initiatives, and Obama can unilaterally remove those impediments as easily as Bush unilaterally imposed them. No negotiation is needed.