Item: Jordon Cooper links to an article noting that California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger is using California-first rhetoric in his speeches. This combined with a California-Britian accord to curb greenhouse gases and talks about universal health care lead some to suggest that California might be considering a future outside of the United States, a move they suggest would result in a break-up of the union into eight or so loosely-aligned republics.
Item: Former NDPer Mike Park of the blog Rational Reasons quits his party. He hasn’t changed his democratic socialist ambitions, but he no longer believes that Canada’s government can achieve them. He vows to focus his efforts on non governmental organizations and on working locally while thinking globally.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine asked me point blank whether I thought Canada would still be around in twenty-five years time, or whether we would be a part of the United States. After thinking about it a moment, I said that I thought that Canadian integration into the United States was inevitable, though it wouldn’t be quite in the manner that most people think, and it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
In Canada, separatist fervour comes and goes. If it isn’t the Bloc Quebecois coyly trying to get the Canadian government to call Quebec a nation, or Albertans being extra protective of their natural resources, it’s Toronto complaining about the billions of tax dollars that leave the GTA which do not come back from Ontario in services (heck, I’ve spoken in favour of creating the new province of Toronto here). We seem increasingly dissatisfied with the services our central government provides, and in our darker moments, we are pointing fingers, accusing each other of benefiting from the federation at others’ expense.
Trudeau lampooned this sentiment in Quebec. It was insular and backward. “Pull back behind your borders, put up walls, keep the outsiders out.” It’s the sort of rhetoric we’ve heard too often in nationalistic dictatorships destined not to end well. And that sort of insular thinking — that we’re better than anyone else, that we support everyone else, and we can get by without everyone else, is worth lampooning wherever it manifests itself, be it Ontario or Alberta.
But here’s the catch: if we laugh at the silliness of demarcating a border, establishing patrols and customs offices along the 110th meridian (and up the main street of Lloydminster), what the heck are we doing maintaining an equally silly border along the 49th parallel?
Now, I’ve heard all the arguments: Canada and the United States have different histories. They have different attitudes towards government. Americans are more individualistic and Canadians are more collectivist. We have different political cultures. Different cultures full stop. Canada is multi-cultural and America… not. “You can’t be an American and a Canadian, Erin, they’re opposites.”
Some of these statements are truer than others, certainly, but as a collective statement affirming the irreconcilable differences of all Americans and all Canadians, I have one word: Bullshit.
Compare Miami to Minneapolis, and Minneapolis to Winnipeg. Now compare Winnipeg to Moncton. The middle two jurisdictions have more in common with each other than the jurisdictions on either side. The United States is far more diverse than we give it credit for, and there are places where Americans themselves are forced to wonder: just what the heck is that bit of my country doing in my country? We can say the same here in Canada: Quebec has a distinct language, history and culture — even a distinct legal system. What the heck keeps us together? Believe me, the separatists would give good money to learn the answer to that question. And, by the same token, what keeps Canada and the United States apart?
Between the various parts of this country, we have come through a lot together: two world wars, economic depression and resurgence, deficit and surplus. We are united by a history that has seen people uproot themselves from all across the world and make a new life here. We’ve represented hope and prosperity to millions of immigrants and we can all look back at what we have achieved and be proud.
But a functioning country does not just look backward. Time itself does not allow that. Looking forward, we face a number of challenges; some are common throughout the country, some are not. The nation is polarizing, between urban and rural, between rich and poor, between individual and state. New lines are being drawn, and these lines puncture, if not obliterate, provincial and national borders. Canadian municipalities face a $123 Billion deficit in the form of aging bridges, roads and public transit infrastructure, and our provincial and federal governments drag their feet. Our federal government is awash in money while several provinces struggle to make ends meet. We face questions regarding our aging population and rising health care costs, and we have a government and opposition in Ottawa that’s more interested in playing mean-spirited political games than actually facing the challenges of the future.
And I can’t help but think: we used to do so much better. Toronto built new subways every year from 1959 to 1980. Our government-run postal service used to give us delivery on Saturdays. The waiting lists for medical care used to be a lot shorter, and the TTC used to run on time. We used to be well served by our governments, but quality control has slipped. What has changed?
What if it’s that we have become too big? This man argues that the United States has grown so much in size and in population that it is simply unmanageable from Washington DC. As rich as Albertans get, their political aspirations will be overshadowed by the simple fact that for every Albertan in this nation, there are four Ontarians. Is it reasonable to expect that in lands so diverse with voices so numerous, that a consensus can be reached in a central government on anything more than the barest number of issues?
The Greater Toronto Area contributes $23 Billion to the rest of the nation in the form of taxes that it does not get back in the form of services. North-south trade routes have rendered much of our east-west infrastructure obsolete. Maybe it’s time to declare an end to this bold experiment called Canada and break ourselves apart into more manageable portions, granting each segment enough power for the citizens within to look after their own affairs.
This is not an insular thought. The lines of communication and, more importantly, trade, would remain open. There would be a free movement of labour and capital, gently regulated by a limited central authority with teeth enough to prevent a great race to the lowest common denominator. Balkanization doesn’t mean having to behave like the Balkans. Drawing up borders doesn’t mean drawing back within them. Just look at the United States. California is not drawing borders around itself — as you can see by the fact that it is making economic and political accords with other world powers — but it is starting to follow an agenda that isn’t matched by Washington DC.
If Alberta were to leave Canada to look after its own affairs, I’m sure many people would be upset for the loss of the Canada they grew up in, but how much would actually change? Canadians are already paying the world price for oil. Atlantic Canadians get most of their oil from New England refineries. Alberta would likely remain within NAFTA, meaning that capital and labour would still be free to move across its borders. And it too is a lot more diverse than people give it credit for. Perhaps it might break apart, with city states of Edmonton and Calgary trading on an even keel with the rural remainder of the Albertan nation. If the parting between Canada and Alberta were amicable, Canadians and Albertans wouldn’t notice the difference in terms of the quality of their lives.
This is something I’ve been seeing across the world. Over the past few decades, the powers of our national governments are heading up and down. They’re being handed up to trans-national organizations which are lowering trade barriers, coordinating security arrangements, and even foreign affairs. We have a real prospect for a United States of Europe in my lifetime, and here at home we’re talking about a North American trading and security bloc that will make crossing from Ontario to Michigan as easy as crossing from New York to Pennsylvania.
At the same time, power is being transferred down. You see it in the devolution of powers to new legislative assemblies in Scotland and Wales. You see it in the rise of autonomous regions in Catalonia, in debates over the Tenth Amendment in the United States, and even in proposals to turn the Greater Toronto Area into Canada’s eleventh province. The barriers are coming down between nations and between individuals. The powers of government are realigning to a new reality: where individuals have a better understanding of the world, and a better ability to look after their own affairs. National sovereignty may not be the way of the future in the way that personal sovereignty is.
NAFTA and the WTO are already overruling national sovereignty. The Northern Ireland situation has been solved largely because England and Ireland belong to the same Europe. And as much as the anti-globalization forces would like to reverse this trend, the genie will not be put back in the bottle. Better to make organizations like the WTO as accountable as the nation states beneath them. Ensuring that the rights and freedoms of individuals aren’t trampled by multi-national corporations may be the big challenge of the first quarter of the twenty-first century.
And better, perhaps, to shrink down the remaining national government powers to local authorities that are close enough to the people to be responsive to their needs. The technology is already in place for cities to be as influential as the nations before them. Individuals have been granted far more power to control their own affairs than their grandparents could ever have dreamt of. As long as I’m allowed the freedom to travel where I want within the economic union, locate myself where I want and negotiate how I want for the job I want, I don’t see as that’s much of a problem.
Frankly, I do not picture a Canada existing fifty years in the future, because I do not see nations existing in their current form at that time. And, frankly, I do not care. Because while I don’t see a Canada in my future, I do see Canadians. They will be defined not by the geographical location of their birth, but by their life experiences. They should be assessed not by their citizenship, but by their character.
I have set up a good life here in Kitchener, but that does not mean that I couldn’t set up a life that is just as good in Des Moines, Chicago, Omaha or Edmonton. There are differences in who we are and where we live, but they do not define us. They are not so strenuous that they cannot be overcome.
My name is James Bow, and I am Canadian. It is my desire that, someday, my daughter will look at herself and say, my name is Vivian, and I am a citizen of the world.
March 12, 2008 3:49 PM
If you want to talk about a North American union, it’s not a question of whether Canada wants to join the USA, but if the USA would let us. If each province turns into a state, every single one (with the possible exception of Alberta) would be so profoundly Democrat there’s no way Republicans would ever say yes, because they’d never see the Presidency or a Congressional majority again.
People have been predicting the death of nations of a long time. I don’t expect to see it during my lifetime, and I expect to live for the better part of another century.
March 12, 2008 4:59 PM
Hmm. I’m not sure I have a response, exactly, but I do have a couple of rambly thoughts.
I was a citizen of the world long before I was a Canadian. Still am, really. I’ll never be any country’s nationalist, and I’ll never be the sort of person who thinks the scenario you describe here would be the end of the world. But there would be a loss, if it happened that way. Countries are relatively arbitrary, but cultures aren’t, and I’m convinced that there is a distinctively Canadian culture that would go missing in this scenario. And there would be something sad about that, even if it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
When you look at it as being about culture rather than citizenship, it becomes a different issue bigger than “where you live,” you know. Sure, I could have had a good life somewhere in the current boundaries of the U.S., but it wouldn’t have been the same kind of life. I couldn’t have shared a community with people who mostly share my core values. I couldn’t have participated in politics, or even voted for a candidate whose policies I agree with. Those things matter to me. I have been known to say that I value being Canadian more than I ever thought I would, but really it’s not about being Canadian, per se, it’s about it’s about being able to hold onto those things now that I have them. If the scenario you describe plays itself out, that will probably mean going somewhere else. I’d be okay with that, but I’d prefer not to, you know?
March 12, 2008 5:53 PM
Well… I think you’re manifestly wrong on this, James, but here are just a few points to start.
1) Nation-states have existed in roughly their current form for 350 years, and they are highly unlikely to be replaced in the near of medium term.
2) A “United States of Europe” is not only unlikely given current European political realities, but would be an arrangement highly particular to the political and economic situation of Europe itself. It is unlikely in the extreme that similar organizations will emerge elsewhere, particularly in North America.
3) Canada and the US are separate countries for a variety of political, historical, and, yes, cultural reasons. That they are similar in many respects is not of great importance - one could make a similar argument for Germany and Austria or Australia and New Zealand or, it should be noted, mainland China and Taiwan. That bilateral agreements for cooperation and open borders are beneficial in these cases is not in question, but that doesn’t really imply anything about unifying them. With Canada and the US, I am confident in arguing that the institutional differences between the two are indeed irreconciliable (parliamentary vs. presidential systems, different legal traditions, considerably different mainstream viewpoints on the role of the state, etc.). In other respects, it’s not about irreconciliable differences per se, but about distinctions that would make existing in a single state problematic. For the US, it would mean adding another a region with the size and voting preferences of California, and for Canada it would mean comprimising a great deal to “fit in” with a larger unit. There’s simply no compelling reason to do this.
4) It is fallacious to argue that “quality control” has slipped because Canada has become “too big” given that Canada has not changed markedly since 1980. Yes, the distribution of population is somewhat more weighted in favour of Ont, BC, and AB, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with the TTC or health care; neo-liberal governments in the 1980s and (especially) the 1990s are of considerably greater relevance. Regardless of the problems that exist, claiming that Canadians lead anything other than an incredibly charmed existence by world standards.
5) I don’t quite follow your notion of what will replace nation-states in their current form; we cannot put the genie back in the bottle re: legal concepts of sovereignty, and issues relating to defining jurisdictions. Neither NAFTA nor the WTO “overrule” national sovereignty - as should be in evidence from the current Democratic campaign, any state party to such an international agreement may withdraw at any time. States may agree to abide by rules negotiated multi- or bilaterally, but enforcement mechanisms are invariably weak and simply not reliably enforceable at all. Take the softwood lumber dispute as an example, if you wish, but the bottom line is that while international governmental organizations are helpful, they do not actually govern anything in a meaningful way.
Of course, in only a few cases are the powers of national governments being “handed down” - the UK might be an exception, but states like Germany, Australia, and, yes, Canada all have remarkably stable federal systems. At home we now have a finance minister arguing for centralization - of securities regulation - as a member of a government which putatively wants to cede powers to provincial governments, which themselves are highly centralized sub-states.
In fact, if things like economic and personal mobility are to be assured within a given region (like, oh, within defined borders), there must exist a strong state capable of enforcing such rights and ensuring the stability and strength of constitutional and legal order by which they are guaranteed. Simply put, you cannot escape the state, but then why would you want to? There are good reasons why “anarchy” has a fairly negative connotation and, on the other side, the feudalism and decentralization of Europe’s Middle Ages is hardly desirable either.
I have set up a good life here in Kitchener, but that does not mean that I couldn’t set up a life that is just as good in Des Moines, Chicago, Omaha or Edmonton. There are differences in who we are and where we live, but they do not define us. They are not so strenuous that they cannot be overcome.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Of course, you could set up life elsewhere. Most anyone could. While you can do so in Edmonton or Regina without dealing with visas or immigration applications, that doesn’t mean that this can or should happen anywhere you’d like to go. Were Edmonton an independent city state, it would enjoy all the legal sovereignty of a country like Canada, and thus it could refuse your immigration application. If it does not enjoy such sovereignty, then it is a unit within a sovereign state, and you still must be a citizen of that state to enjoy full rights of mobility within it. So, in this way, the only solutions are to form a bigger state (not going to happen on this continent), a European-style confederal union (also unlikely), or a global state (if possible at all, it will NOT happen within the next 50 years, and at best probably not for a century or three).
March 12, 2008 7:58 PM
Peace, order and good government is the Canadian priority. There is no “pursuit of happiness” ( or wealth) in our constitution or in our political ethos. While Canada protects individual rights, the good of the group can override those rights as was the case in several recent court decisions. Even “the right of free speech” and “freedom of the press” can take second place in Canada to the common good. Surely this is a major difference between us and the US and a “deal breaker.” It also partly explains some of the apathy of the electorate and the western separation movement. Voters just don’t feel that either of the major parties are capable of providing “good government.”
I seem to recall that the most recent Maclean’s survey of Canadians found we were becoming even more unlike our American cousins. Interestingly we were now more rebellious and less inclined to accept authority than the Americans — so much for that old myth. Canadians believe they are their brother’s keeper and are very firmly committed to and proud of our social safety net. The US is yet to introduce universal free health care.
I hope that there is still a Canada in the next century and I fear globalization without the strengthening of non-economic groups to hold the world bank, WTO and global corporations in check.
By the way, “home” is more than were you make your living; it is where your family and support network (including your social one) is. Life is more than earning a living, it is contributing to your community, helping your neighbours, achieving spiritual and culture growth and, dare I say it, doing God’s will not your own will. I hope and pray that my granddaughter Vivian grows up to be proud she is both Canadian and American and a Christian!
I agree with Idealistic Pragmatist, there is a distinctly Canadian culture and it is important to the Canadian identity and quality of life.
March 13, 2008 5:28 AM
PS: Our differences do not define us but our roots do! Tea owes its character to where it is grown as does wine and so do you. You said it: “My name is James Bow, and I am Canadian.”
March 13, 2008 8:33 AM
Thanks everybody for your interesting responses.
March 13, 2008 2:06 PM
I would have to agree with Josh.
Borders are trumped by culture. Yes, we share similarities to the US, but we are inherently distinct and we like that. We enjoy being a part of this club and while it is inclusive (we welcome all), it is elitist (we feel that we are better than anyone else). Canadians are not unique in this feeling. It is human to want to belong to the group and to defend it. While economics may pull Canada and the US closer together we want and will remain separate.
There are an estimated 2.7 million Canadians around the world. I’m one of them. I am a citizen of the world but I am distinctly Canadian.
Just ask all the players on the Dubai Hockey Team. They will all say the same thing.
March 13, 2008 3:12 PM
“I don’t see a Canada in my future, I do see Canadians. They will be defined not by the geographical location of their birth, but by their life experiences. They should be assessed not by their citizenship, but by their character.”’
Well said James. Needless to say, I agree. I go further to state that all borders exist only in the mind of those who look at maps. Voluntary cooperation versus state coercion is my choice - and only voluntary organizations ‘ruling’ us. No Canadian or US governments, or even Ontario governments.
And for the record, I am definitely a left-libertarian and a market anarchist. I like the idea of a highly decentralized, open and freely trading groups and individuals forming a society.
Josh,
1) “Nation-States” are things like Serbia, Germany or Albania - a single, homogeneous ethnic “nation” united in a country or state. Canada and the US are not “nation-states” in this classical sense, in that they have no single dominate cultural or ethnic “nation”. Nation states have been the except, rather than the rule, for over 50 years and it is getting worse.
2) The EU is actually another example of the decline of “nation states” from 1). As well, it shows how the lowering of borders, removal of barriers and the free movement of both labour as well as capital and goods increases wealth and prosperity.
Now we simply decide to expand the sphere of that barrier lowering.
Large centralized governments may exist for whatever historical reasons, but that does not mean they should still exist, or existed for the right reasons in the first place.
I look forward to a world with no “national” boundaries and no large, Leviathan central states that control them. Just individuals and voluntary cooperative groups living and trading together.
The ‘US’ that Canada or Mexico would become part of will not be the same US of today. As much as we have problems governing from Ottawa, the US has the problem 100 fold. No, I suspect it will be massive upheavals in the US that will be the catalyst to changes that lead to James vision of the future.
March 13, 2008 8:13 PM
1) “Nation-States” are things like Serbia, Germany or Albania - a single, homogeneous ethnic “nation” united in a country or state. Canada and the US are not “nation-states” in this classical sense, in that they have no single dominate cultural or ethnic “nation”. Nation states have been the except, rather than the rule, for over 50 years and it is getting worse.
I don’t follow your last point, but my point stands - the state system has existed in its current form since the end of the Thirty Years’ War and is not about to disappear. It has also been a principle in international law since World War I that nations (in the sociological sense) are entitled to self-determination, which does not necessarily imply statehood. Though Canada is not a nation-state in the sense of, say, Japan, this is really just a matter of the comparative ethno-cultural homogeneity of the two (though Japan does have the Ainu, Okinawans, and a sizable number of Koreans).
What’s getting worse exactly?
2) The EU is actually another example of the decline of “nation states” from 1). As well, it shows how the lowering of borders, removal of barriers and the free movement of both labour as well as capital and goods increases wealth and prosperity.
These are all feasible things where the members states of such an association are roughly comparable in size (or, at least, no one unit is capable of dominating the rest) and prosperity. You also ignore that EU-expansion has not been without cost; the nature of the EU in 10, 20, or 30 years in the future is certainly up for debate.
Now we simply decide to expand the sphere of that barrier lowering.
Except lowering all barriers - such as on capital - is not a self-evident good, except, perhaps, to free market fundamentalists.
Large centralized governments may exist for whatever historical reasons, but that does not mean they should still exist, or existed for the right reasons in the first place.
It really makes no difference what the reasons were - the onus is on those to prove that we would be in anyway better off in some fanciful state-less world.
I look forward to a world with no “national” boundaries and no large, Leviathan central states that control them. Just individuals and voluntary cooperative groups living and trading together.
Well, when you have some practical suggestions for how to (a) accompllish this and (b) ensure that it results in the sort of stability conducive to such an ideal, let me know. If that sounds snarky, then so be it, but I have little patience for airy fairy pie-in-the-sky anarchist daydreaming. When you can eliminate - once and for all - the problem of power and asymmetries thereof, we shall enjoy utopia. Of course, as Rousseau said of democracy, such a society would a nation of Gods - so perfect a social order is not suited to mere mortals.
March 13, 2008 9:19 PM
“Except lowering all barriers - such as on capital - is not a self-evident good, except, perhaps, to free market fundamentalists.”
Convenient that you missed the part where I talked about lowering barriers on labour as well. But I guess you couldn’t paint me as a “free market fundamentalist” then eh? FWIW, I quite like Dean Baker’s idea in this respect, as he explains in the Conservative Nanny State. Barriers to labour but not capital (which is what we have in our absurdly named “free trade” agreement) merely tilts the market in favour of the corps - the use of the power of the state to favour capitalists.
But I digress.
My point about nation-states is that in the past century or so, the predominant has not been the ‘nation state’ as I described, but of a super state that is multi-national, multi-ethnic such as Canada, the US, the UK even the former Soviet Union. That the nation state has been around for 350 years doesn’t mean it will be around in another 350 or even 50.
As for “practical suggestions” yes, how about just allowing people decide things for themselves? Or is that too “airy fairy” for you? How about taking one step - make taxes voluntary. If people truly prefer government programs, they’ll happily continue to pay. Those that do not, will go elsewhere for these services. Simple as that. Allow me to pay only for what I want. That means people who wish to have our health care system pay for the system and those that don’t want to pay for the war in Afghanistan won’t. A little competition might just make the government more efficient…
As for Utopian, well I have no illusions that it would be messy. But no more messy than the system we currently have, with poverty, violence and wars, only a lot freer. I’ll “eliminate - once and for all - the problem of power and asymmetries thereof” when you do.
Sorry James, but I have little patience for apologists for the status quo who expect any changes to be perfectly planned and perfect, an poo-pooing anyone that suggests change is needed or that dare wish to live without having their freedom squashed and their income pilfered because someone else thinks its whats best.
March 14, 2008 12:13 AM
Fine, but keep it civil, guys.
March 14, 2008 1:23 AM
Correction to above:
Of course, as Rousseau said of direct democracy, such an anarchic society would be a nation of Gods - so perfect a social order is not suited to mere mortals.
Oh, and regarding the movement of capital, the issue is more with the effect that abrupt shifts and panics can have on economics and markets generally. There are a number of reasons why, for example, a Tobin Tax could be a stabilizing factor. Without restrictions, capital is still inherently more mobile than labour. Selling billions dollars (or Thai baht) can happen overnight; moving millions (to say nothing of thousands) of workers over a short period is not at all possible.
March 15, 2008 11:04 AM
I have enjoyed reading the various sides of this discussion and I daresay that I may not always think in such big pictures. The question I ask myself is “Would I want to be black in Canada or black in the US”. Or even “would I want to be black in Alberta or Des Moines”
Now I would never say that Canada is anyway perfect a place to be black in. I have been here since 1954 and that was truly a different world. And yet my daughter, who has grown up here all her life, is fully rounded well adjusted and a supremely confident young woman. This is what I hoped for when I resisted those who wanted me to move to the States 20 years ago.
It is more than just big politics and city states but for myself this is a place where, in spite of still existing inequities, there is a chance to be non-white and have a great life.
I am not much of a gambling man but I would place my bet here rather than there.
Philip Akin
March 16, 2008 8:17 AM
From MACLEAN”S March 24 article “Marrying up: getting ahead in New France:
“Most Western democracies are based on a common cultural identity, language, and often a common religion. Canada, divided and isolated from the beginning, didn’t have that luxury, [John Ralston] Saul said. “Canada has been, for four centuries, an experiment against the European and American nation-state - out of weakness, not strength.”
“From Samuel de Champlain’s arrival onward, the new settlers had to work with First Nations. Over the years, European and Aboriginal Canadians often built sophisticated relationships, Saul said. “Their approach would have horrified the leaders of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries: ‘Why didn’t you clarify? Simplify?’”
“Instead, the colonists of New France and their British rivals preferred accommodation. When newcomers intermarried with Aboriginals, “they were marrying up,” Saul said, struggling to find a way to translate the concept into French. “They were marrying the people who knew where they were, how to organize things, what they could eat, and who knew the only source of income - the fur trade - which is to say, they knew the economy.”