Canadian Nationalism Rings Hollow For Me

The U.S. takes moonshots while Canadians sit on their hands. Here are six ways to change that.

As a dual citizen, I feel very close to both Canada and the U.S., and I would like to see both succeed. Unfortunately, Canada has been falling behind the U.S. for quite a while now, and, truth hits everybody eventually. I don’t know how long it will take for others, so I’m writing this post in the hope I can accelerate the awareness. Because it sure seems like most Canadians are terribly oblivious to the truth. But I’m being quite vague. What do I mean by ‘the truth’?

Canada is, well, the word I’ve been thinking about all day is, cringe. I know it’s a very inexact term, but I can’t get it out of my head. Why do I find Canada cringe right now? Because while Californians and Floridians go on with their lives, all of Canada has obsessively been talking about a Hockey game. If you don’t know, there’s this tournament called the 4 Nations Face-Off, which includes Canada, the U.S., and Finland and Sweden. The tournament's final game was against the United States, and in overtime, Canada squeaked out a victory 3-2. The Canadian side of my family is all obsessed with the game. None of them had ever been Hockey fans, but they felt compelled to watch it eagerly and text maple leaves and exclamation marks and “So happy for Canada! Redemption!” texts, and then there’s whatever manufactured in a lab jingoism this Instagram post from Trudeau was.

Sportsnet, Canada’s ESPN, with a revenue of around 150 million dollars a year (around 3% of ESPN's 8 billion) said this about the game:

Throughout the tournament, Cooper (the coach) urged his players to “play the right way, the Canadian way,” and that’s what they did.

“They did all the right things,” Cooper said after taking a sip of what he referred to as his “Canadian-made” beverage. “For this group of players and the talent level they have, for them to do what they did away from the puck, that’s the Canadian way. That’s walking into a restaurant and opening the door for somebody to walk in first. That’s the Canadian way, and I couldn’t be more proud.”

So yes, I find that when the lamest of duck leaders tries to salvage some kind of popularity by employing a very forced form of patriotism, saying unironically, “You can’t take our country — and you can’t take our game,” I cringe. When I walk into a coffee shop and the barista asks me if I watched the game, and two old women proudly declare: “Oh yeah, that showed the Americans they can’t bully us!” And the barista replies: “Oh did you hear how that little girl changed the national anthem? (she sang "that only us command" instead of "in all of us command") What a smart girl she is!”. Yes, I cringe.

The in-your-face comparative mediocrity of Canada is politely swept aside in exchange for a hollow, ‘symbolic’ hockey game victory. You might think I’m just doing my best Freddie DeBoer impression, trying to rain on people’s parades. But like Freddie, I have good reason! I love celebration, but not when the thing being celebrated is some competitive event that didn’t even register internationally, let alone in most of the rival country. And more importantly, it’s completely disconnected from Canada’s obvious problems, which are, to put it most generally, that it lacks economic and cultural dynamism. Brilliant people like Canadian-Israeli computer scientist Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder of OpenAI, don’t stay up north, they work in Silicon Valley.

Where are the Canadian firms? Don’t think I’m giving you a pass either, Europe.

My relatives and the whole of Canada seem to think that they’ve defeated the U.S. in some high-stakes geopolitical showdown. The country clings to this small victory because, to be honest, it knows it doesn’t have too much of anything else. The fact that most of America is completely unaware of this event makes it even more embarrassing. I know for a fact that none of my friends in California have any idea what any of this is or is about. And that goes for the rest of America too. Sure, maybe people in Maine care, but Maine is irrelevant culturally and economically. It follows that they would be concerned with irrelevant things too.

If Ontario were to become a U.S. state, it would be the fifth poorest. Quebec would be 2nd, only before Mississippi.

So yes I cringe, because the U.S. is on the cutting edge of AI, space technology, and biotechnology. Its political ideologies are massively influential and its elections are studiously and excitedly watched by the global middle and upper classes. Its music industry is and has been exceptionally dominant worldwide for almost a century, while others like the UK have fallen off a cliff. From Elvis to Hendrix to Jackson to Beyonce and currently Taylor Swift and Kendrick, the tradition of American musical supremacy doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. (Frank Ocean has reached China!) Its economy is the envy of the world, and it has the most overpowered comparative advantage of attracting the most crazy, ambitious individuals from every country. What other country could attract and produce someone like Peter Thiel? Its social media apps are massively popular, its film industry is massively popular, I could go on. It’s hard to put into words just how magically successful and interesting the U.S. is, both technologically and culturally.

So, while the U.S. is leaving Canada far behind, Canada is, what? Patting itself on the back for opening doors for strangers?

Okay, that’s an entertaining rant from a 21-year-old who doesn’t appreciate Canada’s healthcare or calm (I would use the word boring) culture, and maybe my mind will change when I’m 70. But I refuse to sit quietly back while Canada becomes the country for the risk-averse elderly and socialist millennials. Canada can do better, from my perspective. But what are you going to do about it? Says the reader. Canada has a tiny population, and it’s way too Rawlsian to ever embrace the U.S.’s high-risk innovative culture that makes it so successful.

Well, here are 6 quick and a bit crazy ideas. If you’re a bit scared by them, don’t worry, the final paragraph explains how I’m more practical than you might think, I only have one foot in fairly land.

1. The U.S. is in talks to sign a “mineral deal” with Ukraine.

   “The Deal calls for Ukraine to relinquish Half of its Revenues from Natural Resources, including Minerals, Gas and Oil, as well as Earnings from Ports and other Infrastructure, without any kind of U.S. Defense or Security Guarantees. The Revenue from Ukraine’s Natural Resources will be directed to a Fund in which the U.S. holds 100% Financial Interest, and that Ukraine should contribute to until it reaches $500 Billion; while stating that for any additional Military Assistance provided by the United States, Ukraine will be required to contribute to the Fund a sum equal to twice the amount provided to Ukraine. As stated previously, the Deal does not contain any Security or Defensive Guarantees by the United States to Ukraine, but does state that the U.S. intends to provide a “Long-Term Financial Commitment to help Ukraine develop Economically.”

   Is this a one-time deal, or a sign of a return to lend-lease-style diplomacy? probably the latter. From a recent Marginal Revolution post

   The President of Congo just offered the United States ownership of his country’s minerals to entice President Trump to put an end to the war backed by Rwanda. Congo holds more than half the world’s Cobalt and Colton. They also have substantial deposits of Gold, Copper, Tin, Lithium, etc. China currently has a considerable influence in Congo’s mineral sector, and before them, it was the Europeans.

   As Tyler Cowen notes, equilibria will be solved for. What does that mean for Canada? Well, why couldn’t Canada do something similar? Imagine Canada offering exclusive revenue-sharing agreements on its vast natural resources, like critical minerals, timber, or fresh water, to tech giants or even entire nations looking to secure supply chains. Vice versa, Canada could get in talks to own resource rights for other undeveloped countries. Canada could outbid global competitors for mineral rights in countries like Bolivia (lithium), the Democratic Republic of Congo (cobalt), or Brazil (rare earth elements). Don’t act like this isn’t possible. The U.S. is already doing it, China has been doing a form of it for a decade. Again, equilibria will be solved for, with or without Canada. If Canada doesn’t take bold, strategic actions, like securing valuable assets abroad, or attracting elite human capital, other countries will.

2. Speaking of attracting immigrants. In the world of pharmaceuticals, there are what are called mutual recognition agreements" (MRAs). These agreements allow a country to fast-track the approval of drugs if they've already been approved by trusted regulatory bodies abroad, essentially outsourcing the vetting process to avoid unnecessary delays. If it’s good for French people, it’s good for us. I love this policy, and the same thinking should be applied to immigration.

   Canada should open its borders completely to the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., and Russia. All of these countries have value systems close enough to ours, and comparable human capital. Personally, I know economies need janitors just as much as professors, but it’s a harder sell to open up immigration to less advanced economies, so we will stick with this for now. In sum this would offer automatic residency or fast-tracked citizenship to people from countries with comparable legal systems, education standards, and cultural alignment. Again, equilibria will be solved for! There are many high productivity souls who desire to move to Canada and the U.S., if Canada wants to compete with Silicon Valley, Canada will need to shed as much restrictions as it can to make up for its comparative disadvantages.

3. Adding on to this, I want Canada to institute a grant policy modeled after the Thiel Fellowship. Imagine a Canadian Thiel Fellowship, but backed by a newly created federal agency, that offers $300,000 grants to young visionaries who demonstrate exceptional entrepreneurial talent, contrarian thinking, and a bias toward building over credentialing. Instead of funding startups through rigid grants or academic institutions, this program would seek out individuals under 25 who embody the qualities that Peter Thiel prizes: a readiness to drop out (or never enroll) in traditional education, and a bold, even reckless ambition to disrupt global industries. The selection process could involve a mix of nomination-based scouting (think talent agents for genius) and open applications, with judges drawn from the world of venture capital, tech, and science. The idea is to make Canada the go-to destination for misfit prodigies. This might sound radical, but if Peter Thiel is doing it, why can’t the federal government? Again, we need elite human capital, Silicon Valley isn’t going to magically appear without it.

4. You’ve heard of Prospera, the charter city in Honduras that’s currently floundering because the (new) socialist government is striking it down as unconstitutional. Very sad. Canada can do better. Imagine a charter city on the western edge of British Columbia, nestled strategically close to the bustling trade routes of the Pacific Northwest. This city, let’s call it “Cascadia,” would operate under a special governance model, prioritizing low taxes, business-friendly regulations, and a streamlined legal system designed to attract top-tier talent and capital from around the world. But it’s cold you say! Part of Prospera’s appeal is the climate, even if you created the most business-friendly environment in North America, could you attract that much talent? Here’s an idea I had while I was studying for a mid-term: Cascadia would be encased in a massive glass dome, stretching from one mountain peak to the next, utilizing advanced climate-control technology to maintain a perpetual Los Angeles-like climate, even in the dead of winter. You may think this is crazy. Physically, it’s not. If Saudi Arabia announced they were building this, you wouldn’t jump out of your seat, you would probably roll your eyes at its predictability! What makes this seem impossible is not the cost or the engineering difficulties, but the political pressure against it. And why does it exist? Because Canada is unambitious and risk-averse! These things can be changed, physical impossibilities can not. That’s why I have included it. If Saudi Arabia can build extraordinary structures, why can’t we? The more you think about it, the dumber it becomes that we aren’t already doing this.

   

   AI-generated version of my daydream, somewhat accurate

   Picture year-round outdoor dining, palm-lined streets, and a quality of life that feels more like California than Canada, all while having the most libertarian housing regulation, zero corporate taxes, and minor labour regulations. If it’s a success, they could be built all over the country!

5. The Caribbean Gambit: What if Canada annexed the Turks and Caicos? There's historical precedent here. In the 1970s and early 2000s, discussions were held about the Turks and Caicos Islands joining Canada. Many Canadians vacation there, and the islands could benefit from Canada’s institutions, heightened infrastructure investment, and disaster relief support. It would give Canada access to a thriving offshore financial hub, lucrative tourism, and natural resources like oil, gas, and fisheries that remain largely untapped. This would position Canada as adventurous and forward-thinking, and is actually highly possible due to the historical precedent.

6. Frontier mindset: Canada once had a wild west like the U.S. Let’s bring it back. Canada should establish a nationally owned space company that receives robust government support, almost all of which would go to R&D of course. This entity would pursue ambitious projects like asteroid mining, orbital manufacturing, and terraforming technology, and possibly even lunar and martian exploration. Rather than a stagnant bureaucracy, this nationally owned company would adopt a venture capital approach, investing in bold, contrarian ideas and partnering with private innovators. Imagine Montreal engineers developing low-cost reusable rockets alongside SpaceX and Blue Origin. I also think there’s a nationalist angle you can easily spin on this, whereby the government could align national pride with technological ambition and space exploration. Would it not be enticing to get back to the Moon before the Americans?

Okay, if you’re this far into the article you probably think I’ve gone mad. "None of this is even remotely possible, you say. Maybe. But think like an economist. I won’t see Canada as a failed state if it doesn’t achieve these goals. Not only do I not see it as likely they achieve them, it’s not necessary. This is just what I want to aim for. These are the moonshots. If Canada moves marginally in my direction, you might see things like more government support for Canadian mining investments in minerals abroad, or maybe even a fast-track visa program for the Anglo-sphere, or a more pro-market approach to zoning and aerospace regulation. These represent incremental improvements, movement towards my marvellous future, and away from the status quo. Small changes like these, compounded over time, aren’t going to cause a sea change in Canada’s position in the world, but they would represent a marginal revolution. And that would make me very happy indeed.