I wonder what kind of country Canada would be today if René Lévesque had not been elected and that had not kicked off the exodus of Corporate Canada from Montreal to Toronto. Would Montreal then be the #1 city in the land? And much more importantly, would the Expos still be playing?

Toronto is certainly "downtown Canada" but it does not represent the country in an overall sense. This has nothing to do with resentment but simply the fact that Toronto is incredibly diverse and cosmopolitan and far more so than any other city in the country or planet for that matter.

Toronto's dizzying ethnic and racial makeup does not reflect the reality of Canadian demographics outside the GTA. Outside of Asians in Vancouver, most of Canada is decidedly white and of European extraction.

St. John's was under total blackout at night (you couldn't even have a light on inside your home) until May 18, 1945.

In addition to the ferry sinking Architype mentioned, the Battery neighbourhood was torpedoed, causing damage but no deaths. Suburban Bell Island was torpedoed, killing 60+.

The Nazis snuck ashore and installed a land-based weather station in Labrador.

Subs captured after the war had mementos from St. John's on board - ticket stubs, etc. That's one of the reason they're suspected for some of the more suspicious accidents in the City during WWII, such as the Knight's of Columbus Fire that killed 99.

You can make the same counter-argument the other way too, though, in that the Peterboroughs or Kingstons don't reflect the mass multicultural makeup that our larger cities have. Canada in Toronto or Vancouver is very different from Canada in Sudbury or Corner Brook.

There's no turning backs on anyone - it's pushing forward with whatever we aspire to. What would you prefer Toronto do to not "turn its back" on the rest of Canada? Would you rather Toronto be held back from becoming a world city?

Toronto represents is more an image of the world than a representation of Canada. For a city to really be "canadian" or "canadienne", I think it must be, to a certain point, a meeting place between the English, the French and the Frist Nations. It also has to be a place where immigration happened (toutes proportions gardées). For that matter, I really think that the 3 most "canadian" cities of the country would be :
- Moncton (English, French, Mi'kmaq);
- Montréal (French, English, Mohawk);
- Winnipeg (English, French, Métis, various FN);
- Honourable mention to Ottawa, though it lacks the FN factor...

The least "canadian" places would be those monolithic enclaves, with no real connection to the rest of the country. The example that comes to mind is Westmount, QC. They never tried to blend or whatever...

Anyway, just my POV. I had a great time reading the 7 previous pages.

You basically stepped into what I was getting at.

I think a valid question is whether Toronto is a world city that is Canadian or just some random world city.

I would argue Toronto is more of the latter.

Paris London NYC Tokyo are bona fide world cities that act as the interfaces of their nations and their cultures with the wider world.

Even Montreal is arguably like that for Quebec and French Canada.

Toronto does not really play that role for Canada and does not seem interested in taking it on.

Ironically, if it were it would probably beef up its global status.

Who are "the English"? As far as I know, actual Englishmen were not all that influential in Canadian history. If you mean Scots and Americans, then I get it (although many of the Americans who were Loyalists were of German background and didn't even speak English).

For administrative reasons Ottawa actually has a sizeable indigenous population, with people from all groups from all across the country.

But yes the locally rooted indigenous culture and presence is fairly weak.

Perhaps not English in origin but Anglo-Canadians are clearly an identifiable group.

No one would argue Québécois or French Canadians are not a real thing because many have Irish, Scottish or indigenous origins.

The stereotype of Toronto being too "Provincial" (vs. Montreal) in terms of being able to assume "World city" status, is outdated. Nowadays, Toronto is certainly being noticed in ways that it was not outside of Canada. It therefore plays the role (for Anglo Canada) that Montreal plays (for Franco Canada), while being nearly twice the size and representing three times the hinterlands. I find it strange that people would suggest otherwise. That may have been true in the 70s, but not today.

While I would agree that Montreal is more 'unique' than Toronto (history, language, in North American contexts) I would disagree that Toronto is a notch below Montreal...it is probably a notch above (albeit not at the level of Alpha++ cities like NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, but on par with the level immediately below, e.g., Sydney, Seoul, Milan).

I do not think Toronto's ethos is provincial in nature. It is not that, it is something else. It is a city obsessed with not being provincial. And on this front at least, it definitely succeeds.

Obviously I agree that Toronto is higher than Montreal on the global pecking order at this point.

I would agree with this on the face of things. Toronto isn't a top-tier world city but I think it's nestled nicely in that secondary level.

Most of the immigrants i'm friends with in Toronto never really mention Montreal as a possible landing point before moving to Canada. Typically before moving to Canada they considered Vancouver or Toronto. I'm sure Montreal plays a larger role for people from Francophonie but on the whole i'd imagine it's well behind in consideration for a lot of immigrants.

On the one hand I think Toronto is a large, cosmopolitan, and generally interesting city with its own feel (I tend to like the "old Toronto" stuff like the original subway development, 70's office towers and residential projects, etc.). It is often maligned in an ignorant manner by people who don't like big cities or feel like their city is an underdog and so they can or should crap on the bigger city. I think part of the problem in countering it is the tall poppy syndrome mentality is very simple and visceral while the interesting aspects of Toronto are kind of subtle.

On the other hand I don't think that just being large or "diverse" is in and of itself that interesting or unique, and Toronto did hitch itself to that wagon. The notion that Toronto has some kind of near-monopoly on immigration in Canada is very out of date and it was at best half-truth decades ago. In 2020 this has hit an absurd level where people in the 50% immigrant town act like people in the 20% immigrant town are sheltered rustics who would be shocked to see a non-white person. Also, we have the US right next door.

When I was in Auckland, I couldn't help but feel the similarity to Toronto.

It had British bones as we wandered the streets near Mount Eden, but it definitely had a global feel in its population. It was clean, safe and a fine city, but it wasn't where I think I'd find representative New Zealand, as it were.

It definitely felt like where NZ might be headed in the decades ahead and I speculate if I spent more time there, I'd find that Auckland's gaze didn't focus on Wellington, Canterbury or Dunedin.

It suffers from drubbing from Kiwis from outside it. Look up what JAFA means and you'll get my gist, so it too has the tall-poppy analog there too.

It even had its own similar-looking fancy tower. :P

I would think that most people on a forum like this one would be aware that Toronto-Vancouver and Montreal often operate in pretty different spheres when it comes to where they draw their immigrants from.

Toronto is another story but I don't think Montreal is behind Vancouver in terms of immigration and certainly not well behind. Montreal has been getting more immigrants for a number of years I am pretty sure.

In any event, not sure what total immigrants really tells us anyway. If Nova Scotia were a sovereign country all of a sudden and it opened up the floodgates it could draw 100k immigrants a year to Halifax if it wanted to, simply by snapping its fingers.

I would say Toronto is least Canadian as the city lives off being lumped with American cities and culture, has virtually little to no historical buildings left or preserved. Culturally the city seems to look down on Canadian culture and common Canadian pastimes and activities be it curling, canadian football or even hockey now which seems that it is being overtaken by basketball and soccer in popularity in the GTA.

Most Canadian I would say a 3 way tie between Regina Quebec City and Halifax. The 3 cities still participate in many canadian cultural activities and pastimes, Quebec City and Halifax obviously have done a tremendous job preserving their historical buildings and they don't seem to have this embarrassment to things that are canadian that some other cities in Canada seem to have in their populations to a degree.

My point wasn't so much that Vancouver receives more immigrants per year than Montreal (in 2017-2018 MTL attracted 70K versus Vancouver's 40K, 52K to 32K the year before, and 45K to 23K the year before that) it's that more people over a wider swath of international countries are cognizant of Vancouver and show a desire to move there versus considering and moving to Montreal. Whether or not that's true or not is tough to say, but in the anecdotal evidence I get from immigrants here it is. I think it makes a difference if a city is getting immigrants from a wide slew of countries around the world instead of a handful of countries from specific pockets, but perhaps i'm wrong.

I was responding and reacting mostly to this post:

I agree with this sentiment at its base but I also think that international immigration and the integration of those peoples is a key aspect of Canadian history and culture. Being accepting of others, whether they were boat people from Vietnam, Syrian refugees, or just simple economic migrants plays a large role in our national and cultural psyche. The cultural mosaic, as it were.

When it comes to immigration there are different worlds with strong self-sorting effects. This is true of Francophone vs. Anglophone immigration streams but it also happens because of existing clusters and personal relationships or cultural infrastructure, economic factors, geography, etc. A city on the radar of one group might be completely obscure to another.

Here in Vancouver I bet the cost of living has an impact on who finds the city attractive. If you are well off it is a nice city with good quality of life but it's a tough city to get started in if you are not.

Montreal is a high-immigration city by any standard, and has generally been so for a couple of centuries. I don't know how it could be considered anything but that.

If this is an essential Canadian trait, Montreal certainly fits the mould.

I am not sure that having a diversified sourcing of immigrants is relevant to this discussion (it's arguably desirable for other reasons, but that's another debate), but even so, do Toronto and especially Vancouver really have more variety in where their immigrants come from?

If we look at where immigrants to Canada come from, the top three countries (India, China, Philippines) typically make up over 40% of immigrants that come here in any given year. India by itself supplied one quarter of all immigrants to Canada in 2019. Very few of these immigrants are going to Montreal, so one can assume a huge chunk of them are going to Toronto and Vancouver.

So somehow I doubt there is a major contrast between a kaleidoscope of source countries in Toronto-Vancouver and just a handful of countries represented in Montreal.