News

Can this friendship be fixed? Should it be?

You can read his answers at the bottom of this article.

Mr. Ibbitson has lived numerous writing lives, including those of playwright, novelist and journalist.

In 1988, he graduated from the University of Western Ontario with a masters degree in journalism, and joined the Ottawa Citizen as a rather aged cub reporter. He worked as a reporter, columnist and Queen's Park correspondent for Southam papers until 1999, when he joined the Globe and Mail as Queen's Park columnist, subsequently serving as the paper's Washington Bureau Chief and, since August 2002, as political affairs columnist, based in Ottawa. Outside journalism, his recent writing has focused on political analysis, with Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution (Prentice Hall, 1997) and Loyal No More: Ontario's Struggle for a Separate Destiny (HarperCollins, 2001).

The Canada-U.S. relations question is just one part of The Globe's VoteSmart series. Unlike former prime minister Kim Campbell, The Globe believes an election campaign is the right time to debate serious national issues. Our campaign-long VoteSmart series allows you to read about the issue, see a debate on it by two experts and then join the conversation on it.

This week's full package can be found here: VoteSmart: Canada-U.S. relations

Editor's Note: The same rules applied to this live discussion as normally apply to the "reader comment" feature. Globeandmail.com editors read and approved each comment/question. Not all comments/questions were answered. Comments/questions were checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors were not corrected and comments that included vulgar language or libelous content were rejected.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Good morning and thanks to Mr. Ibbitson for taking the time to answer questions today. Mr. Ibbitson will be on-line until approximately noon EST.

James R. from Niagara Falls, Ont.: Maybe all this bad "press" about U.S. politics and social agendas is a result of bad U.S. administrations? I refuse to speak nicely about something I disagree with. The best I could do is to not speak at all about it. But, if I'm asked, then my honest opinion should be known. If the U.S. does not like my opinion, maybe they might want to discuss why that is rather than try to strong-arm us into giving them what they want. GW surrounds himself with so many sycophants that any dissenting opinion will have to stand out more and only serve to embarrass a man who is full of moxey and pride. Most of this planet dislikes GW. Most of this planet dislikes his ideologies and choices. There has to be something about that many people disliking so much policy. Instead of compromise, GW will try enforcement or out-and-out ignorance and proceed with his agenda with or without global support. That is a recipe for disaster, and it is one that I am all too happy to oppose until I see legitimate desire for peace or compromise -- two words foreign to the US administration right now.

John Ibbitson: I agree to this extent: The current U.S. administration -- in its determination to pursue an agenda that assumes American interests are global interests, and in its unwillingness to work with traditional allies -- has damaged the fabric of international relations. That said, Britain and Australia have had greater success in tempering American excesses by working with them, than Canada (or France or Germany) have had by simply standing aside and criticizing.

J. Boland, Fairfax, Va.: Friendship is an interesting thing. It does not require lockstep conduct or thought, but it does over time require a mutual respect and a set of substantially shared values. It also can be of varying intensity. Historically over the last century or so, the friendship level of Canada and the U.S. has been very high, certainly in comparison to relationships of other nations to either or to others. In the last 20 years, however, that relationship has been eroding. There seems to be a growing antithesis of values, at the media level at least. Oddly, from a U.S. perspective, the Canadian cultural elite in this period have taken on an attitude that seems to delight in U.S. difficulties, to glory in U.S. criticism, and to affirm and honor non-democratic dictatorial regimes that themselves take glee in poking fingers in the American eye. The current take on Canadian "values" from the elites seems to have de-emphasized historical western values in favor of the mish-mash of cultural relativism and deconstructionism, where in theory a Hitler cannot really be criticized at all but in practice a George Bush can be vilified 'til the cows come home. Friends can disagree civilly. Friends do not assume bad faith in the other. Friends are loyal to the historical friendship even when the other may be wrong on an issue. Friends do not glory in the troubles of the other. Friendship is a choice. Choices have consequences.

The Globe is doing a good public service in this effort at debate. Question for Mr. Ibbitson: There are few things that grate more than to have to endure a self-righteous pontificator whining in the corner. Patience has a limit. In your opinion, has a point of no return in the relationship already occurred?

John Ibbitson: Historical memory is, indeed, fleeting. Relations were much tenser in the late 1960s, when Canada not only criticized the war in Vietnam but took in thousands of draft dodgers. I think there is an ebb and flow, and that Canda bears some of the responsibility, but that the Bush administration does as well. The Hitler comment is, of course, wildly gratuitous. Our country fought the Nazis for more than two years before the Americans joined the fray, and then only because they were forced into it.

C. Hollingsworth: I know a couple of years ago we had Liberal politicians referring to Americans as bastards and Bush as a moron, but that was before Martin became PM. From what I've read in the papers, Martin, if anything, has been telling the truth when he states the U.S. has been irresponsible with its handling of environmental issues and not doing their part when they ignore WTO and NAFTA rulings regarding unfair tariffs on Canadian lumber exports. Quite on the contrary, as opposed to Canadian politicians, I've heard nothing but taunting rhetoric as of late from well-known figureheads in media, political, and religious arenas south of the border. So, if the U.S. wants relations with us to warm up, then the ball's in their court as far as I'm concerned.

John Ibbitson: Except that the American environmental record, especially on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, is much better than Canada's. We sign treaties. They restrict emissions.

D. Todd Caslick: As for American presidential candidates never addressing Canada-related issues, you guys either have short memories or you weren't listening. Other than comments about oil or borders where comments could focus on more than one foreign country, Canada was frequently mentioned in the 2004 campaign regarding the importation of cheap prescription medication. The Canada-U.S. relationship needs work. (But) Canadians can't count on Bush getting turfed early by either the CIA leak investigation or the illegal wire-tap scandal that is brewing. We need to work with Bush until he leaves office.

John Ibbitson: Of course. And it would be foolish to presuppose that his successor, Democrat or Republican, will abandon the aggressive and unilteralist agenda that this Bush administration has undertaken.

Andy Garrett, West Palm Beach, U.S.A.: Obviously, as a lifetime cottager to Parry Sound, Ont. I believe the situation between Canada and the United States needs to be fixed. One of the first places to start is to cease the inflamed Canadian rhetoric directed against the United States that I have heard or read about for the past 25 years. There is always some issue from free trade, sovereignty, mad cow, softwood lumber, President Bush, Iraq, Kyoto, etc. that from our perspective is mind-numbing. Stop turning every issue into a referendum on your relations with us. We don't do it to you. We didn't lecture you all for years on your Somalia situation back in the early '90s. Many Americans were offended when your MP said she hated George W. and said he was a moron. This is your political leadership offending us. However, we get over it and move on. No hard feelings but I understand why W. loses interest. And you see why the rest of us lose interest in Canada. I haven't seen one news report on Canada not getting involved in Iraq on any of our too numerous news shows. We really do love you all. After all, if I didn't I would have to move out of Florida as lots of you are here now. It is true, we don't pay enough attention to you but it isn't personal. You all can take care of yourselves without our help. It is other parts of the world we have to worry about and take care of. That is one reason why we share the longest undefended border in the world and always will. So please, don't move, don't separate, just continue to be the great friends and neighbors you have been for the last three centuries. We are children of the same mother.

John Ibbitson: Spoken with the robust common sense of a son of (or at least visitor to) the Sheild. But then, I'm partial to anyone who is in love with Georgian Bay.

Pat D, Wisconsin Rapids, U.S.A.: Hello John, Thank you for a very fair, matter-of-fact initial article on U.S.-Canadian relations. Seeing some of the nastiness Canadians and Americans are throwing at each other in the comments on the article, I'm glad you're leading the discussion. If Canada appears to be less important to the U.S. than it was five years ago, then that's only an illusion. Both of our countries need each other to thrive, and that will not change. Our friendship needs maintenance more than fixing. We're a few thousand miles -- or kilometers -- past our last oil change. It's when the oil change is never done is when the engine breaks down. My comments: The current state of U.S.-Canadian relationship really does stem more from the current leadership of both countries than it does from the direction the U.S. is taking as a nation. I don't remember hearing about "America-bashing" from Canada before George W. Bush became U.S. president. The things Canadians are complaining about are our current administration's policies. I would advise Canadians not necessarily to back down from their claims, but bide their time until Bush is out of office. You Canadians and our president are simply from different worlds and don't like or understand each other. Whatever campaign Canadians take on in regards to the relationship should focus on the fact that maintaining good relations is vital to both our nations' economic and national security. For example, I was surprised to find out during the Hurricane Katrina energy scare that here in Wisconsin, our natural gas supplies come from Canada. What's to stop Canada from doing what Russia is now doing to the Ukraine- - jacking up prices?

John Ibbitson: It has been said that the greatest gift Canada could bestow on humankind would be to voluntarily accept annexation by the United States, thus ensuring Democrat administrations in perpetuity. That said, I do believe this goes beyond simply a clash of administrations. Both countries need to openly assess shared and differing values, working to accentuate the former and minimize the consequences of the latter.

Peter Shute, Bahrain: Canadians know they live next door to the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily. They know they depend on the presence of a healthy U.S.A. next door in order for Canada to remain among the elite economic nations in the world. We share a similar culture. What is missing is the willingness to stand up for who we are as a nation and to project the image that we want to project in the world -- in other words, leadership. This issue is not just about Canada and U.S.A, it is about our place in the world among other nations. It is natural to disagree with the U.S.A from time to time. Let's not be afraid to do so. What's the big deal?

John Ibbitson: Fair point. After all, it is Canadian immigration policy, Canadian attitudes toward diversity, pluralism, tolerance, our federal structure, our blending of individual liberty and community cohesion (at least on good days) that should be our chief export.

Doug Reid, Baltimore, Md.: I am a Canadian who has been living in the United States for almost10 years and I am disturbed when I read that Canadian-U.S. relations are spiraling down towards a new low. It was not like that when I left. Post 9-11, and 10 years into NAFTA, I would have expected the opposite. Americans are different than Canadians and America is changing, but that is nothing new. My overwhelming observation is that, in general, Americans and America ignore Canada and all that goes on there. But they also ignore what goes on in many parts of their own country. Their indifference is not personal, or ideological. It is simply that Canada is irrelevant to what is happening to America both nationally and internationally. (In some ways, recent Canadian policy has guaranteed that irrelevancy.) There is trade, of course, and it is significant. It is also assumed, taken for granted. And why not? It has been that way for almost 200 years. Canadian are thought of as first-cousins -- part of the family -- and so it particularly hurts when that family member spouts off with a rush of rhetorical disloyalty. Surrounded on all sides by perceived enemies, with a war going on, (and it is a real war as far as Americans are concerned) nothing rankles more than disloyalty and nothing makes Americans gush more with gratitude than loyalty. Canada does not need more trade missions, more ambassadors, to get our message across. Americans simply need -- from those that supposedly represent us -- a considered and supportive statement now and then. From a distance, Canadian politics, and politicians, seem so small minded, so parochial, not befitting a great country. It is time for them to look in the mirror, to know who their friends are, to say it as it is and should be.

John Ibbitson: These sentiments are very similar to ones I heard while living in Washington in the year after Sept. 11. And everything the writer says is true enough, except Americans do have rather short memories, sometimes. Who was there first, after Katrina, with search and rescue teams, supplies, naval support? Who is leading the multinational stabilization force in Afghanistan? The Americans were furious with the Germans for refusing to support the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Yet Germany supported the effort logistically, allowed its bases to be used as staging areas, patrolled offshore. American memory, and American gratitude, can sometimes be very selective.

Miles Lunn, Vancouver: I think Canada finds itself in a trap. On the one hand, with so much our trade dependent on the United States, we really cannot afford to upset the Americans, yet at the same time, it is clear our values and their values are increasingly divergent. That means agreeing on any given policy is becoming increasingly difficult in the last few years. I believe this is where bold leadership is needed, which so far no party offers. When it comes to finding new allies, we must not just talk about, we must actually initiate proposals just as we did with NAFTA. Convincing the EU or China to sign a free trade agreement with Canada will be challenging, but we must show leadership and not give up until achieved. On our relations with the United States, we must establish a new relation. We must start recognizing them as our closest trading partner not closest ally or closest friend. They clearly aren't an ally or friend, but a trading partner and there is a key difference. If we are no longer perceived as a close ally, there will be less demands on us and when we say "no" to the United States, there won't be the same level of disappointment .I don't think the U.S. was upset when China and Russia disagreed with the Iraq war since that is what they were expecting, however they weren't expecting Canada to say "no." If they no longer expect us to agree with them on foreign policy issues, there will be fewer tensions when we disagree. I think we need to immediately pull out of NORAD and consider pulling out of NATO once a European defence alliance similar to NATO is established, which Canada should lead the way in creating. We should end all military exchanges with U.S. troops and eliminate all intelligence cooperation. Your views?

John Ibbitson: If our values are diverging from the U.S., then with whom are we converging? The Chinese? Are they culturally more akin to Canadian society? Do we place greater trust in their laws, police and judiciary? Is their environmental record more sound? Or is it their government that we find more attractive -- freer, more democratic, with greater respect for human rights? As for the EU, we already have essentially free trade with Europe. We sell them everything they want from us right now.

Eric Kirkpatrick, Vancouver: A recent quote from a well-known American sums its it up: "The U.S. has no friends, just interests." Over the next two generations, both China and India will build up a prosperous middle class outnumbering and outspending their American counterparts. This feat will require vast amount of resources that neither country has internally and so must look (as does the U.S.) to foreign sources. Then it will slowly dawn upon those in America with forethought that they'll need us more than we'll need them. We in Vancouver are even now witnessing that slow changing of the "economic guard." Perhaps now would be a good time for the American elephant to show more than a passing interest in that minor irritant sharing their elevator. Our issues with them are no different than the concerns of Quebec with Ottawa, the West with Toronto, the Tamils with Sri Lanka. It is in the best interest of the schoolyard bully to make peace and develop true friendships (including his nerd victims) for both of their collective futures. Do you agree?

John Ibbitson: No, I do not agree that they are bullies or that we are nerds. At worst, they are jocks and we wear glasses.

John Ibbitson: A few more observations, as we get close to the end of this live discussion:

To the writers who complained that American voices of criticism are objectionable: We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. The clowns on American cable news are as ill-informed, as inflammatory and should be as irrelevant as a backbench Liberal MP mouthing off in search of a newspaper headline. And yes, newspaper pundits on both sides of the border sometimes like to accentuate the negative.

But I go back to an earlier point. I don't believe that the Austrians and the Germans have a relationship based exclusively on trade. Theirs is, instead, a complex history, based on shared culture, shared language, and a world view that is partially shared and partially contrasting. Exactly the same could be said of New Zealand and Australia. Does anyone really believe that the Canadian and American relationship is any less intimate, any less tightly bound? Of course it isn't. Let's remember that, and stop all this shouting.

John Ibbitson: Thanks to everyone for writing, from both sides of the border. The job of a columnist is to offer perspectives that encourage informed debate. Judging from this morning's contributions, the article on Canada-U.S. relations did its job. Let's keep talking about this, remembering always that people of goodwill can disagree even on fundamental issues, while remaining friends and partners. And best wishes for a peaceful New Year to Yanks and Canucks near and far.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com:

For those of you who wish to continue the debate, please return to Mr. Ibbitson's article in our VoteSmart series or please read this article in today's Globe and Mail Canadian election is a chance to end 'petty rancour' with Bush team Comments are open on both of those articles.

I would also be interested in knowing what our readers think of this discussion format. Please feel free to e-mail me your thoughts on that subject.