BS: Independent Quebec

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 May 05 - 01:18 PM

Hoser sorry now
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Charmion
Date: 30 May 05 - 01:11 PM

Giok, I hope you realize that rye and Coke is the *other* official Hoser drink, and you don't even have to put a lime in it to make it palatable. (There is no way to make it palatable.)
Ch

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 May 05 - 04:35 AM

What a pity Quebec Libre isn't like a Cuba Libre.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: dianavan
Date: 30 May 05 - 01:18 AM

I don't think the French really care if the English speakers do not want to be a part of a separate Quebec.

At this point, it doesn't really matter because Quebec is still a part of Canada - they have not separated.

We are still one country with two languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: GUEST,diver
Date: 29 May 05 - 08:56 PM

What does the other forty percent do that does not want to separate do? Their province has just separated how long will they want to stay for?

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 21 May 05 - 02:04 AM

Thats what the loyal opposition politicians do best ;-)

For myself, I don't like to see our country raped and pillaged by these people. I'm a public servant and do my best to be an honest one. I cannot run for office because the media would have a field day with my past, I was true to the breed an honest sailor :)

Canada is a world leader in many forms of technology and science. Our politicians however, leave us looking like a second rate USA wannabe.
To be world leaders and give an example worthy of what Canada stands for, we need to bite the bullet and fire these sorry SOB's we have in power come what may, and the sooner the better.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 02:04 AM

LOLOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: heric
Date: 21 May 05 - 01:56 AM

The consequences would be worse than any of your scenarios. The first thing they would do is immediately surrender to Germany and we'd have a real quagmire.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: dianavan
Date: 21 May 05 - 01:51 AM

Dave, I agree that Stronach should have become an independent rather than accept a cabinet position but lets face it, she is a very young politicians with big ambitions. How else could she get a cabinet position? Personally, I don't care about her but I recognize that she is smart and determined.

I disagree when you say Canadians should have voted for decent politicians. I haven't seen any decent politicians (at the Federal level) that we could have voted for, unless you're talking NDP or Green. At present, our only choices seem to be the devil or the deep blue sea.

I now vote strategically. I can no longer throw my vote away on a candidate that doesn't have a chance. If I have a choice to be fleeced or sold, I would rather be fleeced. I have no doubt that Harper would sell us to the U.S. in the wink of an eye. He also has incredibly bad timing. He, too, saw a chance to grab power and tried to force an election before the Gomery inquiry was complete. Why is this more acceptable than what Stronach did by crossing the floor?

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 01:40 AM

The Bloc Quebecois is no better. One of the best countries on the planet, and we are letting crooks steal it from common people. Since when was it so important to have lawyers represent us in Ottawa? Since when has it been a good idea to allow contracts to be let without public tender? Since when have we closed our eyes and let the bastards just take it without a fight?

I know the 'new' Conservatives are trying hard to change their image. But that's what it is: image. As you so wisely pointed out, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 21 May 05 - 01:15 AM

Actually brucie the conservatives have changed quite a bit, but you are essentially correct once they get in power. There is a lack of ethical people in politics these days. We no longer seem to attract the right sort these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 01:06 AM

The present Liberal government would feel quite at home in a chaep whorehouse, IMO. The gun registry has cost Canadians a friggin' fortune. They pork barrel like mad. And they don't give a shit who knows.

However, look at the Conservatives. They are NO different and never have been. What's that leave? We are as hooped as our friends to the south. Two groups of thieving bastards to choose between. Some choice, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:57 AM

Well I have to say that voting for the present Liberal party is somewhat akin to an abused spouse forming excuses to stay married to the abuser. Saving our present government merely prolongs the abuse. Harper does not scare me as much as continuing to be raped by the Quebec political clique. However Canadians appear to be happy and enjoy being screwed and lied to rather than electing decent politicians.

There is a really astute NDP MP in my part of the world, and if I were in his riding I would vote for him based on the fact he is a very honest and decent MP. Belinda Stronach betrayed her principals for a cabinet position; it shows how low someone will go to get power. Was she serving her constituents? I could understand if she crossed the floor as an independant supporting the budget. Even accept her defection if she earned a cabinet position after the fact; but to walk into one the same day smacks of political sell out to me.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: dianavan
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:32 AM

Very astute, brucie and Dave.

If Quebecors really do want independence, thats fine but...

When the Bloc formed an alliance with the Conservatives, they were sleeping with the enemy. (Actually, the Conservatives don't bother me as much as Harper, does. If Joe Clark was behind the wheel it would be a different story)

The Conservatives are no friends of the people of Quebec. At present, they are right wing, fundamentalists who would love to be Americans. They would gladly get rid of Quebec if they could. They would dissolve Canada if they could and bring Canada into line with present, American policy.

Hats off to Belinda Stronach and Chuck Cadman. I think its great that our govt. was saved by a woman and an aging hippie.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 20 May 05 - 07:20 PM

And if the child wants to take all the furniture and toys from his siblings; knock down the fence and build a house on neighbours property, sending the bill to the parents, I might have issues with that myself. As for Quebec being family and should be treated with respect I agree, but it is a two way thing.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 07:07 PM

It would depend on who my child was intending to go live with.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 20 May 05 - 06:58 PM

When it comes to that saying about 'those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the errors of the past' I think we often get it wrong and miss opportunities walking into our future. If your child came home and said he/she wanted to leave home and set up independently, how would you react? Initially, likely, you might be against it, but eventually a mature person would give help and support to the endeavour. If we ARE 'family' surely this is the way forward?

This forum has more than its share of arse-tempered idiots who would rather see the world go to hell in a hand basket than stand down on their inherited views. Canada is a democracy and if the majority of citizens of our 'beautiful province' feel they want to govern themselves independently, we have an obligation to honour their wishes. I for one do not see any evidence (Johnny Walker wisdom aside) that it would cause the rest of Canada to fragment.

All things must pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 20 May 05 - 06:38 PM

Sorry Rapaire my post was not directed at you personally. I find that the way history is presented is biased and gives an opinion rather than facts, the posted information is a classic example of such. People should be presented with facts and allowed to form opinions rather than be given them. The tone of history gives the impression that the British purposely sent Acadians to sea to drown them and that is simply not true. Also the British did have military reasons for securing their position in Nova Scotia, removing a significant threat (superiority of numbers in an armed population) The solution used was not a pleasant one, but trying to apply modern morals in the 1700's and 1800's belies the barbaric way all countries conducted empire building; France included.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 May 05 - 06:24 PM

gnu, as I said, problems come about when one province or region feels the need to complain that they have somehow carried more than their fair share of the burden for making this grand country work.

I did not say that I personally was in sympathy with that perception in any region that wants to play that card. I have no problem with the concept of sharing the wealth within a confederation and I am well aware that wealth has flowed historically in both directions in many guises.

What I do have a problem with is the belief that somehow the trickle down affect will solve all social ills, economic problems and disparities. Large corporations are paying less and less of the social costs in this country, with the overiding thought that their only responsibility in a civil society is to generate wealth for stockholders and with little concern for for paying their fair share to maintain the framework that makes this a civil society.

They have been given considerable assistance by all government levels, while provincial governments point the blame at other regions, rather than admitting corporate greed is a large factor, and laying the blame there, where it really belongs.

There is an opposite of this mindset and, as far as the pendulum swings one way, it will inevitably swing the other, with problems of equal magnitude. The hope is to maintain an equitable balance. IMO that balance is not particularly evident.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:59 PM

I don't do revionsist history. New things might shed a different light on things, but history is what happened -- whether we like it or not.

For example: the Indians in the United States did torture captives -- see what happened to Jacob Greathouse, for instance. And the whites were just as cruel -- read about what Jacob Greathouse did to Logan's family.

Like it or not, the facts are there and cannot be changed to suit our whims or changing perceptions.

The British burned Acadian farms and villages. The British ate food exported from Ireland during the Famine. The Germans were resposible for milllions of deaths during WW2. The Americans were responsible for Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, My Lai, Gnudenhutten. There is excellent evidence that the Japanese practiced cannibalism on POWs during WW2.

I don't do revisionist history. History isn't always pretty, but then it's not always dark and bloody, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:42 PM

BTW, whoever can separate Quebec with it's borders intact will reap untold fortunes selling water and hydro power to the Yanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:38 PM

Metchosin : "Resentment in the west has built up, since the initial inception of this country, because of the perception in the west, that all the wealth and resources from this side of the country is funneled east, with little benefit, power or acknowledgement trickling back the other way."

Yup. And I like to remind Upper Canadians and Westerners that during their early devlelopment, much of the funds to do so flowed from east to west. It was our fishery, forestry, mining, railways and shipping in the 1700's and early 1800's that allowed the linking of the oceans. After the St. Lawrence Seaway was built, we got by-passed, but still had to trade east-west rather than with New England. And we suffered greatly for it.

You're welcome. And thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:09 PM

Canada has its Neocons, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:03 PM

There are certainly more ethic groups than just the Acadians that have been treated despicably within this land, a few within a more recent historical timeframe, a lot a direct result of which war was going on at the time.

There is less antipathy towards the "French", per se, in western Canada than one might think. In fact, even way out here on the coast, a fair amount of the people still have the conviction that it is and has always been the gallic influence that provides the heartbeat to this sometimes unwieldy string of provinces. A sizeable group in this province views bilingualism as a decided asset, be it French or Cantonese.

Most difficulties arise when one province feels that another is somehow getting a better deal than they are, within confederation. Resentment in the west has built up, since the initial inception of this country, because of the perception in the west, that all the wealth and resources from this side of the country is funneled east, with little benefit, power or acknowledgement trickling back the other way.

It is the resentment of historical economics rather than anything specifically ethnic, that fuels the fires of dicontent for the west. The French language issue, for some here, only provides a more easily identifiable "scapegoat" upon which to focus frustration.

Likewise, when things are perceived as unfair economically and structurally for the people in Quebec, some tend to seek "scapegoats" within the anglophone power block and a perceived lack of respect for French culture and identity. IMO, both points of view fail to address the real problems. We're all bozos on this bus.

While political power still rests within central Canada, the forces that exploit people, resources and regions are of an even more diffuse multinational nature now.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:35 PM

One of the things I detest about history revisionists is their capacity to write about the preceding centuries eliminating all references to the events that dont agree with their particular context. The Acadians outnumbered the British in Nova Scotia, and many were responsible for acts of warfare against the Crown; therefore a legitimate threat.

It was not unusual for ships to sink, and no Acadians were put on ships with the express desire of the British to sink and drown. In those days ships were not always seaworthy, and like today many operated by unqualified crew. Hundreds went missing without any survivors to tell the tale.

They were not sent willingly, and in fact the commanding officer tasked with this duty appologised to them, and stated he did not agree with the orders he was given to carry out. Since many Acadian families resisted these orders they were forced aboard ships, even though many families were divided (family members hiding ashore and trying to avoid deportation) Not a great moment in history, but one begs to ask what would have been the French solution if the tables were turned?

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:34 PM

Too bad the rest of the country can't follow our lead here in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, heart of Acadie, with about equal size populations of French and Irish descendants which, together, make up about 65% of the total population.

Perhaps it's our common distrust of authority that binds us together and, thereby, unites us in the common defense of our rights. Perhaps it is aided by our common religeon. Perhaps it also has to do with our "prolific" nature, resulting in many marriages across the language difference. A great number of Acadians have Irish blood as well, and vice versa.

Good post Rapaire. I am sure you know the difference between Quebec and Acadian history, but some may not. It is very different. I shall not attempt to give any lessons. Let me just say, don't ever call an Acadian a Quebecois or vice versa. Jacques Parizeau said "sovereigty or civil war"... many Acadians would be amongst the first volunteers to arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 May 05 - 08:59 AM

I think that the antipathy of those Canadians descended from the French predates the American Revolution.

The first European colony in Acadia was in 1604 by the French at a place they called Port Royal which, today, is Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. In 1621, James the First of England gave a grant to Sir William Alexander, of that great territory of Acadia. Between 1621 and 1713 Acadia changed hands several times between France and England. From 1713 on, Nova Scotia was claimed by England whereas Cape Breton Island (formerly Ile Royale) became part of Nova Scotia only in 1763 after it had been conquered by the British.

Nova Scotia and many towns in other parts of Acadia was the home of thousands of French ever since the first 1604 settlement. This was now their homeland, a land they had occupied for over 150 years and nearly 6 full generations by the 1750's. They were primarily fishermen and farmers. By the early 1700's, France was no longer interested in Canada. In 1713, King Louis XIV, who had ruined France through his interminable wars, placed one of his grandsons on the Spanish Throne (Philippe V) and, not to be hampered by the British in this task, he made concessions to them. One concession was ratified through the Treaty of Utrecht on April 16 of that year in which he ceded to England the French Colonies now known as New Foundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The thousands of French who lived there were essentially abandoned by their native country. The French Proviso in that treaty states that French vessels will be made available to all those who wish to be repatriated to France or to the French Colony of Quebec and may take all their money, goods, and other valuables with them and must do this between April 1713 and January 1715. The British Proviso states that those French Colonials who wish to remain on their lands must swear allegiance to the British Crown and become British citizens. They will remain free to practice their Roman Catholic Religion. If they refuse to swear allegiance to the King of England, they will be liable to have all their properties confiscated and be deported to other British Colonies on English vessels.

This Treaty hit the Acadians (Frenchmen all) like a bolt of lightning. They had no intentions of becoming British subjects; neither had any of them been consulted. They decided to stay put, holding on to their lands and properties, refusing to be repatriated or deported to Quebec. Thus, the Acadians became de facto rebels to both France and England.

From 1713 to 1755, intermittent wars were carried on in Europe between France and England. Officially, France had nothing to do with its former colony of Acadia, but secretly (and profitably) made effective use of the good offices of the Acadians for military services. The British learned about this and openly accused the Acadians, now British Subjects, of playing the odious role of informers and traitors.

In 1746, the Acadians were told to arm themselves because Louis XV of France was going to try to recapture Acadia from the British. France was on the verge of freeing them from the hated British oppressors, but was in vain due to the strength of British forces in the nearby Colonies (US). A final effort was made by France through the Governor General of Quebec to evacuate the Acadians to the Quebec areas before the British carry out their threat of deporting them to British-controlled areas. The Acadians did not think the danger so real or imminent, and they refused to budge. The Acadians sealed their own fate.

More:

From 1713 to 1755, the Acadians lived under the despised rule of the British. The British did not understand the character of these Acadians and were led to believe that they could not be trusted since they were resistent to swearing an unqualified oath of allegiance to the British crown. Due to the centuries of conflict between France and England, the British believed their loyalties were to the French crown and, in case of conflict, would rally under the French flag and cause them problems. Although there were a few cases where this happened, the vast majority of the Acadians simply wanted to be left alone to raise their families, practice their faith, fish, hunt, and cultivate and improve their land. They had no desire to get involved in the politics and conflicts of the period. The Acadians, in a very true sense, became scapegoats who suffered much for actions committed by their arch-enemy in North America and other parts of the world in their centuries-old conflict for supremacy. The Acadians thus became easy victims of hardened and conscienceless statesmen. The British accused the entire Acadian people of inciting trouble with the Indians as far as Boston - an accusation with no substance nor proof. History would prove their suspicions of the Acadian people to be totally unfounded. But, it did not deter them from taking out their vengeance upon this innocent group of people....

The British "Final Solution" for the Acadians was deportation. It all started at 3 PM on September 5, 1755 at the Catholic Church in Grand Pre. Following the orders and plan of the Lieutenant General, Governor Lawrence, following the decree of the King of England, the British Council at Halifax unanimously decided to begin deporting the Acadians immediately to various British Colonies outside of Canada. The vessels needed for this were to be commandeered in the King's name. By this time, the Acadians numbered some 13,000 on the Acadian peninsula alone. More and more British troops had been arriving and the Acadians were accutely aware that big trouble was brewing.

A proclamation was issued accordingly to "all the inhabitants of the district of Grand Pre, Minas, River Canard, etc. ..... to attend the Church at Grand Pre on Friday the fifth instant, at three of the clock in the afternoon, that we may impart to them what we are ordered to communicate to them; declaring that no excuse will be admitted, on any pretense whatever, on pain of forfeiting goods and chattels, in default of real estate. - Given at Grand Pre 2d September, 1755."

That Friday, 418 of the residents presented themselves at the Church as ordered. Colonel John Winslow, having tricked them into this assembly, announced to them that they were to be immediately deported outside of the Province and that all their properties and goods with the exception of their cash monies and personal belongings were hereby confiscated by and to the benefit of the British Crown. Soldiers surrounded the church to prevent any escapes.

The news of this spread quickly and those who could escaped to the woods, but in vain. Their country was laid to waste. Deported from Grand Pre alone were 2,242 Acadians. The Acadians were lined up and driven to the tranport ships. Women and children were loaded on boats as fast as could be provided. As if to deprive the exiles of even the hope of return, the British burned to the ground 255 of their homes, 276 barns, 11 mills, and one church while the transport vessels were still in sight. Despite the promises of Colonel Winslow to keep families together, most families were seperated immediately - parents from their children, wives from their husbands, children from their siblings - many to never see each other again. The Acadians were placed under arrest and were loaded on the ships with no choice in the manner. They took only what they were wearing and what little monies they had on their person at the time. Some of the ships used as transports were not seaworthy. Consequently, two of the ships, the Violet and the Duke William, with two groups of 650 Acadians went to a watery grave in the icy mid-Atlantic on December 10 of that year. Only one lifeboat with 27 survivors lived to tell what happened. "I do not know," observes 19th century American historian George Bancroft, " if the annals of the human race keep the record of sorrows so wantonly inflicted, so bitter and so lasting as fell upon the French inhabitants of Acadia."

Certainly not one of Britain's proudest moments....

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 May 05 - 08:45 AM

You Hosers never done nothing but mispronounce the word out.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: robomatic
Date: 20 May 05 - 06:51 AM

Canada is a truly wonderful place with great people and the fact that it is a single country at all is a great achievement. I think any Province seceding would result in a case of people realizing what a treasure they had once they had lost it.

On the other hand, I don't understand why the Quebecer separation movement should be anywhere as strong as it is, so I'm obviously missing something (seriously).

I know the Francophone roots of Canada go way back, and the friction between Franco and Anglo date from the time of the American (US) Revolution. Perhaps that's part of the reason. Maybe the Francos miss their cousins who were deported from what is now Nova Scotia and are now known as 'Cajuns.

Anyhow, I would like to see Canadians more enthusiastic about their own country in a creative way, not so much that they don't want to be like the US, more as to the Canada they wish to make. But I've always really enjoyed travelling and camping through Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 06:04 AM

Regarding Quebec's north, as Metchosin stated, the First Nations and the federal government both have written claim to the territories of Prince Rupert's Land and Ungava in the north. Quebec was given jurisdiction of provincial matters in the north under the articles of confederation. To secede would invalidate this jurisdiction, as written.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:56 AM

Sorry your not feeling up to snuff Dave, but try not to let the political bastards grind you down. Including those of us grinding our own axes here. BG

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:22 AM

Ahhh ok then.. I have not read that thread recently, had no idea this was discussed there. I think I am going to take a rest from Canadian political discussions, far too disgusted with our present politicians at the moment. I have not been well lately, so too much anger is bad for me, i might take a break for a while and just read. LOL   Have fun with AJ et al

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:56 AM

Was I arguing that point with you?

Perhaps not in your mind Dave, but from a native persective in the grand scheme of things, English, French, Viking or Portuguese, blood brother or not, any claim of "me first" is a rather moot point indeed. *BG*

My apologies for not separating (gawd forbid) and heading the rest of my rant more appropriately, which was basically some points in answer to the original post and as a response to Guest AJ on this and his/her posts on the Bad Things Canada Has Done thread.

For example:

Subject: RE: BS: Bad things Canada has done.
From: GUEST,AJ - PM
Date: 19 May 05 - 12:06 PM

I moved to The us In 1995 when we lost the referendum. Even if I was living in Canada I always felt like a Quebec Citizen. I speak english so are my kids. But it's time for QUEBEC to become a country. Canada is not a real country the only people making money are the politiciens,a bunch of crooks. I will be back in my country the day it will become : UN PAYS Le QUEBEC. What i HAte about CAnada:
EEVVEERRYYTTHHIINNGG!!!!!

Probably the whole of my post would have been better placed on the other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Jimmy C
Date: 19 May 05 - 11:56 PM

It would be disastrous for all of Canada, Quebec as well. Large parts of the world depend on a fairly recent phenomenon (TOURIST DOLLARS). I am afraid that many in the Maritimes, Ontario and most of the western provinces would simply not consider Quebec as a tourist destinationanymore and the loss of revenue from this source would be substantial. I have visited Quebec annually since 1997 and will be there again this year in mid July, so I hope that this beautiful province does not separate as in the long run it will be Quebec and Quebecers that suffer.
I have lately felt a strong resentment of Quebecers from people from other provinces, especially in the west, where it is felt that Quebec holds the rest of the country hostage with this seperatist threat. Many times lately I have overheard people state " F..... them, let them go, we do not need them and the air of uncertainty that comes along with Quebec. If they want to leave, open the door, let them out, close the door and turn out the lights.
I know that Canada as we know it would never be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: dianavan
Date: 19 May 05 - 11:34 PM

Quebec has more than a possibility of retaining their French cultural roots (including their language) as Canadians than they do if they become Americans. Its abusurd to think of independence if it means becoming a part of the States.

Lets face it, even in B.C., we honor our French family and friends. We have bonds as a nation of people that surpass any political entity that can be devised. Threats of separation are only threats to further the careers of a small handful of politicians.

If anyone should separate, its B.C. We're just waiting for Calif, Oregon, Washington State and Alaska to join us. Cascadia has been a long time dream and B.C. has much more in common with those on the west coast than any province in Canada.

Lets do this, the Americans can have Quebec if Canada can have Alaska. Sounds fair to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:36 PM

Metchosin, Was I arguing that point with you? My point was that the English and French always forget they were not the first European people here; and it was made in the form of a joke.

Where in my posts did I fail to recognise native rights? Sorry but I dont understand your question, if indeed it was one directed to me.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: robomatic
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:27 PM

It would be a disaster for Canada and for Quebec, and although it would ultimately lead to a single country in North America I do not wish it to occur.


Vive Quebec AVEC!

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 May 05 - 07:17 PM

Why, Dave, would a few Vikings in the mix make any difference? The premise still remains, what originally was the home of the first nations people, was still invaded. The government's of Canada and BC are still having trouble legally claiming right to all lands within this province, because very few treaties were ever signed extinguishing prior aboriginal right.

I'm sure there are more than a few Cree and Innuit in northern Quebec (or Rupert's Land, formerly controlled by the Hudson's Bay Company under the British crown and not the French) among others and handed over to Quebec as a province, by Canada, that would wonder if the status of that land needed rethinking.

An agreement in principal regarding the land of the Cree and Innuit was not reached with Quebec and Canada until 1974 and because the Government of Canada paid a goodly portion of the $225 million price tag to the aboriginal people for that land, I'm sure there would have to be some interesting renegotiations there.

Likewise the status of any inter-provincial agreements re hydro, between Newfoundland-Labrador and Quebec would require even more of a rethink, particularly if, all of a sudden, this was no longer an agreement between provinces, but rather a deal between countries. Could be interesting and a lot more profitable for Newfoundland if a few underwater hydro lines ended up bypassing La Belle Province, to transport power from Newfoundland/Labrador to the American Northeast.

A separate country using American currency? And just how long do you believe you would remain so and retain your separate identity in the great American melting pot? Haven't you heard, Americans are at times not too keen on the French. French law in Quebec? I wouldn't count on it And I don't believe it would take much time before someone was bitching about the French signs as well as Spanish. Damned those upitty ethnic minorities, just who do they think they are? How come they don't behave like those nice Cajuns in Louisiana?

On a positive note, at least Quebec would no longer be able to retain the exclusive right under Canadian law, to the production of mozzarella cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 07:03 PM

Well TBPLad, I predicted that we would lose Quebec only when Quebec loses control of the federal government not before. The last referendum confirmed that as the younger generation gets to voting age, they eventually will vote in numbers large enough to ensure separation becomes reality. The people in the room with me during the last referendum were estatic when the results came in; except yours truly who saw a remarkable change in, and the significance of the numbers in the Yes vote. When I said "we just lost Quebec" and explained why, nobody could see my point.

Listening to many conversations about Quebec, and the issue at hand I find the average Canadian very complacent and unable to accept it. As I stated in my previous post, spiritually Quebec has already separated in their hearts and minds. Statistically, the results show a surge upward which can only be attributed to the younger Quebecers leaning towards leaving Canada. When you have such a close vote, it does not bode well for the future. If you have been following recent Canadian politics, you will have seen how dangerous an issue regional identity has become.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 May 05 - 06:13 PM

Dave, I don't understand your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 05:01 PM

Guest AJ, Many people looked at me as if I had two heads, when after the last referendum I said "we just lost Quebec" the results of the last one were exactly as you predicted in your last post. Most Canadians refuse to analyse these facts in a logical progression.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: GUEST,AJ
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:44 PM

Dave you are a smart man , I agree with you, but I don't think Quebec will change and dissolve the separatist movement because the elderly were scared to death on the last referendum, They told them they would lose their pention plan...As generation change people are more educated in Quebec, We were far from it 40 or 50 years ago, not too many people in Quebec were college graduate when a lot of them were not even High school graduate. Majority of people have been raised in 11-12 kids Family and were poor, very poor so what they have now they don't want to lose . Now the big difference is Education. They won't be able to scare people much longer. I think that it won't happen this time but in the next generation it will pass. Hopefully before I die...

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:43 PM

Metchosin, I would dearly have loved to see their faces if i had input to their debate. Imagine their faces when an English immigrant (blood brother to an Algonquin/French Canadian) told them that the vikings beat them both and the French and English would never have found the place without a good Portugese pilot/navigator LOL ;-)

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: GUEST,AJ
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:29 PM

1- Who Cares
2- Quebec Is 1/3 of Canada. We would have our own Control over prices which will be better. Just by cutting Federal tax.
3-I don't believe Us and Canada can join forces on anything...Canada has a handful of soldiers and about 3 helicopter which are in pretty bad shape, oh thats thru they can always rent a plane or 2...lol... lol... Maybe Canada can ask Al Quada they are more likely to help Canada. When the rest of Canada sees how good Quebec is doing. Canada will Die.

My post was probably as inteligent as yours I am sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:25 PM

The majority of the provinces had to agree to it before Trudeau could repatriate it, but Quebec did not. Perhaps my turn of phrase was misunderstood. Trudeau tried to get support from Quebec but Quebec refrained.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:20 PM

Guest AJ, Again a very complex question with a couple of possible scenario's.

Canadians are renown for being very multi cultural, and very compromising during disputes. Nationalism for the most part is secure in Canada, we are patriotic without needing rabid and flagrant displays of it. I suspect compromise with Quebec would be difficult but not impossible. Our system of government has its advantages in that we could find common ground with a separate but allied Quebec; they are "family" after all..

On the other hand, recent political woes have opened up some polarization of regions; and it may lead to some very hard feelings between Quebec and those different regions in Canada. The west and central Canada being split from eastern Canada could force them into considering republican status; perhaps seduced by Americans? :)

Historical family ties with the UK are somewhat diluted over the years by immigration from many lands other than the UK, and the younger Canadians have been less inclined to believe in the importance of that historical link. Even the Constitutional Monarchy and the unique political makeup of Canada has been under review by republican sympathies. There are an increasing number of people believing (wrongly in my opinion) that there is merit in republicanism.

Eastern Canada has very close business and family ties to both Europe and the USA. If forced to go it alone, the eastern provinces would be beguiled by links to the USA; and tempted to reforge an alliance with the UK and Europe; possibly as a united group, but more likely a couple of small republics.

I honestly think that Canada would survive united without Quebec, but would be very dysfunctional. Ultimately there are several solutions possible, and anything I say is merely a guess and a personal view. Interesting subject, one that I have considered for many years. I lived in Quebec for five and a half years as a new Canadian, and have been involved in both referendums. Perhaps Quebec will change and dissolve the separatist movement down the road, but I dont think so.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:12 PM

Here are some possibilities resulting from a Quebec seperate from Canada. Some are likely, some are not. ALL of them I have heard seriously discussed in the past in both the US and Canada.

1. The Maritimes apply for Statehood and inclusion in the US, as they are seperated from the rest of Canada.

2. The price of petroleum and other products in Quebec rises considerably, as they are no longer affected by Canadian controls.

3. In a joint move, US and Canadian forces seize the St. Lawrence River and Seaway, as well as other defense installations.

4. The capitol is moved from Ottawa to someplace further west, perhaps to Manitoba.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: bobad
Date: 19 May 05 - 04:00 PM

Guest Aye Dave

" Quebec is not a signatory of the 1982 act. I believe that this would open up a potential legal loophole"

The only signatories to the repatriation of the constitution and the implementation of the charter of rights were prime minister Trudeau representing Canada and the Queen representing Great Britain, none of the provinces signed. Trudeau had the consent of nine provinces representing a majority of Canadian citizens. Quebec's separatist government, of course, witheld it's consent and then later complained that it had been left out. After a challenge to the supreme court it was ruled that the charter applied to Quebec.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 May 05 - 03:47 PM

Reminds me a bit of a party I attended many years ago, where an anglophone and someone from Quebec were having a heated debate about whose ancestor had arrived here first. A native friend, who had been listening with a smile on his face silenced them smartly, when he rose to his full height and proudly proclaimed, "Mine!".

What part of Quebec separates? The original inhabitants of the province are not too keen on leaving Canada. Could be interesting from an original treaty point of view, to whom the first nations people feel they owe their alliegence. Quebec or Canada? The original French settlement certainly comprised a far smaller area than that which makes up the whole of the province now.

Subject: RE: BS: Independent Quebec
From: GUEST,AJ
Date: 19 May 05 - 02:31 PM

What do you think would happened to the rest of Canada if Quebec Separate. Ontario.. BC... etc.