Published: April 21, 2008
By Jonathan Wheelwright

Although many Canadians can agree with all the reasons why unity between Canada and the United States is beneficial, some may pause in wishing for Canada to actually join the United States as individual states. An immediate visceral reaction by some Canadians is "Why doesn’t the US join Canada?"

Beyond the obvious size differentials between the two countries, the longer history of the United States, and the democratic appeals of United States’ conception, it must be said that Canada’s system does not allow for as equitable treatment within its structure the same as the United States does. For example, in the US House of Representatives, each state receives representation in the House proportional to its population, with no exceptions other than that a state receive at least one seat, and in the Senate, each state receives two Senators; any new state receives the same treatment. In Canada, special clauses in the Constitution Act give seven of the ten provinces more seats (some more than others) than they would otherwise be given based on population. Below, the "Calculated Seats" column shows how many House seats each province and territory should have if allocation was done on population alone, while the "Actual Seats" shows how many seats each province and territory currently has.

Arguably, the Canadian Senate is also unfair in its distribution of seats, tilting more of its seats to the eastern geography of the country, not to mention Canadian Senators are unelected. In order for any new province to receive any representation, a Constitutional amendment is necessary. By contrast, the United States is ready-made to accept new states and provide them with equal representation.

Federalism, or states' rights is also an important feature notably lacking within the Canadian system. Under the US Constitution, power that is not specifically delegated to Congress is within the realm of the individual states. This is essentially the opposite of the British Parliamentary system, in which any power not specifically granted to the subdivisions of the nation reposes squarely in Parliament.

The US Constitution is very generic, and provides no special rights to any specific localities, states or peoples. In the Canadian Constitution Acts, several subsections enumerate special powers to specific provinces, but not to others, and specific rights to certain groups, but not to others. When New Brunswick wished to guarantee equality between French and English in their own province, a federal Constitutional amendment was passed. In the United States, this power would implicitly fall under the jurisdiction of the state, and could be explicity declared in the state constitution, to which there is no equivalent in Canada's provinces.

WHY NOT AN EU-LIKE GOVERNMENT HERE?

However, a more reasonable alternative suggestion is to simply ask why not create a "new" system like the European Union.

In order to understand the European model, it is helpful to remember that Europe contains well over 40 countries, with five major powers and no one power greater than any two combined. In contrast, North America is dominated by one single power that is larger in economy and population than all others combined.

Using the European experience is instructive for us, but unfortunately it offers more admonitory lessons than shining examples. While the failed European Constitution was a modern product of our 21st century knowledge, with no extinct words from past centuries, it also contained many more words that are equally misunderstood; and many many more words to accompany them, about 70,000 in all. Indeed, the proposed European Constitution was about fifteen times longer than the US Constitution. While in some cases wordiness may imply sophistication and detail, in the EU Constitution it provided only ambiguity and confusion.

This is not so much the fault of Europeans though, for US Constitution was written in an era of enlightenment, idealism and rebirth, by the great thinkers of that time. There were no major political action groups, career politicians, multi-million dollar industries, lobby groups or any of the other things that accompany a modern civilization. And so it is no wonder that EU politicians who know nothing but politicking would devise a Constitution that most cannot comprehend. Alexander Hamilton summed it up best when he noted:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

It could be argued that it would be arrogant for anyone to suggest that Canada adopt the US Constitution. But this is no more an arrogant suggestion than it would be for the European Union to expect countries to adopt the existing European Union treaties, rather than tear them all up and start anew. In two hundred years time, would it be reasonable for Switzerland to demand that an EU Constitution be a mixture of the Swiss Constitution and the EU Constitution? Canada is in a similar situation today, the regions that did not join the American Union.

It is of course ironic that Europe has made such strides towards unity. Europe has much deeper historical, linguistic and religious divides than the New World does, with its relatively new nations that are not defined by specific ethnicities or religious denominations. Why is it that Europe was able to coalesce, while unification in North America stagnates? Part of the answer may simply be that their differences give them confidence in maintaining their identities within a larger European Union, while our similarities cause us, and particularly Canadians, to fear the loss of it. The other part of the answer is that a North American Union has already been created long ago, but its expansion has been halted.

A NORTH AMERICAN UNION EXISTS

Many today fear a hypothetical North American Union, under the auspices of some covert government agencies and designed by powerful elites sitting in think tanks. But such a supranational government is costly and unnecessary, for it adds an entire extra layer of government to countries that are both already federations with subdivisions within them. In contrast, if all the subdivisions of both federations, namely the provinces, states and territories that embody North America, join together, it will remove a redundant government and decrease bureaucratic inefficiencies for North America as a whole.

The United States of America was created to be a union for our whole continent. The United States of America is exactly as it is written, a collection of states located within the American hemisphere. Our states and provinces each have their own unique cultures and traditions. Several are even larger in area and population than some European countries.

We can also see this in historical terms, for when the United States first united, the component colonies considered themselves sovereign entities joined together in an alliance, not a nation. It is no mistake that the first democratic body in the Americas was named the Continental Congress, inviting Canada into its union. The Founding Fathers of the United States designed a continent-wide union, not a nation-state. There is no question that the United States has evolved since then, and now has a national ethos of its own right, but the concept of individual states' rights is still alive and well, and clearly spelt out in the Constitution.

There is no reason that the original framework cannot still work today, and provide Canadians and USAmericans the ability to set local laws suited to their populations, while contributing to the overall success and preeminence of the nation as a whole.

There are of course historical reasons why this dream was not fully realized in the 18th century. In short, the major factors were British imperialism and monarchical devotion. As evidenced in the quote above by Sir John A. Macdonald, even those most loyal to Britain could not ignore the genius of the US Constitution. However, as Macdonald later enunciated, it was felt the one major defect was not having a Sovereign to reign over the people. Today though, Canadians have evolved past this antiquated god-like devotion to the Crown, and realize that individuals are intelligent and strong-willed enough to maintain supremacy.

When the United States of America founded its republic, of the People, by the People and for the People, it was truly a revolutionary idea. It is sometimes hard for us to appreciate or understand this today, because of course a democracy that is vested in the people is a feature of every modern western democracy. But it should be remembered that the path paved by the people of the thirteen colonies allowed for others, including Canadians to follow.

And so, the United States Constitution is not a foreign document to Canadians as much as it is a democratic primogenitor. This explains why Canada's own Charter of Rights and Freedoms so remarkably resembles the American Bill of Rights in spirit and phrasing.

If we do wish to create a United North America, and maintain liberty, the risk is far too high and unnecessary to leave to politicians of today to make up its supreme law. A working framework and remarkable document clearly spells out the principles and ideals that all North Americans hold true today; it is the Constitution of the United States of America.