The Canada Trip
I’ve been meaning to comment on Barack Obama’s visit to Canada. Americans tend not to recognize it, but our relationship with Canada is our most important bilateral relationship. Not only is Canada very high on the list of our trade partners, but due to the nature of the geography, the trade volume belies on unusual level of actual integration whereby Canadian and American business enterprises are completely intertwined. This occurs to the extent that portions of our countries have common electrical grids, and we depend on Canada as a major supplier of electricity. Beyond economics, we closely collaborate on the literally defensive aspects of national defense as well as being partners in NATO and other multilateral organizations. Our mass cultures are integrated, our sports leagues are integrated, etc.
The main reason Americans often don’t recognize the critical nature of the U.S.–Canadian relationship is that we have the luxury of taking it for granted. But our ability to take the relationship for granted is a token of its vital nature. It’s the very for grantedness that makes it so beneficial. And part of that process is, I think, not taking it too for granted, because as important as Canada is for the United States, the United States is much more important for Canada. Thus, I thought George W. Bush’s decision to forgo the tradition of making Canada a new President’s first foreign travel destination in favor of a trip to Mexico was pretty sorry stuff. I recognize that Mexican-Americans are a much larger domestic political constituency than Canadian-Americans. But honestly, the USA doesn’t do an awful lot to recognize, even on a symbolic level, the importance of the relationship with Canada. A day-trip to Ottawa early in the administration is the least we can do and Mexican-American voters can be quoted with other means.
Meanwhile, when talking about NAFTA it’s always worth recalling that we do more business with Canada than with Mexico. People shouldn’t let somewhat legitimate concerns about our economic relationship with our southern neighbor lead them to make thoughtless pronouncements that generate a lot of anxiety up north.
43 Responses to “The Canada Trip”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
As a Canadian, I have to say, rock on!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
and Mexican-American voters can be quoted with other means.
Is this just Matt being Matt, or is their a usage of “quote” of which I am unaware?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Absolutely the latter, Joe. Politicians have always sought to quote their major constituencies — and cite them too, when possible.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I always love making a grammatical error when chastising someone for making a gramatical error.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Matt, you’re verging on Very Serious People territory. Please don’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
and Mexican-American voters can be quoted with other means.
“Is this just Matt being Matt, or is their a usage of “quote” of which I am unaware”
Just Matt being Matt I assume, but can anybody figure out what word Matt was going for here?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
What ever happened to the no-confidence vote that was going to depose Harper? I know he was able to delay things for something like six weeks, but shouldn’t that matter be coming up again?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Just Matt being Matt I assume, but can anybody figure out what word Matt was going for here?
Quenched? Quelled? Hard to tell.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Damn. DTM, I think you are right.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Matt, a lot of foreign policy experts seem to think that Mexico is on the verge of collapsing. Could be a good idea to focus there too.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Excellent, DTM! You must have the Yglesias Decoder Ring!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Thus, I thought George W. Bush’s decision to forgo the tradition of making Canada a new President’s first foreign travel destination in favor of a trip to Mexico was pretty sorry stuff.
Yes, but in the name of irony he’ll be making up for that mistake.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
If Obama doesn’t stand up for “54 40 or fight!,” I’ll be very disappointed.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
The Yglesiologists are in good form today.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“Not only is Canada very high on the list of our trade partners…”
I was under the impression that Canada is the US’s largest trade partner. It may also be worth noting that Canada is the US’s largest supplier of oil & petroleum, surpassing the next 2 largest (Saudi Arabia & Mexico) suppliers by some 500,000+ barrels a day. So next time you hear a pol talk about “dependence on foreign oil”, they’re talking about Canada (well, not really… you can’t gin up public fear by citing Canada as a foreign threat).
February 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Rich C:
The Liberals changed leaders over the holidays, from Stephane Dion to Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff is much less keen on the alliance between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. Basically, Ignatieff’s strategy in the short-term is to keep the Harper government in power, but keep it as an option in case Harper is stupid enough to push the opposition parties to the brink once again.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
To be honest, I am a little bit ashamed of all this desperation to have the USA visit us first. On the whole, it would be a good thing if Obama visited a country where the USA has done some real damage, like El Salvador, first. Canadians should get some self respect.
As for what happened to the vote of non-confidence, here is a good guide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A
Adam
February 19th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Here is one of the issues that Obama might have been surprised to hear about in Ottawa today:
An open letter to President Obama from the Canadian Cancer Society:
Dear Mr. President,
Too often public commentators and politicians in the US claim that Canada’s shortcomings on border enforcement are a threat to American security. But they fail to acknowledge that one of the most significant threats to our shared border security starts in the United States, not Canada. Billions of dollars worth of cigarettes made in illegal, unlicensed factories in the United States are being smuggled across our border by criminals. These illegal operations are well-known to American authorities and yet the American government does little to stop them. The availability of cheap cigarettes, made available through these flourishing smuggling networks, significantly threatens the health of Canadians – especially young people.
The U.S. federal government must allocate the resources to stop illegal tobacco manufacturing in its country. By closing these operations in the U.S., you would be showing Canada that you are willing to do no less than what you ask of us – stop a threat to our security that originates on the American side of the border.
Canadian Cancer Society
More information on what Obama might have to deal with in Canada:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/18/c9560.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=af6a15f5-cb82-42cc-9381-e841c748b001&k=72916
February 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Hey Matt, we also both have heads of state – GG here Obama there – who are people of colour. Kind of neat you guys finally followed us in there regard.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Full stop. Since mendacious warmongering hack* Ignatieff manages to narrow the gap between the Grits and the Tories even more, and he seems to have decided to give the finger to all possible coalition partners, it’s unclear that a Liberal comeback is in the works in the near term. “Smug reactionary pricks indistinguishable from the Conservatives” just doesn’t have a lot of punch as a campaign slogan.
*Yes, this reads like Don Williams or RSH. Sue me.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Some reasons why the Harper govt’ survived:
- former Liberal leader Stefane Dion is remarkably uncharismatic
- he made the catastrophic mistake of announcing his coalition plans while sitting next to Bloq Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe (even though the Bloc was not formally part of the coalition). Most Canadians hate the Bloq like poison.
- Ignatieff is indeed ridiculously far right, thus having less reason to topple the Cons (e.g. full agreement on Afghanistan)
- change of government without an election is constitutional but almost unprecedented
The coalition plan as presented was a recipie for a Conservative majority government. I’m concerned that it was presented so ham-fistedly as to prejudice Canadians against an idea we need in an era of minority governments.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Pangloss: Your comparison of GG Jean to Pres Obama is lame, given that the GG of Canada is a meaningless figurehead (yes, I’m aware of the precise powers of the office). The current president of India is a woman and she was preceded by a Muslim, but as that position is also a figurehead, it’s not much of a biggie. Obama’s election, though, is some serious shizz.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Add Matt’s hyperfast NY-accented speech and overmatched voice recognition and transcription software, and we get the blog we all know and love.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Yes, but Bush’s choice of Mexico over Canada was carefully chosen to show that he wanted to make America less like Canada and more like Mexico.
Eight years later:
Mission Accomplished!
February 19th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The word is “courted.”
As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert, keeping tradition alive is a good thing. Thus, President Obama going to Canada is important, not only for trade but for social relations as well. My criticism, if any, is that he should spend a couple of days traversing the nation, from east coast to west coast. Along the same lines, Mexico isn’t going anywhere, and you won’t find any Chicanos ‘criticizing’ Obama for going first to Canada. And if you do, consider them less than self-lightened.
Having spent many of my years doing business in both Canada and Mexico, Canada has a larger middle class than does Mexico, and which makes for a big difference in how language and culture is ‘massaged’ and ‘messaged.’
As to the foreign policy experts who think that Mexico is going to collapse, it’s not going to happen. Perhaps, making grass legal in the USA, would cause Mexico to collapse?
Jaango
February 19th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
If the U.S. wanted Mexico to collapse, it couldn’t come up with a better way to make it happen that the Drug War.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Because Matt is a hack, he won’t tell you that StephenHarper is in fact an agent of the MexicanGovernment, as I make clear here. If someone to ask about this with the cameras running, they’d get more YouTube views than the entire population of the globe, and the reason they don’t is because they’re working for that sweet, sweet non-HFCS Coca-Cola from south of the border.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The tradition bit is nice, I guess. But why is it “sorry” that Bush chose Mexico as his first presidential visit?
In terms of our trading partners, Mexico comes in at 3rd (behind Canada and China) — although trade alone seems to me a pretty weak pretext for such priority.
How about the fact that more than 10 million Mexicans live within our borders? Increasing violence in the north along the border with the US? Human and drug trafficking across the US-Mexican border? Are there any issues in Canadian-US relations that are nearly as pressing and that call for such serious dialogue and partnership among politicians on both sides of the border?
I’m not poo-pooing Obama’s choice to visit Canada first, but I’m just not following your logic as to why Bush’s choice was “sorry.”
February 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
A meaningless figurehead to whom it fell to honor Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament in order to avoid the confidence vote that would have ended the current Conservative minority government. Where can I sign up for such meaningless figurehead powers?
February 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Thank you, mds (#32). I noted in my post #25 that I am aware of the GG’s powers. That December 2008 episode was like the only time in my living memory that the GG was relevant to anything. Anyway, it’s nice that Jean and Clarkson before her are/were minorities, but I reiterate that I don’t think it’s worthy of the comparison to Obama’s achievement.
History and tradition notwithstanding, all this stuff about the Queen’s role in Canada is pretty ridiculous. I mean, WTF?!
Note: I am a dual citizen of Canada and US. (I was born in US.)
February 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
MDS — You didn’t _elect_ her.
Elect a First Nations prime minister and we’ll talk.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
To be fair, I’d love to see the US elect an American Indian.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Right, I second #34.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I remember when Mulroney was running for his second term, what is now NAFTA was just a proposed bi-lat between US & Can, and it was one of biggest issues in the campaign and dominated the Canadian news. But you found nary a peep in the US press about it. Only when Mexico was added to the mix did it finally get some press in the US.
Which is just to say, I agree Americans definitely do take Canada for granted, and think about Mexico a lot more (but mostly negatively).
February 19th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
As I mentioned here when the issue came up during the campaign, Obama’s talk of revisiting NAFTA was 100% about Mexico, But once Canada (understandably) took offense, its not like Obama could publicly say– no no you guys are OK, its the Mexicans we have a problem with.
Bear in mind, that the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) killed as many people (1 million) as the US lost in the Civil War and World War II combined. In contrast, the only warfare that’s occurred on Canadian soil has been when, umm, we invaded them. Likewise, while Mexico expropriated US oil companies in 1938, Canada has always respected US-owned property.
The politics of NAFTA make it politically unwise to point out the reality that Canada is a much more stable and pro-American trading partner than Mexico. As much as we like to goof on the Canadians, we couldn’t ask for better neighbors.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:27 am
The Canadians did send us David Frum, Mark Steyn, and Charles Krauthammer, though.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am
and Mexican-American voters can be quoted with other means.
Now I know why Matt has so many typos. He’s dictating his posts with speech-recognition software.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:51 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I don’t want to put down the US at all – what it achieved in electing Obama is a wonderful sight for the whole world to behold. That said, I think the comparison of Obama’s election to GG Jean’s appointment is misguided, and does an injustice to Canada’s embrace of multiculturalism.
How about this: after Hispanics in California, Texas and some other SW US states begin agitating for secession, including the use of terrorism and kidnapping of prominent government figures in both the American and foreign governments, and have two referenda on secession (one of which is almost as close as Bush v. Gore in Florida), and the American people have responded by electing Hispanics president for 9 out of 10 terms during this period (acutally Quebecois have led Canada for about 37-38 of the last 40 years), then Americans can claim to be especially enlightened.
Canada’s track record in dealing with “The Other” is every bit as strong as the US’s. Obama’s election was wonderful, but it isn’t as if people in other countries needed to be taught by Americans how to be nice to people that aren’t like themselves.
Kudos to the US on Obama.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Hi everyone guys! Thanks for the invitation so much. I will try to come back as soon as possible.
.
I am from Australia and learning to read in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Com is a comprehensive source for online travel information.”
With love
, Flinn.