Goodbye ‘postnational’ state
Hello, re-nationalization
Ross Douthat, a respected Opinion writer for the New York Times, has published a piece suggesting the advantages of Canada joining the United States. It’s entitled “O, Canada, Come Join Us.” [1] That’s a spoiler alert. Whatever his claims, Mr. Douthat doesn’t have any real Canadian credentials—no “maple syrup” running in his veins--has no business pronouncing on what would be good for Canada, and in any case much of what he says is poppy-cock (borrowing from US Civil War-era slang). This includes the idea that if Canada joined the US it would tilt America back to a more centrist-left political stance by having Canadians take part in the supposed “great drama” unfolding in the US. Really? No thank you. The scary part, though, is his suggestion that Canada and the US are on a deterministic path of political convergence—that both countries hold essentially the same values. Not at all. What’s the evidence for this—the Freedom Convoy protests for god’s sake?
Douthat, like others, has dug up a quote from an interview that Trudeau, as a newly elected PM, gave to the New York Times in 2015. It was a different time, to be sure. Obama was in the White House. The phrase used by the then very new PM, depicting Canada as a “postnational state,” has been stripped of all its context. What Trudeau was clearly trying to reflect was a distinction between Canada and some states whose strong national identity made it challenging for them to integrate newcomers. When he was quoted as saying “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” he was not denying the idea of Canada as a nation but reflecting on the many contributions to it. Here are his words, “There are shared values—openness, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice.” [2] Maybe some of the tarnish has gone off those shared values, but they could still be repurposed for a new vision of Canada as a 21st century nation, what a former Liberal prime minister, Jean Chretien, calls “the best country in the world.”
Jean Chretien (congratulations on a feisty 91st birthday, sir) has a piece of advice for Donald Trump when it comes to his imperial dream for Canadian annexation: “Give your head a shake.” [3] You, too, Mr. NYT’s Op Ed writer. Many shakes. You will get nothing more than a big thumbs down for the idea of a coming right-wing convergence with the US, a country with an entirely different political history from our’s.
But I think we might all agree that Canada now faces the need to define itself and its national interest very clearly and to understand that national security and the national interest are both at stake in this new 21stcentury. Both concepts need reinvigorating as we face unprecedented threats , including from a former ally. And there are not many widely-known definitions at play of what the national interest means, how it is at the heart of national identity, and how it intersects with national security.
In principle, the equations should be easy to grasp. The national interest is the expression of the things that matter to Canada’s national identity. National security is the effort to protect the national interest, ergo, the national identity, at home and abroad. We just haven’t spent enough time thinking deeply enough about these concepts.
When the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) undertook its major study of Canadian national security strategy in 2020-2021, we spent some time thinking about these definitions and searching the lexicon. Research took us to the only published national security strategy, issued by the Paul Martin government in April 2004. A covering letter by the PM noted that the national security strategy “fully reflects and supports key Canadian values of democracy, human rights, respect for the rule of law and pluralism.” [4]
We were also aware of a later definition of national security generated by the Privy Council Office, which read:
“protecting the safety and security of Canada’s territory, government, economy and people, and the promotion and protect of Canada’s interests.” [5]
Not finding either of these statements fully satisfactory, CIGI, in its capstone project report, came up with our own version:
“National security aims to protect Canada and its people from major threats that would undermine our democratic institutions and processes, our economy, our social fabric and values, and our interests.” [6]
Since the publication of the CIGI report, we have seen the Business Council of Canada come forward with its own landmark study, which argued that the foundation of national security is economic security and promised that the business community of Canada stands ready to work with the government to provide for the resilient, strong economy the country needs. They will be hard-pressed in the months and year to come to fulfill that promise in the face of tariff and other supply chain threats from south of the border.[7]
The Department of National Defence issued in April 2024 a new Defence policy, with a focus on defending Canada’s interests and sovereignty in the Arctic and northern regions. The Defence Minister’s forward notes that “our closest values of democracy, freedom, peace and fairness—are being challenged.” [8]
Admittedly, none of these documents provide anything like a full accounting of what Canada as a nation means. But they provide a starting point in understanding what it is about Canada that deserves protection and defence.
Canada’s sense of itself as a nation, its understanding of what is at the core of its national interest, embrace some core concepts, above all democracy, the rule of law, global engagement for trade, economic prosperity and the defence of an international order, attention to regional vulnerabilities in our own security, and maintenance of a diverse social fabric.
There will be plenty of opportunities to expand on these ideas in a federal election, which, whatever its chaotic features, will prove to be timely. All political parties should get to work to come up with their own ideas of Canada as a nation and the attendant requirements to spell out our national interest and mount a strong defence of our national security. That the federal election will force a debate on these ideas is perhaps the one silver lining in a process stemming from an internal collapse of the governing Liberals and all the threats mouthed by the incoming President and his acolytes.
The Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference will have its own opportunity to weigh in on the importance of defending democratic institutions and processes, when it issues its final report in late January. This remains true even though no one imagined that the Public Inquiry, when it was established in September 2023, would need to consider threats from the United States.
Back to that awful NYT Op Ed. Mr. Douthat suggests it will be hard for Canada to find a way to “successfully renationalize.” Not at all. If a 91-year old former Prime Minister is prepared to say that he is “ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life,” surely, all Canadians can find it in them to do the same. [9] Just watch out for the collaborators and con men as they make their treks to Mar-a-Lago. All roads in that direction lead to Canossa.
[1] Ross Douthat, “O Canada, Come Join Us,” New York Times, January 12, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/opinion/columnists/o-canada-come-join-us.html
[2] Guy Lawson, “Trudeau’s Canada, Again,” The New York Times Magazine, December 8, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/magazine/trudeaus-canada-again.html; see also Charles Foran, “The Canada Experiment: is this the world’s first ‘postnational’ country,” The Guardian, January 4, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/the-canada-experiment-is-this-the-worlds-first-postnational-country
[3] Jean Chretien, “Canadians will never give up the best country in the world,” January 11, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jean-chretien-canadian-leaders-donald-trump-plan/
[4] Privy Council Office, “Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy,” April 2004, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-77-2004E.pdf
[5] As quoted in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians annual report 2018, p. 17, https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/rp-2019-04-09/2019-04-09_annual_report_2018_public_en.pdf
[6] Aron Shull and Wesley Wark, “CIGI Special Report, “Reimagining a Canadian National Security Strategy,” December 2021, pp. 9-10, https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/NSS_Special-Report_web_eX1LDtj.pdf
[7] Business Council of Canada, “Economic Security is National Security,” September 2023,
https://www.thebusinesscouncil.ca/report/economic-security-is-national-security/
[8] Department of National Defence, “Our North, Strong and Free.” April 2024, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024.html
[9] Jean Chretien, “Canadians will never give up the best country in the world,” January 11, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-jean-chretien-canadian-leaders-donald-trump-plan/
Thanks Wesley for an outline of the major organizations that have been working on articulating our national identity and national interest. National defense must become front and centre with a new procurement model and multi/ year legislative authority. Every fighter plane cannot be a parliamentary debate. As for your definition of collaborators as those saying yes to the U.S. I thank you. I would never have dreamed of Canadians agreeing to the idea of an occupying force as the collaborators did in Vichy France. It is the right word in this bizarre case. We must never take our freedom or our sovereignty for granted.
Thanks for the thoughtful rebuttal to Ross Douthat’s New York Times piece. I love Canada, with all its ups and downs. In my opinion, Canadians would have to be out of their minds to want to join a country such as the United States with its drama, an unfair electoral system (Electoral College), corrupt Supreme Court with justices appointed for life, guns and gun violence, abortion rights, the health care system, the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down limits on campaign contributions (allowing Elon Musk and other ‘oligarchs’ to exert power), and a constitution that can be interpreted and manipulated to give presidents immunity. There are scores more reasons, but too many to list here.