A path through the Bush visit

Author(s): 
November 26, 2004

Beyond the obligatory niceties, next week's visit by George W. Bush will reveal little about the actual direction of Canada-U.S. relations. But it does provide an occasion to reflect on where we are going and what are our choices.

In my view, the most important question facing Canada over the next 10 years is: Can we continue to manoeuvre in the intricate dance with our superpower neighbour so as to preserve sufficient policy independence, or are we bound to follow a path of "deep integration," surrendering ever more policy autonomy in a slow-motion slide into American orbit?

Do we have a choice?

The question is an old one, but the terrain has changed in two major ways.

First, the current strain of Pax Americana has little appetite for working within the international community and little tolerance for dissenters or fence-sitters among its traditional allies. We can expect that this hardball approach will spill over to its relations with its neighbours.

Unless we are prepared to sign on, we can expect a bumpy ride.

The other change is that for the past 15 years our economic relations have been governed by a continental constitution - NAFTA. Whatever NAFTA's benefits or costs (and they continue to be hotly debated), what is not in question is that NAFTA has greatly accelerated economic integration and, as a result, Canada has become more vulnerable to U.S. retaliation.

The integration process is continuing, and is market-driven, though with direct and indirect reinforcement at the policy level. Since Sept. 11, policy integration is proceeding most quickly in the areas that affect security, and where the full policy implications are, as yet, unknown.

The policy establishment generally supports a direction that encourages deeper economic integration with the United States. The only division is between those who favour an incremental approach and those that favour a Big Step, or Big Bang, approach. Proponents of the latter are an influential cabal of business leaders, ex-bureaucrats and politicians, and business-funded think tanks determined to achieve their ambitious goal.

The incremental track - favoured by the government - is proceeding in many different areas, largely hidden from public scrutiny and even from political oversight. Purportedly technical/bureaucratic measures may have important implications for policy autonomy. What seem to be small steps may in fact turn out to be much bigger steps. Considerations of market efficiency appear to be crowding out health, environment, civil liberties, and other priorities. For example, Health Canada is moving toward eliminating some of its own drug testing and simply accepting drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a body heavily influenced by Congress and the pharmaceutical giants.

The Big Bang school of deep integration advocates a range of proposals: a common energy-and-resource pact (including water?), a customs union and common trade policy, a common market, a common security perimeter and military integration, a common currency, to name a few. These vaguely worded proposals would, if fully realized, make the loss of sovereignty under NAFTA seem trivial by comparison.

Proponents say another terrorist attack is inevitable and an extended border disruption would be devastating for the Canadian economy. Only a Big Deal will bring Americans to the table to address the elusive goal of secure market access. But what do we have to give up to get this big deal, and would it really protect us from a border closure in the event of another terrorist attack?

My view is that it is both desirable and still possible for Canada to shift policy gears and chart an alternative course. These deep integration forces continue, but the role of federal policy should be to discipline and reshape them, not to encourage them; to negotiate multilateral counterweights where possible; and where necessary, to negotiate limited-scope bilateral arrangements designed to ease tensions between our countries, but not necessarily to bring us closer together.

We should do our best to ensure that goods and people flow smoothly across our borders but that terrorists and weapons do not. We should do it because it is in our interest, not as a bargaining chip to be exchanged for trade concessions. And we should remember that the American economy would also be hurt by closure of the border.

Differences between Canadian and American values have grown wider over the past 15 years, even as economic integration has accelerated. Deep-integration proponents use this to dismiss their critics, though it should come as no surprise given that the founding mythologies, historical experiences and political institutions of our two countries are very different, and these have a much stronger influence in shaping our values than 15 years of integration.

As we continue down this deep-integration path, the policy space required to give weight to our sovereignty is progressively narrowed, and the gap between our image of ourselves and our capacity to give substance to that image grows wider and wider.

What kind of Canada lies at the end of this path?

Bruce Campbell is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Offices: