Hacker News Reader

Harper's administration, though losing focus on the issue by the end, was keen on enforcing the Canadian Internal Waters claim [1][2]. Trudeau, not at all [3].

To the detriment of Canadians, major players around the rest of the world consider these waters international waters, and on the international level, might (or the lack of response thereof) leads to facts-on-the-ground, as we've seen time and time again.

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/myth-... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-as-much-ab... [3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-obama-arctic-1.39059...

That's because a majority of Canadians have a visceral negative reaction to any military spending. We're happy to claim the Arctic, but not if it involves money, and definitely not if it involves money for the military. Which is, IMO, ridiculous. When it comes to territories like that it's "pay up or shut up".

Canada does not have a population large enough to actually have stewardship over the territory contained within its borders. The tax base simply isn't there. Effectively Canada is a 100 Km or so strip to the North of the United States a bit wider in some places. If you want to really claim all the land up North that is barely in use you'd need a population at least 10x the present one and even then it would be a stretch.

Infrastructure and defense costs are closely related to surface area and border length if you want to keep world class powers out of your backyard.

Which leads to one of my personal bug bears: that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I think this would go a long way to improving the business, economic and cultural climate in Canada as well as making us less of a push-over in dealing with the United States. Again, an opinion that is not shared. Most Canadians want the current immigration levels to be maintained or reduced.

>that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America.

I fully agree with you, but you have to see the irony in that statement: the more immigrants you take in the less independent you are.

Canada already have 20% of its population being forign-born[0]. Dramatically more immigration would mean that percentage rising to 30 or even 40%.

I'm a panhumanist and an immigrant myself, so I have zero problem with this, but I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high.

[0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...

"[T]he more immigrants you take in the less independent you are". I don't see how this follows. The way I see it, you can be more independent because your size allows you to develop large internal markets, make it easier to develop cultural products that cater to your populace, and (as the poster above pointed out) make it easier to put together the scratch to defend your borders etc.

I think people are worried about immigration not because of independence, but because they worry that:

* The cultural makeup of the country is changing

* Immigrants will be a drain on public finances (particularly healthcare and welfare)

* Cities will become more crowded (really, people who speak of Toronto as crowded should visit Asian countries...)

> you can be more independent

Provided you have a mix of immigration from a variety of cultures, and be careful of arising dominance.

I am of the opinion that the west coast of Canada will effectively be a Chinese colony "soon", and the rest of Canada will follow (not officially, of course), simply due to their growing economic dominance, in Canada and in general.

On the bright side, I suppose there are many far worse countries to be colonized by.

Also Northern California, Oregon and Washington, according to Igor Nikolaevich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Panarin

Map of theory outcome: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Pa...

That theory seems plausible for when the theory was written (In the summer of 1998, based on classified data about the state of the U.S. economy and society[18] supplied to him by fellow analysts at FAPSI,[2] Panarin forecast the probable disintegration of the US into six parts in 2010) but I think he underestimates the ability for those in power to control the masses and the economic system on a truly massive scale.

Personally, I just think the west coast of North America is a particularly beautiful part of the world, add in all the advantages that come with being part of North America and it is a natural place for the elites from China to want to own a piece, which is precisely what they are doing. Couple that with the current fashion of "anti-racism" and anyone who happens to notice what's happening and comment on whether there may be some inherent risks (long term sovereignty, etc) is vigorously attacked as being a "racist".

I've always believed a well run ~dictatorship is the superior (well, most powerful) form of government, and it seems to me that is more or less what China has, so barring any missteps I think they will naturally take over the world relatively soon, perhaps with not a single shot being fired, it will be purely by immigration coupled with natural allegiance to the motherland, the notion of which in today's intellectual fashion in the west is laughed off as a racist conspiracy theory, but I suspect in most any Asian culture would be considered simple common sense.

You can see this to a degree in Vancouver Canada today, go to any family event and not only will it be majority Chinese, but more telling is baby strollers and children - non-Chinese will typically have zero or one child, while Chinese will typically have multiple. 75% of strollers are pushed by Chinese parents. Another interesting thing is, usually it will only be the mother in attendance, as the father is probably back home working in China (not paying Canadian taxes in the process, weakening the economy further). I doubt all of this is some grand conspiracy, but it is incredibly effective.

That said, I would never underestimate the capabilities of the various intelligence agencies in the west to take China down by some unseen nefarious means, however: a) I would think if this was ever going to happen, it would have started by now b) who do these people answer to, and do they particularly care whether China colonizes the west coast of North America?

> * Immigrants will be a drain on public finances

This is interesting because it's easily proven wrong. Usually immigrants are a net contributor to public finances, and moreso than “non-immigrants”. I believe that's because immigration policy is very selective so you mostly get able-bodied younger workers coming in, whereas the general population contains proportionally more children, elderly, sick people, etc.

Though I believe this also holds even for non-selective immigration (e.g. intra-EU, undocumented immigration from Mexico to the US) within certain parameters (probably not true for, say, refugees).

>> I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high.

And I thought the most of them are offsprings of immigrants like the majority of the North-Americans ...

They probably wouldn't worry if the new waves of immigration were coming from cultures similar to their ancestors. Doubt you'd hear a peep if a new wave of, say, Dutch, came over.

Though that's not a given in general. I live in Guatemala and of course everyone knows folks live in the US legally and illegally. The older ones that went illegally decades ago seem very negative on the current folks coming in.

At the end of WW II Canada had the world's third largest navy. I get that a military spending is like insurance: if you don't need it it's wasted money, and there are always other things to spend your cash on. But Canada really seems to have allowed its military to languish to an unnecessary degree.

And why wouldn't you? When you're friendly with the neighbors next door to the south, and they own the world's premier military and love to show it off, why wouldn't you outsource military spending to that neighbor? There are plenty of nice things you could buy with the savings.

I suppose, if you're willing to believe your neighbor to the south will always be willing to come to your aid when you call. Even assuming your interests don't conflict, that doesn't mean they'll always coincide.

I wonder if, for example, the US would be willing to threaten Chinese fishing boats to protect Canadian fisheries, should it come to that. I'm thinking probably not.

Also, the amount of influence you have in influencing policy in these international military coalitions depends in large part on how much you bring to the table. It's rarely, IMO, a good idea to get involved in coalition warfare, but you'd like to have the option if your country's interests would be served in doing so.

Russia is similarly underpopulated given its area, but it doesn't prevent it from effectively controlling access to Siberia and Far East, even though those are also similar large swaths of unpopulated land.

The West does not have the appetite for the sort of quality of life Russians must lead to allow this as evinced by the differences in the healthcare budget and military spending as a percent of GDP between Canada and Russia.

Sure, infrastructure spending in those regions is at an all time high. Roughly 0. /s

Really, Russia is except for some large population centers pretty much bankrupt and it isn't that those parts of the world are so much better controlled it is a combination of them being so much less attractive combined with the fact that what money Russia had to spend on infrastructure it for the most part decided to spend on weapons instead. So they get to keep all of it but at the same time make their population so impoverished that once their natural gas and oil run out the whole thing will collapse even further.

I expect that by that time China will mop up the remains of the East of Russia without too much in terms of resistance because Russia simply won't be able to hold on to it.

As long as the US thinks the northwest passage is an international passage then no amount of bases or ships would matter. Canada simply can't win that fight.

There are just too many ways for US to exert soft pressure on Canada: softwood lumber, NAFTA repeal, extra tariff and transit charges for oil sand output. (admittedly that last one might be a good thing for Earth)

The panama canal of the arctic won't be the northwest passage, it's going to be the eastern passage over russia. The NWP water is too shallow, badly cartographied, you still risk getting caught in ice and it has very dangerous storms. Shipping companies would rather take a few more days to get to the pacific than take a big risk.

This is correct. The only passage open the last few years has been the Lancaster Sound route which is not suitable for shipping. The Prince of Wales Strait is the only viable route, but hasn't opened up fully the last number of years.

In contrast, the Northeast passage has opened up every year for the last 10+ years and offers huge gains for ships from Asia to Europe. From wikipedia, the difference between Suez and NEP for Yokohama to Rotterdam is 37% shorter.

Only if we assume that sea level rise will not be significant, and that the changing climate will not affect common storm tracks.

How much of a military presence do we really need, in order to enforce regulations over shipping traffic though? Surveillance by spotter planes / drones, combined with the threat of legal action against the ship's owners, ought to deter all but the most hardcore bastards.

For them, in theory, a rare single cruise missile from Norad ought to suffice. Even then, you could start with a warning shot, and bill the ship's owner for the missile.

For more complicated missions, we could fly out a small inspection or police team in a flying boat. Instead of relying on arrays of 20cm cannons for protection, they would depend on the above mentioned system (which is similar to the Norad system already in service).

Not much. Denmark patrols similarly huge and empty arctic Greenland with a 14-man strong unit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol

Sure, there's a bit more to it than that, but Denmark is a lot smaller than Canada, and has unremarkable military spending, even for its size.

> The arctic will be policed by the American's and Russians

As it always has, because we don't have the millitary power or population to defend any of our own territory. The US does that for us. It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place.

> It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place.

Personally I disagree - I think it's fortunate that there are still large swaths of undeveloped natural territory in Canada, particularly the northern provinces. It might be cold up there, but it sure is beautiful.

I agree we should have a stronger military presence up north but I don't see how that changes anything. Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there.

> Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there.

In theory. In practice Canada has neither the resolve, the funds or the strength to put that into practice. I'm not sure that's a bad thing either, the fact that Canada technically owns it but does not start drilling like mad or doing other bad stuff that far up North at least keeps things roughly as they are for now.

I've often wondered how long Canada can stay an independent country. I doubt it can last 100 more years, unfortunately. Some patriots in 1837 asked this very question as well, wondering why we shouldn't just join the USA and benefit from "more of everything" without sacrificing democracy. They were hanged.

The way Trump has acted towards Canada, talking about NAFTA etc, made me think of someone who has an eye for the territories up north...

Looking at the situation right now I'd think the opposite. It seems dubious for the U.S. as it is structured right now with its internal political tribal conflicts to last 100 more years, whereas Canada is more stable and internally harmonious now than it was for most of the 20th century.

Quebec separatism is mostly quiet. There's a left/centrist government in Alberta for the first time, reducing provincial tensions between the west and central Canada. Trade links with Europe and Asia have been broadened or are broadening. The economy remains spmewhat tepid but stable.

Meanwhile the U.S. itself has progressed closer and closer into the depths of right wing extremism, and shows no signs of healing.

The U.S. is not simply progressing into the depths of right-wing extremism, its extremism on both sides. If you watch Fox News, the administration and the republicans can do no wrong. Change the channel to MSNBC or CNN and the president can't do a damn thing right and all republicans are morons.

Agreed to an extent, but I think we're going to have to wait and see what the next four years have in store for us. A lot of being Canadian has to do with... not being American. The only place in Canada where I feel there is a definite core identity (completely separable from "not being american") is Quebec.

Harper being so pro-monarchy, insisting on the War of 1812 as being a national foundational myth, trying to assert soverignty in the North seem to be a realization of this identity problem. Also take the current celebrations for the federation's 150th anniversary: the branding completely skips the fact that there were people in the region calling themselves Canadiens for roughly 200 years prior...

Add to that the recent underwhelming documentary on the country's history done by the CBC and the current Premier's own belief that the country has no core identity (being "post-national").

All in all I believe there's a good chance that Canada as you and I know it today will not be around to celebrate another 100 years.

I sort of agree...

Canada has always been an elitist kleptocracy profiting off shipping out resources -- Laurentian or other elites whose fundamental modus operandi has been to control the process of digging stuff up, cutting it down, pumping it out, or trapping/killing/skinng it... and sending it out of the country while doing the least amount of industry building at home. It's always been the Family Compact, the HBC, CN, CP. A small club of elites. The current Prime Minister is the epitome of it.

Those people are still in charge and not going anywhere. As long as there's something to dig up and sell to the world they'll hold on for dear life.

Call me when you support increased military spending. Because that's what it'll take, and that's one of the few things Canadians universally don't think is all that important.

Yep, at this point we're going to be unable to prevent its claim as international waters - we didn't make it, and it's a useful waterway for travel.

Eh, history is long and moves in unpredictable ways. Just wait until the U.S. breaks up and Canada annexes the BosWash megalopolis and the West Coast, and then suddenly Canada will be policing the northwest passage again.

I seriously think Canadians should be worried more about Russia than the US. They are the ones laying claim to Canadian Arctic Waters not the USA.

I agree with the first half of your argument, but not the other.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Ar...

I can see the western states coming in to closer economic union with the west of Canada. I don't see Canadian influence dominating, though. There's too many people to the south. California alone has more people than all of Canada, for example. But there are common cultural elements from Canada all the way down to northern California. So a regional culture arising as a unifying agent, technically across country lines? I can picture it.

(SoCal is different, but that is neither here nor there in this case.)

There's that pesky Federal law that prohibits states from making their own arrangements with sovereign nations, but that does little to inhibit the actual flow of people or business.

The concept you should have a moral right over something you did not create (ie a canal) that can reduce thousands of miles on ships journeys over the open ocean is fucking bullshit and goes against international law to boot.