the entire concept of the "middle power" during the cold war was based on the idea of non-alignment. it wasn't some naive projection of an american empire without the americans overseeing it. that is why canada built independent relationships with non-aligned actors like india, brazil, iran (at the time), china, egypt and south africa and had a different relationship with the soviet union than the united states did. canadian leadership understood that it may get stuck in the middle of a hot war - hence the term middle power. it didn't mean middle in strength, which is what it seems to mean now. it meant in between the polarizations of the cold war, in the middle of the united states and the soviet union, which we physically and ideologically are.

canada's position as a middle power was consequently similar to the nordic countries, sweden and finland. canada, like norway, did join nato. however, it had similar concerns to sweden, in terms of realizing it wasn't actually entirely clear what side of a hot war it might actually end up on. the swedes leaned towards nato, but they were a non-aligned middle power, meaning they were in the middle of the two polarizations, geographically and ideologically. 

neither canada nor sweden are "middle powers" in terms of strength. we'd get wiped out if we tried to fight a war with either power, unless we had the support of the other. there's nothing middle about us in terms of strength. it's not what the term meant.

orwell is cackling somewhere.

the complete alignment of canada with the united states that took place under mulroney, and which chretien tried to break from but got thrown out of office for resisting, was warned against by the architects of the middle power strategy that were still alive, most prominently the elder trudeau and, in later years, most notably maude barlow. they warned against a "monstrous swindle" that would destroy our sovereignty, make us reliant on and subservient to the united states and prepare us for annexation. 

well, they were right.

and here we are.

if we want to seriously return to a middle power strategy, it means having strong relationships with the russians, the chinese and most importantly the indians. our political leadership would have to completely turn over for that to happen, and we'd have to make up for 40 years of lost time, and undo 40 years of bad policy. it's a tall order, and it can't happen before midnight est.