Notes
- Research for this article was conducted in part with a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am most grateful to Patrick Basham for his comments and suggestions on a first draft.
- On Holmes's views of the relationship, see Canada: A Middle-Aged Power (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976), esp. 204–30; and Life with Uncle: The Canada—United States Relationship (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981).
- In Canada-U.S. relations, the personal relationship between prime minister and president filters not only vertically downward into lower levels of government, hut also horizontally into different domains of the relationship—and in an inevitable but entirely unpredictable way. As Alan Gotlieb notes, “[T]here is no linkage on the part of the United States [in Canada-U.S. relations], but everything, broadly speaking, is linked.” Gotlieb, “Foremost Partner: The Conduct of Canada-US Relations,” in David Carment, Fen Osler Hampson, and Norman Hillmer, eds., Canada Among Nations 2003: Coping With the American Colossus (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003), 25.
- Indicative would be: Edelgard E. Mahant and Graeme S. Mount, An Introduction to Canadian-American Relations (Toronto: Methuen, 1984), 259–61; Albert Legault, “Canada and the United States: The Defense Dimension,” in Charles F. Doran and John H. Sigler, eds., Canada and the United Slates: Enduring Friendship, Persistent Stress (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985), 161–202; Dwight N. Mason, “US-Canada Defence Relations: A View from Washington,” in Carment, Hampson, and Hillmer, eds., Canada Among Nations 2003, 135–55; John J. Noble, “Canada-US Relations in the Post-Iraq-War Era: Stop the Drift Towards Irrelevance,” Policy Options (May 2003), 19–24; and J. L. Granatstein, “The Importance of Being Less Earnest: Promoting Canada's National Interests through Tighter Ties with the U.S.,” Benefactors' Lecture, 2003 (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute, 2003), esp. 19–27; available online at www.cdhowe.org/pdf/henefactors_lecture_2003.pdf.
- Indicative of this approach would be Lawrence Martin, The Presidents and the Pnm Ministers (Toronto: Doubleday, 1982).
- Denis Stairs, “The Menace of General Ideas in the Making and Conduct of Canadian Foreign Policy,” O. D. Skelton Memorial Lecture, Ottawa, 25 October 2006.
- Allan Gotlieb, “Romanticism and Realism in Canada's Foreign Policy,” Benefactors' Lecture, 2004 (Toronto: C. D. Howe Institute, 2004); available online at www.cdhowe.org/pdf/benefactors_lecture_2004.pdf.
- For a good survey of this period, see Stephen Clarkson, Canada and the Reagan Challenge: Crisis and Adjustment, 1981–85, updated ed. (Toronto: James Lorimer, 1985).
- Needless to say, the fundamental flaw in the thermostatic analogy is that it implies causality: i.e., Canadians, annoyed at their prime minister's relations with the U.S. president, base their vote on that annoyance. There is, however, no empirical evidence for this, suggesting that the dynamic may be nothing hut coincidence. For an exploration of this dynamic, see Kim Richard Nossal, “A Thermostatic Dynamic? Electoral Outcomes and Anti-Americanism in Canada,” in Richard A. Higgott and Ivona Malbasic, eds., The Political Consequences of Anti-Americanism, forthcoming 2007.
- This assertion appeared on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade website in 2005 (“Missile Defence: Facts and Definitions,” last updated 15 June 2005, http://maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/missile-defence-facts-en.asp). This document has been “disappeared” from the DFAIT website: clicking the URL causes a redirect to a current DFAIT page on missile security that contains no hint of Canadian opposition to BMD. “Missile Defence: Facts and Definitions” still exists in cache (most easily found by googling “/foreign_policy/missile-defence-facts-en.asp”).
- David G. Haglund, “Does Québec Have an ‘Obsession Anti-Américaine’?” Annual Seagram Lecture, McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, Montreal, 14 April 2005; published as “Québec's ‘America Problem’: Differential Threat Perception in the North American Security Community,” American Review of Canadian Studies 36, no. 4 (2006): 552–567.
- “Rice May Postpone Visit to Canada,” Globe and Mail, 1 March 2005, A4.
- Globe and Mail, Toronto, 9 December 2005.
- Paul Wells, “PM Harper Meets US, Mexican Presidents,” Maclean's, 10 April 2006.
- Two days after the election, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, was asked about the Arctic at a QSLA after a public lecture. He responded by restating the long-standing American claim that the waters of the Arctic archipelago constituted an international strait. The prime minister-in-waiting took the opportunity to criticize the ambassador and reassert the long-standing Canadian claim that Arctic waters were internal waters. “Harper Rebukes US Envoy over Arctic Dispute,” Globe and Mail, 27 January 2006.
- The agreement announced on 27 April 2006 called for the revocation of countervailing duties and anti-dumping orders and the return of CS4 of the CS5 billion in duties collected by the United States. See the Canadian government's softwood lumber website: www.softwoodlumber.gc.ca; for an abbreviated backgrounder, see www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1234, 1 July 2006.
- To the beat of a war-drum, a voice-over said: “Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities … Canadian cities… Soldiers with guns… In our cities… In Canada… We did not make this up… Choose your Canada.” All the 30-second Liberal attack ads are archived online at www.cta.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_liberal_attackads_060110/20060110/.
- The Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party all ran candidates across the country; the Bloc Québécois nominated candidates only in the 75 seats in Québec.
- “We will clean up government, cut the GST [Goods and Services Tax], offer parents help with child care, cut patient wait times for medical procedures, and crack down on crime.” Conservative Party of Canada, Stand Up for Canada: Federal Election Platform 2006, 3: available online at www.con-servative.ca/media/20060113-Platform.pdf
- Ibid., 45.
- “Conservatives Call for Boost to Canadian Forces,” Trenton, ON, 13 December 2005; archived online by the Library and Archives of Canada: epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/conserative-ef/06–01-06/www.conservative.ca/@section_id=1738§ion_copy_id=35046&language_id=0.
- In Canadian politics, the “Arctic card” is an attempt by politicians to appeal to the unique place that the Arctic occupies in the nationalist imagination in English-speaking Canada. While most Canadians try to live as far away from the Arctic as they can manage, they nonetheless tend to conceive of the North as a crucial part of the country, to be defended against the predations—real or imagined—of others. Political elites in Ottawa learned long ago that “standing up for Arctic sovereignty” (as Harper entitled his Winnipeg speech) is a sure-fire political winner in English-speaking Canada: John G. Diefenbaker's “Northern Vision” in the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns; Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Arctic initiatives in 1969–1970 in response to the sailing of the supertanker SS Manhattan through the Northwest Passage; Brian Mulroney's robust response to the sailing of a US. Coast Guard icebreaker, USCGS Polar Sea, through the Passage in 1985; or the efforts by the Liberal government in 2004–2005 to politicize a dispute with Denmark over the ownership of Hans Island, an uninhabited rock located between Greenland and Ellesmere Island.
- Elinor Sloan, “Canada's International Security Policy under a Conservative Government,” in Andrew F. Cooper and Dane Rowlands, eds., Canada Among Nations 2006: Minorities and Priorities (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2006), 155–56.
- For the perspective of the Minister of National Defence on this issue, see Gordon O'Connor, “Something Special in the Air,” National Post, 9 February 2007, A15.
- David Pugliese, “Deep-Water Naval Port in Arctic in Doubt,” Can West News Service, 3 February 2007.
- See the casualty details at iCasualties. org:www.icasualties.org/oef/default.aspx.
- “Failed States Pose Grave Dangers, Top General Warns,” Globe and Mail, 23 July 2005, A3; “Martin Defends Mission,” National Post, 30 July 2005, A4.
- Parrish had accumulated a long record of anti-American sentiments, but was not expelled from the Liberal caucus until she told a reporter that Prime Minister Martin could “go to hell.”
- “Parrish Rebukes Liberals on Afghanistan,” National Post, 28 July 2005, A6; “Martin Defends Mission,” National Post, 30 July 2005, A4.
- Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Debates, 39th Parl., 1st sess., 17 May 2006.
- Ann Denholm Crosby, “The New Conservative Government and Missile Defence,” in Cooper and Rowlands, eds., Canada Among Nations 2006, 170.
- For a general assessment of the Mulroney period, see the contributions to Raymond B. Blake, ed., Transforming the Nation: Canada and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2007); on foreign policy, see Nelson Michaud and Kim Richard Nossal, eds., Diplomatic Departures: The Conservative Era in Canadian Foreign Policy, 1984–1993 (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2001).