Union -- but what kind? (Canada The 51st State?)

Globe and Mail ^ | October 14, 2003 | Mark Lovewell and Anthony Westell

[Loyalist]

Here are two propositions that will startle most Canadians: Canada's destiny lies in political union with the United States. And far from being the end of the Canadian identity, such a union could begin a golden age in which our values and ideas spread around the globe. Union we believe to be inevitable, within 25 years. The critical question will be what form the union takes. That depends on Canadians' realism when facing our future.

Why inevitable? Borders are constantly evolving, often as states merge. Two examples: Led by Prussia, Germany became a unified nation state only in the late 1800s and is now merging into a European superstate. Britain is the union of two formerly sovereign kingdoms, England and Scotland (plus Wales and Northern Ireland). If the means to that union were sometimes bloody, the ends for the Scots were prosperity and global influence, while at home they retained their national identity -- an example for Canadians to consider.

When Europeans settled in North America, there were hundreds of native nation-states. The Europeans forced them into larger colonies, which coalesced into today's three nation states. Now, Canada and the U.S. are moving toward union, and Mexico may join later.

What drives unification? Since the industrial revolution, the goal in every democracy has been economic growth. New technologies drive growth, intensifying the struggle for markets and resources and making larger states logical. Railways and telegraphs in the 19th century made Canada and the U.S. possible. Now, businesses are structured on a continental, even global, basis for greater efficiency.

Part of this process has been the integration of the Canadian and U.S. economies. In Canada, government after government has tried to slow the process, without success. Admitting that its measures failed to reduce our dependence on the U.S. market, Pierre Trudeau's government reversed direction and proposed continental free trade in some sectors. The U.S. said no. Prime minister Brian Mulroney opted for full free trade only after it was recommended by a Trudeau-appointed royal commission.

Since then, the free-trade agreement and NAFTA have accelerated continental integration. The value of cross-border trade now far exceeds interprovincial trade; our two economies are increasingly a single entity. A continental common market agreement will be the next logical step. It will be resisted, but less strongly than before, because many sectors of Canadian society are already effectively continental. Think of professional sports, mass entertainment and continental defence.

When there is effectively one continental economy, how can there be two regulators with different goals? Most Canadians think of political union in terms of hauling down the Maple Leaf flag, and losing Medicare. It could happen that way -- if we simply drift until union is forced upon us by circumstances. But other forms of union may be possible.

If Canada gradually breaks up, as it almost did in 1995, individual provinces may seek a Puerto Rico-style association with the U.S. It's not hard to imagine the U.S. accepting Alberta and its oil and gas reserves, or Quebec with its hydro power. More desirable would be a country-to-country deal in which Canada becomes a partner in a United States of North American, electing representatives in Washington, enjoying joint citizenship and an open border, yet retaining control of social and cultural policy. Too good to be true?

Here, the example of British union is instructive. With the Treaty of Union in 1707, the Scots ceased their struggle for political independence. They retained control of their church and banks, a superior system of education and, to some extent, laws. After a tough transition, union's benefits became increasingly evident, especially after the middle of the 18th century, when there was an astonishing burst of progress. Scotland entered the 18th century as one of Europe's poorest independent countries and ended it as one of the richest and most innovative.

It was luck that the union occurred just when an expanding British Empire provided opportunities for enterprise. But much of the credit rested with the pragmatic Scots, who took advantage of new opportunities without losing an awareness of their national identity.

Union provided Scots with two ways of defining their national allegiance, Scottish or British. Many readily accepted the duality, mixing national definitions in ways that foreshadow 21st-century values. Could Canadians travel the same route?

Pollster Michael Adams, in his book Fire and Ice, shows how, despite economic integration, Canadian and American cultural values have diverged over the past decade. Accelerated integration need not cause the disappearance of Canadians' defining characteristics; indeed, the opposite could happen, with "postmodern" Canadian values exerting a powerful impact throughout the U.S. "empire," just as Scottish values did after union.

Neither Canada nor the U.S. is now interested in union, and probably won't be until some critical development occurs to force new thinking. The fragmentation of Confederation remains a possibility, forcing provinces to consider whether their best interests would lie with the U.S., or in a shaky Canada. More terrorist attacks could cause Washington to so tighten border security that Canada would have to decide whether it wished to be inside or outside Fortress America. If terrorists attacked the U.S. from Canada, the U.S. might demand the right to control security at Canada's borders (remember, for half a century the U.S. has been in charge of our air defence).

Within 20 years, China is forecast to have an economy rivalling that of the U.S., and no doubt armed forces to match. For a worried U.S., Canada would appear a valuable reinforcement, and Canada would be looking to the U.S. for defence. Or a continent-wide environmental crisis -- perhaps a water shortage in the U.S. -- would require a continental response.

Suppose there is no crisis -- union may still emerge from a thousand non-critical events, appearing not at all radical, but simply commonsensical. Should we wait upon events, or take charge and move toward the sort of North American union that best suits our needs?

Mark Lovewell, an economist, is co-publisher of the Literary Review of Canada. Anthony Westell, former Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail, is author of the Couchiching Conference paper Continentalism: What's in it for us.

[CollegeRepublican]

Alberta would be a great addition as either a state or a close trading partner with the United States. The Athabasca Oil sands deposit has enough oil to accomidate the United States for the next 50-100 years, depending on the technology used to refine it. It also has decent hunting opportunities.

[Support Free Republic]

The Free Republic Lifeform

"... This is a wonderful description of what Free Republic really is. It is a living and evolving Life Form to battle the left wingers and those who would destroy this country!

The Free Republic Life Form enables us to discover the truth about what is happening. We can avoid the spin of the major mediots as they work 24/7 to weaken this country. We come to the Free Republic Life Form to find the truth! ...

Free Republic needs a constant infusion of cash to keep the Free Republic Life Form alive, viable and to grow. If we believe in Free Republic, we must donate each month or quarterly to keep this incredible life form alive...

Good stewardship is what this world needs, not good intentions. Good conservative stewards will insure that the Free Republic Life Form continues to grow, be viable and thrives!"

Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo To Donate

Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[Snowyman]

This article which manages to do some creative leaps and bigger leaps, is for the most part if not stupid at least foolish. If for example Or a continent-wide environmental crisis -- perhaps a water shortage in the U.S. -- would require a continental response. This would well require a continental response . An economic and an environmental response , not a political union . And the U.S. might demand the right to control security at Canada's borders The US has every right to control it's Canadian borders and failing to do that is a US problem , not a Canadian one . That doesn't eliminate co operation between the two countries. It hardly requires an union.

With the Treaty of Union in 1707, the Scots ceased their struggle for political independence

Really. The writers need to review the history of Scotland. Especially the part about the Jacobites and the 'Highland Clearances' . That was a real fun time on the road to Union.

And are we to assume that Mexico is included in this little get together. Does it follow , as the writers say, Now, Canada and the U.S. are moving toward union, and Mexico may join later.

English Canada has her French problem , English US an increasing Spanish problem. Only an idiot would believe the three would politically survive together?

[Dead Dog]

It's a good point, but also why we have a Senate. The best way around this would be to have the provinces join as a single state. They would add another 10% to our population. That would give them about 5 reps?

[Dead Dog]

Oh, but we have to change the name of British Columbia to something better.

Uhmerikin Columbia

[bushfamfan]

Canada can just stay Canada. We don't need them meddling in our affairs and turning us into a morally and intellectually bankrupt in leadership cesspool. Too liberal and it can stay that way.

[pogo101]

offering admission to the Union to any Canadian Province that chose to join

I'll take British Columbia and Alberta, eh?

there are certain Canadian Privinces that the United States wouldn't want on a bet

Quebec and the maritimes come to mind, eh?

[albertabound]

Send the Montana National Guard up highway 2, I have my white flag and Stars and Stripes at the ready.

[Stingray51]

Fine by me, except for Quebec. And no more Indian reservations, thank you.

[KarlInOhio]

It's not hard to imagine the U.S. accepting ... Quebec with its hydro power.

I have only one problem with getting Quebec, especially if we get their hydro power: where to send the Quebecois.

[Modernman]

Each province becomes a state.

The Maritime provinces are probably too small the become individual states (Prince Edward Island has 100,000 or so people). You'd probably see about 6 new states- British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Sasketoba (Manitoba + Sasketchewan) and combined Maritime State. Canada is about 1/10th the size of the US, population-wise, so creating 5-6 states probably is about right.

[Willie Green]

What drives unification?

Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?

[xzins]

There's no rule I know of that says the United States was supposed to get to 50 and then stop.

56 sounds better to me.

And manifest destiny says it will someday include the states of Mexico, Latin America, and the Carribbean Island nations. The United States of North America.

[Da_Shrimp]

'Highland Clearances' . That was a real fun time on the road to Union.

Whoa! You're not going to accuse the English of starting the Clearances are you?

[Modernman]

There's no rule I know of that says the United States was supposed to get to 50 and then stop.

50 is a nice round number, but it doesn't really mean anything. We haven't added a state since 1959. Personally, I would have been in favor of adding Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philipines as States when we got them from the Spanish in 1898. Who says the US needs to stop expanding?

[ChewedGum]

I just don't see the Canada thing happening. At the Vancouver World's Fair ('86 I believe) our High School Band went up, played 3 songs for 10 people in the morning and then had two days at the World's Fair to play. One friend of mine would ride the sky tram thing which held about 5 people. He and another guy would ride it and get in with some Canadians and then he would have political discussions with them. The stories were most amusing, but through them (and things have become even more liberal since then) I just don't see the Canadians fitting in with the U.S. ideologically.

Gum

[Modernman]

I just don't see the Canada thing happening

As an ex-patriate Canadian, I probably agree. The country might fall apart and a couple of provinces might join the US, but I don't see a merger.

[xzins]

Not me.

I like the sound of The United States of AMERICA....the whole enchilada.

The entire flipping land mass from the Arctic Circle to the Straights of Magellan.

[kanawa]

What drives unification?

"Pompous, arrogant ambition of the political class everseeking greater control over the masses?"

Bingo!

[kanawa]

Canada already has one dysfunctional marriage. Last thing we need is another.