As news broke that President Joe Biden was ending his re-election campaign, Canadian media got right to wondering what an administration run by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, would mean for the country.
There was the usual soft stuff, like Harris is better for us than Donald Trump, which is like saying eating vegetables is better than eating batteries. There was some speculation that the time she spent in school in Montreal — all of three-years — would make her a kind of Canada whisperer. There was some hope that her relationship with prime minister Justin Trudeau, reported to be warm and productive, would help relations between the two countries.
It was all a bit reminiscent of a 2020 New York Times piece that asserted that as Harris “makes history as the first woman of color on a presidential ticket, Canadians have claimed her as a native daughter, seeing her as an embodiment of the country’s progressive politics.” To say the least, the article lacked sufficient evidence to back up its claims of “Kamala mania” up here — and yet, the Canadian media appears to be falling into the same trap this week.
Anyone hoping for an easy go of things for Canada under a Harris administration will, if she wins, be quickly disabused of the fantasy. Harris served as vice president under a protectionist Biden administration, which left tariffs in place introduced by Trump after campaigning on a classic: Made in America. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was a signature piece of protectionist legislation marked by domestic procurement measures meant to stimulate domestic jobs and industry. Canada tried to do the same in response.
Harris is likely to keep the Biden administration’s focus on US jobs and building out domestic manufacturing capacity — a priority for the Rust Belt and a handful of states critical to the economy and to the Democrats winning power and keeping it. Canada will fight for exemptions and inclusions, intimating when it serves us that we’re basically the 51st state. But we’re no Michigan and we therefore shouldn’t expect priority treatment when push comes to shove.
In 2020, Harris voted against the USMCA agreement — Trump’s NAFTA replacement — citing labour and environmental shortcomings. The USMCA is up for a 2026 review, which will give the US a chance to press for changes. Whether it’s a Trump or Harris administration, the US is likely to make hay about one issue or another, particularly dairy, which was an issue during the first Trump administration, particularly in Wisconsin. And does anybody really think the two countries will resolve longstanding disputes over softwood lumber?
While Harris might employ a gentler approach to Canada, and a more predictable one than the mercurial Trump, the fact remains that politics is about power, and power is best achieved by winning and staying in office by spending a little political capital. All the trivia and fondness and decades-olds connections may be useful as a means to smoothing out relations and getting people in a room, but once they’re in that room, it’s all about delivering the goods for your side in the context of the moment.
We are living through an anxious, protectionist moment in which domestic suspicions about globalism are high and rising. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that the US-Canada relationship is important, that the two countries are too bound up in one another’s business to sever the connections we share on trade, defense, immigration, jobs, resource management, disaster response, and plenty more.
And yet, if American voters, particularly in key swing states, want protectionism, they’re going to get protectionism regardless of party. If pressure is building among key Canadian allies for the country to spend more on defense, as it is now, a Harris administration is unlikely to ignore that, or the feeling that Canada is a freeloader when it comes to collective security. The Biden administration has been more diplomatic than Trump when it comes to Canadian defense spending, just like Obama before him, but the message has amounted to the same: pony up the cash.
As Harris or her mother might put it, we “exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you.” And what has come before us is a relationship of necessity between two countries marked by fractious periods (recall, for instance, Canada’s decision to sit out the second Iraq war) in which both sides pursue the maximization of their self-interest, which includes cooperation when it is necessary and productive, and competition when it serves the same purpose.
Anyone inclined to look upon a potential Harris administration as an easy ride for Canada ought to readjust their expectations. Global geopolitical realignment, economic protectionism, and the climate crisis — with its effects on weather, disasters, food production, water, and migration — will put tremendous pressure on the US-Canada relationship in years to come. It’s already doing so, as anyone familiar with the catastrophic 2023 wildfire season, which sent toxic smoke south from Canada into the US, will recall.
It's best that we keep in mind that politics is a struggle over power and interests within countries and between them, and that isn’t going to change. A Harris administration will undoubtedly be better for Canada than a Trump administration, but it won’t be a cakewalk, and we shouldn’t expect it to be.
Comments
I don't really believe a Harris government would be any different or a free ride as we have seen so far with Biden. In fact, I believe that most of what Biden accomplished was because of Harris as VP. The media will speculate and instill all kinds of nonsense in peoples minds than wait and see what really transpires.
But on this topic, the Democrats have done the right thing and replaced Biden for the 2024 election. It's pretty clear Biden's mental health has declined some, but not taking away the fact he is an intelligent man in his prime.
Now, if only the Liberal party was smart enough to replace Justin Trudeau before the next election to give us a good alternative and fighting chance against Pierre "Snake Oil Salesman" Poilievre who I see as just a Trump clone. Failing that, the country will not progress, but regress under Pierre unfortunately.
I believe that Pierre Poilievre can and will be defeated.
And that Justin Trudeau is the person to do that.
That despite Pierre and the right wing media bubble's best efforts to sling mud at J.T. and the Liberals for every last thing imaginable.
Interest rate rises and falling Liberal poll numbers are synonymous and linked.
P.P. just rode that wave.
As interests rates fall, so too will the misplaced anger ease against the Liberals and J.T., who P.P. tried to pin all the blame on for a world wide inflation event.
Once the mask of P.P. is pulled off, and the fruits and accomplishments of the Liberal NDP cooperation agreement is began to be realized, things (polls) will be very different.
Canada has 15 months to avert the disaster of a CPC takeover of Canada.
" Snake Oil Salesman Poilievre" should be seen as a diminished and genetically damaged clone of the freaky greedy Trump conglomerate.
In simple and concise terms "A Harris administration will undoubtedly be better for Canada than a Trump administration, but it won’t be a cakewalk, and we shouldn’t expect it to be."
Beg to differ on your assessment of what constitutes "the usual SOFT stuff." Heart of the matter I'd say, and speaking of "soft," few male commentators seem to grasp how deep the reality of her gender and ethnicity GO, especially among women in both countries.
Her focus on reproductive freedom doesn't seem to penetrate the male gamer approach to life, but it's actually a true game-changer. When she says, "How DARE they?" it's akin to Greta's outrage, believe me. Women hold up half the world, and they ARE different, and it is their/OUR turn.
Cheerleaders abound, yeah, yeah, I know, but apparently women don't like Trump or Poilievre for starters....
I love that photo because it's a metaphor; Trudeau with his face in his hands is the wounded world, Kamala is the nurturing, outstretched, female hand.
She's offering all of us desperately needed HOPE.
The evidence is that women helped defeat Trump in 2020, as did general disgust from all quarters. But women were key to the blue wave in 2022, or at least the Dems holding their own when the historic tradition maintains thar the opposition usually wins more in the midterms. That contingent contained enough moderate Republican women to tip the balance due to the GOP-backed legal manipulation to overturn a key women's right to have control over their own bodies.
As for the photo, it could also be interpreted the other way -- Kamala and Justin are sharing a good laugh.
Protectionist or not, in my opinion the lesson Canada needs to learn is that 21st Century economics will be increasingly saturated with the effort to fight climate change.
That may well include learning to stop being so dependent on other nations for our livelihood and standing on our own feet. How? By developing a better understanding of what "value added" means.
The ongoing worldwide takeover of carbon fuels by much cheaper clean renewables is speeding up. Biden's IRA policy may be protectionist at the core, but he did flex it with Canada's input to include manufacturing in our continental trade relationships. The Act put the climate fight front and centre too, and if that means Canada's capitulation to the 18th Century model of exporting raw resources and importing made products will be negatively impacted, then so be it. We'd be healthier for it.
Why the hell are we still exporting thermal coal for negligible domestic benefit, and shipping raw metallurgical coal only to have to import the high carbon steel made from it? Why are we exporting raw bitumen to jurisdictions that plan to decarbonize or impose carbon tariffs in their imports?
If American protectionism still results in honouring continental trade through negotiation, then Canada could carve out a better value added role. The US needs Canadian minerals. Period. We are America's best friend and an excellent neighbour. Why not let the US have our minerals in the form of Canadian made batteries and green steel? Or water in the form of produce grown in cooler northern locations with longer sunlit days (i.e. longer photosynthesis period) during the summer growing season? Tech, knowledge, digital and scientific expertise offer a far better economic return than extractive industries. Canada needs to learn the huge value of decent, continuously funded R&D, especially in addressing climate change.
If the author wants to instill fear in readers on the potential for more protectionism under a Harris administration, then a deeper look at the beneficial things the US needs from Canada is in order, as well as our strengths in negotiation. Kamala Harris has an excellent chance of winning the next presidency, which means Harris could be a fact of life for up to 12 years in total, with 3 1/2 already done.
I suspect Poilievre was as shocked by her one-day rise and the massive financial support that erupted out of nowhere as his fellow MAGA believers down south were. Poilievre is now uniquely unprepared for a continuation -- let alone a hardening -- of Biden's policies for perhaps two presidential terms across the border. He was likely counting on another Trump term, one that would allow him to shamelessly kowtow and kiss the emperor's ring, and dare we think give Trump free access to raid the Canadian warehouse.
Now what, Pierre? What is your plan for Canada when it's in a deep economic relationship with a powerful liberal woman in Washington who will not like your Trumpist policies and lack of genuine democratic and economic goals one bit?
I hope some smart journalist asks Poilievre these hard questions really soon, hopefully on live TV.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Of course her priority will be to the the benefit of her own country first. I still support her as a progressive voice in her country and for the protection of the environment and climate which knows no borders.