ANDREW POTTER, "STEPPING OUT OF THE DOGHOUSE: IT'S TIME WE STARTED HOWLING FOR THE CANADIAN WAY," OTTAWA-CITIZEN (JANUARY 11, 2002)..

Copyright Ottawa Citizen 2002

It is starting to look as if Canada will end as it began, as an outpost of empire, returning to its origins as a loose string of northern settlements sending raw materials to more populated and civilized parts of the world.

Our federation is being pulled apart from two directions: from within, by the regionalism that is the result of intergovernmental squabbling and a 30-year federal obsession with Quebec; and from without, by NAFTA, globalization, and the demands of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Yet there has been little public debate about the country's future. In discussing the challenges Canada faces, Thomas Axworthy asks in the Literary Review of Canada: "The dog that is not barking today (is) how best to promote Canada's distinctive way of life, given the overwhelming economic, military and cultural power of the United States?"

Since Sept. 11, the dog has been cowering in the doghouse, though some have tried to coax it into the open. Michael Bliss wrote in the National Post that Sept. 11 marked the "end of Canadian nationalism." In the Toronto Star, Richard Gwynn declared that we have entered the "virtual sovereignty" phase of our existence as a nation. But while some call for a vigorous debate on how to use what flexibility we have left, Jean Chretien and his Liberals have been carrying on with business as usual. Every so often, a minister steps up to announce that new regulations will be introduced in the best interests of Canadians, while the prime minister makes vague references to "defending Canadian values."

Recently, I reread George Grant's masterpiece, Lament for a Nation. One passage caught my eye: "Our social and economic blending into the (American) empire will continue apace, but political union will probably be delayed. Some international catastrophe or great shift of power might speed up this process. Its slowness does not depend only on the fact that large numbers of Canadians do not want it, but also on sheer lethargy."

The drums of continentalism were already beating with renewed vigour before Sept. 11, and since then have only become louder. Common perimeter, customs union, dollarization, military integration. These are daily staples in our media.

Canadian continentalism is a curious thing. Its pragmatic mask of economic inevitability often hides a strong dislike or hatred of, this country. There is an illuminating contrast to be drawn between Canadian and British continentalism. In Britain, continentalism is an obsession of the political left. In the Spectator last summer, Neil Clark wrote: "It is their intense loathing of all things British which, of course, explains the liberal left's obsession with submerging the nation into a federal Europe ... It seems that only when the U.K. is broken up into regions and is a part of the United States of Europe will liberals finally be satisfied."

To Canadian eyes, these sentences are drenched in irony. Make the necessary changes in nationality and political polarity, and you have a succinct summary of today's Canadian continentalists. Here in the colonies, it is the right that finds being Canadian rather disgraceful.

In Britain, Mr. Clark (who claims to be "on the left") argues that "left and right should unite in a patriotic crusade against the liberals who rejoice in their nation's failures." I suspect his proposal for a nonpartisan patriotic crusade is as doomed there as a similar proposal would be in Canada, for reasons clearly discerned by George Grant: No matter which side of the Atlantic you are on, continentalists lose "nothing essential to the principle of their lives in losing their country."

The loss of their country is a prospect that has been welcomed by many prominent Canadians over the years, from Goldwin Smith to Lord Black of Crossharbour. For these people, Canada's birth was an embarrassing accident of history, its continued existence a streak of illegitimacy in the rightfully unified English-speaking world.

Canadians weren't always so reluctant to call this sort of continentalism what it is. In his fight to prevent Sir Hugh Allan from becoming president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Senator David Macpherson called Allan's attempt to sell out to American interests "one of the most unpatriotic conspiracies ever entered into in this Dominion ... an audacious, insolent, unpatriotic and gigantic swindle." For the next century, it was common wisdom that free trade (the economic arm of continentalism) would severely weaken or destroy Canada as an independent country. Wilfrid Laurier was branded a traitor for reviving the platform of reciprocity, and there the matter stood until the 1980s.

While in Opposition, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien denounced free trade as a step too far into the American orbit, yet Mr. Chretien is pursuing an agenda that is so continentalist he makes Mr. Mulroney look like John Diefenbaker.

Our leaders justify this with the argument that free trade is good for Canadian business, and what is good for Canadian business is good for Canada. But "Canadian business" is not the same as "business in Canada," as demonstrated by the fact that the country is being bought up by American interests. Not everyone sees this as a problem, as Mr. Axworthy reminds us when he repeats an exchange between Mel Hurtig and McGill economist and former Citizen editorial page editor William Watson. (Mr. Hurtig: "How much of Canada do we want to sell?" Mr. Watson: "All of it.")

Mr. Grant observed that "no small country can depend for its existence on the loyalty of its capitalists. International interests may require the sacrifice of the lesser loyalty of patriotism." Mr. Axworthy sees this, and suggests that to survive, we must surpass the Americans in economic performance. He offers Canadians a choice: Become a more attractive business environment than anywhere else, or effectively perish as a nation. His proposal -- that we "make Canada the best platform in the world from which to launch a global business" -- is stirring in its way, but one wonders if being the best would be good enough. The Economist recently named Canada the fourth-best place in the world to do business, behind Britain and the United States, with the Netherlands leading the way. Yet I doubt anyone is worried about a brain-drain or capital flight from New York to Amsterdam. And no matter how low we drop our taxes, Toronto will never be New York, and Vancouver will never be Los Angeles.

Not everyone is willing to throw in the towel, although many are willing to give up quite a bit. The Conference Board of Canada argues that since increasing continental integration will only further restrict Canada's options in areas such as defence and immigration, we should be focusing on maintaining "the Canadian Way" in our domestic policy. Others, such as Edward Greenspon of the Globe and Mail, abandon any pretense at sovereignty, foreseeing Canada as a cultural, but not really political, entity. But everyone admits that the continentalist train shows no signs of slowing, and many Canadians don't seem concerned.And that, in the end, may be it: Our complacency might just be apathy.

A while ago, Mr. Chretien advised Canadians not to be afraid to be "citizens of the world." But this is disingenuous. Continentalism is not about Canadians striding confidently onto the world stage, well-clad in the secure togs of citizenship and nationality. Continentalism is not about the proliferation of global voices, but their elimination. It is about tucking annoying "socialist" Canada under the military, economic and cultural wing of the United States, so there is one less voice for Americans to worry about as they set about enforcing Pax Americana.

Canadians are not afraid to be citizens of the world. We welcome the mutual edification and enrichment that the global stage provides. Yet as the country is drawn ever tighter into the American orbit, those who raise a feeble voice of protest are mocked and berated by our business and political leaders, egged on by certain segments of the media. Perhaps it is true, as Michael Bliss claims, that the only question about the fate of Canadians has been what sort of Americans we would become. It would explain a lot of what is going on under the Chretien Liberals.

In the closing pages of Lament for a Nation, Mr. Grant wrote: "Fate leads the willing, and drives the unwilling. The debt that we owe the Liberals is that they have been so willing to be led. The party has been made up of those who put only one condition on their willingness: that they should have personal charge of the government while our sovereignty disappears."

For all of Mr. Chretien's "Canada is No. 1" rhetoric, he seems determined to go down in history as not just the worst elected prime minister the country has ever seen, but the last.

If we have the courage, there is opportunity for Canada to find its own way, to keep its rightful place as one of the world's great countries. But we need leadership, someone willing to speak to Canadians and for Canada, not just for various Canadian interests. Which makes the intellectual and moral cowardice on Parliament Hill all the more astonishing: A prime minister who has boasted of having no vision refuses to step aside at the moment when the country desperately needs someone with one. Come out of the doghouse Canada. Let us hear you howl.

Andrew Potter is assistant professor of philosophy at Trent University.