Voting ‘no’ on question ten in the Alberta referendum means saying ‘no’ to the other nine, too

First Posted in The Western Standard

I have already argued here and here [sorry, the references didn’t transfer] that Alberta’s independence from Canada faces five impenetrable roadblocks: a longstanding rejection of secession across Canada; low current support for the movement; scarce public appetite for breaking up the country; high startup costs; and a lack of credible leadership.

Most Albertans share one or more of these concerns, which is why question ten in the October 19 referendum--“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”--will receive a resounding “no,” presumably ending this divisive debate for years.

Still, this leaves the other nine questions in play. Or does it?

Though the two spheres somewhat overlap legally, five of these questions concern immigration, while four focus on constitutional matters.

Unlike the independence question, these nine questions will yield a resounding “yes,” as they would in most other parts of Canada.

But this will create an irreconcilable problem for both the government and the electorate: saying “no” to number ten makes a “yes” vote on most of the other questions virtually meaningless, given the stranglehold of the federal government and the courts on their contents.

An obvious, though even more contestable, resolution to this contradiction is the Donald Trump solution.

The American president has long called for Canada to join the United States, though his boorish way of saying so has antagonized most Canadians.

Although Canada peacefully becoming the fifty-first state would have to begin with a strong “yes” vote on question ten, it’s still worth considering the implications of Canada becoming part of America.

Today, more than ever, America must guard Canada and other democratic countries, and all who believe in free will and basic human dignity must stand together to protect these rights.

This was not always the case. The rebel colonists to our south had long been interested in absorbing the upper half of our shared continent by hook or by crook. Despite Thomas Jefferson’s confident assertion, “The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighbourhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us experience for the attack on Halifax the next and the final expulsion of England from the American continent,” American invasions during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were decisively beaten back.

The cry of “54-40 or Fight,” adopted by President James K. Polk, would have seen the border of the USA extend north to what is now Alaska. The years following the Civil War saw a number of invasions of Canada launched by Irish-Americans with the support of anti-British politicians and activists.

Most recently, the current inhabitant of the White House — that building set ablaze by English troops in 1814 in retaliation for the burning of the town that is now Toronto — has mooted Canada becoming his country’s fifty-first state. The juvenile vulgarity of his approach has provoked a wave of maple leaf clutching that has blinded Canadians to the many advantages that a voluntary North American union would bring.

We would be immune from foreign invasion

Given our current antiquated and underfunded military system, being directly part of the most powerful fighting nation in the world is only one of many reasons why the Canadian people would be far better off as Americans than they are now, or have ever been since the creation of the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867.

Becoming part of the US would give Canada access to the world’s most advanced military infrastructure, reducing its own defence burden while enhancing national security. This would be particularly beneficial in a world of increasing geopolitical tensions.

We would be far better off economically

On March 12, 2025, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that “… the best way to actually merge the economies of Canada and the United States is for Canada to become our fifty-first state. If they want to merge it, that’s how you make it the fifty-first state.”

Lutnick’s comments came as tensions between the US and Canada over tariffs began to rise. A merger of the two countries would instantly remove these punishing tariffs, including those in Canada’s inefficient and anti-competitive dairy supply management system, a government program that hurts Albertans every day they go to the supermarket.

Trump doubled tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum from 25% to 50%, while threatening to “shut down” the country's auto industry. The "only thing that makes sense,” Lutnick said, is for Canada to join the United States as a fifty-first state. “This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.”

Joining the US would mean unified trade policies and the elimination of border management, making travel and business operations far more productive.

Integration would also bring Canada into the much larger, less regulated, and more capitalist US economy. This would create boundless opportunities for businesses, large and small. Eliminating international trade barriers and replacing them with standardized policies would result in significant economic growth. In addition, cutting Canada’s high welfare-state income tax rates would put more money in people’s pockets. Abolishing the Canada Health Act would expand private healthcare options, improving efficiency and fairness in medical care.

Despite the generally recognized economic benefits, a large majority of Canadians agree that Canada should remain independent in spite of Donald Trump’s contrary wishes, though 30% would consider annexation if offered US citizenship and conversion of Canadian financial assets to US dollars (USD).

More telling is that 43% of Canadians aged 18 to 34 would vote to be American if citizenship and conversion of assets to USD were guaranteed.

Converting Canadian dollars to American dollars on a one-to-one basis — a demand that should be our make-or-break one — would instantly raise our standard of living by 30%.

Our tax burden would also decrease. Including federal, state, and local taxes, the average American pays approximately 24% of their income in taxes. The total tax burden for the average Canadian family, including federal, provincial, and local taxes, is some 46.1% of their income.

Most importantly, being absorbed by America would expose Canadians to a far more competitive economic environment that would promote hard work, innovation, and entrepreneurship. A union could incentivize lazy or less motivated individuals to participate more actively in the workforce, as reliance on the current Canadian welfare system would diminish.

In short, the US offers a system that rewards hard work and innovation, while Canada provides a generous economic safety net that too many people exploit or are seduced into being dependent on.

Our national identity and core values are not radically different from those in America

The idea of Canada joining the United States as its fifty-first state is contentious, provoking strong emotions and raising concerns about national identity and shared values.

But do we really have a shared national identity and shared values? If so, are these radically different from those of our American neighbours?

In a New York Times interview published on December 8, 2015, Justin Trudeau said:

‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values – openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.’’

These same values are expressed by our American neighbours — not to mention scores of countries around the world — who became members of post-national states over 100 years before we did. This is no coincidence, given that the founding fathers of both countries had internalized and codified British values in their respective constitutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Also, if the definition of nationalism is the presence of a single national identity rooted in ethnicity, language, and religion, then Canada is a "post-national state,” not only because of the uniqueness of Quebec but because we, and America, have always been de facto multicultural, multi-value states.

Indeed, the fluid and contestable nature of Canadian identity and common values, except for the vague ones enunciated by Trudeau, is shared with our southern neighbours, on the one hand, while 90% of Canadians who live less than 100 kilometres north of the forty-ninth parallel share more substantive beliefs and values with those immediately south of it than either does with peoples and cultures in far-flung parts of their two countries, on the other.

Given Canada’s multicultural nature, there is ongoing dialogue about Canadian identity and culture. The lack of definitive answers is even more reason to call ourselves, and our American cousins, post-national state citizens.

Alone, Canada is an insignificant player on the international stage

As part of America, our people would gain access to the global social, political, and economic clout of the United States. Canadians would find their voices amplified on the world stage, including the United Nations Security Council, where they would have a say in decisions that shape the world.

Wokeness and other social and political evils would disappear

Given the rapid movements to remove DEI preferences, green policies, affirmative action, transgenderism, and “wokeness” generally from American society, amalgamation with America would quickly end these pernicious policies in a fifty-first state called Alberta.

The problem of unchecked immigration and illegal overstays would now be taken seriously, more seriously than a wasted “yes” vote in this referendum.

We would forget about pretending to defend ourselves and our territory with a make-believe military more concerned with tampons in men’s washrooms.

Canadians would no longer be subject to subsection 15(2) of the Pierre Trudeau Constitution, which permits racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination to assist “historically disadvantaged” groups and which has served to work against healthy white males.

More particularly, our troublesome and expensive “Indian problem” would be solved overnight as the special preferences for indigenous people in our 1982 constitution and elsewhere would be declared null and void.

Canadians would no longer fear having their civil liberties suspended by executive fiat, as happened when Trudeau the Elder and the Younger proclaimed the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act, respectively.

We would be quickly and painlessly rid of the CBC. Canadians missing their steady diet of left-wing special pleading could subscribe to PBS or NPR instead.

We would also become part of a republic with an elected Senate rather than a politically appointed one, and we would have a locally elected president as our chief executive, commander-in-chief, and ceremonial head of state. This would make us a truly sovereign people, rather than a constitutional monarchy headed by Charles III, the foreign King of Canada.

To be sure, voluntary annexation of Alberta by the United States would have several disadvantages, but they would pale in comparison to creating a landlocked sovereign nation called Alberta. Conversely, a far less expensive but far more fruitful union with America, a binding of people with similar beliefs, values, and institutions, should not be blindly dismissed or resisted simply based on mindless flag waving or a hatred of Donald Trump.

In 1774, Samuel Johnson printed The Patriot, a critique of what he viewed as false patriotism. On the evening of April 7, 1775, he made a famous statement: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” The line was not, as many believe, about patriotism in general, but about what Johnson saw as the false use of the term “patriotism” by William Pitt, the British prime minister, and his supporters. Johnson opposed most "self-professed patriots" in general but valued what he considered "true" patriotism.

The shrill comments of many commentators about Trump’s wish to absorb Canada tell me that Johnson’s notion of “false patriotism” is alive, if not well, in Canada.

If Albertans want “yes” to the first nine questions in Monday’s referendum to mean something, joining with America is the only way to make that happen.