Brand Canada: From Cool To Cruel

By Aria Novosedlik

In the summer of ’67, Canada was the only place to be. The whole country was on the road. Destination? Expo 67. It has been described as a moment in history that defined an entire generation of Canadians. It was the year Canada turned 100, and it brought together people from every part of the country and the world. At Expo, fifty million of them were able to experience the world in a sprawling microcosm of pavilions and attractions. It was the most successful world’s fair of the 20th century. It put Canada on the map, and the attention it drew gave us a taste of what it’s like to be famous.

A la mode: Expo fashions exploded with the exuberance and optimism of the times

Baby boomers, just teens at the time, flocked to the massive event. They got a glimpse of what their future could hold; where they could travel to, who they could meet, what else is out there beyond our borders. But they also felt that Canada – simply for being so innovative and capable of hosting such a diverse expo—was actually kind of cool. Like the ugly duckling that suddenly transforms, we were suddenly and surprisingly proud to be Canadian. 

This kind of gentle but strong freedom of expression among Canada’s younger generations fully blossomed one year later, when Pierre Trudeau came into power as Prime Minister. He embraced the ethos of the hippie movement at its start—one of equality, freedom, love, social awareness, and unity. The charter of rights and freedoms was one of the single most important pieces of legislation that Canada has ever produced, thanks to him. He liberated the (now) LGBTQ+ community and ensured women were able to leave their husbands should they so desire or need. Within the greater context of the world, Canada had not only made a name for itself—it was ‘cool’.

Trudeau spent 15 years and 164 days in office. He was our first celebrity politician. This kind of status would shape his children—particularly the very handsome, athletic, free-spirited Justin. The Trudeaus were a family that was pro-social democracy, but enjoyed life in the highest echelons of society. Being the most-sensationalized family that Canadian politics had ever seen, they became the face of Canada’s brand.

When Pierre left office Canada’s brand identity went through several iterations. As America became stronger, Canada decided to solidify itself as the friendly sidekick north of the border. The Mulroney years brought us NAFTA, which was essentially our way of signing on to the neoliberal agenda. Reagan and Mulroney saw eye to eye on that. 

There were still some moments of differentiation, such as when Prime Minister Chretien refused to send troops to Iraq in 2003. And our much more risk averse banking system shielded us from some of the more deleterious impacts of the 2008 crash. But for the most part, there was a growing misalignment between our perceived brand and what we actually delivered. 

G-7 summit protest art with the now openly authoritarian Stephen Harper’s smug mug on it. | Shutterstock

Harper’s regime felt like being showered in generic brand Purel. One of his most iconic moments was a borderline-psychopathic video released on YouTube where he says ‘Something you might not know about me is that I love movies and TV shows. One of my all-time favourites is “Breaking Bad”. It’s even available on some online streaming services if you’ve never seen it. So why am I talking to you about TV shows? Because some politicians want to tax digital streaming services…’. Now, written out, this sounds like a throw-away comment. However, his delivery in this clip is the stuff of nightmares. It’s as if the cyborgs have won. He is the AI we now fear will kill us all. 

Art Babych/Shutterstock

Then in walked Justin. He had the luxury of riding of his good looks and his father’s coattails. He had brand equity from the get-go (minus the blackface incident). As we all know, though, he lacked one thing: decisiveness. As they say: if you try to appeal to everyone, you appeal to no-one. He legalized pot, sure. But pandemic aside, what was the last piece of legislation that Justin introduced that was truly progressive? 

He has failed to make good on his promise of representational voting. He has failed to provide decent jobs and housing for immigrants, whose idea of Canada is a 30-year-old fairy tale. He’s banking on Canada as a legacy brand that his dad helped build (Trudeau père’s ‘just society’) which is crumbling under his feet—along with infrastructure and housing, had anyone in the past years since his father even bothered to invest. No party has taken the initiative to bet on brand Canada in any serious way. They are too focused on staying in power. And unlike brands that occupy the consumer space, politicians know that the bottom line is just going to get tossed around like a hot potato so they don’t rectify the situation. Canada’s lobbying laws are riddled with loopholes that favour corporate donors over citizens. The liberal brand is now veering right, which these days means we’re drinking the neoliberal cool aid.

A righteous rant: having escaped the barriers to prosperity in their home countries, new arrivals face a whole new set of economic hurdles when they come to Canada. It’s a classic bait and switch.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The income inequality created by neoliberal economics is intentional. And it’s global. It results in CEOs earning 350x as much as a typical employee. It results in an entire generation that can no longer afford to buy a house or enjoy the level of affluence it grew up with. It results in plucking immigrants from their homelands only to turn them into rightfully resentful gig workers pining to go back home. Instead of empathizing with them and supporting them in the fight against inequality, many boomers and wealthy millennials are simply leaving the country. According to the latest census, 126,340 Canadians left Canada for the US in 2022, a 70% increase over a decade ago.

Canada used to be a less highly individualized society but global neoliberalism is prodding us to fend for ourselves – just like Margaret Thatcher told us to when she famously said there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals and families. This is happening all over the world in advanced economies like Canada, the US, and the UK. All of those ‘brands’ are starting to look the same. 

In past research studies, Canada was always seen as 'nice'. It may still be perceived that way, but that veneer gets thinner by the day. We are not much different. We've lost what used to make us different. Having the same brand attributes as US or UK means we don't really have a brand at all.

Canadian historian Pierre Berton once wrote that 1967 was Canada’s last good year. Let’s hope he wasn’t right.

Aria Novosedlik is a designer and a writer based in Toronto