A Uniquely Canadian Struggle for a National Identity sans-America
A Uniquely Canadian Struggle for a National Identity sans-America

How does one characterise a country if defined by another?

Recall the infamous debate of 25 October, 1988. On the right, incumbent Prime Minister Martin Brian Mulroney. On the left, the Liberal: former Prime Minister John Napier Wyndham Turner.

The NDP has made a surprising resurgence at once performing better than the Liberals. The Progressive Conservatives, while stable at first, was rocked by scandal and shame. And the decision to keep Turner was questioned from the start. All in the weeks leading up to, as the Globe & Mail would retroactively describe it as, “The great free-trade election of 1988.”

Note the language in the debate when discussing the election’s near-sole issue: Mulroney’s proposed Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.

Mulroney: You do not have a monopoly on patriotism. And I resent the fact that — that your implication that only you are a Canadian! I want to tell you, where I come from a Canadian family — and I love Canada! […] And I today, sir, as a Canadian, believe genuinely in what I am doing. I believe it is right for Canada, I believe that in my own modest way I am nation-building because I believe this benefits Canada and I love Canada. […] Turner: We’re just as Canadian as you are, Mister Mulroney, but I’ll tell you this. You mentioned 120 years of history: we built a country east, and west, and north, we built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the influence of the United States, and will reduce us — will reduce us I am sure to a colony of the United States because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.

Such are the thoughts of doubt and insecurity which plague the nation of Canada, and indeed to be well-informed on the United States but insistent on its inferiority has always been a tongue-in-cheek sign of a Canadian: from a nauseating praise for the War of 1812 to a 2019 survey finding universal healthcare more popular than the flag, anthem, and military, or even a recently-unveiled Explore Canada video featuring what else but Nanaimo bars and butter tarts.

Indeed, one can trace back almost all decisions of consequence made by the government of Canada to one of fear, perhaps justified, often not. My favourite country was unfortunately also one to argue against Patriation, free trade (the future debates regarding which essentially led to the resignation of Mulroney and his party’s disintegration), as well as against increased competition, immigration, and all the rest for reasons almost entirely dominated by anxiety over the structural integrity of the nation.

This kind of imbalance has kept many significant issues almost unchallenged in Ottawa. Taking telecommunications as an example: while Huawei hasn’t exactly been welcomed with open arms in the United States, its neighbour to the north gets saddled with the highest cell phone bills on the planet whether Telus, Bell, or Rogers. Should a situation be addressed when a “German can pick up a bare-bones mobile plan for as little as $17 a month.” But the “lowest a Canadian could pay […] was $41.08”?

And why do cell phone companies keep hiking their prices, and their supposed competitors obediently follow suit? Because Canadian law forbids foreign ownership of a major telecom company, and throws against any domestic competitor prohibitively expensive costs and regulation.

And if Big Telecom’s only defence to this blatant price-gouging is shallow appeals to patriotism, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature and a reasonable explanation for 50% higher prices. See also dairy, the Internet, and an unrelenting brain drain to the United States.

Yet scathing criticism means nothing if not backed up with a reasonable solution; and while there has certainly been enough of the former from both sides of the aisle, the latter seems to have considerably less in terms of both quantity and, unfortunately, quality.

Take the increasingly-popular but still-ridiculous theory of “CANZUK”, that is the idea the nations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK could somehow come together post-Brexit to form an “imperial federation”, because, according to the official website, we all speak English and our economies aren’t Venezuela, therefore Québec should unite with Queensland.

Or the idea Canada can somehow embrace its Arctic roots, purchase Greenland, seize the Northwest Passage, and evade the obviously impending threat of “vassalization”, an idea which is not wholly preposterous but still relies on the nation both cooperating with rapidly-intensified development of its least habitable regions with minimal short-term benefit and the other nations with a vested interest in the area: Russia, the United States, China just letting a nation of 37 million claim an increasingly-valuable trade route.

But even these “solutions” do not answer the questions which have led the Canadian to resignedly seek mere difference from America as a suitable national identity. As a passage from The Unfinished Canadian by Andrew Cohen reads, “Pondering ourselves is the occupational hazard of being Canadian.”

Canada resists easy definition. […] Some of our characteristics as a people are clear. Some are contradictory. As much as this is a self-portrait, it is painted with broad brush rather than short strokes. […] If we can find it, a little irreverence, unencumbered by our proverbial politeness and suffocating political correctness, would be refreshing.

For in the end, this is what we have sought after for so, so many years: a unique and truly special way to characterise the people of Canada — for the world over from Kiel to Kansas to instantly associate Canada with…Canada! For indeed, we are more than London’s lackey and D.C.’s doormat, we are Canada, damn it, Canada!

We are the great nation of unity, to have French, English, and indigenous alike map the north of a continent, and to settle it with people of all ethnicity, faith, and creed as Canadians!

We are the great nation of strength, to break through at Vimy Ridge and land so painstakingly on Juno Beach, to prove the world the resourcefulness, innovation, cunning, and national achievement we have as Canadians!

We are the great nation of progress, to have Bell’s telephone and Bombardier’s planes linking the world in ways unimagined, and have yet insulin, the pacemaker, pablum and the wheelchair to make the world alive to see it — and on, and on!

To have a national identity sans America, we needn’t look at our odd peculiarities for brief moments of recognition, but realise our own potential withstanding already. To improve all that needs improving and do, not say. To rectify our blunders and make up for them once, twice, thrice more over.

And to make the world think more than “that’s not America”, but, resoundingly and in awe: “that’s Canada”.
['J.J. Liu']
['World', 'Canada', 'Nationalism', 'United States', 'Politics']