During Canada’s winter months, and an even more arctic economic climate earlier this year, Canadians everywhere from pubs, to university classrooms, to kitchen tables debated the challenges they face at the first light of a truly “globalized” century.

The nerve centre of the inquiry is what impact globalization will have on Canada’s economic, political and cultural autonomy. Many Canadians feel a sweeping anxiety over whether their big, cold and rather empty country can remain relevant in an era of global economic integration, especially when it struggles to shine in the eclipsing shadow of the United States.

“In an era of globalization, the U.S.-Canadian border is not the only disappearing international boundary, nor is Canada the only country coming under the spell of American economic and cultural influence. But perhaps no country feels these effects more keenly, or is more threatened by them,” writes Steven Pearlstein, a former Canadian correspondent for the Washington Post, in “Oh Canada! A National Swan Song?” (2000).

Yves Poisson, spokesperson for the Public Policy Forum, a right-wing think-tank currently studying the effects of globalization on Canadian government, voices the concerns of the corporate elite, asserting that Canada must work harder to integrate with its southern neighbour in order to repair the damage done by a decade of declining living standards.

“The Canadian market is too small for today’s world, a global economy,” declares Poisson, “. . . fewer decisions are truly “Made-in-Canada,” as much of the innovation, research and development is done in the U.S” (2001).

The Canadian corporate logic seems to assume that since a physical border is a nuisance for business, the Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the FTAA and the removal of remaining trade barriers between Canada and the U.S. can only be good--because free trade facilitates a seamless movement of goods and services across the border, creating new wealth in Canada.

However, John McCallum, a former economist with the Royal Bank of Canada and a Liberal Member of Parliament, warns that while increased harmonization with the U.S. has obvious economic benefits, it could proceed to the point where “the most important aspects of people’s lives are determined by “harmonized” North American policies” (2000).

In fact, McCallum contends that if Canada maintains the status quo, it will inevitably surrender political and economic sovereignty. “If decision-making powers have shifted out of the country to the degree that Canadians, through their elected representatives, have negligible power to shape their own destiny, then we may say that the country no longer matters.”

McCallum advocates the need to create an equilibrium between the ideal of the “kinder, gentler society” that is so inextricably intertwined with Canadian identity, and policy that promotes “a liberal, rules-based global trading system.” Yet, he suggested that “new global and continental realities require a moderate tilt of this traditional balance in favour of income and wealth creation.”

The U.S. has just gone through the biggest economic boom in its history, and Canada has been riding its coat tails. The consequence? A distinct Canadian society is being eroded by the ubiquity of all things American.

Left-wing economist Mel Watkins stresses the predicament of living next door to a cultural and economic behemoth. Watkins suggests the industrial elite’s vision of the future does not include Canada, as corporate globalization and the rise of transnational corporations means the Canadian business community “no longer sees the necessity for Canada to exist” (2001).

An example of this, says Watkins, is that many companies are turning Canadian head offices into branches of American head offices, “They say Canada’s just a region, like California. There’s nothing special about it.”

Already, Canadian TV stations abound with American programming, and the unprecedented success of the Internet is eroding the importance of national networks like the Canadian Broadcast Corporation and the Canadian Economics Association.

In spite of this, Watkins rejects the notion that only capitalist nations can thrive in a global economy. In fact, he says, “Big countries preach globalization, but small countries practice it.” According to Watkins, an American publication called Foreign Policy recently released statistics indicating that the United States is only number 12 on the list of the 50 most globalized countries in the world, Canada is number 10, and socially democratic Sweden is number one. Watkins said this proves a country can temper corporate globalization with humanitarian concerns and still be a world player in the global economy.

Watkins says Canadians are starting to wake up to the fact that some things are more important than money, and that neo-liberalism (the driving ideology behind globalization) is no longer “going to win the easy victories it’s been getting.”

In order to successfully resist “Americanization,” Watkins asserts Canada must create policy that protects citizens from the most damaging effects of globalization through reinvesting in social programs.

Experts in the fields of health care, social assistance and education all express fears that these cherished social programs are deteriorating as Canada tentatively moves closer to a more privatized American economic agenda. Social cohesion and national unity depend on federal standards and protection for social programs, as Canadians fundamentally identify themselves as social democratic, even while embracing globalization.

The concept of globalization is not a new one. Rather, Canada is a country born in the first great wave of globalization, and it was Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian, who invented the term “global village” in the first half of the 20th century.

Indeed, globalization has always been matched by counter-movements in Canadian society. Canadian unions represent a traditional stronghold of resistance. However, while unions are still fighting big business in Canada and internationally, they must learn to redefine themselves and their struggle if they are to remain viable in a global economy, finding new and innovative ways to address static membership levels, a changing work force and an aging leadership.

While the percentage of unionized workers in Canada is twice as high as in the U.S., only one-third of the Canadian work force enjoys the protection of union-negotiated contracts.

The reason for this is, in the new economy, the resource and commodity-based trades that made Canadian unions so powerful are being supplanted by jobs in the high-tech sector and service industry. These new workers are frequently contract or part-time, and hence are harder for unions to mobilize--a tactic that is endemic to a global union busting trend.

Perhaps the real question is whether Canada has a federal political party with the vision and will to cope with a new global reality while managing to maintain a unique Canadian identity.

The Canadian political landscape is marred by a political right wing that will inevitably pull the country closer to the U.S., and a political left with a future that is less than certain (Compas 2001).

While the Bloc Quebecois at least understand the potential consequences of globalization, evinced by their fight to maintain a distinct French-Canadian identity, they are too regional and contentious to ever garner support in the rest of Canada.

The Liberal government and its Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps pay lip service to preserving Canadian culture, but it is the powerful lobby groups for the global business community that truly influence federal decision-making.

So what does this mean for Canada?

Perhaps that it will be left to the anti-globalization protesters, the struggling political left, and the Canadian unions to champion those Canadian values that transcend economic considerations.

Does it matter whether Canada matters in this century?

It is Canada’s reputation as a just, fair and social democratic country that has attracted so many people fleeing countries ravaged by the most decimating effects of globalization, such as poverty and inequality. Ironically, Canada has in turn become, demographically at least, a truly globalized nation. Canada’s shared history and cultural diversity make it a country worth fighting for.

The test will be whether Canada can achieve the necessary balance between economic globalization and humanitarian globalization it so desperately needs to survive as a distinctly “Canadian” society.

References

McCallum, John. “Will Canada Matter in 2020?” Lecture Series 2020: Building the Future. University of Waterloo, Waterloo. 16 Feb. 2000.

Poisson, Yves. Address. Mock Royal Commission on the Future of Canada.

Carleton University, Ottawa. 29 Jan. 2001.

Watkins, Mel. Address. Mock Royal Commission on the Future of Canada. Carleton

University, Ottawa. 15 Jan. 2001.

Pearlstein, Steven. Editorial. Washington Post 5 Sep. 2000: A01. “Measuring Globalization.”  Foreign Policy  Jan.-Feb.  2001: 56-65.

Compas Inc. Federal Liberal Strength, Opposition Disarray, and the Uncertain Future of the NDP: A COMPAS Report to the National Post. 3 June 2001. Online. Internet. 1 Sep. 2001. Available http://www.compas.ca/html/archives/uncertainfutureofthendp_surv.html.