Scandal Boosts Support for Sovereignty in Quebec

Except for Toronto and Vancouver, I don't believe English Canada is particularly multicultural. There are French speaking areas in New Brunswick and Ontario, and Indians in the north. However, the predominant population of English Canada is from the British Isles, with large, though assimilated and English speaking, contingents of Canadians of Dutch, German, Ukrainian, and other non-French European descent. The non-British descended Anglophone Canadians are most heavily represented in the Prairie Provinces. The common British heritage, whether by ancestry or assimilation, should enable the remaining nine provinces to maintain national unity. In fact, Canada minus Quebec should revive the old British Red Ensign that served as a national flag until the 1960s.

The loss of Quebec would physically isolate the Maritime Provinces from Ontario and the Western provinces. However, there is a proposal to build an Interstate highway from eastern Maine to the St. Lawrence River in northern New York. The Maine portion of the proposed highway is called the East West Highway; in New York, it has been named the Rooftop Highway. Such a transportation corridor (with railroad and pipelines) would provide for a shorter route from the Maritimes and the rest of Canada than the more circuitous route through the St. Lawrence Valley.

Rather than merging Alberta and other provinces with the United States, a better solution would be for Quebec and English Canada to separate. Then our northern neighbor could live up to the name, "The True North, Strong and Free."

With the exception of Quebec, the other parts of Canada seem to mirror the part of America to their south. For example we have Seattle and Vancover, the states and provinces of the Rockies and Great Plains, and the Maritimes and New England. Would all of these areas flock to America should Canada come apart? I doubt it. Some would try independence (though under America's defense umbrella; but that would be nothing new). If it worked out, great. If not then there would be other options. For example, if independence didn't work out for the Maritimes, they could bond together into a country called "Maritime Canada" or something like that. They could try to join the US, or they might try to get into the European Union.

The real question would be control over the northern territories. What would happen to Nunavut, NW Territories and the Yukon Territory?

If we all became part of the US (minus Quebec, or most of it), the smallest province and the northern territories couldn't become actual US states due to their low population.

What I would do is declare Prince Edward Island (unless it hooks onto New Brunswick or Nova Scotia) and the three northern territories (plus a northern Quebec territory if they break away and don't join Nunavut) a status called "Special Territory". That means they would have full citizenship rights and federal taxes must be paid. They would not have any senators, and would only have one non-voting House Representative. However, they would be allowed to vote for the President as they would each have 1 electoral vote.

The other provinces would be granted statehood.

I actually looked up PEI recently. The province has more area than Rhode Island and has more people than Wyoming. I believe the minimum required population to be a state is 10,000. Of course that was 1787. The provinces would become states, the territories would remain territories, and Nunavut would be a commonwealth like Puerto Rico. We could then draft a trade and security treaty with Quebec.

All things considered, who has the oil? and what would that mean to U.S. interests.

Alberta has 80% of the oil. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have some as well. Quebec has NONE.

Alberta has 80% of the oil.

Then they hold all the cards.

The complications of a Quebec secession would be best handled by the nine remaining provinces remaining in confederation and asserting their control over the northern territories. With the exception of the Maritime Provinces, Ontario, the western provinces, and the north form a contiguous unit. The isolation of the Maritimes is a problem, but with American cooperation on transportation and related issues, it could be worked out.

The drawbacks to American annexation are numerous. English Canadians are a lot like Americans, as Norwegians are a lot like Swedes. But Norway seriously resented their rule by Sweden, and the same would hold for English Canadians (by which I mean all white, Anglophone Canadians, including those with surnames like De Vito, Van Brunt, or Kowalski). With the rumblings in favor of making the Southwest "Atzlan", we don't need another group of irredentists on our northern frontier.

Another problem would entail the conflicting legal systems. While both American and Canadian systems derive from English common law, our common law split irrevocably from that of Great Britain on July 4, 1776. American common law and the Federal and state constitutions have gone a separate path from nations like Canada that remained in the British Empire and later the Commonwealth. Long standing Canadian legal arrangements could be re-evaluated in light of a possible American annexation. Annexation of most of Canada would give us a very large frontier with Russia, our main national adversary for over 40 years. While the United States has an important and defensive role in the polar regions, this nation does not need the headache of possible mineral, fishing, and navigation conflicts with the Russians.

These problems and others would make an American union with English Canada difficult and in the end undesirable. The only intervention in Canadian affairs that I would favor would be to prevent the Maritime Provinces, Quebec, or any other part of present-day Canada from joining the European Union. Any such move would be a challenge to the Monroe Doctrine.

Let America be America, let Canada be Canada, and let Mexico be Mexico. As the poet Robert Frost wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors."

http://members.aol.com/XPUS/Canada.html - check that site out for some interesting facts, like Quebecois are MORE inclined to vote for statehood - despite the fact they would lose some identity (but keep some as the US Constitution allows for more local power)

Nobody says it would be easy, and I'm sure Canadians resent being thought of as "American lite" or "America's biggest suburb" too much to seriously contemplate union.

As for the legal issues, a strict constructionalist view of the Constitution says that so long as the provinces maintain a democratic form of government and adhere to the principals of the Bill of Rights (trial by jury, no double jeaopardy, etc.) they may keep their own provincial legal systems. The Constitution says very little about how the several states are to govern themselves; partly because in 1787 the states had been governing themselves (for over 150 years in some cases). As for the federal system, again the Constitution says little. If Canadians were serious about joining, and we were serious about accepting them, Congress could easily modify the federal judiciary system so long as the Bill of Rights is not violated. Come to think of it, bringing in Canadian provinces could be a back door way to get Washington to scale down on federal interference in favor of states' right.

We would end up owning a much larger frontier with an increasingly problematic Russia, but we would not really be adding more territory to defend. For all intents and purposes, we already defend Canada. Any future fishing/navigation conflicts with Russia would likely occur off of Alaska before spreading to the BC or Yukon coasts.

Then removing Quebec would break the electoral back of Candian Liberals?