At the Heart of the Canadian Electoral Campaign: The US
    By Pierre Martin
    Le Devoir

    Friday 20 January 2006

    In 1963 and in 1988, Canadian-American relations dominated federal election campaigns. Today, even if the parties are not explicitly campaigning on specific issues in the bilateral relationship, the United States is at the heart of the campaign.

    On the one hand, throughout the whole campaign, the Liberals have thumped out the theme of rejection of a certain vision of Conservative America that they associate with their adversaries. One the other hand, among the main challenges they would face if they were elected, the management of relations with the United States is certainly one which would provide Stephen Harper's Conservatives with the earliest opportunity to differentiate themselves from their predecessors.

    An Anti-American Campaign ... American Style

    Throughout the campaign, Liberal strategists have chosen to define the choice between their Conservative adversaries and themselves as a choice between two images of Canada. If the Liberals seem not to have succeeded in making Canadians understand what their own image of Canada consists of, they have nevertheless deployed significant resources to associate Harper's Conservatives with an image of Canada modeled on the conservative America of George W. Bush.

    To do that, the Liberals have not hesitated to use a typically American electoral strategy, that is, a negative advertising campaign associating Conservative policies with something of a caricature of the American society model, which also connects Stephen Harper to George W. Bush, who plays the role of the boogeyman for the occasion.

    And if these negative ads were not sufficient, one of the high points of the Liberal campaign was doubtless that moment when Paul Martin shared the scene with Bill Clinton at the Montr al Conference on Climate Change to vividly criticize the Bush administration's environmental policies, drawing down the thunder of [American] Ambassador David Wilkins.

    It's difficult to say whether the anti-Americanism of the Liberal's campaign has influenced the electorate. Nonetheless, a poll conducted among influential businesspeople and published by the Financial Post at the beginning of January revealed that the latter attributed a large part of the blame for the deterioration in bilateral relations to Paul Martin.

    When he succeeded Jean Chr tien, Paul Martin had promised to repair the bilateral relationship's copious broken crockery. In the event, he has only succeeded in breaking more, by, for example, giving the Americans the impression over many months that he would support the anti-missile defense system, only to slam the door in their faces in the end.

    What Can We Expect from Harper?

    If they lose power Monday, the Liberals will leave numerous disputes with the United States behind them. It is therefore important to review several elements of the Conservative platform to anticipate changes to come.

    At minimum, we can expect a slight improvement in the relationship at the highest level. You only have to remember the wishes for success George W. Bush addressed to Stephen Harper during his stay in Ottawa in November 2004 to understand that the Bush administration is impatient for a change of the guard in Ottawa.

    On antimissile defense, Stephen Harper has gone as far as he can by promising an open vote in Parliament on the issue, a vote that a minority government is certain to lose. With regard to the level of military expenditures and troops that may be deployed, Harper heralds substantial increases, but it is doubtful whether the Americans will really recognize it.

    On Iraq, Harper has never hidden his support for George W. Bush very well. His recent declaration that Canada could not send any troops - because there aren't any available - is a pearl of ambiguity. Harper knows perfectly well that it would be very harmful for him politically to reverse the Canadian position on this issue. If George W. Bush cares about keeping Harper in place, it would be in his interests not to push him to openly take a position on Iraq in the name of his government.

    With regard to the commercial disputes, it's possible that the re-establishment of less strained lines of communication between the two Heads of State will allow for more tranquil negotiations, but, as far as the essential is concerned, a conflict like the one over softwood lumber has roots too deep and legal, and bureaucratic ramifications too broad, to be settled by a handshake between two men.

    American conservatives have complained for a long time that Canada's more liberal attitude about drugs represents a danger for their country. It's possible that Harper's Conservatives will change something in that regard, but it won't happen quickly, and high expectations risk giving way to bitter disappointment.

    The same dynamic could play out in the case of immigration and refugee acceptance policies, which the American right assesses severely since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It matters little whether American conservatives are right or wrong to connect these policies and the terrorist threat: they will continue to pressure Canada for a tightening of controls. There again, too high expectations about a Harper government's ability to obey their demands risks arousing a certain disappointment.

    Possible Improvements

    One area in which a small improvement in relations could facilitate true progress is the management of security controls along the borders. Tuesday, the Bush administration announced that it was renouncing the imposition of a passport to enter the United States by land, preferring the inauguration of a less restrictive identity card. It's a gain, but there remains much room for improvement. The security controls along the borders have enormous economic implications for Canada, and a President well-disposed towards Canadian interests would be a significant advantage on this issue.

    Finally, a good part of the deterioration in relations between the two countries since George W. Bush's advent to power is due to the citizens of both countries becoming more and more aware of the contrasts - sometimes profound, often subtle - that exist between the dominant social values on each side.

    If Stephen Harper's Conservatives win on Monday, their ideological comrades-in-arms south of the border - the ones who will be aware of the change - will no doubt stop feeding bilateral tensions for a while with their outraged remarks about Canadians' liberal values. However, after wallowing in Harper's victory, American Conservatives will need to recognize that Canada will not become a sort of Texas of the North from one day to the next.

    This week, Stephen Harper acknowledged that he will not be able to do all he wants domestically because of bureaucratic and institutional constraints, not to mention public opinion that is far from sharing his views. He will undoubtedly have to explain to his American counterparts that the same reasoning applies to foreign policy.

    Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.