1. Is this website 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 website 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.

2. How can this site propose a United North America when countries other than Canada and the US are not included?

The question could be turned around: How can the European Union call itself a European Union when a number of countries in Europe are not even members? Although Canada and the United States combined would take up the vast majority of North America, there are no reasons why a North American Union could not be expanded in the future. However, there are many economic and social issues that would need to be overcome in other North American countries before that could occur. Obviously, the first step towards any larger North America is the amalgamation of Canada and the United States. Should it stop there or progress further is a question that will need to be determined later on.

3. Why should we use the US model?

The US model is preferred because it is believed to be considerably better in terms of its representation, and checks and balances. People in the US are represented directly by individual elected representatives in Congress and in their state legislatures, not by Parliamentarians, which are ruled by strict party discipline. The leader of the nation is elected in a nationwide election, not indirectly chosen by the ruling party. The Senate serves to represent the regionalism of the nation as a whole, not the legacy of past Prime Ministers. Finally and most importantly, the United States Constitution contains all of the values and principles we hold dear in one short, clear and understandable document. The US government is certainly not a flawless institution, but it does have a framework that has proven to successfully balance powers between federal and regional governments unlike any other in the world.

4. 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.

5. What about Canadian history and advancements?

No reasonable person believes that Canadian advancements, experiences and history ought to be whitewashed and forgotten. In the same way that Texas added to and enhanced the United States long ago, and just as Newfoundland added to and enhanced Canada not so long ago, Canada too, would add to the colorful and vast advancements, experiences and history of the United States. Indeed, a peaceful Union of these two great countries into one even greater nation would be momentous and historical event by any measure.

6. 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 North American as well.

7. 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.

8. 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 280 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.

9. What about the Monarchy and Canada's ties to Great Britain?

The Monarchy would obviously have no place within a United North America, as it truly is an antiquated system of government that serves no real purpose in the 21st century. Furthermore, US law forbids all titles of nobility or royalty. However, ties to Britain would not be cut like a rope. Although the United States came into existence in resistance to British imperial rule, those days are long over. Most US citizens consider Britain to be one of their greatest allies and friends. 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 their British heritage.

10. What about capital punishment, gun restriction, socialized healthcare, 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 Texas and many other southern states have very little restriction on gun ownership, many northern states have considerable restrictions. Washington D.C. and Chicago ban hand guns 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.

Healthcare is yet another area which is partly controlled and directed by state governments. In 2002 the people of the state of Oregon proposed a referenda to decide on enacting a universal healthcare system, which if enacted would have seen the state provide health care for every resident. Although the measure lost a state-wide vote 79% to 21%, this example serves as a clear example for Canadian states that wish to retain universal health care.

In all three 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.

11. 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, Al Gore would have become the 43rd 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.

12. 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. Although the US is undoubtedly an English-dominated country (just like Canada), 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).


13. What about the northern territories of Canada?

Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories would all be welcome to eventually apply to become states within the Union. However, these territories are sparsely populated, contain a population base who have different cultures, and have traditionally sought greater autonomy. Therefore, a good solution may be for these territories to become self-governing territories within a United North America. The territories could have all the protection and almost all the opportunity of this new nation, while having greater latitude over their own affairs. The best analogue to this can be seen by looking at Puerto Rico.

14. What would happen to Canadian institutions such as CBC television and radio?

CBC television and radio could continue to exist if Canadian (and American as a whole) viewership would support it. The CBC would not likely receive federal grants of over $1 billion dollars annually, as it does now. However, the CBC could receive federal funding similar to that of PBS and NPR, or it could receive funding from state governments that wish to contribute. The same can be said for any other Canadian institution that is supported by a large number of Canadians. In a free market the consumer decides what stays and what goes.

15. 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 fairly easy thing to do, but for those who love Canada and Canadians, just not the redundant government and arbitrary border, the answer is a United North America.