Pierre Trudeau once noted that Canada bordering the United States was akin to a mouse living next to an elephant. This euphemism perfectly encapsulates Canada’s relationship with its neighbour to the south: a nation hoping to remain economically tied to the Hegemon, but distinct in its national affairs. The fears that the status quo would be rocked by Donald Trump’s threats about potential annexation have reawakened overtly nationalist political strategies from Canadian political leaders, even creating an environment where the Liberal Party was re-elected—a Liberal re-election seemed unfathomable months before the April 28 election, but Liberal leader Mark Carney’s ability to pitch himself as the best protector of Canadian values against Donald Trump propelled him to victory.
Yet, these calls for nationalism stoke contradictions—both in the formal and dialectical sense—caused by the capitalist class’ willingness to use the present moment to increase their market share with the aid of the state, leading to a reality where Canadians lose the essence of differentiation from their neighbour to the south.
True North Nationalism
It is an oversimplification to say that the key feature of Canadian identity is that they are not American, but some aspects of this are true. Canadian nationalism does not resemble that which led to revolutionary states in the Global South. Rather, it is a reactionary brand of nationalism rooted in its existence as a vestige of British imperialism in the Americas.
The looming threat of Manifest Destiny absorbing Canada is fundamental to the formation of the Canadian nation-state. Before Confederation, Canada’s relationship with the United States experienced volatility as the economic relationship grew. Confederation became an inevitability following the conclusion of the American Civil War, which quickly saw the Reciprocity Treaty end in 1866 and an invasion by Fenian forces in early 1867. This fear of total economic capitulation remained even after Confederation in 1890 with the implementation of the McKinley tariffs. The crisis caused by the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on imports was the inciting factor behind one of the first “Buy Canadian” campaigns.
Canadian capitalists historically have invoked the “Buy Canadian” ethos as a means of protecting their profits from outside forces. Protectionism was essential to building industrial capacity in the nascent country; however, as Canadian workers gained power through movements and unionization through the 1960s and 70s, capitalists abandoned the protectionist strategy, instead using free trade to outsource labour, drastically reducing union density by 10 per cent from 1981 to 2022. As this history unfolded, Canadian citizens continued attempting to balance their country’s relationship with the United States and the desire to remain a distinct entity.
We’re different, we swear
Canada has always been a willing partner of the preeminent power of the day. As a nascent state, the Canadian identity was tied to Canada’s relationship, both culturally and economically, to Great Britain due to its status as a member of the Commonwealth. This remained the status quo—although Canada was awarded greater independence after World War I—until World War II. With most of Continental Europe recovering from the War, the United States was best situated to become the foremost Western power. Canada, as its neighbour, was well-positioned to become its most reliable partners.
Although the Canadian polity was willing to make this transition quickly, the contradiction that surfaced with unrestrained economic relations created an unsettling reality for the populace with the fear that Canadian culture would succumb to the influence of American media. This is only amplified by Canada’s proximity to the United States—and the fact that most Canadians live less than 160 kilometres from the border. Hegelian dialectics would refer to this as a unity of opposites arising out of the material necessity for Canadian Capital to align itself with the powerful neighbour. This equation leads to a desire to emphasise the differences between the two nations.
So, what differentiates Canadians and Americans? When asked, two major differences were identified by Canadians: a sense of community, equality, and inclusivity (measured across several metrics), and universal healthcare. This was epitomised by Molson’s original “I am Canadian” commercial, as well as the recent remake. Yet, these pillars of Canadiana are the very things that are attacked in the name of nationalism.
Multiculturalism vs. militarism
The notion of a multicultural Canada arose not through the benevolence and magnanimity of the State, but through material conditions. The concept of multiculturalism is a political convenience arising from the necessity of increased immigration to provide a labour force for an economy that was rapidly expanding following World War II. As David Moscrop writes, the history taught in schools does little to reconcile the ills that make Canada the nation that it is. Yet, as people were forced to interact, inclusivity did spring (albeit not for everyone). Inclusivity formed not as a result of state policy or a declaration from on high, but out of the everyday interactions of the people on the ground.
In fact, the state has interests in achieving the opposite. In the hope of dividing a labour force that could otherwise get organized and consolidate worker power, the Canadian state relies on militarism as a means of control and division. This was employed during World War I when the government utilised nationalist marketing to subsidise the war effort by selling victory bonds, and in World Wars I and II when the Canadian government created internment camps for “enemy aliens.” Although recent history sees a Canadian nation that prefers to call itself a nation of peacemakers, the historical reliance on militarism is antithetical to multiculturalism and fuels an environment of othering. This is evident with the growing white nationalist sentiment within the Canadian Armed Forces, as evinced by the recent suspensions of five soldiers for Nazi salutes.
The Liberal Party’s actions since the April 28 election are in line with this tradition. Mark Carney recently used the current crisis as a means of increasing the military budget to 5% of GDP. This dependence on a bloated military budget has drawn comparisons to the military Keynesianism—the strategic investment in military spending to bolster the economy—that has long been a foundation of the American economy. Ignoring the fact that Canada’s military infrastructure is intertwined with the American military complex, this development makes no logical sense if independence is the goal: gaining independence from the United States requires that the Canadian economy mirror the United States.
An increase in the military budget also increases the capacity of the surveillance state. Carney’s cabinet has followed suit with Bill C-2, The Stronger Borders Act. Hiding behind the claims made by Trump regarding organised crime and fentanyl crossing the border, provisions of the Bill attack the inclusive attitude that has come to define what it means to be Canadian for so many. The Bill’s “lawful access” gives police the power to request subscriber information from internet service providers. Additionally, Part 4 of the Bill authorises Canada Post to open mail under certain circumstances. The cover of being anti-American provides Carney with a pretext to expand the military budget, further creating a police state akin to the United States.
Equally problematic are the provisions about refugee claimants. Part 8 of the Act will give the Government the unchecked ability to alter documents and change a claimant’s status as they see fit. One doesn’t have to look far to see how this is comparable to the power that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) is abusing. Unfortunately, polls show that the public generally supports the U.S. government’s efforts to increase deportations. Canadian polls have not explicitly used the language of deportation; still, it appears that many Canadians would support reducing immigration, underlying a general opinion that the high level of immigration is undesirable. Yet, both Canadians and Americans seem united in their outrage against some of the more extreme measures, such as the ICE raids and the suspension of refugee applications.
Carney’s policies resemble the desires of Canadian businesses. The nationalist zeal provides him cover to obfuscate this intent. The increased military budget will go to existing companies, like GardaWorld, the Canadian private security company. However, GardaWorld is signing contracts with the American government to provide detention centres for up to $138 million. Carney has bolstered the ability to work with the American government by assisting in making deals, like the one above, which have opened the door for a Canadian company’s direct involvement in the operation of Alligator Alcatraz. When it is time to extend this market, there is no reason to believe that they will stop at the border.
The legacy of Tommy Douglas
Apart from being one of the most apparent differences between Canada and the United States, healthcare is one of the most significant victories of the Canadian working class. Tommy Douglas, arguably Canada’s most recognised socialist, is the personification of Canadian working-class power. From the 1940s to the dawn of neoliberalism in the 1970s, workers used their collective power to gain this concession from the State during a time of crisis, gaining a key victory that defines Canada today. Unfortunately, with the culling of worker power, healthcare has been under a constant barrage.
Ontario’s Premier presents the most effective example of utilising nationalism to attack healthcare. Doug Ford has actively worked to dismantle public healthcare since becoming Ontario’s Premier in 2018 by reducing worker power and assisting capitalist proprietors—in this case, supporting private clinics. As an industry, healthcare union density is significantly higher than the national average (54 per cent vs. 30 per cent). This is why he has implemented policies that would actively weaken unionisation in the province: capping raises for public workers at 1 per cent during a pandemic, withholding money for public hospitals, and increasing funding for private clinics by 200 per cent and private hospitals by 300 per cent. In a historically ironic moment, Ford and Lisa McLeod, then Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, compared their policies to none other than Tommy Douglas. Although Ford hasn’t invoked Douglas’ name again, he has risen to the nationalist moment, propping himself up as the great Canadian hope against Trump’s aggression, despite supporting him in the past.
Not to be outdone by Ford, Carney is doing what he can to support this attack. Although he cannot directly do so in the same way Ford has, Carney has distanced himself from one of the more popular policies of Justin Trudeau’s, national pharmacare. The legislation makes contraception and diabetic medications free for all Canadians. However, Canadians can only benefit from this if the province or territory where they reside signs a bilateral agreement with the Federal government. Currently, only four provinces and territories have signed these agreements: Yukon, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Prince Edward Island. Although Carney campaigned on expanding this program, he is now silent on this issue. Thanks to Carney’s silence, Premiers like Ford can blame him for their constituents not having pharmacare, and in Ford’s case, bolstering their own nationalist bona fides by blaming the federal government, all while gutting public health in their provinces and territories.
Rally around the class, not the flag
The moment is ripe in North America for a reckoning. The deterioration of the Canadian public system evinces the negation of the Canadian identity. Like Trump, Carney is moving in a direction that cuts services while eliding more insidious moves to weaken Charter rights. This moment is proof positive that regardless of where you reside in North America, democratic rights are only as strong as the North American working class’ ability to uphold them.
Much attention is given to Trump’s Bonapartist regime, but in Canada, these same rights are rapidly deteriorating with every policy Carney implements. As many cities implement by-laws making it more difficult to protest, it appears that the Federal Government has similar aims, as clarified with the proposed Combating Hate Act, despite the Liberal Party’s assertions otherwise. Public Safety Canada’s List of Terrorist Entities contains nine groups purportedly working for the liberation of Palestine, and only seven that are labelled Neo-Nazis. This is not to speak to any of the characteristics of these groups, but to show that someone who supports Palestinian liberation is more likely to be marked as supporting terrorism than a Neo-Nazi.
Some may find this reading of the Government’s aim as ungenerous, but its recent actions strengthen the analysis. On Friday, September 19th, Carney’s parliamentary secretary for combating crime, Vincent Gasparro, published Parliament’s decision to prohibit the Irish musical trio Kneecap from performing in Canada. Gasparro noted that the Group has made statements contrary to “Canadian values.” This was done shortly after the House of Commons gave Charlie Kirk a standing ovation, a man who had spread transphobic, xenophobic, racist, drivel at every opportunity—ironically, actions that could be charged under the Combating Hate Act. Although this is not prima facie related to an amendment in the law, it nonetheless demonstrates the priorities of the Federal Government. The state will stand on guard for an individual who sowed division at the behest of capitalism and actively work to block those who speak out against crimes against humanity.
Daddy Carney’s government has already shown its allegiance to capitalists with the recent Air Canada flight attendant strikes. Within twelve hours of the strike starting, Carney’s Jobs Minister, Patty Hadju, used the current moment of national and economic instability as justification for invoking section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code, thus ordering the members back to work. In an unprecedented move in post-Charter Canada, the workers refused. The Canadian Union for Public Employees, the union representing the workers, was able to fight back because it had broad support from the working class. This is where our collective strength lies: not in rallying around the flag but rallying around class, regardless of what side of the border workers reside. As Audre Lorde famously commented, “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” Lorde understood that to produce change, we must collectivise, across borders, to work toward our salvation.
Canadian identity is built on the experience of working in diverse communities and extolling the virtues of universal healthcare. Donald Trump is not the leader who is directly threatening that; he is merely the figure hiding the real danger that is draped in the maple leaf. Canadian workers should call for arms out, not elbows up! We must embrace our neighbours to the south. To get through this crisis, we can’t allow a border to divide us any longer.
Author
Did you like this article? Help us produce more like it by donating $1, $2, or $5. Donate
