Article content continued

Some isolated communities we probably do want to subsidize. If we don’t want the Russians running the North, Canadians need to be there. But access to most such places is by plane or ship. Greyhound doesn’t come into it.

Beyond that, is there a national interest in keeping open every small Canadian community whatever the cost? No. Places die. It happens. It’s sad and disruptive for the people who live there. But once those one-time costs have been borne they and their kids will find a much broader range of opportunities in the city. Not even in Canada is there a human right to your precise status quo.

What about the argument that people coming to the city impose costs on those of us already here? That may or may not be true. More people wanting to buy my house raises its value, which I see as a good thing. On the other hand, in Montreal’s summer of road discontent, with just about every major bridge and artery under repair, it’s honkingly obvious that more people can create problems for cities (though pricing road use would reduce them).

Economic theory says we should figure out the cost imposed on the cities by another rural Canadian moving here and then compare that to what we have to pay to persuade them to stay where they are. If bribing them not to move is less than the burden they’d impose by coming, we should pay.

Economic practice says that’s an awfully hard calculation to do. And even if we did divine the optimal subsidy, it would never get through the political system intact.

Let’s free up competition for buses, get bus costs down, and then let small-town Canadians — many of whom are, I’m sure, very nice people — decide for themselves what to do.