Manufacturing history, or did it really happen? The CBC Strikes Again ..

[TCBF]

Nope.  Not if it is done properly.  There will be no Canadian military action, largely due to the fact that there is no Canadian military effective to the task.

Expansion?  New Canadians in the ranks?  Right, soon as their security clearances come through - in 2017.

Or, do the Foriegn Legion trick, right off the boat, into uniform, Canadian citizenship on demob?  Sure...  picture yourself on trial as a Platoon Commander who had to lead a bunch of THOSE war criminals house to house in Dorval.

Nope.  Never happen.  Let them keep what they have, and wish them good luck.

Tom

 

[sheikyerbouti]

To Mr.majoor,

PM Martin's comments in the French debate were almost verbatim with respect to his family comments in the English debate. If memory serves the leaders repeated alot of their comments  in both debates as the questions were not too dissimilar with the exception of a few 'regional' questions. My personal fave was the hunter, showing off his collection of rifles while asking about handgun restrictions.

TCBF,
The whole  conscription issue is in my opinion a  nonstarter nowadays. Historically it was an unfortunate recurrence of perceived Anglo neglect for the Franco position but that belies the participation of many, many French-canadians who enlisted and served quite proudly. In truth, so few people were conscripted (30,000 or so) it shouldn't have aroused any concern especially with over a million Canucks in uniform for WW2.

Let's face it, there is a nostalgic contingent which might want to go back to the time before La Conquete (1759) but they are truly a dying breed. Look at what Boisclair is saying about sovereignty, let alone the 'Hero' Duceppe's unwillingness to lead the charge by assuming provincial leadership. It's not as if the Bloc would initiate a referendum in the Parliament.

The St.jean Baptiste society and some other groups have long cultivated support from the media, clergy, the public, some politicians and even academics and they have yet to succeed. Pere L'Abbe Groulx espoused this approach a hundred years ago and nothing has changed. Action Francaise tried and failed. The only real chance that the hardliners had in Quebec was 1995 and only since most Quebeckers were pissed at economic problems that were rampant at the time (and mostly the provinces fault).

I think Montrealers in particular realized this, as well paying jobs left for the less secessionist parts of the country. As Mr. Parizeau said so well "we lost because of money and the ethnic vote" (sounds better in French)

If we are to see a battle for Quebec's sovereignty it will be exclusively in the political arena. In financial terms, we can look at the '95 aftermath which depressed our currency a bit but didn't really hit the rest of Canada like it hit Quebec (a low dollar helps, but not if you want  to leave the country). In fact, some areas like Toronto and Calgary benefited from the outflow of  corporate activity from Urban Quebec.


edited to correct a surname.

 

[TCBF]

"TCBF,
The whole  conscription issue is in my opinion a  nonstarter nowadays. "

Exactly.  That, and my previous posts on this thread, were directed to the assumptions made by normally logical people on this site, that Canada would somehow resort to a levee-en-masse to combat a separation, and that the normal dregs of society (militarily useless at any time) would flow to the colours to protect the 'unity' of a country most call home out of convenience.

Tom

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

what obligations will they undertake if/when they assimilate the pieces. (Don't count on generous CPP and UI payments anymore, that's for sure.) Would/could they simply write off Canada's accumulated national debt? Will they convert our currency at the going market rate

Does anyone know if the "problems" a separation would cause, have been addressed by the bloc? The native land claims, portion of national debt, currency, etc. It seems the rest of Canada sees the problems but we havn't heard any responses from the seperatists. If anyone knows of links or can direct me to a website, I would be very interested in hearing logical answers to what the game plan would be.

Or is it a matter of seperate first and wing it from there?

 

[a_majoor]

Or is it a matter of seperate first and wing it from there?

That seems to have been the plan, do a UDI right after the refferendum. Plan "B" was probably to keep a jet warm on the runway full of American dollars, gold certificates and an up to date flight plan to the Grand Cayman Islands for the leaders of the PQ.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

TCBF: loud and clear and I couldn't agree with you more.

Shelldrake: look here if you want www.uni.ca/bq00_orientations.html

The bloc have been wavering on the issue of separation and have been more open to the idea of promoting sovereignty in increments. Negotiations on things like debt would probably take a long time but some things like Native land claims, Hydro-power rights, and the status of ex-patriates would probably be addressed fairly quickly. Money is a huge problem for Quebeckers as there is a distinct unwillingness to be fiscally accountable (case in point the recent strikes and protests over cuts to education and pay packages).

We really shouldn't have much fear of the Bloc as they have proven they are more than willing to work within the present system. As many on this board complain, the Bloc has been taking Federal dollars for quite some time and seem to be in no hurry to get off the gravy train.

Of most concern should be the efforts of the Parti Quebecois who would be in the position of initiating any referendum. What is notable is the seeming reluctance of their new leader (Boisclair) to initiate said referendum. Quebec is in a major financial crisis right now with booming deficits and a fast growing retirement population. This financial situation is dire enought to allay immediate concerns over secession as Quebeckers do not have the means($) to mitigate the fallout that would occur.

One other item worthy of mention is that there is currently a major transition within the PQ itself. The old guard is aging out and for too long there was little effort to cultivate a new crop of tomorrow's leaders. The election of Andre Boisclair is evident of this as his credentials are not exactly up to snuff. He is an avowed drug user and his open sexuality most certainly irks certain traditionally supportive segments of the Quebec population(read Catholics and rural people).

Pure Laine is an ill conceived notion with no great historical affinity to the present day Quebecois population.Yes, it is true that 80% are French speaking but Bill 101  is more responsible for that than some groundswell of sentiment for days gone by.

If Quebeckers want to go back to the way things were, they may want to remember the days when there was no Rural electricity, School wasn't mandatory, most people worked manual labour jobs (many for American firms) and were subject to the rule of such notable leaders like premier Maurice Duplessis(strike breaker and racist) or the Catholic clergy which advocated pastoralism over advancement and knowledge.

In my own opinion, as long as Quebeckers feel represented on the Federal stage we are not very likely to face the threat of secession. More likely to occur is a revisitation of the Constitution Act, preferably without the need for near unanimous approval from the outside provinces. We came close, but you can blame Manitobans and their politicians for cocking it up the last time we had a real chance.

 

[TCBF]

"you can blame Manitobans and their politicians for cocking it up the last time we had a real chance."

- Amazing what one guy with an eagle feather can do, eh?

;D

But, as to Meech Lake, I agreed with Trudeau (for only the second time in my life, the first was "Just watch me!"). Meech was a "..mess that deserve(d) a great big no."

Tom

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

Although any seperation of Canada in my view is disgusting, maybee a measured approach to seperation would take a hell of alot less flack.

The seperatists would need to adresse each problem individually in stages before getting their desired result in the end. And that would take decades.  Another major thing they have clearly failed to look at is, how many crown corporations are based out of Quebec? What about things like Federal loan guarantees for companies like Bombardier? The idea of cutting free like a proverbial ice floe and merrily singing "sur le pond d'avion" for the rest of eternity is so ludicrouse its funny.

 

[TCBF]

"proverbial ice floe and merrily singing "sur le pond d'avion" for the rest of eternity is so ludicrouse its funny."

- But, oddly enough, it is probably the only way it could possibly happen.  M. Parizeau knew this instinctively, and I think from a people standpoint, he was right.  You have to sell the product and focus your audience - like Columbus burning his ships.

Do it, let the chips fall where they may, and pick up the pieces and start over. In a few decades, the break and recovery will have assumed legendary proportions - instant history.

Tom

Edit; "Actually, it was Cortez who burned his ships, just before setting off on a pillaging expedition which destroyed the Aztec Empire."

- OK, one of those dead guys. 

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, it was Cortez who burned his ships, just before setting off on a pillaging expedition which destroyed the Aztec Empire.

Frankly, I believe that was the intention of the Separatists, do a UDI, grab everything which could be grabbed and thumb their noses at the rest of us in the (probably) well founded expectation we would be too dumbfounded to actually do anything to stop them. This would certainly give internal opponents of separation pause (hey smart guy, you think Les Canadians will help you now?), and of course there are lots of ways to enforce your will on a reluctant population, especially when you parse the word "Enforce".

Sooner or later, there would be internal opposition, and probably violent opposition at that, since some of the players would feel there was nothing left to loose and others are well entrenched criminal gangs like the Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors Society which thrive where government control is weakened or non existent. Since the United States is not likely to tolerate this sort of anarchy on its borders, there is a very good chance they will be drawn into the conflict, although in ways short of outright invasion unless the situation has spiralled right out of control. Perhaps the only benefit of this scenario is the Liberal Government of the day would be totally discredited and the Liberals themselves would be out of power for at least a generation (see, there really is a silver lining....)

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Shelldrake: Small doses of a bitter pill make it easier to swallow.

Finances are of the greatest issue to future Quebec sovereignty, so much so, that it would be a driver in determining the scope of Quebec "sovereignty". Quebec has enormous debts which were racked up by their own legitimate leaders. It would be wrong to assume that Quebec could renege on debts that were created by their own leadership base. The International community has generally been supportive of the more diplomatically assertive nations, which would lead one to assume that the International community would be against recognizing Quebec's status without resolution within our own legal framework(ie:the clarity act, Constitution Act, Quebec's constitution, Code Civile, etc.).

Don't forget that natives are not the responsibility of the Quebec government, it would be up to the Feds to police/enforce potentially new borders. The Iroquois nations would probably stick together meaning a likelihood of remaining Canadian, they know which side butters their bread. The James Bay Cree in the last referendum were dead set against separation, chances are also good that the other native communities in Quebec would favour remaining within Canada.

It is absolutely naive to ever assume the American government would step in and put any boots on Canadian or Quebec soil. It is so beyond the realm of hypothesy that the assertion should not be made. The White House has made numerous statements to the effect that the American administration views the issue of secession as an "internal matter".

Given the American reluctance to interfere with much more pressing internecine conflicts, it would have to mean that we as a country had devolved in governance beyond such luminary nations as Rwanda, the Koreas, or anywhere in the Balkans.

That will never be the case, good topic to discuss though

 

[a_majoor]

It is absolutely naive to ever assume the American government would step in and put any boots on Canadian or Quebec soil. It is so beyond the realm of hypothesy that the assertion should not be made. The White House has made numerous statements to the effect that the American administration views the issue of secession as an "internal matter".

Given the American reluctance to interfere with much more pressing internecine conflicts, it would have to mean that we as a country had devolved in governance beyond such luminary nations as Rwanda, the Koreas, or anywhere in the Balkans.

That will never be the case, good topic to discuss though

You have it exactly backwards, especially given the changed conditions since 9/11. There is no way whatsoever that the Americans would allow anarchy to erupt on their own border, with the possibility of terrorists using the disorder to slip into their nation. They are already taking a very hard look at Canada and Canadians now (tried to cross the border lately?) with this nation notionally stable and secure.

While President Clinton and Bush have suggested that separation is an internal matter, it is in the context of preventing further distractions to the legitimate government of Canada (no need to arouse anti-American hysteria in Quebec or the ROC). I certainly haven't been talking to Dr Rice about this subject lately (she is rather busy with other things), but the State Department is heavily biased towards stability and the status quo (hence the tensions between State and Defence on the Middle East), so of course would want to keep a smooth surface on things. When the surface cracks open (which separation will bring) then the Administration will have to open the toolbox to find a more appropriate way of resolving matters to the satisfaction of the United States. I emphasise this last point because in the end, the Administration, the Congress and the American people have no compelling interest in what you want or think, but they have a strong record of looking after their own interests.

Thomas Hobbes would be able to enlighten you on this subject, look up his works.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

I am curious as to what substantive proof you could provide which would bolster or even rationalize your position. Canada will never devolve to the point of involving invasion by American forces.


The American administration, above all else, cherishes the democratic process that has so ably shaped their history. The invasion of a sovereign ally is totally preposterous. In response to your question, Yes, I have crossed the border and I can explicitly state that we are not up against some impenetrable curtain. It is far too easy to cross the border even with the enhancement in security that our Yank counterparts have introduced.

As security is heightened, the criminal element finds ways to circumvent all efforts that are put in place. As an example that has been brought up by some, the use of remote controlled vehicles is an effective way to cross a relatively undefended border. How about the recently discovered tunnel here in BC or what about swimmers or hikers that cross at points which are not easily responded to. Shall I continue? OK then but only since you insist. What about neutral bouyancy flotation, or fast boat ingress and egress through local waterways a la native smuggling. Since the statute of limitation has somewhat expired, I personally, along with many other High School students have filled a pack full of booze and made the 50 yard dash from A ave. to Zero ave. Fake Canadian ID is easier to pass in Bellingham than in Vancouver. What's to stop someone from simply running the checkpoint in vehicle with run flat tires?

The assertion that America completely controls its'  borders is proven wrong on a daily basis by Mexicans, many of whom make repeated incursions. Whose to say it is any better or more secure along the 49th parallel?

 

[geo]

The American administration, above all else, cherishes the democratic process that has so ably shaped their history. The invasion of a sovereign ally is totally preposterous. In response to your question, Yes, I have crossed the border and I can explicitly state that we are not up against some impenetrable curtain. It is far too easy to cross the border even with the enhancement in security that our Yank counterparts have introduced.

While I would hope that our leaders will continue to "shoot their mouths off" instead of shootin from the hip; I should point out that, after the Ayatolah overthrew the Shah of Iran, the US became real friendly with none other than Sadam Hussein and the Iraqis.

The US was real friendly with the gov't of Chile.... and then Salvatore Allende died with CIA involvment.
The US was real friendly with the Gov't of Panama... and we all know about their "social call".

The US will continue to define the democracies that it supports as they see fit and as they, from time to time, ammend.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

The examples you give Geo are those of ineffectually governed nations that by and large do not have the diplomatic impact that Canada has long enjoyed.

There still remains no substantive evidence which indelibly points towards such a necessity (invasion). Are the Americans going to invade India, Australia, Britain, Turkey, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Italy, ... ?

The rights of the Westernized nations are distinct from those from other regions, ways of life or cultures. I am not attempting to initiate some Christian vs Islam, Brown vs. White argument but it must be implicitly recognized that certain governments, namely stronger democratic entities, enjoy a level of autonomy that is unimpeachable even by the standards of their peers.

As an aside, the democratic process in the USA requires the consent of the ruling houses and as such the political argument would be a very protracted affair. Look at the recent debate and near dismissal of the Patriot act as an example of the level of debate that is achieved  over certain matters.

To imply American intercession on our domestic behalf would imply an absolute denial of our forms of government at all levels. There is no indication that the provincial and municipal administrations of all the provinces of Canada would somehow lose their way in the face of a simple vote for secession by one province. Let alone the security institutions of this country, notwithstanding the CF which would be ineffectual as proven by the last invocation of the War Measure Act and the subsequent fallout. If Canadians are not welcoming to our own troops, they certainly wouldn't be receptive of foreign troops regardless of their intentions.

The rule of law and political discourse will prevail in the face of nonsensical fear mongering.

 

[GO!!!]

The examples you give Geo are those of ineffectually governed nations...

I too am constantly amazed with the administrative prowess of Canadian federal government departments!

 

[a_majoor]

Once again, Sheikyerbouti has his eyes closed to the realities of the world. Perhaps a quick re read of Thomas Hobbes would help.

The United States will not invade or otherwise insert itself into the Soverenty debate today or tomorrow; what I am saying is they will forcefully insert themselves once their interests  become involved. The examples of the US involvement with Iraq, Panama and Chile during the "Realpolitic" era are prime examples of what happens when an area of interest has weak, ineffectual or destabilized government. Certainly if there were to be a separation, the former Province of Quebec would undergo a massive amount of social, economic and political turmoil, which the Government of Canada (as currently instituted) does not have the political economic or police/military resources to address. Given those sets of conditions, how else would the American Administration of the day respond?

 

[geo]

It all depends on which side of the bed "dubya" got up from that morning.
and what his lobbyists are telling him to do that day.

(ok - negative rant over)

 

[TCBF]

Well, at least he ain't a Commie like Billary.

Tom

 

[geo]

Tom...
but with Hillary - you could write it off / explain it away as being PMS