Tag: Canada

  • What a Difference 1500 Miles Makes

    After several days in New York, I encountered serious climate change — in terms of atmosphere — at a USA-Canada Summit in Grand Forks, ND. Sure people were concerned about the market meltdown, but the talk was all of new plans for expanding the economy across both sides of the border. The distressed martinis of Manhattan nights were gone in a place where drinks also came with good cheer.

    Perhaps most inspiring was an appearance by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) who spoke of the economic crisis but in terms far less hyperbolic than those used by many members of Congress and most of the media. He compared to the current crisis to a low tide that has exposed some weak points in the economy but has not fundamentally altered the underlying strength of what he called “the real economy”.

    This includes the manufacturing, farm, energy and business services firms that are flourishing across large parts of the country, particularly in the Heartland. Firms representing these industries at the conference were not whining about competition or the credit crunch, but talking about cooperation across the border and the prospect of a better future.

    How refreshing it would be if either of the two major candidates, particularly Senator Obama, the likely winner, spoke with such confidence about the intrinsic strengths of the country and this continent in general. I would not deny the real significance of the stock market crash and the real estate mess, but, as Senator Dorgan suggested, “optimism” about the future has been a primary driver of American progress since the founding.

    Let’s hope Senator Obama, or Senator McCain, lose some of their negative rhetoric when they take office. It may be good politics now to be a nay-sayer, but as President, these fellows will need to comprehend the country’s fundamental strengths and how to utilize them to make a strong recovery.

  • A Grand Alliance: Fostering a North American Central Economic Region

    Given current economic trends, the time may be ripe to consider as a concept, an economic region straddling the middle of the North American continent – a North American Central Economic Region (NACER). These cross-border economic regions spanning Northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, North and South Dakota and Minnesota, already share infrastructure, production facilities and research and development capacity. A North American Central Economic Region (NACER) would build on these existing relationships, as well as historic patterns of cultural exchange, cross-border trade, and travel.

    Governments with fixed territorial boundaries do not always effectively address the need for cross-border regional economic partnerships and co-operation. Often created under radically different conditions, borders can result in transactions costs that limit interaction and opportunity.

    The concept of cross-border regions in North America is not new. Joel Garreau’s Nine Nations of North America describes cross-border regions that share similar economic, social and cultural characteristics. Other concepts for cross-border economic regions include Cascadia on the west coast and Atlantica on the east coast. Atlantica is more formally known as the Atlantic International Northeast Economic Region (AINER) and is currently the focus of advocacy and research on the part of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies based in Halifax and the Eastern Maine Advocacy Corporation. The AINER concept comprises the Canadian Atlantic provinces as well as Maine, Vermont and the northern part of New York State bordering Lake Ontario.

    Cascadia has been nurtured by a government funded cross-border advocacy group initiative known as the Pacific Northwest Economic Region or PNWER. PNWER defines a region of the Pacific Northwest that includes British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington with a total population of about 20 million people. The PNWER provides a forum to address important cross-border issues in trade, transportation, the environment and energy. The 18th annual summit of the PNWER was held in Vancouver in July 2008 and discussions focused on marketing the Pacific Northwest in advance of the Vancouver Olympics, trade and travel across the Canada-U.S. border.

    In a similar manner, a North American Central Economic Region (NACER) could span Northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, North and South Dakota and Minnesota. This region stands at the cross-roads of the North American continent and essentially comprises the north-central portion of Garreau’s “Breadbasket Nation.” As a region, NACER covers 1.8 million square kilometers with a population of nearly 8 million people and a GDP (US$) of about 370 billion dollars. This economic region contains agricultural production activities, food processing, forestry, petroleum, coal, mineral and hydroelectric resources as well as substantial manufacturing and service capacity.

    The recent rise in commodity, food and energy prices has demonstrated the increasing strategic importance of the NACER zone in the long run. As well, the major centers of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Winnipeg are already locations for numerous corporate head offices, health, educational, research and government services. In addition, NACER contains vital road, rail and airport hubs that would be complemented by three ocean-going ports – Churchill, Duluth and Thunder Bay as well as the Mississippi route down to the Gulf of Mexico.

    The similarities and geographic proximity of the provincial and state economies of this region create a conjunction of common interests and possibilities for economic growth. For example, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario have abundant hydroelectric resources and would benefit from increased exports to meet growing American power needs. Given current trends in energy prices, NACER has the potential to be a 21st century energy export giant rooted in agricultural and forest bio-fuels and hydro-electricity. In particular, the potential of Northwestern Ontario as a forest bio-refining energy center and hydro-electric producer would be enhanced by sharing of expertise with Manitoba and Minnesota.

    Another specific example of economic interests coinciding can be seen in the conjunction between the aerospace program at the University of North Dakota and Winnipeg’s aerospace manufacturing sectors. As well, Manitoba and Minnesota both provide large adjacent markets for goods and services for firms in North and South Dakota.

    As a further example of common economic interests, Minnesota has robust growth and a tight labor market and some of its firms could benefit from setting up operations in nearby Northwestern Ontario which suffer a surplus of highly skilled surplus labor and capacity due to the forest sector downturn. Moreover, recent economic development initiatives announced for northeastern Minnesota could also provide opportunities for Northwestern Ontario firms. As well, improvements to the highway, road and border-crossing network in the NACER region could also generate benefits for increased regional partnerships.

    This economic region requires a sense of common vision in order to grow and prosper during the 21st century. Leaders in this region need to facilitate cross-border commerce and activity in the areas of cross-border employment and business opportunities, better relationships between producers and suppliers, improving cross-border transportation infrastructure, cross-border environmental and nature conservation, and tourism promotion. At the very least, a regular regional forum between Chambers of Commerce and political leaders to examine common economic problems and solutions would be a worthwhile endeavor.

    Institutionalizing a regular set of meetings as has been done in the Pacific Northwest would be a good start. Furthermore, developing a regional vision and set of common statistics that could be used to lobby both federal governments could also help, particularly when border issues threaten the role of the border as a zone of interaction.

    The time is indeed ripe for a North American Central Economic Region (NACER). This cross-border region shares common economic interests and is strategically positioned at the heart of the North American continent. Key immediate priorities for this region involve research and industrial partnerships, common tourism marketing and steps to reduce congestion and streamline flows of legitimate trade and travel. The next step is for interested parties and stakeholders to come together and establish a cross-border institutional framework to promote this alliance, identify issues, set priorities and most importantly, mobilize resources on both sides of the border.

    Livio Di Matteo is Professor of Economics at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay and specializes in economic history, public policy and health economics.

  • Canada’s High Tech Leaders

    If you ask most Americans, or Canadians, for that matter, where Canadian high tech is concentrated, they will point you to the great metropolitan centers of Toronto and Montreal. But in reality the real centers of tech growth in Canada are concentrated elsewhere.

    One particular standout is Ottawa, the nation’s capital. Over the past decade, Ottawa’s image has evolved from a drab and even stern city to that of a conurbation displaying major demographic, social, cultural and economic diversification (Culturally and socially, Ottawa is now on par with other North American cities of equivalent size).

    Although the public service sector remains prominent, the economy of the national capital has undergone major changes. Since 1990, the high-tech sector has grown at such a pace that in 2000, according to Mallet (2002), 80,000 individuals were on the payroll of knowledge-economy businesses, almost as many as in government offices. And Despite the sector downturn in 2001, Ottawa still ranks in the top ten North American cities where a high percentage of people holding university (bachelor and Ph.D.) degrees. This same pattern can be observed in the capital region of the United States as well.

    Table 1. Percentage (%) of the workforce in professional, scientific and technical services in the United States and in Canada (top 20).

    Rank

    Cities

    % of workforce

    1

    Washington-Baltimore

    11.54

    2

    San Francisco

    10.95

    3

    Calgary

    10.91

    4

    Ottawa

    10.47

    5

    Toronto

    9.78

    6

    Raleigh

    9.74

    7

    Denver

    9.14

    8

    Boston

    8.98

    9

    Albuquerque

    8.76

    10

    Vancouver

    8.74

    11

    San Diego

    8.72

    12

    Austin

    8.55

    13

    New York

    8.20

    14

    Atlanta

    8.19

    15

    Montréal

    7.95

    16

    Colorado Springs

    7.92

    17

    Minneapolis

    7.74

    18

    Chicago

    7.70

    19

    Houston

    7.44

    20

    Philadelphia

    7.40

    Source: Statistics Canada (2001) and US Census (2000).

    Indeed in the search for Silicon Valley North, Ottawa ranks close to the top by almost every measurement — jobs per capita, skilled workers, and high-tech growth. Ottawa may seem less than ‘hip and cool’ to most outsiders, but it outperforms its more vaunted Canadian counterparts in terms of tech growth. Overall if any area is to be considered the ‘Silicon Valley North’ it would be the Ottawa region.

    Table 5. Science and engineering employment shares for the top 30 North American cities, 2000 and 2001.

     

    Share (%)

    Rank

    San José, CA

    15.7

    1

    Ottawa–Gatineau

    11.6

    2

    Huntsville, AL

    11.1

    3

    Nashua, NH

    11.1

    4

    Washington, DC/MD/VA

    10.9

    5

    Raleigh-Durham, NC

    10

    6

    Rochester, MN

    9.6

    7

    Ann Arbor, MI

    9.2

    8

    Austin, TX

    9

    9

    Santa Fe, NM

    8.9

    10

    Seattle-Everett, WA

    8.6

    11

    Boston, MA

    8.3

    12

    Yolo, CA

    8

    13

    Fort Collins-Loveland, CO

    8

    14

    San Francisco-Oakland-Vallejo, CA

    8

    15

    Trenton, NJ

    8

    16

    Dutchess County, NY

    7.9

    17

    Santa Cruz, Calif.

    7.8

    18

    Melbourne-Titusville-Cocoa-Palm Bay, FL

    7.8

    19

    Denver-Boulder-Longmont, CO

    7.8

    20

    Colorado Springs, CO

    7.8

    21

    Calgary

    7.6

    22

    Madison, WI

    7.5

    23

    Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA

    7.4

    24

    State College, PA

    7.1

    25

    Bloomington-Normal, IL

    7

    26

    Baltimore, MD

    6.9

    27

    Wilmington, DE/NJ/MD

    6.9

    28

    Champaign-Urbana-Rantoul, Ill.

    6.7

    29

    Toronto

    6.7

    30

    Source: Canadian Census (2001) and U.S. Census (2000).

    The other major high-tech centers in Canada are Calgary and Toronto. But even here some of the results are surprising. If you look in detail at Toronto region you find that most of the high-tech growth has been clustered not in the city, but in the sprawling suburban regions around the area, particularly in places such as Kitchener. Similarly in the greater Montreal area, much of the high-tech growth is clustered around the City of Laval, an independent municipality north of the Isle de Montreal.

    What does this tell us about high-tech in Canada? For one thing it shows that places that have low crime rates, a family friendly atmosphere tend to be the best places for technology companies — very much like the pattern in the United States. Although Canada is a very different country, the fertile ground for tech companies remains very much the same both sides of the border.

    Rémy Tremblay is Canada Research Chair on Knowledge Cities, Université du Québec à Montréal

  • Post-Imperial Foreign Policy: Our best allies are countries most like US

    When the Presidential and vice-Presidential hopefuls talk foreign policy, they look every which way — towards the Middle East, Russia, Europe, Asia or Africa, but they largely ignore our own backyard.

    In the next decades of the 21st Century, our policymakers will need different priorities. When looking for our closest allies, we may well need to look away from current entanglements in unfortunate, far away places and towards a stronger relationship with countries — notably Canada — with whom we share so much.

    This requires some understanding of where we are today. The breathless talk of an “end of history” and inevitable democratization that accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union should be swept aside by now. Instead we need to understand both a greater diversity in national systems and, increasingly, a trend towards ever more authoritarian regimes.

    Anyone who has studied history should understand this. Authoritarianism has been the default mode for millennia and seems likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.

    Twenty years ago it was possible to see in Russia and even in China, signs of a transformation towards democracy and a civil society. But clearly Putinism has produced something of a legal dictatorship in Russia, a downsized Soviet Union dressed in democratic garb. China seemed headed towards a more civil, less dictatorial state — before Tiananmen ended that dream. The recent Olympics seemed to highlight an authoritarian success story in a way that the designers of the 1936 Berlin Olympics would have appreciated.

    The influence of these countries, particularly China, in the developing world is also growing. Many see the so-called “Beijing Consensus” — placing economic development ahead of even modest democratization — as more appealing than the inherent inefficiencies of popular control, not to mention American hectoring and self-righteousness.

    Even our closest historic allies in Europe are increasingly asserting their own notions of what is best for them. With a rapidly aging, even declining population, these countries do not share the basic American need for sustained, vibrant economic growth over the next few decades. Instead they likely will continue to embrace a conscious policy of slow growth and stability. This will not change even when the hated George Bush is gone — despite a possible flurry of post-election Obamamania.

    How to respond to these trends? Flex our muscles? Been there, done that and what has it gotten us? In the end, we will have fewer opportunities to apply either military or economic power. The latter is now too well dispersed in the world and likely to become more decentralized in the coming decades. Even military power has its limits as can be seen by the rise of asymmetrical warfare. At the same time rising economies like China are rapidly increasing their military might as well.

    None of this means that we should accept the fashionable notion of American decline. Although obscured by the current financial crisis, our unique strengths — demographic, economic, and even political — remain very much intact. An aging Europe, the favored candidate for preeminence among many east coast policy wonks — does not share these assets. They have their own ethnic problems, a weak military, a shrinking supply of skilled workers and a continuing dearth of babies. Their economic system may not have our unfortunate penchant for excess, but built on security, it appears to restrain innovation and risk-taking.

    China, India and Russia and other rising powers of today also face enormous demographic and economic challenges. All have large populations of poor people once you leave the westernized cores. Russia’s economy is overly dependent on commodities; China and Russia face demographic declines equal or even worse than the EU.

    So where can we find our best allies? We look to those countries who share our demographic vitality, our fecundity and common values — Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Like the United States these countries are also “countries of aspiration.” They remain enormously attractive to both skilled and unskilled immigrants, including those from Europe and Asia. If there’s a brain drain in the world, it’s mostly to the US, Canada and Australia.

    Although born to British colonialism, these countries have over time, notes historian David Cannadine, “increasingly come to resemble the United States”. This is not a matter of liking George Bush, eating McDonald’s or even getting fat. It’s about young countries that are, in their own fashion, knitting together diverse legacies, including those of indigenous people. Strong pockets of anti-Americanism exist in certain circles in all of these countries, but on the grassroots level the similarities are likely to become more striking over time.

    Bolstering ties with Canada represents by far the greatest opportunity. High energy costs mean proximity matters more than ever. Canadian and American firms need to share adjacent markets. This will strengthen even more the strongest bilateral trade relationship on the planet.

    Perhaps even more important are family ties. Canada remains the largest source of visitors to the United States and vice-versa. Some 800,000 Canadians have settled permanently in the United States; 200,000 Americans have moved north to Canada. Many have dual citizenship. (A quick disclaimer: my wife is a native of Quebec and a dual citizen).

    Building on these natural ties will take some psychological changes in both countries. A strong alliance requires both a confident Canada and a respectful America. Americans need to stop thinking of Canada as a kind of northern icebox that we raid for resources when hungry. Canadians, for their part, should no longer regard themselves as America’s poor cousins but as equal partners with enormous resources, both human and material.

    With Canada, this relationship can be immediately strengthened at both the national and regional level. One step would be to embark on a program of cross-border infrastructure that would expand trade corridors from the Arctic down to Mexico, from Cascadia to the north Atlantic. Such steps would increase markets and productive capacity across our common continent.

    Another potential opportunity lies in building an alliance around environmental and energy issues. A strongly integrated North American Energy Community, including Mexico, could insulate Americans from unreliable suppliers in the Middle East, Russia and South America. For Canadians, it would cement a stable, long-term relationship with a steady customer and perhaps guarantee a floor on prices.

    Finally, NAEC would work on environmental concerns related to energy. We all share a common space here in North America; mountain ranges, rivers, lakes and topographical zones do not recognize borders. As we work to secure our common energy future, we should then create a sustainable future for all the residents of the great continent.

    Of course, none of this likely will excite the policy elites in Washington. They are already atwitter with ideas for how the President should address our relations with Pakistan, Russia, China or other troublesome distant place. It would be refreshing instead if perhaps Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain, on taking office, might first consider to build stronger relations with a neighbor who shares not only values and family ties but also this vast, rich and blessed continent.

    Joel Kotkin is Executive Editor of NewGeography.com.

  • Canada’s Immigration Dilemma

    The subject of immigration in Canada presents a great dilemma for many Canadians. Like other countries of the western world, Canadians do not have enough children of their own to maintain the population at its present level. At the same time, the overall population, which is around 33 million, is getting older. Baby boomers are looking at retirement. Many calculate the amount of income they will need in order to maintain a decent standard of living. Their calculations include government pensions. The absence of a sufficient younger, active, working population to continue paying for the system of pensions presently in place and on which our retirees depend is well known and understood in the country.

    Since the problem is staring us in the face, the evident solution is to turn to immigrants from other countries to make up for our shortfall. But Canada’s ethnic situation was already complex enough as, in addition to the original inhabitants known as the First Nations, the founding populations of Canada, the French and the English, have in the past been referred to as “The Two Solitudes”. The descendants of the original French settlers are concentrated mainly in the province of Quebec. There are French-Canadians in other provinces as well, though, generally, not in large numbers.

    Over the last few decades, many French Quebecers started worrying about their diminishing numbers in other provinces as former French speakers began primarily using English in their daily transactions and sending their children to English schools, either due to a lack of French schools in the area they lived in or to facilitate their own integration or that of their children. The net result was a steady decrease of that population declaring French as their mother tongue in Canadian censuses.

    Inside Quebec, after the English conquest in 1759, in order not to lose the French language and their religion (Catholicism), the French population of 60,000 people coalesced around the Church. The Church was seen as the unflinching defender of that population’s language and culture. Moreover, again under the influence of the Church, French-Canadian families were having many children, so much so that in the 1960s, Canada was home to approximately six million French-speaking people.

    This is when modernity set in. French-Canadians decided that the place of religion was to remain in the church and, parallel to what was taking place elsewhere in the democratic world, the birth rate plummeted. From 1956 to 1961, the birth rate was 4.2 children per 1,000 married women. In the 1990s, Quebec’s birthrate was the lowest of all Canadian provinces. From 1986 to 1991, the Quebec fertility rate was only 1.5, therefore very much less than the 2.2 children needed for a population to replenish itself.

    In the short term, recent government measures such as a generous parental-leave program have contributed to an increase in the birth rate. While in 2004, Quebec had 74,200 births, the birth rate rose in 2006 to 10.6 per 1,000 population, compared to the national rate of 10.5. According to government statistics, there was a further increase in 2007, albeit a small one. However, these small increases in the young population do not come close to remedy the wide gap with the need for replenishment of the work force.

    Consequently, for both Canada as a whole and Quebec in particular, the issue of immigration has become a crucial one. The question of who will support pensioners comes to mind immediately, according to a 2008 survey by the respected CROP polling firm 38% of Quebec workers say they plan to retire before age 60 and 61% plan to retire between the ages of 55 and 64. The implications are food for thought. European immigrants are now outnumbered by immigrants from the rest of the world.

    Strong arguments against discrimination have led to a system of points awarded in considering whether one qualifies as an immigrant. The philosophy behind that point system is that an immigrant should have the prerequisites likely to make for harmonious integration. Having skills needed for employment, a support system in terms of already established family or friends, and knowing one of the two official languages of Canada, either French or English, are a help in determining if one should be accepted as an immigrant.

    Many people arriving as immigrants came from countries that were once British colonies, such as Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Jamaica and Nigeria.

    There is also a large percentage of immigrants coming from China. If continued unabated, these substantial numbers would have drowned the diminishing numbers of French-speaking Canadians. Also worrisome to concerned defenders of the French language was the fact that most of these immigrants in Quebec could function effectively in English and never had to learn any French.

    The federal government has taken some measures to promote the language. For example, food packages must contain French as well as English. Although sometimes difficult to implement, federal government offices across the land must be able to offer their services also in French.

    In Quebec, restrictive laws on the English language have promoted the use of French, particularly in Montreal. The ultimate problem, however, remains the small French population within a surrounding sea of speakers of English in North America.

    Eager to maintain its predominately French speaking status, the province of Quebec came to an agreement with the federal government in 1978 and was given a measure of authority to select their immigrants. The Quebec government could select a percentage of immigrants based on the proportion of the population in Quebec versus that of Canada. The Quebec government decided to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants which it found mostly in Haiti and French-speaking Arabs from the Maghreb, mainly Algeria and Morocco. Quebec also looked for immigrants from Latin-American countries with the premise that they could adapt easily to the French language and culture.

    Canada and Australia are the two leading countries with the highest proportion of their total population born in other countries. In 2004, Canada received over 230,000 immigrants. Being a democratic society, Canada does not restrict immigrants to any one part of the country. People arriving in Quebec or any other province are free to move elsewhere if they choose to. It is not rare to find that immigrants arriving in Quebec who have an easier time with English than French will not stay long in that province, thereby causing havoc with all the calculations of the Quebec government.

    In the past, Canada prided itself on being different from the U.S. in its philosophy regarding the integration of its different ethnic populations.

    Where the U.S. favoured the “melting pot” approach, Canada favoured the “multi-cultural” approach, encouraging immigrant societies to perpetuate their own culture in this country. Supposedly this approach would contribute to harmonious relations with other ethnic groups, with the general population as a whole, and result in happy integration within Canadian society.

    Of late, the multi-cultural approach has been called into question. The issue under debate has been whether that concept of integration does, in fact, facilitate integration or whether, instead of contributing to unity, it tends to keep people apart and is contrary to Canadian unity, accentuating differences within the Canadian population. The question has not yet been resolved.

    There are many problems that come as no surprise as they exist in all western countries. Immigrants have always known that the first few years in a new country could be difficult years. I, myself, did not have an easy time when I came to Canada many years ago and neither did my friends also young European immigrants. Even the many well-educated immigrants struggle because their academic credentials are often not recognized as equal to similar credentials awarded by Canadian institutions. Unfortunately for them, their expectations of recognition of those credentials are disappointed more often than not.

    Stories abound of medical doctors, some with much previous experience, not granted the license needed to practice as doctors in Canada. There is much need for more medical practitioners in Canada, but both the medical lobby and the government budgets set strict restrictions on who can practice as a doctor. There is talk, of relaxing some of those restrictions, but one should not hold one’s breath. We’ve been there before.

    Of course, the example of doctors is often given prominence. But similar obstacles apply to many other professionals who also are told that they lack Canadian experience. However, they are supposed to have been informed before their departure that they will not be able to practice medicine, law and some other professions. Many believe that there is an element of subtle discrimination as many of them are members of what is termed visible — meaning non-white — minorities. Be that as it may, immigrants always faced difficulties in a new country. Yet, they keep coming, and in great numbers. The backlog of waiting, hopeful, would-be immigrants is estimated at somewhat below but close to one million.

    There are other problems. As in other occidental countries, many would-be immigrants use the back door to come in. They arrive, legally or not, and then claim refugee status. The traffic of would-be refugees ranges in the billions of dollars. As a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, anyone in Canada applying for refugee status has the right to have his claim being heard in person. Many of those applying have had a story of persecution concocted for them before they arrive here. Some purchase their story once in Canada or have their history of persecution “improved” by newly-found friends in their community. That way, many applicants for refugee status are able to obtain the immigrant status that would otherwise be denied to them under normal conditions.

    In summary, Canada faces many of the same problems faced by several other western countries: a population growing older that needs to be replenished and the need to facilitate the integration of newcomers which are of a background different from the descendants of the earlier European population that used to constitute the backbone of the country.

    Leon Graub is a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board recently retired. He came from France to Canada in 1951 and resides in Laval, Quebec.

  • Attracting American Companies to Canada

    A few days ago I received in the mail the latest issue of Area Development. I really enjoy this magazine with its rankings on the cities with the best business climate and articles on how to attract skilled workers. As an academic whose research deals with how to attract and retain top-quality workers, I cannot help but enjoy this magazine.

    This time Area Development came with a 40-page glossy pamphlet called Location Canada. It was filled with colorful pictures of downtowns, industrial parks and happy workers. What a great idea, I thought. This is the perfect readership.

    But I wonder how many readers or companies would be attracted by these happy scenes. First there’s the issue of politics. It is no secret that Canada is a center-left country. The only right-wing folks are mostly concentrated in the Province of Alberta— which is also the fastest growing economy in the nation. True, Conservatives ran the country for about a decade in the 80s and have run a minority Government since last year. But most American conservatives would find ours a bit too liberal. Although the Conservatives may be against abortion, they will have to accept gay rights, strong gun regulations, universal health care and multiculturalism (as opposed to the melting pot). So this could be a major turn-off for most American conservatives willing to give it a try in Canada.

    If you’re a member of the religious-right , you’d better forget Canada. Here religion and politics are totally separated. No God Bless Canada. And No God Saves the Queen ether. Most people, at least under 70, don’t care much about British Royalty either.

    Needless to say that a young left-of-center Democrat would react differently – not that he or she would fall in love with our values and want to move right away. After all, we have our very own cultural identities, celebrate different holidays and have different heroes (one might argue we also have fewer and venerate them less).

    If a tech worker and his family wanted to work in Montreal (in the Province of Quebec with its 80-percent French-speaking population with 50-percent of them dreaming of splitting from Canada), well, be ready for a real culture shock. No, this is not fake! People do speak French for real. And those outside of Montreal do not speak much English. I am saying this because I have heard many Americans saying out loud that Quebecers are just faking it. Believe me, they are not. Quebecers are also very proud of their culture and language, and expect immigrants to learn their language , support their values and culture (there was a very hot debate last year about what to do with immigrants who want to impose their religious beliefs at work and in schools).

    So while many tourists or students might enjoy a sojourn in La Belle Province, staying on as a working adult is a different matter. True, some working environments are mostly English but occasionally they are fined for it.

    But Canada’s mild socialism — inside and outside Quebec — also has its advantages. Government health care can be very attractive, not only for working families but for companies concerned with a large health care burden. This is one key reason why Toyota recently chose to build its plant in Woodstock, Ontario rather in the US (it already has one in Cambridge, Ontario).

    Canada also has a generous parental-leave program for pregnant women and even for fathers. We are not talking weeks here but months of well-paid leave. You can also put your child in state-subsidized daycare.

    Paternalism does not stop as you age. Once your child is almost an adult he or she will have to chance to attend a Quebec university for about $4000 a year, including elite schools like McGill University . Students from low-income families can very easily obtain student loans. Interest rates on those loans are low and will not negatively affect their credit record when the time comes to get a mortgage. Banks actually don’t even look at it even if you owe $50,000. Also, for families, municipalities run $20 a week summer camps . Generally those are safe and state-regulated. Of course, Canadians pay for those services through their income tax ; it’s really a question of whether the trade off is worth it. Generally speaking, the more affluent you are, or intend to become, the less the welfare state works for you.

    And let’s talk the worst thing about Canada: winter! That, we cannot do anything about it. It is snowy and cold across the country from December until March. Things are worst in Quebec. However, Minneapolis and Boston pretty much have the same kind of winter as Toronto. Vancouver is just a few hours drive north of Seattle so it frequently as gloomy, rainy and cool.

    So would this make talented Americans think twice about working in Canada? Would it be worth the try? Liberals would like it; many conservatives would become very antagonistic and frustrated. Basically, despite the similarities, you must become accustomed to big differences. As a country, Canada works very well, but for Canadians. For Americans with big ambitions, it’s really a matter of who you are — and who you want to be.