Asymmetrical Information

So if Alberta does try to break away, does this mean they'll send the Canadian army (snicker, snicker) to try to force them to stay in the union?

So why is this entitled "Separate but equal" as opposed to "Alberta Shrugged" in keeping with the hostess' nome de plume?

You know, I never realized how interesting Canadian politics was until this year. This is neat.

When you think about Canada, Think of it "east and west" the way we do "north and south". The eastern Canadians are very different culturally from the western Canadians.

I have spent alot of time in Canada and have many Canadian friends, many of the western ones tell me "We want to leave Canada, and become part of the United States". It's at this point I remind them that its fine to become part of the US, and wed be glad to have you, but, if you join us you dont get to leave after you do. In the US, "Union" means forever...

When they ask me why, I tell them to visit Gettysburg Pa.

Hey, look, I'd love to separate the South from rest of the United States. I'd bet I could find a significant (but small) number of people in the blue states who feel exactly that way. But it doesn't make it likely, or even possible (not the least because, let's be honest, we'll never get the South to agree to get of the rest of the country's tab). What's the difference in Canada?

I sincerely doubt that you could find any state in the union, with the possible exception of Hawaii, where you could muster 25% support for opting out. Of course, if the culture wars continue, who knows . . .

Perhaps some readers don't realize that despite a system designed with a strong central government in mind, Canada is actually very decentralized (much more so than the US), and perhaps one reason Quebec hasn't separated is that it's already de facto independent, but with federal funding. An independence movement in Alberta would probably end up taking some lessons from Quebec's approach to federal politics, decentralize itself from federal Canada along the lines of Quebec, and stop there.

"I remind them that its fine to become part of the US, and wed be glad to have you..."

Speak for yourself. While they have a partially privatized social security system, they have fully socialized medicine. Worse, the govt has a monopoly on selling beer...and closes the Beer Stores at 6:00 PM Saturday night.

"...and closes the Beer Stores at 6:00 PM Saturday night."

Ahh, here in Alberta the government got out of the retail liquor business about ten years ago. Much longer hours of operation, and much better selection have resulted. The Feds still have rather high taxes on booze, though.

Regarding separation, "what one man is saying, ten men are thinking". There are separatists and quasi-separatists all over the place, particularly in the rural areas. Mostly native Albertans, though. One cannot expect the folks from Nfld and Saskatchewan, who come here to work, supporting separation.

If a party ties separation (or some kind of increased sovereignty) to small-c conservatism and is led by a charismatic individual, then it could be a possibility. People here are tired of being both the whipping boy and the financial backer of other parts of the country.

A friend of mine, an Australian who spent a couple of years working at the University of British Columbia, told me that part of the problems of the western provinces stem from the lack of an effective Senate in Canada. By Senate, I mean a house of the legistlature where each province would have the same number of legislators. This lack means that the more populous provinces can take advantage of the less populous provinces. An example he gave was a project (I forget the details) which drew a proposal from each province. He thought the proposal from Alberta was, by far, the best, but this proposal had no chance because the legislators from Ontario voted as a block. This situation occurs frequently enough to engender some bitterness in the western provinces. I have not followed Canadian politics enough to ascertain the extent of this problem, my friends ideas sound plausible to me. Perhaps some of the other people here can add to these thoughts.

Here's some info on the Western Canada Concept, which goes back about 25 years; they weren't too successful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_Concept

They're still around, apparently: http://www.westcan.org/

Jane:

I think you're focusing on a formality. I couldn't find 25% support for opting out of the Union in any state. But I'd bet that, with a couple of million dollars and a couple of years, I could get 25% support in the Blue superstates (basically, a blue state with a decent city) for booting the Deep South out of the Union. It might not take even that.

But it would never happen, in part for formal reasons: we'd need the South's agreement, the rest of us would never consider "leaving the Union," which would mean the South would have to agree to that nomenclature, we'd never get anything approaching even a majority for the position, etc. So maybe what you're actually talking about is that it is formally more likely to happen in Canada b/c it is relatively decentralized, and perhaps has methods to accomplish it in place. So, to the extent that formalities govern the perceived legitimacy of these sorts of decisions, then maybe Canada is more fragile. But I think something like that is baked into the system, not a function of the 25%.

But I'd bet that, with a couple of million dollars and a couple of years, I could get 25% support in the Blue superstates (basically, a blue state with a decent city) for booting the Deep South out of the Union. It might not take even that.

Considering that most of the oil that the US uses comes from domestic production, most of which is in the South, I really doubt that the people you "boot out" would be too unhappy with the situation. We could just jack up the prices of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil to the sky. Its not just about oil; it also matters where the refineries are located. Blue states? Please. Just try running your SUV on crude oil, and see where it gets you.

It never fails to amaze me how so many inhabitants of the "blue states," particularly in the Northeast, seem to consider themselves as superior beings, but my experience has been that, as a whole, these are some of the most ignorant and ethnocentric creatures on the face of the planet. Unfair? Yes. But SomeCallMeTim, you do nothing to dispell the stereotype.

I guess there'll be a day when I take sensitivity tips from a guy who cadged his nom de plume from a man reknown for his racism and misogyny, and who was so vile that only a few people showed up to his funeral despite the fact that he was one of the five best baseball players of all time. But it's not today. Was "bconnor" taken?

You are right to criticize, though - talk of getting rid of the South is clearly crazy (which I suspect is also true about Alberta leaving Canada). I'm not even sure I want to get rid of the South - loved Clinton, love Edwards, for example. And they are just two of the frightening number of talented Southerners that are part of the country's culture. (Jeebus, what would I do without "All The King's Men" - that's how you learn to love Clinton)? So I forced a South/Alberta analogy because I'm angry at the South for the present abomination in office - welcome to the Internet, where sometimes crazy things are said.

I do sincerely wish that the South would either get off federal teat or STFU about taxes being too high, though.

Keep in mind that Canada just went through a closely-fought federal election with some of the nastiest campaigning in memory. In the latter part of the campaign the federal Liberals were running attack ads that seemed to suggest that the leader of the opposition Conservatives could not be trusted in large part because he came from the West. And it seemed to work.

So Western, particularly Albertan, alienation is at or near all-time highs right now. Still, I doubt that 25% of the province would support separation if they really thought it was a possibility. Telling a pollster you support separation is an easy way to express your frustration without any real consequences.

Canadian confederation is more fragile than in most countries though. After a near-miss separation referendum in Quebec several years ago the federal government passed the Clarity Act, which outlines the legal hurdles a province would need to clear to separate from Canada. While it did serve as a much needed wakeup call to some separatists in Quebec, it also puts Canada in the unusual position of having a formal process in place for its provinces to declare their independence.

I sincerely doubt that you could find any state in the union, with the possible exception of Hawaii, where you could muster 25% support for opting out. Of course, if the culture wars continue, who knows...

Give Texas the inkling of a reason, and I bet you could find 75% support for opting out, overnight. Shoot, a former Indonesian roommate of mine noticed the cultural difference after one summer's petroleum internship down there.

If the reason was good enough and Texas exercised enough pull in the process, their backyard (Colorado) and a handful of other Western states (WY, NV, AZ, OK...UT? NE?) might swallow hard and follow. The first official military act of the "Southwestern Untied States" (that's a willful typo) would probably be to liberate Northern California, where they would be welcomed as heroes.

Not that I'm angling for such a thing, but it does make for one very entertaining "alternate future" story.

If Ontario is too big, break up Ontario.

California is expected to grow to 60 million (!) in the next few decades; surely this is a state that could break up and/or go independent.

It may be the case that libery is impossible in countries with populations too large and diverse. I have to wonder if the USA wouldn't be better of divided into 20 or 30 independent countries, bound together in something like the EU.

"It may be the case that libery is impossible in countries with populations too large and diverse. "

The Federalist Papers have some good arguments against that proposition. Of course, we'd have to actually start following their prescription again, and drop the "butterfly effect" interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

"It may be the case that libery is impossible in countries with populations too large and diverse. I have to wonder if the USA wouldn't be better of divided into 20 or 30 independent countries, bound together in something like the EU."

God, no!

John Doe: Ontario can't rationally be broken up, unless you split Northern Ontario(with about 3% of the province's mpopulation and 80% of its area) off. The Toronto area is about the geographical size of Rhode Island and has a population of over five million, which would place it almost on par with Quebec, not to mention being bigger than the rest of Ontario combined. Considering that six of our ten provinces have populations of under a million, even breaking up Ontario wouldn't work.

Oh, and theoretically the US is quite a lot like the EU, only with 50 nations. That conception's been slowly dying though - between "general welfare" and "interstate commerce", the federal government has grown to grotesque proportions - but it's the theory.

California is expected to grow to 60 million (!) in the next few decades; surely this is a state that could break up and/or go independent.

Good luck on the former. There's a noticable cultural difference between north and south, which might provide a logical basis for splitting the state, but whereas Northern California has the bulk of the watershed, Southern California has the majority of the voting population. A break won't happen unless the Southern Californians themselves find an issue controversial enough to force a fracture, or unless the first unofficial military act of the Southwestern Untied States is to pump several million barrels of Texas Crude into the San Andreas.

If...Texas exercised enough pull in the process, their backyard (Colorado)... might swallow hard and follow.

Coloradoans joing up with Texans?? God, man, what have you been smoking?

Western Canada has long had grievances with eastern Canada. Alberta's attitudes today seem little different than those expressed in the 30s and onward, when Alberta chose a Social Credit government that tried to act on its individualistc monetary goals. Bay Street ( the putative center of Canadian financial manipulation) has always been as much of a target for the Canadian west as has Wall Street for Americans. Alberta's ' blue eyed Arabs' have always felt that their wealth was being exploited to the benefit of central Canada. The NDP, the left party in Canada, has its origins in the Prairie socialsim of the CCF, the Saskatchewan left response to the Depression, an obverse to Alberta.

The question is what happens now. Paul Martin's Liberal minority (and the NDP) are centered in the Greater Toronto area. They have very little presence west of the Lakehead. The caucus form of control ( just as in New York State's Assembly, for your New York readers), which is strengthened in the minority status of the government, means that there will have to be more for the Ontario cities and less for the rural areas and smaller cities of the west and Quebec. Whenever the next election is held, the central issue for both the west and for Quebec may be independence, trumping the focus in the past election on the preservation of health care and being different from the United States. I don't think that Paul Martin can win an election fought on that issue.

A conference funded by a Scaife organization told you bad things about Canada? I'm shocked.

I don't know where you get your information, Jason, but in this case it's dead wrong. The Liberty Fund was founded by Pierre Goodrich, and receives no outside funds, although its endowment did double when Mr Goodrich's widow died. It does not lobby, and does not talk about politics; the information I'm describing came from several people who were in Canadian politics at either the provincial or national level, not from the conference.

Comments are Closed.