Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Late last December, Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary, affectionately known as Mr. Wonderful, re-opened a longstanding public debate over the idea of “continentalism” in North America.

Within weeks after the re-election of President Donald Trump, O'Leary pitched the merits of an EU-style economic union between Canada and USA.

“I like this idea and at least half of Canadians are interested” he said.

Unfortunate Timing

As it happened, the timing of O’Leary’s proposal could not have been worse.

The credibility of his idea was instantly undermined by the incoming U.S. President’s controversial insistence that Canada should become the 51st state.

After Trump’s inauguration, Washington pivoted to hardball positions on tariffs and trade and it was clear there would be no special concessions for Canada. Signals from D.C. warned of tough USMCA trade negotiations to come.

In March, a beleaguered Justin Trudeau left office and former Bank of England President Mark Carney took over the Liberal Party of Canada. In April, Mr. Carney was elected prime minister, but his party fell short of winning a clear majority in the House of Commons.

The new Liberal government immediately adopted an “elbows up” disposition in the brewing trade war with the USA. By the summer of 2025, any talk of a Can-Am economic union was crowded out by strong feelings of resentment and ill will on both sides of the border.

An Idea Worth Revisiting

The idea of an EU-style Can-Am union has a long and respectable history and it is well worth revisiting.

After the British North America Act of 1867, Canadian scholar Goldwin Smith led a vigorous philosophical movement that supported closer ties with the USA in the form of a continental economic order. Smith defended the concept in a 1891 book titled “Canada and the Canadian Question.” Opposing movements favoured closer ties with the British Empire or total Canadian economic independence. Neither of the latter positions stood the test of time.

Today, the arguments for the development of a Can-Am union are more compelling than ever. Economic integration, the elimination of trade barriers, and the removal of regulatory mismatches could boost cross-border investment well beyond current USMCA levels. A strong shared currency would eliminate exchange rate volatility, reduce transaction costs, and improve price transparency. EU-style citizen mobility could reduce labour shortages, provide enormous opportunities for young workers, increase productivity, and fill demographic gaps created by aging populations.

Infrastructure and environmental coordination would support integrated transportation systems, energy production, and transnational communications networks. Coordinated pollution policies could establish reasonable emissions standards and enhance environmental protection without obstructing sorely needed drilling, mining, and manufacturing initiatives.

A larger unified market with consistent rules would incentivize investors. Harmonized policies would secure critical materials and technologies within North America and reduce dependency on hostile suppliers. A Can-Am union would bring together a population of some 388.8 million on 19.82 million square kilometres of territory with and a combined GDP of close to $32 trillion.

In the realm of education, mutual credential recognition, research collaboration, and professional mobility would multiply opportunities in a North American cultural market that could stand up to the Chinese Communist Party and other global influencers.

All in all, a new continental order would increase the geopolitical influence and security of citizens in both Canada and the USA. A unified bloc dedicated to Western democratic principles and free enterprise could rival the economic, diplomatic, and military weight of China, Russia, and other totalitarian regimes.

With a southern border wall already in place, our security could be further improved by a joint force that could act against illegal migration and drug smuggling at the water’s edge. Shared intelligence, cybersecurity, and a coordinated military would bolster North America’s defence systems in what has become a dangerous multipolar world.

Modelled after EU governance mechanisms, a North American commission or council could allow for cooperative decision-making without sacrificing national sovereignty. If historical adversaries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal can coexist in an economic union, why not Canada and the United States?

Resistance to Change May be Overcome by Facts on the Ground

As it was in the days of Goldwin Smith, there is still plenty of cross-border resistance to Mr. O’Leary’s continentalist proposal.

All manner of entrenched interests regard an economic union as overreach and fear the loss of personal power and control. Big Labour warns of downward pressure on salaries and benefits in an open job market. Canadian politicians fear being overwhelmed in an unbalanced partnership, and American lawmakers are reluctant to support anything that might dilute congressional supremacy.

But facts on the ground are leading to a kinder disposition toward the continental alternative. Among young, ambitious North Americans trapped in a collapsing middle-class there is a powerful yen for greater mobility and the new opportunities that bold change can invoke.

This is especially true on the Canadian side of the border. In 2024 alone, approximately 106,000 Canadians permanently left the country. This figure marked one of the highest outflows in recent memory. Some of the most commonly cited reasons for leaving are the soaring cost of living, low salaries, high taxes, limited career opportunities, and loss of confidence in government institutions. In spite of the anti-American rhetoric constantly served up by Canada’s legacy media, the United States remains the primary destination for departing Canadians. Over a million now live there.

So perhaps it’s time for a second look at Kevin O'Leary’s proposal. As the late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once asserted: “He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.