I've been asked why, as a
Canadian, I don't talk more about Canadian issues on this blog. My
answer is that, in the global scheme of things, what happens in Canada
has relatively little impact, and if we're going to save the world and
stuff, we need to bring about change in the areas that do have the
greatest impact. Also, other than the weather, Canada is a land of
moderation, not extremes -- we change gradually and there isn't a great
deal of internal conflict. Even the separatist sentiment in Western
Canada and in Québec is quite easy to understand and sympathize
with, although so far even the separatists have been willing to
compromise, so our strange and wonderful country continues to hang
together. We're just not very newsworthy. These days perhaps that's a
good thing.
What might be useful, though, would be to give non-Canadians a quick birds'-eye
view of the current state of Canada, insofar as it impacts our
relationship with other countries, and our contribution to solving the
global crises we all face today.
So herewith, a biased and over-simplified crash course in Canadian
politics and economics, with a smattering of history and geography to
the extent it explains who we are.
Canada has about 32 million people, about 10% of that of the US, living
in a country that has about 10% of the inhabitable and arable land of
the US, although our total area is larger. Canadian population, like US
population, is growing at third world rates (doubling every 60 years),
due entirely to its open immigration policy. Over 95% of Canadians live
on 5% of its land (see coloured strips on map above), mostly adjacent
to the US. Canada is one of the most urbanized countries in the world,
with 40% of the population living in the Big 3 census metropolitan
areas (Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver), 60% living in the 15
metropolitan areas, and 80% living in 'urban' areas (over 500 people
per square mile). All
Canada's growth is urban, and 90% of it is in the Big 3 census
metropolitan areas. If you extrapolate, the combined population of
Canada's Big 3 cities will grow from 12 million people today to 40
million people by 2060. Population pressure on the precious
agricultural land around the Big 3 cities is massive.
While Canadians are more urbanized than Americans, almost every
Canadian lives within an hour's drive of vast stretches of wilderness
(to the North) and within an hour of the US border (to the South). I
believe that's a defining characteristic of the Canadian psyche. I reported
earlier on the drastic differences between Canadian and American
values this produces. Just yesterday a survey confirmed that 75% of
Canadians believe "George Bush knowingly lied to Americans about his
reasons for invading Iraq" and that Canada was right not to support the
invasion. Last week another survey suggested that if Canadians could
vote in this year's US election only 16% would vote for Bush.
For over half a century, the unique political cultures of Canada's five
regions have remained almost unchanged. The political party that most
closely aligns itself to those diverse cultures generally wins
elections. In Western Canada, other than in Alberta, the population is
closely split between Western reformers, who are generally socially and
economically conservative and libertarian, and labour supporters, who
are generally socially and economically liberal. Western elections are
therefore often more acrimonious than elsewhere in Canada, and centrist
parties are generally unelectable. Western reform sentiment has elected
Social Credit, Reform, and Alliance governments provincially.
Westerners flip-flop from these governments to NDP (New Democratic
Party) governments, which have strong labour and nationalization
tendencies. Westerners are notorious for not re-electing provincial
governments, which tends to prevent excesses in either direction from
prevailing for more than a few years. Natural resource industries --
mining, forestry, and agriculture -- still drive much of the Western
economy, and since these commodities are often exported raw, at
ever-decreasing prices, the economies of BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba
have floundered for years. This is despite massive infusions of foreign
and Eastern Canadian money, brought by retirees attracted by
Vancouver's moderate Seattle-like climate. For some reason, the tourism
potential of the West has never been effectively exploited.
The Western political schizophrenia is not present in Alberta, which is
essentially a one-party Western reform province. Alberta's economy has
thrived on its natural wealth (oil & gas), and many Albertans don't
see why that wealth should be shared with 'Easterners'. There is a
strong Western separatist sentiment in Alberta, driven by economic
parochialism and the sense of isolation from power.
Southern Ontario and Southern Québec have 40% and 25% of
Canada's population respectively, and almost all of Canada's
manufacturing and financial industry, so the feelings of powerlessness
of the rest of Canada (federally, their votes don't really count) is
understandable. Paradoxically, the 25% in Southern Québec feel a
similar powerlessness relative to the majority in 'English Canada' (a
purely abstract concept, but one that's effective for whipping up
Québec nationalist sentiment). Southern Ontario is politically
centrist, although both federally and provincially it has supported
three different parties as each party has established itself closest to
the centre. Two thirds of Ontario's voters live in four metropolitan
areas, so there is also some alienation in the rest of the province.
For 125 years following Canada's Confederation in 1867, the Liberal and
Progressive Conservative (PC) parties alternated in power. The winning
party was usually the one that occupied the political centre, and hence
won Ontario's huge bloc of seats. This led to the two parties being
sometimes indistinguishable, and in some cases actually led to minority
governments, with the left-leaning NDP holding the balance of power.
These minority governments, and the work of the NDP and its predecessor
the CCF, are largely responsible for introducing the European-style
social safety net that so starkly differentiates Canada's broad,
single-tier health, education and welfare support system from the US
systems.
In 1992, that Liberal/PC balance of power was shattered when PC Prime
Minister Mulroney attempted to coerce Canadians into accepting a
'constitutional reform' package that was in fact a thinly-disguised
massive, permanent transfer of political power from the federal to the
provincial governments. Mulroney attempted to appeal to both Western
and Québec separatists with this measure, and to appeal to
parochial interests across the country. Provincial governments, the
beneficiaries of the power shift, signed on and encouraged voters to
support the accord in a national referendum, and Mulroney warned
opponents that if it was defeated, Québecois would see this as a
rejection of their need for 'sovereignty' and vote to separate from
Canada. Voters were enraged by this attempt to blackmail them, weaken
the federal government, and plunge the country into an unnecessary
constitutional crisis, and soundly defeated the accord in the
referendum (ironically, Québec and the West were most strongly
opposed). Mulroney was forced out in disgrace, the PC party lost almost
every seat in the next election, and the party has never recovered.
Québec is a world unto itself, a completely different culture
and a separate 'nation' in the real sense of the word. Since it
recovered from a horrific period of economic underdevelopment and
self-imposed isolation in the early 20th century, Québec has
shown itself to be Canada's most progressive province, socially and
economically. Like the West, Québec is also split into two equal
factions. The centrists prevail in much of Montréal, a
wonderfully cosmopolitan city but one which has struggled economically
because of the hesitation of American and Ontario-based businesses to
invest in a province that constantly threatens to separate. The city
really doesn't get a fair shake. Québec nationalists prevail in
much of the rest of Québec -- socially and economically
left-of-centre like the NDP, but determined to take Québec out
of Canada or at least renegotiate confederation as an 'economic union'
of two 'distinct societies'. My personal belief is that Québec
separation (although currently at a low ebb in popularity) is
inevitable. Equally inevitable is that Québecois will find
separation doesn't make things any better, and that the rest of Canada
will find it doesn't really change anything. The 'border crossings' and
separate currency will then disappear, and the only remnants will be
the wasted cost and residual disgruntlement. You don't change (or
protect) a language or culture by flag-waving, regulation and issuing
your own stamps.
The biggest danger with Québec separation is that Canada's First
Nations people, many of whom live in the sparsely-populated and
resource-rich Northern 80% of Québec, also feel outnumbered and
disadvantaged relative to the rest of Québecois, and have a
strong constitutional argument that they could secede from a separate
Québec if Québec secedes from the rest of Canada. Things
could get very messy. Balkan States of Canada messy.
Last but not least, Canada's Atlantic provinces are qualified
'Progressive Conservatives' -- socially conservative but economically
liberal. With the fishing industry in shambles, unemployment and
poverty in the Atlantic Provinces are high, and they appreciate the
Canadian 'social safety net' -- universal, egalitarian health care,
unemployment insurance, welfare and affordable one-class education. And
unlike the West-coasters, Atlantic Canadians
have figured out how to run a good tourism industry.
Roll up this politics to the federal level and you get a perpetual
advantage for the centrist Liberal Party. Here's how it works
(population in millions):
|
Liberal
|
PC
|
Reform
|
NDP
|
BQ
|
Total
|
Alberta
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
Rest of West
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
3
|
-
|
6
|
S. Ontario
|
12
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
12
|
S. Québec
|
4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
4
|
8
|
Atlantic
|
-
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
Total
|
16
|
3
|
6
|
3
|
4
|
32
|
(NB: The chart above
shows how regional political sentiment translates proportionally into
seats in Parliament. Many people in each region support the other
parties, of course, but not in sufficient numbers to win many seats.
Canada, like the US, does not have proportional representation in
elections).
You may have heard (if you live near the Canadian border) that the PC
and Alliance/Reform parties recently merged into a new Conservative
party. The merged parties are racked by internal dissension, because
they have very different political philosophies. The Progressive
Conservative party, which was traditionally centrist (hence the name
'progressive' in the title), and socially liberal, is based in the
East. The Alliance/Reform party, which is libertarian and socially
conservative, is based in the West. When they agreed to merge, many of
the leading PCs bolted, since they knew they would be outnumbered by
the Western Reform members. Next week the merged party will select its
new leader, who opinion polls say will be -- surprise -- the old Western
Reform/Alliance leader. Shackled to the socially-conservative policies
of Reform, the new Conservative Party is doomed in the East, and hence
federally unelectable. The Liberals must be rejoicing.
The Liberals are having problems of their own. With a dynasty that has
prevailed for most of the past half-century, the Liberals have gotten
sloppy in managing the civil service, and a group of insider criminals
has been siphoning off federal funds, using, to the government's
embarrassment, advertising agencies connected to the Liberal Party, and
some Crown Corporations, to carry out the fraud. By global, or even
large corporation standards, it's a small fraud, barely material, but
the fact that it went on undetected for a decade has shocked the
Liberals themselves, and got many voters wondering if one party in
power for too many years isn't a bad idea.
But as the above table shows, the disenchanted Liberal voters haven't
anyone else near the centre to vote for. So despite the media feeding
frenzy surrounding this scandal (the Canadian media haven't had much
domestic politics to talk about for over a decade), the Liberals
continue to outpoll the merged Conservative party 46-31%. Illogically,
the media are suggesting that this could produce a minority government,
with the separatist Bloc Québecois holding the balance of power.
Although the numbers don't add up, last night the BQ leader said he
would be prepared to support the Conservatives rather than the Liberals
in such a situation. The proud old Progressive Conservatives, who a
generation ago occupied the political centre and won a majority
government by doing so, must be groaning -- nothing could be more
suicidal for this new and unacceptably (in the East anyway)
right-of-centre Conservative Party, than to associate themselves with a
party dedicated to the break-up of the country. The new Liberal Party
leader and Prime Minister Paul Martin is even more popular than his
three-term predecessor, Jean Chrétien (One thing we now have in
common with our American neighbours is that
both our national leaders were appointed, not elected, to their posts).
Canada's economy is structurally weak, and one consequence has been, up
until Bush's staggering US deficits changed everything, a weak Canadian
dollar, which dropped steadily from above parity in the mid-20th
century to US$0.61, but has rebounded in the last year to US$0.75. A
number of factors contribute to Canada's pervasive economic weakness:
- Over-reliance on the draw-down and export of non-renewable
raw resources to drive the economy, especially in Western Canada
- The unequal North American competitive playing field
created by Canada's egalitarian social safety net (which requires taxes
10-15 points higher than comparable US rates)
- Differences in the Canadian work ethic compared to the US,
producing lower 'productivity' in Canada than in the US:
- Canadians' aversion to having both parents working unless
absolutely necessary (so voluntary labour force participation rate in
Canada is lower than in the US)
- Canadians' aversion to working excessive hours or two
jobs unless absolutely necessary (so average work week is lower,
minimum wage is higher, and average entry-level salary is higher in
Canada than in the US)
- Overwhelming foreign ownership and control of almost every
Canadian industry (70% of businesses generating over $50 million in
revenue are foreign owned; in the resource industries it's even
higher), leading to 'resource starvation' of Canadian subsidiaries, low
investment in R&D and training, inefficiencies from management
neglect, environmental damage and owner indifference, high turnover
rates etc.)
- Poor management of public enterprises compared to Europe,
due to the North American stigma of such jobs and the lower salaries
paid relative to comparable 'private sector' jobs
- Recent decline in the quality of the education system, due
to poor management and the challenge of dealing with a student body of
which less than 50% has either English or French as their first language
- Lax environmental laws, stewardship and conservation
programs, resulting in absurdly low prices for natural resources, and
hence massive waste of those resources
Despite these structural weaknesses, Canada has some unique advantages
relative to the US, and in fact relative to most countries in the world:
- We're the most innovative people on the planet: Canadians
win a disproportionate share of Nobel and other prizes, and produce a
disproportionate share of the world's medical technologies, software,
and non-trivial patents
- We're the most entrepreneurial people on the planet: The
proportion of the Canadian labour force employed in entrepreneurial
businesses is almost 20 points higher than any other country except the
Scandinavian countries
- We excel in the burgeoning entertainment industry:
Canadians produce over twice the proportion of successful actors
(especially comedians), film-makers, musicians, directors, producers,
and writers as the US, UK or Europe
- If we can learn to manage it properly, we could generate
ten times the jobs from tourism (especially eco-tourism) that we
currently generate from the low-employment, environmentally-degrading
forestry, mining, farming and oil & gas industries
- Because of the social safety net and our egalitarian and
caring culture, Canada has a low crime rate and a low rate for most
diseases
- We have a huge proportion of the world's fresh water supply
(though admittedly we don't have the resources, or currently the will,
to prevent it being stolen, or sold at basement prices to exporters)
It's been said that the cold climate 'defines' Canada. And in fact, a
popular Canadian folk song is called Mon
Pays, C'est l'Hiver (my country is winter). But while geography and
place are important determinants of culture, I think this is overblown.
The climate where 95% of Canadians live is indistinguishable from that
of neighbouring American states. What does impact our culture is the
isolation of our five population clusters from each other. That means trade
and travel tend to be North-South rather than East-West, keeping the
five clusters politically and culturally distinct and blurring cultural
definition between Canada and the US. Because Canadians basically fear
the US, there is a remarkably strong belief in Canadian federalism
and the need for a strong federal government, driven more by insecurity
than by patriotism. Canadian 'cultural industries' are carefully
protected and have flourished as a result. And the sense of regional
isolation makes Canadians on the whole more interested in being part of
the world community and more curious about other cultures.
Historically, Canadian immigration and relocation have always been
East-West. Surprisingly few Canadians move here from the US and
surprisingly few Canadians opt to move to the US. Until a century ago,
migration was relentlessly from East to West (UK/Europe to Canada, and
Eastern to Western Canada). Now the flow is West to East (Asia to
Canada, both East and West). Our global focus is the result, and
historically Canada has been quick and generous in its participation in
disaster relief and peacekeeping efforts, and in the two World Wars
when they embroiled the families of many Canadians. Since WW2,
Canadians, like Western Europeans, have been pacifists, believing that
providing humanitarian aid and education is a more reliable way to
establish global peace and democracy than outside political
intervention. And Canada's borders are indefensible -- we know that if
Americans really want our water, timber and oil they can seize them
militarily, and our borders are so vast we cannot hope to keep
terrorists, or even determined refugees, out. Our defence strategy is
therefore one of compromise and placation. We work very hard to make
sure no one is very angry at us. As the weakest kid in the schoolyard,
we use our wit, humour, compassion and generosity to keep the bullies
at bay. Although anything could change in an instant, so far it has
worked well.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
