[1] North America's era of limitless integration draws to a welcomeclose
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080603.wcomartin03/BNStory/specialComment/home
LAWRENCE MARTIN
June 3, 2008 at 7:57 AM EDT
Michael Ignatieff's enthusiasm for a trans-Canada energy corridor will run up against opposition from those, with visions small, who still see Canada as a kind of American substate.
In some quarters of this country, a quasi-colonial mindset abides, embraced most stubbornly by our older elites. But they would do well to move beyond their dated continentalist urges. Frank Sinatra passed away some time ago. There's a new orchard out there. The American century is over.
For most of that century, Canada did well by, and pretty much defined itself in terms of, the United States. But the new reality is that the country doesn't need the neighbour as much as it used to. The era of wholesale dependency, of endless integration is over, leaving public policy to catch up to the new times.
Our exports to the U.S. never stopped rising during the course of the last century. They are now declining. They dropped 5 per cent in the first three months of this year.
The border? Remember John Turner's warning in 1988 about how it would disappear - the election-campaign erasure ad? The opposite is occurring.
It's getting thicker and higher. Rather than free-trade agreements leading to further forms of integration, we now have the opposite - American political leaders talking about trashing NAFTA. America remains a powerful engine. Never underestimate its resilience.
But it no longer has the global courtyard to itself. Other giants are emerging and that means major alternative markets for Canada that were not there before.
As British power waned early in the last century, Canada moved away from reliance on Britain. As U.S. power wanes early in this century -though it will in no way approximate the British fall - a similar, though more modest, trend could well unfold here.
Economically, though we may not be the energy superpower our Prime Minister suggests, our relative resource riches give us a stronger, more independent status. With oil and gas and water in such demand, Ottawa has leverage vis-à-vis Washington that wasn't there before.
You want to send off alarm bells south of the border? Mention giving China a stake in our oil. Peter Lougheed, as recounted in William Marsden's compelling book, Stupid to the Last Drop, did just that in the company of a member of the U.S. cabinet. "I will never forget,"
Mr. Lougheed recalls, "the dropped glass by the American secretary."
Militarily, Canada doesn't need the U.S. protective umbrella to the extent it did in the past. Terrorism is a different kind of threat. It isn't about big standing armies, warships and nation-stateconfrontation. There are no bristling Germanys or Soviet Unions bent on hegemony. To be sure, enemy-obsessed Washington has found, in Iran, a new demon. But Iran has no sizable air force or navy, no nukes, bombers or long-range missiles. If pressed, it could take out a state the size of Denmark.
For a long time, Canada's colonial heritage fed its dependency mentality. But the country is older, more populated, more confident. It has come of age, as the cliché has it, and with maturity, the sense of self-doubt and subordination has diminished. Our younger generations are more outward-looking. They do not wish to be limited to fortress North America.
It isn't as if Ottawa has been pushing hard to move away from the American orbit. Governments have been slow to develop markets with India, China, Brazil. We've allowed our major companies and enterprises to be bought up. We do not even look after our own energy security - hence Mr. Ignatieff's idea. But if not by our own doing, then the natural run of history is loosening the bonds. The United States is no longer, if it ever was, a model for this country.
Canadians have looked on in consternation at the direction of the Bush administration and responded: No, thank you. The direction could very well change should the Republicans get blown out of office this fall. A new president could undo much of the damage, end the squeeze of paranoid nationalism, restore faith in the American values Canadians used to admire. But even if that were to happen - and just one terrorist incident would shatter any such hopes - there's little likelihood that the old order would return. The world has evolved, as has Canada, in a way that makes the United States less dominant. On this continent, old-styled bilateralism has seen its heyday. The dynamic is changing too much for it to sustain itself.
<><><><>
[2]Ignatieff has a vision: a trans-Canada energy highway
ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080602.COMARTIN02/TP Story/?query=Mic
LAWRENCE MARTIN lmartin@globeandmail.com
Excerpt:
He [Ignatieff] calls the notion that we're a big net exporter of oil in the West and a big net importer in the East "weird." He says it's weird, too, that with foreign supply channels so potentially unstable, there is no talk in Ottawa of creating a national petroleum reserve. He has questions as well about the NAFTA lock-in clause that guarantees levels of U.S. supply from Canada.
Omar Alghabra, the Liberal energy critic, says his colleague is on the right track. It's too gigantic an issue for Canada to just leave to the market, he says. "We have to reduce barriers that prevent Canadian oil from being used by Canadians. We need a national energy strategy."
Stumble It!