and the USA could unify, to a greater or lesser extent, and build defensive synergies that would allow us to protect and develop our rich, continental resources rather than allowing others to exploit them on their terms. The basis of her argument is that, together, we have the population and financial capital to make this happen but are dangerously inhibited by thickening border issues and a lack of understanding about each other’s countries. If anything Ms. Francis underplays fundamental


inhibitors such as the U.S. gun culture, astronomical health-care costs and America’s often rabid and blind patriotism that confound most Canadians. But recent political and economic issues in Canada highlight the fact that we are simply unable to defend our borders and our riches within them. We just don’t have the financial capital or the fire-power and likely never will unless there is a very radical mind-set change in Ot- tawa. “Canada’s Economic Action Plan” is, in reality, noth- ing of the sort. It fails to tackle the greatest threat to our pros- perity and quality of life. 2015 Canadian federal budget “goodies” will likely equate to painting out the party room while we ignore foreigners, backed by state capitalism and with little regard for our values and rules, as they wheel their Trojan Horses into our back yard. Hollowed-out, resource rich countries, as Canada is becoming, are their prime tar- gets. A merger with the U.S. could help prevent this. Although Ms. Francis does


not mention the marine sec- tor specifically, it’s clear that unification of the USA and Canada could have profound effects on both our sovereign and commercial shipping fleets. Canada’s eternally dysfunctional sovereign ship renewal plan would need to be abandoned in favour of a joint policy on fleet structure, construction and deployment. Maritime defence, enforcement and re- plenishment, whether sea or air-borne, would be a high priority. Although Canada makes noises about interna- tional navigation through Arctic waters and resource protection, it is apparent the USA would be far more assertive, especially with recent moves by Russia and China. Since the USA would have a majority interest in an


expanded coastal and Arctic fleet, under a common flag, it follows that they would want to build most of them because we have amply demonstrated our inabil- ity to do so. And they would expect Canada to pay its fair share. Based on the deferment of defence spend- ing in our 2014 federal budget it would seem that


19


we are unprepared for this. Indeed, Ottawa’s current goals of corporate and personal tax reductions under a balanced-budget scenario, at the expense of just about everything else, would need to change very quickly as the bills start rolling in from Washington. The “Jones Act” has positioned the USA to respond


quickly to government vessel requirements even though it has required owners of compliant commercial vessels to pay higher than world prices for new ships. Under a unified USA and Canada it is very possible that the “Jones Act” would become common legislation thereby ending the ability to import new ships from foreign yards. Transport Canada’s current port divestiture program


might need to go in reverse. An expanded and unified sovereign fleet would require the expansion of some existing ports and the construction of new ones, specifi- cally in the Arctic. Nanisivik on Baffin Island would need to change from a rather rickety landing stage to a full-service marine facility. The Port of Churchill could see new life as the only rail-connected, deep- water port on Arctic tidewater. The need for an Arctic-based, large, floating dry-dock is ob- vious. With ships operating on the


Great Lakes operating under a common set of rules, with no cabotage restrictions, it’s very possible that increased com- petition between fleets would deliver lower freight costs to customers. Perhaps this would drive innovation and make the “Holy Grail” of broadly-based, short-sea shipping economi- cally feasible. A tragically under-utilised resource, as the St. Lawrence Seaway currently


is, could flourish. In her closing chapters Diane Francis is under no il-


lusion that moving our respective countries into closer political, social and economic alignment will not be easy. Both countries currently lack the leadership and broad public support to make it possible. Radical- thinking spooks and cultural differences abound. But what’s the lesser of two perceived evils? Canada unable to protect its resource bounty while we and our neighbours to the south are unable to reach our full economic and quality of life potential because foreigners call the shots? Or a super-human attempt to have two purportedly friendly countries rid themselves of a crippling border, make mutual sacrifices and integrate in pursuit of control of our own destiny, safety and prosperity? An interesting question, indeed.


n April 2014


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33