The Town Hall Archives

extraneous interference · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 12:37 pm Post subject: paper

Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism by George Grant mourns the loss of Canadian sovereignty, which had been lost during John G. Diefenbaker’s mandate as Prime Minister due to anti-nationalist economic policy enacted by the Liberal Party. Grant believes that while, formally speaking, Canada remains independent from the United States of America and Britain, it has lost its complete autonomy in foreign affairs and economic policy.

The Threat of Continentalism to the Sovereignty and Independence of Canada

Canada is threatened primarily by the continentalizing forces of capitalism. As a small country with it’s primary economic foundation on the extraction of our natural resources, Canada is dependent on nations with which they can trade. Prior to World War II, Canada depended heavily on Britain for trade, but with the dissolution of the British Empire, that market dried up and Canada needed to find another country to form intimate trade relations with. While some insightful critics maintained that the best option for Canada would be to trade with other countries of the British Commonwealth or with countries in the Far East, the obvious choice for such a primary trading partner was the United States. The USA was the head of capitalism in the world and continues to be an economic giant with a market capable of gobbling up Canadian exports and making Canadian industry extremely profitable.
Unfortunately, American-style capitalism has promoted continentalism insofar as it encourages American investment in Canadian industry and, according to Grant, eventually rendered the Canada-USA border a political formality ( 58 ). When capitalist ideology is the dominant force in a society, “everything is made relative to profit-making (61).” Such a stand is destructive to nationalism because any patriotic values are made secondary to economic ventures: capitalists are willing to sacrifice national identity for financial gain.
However, continentalism has not always been a force within Canada. During the years of John A. Macdonald the Conservative government controlled Canadian economics via the National Policy. The National Policy was designed to protect the fragile Canadian industry from American interests by encouraging trade among the provinces and countries of the British Commonwealth. The National Policy was made possible by the Canadian people’s desire to remain entirely independent from the United States. At any rate, today this has all changed. Canadians are no longer willing to sacrifice rapid economic growth for a nationalist stance in protecting Canada’s sovereignty. Any government of Canada desiring to maintain some sense of national identity in Canada must appropriately balance nationalism and economics. To forget one and bolster the other will destroy any attempt to preserve Canada. If Canadian nationalism is sacrificed for fiscal benefits, Canada will swiftly lose its sovereignty. On the other hand, if the Canadian economy is sacrificed for the cause of Canadian nationalism, Canadians will rapidly lose desire to save their nation.
The Liberal Party of Canada has not maintained this fragile balance. Grant asserts that the Liberal Party was in power when Canada’s opportunity to remain a sovereign nation disappeared, starting with Mackenzie King and culminating in C. D. Howe, under Louis St. Laurent. King ignored the threat of continentalism because he believed the threat to Canadian sovereignty came from Britain. Accordingly, C. D. Howe supported economic integration with the United States “as fast as possible and at all costs” because fiscal success wins elections (56). While the Liberals were able to generate large economic growth, their actions made it virtually impossible for the next Prime Minister, John G. Diefenbaker, to muster a strong defense against the forces of continentalism.
Grant also discusses the modern goal of progress. Modernists will acknowledge that all of humanity is progressing via science and “the conquest of nature (67).” Modernists will say that the ultimate aspirations of politics is to achieve the ultimate goal of humanity: break down all political barriers and form a world-wide unified state. If modernity is the philosophy of the day and the world-wide state is the final goal, then Canada is ultimately a redundant concept. If both Americans and Canadians are progressive, then they are essentially the same and any barrier only divides a similar-minded people. If modernity is the doctrine of Canadians, then fighting for an independent, sovereign nation is a contradiction of values. However, I believe that modernity, as Grant knew it, is no longer the leading philosophy. Post-modern Canadians no longer see a single, unified, world-wide state as a feasible or desirable outcome. While I do not want to claim modernism dead, I do no not consider this to be the substantial threat that Grant did in 1965.

Canada: Worth Preserving?

Canadians have always believed their homeland was worth preserving. In 1776, Canadians refused to join the American Revolution and take part in the American Republic. Confederation of Canada was accomplished by the efforts of conservative British immigrants who desired to create a society different from the American Republic; they desired “a greater sense of order and restraint that freedom-loving republicanism would allow (82).” Perhaps the biggest reason Canadians value their country is that Canada is not the United States. This negative reasoning is evident throughout Canadian culture and values including our political system. Consider Canada’s role as peace-keeper on the international scene, our protection of Canadian arts via Canadian television and radio, our pride in the Canadian cultural mosaic, and even the Canadian fascination with patriotic beer commercials. Mention of any of these elements of Canadian culture is immediately followed up by a comparison to American politics and culture.
The debate of Canada’s superiority to the Americans in terms of political systems is heated and controversial. But, for the sake of making a point, assume that Canada’s system is superior to the American system. Both of these systems operate under the same underlying principles, for example, the protection of the rights of the individual. While there are substantial differences between the two political systems, this is not enough to warrant the preservation of Canada.
Another reason for the preservation of Canada would include the world-wide reputation of Canada vs. the reputation of the United States. Canada is known as a peace-loving nation and Canadians are known as a lighthearted and jovial people. This is something that Canadians value, especially as they travel abroad with the Canadian flag stitched to their coat or pack. A certain respect and appreciation is shown to the Canadians that is not given to the Americans, a people resented around the world for being the world’s only superpower.
Canadians also value the cultural mosaic that has developed in Canada, especially surrounding the majour urban centres such as Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. It must be said, however, that to value such diversity as Canada experiences is rather odd; this diversity is the cause of political difficulty, racial clashes, and unprecedented tolerance of foreign religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism. Diversity has attacked the established Canadian identity, but Canadians uphold it not only because it displays to the world Canadian tolerance and humanitarianism but because it is significantly different from the melting pot in the United States.
Canadians, although generally ignorant of their history, value their heritage. Canadians are proud of their involvement in the War of 1812, in the World Wars, and increasingly in the Korean War. Canadians are proud of their significant historical figures such as Terry Fox, Dr. Frederick Banting, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Nelly McClung, Maurice Richard, and Pierre Trudeau. Canadians are proud of their contributions to the world via Canadian-grown concepts or inventions such as peacekeeping, insulin, the telephone, the Avro Arrow, the G-suit, etc. All this national pride among the general population of Canadians would be extremely difficult to smother; however, a glance at American innovation would surely swallow up any Canadian pride.
Are the reasons on this list sufficient enough to justify saving Canada from annexation? As long as the economy of Canada can make money by promoting Canadian pride via hockey television, beer ads, and doughnuts Canada can survive as an independent nation. However, Canadian sovereignty continues to experience formidable threats. Political systems can be warped, reputations shattered, diversity backfire, and pride killed; these reasons may not be enough to justify a second country in North America. But as Grant says, “If one cannot be sure about the answer to the most important questions, then tradition is the best basis for the practical life (106).”

Grant’s Reasoning for His Pessimistic Prediction

Grant remains pessimistic about an independent Canada because it is impossible for Canada to survive under Liberal direction and Canada will not be lead by a Conservative party. First, Canada cannot survive under Liberal direction because Liberal economic policy facilitates continentalism and the Liberal conception of progress ultimately calls for the dissolution of Canada. The Conservative party, on the other hand, desires to be more nationalistic as was evident during John G. Diefenbaker’s term in office between 1957 and 1963. It was understood among Conservatives that individual freedom granted to the general public, as capitalism necessitates, would have been destructive to Canada and that high government control of the economy would be in the best interests of an independent and sovereign country. However, such socialist economic policy has not been accepted by Canadians since Alexander Mackenzie King.
By the time Diefenbaker came to power in Canada, two things happened to force Canada to depend on the United States: first, the British markets for Canadian exports dried up, and the economic boom following World War II had diminished into a recession. Prior to World War II, Canada had been able to focus most of its trade toward the British Empire but after 1945 the Empire began to weaken and the British need for Canadian imports dissolved. Furthermore, the Canadian desire to gain complete independence from Britain had almost been achieved, as was demonstrated by the nature of Canadian participation in the war and the granting of a seat to Canada in the League of Nations. While Mackenzie still focused on defending Canadian independence from Britain, he blindly sought after closer economic ties with the United States.
The increased dependence on American investors in Canada was clearly revealed in the Pipeline Debate of 1956 when C. D. Howe and the Liberal party made it clear to Canadians and Americans that the Canadian economy was open to continental, capitalist investment. Such a dependence on the United States would eventually render the Canadian/American border a mere political formality as Canada became a branch plant of the American economy.
On close examination, it becomes obvious that continental capitalism is a logical step to the ultimate goal of the modern concept of progress: a concept deeply imbedded in Liberal thought. The ultimate goal of progress is the formation of the global homogenous state, achievable by science, human conquest and control of the earth, and the conquering and perfection of the human race (67). Karl Marx had an idea of the nature of this progress when he described the communist utopia. However, the weakness of Marx’s conception of the global, homogenous state was his misunderstanding of the ultimate goal of humanity. “To modern political theory, man’s essence is his freedom. Nothing must stand in the way of our absolute freedom to create the world as we want it (69).” In supporting economic continentalism, the Liberal party advocates this conception of progress that ultimately is the largest threat to Canadian independence.
The threat to Canadian independence is multiplied when study of conservative ideology reveals that it is not possible in Canada. As is made clear by the example of American conservatism, Canadian conservatism is merely an immature stage of Liberal ideology. “The practical men who call themselves conservatives must commit themselves to a science that leads to the conquest of nature. This science produces such a dynamic society that it is impossible to conserve anything for long ( 78 ).” This revelation shows the futility of Canadian conservatism as a ruling ideology: if conservatism only represents Locke-style liberalism, then it is destined to point Canada in the same direction that the Liberal party has traveled and will only delay the inevitable destiny of Canada.
Grant’s entire logic is based on his belief that the small capitalist country of Canada cannot be defended, by either Liberal or Conservative ideology, against the powers of continentalism when Canadians desire freedom to find monetary success.

A Re-evaluation of Canada’s Situation in Light of Recent Developments

Grant’s opinion of the plight of Canada must be studied and acted upon if Canada is going to survive as a sovereign country. His insight into the foundations of modern political theory and the conservative and liberal ideologies is well-founded and his argument is succinct, complete, and convincing. But does this mean there is no hope for a revival in Canadian nationalism? Do any signs of struggle against the capitalist giant to the south reveal a resurrection of nationalism or are they mere death spasms?
It is possible, that since Grant published his book in 1963, the Liberal Party has taken a renewed concern in protecting Canadian nationalism. For example, the addition of the Heritage portfolio currently held by Sheila Copps can be considered an attempt to renew Canadian pride and interest in the nation’s history. It seems that “The Liberals are the realistic defenders of this country, piloting us through the shoals of foreign control and internal dissension that might shipwreck Canada (53).” In an attempt to find an appropriate balance between nationalism and financial success, the Liberal party makes careful attempts at renewing Canadian nationalism.
At this time, Canada has come into direct conflict with the USA over Canadian participation in the current war on Iraq. After a long period of trying to remain ambiguous in terms of Canada’s stance, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced that Canada does not support war in Iraq. But his statements and actions are an intentional contradiction. In an attempt to defend his policy, Chretien claims the vessels in the Persian Gulf are participating in the war on terrorism, not the war on Iraq. However, he has conceded that these ships would not hesitate to help American ships threatened by an enemy. Chretien has also promised to send 1500 Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan, allowing the Americans to relocate some of their troops currently in Afghanistan to Iraq. American ambassador Paul Cellucci points out the contradiction: as of March 26, 2003, Canada, while officially not endorsing the war, has given more support to the United States then the majourity of the 46 countries fully supporting the US.
This stance is a political compromise on two levels: it provides participation in the war for Canadian voters who support the war and, at the same time, Chretien rejects the war in order to please Canadian voters who do not support it. On a level more relevant to the topic of Canadian nationalism, this political maneuver is an attempt to show the world that Canada is a sovereign and independent nation, while at the same time trying not to damage relations with the United States. Of course, such a compromise is highly controversial among Canadians and is insulting to American President George W. Bush and his country. On March 26, Cellucci expressed American disappointment with the stance that Canada has taken, reminding Canada that the United States would not be slow to defend Canada if needed. While Canada supports the war indirectly, the United States have drawn the line claiming each country either sides with the United States or with Iraq and demands formal, direct support from each nation.
At this point, Prime Minister Jean Chretien revealed an element of his motivation:
"Of course [Mr. Cellucci] is disappointed. We are all disappointed somewhat that we could not agree. . . They have the right to make their own decision, as I said, and we have the right as an independent country to make our own decision. . . Being independent and sovereign nations, we can disagree and remain good friends."

Mr. Cellucci responded, referring to current economic negotiations, that Canada would be punished for their anti-American stance. The leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper, also was quick to criticise Chretien’s leadership, saying: “Why does the Prime Minister fail to grasp that his stand is deeply injurious to our national interests?”
Prime Minister Chretien’s stance against the USA, the American threats to cut trade, and Stephen Harper’s opposition to Chretien’s anti-capitalist stance parallels Diefenbaker’s situation during the Defence Crisis of 1962 and 1963. Against the economic interests of Canada, Diefenbaker repelled American demands, standing on his nationalist principle that Canadian defence policy would not be dictated by Washington. Yet, there is a glaring difference between these two situations: Diefenbaker was a Conservative and Chretien is a Liberal. Perhaps this points out that the current example of nationalist foreign policy may be more than a mere death spasm.
Chretien is not acting alone when he attempts to protect Canadian nationalism; there is a desire among Canadians that Canada be preserved. However, public opinion of Chretien’s nationalism has not yet come out so it cannot be shown if this nationalism will be fiscally irresponsible and indifferent to the threat of American economic sanctions. Public opinion of Chretien’s stance and Chretien’s persistence against economic punishment from the United States is the test. Is Canadian nationalism alive and well today?

extraneous interference · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:58 pm Post subject:

if anyone has any questions, criticisms or disagreements, I would appreciate your feedback...