​The Historical Context Behind the Threat to Canadian Sovereignty 

JAN 18, 2025

 

Dear Family,

​

While Canadians are weighing the threat of debilitating US tariffs on the Canadian economy and asking whether there really could be a US annexation of Canada, I felt compelled to share with you what I have been reading about in the last year. There is important infrastructural and international history that will be helpful to Canadians in understanding the current issue of sovereignty with which we are confronted.

​

In the 1977 book, Technocracy and the American dream: the technocrat movement, 1900-1941, author William E Akin discusses an influential movement in the 20th century known as the Technocracy movement, or the “Technate.”

Elon Musk’s maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was instrumental in this movement. The end goal of the Technate was to ensure security by enacting “continental integration and mobilization” and “complete conscription of men, materials, machines, and wealth by the government of the United States,” which were to be “placed before all other objectives of the American peoples.” (The Northwest Technocrat, vol. 5, no. 9 (March 1941), p. 8)

​

As this political paradigm proposed, there would be a “technocracy” in the Western hemisphere, established on the belief in the supremacy of science, technology and resources. It would consist of a union of the nations of North America, Central America (specifically the Panama Canal), the Caribbean and northeastern Pacific, along with the northern tier of South America. “All the territory from Greenland to Guianas, from Galipagos to Alaska, must be included in one consolidated unit, and taken into equal partnership with the United States in The American Technate.” (The Northwest Technocrat, vol. v, no. 9 (March 1941), p. 5)

​

The movement was premised on the belief that “the natural resources and the natural boundaries of this area make it an independent, self-sustaining geographical unit.” (The Technocrat, vol. 3 no. 4 (Sept. 1937), p. 3) From an infrastructural perspective, the Technocracy movement as advanced by Haldeman envisioned a united economic structure. As one article puts it, “Haldeman campaigned for the capitalist monetary infrastructure to be replaced by a new universal currency, based on a unit of heat, to be known as the erg.”1

​

In light of the context above, it is therefore interesting that suddenly we are, for the first time in a century, revisiting old historical concerns about a US takeover, whether that is strictly economic or otherwise. There are many other ironies, which I will not raise here, but which I will leave to your own insight.

​

There are many questions that Canadians should be asking about the resurgence of the spirit of Technocracy that we have been witnessing over the past few weeks. Is this Technocracy theory still alive? Is it active in the imaginations of some within the American leadership class? If so, is its resurrection borne out of the state of financial and social despair created by almost a decade of a regressive Liberal government? When do we begin to ask questions about securing our sovereignty, something which we previously took for granted?

​

Since significant aspects of our economy and supply chains are already integrated with the American economy, and we also have a continental joint military command in NORAD, what further expansion would be proposed by a rise of Technocracy?

​

We get a sense of that as we examine our multilateral and international agreements. As I have pointed out recently, there is the Declaration of North America (DNA) signed in 2023 between Canada, the US and Mexico. The declaration outlines six ambiguous pillars upon which the three countries will collaborate. If we look at these six pillars, we can see how they are clearly connected to the Technocracy movement:

​

1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (includes how we socially interact, social governance)

​

2. ⁠Climate Change and the Environment (for example, the recent southern California wildfires will likely open discussions regarding water supply, etc.)

​

3. ⁠Competitiveness (trade, tariffs, even currency, perhaps creating parity between the Canadian dollar and the US dollar)2

​

4. ⁠Migration and Development (suggests close collaboration or harmonization on borders)

​

5. ⁠Health (suggests further collaboration possibly during times of pandemics, i.e. the One Health approach)

​

6. ⁠Regional Security (this is already contemplated in NORAD; however, Technocracy requires complete annexation)

The DNA is yet another multilateral agreement that, while non-binding, continues to set the stage for greater North American integration and influence on our national rule-making, without parliamentary input or oversight on such matters. We need to also contextualize the combination of other agreements like the UN Pact for the Future, which was concretized in September 2024 while everyone was debating the Global Pandemic Treaty.

​

Now with a weak, lame duck Prime Minister and a new, aggressive American administration levelling threats of tariffs at best, annexation at worst, it is incumbent upon us as a nation to defend our proud and sovereign Canadian heritage and dream.

​

In closing, although the Technocracy movement is merely a theory, and emerged during wartime when Canada was severely battered, we are once again facing a dismal state of economic affairs in Canada. One should be observant when the key strands of such a theory are articulated and put out into the universe as plausible. When such a theory exists, mere jokes about a nation’s sovereignty in relation with geopolitical indicators as outlined in the theory of American technocracy should not be overlooked.

​

In your service,

Leslyn Lewis

Member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk 

​

1

Graham, R. (2021, November 1). Science fiction and grandfathers’ views shaped Musk, historian says. Business Live. https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/2021-11-01-science-fiction-and-grandfathers-views-shaped-musk-historian-says/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

2

See Technocrat, vol. 5, no. 9 (Mar 1941), pg 3. “Technocracy proposes that the government of the United States place the Canadian monetary structure and exchange rate on a parity basis with that of the United States, i.e., that the Canadian dollar be underwritten and 'pegged' to a parity basis with the United States dollar. This would enable Canada and Canadians to purchase from the United States 16 to 20 per cent more per Canadian dollar than is now possible under the existing disadvantageous monetary exchange relationship.”