The Future of Canada

Some comments of mine followed by an essay by three Canadian scholars

For my American and other non-Canadian readers: Any modern President of the United States has sweeping abilities to make change in the world. No other national leader has a fraction of that power — but they all have at least some ability to choose, act, and make change. To a much lesser extent still, so do the rest of the eight billion people on the planet.

This means that when the President of the United States behaves like he’s in a reboot of Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator — Give me Greenland! Palestinians out of Gaza! — a considerable portion of humanity outside the United States will not sit and watch. They will start making plans of their own.

For most of the past century, America was powerful not simply thanks to its economic and military heft but because American culture and American principles and American commitment to the rules-based international order attracted friends and allies. But the bullying and gangsterism of “America First” will reverse America’s polarity. As the United States once attracted, so it will now repel — and those who for so long sought to draw closer to the United States will now pull away. New trading relationships will be crafted. New alliances forged. And American will be diminished.

This is what belligerent tyrannies — from Thucydides’ Athens to Napoleon’s France to Hitler’s Germany — have never understood: No empire can have enough hard power to bring everyone to heel, and when you try, you start the clock on your own decline.

Donald Trump has only been back in the White House for less than a month but the worldwide reactions are already underway. Whatever America’s technological and economic future may hold, the long-term geopolitical decline of the United States is accelerating rapidly.

Doubt that? Following this introduction is an oped that appeared this Friday in Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. It was written by three respected Canadian scholars who are everything you may imagine a Canadian scholar to be — calm, modest, reasonable, with an aversion to inflammatory rhetoric of the sort I am fond of. But what they sketch is the outline of a plan for Canada to make a sweeping, permanent move away from the United States.

Yes, Canada is drawing away from the United States. Or to be more precise, Canada — feeling shocked and betrayed by an old friend, not recognizing this dangerous new America — Canada is drawing away from the United States.

Think about that. Canada. The country that is as reliable as it is boring. The Ned Flanders of nations. Dull old Canada. If the conversation even in Canada is all about putting distance between us and the United States as fast as possible, what do you suppose they’re talking about in the United Kingdom, in Europe, Japan, Australia, and all the other nations allied with the United States?

I’m Canadian. I’ve spent more than half a century on this planet but I have never in my life heard Canadians talk the way they are talking now. It feels like something snapped in the past month. Donald Trump is the immediate cause, but we cannot heap all the blame on him. We Canadians must also shoulder our share.

This country’s attitude over the past quarter-century was one of — my passport tells me I’m entitled to be blunt — smug complacency. Life is good, we thought, thanks mostly to our relationship with the United States. No need to explore new opportunities. No need to take risks. No need to think big, to dream and dare. Canada’s national motto was “good enough.” Our politics was all about fiddling at the margins. Our leaders said silly things about our history, about our identity (a “post-national state,” according to the current flibbertigibbet), about how this country that fought two world wars and had a major military when I was born is “a nation of peacekeepers.” We gravely declared ourselves guilty of genocide then laughed and shrugged, because it didn’t matter. Nothing really mattered! Here in our delightful little shire, everything was comfortable and always would be.

You know that scene early in the Fellowship of the Ring where Frodo is drinking ale with some of his countrymen? “Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble’ll come to you,” one hobbit intones, looking pleased with his sagacity. That was Canada.

Until January 20th, 2025.

Now, strange tidings come from abroad and the Shire is in turmoil.

Even the hobbits understand: The world is changed, as Galadriel says at the beginning of the movie.

For my Canadian readers: Imagine it’s a few years from now and Donald Trump has sufficiently frayed the bonds of NATO that the future of the alliance is in grave doubt. Or Trump has finally gone ahead and pulled the US out of NATO entirely. And if he does that, why not toss NORAD on the bonfire?

Not at all hard to imagine, is it? Well, what happens then?

One thing that is perfectly predictable is the European members of NATO working with the European Union to form a new, European collective defence alliance. Something else is highly likely. The Europeans would look at Canada, with our dilapidated military — remember, the Europeans have been complaining about Canadian freeloading for years, not only the Americans — and our presence on a continent far away. And they will look at our powerful, erratic, dangerous neighbour threatening to swallow us whole. Will they invite us to join the new alliance and pledge themselves to fight the United States in the event of an American attack on Canada? The question answers itself.

Where will we be then? For the first time in almost a century we would be members of no collective security pact. For the first time in our entire history — all the way back to the 18th century and beyond — we would be entirely alone.

The analogy of Ukraine next to Russia springs to mind. Except that doesn’t work. Ukraine has NATO and the European Union offering financial and military support. We would have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

No, I am not imagining the 82nd Airborne parachuting into Toronto in 2027. In fact, for the sake of argument, let’s leave direct military force out of the equation entirely. I don’t think that’s truly impossible, given the gangster in the White House, but let’s keep this within the bounds of the probable.

Where would Canada be?

This was posted on social media by the President of the United States. I trust fans of Donald Trump — who has a long history of praising dictators and gangsters — will no longer be offended when I describe him as a gangster? (By the way, “FAFO” stands for “fuck around and find out.” So presidential.)

We would be entirely dependent for our economic and military security on a country led by a gangster — a gangster backed by a broad, popular movement whose vision of America’s place in the world resembles Hulk Hogan tearing off his shirt at WrestleMania.

The shakedowns would be relentless. And we would have no choice but to hand over whatever was demanded. There would be no other option.

Oil, critical minerals, Arctic shipping, fresh water. Whatever they want. Picture pipelines siphoning Lake Superior and Lake Ontario to fill swimming pools in Las Vegas and Phoenix and irrigate crops in central California. We would have no choice but to say yes. If we hesitated, the capo di tutti capi in Washington would slap us with tariffs until we changed our mind. Or maybe, to make it extra humiliating, the president would, in words he has already used, encourage Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to us.

Whatever the particular sequence of events, they would always end with Canada mumbling, “yes.”

For the first time in my life, we Canadians believe there is a real threat of becoming the 51st state. Overwhelmingly, we hate the very thought. Overwhelmingly, we think that’s the worst-case scenario.

But that’s not the worst-case scenario.

We could become, in reality if not law, a resource colony of the United States. A land of nothing more than extraction and American military bases. A land with modest control of its domestic affairs, little control over foreign policy, and little or no voice in the Washington halls of power where the most important decisions determining Canada’s fate are made.

Think Guam but bigger and colder. I think that is the worst-case scenario.

It is time to take the article below very seriously, indeed.

Peter Jones is a professor at the University of Ottawa.

Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor at Carleton University and the Barton Chair at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. He also writes on Substack.

George Petrolekas is a retired colonel and a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and was an adviser to senior NATO commanders.

The following essay by Jones, Lagasse, and Petrolekas was originally published online in the Globe and Mail Friday, February 7.

Let us start by remembering what Canada was meant to be.

More than 150 years ago, Canada became a nation, having rejected offers to join the United States and resisted American invasions. The Canadian national dream envisioned east-west trade united by a railroad where we could grow, cut, drill, dig and manufacture the majority of what we needed. Importantly, the United States, while seen as a beneficial market, was not meant to eclipse other trading relationships with the British Empire and Europe.

Since at least the end of the Second World War, Canada has emphasized an integrated, continental North American strategy. The auto pact of the 1960s was the most visible of these efforts, and a prelude to wider free trade. We have tied our prosperity and security to this vision, and the strategy proved its worth: We enjoyed economic growth, and were protected by two ocean moats and the world’s strongest power. Indeed, so long as the United States agreed to sovereign equality and good-faith exchanges on rationally agreed-upon facts, the strategy was a reasonable bet, and it produced solid returns for Canada.

But continentalism encouraged us to neglect investments in our security, ignore impediments to internal trade and overlook national infrastructure investments, especially of late. Why invest in politically controversial pipelines to our coasts, when all the oil we produce would be eagerly consumed by our neighbour? Why endure the internecine political fights that would invariably emerge over removing internal trade barriers when shipping everything south was so much easier? We were too secure in the belief that the Americans would have no reason to ever upset the status quo.

That is no longer the case – which brings us to where Canada is today. Many Canadians were eager to dismiss Donald Trump’s first term as an aberration, but even then, we should remember that his administration removed Bombardier aircraft from the global passenger-plane market through tariffs in 2017. His re-election proves that MAGA populism is now an intrinsic part of the U.S. political landscape, and that chaos, confusion and an inability to pursue long-term stability are likely to persist for years to come.

The U.S. appears poised to become more protectionist, nativist and, above all, erratic. While not the same thing as isolationism – the U.S.’s interests demand continuing engagement politically and militarily in the world – America will be highly selective about where it engages, in support of parochially defined (and frequently shifting) national goals. It will be less and less likely to champion, much less abide by, the rules-based international order that it established after 1945 – and which has been so congenial to Canadian interests and proclivities.

So far, it seems Mr. Trump does not want to overturn continental trade policy, but rather to fundamentally rewrite it in America’s favour. While the more outlandish aspects of his rhetoric may not materialize, it nevertheless destabilizes the economic and political environment. Many Canadian-based firms that rely on U.S. markets may conclude that the advantages of staying in Canada are overtaken by the need to relocate to the United States to protect their access.

So there are now in essence three options ahead of us.

We can choose to try to ingratiate ourselves with this new America – to go along to get along. But we question whether this conciliatory tone is, in fact, a slow road to capitulation. If we concede to the U.S., Mr. Trump seems likely to celebrate the “respect” we are showing, and then make more demands. There’s a clear risk that bowing to his whims will eventually result in a hollowed-out Canada that exists only to provide America with the resources it wants under the terms of a relationship defined entirely by the United States.

The second option is to fight back. While our ability to counter Mr. Trump’s tariffs and make life painful for Americans should not be underestimated, and will be necessary at points in time, this is not a way to live over the longer term. This approach could also eventually result in a hollowed-out country, as businesses relocate to the U.S. to avoid the costs of operating in a heavily tariffed Canada.

But there is a third option: we can stand up and demonstrate an assertiveness toward the world and our own future. This may require sacrifices and impose pain as great or maybe even greater than the above options in the short-term, but in the long-term, bold self-reliance presents the best chance for an economically viable and sovereign Canada.

This is where we need to go next – and it will require Canada to finally act like a country, instead of a collection of regional fiefdoms.

What exactly does standing up entail?

It means weaning ourselves away from trade that has become overwhelmingly north-south out of simplicity, and returning to the east-west axis of trade that Sir John A. MacDonald envisioned. It will mean, after decades of merely talking about it, investing seriously in a more resilient economy that is stronger at home and can export to the world. It means making the most of our internal market of some 40 million people and growing.

A cornerstone of this policy would mean a rapid investment in an east-west oil and gas pipeline system and electrical grid so that we can both supply our energy to all parts of this country and export it readily from both coasts. Similarly, it will mean undertaking the complicated work of removing interprovincial trade barriers and asking whether we should still be sacrificing trade with other countries on the altar of politically sensitive sectors, such as dairy.

We will need to move ourselves away from U.S. service industries, or at least we need to tax them properly and invest that money in the development of our own service economy. We will finally have to tackle declining productivity through rigorous reforms and investments. We must find safe, effective but ultimately rapid ways to recognize the credentials of skilled and educated immigrants who could add significantly to our economy if they were allowed to do the things they were trained to do – and eliminate interprovincial barriers to credential recognition for all Canadians, while we’re at it. Our immigration system must be streamlined and co-ordinated with the needs of the economy. We must encourage and nurture our domestic research and development and facilitate the deployment of venture capital to fund startup enterprises. We must seek strategic long-term alliances with non-U.S. industries in critical sectors, such as aerospace, information technology, resource development and vehicle manufacturing.

None of this will be easy, and there will be pain as these transitions are made. That is why we have avoided making them for so long. But pain is coming anyway, one way or the other. Why should we just accept that and do nothing?

The most critical aspect to achieving this shift will be a change in the Canadian mindset. We must realize that we have been blessed with abundant resources, and that, rather than just selling them, we have to use them to develop our country for ourselves. That will require the enabling of capital investments, including venture capital, to not only find, extract and sell resources, but to refine them, process them and build products with them in Canada.

The development of these resources, particularly energy, strikes some as immoral. But we cannot afford that sensibility and retain our sovereignty. We can be – we must be – leaders in an energy revolution without turning our backs on the advantages we have.

Mr. Trump’s threats are a national emergency, and should be seen as a call to build the necessary infrastructure as expeditiously as possible by cutting through the bureaucratic and political impediments that have unconscionably stalled Canada’s ability to do big things. Those who argue that we must move beyond resource extraction are far too willing to make a perfect world the enemy of a good one. Canadians will only be willing to accept this approach for so long, as we’ve seen with the debate over carbon pricing. The simple fact of the matter is that exporting our energy resources is necessary, but currently we only really export them to a single, increasingly unreliable, and hostile customer at bargain-basement prices.

Energy resources aren’t the only national assets and advantages that must be developed for our own interests, instead of as parts of an overall North American inventory. Our brains, our critical minerals, our agricultural goods, our water – these are ours. We must get past the view that they are part of a common North American treasure chest to which our neighbour has a right of automatic access. We will develop and sell them to the U.S., of course – at world-market prices, thank you very much, not some concessionary rate for a privileged partner who no longer treats us as one – but we will also aggressively develop the means to sell them to others.

Standing up also means getting serious about defence, such that we know what is happening in our own territory and can act on it. If, internationally, that means focusing our efforts on particular regions of the world and otherwise pulling back on the wider international stage, so be it. But if Europe and NATO remain critical to our security, we should consider reopening a base there. If Asia is a theatre in which we have critical interests, we should consider developing an ongoing presence. Importantly, this will require changing our defence strategy and structure from what we have – a system that emphasizes forces to support U.S.-led operations – and toward one that projects and sustains self-reliant forces that can operate alone or in concert with regional allies by sea and by air.

This change will be hard and expensive, but vital. It was one thing to be the junior military partner of the U.S. when America stood for the promotion of the rules-based international order; it is quite another thing to be the junior partner of an America that is increasingly seen as a bully on the world stage.

This move to greater defence independence will require changes in doctrine, equipment and, perhaps above all, Canadian military culture, which has for generations regarded seamless interoperability with the U.S. as the ultimate objective. We can start by deciding to be far more open to capabilities produced by others. Indeed, we should consider partnering with European and Asian allies to build additional supply chains and production lines in Canada, along with greater investments in shared research and development. We need to meet NATO’s mark of spending 2 per cent of Canada’s GDP on defence, and meet it rapidly, and in pursuing this goal we should not, as a matter of principle, primarily buy capabilities from a country that has threatened to put tariffs on us in an apparent prelude to absorbing us. Buying defence equipment from outside the U.S. will force our military to quickly develop much deeper relationships with others.

Finally, standing up means we must adopt a hard-nosed, interests-based foreign policy. Wherever we decide that we have a fundamental interest, that is where we must make consistent and long-term commitments. Showing up at conferences to make speeches or announce feel-good initiatives and then going home – that is no longer enough. The announcement cannot be the policy. Our diplomatic and trade representatives must be re-empowered and given a mandate to engage the world on these terms. We should move forward on investments we have put off for years, such as the creation of a foreign human and technical intelligence agency that we need for our own purposes, particularly as Mr. Trump questions the utility of the Five Eyes intelligence relationship upon which we depend.

None of this suggests we should abandon our values. We can maintain our internationalist approach; we can still champion human rights and do our part to make the world a better place. In fact, that mission is more important than ever: With the United States withdrawing from many multilateral organizations and calling into question foreign aid, we must work with other allies to fill the gaps. Standing up for Canada means allying with those who still believe in our common humanity, in international co-operation, and in the rights and welfare of those who suffer oppression and hardship. Those values remain as important as ever; the way we go about pursuing them just needs to change.

The fundamental transition that we’re pitching will be hard. Living standards may stall, or even drop for a time. But it is a false assumption that we can avoid these costs by just staying still and hoping to avoid Mr. Trump’s wrath. The reality is that living standards will stall or drop if we do nothing, amid tariff threats and the years of uncertainty we now face with the U.S. as an increasingly unreliable partner. If we are going to face difficult times, we might as well do so while striving to be independent, rather than while cowering.

There are also opportunities to be taken advantage of. If we can begin to think about nation-building, rather than searching for ways to play an ever-smaller role in the American economy, we could unleash a new and better Canada.

In a 2015 interview shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau called Canada a “post-national state,” where outdated notions such as national pride and patriotism have less and less place in society. We profoundly disagree. We believe that there is a desire amongst the great majority of Canadians to love and build their country. What they have lacked is a vision, and the leadership required to move them toward it.

The strategy we are calling for will require leadership, discipline and long-term focus – traits that have not been much in evidence in Canadian politics for many years. But we have mustered them when facing existential crises in the past. Much of Canada’s history is the story of bravely carving out a remarkable country against long odds. We can do it again.

Trump apologists, or those who argue that we must find a way to submit to Washington’s demands, have argued that Canada has no other choice but kneel. We disagree. We look at this as exactly the reverse: If we are to remain a sovereign nation, what choice do we have but to chart our own course and build our own future?