MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 4

We have now come to the point where we have declared the "experiment" called Canada complete. All the prevailing hypotheses have been examined and found wanting. The final thesis has been reached: that Canada is a failed experiment, ungovernable, subject to much fractional bickering, a "dinosaur" ready to be consigned to a museum. What, then, should be the final outcome?

In previous parts of this series, I suggested that several provinces had historic experiences with separation from Confederation, even going back to the very origins of Confederation itself. I have also suggested that there might be two ways for a province to separate and end the experiment once and for all. In the case of Quebec, or other "original" entities which existed as colonies or dominions before Confederation, it could be done voluntarily, through the will of the people in ways such as referenda or elections fought on the idea. In the case of Alberta, or other entities created by the federal government, it could be the federal government itself that could terminate the participation of that entity in Confederation: a type of eviction or divorce, if you will.

Should such things occur, it would be difficult for Canada to continue in the form we now know it. Certainly every part of the country would be plunged into a type of existential crisis not seen for decades or even more than a century. But there are scenarios to consider:

Should Alberta be evicted, or leave voluntarily, the rest of western Canada would be tempted to go with it. Thus, Canada would be divided like conjoined twins, and live as separate entities, east and west, into the forseeable future.

Should Quebec secede, the rest of Canada would have to decide on its future. Could the Atlantic region remain within Confederation despite being physically cut off from the rest of Canada? Could Ontario live peacefully with its western sisters, despite the ideological and economic differences ? Would the west even wish to remain with Ontario, given the fact that Ontario is part of the "eastern bastards" mentality some Albertans still harbor, and given that the federal capital is physically located in Ontario ?

Would Alberta prefer to live as a separate entity unto itself ? Or would it seek admission into the United States, a country that it professes to have much in common, politically, economically and culturally?

What of Ontario or British Columbia ? Both are large enough entities and lucky enough to possess much economic clout. Would they attempt to exist as lone entities, or would they be persuaded to seek union with either the United States as a whole, or with the geographic regions of the US that are adjacent to them?

And what of the United States itself ? Witnessing the divorce and fracturing of Canada, would it stand idly by, letting things evolve organically ? Or would the United States, an even more disunited and fractious country, be swept up in the drive to separate and reorganize along more common or organic lines?

In 1981, a book called "The Nine Nations of North America" was written by the journalist Joel Garreau. It was a landmark book, thought-provoking and revolutionary for its time. In it, Garreau posited that the traditional political boundaries of North America, featuring 3 large nation-states ( Canada, the United States and Mexico ) were meaningless lines drawn on a map, and made little to no sense. I blogged about such a book many years ago, outlining my agreement with Garreau's thesis. In the intervening years, others have made similar assertions and have re-drawn Garreau's map of the continent to create more than 9 nations.

For example, the west coast of North America, running in a Chile-like appearance along the Pacific coast eastward to the Rockies, has been named "Cascadia". It encompasses the south coast and panhandle of Alaska, coastal British Columbia, coastal Washington and Oregon states, and northern California to just south of San Francisco. That region shares common geographic, climatic, economic and cultural aspects and the north-south commerce and communication has, in the present and the past, made complete sense.

Similarly, an area known as "Laurentia" comprises land that is in the watersheds of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. This comprises all of Ontario south of the "height of land", eastern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, the very northern tips of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, most of northern New York state and all of Michigan. Whether Quebec would choose to join this entity or go it alone as a separate nation is debatable.

Similar expressions would include a union of New England states and Atlantic provinces: a new "confederacy" of southern US states in a renewed "Dixie": a carving of several states that currently refer to themselves as "Appalachia": a union of plains states and prairie provinces in the geographic centre of the continent: an amalgamation of southwestern US states with significant Hispanic population and culture with the current nation of Mexico. And what of large states like California or Texas, which were at one time independent republics on their own before union with the US? Would they prefer to leave any large union and exist as single countries with large populations? And what becomes of the huge swath of Boreal forest north of the Arctic watershed and continental plains/prairie? Could that exist as a huge but mostly empty entity?

My guess is that all of the above can and will happen in the fullness of time. Fracturing of nations has happened throughout history, sometimes peacefully, most times violently. Few nations survive completely unbroken and in its original state. Evolution is a natural human activity. Perhaps this is how the Canadian experiment will evolve. It seems logical along all reasonably measurable lines. Perhaps the time is now for it to begin.

Our Canadian experiment is close to an end. How soon until the new experiment begins ?