News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.3K     0 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,158
Reaction score
26,141
City:
Toronto
Think of the tens of dollars we will save not having to constantly leave a bottle of whisky on the island to support our claim!

The trip for leaving it there will probably cost what, 100x the cost of the bottle of whisky. In any case, I guess our land borders tend not to be defended...

AoD
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,266
Reaction score
59,092
And now we have a land border (of sorts) with Europe. St Pierre and Miquelon should be worried. We are diversifying our foreign gaze.

There are, of course, so many more important priorities than modest territorial expansion; but for all involved, I tend to think bring St.P/M into Canada would make sense.

It would allow more functional plans for resource extraction and fisheries and make trade/supply patterns more efficient.

That said, it wouldn't materially affect Canada, the only question locally, I think would be how to administer them, given that geogrhically they make sense being part of Newfoundlands' ambit; but culturally/linguistically would make more
sense w/Quebec or NB

****

I do really favour resolving the sillyness of the north-west angle; and Pt. Roberts; but again, neither of these will budge national numbers much, if at all; they would mostly benefit the acquired areas.

I don't favour any grand ambitions that would smack of colonialism particularly........
 
Last edited:

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,158
Reaction score
26,141
City:
Toronto
I wish that would regain some traction. It's been discussed federally at various points.

They did - but I believe the thinking at the time is that Canada doesn't want to look like a colonial power. As to St. P/M - I have a feeling France won't be so eager to part with it (nor are the occupants particularly keen on joining).

Personally I think there is a good case for T&C - it seems to be lurching from one governing crisis to another; the UK not being particularly interested; and it has something Canadians want in abundance - heat and beaches.

AoD
 

Towered

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
7,844
Reaction score
8,196
They did - but I believe the thinking at the time is that Canada doesn't want to look like a colonial power. As to St. P/M - I have a feeling France won't be so eager to part with it (nor are the occupants particularly keen on joining).

Personally I think there is a good case for T&C - it seems to be lurching from one governing crisis to another; the UK not being particularly interested; and it has something Canadians want in abundance - heat and beaches.

AoD

I think if the majority of the populations in both Canada and the T&C support it, and it were to occur by way of a financial transaction, I don't see any real colonial baggage. Make the UK an offer and have it join as a territory, since that wouldn't require a messy constitutional amendment.
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
4,563
There are, of course, so many more important priorities that modest territorial expansion; but for all involved, I tend to think bring St.P/M into Canada would make sense.

It would allow more functional plans for resource extraction and fisheries and make trade/supply patterns more efficient.

That said, it wouldn't materially affect Canada, the only question locally, I think would be how to administer them, given that geogrhically they make sense being part of Newfoundlands' ambit; but culturally/linguistically would make more
sense w/Quebec or NB

****

I do really favour resolving the sillyness of the north-west angle; and Pt. Roberts; but again, neither of these will budge national numbers much, if at all; they would mostly benefit the acquired areas.

I don't favour any grand ambitions that would smack of colonialism particularly........
I wasn't thinking in terms of expansion but, rather, a diversity of neighbours in our 'back yard'.

The US will cede nothing, and patriating NWA or Pt. Roberts would be of more benefit to the local residents (a very small handful in the case of the Angle) than Canada. Similarly, St. Pierre/Miquelon. France may see some benefit in retaining a token North American presence. If nothing else, in all cases a willingness on the donor side seems wanting.

While a province or dependency in the Caribbean might seem like fun, do we really want to be responsible for a group of islands, and their populations, a few thousand kilometres away when we struggle to look after what we currently have.

I'm thinking we need to be better stewards of the real estate we currently have before we start looking for new horizons.
 
Last edited:

Towered

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
7,844
Reaction score
8,196
While a province or dependency in the Caribbean might seem like fun, do we really want to be responsible for a group of islands, and their populations, a few thousand kilometres away when we struggle to look after what we currently have.

I'm thinking we need to be better stewards of the real estate we currently have before we start looking for new horizons.
This is a generic argument that could apply to literally everywhere.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,651
Reaction score
7,078
While a province or dependency in the Caribbean might seem like fun, do we really want to be responsible for a group of islands, and their populations, a few thousand kilometres away when we struggle to look after what we currently have.

It's funny to hear advocacy about taking on a Caribbean territory from the same folks who think increasing defence spending is "Americanism".

A Carribean territory would require Canada to have force projection capabilities to protect T&C and to ensure it doesn't become an infiltration point to mainland Canada. We're a country that freaks out over one road border crossing in Quebec. Just imagine the panic when it's possible to reach Canada in a cobbled together dinghy.

Quite frankly, I don't think Canadians are mature enough to have remote territories. If you want to see the type of strategic thinking involved in such an endeavour look at Australia. Zero chance Canada could ever be that hard nosed about its own security. Part and parcel of being dependent on the US for our own security.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,651
Reaction score
7,078
The US is about to go through some serious turmoil obviously. This presents both opportunities and threats.

On one hand, Canada has an opportunity here to attract some of the world's best and brightest. Folks who would normally only accept Silicon Valley and Wall Street as their final destinations. Some of these can be convinced that Canada is a safer and saner place for their families. Even getting 1-2% of the top talent that normally heads that way would be substantially beneficial to our economy.

On the other hand, an America that is increasingly focused inward on its own problems, creates a substantial void that authoritarian regimes in places like China and Russia, will seek to exploit. We need to be ready to counter a lot of this, without the unlimited assistance that the US usually provides to its allies. This would mean, for example, carrying a multiple of the burdens we usually carry in conflicts like Ukraine.

Whether it is a fear of acknowledging the truth or fear of offending our American neighbours, there seems to be very little discussion on what the turmoil in the US means for Canada and how we can both prepare for it, and make the best of it. Not talking about what it means for us, beyond just the fear of that instability coming north (a risk I don't buy) is doing ourselves a disservice. We need to get moving.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,266
Reaction score
59,092
On one hand, Canada has an opportunity here to attract some of the world's best and brightest. Folks who would normally only accept Silicon Valley and Wall Street as their final destinations. Some of these can be convinced that Canada is a safer and saner place for their families. Even getting 1-2% of the top talent that normally heads that way would be substantially beneficial to our economy.

Yes.

On the other hand, an America that is increasingly focused inward on its own problems, creates a substantial void that authoritarian regimes in places like China and Russia, will seek to exploit. We need to be ready to counter a lot of this, without the unlimited assistance that the US usually provides to its allies. This would mean, for example, carrying a multiple of the burdens we usually carry in conflicts like Ukraine.

I'm not convinced the U.S. is about to pull back its military or military spend in a big way from global affairs. That would happen if the U.S. devolved into Civil War or the like but again, I think that's as yet an unlikely outcome. Were that to unfold our problem would be to our immediate south and not any void left by the U.S. overseas.

Whether it is a fear of acknowledging the truth or fear of offending our American neighbours, there seems to be very little discussion on what the turmoil in the US means for Canada and how we can both prepare for it, and make the best of it. Not talking about what it means for us, beyond just the fear of that instability coming north (a risk I don't buy) is doing ourselves a disservice. We need to get moving.

I agree; though I'm not sure what the discussion from government would look like, in the open.

In lieu of that.........here's a quick thought or two from me.........

In so far as the goal would be, as noted above, to gain a larger share of high-value immigrants (education/wealth), and perhaps investment capital as well.............

1) I would make Contraception coverage the very first component of Pharmacare and rush that out the door in the next 60 days. It serves as a useful point of contrast, a symbolic statement, it literally pays for itself
as proven in studies, and, is in fact, remarkably cheap. The full cost for a of Canada would be ~600M per year (assumes no deductibles/co-pays, covers all forms, pill/IUD etc.)

The speech write itself "Canada as a nation prioritize the right of women to govern their own bodies and reproductive rights, and as such we take this important step forward to make it easier for women of all socio-economic backgrounds
to make the choices that work for them and their families"

Done quickly, and a bit loudly, this would get press in the U.S. too (which has spillover effects in terms of global publicity).

It actually works even better when Trudeau gives a slightly cheeky denial that this is in any way a direct reaction to events in the U.S.

2) We need to carefully examine our weaknesses in attracting and retaining talent; I won't seek to provide a comprehensive list, but I will afford a few items.

- As ever, foreign credential recognition is not what it needs to be we need to expediently review dozens of universities/programs around the world and determine where those credentials should more or less be recognized as equivalent to
Canadian, as-of-right.

- Where Canadian experience is legitimate/unavoidable requirement we need to have a much larger pipeline of spots of on offer to prospective immigrants to get that experience the moment they set foot on Canadian soil. If we admit you because you are a doctor we should have your residence/supervised rotation lined up for you before you get here. etc.

- We are not competitive in graduate-level student compensation/grants. We must increase those, substantially. They don't need to match the U.S. (given lower tuitions here) but should be much closer than we are; we also
require greater numbers of research/student places at the graduate level and additional supporting grants.

- We need to continue to substantially increase the size of our VC (venture capital) markets; that's an important consideration for some entrepreneurs.

- We really need to strongarm/buy-off the provinces to move to a single capital market regulatory regime

***

I think its also important not to blindly look only at the U.S. as a comparator. Canada ranks very low on work-life balance, we lose people to Australia over this simple matter all the time. Its an illustration of where the minimum standard
(in this case paid vacation) has more impact that you think. Because while many/most high value immigrants will get a better than minimum employment offer; the median offer is often determined by the entry-level offer. So in Australia one gets at least 4 weeks paid vacation as opposed to 2 in most of Canada. This result in good value, new employee offer of 5 weeks paid vacation where in Canada it would get you 3 weeks. That difference can be a key selling feature.

***

Umm, housing costs vs income. We know there's a problem here, most acute in Toronto/Vancouver, we need to be mindful that it effects those already here; but it also affects our attractiveness globally in some measure.

This is not just a housing cost story, its an income-growth story; we need more of the latter.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,651
Reaction score
7,078
I'm not convinced the U.S. is about to pull back its military or military spend in a big way from global affairs.

Assistance to Ukraine was delayed because of political machinations at home. Trump (whether we like it or not is either a contender or template for the GOP 2024 nominee) argued that US assistance was conditional on trade deals and/or defence spending. So I would argue we're entering an era where rock solid US support in defence of democracy is not a certainty and that they are a lot more mercurial. Either other democracies will take up the slack, or we collectively cede ground to the authoritarians. Watching the French and Germans willing to negotiate away Ukrainian democracy and territory for 50¢ less per litre does not inspire confidence at what a world with less American involvement might mean.
 

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,782
Reaction score
1,744
Similarly, St. Pierre/Miquelon. France may see some benefit in retaining a token North American presence.
I haven't checked into this for a long time, but I recall back in the Turbot War era their territorial rights included what were once extremely lucrative and geographically large fishing grounds, which are in fact still in use to this day by some French commercial fishing boats which travel all the way from France and go in to waters other EU boats cannot access, plus it gives them a friendly port away from home. I wouldn't be surprised if fishing was the only reason this piece of France was kept at a cost dating back to when they could have ceded it as not useful.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,266
Reaction score
59,092
I haven't checked into this for a long time, but I recall back in the Turbot War era their territorial rights included what were once extremely lucrative and geographically large fishing grounds, which are in fact still in use to this day by some French commercial fishing boats which travel all the way from France and go in to waters other EU boats cannot access, plus it gives them a friendly port away from home. I wouldn't be surprised if fishing was the only reason this piece of France was kept at a cost dating back to when they could have ceded it as not useful.

Their territorial marine rights don't look that great from a distance:

1656545859370.png
 

Top