The View From Here: October 2013

Updated October 7, 2013 11:04 PM

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

At least that is the argument being put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her most recent book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States. Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis.

As an American-Canadian Francis writes passionately about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century makes the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely. The key justification she puts forth for the merger is that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia, “which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.” "The best option for the U.S. and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argues.

However, if you examine the online responses to stories of Francis’ proposal it has been overwhelmingly negative. Comments such as "Not in this lifetime" and "Over my dead body" pretty much sum up the sentiments expressed.

North American Union? Diane Francis Pushes U.S.-Canada Merger

Could Canada and America Ever Merge?

Writer’s idea that Canada and U.S. should merge likely DOA

Diane Francis on a Canada-U.S. merger

Seeing the story about Diane Francis' book reminded me about a book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer a few years back. The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and was published in 2003 only a couple of years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the U.S. for the sake of the economy. But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why there is a real need for a border between Canada and the U.S.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allowed divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow. In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions. Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions? Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.? Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered. Under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper the answers to those questions have respectively been “yes”, “no” and “maybe”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the Diane Francis book I thought it only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second airing so that people could see the counter arguments to the idea of keeping Canada and the United States as separate political and cultural entities.

- Fareed Khan

*********************

SOURCE: http://media.cagle.com/9/2006/09/22/30613_600.jpg

T H E B O R D E R :

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches

from the 49^th Parallel

A Critical Analysis By: Fareed Khan

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century. In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections. The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book. He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11. In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed. For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries. This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox. By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries. Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians? In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances. This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it. In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada. It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different. As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny. It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning. For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity. Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S. Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate. In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C. According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty. He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever. By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of neo-fascism in the U.S. that can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration. These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues. It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book. This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations). It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto. He uses the same style in several later chapters. This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state. By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States. It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow. In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions. Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions? Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.? Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process. The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

______________________________________________________________

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and glointernational corporations. Some of those events include the following:

negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
Stephen Harper's Conservatives withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (the only country to do so) with no viable alternatives to address Canada's greenhouse gas emissions;
The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and
numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the 99% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income Canadians -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate over the past two decades.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Gender Equality Report Demonstrates That Much Work Is Still Needed To Achieve True Equality Between Men and Women

Monday, October 07, 2013

The Eagle, The Beaver and Border Politics: Can Canada Remain Sovereign In A World Dominated by the U.S. and China

T H E B O R D E R :

______________________________________________________________