If Canada broke down, what new divisions would coalesce?

Great Debates
1

If Canada ceased existing as a nation, which provinces would group together to form new nations and which would go solo, and why? Would any join the US?

My very limited guess:

Quebec: Solo

Alberta: Solo, but maybe union with BC and/or US

BC: Solo, but maybe union with Alberta and/or US

Ontario: Solo, but maybe union with Manitoba and Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan and Manitoba: United, and maybe with Ontario, as well

Maritime provinces: United

Territories: United

Again, just my limited guess. Fight my ignorance!

2

We’ll gladly take everything but Alberta. No problem with the French-speakers, but one Texas is enough. :wink:

3

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
We’ll gladly take everything but Alberta. No problem with the French-speakers, but one Texas is enough. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

LOLOL

Seriously though, if you could only have one province (for whatever reason) would you make it BC on grounds of contiguousness? Is that a word?

4

[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
LOLOL

Seriously though, if you could only have one province (for whatever reason) would you make it BC on grounds of contiguousness? Is that a word?
[/QUOTE]

Yes – so is “contiguity.” But all Canadian provinces except for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and PEI are contiguous with U.S. territory (none of the territories are).

That said, from what I know of BC it would make a good state, and admitting it to the Union would mean Alaska would no longer be geographically isolated from the rest of the U.S. (Culturally it would remain as isolated as ever.)

Many Yanks, if they think about it at all, would be favorable to uniting with Canada because from our POV there’s little downside – compared to the U.S., Canada has relatively few social problems. Of course, that same thing would make Canadians reluctant, quite apart from national feeling. Also, because as a civil society, we are, compared to the Canucks, nuckin’ futs.

5

Oddly, given the economics of the situation, I could see the Maritimes going with the US. THey are bleak places from most every point of view, save only their people. Already the Provincial government has been trying to close down smaller towns as it is easier to hand out the dole to larger groups.

I see it like this.
Quebec alone, falling into some sort of insurgency against their First Nations who will want to break away.

BC is in the best shape as an English-speaking Pacific Rim nation. It has the ports the Prairies need to export stuff to Asia. A natural lash-up. The far north? Hard to figure.

A sad day. What would it mean for Blacks and Whites, Gays and Straights, Christians and Everyone Else if even Canada cannot hold together?

6

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Many Yanks, if they think about it at all, would be favorable to uniting with Canada because from our POV there’s little downside – compared to the U.S., Canada has relatively few social problems. Of course, that same thing would make Canadians reluctant, quite apart from national feeling. Also, because as a civil society, we are, compared to the Canucks, nuckin’ futs.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder if right-wing leaning Americans who favour annexation have considered that they’d be adding 30+ million people who would overwhelmingly vote Democratic - and would even vote some bona-fide Socialists into Congress.

7

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
A sad day. What would it mean for Blacks and Whites, Gays and Straights, Christians and Everyone Else if even Canada cannot hold together?
[/QUOTE]

In the U.S.? Not much. This isn’t 1861. Our society is too mobile and too intertwined, now, for division along geographical lines. Practically everybody has relatives in another state, and many if not most of us will not die in the same state where we were born. Canada, OTOH, has a large and permanently French-speaking province, which will always be an obstacle to a sense of true national identity (which they have indeed achieved so far as they can under the circumstances).

8

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
<snip>… Alaska would no longer be geographically isolated from the rest of the U.S. (Culturally it would remain as isolated as ever.)
[/QUOTE]

Yes, connection with Alaska was what I had in mind, specifically. I should have been clearer…

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

Many Yanks, if they think about it at all, would be favorable to uniting with Canada because from our POV there’s little downside – compared to the U.S., Canada has relatively few social problems. Of course, that same thing would make Canadians reluctant, quite apart from national feeling. Also, because as a civil society, we are, compared to the Canucks, nuckin’ futs.
[/QUOTE]

Well, there is good and bad to each country. There would be a LOT to consider

9

But think of the commercial possibilities. Drug companies, private health care centers, and gun dealers would all be rushing in to make sales in virgin territory.

10

[QUOTE=Raygun99]
I wonder if right-wing leaning Americans who favour annexation have considered that they’d be adding 30+ million people who would overwhelmingly vote Democratic - and would even vote some bona-fide Socialists into Congress.
[/QUOTE]

Yehyehyehyehyehyehyehyehyeh! :slight_smile:

11

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yehyehyehyehyehyehyehyehyeh! :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

As much as I don’t want Canada to be part of you guys (nothing against you personally - just, we’ve got a good thing going up here), I’ve often wondered if it wouldn’t be the best Trojan Horse operation in history. Plus, we might get a few of our hockey teams back.

12

[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
If Canada ceased existing as a nation, which provinces would group together to form new nations and which would go solo, and why? Would any join the US?
[/QUOTE]

Canada can’t “Cease existing as a nation” in a way that makes this question meaningful.

Were Canada (or any other federal country) to break up, HOW the country would break up would be determined by which parts decided to break away. Canada can’t just cease to exist, leaving 10 provinces and 3 territories to decide what to do; what would happen is some sort of rupture would take place (e.g. Quebec trying to secede) and things would go from there.

For instance, suppose Danny Williams gets a wild hair and decides to secede Newfoundland from Canada. Unlikely, since Newfoundland’s essential business is taking money from other Canadians, but they have a little separatist movement so let’s pretend it could happen. Canada would therefore technically be “Broken up.” What happens then?

Answer: Nothing happens. Canada saves a lot of money and goes on as before and kids only have to memorize 12 province/territory capitals instead of 13.

Now suppose Quebec secedes. Well, the rest of Canada would probably stay together. Again, there’s potential financial benefits to that, and a likely backlash and a little uniting xenophobia. But, maybe not; civil unrest could follow, the federal government could make a stupid decision or three, and the country falls apart.

You have to define your scenario for the question to have any meaning. Quebec separation? Western separation? Civil war? Foreign invasion? Global economic collapse? You posit a Maritime union, but how would they survive economically when they’re propped up by the federation now? Would Alberta’s griping really translate into a desire to separate if Quebec is gone, or would they say “Hey, we’re proportionally more important now and we’ll save a bundle in transfer payments”? Shit, what if ONTARIO decided to secede? Impossible now, but say 40 years from now?

13

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
We’ll gladly take everything but Alberta. No problem with the French-speakers, but one Texas is enough. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Brilliant. Take all the basket cases and leave the one province that has oil reserves rivaling Saudi Arabia. NP, we’d sell it to you at world oil prices in any case! :slight_smile:

Common thought in the West is that a combination of BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan would make the most sense. Wait until Stephane Dion gets into power and implements some form of NEP II and we’ll see what actually happens. :slight_smile:

14

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes – so is “contiguity.” But all Canadian provinces except for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and PEI are contiguous with U.S. territory (none of the territories are).
[/quote]

Sung to a tune by Arlo Guthrie:

“Yukon get anything you want on Alaska’s eastern border.”

15

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
We’ll gladly take everything but Alberta. No problem with the French-speakers, but one Texas is enough. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
If Texas is half as… interesting… as it’s made out to be on this board, Alberta is a milquetoast in comparison.

16

What’s the difference between a province and territory in Canada? Are they just left-over terms now?

17

Windsor would become part of Detroit. huge step up.

18

[QUOTE=drhess]
What’s the difference between a province and territory in Canada? Are they just left-over terms now?
[/QUOTE]

Provinces have specific powers granted to them by the Constitution; like U.S. states, they’re constitutionally protected entities with their own rights and responsibilities. Territories have only those powers the federal government grants them. The federal government could subdivide them or combine them at its leisure, as in fact they have in the past; Yukon, Nunavut, Alberta and Saskatchewan were all created out of the Northwest Territories.

Canada’s territories are thinly populated Arctic areas that reply on the federal government; practically speaking they need the feds to survive.

19

The territories are very low in population. All three of them combined have a population of about 103,900. Which is about the population of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (105,928) or San Buenaventura, California (104,017) or Athens, Georgia (103,238) or Erie, Pennsylvania (102,612).

20

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Canada can’t “Cease existing as a nation” in a way that makes this question meaningful.

Were Canada (or any other federal country) to break up, HOW the country would break up would be determined by which parts decided to break away. Canada can’t just cease to exist, leaving 10 provinces and 3 territories to decide what to do; what would happen is some sort of rupture would take place (e.g. Quebec trying to secede) and things would go from there.

For instance, suppose Danny Williams gets a wild hair and decides to secede Newfoundland from Canada. Unlikely, since Newfoundland’s essential business is taking money from other Canadians, but they have a little separatist movement so let’s pretend it could happen. Canada would therefore technically be “Broken up.” What happens then?

Answer: Nothing happens. Canada saves a lot of money and goes on as before and kids only have to memorize 12 province/territory capitals instead of 13.

Now suppose Quebec secedes. Well, the rest of Canada would probably stay together. Again, there’s potential financial benefits to that, and a likely backlash and a little uniting xenophobia. But, maybe not; civil unrest could follow, the federal government could make a stupid decision or three, and the country falls apart.

You have to define your scenario for the question to have any meaning. Quebec separation? Western separation? Civil war? Foreign invasion? Global economic collapse? You posit a Maritime union, but how would they survive economically when they’re propped up by the federation now? Would Alberta’s griping really translate into a desire to separate if Quebec is gone, or would they say “Hey, we’re proportionally more important now and we’ll save a bundle in transfer payments”? Shit, what if ONTARIO decided to secede? Impossible now, but say 40 years from now?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand what you are getting at here: that any federal changes are going to happen based on individual provincial motivations and actions.

But I was only asking hypothetically. Something along the lines of POOF “Hey! The federal government has disappeared entirely! What now?”