Why Canada has nothing to fear but itself

Those old Canadian devils—fear of foreigners, a vacuum of national leadership, petty provincialism—are conspiring to rob us

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, February 21, 2011 6:00am - 28 Comments
Why canada has nothing to fear but itself

Norm Betts/Bloomberg/Getty Images

This is, as it is often said, Canada’s moment. Relatively unharmed by recession, with the soundest public finances and strongest banking system in the developed world, we have a historic opportunity to discard once and for all our self-image as a small country, and join the front ranks of global economic powers.

And yet, we’re in danger of blowing it. With the world at our feet, at the very instant we should be pressing our advantage, we seem instead to have decided to turn inward. Those old Canadian devils—fear of foreigners, a vacuum of national leadership, petty provincialism—are conspiring to rob us of our place in the sun.

All three were very much in display in the Potash fiasco, in which the premier of a province with three per cent of the country’s population was able to bend the government of Canada this way and that like a voodoo doll, merely by uttering the incantation “strategic asset”—as if a resource buried thousands of feet below the ground could be made to disappear at the stroke of a pen. Or as if a majority foreign-owned company headquartered in Chicago was somehow a jewel of national pride and identity.

Well, that was just a warm-up. With the proposed merger of TMX Group, the company that owns the nation’s major stock and derivative exchanges, and the London Stock Exchange, a.k.a. LSE Group, we are in for an extended tour through our worst national neuroses, with no more guarantee of a successful outcome in the end. Barely had the deal been announced, in fact, before the finance minister of Ontario, Dwight Duncan, was unburdening himself of his misgivings at the largest shareholder in the merged entity being from—gasp—Dubai. “We do business with the Middle East,” he said. “I am just not sure I want them owning our stock exchange.” Them. You know, “the Middle East.” So we’re off to a classy start.

Yet, if anything, the case for the TMX-LSE merger is the more compelling. Potash Corp dominates its market, and would with or without BHP Billiton’s sponsorship; the Toronto Stock Exchange, by contrast, is but a bit player worldwide, and rapidly losing market share at home to new electronic exchanges like Alpha Trading Systems—as, for its part, is the LSE. The merger is in this case a friendly one, where the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. It isn’t just the economies of scale thus derived, though that is an important consideration in a high-volume, highly liquid business where the competitive edge can be measured in the hundredths of a cent. Rather, it is the opportunity to dominate trading worldwide in the mining and resource sectors—areas of strength for each exchange on its own, but of overwhelming advantage combined.

That, at least, would have to be the calculation of the owners of each company: the only “net benefit” test that has any substantive basis to it. That is, unless they believe the returns on the merged company will exceed those they would obtain from their current shareholdings, they would not approve the deal, never mind what any regulator has to say about it. So the readiness of those who do not own the company to override the wishes of those who do is, far from a defence of Canadian ownership, the negation of it.

But then, ownership is only one way in which a company is controlled, and far from the most significant. Whether you regard this as a merger of equals or a foreign takeover, the Toronto (senior equity), Montreal (derivatives) and Calgary (venture capital) exchanges are not going anywhere, and would remain under Canadian regulatory authority. And, as before, they would live or die by whether they served the needs of their customers, the companies that list their shares on them and the traders who buy and sell them.

Indeed, even by the usual criteria of economic nationalists, it’s hard to see the loss of sovereignty in this agreement. Though the LSE’s shareholders would get a 55 per cent  stake in the new company, the largest block of its directors would be Canadian—seven, to five from the U.K. and three from Italy—as would its chairman, president and chief financial officer (though not its chief executive). Toronto would be the global headquarters for the stock markets’ business unit; Montreal would play the same role for derivatives, as Calgary would for energy.

And that is where the deal may run into trouble: not so much by the intervention of the federal government, as through the greed and rivalry of the provinces, who must also sign on to any deal. Ontario’s opposition seems motivated more by a concern that it would not get its fair share of the goodies the TMX-LSE management seem prepared to spread about the country than by any genuine fear of seeing jobs or clout move overseas—though, as we have seen, it will not hesitate to play the nationalist card if it needs to. Remember how hard it was to get the government of Quebec to agree to the merger of the Toronto and Montreal exchanges? That may be Ontario’s template.
In a way, that lets the feds off the hook: whatever the provinces decide amongst themselves, they will probably go along with. But what if the provinces can’t agree? What if Quebec, Alberta, and B.C. are onside, but Ontario is not? With a federal election looming, and Tory hopes fixed on Ontario, the national interest may once again take a backseat to the provincial.

Bookmark and Share
  • Marek

    In Canada, we can't decide on a national regulator. Maybe a side effect of this deal is we would get more meaningful regulation from the United Kingdom.

    • ColdStanding

      I have never seen "meaningful regulation" and "the United Kingdom" in the same sentance before. Especially because it is the City of London that dictates the terms to the UK parliament. The City of London's entire business model consists of obtaining financial advantage through skirting national regulation.

      Your hopes are ill-informed and misplaced.

  • Judge Roy Bean

    The country is too large geogrpahicaly with too few peple to have any coesion. Would make more sense to be split into separate states.

    • LinkHogbrow

      Right, separate "states." Most of them would be suing for statehood in no time.

      • Tom

        Only Alberta would be accepted as a state.

        • OriginalEmily1

          If Alberta became the 51st state

          Area Rank: 3rd biggest State (bigger than California, smaller than Texas).
          Population Rank: 30th most populous State (bigger than Iowa, smaller than Connecticut).
          Congressmen: 4 House Representatives and 2 Senators.
          Electoral Votes: 6

          Enjoy

          • LinkHogbrow

            Dumber than Alaska.

          • OriginalEmily1

            LOL well I was trying to be nice…but now that you mention it….

          • harebell

            Be careful, smugness will leave you vulnerable.
            Like Scots in the UK, Albertans are committed and everywhere and unlike others are focused on what their aims are.

  • Emily

    That's because Canada has never really gelled as a nation.

    We don't have one country here, we have 10.

    10 sets of rules, 10 sets of standards, 10 different economies.

    And most of them are primary resource economies at that.

    The tragedy of Canada was written in our constitution.

    • Tom

      True. While Quebec is the most extreme example, all the provinces seem to have only one common enemy" Ottawa!

      • Emily

        I think Quebec only stands out because of the language, because they're all the same otherwise.

        In fact most provinces have a separatist group.

        I don't know why they'd all see Ottawa as an enemy anyway….most other countries don't regard their capitals as 'enemies'.

        • Tim

          I wouldn't go as far to say that most provinces have a seperatist group but clearly seperatists are existent in many parts of English speaking Canada to a far greater extent than many would like to admit. First foremost I would say that many people active in BC provincial politics and media such as former BC premier Bill Vander Zalm and CKNW radio host and Province newspaper columnist Michael Smyth are at the very least soft seperatists. I don't get why the English speaking national media doesn't treat Bill Vander Zalm the same way as they treat Jacques Parizeau.

          On the TMX merger I am actually willing to give Dwight Duncan the benefit of the doubt as Ontario is generally regarded as the most "federalist" province.

          • Emily

            Only one I know of that doesn't, is Ontario. And if I were 20 years younger….

            Duncan is just being cautious right now….election this Oct.

        • kayPoots

          Enemy is too strong a word ,Emily . Adversaries is more accurate .

    • elwyYates

      Emily makes no sense when she talks about Canada . She must be American !!

      • Tom

        And another thing, Canadians have a common and convenient scapegoat: America. Canada was perfect before George Bush got elected.

        • Peter

          An amendment: Canada was perfect AFTER Bush was elected. Now that Obama's in office and he gave the Americans universal health care, we're s***ting ourselves having a crisis of confidence. There's more that divides Canadians than there is dividing Canadians and Americans.

      • OriginalEmily1

        7 generations in Canada, sorry

  • http://twitter.com/DavidMJenkins @DavidMJenkins

    Andrew Coyness is spot on. Our federal and provincial politicians are so busy tying themselves in knots trying to gain/retain power that there is no leadership focused on the greater good of the country: at every opportunity, we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because of the pettiness and lack of vision we have as a country.

    One thing I would disagree with Andrew on: we did not come through the recession in great shape. Our federal, provincial and personal indebtedness is dangerously high and shows no sign being recognized as a problem, let alone addressed. Our 'leaders' keep prattling on about how we are the envy of the world without realizing that's like claiming to be the tallest dwarf on a basketball team.

    • Thwim

      Why do you hate democracy?

    • Peter

      What has Harper done for the good fo the country? The only thing I can think of is appointing Doer as ambassador so that we have a Dipper that can easily get along with Obama and his gang of community organizers.

      Truth is, Harper does things for the good of Alberta and the west. A national securities regulator? That still hasn't happened (probably 'cause of Calgary). How about eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, like work credentials? Hasn't happened, because then those eastern bastards would flood the booming western economies with job seekers. As reported the other day, Harper's potential legacy achievement, the establishment of free trade with the EU, may yet be scuttled by his true legacy: his blind support for the oil sands. Even his other major achievement, the GST cut, should be seen for what it really is: a reduction in the ability of the federal government to tax Alberta. Good fo the country? Wild Rose country, maybe.

  • excanuck

    As is his habit, Mr Coyne writes with the curate's egg as a template, ie, be good but only in parts. He should have listed as one of Canada's unfortunate shortcomings a parochial press as typified by this article.

  • ColdStanding

    How was the investment review of PCS a fiasco? Was it a fiasco for the PCS share holders? No, the stock is now around $170/share, a pretty nice capital appreaciation. Nor is it likely to go down due to the increasing number of mouths to feed.

    What difference does it make if Saskatchewan is only 3% of Canada's population? What percentage of benefit is PSC to the rest of Canada vs. Sask? It seems to me that the interest of Saskatchewan far out weigh everone else's. The management of the resource (and resources are provincial jurisdiction) is a very significant interest of the Prov of S and the people which that institution is formed to serve. The loss of tax revenue would have been a substantial hit.

    If Canada came through the recent recession better off than other nations it is because there was actual enforcement of regulations. The TSX/LSE merger becomes a transnational, an organizational structure VERY resistant to regulation.

  • Mike T.

    Meh. It will not be disaster if Coyne's recommendations are not followed, nor utopia if they are.

    • jonatwitan

      I don't think Coyne suggested there would be a disaster….simply that Canada once again will have missed an opportunity to assert itself economically in the global community. In other words, it will still be more of the same ol' small country with the big superpower neighbour complex for Canada going forward.

  • Ariadne

    Each one should be careful what is signed. Once an agreemet is reached and signed there is no going back. Case in point, Newfoundland/Labrador's hydro agreement with Quebec. Signing up a lease agreement the first time, has taught me that lesson just as badly, everything that is not in it counts just as much as what is in it. Coyne have some points, but also misses many that are just as important.

  • http://twitter.com/matwilson6 @matwilson6

    Don't brag about the strongest banking system. Talk about the deficit in the face of such strong backing. THAT IS A TOTAL DISGRACE !

    Follow me on Twitter, and you will understand how destructive the Conservatives are, DESPITE the banking system:

    http://twitter.com/matwilson6

    You know what a Dictator sounds like when he is afraid to debate his opponent.

From Macleans