Carney’s new nationalism is really the old nationalism resurrected

Open this photo in gallery:

Gregory J. Inwood is a professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s warning that Canada needs to take back “control of our security, our borders and our future” amid “disruption coming from our neighbours” is not new thinking. These arguments were common in another era that featured a robust debate between nationalists and continentalists in Canada.

The roots of the current chaos and deterioration in our relations with the U.S. are found at the crossroads we encountered 50 years ago. We had two clear choices: nationalism or continentalism. The former was first picked up and then dropped in favour of the latter.

The 1960s and 70s saw a rise in nationalism, amplified by Canada’s 100th-anniversary celebration, Expo 67. At the same time, many Canadians were repulsed by U.S. gun violence, civil-rights abuses and the failing war in Vietnam.

Our economic policy choices then reflected our willingness to embrace a more distinctly self-reliant Canadian approach.

Opinion: The great luck of the talented Mr. Carney, the lone leader riding high in the West

The government of Pierre Trudeau created the Canada Development Corp. to pool capital from Canadian businesses; Petro Canada as a Crown corporation to gain a window on the American-dominated all-important oil and gas sector; and the Foreign Investment Review Agency to screen investment (most of which came from the U.S.) to ensure it was in Canada’s best economic interest and to encourage Canadian ownership in important sectors. It also boosted funding for the arts and strengthened Canadian-content regulations on the airwaves.

With regard to trade, the government presented three options: Maintain the status quo wherein the vast majority of our trade remained with the U.S.; deepen trade with the U.S.; or increase trade diversification, seeking new trade partners around the world in order to lessen our overdependence on our hegemonic neighbour. Sound familiar?

Mr. Trudeau’s government chose the Third Option – diversification – but the effort was lacking. The business community was largely satisfied with the ease with which it could conduct trade with the U.S., and the government failed to follow up by developing further international-trade relations. The Third Option fizzled, and gradually other nationalist policies of the era were undone by subsequent governments.

The second opportunity to embrace Canadian nationalism as the way forward for Canada came in the early 1980s, at a time when Pierre Trudeau’s government, which had been in power for more than a decade, was tired and bereft of new ideas. So it did what many governments do when they cannot summon the energy to innovate new policies: It launched a royal commission.

Carney walks a tightrope on Fortress North America as trade review looms

The Macdonald Commission (also known as the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada) was created in 1982, and reported back in 1985 with a signature recommendation: that Canada enter into a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United States. Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney took up the suggestion with alacrity. A furious debate across the country ensued and was carried into the 1988 election.

Ironically, most Canadians (including a number of business organizations) who submitted their views to the Macdonald Commission supported nationalism. The same was true in the election. But a significant minority of influential interests, mainly big businesses already deeply engaged in the continental economy, carried the day.

So here we are. The nationalists warned back then that the preponderant power of the U.S. would be used by American presidents to nakedly pursue their self-interest whether there was a free-trade deal or not.

Indeed, virtually every president since 1988 has instituted measures that contravened the spirit if not the letter of the free-trade deals with Canada (and, later, Mexico). From tariffs on softwood lumber and “Buy America” provisions, to preferential government purchasing for U.S. contractors and agricultural subsidies, the U.S. has always behaved as though free-trade agreements were at their pleasure.

The continentalists looked only at the risks of free trade and determined they were acceptable. The nationalists looked at the consequences, and said Canadian sovereignty was at stake.

The difference between then and now is that we could always count on using reason and appeals to common interests and values in bargaining with the Americans. As Mr. Carney has suggested, we clearly cannot count on that today. Given these circumstances, the new/old nationalism must now prevail.