When you're the leader of the third party in the House of Commons, you have a lot of time on your hands. Justin Trudeau spent some of that time cultivating relations with the American embassy and, through it, the Obama administration.
That investment is paying off, with President Barack Obama and Mr. Trudeau quickly establishing a close and beyond-cordial relationship. As one tangible proof of that new relationship, Mr. Trudeau dropped in on Ambassador Bruce Heyman's annual holiday party on Tuesday, something that probably never even crossed Stephen Harper's mind when he was prime minister. Of course, the welcome was rapturous – these days, for this Prime Minister, it always is.
There are land mines ahead, but if Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Obama can defuse – or at least step around – them, Canada-U.S. relations are set to enter a golden age not seen since the days when Jean Chrétien and Bill Clinton played golf together while running North America.
Though, speaking of Clintons, the true test of Canada-U.S. relations is still a long way down the road, for Mr. Trudeau; it will involve a different president and centre on one overriding issue: trade.
According to government officials speaking on background, Mr. Trudeau and his advisers spent a considerable amount of time in the year prior to the dropping of the writ for the Oct. 19 election in informal consultations with Mr. Heyman and embassy officials. They soon realized that there was more than surface bonhomie between the two sides.
Trudeau and his team share fundamentally identical world views with the Obama administration. Both place environmental concerns over energy concerns, though neither is blind to the importance of a safe, secure continental energy supply. Mr. Obama waited until after the election to announce he would not approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The Liberals expressed disappointment, and both sides let the matter drop.
Both believe that soft diplomacy – leading by example, in order to get other international actors to follow that lead – is as important geopolitically as the threat of force. Both believe that, historically, Western meddling in the Middle East lies behind much of that region's strife. And the Americans welcomed the Canadians' determination to return this country's foreign policy to one that emphasizes multilateralism over unilateralism and mediation over bluster.
Although the Americans stoutly deny, on or off the record, that they had any interest whatsoever in who won the October election, others close to the situation report that there was quiet satisfaction in the West Wing on Oct. 19, when Canadian election results came in – hardly a surprise, given the frostiness of the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Harper over Keystone. The early investment each in the other between the Liberals and the Democrats was about to pay off.
As the New York Times reported earlier this week, the President and the new Prime Minister established a quick and comfortable rapport, with Mr. Obama gently chiding Mr. Trudeau for addressing him as "sir." "Calling me 'sir' makes me feel old," Mr. Obama reportedly said. "Call me 'Barack.' "
Beyond a synchronicity of values, Mr. Obama sees in Mr. Trudeau, his wife Sophie and their three children, the same youthful, hope-and-change oriented family that the Obamas presented to America in 2008.
The two leaders spent 45 minutes together at the APEC summit in Manila last month, and Mr. Obama invited Mr. Trudeau to come to Washington in the New Year. Government officials confirmed Wednesday that in March, Mr. Obama will play host to the first state dinner for a Canadian prime minister in 19 years, when Mr. Clinton offered the compliment to Mr. Chrétien.
The new Canadian administration is offside with its American counterpart on one issue: the Trudeau government's decision to withdraw its CF-18 fighters from the military mission in Iraq. However, according to government sources, the Obama administration understands that this was a Liberal campaign promise that can't be reversed now, which is why the President has not asked the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision.
Trade could be the bigger issue. The softwood-lumber agreement that the Harper government and the Bush administration worked out in 2006 has expired, and negotiations over a new one are bound to be acrimonious. And the Obama administration will want and expect Parliament to ratify the sweeping and controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
On this crucial file, however, time is on the Canadians' side. According to government officials, mandatory reviews and consultations make it unlikely that the Obama administration will be able to get the proposed agreement to Congress before May, by which time the 2016 election calendar is likely to make it impossible to pass the treaty.
The assumption is that, despite her public reservations, if Hillary Clinton wins in November, the new Democratic president will negotiate some side agreements – just as her husband did with the North American free-trade agreement in 1993 – and then present the treaty to Congress. Only after it passes, if it passes, will the Canadian government be under pressure to ratify it, as well. But those same side agreements could also provide the Trudeau government with cover.
But that is far down the road. For all we know, the Republicans could win the 2016 presidential election, throwing a major spanner into the works of Canada-U.S. relations. What matters for now is that an American President in the twilight of his administration and a new Canadian Prime Minister just starting out see each other as geopolitical friends and allies. It will be interesting to see what they are able to do together, in the time Mr. Obama has left.
John Ibbitson