Getting Real About Canada

First, all the YouTubers were sure Poilievre was going to win the Canadian election. Once that didn't happen, they're all now sure this means Alberta is gonna have a plebiscite and vote to become independent, or join the US, or maybe become a territory on the way to becoming a state, or somethong like that. And after all, once Saskatchewan and Manitoba join Alberta, there are lots of conservatives in BC, right? Of course, nobody even knows what kind of supermajority Ottawa will want to see in such a vote, and right now, polling suggests there's not all that much support, but hey, it's gonna happen!

A post by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse suggests the whole Alberta question is irrelevant and goes into the real origin of Trump's "51st state" proposal:

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist. In essence, in addition to the NATO defense shortfall, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses and meeting their NATO obligations, then Canada should become the 51st U.S state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process. However, in the emotional reaction to Trump’s statements, no-one looked at the core issues outlined by Trudeau that framed President Trump’s opinion.

Representing Canada, Justin Trudeau was not expressing an unwillingness to comply with fairness and reciprocity in trade with the USA, what Trudeau was expressing was an inability to comply. Quite simply, after decades of shifting priorities, Canada no longer has the internal economic capability to comply with a fair-trade agreement (FTA). Trudeau was not lying, and President Trump understood the argument; hence his 51st state remarks.

This means that on many issues, negotiating with Canada, even using the threat of prohibitive tariffs, will have no effect. For instance, at the link,

If the NATO member states contribute more to their own defense, the U.S. can pull back spending and save Americans money. However, Canada is currently 26th in NATO funding, spending only 1.37% of their GDP on defense.

Canada would have to spend at least another $15 billion/yr on their defense programs in order to reach 2.0%. Justin Trudeau told President Trump that was an impossible goal given the nature of the Canadian political system, and the current size of their economy ($2.25 trillion).

If Alberta leaves Canada, some of the YouTubers do raise worthwhile questions. Would Alberta vote to become independent, vote to join the US, or defer the question to some later time? Under most scenarios, the question of whether Alberta would have its own military would come up. A potential condition of independence from Ottawa might be for Alberta to contract with Ottawa for military protection -- but that would be de facto something other than independence.

And maybe Alberta might decide money spent contracting with Ottawa might be better spent contracting with the US for the same thing. But in most such scenarios, this would make Ottawa even less able to meet its NATO commitment than it is now, which is a problem that Alberta won't solve whatever direction it takes.

By the same token, even if Alberta becomes independent, or even if it eventually becomes a US state, this makes the problem of the porous northern US border worse. Alberta would need to create a border protection agency de novo for the short term even as it transitioned to becoming a state or territory -- just glancing at the map, it might have 2000 miles of border to protect with both Canada and the US. If it becomes a US state or territory, there would be almost as much additional US border with Canada to protect.

This would be a non-trivial problem involving drug smuggling, illegal migration, and human trafficking. But as a US state or territory, this would create a whole new salient on the US border that would also be problematic from both a military and border enforcement perspective. All of this suggests to me that making Alberta alone -- or even Alberta with one or more other provinces -- part of the US would create more problems than it would solve for the US and weaken Canada further, running the greater risk of making it a failed state on our long northern border.

From Trump's perspective, the message Trudeau brought him in December, that any material change to current tariff or defense arrangements would make Canada a failed state, is a real conundrum. As Sundance points out at the link,

Canada is a NATO partner, Mexico is not. As President Trump affirmed to Justin Trudeau during the meeting, it would be unfair of President Trump to discuss NATO funding with the European Union, while Canada is one of the worst offenders. Trump is leveraging favorable trade terms and tariff relief with the EU member states, as a carrot to get them into compliance with the 2.0 to 2.5% spending requirement for their military.

Canada is expecting unique treatment as both a NATO member and as a trading partner via-a-vis both Europe and Mexico, but in Trumpian terms, they have nothong to offer in return. One thing we do know about Trump is that he prefers to negotiate with people who hve no alternatives. I suspect that he sees any independent move from Alberta to join the US as an unnecessary complication, and in fact a 51st state solution for all of Canada, or some variation on that, is most likely.