Canada, explained.
Canadian provinces are fiercely independent and protective of their powers in a way that would make even the most fervent “state rights” advocates in the United States blush (David Ryder/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Be serious for a moment – even if Donald Trump often doesn’t seem to be – and think through what stands in the way of an enlarged union.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The practical obstacles to Canada as the 51st stateThe practical obstacles to Canada as the 51st state
Donald Trump’s proclamation about reshaping North America and having Canada become “the 51st state” is but one land grab by the soon-to-be returned president. This may just be another of Trump’s distractions, more attention-seeking, or a negotiation tactic. Or maybe he sees annexing Canada as a simple real estate transaction. Yet as a demonstration, it’s worth considering how complex it would be to incorporate Canada into America’s political institutions.
The 50 current states would consider Canada, was it to remain a single state, an enormous threat to their own weight within the republic. Canada would be the largest state in terms of population, and second largest economy. Its influence would be massive, and it would fundamentally reshape the balance of power within the country.
Therefore, the more acceptable scenario would be for each of Canada’s ten provinces to join the union as separate states. Although getting them to submit to a new delineation of powers would be a struggle – as Canada has evolved to greater decentralisation of power.
Canadian provinces are fiercely independent and protective of their powers in a way that would make even the most fervent “state rights” advocates in the United States blush. This is not only in Quebec – the centre of Canada’s large francophone minority, where the separatist Parti Québécois have a commanding lead in current polling – but also in Alberta and Saskatchewan, who view Ottawa as little more than a parasite leeching off their oil wealth. A perspective that would hardly be tempered by Washington becoming the new tax collector.
Behind their polite demeanours, Canadians are essentially a nation of cats resistant to being organised.
Therefore, provinces having to reevaluate their own weight and powers within the United States would cause great resistance. While Ontario could nestle in between New York and Pennsylvania as the fifth largest state and be able to exert itself, the union would be less advantageous for tiny Prince Edward Island (PEI) with its population of 180,000. PEI has a sweet constitutional deal in Canada, guaranteeing it four seats in the federal parliament when its population is less than some single seats elsewhere in the country. It’s unlikely that the United States would be so generous.
The next hurdle would be the idiosyncratic spirits of Canadian voters being unlikely to submit themselves to America’s binary party system. Canadians live in a permanent revolt against Duverger’s Law – that single member districts using first-past-the-post voting will lead to a two party system. By contrast, Americans – both structurally and mentally – live in permanent submission to it.
Indeed, the threat of multi-party democracy may just be the thing to ward the Americans off. Aside from its one constant in the shape-shifting cockroach that is the Liberal Party, Canada’s party system is frequently in flux. Currently, the federal parliament is host to five political parties, but at provincial level politics often bears little resemblance to federal politics, with an array of distinct and federally unaffiliated parties. The Canadian electorate sees different parties serving different purposes at each level of government – with exerting regional identity its core political feature.
Behind their polite demeanours, Canadians are essentially a nation of cats resistant to being organised. The country is incapable of even negotiating a free trade agreement within its own borders. While Washington may hold a stronger whip hand than Ottawa, it would also be importing a new set of demographics and interest groups that it may be unequipped or uninclined to accommodate.
It is unlikely, for instance, that the United States would become a bilingual state. Even with Canada’s eight million francophones, there would still be more Spanish speakers in the United States. But would francophones have the right to speak French in Congress? Would citizens have the right to engage with the federal government in French? Or the right to federal court cases being conducted in French?
Denial of such rights would create incredibly fertile soil for Quebec separatism. Would Washington allow Quebec to hold a referendum on sovereignty? Would it accept the result? Quebec is a water resources superpower, and Hydro-Québec is the world’s third largest hydropower producer. Is this something that the US government would be willing to give up once it had gained control? The potential to return Quebec to the volatility and violence of the 1960s to early 1970s would be high.
Alongside the rights of francophones lies the protections and agreements that Canada has made with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Section 35 of Canada’s constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording a range of cultural, social, political, and economic rights to these peoples. Including the right to land, and fishing and hunting rights outside of other regulations. These groups would resist having to renegotiate these terms with another, more distant, state.
It is unlikely Trump has any understanding of these issues and their complexity. He simply points at what he wants and expects to get it. And he often does. However, while Canadians may have a weak sense of national identity, the one thing that binds the country is their “affable anti-Americanism”. Which may ultimately prove a force more powerful than even Trump’s irrepressible will.
About the author
Grant Wyeth
Grant Wyeth is a writer and foreign affairs analyst. He is currently a Research Fellow at the Australian India Institute and columnist for The Diplomat.
Topics
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
