America+Canada Les Horswill

8/7/2019 America+Canada Les Horswill

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/americacanada-les-horswill 1/15

! !

America + Canada =

A More Perfect Union

Remarks by

Les Horswill

to the

Commonwealth Club

of California,

San Francisco

Monday, May 2, 2011

!



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

4!

Some years ago, The New Republic ran a contest to determine that year’s most boringheadline.

The winner, by a landslide, was “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.”

I encountered this lack of excitement personally when the Utne Reader reviewed my

article on political union in the Montreal national magazine, Maisonneuve.

I had called into question the very future of Canada, the second biggest and third oldestfederation in the world. The Utne Reader grasped the logic and concluded, “Perhapsthe time has come to swap maple syrup recipes.”

Of course, I’m not here to swap maple syrup recipes. Nor am I here to seek temporaryrefuge from socialized medicine or — another exciting election night in Canada.

I want to advance a new North American project, a new way of looking at how we livetogether on this amazing continent.

You may recall Jonathan Swift’s brilliant satire A Modest Proposal . In it, Swift took onthe conventional wisdom of 18th century Great Britain. At that time, it was acceptedthat, occasionally, Irish starvation was necessary — tragic, but necessary just the same.

When the potato crops failed, you stood back and did nothing. Eventually, soaring foodprices would result in increased food production, and sort out who — besides theEnglish — would get to eat.

Swift’s elaborate scheme to turn Irish babies into high-end food for the rich made abrilliant obscenity out of an entrenched public outlook.

“I want toadvance a newNorth Americanproject, a newway of lookingat how we livetogether on this

amazingcontinent.”

My objective, while more modest . . . after all, I am a

Canadian . . . is similar to Swift’s.

Certain things that others say “will always be with us”can be swept away — like communism, the Berlinwall, Apartheid, and more recently, autocrats in theMiddle East.

This talk isn’t about negotiating tactics or a draftsubmission to the Canadian government. You are theaudience for this proposal.

I want to encourage independent-minded citizens —

in Canada and in the United States — to consider whether our best intentions might better be served ina new arrangement.

I want you to rule in what official opinion has ruled out.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

5!

There are three main points I want to make this evening.

First, that the longest international border in the world is a major problem — for both of us.

Second, that we can get rid of the border and unite Canada and the United States as a

democratic federation. Our federal traditions offer an equitable foundation for a politicalunion.

Third, that political and economic union between our two countries could unlockenormous benefits, while allowing us to stay true to our values. That erasing the border between us would make all of us more effective as North Americans and as problem-solvers.

So, why is the border a problem?

From a distance, it is easy for us to see the border as a harmless element of theCanadian narrative.

The border was negotiated for us by the British, and,since our confederation in 1867, could not have beendefended by the English or by us. But just becausewe haven’t fought over it for nearly two centuriesdoesn’t make it noble.

Stripped down and up-close, most people wouldagree that it is an indefensible nuisance; it fails tomake life on either side safer in any measurable way.

Once merely the longest line on the map of the BritishEmpire, the border quickly became an instrument of separate national policies. The vacuum-abhorringbureaucracies of our two growing countries foundmany things for it to do.

It collects tariffs.

It enforces hundreds of subtly different laws andregulations, including, in case you were unaware, our strongly divided views on the proper manufacture of deodorant.

“Political andeconomic unionbetween our two countriescould unlock

enormousbenefits, whileallowing us tostay true to our values.”

And — it’s not cheap.

The paperwork needed to operate today’s paper border already costs over 10 billiondollars annually. If some four thousand miles of our land border were militarized, if wefound the 30 or 40 billion dollars of capital necessary to secure it completely, we wouldonly serve our competitors and amuse terrorists.

Its cost, today, does not lie only in what we know we pay.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

6!

Because our two countries are separate, our continent-wide security, energy, andenvironmental partnerships fail to realize their potential.

“The paperwork

needed tooperate today’spaper border already costsover 10 billiondollarsannually.”

We can’t share a common currency, or secure thefreest possible movement of people and economicresources.

Rather than separating forests, bush land, andmountains, it separates us in our heads — in how wemake a living, make decisions in politics, and confrontthe world. It is the first and last assertion of thesovereign monopoly of each state to exerciseauthority on our behalf.

In many places, national borders are necessary torepel aggressors and recognize deep, if not alwayspermanent, differences.

Yet, often they are drawn too quickly and stand too long.

A border authorizes us to set limits — in politics, in the reach of feelings, even in our ability to see opportunities.

Our common border blinkers our thinking, even when we think we’re thinking big.

7 If there were no border, would Canadians still prefer an east-west electricitygrid over better links with adjoining regions to the south?

7 If there were no border, would we not jointly manage the longest Arcticcoastline in the world?

7 And, would Canadian business leaders continue to believe, if they stopped tothink about it, that Canadian diplomats could do a better job than Americandiplomats in opening Asian markets?

Consider the economy.

The border marks a persistent and significant gap in income and investment per worker.

It is estimated by the Ontario Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity andEconomic Progress that Ontario’s GDP per capita trailed peer states by 13.5 per cent or

by $6,900 in 2009. Canadian workers lose out, and, as important, the whole continentfalls short of its intellectual and economic potential.

But why? Certainly not because of the quality of Canada’s work force.

Canadian and American workers are almost the same — with a few minor variations.Canadian women are slightly more likely to be in the workforce, and Canadian menslightly less so.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

8!

And, according to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), our high school students are slightly more proficient in reading andmathematics and science. If you only match the more fortunate — middle and upper middle class white students — the numbers are nearly identical.

Also, our work incentives are in fine shape.

Of course, Canadian governments take nearly five percent more from a Canadianworker’s income, but those payroll deductions pay for universal health coverage andwider access to unemployment insurance.

Canada’s foundation for competitive growth — complemented by the highest per capitarate of legal immigration in the developed world — is sound.

So what is Canada’s problem? Productivity. And the key to productivity is adaptability —that is, the ability and readiness to move resources to take advantage of new

opportunities.

Unfortunately, our economy’s adaptability is constrained — not only by the border, but,as well, by the uncertainties that flow from being a separate and a highly regulatedeconomy.

It is estimated, for instance, that our two governmentsindependently make some five thousand changes justto trade regulations, every year.

The Free Trade Agreement of 1988 was not enough.A decade later, Canadian businesses were still tentimes more likely to trade with other provinces thanwith American states — regardless of geographicaldistance.

Tariff-free trade works better for larger companies,because they can more easily cope with currencyfluctuations and non-tariff barriers.

If we want to dramatically improve opportunities for individuals and smaller enterprises, we need toeliminate the legal, regulatory, hidden, and trivial

costs of not being fellow citizens.The impact of the border does not affect justCanadians.

“The FreeTradeAgreement was

not enough. Adecade later,Canadianbusinesseswere still tentimes morelikely to tradewith other provinces thanwith Americanstates.”



9! !

It is responsible for tremendous drags on the creative use of capital, people, and ideasin both our countries. Furthermore, as I’ll be arguing next, we won’t be able to fix thatsimply by removing a physical border.

“The border is

responsible for tremendousdrags on thecreative use of capital, people,and ideas in

both our countries.”

First, let’s consider using the same dollar.

Our currency — popularly called the “loonie” — isstrong, but is relatively new and carries little emotionalauthority. Adopting one currency, the American dollar,would make it easier for consumers to compare pricesand safer for investors to invest anywhere on thecontinent.

A larger currency area would also make it easier tohandle volatile energy and commodity prices.

Currency union, however, is only possible if we cometogether politically.

The American dollar could not maintain its credibility under joint Ottawa-Washingtonmanagement. Monetary policy would have to be set by one independent authority:realistically, an expanded U.S. Federal Reserve.

With full political and fiscal policy integration, the dollar and the larger economy wouldface none of the strains that now bedevil the Euro zone.

Second, consider security.The U.S. security parameter needn’t run between our two countries. However, it canonly run around Canada if Canadians are prepared to live with American securitypractices — and can convince you that we’ll meet your concerns with the same zeal.Canada’s government cannot tell Canadian officials to do whatever U.S. officials have amandate to do.

So long as we are separate, we’ll want our officials to answer to us for their treatment of individuals and for Canada’s reputation abroad.

Third, consider also the border’s impact on other challenges of global importance:

environment, energy, and trade security.

It is clear that a shift to clean power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions won’t happeneffectively without significant North American leadership.

A Canada-US environment treaty could propose continent-wide initiatives. However, themore ambitious its features and the more discretion assigned to officials, the greater thevulnerability of Canadian interests — and, the greater Canada’s unwillingness, as aseparate country, to accept a comprehensive deal.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

:!

On the other hand, a green strategy that answers to one electorate could be demandingand politically acceptable. It could impress the rest of the world.

Finally, let’s not overlook energy and trade security.

Canada is by far America’s largest outside supplier of

crude oil and natural gas. Both Canadian producersand American consumers would suffer if we isolatedourselves from global trade in fossil fuels.

Nevertheless — as one country — we could tell theworld credibly that America needn’t depend on othersfor vital supplies of energy; and that we can fuelourselves without incurring intolerable trade deficits.

Keeping each country’s legislators out of tradedisputes would strengthen our common market, suchas it is.

However, restricting their legislative power isn’tacceptable. While Europeans are trying to sharelegislative sovereignty, a super-national power-sharing mechanism wouldn’t work for us.

It would be answering to two federations, one with atenth the responsibilities of the other. The cleanest,surest way for all of us to be treated fairly is by all of us to vote in American elections.

“A greenstrategy that

answers to one

electorate could

be demanding

and politically

acceptable. Itcould impress

the rest of the

world.”!

Which brings us to the next point — the way ahead — a federal union.

Instead of creating yet another supranational political assembly to deal with all of theobstacles created by the border, why not simply extend our reach as federalists?

If Canada is American only slightly less so, why can’t America be Canadian only a littlemore so?

Liberal nationalism — basing the state and its future strictly on the will of the people —was liberal Europe’s reply to imperialism.

It was your answer to George III.

Liberal nationalism is the heart of our case to the 7 million French-speaking citizens of Quebec.

We believe federal states are building blocks for a more peaceful, creative, andprosperous world. These convictions run through America’s long history as surely asours.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

;!

Deals struck within one federation can produce more for us, can ask more of us, andcan last longer than any top-down contract between two separate countries.

Of course, the future will test the details.

“If Canada isAmerican onlyslightly less so,why can’tAmerica beCanadian only

a little moreso?”

But let’s step outside the old framework of nation-to-

nation bargaining. Let’s retire the old ten-against-oneboard game.

Let’s envision a union — a citizen-with-citizen, ballot-for-ballot union.

The most important elements are straightforward.

Washington would remain the federation’s capital.(That shouldn’t inconvenience Canadians any morethan it already does many of you.)

Canadians would be able to run for and vote for president, and they would enjoy proportionaterepresentation in the House of Representatives andthe Senate.

We wouldn’t need to duplicate or compromise the basic machinery of our federalgovernment structures.

The never-ending business of nation building would carry on according to the rule of law, the ballot, and the search for practical solutions by the politically ambitious amongst

us.Success, of course, would require political nerve and new alliances. We would have tocall on our pragmatic and experimental traditions.

Americans would have to respect Quebec’s official language and Civil Code, and acceptthe power of provinces over vital social programs, including health care.

Americans would need to accept that altering the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms would, in the first instance, be up to us.

In turn, Canadians would have to shoulder your global risks as well as participate inyour decision-making.

Canadians would have to accept that in some states you execute murderers and insome states you don’t.

And if we wanted to send representatives to the Senate, we would finally have to find away to elect them.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

<!

I’ve already gone over some potential benefits. Now, I’d like go a little further.

Together, we could, in one formal agreement, outdistance the sixty years of endlessnegotiations that it took to create today’s European Union. No need for a fourth layer of political intrigue and a maze of new public agencies — instead, we could create themost open, most lightly managed federal economy in the world.

An economic union between the 1st and the 9th largest developed economies in theworld isn’t just a matter of adding up two sets of national statistics and giving our totalGross National Product a further ten- or twenty-year lead on the Chinese.

Our union could radically improve North America’s prospects for the rest of the century.

Modernizing our infrastructure on a borderless, regional basis would stimulate internalcompetition, improve energy efficiency, and strengthen the potential for partnerships inresearch and development.

And, it would significantly expand trade.

Consider the benefits of intensifying regional enterprise. Vancouver-Seattle would bethe hub of the North Pacific. Montreal-Boston would give the northeast a better competitive edge. And, the Greater Toronto Area would finally complete the integrationof the powerful southern Great Lakes region.

But the decisive benefit, I submit, would be new andwider horizons for individuals.

Canada covers half the landmass of the NorthAmerican continent. Canada holds 34-million highlyeducated mostly English-speaking people.

Together, we would have a population of more than400 million people by mid-century.

The post-war vision of managing from the center isvery probably dead. The alternative is decentralizingresponsibility, and creating business and socialconditions that empower individuals.

Certainly, California demonstrates what can beaccomplished without a top-down plan. California’seconomic success, however, is also an example of the power of the larger open American market and itsfederal system.

Not to sound too Texan, but Canada — without aborder — could give America’s prospects for thiscentury at least another California, without, I mustadd, a dangerous deficit.

“Modernizingour infra-structure on a

borderless,regional basiswould stimulateinternalcompetition,improve energyefficiency, andstrengthen thepotential for partnerships inR & D.”



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

=>!

Now what about the impact of union on the political landscape?

Obviously, there would be some northward movement in the politics of the new union.

It doesn’t follow, however, that advantage would shift permanently from Republicans toDemocrats — or favor New England, for instance, over Alberta. Political parties maypray on our feelings, but they aren’t sentimental; they care more about votes andcenters of power than about who got to America first.

“Political partiesgenerally aren’tsentimental;they care more

about votes andcenters of power thanabout who gotto Americafirst.”

In a close election today, Floridians and Californiansin the United States, and British Columbians andOntarians in Canada, can determine which nationalparty wins national office.

When they win — their country carries on. When theylose — they carry on.

That is all that individual Canadians and Americanswould have to accept about each other to make aunited North American federation possible.

Canadian politicians would probably take a little timeto build their reputations before running for nationaloffice. However, the next class of presidentialcandidates would certainly have to make it their business to be credible north of the 49th parallel.

So far, I’ve argued that the border is pointless and destructive, and that unionwould benefit us all.

But I am not pretending that this would be easy. There are very self-importantarguments in the way. Let’s take them one at a time .

We are divided from you by a proposition parading as a fact.

The proposition? That Canada has a unique role in the world.

Our confederation was born to sustain this proposition — to resist any future re-

integration of our two societies after the American War of Independence.

Well, it worked. We focussed our energies east to Europe, and west to the Pacific. Weare apart from you; we act separately.

But was it necessary and are we really different today?

In fact, nothing about our separation from you was inevitable.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

==!

For nearly two-thirds of Canada’s existence — or roughly until the 1960s — anti-Americanism had little to do with Canada.

We were British subjects and we shared Britain’s dogged condescension towards you.What a slim majority of our forefathers wanted was to protect — and pass on to their children — their identity and sensibilities as British loyalists.

I say “a slim majority” on purpose. Canada’s survival as a British dominion was never asure thing.

Since the Napoleonic Wars, Britain’s strategic priority in North America has been tomaintain good relations with you, not to develop a model society in Canada.

In 1849, John Abbott — a young Montrealer who would go on to become Canada’ssecond prime minister — signed a manifesto calling for Canada to be annexed by theUnited States. (I should note that he later described it as a youthful error.)

About 40 years later, Goldwin Smith, a renowned

British-Canadian scholar living in Toronto, concludedin his book Canada and the Canadian Question thatCanada was artificial.

He argued that his liberties as a British subject livingin Canada might better be served in a political unionwith the United States.

In 1888, The New York Times ran the headline“Canadian Annexationists: Ontario towns in thevicinity of Detroit crowded with them.”

And, in 1891, in the first of many national elections onthe issue of economic integration with the UnitedStates, the Liberal Party of Canada ran on a platformof reciprocal free trade and actually won LoyalistOntario by five seats.

At that time, the surging American union wouldprobably have taken us in with barely a shrug.

Political integration is not something we have to do. Itcan only be sold as the best next thing to do.

“Since theNapoleonicWars, Britain’sstrategic priorityin NorthAmerica hasbeen to

maintain goodrelations withyou, not todevelop amodel society inCanada.”

Unlike the Republic of Texas in the 1840s and the Dominion of Newfoundland in the1940s, Canada and the United States are financially and politically viable.

It is not something events will force on us. But today, even as a positive proposal it willbe challenged by a new homemade Canadian nationalism. Now we both live incountries with leaders who tell us we’re the best.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

=4!

Canada is no longer any empire’s hinterland. Rather, it is an urban mecca for individuals — and their languages and cultures — from around the world. The sameliberal causes that shaped America now thrive in Canada.

Women, immigrants, visible minorities, language minorities, provinces, gays, andlesbians enjoy legal equality before the courts and in Canada’s constitution.

We have followed your lead and now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that canoverrule our legislatures and governments.

We think — wrongly — that our head of state is our elected national leader, not anAnglican sitting on the British Throne.

And in our western provinces — just like in your western states — we have politicalmovements that favor recalling politicians and holding plebiscites on new taxes.

In fact, our original rationale for an independent Canada has been turned inside out.The argument of our grandfathers that America and its revolution were too liberal for us

has been replaced by our assertion that we are now too liberal for you!

Other obstacles are, in my opinion, chauvinist myths.

When some Americans compare themselves with Canadians, they talk about our reliance on government and our tendency to embrace the word “compromise.”

Canadians have been called “European social democrats.”

And yet, up to the late 1980s, the top ten per cent of our income earners captured asignificantly higher share of our national income than their fortunate counterpartscaptured in the United States.

“But surely it iscircumstance,not personalitytraits that makeus different.

You have moreto be immodestabout — and,more to fear.”

Today, private home-ownership is higher in Canada;corporate taxes on capital investment are two-thirdsof yours, and our federal debt to GDP is approaching40%, while yours is passing 60%.

With regional subsidies and financial transfers toprovinces, Canadians have practiced unabashedlywhat’s called profitable federalism.

At the same time, legend has it that our nationhood isevidence of our self-denying ways.

Canadian nationalists have been hard on those whohave tried to be closer to you simply to make moremoney. Indeed, the Free Trade Agreement waspromoted as merely a bearable necessity to avoidprotectionist actions by your congress.



=5! !

Complacent pieties like these should be set aside in this demanding world. Our populations keep growing and so do their needs. Our economic and personal security isnot what it was. Collectively, our room for error is shrinking. And — when we see achance to better ourselves and be stronger, we should take it.

Canadians who argue that union is naïve suggest thatAmericans are more ruthless in pursuing what theywant.

They insist that Americans prefer bullying to power sharing. Yet, as we both know, the ability of your government to get allies to go along with Americanpriorities is never certain.

Nevertheless, it is often insisted that you ask others tobe brutally realistic, while seeing your own good

fortune as God-given and not for sharing.

But surely it is circumstance, not personality traits thatmake us different. You have more to be immodestabout — and, more to fear.

Alexis de Tocqueville — who is widely credited for inventing the idea of American exceptionalism, of possessing something literally beyond the reach of others — also said this:

“Freedom tomove was thesingular advantage of North America.Masseducation, your

much-malignedmelting pot, andhighways of homesickadventurerskept us young.”

“I see certain institutions work here that would predictably work havoc in France; whileothers that suit us would have evil effects in America. And yet, unless I’m sadlymistaken, man is not different or better on one side of the Atlantic than on the other. Heis just differently placed.”

Canada and the United States are differently placed, in large part, by an indefensibleline on a map.

Before closing, I want to raise two pervasive concerns: what’s so great aboutchange, and why invest in a greater America?

These are questions for both of us. America is not compulsively innovative, and Canada

is not utterly risk averse. In politics, in neighborhoods, and in the workplace, change canmake enemies and cause pain.

However, if short-term happiness were the overriding motive of public policy, our forefathers might have settled for a string of unitary states.

If cultural homogeneity were the goal, both countries would be less urban and lesswealthy.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

=6!

Freedom to move was the singular advantage of North America. Mass education, your much-maligned melting pot, and highways of homesick adventurers kept us young. Thatadvantage needs to be re-asserted.

Not building new walls will not be enough. Tearing down old ones is our task.

As our labor forces age and incomes rise more slowly in historical terms, politicalconditions necessary for creative change will meet ever more determined resistance.

The border between us is one of those points of resistance. Fortunately, it can comedown.

Forty years ago, Walker Percy captured the fragility of American exceptionalism in hisnovel Love in the Ruins.

“Will Americaturn isolationistnow simplybecause theworld is stillbeing shapedby others as

well as by you?”

His protagonist asks: “Is it that God has at lastremoved his blessing from the USA and what we feelnow is just the clank of the old historical machinery,

the sudden jerking ahead . . . as the chain catcheshold and carries us back into history with its ordinarycatastrophes?”

Percy’s image of the peevish Yankee looking for cover enthrals those safely away from the action.

Their response, however, is pure bravado.

America’s steady leadership and competence, in thisnew century of remorseless change, will still be reliedon by Canadians, whether they call themselves“citizens of the world,” or, more accurately, fellowNorth Americans.

Will America turn isolationist now simply because the world is still being shaped byothers as well as by you?

Your history is reassuring.

America was, for a while, isolated and to some extent protected by two oceans. But

American statecraft, enterprise, treasure, young service men and women, and universalliberal values have kept America engaged in the world ever since. America is now at thecenter of every drama of consequence on the globe.

The flash points may be on other continents, but their resolution will include America’smoral and material interests and, in good measure, will turn on how America conductsitself.

Of course, you could choose to carry on without Canada.



"#$%&'(!)!*(+(,(!-!"!./%$!0$%1$'2!3+&/+!

=8!

However, for America to shun the chance to better manage — and thereby more fullyrealize the potential of North America — would be unprecedented, an historic loss of nerve.

Canadians and Americans hold grudges. We stereotype and often dislike our fellowcitizens.

But within both federations — borne along by the same stream of western values — wehave shown that we can make political decisions and accept one another as politicalequals.

If renewal is necessary, and the Canadian border isn’t, then a world of possibilities andresponsibilities opens up.

– 30 –

America+Canada Les Horswill

Documents

Transcript of America+Canada Les Horswill