Enthusiasm for Obama likely to wane once policies are clear
MADELAINE DROHAN
GLOBE AND MAIL UPDATE
JANUARY 2, 2009
Ottawa — Canadian enthusiasm for Barack Obama is likely to wane once the warm and fuzzy idea of an Obama presidency becomes a much firmer
reality. That will happen later this month when the new president takes office and begins putting flesh on the bones of skeletal policy
pronouncements.
While he was embraced by much of the world, Mr. Obama was elected to be president of the United States. In putting American interests first, he
will inevitably alienate some of his former international supporters.
Of chief concern to Canadians, including business, are his plans on energy, the environment, and trade. In each of these important areas, his
campaign promises and cabinet selections strongly suggest trouble ahead for Canada.
Energy seen as our bargaining chip
Canada sees its vast energy resources as a hefty bargaining chip in dealing with the United States. We are their largest source of foreign energy
imports, which include not only Canadian oil and gas, but also hydroelectric power and uranium. They need us, or so the thinking goes, and that
strengthens our hand in bilateral negotiations.
But exports from the oil sands in Alberta are already controversial and likely to become more so. Some Obama advisers have condemned them as
“dirty oil,” and Mr. Obama himself has said the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on such fuel. A new U.S. law that seems to rule out U.S.
government purchases of oil sands crude, could well be the first of many.
There is not much solace for oil sands exporters in the choice of Steven Chu as energy secretary designate. He is a proponent of solar energy,
biofuels and curbs on emissions that warm the earth. Even more alarming from the point of view of Alberta, is that Henry Waxman, a California
Democrat who has battled against expansion of the oil sands, will be chairman of the influential House Energy and Commerce committee in the new
Congress.
Canada is already fighting an uphill battle to defend oil sands exports. Counting on the U.S. need for energy to trump environmental concerns may
well be wishful thinking.
Environmental policy to shift radically
As long as U.S. President George Bush, a climate change skeptic, remained in office, he provided cover for the Canadian government, whose weak
environmental policy is widely derided. Should Mr. Obama stay true to his campaign promises, which include a cap-and-trade system for emissions,
environmental policy in the U.S. will become much tougher, leaving Canada exposed as a laggard.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quick to propose a joint climate change strategy within days of the Obama victory in November. His spokesman
suggested the prime minister and the president share a similar approach to climate change. It is hard to detect those similarities.
For while the Obama plan uses 1990 as the base year and calls for U.S. emissions to be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, the current Harper plan uses
2006 as the base year for its projected cuts of 20 per cent by 2020. The Canadian plan uses intensity-based targets, meaning emissions from each
unit of production such as a barrel of oil are measured, while Mr. Obama is talking in terms of overall emissions. An article in the Wall Street
Journal noted that a joint climate change strategy “would involve a complete overhaul of Canada's current standards, which are looser and
purposefully at odds with cap and trade.”
Even some Republicans in the U.S. seem to be moving ahead of Canada. A recent op-ed piece in the New York Times written by two Republicans
(one a former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan) argued in favour of a carbon tax, using much the same language employed by former Liberal
leader Stéphane Dion to defend his green shift in the last election campaign.
Trade
Mr. Obama raised hackles in Canada when he said last year that he would renegotiate the North America Free Trade Agreement. That alone will
cause upheaval in Canada, especially if the renegotiation results in more restricted access to the U.S. market which is a possibility given the
protectionist bent of the incoming, Democrat-dominated Congress.
A number of influential voices in Canada have suggested this is an opportunity for Canada to pursue a bilateral course with the U.S., essentially
leaving Mexico to one side. That thinking may be flawed.
Canada gets less attention in Washington than Mexico and may be overlooked completely once it is no longer seen as part of a trio. Hispanic voters,
many with roots in Mexico, carry a lot of clout in the southern states. And many of the influential jobs that touch on trade have been given to
politicians from the southwest.
The designated secretary of commerce, Bill Richardson, will be leaving his job as governor of New Mexico. Ron Kirk, named as the U.S. trade
representative, was mayor of Dallas. Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona, was selected to be the new secretary of Homeland Security, with
responsibility for U.S. borders. While all these politicians are seen as advocates of NAFTA, their former positions give them a much deeper
understanding of Mexico than Canada. There is potential here for policies aimed at Mexico that will inadvertently harm Canada.
Whether Canada has a friend in Hillary Clinton, named as secretary of state, remains to be seen. As a senator from New York she was harshly
critical of Canadian trade policies, especially supply management in the dairy and poultry sector. Following the attacks on the U.S. in September
2001, she called for more border security in the north, claiming that the terrorists flying the planes had infiltrated the U.S. from Canada. (They did
not.) Her views may have changed along with her position.
Mr. Obama is expected to make many positive changes, some of which will undoubtedly benefit Canada. Still, in matters of energy, the environment
and trade, 2009 will be challenging for Canadians as they struggle to adapt to new policies in Washington.