Alberta Review: Back to Basics
Canada must realign itself geopolitically. Let's use national character to guide that course.
The best and fastest way for us to grow is for you to share the posts within your networks. A forward goes a long way, and the more subscribers we get, the more we’ll be able to write. The writing may change in the next few months to be a bit more entertaining (we hope) so tell your friends!
The threat of tariffs isn’t going away. They are either deliberate tactical tools of chaos to keep trade partners off-kilter, a brilliant game theory ploy for negotiating, or the tool of a true believer who wants to rebuild American industry and cut the deficit.
This is as bad as we’ve seen it, but it’s not like Canada hasn’t been here before to at least some degree. Before, we fought back with tariffs targeted at products produced in Republican states (Tennessee bourbon) or swing states. That is again on the table, regardless of who wins the Liberal leadership race or the subsequent federal election.
What’s deeper, beyond economics, is our relationship with the United States and how that relates to our national identity. Personally, I’ve been a much bigger defender of America than most. The God-given rights in the US Constitution are, to me, a thing of beauty, even if I prefer a constitutional monarchy in practice. American intervention isn’t an inherent evil to me; I’d rather them be the world’s police than any other nation. Or, when there was a belief in the liberal international system at least, I preferred them to anyone else.
Over the decades, Canada has culturally become more American (sorry, George Grant), losing most of our Brit-Euro flair. But there are elements that have remained distinct. In The Line, Mitch Heimpel outlined a concept that I’ve been obsessed over as of late (accentuated in the nine seconds of madness last Saturday in Montreal)—polite lunacy:
The Americans used to view us as polite lunatics. This showed up not just in American media, but also our stories about ourselves. Characters like Slate's sergeant Patrick O'Neill showed up in the songs of Stompin' Tom, Ian Tyson, and even Gordon Lightfoot. They're memorialized in the works of Robert Service and Al Purdy…We are not the neurotic, blue-helmet-loving, health-care-obsessed cosmopolitans that we have been trying to convince ourselves we are since the late 1970s. We like that Canadians are a little coarse. We like that Canadians are tough, that we endure. That we have, as Purdy said, "stuck both thumbs in the stony earth, and pulled it apart to make room."
That is who we are. Being that requires an industriousness and a toughness, and just a little foolishness. It requires a fierce people, who don't take themselves too seriously.
It’s as good of a description of national character as any, without having to go into anything like constitutional monarchy, Peace, Order, and Good Government, or anything like that. It defines a people, not a state. Which, right now, is what we need.
It is also something complimented quite nicely with our Commonwealth brethren. Substitute hockey for soccer in the UK, rugby in New Zealand, and Aussie Rules football in Australia. This linkage is important, because, as the the geopolitical and geo-ethical wheels turn, more and more commentators are, rightfully, looking out at the landscape and thinking there is time for radical realignment. For Canada (and we simply can’t go it alone) that can be Europe (as The Economist argued) or it can be the Commonwealth. The latter is a bigger market, but from a national character standpoint—which more than anything can determine compatibility—the links are tenuous, at best. The rugged, unpredictable nature of Canadians doesn’t align well with regulations and laws based on the Napoleonic code. Much better to use history, precedent, and pragmatism than laws written in stone.
In 2017, when we first faced this tariff threat we all assumed would be a blip, not a feature, of our relationship with the United States, I advocated in The Hill Times for inviting the UK, fresh off Brexit, to join a new NAFTA:
NAFTA was what the British always wanted the European Union to be. It was a free trade agreement that eschewed political union for borders open not to people but to goods and capital. It included a court meant to deal with contract disputes and not the domestic tax policy of the constituent states. British entry into NAFTA would create a $16.2-trillion market, and make up for the $16.3-trillion one Britain is in the process of leaving.
The trade aspects are surely enticing, but I will leave economists to discuss this long-shot possibility. What is most interesting, however, is the geopolitical ramifications of any new NAFTA (with Britain, it would of course be dubbed the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement).
First, it would aid in further bringing Mexico up from a middle-income nation. Anything that increases Mexican economic growth tempers (with, of course, good policy) security and immigration concerns from America. Solving perennial American concerns would also help temper the American electorate. In the face of intense partisanship that often centres on security from outsiders and immigration’s relationship with job losses, changing the discussion in the U.S. is a strategic victory.
Secondly, for Canada, it would bring in a third country, with which we share cultural affinities, and would strengthen any further challenges to NAFTA that may arise from a future protectionist administration. Multilateralism protects Canada during negotiations, and adding a more powerful voice to the chorus would only be in our interest. This would change the rules of the game for North American trade for Canada. Assuming we can leverage British clout for our own interests, it would be a major win for future Canadian negotiators.
Allowing Great Britain to enter into a new NAFTA could also be used as an excuse to bring them into an expanded NORAD. A first-rate military power such as the U.K. would only strengthen deterrence against Russian incursions, and add to NATO’s role of containing Russian submarines. Canadians may even feel more comfortable with ballistic missile defence if it were not a joint venture with the big, bad Americans, but in conjunction with our British forebears.
Bringing Britain on board would also be a somewhat charitable act with an important outcome. America, and by extension Canada, still requires a strong U.K. in world affairs. A weakened post-Brexit economy is not likely to correlate with a U.K. actively engaged throughout the world in key security and defence operations. Anything to prevent economic problems, and perhaps even help spur growth in the British economy, is in the interest of Canada, the U.S., and the free world.
It appears now that bringing Britain into North America is not only a non-starter, it would never work. Our national character and our geopolitics are out of alignment with our North American neighbour, and we can no longer take the risk of just waiting it out. CANZUK may be the best answer, even if it takes time to work. At the very least, it will strengthen the national character of Canadians as it is, not as we want it to be, and perhaps stop that wayward drift to Americanization as much as possible. Less suit, more flannel, less football, more hockey.
Alberta Review relies on subscriptions to operate (we hate ads, and they’re kind of pointless). Please consider subscribing to support the publication.
Alberta Review is in no way associated with previous iterations of the publication Alberta Review.