How Canada Could End

[@Zultzify]

man your non politics videos are getting spread crazy. talking to a random person on an unrelated discord server, the first thing he asked when i said i was canadian was "do you watch jj?" also from working in a grocery store, i quite literally have people recommend your videos to me or to a customer in my line/serving once every month or two. and i never hear people recommending other youtubers by word of mouth. Your content has never felt stale, never imagined id see you talking about a whatifalthist video!

[@aeugenegray]

1 million is coming soon. Quite happy for JJ. Quality, well thought out content

[@progrockmorelikefrogc0ck157]

Its well deserved. Im american and never knew how interesting canada could be

[@ow4744]

You know what I think? It's because of the impeccable hairstyles. A hair guru for our times.

[@pattongilbert]

Just such great videos. Very charismatic with some great editing. I love all the little drawings too. A nice touch.

[@aeugenegray]

@@progrockmorelikefrogc0ck157 you've gotta go get slammed in Quebec City or Montreal, Canada if great except when you forget some of the coins are worth like multiple dollars

[@frankjennings4489]

I didn’t realize the Handmaid’s Tale author was Canadian. Imagine if an American wrote a book about Canada falling into some dystopian postmodernist anarchy and frightened Canadians fleeing to Michigan lol

[@konstantinopoulos33]

I knew it was Canadian but didn't realise it sees the US as a dystopia and Canada as the saving grace of the continent. It's been that before in real life (with slavery) but that doesn't stop me thinking it's extremely cringy coming from a Canadian writer in the modern context

[@TheTroyc1982]

@@konstantinopoulos33 well which of the two countries has always had religious extremist, it's currently and has always been the US.

[@HistoryNerd8765]

It seems stereotypical that the author is Canadian.

[@Marylandbrony]

Some conservative author could write it and it would be a staple of left wing commentary channels for years.

[@bigbad5067]

who would have thought that the candian author would make canada the good guys and saviors of north america.

[@emogeek5722]

0:55 (Scenario #1: Separatism) 17:05 (Scenario # 2: Tyranny) 20:20 (Scenario # 3: Statehood)

[@cringy7-year-old5]

Thank you.

[@emogeek5722]

@@cringy7-year-old5 no problem.

[@aar5pj]

We had some Canadian citizens who joined the US Army when I was in Germany many years ago when I asked them why they had joined the US Army their answer was "because there was nothing to do in Canada." I suspect that situation still exists today in the US Army.

[@EndtheWokeMadness]

Not really because you can't get a visa to join the US military anymore. So unless you're aboriginal, married to an American, or a dual citizen, you're out of luck.

[@Memento_Mori3210]

Honestly its ironic because Americans do the same thing to Canada

[@aar5pj]

@@Memento_Mori3210 US Citizens can join the Canadian Armed Forces?

[@Memento_Mori3210]

@@aar5pj Yes but they'd have to go through the process of gaining PR

[@k-dawg7867]

I'm Canadian and have never found our politics all that interesting, but man your videos just hook me and teach me a lot of what issues are present right under my nose. Thank you for your work!

[@JJMcCullough]

It’s what I’m here for!

[@LeSyd1984]

@@JJMcCullough Honestly doing the lord's work over hear man. It's kind of saddening how much fellow citizen are bored with national politics... We get soooo screwed over by this in a democracy... people get vote baited hard... :'( I like your perspective as a "francophone de souche", we don't get much national coverage in my province aside from when we need some handouts or get bent over a bit too hard by Ottawa, lol. (Always assumed it was kind of the same in other territories, our federation is so effed!)

[@SayAhh]

Politics are not interesting when politicians do good and thus kept out of the news and also when they do bad because it is kept out of the public eye until it's too late to overturn a bad law and policy. Political parties and nefarious parties (no pun intended) play the long game, sometimes toward a goal decades or centuries from now.

[@ZenKrio]

Politics are only interesting in Canada now because we have a CCP dictator in power.

[@amandaweatherford3392]

I honestly don't know how I started watching JJ. I'm from texas, and as much as i would love to leave this god awful heat and go to a different yet similar country, I've never gone out of my way to look up facts or history about Canada. Now I look forward to JJ's videos, and thoroughly enjoy them all. He's just a little awkward, but a whole lot of informative and entertaining. Plus great editing. seriously, fantastic editing and greatly researched and well thought out videos. Keep it goin JJ, it somehow works amazingly.

[@VileStorms]

We could trade places, I'm trying to escape this awful cold and ice.

[@itsdomtoo]

i’m very similar to this

[@itsdomtoo]

@@VileStorms texas heat (which was like 110 yesterday lol) is unbeatable unless you have a pool in your backyard

[@arcanum3882]

Lmao don’t pretend like you want to leave Texas, or even the US

[@KeatrithAmakiir]

@@arcanum3882 Who wouldn't want to leave Texas right now?

[@Bigjar420]

JJ ur helping fuel a newfound interest in canadian history and politics (as a canadian myself in ottawa) maybe its just one of my adhd fixations but either way, thank you for the interesting and informative videos :)

[@tylerdruskoff9689]

I’m not even Canadian and it’s interesting

[@alfredpersson2550]

I always watch him. My sister sends me a pic of him when i get to hyoer

[@Sahaib3005]

@@tylerdruskoff9689 same

[@shoe3634]

woah I’m also from Ottawa and have a canada adhd fixation

[@brandonmccarthy9224]

The prospect of statehood is honestly more palatable than the route the country is headed

[@bradbradshaw-i4n]

it will never happen.

[@kimarous]

I'm curious how you might see Canada translated into states. Would the provinces just become large states on their own; would they be split up into smaller states, etc.? What do you think?

[@JJMcCullough]

They would just become states with their present borders. Although maybe the Maritimes would have to merge.

[@easypake4012]

@@JJMcCullough PEI would definitely not survive into statehood

[@biggibbs4678]

Their populations are to low to split up

[@donnieharper1359]

I think most would probably stay the same, but maybe Novia Scotia and Prince Edward would be merged into other new "states". Maybe not though, Rhode Island and Connecticut exist, and they are tiny?

[@dancegregorydance6933]

@@donnieharper1359 Connecticut and Rhode Island are some of the oldest states, which is why they're so tiny.

[@Kingbeaver7970]

Hey JJ, I just want to let you know how much I appreciate your videos and I watch them everyday. Thank you for everything you do and you are one of my favorite KZbinrs!

[@HollyJedi99]

Preach!

[@JJMcCullough]

Every day! Wow!!

[@sErgEantaEgis12]

I say this as a Quebecer, every province should try and milk as much as they can out of the Canadian constitution in terms of autonomy.

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Wouldn't that just end up with ever province bickering with each other and voting purely on partisan lines? It would just be national gridlock like south of the border and gridlock means nothing changes which leads to national conservatism and eventually ossification.

[@sErgEantaEgis12]

@@ElGrandoCaymano Maybe. Also French-Canadian minorities in other provinces were typically federalist in outlook since they considered the federal government the protector of their language rights.

[@Glowtrey]

@@ElGrandoCaymano I mean are you seriously arguing its not already like that ?

[@masterofktulu]

As an American I love being subscribed to your channel to hear opinions from another perspective and gain insights into Canadian culture. I’m a huge fan of yours JJ

[@hopehowell4338]

I live in southeast Michigan, USA and we have a lot of Canadians and relations with them here. Even we think of Quebec as the other Canadians. I find this hilarious because in school we usually learn the Quebec dialect of French and not the European version.

[@RichardAuletta]

What do you use for a language text?

[@hopehowell4338]

@@RichardAuletta I honestly don't remember the text book title. But the main difference between Euro French and French Canadian dialect is that Canadians create French words for one things. The Euro style tends to adopt words from the original language and frenchize it. Both claim is keeping the language pure. I'm sure there's more differences but I never got far because some teachers try to teach Euro French while the text book is almost always French Canadian.

[@ericm4658]

@@RichardAuletta I don't recall having any language specific texts....BUt yes in American schools and culture we consider French Canadians to speak a different dialect than the French

[@fourviet522]

i sometimes get canadian tourism ads on tv, i guess thats just how close michigan is considered to canada

[@hopehowell4338]

@@fourviet522 yep. My favorite radio station is a Windsor station. If you talk to older people they'll tell you how trips across the border were once in different than driving over a state line. There are even towns that are on both side of the border out west.

[@marshallscot]

Speaking as an American I look forward to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba becoming our 51st, 52nd, and 53rd states.

[@JeffXXX]

Puerto Rico, Guam & Washington, DC be like : Wait a damn minute. that's our title! 🤔🙄🤨

[@georgelloydgonzalez]

Nah, you should take care of those purposefully unincorporated territories, that your previous governments wanted to conquer but not integrate. Give statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam, DC, American Samoa, the Marianas and the US Virgin Islands.

[@marshallscot]

@@georgelloydgonzalez You said it yourself, they are purposefully unincorporated, so no. You could make an argument for Puerto Rico, but most territories simply don't warrant Statehood.

[@davidheipel2934]

You can't have our best provinces until you get rid of California and clean up your Northeast.

[@jmvp1380]

If Alberta, Saskatchewan & Manitoba will be come US states, Why not, every countries in this planet as well Led by American governors with origins fron the place they're leading (e.g. Japanese American, Germany American, African-American, etc) Donald J. Trump will be the supreme leader of every human beings All their military, education, business, etc will be under US departments & institutions Every continent you go, you're still stepping in American soil, every human beings will sing the star spangled banner & say the pledge of allegiance Now that's the ultimate desire of every pure American patriot

[@DominionOfNewfoundland]

Hey JJ, Newfoundlander here! Massive thing with me and my friends that is never spoken about by people outside of NL is the overall mismanagement of newfoundland since out totally not rigged referendum to join Canada is the fact that the Canadian Government has literally ignored our plentiful resources and overall strategic area for the fact that we were illegally annexed just to prevent us possibly joining the United States.

[@glowner7878]

I mean i doubt newfoundland woudlve just been allowed to join the US, simply because canada is still at least within the commonwealth and thus the sphere of influence of britain. US on the other hand is fully seperate.

[@technolibertarian8817]

@@glowner7878 that’s irrelevant. NFLD could have gone independent and then joined the US.

[@glowner7878]

@@technolibertarian8817 hence why it makes more sense for britain to hand it to canada

[@Nunavuter1]

Smallwood would have disagreed. He spearheaded the union of Newfoundland with Canada.

[@sinoroman]

i highly doubt canada will join the USA peacefully. the US would have to threaten canada in some way to get canada annexed into a territory or state. countries that make their nation unique will stay independent until military intervention

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

US-Canada merger is a fascinating topic. One thing I can't decide is which version would be more likely: Canada joining as 1 US state or each province joining individually. The latter would give Canadians more power in the US system due to the Senate, but would erase the very idea of Canada as anything but a historical region. The former would preserve Canada as a unified entity, but would badly limit its power in the Senate (only 2 per state) and the provinces would lose most of their political relevance. Of course some hybrid arrangement is possible, but there are too many options to explore.

[@ChuckADickiner]

personally i think at least ontario would break into multiple states. minimum of two. other provinces may as well. its been discussed even within canada.

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

​@@ChuckADickiner New York would probably encourage an Ontario split, to avoid having such a large and populous neighbor competing in its own back yard. On the other hand, the US as a whole would probably want a direct porting of Canadian provinces to minimize transition costs.

[@ChuckADickiner]

@@dudermcdudeface3674 new York would probably want that, but it's unlikely that if canada did go the state route Ontario likely won't be happy to remain connected. Ontario is roughly the size of Texas, but it is much more divided. Especially in Toronto/Ottawa vs the rest of the province. It would be more blue than New York, the rest of the province would likely revolt if their only chance of getting a voice was taken away.

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

@@ChuckADickiner Probably some compromise would happen. One biggish state and 2 small ones from the one province; not so big to threaten New York's power, and not so many smalls to dilute the power of rural New England.

[@childeryeeter4202]

@@ChuckADickiner yeah no, a few million is a good size for a state

[@tylerthelen485]

I don't think you'll see Canada & the US just up and agree to be one country out of nowhere. It would be precipitated by agreements similar to the EU with a single border & currency, etc. You would be able to see it coming from a mile away

[@TheTransitmtl]

As a non seperatist french canadian who lived outside of Quebec I always had difficulty defining what Canadian culture was. I think that is in great part because culture is tied to language and the 30 million anglo canadians are surrounded by 330 million Anglos from the US. The sheer force of American culture has a deeper penetration in English Canada has it gas in Quebec. Quebec still outputs more movies and music than all the rest of Canada combined and a lot of our shared culture is based around this. This is quickly disappearing and I doubt there will be much seperatism in Quebec 50 years from now.

[@JJMcCullough]

Canadian culture is American culture. It’s not that hard.

[@randomassname445]

​@@JJMcCulloughCanadian culture is NOT American culture. I don't know where you got that idea. Canada is a culture of dignity, integrity, and honor. We are a peaceful people but when called to war we are terrifying. We are what the U.S.A. wishes it could be. A country that actually has its head on it shoulders and doesn't have a massive perversion of all pillars of our society.

[@JJMcCullough]

@@randomassname445 I don’t think you have a very deep understanding of what culture is.

[@joefrew1614]

The culture of the two countries are nearly, virtually identical to each other, so there’s that.

[@LAK_770]

​@@randomassname445 if this were any more exaggeratedly idealistic and naive, I would be convinced it was a sarcastic commentary on laughably stereotypical Canadian attitudes and cultural myths. I'm still not 100% sure - the sheer platitude and conceit of these sentiments strains belief. Also, JJ was being somewhat facetious, there's absolutely no way he believes that Canadian culture is exactly identical to and 100% dependent on American culture.

[@jonnyminogue]

JJ: This was a great, researched video about this topic. I really appreciated the pragmatic, and didn’t take such a dystopian view of the future. 👏

[@TheCoffeeCatDad]

As an Albertan, I feel safe to say that if Quebec did end up separating, it could start a domino effect of Canada's breakup as Alberta would likely follow second. A lot of the farmers around here would say, "If Canada was a Cow, the west side does all the feeding while the east gets all the milk." Sure the city folks may have improvements, but the areas outside them have different opinions. Small towns are slowly becoming ghost towns as store buildings are put up for sale and people move away to find new work. Farmers are losing thrice money they make due to the 'taxes' that were demanded. Thats where a bunch of the Conservative politicians, truckers, oil workers, and especially the protesters are truly from. For years they have dealt with that frustration of getting robbed as they try to self sustain themselves with ridiculous taxes. When Stephen Harper was PM, he was giving them that chance to build and grow their communities, and as the years passed they were developing. When Justin Trudeau was first elected, Alberta knew that it was the beginning of the end as his 'carbon tax' has literally squeezed the life out of rural areas. And after years of frustration with unemployment and poverty growing, they are starting to have enough with the new lines of bills planned which pretty much targets their whole livelyhoods left and right. They REALLY hate what Justin has done to the province to the point where he is on billboards and photo painted on windows dressed as Castro. Now as far as the idea of Canada becoming under dictatorship, that will be difficult as there is still A LOT of open land that they would need a lot of numbers to spread out, having plenty of places where any rebels could set up and combat against it. That in turn, would likely draw out a long civil war within. With how Albertans are against the idea of Tyranny in their protests, they will definetly put up a fight where the Authoritarians would classify Alberta as a rebel province. Even if they end up winning, it would be a drawn out civil war. Anyway, thought I'd share that bit of extra information as someone whose observed it over the years and may be able to give a little bit of insight on why there's THAT much anger by the many Albertans towards our current PM.

[@GrimReaperNegi]

Are you saying Alberta would become independent all together, join Quebec as a new country, or try to join the US? I do hope your area improves regardless.

[@fluppet2350]

The general lack of provincial freedom is a big cause for the current stress between the people and the government. The west does not want the same specific laws and taxes as the other provinces do and yet due to the current way the system is, we have to simply go along with whatever they want as their way of life is pushed onto us even with our protests that it is unsustainable and will lead to an eventual collapse. The rural west and urban east are fundamentally different and being forced to act the same all while the west funds and feeds the east while earning next to nothing for it is a recipe for disaster. What with the recent events (Oct 2023) many Canadians are growing more worried for their freedom and tensions grow even more. If things stay on the current course then we can test to see if JJ was correct. TLDR: The west (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) has had enough with Ottawa's shit and many people are genuinely considering leaving the country at this point ( \Oct 2023)

[@GrimReaperNegi]

@@fluppet2350 Are taxes not divided into Federal tax, then State/Province Tax, like the US has Federal and State Taxes?

[@fluppet2350]

@@GrimReaperNegi they are but the only real difference is the amount you have to pay. (By the way the brackets are insane) most people start out in the western provinces paying ~25% Most provinces have to give large sums to Ontario and Quebec too

[@lurkingladofthepiedmont]

​By the recent events in Oct is this referring to something domestic-centered, or Oct 7 and what came after over there and out here? ​@@fluppet2350

[@ravenlord4]

I think another possibility is if the US balkanizes -- either in to two parts (red/blue split) or into regional pieces. Say if Washington and Oregon (with or without California) split to become "Cascadia". Would BC be tempted to join that? Or if a "simple" US red/blue split, would some provinces jump on that?

[@JJMcCullough]

I think it would be seen as an American thing

[@mbogucki1]

I think the union breaking up would probably the best thing for that nation. California and Texas can become countries. NYC can be a city state like Singapore. Florida and the rest of the inbred states can recreate the Confederation. New England can remain the United States. Everything in the middle, including Alberta, can become a free Wild West they seem to want to be. No federal government, no laws, just homesteads.

[@Marylandbrony]

For the red and blue state stuff. Both nations are still superpowers and would probably still project power around the world. For a more extreme American balkanizing, may I recommend Matthew White’s very old Balkanized America page. Although a lot of numbers have change for example Mexico is now more populated than the rump United States, California and not the south is the 2nd largest economy and in general more people have moved into the south and west since the 90s.

[@SuperKing604]

@@Paden-k7f the red state blue state seems to be more of a urban-rural split which is also a thing in canada now.

[@austenpoland5731]

The problem there is that even very blue states like Oregon or Washington are very red rurally - specifically Oregon. Look at a voter map of Oregon. You've got 3-4 solid blue districts in major population centers, a couple very moderately blue, and the entire rest of the state very red. Good luck subduing the sparsely populated but very well-armed and subsistent portions of a state with an unwelcome union. Separating the defined boundaries forcefully like that is a terrible idea. Just look at the Balkans you reference.

[@WhatifAltHist]

Very interesting to see your take on the same topic as my video. There were a lot of good points I hadn't thought of, and a lot of this stuff I honestly didn't know since I'm not a Canada expert. Alternately, since you helped me write the other video this seems almost like your ability to propose the opposing argument haha. The day of the rake will come....or maybe not.

[@theroyalcow2062]

Awesome to see one of my favorite KZbinrs here. Could you make a video on pre-Colombian American civilizations? I would really want to know more. Thanks for helping me know more about the world.

[@bunglebutts3163]

you're such a shady character, many of your opinions are nasty

[@bponterci]

Nice.

[@theblackswordsman9951]

Well yeah, maybe don't make a video about something you know nothing about without proper research. You implement a lot of your own right wing biases into your videos, which is obviously not a good thing.

[@bunglebutts3163]

@@theblackswordsman9951 it's pretty obnoxious when he states his opinion as fact

[@samuelmonat]

When we talk about a U.S. - Canada merge, I feel we often omit the U.S. perspective in all this. I think it’s a tough pill to swallow even for them. They would loose some of their sovereignty if all provinces were given full statehood status. Also, I’m pretty sure the republican side of things would have its doubts in welcoming 30-40 million people who would heavily lean democrat for the vast majority. Maybe like J.J. said it makes more sense to think long term for this scenario.

[@barstar888]

Why is this even a thought though? Do Canadians as a whole lack such self esteem that they would want to join the Uunited States? (Serious Question) I couldn’t imagine any significant portion of Americans deciding to want to join Canada (no offense) but I’m just fascinated by JJ and this underlying theme in his videos that being Canadian is somehow inadequate or at the very least something void of personal pride that wanting to join another independent culture wholeheartedly is welcomed.

[@RickJaeger]

Well, those people would all be up in Canada. The federal system means that their influence would be contained in their various new states. They would end up having a lot of influence by popular representation, of course, but collectively they're not much bigger than California. It would be like adding a new California, but a California split up into over a dozen states. Hardly a threat, except maybe to the balance of power in the Senate.

[@newwaveinfantry8362]

@@barstar888 I will give you what I think is a quick but convincing argument why Canada might not have a future. First of all, Canada is extremely similar to the US in government and culture. More than 90% of Canadians live withing 100 miles of the US and a majority live within 50. The main differences are French bilingualism, the monarchy and, as JJ explained in the video, overemphasized differences in policy between the two countries. Let's tackle all three: 1) Bilingualism - Quebec has been playing the long game, entrenchign their "right" to Francophone legal overrepresentation in the country. Quebec has also legally limited immigration, English in public and requested various concessions from the rest of the country to do so, so much so that most Canadians would actually be kind of happy if Quebec leaves. Secession is becoming popular even outside of it. Every single Anglo-Canadian that I've spoken to, whether right or left, has shown a clear stance against Quebec, in favor of it leaving in a "good riddance" sort of way, an apathey towards it and zero interest of ever learning French. It's notable that more than 80% of the country is English speaking. Quebec is also the biggest tax-drain for wealth-producing provinces like Alberta. The 1995 referendum was unbelievably close, within a point and much closer than that of 1980, where it was barely within 20 points. Since then nationalism has been on a massive rise. In all likelyhood, another referendum, that will come sooner or later, would be a clear majority in favor of leaving. The BQ haven't done it yet because they want to milk Canada further. 2) The monarchy. The monarchy is another thing that is increasingly unpopular and irrelevant. None of the parties challenge it because they are afraid of disrupting the status quo, but very few Canadians agree with the status quo and even less with that reasoning. The country's population is increasingly alienated from the monarchy and foreign institutions in the country. Canada is simply a lot "less British" and "more American" than in the past, which leads me to the next point. 3) The differences with the US are greatly exaggerated. First of all, after the monarchy is no longer recognized as legitimate, the constitution allows for a president to fill the role of the monarch, making it a semi-presidential republic where the president is head of state and prime minister is head of government, like it is in my country (Bulgaria) and much of Eastern Europe. Being a republic with a president will make it even more similar to the US. It would also require a reform of the senate, possibly making it less arbitrary and more in line with the US senate. The main things that (left-wing) Canadian nationalists claim to separate their country from the US are: gun gontrol, healthcare policies, support for the availability of abortions, trade protectionism (mainly from America) and, in recent years, compliance with COVID regulations. Trudeau, who champions all of those, has completely collapsed in the polls to under 30%, which I believe makes him the most unpopular prime minister ever in the country. His opponent, Pierre Poilievre, is beating him handedly in all polls and that's even with the PPC on the rise, rivaling the CPC. Pierre's list of proposed policy positions includes: repealing Trudeau's gun control and loosening the laws further, privatizing healthcare, at least partially to increase competition and medical innovation, repealing all pandemic measures and making them illegal for future governments to impose ever again, having a more free market economy with lower taxes and regulations, repealing trade protectionist policies and cooperating and trading increasingly with the US, etc. A Poilievre administration, which according to polls is the overwhelming likelyhood two years from now, would spit in the face of left-wing Canadian nationalism and make it more like America, including close economic cooperation, which is historically a prelude to allowing free movement, which is itself a prelude to mergers. The division between the young, tax-generating, monetarily and resource rich, conservative western provinces and the old, tax-draining, monetarily and resource poor, liberal easter provinces will continue to increase in the coming decades. The system is rigged so that the Conservatives get far less seats despite winning the popular vote, which will also get worse as the blue districts become bluer and the red districts become redder. This may make places like Alberta, Saskatchewan and even Manitoba try to play the Quebec game, given how malluable Canada's constitution is. If Quebec leaves, which I concluded is an inevitability, this will embolden them to do the same. The US federal system is set up so that states with below-average GDP per capita receive more money by the federal government than they collect and pay to it. The same is true with Canada. The main market for Alberta oild is also the US, so not having import/export taxes would be great. The praire provinces joining the US would be benefitial for both sides, just not eastern Canada. A Republican administration in the US would gladly accept three new states if they had information that they would become solid red states, giving representatives and 6 senators. Once this happens, Canada will be geographically split and economically weakened. Joining the US would be a huge economic boost for the maritime provinces and the territories, which are very poor by American standards. EDIT: I forgot to follow up on the abortion issue, even though - or maybe because - it's not that relevant. Pierre hasn't talked about it as far as I know, but given that he was born from a teenage highschooler mom, who made the right decision even if the law allowed otherwise and peer pressure pushed otherwise, and was given up for adoption and adopted, I would assume he is thoroughly pro-life, at least on a personal level. Much like Roe v Wade, R v Morgentaler was bullshit and a massive stretch of a "constitutional" ruling, so it will likely be overturned eventually. Every conservative leader prior to O'Toole was pro-life, and younger generations are more pro-life than ever before and becoming more so with age, so needless to say this is also an area where Canada will become more like the US in over time.

[@MrStv1163]

Well, as a US citizen, I think a merger could also mean compromise on both sides - it wouldn't necessarily have to mean Canadians would be forced to join a rigidly unchanged US. I think lots of Americans are disillusioned with the current two-party system, both of which are increasingly dominated by their more extremist elements. Many people vote for one or the other more out of more distaste for the opposition, rather than strong allegiance to the other side, and there's no third or fourth choice. I think most people in the US are moderate and reasonable, and even in the US, the trend is towards a more liberal set of values over time. I would welcome a multi-party system in the US, as I think the current two-party system is old and past its shelf life for many people, and doesn't serve to represent us well.

[@tavelkyosoba]

Soo for anyone unfamiliar, the reason the US has 2 layers of government is because the 10th amendment that states anything not explicitly enumerated to the federal government in the constitution is the states' jurisdiction. It should mean the states and federal government are doing different things, but naturally the federal government has decided *literally everything* falls under the interstate commerce clause because money.

[@DraggadonsDen]

I think there's credit to be held with all of these ideas. Like in 100 years, you might see an independent Quebec bordering both American Canada and a separate anti-American Canada

[@Marylandbrony]

Yeah but imagine the border gore.

[@Luxembourgish]

Paper Mario used to be great! Until the games were told to stop including unique character designs and unique races...

[@ivystuart1736]

@@Luxembourgish you what

[@Luxembourgish]

@@ivystuart1736 His profile picture

[@jeremyromand]

I got to say I do appreciate these videos from JJ. There’s a good sense of reality without going in any distinct direction of polarizing opinion. I’m always left with a good note to think about. Good work man!

[@JJMcCullough]

Thank you sir!

[@russellharrell2747]

JJ being friends with whatifalthist was not something I was prepared for.

[@domenstrmsek5625]

Both are conservatives?

[@russellharrell2747]

@@domenstrmsek5625 yeah but JJ is nuanced and funny. And actually more moderate than what Americans consider conservatives to be.

[@mullac1992]

@@domenstrmsek5625 No JJ is intelligent while Whatif is just very silly

[@silerius4856]

I think a union between the USA and Canada could be in the economic interest of both parties. I do wonder if an American version of the E.U. would be preferable (pragmatically) to Canada joining the United States. Both parties could retain their own national identity but the system would allow for greater cooperation and integration.

[@emeraldfinder5]

As an Albertan, I can tell you that the odds of that are very slim. Alberta’s representatives have been advocating for things like that for years now, but the socialist British Columbia and liberal Ontario have too much left-leaning nationalism and pride to approve equal economic unions with the US. (The comment above is certainly one of those nationalists). And British Columbia and Ontario have almost 50% of the political power. As things stand now, the only way that any non-socialist policies get passed is by Alberta (Canada’s biggest conservative state) forming an alliance with Quebec (who simply hate Ontario and want it to stay out its business), alongside Conservative votes from Saskatchewan and Manitoba to JUST gain enough political backing. Quebec has its own form of nationalism though, so there’d need to be something substantial in it for them to be willing to agree to it.

[@ZenKrio]

@@emeraldfinder5 In the case of Albertas current fight, Quebec may help them just so they can later try to declare independence as well, they have been trying to decades now.

[@thesecondsilvereich7828]

Canzuk or Anglophone that what most likely to happen

[@696190]

*cough* NAFTA *cough*

[@aryaaswale7316]

you think the rednecks would ever stand anything of the sort?

[@JamesOKeefe-US]

Can we just appreciate the sunflower shirt that JJ is rocking? :) it is so wonderfully divergent with the dire subject it provides a happy escape in the midst of the chaos. Kinda like JJ :) Honestly, I think so many people are just exhausted with all of the division and corruption of politicians on all sides. There are so many things we all have in common, the quickest way to destroy that is to continue down the compartmentalization rabbit hole that we are on. It seems like we are on a tenuous slope in the US as well with talk of places like Texas seceding but to JJ's point, the downsides of that economically would be so dire that it would be tough to swallow. We of course will see as I am rarely surprised by the insanity that seems to prevail in the world today. Hang in there and Happy Saturday everyone!!

[@peterwolf2031]

I nearly lost what is left of my mind when I saw the shirt. Its pattern is almost exactly the same as the one on my Dollar-and-a-quarter Tree sandwich plate. Found it very difficult to concentrate on the video due to this.

[@watchamoma623]

JJ! Could you do a video on the ‘American Sports Canon’ (football, baseball, basketball) and why those are so popular here in the US and maybe why other countries have different ‘sports canons’ like cricket, rugby, and soccer? I have always wondered this and I know you’re the guy to ask! Love your videos, keep up the great work!!

[@JJMcCullough]

Planning on it

[@randommodnar7141]

Brains4breakfast (rip) had a great video on it

[@honeycomblord9384]

@@randommodnar7141 Truly a youtuber that was gone too soon

[@scott5913]

@@JJMcCullough Will it include the NHL and the weird dual nation identity it has?

[@davidwood1100]

Soccer is easy, ad revenue, Soccer has very few breaks to show commercials while a sport like baseball has one every three outs. So what is going to be shown more on ESPN.

[@Drmcclung]

As a Texas native, I LOVE the overexaggerated Canadian upspeak, gratuitous use of aboots, been pronounced as "bean" not ben, and the playfully passive-aggressive mentions of Canada's Elite's disdain for the US! We love Canada down here!!

[@ALuimes]

I wonder how the 'bin' vs. 'been' came to be for Americans, considering they tend to pronounce words as spelled (e.g. 'foyer', not 'foyay'.

[@Drmcclung]

@@ALuimes Who the hell knows.. There are so many different language influences in modern US English it's unreal. Almost as many different influences as regional accents. TV & Internet changed a lot of that, but some things slipped through to become standard across the board. Here in the south pretty much all of the south "been" is two syllables, nearly a conjunction of "bean" and "bin" (long E, then a short I)

[@Drmcclung]

@@ALuimes An even better question is how the hell did most of the Southern US lose its English influence (no R's) when it was nearly 100% British for the longest, only to become fully rhotic.. exaggeratedly so! I know German & Spanish (and Irish expats if we're honest) had some to do with that, but not to the degree it became. That one has bugged me for years

[@paddington1670]

frankly I find it a bit insulting and demeaning, but whatever, it's his character.

[@Drmcclung]

@@paddington1670 I can understand that. It's still fun though, same thing we do here when transplants come to Houston.. us natives put on the exaggerated drawl too, they take it serious and I have to explain no we don't sound like extremely irritating Bro Country fake Nashville drawls. But I get it, that's why I love his uber Canuck KZbin character 😁

[@jfobear1953]

Thank you for your insights. I hope the more extreme of them do not come to pass. As a U.S. citizen I can appreciate a lot of the possibilities you propose. Here is hoping both the U.S. and Canada continue to progress toward a future focused on Liberty, Fraternity, and Egalitarianism.

[@rizzcow6969]

Your last three ideological ideas are already an American view of things - which I appreciate, but most Canadians won't.

[@AAAAkaishicÌIÍ636]

@@rizzcow6969we are facing rising right wing authoritarianism in this country. I’ve considered fleeing to Canada a few times.

[@rizzcow6969]

@@AAAAkaishicÌIÍ636 Your right-wing party wants less government control, where as your left-wing wants more. That is left wing authoritarianism, which is what Canada has. If you're worried about authoritarianism America is much better off. If you just don't like right-wing ideas or liberty and freedom then go to Canada.

[@rishavkumar1250]

​@@rizzcow6969 so the Jan 6 thing was Freedom on display?

[@rizzcow6969]

​@@rishavkumar1250 Freedom comes from less government abuse, power and corruption.

[@LFPAnimations]

I think literal annexation of Canada into the USA would not be ideal. I do support the idea of a Canadian-US open border and trade treaty like the EU

[@LiamMcBride]

Like a carbon copy of the EU Schengen Area single visa zone

[@planepower8523]

Neither is a viable possibility. In order to be considered in the USA union, it would take a congressional motion and then vote to be included. Cannot see that happening in 5 lifetimes. As for an open trade agreement, NAFTA was just renegotiated and it was very tumultuous and favoured US polices. How is that good for Canadian companies? USA is "America First!" - does not lend well to fair and open trade.

[@kringly4196]

Honestly idk. As an american and not a canadian i think that if our countries were facing a bigger threat id like to see it happen. You know we are both big players in the world, neighbors, and defenders of our peoples freedoms and if threatened a unity wouldnt be a bad defensive strat. It beats the dictatorship route dont you agree?

[@davidshillaker7578]

Well, there was NAFTA. Thanks Trump

[@ElGrandoCaymano]

Or like how it was pre-September 11th?

[@ganapatikamesh]

I had a teacher in college who was from France whom I remember talking to her about life in the US. One of things she pointed out to me several times in discussing differences between the Americas and Europe was how the economies of nations in the Americas are basically intertwined like nations in Europe, yet there’s no union like in Europe. As she learned more about the histories of the US, Canada, and Mexico she pointed out that in the past many states and provinces and territories were like separate nations in unions similar to like in Europe, but then by the mid-twentieth century the different nations took different paths and became more homogeneous nationally. One of the things I remember her talking about was that Canada seemed to be a nation where the majority of natural resources come from and where companies that extract them are headquartered, Mexico seemed to be the nation where they were sent to in order to be manufactured into products and where manufacturing companies were headquartered, and then these products were then sold in all three countries by service/retail companies headquartered in the US. She pointed out that this wasn’t 100% the case, but that it was enough of a case that she couldn’t understand why the three nations were merely just trading partners and weren’t instead developing themselves into further economic union like Europe. Myself and another student at the university whom used to spend time chatting with her when she and we were free often thought maybe the difference was the Europe had gone through devastating and destructive wars and the economic and political unions forms after the second world war, along with many other things in Europe, were grounded with the mission or premise of maintaining peace on the continent of Europe whereas no such devastation or destruction had occurred in North America to cause a similar development. Even a history teacher who was very well known for being conservative pointed out that the destructive and devastating US civil war and the Mexican Revolution had led to changes within both nations that were similar to what she mentioned for Europe. However another teacher from Poland disagreed with her that Europe was somehow different from North America and she argued that there was more unionizing between the three nations, but that it wasn’t as noticeable because of both nationalistic language used by citizens in each nation and their politician as well as lack of recognized institutions viewed as representing all three nations. (To clarify this was between 1998-2002 when I was in college). Since there are moments in US history where there were various times where discussions and even attempts to add Canada and Mexico to the US have occurred, I think that the most plausible reason you cited that if Canada were going to “end” would be if it joined as part of the US somehow. The Canadians I have known tend to be Canadians first and citizens of their provinces second...much like Americans and the many Mexicans I have known. So the idea that these three nations would fall apart I think would only occur if there was a major break down on national identity and major shift towards state/province identity. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, I just think it’d take a very long time to switch that since that national identities are often rooted in abstract concepts whereas the other identity is rooted in land and people tend to move around a lot for work, etc, in each nation. I have family throughout the US in various states and territories and the idea of us being an American family is more central to our family identity that the individual state/territory identities....some of which change after living in a place for so long. I do agree that if each nation were to join each other in union there’d need to be some coming together on some issues and so any such union would require years and years of movement by all parties involved to eventually succeed in occurring and at the present there doesn’t seem to be any actual parties anywhere interested in moving in that direction. (Although it is a fun thought experiment to figure out how a government of such a union would look like: if the Canadian provinces and territories and Mexican states joined the US what the US government would look like; if the US states and territories and Mexican states joined Canada what the Canadian government would look like; if the US states and territories and Canadian provinces and territories joined Mexico what the Mexican government would look like; if the three nations joined together like the European Union what it would like either as just the three nations or each of the three nations states, territories, and provinces represented individually in an EU type government). The idea a nation could end via tyranny is definitely always an option for any nation. I like that you said technically the nation still exists while the spirit or underlying aspects of a nation them die. I find the concept of the indigenous government interesting. It’s something I’m certainly not as familiar with. To be fair until a friend of mine whose Choctaw had mentioned that technically the Choctaw Nation’s treaty with the US grants them the right to send a delegate to Congress. Something they’ve not done, but the Cherokee Nation in 2019 did elect someone...though Congress hasn’t allowed the nonvoting delegate to be seated in the US House of Representatives yet. I think Maine is the only US state that actually actively has tribal representation in its state legislature (I don’t know for certain and wasn’t even aware of it in Maine until a friend and his husband and four adopted kids recently moved back after living in Maine for several years and had mentioned it as a possible solution in Oklahoma since our current governor, who technically is a member of the Cherokee Nation, has consistently picked fights with the 39+ tribal governments in the state and caused damage between tribal governments’ and state government’s relationships...something several in the state legislature have not been keen on; the governor has also consistently picked fights with the legislature...despite the fact that his party has a supermajority in both chambers). So I’m definitely interested in hearing more about how Canada’s government is working with its tribes. It’s certainly not something I’ve heard much about. To be fair if I didn’t live in Oklahoma I don’t think I would probably know, as American, much about how the relationship between the US government and tribal governments are. I’m merely basing that on my interactions with family members from other states versus family members here. It’s possible my family in other states is an outlier in not being as aware. Great video!

[@randybell5461]

This sounds like it's all about you, spare us the monologue.

[@WAyZuFaSt]

I'm Canadian and I have been watching your videos for a while, and honestly I love them. I am going to recommend this channel to as many people as possible, because you deserve the 1 million subscriber play button.

[@jameson3500]

I could definitely see Canada and the US forming a union similar to that of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They are separate countries, but they are still in a larger overall union.

[@blingbling574]

If Canada fell into tyranny, Canada would face sanctions and the U.S. would cut the country in half. The government would fall and the would be a form of annexation. I'm pretty sure Washington has a plan worked out. I'm sure our P.M. has had a warning in private already.

[@Qwijebo]

When Kweebek tries for another referendum then Alberta will put their hat in

[@JJMcCullough]

No interest in this at all. The provinces want a stronger federal government, not a weaker one.

[@jimjimmers8571]

@@JJMcCulloughHECK YEAH, we are NOT Americans and never will be 💪

[@JJMcCullough]

@@jimjimmers8571 yes we are.

[@littlebeetle2053]

Well the real answer is that Canada will collapse when Rogers goes down for more than a day

[@adanactnomew7085]

Lmao

[@williamhibbitts3250]

Honestly Canada has a higher likelihood of dictatorship than the USA. Despite America's political turmoil, a dictatorship there would be harder to maintain due to the intense regionalism in the US and the lack of (EDIT: historical) political consensus.

[@bigt9745]

And remember the prime minister is already a much more powerful position than the President

[@williamhibbitts3250]

@@bigt9745 That fact is often taken for granted by Canadians due to traditions of "good government" (source: I am one).

[@jakebarger4375]

And a dictatorship is against everything the United States stands for

[@heyo80]

I’d say dictatorship is less likely here due to the individual power of the states. Having the government control everything is harder here than in Canada.

[@greatwolf5372]

The primary objective of the whole American political system is to ensure no one person has too much power. This results in the US government always being in a gridlock, able to achieve very little but also ensures that no politician gets too "ambitious".

[@yonatanpetliar30]

Hey JJ, in light of the Rogers internet outage, as well as C-11, I think this would be a good time to talk about Canada's weird chauvinism towards American companies entering the Canadian market, and how this ties into the motivations behind C-11

[@VersedNJ]

Wasn't it several years ago, Verizon wanted to enter the Canadian mobile market, many Canadians wanted it do the price difference in cellular plans. Ottawa and the Canada's mobile industry where against it.

[@dougerrohmer]

It's funny how none of the political parties don't plug this obvious populist vote getting gimmick. Nobody likes the internet and mobile situation, but no politician offers an alternative. Also, in my part of North East BC, nobody likes ICBC (provincial vehicle insurance and registration authority) and Northern Health (good luck getting a doctor's appointment within two weeks).

[@yonatanpetliar30]

@@dougerrohmer I anticipate they will, we've already seen Poilievre and O'Toole in the last election talk about opening the market

[@dougerrohmer]

@@yonatanpetliar30 Yeah, trust the more populist PP picking up on it. "The elites in Ottawa" one of his favourite lines, and the Great Dumb believe that us little guys should stick to PP...

[@yonatanpetliar30]

@@VersedNJ Yeah it’s pure cronyism

[@daveh893]

Back around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union and the separatist movement in Quebec I remember my sister-in-law saying how growing up we could never imagine Germany becoming one country and Canada becoming two. Thanks for your videos.

[@AZgeravie]

Hey JJ, I really enjoy your videos. As someone who immigrated to Canada at age 11, I sometimes feel that I've missed learning certain things about Canadian history and culture. Your videos are very informative and provide historical context to many of the current events and cultural shifts in this country.

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

I'm in a very similar situation, except my family moved to the US. JJ's culture videos especially have been awesome.

[@oliverrainer5771]

This video is ridiculously well thought out and meditated upon. Great job

[@aeugenegray]

As a new salt and pepper hair sporter, I'm glad JJ is on the team. Wear it proud my friend

[@amyrosenold-music-healing-yoga]

Hey JJ - I appreciate how you presnet ideas about possibilities as hypotheses rather than as conspiracies, telling folks who might otherwise be too prone to believe one thing or another, hat the future is fluid and subject to many variables.

[@PyraDraculea]

I've actually heard some Canadians say things like free speech are "dumb American ideas." Including recently during the truckers' protest. Fortunately that seems to be a rare minority opinion, but it is chilling to hear.

[@JJMcCullough]

This is why I think it wouldn’t be hard for a Canadian dictatorship to use that kind of rhetoric to get broad middle class support.

[@ddvsgd9508]

These aren't inherently American ideals, it only serves as evidence of America's ignorance and lack of education. Ideas like that didn't spawn at the birth of the USA, those ideas were based on democracies before them.

[@factsdontlie4342]

Its regionalized. I grew up in a small AB town and my friends and family from there are pro free speech and supported the truckers. I live in Edmonton now and my city circle think all conservatives are white supremisists, and the government needs more power. They see nothing wrong with the freezing of bank accounts.

[@randal3122]

there are a bunch of people that say it too. they sort of beat around the bush, but they say it

[@GarrettFruge]

Way back in my highschool/early 20s libertarian days I thought it wouldn't been interesting if both the U.S. and Canada abolished their respective federal governments and joined together in a confederation of the states, provinces, and territories. I no longer agree with this for several reasons, but I guess it could make for an interesting alternate history scenario.

[@hershellumiere]

I would love to see the us/Canada join forces but I don’t see the Canadians getting past the second amendment and the Americans getting passed the high taxes required for universal healthcare. It’s a shame because we are damn. Near the same county but so different at the same tiMe.

[@JETZcorp]

@@hershellumiere In this scenario, I'd imagine both of those issues would get sorted at the State/Province level. California would gleefully leap at a single-payer health system and Canadian style gun laws. Whereas Alberta would probably be quite happy to emulate Montana. I suppose it depends on how strong the new central Federal government would be. If it happened at all I'd imagine it'd either be quite loose or VERY strict.

[@Distress.]

@@hershellumiere well as far as I know candada Healthcare is handled a provincial level. There's nothing stopping them from continuing under the US but yes they'd have the accept the bill of rights. Also less representation than they get now

[@krim7]

I ran a sci-fi themed table top roleplaying campaign that was set about a century from now. In that time, Canada, the US and Mexico became so close culturally and economically that they just eliminated the national borders and became a union of all the federation composed of all the individual states and provinces of their former countries.

[@mrbrainbob5320]

@@Distress. actually it would be more representation than it is now because of the US senate

[@gregoryshipley4637]

Rather than a "merger" of our nations I could easily imagine some form of union like Europe's, where nationhood is preserved on paper but a the economy is fully unified with free movement of goods and people. And if a more formal combining were in the cards, I'd imagine the US would eat up the provinces one at a time.

[@skylarsa]

I'd be down more for a merge like the EU rather than become one big state. I think the idea of shared currency but own cultures and nationalism would be a more doable option

[@jonathanodude6660]

i feel like that makes formal union impossible. mexico will probably want to join, so youd get a union of at least canada, mexico and the us, which all have regional subdivisions, but a central government to control foreign affairs such as this political union, but then the political union has to grant powers to a new leader to control all of the countries before a formal union takes place. since the us federal government is already really weak, granting its power like this would basically make it non-existent other than negotiating with the new formal union. i dont think the americans would be super happy with their political power getting diluted to the point where the states have to go through a lot of effort to elect a government whos job is to be the voice of 1/3 of a new nation, and the combining of these nations in the way the eu seemingly wants to consolidate europe would result in a disproportionate amount of power given to the combined canadians which have a lot less people, while mostly benefitting those same canadians at the same time. in europe, the power remains in the big economies while the benefits go to the smaller ones, making it a win win for all involved. having north america divided and incorporated into the US is probably more effective and protects everyones interests way more, and gives the former canadians and mexicans a proportional voice. i dont really like the degree of autonomy of the US though and would like to see pacts and coalitions form regions which have a lot in common with each other, so most of canada and mexico will still be able to retain their collective grouping if they wish since it would be easier to make decisions at the same time. thats just personal preference though.

[@shellbmgo1310]

@@jonathanodude6660 any eu with mexico would fail Mexico isn't a ideal democracy journalists get killed there around the election time America will never have an open border with them and we already have a union withMexico and Canada

[@ffc1a28c7]

@@jonathanodude6660 The majority of Canadians and Mexicans are strongly opposed to joining the US. With the current state of the US, I would rather not live under fascism.

[@jonathanodude6660]

@@ffc1a28c7 yeah tbh I’m in the us on a holiday and I would hate to live here. I crossed over into NJ from NY and you could literally get air time in a van from how awfully maintained that highway was, plus all the infrastructure looked terribly planned. NJ was also incredibly ugly. We didn’t go into the city centre but my lord did it make me grateful I didn’t live in the us. It also hits you how impossible it is to move around without a car. The only other countries I’ve been in that are like that are Dubai and Nigeria, which are both too hot to move on foot anyways. We landed in Jamaica a couple hours ago and the difference is night and day in terms of how nice the surroundings are.

[@NathanJBellomy]

One common problem I see across the board in the media when it comes to characterizing statistical information is particularly on display here. While I find your videos very enlightening and thoughtful on the whole, you've unintentionally illustrated a flaw in thinking that I think most people fall prey to when trying to characterize statistics that fall in the range of about 10-25%. Within the space of a few minutes, you characterize the less than 20% province-primary identification as--I believe the term you used was "minuscule" while in nearly the same breath you use the 25% federal funding for healthcare as evidence that Canada's system is in fact rather centralized, and then reverse again, dismissing separatist sentiments as being "in the 20s at best". People simply don't know how to think about these numbers, leading often to self-serving conclusions depending upon the position the presenter takes with respect to the thing being measured. A better way to think about these statistics is that numbers in this range should be considered more along the lines of "significant" or "noteworthy". To illustrate the importance of what might appear trivial, I'll cite an example I ran across many years ago: An article, the thrust of which was, "a study finds that only 16% of people have changed their minds as a result of Facebook arguments, so don't bother arguing on Facebook". But this gets it altogether backwards. A 16-point change in opinion, presumably over the span of the existence of Facebook, which was about a decade at the time... That is *very* significant change. That's a 32-point swing in opinions over the last 20 years. Now, we don't know what respondents changed their minds about or how many different things they changed their minds about. But if, for example, they changed their minds about gay marriage or marijuana legalization, then that's enough to account for the dramatic shift we've seen in the culture over that time period. Think about that; Facebook arguments alone could account for the *entire* shift in public opinion and consequently, public policy on these matters. Conversely, if minds were changed about, say, the use of violence to achieve political ends, then we could have an explanation for the dark turn American conservatism has taken of late. So, that 16% number could explain either of those trends, or *both* (if different people changed their minds on multiple issues), and possibly much more. Long story short, don't underestimate numbers in the teens and low 20s, because the more important question is which direction those changes are moving (props for throwing in an "and shrinking" to your commentary), and how fast.

[@matthewgasparin7000]

That’s a really good series of points you brought up, thank you. JJ is an opinion writer, so his points have to be taken with a grain of salt. I took a poli sci course in university last year and we had a lecture on Canadian federalism and my prof’s main point was that it is quite decentralized, simply because of the breadth of provincial jurisdiction on things like labour laws and business regulation, in addition to requiring 2/3 of provinces to consent to any new social spending programs as strong evidence of a decentralized federation. This is, imo evidence of the exact opposite of the claim jj was making. Further, having ~25% of funding for healthcare isn’t really that much. 3 out of every 4 dollars are still coming from the provinces, and since most provinces (except the maritimes and Quebec) are largely self-sufficient, this would allow them to forgo federal funding if they so chose. They just choose to accept federal dollars, as it allows them to spend their money elsewhere. Criminal law is an important jurisdiction, but I wouldn’t place as much emphasis on it as JJ does. I would argue that the administration of social services and the regulation of business and commerce is an equally powerful jurisdiction. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was the provinces who were most active in announcing new restrictions giving directions to the public and businesses on what they could and could not do. They feds were largely nowhere to be seen, with the exception of handing out relief cheques. From what I know from talking to people, they looked to their provincial capitals and governments for direction, and not so much to the federal government. This, I think is evidence of people seeing the provincial government as the more important government in their day-to-day life and not the feds, which I would point as evidence of both decentralization and provincial identity, both in contrast to JJ’s points.

[@actually_a_circle]

The American left is more violent then the American right

[@ZenKrio]

a little off topic but some small %'s matter, it's said that 6% of people in America are activist far left, but they run Hollywood, Disney, Schools, it's to the point where defending pedos is nearly mainstream with how schools are pushing stuff on kids, in 2020 a lot of cities were effectively destroyed in America, and police defunded due to 6% of people using violence for political ends. IT really just depends on what side the current government is on, in America, the FBI is doing more to go after Elon Musk then they did for Epstien, FTX or many other awful things because they've been politicized..

[@mercster]

The amount of people arguing on Facebook/Twitter is a tiny minority of people. You've got Internet-dreamy-eyes.

[@NathanJBellomy]

@@matthewgasparin7000 Good points all. As an American, I'll choose to bow out of interpreting Canadian public opinion, and simply reiterate my commendation of JJ on his overall very thoughtful commentary, even when his opinions may diverge from my own, and even if he sometimes falls prey to the same errors we all fall prey to.

[@kazzaAB]

An Albertan here. I have plenty of albertans that believes Alberta would be better off as independent or as a US Protectorate. So far from the Albertans I have asked, 65% of them would rather see Alberta stray further away from Ottawa and the Trudeau government. 20% doesn't care, and the rest opposes. There are plenty of liberal minded Albertans but most of them either move to BC or Ontario or changed political beliefs. The younger population are either full on right wing or apolitical. I'm sure there is someone here that will disagree but that is my perspective and as a born and raised Albertan.

[@chrisg0901]

I think your take on the preconditions for a US-Canada merger is spot-on. Still, I recall bringing up similar polling results about the willingness of Canadians to join the Union (they were even higher in the 1990s I believe) to other Americans and they’re always astounded. It’s definitely an idea far outside our Overton Window for the last few decades.

[@initiisnovis9673]

The only way I would be ok with merging with the states is if both countries cease to exist, and a new one is created. NOT an annexation but a creation of a new country

[@llmeekos]

@@initiisnovis9673🇺🇸 here- Could you imagine the giant supercontinent we’d be? Nobody would ever want to f*ck with us. Also, Texas would never give up it’s borders, unfortunately 😂 We would still need some kind of provinces/states because it would be way too large for our government to successfully meet local needs across the whole continent

[@lukeporras1288]

Don’t forget, the first US constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had a provision to allow Canada to join at any time

[@PossessedPotatoBird]

I feel like people are too strict in how Canada will join the US. I don’t think Canada/its provinces would just become states, I feel as if they would become some sort of collaboration government that has higher autonomy than a state but is still part of America. I feel like Canada is too different than America politically for such a sudden annexation and the collaboration government would be a good compromise.

[@anosmibell6473]

States already have a large amount of autonomy, so it would be difficult to imagine how much more autonomous this hypothetical canada could be. US states are already allowed to have their own separate constitutions (including different governmental forms, so long as they maintain a republican structure, so Canadas parliment could remain intact), their own tax codes, criminal codes, internal economic policies, even armed forces in the form of the National Guard. The only things they share are a single foreign policy and a deference to the federal government where federal and state law conflict. Honestly that last bit isn't even 100% adhered to, as many states openly ignore federal regulations on certain things like drug regulations and border security.

[@E4439Qv5]

It'd be closer to an EU-style confederation at first. Maybe further integration would occur from then on but really, just relaxing the border between the two would be enough to get the mixer goin'.

[@papaicebreakerii8180]

I don’t really think so. I feel like American political parties are broad enough that any Canadian politician could be accepted into American politics with no issues. If anything, the different regions of Canada would just act as voter blocks in the greater elections. Hell, with the level of autonomy give to states Quebec could even fit in to a degree

[@JohnSmith-wx9wj]

Frankly, I don't think any form of union would be good for either side. I would like to see both be more open to each other economically, but that's it.

[@PossessedPotatoBird]

@@JohnSmith-wx9wj I would also like some kind of free movement agreement, maybe even some kind of EU for America, Canada, Liberia, Philippines and some other closely aligned countries like Japan, the UK and Australia.

[@roieis]

It's just great to see such thoughtful videos make it on KZbin

[@skylarsa]

As an Albertan who's moved to England this year- either your accent is super thick or it's just been that long since I've heard a Canadian accent😅 I'm a new subscriber and it's definitely nice to hear your take on things going on back home. And as an Albertan from a conservative family, I completely understand the Alberta separate mentally but think it's far from reality.

[@bartonbella3131]

It's odd that people don't want North American Oil with all of their EPA restrictions but are fine with unregulated heavily polluting oil from other nations.

[@vaiv4svata]

And bailing out oppresive regimes like Saudi Arabia in the process

[@otm646]

It's not about emissions, it's never been about emissions. It's about using oil money as a political tool. If North America is energy self sufficient it doesn't prop up the countries the US effectively bribes to be our "friends". Instability in the Middle East has global consequences. Gaddafi and Saddam were certainly not good guys but they are what prevented the refugee crisis across the mediterranean. Once they were removed you see what has happened. And that's just a drop in the bucket as far as potential western disruption goes.

[@viewer295]

North American oil is much more expensive than oil from other countries. Plus it’s really dumb to invest in new oil infrastructure considering it’s probably going to be obsolete in the near future as we shift away from fossil fuels.

[@otm646]

@@viewer295 economies run on energy. If you purposefully make your energy more expensive you substantially disadvantage your citizens. The price China pays for their oil, and for their power is substantially less than what we pay in the US. Obviously industrial pollution is a bad thing but you need to be extremely aware of the economic disadvantage you put your fellow citizens at competing on the world stage. China is building a tremendous number of nuclear plants, and a tremendous number of coal plants. They don't care about going green they care about what maximizes their competitive advantage. All the moral high ground in the world doesn't save you when you Western economy becomes non-competitive.

[@StudioNama]

Money talks

[@TheAmorchef]

The one big issue with Quebec are the cases of Ungava, James Bay Treaties and Eastern Townships. If Quebec moves toward independence, they would face losing some areas and boarder changes.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

What specifically?

[@houseofmendoza5442]

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 basically I think indigenous tribes would stay with Canada causing them to loose land also Montreal may opt out and stay around as province. I’ve heard all these would be possible in a Quebec succession

[@WordoftheElderGods]

@@houseofmendoza5442 lose*

[@Lord_Foxy13]

They would probably loose Gatineau-Hull, which is is super integrated into Ottawa

[@wodediannao4577]

The Eastern Townships/Estrie region includes Anglo towns, but it's still 90% francophone. While slightly more people in Nord-du-Quebec are able to speak English than French, significantly more have French (35%) than English (4%) as their first language, and most have neither. I assume indigenous rights are a bigger deal up there than the English vs. French thing.

[@annmettam1948]

I live in germany and I really like your great Videos. Great personality too.

[@robertshort9487]

The problem with using pride in being a Canadian to mean not regionalist is that for a lot of people what they think of as Canadian is probably their region. In the US I know quite a few people who view being proud to be an American and being proud to be whatever their region is as being the same. That's why they view their political opponents from other parts of the country as not being American.

[@mcbeclips7899]

but the difference I that, apart from Quebec, Canada shares a very similar culture nationwide, because the government does not grant as much autonomy

[@xijinpingsfavoritehemorrho1328]

That's an excellent, nonpartisan point! There is some crazy culture shock you get when you move cross country here, honestly more nuanced than you'd think.

[@robertshort9487]

@@mcbeclips7899 I have a very small sample but in my experience people in BC are closer to west coast Americans than they are to folks from Toronto.

[@mcbeclips7899]

@@robertshort9487 but those are big regional differences, compared to the difference between a place like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, which are much closer than say Vancouverans and Torontans

[@robertshort9487]

@@mcbeclips7899 that's my point. . .

[@ilianceroni]

Ok, I try to predict the future of the North American continent with my impressions as a European (yes, I’m going full out of my…) So, yeah, the US and Canada will merge (and maybe even Mexico or part of it will join), but in a slightly different way than what you propose, as there will be a series of intermediary steps that will make it possible. First, the US will break up in multiple states, probably they will mostly be federations, but some lonely states could still go independent. The major candidates are “west coast”, “east coast”, “south”, “corn belt” and, maybe, Texas. Meanwhile Quebec will drift away from the rest of Canada becoming de facto a separate state, but still part of Canada de iure. These “blocks” (and Texas and Quebec) each will have they own central government, supreme court, taxation structure, etc. Finally, after some decades of turmoil, they will unite in a new “layer of government” (there is the state layer, the federal layer and this new “confederate/continental layer”), which will include the majority of them (if not all, it depends on how the separation process goes…). This super layer will just grant a series of agreements like a common army, free trade, free movement of capitals, etc. Not sure on movement of people too, it depends on some issue, like, you know, if one of these federations wants to prevent movement of certain groups of people (like migrants or pregnant women…). There will also be a “North American council” for international relations (aka, interaction and agreements with non-members state). This “Confederation of federations” will allow some of the problems of both countries to be alleviate, but still allow for the benefits of a union. It will also be promoted as “We can do the EU, but better, the American way!”, as meanwhile the EU will centralise and become a federation😂

[@williaminnes6635]

What if people develop and conserve a deep seated anti-Europeanism which causes them to shy away from such supernational proposals outside of trade and defense?

[@wallywallendo]

The different parts of the country don’t have strong national identities. So no

[@N.Doughnut]

This is a very 20th century style of alternate history thinking here, applied to a future scenario. States dont split apart anymore. Western nations blob together. They dont shatter along economic lines for no good reason. The raw nature of the 21st century makes balkanization.... not very likely

[@williaminnes6635]

​@@N.Doughnut Does "the West" even remain a useful analytical construct?

[@juwebles4352]

So the C.U.M alliance is inevitable

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

Surely historically the fear of US annexing Canada was one of the main reasons that Canadian nationalism existed? Probably this is why the topic of a North American union remains taboo, whilst this threat is now historically ancient, as events in Russia-Ukraine or in Brexit show old hostilities and historical narratives can still influence modern politics. In the American revolution (the siege of Quebec) and in the war of 1812 there were attempts by the US to take the war northward - indeed the 1812 war was driven by the desire to create new states by Southern landowners, and nearly triggered a New England succession as a consequence - among other reasons. Then you have the fact that the US was seen as a safe haven and hotbed of Irish nationalism from the UK perspective - and indeed the support of the Irish caucus for Irish nationalism and hostility to protestent Northern Ireland still a common complaint is among many conservative Britons - including several attempted Fenian raids. And also throughout much of the 19th century Canada saw the much weaker Mexican state have large portions of it hacked off which just enflamed suspcions towards the US. Indeed even in the 1920s-1930s where there was fear a US-Japanese war could bring the US and UK into conflict - one of the reasons Canada pushed heavily for Britain to abandon their pre-WW1 alliance with Japan - it was generally assumed Britain could not defend Canada. And given what happened to Australia in WW2 this was probably an accurate assumption. Both the US (War plan red) and the UK war plans sort of assumed in such a circumstances that Canadian provinces and territories would be subsumed into US states and it was unlikely to be reversed. This was only 90 years ago. Regarding the future potency of nationalism. I'd say that both Ukraine and Brexit also show that perceived economic benefits of union are usually not enough to make or keep a union of countries together in the face of historic national identities, especially as economic benefits are often more subjective predicitions than might be expected. The rise of strong nationalist movements in Quebec, Catalonia and Scotland also suggests that nationalism if anything is still on a historic rise from its 19th century romanticist origins. Although there is a countercultural New Right narrative that seems to be extolling the virtues of old empires like the Austro-Hungarian empire - although it's interesting they focus on this rather than say the Russian or Ottoman empires whose treatment of subject nations presents a less rosy picture - and the Austrian part of that empire was also more plurinational than the aggresively Magyarising Hungarian part. It also seems to me conveniently close to the Russian position, although these historical debates end up in circular cherry picking for specific dates. Is Russias imperial claims to Poland stronger than the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth claim to Ukraine and Belarus? Based on what? It seems to be based mainly on love of Russian autocracy vs the chaos or the more democratic leaning commonwealth. In any case, whether it is for nationalism (of a right or left wing tinge), or for imperialism, technocratic unions based on economic arguments seem to be losing ground extensively at the moment in the face of a populist revolt - and it was that economic consensus that allowed the US-Canadian free trade agreements, and especially NAFTA possible. Maybe they will become popular again after an era of populist economic mismanagement, although I think this is doubtful.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@Libtard Karma Great argument. Do you have any more well thought out contributions?

[@noiamnotjohn3351]

This is historically inept. 1812 had nothing to do with expansion, certainly not by a politically activated sectional grouping of slave-owners, Americans made the reasons for war very clear. British impressment of American sailors during the Napoleonic wars. While the Mexican-American war was certainly brought about, to some degree, by an aggressively expansionist Southern establishment, the War of 1812 was not. Secondly, in the Mexican-American war, the Americans actually were smaller, both population wise and military wise, in fact the U.S barely had an army at all at the time, most European commentators thought that the Mexicans would win only for the Americans to prove them wrong in a pretty cinematic fashion if you actually read into how aggressive the Americans were during the war. It was certainly a bad thing for Mexico, overall, but ultimately it was a war over which country would geopolitically dominate North America. The United States of America or Mexico.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@@noiamnotjohn3351 "1812 had nothing to do with expansion". This is complete nonsense. Yes impressment was the causus belli of the war but had existed for many years prior to it and was generally overlooked by the Federalist party in their desire to resume normal trading relations with Britain (see the Jay Treaty). To put it bluntly, before 1812 the US was a relatively weak power that many - even in the US itself - assumed had an experimental republican system of government that was going to collapse sooner or later. Impressment continued at least covertly after the war and only ended when the US became a sufficiently powerful naval power to ward it off. The conquest of what was to become Canada was motivated by, among other factors, the desire for expansion, to quote John Randolph of Roanoke a congressman from Virginia at that time: "Agrarian greed not maritime right urges this war. We have heard but one word - like the whipporwill's one monotonous tone: Canada! Canada! Canada!". Note slavery was not the main issue here as it would still be another decade or two before that became the dominant issue between north and south. The main issue was expansion for agricultural colonism and political power vs. urban development and the creation of a integrated economy throughout the US, which presupposed good relations with the UK and trade with the former colonial master. Indeed to be accurate the issue was less between North and South (because some Southerners opposed the annexation of Canada given Qubec's largely Catholic population) and more between the urban mercantile East and agragian West, especially around Kentucky, the Northwest territory etc. There was a strong desire for more congressional seats and economic power to balance the influence of the urban east who decisively were opposed to the war. Read - Pratt, Julius W. "Western War Aims in the War of 1812," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 12 (June, 1925) or David Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, The War of 1812 (2002) As for the Mexican situation, the era before the Civil War was defined by the massive demands for expansion into Canada and Mexico. Had Britain not given up much of its claims to the Oregon territory in 1846 another US invasion of British North America (as it was then) would have been entirely likely as Polk's popularity rested with his appeal to expansionists. It is doubtful whether Mexico - a poor, agricultural country with then limited national identity that only really worked as an entity when backed by the political, military and economic integration afforded by the Spanish empire - was ever really in a position to challenge US power. In such a situation it was quite natural that the US was going to annex it, given the US's strong sense of national expansion as a moral force and the fact it then had the power and means to enforce it. Yes the US never had a large army but against its foes before the Civil War it didn't need one given how North American had relatively weak states, and then in that Civil war it became obvious how Northern economic power could ramp up into a large army (as it did again in WW1 and WW2). But becoming the opposite of what Mexico was had to be a priority for Canadian survival - strong national identity based on negation of the US , a strong economy, eventually federal unity, a sense of the Tory order and social harmony from Britain that was lacking in a US that was overrun by republican and liberal ideas. That this has mutated into a left-wing nationalism is not so suprising as although this vision was social conservative - and I'd still maintain Canada is more socially conservative than many of the more liberal parts of the US - isn't so surprising as this vision emphaised hierachical economic co-operation and paternalism which fits with modern left-wing 'managed capitalist' economic policy. As I said, this explains why Canada still defines itself in defensive terms as an anti-American bulkward even if - as JJ quite correctly notes as I have visited myself - culturally Canada has been absorbed as a satrapy of the US since at least WW2.

[@owengallagher3992]

An Albertans perspective: There is no popular seperatist movement here. Firstly, many Albertans have moved here from other parts of Canada and have less of a connection to the province itself. There is growing discontent about our lot in the country (namely the carbon tax and equalization payments) but the sentiment that I have observed has been for advocacy towards Albertan issues within the Canadian system. That being said, Ottawa has seemed deaf to our complaints as of late, and the provincial government seems more willing to show some teeth to combat federal policy. I honestly cant see anything happening without major actions taken against Alberta by the federal government, but that being said nobody likes to be ignored

[@axelprino]

It's an interesting topic, internationally Canada is always treated as a pretty stable country so the idea of it breaking up in the near future sounds kinda weird to me. I guess Canada's approach to federation is pretty similar to what we have here in Argentina, except we don't really have any equivalent to Quebec, where the provinces are so dependant on the national government to continue functioning that they basically can't survive on their own so the preferred option is to just complain and hope to receive more cash next time. Heck, we can't even break relationships with some of our neighboring countries without shooting ourselves in the foot.

[@redjarvis]

Two of my favourite KZbinrs Being friends who would have thought

[@jamescusack6511]

Proposed Canadian Statehood: ✅ Made fun of the Quebecois: ✅ Slandered the Green Party: ✅ Ticked all the boxes, this is a J. J. McCullough certified classic.

[@YouWillNeverBeAWoman]

Based

[@kylevernon]

Don’t forget about the false claims about the “mass graves”.

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

I didn't even notice the green party slander. I thought he was just talking as a sane person should.

[@xp_studios7804]

Addressed the simple fact that his videos are award winning ✅

[@UptightGnome]

@@kylevernon Not very aware of things huh?

[@dscarmon]

This gave me a lot to ponder, cheers

[@theogrant528]

I like that JJ brought the mustache back. Also separation into more loosely federated states sounds neat, give it 50 years.

[@zachdew9gaming985]

The Fallout Game franchise gives an alternate reality where the U.S. becomes Tyrannical and eventually invade Canada do to their resources being critically needed after war on 2 fronts with Mexico and China. Canada ended up becoming a state of sorts but not in a good way as the people were under constant surveillance to stop revolts.

[@HistoryNerd8765]

We call it a Territory.

[@campbelloflongbranch]

How would Canada's integration into the United States unfold? If each province was allowed in as a state then Canada would have a over reach in the US Senate. That would be an interesting discussion to explore.

[@th3oryO]

If each province wasn't allowed in as a state then there's no way they'd vote to join the US. The prairie provinces already have disproportionately low representation in Canadas Senate, why leave for the status quo?

[@rachel_sj]

I can see A LOT more migration up to Canada in the next few decades due to climate change. Canada will become a more mild and inviting place to live thanks to its warming temperatures and thus more land to build new cities and towns in the vast swaths of the country. It doesn’t hurt that they have a lot of fresh water and oil fields that might be drilled in the arctic region (if climate change continues unabated and, honestly, I really don’t want that worse case scenario to happen)

[@mbogucki1]

Electoral College would take effect. They would give us some arbitrary number of seats based on their silly system.

[@victording6698]

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea since US policies have enormous impact on Canada, it's better to have some representation in the US legislation and government.

[@victording6698]

@@mbogucki1 But it'll be to our advantage, eh? The system benefits more for less populated states/provinces, which most our provinces are, compared to the US states.

[@GoldenTV3]

I have a feeling, after Quebec leaves, the middle provinces may begin drifting towards the idea of buying into becoming a U.S state. It might take more decades, but I think it's a probability.

[@m.boivin8671]

The best way to get rid of Quebec is to accuse it daily of all the ills from which Canada suffers. Also, treating Quebecers as racist, xenophobic, stubborn, attached to their French language and culture by legislating on the matter (Law 96), considering themselves as secular to the detriment of religious minorities (Law 21), preferring to export their products and services to Americans and Europeans, rather than their Canadian brothers, refuse to allow Alberta oil to pass through a pipeline on its territory. In other words, Canada, let's deliver ourselves to Quebec bashing and sooner or later, Quebec will slam the door and finally declare itself independent and lead its own destiny, for better or for worse. Good luck Quebec, good riddance!

[@randomassname445]

Never gonna happen. Canada will invade Quebec before that happens.

[@stefanl3299]

It's not easy to predict this stuff since usually radical change comes from important individual people rather than predictable movements and trends.

[@otm646]

Given how heavy-handed the Trudeau government has been combined with the structure of the Canadian government and its population centralization it's far easier for Canada to become a dictatorship vs the United States. Even if the DC federal government switched, that policy wouldn't propagate nearly as quickly as it would across Canada.

[@deathkorpsinfantryman1898]

well centralized order is always better than utter chaos. in fact my problem with the federal government is that they didn't go far enough in punishing the insurrectionists forces, were it up to me they'd all be shot along with their families, friends, coworkers, and anyone else who had contact with them.

[@davidheipel2934]

The way I'm seeing it there isn't much daylight between Europe 19 30s. Bring us your sick we will look after them. We want all of your guns we're just doing it in organized fashion. State control of the media and expanding control. The ability to censor and use propaganda. Case in point I wish I could see that other comment that I can't see. Of course there is that level of hate that oozes from this government. This is just the crude strokes for KZbin comments.

[@vitaminluke5597]

Maybe I'm too Americentric (being a USA citizen), but I definitely feel that the USA is in a much more unstable situation right now, though I definitely acknowledge that Canada isn't as stable as some may think. Not to mention several US states could realistically exist as independent countries (California's population is greater than Canada after all), whereas most Canadian provinces are extremely tiny population wise

[@SnargGloof]

Would be more like giant microstates if I make sense

[@JJMcCullough]

The topic of the video isn’t “which country is most likely to break up.” I never said any scenario was likely, I’m just pondering the hows.

[@Julianna.Domina]

@@The614zeke The party platform at the State level has always been extremely populist, with extremist items getting on the TX GOP platform all the time, but rarely being enacted in Austin

[@sabelotoda2]

You should watch some of what if videos on america i think he makes a compeling argument for why the usa is les likly too collaps in the next 100 years then canada and most european contrys.

[@BL3446]

The US isn't in an unstable equilibrium. It is just undergoing a large perturbation right now.

[@TheBrazilRules]

The idea of the USA becoming a dictatorship before Canada is so stupid, considering the Federal Govnerment of the USA is characterized by a lack of laws, while the Canadian one is characterized by having too many laws

[@amirlach]

Actually support for independence has gone from 34% to 48% between the last two elections of Trudeau. The trend continues.

[@DGoldy303]

What province?

[@amirlach]

@@DGoldy303 Alberta.

[@npcimknot958]

The t hey’re stupid.

[@harrytautz6615]

this was pretty interesting as someone who's country's breakup seems somewhat more imminent (the UK!), would be interested to see a version of this for other countries who are having similar discussions to the ones in Canada.

[@thesecondsilvereich7828]

The uk is not going to split up anytime soon probably when white British becomes a minority then maybe by 2060

[@walterfielding9079]

The UK isn't going to break up. The SNP is collapsing the Irish Unionist are getting behind the Tory deal with the EU. Things aren't great but the UK is going to make it. Things were worse in the 70s

[@VinnieMF]

I'm not British but looking from the outside Scotland seems inevitable, less but also highly likely Northern Ireland but do you think Wales would separate? I don't know of any significant will towards that by the Welsh.

[@MassiveOl]

Hey J.J, good job on another great video! Love your stuff man

[@prp3858]

Yup…the Constitution Act, of 1982 was the beginning of the end for Canada as we know it. Ever since, there has been more talk about Provinces not being happy with their voices being heard in Ottawa. I left in CND in 1995 due to never ending growth of socialism & Quebec voting for national independence seceding Canada. Most of the viewers don’t realize Canada almost ceased to exist as we know it today.

[@ronanmurphy9426]

4:10 In the UK, it's exactly the opposite situation regarding the criminal and civil codes. Civil law cases can be appealed from all consistent countries to the UK Supreme Court, but criminal code is determined by the legal jurisdiction: England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

[@spnked9516]

While otherwise pretty well-considered, a lot of the analysis seems to be predicated on the idea that Canada's population size and make-up will remain relatively static over the next century. Canada is a country with a few critical demographic realities which can't really be ignored when attempting to predict its future trajectory. Just to highlight three of the major ones - Canada has a birthrate below replacement (currently around 1.4/1.5), Canada has a sizable aging population that lacks replacement, and Canada primarily relies on the importation of people from other countries to grow and/or maintain it's population (importantly, most of these immigrants come from 2nd and 3rd world nations with demonstrably different cultures). You're basically looking at a native population which is dominated by people who are coming to the end of, or already out of, their most productive years. Over the next two decades, these people will increasingly pull their labour and resources out of the system which, unfortunately, likely won't be replaced by anyone or anything. This has enormous economic and social consequences for the entire country. The quiet, and often taboo, truth about the gradually broadening immigration programs in places like Canada is that they exist to form a sort of cushion for this population collapse. Unfortunately, in some cases, the cure might be worse than the disease. Importing people from wildly different backgrounds in considerable numbers often produces enclaves as a consequence. Anyone who has lived in Canada and visited a larger city over the last 20 years can attest to just how much these places have changed, and just how prevalent these enclaves have become. For a country that already has two privileged interest groups (the Québécois and the various indigenous groups), this is disastrous.

[@sidhantmathur3612]

There’s a book which goes through the research on this idea that immigrants from other places have negative cultural impacts on democratic or other values in the places they immigrate to. It’s called “Wretched Refuse?” by Alex Nowrasteh. Basically the findings are that immigration actually significantly improves democratic institutions. The people who immigrate are typically more friendly to democracy than the average person. These enclaves you talk about all disappear by the second generation who go to public schools. If you’ve ever lived in Texas, there are tons of “white” people with the last name “Gonzalez”. I don’t think you know very many second generation immigrants in Canada, because literally none of them would choose to live in an enclave. If they do, it’s because that’s where their parents live.

[@sidhantmathur3612]

​@SubArc Adventures You then should be able to make a correlation between rates of immigration and political division right? Canada has 3x (as % of population) the immigration as the USA, yet political divisions, trust in the media, trust in elected bodies etc. are all much better than the US. These are two of the most culturally similar countries in the world, and yet the one with significantly better immigration does much better. Literally the antithesis of your statement. I don't even credit immigration for this. It's much more a function of the parliamentary system vs. the federal republic in the US. But you seem to use blame immigration for this when it's quite the opposite. This holds true in other countries as well. Australia is doing much better than the US on all those metrics, and yet they have many more immigrants as % of population. Switzerland same, and they even have a federal republic like the US (ok not very much like it but still). Now on the other hand, when you look at countries that don't get immigrants, they're horribly failing in much more fundamental ways. They NOT ONLY facing all those same issues of lack of trust, but they also have absolutely crumbling economies, massive unemployment and will face horrible consequences when their population ages. Rising lack of trust in media and institutions is much more a function of the rise of mass media and social networks online, it has nothing to do with immigration. That's why countries which get no immigration are facing the exact same problems of lacking trust in institutions.

[@sidhantmathur3612]

@SubArc Adventures Illegal immigrant population in the US peaked in 2007. Trust in institutions has plummeted since then, when the illegal immigrant population would be decreasing... 14.4% of US population is immigrants, vs 21% in Canada and 30% in Australia. 3.3% of US population now is illegal immigrants. Your theory is not based on any reality or awareness of actual numbers. Just narratives that feel true.

[@mattd5240]

I don't know why we don't have incentives for people to have kids, oh because everyone thinks everyplace on Earth is overpopulated instead of mostly 3rd world country

[@ungrave5231]

Great video, fun seeing you do a take on this topic after seeing althist do his video on it. But also I have to mention one of my favourite parts of your videos is watching your comment section after words where you very efficiently destroy people with weird takes. The "Stephen Leacock is not funny and he died 40 years ago" comment made me laugh way more than it should have.

[@loboheeler]

The formation of city-states is an idea worth looking at. The The urban places exert way to much power because of their greater voting numbers. Happens in almost all states in the USA, and is especially evident in California. The "urban coastal elites" don't give a damn about the treasures of the huge agricultural areas, as long as they can get things at the supermarket and water their lawns.

[@Clericoftheages]

There is just one thing I want to correct on : The overturning of Roe versus Wade does not mean a woman who has a miscarriage or has to deal with an egg topic pregnancy will go to jail if they occur.

[@georgelloydgonzalez]

Yeah, he got the terminology wrong. Even the most conservative, right-wing women are susceptible to having miscarriages, and you know how the Conservative mindset is "protect our own, and shun the rest". What they're after is voluntary abortions.

[@Clericoftheages]

@@georgelloydgonzalez dude, have you even talked to a conservative? While yes there are some who are completely against abortion most are willing to accept reasonable restrictions for example no 3rd term abortions. No sense in killing a child that would be viable.

[@odoimia]

@@Clericoftheages 99% of all abortions are in the first trimester the sensible thing to do would be making them legal, letting the states decide on second trimester, and third trimester only in case of medical emergencies.

[@Clericoftheages]

@@odoimia The doctor should be required to make a good faith effort to preserve the life of a child especially in the third term. Even in the case of an emergency.

[@randolpho-]

When I was in college back in 2000, I took a US-Canadian geography course, and my professor, who was Canadian, had a few theories on if Quebec did concede from Canada. First would be Quebec would separate and everything else would remain the same. The second was Quebec separates and the other Atlantic Provinces would choose to stay with Canada, or they could separate on their own. And his third theory and possibly most likely would be that the USA would take over the Atlantic Provinces.

[@occam7382]

As an American, the idea of the 3rd option coming to fruition just puts a smile on my face.

[@JJMcCullough]

I don’t understand why that is most likely.

[@tonyv2373]

@@JJMcCullough A complete misunderstanding of Canadian history and culture, and a sense of geographic isolation?

[@raphaelbajet7583]

…you seriously think America would take over the Atlantic Provinces? It has had an aggressive and colonial history but that would literally never happen

[@FoxHound_Actual]

@@JJMcCullough Yeah for real. "Take them over" how, exactly? Absorb them? Have you ever been to the Atlantic provinces? The people there do not seem to identify at all as American, or want to whatsoever. The western provinces would be much more likely to want to join the U.S.

[@tommyflorida9204]

I am Canadian and have spent 20 years of my professional life in the US. We are so similar in culture that I would not mind becoming American.

[@shanke769]

Most Canadians will agree on this In order do that Alberta or Quebec will be the one make it happen to join Union Problem is We have Nationalists and anti-American people in Canada who will not associate U.S don’t want to be Americanized. And yet they enjoy American culture they are hypocrites. In Canada there’s no open market it’s a close market Too much monopoly sector in Canada from Dairy, Airlines Banking Telecom Legacy broadcast you see what happened to the Rogers outage everything went down because everything is dependent on the monopoly big 3 Cartels I’m with you brother I was give it 100 years or maybe soon we never know my bets on Alberta leave because they’re similar to Texas

[@notsnho]

Depends where tho, Newfoundland or Quebec would disagree but places like BC or Ontario (Toronto to be exact) You’d be correct

[@emmanuelmacron4]

But the USA government is so baad

[@notsnho]

@@emmanuelmacron4 not all that worse then here, besides what they’ve done recently they’re on pair or better then us in my opinion.

[@lucasharvey8990]

People who live within a short drive of an American city, like people in Vancouver living right next to Seattle, are probably a lot more chill on the subject about just joining up and getting a fancy star on the flag. People who live far out, like in Newfoundland and whatnot, are probably a lot more skeptical of the prospect on average since they likely have had a lot less contact with Americans generally speaking and are more susceptible to believe wrong and bad things. Edit: Also Quebec is a special case, since they speak French whereas none of the American states in that area do, so they're as isolated as Newfoundland in that way.

[@amyl.9477]

I’m from Ontario; I care about Quebec. Also, French Canadians ≠ Quebec; there’s so much French presence in Northern Ontario when I had an internship in the north virtually half of the office spoke French. Newfoundland was basically covertly forced into Canada via a backroom deal (I’m not making this up, look it up - in a book). I’m not surprised they want to undo the unequal treaty.

[@EvilParagon4]

Australian here. I one time made a whole future speculation of the world and what the world would be like in 2100. Mostly as a contrast to see my views in a full map context compared to all those outlandish predictions. Basically my conclusion was that Canada would become a Republic, though still parliamentary, and that Quebec would at this point be highly separatist but still part of Canada. I did not consider a continuation of autonomy being increased over time, but that does make sense to me as well. I also wrote down that I think as Britain begins to collapse, Canada could actually expand, taking in some areas from Britain that wouldn't be able to function as independent countries, such as Bermuda, and possibly the British Virgin Islands, if America doesn't purchase them of course.

[@AG-AG]

Could you summarize the whole timeline, what little you have written sounds verry interesting

[@EvilParagon4]

@@AG-AG I didn't actually write a timeline, I moreso just made a predictive map jumping right into the year. As a global trend, I feel with the rise of globalism and the increasing rates of atheism/secularism as well as bilingualism, particularly for English in Europe, French in Africa, etc., that there would be a trend towards unions, also factoring in that wars are now very impractical, meaning cooperation is far more profitable than conquest. Essentially more EU-like unions popping up all over the world. Perhaps India could dissolve into one, perhaps Southern Africa, Western Africa, Oceania, etc. I predict the EU itself would need some serious reforms to continue, but I do think it will survive. I think Britain will dissolve likely soon, given the whole Scottish Independence referendum and subsequent Brexit vote. I predict England won't see a good economic future due to many factors, Brexit, British dissolution, and perhaps even the Commonwealth losing significance when countries turn to republics, and may become more isolated before rebounding into European affairs. I also made this map early last year and I had Russia take the southern half of Ukraine, landlocking the country. Given Russia's recent lack of success in an actual war, I may rethink this now. I think Turkiye will possibly expand further in the Middle East as the Middle East liberalises and loses nationalism. I think China will win Taiwan back, I'm not too sure how I just think that's the direction the future will go. I think America will grow by 2-4 states, though I'm not sure where. I think one of them will be Puerto Rico. Part of my reasoning is just American nationalism fading and capitalist interest. As America declines, it will likely seek out grandiose "we do things" headlines from the government. Think Bahamas, Guam, Greenland, Northern Mexico(?), Splitting California, Jamaica, etc. I have a lot more stuff on the map, I just wanted to hit the big countries people usually care about. For instance on smaller countries, I think as climate change worsens, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu will likely sign an agreement with New Zealand that would grant their citizens the option for NZ citizenships. I think Brunei will remain independent when Malaysia and Singapore will possibly reunite, etc.

[@jrus690]

Australia and Canada should go fully independent. The USA is the not enemy anymore, they never were. Quebec has been in the institution since before there was a Canada on the map so talks of separation are moot. Why is the UK collapsing, is there something fundamentally wrong with them that they would collapse. All the foreign should be let go anyways, including the Falkland islands, Argentina is no longer the country it was in 1982.

[@EvilParagon4]

@@jrus690 Australia, Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth are already independent. We don't "share a monarch", what we share is a person who reigns as monarch. We are not ruled by the Queen of Britain for instance, we are ruled by the Queen of Australia. They are the same person, but Britain holds no power over us, we are fundamentally equal. I foresee the UK collapsing in part due to Scottish independence. I don't believe Britain will hold itself together through the next 78 years. I feel that Scottish independence won't go well for Scotland and will be a major moral/cultural blow to English identity. The value of the British Pound would fall with this independently of other currencies as a uniquely British issue. And from there it sort of becomes a feedback loop, Britain (England) gets worse because Britain (England) got worse. We could see a culmination of all this turmoil result in possibly even English consideration of Republicanism from a desperate enough population to reverse the wrongs in their country. We could see a sheepish entry back into the EU, now with less exceptions being made for them, like being forced into the Eurozone. We could see a newly independent England, no longer held back by Scotland (and presumably Northern Ireland) lean more into harder conservative policies and the UK just ends up looking more like the US. I don't know exactly how bad the UK's future is and what it exactly will look like, but I don't think the UK has much of a future, and the futures of England and Scotland will particularly be _not great._ And no, those foreign territories being held by Britain want to be held by Britain. One of them was even let go, so they declared war on Britain and refused all peace that didn't include their re-annexation (Anguilla). The Falklands and such should remain exactly where they are, under the flag they want.

[@mattd5240]

We shall conquer Britannia!

[@michaeltnk1135]

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with a WhatIfAltHist video

[@veraxiana9993]

same

[@tracks6984]

"The french establishment just kind of concluded that democracy was no longer the pony to bet on" No, France didn't just become Nazis after they surrendered. Northern France was pccupied by the Nazis and southern France became a puppet state. The new French establishment was forced to side with the Axis. Hitler deliberately made the French puppet state to fool people like you into thinking France joined the other side, which apparently worked.

[@JJMcCullough]

Hitler didn’t “make” the Vichy regime. The French parliament did.

[@tracks6984]

@@JJMcCullough While it was run by members of the French Parliament and its first leader was a former French general officer it was still a "puppet regime" of Nazi Germany from 1942-1944 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

[@JJMcCullough]

@@tracks6984 I don’t read Wikipedia.

[@tracks6984]

@@JJMcCullough oh... okay...

[@RichardAuletta]

Brilliant presentation, and essentially unbiased as well.

[@shinyagumon7015]

Interesting video, I like how you went into depth explaining the various factors behind the different scenarios instead of just debunking them. Personally I think that Canada is just going to be fine and don't change much for the coming decades.

[@georgelloydgonzalez]

Hopefully. The world needs Canada.

[@MinecraftMasterNo1]

The only constant in life is change.

[@k96man]

It's probably going to be a bit bumpy at the very least

[@MicahMicahel]

Trudeau funds over 1500 news and media organizations. Chomsky said last week our media is worse than the post stalinist soviet system. Why do you think Canada will be fine? We even had our military train CCP China for snow techniques of fighting in Canada. Why? Teach them how to beat Canadians? There is so much hatred in Canada now. My daughter couldn't play with kids at her last school because almost every parent blatantly said "I hate white people" What do you like about trajectory we're on? We have a radical government telling people normal people are radicals. We have mandates and people can't get into canada, their home. What is it you like or prefer about Canada. Trudeau seems to have ruined it.

[@Coltoid]

I would say I often feel more a citizen of my city, more civic engaged, than my province or country. Large cities are engrossing.

[@LordBitememan]

JJ a couple weeks ago "I've been too serious lately. Here's a video on ice cream flavors." JJ today "Okay, that's enough of that, let's talk about Canada ending. . ."

[@levth01sct]

This is an excellent video. All fact-focused, no bias. He is good in his delivery of the subject matter but can go around in circles sometimes. He needs to be more straight to the point, but I can understand that this is not easy with the highly complex subject matter that he is discussing.

[@aglenrios]

I consider it highly unlikely that Canada would cease to exist though if it did I favor the idea of Canada joining the United States, the various provinces becoming states. For one, I think that in the US, states have more autonomy (less than I would like) than the provinces in Canada. This would allow them to continue to lean further left than most US states, and set up their own health care systems (and there is nothing stopping them from cooperating with any or all other Canadian provinces in doing so). It would be the easiest way for the provinces to remain as Canadian as possible.

[@pblaze100]

I think the biggest hindrance to Canadian Statehood would be that the GOP wouldn't want us. It would upset their structural advantage in the Senate and Electoral college and would probably also hurt their chances in the House.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@pblaze100… the GOP would be at a disadvantage if American statehood was granted to Quebec and Ontario. Don’t Ontario and Quebec have their own symbiotic relationship with each other? The GOP would benefit from the prairie provinces becoming states. The Maritimes are low population so even if democrats were their majority they’d be offset by the prairies. BC is so weird I can see it as an independent city state … staying independent

[@Hand-in-Shot_Productions]

I am an American interested in Canada, and I found it quite informative! I haven't heard too much about the indigenous nationalists, nor did I know of the connection between oil and Albertan "separatism" (which, as you said and as I learned at 9:43, might not even be "separatism"). Thanks for the video!

[@davidheipel2934]

Lol The indigenous getting involved with the soul sucking united nations. Promises promises

[@pwmiles56]

"A big reason Canadians are averse to joining America now is that the US is a dysfunctional mess. But if the US was in a golden age it would make sense for the prairie provinces to join" -- Whatifalthist It's beyond parody or ridicule. Clever kid

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

I mean, I don't really see the Western democracies entering a 'golden age' any time soon. Modern technologies are increasinly tilting the advantage towards authoritarian capitalism, and the federal structure of the US makes that approach unlikely to work there without a completely new constitution.

[@Daniela_Explored]

So glad to find you in my feed again! Even though I am binging on some of your 2 year old videos:)

[@nataliorivas487]

Great video JJ, congrats! There is one aspect you touched on but rather tangentially but which I think could have a large impact in your scenario 3. Both the US and Canada are becoming much more diverse thanks to immigration and some of the traditional assumptions and taboos about what makes Canada so different from the USA may not seem very convincing to newer generations of both Canadians and Americans. I know it is much more nuanced than this but I think both Canada and the USA seem very much alike to someone from, say, Bolivia. SO when a large percentage of the population or even a majority do not perceive a sharp distinction between Canada and the USA then statehood may seem like the reasonable thing to do

[@JJMcCullough]

It’s a fair point, though I think it’s also true that a lot of immigrants to Canada tend to be pretty anti American, and that’s why they chose Canada, and not the more popular US.

[@jimhoward6584]

@@JJMcCullough The immigrants to Canada that I have spoken with---agreeing that is a limited amount perhaps a few hundred----most stated 2 facts in choosing Canada over the US. Government paid for health care in Canada and a more lengthy and difficult immigration process to immigrate to US.

[@steveballmersbaldspot2.095]

@@JJMcCullough Not necessarily, as a first generation Canadian myself the main reason my folks chose to come here was the ease of obtaining immigration.

[@coleburnett9101]

something that I should be considered for the statehood scenario is how economic prosperity has always lead to american expansion in the past and current demographic trends indicate america is likely to see another major period of economic prosperity. (assuming nothing goes to wrong) at the same time canada's aging population will see less economic grown and maybe even economic decline. the arctic is becoming more important to america as well and more direct control over canada and its resources could become important to us national security.

[@thomastakesatollforthedark2231]

Yes but previous American expansion was militarily or by buying territories which weren't very important to their owners. Canada probably cares about being Canada

[@RickJaeger]

Annexing some of the Maritimes makes the most sense, followed by the prairies and BC. Trouble is, except for some of the islands, it's hard to pull one province out as a new state without pulling all of them. It's just be weird to take Alberta and none else. It would mess with the remaining Canada's internal transportation network. Greenland would be a great first purchase and it makes excellent sense for us. It's a real piss that Denmark shot it down for no damn reason.

[@thomastakesatollforthedark2231]

@@RickJaeger they shot it down because Greenland is their territory

[@RickJaeger]

@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 who cares

[@StephanieJeanne]

At this point, I agree with you that there's always a wild card that can take a country in just about any direction. The idea of a USA-Canada merger doesn't seem all that crazy to me. Maybe one day. 🤔 Great video, JJ.✌️

[@uoislame]

I don't know if statehood would be the the most likely. I would think a North America Union with Canada, USA, and Mexico to compete with the EU and BRICS before anything else.

[@tigernotwoods914]

To me that’s the craziest one of all. Part of Canada itself and Canadian identity is how American they’re not. I don’t see any scenario where they’d want to merge with the states. The closest might be some sort of free movement agreement like the EU where Canadians and Americans can travel freely and work and live in each other’s countries but I don’t see a full merger.

[@davidwood1100]

The Red States are going to break away and the Blue States will just join Canada

[@davidwood1100]

@@classic.cameras What are you talking about Avs just won, that's almost a Canadian team

[@compatriot852]

It's been an idea since the American revolutionary war. Honestly, the only thing separating the two is that the Canadian government keeps spreading propaganda that they're special because of some of the most petty reasons

[@scobo4743]

Great content! I'm really impressed you do it all on a pogo stick.