I'm not expecting it to provide the full force of the Royal Navy or anything. Canadians however were serving all over the place in the British Empire. A Canadian won the Victoria Cross during the Crimean War. If this nation is going to be any sort of Canada parallel it will view maintenance of empire to be a major issue. The frontier of Canada was seen as only one part of the British Empire.
Yes, but both the economic and demographic draw of that hinterland will draw the adventurous Canadians inward, not overseas.
3) I've run into at least one person who claims the US could lose no war from 1776 onwards with the exception of the Mexican-American War.[1]
4) Doubtful, since North basically lost his job for it. [2] OTL policy to Canada was quite startlingly enlightened in general. [3]
1] There ARE a lot of kids on this forum.

2] By then it was too late.
3] In the ARW, Canada was in a state comparable to the American Colonies in 1690. British policies towards the Colonies back then were pretty good too. And as far as how Canada was treated as opposed to the American Colonies from 1763 to 1783, "Once burned, twice learned".
Doubtful. Many Americans love desert living - Arizona and Nevada are two of the fastest-growing states. What will probably happen is there will be greater desalination of ocean water. Government subsidies will reduce its cost. Americans are intensely patriotic and emigration from the U.S. has never been common. (Right now, immigrants from Canada to the U.S. outnumber the reverse by a four-to-one margin, despite the fact that the U.S. has nearly 10 times the population.) Those Americans who don't like the desert will just move to the northern states. Remember that Alaska also gets warm in your scenario.
That desert water is running out, and seawater desalinization is not economically supportable over the long run. Change the temperatures, and those immigration-emigration numbers could change drastically.
Biggest things to me is trying to resolve the early political decisions that hemmed Canada in.
1) after the American revolution the western border was set basically at otl boundary. This actually set the border North of where the Montreal fur traders had outposts on the sw shore of Lake Superior. Keeping these lands allows for a difficult but doable lake land link to the plains and access to the upper waters of the Mississippi river
LOCs allow a flood of US settlers while the LOCs for Canadians suck canal water
3) the Hudson bay company was strongly anti settlement in its lands. A change in direction for them to be merchants earlier irrespective of good allows farmland settlement earlier and allows for greater settlement of the plains pushing furher south
How? How does the Hudson Bay Company come to this decision?
4) immigration was limited for many years to Anglo Saxon races only up until the late 1870s changing this policy to allow for more British allies such as Venice gives a bigger population pool. Can also be expanded to become French monarchists sanctuary and hannouver settlement
I know that you're not supposed to accuse the British Empire of racism, but not all racism crossed color lines.
5) an earlier veterans settlement grant. Large parts of the west were settled by boer war ww1 and ww2 veterans. An earlier program allows for structured settlement and a well trained militia pool for security
This will mean displacing Native Canadian tribes
6) establishment of a native homeland in the northwest allows for a) sanctuary b) credibility and c) larger population Center. Issue is a leader like Tecumseh needed.
Problem: The Natives, being mostly Stone Age nomads, could not even accept the very concept of "owned lands". Also, concentration of Native tribes would have to happen in regions where they lived, but where White men wanted to develop. Plus it helps spread White man's diseases.
7) allow for earlier Irish migration. Even early 1800s irish were considered second class to the scots dominated culture. Could be tied to changes to enclosure laws requiring resettlement (and there is all those lumber ships returning empty) or as famine relief with crown sponsored immigration. Canada had both catholic French based communities and English protestant allowing dispersal on religious basis
You'd essentially have to have NO United States of any kind ITTL, as many Irish Potato Famine refugees wanted to go anywhere but where the Union Jack flew.
8) need to encourage settlement sooner on the west coast. Trouble is this competes with Australia.
Not really. Oz wasn't a true settlement colony until long after Canada got going. And the California and Klondike Gold Rush(es) will be all the West Coast encouragemnt you'll need. That, and warm weather, good farmland, wine, tourism

, invention of film

, etc, etc, etc.
9) need to map the country sooner. This was a large part of problems at treaty negotiations where the crown did not have updated maps. Some companies (hbc) did not want to revel the size of their holdings which screwed Canada long term. Change it so crown support of a company meant reporting to the admiralty maps on a regular basis. Helps not just with Canada but worldwide as routes and access are known
This will require direct intervention by the Crown, #10, Whitehall, AND Parliament.
10) allow for greater industrial development in all colonies. Manufacturing is allowed in the colonies sooner in exchange for English residents being part owners. Allows for greater infrastructure to be locally funded with cash still returning to England Need to break the cycle of being just hewers of wood
That will require total abandonment of mercantilism. It took the ARW to do that in the Colonies. In a peaceful Empire where little or none of the Colonies were ever fully lost? Lotsa Luck!
Another Phi Beta Kappa Summa Cum Laude graduate of the Miss Manners School, I see.
