Quebec will have its own army, Duceppe says

[Newsjock]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051018.wquebmil1018/BNStory/National

By JIM BRONSKILL
Canadian Press

Ottawa -- An independent Quebec would have its own military forces and spy service, says Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, taking a firm stand on a traditionally wrenching issue for separatists.

... “If you develop a foreign policy the way we see it, then we'll have an army that will intervene mainly to secure democracy in some countries, participating in international forces, going when there's a natural catastrophe, either inside Quebec or outside Quebec,” Mr. Duceppe said.

“And sometimes you have to go to war.”

... Mr. Duceppe said while an independent Quebec would co-operate on security issues with the rest of Canada, the United States and Mexico, he stressed the importance of forging alliances with European partners.

He cited a need to examine the roots of terrorist activity and warned that if people surrender liberty in favour of undue security measures to thwart terrorists, “you're playing their game.”

more

[KamaAina]

1. Maybe they could liberate New England

and if they have a navy as well, maybe even Louisiana!

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. I for one welcome our new Francophone overlords. n/t

[mainegreen]

3. No! It'll be Poutine day in day out. Just say no!

[tk2kewl]

4. Mmmmmm.... I like Poutine

:P

[yasmina27]

59. Moi aussi!

J'adore la poutine!

[rainman99]

5. OOOH, my husband's from Quebec. He loved that picture!

[PatGund]

30. Ooohh

Oooh, yum, Poutine.... (Some Canadian friends addicted me to the stuff.)

[JVS]

41. Oh yeah!

[Coastie for Truth]

43. I had it on "The 401" once.

Pure cholesterol. You have to go on iv lipitor after a poutine serving.

[Tesha]

31. Bien sur! (ST)

[Ruffhowse]

6. I'm afraid an independent Quebec would be quite poor, really not

a good plan for their citizens.

[CHIMO]

7. What

Makes you think that the geography of North America would remain the same?

Do you think that the break up of the largest part of the continent would not affect the nature of what is the southern part of the continent?

[tocqueville]

8. the solution is to join back France and the EU

Quebec could ask to be a French autonomous province. Being formally French they could have access to French military assets and stay a member of NATO, plus plenty of subsidies for agriculture. European investments would be huge.

I bet a lot of freepers would automatically explode too...

[CHIMO]

9. Sorta

Old history.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-74-1265-7658/people/lester_b_pearson/clip7

After the event in Canada by De Gaulle, France figured out that it would have more influence in North America with Quebec in Canada than out of Canada.

However, after the observations of what has happened in Haiti and Lebanon, it must become apparent to any casual observer that the situation has changed.

One would suspect that the thread between everything is/are corporations and not who is in power.

The corporations standing idea is divide and conquer

[struggle4progress]

18. A few years back, certain corporatists were loudly pushing ..

.. disintegration of the United States. They've been quiet for a few years: I'm guessing Rove told them not to do anything that might call attention to Grover drowning the United States in a bathtub.

[CHIMO]

19. Just Stand

Back and look at the situation.

Is any political party against the "Empire". Or is it something that is understood and it is only the "how".

[tocqueville]

20. I don't understand what Haiti and Lebanon have to do with Quebec

It can be understandable that 250 years "independence" leave traces. But there are several examples in the French influence sphere where former colonial possessions have chosen to stay French because they understood it was a major asset. Besides the old days of "Paris decides everything" are over. Even government form can be very local :
Wallis and Futuna are a kingdom inside the republic.

Quebec is though completely different, because the majority of the dwellers are of French ancestry and not black or polynesian. France is today anyway facing a major illegal immigration from the former colonies...

I meant that if Quebec wants an independence, it can solve a lot of problems by formally becoming French again, besides having a special autonomous statute, taking the best of both worlds.

[CHIMO]

22. Haiti and Lebanon

Were both countries where France had influence. If you look for information, then Both countries fell to US pressure.
One must assume that beyond the headlines that there is an understanding that there will be co-operation.

With Britain up front in standing beside Bush what do you think France is going to do?

If you think that a Quebec surrounded by a US of North America would have a chance then I think that you have to go back to a history class. Take a look at a map. If Quebec separates and trade is North/South then what do you think would be the political boundaries.

[tocqueville]

25. I know about France's influence in Haiti and Lebanon

but the background is completely different from Quebec. Lebanon was a certain time a protectorate (included in todays whole Syria) then a completely independent country. Haiti was the first slave colony to be freed and never managed to become independent. Those countries were part of a lost colonial Empire, just as the British had. France's influence is still big but those countries have their own future.. depending of their neighbours.

I just stated that Quebec HAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BACKGROUND. Besides it's a today a democratic, rich, populated part of Canada. It can be compared to any western nation, not to the nations you name.

There are no plans in France to "take back" Quebec. I just stated that if for some reasons Quebec by OWN MEANS separated from Canada, a smart move would be to join back the "mother house".

EU trade balance with US/Canada is positive for the EU. We sell more stuff than we buy from both countries. Trade is global, not regional. If Quebec joined back France it could solve some issues type military, alliances etc... Trade wouldn't change, besides that the EU investment would increase due to different legislations.

I know how the map looks like. Besides Quebec has boundaries to French Territory (St Pierre and Miquelon) and Denmark, another EU member.

I don't think that the local leaders in Quebec are able to do something, because they don't have what it takes, that is to say a leader of international class. But the case isn't closed for that.
It depends more of the economical situation in the US. And regarding that part the future doesn't look that bright today. That's why countries like Canada, inclusive Quebec, Mexico might look for other partners. There are already plenty of signs going that way.

[CHIMO]

26. I Think

That you are missing something. As I am too.

France apparently decided that it would have more influence in North America if Quebec remained in Canada, as it would have a nation that was speaking with the voice of France.

However, the recent actions in Haiti and Lebanon, seems to indicate that some sort of axis exists between the US and France.

It is not a question of whether Quebec could survive, but rather a question of whether a US of North America would permit Quebec to survive.

Once Quebec should separate there is no identity to Canada other than a mirror of the US. Thus there is no more Canada, beside the impossible geography. So, if my analysis is correct, it is not about whether Quebec has this or that, but whether Canada wishes to remain a separate entity, or move towards nature establishing the borders eventually, which now are North/South.

[tocqueville]

27. you name interesting aspects

there is indeed an "axis" between France and the US regarding common interests. That's where cooperation comes in regarding countries like Lebanon and Haiti. France's interests is to remain a key international player and the US is to use France's influence on the ground.

The Iraq episode isn't that significant in the long run. Besides the cases you name there is a deep military cooperation which is not made public for reasons having to do with the local opinions. The US doesn't want to show that they are using help (go it alone mentality) and France doesn't want to show too much "pro americanism" in order to show off an "independent" position.

If you go into the details of the operation Enduring Freedom and the crucial use done by the US of French assets besides the even more crucial anti-terrorism structure (google Alliance Base), the cooperation in Africa, you'll see that there is more than an axis. France is often involved in US covert operations in Afghanistan, Yemen (Djibouti), Syria/Lebanon. French cruise missiles were tested with success in Iraq during "shock and awe" under the British label "storm shadow". The French Navy and Air Force exchanges pilots and officers all the time and the shuttle has an emergency landing strip in the south of France.

I don't know about the "permitting to survive". It would be very difficult politically to strangle a newly independent (or reunited) country. As you say the worse problem might be for the rest of Canada.

[CHIMO]

28. There

Is no more ROC without Quebec. I think that is what everyone is missing. Including Quebec.

[happyslug]

49. And if Quebec Fails as an Independent Country what will it do?

Will it exercise its "Rights" under the "Article of Confederation" of 1781 and join the US? In 1781 Canada meant what we now call Quebec:

"Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States."

Remember the US raised Three Regiments out of Quebec during the Revolution (One surviving till 1781, 5 years after the US forces had been driven out of Canada, so recruits continued to join even AFTER the US forces had left Quebec). The traditional Rule as to the Articles of Confederation is that they are still valid unless replaced by terms in the US Constitution adopted in 1787. Given that nothing addressed this "exception" to Quebec joining the union it is still a valid option of Quebec. The opposing argument would be that Quebec was NOT addressed in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted and thus Article XI of the Articles of Confederation are no longer valid for a deferent set of rules were adopted when it came to States joining the Union. This can be supported by the fact that Congress gave the Right to "Canada" not Nova Scotia (which had sent delegates to the First Continental Congress in 1774). Thus Article XI was added for military purposes (i.e. to address the desires of the Quebec troops in the US Army) NOT as an actual offer of annexation.

This debate is academic now, but like a lot of such debates will depend on the political situation in the US and Quebec whenever Quebec gets its independence and if its fails as an Independent State. For example the US may want to take Quebec to force the rest of Canada to also join. Such an Annexation will be opposed by the American South for its weakens the South's Control of Congress (The US North of the Mason-Dixon Line is much more like Canada in outlook than the US North is like the US South of the Mason-Dixon Line, thus the South would oppose adding all those "Liberals" to Congress). Thus is might be better for the US to recognize this "Right" thus bypassing Congress as to Quebec and once Quebec is in that will force Congress to address the rest of Canada.

On the other hand, if Quebec is a basket case and in need of financial support from Washington, I can see Washington saying the "Exception" was repealed when the Constitution was Adopted, thus denying Quebec entrance. Notice in both of these scenarios the issue is NOT the actual law but the Political situation when and if Quebec decides to exercise this "Option".

Thus if Quebec Leaves and Canada breaks up, what will happen? Personally I see the four Western provinces also leaving and than being annexed into the US. This may lead to some re-drawing of US state borders. An example of this is based on the fact that the Red River of Minnesota is a Tributary of the Mississippi. That Red River (there are others) flows THROUGH Canada and then back into the US. To better address the problems of the Red River that part of Canada may just be added to the State which it shares the Red river with. British Columbia may merge with the State of Washington (With Washington giving up its name, causes to much confusion with Washington DC) so that the Puget Sound is under one state Government). Other parts of the Canadian West would be join to the state they share rivers with, for example the Columbia River System and tributaries to the Missouri Rivers. I do NOT see the Canadian West coming in as one state let alone four, but I do see border adjustments to reflect the natural flows of the River and other Geological factors (Including the location of the Canadian Pacific Railroad).

Now Ontario will oppose losing the Western Provinces but the Western Provinces are not viable as an Independent country and Ontario is to small without Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces to stop the switch. The Atlantic Provinces (Excluding New Foundland) are all small and more like Rural New England than the rest of Canada (I know there is NOT much left of Rural New England given the Growth of Boston, Manchester and Hartford but it does survive in spots for Example upper New Hamphise and Maine). Now the Atlantic Provinces may survive as an Independent Country but the need for support from a larger Government will eventually force them into some sort of arrangement with the US. The arrangement might be either full annexation or something like what the US did with the old Pacific Trust territories, Independent for domestic purposes but Military and Foreign policy controlled by the US (With some domestic US Federal law applying to the Area but not all laws). A further option might be more like the Situation with Puerto Rico and its "Commonwealth" Status. Puerto Rico elects its own Governor and Legislature but is NOT a State. Whatever is adopted will reflect the Political situation at that time.

New Foundland is a little bit larger than the rest of the Atlantic Provinces but I see it adopting the same policy as the Rest of the Atlantic Provinces what ever that might be.

Once Quebec, the Western Provinces and the Atlantic Provinces are gone, Ontario is just not large enough to be independent, given its common language with the rest of North American (English) and easy trade with the rest of the US. I see it coming in as a Full fletch state and this will force Quebec to either do the same or adopt a "Special" Relationship along the lines Liechtenstein with Switzerland or the Vatican State with Italy. i.e. Independent but free trade, free movement but dependent on the US for its continued independence.


For the complete text of the US Articled of Confederation:
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

[CHIMO]

50. Your End

Result is somewhat along how I see it. If we leave aside the 1700 documents, which I would have to study quite a bit to have an opinion.

While everyone is busy looking at Quebec separating the north/south lines continue to grow. To get some idea, one only has to look at NAFTA and the recent reluctance of any Canadian political party to state that the contract is dead. Instead we have the corporations saying that we should just keep on going and go to NAFTA plus.

The way I see it is someday Quebec is going to wake up and realize that in order to maintain its identity it has to separate from what is becoming North America corp.

I would see the North American map being redrawn based on geographical features such as the Rockies and the Mississippi. I think the aspirations and outlook of the people would draw them together. In addition with the new arrangements I would see the break up of what is now the US into essentially at least three new countries.

So if Quebec feels that it doesn't have what it needs now, it should realize what is happening in the world around them and what it is likely to have in the future.

[happyslug]

53. The biggest drawback to the Breakup of the US is the Mississippi

The Mississippi Drainage area is one of the largest in the world and the largest in the US. It not only includes the Mississippi itself, but the Missouri, the Ohio, the Cumberland, the Red River of Arkansas. 2/3 of the present US is in that Drainage system.

The problem is that there are NO good lines of Division within that system (Which is typical of RIver Systems). Thus Rivers tend to unite people and sooner or later the need to keep the System working means a tendency for one government rule. An examples of this is the Nile in Egypt, the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers in China, The Amazon in Brazil, the Vistula in Poland, the Don and Volga in Russia. The only major exceptions to these rules tend to support the rule also, the Danube and the Rhine. In Roman Days thee were both under Complete Roman Rule. Under the Medieval Holy Roman Empire both were under the Emperor's Control. When the Empire broke up, the Hapsburg and Austria grabbed the Danube (In many ways the Cause of WWI was Austria protecting its flack on the Danube). Thus while the Danube is NOT under one country rule now, it has in the past and the tendency is for it be be under one ruler (Generally centered in Hungary).

The Rhine is similar. With the Break up of Charlemagne's Empire the Rhine wanted to be independent of both Germany and France. During the Middle ages it became part of Germany. With the Break up of the Holy Roman Empire France forced itself to the Rhine, but that border has NEVER liked the split, leading to the annexation of Aslae-Lorraine by Germany after 1870 (Through reversed in 1918). The Netherlands is a Delta and was part of Germany during the Middle Ages, it is now independent but has minimal control over how upstream users use the Rhine. The main reason for Dutch Independence is that it is located at the end of the Rhine, France is not to far away and England can be viewed as closer given its location across the Channel. Since the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire, England, France and Germany have viewed any of the other three controlling the Netherlands as a threat, thus Dutch Independence is preferred over any other situation int he Rhine Delta.

Other than the Delta the the Rhine, while the Border between France and Germany, is viewed as a German river and it is Germany that decides how it is used. The same with the Danube, while it goes through various Countries it is most important to Hungary who will always force the issue of its use (And is the foundation of the Traditional alliance between Hungary and Germany, both of which have great concerns about the Danube.

In the Mississippi River System, you the dominant ethic group is White Americans (with Black Americans as a sub-group). While the Cajuns control lower Louisiana, they control is much like the Dutch and the Rhine, it is the end of the River and a choke point but does not control the River. Whoever controls that River controls 2/3 of what is now the US.

The other major water network is the St Lawrence/Great Lakes system. While almost as long as the Mississippi, do to the last Ice Age its drainage system rarely extends more than 20 miles south of the system (Most of the water in the Great Lakes is from Canada not the US, the major exception is the state of Michigan). Thus as long as the Mississippi it drain from a smaller area (and a less agricultural rich area i.e. Ontario and Quebec as compared to Ohio to Dakota and south of the Mississippi. Even here the tendency is for both systems to be under one rule, for Example the French from 1608 (and the Finding of Quebec) and 1758 (Fall of Quebec to the British). The British from 1758 till 1779 when James Rogers Clark took what is now the Ohio River Basin from the British and again from 1860s when the British basically told the Americans that if the US wanted Canada they would not defend it (Accumulating in the Founding of the Federation of Canada in 1867).

The problem has been these two River System (The Mississippi and the St Lawrence) act together to form one Government for the Area from New Orleans to Quebec (and center on St Louis and Chicago). They are NO good borders between these water systems (Navigable Rivers are LOUSY Borders for Rivers bring people together not keep them apart). Once you see the above system is one that sooner or later will force everyone in that area to act as one, then you have an important center that will expand beyond these two drainage systems, for example the following:
American East Coast,
California, the Columbia River System and Oregon,
The Rio Grand Valley,
the Colorado River Valley and
the Puget Sound area of Washington State, Vancouver and British Columbia.

Can the US break up? Yes, the above are six areas that can survive independent of the Mississippi (Along with the Mexico Valley itself). Smaller "Countries" could form but would be minor (For example an Independent Atlantic Provence) but sooner or later all of the above state and min-states will have to address whatever government Controls the Mississippi River System and that will force some sort of union to be reformed around the Mississippi River System.

[andyarundel]

67. wow Pol Sci none oh one

Interesting, but flawed to the core. Where to start? not really important, but Canada is a Sovereign country and I doubt the Federal government of Canada would sit by while different parts separated, on the other hand it would be much faster to drive to the Atlantic Provinces if Quebec separated as they would be much closer. I suspect a link would be built from Ottawa to Newfoundland across what is now the Ottawa river after Quebec leaves.

[happyslug]

69. Remember the key was if Quebec Left the Federation.

That was the basic assumption. My point was once Quebec leaves Canada, the rest of Canada will break up and the pieces will be picked up by the US. Now if the Federal Canadian Government prevents Quebec from leaving the situation will stay as it is. There is no advantage to the US to take over Canada (and has not been since Modern Canada was formed in 1867, and less so since Canada adopted the Dollar in 1905, which till the 1970s was one to one with the US Dollar).

My analysis is thus based on Quebec Breaking with the rest of Canada, but while Canada is "Sovereign Nation", Canada's creation is a reflection of Military realities that have NOT existed since the end of the US Civil War and its Sovereignty is based on history in violation of geography.

People tend to forget that While Quebec was taken by the British in 1758, Nova Scotia had been British since 1718. When the British Abandoned Boston in the Spring of 1776 to Halifax the British army did NOT do it expecting a heartily welcome, but that Halifax being an Island, the British Fleet could be used to prevent the Rest of New England marching from Boston to Halifax. The same British Fleet had prevented Nova Scotia from sending delegates to the Second Continental Congress held in 1775 (Nova Scotia had sent delegates to the First Continental Congress in 1774).

The US had tried to take Quebec in 1775 but failed to take Quebec (But did take Montreal). The British then Drove the American Forces back across the Border and held onto Quebec (Quebec had had the largest number of British Troops in North America prior to the Occupation of Boston in 1774). After the American Revolution, New Englanders started to Move west along the Mohawk Valley of New York than to both sides of the Great Lakes depending on where they could obtain farm land, thus both sides of the Great Lakes tended to be settled by New Englanders who had fought on the American Side of the Revolution. Now the Leadership of Ontario tended to be from the American South and Mid-Atlantic States (New England even by British Estimates was more than 90% for the Revolution unlike the Middle States where it was estimated up to 1/3 of the people opposed the Revolution and the Southern States where up to 1/2 opposed the revolution). This split between the common farmer of Ontario and the leadership of Ontario lead to some interesting things between 1812 and 1865 but that is getting off the topic.

Thus Ontario and the American Mid-West along the Great lakes come from a shared stock (From 1774 till the 1830s you had very little immigration to the New World from Europe do to the American Revolution, than the French Revolution and than the Napoleonic Wars, the next large group of immigrants from Europe was from Ireland in the 1830s and than from Germany after 1848).

I go into the above to show how people moved, and that the easiest way to get from Boston to Chicago was via Albany, Buffalo, Toronto Windsor, Detroit and Gary. i.e. via Canada. From Ontario the best way to the Atlantic was either the St Lawrence or the Mohawk Valley.

If you go to the Canadian West, it is easier for people in those areas to go to New Orleans than it is Toronto (New Orleans is just down stream). For the Atlantic Provinces the nearest major city is Boston. For New Found-land Boston might just be easier to get to than Quebec or Montreal. While British Columbia and Vancouver have nice size cities, Seattle is the nearest Large City.

Thus all of Canada (With the possible exception of Quebec) are pulled to the US more than to each other. That is simple Geography and fact often overlook but a major factor in determining if a Sovereign nation will survive. In many ways Canada is much like an more independent Puerto Rico, it elects its own Government, its own laws, even its own military and foreign Policy, but Canada will NEVER oppose the US in any fundamental dispute (Canada will dispute with the US on minor Issues but nothing the will lead to the US taking or even thinking of taking military action against Canada, Canada might keep US Draft Dodgers but not even British Troops if the US says no). This is what Differs Canada from Mexico, Mexico has to deal with the US as does Canada but Mexico has geography in the Form of the Mexico Valley as a base for Mexico as a Country. To a limited Degree Quebec provides such a base but it is French not English Speaking, but the draw of the east Coast and the Mississippi River is to much for the rest of Canada.

In fact without Quebec the draws to the US more than overcomes the advantages of staying in the same country as the St Lawrence. If Quebec does not know this a simple review of the Geography of Canada clearly shows the effect on the lost of Quebec has the rest of Canada.

National Sovereignty has NEVER prevented the break up of a Country when its parts wants to join other countries (The Break up of the Austria-Hungary Empire in 1919 and the more recent breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are three more recent examples). In the Case of Austria, the Slavs left and join Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Croatia State of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia broke up, Croatia and Slovenia basically wanted closer ties with Austria and Germany. When the Soviet union Broke up the Baltic States wanted to be closer to Western Europe and the Ukraine wanted to be closer to Central Europe (and the Central Asiatic states wanted to be closer to Turkey, Iran and the rest of the Moslem world). FORCE AND SOVEREIGNTY COULD NOT KEEP THEM TOGETHER. World Trend and their own Geography lead to the break up and a switch in orientation. Canada (and to a more limited effect the US) is not different. Once the value of staying within Canada is less than joining the US, any of the Canadian provinces will join the US (and that includes Quebec), but the key is Quebec. With Quebec, Ontario can keep the rest of Canada united. Without Quebec, Ontario can NOT keep the rest of Canada from being drawn to the US.

Comment on the US. As I said in my previous Thread the US can break up just like Canada can, but the centrifuge for North America is the Mississippi. Sooner or later someone will take charge of the Mississippi river Drainage System and once that area is united the rest of North America will have to make accommodations to the demands of the Mississippi Drainage area. 500 years from now, Canada probably will not still exist, the US may be a distant memory, but some country will be based on the Mississippi River System and from there that Country will move to control the other areas of North America. It may reach as far as California and Oregon or it may not. It may include the Colorado and Rio Grande River Systems, or it may not. It may control Florida or it may not. It may control the American East Coast or in may not. It may control the St Lawrence in addition to the Mississippi or it may not but unlike the other areas mention, Quebec will either be a power fighting the Mississippi Super Power or like the Dutch a weak country controlling an exit point. This is the Curse of Geography.

The US has two weak points Quebec and New Orleans. Both blocks exports and imports from the Mississippi/Great Lakes Drainage System. Anyone who blocks one or the other faces war with the Citizens of the Mississippi Great lakes Drainage System. Canada has NOT blocked the St Lawrence since before the Civil War (and has not effectively be able to blocked it since the Erie Canal opened in 1828). Except for the first year of the American Civil War, New Orleans has not been threaten since the British defeat by General Jackson in 1815. Thus while the US can break up, something will replace it sooner or later. Just like Germany replaced the Holy Roman Empire 60 years later with the Prussia Dominated German Empire. If the US should ever break up something will replace it do to the Mississippi River System (Unlike Canada which once gone will disappear forever, parts of it may appear in any future breakdown in North America, but never as a Coast to Coast Country).

Aside: The above assumes Global Warming will not occur, or if it does occur it will NOT be benign. A benign increase in temperatures would make more of Canada open for farming and thus habitation, but that is NOT in the Global Warming Predictions I have read which suggest some move north of the Growing season but not enough to make Canada the agricultural or population equal of the US.

[andyarundel]

71. Taken by the British...actually it was the Scots

As both Generals who signed the surrender of Quebec were Scots. I f one were to look extensively one may find that the French were much more interested in having the British garrison New France as they needed their troops elsewhere. Most discussion about Quebec leaving Canada are moot as the leader of the Bloc and the current leadership campaign for the leadership of the PQ, opens a rare moment for Ducette to get his name in the media. Basically Canada is composed of French and English Americans, with Quebec being the most socialist of the Provinces would make any political attachment to the United States impossible.

Your focus on trade routes says much as there are many who claim the downfall of Quebec’s economic power was the result of the quiet revolution, when in reality it was routed in the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway and thus Montreal lost much of power as a port as the seaway opened up the Great Lakes basin to ocean going vessels. The political leaders of Quebec have massaged their electorate to provide them with the power to wrestle great concessions form the Federal government over the last quarter century.

[Zuni]

60. Haiti and Lebanon still have very strong French political influences

[CHIMO]

61. Agree

Which is why I suspect there has been a strong influence from France in the recent happenings in both countries.

[Coastie for Truth]

45. Interesting. Could France assist in rebuilding New Orleans?

When we lived in New Orleans we used to read our Times-Picayune at Cafe Dumond while drinking chicory coffee and eating hot French Market stuff.

Question - is Chicory Coffee a Quebecois thing? Or a Louisiana thing?

[Orrin_73]

35. Quebec is like

the french speaking part of Belgium poor compared to the other part of the country, whether its Canada or Belgium. The Flemish speaking part of Belgium is more developed. I wonder whether Quebec can stand on his own.

[Coastie for Truth]

47. My take - when I used to go to Montreal on business

Montreal, the St. Lawrence Valley (I used to go to Beauharnois), and WestMont generally, all seemed pretty prosperous.

I know - Waterloo University and Software are in Ontario - but Mcgill Univ is in Montreal.

[JVS]

40. Obviously it is better to toil under their anglophone masters?

NEVER! Maybe if Ontario would remove its foot from Quebec's throat things would improve,

[AspenRose]

70. You sound like a friend of mine in Ottawa

He's the one who introduced me to this concept:

"Inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Pierre Vallières presented the situation of the Québecois in a tract entitled Les Nègres blancs de l'Amérique (1968), translated as White N*ggers of North America (1971)."

(I found the above info here:
http://www.nthposition.com/queacutebechappens.php )

[BadGimp]

10. If they seceed, can they take Texas?

..just askin

[Amonester]

11. Won't happen (of course: I HOPE so...), unless...

the other provinces and territories decide they had enough, and simply "kick us out" of the (CON)Federation.

Pas. Toutes. Mangeable. Les. Poutines. :hi:

[Botany]

12. A sure fire idea for failure .

a free Quebec .....

1. Go to anyplace in Canada say the Yukon ..... 4,000 miles from
Quebec and their signs are bilingual but all signs in Quebec are
French only.

2. Values, heritage, and pride of one's self should be taught in one's home
or church .... not by the Govt.

3. Over 300,000 Canadians died to help liberate France and Europe ....
DeGall (Sp) thanks Canada by going to Quebec and stirring up shit

4. Canada will never allow it's self to not be contiguous from the A. to P.
oceans. Quebec would have to allow a shaft along the the St. L. River to
be part of Canada.

5. 11 years ago i was in Quebec .... in bad French I said "I don't speak French,
do you speak English?" the women said yes and then was a pain in the ass....
a little French Canadian said something in French .... I picked up "bitch & Shit"
from his words. Later on he came to our camp and said that his family
had been guiding and friends w/ Americans for years .... and that his people
were being filled w/ shit by people who said all the problems of the locals
would go away if they became a free country. He then took me to a spot
between 2 lakes and a little creek where i caught more fish than I could
believe.

6. Quebec has relied upon extractive industries for years and they are
boom or bust .... timber & mining ..... becoming a "free country" will
not change the problem underlying their economy.

By the way I love Canada .... and i hate the idea of it splitting about
a battle that the French lost 250 years ago.
How about letting the old south out of the U.S.?

[CHIMO]

14. Would You Please

Provide a reference for your statement "all signs in Quebec are
French only."

Thanks

[Art_from_Ark]

21. The "Sign Law" is common knowledge in Canada

but here is something for your reference:

http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/language/quebec.html#flames

Go to "Sign Law Ruling" (about 2/3 of the way down)

[CHIMO]

23. As A Canadian

And a former Quebecer I am aware of that ruling. (I think that your slip is showing)

You are trying to tell me that highway signs are the same as advertising signs, for a store.

Get your facts straight before you start wanting everyone to "speak white".

[Art_from_Ark]

32. What the hell kind of response is that?

You wanted a reference to the sign law, you got one, then you accuse me of "wanting everyone to speak white"

What the hell...????

Sacre bleu! Qui a pisse dans votre poutine ce matin?

[bee]

37. All signs in Quebec are not "french only" that info is incorrect.

Ive been there many many many times and thats just not true. The "sign law" that people are referring to "requires French to be predominant on commercial signs". Not french only. And in my experiences, no one has ever given me an attitude about speaking english. I love Quebec... and should they think about adopting NH.. Im all for it.

[HEyHEY]

51. Uh, how about bill 101?

Saying all signs must have french displayed larger than english

[CHIMO]

54. It

Does not prevent other languages. It states that the most prominent language must be French.

[HEyHEY]

55. It's still bullshit - stop signs and stuff are french only

As they are english only in English Canada

[CHIMO]

56. That

Is a government sign. So it is in the language of the people.

The idea of "language police" does get one to laughter but that is the way it is. But one doesn't have to be able to read to recognize the symbol for a stop sign.

[HEyHEY]

57. Hey in NB they have em in both languages!

I personally think in BC they should be in chinese and english. Of course in some areas of Vancouver street signs are in punjab and chinese.
But I still don't know what this guy means about signs in french and english

[andyarundel]

65. Outdoor Signs

Are in French in Quebec, unless they are in a municipality that has a greater than 50% English population, or on Federal property such as airports, military bases, docks, some bridges office buildings, post offices or roadways controlled by the Federal Government. Inddor signs are allowed in other languages than French but must be 50% samller then the French text. This is due to a Supreme Court ruling and the enactment of bill 178 which is a strnage thing called the nonwithstanding clause which allows for a period of 5 years for a Provincial Gov to disregard Court rulings.

[CHIMO]

66. Are

You talking about advertising or signs that are on public property?

My understanding was that advertising signs had to have French as the predominant language.

[Amonester]

15. Sorry for the bad experiences you had from a few bad apples

around here.

And by bad apples, I do mean "mauvaises pommes" because those types of individuals can be "found" -- if you happen to be "out of luck" for some reason -- anywhere on this planet, and not just in Quebec.

Personally: I don't know any of the likes of 'em, and I live there (ici).

Je pense que je suis chanceux. ;)
I think I'm lucky.

[Orrin_73]

38. You take the words straight out of my mouth.

[oregonindy]

13. great just what the world needs another standing army

[Amonester]

17. It's not an "aggressive" army. In fact, I am sure it wouldn't stand

for very long in case a real aggressive army "invades" us...

Perhaps, a few minutes... (Need to find the white flags: if any!)

[Brooklyn Michael]

48. Don't get me wrong....

I LOVE Quebec (and I miss le Carnaval d'Hiver)....heck, I love Canada too...

But a "Quebec National Army" has to rank somewhere up there with "Jamaican Bobsled Team".

[oblivious]

16. What an ass: "Intervene mainly to secure democracy in some countries"

Like Canada did in Haiti. And I wonder what he means besides 'mainly'.

[daleo]

24. He is implying that an independent Quebec would go along with the U.S.

At least as much as Canada currently does, maybe more. That's how I read it between the lines.

[HEyHEY]

58. It's all BS

[brentspeak]

29. This Duceppe is a total blowhard and demagogue

And it would be the dumbest move in Canadian history for Quebec to secede from the rest of Canada. The separatists are just a bunch of prissy, snobby, self-proclaimed "Frenchmen" (their ancestors are French, but they themselves are Canadian, whether they admit to it or not). The separatists have been making phony complaints for decades about being "oppressed" by the rest of Canada.

[HEyHEY]

52. They hate France as much as Canada and call themselves Quebecois

Most are not prissy, they are the french equilavent of rednecks.

[Orrin_73]

72. I read somewhere that french nationalists in france

are funding these nutcases in quebec to order to secede.

[TygrBright]

33. I suspect...

...that large numbers of Canadians in the other states would be simply THRILLED to throw a big "going away" bash for Quebec, with plenty of Labatt's.

I bet they'd even manage to restrain themselves from saying "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, eh!"

There's plenty of insular neanderthals there, too, and plenty of shit-stirrers who love to foment conflict just for the fun of it.

Hopefully cooler adult heads will prevail on all fronts. There's plenty of them, too.

optimistically,
Bright

[JVS]

42. Good! And don't let the door hit their anglo-phone asses on the way out...

of Quebec. Occupiers out!

[brentspeak]

44. Uh, yeah

[StrafingMoose]

34. We don't need no stinkin' army...

Just good intelligence services geared toward intelligence collection, not dirty black ops! With this, we'll have way enough lever to publicly expose the pigs (whoever they are) who'd want to mess with Quebec!

But anyways, independent movement is dead here. Altough the argument that "oh it'll get sooo poor if it becomes independent!" is IMO not true, I'd say that some elements within the movement (be it PQ, BQ) are in fact more liberal (proponents of globalization) than anything and only want to secure their grip over Quebec for whatever purposes (ie: selling out it's resource based on the US dollar instead of Euro)...

[davidinalameda]

36. wonder if they can liberate the west coast as well

:shrug:

[JVS]

39. FREE QUEBEC!

[Nihil]

46. ... with every box of Nut Flakes!

:hi:

[andyarundel]

62. Remember OKA

Where the Quebec National Police ...well was like Keystone cops...the provincial police had their own armored troop carrier, attacked up a hill with the wind in their faces with tear gas and automatic rifles. Result was the shot one of their own lost a few police cars and resulted in a long stand off with the Mowhawks which resulted in a standoff with the real Canadian Army.

[CHIMO]

63. Tera Tera

Seems like he wants to steal the headlines and keep them away from a new debate which seems to be developing.

Quebec manifesto urges provincewide debate

Prominent Quebecers from the federalist and sovereigntist camps have joined forces to issue as "urgent appeal to citizens" about the future of their province.

According to the non-partisan group of academics, politicians and other members of Quebec's elite, the province is too resistant to change. In light of its aging population, sluggish economy, crippling debt and increasing global competition, they say, the province faces a dire future if something isn't done soon.

Former Quebec premier, federal cabinet minister and outspoken champion of sovereignty Lucien Bouchard spoke for the group at a press conference in Montreal Wednesday.

"I'm looking at the future of my children. I look ahead and I say to myself that we have to do something," Bouchard said in French.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051019/quebec_provincialmanifesto_20051019/20051019?hub=Canada

Perhaps it could lead to some useful outcomes.

[Demeter]

64. I Wish Them Joy of It

Although I can't imagine what, besides make work and forest fires, they could do with one.

[anotherdrew]

68. Quebec isn't going to break away, it's failed everytime

why don't they just forgetabout it alreay