perfidy

The whole Canada thing has gotten me thinking. While support for independence in Quebec seems be holding steady, or even declining, the potential for a breakup of Canada is still real, if somewhat remote. But what would actually happen if Canada did break up?

The first puzzle is what the remainder of Canada would do in the event of a decisive vote for sovereignty in Quebec. There seems to have been some preparation for this eventuality, and I doubt many in British Canada would really object much to the idea of Quebec going its own way. The situation would be nothing like that of the southern states seceding in 1861 – there would certainly be no civil war to force Quebec to remain part of Canada. The likely result, at least in the near term, would be an amicable divorce, in its nature very like the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The Quebecois and the rest of the Canadians would divvy up the marital assets – military bases, government facilities, and the like. They would agree to things like free movement of citizens, trade reciprocity, and access to the St. Lawrence seaway for the western parts of Canada. The opinion of the United States would have to be considered – especially in regard to that last item, seeing as how such a large portion of US trade uses the St. Lawrence seaway as well – it is the only access to the sea for the entire US Great Lakes region, including Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland. But so long as this was guaranteed, I don't think the US would really twitch at the idea of the Quebeckers going their own way.

The repercussions of an independent Quebec might move well beyond their own independence. I can imagine that once the idea of Canada is broken, others who might not have considered secession might find it, well, thinkable. The obvious candidates in this case would be Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. We are told that Canadians in the west have long felt shafted by the elites in the east, whose policies have either taken, or threatened to take, the wealth of the west to be given to the economically disadvantaged in Quebec and the Maritimes, whose economies are not as vibrant, or as well blessed with natural resources.

Alberta, especially – the Texas of the north – might be the first to follow Quebec into secession. There have been movements for secession there in the past, though not particularly large or successful. Unlike Quebec, however, with Alberta and the plains provinces, the probability of one or more of these newly independent nations turning around and petitioning the US for statehood would be significant. And that would raise big questions in the US, which has not admitted a new state to the Union in almost a half century, and the only real parallels would be with Texas and California, more than a hundred and fifty years in the past. More on that in a minute.

Meanwhile, assume that the unraveling of Canada continues, and gathers momentum. Quebec started the ball rolling, and Alberta gives it a good kick soon after. In quick succession, Saskatchewan and British Columbia also declare independence. The Central government in Ottawa has lost its biggest problem, which is nice. But it has also lost two of its most prosperous provinces, which means that it will be far less able to make transfer payments to the economically stagnant Maritime Provinces. Further, it is now geographically separate from them, with Quebec awkwardly positioned betwixt the two parts of the rump Canada. What will the Maritimes think at this point? Continuing support from Ottawa might seem to be less and less assured. Perhaps they, too, would consider independence, followed by a petition for statehood.

The advantages for certain provinces in statehood are in some cases fairly clear. As Bob and Doug McKenzie put it in the Daily Hoser:

Top Ten Affects if Canada and the United States merged into one nation:

1. We'd be a kick ass nation with some kick ass beer!
2. The Blue Jays would finally belong in the American League
3. Red white and blue flag shaped like a maple leaf
4. All politicians would henceforth be known as Hosers!
5. One word: Americanada
6. New rodeo attraction: bear back riding.
7. Change of spelling from "about" to "aboot"
8. Quebec forced to take Detroit if it wants to cecede.
9. Condos line Hudson Bay
10. The Mackenzie brothers can join Sonny Bono in Congress!!!

Beyond those benefits, the western provinces have, arguably, more in common with American citizens just across the border than they do with Canadians in Ontario. Likewise, the population of the Maritimes has a lot of affinity for New England. Being a part of America means getting all the benefits of being American. (And, of course, the downsides.) They would be able to participate directly in the formation of American policy with representatives in Washington. They would benefit from social programs that for all the whining, are not that different from those in pre-balkanized Canada – and that would be an important point for the Maritime Provinces.

In short – being part of Canada might seem a bad deal in the middle of a collapse, but going it entirely alone might seem a bit risky, hence the flip to America.

But how would the Americans react to all this?

If one Canadian province petitioned for statehood, the argument might be different than if many did. Just think about the various considerations and calculations that will be taking place in the minds of congressman, senators, state leaders and pundits:

Partisan types will be wondering how the citizens of a new state will vote. Most of the provinces under consideration would be, by American standards, very low in population. New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island are all sub-South Dakota in size. PEI is tiny – actually only a fourth the population of our current least populous state, Wyoming. Nova Scotia is about a million people, which puts it in the range of a Rhode Island. Saskatchewan and Manitoba likewise. Alberta, at over three million, is equivalent to Connecticut. BC is the largest at over four million, equivalent to South Carolina. The smallest provinces would only have a single Congressman. Those with a million people would get two. Alberta would get as many as five, BC perhaps six. The overall effect would be small. But in the Senate, things would be different, as each of these new states would get the same two as everyone else.

And who would get those congressmen and senators, and who would benefit in the electoral college? The plains provinces are almost entirely conservative. Alberta is entirely conservative. It can be assumed that most of those votes would go to the Republicans. The Maritimes vote predominantly Liberal and NDP, and it can be assumed that most of those votes would go to the Democrats. That's three red states and four blue states – if each province comes in as its own state. British Columbia would be a battleground state. In the last election, it voted in 17 conservatives, and 19 from the libs and the NDP. But the peculiarities of the Canadian election system mean that as far as percentages go, it's not so close: 55% Libs and NDP, 37% Conservative.

If all the provinces came in, partisan bickering could probably be overcome since over the spread of all of these provinces; it's more or less a wash right-left wise. But if only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba wanted to join, the Democrats would howl at the near certain addition of six Republican senators. Small states (and their representatives) would likewise howl at the further dilution of their already small influence in the Senate.

The influence of these new states on Presidential elections would also be debated. Our electoral college gives a lot of influence to small states in the race for the Presidency. And if Prince Edward Island became a state, 137,000 people would wield three electoral votes, a 1:46,000 ratio compared to 1:616,000 ratio for Californians. Again, the relative balance of conservatives and liberals across all the provinces would likely reduce most complaints – something like the way free and slave states were admitted to the Union before the Civil War.

What other issues would there be? The advantages to the US of having access to Alberta's oil reserves would be clear, though environmentalists might oppose admission on those grounds. (Or support it, so they could influence it.) Expansion would likely be viewed as a good thing in principle by most Americans, especially as Canadians are for the most part very like us. Integration of ex-Canadian military forces into the American armed services would likely not be anywhere near as big a problem as it was for the Germans absorbing the East Germans. The cultural affinities of Canadians to America would likely lead to a smooth process overall. The great latitude the Constitution provides to the states in how they order their business would certainly help as well.

A little research on the web revealed the basic process of borg-like assimilation of new territories:

1. A territory petitions Congress.
2. The dependent area drafts a constitution with a republican form of government.
3. Congress must approve statehood by a simple majority.
4. The President must sign the bill.

It doesn't matter if the territory was already US territory or an independent nation as was California and Texas. So long as the state government is republican in nature, the details don't seem to matter much.

If Quebec left and the rest of Canada decided that they could still be Canada without them, this would all be moot. I think the key would be Alberta. If even one more province decided to give the stinkfinger to Ottawa, it would start a domino effect leading to the United States absorbing most of Canada outside Ontario. The only province that seems to have a reasonable shot at making it on its own as an independent nation is British Columbia. The rest are too poor, or too landlocked to be completely viable states, hence the anschluss with the U.S.

[wik] Posts like this are what happens when I leave my book at the office before getting on the Metro for the ride home.