5 ms·

Not being Canadian and having never lived there, I apologize for my ignorance. (I have been there several times, and not just Toronto & Montreal & Vancouver, ei

Not being Canadian and having never lived there, I apologize for my ignorance. (I have been there several times, and not just Toronto & Montreal & Vancouver, either.) I'll refrain from any mentions of hockey, poutine, eh, or Gordon Lightfoot. Canada strikes me as more than ripe for a split. Quebec goes one way, Ontario another, Manitoba - Saskatchewan - Alberta another, BC a fourth, and I don't know about the other provinces. The ultra-progressive Trudeau minority government should have fallen a long time ago. Their "conservatives" are about as worthless as California Republicans.

briga 4y ago
The prairie provinces are more similar to the midwest—culturally and geographically—than they are to the rest of Canada. It would be a huge economic boon for them to just succeed to the US. Without the prairies the rest of Canada loses its breadbasket and primary revenue stream (oil), which would not bode well for Canadian unity, especially since Quebec already almost split off from the rest of the country.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The prairie provinces are more similar to the midwest—culturally and geographically—than they are to the rest of Canada. It would be a huge economic boon for them to just succeed to the US. Wasn't that talked about in the 90s or something (maybe as a reaction to the idea of Quebec independence)? My recollection was the idea fizzled because any transition period would be longer than those provinces expected (it also may have not been that serious of a proposal).
  - briga 4y ago
    It's generally been on the fringe of provincial politics, but the idea has been getting more attention from the Western provinces after years of being let down by the federal government. Peter Zeihan wrote a thoughtful analysis of it in in his excellent book The Accidental Superpower.
908B64B197 4y ago
My understanding is that Quebec gets paid to stay. Else they would already be out. Didn't they actually vote for an independentist leader at the federal (house of rep) level?
- alephxyz 4y ago
  Quebec politics are complicated but the 1995 independence referendum was 50k votes away from a Yes/Quebexit majority, and independentist parties regularly win at the provincial level. At the federal level the Bloc Quebecois is independentist and usually gets 20-40% of the Quebec vote. Currently Quebec has strong momentum relative to the rest of Canada and their prime minister is a soft nationalist populist who likes to stir up trouble with the federal government but public support for independence in Quebec is still around the 40% mark. There's no realistic scenario where Quebec actually becomes independent in the short term.
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  Maybe in the past... but that's a bit of a ridiculous idea now. Nobody is seriously considering Quebec forming their own country, even if Truedeau suddenly starts being pro-oil and anti-French
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
reducesuffering 4y ago
Anyone seriously considering a country ceding territory to another, without 90%+ unanimity of the territories (Alberta and Canada), is ignorant of the possible extreme consequences and how that factors into any slight benefit for a reasonable risk/reward evaluation. You will start another Ukrainian Donbas for practically no reason. I'm American and I don't want any chance of a Canadian-Albertan civil war.
danbolt 4y ago
Constitutionally, Trudeau’s decisions only affect the average Canadian in particular ways. Or, the government is already quite decentralized and a province’s legislature has an incredible amount of authority over your day-to-day life. His father once suggested the country sometimes tries to be a loose collection of principalities. I think this is partially why separatism isn’t as prominent as it is today. A province would need an incredible benefit from splitting and most of the motivations are more cultural/ideological than economic.
qball 4y ago
>Their "conservatives" are about as worthless as California Republicans. It's worth remembering that this problem is structural. Canada is what the US would look like if it had no Constitution, all votes were party line, and the House was supreme: the only votes that would ever matter are the ones in NYC (Toronto/Montreal), DC (Ottawa), and San Francisco (Vancouver), and because they vote as a bloc the vast majority of the time their governance would be entirely unaccountable to the rest of the nation. The fact that this would rip the US apart is due to its unique kind of citizen; Canadians tend to be more passive-aggressive and as such would need a lot more to go wrong before they consider it. Quebec is a special case since their language and culture really do need the kind of protection they say it does or it's going to die out- which is why they're more separatist than the rest of the nation (and it's very revealing that the only region of Quebec to vote against separation was Montreal, their largest city, and most Anglicized part of the province: had they the foresight to exclude Montreal, the nation would look very different today). As such, the only time any opposition can gain a foothold is if the voting bloc these cities comprise is destabilized. Out of control healthcare spending (of which the massive spike in living costs and inflation is a direct result) may be enough to do this, but only time will tell.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It's worth remembering that this problem is structural. Canada is what the US would look like if it had no Constitution, Canada has a (written) Constitution. You are probably confusing Canada with the UK, which does not. Same ceremonial monarch (and more purely ceremonial in Canada than the UK), different (though broadly similar, both are Westminster-style systems) system of government. > and the House was supreme: Canada has a Senate that can reject and initiate legislation. You are probably confusing Canada with the UK, where the Lords can only delay legislation that has been passed by the Commons.
  - qball 4y ago
    >Canada has a (written) Constitution. It is functionally useless in a way that the US one isn't. >Canada has a Senate that can reject and initiate legislation. The operative word being "can"; but in practice the overwhelming majority of legislation makes it through with no change. It's functionally a ceremonial role.

briga 4y ago

The prairie provinces are more similar to the midwest—culturally and geographically—than they are to the rest of Canada. It would be a huge economic boon for them to just succeed to the US. Without the prairies the rest of Canada loses its breadbasket and primary revenue stream (oil), which would not bode well for Canadian unity, especially since Quebec already almost split off from the rest of the country.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The prairie provinces are more similar to the midwest—culturally and geographically—than they are to the rest of Canada. It would be a huge economic boon for them to just succeed to the US. Wasn't that talked about in the 90s or something (maybe as a reaction to the idea of Quebec independence)? My recollection was the idea fizzled because any transition period would be longer than those provinces expected (it also may have not been that serious of a proposal).
- briga 4y ago
  It's generally been on the fringe of provincial politics, but the idea has been getting more attention from the Western provinces after years of being let down by the federal government. Peter Zeihan wrote a thoughtful analysis of it in in his excellent book The Accidental Superpower.

908B64B197 4y ago

My understanding is that Quebec gets paid to stay. Else they would already be out. Didn't they actually vote for an independentist leader at the federal (house of rep) level?

alephxyz 4y ago
Quebec politics are complicated but the 1995 independence referendum was 50k votes away from a Yes/Quebexit majority, and independentist parties regularly win at the provincial level. At the federal level the Bloc Quebecois is independentist and usually gets 20-40% of the Quebec vote. Currently Quebec has strong momentum relative to the rest of Canada and their prime minister is a soft nationalist populist who likes to stir up trouble with the federal government but public support for independence in Quebec is still around the 40% mark. There's no realistic scenario where Quebec actually becomes independent in the short term.
MisterSandman 4y ago
Maybe in the past... but that's a bit of a ridiculous idea now. Nobody is seriously considering Quebec forming their own country, even if Truedeau suddenly starts being pro-oil and anti-French

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

reducesuffering 4y ago

Anyone seriously considering a country ceding territory to another, without 90%+ unanimity of the territories (Alberta and Canada), is ignorant of the possible extreme consequences and how that factors into any slight benefit for a reasonable risk/reward evaluation. You will start another Ukrainian Donbas for practically no reason. I'm American and I don't want any chance of a Canadian-Albertan civil war.

danbolt 4y ago

Constitutionally, Trudeau’s decisions only affect the average Canadian in particular ways. Or, the government is already quite decentralized and a province’s legislature has an incredible amount of authority over your day-to-day life. His father once suggested the country sometimes tries to be a loose collection of principalities. I think this is partially why separatism isn’t as prominent as it is today. A province would need an incredible benefit from splitting and most of the motivations are more cultural/ideological than economic.

qball 4y ago

>Their "conservatives" are about as worthless as California Republicans. It's worth remembering that this problem is structural. Canada is what the US would look like if it had no Constitution, all votes were party line, and the House was supreme: the only votes that would ever matter are the ones in NYC (Toronto/Montreal), DC (Ottawa), and San Francisco (Vancouver), and because they vote as a bloc the vast majority of the time their governance would be entirely unaccountable to the rest of the nation. The fact that this would rip the US apart is due to its unique kind of citizen; Canadians tend to be more passive-aggressive and as such would need a lot more to go wrong before they consider it. Quebec is a special case since their language and culture really do need the kind of protection they say it does or it's going to die out- which is why they're more separatist than the rest of the nation (and it's very revealing that the only region of Quebec to vote against separation was Montreal, their largest city, and most Anglicized part of the province: had they the foresight to exclude Montreal, the nation would look very different today). As such, the only time any opposition can gain a foothold is if the voting bloc these cities comprise is destabilized. Out of control healthcare spending (of which the massive spike in living costs and inflation is a direct result) may be enough to do this, but only time will tell.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> It's worth remembering that this problem is structural. Canada is what the US would look like if it had no Constitution, Canada has a (written) Constitution. You are probably confusing Canada with the UK, which does not. Same ceremonial monarch (and more purely ceremonial in Canada than the UK), different (though broadly similar, both are Westminster-style systems) system of government. > and the House was supreme: Canada has a Senate that can reject and initiate legislation. You are probably confusing Canada with the UK, where the Lords can only delay legislation that has been passed by the Commons.
- qball 4y ago
  >Canada has a (written) Constitution. It is functionally useless in a way that the US one isn't. >Canada has a Senate that can reject and initiate legislation. The operative word being "can"; but in practice the overwhelming majority of legislation makes it through with no change. It's functionally a ceremonial role.