Canadian History & Politics 101: A primer for American Pundits and YouTubers

Over the past month, various US based commentators have talked more about Canada than in the preceding 5 years (including the hot takes concerning the freedom convoy that was parked in front of Parliament Hill). I suppose it is very Canadian of me to seek out these commentaries, as it must be some national personality to get excited when others make you the topic of conversation.

My problem is that the excitement lasts as long as it takes for YouTube to interrupt these hot takes with an ad for crypto or a pill for abdominal bloating. For me, it feels a lot like the Gell-Mann effect – the phenomenon identified by author Michael Crichton whereby you read news articles about unfamiliar places and take them as gospel, only to come across one where you have quasi-expert knowledge and think the article is BS. Then you have that crisis of confidence where you say to yourself “if this one is BS, what about all the others I took at face value?” My first taste of Gell-Mann occurred when in my youth I attended a convention and participated in a delegated vote, only to read a take from the Queen’s Park columnist for the Globe and Mail at the time (Orland French) that suggested he did his research from the hotel lobby bar.

For this immediate issue – that of Canadian political turmoil, which is a corollary to both the threat of 25% tariffs from the US as well as the comments about becoming the 51^st state – the result has been a dogpiling of “analysis” that has as much cringe as it does merit.

For example, one well-known US based geostrategist decided to do a video on the situation that purported to give his global audience a deeper understanding of events here. He talked about the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister / Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, and suggested that this was a major blow to Justin Trudeau. So far, so good. But then, he had to talk about how Freeland was “one of the smartest people in Canada.” Here, we start to enter into some tricky territory. Of course, he had to say that because it was a not-so-subtle segue into a humble brag of “but I debated her a couple of times and beat her,” thereby placing himself above the “smartest person in Canada.” But, as in the Olympics, when you try to land a quad in competition, you run the risk of falling on your ass. And that happened every time he called her “Christina.” To his credit, he avoided the technical error that 75% of the folks on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the Daily Wire, and dozens of other news comment organs make when it comes to the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, by simply calling him “the Conservative leader,” rather than a dozen different variants ranging from “Poliver” to “Poleever.” To a person from West Virginia or Nebraska who spends 0.00001% of their time thinking about Canada, butchering the former Deputy Prime Minister’s first name or the last name of the potential next Prime Minister wouldn’t register, but for us on this side of the 49^th parallel, it takes our heads out of the game. It’s like seeing a meme you desperately want to retweet on X, but the glaring spelling mistake prevents you from doing it.

Of course, this cuts both ways. I’ve seen Canadians try to give their hot takes on US politics and it can be no less gruesome. Years ago, I had a PC based video game called “The Political Machine” and my son was playing it. The objective was to run for President and win the election by campaigning across America. You could stop in any state, make media buys, give speeches, etc. He got frustrated because he couldn’t beat it. I told him to focus all of his resources on getting endorsements from powerful lobbies and support in states with 15 electoral votes or more, and do strategic media buys elsewhere. After a while, he began to win the game.

But even with that knowledge, I sure as hell wouldn’t stick my neck out to explain US politics – especially if I knew Americans would be watching!

So, for my non-Canadian friends attempting to decipher events here, some stuff to help.

1. Canadian politics is literally alternative history for Americans

Every young American is taught about the founding of their country as a victory of freedom and liberty over tyranny. It was the colonists versus the British, and in this Manichean struggle, right defeated might. The end.

But imagine an alternative reality – one where there was no revolution, where the grievances were not settled on a battlefield, but through legal channels and over a period of time. Indeed, in the early part of the American Revolution, even people like Benjamin Franklin favoured this approach. But once blood was shed, that option was lost. But, again, assume it wasn’t. What would the US look like today?

Well, it would likely still be a monarchy, with a Westminster style Parliamentary system of government, and it’s full autonomy in both domestic and international affairs from Britain would have evolved through years of capacity building in the colonies and a maturation of the nation as a whole.

In other words, this alternative history of the US would look a helluva lot like…Canada.

For practical purposes, Canada was founded by three particular groups – Indigenous nations, the French-speaking Quebecois, and the English-speaking Loyalists. And, for all the differences each has with each other, the one thing they could agree on was “not being American.”

Indigenous peoples were not always aligned with the British, although some were and paid a heavy price. The Mohawks in New York state comprise a significant number of the Loyalists who also found new post-revolution homes in Canada. But for many of them, the British represented at the very least a tacit recognition of treaties and territories, while the US represented a flood of homesteaders grabbing the land by the acre to call their own. For many of the Indigenous leaders, it was the lesser of two evils.

The same can be said for the Quebecois. After the conquest in the aftermath of the Plains of Abraham, certain guarantees were given to the inhabitants of Quebec – the protection of the French language, the Catholic faith, the French civil code for non-criminal matters, and the seigneury land holding system. The Quebec Act of 1774 would codify the arrangement. For the people of Quebec, it was business as usual – with the exception of loyalty to the British crown. For the British, it solved the issue of maintaining control of a colony where the locals vastly outnumbered any compliment of soldiers London could send. But this arrangement did not satisfy a lot of people in the Thirteen Colonies. The previously mentioned Ben Franklin, among others, were quite outspoken about the fact that as the victors of the French and Indian Wars, that English colonists had a right to expect two things – no accommodation of either the French or the Indians, and the opportunity to start settling lands that London had declared out of bounds. And while there was no internet or social media in the late 1700’s, it wasn’t hard for ‘les Habitants’ to find out what the folks to their south thought of them and the arrangements with Britain.

The year after the Quebec Act, a force of 1200 led by American General Richard Montgomery attacked Quebec, culminating in the Battle of Quebec (City). The result would be an American loss with the death of Gen. Montgomery, the wounding of Gen. Benedict Arnold (pre-defection) and the surrender of Gen. Daniel Morgan. Montgomery’s superior, Major General Philip Schuyler, had issued a proclamation early in the invasion that addressed Canadians as "Friends and Countrymen", asking them to throw off the yoke of British tyranny.

The problem is that this high-minded appeal was coming from the same folks who had been printing those pamphlets about how those land-owning French Catholics should be less French, less Catholic and, well, less land-owning. One really does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how well this pitch was going to be received.

And yet, within 30 years, that same approach would be used when American troops crossed into Upper Canada (Ontario) during the War of 1812. Brigadier General William Hull had issued his own proclamation, which said in part “I come to find enemies not to make them, I come to protect not to injure you…You will be emancipated from Tyranny and oppression…restored to the dignified station of freemen.”

Now, consider who this sales pitch in 1812 was being made to – the children and grandchildren of Loyalists, or ‘Tories.’ These would have been people who would have otherwise grown up in places like Hebron, Connecticut or Westerly, Rhode Island (like my own ancestors) if it had not been for the fact that their family maintained loyalty to the Crown. That decision often led to the local Sons of Liberty chapter coming to their house in the dark of night - muskets, pitchforks and torches at the ready – to politely suggest that maybe they may want to pack up their belongings, load them in their ox cart and get the hell out if they valued their health and safety. Those who stood their ground might see their lovely home become a bonfire, or suffer some broken bones, or a good old-fashioned tar and feathering. And leave they did, to settle in Canada, to start over again. And when I say, ‘start over,’ I mean build homes, farms, roads, schools, churches and general stores from scratch. But over time, they did just that.

So, imagine the grandchildren of the people who beat up your granddad, terrorized your granny and burned their house to the ground are now showing up in your village with guns and cannon, offering “liberty and freedom” while trashing your neighbour’s house and looting the family silver.

Geez – search me why they didn’t get on board.

Did the White House get burned in that war? Well, yes, but guess what else got burned before that? The Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada in Toronto, and the home of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province over a year before the events at Washington. The ceremonial mace of the Legislature wasn’t returned until Franklin Roosevelt gifted it back in 1934. And the flag that flew over the building? Well, that’s still in the collection at the Naval War College at Annapolis.

And I’ll let you in on something else – one of the big movers of the creation of Canada in 1867 was in response to noise in Washington about annexation. Colonial leaders like our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald reasoned that if all the colonies of British North America formed a federation, we’d be harder to take over - as opposed to being swallowed up one by one.

I understand that in the American perspective, this might seem to be a hostile recounting of history, but if you think that the Canadian identity has a tinge of anti-Americanism, you really need to know where it came from. It wasn’t because some boorish tourist behaved like a jerk in a restaurant or flipped off a cop or crapped on the quality of Tim Horton’s coffee (because we do that ourselves).

Like it, don’t like it – it’s immaterial. And this is not to crap on the Revolution. The US is a great country, and has been a good friend and ally to Canada for about 200 years, but if you don’t have a full appreciation of the more difficult and problematic aspects of our shared history, you will have problems decoding our country and our people. And you will have an even more difficult time wondering why nearly 90% of the Canadian population is not buying what Trump is selling (or vice versa as the case may be).

2. Canadian vs. American politics

I am not going to waste a lot of time getting into the intricacies of Canadian political structures, but I am going to translate them to what they would look like in Washington.

Imagine the following:

1. The President of the United States becomes a largely ceremonial figure, who signs bills into law, cuts ribbons, supports charitable causes and acts more as a figure of comfort and support, remaining above the partisan fray. He still gets to read out the State of the Union, but it’s written for him by the real head of government (see #2);

2. Your federal government is anchored in the House of Representatives, and the party that commands the largest number of seats forms the government. The Speaker of the House sticks to just overseeing debate on the House floor, so the power rests with the person who would now hold the job of ‘House Majority Leader.’ So, congratulations, Prime Minister Steve Scalise, and better luck next time Opposition Leader Hakeem Jeffries!

3. Cabinet positions? Technically, no change, but…99.9% of appointees come from either the House or the Senate, so every government department is going to be run by either a Representative or a Senator – from Prime Minister Scalise’s party of course.

4. Power depends upon having control of 50% of the votes in the House. Less than 50% and you’ll have to gain votes from another party (like if the Libertarians, Greens or some Perot/Buchanan inspired Reform Party took a couple of districts). If Prime Minister Scalise loses a vote on either the State of the Union or the budget, because Jeffries got those smaller parties to join his Democrats, then Congress is dismissed and a new election is held.

5. Scalise could delay the inevitable by asking Trump to allow a proroguing (a temporary suspension of the House and Senate) but that only works until the government runs out of money and needs to reconvene to pass a funding bill (which, ironically, is what already ‘sort of’ happens with the whole debt ceiling thing). But…when Congress comes back, you have to have a brand new State of the Union and a new budget – both of which can trigger than non-confidence/federal election scenario you thought you were being so clever to avoid by proroguing.

6. No Senate elections. Prime Minister Scalise is free to recommend to President Trump who he wants to fill the vacancy in New York or Wyoming – which comes about when someone resigns, dies, or turns 75. And if a new election (in 4 years, not 2) brings a shift in power, Prime Minister Jeffries is free to give President Trump the names of good Democrats to fill those seats – names that a now politically neutral Trump cannot reject.

7. States have more rights, and there’s no Marbury v. Madison precedent to compel interstate commerce

8. And for the bonus round, imagine the US Constitution having a clause that states that the federal government and/or an individual state can – if they so choose – to essentially ignore a Supreme Court verdict, provided the law they pass is renewed every 5 years. That means some states could have ignored Roe v. Wade before it was overturned, while others could choose to ignore Dobbs today.

This is not a better than/worse than comparison. Countries evolve their political structures to fit their own circumstances. In truth, Canadian rules don’t work well in Washington, and American rules don’t work in Ottawa. To conflate the two is the equivalent of accidently filling your gasoline powered car with diesel (and vice versa).

The problem between the chattering class in both Canada and the US is that we presume to know each other better than we actually do. The best illustration of this would be in a world where metric didn’t exist and if a Canadian and an American both asked to buy a gallon of gas. Canadians would use an ‘Imperial gallon’, which is 160 fluid ounces, but Americans would use a US gallon, which is only 128 fluid ounces. Now, if I told you that this gallon was 20% more expensive in Canada than the US without you taking into account it was 20% bigger, you’d take to Twitter and Facebook, screaming about how Canadians are getting ripped off and that Americans are so much better off.

The uniqueness of Canadian history, and the evolution of our Westminster Parliamentary system are the secret sauce that makes us different from the United States, and for this Canadian I can judge commentary from the US on our politics, our reception to being ‘taken over’, and rating Trudeau vs Poilievre (BTW, it’s pronounced Paul-E-ev) based on how well it acknowledges much of what I’ve just written.

All I can say is that quite a few friends to the south need to study up before seizing the microphone and waxing philosophical on the state of play on the other side of the 49th.