Canada: What Do We Want?

With a new prime minister and a general election incoming, it's time to review some major stuff.

Now to sit down with a warm cup of coffee and read the news… Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

I’m reading Canadian history deeply once more. It’s a nice break from the buzz of the news cycle, or perhaps it’s a ringing. I have tinnitus, and reading the news is a bit like that, a constant noise that can be equal parts annoying and distracting. The news is fast, incomplete, and sometimes incoherent; history is slower, more complete, and more coherent. History is a grounding force, a tool for contextualizing events, and a balm. It’s also useful, an instrument for calibrating what can, should, and might be done while reassuring oneself that whatever the extraordinary concern of the day, it may not be quite as unprecedented as you think.

For instance, Donald Trump’s tariff threats against Canada and his bid to make the country the 51st state? That’s extraordinary, but it’s not unprecedented. Historian Craig Baird points out that the United States has tried to annex Canada by way of tariffs before. William McKinley, in the dying days of the 19th century, took a shot at it — and failed. Canada has also faced crises and turning points in the past similar to those we face today: on trade, foreign policy and national defence, budget priorities, environmental (in)action, and the future of the welfare state. In sum, whatever the issue, we’ve been there (and here) before.

That we’ve faced big questions and challenges before doesn’t make the ones we’re staring down today any less significant. I bring up history to remind us that it’s not unusual that we should be forced to reckon with such things, not to absolve us of the need to be worried about doing so – successfully – and then getting to work.

For various reasons, some in our control, some not, we must now make big decisions that will shape national priorities and outcomes, and thus the lives of millions, for decades to come. We must do so while facing several crises, some of which are overlapping. Those crises/challenges begin with the decline of American democracy and threats from an erstwhile ally alongside a global geopolitical realignment and a shifting world order, including trade relationships. That’s a lot, but it’s not all. We also face the persistent and worsening effects of climate change and the need to sort out our energy policy and attendant infrastructure. Affordability (especially housing), is still a problem and about to get worse. The carnage in Ukraine and Gaza is ongoing. The abuse of immigration for the ends of the free market has led to changing attitudes towards newcomers and threats to the multicultural, pro-migration consensus. We must also reckon with crumbling healthcare systems, an incomplete and at-risk welfare state, and more.

We have little choice but to face these big questions we find crunched up together, dense and ready to expand like the universe at its birth. And we have little choice but to face them more or less simultaneously, especially since some are part and parcel of one another. Canadian foreign policy, for instance, has been adrift for years, unfocused and under-performing, leaving Canada’s global stature diminished and therefore of less use to both the world and to ourselves. Facing a review of our foreign policy will imply a review of our defence, trade, humanitarian, and environmental policies. It will also demand of us a rigorous focus and, one hopes, acceptance of the fact that the very nature of having a “priority” suggests that you can’t do everything and shouldn’t try to.

The Justin Trudeau years, for all their imperfections, were marked by attempts to reconstruct bits of the decaying Canadian welfare state, driven in no small part by influence from the New Democratic Party. I think Trudeau’s legacy will include, near the top, the Canada Child Benefit. That’s here to stay and millions are better off for it. But with a new prime minister, Mark Carney, set to be appointed by the governor general and an election incoming, I’m less certain about other welfare state accomplishments. Dentalcare may survive since it is established enough that it may stand on its own. Perhaps child care will go the distance? Maybe even pharmacare will last, now that provinces are starting to sign on. But we may face upcoming years of austerity, and nothing is guaranteed. We must nonetheless fight for a country in which we commit to owing one another more, and the strong welfare state that accompanies this commitment. That welfare state must also be modern, built to understand what climate change, automation and artificial intelligence, pandemics, and trade wars have in store for us. First, we need to sort out what that welfare state looks like.

The growing power of capital and the vulnerabilities of industry, so clearly exposed during the pandemic and, later, in the face of Trump’s trade threats, ought to get us talking about the role of state ownership in certain industries. Attacks against globalization and foreign threats ought to get us talking about risks from foreign, including American, ownership of key businesses and within strategically sensitive industries. Surging wealth inequality should have us taking socialized business models seriously, including co-ops and worker-owned and controlled enterprises.

There’s still more to cover. But this overview, quick and incomplete, gives you a sense of the scale of the task. The upcoming federal election and the months that follow as a new government settles in — either Carney’s, which begins soon, or Pierre Poilievre’s, if he wins — offer prime opportunities for us to talk about each of these (often interconnected) issues and how we wish to address them. These conversations should be open and ecumenical, giving priority to free speech and debate. They will be difficult conversations, sometimes marked by conflict more than deliberation, and almost certain to expose or exacerbate cleavages.

There will be little to no consensus on some matters. But politics rarely promises harmony when the stakes are this high, at least not for long. That’s fine. Struggle reveals interests and lays bare how interests conflict, how serving some means not serving others. The more we see these dynamics, these realities, the better – seeing them is a step towards deciding what to do and then doing it. So, let’s throw open the windows, ask big questions, talk about what ought to be done, and do it before it’s done for – or to – us.