Canada-U.S. Relations

Canada's visceral urge to keep some distance between itself and the United States harms Canadians. We need to learn to set it aside.

Managing relations with the U.S. is the most vital element of Canadian foreign policy. In fact, it transcends foreign policy and touches virtually every aspect of our domestic policy as well. Equally, this all-pervasive relationship usually arouses strong, sometimes visceral, emotions among Canadians which in turn pose serious challenges to those in government. These attitudes or neuroses rarely converge with reason.

More often than not, they prompt our government to try to “keep some distance” or seek to differentiate from the U.S. in order to accentuate our differences. Not surprisingly, therefore, periods of substantial collaboration at the government level have been spasmodic. Even though history demonstrates tangible success from a positive approach — whether on trade or the environment or security — the political rewards on the home front tend to be elusive. Canadians may generally expect their government to manage this relationship effectively but they have profoundly different views on how this should be done. Minority governments do not make matters any easier.

We need to resist the temptation of presenting the Obama administration with a wish list of things we want the U.S. to do for us. Resist, too, the temptation to whine over irritants. Instead, we need a strategy rooted in Canada’s national interest that embraces issues where Canadian and U.S. interests intersect and where firm direction and mature dialogue would deliver results. Given that Obama is even more popular in Canada than he is in the U.S., I believe that our government has greater latitude than ever in initiating a substantive dialogue, at least for now.

Apart from the need for concerted action to spur economic recovery, and for vigilance against the perennial peril of protectionism, the most urgent bilateral issue calling for more inspired leadership is the growing congestion along our so-called “undefended” border. Too many new procedures, fees and obstacles have been added, all in the name of security, but equally all serving to frustrate and delay efficient movements of people and goods between our two countries.

The border hassle is a problem that would benefit from more balance between legitimate concerns about security and the underlying mutual benefit to be derived from smooth access across our border. Initiatives to make the border “smart” have, more often than not, led to dumb and increasingly dumber impediments. Ironically, while many Europeans have succeeded in dismantling virtually all internal border control procedures, Canada and the U.S. are marching sternly in the opposite direction. That makes no sense.

Border security has become, in a sense, economic protectionism wearing a new dress. The infrastructure at our border is as antiquated as the procedures for entry and exit. We should be making creative use of technology and the infrastructure stimulus to establish new, more efficient, customs facilities, introducing 21st century pilot projects at the new Detroit-Windsor Bridge and at gateways on the West and East Coast that could serve as models for wholesale reform.

We should also explore the scope for more stringent security procedures on our perimeter – our external borders – extending NORAD to land and sea, as well as air, in order to ease monitoring and congestion along our internal border.

If this requires a certain amount of harmonization on things like immigration and refugee policies as well, that too should be explored. The benefits far outweigh the allure of differentiation for the sake of differentiation. Dramatic action is needed but it will only happen if there is firm and persistent political will from the top to break the ‘iron rice bowl’ mentality that feeds current practices.

And, speaking of iron rice bowls, we have literally hundreds of different regulations affecting products from virtually every sector of our economy – including, notably, some of the most integrated ones like autos – that serve no practical or public policy purpose other than to preserve a few jobs and give some officials the distinct claim of being different.

Examples range from differences on frozen orange juice to seat belts, threat immobilization devices, meat grading, and health standards for livestock. All beg the basic question “Why must they be different for Canadians and Americans?” There is regulatory sludge in the energy sector as well. The fact that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the Mackenzie pipeline before one inch of pipe has been laid speaks for itself.

When it comes to financial regulations, however, as President Obama himself acknowledged, there are things we do in Canada that Americans may wish to emulate.

The potential for a more inspired partnership across a range of major issues is clear. It is now a matter of will, persistence and leadership. Personalities can make a difference. Remember, though, that the substance of our relationship – economic, security, environment – transcends personalities and is deeper and richer than that of any other bilateral relationship.

The lead will have to come from Canada and will require equal parts of patience and perseverance on the part of our Prime Minister. If, however, we choose to be “correct” rather than inspired, we should not be surprised if we elicit little more than a polite acknowledgement of our existence essentially as the source of much of America’s cold weather.

This article is excerpted from a policy briefing published by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.