Navigator logo

U.S. midterm elections put USMCA in jeopardy

Another day, another bump in the road for the Canada-U. S. relationship.

Spare a moment for Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland.

After years of arduous negotiations over a renewed North American trade agreement with a temperamental and fickle President Donald Trump, she had finally come to ground on what the government believed was an acceptable agreement.

The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) may not have won friends among certain sectors of Canada’s economy but, by and large, Canadians were more than a little relieved to have escaped the renegotiation with just a few bruises and scrapes.

In the name of an assured and dependable trade relationship and the economic benefits that come with that, the country was willing to accept a deal that may not have been perfect.

But just weeks after the three countries declared victory, that fragile achievement may have been shattered.

The midterm results, delivered on Tuesday, bring with them the likelihood of disruption to American political life.

Despite the chaos that surrounds the president himself, the last two years have been a relatively predictable politically due to the Republicans holding both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Pitched partisan policy battles were more or less confined to the media, rather than to the process itself.

That changed on Tuesday.

While the Republicans actually gained ground in the Senate, the House of Representatives fell to the Democrats.

The result? Nancy Pelosi is likely to assume the speaker’s chair. Pelosi is a particularly formidable partisan foe; indeed, she is one of the few Democrats whose steely approach and steady nerves have won her Trump’s respect.

But even if the speaker’s gavel goes to someone else, the flipping of the House will cause major headaches for the president — and by extension, to his legacy projects, including USMCA.

The Democrats feel they have been given a mandate to fight the president tooth and nail on his agenda. They are diametrically opposed to his ideas almost across the board and have publicly indicated their intention to do everything they can to prevent the implementation of his agenda.

However, one of the only places the president and the Democrats seem to find some common ground is around their suspicion of free-trade agreements.

The Democrats have long eyed such agreements warily, seeing them as a way to undermine sovereignty, empower corporations and surreptitiously attack workers’ rights. While that wariness faded somewhat during the mid-’90s, it has not dissipated entirely. And it is a particular hobby-horse of the left-wing of the Democratic party, which finds itself in the ascendancy after this week’s results.

Add to that the fact it is no secret to anyone that Trump thinks little of the North American trading relationships as they currently stand.

This means that in an environment where the House of Representatives and the president strongly disagree on virtually every issue, trade agreements may be the one area of agreement that can be used to advance other agenda items.

Indeed, the presumptive chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Richard Neal, has publicly pooh-poohed USMCA. He has suggested that in order to garner the support of Democrats (a necessity for the agreement to come into force) there would need to be several additional assurances and he has also implied it may require changes.

Enter a pained Minister Freeland.

It will be up to the minister, who has spent months trekking back and forth to Washington coaxing the president’s team into the deal, to now sell the deal to an equally sceptical audience for wholly different reasons.

The chances that USMCA becomes a casualty of domestic policies are high — so Minister Freeland will need to work quickly to build a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans in the House who would be willing to advance the agreement quickly.

The minister, and her team, have been proven capable of doing that many times before — but it will take another level of adeptness to usher through a controversial deal in an environment as fraught and raucous as this.

But, just as before, her government’s fate depends on their success — and a collapse of the agreement just months before a federal election would almost certainly be a harbinger of more negative news to come.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist. He is a freelance contributor for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @jaimewatt

Trump Just Made Jim Acosta an Anchorman

President Trump had the credentials of a member of the White House press corps removed this week after the two clashed at an angry press conference the day after the mid-term elections.

The move by the Trump administration means that the reporter, CNN’s Jim Acosta, can no longer enter the White House to do his job. It is the “nuclear option” invoked by a president who has already labeled the press “the enemy of the people” and has a particularly contentious relationship with CNN and Acosta.

Even by the standards of the erratic presidency of Donald Trump, this latest blow-up is unprecedented, although it does recall similar events in Washington and here in Canada.

The comparison isn’t exact, but for Canadian reporters covering Parliament Hill in Ottawa, there are similarities to the situation that developed here after Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006.

Harper had a generally good relationship with the media covering him when he put together the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties to form the Conservative Party of Canada.

But after he won the 2006 election and formed a minority government, his attitude changed and the relationship quickly soured.

As prime minister, Harper refused to go to the National Press Theatre, where all previous prime ministers going back to Lester Pearson in the 1960s had gone for press conferences.

In the theatre, prime ministerial press conference‎s are run by the president of the press gallery. Reporters wanting to ask a question put up their hands and go on a list kept by the president, who recognizes the gallery members based on the order in which they raised their hands.

Instead, Harper decided he wanted to meet reporters on Parliament Hill, usually in the foyer of the House of Commons with the chamber behind him and Canadian flags framing the scene. The idea was to make Harper look more “Presidential.”

Instead of the president of the gallery selecting the questioners, a junior functionary in the prime minister’s press office kept a list of potential inquisitors. The unspoken understanding was that reporters deemed unfriendly would never have their names called.

In Ottawa, the members of the press gallery declined to go along with the prime minister’s plan. Harper’s attempt to manage the news didn’t work. The upshot was that after more than a year in a virtual stand-off, Harper finally gave in and went to the Press Theatre and met with reporters.

However, the prime minister and the press continued to have a testy relationship throughout Harper’s nearly 10 years in office.

In Washington, it’s hard to imagine that the media and President Trump could have a relationship that deteriorates even more than it already has. ‎The press routinely points out the exaggerations, untruths and outright lies Trump tells. He calls their reports “fake news.”

In Ottawa, where by longstanding practice and tradition, the press gallery determines who qualifies to be a member and has access to Parliament Hill and its precincts‎.

In Washington, the White House is not just the office of the president, it is his home. It is protected by the United States Secret Service, a branch of the Treasury Department, which ultimately reports to the president.

That means the Secret Service decides who gets a White House press pass based on the requests of media organizations, not of the White House press office. The absolute number of passes is limited, but access is a numbers game or a security clearance issue, not a question of who the president of the day happens to like.

That is until now. President Trump has directly intervened to bar a reporter, who under the American Constitution has a right to question authority, to block him from doing his job.

I had a White House Press Pass during the 1970s. That was during the Presidency of Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal‎. Nixon didn’t have many press conferences, but at one he had a memorable exchange with Dan Rather, then the CBS News White House correspondent and the Jim Acosta of the day.

Nixon supporters pressured CBS to have Rather replaced. But that didn’t happen. And Rather’s White House pass was not interfered with. And as events developed, within a year Nixon had resigned, and over the next six years Rather went on to become the CBS Evening News‎ anchorman, the top job in the network.

Trump’s decision to bar Acosta from the White House will likely have the same effect on his career, and will not have any positive effect for Trump. Reporters at the White House will double down‎ to try and hold the president accountable. Even Trump won’t be able to lift all their passes.

And while reporters should not make themselves part of the story, it is Trump who has propelled Acosta into this one.

Does anyone see a future anchorman here?

Don Newman is Senior Counsel at Navigator Limited and Ensight Canada, and a lifetime member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Stories and Sources

This week on the “Stories and Sources” edition of Political Traction, our host Amanda Galbraith speaks with Stephanie Smyth, the managing editor and face of breaking news on CP24. They talked about life inside the newsroom that never sleeps, the power of the ticker tape, and sorting fact from fiction in an era when anyone can be a journalist and accusations of fake news are flung about like confetti.  Plus, we take a spin through the news stories gaining traction, including StatsCans fumbled request for bank data and what the mid-term election results in the US could mean for USMCA.