It’s like renaming the Great Barrier Reef

I write as a proud Canadian-Australian who is experiencing something I never imagined possible — watching Canada’s sovereignty, economic security and national identity being repeatedly challenged by the country it has long regarded as its closest neighbour and ally.

This is not an abstract diplomatic disagreement to me. Canada is my beloved country. To witness its name, dignity and independence treated as though they may be diminished, negotiated away or simply disregarded is profoundly painful.

Any one of the events that has occurred might be dismissed as another dispute between governments. Taken together, however, three developments provide unmistakable evidence that a red line has been crossed.

First came the tariffs affecting Canadian steel, aluminum, automobiles and softwood lumber. These measures were introduced despite the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement — CUSMA — intended to provide stability, predictability and largely tariff-free trade across North America.

The Canadian government has described U.S. tariffs against Canadian goods as unjustified and in violation of CUSMA and World Trade Organization obligations. Some measures remain the subject of formal legal challenges.

Whatever their eventual legal determination, tariffs of this kind against a close ally strike at the trust upon which such an agreement depends.

Then there is the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

Canada financed this approximately $6.4 billion international crossing between Windsor and Detroit — including the extensive work required on the American side of the border. Yet, as part of the deal reached to secure its opening, Canada agreed to make payments equal to 50 per cent of the bridge’s net revenue during its first 15 fiscal years into an economic-development fund solely controlled by the United States government. The purposes of that fund are to be agreed by both countries and are intended to benefit the United States and trade between the two nations.

Canada therefore not only financed the bridge and the extensive work undertaken on American soil, it also accepted an arrangement under which half the bridge’s early net revenue will be directed into a fund controlled solely by the United States government.

Now something even more confronting has occurred.

On Aug. 27, an executive order was signed by the U.S. president directing that Lake Ontario be renamed “Lake America” throughout the United States federal government. The order requires the new name to appear in the official U.S. geographic-names system and on federal maps, contracts, documents and communications.

The United States cannot change the name by which Canada knows Lake Ontario. Nevertheless, the act itself matters.

Lake Ontario is not merely water on a map. Its name is inseparable from Canadian geography, history, identity and belonging. It forms part of the Great Lakes system shared by two sovereign countries. No one country owns its history or possesses the moral authority to rename the whole of it unilaterally.

My Australian citizenship gives me another way of understanding the depth of this affront.

Imagine how Australians would feel if another government announced that the Great Barrier Reef would henceforth be called the “Great Barrier Reef of America” in all its official maps, contracts, documents and communications.

Such a proclamation would have no legal force in Australia. It would not alter a single reef, island or stretch of Australian water. But Australians would never regard it as harmless.

They would experience it as an extraordinary affront — an attempt by another country to place its own name upon something woven into Australia’s natural heritage and national identity.

Canadians are entitled to feel no less deeply about Lake Ontario.

These three developments are not identical in their nature or consequences. One concerns Canadian trade and economic security. Another concerns an international crossing — including extensive work on American soil — financed by Canada. The third reaches directly into Canadian geography, heritage and national identity.

Together, however, they reveal something Canadians should not ignore. What might once have been dismissed as an isolated disagreement has become a pattern: an ally repeatedly treating Canada’s agreements, contributions and identity as though they command little respect.

Canada should neither respond with hostility nor surrender to despair. But neither should Canadians permit each successive act to be absorbed into the daily news cycle until what once would have been unthinkable becomes familiar.

There comes a time when silence ceases to be restraint and begins to resemble acceptance.

Canada is a sovereign nation. Its agreements matter. Its contributions matter. Its geography, history and identity matter. So too do the French language, culture and heritage woven into the character of the country.

After tariffs imposed despite a freely negotiated agreement, the extraordinary conditions attached to a bridge, and an attempt to place another country’s name upon Lake Ontario, that time has arrived.

A red line has been crossed, and therefore remaining silent is no longer an option.

Ralph Pirozzo is an independent education consultant based in Brisbane, Australia.