1. Isn't this just an American plan to annex
No. United North America is a Canadian organization. Both
Americans 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 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
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 fresh water 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 fresh
water, the largest single source of fresh water 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?
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
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
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
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
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
very similar to Canadian gun laws. For example, New York state
requires a state permit, firearm registration and owner's license
for handguns. 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 2011, Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York and Vermont 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
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
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
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. How will this effect Aboriginals peoples in
In the United States there are a mulititude of laws that govern
the Native American tribes, forming one of the most complex mesh
of federal, state and local laws. However, treaties conducted
between the USA and various tribes dating back as far as 1776 are
still recognized and upheld in courts. As a union between Canada
and the United States of America would be both democratic and
peaceable, all treaties and laws in place today in Canada would
continue in force after the union. Some tribes may wish to take
the opportunity to renegotiate terms, but US precedent in the
20th century has been to consistently rule in favor of Native
19. Why don't Canadians who like this idea just
move to the USA?
Moving to the US is not the goal of this organization. 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 an unnecessary impediment to our future success and
preeminence on this planet. Moving to the USA would still leave a
Canada that is divided from the United States for no good reason.
Moving to the USA 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