In Washington, the international voices that carry the most weight tend to be those belonging to countries whose power stems from either global heft or domestic constituency resonance. Canada’s influence in DC is based largely on geography, trade and stability. But, as has been displayed in the past, we can be useful. And, in being useful, Canada can be relevant.

Perrin Beatty and Mark Agnew 

If—as Ronald Reagan once said—politician is the second-oldest profession in the world, then lobbyist has to be the third-oldest. The Center for Responsive Politics counts about 12,000 registered lobbyists inside the Washington, DC Beltway. Layer on top of that all the think tanks, civil society organizations, media, and diplomatic missions vying for the attention of decision-makers. It adds up to a multitude of voices seeking to advance their issues during a fixed number of hours and days for Congress and the executive branch of the United States government. 

Canadian interests are among those voices at the table but, given the plethora of others, it is critical to know how to make Canada relevant in Washington. This is an important question to answer because the nature of our relationship with the US is very unequal when looking at a range of variables, including trade dependencies, military capabilities, and population.

This means Canada cannot waltz into Washington’s corridors of power with a supplicant’s petition and succeed on the basis of appealing to abstract notions of a Canadian version of the “special relationship.” While there are certainly Canadaphiles who instinctively have an affinity for us based on proximity, family relationships and other factors, political constraints and electoral politics tend to outweigh other considerations. Politicians listen to voters, and Canadians do not vote in US elections.

In recent years, the Canadian perspective on the bilateral relationship has tended to be binary. We either consider Washington to be inattentive and indifferent to our interests (as with Keystone XL, the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, and the fate of the two Michaels) or hostile (as in attacking NAFTA, hiking tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber or doubling down on Buy American policies). We complain when US politicians ignore Canada and worry when we suddenly attract their attention. 

When they consider international issues, Americanpresidents are preoccupied with wars, terrorism, migration on the southern border, pandemics, cybercrime and myriad other threats to US economic, diplomatic and military interests. In contrast, they consider the list of irritants that dominate Canadian discussions of the bilateral relationship to be more of a distraction than an agenda. Unless US leaders have a particular fascination with Canada, other nations and other issues take priority.

Canada’s influence with our southern neighbour peaked during the Mulroney-Reagan years, when the two leaders were prepared to spend political capital to help each other. That relationship resulted in achievements such as the Acid Rain Treaty, NAFTA and Canada’s inclusion at international tables where global issues were being decided.

The personal chemistry between Mulroney and Reagan (and, later, the first George Bush) was an important part of the equation. Equally important, however, was the fact that Canada went to the US with a set of solutions to international issues instead of presenting a list of problems. That problem-solving approach was also effective in later years under the Jean Chrétien government when a Canadian proposal on how to manage our common border after 9/11 became the Smart Border Declaration.

The question for Canada is how to adapt that strategy in 2021, given the current political landscape in Washington. The Biden administration has markedly changed the tone towards allies and now explicitly expresses a desire to work with Canada and others. On June 8, when the White House released its first tranche of 100-day supply chain reviews, the word allies appeared thirteen times in the news release. However, this expression of goodwill should not be mistaken for the US defaulting to prioritizing the interests of its allies. We are not the American electorate and the Biden administration faces a litany of domestic and international challenges that determine its agenda.

This is not to suggest that Canada is irrelevant. Geographic, economic and security realities inherently give Canada a unique starting point. However, we need to find ways to break out from the pack and secure a greater market share of American decision-makers’ attention. One way that can be done is by supporting American ambitions related to critical minerals. In the June 2021 supply chain review, the US Department of Defense (DoD) underscored its concern with the current critical mineral supply chain: 

“…these supply chains are at serious risk of disruption—from natural disasters or force majeure events, for example—and are rife with political intervention and distortionary trade practices, including the use of forced labor. Contrary to a common belief, this risk is more than a military vulnerability; it impacts the entire US economy and our values.”

Unlike China, Canada is a reliable partner and can help allay the DoD’s concerns related to the supply chain risks identified for critical minerals. In fact, Canada gets an explicit call-out in the report and the DoD highlights in their assessment that Canada has resource potential in twenty-three products. Although Canada and the US have started engagement through the Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration, we need to make greater strides domestically in order to bring something to the table. 

For example, one of the themes that emerged recently from the Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources is the lack of intermediate processing in Canada of critical minerals. Although having greater processing domestically would generate economic value in Canada, it would not be the only benefit. Building this capacity would show decision-makers in Washington that we are serious about supply chain resiliency, which includes both reducing dependence on unreliable markets and ensuring sufficient strategic reserves. 

Climate change policy is another aspect of the relationship where Canada should leverage an alignment with American interests. In the lead-up to COP26 in Glasgow, the race toward net zero by 2050 is the key benchmark being set for government policy and business practice on climate change action. However, it is important to ensure that North America’s pathway to net zero recognizes the existing energy assets and resource-intensive nature of our economies. The two countries will succeed when policy is built around a smart transition rather than a binary choice between fossil fuels and renewables. 

Given that Canada and the US have shared interests, we should be working closely in the efforts toward net zero by 2050. Critical minerals for the purposes of battery technology are one area, but so is the deployment of other technologies, such as small modular reactors and hydrogen. In bringing smart domestic policies to the table, Canada and the US can work together to better share technology and attract investment in cross-border supply chains that will create new business opportunities. This will be particularly useful going into COP26. 

A third issue that presents an opportunity for working with American interests is ending the use of forced labour in supply chains. The US drove this issue forward at this year’s G7 Summit and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) includes obligations for the three signatory countries to end the importation of goods made with forced labour. Much of this effort is explicitly directed towards Xinjiang, and the agriculture, solar, and garment sectors. It is also a key element of US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s “worker-centered” trade policy.

Canada still has work to do in articulating our enforcement regime, particularly in how the CUSMA’s forced labour provisions are applied. However, given the bipartisan views in Washington on China, working collaboratively with the US on forced labour issues would align Canada with a key American priority. It would be naïve to believe that aligning with US interests on critical minerals, climate change, forced labour, or other issues becomes a straight trade-off that fixes problems such as Buy American or softwood lumber. There is not a grand bargain in the making. However, bringing solutions to the table in areas of key American interest helps to make Canada relevant inside the Beltway.

That relevance will help us overcome the image portrayed in Condoleezza Rice’s famous “condominium issues” reference to Canada’s focus on bilateral housekeeping. We want, instead, to be considered a trusted partner, which will also build our credibility to address the issues that matter to Canadian stakeholders.

In diplomacy, relationships matter. And in Washington, where stakeholders are plentiful, relationships are greatly aided by relevance. As we look ahead to what the Biden White House in a February note called The Roadmap for a Renewed US-Canada Partnership, Canada must keep a firm eye on how our efforts align with American interests.  

Perrin Beatty is President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. During his earlier career as a Progressive Conservative MP, he was a minister in the Clark, Mulroney and Campbell governments.

Mark Agnew is the Senior Vice President, Policy and Government Relations at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He previously worked for the British and Canadian governments.