[c. 12,000 words][End]

TAKE A POLL!  Post a flyer?

A presentation by the Expansionist Party of the United States

PRIVATE ACTION FOR
CANADIAN-U.S. UNION

What We Propose. The Expansionist Party ("XP") advocates admission of Canada into the United States as up to seven states of the Union. The four Atlantic Provinces, too small to be admitted as separate states, would merge into one. (Merger of these four even within the context of an independent Canada has long been advocated, for the administrative economies it would entail.) The remaining six provinces, from Quebec west, could be admitted as states to themselves. Or the three Prairie Provinces could be merged into a single Prairie state — again, for reasons of economy. Besides, big states get more attention to their needs than do small states.

(Note: We published the first version of this presentation in 1990. Tho some specific data from that time has changed, nothing has altered the basic validity of the arguments offered.)

The Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut would either merge with Alaska to form a united Arctic state to champion northern interests, or be divided among the new Canadian states bordering on them by extending present provincial boundaries northward, as the people of Canada might in their sole discretion decide prior to union. If neither of these alternatives seems the best thing to do at once, the federal territories of Canada could simply become Federal territories of the United States, leaving the question of their future to be decided later.

Under the laws of the United States, no area can become a state without a ratifying plebiscite, so there can be no claim of imperialism. If the people of Canada want Canada to be part of the United States, and the people of the United States wish to grant Canadians statehood, no one in the world has any right to object.

The United States, as its name suggests, is an organization more than a nation-state. Its unity revolves not around race, language, or even shared history, but around the principles of its express social contract, the Constitution of the United States. Originally just 13 states along the eastern seaboard of North America but now 50 states spread across the entire width of the continent and extending to its northwest corner and across 2,400 miles of the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. has grown by accepting new members into the club. Unlike some areas that have asked for statehood but been rejected (the Dominican Republic, various countries of Central America, and even Hawaii, when it first applied in 1854), if Canada were to ask, it would surely be accepted, since public opinion polls show strong support among Americans for admitting Canada to the Union.

Illustrations do not necessarily relate to the text they adjoin but are intended to make this presentation more appealing visually and to give readers a sense of the sights of Canada and a feel for how our two countries joined would complement each other.

What Need and Need Not Change. Upon statehood, the Canadian constitution and federal laws would be replaced by the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws. The Canadian federal government would be dissolved, its administrative departments, civil service, military, etc., being merged into their U.S. counterparts. The CBC and other Crown Corporations would be converted to U.S. Federal independent agencies, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

U.S. currency would replace Canadian, at par, $1 Canadian being treated as though equal to $1 U.S. (This assumes that the U.S. dollar will, at annexation, be worth more than the Canadian dollar, giving rise to a one-time windfall for Canadians, in consideration of the voluntary release of Canadian independence. If the Canadian dollar should be of higher value, it would be exchanged at the most favorable rate found on any major currency exchange on the date statehood takes effect.)

Canadian benefit programs with U.S. equivalents (e.g., Social Security) would be merged into those equivalents. Canadian federal programs not regarded by Canadians as having a U.S. equivalent (e.g., medical coverage, the baby bonus) would become the responsibility of each Canadian state to enact individually or phase out, since the Canadian federal program would end. Since states have greater powers of taxation than do provinces, and since Canadian federal taxes would be replaced by generally lower U.S. Federal taxes, this might not be at all onerous. For one thing, lower incomes would subject Canadians in poorer provinces to lower Federal tax rates. (In calculating income for U.S. tax purposes, Canadian income figures for the first year after Canada joins the Union will be translated into U.S. dollar figures at the rate of exchange found on international currency exchanges on a date, prior to statehood, to be agreed, not at par. So if the Canadian dollar stood at US$.70 at annexation, Canadian incomes would be reported as only 70% of the comparable amount in U.S. dollars, giving rise, again, to a one-time benefit.) Since different states have different costs, state-level programs could be more carefully tailored to local needs and capabilities.

Each new Canadian state would send two Senators to the U.S. Senate and as many Representatives to the House as its population warrants, currently (October 2002) at the rate of one Representative for every 666,666 people. In that each Congressman (or -woman) represents over six times as many people as an M.P., Parliament would have to choose which of its members to send to Congress if Canada is to have immediate representation prior to a special election to select Representatives for the balance of the congressional term in which Canada enters the Union. Fortunately, Canada's parliamentary form of government would entitle the parties to select among their members which to send to Congress.

For the U.S. Senate, the Constitution sets forth a procedure for filling vacancies. The "executive authority" of each new state would appoint two Senators to serve immediately. One would stand for election to a regular six-year term the very next national election; the other the following national election, two years later.

Upon statehood, it is likely that any native-born citizen of Canada would be regarded as the legal equivalent of a native-born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to run for all Federal offices, including President. A provision to that effect could be written into the Treaty of annexation, and there is precedent for treating foreign nationals as long-term citizens retroactively, in that Texas, independent for almost ten years, was allowed to send former Texas Republic citizens to both houses of Congress immediately upon statehood, whereas a strict interpretation of the Constitution would require that each Representative have been a U.S. citizen for seven years and each Senator a U.S. citizen for nine years prior to service.

One would hope only the best of Canada's elected officials would be put forward for U.S. office, the remainder being retired to other occupations.

Treaty or Simple Legislation. Annexation could be accomplished by Treaty or by simple act of Congress ratified by plebiscite in each new state. We prefer the Treaty approach, in that it would permit special provisions to ease transition and protect present U.S. institutions, whereas a simple act of legislation would subject Canadian states to disadvantageously equal treatment immediately and might tempt Canadians to vote for fundamental changes to the U.S. form of government that would create friction with other states.

Immediate Equality Disadvantageous. The population of several provinces divided by 666,666, the approximate number of constituents per congressional district, would leave several Canadian states substantially underrepresented if their number of Representatives were rounded down (as seems likely without a Treaty), even if Canadian population growth were to keep pace with past trends, since each ten years the U.S. population grows by the size of Canada's total population (indeed, 1990-2000 the U.S. population increased by 32.7 million, which is MORE than Canada's total population) but the number of Representatives was fixed at 435 in 1912. The Treaty could provide (a) that the number be rounded up, (b) that the House be permanently enlarged by the number of seats granted to new Canadian states, and (c) that Canadian states retain the right of rounding-up for twenty years, as another consideration for yielding Canada's independence. This approach would give each Canadian state the following initial number of representatives. (Computations are based on the Canadian 1996 census.)

Flags of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

Though each of the Prairie Provinces is substantially less populous than the average state, each is also very large geographically (nearly the size of Texas) so might be perceived as having the potential for substantial growth. Thus Congress might be willing to admit each separately despite their relatively small populations. If the Prairies should wish to join together, or be compelled to join together as a condition for statehood, they would have 8 representatives (Treaty number; 7.2 non-Treaty would be rounded down to 7) and be (with 4.8 million people) somewhat larger than the average present state in population. Geographically, however, a single Prairie state would be by far the largest state in the Union unless the Arctic territories were to merge with Alaska. If so, Alaska would remain the largest state (though Quebec is larger than Alaska at its present size).

It's possible that Congress would regard Alberta as being big enuf in both area and population to be admitted as a state to itself but require Saskatchewan and Manitoba to merge into a single new state. That state would have 2.1 million people and 4 Representatives (Treaty number; non-Treaty figure would be 3.15, which would surely be rounded down to 3).

Symbols. Each Canadian state would add a star to the flag of the United States. Naturally, the design competition for the new flag would be open to Canadians. Any Canadian state that so desired could adopt the present Canadian flag as its state flag, or otherwise incorporate the maple leaf, beaver, Union Jack, fleur-de-lis or any other traditional Canadian symbol into its individual state flag or seal. Hawaii's state flag incorporates the Union Jack, and several states of the Old South incorporate a version of the Confederate battle flag in their state flag, so it is clear there would be no objection to similar historical references in the flags of Canadian states.

The flag of Ontario incorporates the Union
Jack of the United Kingdom, the Saint George's
cross of  England, and maple leaves for Canada.

Any Canadian state could adopt "O Canada" or any other song it might like as its state song unless that song unconstitutionally exalts religion or monarchy. "God Save the Queen" would, thus, be constitutionally objectionable twice, in establishing both religion and monarchy.

Interesting sidebar: few people realize it, but the composer of the music for "O Canada", Quebecer Calixa Lavallée, spent much of his life in the United States, became President of the (U.S.) Music Teachers National Association, lived in Boston until his death, and was buried outside Boston. It wasn't until 1933, 42 years later, that his remains were moved to Montreal.

The flag of Quebec incorporates the fleur-de-lis,
symbol of royal France.

Any Canadian state that so desired could even retain the metric system, kilometer-per-hour signs on state and local roads (though not on Federal highways, unless miles-per-hour equivalents were also displayed in at least equal prominence), and Celsius thermometry even though the rest of the country refuses them. We suspect many older Canadians would be glad to be see traditional measures side-by-side with metric. They haven't forgotten traditional measures, and packaging from the present United States that bears traditional measures does not confuse them.

The flag of Newfoundland and Labrador
imaginatively alters the Union Jack.

Thru symbolism, Canadian states could graphically demonstrate pride in Canada's history and the special contribution Canada would make to the Union.

Acadia (the French-speaking community of New Brunswick
memorialized in  Longfellow's Evangeline) employs the flag of republican France,
with a yellow "star of the sea" to conjure both the Virgin Mary and the Papacy,
reminders of Acadia's Catholic roots.

Name and Nationality. The official name of the Nation would remain "United States of America", since that term is embedded in the Preamble to the Constitution, unless the people moved a constitutional amendment to change it (most unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future). Simple legislation rather than a constitutional amendment could, however, mandate use of a different name for most official purposes. The "of America" was rendered geographically inaccurate in 1959, when Hawaii, which lies 2,400 miles from the American continent in Oceania, became a state. Since "Canada" apparently derives from an Algonquian word for "village", "United States of Canada" would eloquently express the Expansionist concept of a harmonious and inclusive community of self-governing states working toward what Canadian communications pundit Marshall McLuhan called a "global village".

"Canadian" would be a better name for our expanded nationality than "American", and more dignified than "Yank" or "Yankee". Or it could join those other terms as to permit a wider choice of names for ourselves. No one can know how people in the present states will regard the idea of calling themselves "Canadians", but many are uncomfortable with the term "American", since they know that hundreds of millions of people in Latin America resent the U.S. appropriating "America" and "American" to itself alone.

Language. The unofficial but universal language of the United States is English. However, the Supreme Court and Congress have agreed that other languages deserve respect in education and the political process. A few states have made English the official state language, but the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is essentially unilingual in Spanish, even if English is officially co-equal. It is unlikely that statehood would be granted to any area officially unilingual in any language but English. Louisiana is officially bilingual, English-French, so other areas would surely not be denied statehood on grounds of language as long as English were at least co-official.

The main second language in the United States is Spanish — like French, a Romance language. Where many people speak Spanish, local, state, and Federal agencies provide services in Spanish. Utilities send out bilingual notices. Children are educated in Spanish until they can master English. And ballots for elections must be available in Spanish as well as English. But where there are not large numbers of people who speak Spanish, bilingualism is not required.

Quebec City. The Chateau Frontenac (a hotel) looms over the Lower Town.

This common-sensible approach to language applies not just to Spanish, but to other languages as well. Thus, under existing law, areas in which there are many speakers of French — or Ukrainian, Italian, Vietnamese, or any other language — would have to receive services in that language. Where almost everyone knows English, services need not be provided in other languages. French Canadians migrating to areas where French is not common would probably not find public schools, courts, or other services in French, nor would they have the right to demand special accommodation. They would have to adjust to "the English fact" in such areas and learn English. Since modern English and French share 65% of their vocabulary, this may be a lot less difficult than many people think, and there are hundreds of thousands of French Canadians and their descendants living comfortably in New England, Florida and other parts of the U.S. without special treatment.

The special status of French in areas with a large French population would remain, but, by the same rules, where many speakers of English are found in a predominantly French area, services in English would have to be provided, though an Anglophone who moved to an all-French area could not expect everyone to cater to him. Federal services, however, would be available in English in every part of the Union.

Treaty to Survive the Grant of Statehood. XP advocates that the details of union be spelled out in a Treaty that would survive union. Importantly, that Treaty would protect the distinctive U.S. form of government, which provides for separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and for fixed terms for Congress and the President. No Canadian state would be permitted, for at least 50 years, either to introduce or to ratify any proposed constitutional amendment to change the national government to a parliamentary form. If Canadians should want a parliament at the state or even local level, that would be their right. But the United States nationally must retain a form of government that has proved appropriate to a Nation of enormous population, diversity and responsibility.

Flag of the President of the United States, an elected official Canadians
would help choose, unlike the "Queen", in whose selection Canadians play no part.

At the State Level. The U.S. Constitution forbids monarchy, so the Nation's head of state would be, as now, the President of the United States. If a parliamentary form of government is retained at the state level and the institution of separate heads of state and government is retained, the head of state would be called simply "Governor" rather than "Lieutenant Governor", and would be selected as ever that state might choose (popular election, appointment by the state cabinet, even, by analogy with the present monarchy, appointment by the President of the United States). If the Lieutenant Governorship is abolished, the state Premier would become the chief executive, called "Premier", "Prime Minister", "Governor" or something else of the state's own choosing. Though called a "state" in general use, any Canadian state could preserve the title "Province" for official use, should it so desire, just as some states call themselves "Commonwealth".

If a new Canadian state wished to revise its government to abolish the parliamentary unity of legislature and executive, and replace it with separate legislature and governor, it could do so. It could as well substitute a bicameral legislature for unicameral and fixed terms of office instead of the current practice of a government being subject to vote of no-confidence or a ruling party being able to call elections at a time of its own choosing — which can seriously harm the chances of an opposition party to make its case most forcefully. But there is no requirement in the U.S. Constitution that all states have identical forms of organization. Nebraska, for instance, has a unicameral legislature.

British Columbia's Capitol Building, Victoria, at nite.

If a new Canadian state wished to preserve the parliamentary form of government, there is no reason in law that it could not. As a practical matter, most new states would probably prefer to bring their form of government into line with the other states' as to fit neatly into Governors' conferences, etc., but they would not be required to do so.

All provincial laws that do not conflict with the U.S. constitution would remain in full force and effect. In that the powers of states are wider than the powers of provinces, the new Canadian states would have to enact their own legislation in certain fields.

For instance, criminal law, federal in Canada, is for the most part the responsibility of the states in the U.S. There are some Federal crimes, but they relate to only certain subject-matter areas. Upon dissolution of the Canadian federal government, U.S. Federal laws would replace Canadian federal laws, leaving a gap in most areas of criminal law. Each Canadian state would have both the obligation and opportunity to enact its own criminal code. Though the American Bar Association has promulgated a model criminal code for all states, each state has full power to adopt or reject those recommendations and employ local standards of right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate behavior and punishments.

A Grand Vision. Canada and the U.S. joined together would, by many measures of wealth, dynamism, and culture, be the greatest nation in the history of the world.

A combined U.S. and Canada would eclipse Russia as the largest country on Earth geographically. The expanded U.S. would not change in rank as to population, remaining the world's third most populous nation (after only China and India). But the entire feel of the future would change, not just for us on this continent but for humanity all around the Earth.

Never before have the peoples of two such enormous countries put their trust in each other and merged. Their voluntary joining would make a huge impact upon the world's sense of the possible, and open people's minds to ideas and opportunities of many kinds.

Canadians would finally put to rest the endless anxieties periodically splashed across popular magazines in alarmist headlines — "Can Canada Survive?", "Will Quebec Separate?" and so on. They will have decided, yes, Canada can "survive" — as part of the U.S. And no, Quebec will not separate, because the United States is an indissoluble Union (the Civil War proved that), and any area that assumes statehood does so in the knowledge that it's for keeps.

The time for Quebec to decide for independence is before accepting statehood, not after. Interestingly, pro-statehood sentiment is stronger in Quebec than in English Canada, for Quebeckers know that their culture would thrive in a large, tolerant Union. So tolerant is the United States that if Quebec wanted economic but not political union with the U.S., that special relationship ("sovereignty-association", the Parti Quebecois calls it, as proposed for Quebec vis-a-vis Canada) would be granted quickly and without resentment. Puerto Rico has essentially that relationship with the United States now: "Commonwealth" in English, "Estado Libre Asociado" (Free Associated State) in Spanish.

Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia

A Tranquil Resolution. Canadians would finally be fully part of that hugely dynamic civilization they eavesdrop on and feel drawn to but cannot now claim as their own. They would be part of something not just physically large (nearly twice the size of Canada alone, since Canada is only 6% larger than the U.S. today) but populous, mighty, and inexpressibly important in its all-pervasive impact upon the world, rededicated to a role that is positive and humanitarian, and able by its example as much as by its economic, military, and cultural power, to transform the world for the better. In uniting we would send a message around the globe that people can resolve differences and join together to solve common problems, be they acid rain, air and water pollution, and uneven economic development in North America, or starvation, poverty, and disease in the Third World.

Money now wasted on duplicate national governments and needless federal bilingualism could be redirected to internal and international development projects. The Canadian disinclination to military solutions could move the massive power of the United States from negative obsession with containment of "threats" (from Communist revolution, still espoused by the leaders of China, Cuba, and Vietnam; or from "Islamism": intolerant — and thus anti-Islamic — militancy) into, instead, dynamic outreach to do the good and necessary things in the world that will make containment of any threat unnecessary, because the oppressive poverty and injustice that alone give radicals the chance to win friends and influence people will be vanishing before the very eyes of those now tempted to desperate measures.

A typical scene in the Canadian Rockies, part of the great and beautiful land we share.

Personal Mobility. In one way the new U.S. would be vastly larger than the old Soviet Union, once the world's largest country: every legal resident would be entitled to travel and work anywhere in the country, unlike the U.S.S.R., where people could go only where and when the government permitted. Young "North Americans" (as Canadians use the term) in search of themselves could travel thru 7.5 million square miles of land, from skyscraper cities to silent deserts, palm-clad tropical islands to permafrozen tundra. People in search of opportunity could pick up and go with the flow of new technologies and careers. Retirees wouldn't have to suffer snow and ice but would have the legal right to move to Florida, California, Arizona, or Hawaii if they want to, without waiting for visas — visas that might never have come.

The dollar would have the same value everywhere. The Canadian brain drain to the U.S. would mean nothing, and all the guilt that Canadian nationalists try to lay upon people who "go over to the other side" to seek their fortune and secure the welfare of their families, would vanish. The educational investment Canadian governments lavished upon them would remain in the Nation, working for the good of the Nation, even if they move thousands of miles from where they went to school. No tariffs or quotas could ever be imposed to shut out Canadian goods and throw Canadians out of work. And public and private research moneys would be much more evenly distributed across North America.

Voting, More Than Lecturing. 14 Senators and 45 Representatives could suddenly state the Canadian case to Congress and the President in more than moralistic terms: they would have votes to help get their way. Don't think that 14 votes in the Senate and 45 in the House is nothing, because if you look at the breakdown on crucial issues, the margin of triumph or defeat is rarely that wide. Indeed, it is occasionally so thin that deathly ill legislators must be rolled in on hospital gurneys to cast their vote.

Start of sunset thru birches in a provincial park on the north shore of Prince Edward Island.

The experience of Canadians in their own federal union will have demonstrated that several regions virtually never "gang up" to injure one, because most legislators vote by issue or conviction, not region. This is especially true in the U.S., where there is no "party discipline" rule and legislators are always free to vote their conscience. Besides, each region knows that if it joins a conspiracy against one region today, that region may join a conspiracy against it tomorrow. Within Canada, even Ontario is outnumbered two to one within Confederation, but you'll notice that Ontario has not been beaten up by the other provinces! Fears that Canada would be "raped" by outside interests are totally unfounded, the kind of nonsense that demagogs try to use to persuade people to do things contrary to their own best interest.

It may, however, give Canadians outside Ontario and Quebec some satisfaction to know that in union Ontario would be only the eighth most populous state, Quebec only the twelfth. People within Ontario and Quebec, however, should remember that a big state in the U.S. is a vastly more powerful entity in world terms than a big province in Canada, since it helps shape the policies of the world's most influential society.

How Many States to Create? The vote for President of the United States in the electoral college is apportioned by state, so that whoever wins a state, be it by a million votes or a single person's vote, wins the entire electoral vote of that state. That means that a state of 7- or 11 million population is much more important to the political parties than a state of 1 million, so that in addition to its clout in Congress, a big state has clout with the major parties in presidential elections. This was powerfully illustrated in the 2000 presidential election, when the whole Nation had to wait weeks to find out how Florida, the Nation's fourth-largest state, voted.

However, each state has only two votes in the U.S. Senate, no matter its population. It's a tradeoff.

Under XP's plan , in which the four small Atlantic Provinces would merge into a single state, but each other province would be admitted as a state to itself, Canada would have two big states, Ontario and Quebec. If Canadians were to think that insufficient, they could forfeit 12 votes in the Senate and bring Canada into the Union as a single enormous state, almost as populous as California and with much the same growth potential. There is nothing in the Constitution to forbid a state of the Union from being itself a federal union, so long as representation in the legislature of that state is apportioned solely by population.

Thus, if Canada wished to retain its unity and all its present institutions, with the single exception of the "monarchy", it could do so. But it would forgo 12 votes in the Senate, and all the things that are unsatisfactory about power relationships within Canada today would be frozen in place: the dominance of Central Canada at the expense of other regions, compelled bilingualism, etc. There are various other ways provincial boundaries might be shifted to create fewer but more populous states more capable of asserting their interests in Congress and in the rough and tumble of the national economy. The map below shows one possibility.

The present provincial boundaries of Canada may not seem the best state boundaries, to either
the people of less-populous Canadian states or to Congress.  Here's one way they might be altered
to provide for fewer but stronger states. Greenland, now part of Denmark, might in time also want to
join the Union, but is shown here as a separate area, under its Greenland Eskimo name, Kalaalit Nunaat.

An Ontario colleague, Lionel Berry, has proposed a different plan for creating Canada into states. The map below shows his proposal in outline. A detailed discussion of his suggestion appears at Canstatemap.html.

The British Connection. The U.S. Constitution guarantees every state "a Republican form of government". Monarchy is forbidden. But of course Canada is not really a monarchy. The attachment of some Canadians to a make-believe Queen way off in England who may speak Canada's two official languages but with a strong foreign accent in both, and who wouldn't for a minute think of actually living in Canada, is sentimental, not political. Emotional attachments can be maintained as easily within the context of the U.S. as within an independent Canada. After all, when people in the U.S. say "the Queen", they do not ordinarily mean Beatrix of the Netherlands.

Any residual allegiance to Britain Canada may feel is completely unrequited. When Britain joined the European Community, it tossed aside the entire Commonwealth to pursue its own destiny within Europe. It's time for Canada to toss The British Connection aside and pursue its own destiny within North America

The Expansionist Party does favor bringing Britain into the Union as several states, and working with Britain toward reuniting the former settlement colonies of The Empire as a federal union under the Constitution. But such a larger union is not a precondition to union of Canada into the United States. To the extent it would make Canadians more at ease in yielding their sovereignty to have British colleagues in Congress who will probably retain a parliamentary form in their new states, British accession to the Union would be a very good thing indeed.

Flag of the Province of "British" Columbia,
which shows the Union Jack ruling over the waves,
harkening back to the time when "the sun never set on the British Empire".

Why Unite? There are positive and negative reasons for uniting our two great countries. Since they are the more troublous, let's take the negative reasons first.

Canada is, willy-nilly, dependent upon the United States economically and militarily. Despite formal pretensions of equality, Canada is in no sense equal to the United States. Attempts by the ultra-nationalist Trudeau government over the course of many years, 18 years ago, to diversify Canada's trade, diplomatic, and cultural relations failed, and Canada is, if anything, more inescapably intertwined with and dependent upon the United States now than before Trudeau took office.

The reason is not just that Canada lies alongside the U.S. but that the people of Canada and the U.S. are very similar and enjoy each other more than Canadian nationalists want to admit.

But Canada remains legally a "foreign" country, so whenever anti-foreign feeling sweeps across the United States, Canada risks being hit as hard as any other foreign country. The U.S. today has a phenomenal trade deficit. Although aggressive, unfair trading practices by Japan, Communist China, South Korea and other Asian nations are responsible for the largest part of this, Americans alarmed at the trade deficit are disinclined to draw distinctions. All foreign countries that impact U.S. trade negatively are The Enemy, Canada and Brazil as much as Japan.

When it comes to choosing between lumbermen in Oregon who vote for Congress and President, or lumbermen in B.C. who don't, Congress will cater to Oregon lumbermen every time.

The same is true of every other industry for which Canadian competition exists. Faced with a potentially catastrophic trade deficit on top of a budgetary deficit, Congress might be persuaded to shut Canada out of the U.S. market at any time, whereupon unemployment levels in Canada would go thru the roof.

The free-trade agreements FTA and NAFTA are simple acts of legislation that can be repealed at any time. Even a free-trade treaty could be denounced and trading obstacles raised overnight if ever a President should see fit.

What alternative does government have but to protect citizens (voters) against foreigners? The U.S. Government exists to serve the interests of the United States, be it in regard to fossil-fuel policy (energy independence in the U.S.; acid rain in Canada), development of antiballistic missiles (national defense in the U.S.; nuclear anxiety in Canada), or any other issue. Congress and the President are obliged to choose the interests and even whims of voters over even the most strongly felt concerns of "foreigners" — any foreigners, including Canadians. If Canadians were represented in Congress, however, the same government that now may work against them instead works for them. Wouldn't that be better?

No Domination Without Representation. Like it or not, the U.S. dominates Canada. Decisions made in Ottawa or provincial capitals mean nothing if the policies of the U.S. Government or of individual states overwhelm Canada. In the case of acid rain, for example, an independent Canada has no way to force polluters in the U.S. Midwest to stop pouring out astronomical quantities of air pollutants. Indeed, not even the U.S. Federal Government may have the right to intervene if Midwestern states can demonstrate that what is involved is an issue within state jurisdiction.

In union, the Representatives and Senators of Canadian states would be in daily contact with those of all other states, and could make very plain that their votes will not ever go to projects to benefit, say, Ohio and Indiana unless those states do something meaningful about pollution that injures Canadian lakes. Conversely, if Ohio and Indiana do act to cut pollution enough to reduce acid rain significantly, Canadian Congressmen would agree to vote for projects that benefit those states. It is this kind of horse trading that makes a democracy function, but Canada is outside the system so cannot protect its interests thru the system.

Rocher Perce, Gaspe Region of Quebec

Breaking the Ice. A great many people in Canada favor annexation to the United States but have been cowed into silence by the Establishment. That must change. Individual Canadians can change it.

Slightly different view of Rocher Perce ("Pierced Rock"),
showing the hole worn in the rock by the ocean.

For its part, the Canadian Establishment is split in two. One group, successful people who know they are first-class and can compete with anybody, welcome the chance to be let loose in a wider arena, where they can rise to greater power and achieve greater wealth and prestige. The other group are the inconfident, who, be it from living in Canada, a perpetually overshadowed little brother, or some other cause, are terrified at the thought of having to play by the same rules as the big boys, so run for the cover of tariffs, preferential quotas and bidding practices, etc. The issue is further complicated by a selective historical memory.

Two Revolutions. Canadian nationalists pretend that whereas the United States arose in revolution, Canada rejected revolution and remained faithful to The Empire. But did it really?

The United States broke away from the British Empire when the Empire wouldn't do justice by admitting their representatives to Parliament, which was the first, and seemingly modest, demand of the Founding Fathers: "No taxation without representation." When Parliament refused, the Founding Fathers saw no reason to consent to continued discrimination, so declared independence. English Canada arose out of and in reaction against the independence of the United States, and was peopled by refugees from the failed imperial experiment in the Thirteen Colonies, who were called variously "Tories" (hated traitors) in the United States and "Loyalists" (patriots of the Empire) in Canada. The Revolution largely destroyed the first Empire, but Britain rebounded from that loss, bolstered by the sudden growth of Canada, and established a second, even greater Empire around the world.

This long-ago war, so utterly irrelevant to the modern world, has dominated Canadian Establishment sentiment for 200 years! Dishonestly.

The fact is that though Canada may originally have arisen in opposition to anti-Imperial revolution, Canada later did break away from the British Empire — because the Empire refused Canada representation in Parliament too!

Worse, in the 1880s and '90s, when Canada was insisting on greater and greater autonomy, there were Imperial Federation forces in London — not dominant, perhaps, but which might have grown so with active support from the dominions — that were willing to grant the Dominions representation in an Imperial Parliament! Canadian nationalists were instrumental in torpedoing that idea.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it: "The colonies saw that Britain would dominate any such body and that representation on it would merely commit them to accepting British policies, while the United Kingdom government refused to share its authority with colonial governments." It was to have been representation without real power, since the dominions at the time, all put together, did not even begin to equal Britain's population, and only inter-colonial relationships, not fundamental British law, was to be discussed.

Statue of Samuel de Champlain in Quebec City. In 1608 he founded that city and thus Canada.
Canada was preponderantly French-speaking until after the American Revolution,
when some 40,000 "United Empire Loyalists" left the U.S. for Canada.

By contrast, the U.S. passed Britain in population around 1870 but Canadians know that statehood would mean real equality and power within the Union, in all matters, not the phony power Imperial Federation offered. Canadians know well that in the U.S. Congress many bills pass by a relatively small number of votes. If Canadians were to vote as a bloc, they could make the decisive difference in many cases, and wield very considerable power over the shape of U.S. policy, not just in things that affect Canadians but in all areas in which the Federal Government acts, affecting Americans and the world more generally as well.

The irony is that an Imperial Parliament might well have been enough, had London granted the Thirteen Colonies the same in 1770, to have forestalled the American Revolution and even, over time, converted the Empire into a federal union, but when what might have satisfied the Thirteen Colonies was offered to Canada, Canada refused! Yet, when Canadian nationalists of United Empire Loyalist predisposition look at history, they call Americans `traitors' but themselves `patriots'. Preposterous.

If they thought about it, then, Canadian descendants of United Empire Loyalists might find themselves in the peculiar position of condemning their neighbors for something they themselves also did! More, Canada's rejection of Imperial Federation helped to destroy the very Empire their Loyalist ancestors suffered so much for. Unfortunately, Canadian nationalists selectively remember U.S. "treason" to the Empire but forget their own far worse "treason". The Empire survived the loss of the Thirteen Colonies. It did NOT survive the loss of Canada and the other "white dominions".

Britain and the United States, meanwhile, have become fast friends!

Though the ancestors of a few Canadians — by no means all or even a significant proportion — were Loyalists who willed to their descendants undying hatred for the 'Yankee traitors' who rose against the Empire, Canadians today can separate themselves from the passion of that long-ago war and see that the Empire brought failure down upon its own head. Twice. It self-destructed in refusing to admit "colonials" to Parliament — Canadians, Australians, Nigerians, and Indians as much as Yanks. The ruling class of Britain, having learned nothing from history, repeated it, and lost virtually the entire second Empire, including Canada.

Skyline of Quebec City as seen from Levis on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River.

By contrast, the United States, keen on avoiding Britain's mistakes, provided in 1787 for admission of new states on a basis of equality with old, and grew steadily from 13 states to 50. As recently as 1959, when the British Empire had already lost Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Imperial India (all of modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Burma), and was on the verge of extinction in Africa, the U.S. added its two most recent states and, in so doing, 20% to the area of the Nation.

Even when Britain tried to learn from history, it often failed. Canadian Confederation was instituted just after the U.S. Civil War, and was intended to be a tighter and sounder union than that which had so recently almost collapsed. But history has a sense of humor. Whereas the U.S. rebounded from the Civil War to become a rock-solid united people, Canada fragmented and drifted apart. Whereas each year the U.S. becomes more tightly united, Canada subsists perpetually at the edge of breakup, its various provinces and minorities quarreling over nothing and threatening, emptily, to walk out over this or that inconsequential issue.

All Eyes South. The problem, of course, is that there is nothing very wrong with Canada but nothing very right either. It's not that Canada's so bad, because it's clearly not, but that the United States, for all its readily admitted faults, is so good.

The squabbling between the "two founding peoples", and, by imitation, between various other groups in Canada, is much like a young man picking fights with his fiancee because he'd rather marry somebody else but can't bring himself to tell her. She's glad to take up the fight because she doesn't want to marry him either! So why are they engaged? Their parents arranged it. That's not good enough, and today's Canadians don't want the dead hand of history committing them to something that had its chance but failed. They want to be free to pursue their own destiny, to make their own choices and live their own lives. They want to be Yanks but can't bring themselves to say it. So they conspire to make it inescapable.

They sell themselves so deeply into hock to the United States that they "have no choice" but to be annexed. Along comes a nationalist government that promises to buy their "freedom", and they find themselves trapped by protestations of faithfulness into endorsing policies their hearts are really not into. After a few years of imitation enthusiasm, they figure they've proved their loyalty so can stop the pretense, then vote out the nationalists and put in the "continentalists" and "pragmatists". But they still can't confront their true feelings and agitate for what they really want: statehood.

Ultimately somebody's got to speak up. Canada is an arranged marriage whose partners want somebody else. Neither partner is willing to hurt the other's feelings or disappoint their parents, so they go thru the motions, get married, and stay married, even though their heart is not in it. They will pretend it's what they want, when it's not, and pretend they're satisfied, when they're not. Even when it becomes painfully obvious to everyone around them and even to each other that this is just not meant to be, they will continue to answer the questions from each other with brave and reassuring phrases.

Ultimately, somebody's got to stop the nonsense and admit aloud, "This isn't working."

Canadian nationalists would have people believe that it is right for two different peoples, speaking two different languages, to be united in a single country, but would be wrong for a single people, who speak a single language but live in adjoining countries, to join together. The mind rebels. Why should a border be drawn to divide people who speak the same language but unite peoples who speak different languages? And if it is good for English and French to be united in a single country, why not all the English of North America together with all the French?

Canada hasn't worked to satisfy its people and never will, because Canadians don't want to be Canadian so much as they want to be "American". What has to be done is to put the proposition in terms by which one can be both Canadian and American.

That has begun to happen. Taking "America" as a mere geographic expression, Canadians have started to let themselves say that they may be Canadians but they're also Americans, in the sense that they are part of North America and North America is part of the Americas. That is not, however, what they mean, as indicated by the fact that Canada refused, for over forty years, to join the Organization of American States, entering, finally, only as of January 1, 1990. These Canadians really mean "American" as their neighbors to the south (and west) use "American": pertaining or belonging to the United States.

Simple Honesty. At Last. It is for us who have no patience with falsity to bring real feelings out into the open and let people see there's nothing wrong with what they want. What's so silly about the whole thing is that Canada would be doing the best thing it possibly could by joining the United States. Nothing that Canada is, in the good sense, would be lost. Everything Canada should be, is to be gained. To be part of what matters, part of the most powerful force for change around the globe, is what Canada, as part of the United States, can be.

As the South is greater now than it could ever have been had the Confederacy managed to secede in the Civil War, and as Southerners are the most gung-ho nationalists in the United States today, so too can Canada achieve its true measure of greatness and pride within the United States. And only within the United States.

No longer "out of it", no longer a pale carbon copy but an authentic part of the genuine article, Canada would take its place in the grand scheme of things, putting its money and votes where its mouth is in matters like international development, the pursuit of peace, and protection of the environment. Rather than empty protests that do nothing to stop the destruction of lakes by acid rain or divert dollars from defense to development, Canadians would be able to influence actual legislation and presidential policy to attack the problems they can now only harp upon tiresomely.

Instead of protesting, unconvincingly, that less is more and small is great, Canadians could boast with the best that they live in a huge country, more dynamic and powerful than any other, and that they did more to make the United States a great and just society than anyone else. If being Canadian is good, being a Canadian citizen of the United States would be vastly better.

One People, Two Countries. The world's economic and cultural patterns have pulled the peoples of the U.S. and Canada closer than any other peoples in history. So intimately interconnected are we, by marriage, commerce, culture, sports, and a thousand other things, that it would be hard for anyone to draw a line between us save politically. Canadians migrating to the United States vanish instantly, so that no one in the U.S. knows unless told that William Shatner, Dan Aykroyd, Jim Carrey, Michael J. Fox, and Margot Kidder were born in Canada. Canadian actors are dropped into American TV families and it is perfectly believable that they could be of the same blood and geographic origin as the American actors around them. Not even Canadians in the United States can always recognize each other! Even when Canadians can be picked out from the general population, nobody cares. They are accepted as "us".

Toronto, capital of English Canada, has a baseball team that is part of the American League. Montreal, metropolis of French Canada, has a team that is part of the U.S. "National" League. Washington, D.C., capital of the United States, has a hockey team in Canada's "National" Hockey League, as have New York and Los Angeles as much as Vancouver and Edmonton. Nobody cares.

What has happened is that the people have gotten ahead of their "leaders". The people have united. Their leaders continue to pretend we are divided.

All that XP seeks to do is make our political reality reflect our cultural, economic, and emotional reality: to bring together politically 320 million people who are already united psychologically.

What You Can Do. An idea nobody hears is an idea nobody will implement. So the first thing to do is to talk up the idea of Canadian-U.S. union. Raise the subject with friends, neighbors, and relatives, and encourage them to speak to others. Even if the initial reaction is negative, the more an idea is discussed, the more it enters the realm of possibility rather than fantasy, gaining reality by mere utterance — and losing reality thru silence.

"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come" is the English version of Victor Hugo's observation that "On resiste a l'invasion des armees; on ne resiste pas a l'invasion des idees." (Literally, "One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas.") Ideas can originate anywhere and take hold everywhere because an idea belongs to anyone who accepts it.

The more people around one that hold an idea, the greater its power over him. The more impressive the person or the more one likes the person who holds an idea, the more sensible and less alien it seems, and the more easily one can accept it. So you can influence people around you, especially people who like you. By bringing an idea to someone's attention in a friendly way, you make the idea seem friendly.

Even in this day of mass media, big government, big labor and big management, there's a lot an individual can do, by himself or with other, like-minded people. Especially is this the case today, given that the Internet and email empower individuals to reach far and wide, instantaneously and at very low cost.

Here are some suggestions. If you know people who might help, you can send them the URL of this presentation (Canada.html). If they don't have Internet access, you can print this presentation and send them photocopy. You could even form a group such as the Committees suggested below. But even one person acting alone can make a contribution, for even the greatest flood begins with but a single drop of rain.

Historical Precedent. In 1763 Britain drove France from the mainland of North America and achieved the first North American union. In the 1770s Britain's American colonies instituted Committees of Correspondence to write to colonial agents in England. Then, local Committees of Correspondence were set up by towns to communicate first with other towns in their own colony and later with towns in other colonies, to exchange information and ideas. When thirteen of the colonies became enraged by London's high-handed policies, the Committees of Correspondence helped colonists to realize that they were not alone in feeling indignation. The colonists felt they were British subjects on an exact par with those in England, and asked only that their government treat them so. London refused.

Independence Hall, Philadelphia, site of the meeting of the Continental Congress
at which the Declaration of Independence was adopted and, later, the place
where the Constitution was put forward for ratification.

The Committees of Correspondence developed into centers of political action. Recognizing that only so much could be accomplished by letter-writing, the Committees used their letters to call a meeting of concerned citizens from all colonies, which meeting became the Continental Congress. Out of that Congress came the American Revolution, the destruction of the first British Empire, and the formation of a huge and vital Union.

Letters Round the World. What we propose, then, is creation of formal or informal Committees of Correspondence to promote the idea of merger of Canada into the United States. We believe that such a union would likely inspire further unions, as of Australia, New Zealand, the English-speaking West Indies, even Britain itself, into the United States, on the road first to democratic English-speaking union, then world union.

Such Committees, or individuals, would write letters to the editor of Canadian, U.S., Australian, British, and other publications of all types, targeting their arguments to the particular audience addressed by each publication and tying such remarks to an article it published or an issue it could reasonably be expected to take interest in.

These Committees would also write letters to organizations, politicians, educators, columnists, and other opinion leaders in all target areas, carefully tailoring each appeal to the particular person or organization addressed and using arguments specially thought thru to appeal to the recipient of each letter.

Within Canada. One type of letter might suggest to Canadian manufacturers, especially of military and aerospace equipment, that U.S. Federal and state procurement policies that now discriminate against foreigners would in union favor Canadian industry. Letters to Canadian universities could suggest that national independence is costing them enormous amounts of money for basic research that U.S. universities are pursuing apace and thru which their U.S. colleagues seem likely to widen their lead ever further. The money U.S. universities receive in Federal and corporate research grants threatens permanently to outclass Canadian institutions and lure "the best and the brightest" of Canadian researchers and educators to the U.S., "where the action is".

Niagara Falls, two cascades, one river. The American Falls are in the foreground.
The Canadian, "Horseshoe" Falls are around a bend in the background,
and thus visible here mainly as rising mist.

A whole bunch of letters might go to Canadian newspapers and magazines (letters departments, editorial writers, and columnists), whenever statistics on unemployment, high prices, etc., appear in the news, to point out how much Canadians could improve their economic condition if Canada were to join the Union. Letters to the editor, occasioned by periodic reports on the U.S. trade deficit and pressures for Congress to act to stanch the outflow, could point out that permanent security against exclusion from the U.S. market is available only thru statehood, since free-trade legislation can readily be repealed and even treaties can be abrogated.

Every time a nationalist article or letter appears in a Canadian publication, answer it, and let people know that it is okay to admit aloud that becoming part of the United States is something many Canadians dream of, not dread.

If you see an article you think should be answered but don't feel you have the time or expertise to do so yourself, send it to us — immediately — so we might reply in timely fashion.

If it appears in an online version, email us the URL. If it appears only in hardcopy, send it to us by mail. Nowadays, publications give priority to quick responses over thoughtful commentaries received late, so if you can as well send us the email address for the Letters to the Editor department, managing editor, or relevant writer or columnist of the publication in question, that will expedite our commenting in time for such comments to be heeded.

In the U.S. You might suggest to the Democratic National Committee that the (asserted) growing conservatism of the U.S. electorate might be reversed by admission of Canadian states, whose voters are generally more liberal — indeed, that if Canada had been part of the United States in 2000, Gore would have been elected President — and the economy might not be a shambles. You could argue that key progressive causes that have stalled in Congress, such as universal healthcare, would likely sail thru Congress with ease if Canadians could vote.

Conversely, you could suggest to the Republican National Committee and prominent conservatives that the British tradition has instilled in Canadians great respect for social order as would strengthen the hand of law-and-order forces in the United States. You could also point out that nationalist restrictions on certain areas of the Canadian economy that bar American businesses would with union be open to all.

You can write to the entire top leadership of the United States Government:

President Bush (The Hon. George W. Bush, President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20500); president@whitehouse.gov),

Speaker of the House of Representatives Denny Hastert (speaker@mail.house.gov),

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (Congressman Dick Armey, 301 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-4326),

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (d.leadership@mail.house.gov),

Senate Majority Leader Thomas D. Daschle (509 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov)

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (487 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov),

You could urge sports leagues, both professional and amateur, to include Canadian teams in league expansions and national competitions. You might suggest giving the CFL Grey Cup winner an automatic berth in the playoffs for Superbowl (if they'll play by U.S. rules).

Ask publishers of reference works (e.g., The World Almanac) to include information on Canada's provinces of the same types and in the same place as information on states, for ease of reference. Ask publishers of textbooks to include developments in Canada within American History, American Literature, and other such texts. Urge broadcasters and newspapers to include Canada, with provincial boundaries, in weather maps, as to give a clearer view of weather patterns, especially for business travelers.

Letters to the editor could point out that the U.S. trade deficit with Canada would be cured permanently by admitting Canada to statehood.

Environmentalists would welcome Canadian allies in Congress to refortify the drive to clean up the air and water of all North America, at the same time as annexation would bring U.S. laws into play across Canada as to regulate or end seal hunts. People on the other side of such questions could cultivate alliances with the U.S. coal and fur industries.

Canadian statehooders should write to U.S. opinion leaders in politics and media to tell them that, contrary to the suggestions of Canadian nationalists that every Canadian without exception is stridently nationalistic, many Canadians favor statehood; then ask them to consider the multitudinous favorable effects of union (provide examples selected to appeal to the particular person's interests).

There are hundreds of areas where simply increasing U.S. awareness of Canada will ultimately make political integration thinkable. If that awareness is coupled with what may be a new-found realization that there are actually Canadians who think it would be better for Canada to be part of the U.S. than independent, the U.S. public might well let its heretofore-suppressed expansionist imagination take flight.

If once U.S. politicians and media do start to express interest in Canadian statehood, Canadians will see that this is not a pipedream after all but something with real possibilities, and what has seemed unspeakable may finally find voice.

Hopewell Rocks, New Brunswick. These fanciful, tree-capped rocks were carved into their intricate shapes by the steady action over time of the waters of the Bay of Fundy, where the world's highest tides flood and ebb twice a day, day in and day out. Small, undaunting efforts over time can work wonders.

Toward a Wider Union. You might send letters to the organization English-Speaking Union and to newspapers in Australia, New Zealand, and other English-speaking countries pointing out that the people who wanted the Empire and then the Commonwealth to work as a huge community of peoples joined together by common values but saw both entities fail, have a chance now to reunite the splintered English-speaking world by joining together in the United States. Such a political English-speaking union would be not a narrow, self-congratulatory club but an outward-looking Nation concerned with the good of everyone on this planet, a Nation that sees English not as proof of some racist cultural superiority but as the best hope for quick achievement of a world language, with all that that could mean for planet-wide progress thru rapid exchange of technology and culture without the delays, costs, and inaccuracies (even willful distortions) involved in translation into dozens of languages.

Further, Canadian Committees of Correspondence, as neutral "honest brokers", could promote the idea of an Intercontinental Congress, modeled on the Continental Congress that led to the establishment of the United States, to involve all areas that could benefit from admission to the Union (e.g., Canada, Greenland, Mexico, West Indian and Pacific microstates, Australia, New Zealand, a united Ireland, reunified Germany, the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa, Bangladesh, Japan, etc.). How much better for the world, for instance, if the devastation of Brazilian rain forests could be ended by giving Brazil's poor some other way to advance themselves than by destroying the environment, an act that must ultimately redound not just to the harm of the planet overall but even to the devastation of the slash-and-burn farmers themselves and the ruin of Brazil.

Committees of Correspondence in Canada could inspire similar committees in other areas, and grow in sophistication and influence by sharing ideas.

Approach. The tone of letters should be at once practical and idealistic, to appeal to people's best instincts and foresight, not to narrow self-interest alone. Nationalism, the scourge of our age, can probably best be overcome by subsuming a smaller nationalism into a larger one. In union with the U.S., Canada (or Brazil) would be not less but more. If Canada (or Australia) is good, a united Canada (or New Zealand) and U.S. would be better, offering all citizens unmatched opportunities for personal, professional, and cultural growth, not just economic advantage.

Speaking from the heart, small groups of sincere private citizens can reach other people's hearts, from those of simple farmers in remote villages in the Philippines to the Prime Minister of Canada and President of the United States. Letters can be sent almost everywhere in the world, and by far most of them are read, unlike many other forms of publicity. Those that are carefully written and make good points can move people to action, and ultimately change the world.

Other Activities. Beyond letters, there are petitions. Once the idea of Canadian statehood gains some currency, petitions, be they formal or informal, can be sent to members of both Parliament and Congress to move politicians to act.

There are other things private citizens can do. When political officeholders or candidates speak in your area, ask if they've ever thought about statehood, encourage them to do so, then follow up with a persuasive letter. (If any politician does express interest, tell XP so we can cultivate his or her cooperation.)

If you are a student, you can raise the idea in civics, political science, and history classes, ask for permission to use some aspect of the proposal as topic for a research paper, even form a campus organization to promote such union, or press existing student groups to incorporate statehood into their program. You can suggest to student governments, Jaycees, Chambers of Commerce, and civic organizations that they invite XP to send a speaker.

You can call radio talk shows and propose statehood as a topic for a phone-in program (we've done several by long-distance), or suggest to coordinators of university public-affairs forums or producers of television and radio public-affairs shows that they schedule discussions of various problems annexation might pose (e.g., separating Federal and state responsibilities in regard to criminal law and taxing powers; revenue sharing Canadian- and U.S.-style; etc.) by distinguished experts in law, history, etc.

Imagination the Only Limit. There are, in short, hosts of things private citizens can do to advance the idea of union of Canada and the United States.

I haven't mentioned two other things till now — joining the Expansionist Party and forming chapters thereof — because some Canadians may be hesitant to join a 'foreign' political organization. Though a small group, XP is transnational, with members and associates in at least 15 countries. As an alternative to forming chapters of a New Jersey-based organization, pro-statehood Canadians could form independent parallel organizations under the same name (e.g., "Expansionist Party of Manitoba"; "Parti expansionniste du Quebec") or something similar ("Statehood Party of Alberta"). (Naturally we would want the words "Expansionist Party", or the equivalent in any language, to appear only in the name of a group formally allied with us and in full sympathy with our policies in all major matters.) There are Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties in several West European countries, so there can also be cooperating Expansionist Parties in various countries. After all, if two countries merge, the citizens of both do get a bigger country. In the case of a U.S.-Canadian merger, both countries would about double in area.

Rock hillocks at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia worn smooth by the action of the ice cap
from the last Ice Age. These caps formed from little snowflakes over thousands
of years, until they were deeper than the Empire State Building is tall.

People who find themselves unable to do the other things suggested above, for whatever reason, may find joining or contributing to the Expansionist Party the simplest way of helping. Most efforts for Canadian statehood may have to originate in Canada rather than XP/New Jersey, however, because though most people in the U.S. would welcome such a proposal, they would hesitate to make it for fear of offending Canadian nationalists and seeming "imperialistic".

Political organizations do need dues-paying members or contributors, but XP needs, even more, allies willing to exert themselves in voluntary activity, who will make our program their own and invest themselves — their prestige, their energy, their intelligence — in making this all happen. We need all the help we can get.

We appreciate the encouragement we receive and are happy to count as members everyone who expresses support for our purposes, whether they join formally and pay dues or not, on the assumption that if we had candidates to run in their area, many would vote for those candidates. (Very few people actually "belong", as dues-paying members, to the Democratic or Republican Party (or, I imagine, to the Liberal Party or Canadian Alliance, for that matter). Still, those parties manage to function.)

The suggestions above are only indicative, not exhaustive. You may well have ideas of your own to add. Please do. We welcome comments and constructive criticisms. If you have any question, do not hesitate to ask.

P.S. In all communications with media and opinion leaders, be sure to mention the Expansionist Party by name and tell them they can get more information from XP's homepage, at http://aol.members.com/XPUS or from L. Craig Schoonmaker, Chairman, at 295 Smith Street, Newark, New Jersey 07106; phone (973) 416-6151; e-mail at XPUS@aol.com or CraigSchoonmaker@cs.com.

If this idea receives media attention in your area, please send us copy of anything and everything that appears, positive or negative. Positive reactions may indicate someone who could be helpful in the future. Negative reactions might help us to improve our argumentation and then make further points by way of reply, since a rebuttal to a hostile article is more likely to be printed than is a mere thank-you.

In 1989 the Expansionist Party mailed the first version of this presentation to several hundred Canadian newspapers, student newspapers, broadcasters, and opinion leaders, which produced a fair amount of media interest. This is the fifth edition (substantial revision), made November 3, 2002.

Take a poll! If you'd like to express yourself on this matter and are either Canadian (including, for this purpose, Quebecois) or American, please take one of the polls below.  The first is for Canadians only; the second is for Americans only. There is also a way to add brief comments at the "results" page. Longer comments should be sent as email.

This first poll is for Canadians only. Americans should respond to the next poll, below.

The following poll is for Americans only. Canadians should respond to the poll above. Canadian nationalists might be tempted to respond (negatively) to this poll too, in order to exaggerate any U.S. opposition to annexing Canada. They might succeed in distorting the results somewhat, but wouldn't they rather know what Americans really think?

Check out a printable flyer with tear-off tabs for posting on bulletin boards. If you'd like to post this flyer in your area, please (a) fold back and forth several times on the line between the tab area and main text so that if someone rips off a tab, a chunk of the message won't come off with it, (b) cut each tab free from the others, and (c) put the flyer only in legally permissible display areas, such as bulletin boards you are authorized to post to, public kiosks, etc.

Flag graphics courtesy of FOTW Flags Of The World website.  Animated XP logo contributed by Todd G. Sutherland of Mississauga, Ontario.

[Top[ [Expansionist Party home page] ["Welcoming Canada Home"] ["Winning the United States to Quebec separatism"] ["Statehood for Quebec"] ["A Modest Proposal for Redrawing the Map of Canada as Seven States and One Territory of the United States".] [Printable flyer with tear-off tabs.] [Subject indexes for all the areas XP addresses.]