The Annexation Bill would have created four states and three territories from what is today Canada, additionally, most of the Arctic Archipelago and parts of the Canadian mainland would have become unorganized territory. Below is a list of what this would look like if this were the case today.
This cockamamie idea is often raised during times of political upheaval or economic uncertainty in either country. While it is a far-fetched and frankly ridiculous fantasy, it's a proposition that sparks lively debate, prompting consideration of the potential benefits and drawbacks for both nations. An ipsos poll suggests that the idea of becoming a state is of no interest to most Canadians. But, there are some who would say yes to statehood.
According to Ipsos, four in ten (43%) of Canadians age 18-34 would vote to be American if citizenship and conversion of assets to USD is guaranteed.
Both countries benefit from the current relationship, characterized by strong trade ties and close cultural exchange, without the complexities and sacrifices inherent in a full political union.
However, the debate itself is a valuable exercise. It forces everyone to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the respective nations, to examine values and priorities, and to contemplate the potential consequences of radical political, economic and social change is a good idea from time to time. It sobers the minds of those proposing such a merger and clarifies the fact that, for the most part, making Canada the 51st state is a bad idea. The cost in terms of cultural identity, sovereignty, and logistical challenges makes it a highly unlikely scenario. The current symbiotic relationship between the two nations, characterized by mutual respect and cooperation, appears to be the most beneficial and sustainable path forward for both Canada and the United States. For now, the prospect of a union remains an interesting thought experiment, best left as a conversation starter rather than a concrete political objective.
Resources for this post.
One of the reasons gun control is fiercely defended in Canada is due to the École Polytechnique massacre. On December 6, 1989, a gunman entered École Polytechnique a school in Montreal, Quebec and killed 15 women and injured 14 others in a terrorist anti-feminist act. This along with other events has been pointed to as the main reason to ban automatic weapons across Canada and, in particular, Quebec.
- New Brunswick. Modern-day New Brunswick.
- Nova Scotia. Modern-day Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
- Canada East. Modern-day Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and part of modern-day northern Ontario.
- Canada West. Modern-day southern Ontario, and part of modern-day northern Ontario.
- Selkirk Territory. Modern-day Manitoba, and parts of modern-day northwestern Ontario, Nunavut, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.
- Saskatchewan Territory. Modern-day Alberta, and parts of modern-day Saskatchewan, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
- Columbia Territory. The part of modern-day British Columbia and Yukon west of the Rocky Mountains.
You can read more about this bill on Wikipedia.
According to Ipsos, four in ten (43%) of Canadians age 18-34 would vote to be American if citizenship and conversion of assets to USD is guaranteed.
The supposed "Good" A Unified Vision. Proponents of the 51st state scenario often point to the potential for increased economic prosperity.
It has been suggested that a single North American economy could eliminate trade barriers, streamline regulations, and foster greater investment, potentially creating a powerhouse that could dominate the global market. Imagined is the elimination of border crossing delays for goods and people that would fuel the economy.
A unified military would consolidate resources and potentially enhance national security. This could lead to a more coordinated response to global threats and a more robust defense posture.
Politically speaking, some argue a union would balance out the American political landscape. Canada is considered to be more progressive with respect to social policies, particularly regarding healthcare and gun control. It is felt among advocates of statehood for Canada that there could be potential to moderate the increasingly polarized American political system. Adding millions of voters would significantly alter the electoral map.
The "Bad": Cultural Clash and Loss of Identity. However, there are downsides that are equally compelling. Canada, fiercely proud of its distinct national identity, could see its unique culture swallowed by the much larger and more dominant American culture.
Becoming a 51st state would probably cost the following: Canada losing its sovereignty, its universal healthcare system, its multiculturalism policies, and its parliamentary democracy would be a devastating blow to Canadian identity. For these reasons, most Canadians, and the government of Canada is making it clear, Canada becoming the 51st state is a non-starter.
Economically, while a boosted economy is possible, the reality is that Canadian industries convert to the American style of business they could struggle to compete with their larger American counterparts. That potentially would lead to job losses and economic exploitation. Furthermore, the absorption of Canadian resources, particularly oil and water, could raise concerns about environmental sustainability and long-term resource management. In short, "Drill Baby Drill". Could cost the continent environmentally.
Politically, the integration process would be a monumental undertaking. Reconciling vastly different political systems, legal frameworks, and social values would be a logistical and cultural nightmare. Not to mention decades to implement. Also, indigenous peoples and the francophones of Quebec would not tolerate any attempt to be forcibly assimilated into an Anglo-Saxon culture.
The balance of power in the US Senate and House would be drastically reshaped, leading to significant political potential gridlock. Congress and the Senate would have to be reconfigured to allow for up to 50+ representatives in the house, and 2 senators in the Senate. Which means several states would lose members in the lower house, as the law states that the congress shall not have a seat count exceeding 435.
Canada uses a different approach politically. A constitutional Monarchy means that King Charles is the head of state. The leader of the party who wins an election in Canada is invited by the Governor General, who represents the king, to form a government. And it is the members of the House of Commons with its representatives, using the Westminster system. And there are no term limits like in the US. Oh, and Canada has a Prime Minister, not a Governor. And Canada has provinces, not states, nor are they led by Governors but rather by premiers, who, by the way, are also leaders of parties who are invited to form government after elections by Lieutenant Governor Generals, who also represent the King. And all provinces have legislatures.
Also of note is the idea of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms.
The US constitutions Second Amendment reads as follows.
It has been suggested that a single North American economy could eliminate trade barriers, streamline regulations, and foster greater investment, potentially creating a powerhouse that could dominate the global market. Imagined is the elimination of border crossing delays for goods and people that would fuel the economy.
A unified military would consolidate resources and potentially enhance national security. This could lead to a more coordinated response to global threats and a more robust defense posture.
Politically speaking, some argue a union would balance out the American political landscape. Canada is considered to be more progressive with respect to social policies, particularly regarding healthcare and gun control. It is felt among advocates of statehood for Canada that there could be potential to moderate the increasingly polarized American political system. Adding millions of voters would significantly alter the electoral map.
The "Bad": Cultural Clash and Loss of Identity. However, there are downsides that are equally compelling. Canada, fiercely proud of its distinct national identity, could see its unique culture swallowed by the much larger and more dominant American culture.
Becoming a 51st state would probably cost the following: Canada losing its sovereignty, its universal healthcare system, its multiculturalism policies, and its parliamentary democracy would be a devastating blow to Canadian identity. For these reasons, most Canadians, and the government of Canada is making it clear, Canada becoming the 51st state is a non-starter.
Economically, while a boosted economy is possible, the reality is that Canadian industries convert to the American style of business they could struggle to compete with their larger American counterparts. That potentially would lead to job losses and economic exploitation. Furthermore, the absorption of Canadian resources, particularly oil and water, could raise concerns about environmental sustainability and long-term resource management. In short, "Drill Baby Drill". Could cost the continent environmentally.
Politically, the integration process would be a monumental undertaking. Reconciling vastly different political systems, legal frameworks, and social values would be a logistical and cultural nightmare. Not to mention decades to implement. Also, indigenous peoples and the francophones of Quebec would not tolerate any attempt to be forcibly assimilated into an Anglo-Saxon culture.
The balance of power in the US Senate and House would be drastically reshaped, leading to significant political potential gridlock. Congress and the Senate would have to be reconfigured to allow for up to 50+ representatives in the house, and 2 senators in the Senate. Which means several states would lose members in the lower house, as the law states that the congress shall not have a seat count exceeding 435.
Canada uses a different approach politically. A constitutional Monarchy means that King Charles is the head of state. The leader of the party who wins an election in Canada is invited by the Governor General, who represents the king, to form a government. And it is the members of the House of Commons with its representatives, using the Westminster system. And there are no term limits like in the US. Oh, and Canada has a Prime Minister, not a Governor. And Canada has provinces, not states, nor are they led by Governors but rather by premiers, who, by the way, are also leaders of parties who are invited to form government after elections by Lieutenant Governor Generals, who also represent the King. And all provinces have legislatures.
Also of note is the idea of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms.
The US constitutions Second Amendment reads as follows.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Canada has no such provision in its constitution. Canada has strict gun laws. For example, it is illegal to own fully automatic weapons, a taser, and handguns. There are exceptions to these laws. That said, most Canadians would NOT want that to change, especially in Quebec.
Canadian law is unified by the Criminal Code. While in the US, states create their own laws. True, there are provincial laws in Canada and federal laws in the US but, in Canada, the laws provincially and federally are just about the same.
The biggest drawback is in health care and other social programs. In Canada, taxes pay for a universal health care system. Which means that, with a few exceptions, like cosmetic surgery and dental care, Canadians do not pay out of pocket for health care. In general, it is illegal to have a tiered health care system in Canada, though there has been somewhat of a push to allow some privatization. The US has a multi tier system of public and private health care. And while care is easy to get, it's costly and predatory.
It has gotten to the point where recently a CEO of a major health care insurance company in the US was murdered. Luigi Mangione is accused of the crime, killing CEO Brian Thompson, head of United Health. Health care costs in the US can and do bankrupt people, and many of the denials by all health insurance providers have proven fatal for many of their clients. This could happen in Canada but, generally, does not.
The biggest drawback is in health care and other social programs. In Canada, taxes pay for a universal health care system. Which means that, with a few exceptions, like cosmetic surgery and dental care, Canadians do not pay out of pocket for health care. In general, it is illegal to have a tiered health care system in Canada, though there has been somewhat of a push to allow some privatization. The US has a multi tier system of public and private health care. And while care is easy to get, it's costly and predatory.
It has gotten to the point where recently a CEO of a major health care insurance company in the US was murdered. Luigi Mangione is accused of the crime, killing CEO Brian Thompson, head of United Health. Health care costs in the US can and do bankrupt people, and many of the denials by all health insurance providers have proven fatal for many of their clients. This could happen in Canada but, generally, does not.
Let's get Real, the likelihood of Canada becoming the 51st state is extremely low. It's a nons-tarter period!
Both countries benefit from the current relationship, characterized by strong trade ties and close cultural exchange, without the complexities and sacrifices inherent in a full political union.
However, the debate itself is a valuable exercise. It forces everyone to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the respective nations, to examine values and priorities, and to contemplate the potential consequences of radical political, economic and social change is a good idea from time to time. It sobers the minds of those proposing such a merger and clarifies the fact that, for the most part, making Canada the 51st state is a bad idea. The cost in terms of cultural identity, sovereignty, and logistical challenges makes it a highly unlikely scenario. The current symbiotic relationship between the two nations, characterized by mutual respect and cooperation, appears to be the most beneficial and sustainable path forward for both Canada and the United States. For now, the prospect of a union remains an interesting thought experiment, best left as a conversation starter rather than a concrete political objective.
Resources for this post.
US vs. Canadian Healthcare: What is The Difference? This article outlines the two systems and the differences between them.
Another resource looking at healthcare is the Commonwealth Fund. While Canada is not ranked in the top 3 according to the report, the US fares worse. Ranking last! The report is titled Mirror Mirror 2024.
Worldwide, according to International Citizens Insurance, Canada ranks 4th out of 10 countries worldwide as one of the best countries for healthcare. The US, did not even rank in the top 10.
One of the reasons gun control is fiercely defended in Canada is due to the École Polytechnique massacre. On December 6, 1989, a gunman entered École Polytechnique a school in Montreal, Quebec and killed 15 women and injured 14 others in a terrorist anti-feminist act. This along with other events has been pointed to as the main reason to ban automatic weapons across Canada and, in particular, Quebec.
As for safety and peace, Canada ranks 11th as a safe country, the US 131st! Global Peace Index. Also, in the US, the incarnation rate is high. 1.8 million men and women, and children and teens, are in jail in the US. making it the country with the highest incarnation rate. And, the US does execute juveniles. A teenager aged 14 is the youngest in the US to be put to death.
Thank you for reading this post. You are welcome to comment on this topic. Please note, all comments are reviewed before being posted and any that are deemed inappropriate will not be approved.
