The 51st and 52nd states

National Post ^ | June 7, 2003 | Lawrence Solomon

[Mister Magoo]

The 51st and 52nd states

Alberta is already more American than Canadian in some ways, while a left-leaning State of British Columbia would keep the Democrats happy

Lawrence Solomon Financial Post

Thursday, June 05, 2003

CREDIT: National Post

A map of "the 51st and 52nd states".

George Bush wants Alberta's oil but, if it were up for grabs, he'd want Alberta even more. With Alberta as America's 51st state, the U.S. would secure 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, more than exist in Saudi Arabia. U.S. oil imports would plummet and America's great dependence on foreign oil would vanish.

Whenever loose talk arises of Canada becoming the 51st state, as it does from time to time, wise heads scoff at the notion. Getting into the Union isn't easy. No one has made it in almost a half century: Hawaii and Alaska, the last two to win acceptance, had to work long and hard at it. More importantly, many doubt that the U.S. would even want Canada. The U.S. idealizes unbridled free enterprise, rugged individualism and a cultural melting pot; Canada more leans to public-private partnerships, a welfare state and multiculturalism. A United States that swallowed Canada, holus-bolus, would invite a host of problems.

But Alberta, on its own, holds none of Canada's liabilities for Americans. Canada's most conservative province -- anti-Kyoto, anti-gun control, hostile to national health care, receptive to plebiscites and Bible-belt Christians, free of provincial sales tax -- is in some ways more American than Canadian. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien turned his back on President Bush's plan to invade Iraq; Alberta Premier Ralph Klein forthrightly embraced it. A Crawford Ranch North would clash not at all with Republican values.

Because U.S. Democrats would balk at adding a Republican state to the Union, they would want a second, more left-leaning state to be added at the same time, to maintain a balance of power -- this was part of the bargain that had to be struck before Democratic Alaska and Republican Hawaii could be ushered into the Union. The likeliest running mate for Alberta is British Columbia -- a lush and largely liberal urbanized province that has much in common with the west coast states of Washington, Oregon and California. The Vancouver-Seattle-Portland economy is already so integrated that books extol "Cascadia," as the cross-border city-region is sometimes called. To add to America's receptivity to a State of British Columbia, B.C.'s Premier Gordon Campbell, like Premier Klein, also supported the U.S. after our federal politicians attacked it over Iraq.

With B.C. in the U.S. fold, Alaska would be linked to the lower 48 states and, more importantly, the U.S. would have uninterrupted control over the west coast, allowing it to control the border against terrorists and simplifying its desire for National Missile Defence. National defence figured in America's decision in the 1950s to admit both Hawaii and Alaska. The military imperative is no less great today. And behind all the practical reasons for the U.S. to welcome Alberta and B.C. into the Union lies Manifest Destiny, an almost Messianic conviction that all of North America is fated for America. Manifest Destiny, central to American thought from the nation's very foundation, would legitimize any movement to extend the American flag north into what are now Canada's Rocky Mountain provinces.

To Americans, making Alberta and B.C. the 51st and 52nd states would be a no-brainer: It would augment America's security and its economy and fulfill its destiny. To British Columbians and especially Albertans, switching to the U.S. rather than fighting Canada's federal government, though currently on no one's political agenda, could one day become compelling. Many Western Canadians covet the low U.S. taxes and the high U.S. standard of living -- in Canada, only the urban swath between Calgary and Edmonton achieves U.S. levels of affluence. Should the federal government or a central province outrage B.C. or Alberta through a policy or a slight that spins seriously out of control, the stage would be set for the breakup of Canada. Albertans and British Columbians may well reason that they could hardly lose in the bargain. Depending on the outrage -- say, another egregious resource grab such as the National Energy Program of the 1980s -- they may well be right.

But Canada would lose grievously should it lose either of these great provinces, making it imperative that events never be allowed to reach that stage. Keeping the provinces inside Canada by force is no longer an option -- the Supreme Court of Canada has already endorsed a province's departure if its citizens speak clearly on the matter. And neither can we keep Canada together by granting the provinces more powers, as Alberta demands through its proposal for a Triple-E Senate. Alberta's plan would give have-not provinces the great majority of votes, creating a block that would soon pillage the great wealth of wealthy provinces and hasten the day that they leave.

There is only one way to ensure that Alberta and B.C. stay within Canada: To make Canada worthy of Albertans and British Columbians. In my concluding column in this series, I will describe the road to worthiness.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.Urban-Renaissance.org Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com; Next: The True North Strong and Free

© Copyright 2003 National Post

[Dane]

I would welcome Alberta.

Canada can keep modern British Columbia. Filled with too many leftist dopeheads.

[No Dems 2004]

Maybe we should trade them California?

[Peter Libra]

An extremely simplistic view here. Alberta could simply claim the special privileges that Quebec already has. Yeah, if not, why not? The biggest betrayal came in the Trudeau years against this Province. (The National Energy Policy).Even to this day, many Canadians do not realise exactly what this man was. His memory is enshrined by the government controlled television.
He forced certain people to hate Canada- that is part of his legacy, in my view. I have heard that it is the oil sands that present the biggest challenge to modern technology. If it could be solved- bye bye scurrying and flunkying around certain middle- east people. Well, some of us can dream, I guess. I worked in both Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, Alberta at one time.

[gcruse]

When the liberals win the next election, the western provinces know they will be economically raped and pillaged for at least the next decade, all to the benefit of Quebec and the basket-case maritimes. What is fiction now is planning for later.

[gcruse]

If this is true, why isn't Canada selling us this oil at today's market price.

As I recall, Canada does sell us that and buys world oil for eastern Canada's consumption.
We use more than we buy from them, evidently.

[Snowyman]

When the liberals win the next election

We'll wait and see. In the meantime you might be suprised at the amounts of oil and natural gas those basket case maritimes are pumping into the Eastern US.

By 2004 Newfoundland isexpected to be producing 400,000 barrels a day .

, Exxon Mobil now estimates the potential conventional offshore oil reserves of Eastern Canada to be 40 billion barrels, compared with 34 billion for Western Canada.

The natural gas reserves of Newfoundland and Labrador are 62 trillion cubic feet. That would provide enough energy for more than 700 million homes for a year. In Nova Scotia, a new 653-mile pipeline is pumping natural gas from the 3.5-trillion-cubic-foot Sable reserve through New Brunswick, Maine and southern New Hampshire to link up with existing pipelines north of Boston.

[gcruse]

Excellent news. Is it showing up in the living standards out there? I know it was desperate for a long time.

[Sicvee]

I think it is tar sands oil, and probably costs more to recover because it requires heat injection or other expensive technology beyond drilling and pumping. So they can't sell it at the current market price and make any money. Just as you couldn't make a profit on ethanol without a massive government subsidy.

Flame away! I'm just speculating here.

[Snowyman]

So they can't sell it at the current market price

If I recall correctly it costs about a dollar a barrel in the ME to extract oil. Northern Alberta cost is something like 12 dollars a barrel. The last figure I saw was 15% of the US daily consumption is supplied by Canada. I did see one of 18% but I don't think it's quite that high.

[dvwjr]

I think that you mean the US Articles of Confederation, which allowed Canada to enter the Union without having to go through the Statehood route. Since the US Constitution superceeded the Articles of Confederation, I wonder if the Supreme Court of the US would say that any of its provisions related to Canada are still valid???


dvwjr

[donmeaker]

The Articles of Confederation have priority over the Constitution. The legal term is "Precedent", and by English Common Law (which we follow) acts unless changed. That is why when the AofC says the United States is a perpetual union, it was binding on the states which later were created by the Union, as well as on the states which ratified the Union.

The 1783 Peace Treaty is also one of our founding documents, and has precedent over the Constitution, partly because it is prior, partly because it is a treaty, and even later treaties have precedent over the Constitution, once ratified by the Senate.

The way to get around an offensive and obnoxious treaty is to negotiate and sign a new treaty specifically revolking the noxious provision(s) of the old treaty. Another way, and this risks war with the treaty partner, is to pass a constitutional amendment ending the obligation. That is a one sided act, and would entitle the treaty partner to what ever the provisions are if the treaty is violated.

So-The treaty of 1783 is still valid, and Canada as a whole, or any separated portions which descend from Canada of 1783 could join our union. The only question is what representation would they get in terms of states. The Representatives would be simple, it is based on a formula. Would the vast empty of Yukon get the same number of Senators as the teaming millions of California? Gosh, I hope so!

[Clemenza]

Better BC and Alberta than Puerto Rico.

[stainlessbanner]

Getting into the Union isn't easy.

Getting out is harder.

[LibKill]

Why join the United States, they should form thier own country.

That sounds good. It would be nice to have a freindly country on our northern border, for a change.

[CPT Clay]

Make it Yukon and NW Territories while you are at it!!! I'd like to see a gas pipeline from the North Slope.

[djf]

TY! Been drivin me nuts all day trying to remember where it was... I reed two much!

[Susannah]

"Do you honestly think that the Democrats would let us drill for oil there if they were a 51st state? It would just be one huge wildlife preserve with higher taxes. "

The enviro groups won't even allow Alaska, our hugest state, to use their resources. So, you're right, Alberta would become one more big untouchable park where wildlife, arctic tundras, migrating birds, etc. take priority over the preservation of humanity's benefits.

[Canadian Outrage]

Yes, Vancouver is left leaning, especially East Vancouver. However, the Interior of B.C. is CANADIAN ALLIANCE. The area I live in has NEVER voted in any other representative but very conservative ones. We were extremely fortunate to have the Social Credit Party in B.C. for many many years. Thanks to the Left leaning media and nut-case Chinese realtor, they were able to create a false scandal and dismantle the best part short of the Canadian Alliance EVER to run this Province. We were fortunate to have them for nearly 20 years. However, what is happening now is that B.C. has nice weather, so all the Eastern and Central Canada retirees are heading here to retire and bringing their God awful attitudes with them. Believe me, tho there is a battle waging for the Conservative ways in this Province.

[Canadian Outrage]

The tar sands are much more "costly" to extract oil from than pumping it straight from the ground.

[Canadian Outrage]

There are plenty of us Christians in B.C. also!! In the city in which I live, Kelowna, there are more Churches than any City in Canada (per capita)!! or so it was 5 years ago.