1. Isn't this just an American plan to annex Canada?
No. United North America is a Canadian organization. Both USAmericans as
well as Canadians are involved in the effort, not to forcefully annex Canada,
but to re-unite the peoples of the former British American colonies under the
democratic principles that shaped this continent.
2. Is this organization affiliated with the
Security Prosperity
Partnership of North America (SPP), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force on North America, or the proposed
North American Union (NAU)?
No. This is a non-government organization based on grassroots efforts.
We fundamentally oppose a European Union-like government in North America and
receive no funding or support from the CFR, or any groups that may support such causes.
Furthermore, we see United North America as an alternative to the proposed NAU,
and do not support Mexico’s inclusion in this union due to its substandard economic and social conditions.
A mature North American Union already exists, and its name is the United States of
America. There need not be a supranational institution in North America working
between three different federal governments, when there is already a successful
and democratic union of 50 states that Canada's provinces have already been
given an
open invitation to join.
3. Why isn't Mexico included?
While Mexico is clearly geographically a part of North America,
from a social and political perspective it more closely matches
Central American nations. Canada and the United States share a
great deal because of their common beginnings, common language
and culture that were built within multi-ethnic, free and democratic
societies. Mexico does share some similarities with Canada
and the US, but the differences are still far larger. And from a
practical perspective, the enormous cost of Mexico's inclusion would
heavily drain the Canadian and US economies.
4. Why
should we use the US model?
Although the Canadian Constitution has many great components,
it is missing some very valuable ingredients that were crafted long
before it. This includes: an elected Head of State, an elected Senate, equal
representation in the legislature, separate and equal branches of
government, and the separation of church and state. Just as importantly,
the US Constitution, unlike its Canadian counterpart, contains no special
or extra rights for certain ethnicities, linguistic or religious groups,
and lives true to the ideal that all men are created equal. While modern
Canada is independent and free, it was not created that way. And so while
the founders of the United States declared inalienable rights and a government
of the people, by the people and for the people, the same cannot be found
within the supreme laws that defines the Canadian system. Some might suggest
a new Constitution, but the unique set of circumstances that gave birth to
the original US Constitution is not so easily reproduced by modern politicians
with the powerful political action groups and lobbies that exist today.
5. Why
should the Canadian people give up their sovereignty?
For the same reason that the people of Newfoundland and Texas did; to create something greater
than themselves. The simple fact is that true independence cannot be found for
anyone who lives in a nation populated by more than one person. While it cannot
be denied that sovereignty will be lost through this proposal, it cannot be
questioned that another greater one will be created. There is no need to have
a line dividing Canada and the United States to ensure Canada's self-determination,
anymore than there needs to be a border checkpoint between Alberta and British Columbia to
ensure Alberta's self-determination. For the same reason that Canada is
more prosperous, free and strong as one nation instead of ten nations, Canada and
the United States, combined, will be as well.
6. Why should Canada give up its natural resources
including the world's largest freshwater supply?
According to the
US Department of Energy, the US imported over 912 million barrels of oil from
Western Canada in 2008. Currently, the provinces that hold the oil, receive royalties
on all oil extracted and sold on the market. As US states, this situation would not change.
Unlike oil, water is a renewable resource, but due to growing demand it is becoming a more
valuable resource. While certain regions of the United States, particularly the southwest,
are suffering from water shortages, other regions in the US have an abundance. According to the
Program on Water Governance, overall Canada and the United States have roughly the same
water availability: Canada 6.5%, US 6.4%.
In fact, if the US was desperate to extract bulk amounts of freshwater, the largest
single source of freshwater in North America are the Great Lakes, which contain nearly six
quadrillion gallons of water. The majority of this water lies within US territory, but no water
diversions to the southwest are occurring nor planned. Indeed, just as in the case of oil, if
water were ever exported, it could only be done if the local governments that control the
territory approved it.
7. What
about people who are proud Canadians?
Undoubtedly,
people who are proud Canadians would continue to be proud Canadians
within a United North America. In the United States, Texans are
proud Texans, Southerners are proud Southerners, etc. Cultures and
identities are not swallowed up or obliterated in the United
States of America. Quite to the contrary, it could be argued that
people throughout the American Union have a deeper sense of their
own regional identity than most do in other places. Texas and Massachusetts
have been part of the Union for over 150 years and 210 years respectively,
yet these two states could never be confused with one another. Indeed,
Ontario, Quebec et al will never be confused for other states within
the Union after an amalgamation.
8. What
about Canadian culture?
Canadian culture,
colloquialisms and regional differences would not suddenly disappear
with the emergence of a United North America. Billions of dollars
have gone into "Canadian
heritage", because of the fear that Canadians might lose
their identity and be assimilated by American movies and
television. However, history has shown that culture is not a static
thing that can be defined, shaped or preserved by any government.
People are the masters of their own cultural identity; it is they
who make up their own ever-changing culture. Canadians will still
be Canadians within a United North America, they will merely be
able to call themselves American as well.
9. Wouldn't
a new flag be more appropriate?
Perhaps. Peoples'
well being, freedom and opportunity are far more important than
the symbol of their nation. However, to some this reaches the heart
of the issue. Humans are not always the most logical creatures,
and symbolism does have some importance. Whatever the flag, the
Union would have to respect the fact that the United States, as
it exists today, is almost nine times larger in population and over
eleven times larger economic terms. To imagine this another way,
if California, a state which has roughly the same population as
Canada, even larger economy and arguably more dissimilar culture,
had waited an extra 150 years to join the US, would we now be proposing
a new flag? The flag of the United States of America was created
in the late 1700s at the birth of the nation, while the present-day
Canadian flag was created in the 1960s. Yet, if the majority of
North Americans saw fit to change it, there is no reason why that
could not occur.
10. What
would the name of the country officially be?
Unlike Canada,
Germany, France and many other countries the United States of America
is merely a generic description of itself. It is after all, a collection
of united States that exists within the American hemisphere. The
United States of America began as a mere 13 colonies on the east
coast of the new world, and have now expanded to over 3 million
square miles and contain over 300 million people. Each time the
Union expanded, it changed, yet, each time it retained the same
name. The United States of America would still be an apt description
of the country with the addition of Canadian regions. However, renaming
this Union would not be out of the question. The United States of
America could change its name to the United States of North America,
United North America or even something completely different altogether.
It would be up to the democratic will of the people.
11. What would happen to the monarchy and Canada's
ties to the United Kingdom?
The entire reason there is a separation between Canada and the United States
can be traced back to divisions over the monarchy in the 1770s. While the
Patriots of the American Revolution fought for independence and self-rule,
the Loyalists fought against their ideas because of a God-like devotion to
the Crown. As such, a single path divided into two, and the result ultimately
created two countries instead of one. Through the fullness of time these
divisions have been washed away, and Canadians have embraced all the main
ideals of the American Revolution. Today, Canada, like the US, has a
Constitution with enumerated rights, similar to the Bill of Rights, a Prime
Minister that acts like a President, and a population that strongly believes
in freedom, justice and independence. Rationally, the natural completion of this
journey for Canadians is to cut the only remaining vestige of Canada's former
subservient state, and heal the disunion created by the Revolution.
Interestingly, July 2009 polling from the Strategic Counsel indicates an all-time
high support for ending the monarchy in Canada, with 65% believing that Canada
should cut its connection with the monarchy after the current Queen passes.
While the monarchy certainly does not exert any negative force in North America
today, surely history has shown the Patriots choice was a transcendental cause.
Even though the United States came into existence in resistance to British imperial
rule, no animosity exists today. Most people consider the United Kingdom to be
the US' greatest ally and friend. Indeed, one could argue the US-British
relationship is now stronger than the Canadian-British relationship. Union Jacks
can be found all over America, and Canadian States would be welcome to retain
their Union Jacks within their own state flags (see Hawaii's
state flag), as well as celebrate their British heritage.
12.
What about capital punishment, gun restriction, single-payer health care, same-sex marriage
etc.?
All these issues
can be classified as "state issues". Within the United
States, individual states have much greater latitude with regards
to local governance. While Texas is well known for its use of capital
punishment, Minnesota and many other northern states strictly prohibit
its use. It should be noted that offenders can be executed under
federal jurisdiction in some circumstances, but this only very rarely
occurs. The widely publicized Timothy
McVeigh execution was the first ordered by a federal court
since 1963.
Gun restriction
differs widely from state to state. While many southern states have very
little restriction on gun ownership, many northern states have considerable
restrictions. Chicago bans handguns all together. The state of New Jersey passed
a "smart
gun law" that will eventually require new handguns to have
a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them. Accordingly,
Canadian states could create gun legislation that best suits their
own regional interests.
Health care is an area that is partly controlled and directed by state
governments. In 2002 the people of the state of Oregon
proposed a referendum to decide on enacting a universal health care
system, which if enacted would have seen the state provide health
care for every resident. Although the measure lost a state-wide
vote, this example serves as a clear example for Canadian
states that wish to retain universal health care.
While federal law has made same-sex marriage legal in Canada, in the United States
each state has the power to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. As of 2009,
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts and New York recognize same-sex
marriage.
In all four
cases listed above, and any other similar issue, Canadian states
would actually enjoy more freedom. It might be argued that the majority
of Albertans do not wish to have tough gun restriction, while the
majority of Nova Scotians do. Both would be free to follow the best
laws for their own people, as state governments are more responsive
to their citizens than any federal government.
13.
I don't agree with the policies of the current administration, why
should I support this idea?
You can change it through your action. In the United States, policies
and politicians change with time through the participation of the People,
but the Union remains constant. Furthermore, having a voice within the United
States instead of outside it, gives you real power over local, regional and
global policies.
In the 2000
US presidential election George W. Bush won by a mere 5 electoral
votes. If British Columbia, alone, had voted for Al Gore in that election,
George W. Bush would not have become President of the United States.
Of course, creating a United North America is more important than deciding
who would be the President in the next general election. Those who would
discount a Union based on current figures or policies must open their minds,
and look beyond the present to the great future of possibilities that could
be realized by the unity of our common people.
14.
What of the United States' ballooning debt?
As of 2009, the US gross debt totals over $11 trillion dollars, an indisputably
giant number. However, once this number is put into relative terms, US debt
is comparable to Canadian debt. According to the OECD as a percentage of GDP,
US debt is 73% and Canada 63%. The CIA lists it at 61% for the US, and 64% for
Canada. Clearly, both countries need to control their spending better, but
Canada's challenges are just as great as the US'.
15.
The United States is a much more violent country, won't Canada become less safe?
While total crime, including property crime, is comparable between the two
countries, there is no discounting that overall the US suffers more violent
crime than Canada. Due to different methodologies direct comparisons are difficult,
except when comparing homicides. Nationally, the US has just over three times
the murder rate of Canada. However, as with many other factors, violent crime varies
widely by region. In the United States, the highest murder rates tend to be in
the southern states, while in Canada, it is the northern territories. As of 2007,
New Hampshire (1.1), Iowa (1.2), Montana (1.5), Maine (1.6), Hawaii (1.7) and
Rhode Island (1.79) all have lower murder rates (per 100,000) than the Canadian
national average (1.8), and only one US state, Louisiana (14.2), has a higher murder
rate than Nunavut (12.7), Canada's most violent region (See Murder Map for
more information). Indeed, half of US border states have lower rates than their Canadian counterparts; and so there is little
reason to believe that crime would increase north of the border, anymore than south
of the border.
16.
Canada is a bilingual country; the United States is not, what about
those who speak French?
Unlike Canada,
the United States has no official language. English, French, Spanish
and German have all been used at the governmental level in the United
States. No current US federal law prohibits any state or local government
from operating in a different language. Thus, Quebec, for example, could
legislate French as the official language of the state. Although the US,
like Canada, is undoubtedly an English-dominated country, people have the
freedom to communicate in any language they wish to speak in, whether
that be English, Chinese, Farsi or otherwise. Title IV of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits failing to provide meaningful access
to individuals who are do not speak English. All federal agencies
of the US government must provide information on federal programs
and activities in any language, free of charge (read
here for more information).
17. What about the northern territories of Canada?
Yukon, Nunavut
and the Northwest Territories would continue to be territories.
Within the United States these territories would gain greater autonomy
while continuing to receive the protection and support of the nation.
The best analogue to this can be seen by looking at Puerto Rico.
18.
Why don't Canadians who like this idea just move to the US?
Moving to the US is not the goal of this website. There is no reason
that someone cannot be Canadian and American at the same time, much
like how a Quebecois is a Quebecois and a Canadian or a Southerner is a
Southerner and an American. We do not wish to move below the border,
but simply remove the border itself. It is unnecessary and an impediment
to our future success and preeminence on this planet. Moving to the
US would still leave a Canada that is divided from the United States
for no good reason. Moving to the US is much easier than removing the border, but
for those who love Canada and Canadians, just not the redundant government
and arbitrary border, the answer is a United North America.
|