Asymmetrical Information

I worked with a Canadian guy in the late 80's and I recall after one of Quebec's referendums commenting the next morning to him that it looked like Quebec would remain part of Canada. His response: "That's because they didn't let the rest of the country vote..."

I'll never forget the announcement on EuroNews, one morning when I was in Germany:

"Canada's Army is trapped offshore because of a billing dispute with the American shipowner which was bringing them back from [some peacekeeping mission or another]"

So...Canada depends on American merchant shipping to get them places, and apparently can fit a substantial proportion of their equipment into a single freighter.

I hear their snipers are good, though--probably Western deer hunters.

Your thoughts on our regional issues are largely correct but there is a much more proximate cause for this announcement. There has been a rash of shootings in Toronto this year and everyone here is clamoring for the government to 'do something.'

The Liberals face stronger opposition from the leftish (in US terms, Trotskyite) NDP in Toronto where they have several seats at risk. Crime is the #1 issue with Toronto where perhaps 15% of the total seats and maybe 1/3 of the swing seats are in our coming election, and with the result likely another minority, every seat counts. My first reaction to hearing the policy was to shore up support here in the city.

Banning handguns also does not annoy Alberta as much as you would think anymore. The quite grisly shooting of 4 young RCMP officers in a small town there earlier this year has done much to cool the ardour of gun-rights supporters. It was a very big deal. We like our Mounties alive, thanks.

So whereas no love is lost between centre and the west, this is likely not the raspberry to the West you might think it is.

Paul Kapsos - Toronto

To be honest, handgun ownership in Canada is not terribly widespread and the laws are already fairly draconian. Even out West, Canadian's aren't generally in love with handguns.

An attack on long guns would be a different matter, I suspect.

I'd like to know what percentage of handguns that are used in commision of crimes in Toronto were *ever* legally owned in Canada. I hate guns with a passion, but this initiative seems a waste of resources. There's not a lot of legal handguns out there.

My apologies to Paul Kapsos if he is actually from the West, but it seems to me rather Canadian for a Easterner to pronounce on what the West will be alienated about.

The killer of the aforementioned RCMP officers was armed with several rifles and a pistol. A handgun ban would have made no difference and Albertans know this. There is still plenty of outrage here over the Canadian government's gun registry policy, which has cost a lot of money but has not solved gun violence, as Paul inadvertantly points out.

One other comment -- thanks to large revenues from oil and gas, Alberta spends quite lavishly on public services, education and health in particular. We are relatively free market in our approach, so maybe that is what gets Paul Martin in a dither.

"But while we love our West, Eastern Canadians have come to resent them..."

Got news for you--most in what we normally think of as "the east" in the US (the New England States) really /don't/ think all that highly of "The West" outside of California, or rather the California Counties along the coast south from Napa/Sonoma + Tahoe.

In many places in this country "Cowboy" is /not/ a compliment.

handguns are effectively already illegal in canada, and have been subject to registration since 1935!!!!

Alberta leverages its income from oil royalties and corporate taxes from the energy sector to have the lowest tax burden in canada, with the lowest personal income tax, lowest corporate tax, and no sales tax. It's disliked due to different attitudes on social issues and from an energy boom. With development in the energy sector in many provinces, we will likely see many changes in the provincial relationships, especially in how Ontario views its place in the country.

Further, the Canadian Forces have large fractions from the West and Quebec. Ontario's bases have been almost completely eliminated, so in any contested 3 way separation Ontario would have a fait accomplit that it could only attempt to contest several years after the fact (to give its significant manufacturing base time to spool up and to create an Ontario army). This is obviously very unlikely.

CF does not have any appreciable air or sea lift, and has to charter both boats and planes. Most of the time we hitch a ride on the very nice US fleet of planes for missions involving the US. If the election sees a conservative government this will likely change.

Megan,

The divide between upstaters (outside the big cities) and the Metro NY downstaters is almost as big as the Quebec - rest of Canada divide. Those of us who have lived both places are especially atuned to this. We would simply LOVE it if Metro NY became a separate state, and most of us would willingly forgo the tax revenue from NYC that drives Albany's economic engine.

I read recently (Small Dead Animals?) that Saskatchewan recently became a 'have' province (that is, a net contributor to the Federal Pot).
Another problem with Quebec is that they are disproportionately represented in the government. Of the last 7 Prime Ministers, 4 have been of consequence (Treudeu, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin) and the first three were from Quebec. You have to be bilingual for certain government positions, which eliminates more anglophones than francophones (this is more so as you go west).
Quebec is also hostile to the english language being implemented in the la belle province. English language signs were once illegal (are they still?). They also receive a disproportionate amount of Federal funds (ie, Pork).

Canada is a lot like a European country with heavy American influences. If you look at the US, you see several different widely separated regions (east coast, southeast, midwest, southwest, California, northwest, and Alaska, and Hawaii), with different regional cultures and whatnot. Yet somehow it's still this whole thing that sticks together and works together. European countries are much different. They tend to be isolated pockets of a few metropolitan regions packed close together, with a greater skew toward urban living vs. rural/lower density living. France or Germany, for example, only have a few major Greater Urban Areas, and they are close together. In many ways they're a lot like, say, the East Coast / Northeast, if it were isolated and a nation. Canada is very similar. Most of the population is packed into a small number of Greater Urban Areas. However, unlike European countries, Canada's urban areas are spread out over about 3,000 miles of territory. There's the big Eastern Canada cluster (Montreal, Toronto, etc.) which holds most of the population of Canada, then there's the smaller Vancouver sprawl, and the Edmunton-Calgary corridor. Essentially, Canada is 4 separate communities (French Canada, Eastern Canada, BC, and Alberta) with a few sparsely populated Provinces. What's more, these different regions have very different economic and cultural structures. It's a testament, to something, that Canada has kept together as long as it has.

Separation wouldn't make a big difference: largely due to Quebec's influence, the provinces have a lot more free reign to make up their own policies than US states, and Quebec is already practically independent (for example, immigration rules to Quebec are different from the rest of Canada). Separatists have indicated that an independent Quebec would probably still use the CDN$, quickly negotiate open border agreements, and the end results wouldn't be all that different from the current situation.
Maybe that's why the Canadians I know don't get very excited about this stuff.

thank you for your erntry

The last time Quebec came close to voting for separation the U.S. State Department studied the western provinces and concluded that should certain of the western provinces petition for admission to the Union, they were acceptable. At the time there was talk in the Canadian west of joining the U.S. should Quebec secede.

Commercial signage in English was made illegal in Quebec by the infamous "loi 101" in 1977. But a later court ruling found the signage provision unconstitutional. Now, French must simply be "markedly predominant" on signs.

But other provisions of 101, requiring French in all other kinds of contexts, have been onerous too. Hundreds of thousands of Anglophones have left Quebec, and those who remain have been forced to adapt. Basically, law 101 was successful in what it intended. Before, Quebec was fairly bilingual but most of the business and cultural elite was Anglophone. (Which, understandably, angered Francophones in their own province.) Now, French is clearly the dominant working language of Quebec.

For all that, it is lovely! Montreal is about an 8-hour drive from NYC and I've been up there for two great vacations. Quebec city is gorgeous. Those of y'all who concluded that I was basically Trotsky from my week of guest-blogging here will no doubt be unsurprised to find that I loved a place that was both Canadian and French... But what I really like about Quebec is that it is basically the best of North America and Europe. And uh, guys, and you girls who like girls... Quebec's women are gorgeous...

If they do succeed in banning handguns, then long guns who will stop us when we invade? :-) Seriously the Canadian military isn't up to defending Canada, it exists basically are a protectorate of the US anyway.

So without an armed population, who will stop us?

That Karl Rove is an evil genius

As 'hey' pointed out, Alberta has a huge reserve of oil in the form of tar sands. As the price of oil rises, it becomes more profitable to extract.
As a result, they have a booming economy and lowest taxes.
The Liberal's past practice of 'equalization' between provinces has actually resulted in a large anti-Liberal and western seperation movement.
It can only get more interesting...

A colleague at our Ontario sister company was ranting on and on at me about the big, bad U.S. superpower, evil Bushies, oil imperialism in Iraq, etc. etc.I asked him why, then, had we not invaded Canada (which we could take over by lunchtime) and siezed their vast natural resources? Where else, in history, has such a huge powerful imperialistic bully left alone such a weak but wealthy neighbor? Of course, he had no answer.

The reason, Creech, is that the US already has effective economic control of anything worth their while in Canada.

Why be so gauche as to actually invade and stir up resentment, and so forth? nevermind the cost...and all the damn socialists.

Cheers

We'll invade Canada when we run out of trees.

And I agree, Canadian women (especially in Quebec) can be absolutly stunning.

Comments are Closed.