Canada collapses in the wake of Quebec voting yes in 1995

[Timmy811]

This has been discussed in some depth in chat, however not all people post there and this is a classic POD.

Given recent revelations, it seems that Canada was less stable at the time than previously thought. It seems that the major political parties had no plan to deal with a Yes vote. Given that, it doesn't seem implausible that in the face of a paralyzed federal government the whole thing could come flying apart if the western provinces fear of being politically dominated by Ontario came to the fore.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-have-come-after-a-yes/

A team of Saskatchewan officials worked quietly to develop contingency plans in the event of a Yes vote in the 1995 Quebec referendum — options that included Saskatchewan following Quebec out of Canada, a new book reveals.

Roy Romanow, the premier of Saskatchewan at the time, never told his full cabinet about the secret committee’s work, Romanow told Chantal Hébert, author of The Morning After: The Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was, to be published by Knopf Canada on Sept. 2. Maclean’s has obtained a copy of the book.

“Filed under the boring title of Constitutional Contingencies — a choice intended to discourage curiosity — [the Saskatchewan committee's] work was funded off the books, outside the provincial Treasury Board process, the better to ensure its secrecy,” Hébert writes.

The committee considered a lot of possibilities for the chaotic period Romanow anticipated after a Yes vote — including Saskatchewan seceding from Canada; a Western union of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia; abandoning the Canadian dollar to use the U.S. greenback; and even annexation of Saskatchewan, and perhaps other provinces, to the United States. “In the eventuality of a Yes vote, clearly you need to examine all your options,” Romanow says in the book.

Aside from the rest of Canada managing to hang together (which is boring ), I imagine the most likely result would be partial balkanization, resulting in four nations, Western Canada (B.C., Alberta, Sask., Manitoba and Territories), Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.

However both Civil War or the peaceful annexation of some (perhaps even many or all) anglophone provinces into the United States would be plausible depending on how events unfolded.

I don't think complete balkanization with every province independent was especially realistic. They'd be vulnerable to complete economic and political domination by the U.S. without any representation or ability to resist.

I'd like to focus on two of the above options.

1. Partial Balkanization
2. Annexation of provinces into the U.S.

What would the political and economic fallout of such events be, within Canada, the U.S. and globally?

 

[Plumber]

I don't think complete balkanization with every province independent was especially realistic. They'd be vulnerable to complete economic and political domination by the U.S. without any representation or ability to resist.

I feel that a temporary complete balkanization is the best way to get annexation by the US. While Canada is still together, it's a much harder sell.

A scenario I sketched out in my head after reading the article was
1) Saskatchewan tries to form a Western Union
2) Manitoba tries to join Western Union, disrupting already fraught negotiations
3) Maritimes and Newfoundland bolt to US
4) Western Union discussions collapse, Western provinces join US
5) The rump Canada (Ontario + territories) has a tenuous connection at this point, and throws in the towel

Sort of like the collapse of the Soviet Union, the majority of Canadians probably won't like it, and in hindsight everyone will say how inevitable it was all along.

 

[thekingsguard]

Cue upset Canadian nationalists claiming this as ASB in 3, 2, 1...

In all seriousness though, I think you've got the gist of it already - Canada collapses, then US influence will be all the stronger. TTL's version of NAFTA could end up being a lot more like the EU, in terms that gradual federalization of the constituent nations being an end goal, save that it would be under the USA, not a new supranational entity.

Western Canada, I'd wager they'll spend maybe a decade independent before petitioning to join the USA - economics would all but assure that it would be a part of it in all but name fairly soon anyway.

The Maritimes I could see trying to resist such a fate, maybe making a go of it as North America's version of the Nordic Bloc or such, with heavy dependence on trade, shipping, fishing and oil/gas extraction. Could be interesting to see how it develops - just the language development alone could be interesting, considering the number of Gaelic speakers there.

Quebec would have something of a bumpy road ahead, but I could see it succeeding if the split is more amiable. It would be interesting to see how a Republic of Quebec might develop.

Remnant Canada would be in something of a pickle, having lost its ports and coasts outside of the Hudson Bay, and would as predicted, become very quickly dominated by Ontario, which might have blowback from Manitoba. Not sure how its relations with the breakway provinces/nations would be, or with the USA, especially given that Western Canada would almost certainly be part of the USA within 20 years.

 

[Timmy811]

The Maritimes I could see trying to resist such a fate, maybe making a go of it as North America's version of the Nordic Bloc or such, with heavy dependence on trade, shipping, fishing and oil/gas extraction. Could be interesting to see how it develops - just the language development alone could be interesting, considering the number of Gaelic speakers there.

Unlike Alberta, I thought that the oil and gas deposits there didn't pan out nearly as much as expected, and even now they have less then two million people. Would they really be economically viable?

 

[Son of Leman Russ]

It will be in every way end up in predictable USA-wank. Heck, even we could say if Quebec end up as failed state and ask Annexation by US as well...

Leading to ironic conclusion of whole Canada being annexed into USA

 

[Timmy811]

It will be in every way end up in predictable USA-wank. Heck, even we could say if Quebec end up as failed state and ask Annexation by US as well...

Leading to ironic conclusion of whole Canada being annexed into USA

If they bailed on the more tolerant Canada, they're hardly going to join the US and get subsumed in an ocean of English speakers.

 

[Mike Stearns]

If they bailed on the more tolerant Canada, they're hardly going to join the US and get subsumed in an ocean of English speakers.

This. After the referendum, the Americans explicitly stated that they would not have recognized Quebecois indenpendence or absorbed the rest of Canada, as they believed that neither was in the best interest of either country.

 

[Timmy811]

This. After the referendum, the Americans explicitly stated that they would not have recognized Quebecois indenpendence or absorbed the rest of Canada, as they believed that neither was in the best interest of either country.

If Quebec unilaterally declares independence and then the west bolts to form their own country then Canada is dead. America will have to deal with the result, whatever that is.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Canada might very well break apart... but I'm more hesitant that any part will join the United States. The Maritimes might join, but the rest is iffy.

The West is full of natural resources (lumber, potash, uranium, oil being the big ones) and will end up being very wealthy (and probably hideously mismanaged) after confederation implodes. Plus, a Canadian province has far more autonomy than an American state so once they actually look at joining the USA they'll stop in a heartbeat.

Ontario will be too proud to join and is big enough and populous enough to probably make a go of it on its own.

The only region that might join is the Maritimes... but I'm not big on Maritime politics so I can't say with any certainty.


But that's if Canada even breaks up. Canadians might rally around the flag if Quebec leaves, there's also going to be loooong negotiations on how Quebec leaves as well.

 

[Ultimate Paragon]

I have some serious doubts that America would annex parts of Canada.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The United States would be perfectly content with dominating the Canadian remnants' economies without having to actually annex them.

 

[Whitewings]

During the run-up to the referendum, the leaders of various portions of Quebec stated quite clearly that if Quebec seceded from Canada, then they'd secede from Quebec. The regions in question included the cultural, social and financial centres of the province, and most of its resource rich areas. What remained of Quebec would have been a Third World nation.

 

[Magniac]

Cue upset Canadian nationalists claiming this as ASB in 3, 2, 1...

This is chatbait, but I'm suspect our conservative Canadian patriots here keep their views on this closely guarded, because they realise that in the event of secession triggering anything as much as a domino effect RE simple rhetoric, then ultratory Alberta would've thought aloud on the subject. Hard.

 

[Talwar]

A balkanization scenario presents plenty of international complications:

-Defence commitments through NORAD and NATO, and peackeeping ops through the UN, need to be sorted out. Who are the foreign deployments reporting to, and are they staying or going home?

-Trade agreements need work. The post-Canadian entities will be at a disadvantage, and may even undermine each other as their interests will differ according to their economic engines.

-Who does Denmark/Greenland have a border dispute with now?

 

[TFSmith121]

It's worth asking - if "Canada" as of 1949 no longer exists,

A balkanization scenario presents plenty of international complications:

-Defence commitments through NORAD and NATO, and peackeeping ops through the UN, need to be sorted out. Who are the foreign deployments reporting to, and are they staying or going home?

-Trade agreements need work. The post-Canadian entities will be at a disadvantage, and may even undermine each other as their interests will differ according to their economic engines.

-Who does Denmark/Greenland have a border dispute with now?

It's worth asking - if "Canada" as of 1949 no longer exists, then is NATO committed to its defense in any situation?

Likewise, if "Canada" as of 1957 no longer exists, then is the US committed to its air defense?

Granted, the USSR no longer exists in 1995, but one presumes even the rump Canada and/or Republic of Quebec and/or Greater New Brunswick Co-Prosperity Sphere and/or British Canada etc would appreciate not having to sustain defense all by their respective selves...

Best,

 

[Locke01]

This is chatbait, but I'm suspect our conservative Canadian patriots here keep their views on this closely guarded, because they realise that in the event of secession triggering anything as much as a domino effect RE simple rhetoric, then ultratory Alberta would've thought aloud on the subject. Hard.

I ordinarily vote for the Conservative party. My views trend to the right, although I suspect many Americans conservatives would consider me a flaming liberal because I am an atheist and a supporter of same-sex marriage. Am I a Canadian nationalist? I suppose so, because I want Canada as it is currently constituted to endure. I would grieve its passing as a nation, and lament its diminished state if we survived the departure of Quebec. I, for one, have no desire to be party to the demise of Canada. As a long-time resident of Alberta, I believe that most of my fellow Albertans feel likewise. Perhaps that is why we bite our tongues on the subject.

 

[Locke01]

It's worth asking - if "Canada" as of 1949 no longer exists, then is NATO committed to its defense in any situation?

Likewise, if "Canada" as of 1957 no longer exists, then is the US committed to its air defense?

Granted, the USSR no longer exists in 1995, but one presumes even the rump Canada and/or Republic of Quebec and/or Greater New Brunswick Co-Prosperity Spehre and/or British Canada etc would appreciate not having to sustain defense all by their respective selves...

Best,

I think those treaties and agreements would have to be renegotiated, or at least amended to reflect the new political realities.

 

[TFSmith121]

That would be my expectation as well, which raises the

I think those treaties and agreements would have to be renegotiated, or at least amended to reflect the new political realities.

That would be my expectation as well, which raises the issue of who is responsible for what in the interim?

And not just defense, of course - NAFTA and every other trade agreement, intellectual property agreement, etc. is in limbo, at least as far as the former Canada goes...now, granted, both the former Yugoslav and Soviet republics, and Czech and Slovak republics, have integrated (more or less) into the international community, but none of it happened overnight, and none of those nations share a continent with the United States...

As an example, NORAD is an operational joint & combined (international) command; where do the currently assigned CF officers go? Who pays them? Where do their loyalties lie?

Does the US simply say "um, thanks, guys, but we need your keys and ID badges, and ACC will be handling standing air patrols now"?

Except how does that work over Canadian (or former Canadian) air space?

Same with whatever Canadian forces are on the ground or anywhere else in operational coalition-type commands?

Thankfully there would not be any nuclear weapons to have to deal with, but if "Canada" breaks up, then presumably the US is free to make its own determinations about the defense of the northern approaches and, for that matter, whether NAFTA even still exists?

Given the realities of international trade and the integrated economy, much less the defense of the Americas, I could see the US very clearly making some decisions without any significant consultation with Ottawa (or Quebec)...

Certainly an interesting question.

Best,

 

[Locke01]

It is certainly an interesting question all right, and one that I hope remains entirely academic.

 

[Magniac]

As a long-time resident of Alberta, I believe that most of my fellow Albertans feel likewise. Perhaps that is why we bite our tongues on the subject.

I guess this is as good a reason as any.

But doesn't the Alberta Right have the reputation for being the non-Quebec Canadians most likely to flirt with these ideas? Maybe I've been misinformed. Or maybe there's a lot of intellectual sleight of hand going on with Albertan anti-Ottawa feeling, that deliberately gives the impression of secession-curiousness, only there's nothing in it.