Some male cuttlefish disguise themselves as females to avert competition from larger males in mating. Canada is like a cuttlefish.
Canadian confederation was rooted deep in complacency and risk aversion, in direct contrast to the United States.
"We must remember that we are forming a nation… the great object of our union is to preserve the connection with the Mother Country, and to avoid the errors of the United States. … The defect of the United States Constitution is that it is founded on the principle of a league of states, not a government of individuals."
- Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, 1865
Post-1776, many of those who became Canadians were Loyalists from the colonies. Canadian confederation in 1867 had to unite the English and French to some degree, and compromise was preferred over assimilation, setting a clear precedent for Canada's approach to multiculturalism today. This air of traditionalism and its contrast to the American ethos is reflected in Section 91 of the Constitution Act, with the phrase "Peace, Order, and Good Government" versus the US' "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". As a large, sparsely populated commonwealth nation, Canada naturally continued as a British military protectorate, and then effectively a US protectorate. Into the 20th century, while it's worth mentioning Canada's brave contributions to the World Wars, Canada continued to build its image as an avoider of conflict, especially as the shadow of the US as a global hegemon began to grow. Large-scale immigration to Canada happened later than in the US, and having never had something like the American Revolutionary War to establish early, strong national identity, cultural retention was much easier than forcing assimilation. Many Canadians will recall that Canada has long been defined as a "cultural mosaic" rather than a "melting pot" like the United States. Under Pierre Trudeau in 1971, Canada was the first nation in the world to adopt multiculturalism as state policy, which, among encouraging immigration and avoiding internal conflict generally, was also meant to ease tensions with Quebec separatists.
Stringent diplomacy, both domestic and abroad, have served Canada relatively well. But it also stifled ambition. Canada and the US both "officially" switched to the metric system in the 70s. On one side of the border, imperial became a part of American identity (see "WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER"), and on the other side, we just said "yes sir" and moved along. A proxy for the seemingly small but consequential difference in cultures between two otherwise similar nations - Canada loves authority. I'd also argue that some degree of the fallout, socially and economically (see Canadian GDP per capita), from relying heavily on rampant immigration since 2020 could have been avoided if Ottawa decided to take more risks on enabling resource exploitation and innovation/business investment (permitting, tax relief, removing interprovincial barriers) to grow GDP on the medium-long term scale. If Canada is going to remain competitive on a worldwide scale, it has to project real power, industrially, militarily, and technologically.
A large part of the problem is that the brightest Canadians and their IP will continue to drain to the United States at an increasing rate, with AI even further centralizing technological talent and capital in Silicon Valley. Not to knock concentration in the Valley though, I just think Canada needs its own, and Waterloo-Kitchener isn't enough. I hate to circle back to the beloved topics of mass immigration and boomers (who are especially risk averse in Canada), but both have contributed to the inflation of real estate as a non-productive asset, sucking capital out of R&D (and potentially creating a bubble).
I have to admit I am bearish when it comes to the potential for Canadian society to break free from its lack of confidence; its inferiority complex, as Shopify's Tobi Lutke put it. It's almost impossible to match the financial incentive of moving to the US without taking losses at some point. I think Canadians' lack of national pride, will to power, and defined culture gets in the way of staying in Canada for the sake of Canada despite the monetary opportunity cost. Lack of social coherence also gets in the way of efficient collaboration. We should champion cultural diversity to the point that it's useful, while recognizing that there needs to be some greater aspect of unity to motivate Canadians to innovate together. If financial incentive is the only real source of unity, the brain drain will continue.
What do Canadians rally around when their sovereignty is challenged? Nothing of real substance - but not because Canada has nothing to offer; rather, mostly because it has nothing sufficient in the way of a unifying ideal to rally behind. Canadians are mostly loyal to liberal democracy, the rule of law, moderation, avoiding conflict, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. You can make your own judgements about any of these, but Canadians are not loyal enough to anything that is purely Canadian, because there is no definition of purely Canadian. For example, there has been a rise in something akin to Canadian Nationalism in response to the 51st state rhetoric, but it is mostly performative.
The most patriotic Canadians basically define their identity as being "not American", but if we aren't American, we have to be something else. The steel man argument is usually that Canada is a pluralist, polite, moderate, cooperative, stable, peaceful state. Many say that is our national identity. And, while these attributes have helped Canada become a wealthy, peaceful, orderly nation, I don't think Canadians feel strongly enough about them to light the fire that would make us ambitious enough to ensure sovereign longevity. This is largely because Canadian identity is at direct odds with ambition and a will to power. Canadians just want to be left alone, but that doesn't work forever.