Every decade or so, someone who knows little about history and culture proposes that Canada and the United States should merge into a single political entity. The most recent iteration of this is Diane Francis’ essay in the Wall Street Journal.
What, pray tell, is her base argument? This is clearly stated early on in the piece:
Such a merger makes perfect sense. No two countries on Earth are as socially and economically integrated as the U.S. and Canada. They share geography, values and a gigantic border. Their populations study, travel and do business together and intermarry in great numbers. If they were corporations (or European states), they would have merged a long time ago. And each has what the other needs: The U.S. has capital, manpower, technology and the world’s strongest military; Canada has vast reserves of undeveloped resources.
Well, let’s just take a look at each of these points and see what an actual analysis would give us.
“No two countries on Earth are as socially and economically integrated as the U.S. and Canada.” Quite correct and, given her premise, quite surprising in that we are not the same country. It is also irrelevant in terms of whether or not we should merge, except in that we get on fairly well.
“They share geography, values and a gigantic border.” Again, true but, also, irrelevant. I will also note that while we share many values, we are actually quite apart on many values as well. For example, if such a merger happened, how would the US react to the simple fact that same sex marriages are not only legal, but totally accepted in most of Canada? This is just one example of where our “values” are different.
“Their populations study, travel and do business together and intermarry in great numbers.” Again quite true and, again, irrelevant. As a Canadian citizen who spent eighteen years married to an American citizen, I can, from personal experience, testify to the actual differences in values even when we “speak the same language.”
“If they were corporations (or European states), they would have merged a long time ago.” Really? Well, how’s that working out for the European Union? Believe me when I say that most Canadians have absolutely no desire to live in a country where municipalities are allowed to go bankrupt because they financed their projects through debt (which, BTW, has been illegal in Canada since the 1930’s).
“And each has what the other needs: The U.S. has capital, manpower, technology and the world’s strongest military; Canada has vast reserves of undeveloped resources.” Ah, and now we come to the crux of Ms. Francis’ argument: she wants to convert Canadians into their supposed “historic” role as hewers of wood and drawers of water, i.e. producers of raw materials for an “Imperial center.” Well, she may want to look at how Canada reacted to that role back in the 1970’s. I’ll give you a hint: not too well.
Ms. Francis’ lack of historical knowledge, especially in the area of political economy, becomes blatantly obvious later on in the essay.
Truth be told, the merger of the U.S. and Canada is already well under way. As many as one in 10 Canadians (more than 3 million people) live full- or part-time in the U.S., and an estimated 1 million Americans live in Canada. As of 2010, U.S. enterprises controlled about 10% of Canada’s assets, 17% of its revenues and 13% of its corporate profits, according to Statistics Canada. Canadians bought more goods and services from Americans than did the 340 million people living in the European Union—a population 10 times as large.
“Truth”? Hmmm. In 1970, the U.S. controlled approximately 70% of Canadian businesses and approximately 60% of Canada’s assets. Now the U.S. controls only 10% of Canada’s assets. This may be a problem for U.S. firms, but it certainly is not a problem for Canadians!
The rest of Ms. Francis’ essay is similarly flawed; lacking in historical detail and replacing facts with crude economic arguments. In many ways, her piece reminds me of the naive form of neo-Marxist economic determinism satirized by David Weber in the character of Reginald Hauseman in his Honor Harrington series. This is especially apparent when she asserts that “Those who oppose such a merger are on the wrong side of history,” a typical form of Marxian rhetoric.
So, outside of Francis’ ignorance of history and culture, what else is wrong with her argument?
Let us consider politics. Canada, unlike the United States, is a parliamentary democracy under the Crown. Yes, Diane; we (Canada) live in a monarchy. Because of Canada’s unique historical experience and situation, we have developed a political culture that can take into account the best of both our British heritage and, also, that of our American cousins. In effect, we have American individuality and freedoms supported by a British political framework that discourages a tyranny of the plurality.
By virtue of this, we are able to separate our Head of Government from our Head of State, something that the U.S. combines in their office of President. This separation allows us to attack and oppose our Head of Government without it being a case of lèse-majesté, which it is in the U.S. It also allows us much more political flexibility in the creation of political parties, and in both the expression and operationalization of political ideas, than that which is available in the Republic to the south.
What about her assertion of “social integration”? Well, we share many of the same popular cultural values and icons, but we also have a completely different founding myth. The United States was founded in a rebellion against the Crown. Canada was “founded” in reaction against American territorial aggression and in loyalty to the Crown (tempered with a lot of self-interest).
All told, the United States has launched, or harbored, three main attacks on Canada. First, in 1776 when Benedict Arnold launched an assault against Quebec City. Second, in the invasions during the War of 1812. And third, in harboring the Fenians who raided across the border in the 1830’s-1850’s. Both the Charlottetown Conference of 1864 and the Confederation in 1867 were made palatable by a well-founded fear of American invasion that only disappeared in 1885, with Ulysses Grant’s decision to ignore Louis Riel’s request for intervention in the Second Metis Revolt.
Why then should Canada accept a “quiet conquest” by the United States? As Ms. Francis notes, we already have a solid friendship and large amounts of integration and co-operation. Her argument is analogous to suggesting that best friends should marry simply because they are best friends—something that rarely works out well in the real life of either individuals or nations.
Marc Tyrrell is an anthropologist teaching at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada). He is a Senior Research Fellow with the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies.
Photo credit: shutterjet
Condor 
Ryan U 
As a Canadian:
A) I’m delighted to see some more “Can-Con” appearing on War on the Rocks.
B) This is an excellent breakdown of what was a rather silly essay.
C) Don’t forget the entire Quebec situation. I can’t imagine how Americans would respond to “The French Issue.”
As an American (who’s dated a Canadian) I would agree with both you and the author of this article that the WSJ article was silly. Having worked closely with the Canadian military when I was active duty, I would love to see more pieces about Canada on here. I have tremendous respect for our allies in the “Great White North” but as mentioned just because you’re best buds don’t mean one should get married.
Now in regards to your last comment, if you give me a year’s supply of La Fin Du Monde I should care less about the “French Issue”. :-)
Good article. I think it goes without saying that the WSJ article is generally silly and I don’t buy it.
That said, 2 points:
First, the paragraph I take a little issue with is the one about the three raids the US has launched on Canada. In particular, I thought the ‘US harboring the Fenians’ argument was a little weak. A) it did not really contribute to the overall argument of why the US and Canada shouldn’t merge, and B) it’s analogous to saying that Canada harbored the Confederates who launched the St Albans Raid. I don’t think either have a real impact on the relationship between the two countries. Especially coming as part of the closing argument, the point just didn’t sit well with me.
My other comment is that I think there is a good argument to be made from a national security perspective vis-a-vis Russia. From an American’s perspective, I believe that a US-Canada merger would bring “Can-merica” uncomfortably close geopolitically with Russia in the Arctic. Territorial claims in the region now are more or less pleasantly balanced between six or so stakeholders. I think Russia would feel quite challenged in the region by a US-Canada merger that could create a dangerous bipolar (no pun intended) balance in the region. There is an argument to be made against a US-Canada merger based upon the threat of a (literal) Cold War in the Arctic, or at the very least an uncomfortable overlap of spheres of influence. I wouldn’t buy the optimist’s argument that it would be an avenue for cooperation. As long as energy resources and territorial claims are involved, I don’t see many places where the US and Russia can cooperate in the short- or medium-term future.
(I just realised I’m replying to a post from 2 years ago, but I’ll complete it anyway, I’ve written it now)
Some specific points:
“No two countries on Earth are as socially and economically integrated as the U.S. and Canada.”
Actually you should look at Australia and NZ. The same conversations are going on in NZ, except there is provision in both the constitutions for NZ to join the Australian federation by mutual referendum.
“If they were corporations (or European states), they would have merged a long time ago.”
Actually the merger of England and Scotland – very analogous to this situation, don’t you think? – created one of the worlds great powers, which still exists today some 300 years later. So I’d say that went rather well. The EU is completely different to what is being discussed here.
Anyway, the best way to look at this is would the benefits outweigh the costs. What would the costs be to Canada, and what would the benefits be? Obviously Canada would become a far more important nation internationally, and have access to the United States’ massive capital reserves to exploit Canada’s massive mineral wealth. That’s a couple of massive advantages. I think its pretty easy to argue that both the United States and Canada would greatly profit, in a material seance, from a merger.
The practical costs would be the loss of some level of political autonomy, and perhaps the abandonment of some areas of privilege, like public healthcare, that the US does not provide, again depending on the details of the merger (this could be preserved in the deal).
None of the objections you raise are real barriers to a merger.
Yes, Canadians and Americans have a different political heritage, but is this any greater than the difference in such a heritage between Virginia and Maine, who fought a bloody 4 year civil war over slavery and the Union? No, I don’t think so.
Yes, Canadians, by and large, have different values form many Americans. But does that mean you cant be part of the same state? Don’t Californians have very different values for Kentuckians, but again they are both part of the same federation aren’t they?
The real point you are making here is you treasure the Canadian national identity, which is inherently founded on a negative. Canadians are partially defined, as a nation, by what they are not: they are NOT Americans. New Zealand national identity is the same, they are, partially, defined by not being Australians. Its why every Canadian I meet gets offended when I mistake them for an American, which is difficult considering how close the accent is. That is the basis for this emotive argument, and its why you appeal to hyperbolic statements like “she wants to convert Canadians into their supposed “historic” role as hewers of wood and drawers of water, i.e. producers of raw materials for an “Imperial center.” These kinds of arguments really get in the way of a legitimate debate about the right course for nations like Canada, New Zealand and Scotland. The real question that needs to be answered is ‘is nationalism worth more than enhanced security and economic benefits’. Your answer here is, apparently, an emphatic yes, but without much more than nationalistic appeals and ‘little brother’ cliches to support it.
Its not neo-marxist to state the economic benefits of a merger, or even base your argument upon them. That’s a pretty obvious attempt at slander. The merger of England and Scotland was very much based upon the disaster of the Scottish attempt to establish a colony in Panama, which had effectively bankrupted the entire nation, public and private sectors. The economic benefits of merger were a primary rationale behind the Scottish decision to accept Union. Were they moved by marxist arguments? No, I dont think so.
Natural resources are simply Canada’s competitive advantage; exploiting them does not make you a client state for an imperial centre, it will just make you wealthy.