The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - How the U.S. Almost Annexed Canada

Episode Date: April 5, 2025

The Agenda's week in review looks at the history of U.S. annexation threats to Canada, what direction the major parties might take Canada's foreign policy, and whether Canadian culture reflects Canadian identity.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renew your 2.0 TVO with more thought-provoking documentaries, insightful current affairs coverage, and fun programs and learning experiences for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit tvo.me slash 2025 donate to renew your support or make a first-time donation and continue to discover your 2-point TVO. Adam, to you first, you wrote an article for your newsletter entitled The Annexation Manifesto of 1849. What prompted you to write the piece? Well, you won't be surprised to learn it was recent news and headlines.

There are all these moments in Canadian history. So yeah, stretch back to before Confederation, where annexation by the United States is sort of this recurring theme, and there are a bunch of big sort of flash points for it. One of the big ones is this annexation manifesto from the 1840s. So it felt like a thing to write about these days. So for those who think this is the first time any of this has ever happened, One of the big ones is this annexation manifesto from the 1840s. So it felt like a thing to write about these days. So for those who think this is the first time

any of this has ever happened, that's a big N-O on that. Yeah, far from it. Okay, now while this annexation manifesto was making its way through the population and popular discourse at the time, there was a counter-argument which Toronto Public Library has discovered.

They're apparently in the archives of the City of Toronto. And Sheldon, bring this up please. This is a copy of the document which is a countermeasure to the Annexation Manifesto and it's, I'll read a little bit of it here, it says, we the undersigned inhabitants of the City of Toronto, having learned from the public press that a document has been circulated for signatures in and about the City of Montreal, advocating the annexation of Her Majesty's Province of Canada to a foreign state, our firm determination to resist all attempts at trifling with our allegiance, transferring us from the mild and just rule of our gracious Sovereign to the United States of American or any other foreign power.

This was courtesy of the Toronto Public Library. Have you seen this archive before? Yes, it's a... That is the counter-petition against the annexation manifesto. And the library has wonderful resources from all sorts of history on it. And it is, I think, one of the more remarkable documents you'll find on there. There's this moment where a bunch of leading business

leaders, lawyers, politicians in Montreal in particular, signed this annexation manifesto asking for the United States to take over the Canadian colonies, the province of Canada in particular, what's now Ontario and Quebec. And then this swift, overwhelming pushback, which was kind of centered on Toronto and what's now Ontario, of this big counter-petition

and a big movement that brought together a lot of sort of bitter political rivals, some of the biggest rivals in Canadian history who were united in the idea that this could not be allowed to happen, and that we needed to speak with a united voice against it. We'll get to the pushback in a second. Dominique Marshall, let me get you in here to talk about the events that led to the creation

of the Annexation Manifesto to begin with. What can you help us with on that? There's a lot of disappointment with what had happened in 1848 when what is now Ontario and Quebec were united and responsible government was given to the Canadians. So that was after the rebellions of 36, 37, when lots of people wanted to leave England

and they shipped over Lord Durham to reorganize Canada. So first legislature votes to actually exonerate to some extent their rebellious people and give them back some compensation on rebellion losses and also a global and also generally the Britain did not want any preferential treatment for Canadian goods. So that was all a move to give a bit more autonomy to Canadians, but also not to treat them with favor economically at the time when there was a global recession. So a funny thing happened. People who were former enemies like the English merchants of Montreal, were disappointed at the economy of it all, but also at these

bills that were kind of exonerating the rebellious people. But the people who had rebelled, some of them, the most extreme of them, were disappointed by the conservatism of that government and we're quite happy to join the United States as well. So let's join the United States if we're merchants in order to bolster our economy. Let's join the United States if we are radical French Canadian former rebellious people because we like the idea of a real republic. Canadian elections are almost never about foreign policy. They're almost always about something else.

This one clearly is about foreign policy. Does that make this election particularly intriguing to folks like you? Well, absolutely. It's our 15 minutes of fame. No, I mean, certainly this is really unique geopolitical times. The way that the Trump administration has repositioned the United States has really basically undermined the foundations of our system of foreign policy

for maybe 80 years, if not more. So I think that it's really brought a lot of people to kind of think about, well, what's important? What are the things we can hold on to? What do we need to do more? How can we sort of better position ourselves for the coming future? And that's sparked quite a bit of debate all across the political spectrum. Stephanie, if you're into foreign affairs, is this your time?

It is and it isn't. I always find with Canadian elections that increasingly we are talking about issues with international salience, such as, you know, back in 2015 there was the Syrian refugee issue, you know, 2021 was about the pandemic. And obviously right now we have the bright orange light that is Donald Trump and all the kind of chaos that is going along with that. But at the same time, I feel like there is a lack of serious discussion about what we need to do.

There's a lot on tariffs. There's a lot on infrastructure building. But how are we going to actually diversify our trade? Who are we going to do it with? What institutions are we going to use? This is largely absent. And what Canada's role in the world should be in a world where there is a retrenching United States also seems to be missing from the conversation. Bessma, do you share that concern that something's missing even if the accent is on foreign affairs in this election? Yeah, I couldn't agree more with Stephanie, so no surprise here.

But yeah, I think there's really a lot of missing details. There's a lot of, I think, broad sketch of what we expect. I think a lot of analysts and scholars can probably read between the lines. But I think for a lot of Canadian voters, there's a lot of mystery still on what are the actual policy positions. And I think that's actually by design. I think what has been very troubling for a lot of Canadian politicians is that when these issues do come up, it's often not a very big concern for Canadians. I think this election is going to be a bit different that way, because we do have the trade war going to be looming over us. But I think in general, because it's not a high priority for most Canadian voters polls after polls often tell us that but I think this time in

particular there are a lot of contentious issues and so I think the that the sort of political landscape wants to avoid on the specifics on purpose. Adam what say you on this? I think we're talking about the world a lot right now but I don't think the elections really about policy because elections are about choices and I don't think the leaders are that far apart on for example response to the United States. In both cases we're going to respond with counter tariffs of some sort so I think what the election seems to be about is who can lead us to this new place and

this new world order and this need for Canada to look out for itself in a way that's different and I think that's different than the the details that Stephanie and Bessemer are looking for. I just, I don't think they're there. I don't think Canadians are asking for them as much as they're asking for who will make us most comfortable figuring those details out. So am I reading between the lines accurately when it sounds like you are unimpressed so far

with what you've heard from the major parties as it relates to specifics? Well, I think it's more that I'm not surprised. It makes perfect sense for our political leaders to respond to our needs, and we aren't asking for how many consulates are you gonna close in the United States, are you gonna move them to another country?

We're asking, will you make us feel confident that we will be in a good place if you are leading us into this unstable, insecure world? Stephanie, what are you not hearing that you wish you were hearing from, let's just take the two major parties, which the polls would suggest are the two that have a shot to win this election.

What do you wish you were hearing? Right, and to be fair to Adam, I agree, it's not surprising that we're not hearing these things. It's just, you know, the academic in me is maybe slightly out of touch with the common person in Canada who's just wondering what the price of fruit is going to be in six months from now. So what I would like to hear is not so much the specifics about closing consulates, to be fair, but, you know, we have heard skepticism, particularly from

the Conservative Party, regarding certain international institutions. And I don't see this in a politicized way, but, you know, some international forums, they take a more skeptical view towards the UN, towards groups like the World Economic Forum, almost certainly. So what is their idea for the right forums that we should be going to? Who are the allies? The government has an Indo-Pacific foreign policy. Is that something that they want to continue both parties? And so it's interesting, Mark Carney, when he was the prime minister for, I guess, a week,

one of the first things he did was actually go overseas to the UK, to France. He has said that rather than increasing trade with China, he would like to work more with like-minded allies. That was kind of a hint towards the approach that he would like to take. I would like to hear more from the conservatives, like in broad strokes, what is their approach to international institutions, alliances, et cetera, going forward? The Canadian identity that's under threat. What is that anyway?

Oh great, thanks for an easy one to start. First off, thanks for having culture on this show. I mean, it is underrepresented across culture. It's certainly underrepresented in our elections. It's something that a lot of people aren't talking about. But identity is story. Culture is story. And so if we have other people telling our stories,

if we have people who don't share our experiences, who come from different mindsets, who are playing with a different deck of cards telling us who we are, rather than letting us tell each other who we could be, I think there's something lost there. And I think you're seeing that right now with what's happening south of the border, when someone is telling Canadians,

maybe here's what you should be. And I think Canadians' response is to say well actually we're something different than that and that something is not to answer your question a monolith there are many Canadian identities and for me having a breadth of experience taking in culture books music film radio whatever it happens to be from different perspectives helps me shape my own sense of who I am and who I am in the country called Canada. That is about as good a definition of something impossible to define as I've ever heard. So well done. Thank you.

Well done. And you mentioned film, so let's talk film. And Tanya, I want to go to you on that. If I want to see a Made in Canada film, what constitutes a Made in Canada film? Well, I think you're gonna get more than one answer from different people that you speak with. I have, it's interesting I have in this conversation now actually because the CRTC is doing a number of sessions with a lot of people in the screen industry about CanCon. What is Canadian content? For me, I would like more films, television shows showing that it's placed in Canada. That's a big one for me.

Of course, we want Canadians working in the content. But right now, that is the best marketing tool that we have for our product to go around the world and for people to actually recognize that the location that they're looking at is Canada. And I think that's a big part of our Canadian identity. Just yesterday, I think the Black Screen Office did a summit and they had many black Americans there. And many of the people at the summit were emailing me going,

why are black Americans always so shocked that there are any black Canadians? Like, why do they think that's bizarre? And it's because they're not actually aware of the content when it goes out that that's Canada they're watching and these people are Canadians. And I guess when you say shot in Canada and looking like Canada you don't mean made to look like an American city but shot in Canada, right? Exactly, exactly. And I would go as far to say that I encourage international productions that

want to shoot in Canada and say it's Canada, let's embrace them as Canadian content too because they are helping get that branding out there. We all know when we see Big Ben we know that's London, when we see the Sydney Opera House we know we're in Australia, we need those kind of identity things happening within our content. Gotcha. Andrew, you heard the reference to CanCon, the Canadian content regulations that have been, well, you tell me, how significant a rationale behind why we have a domestic music industry?

If you look at countries around the world of similar size, perhaps, let's say Australia is an example, who don't and haven't had that, and you see what is played on the radio and the affinity that the domestic audience has for domestic artists, you'll see a dramatic change, actually. So I think on balance, it has been a success. But you have to keep in mind that over the last 50 years, the goal was to build a Canadian industry for a Canadian audience.

In other words, domestic artists for a domestic audience in a time when markets were regulated by borders. But in music that is no longer the case. And so as referenced with the CRTC consultations that are in process right now, what we're really needing to grapple with here is how do we present as Canadians in a global market? Not so much how do we find Canadians to listen to Canadian music because Canadians do listen to Canadian music. So that part of it has been, I'd say, a huge success.