Printable View
So, what of it?
I remember there being a movement a few years back, as well as an active vote that failed.
With Quebec so culturally distinct from the rest of Canada, what is the reasoning pro/con for the movement?
Normally Canada is pretty boring to me, but I find this issue very interesting, as do I find the Canada Marijuan reform initiatives interesting as well.
It might be because they're more French???
I need to build my underground tunnel to Canada
not gonna happen.
Yeah, Quebec is culturally distinct, but I don't think any part of Canada isn't. Quebec may be more culturally distinct than other provinces as a whole, but, as I see it, not enough not to be Canadian (despite the efforts of many).
Normally Canada is pretty exciting to me ebcause we have good healthcare and most people share good values. Also our economy is really strong and that will be good for my pocketses. We also have some of the most beautiful in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I find this separatist utterly stupid and pointless, and I hope to god we could just finally forget about it all as one of those really repetetive dreams. It IS exciting at first, but it get's old and annoying just as fast trust me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Are you in Quebec? And where is Beirut?
The separatist movement is still going strong. So far we had 2 referendum(1980-1995), both failed but by a close margin. We might have one in the next two years if the Partie Québécois is elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
The fact is we are distinct. So the Separatist want the Quebec to be a nation. Some feel the need to separate from Canada because we were invaded by the British, and as a conquered People we have been rule and treated very harshly(Ex. until a few decaded ago, you had to speack english to work for the government). Like the need to repair an injustice. Some feel the interest of the Quebec will always fell second to the interest of the Ontario and the english majority. Some feel that Canada was found by two People, the English and the Frenchies, so they want Quebec word to count as an equal, not as a Province. Wich is denied of course, as the 10 Province are equal in the Confederation, even if Quebec hasnt signed the Constitution. In brief, Separatist are Nationalist. Some can have fancy explanation, but it all come to nationalism.Quote:
With Quebec so culturally distinct from the rest of Canada, what is the reasoning pro/con for the movement?
Personnaly, i am against a separation. I am proud to be Quebecer and to speack french. My family is on Quebec soil for 400 years now. Quebec is my Country, but i am also proud to be Canadian. I believe our union with the rest of the Canada can work. It need some tune-up of course, like a reform of the Senate chamber but it can work.
I guess its not easy to understand for everybody, but it make sense for me.
I just hope they dont legalize the stuff. If they do, the quality will probably fall, and the cost will raise... I like the way it is now.Quote:
Normally Canada is pretty boring to me, but I find this issue very interesting, as do I find the Canada Marijuan reform initiatives interesting as well.
Sorry for the short answer, i am a man of few words who's in a hurry :juggle2: Wich isnt a good combination for explanation...
Right here.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with Soly. There is a very good chance that it will happen. We came within a hair of it back in '95. Less than 1% of the vote won it for our side. The separatists resorted to intimidation at the polls, illegal voter disqualification, and outright vote tampering and they came close enough to their goal to scare the piss out of everybody.
The separatist leaders are very, very good at convincing the people that they are oppressed and willing to resort to any means that will help them achieve their goal. As it stands, 40% of Quebecers support separation at any time. All they need is a lit fuse to get the other 11%.
If they do succeed, the one consolation is that they will not get the entire territory of Quebec. It's too big for them to control by force and even if they do win, there will be millions of people who will not want to go along with their new country (like me) and who will refuse to leave (like me) - that means partition of the province. That could lead to an ugliness not seen in North America in a long time. The separatists will want Montreal since it's the jewel in the crown. The problem is that Montreal, by and large, will not want to separate. One "solution" has been to divide the city right down the middle (Hello? Berlin?) but the separatists will never agree. Bombs and gunshots might follow, it's happened here before.
More than likely if there is separation, the province will be carved up after months if not years of negotiations into two parts; the province of Quebec and the republic of Quebec. The province will want to get on with life and get back to business. The republic will seethe and fume and spend the next fifty years blaming everything on Canada. Just like they do now.
One thing though, throughout all of this the Americans will play a heavy role. The US will make it extraordinarily clear that if there is even the threat of a disruption to the power supply heading south, shipping on the St-Lawrence, or if violence takes place too close to the border, heads will roll in a big, big way.
This benefits the federalist side in the debate. If the native Cree up north get too pissed off at the separatists (there is a long hatred between the separatists and the natives over land and resource rights)), all they have to do is threaten to bring down the major hydro lines heading south from James Bay in the winter and the US will squeeze the separatists like jello. The idea of millions of Americans freezing in the dark in January because of trouble up north will not sit well with the powers that be in the US.
I'm with Beirut. But I've personally always though that the partition would be the entire south shore of the Saint Laurence, and the north shore west of the Montreal stay in. The problem that many seperatists don't see is the large numbers of people that don't want to leave, again like Beirut said. Also younger Quebequois (I think I spelled that right my French isn't what it should be :shame: ) don't see the point of seperating.
Add to that, UglyandHasty, Quebec is not unique in being ignored by Ontario. You in Quebec have at least Montreal. You should try and walk a kilometer in a my Maritimers or Newfie sow-wester. All 4 atlantic provinces could be eaten by a giant sea monster and Ontario wouldn't do much more than say "Good for the lazy bastards". :wall:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Funny. There was more intidation and illegal fraud coming from the Federal and the Liberals scums in the last referendum than any fraud coming from the Sovereignist in ten years.
Beirut when you talk about the Quebec and Canada, we can see your red shirt and underwear glowing through the screen.
I cant/wont argue with that. Its true.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
I loved my vacation in the Maritimes Provinces btw. People were nice, i especially liked the Prince edward Island. New Brunswick is too crowded to my liking.
Maybe its time for the motherland to return and establish order... ~;)
The 'Dominion of Canada' sounds so much cooler than just 'canada' anyway! Plus the Dominion flag was cooler too.
you can't break up the second largest country in the world, just think of all the new encyclopedias you would need, why does no one ever think of the encyclopedias!:furious3:
On a serious note if you break up the country the Québécois will have to pay to set up a whole new goverment, they would need a new army, navy ect and then there is the cost of deciding where to seperate and buying out people who don't want to break away. Is it realy worth it?
On the plus side, if Quebec seperated, we could invade a very French like country without leaving the continent!
~;p
Crazed Rabbit
I'll clarify one thing here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
There is a very good chance that Qeubeckers might vote to seperate given the same dishonest seperation question posed previously, but very little chance that it will be accepted by the rest of Canada and allowed to happen. This is because of the Clarity Act.
In past seperation referendums, the seperatists have basically been trying to fool Quebeckers. I've tried to find it but haven't been able to again, but there was a poll done just before the most recent referendum in Quebec, and the results (from memory, so forgive me if you find the real thing and I'm wrong on some points) were something like:
* Most Quebeckers believed that if they seperated they would still use Canadian currency.
* Most Quebeckers believed that if they seperated they would no longer have to pay Canadian taxes, but would still receive transfer payments from the Canadian government on the same level they currently do.
* Most Quebeckers believed that if they seperated they would still have the support of the Canadian military when needed, and that Canadian military bases in Quebec would remain in place.
* Most Quebeckers believed that if they seperated, there would still be completely free trade between Canada and Quebec, just as though they were still considered the same country.
There were a whole bunch more, and it highlighted the dishonesty of the seperatists because this is the crap they were trying to sell to the rest of the Quebec populace. That dishonesty was reflected even in the actual referendum vote question itself:
"Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"
Translated, that asks:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"
Very nice and touchy-feely, isn't it.
Due to the Clarity Act, referendum initiators can no longer use such a question when proposing to seperate from Canada. They have to ask in black and white, "Do you think Quebec should seperate and cut all national ties with Canada?"
Polling data has shown that when the question is put to them that way, Quebeckers really don't think seperation is so hot of an idea.
Surely here Quebec cannot leave Canada without consulting Britain...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
would someone care to give me a link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendumQuote:
Originally Posted by Lanemerkel1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
hmmm
what about this recent Secession and the Parliament overthrowing? (my mom wants me to email her at work with links)
I think there was a thread on this topic only a few weeks ago.
Anyway, the quebecois separatists seem to be as mentally dishonest as the anti-EU french people.
Oddly enough, although I know a lot of French Canadians (coolest people on earth IMO :2thumbsup: ), I never ever met an independantist one. I wonder how in hell nationalists could win a referendum.
The problem with your nice disertation Goofball, is that the Assemblée Nationale du Québec dont recognize that Clarity Act. Wich is in my opinion bullcrap(that Clarity Act).
You say trying to fool, we dont have more stupid people than anyone else. It was clear to everyone that if the Referendum pass, they had (the PQ) to negociate with Canada to stay in the Confederation before anything else. But i'm pretty sure they would not have negociated of good faith. They wanted a governemtn equal to the Federal governement. Simple as that. Of course that would not have work with the Chrétien and his thiefs at the helm.
And you talk of the separatist being dishonest, when its your Liberal governement who have cheated and lied. They cheated with our money and are still arrogant. Its their fault if the separatism isnt dying a slow death.
You are trying to make them pass for the crooks, when they have done more for social justice than any governement on any level in that country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
hehehe good one !
Not quite sure what you're asking about. The most recent attempt at secession was 1995, which is the link I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanemerkel1
If you are asking about our upcoming federal election (which is looking like it will be the equivilant of overthrowing the existing "rulers" in our parliament), that takes place this month on the 23rd.
I was being serious...Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
Why would Quebec have to consult Britain to leave Canada?
Because the union of the States of Canada is in British law, as is all Canada's power...
Very interesting guys! Thanks for the discussion so far.
Some clear lines being drawn here. I never knew this much about the topic.
So, politically, what are the leaning of the sovereignists compared with the Federalists? Meaning, who is economically conservative/liberal and who is socially conservative/liberal? Are they essentially the same with the only dividing issue being constitutional sovereignty?
I know that Canada is far more socialist than the U.S., is that the case with both the sovereignists and the federalists?
Also, is all of Quebec freezingly miserable? Is there anywhere that is even close to a temperate climate?
Thanks.:2thumbsup:
It doesn't, King Malcom is just being condescending . If he knew anything about Canada, he wouldnt make such routinely idiotic statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Problem is nobody takes you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
No need to be so snappy, Krypta.
I simply thought that since it is British Acts of Parliament which unite all of Canada, these acts would have to be amended.
How is that a problem for Canada? That's only a problem for seperatists. Canada has set out the legal standard under which a seperation vote would be legitimate. If the seperatists don't recognize that, it's their problem, not ours. They can pose and vote on all the misleading, watered down referendum questions they want, but none of them will legally allow them to leave Canada no matter what the result of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
I made no comment about the stupidity or intelligence of Quebeckers. I simply stated that the seperatist leaders were trying to fool them by presenting a very misleading picture of what would happen if Quebec did indeed vote to seperate. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the majority of Quebeckers voted "non" means that the majority of them were too intelligent to be fooled by the lies of the seperatists.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
No, that was not clear to everyone. If everyone believed that, then the "oui" side would have won. But if you believed that, then you were apparently among those who were fooled by the seperatist lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
If it was as simple as that, why didn't they put that simple question to the vote instead of asking a question meant to allay fears among more moderate Quebeckers and lull them into voting oui?Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
And wait a minute. A minute ago you said the first priority after a "Oui" vote would be to try to negotiate a way to stay in Canada (utterly silly, by the way, as you are already in Canada), but now you say the only thing they really wanted was their own government equal in authority to that of Canada. To achieve that, they would have to leave Canada.
You're performing mental gymnastics in order to be dishonest with yourself.
They are not "my" Liberal government. I have voted Conservative in every federal election since I was old enough to vote. So slam the Liberals all you want, it makes no difference to me. I know they are a bunch of liars who have been bad for Canada and Quebec, and I'm rubbing my hands together with glee in hopes that they get the boot on the 23rd.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
You'll have to back that statement up, because I don't believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
Having said that, the little I know about them indicates to me that they have done a good job with other areas of governing the province of Quebec, and I won't dispute that with you. But they should stick with making Quebec the best province it can be within Canada, rather than trying to rip apart one of the best countries in the world.
And to inject a little levity into the thread, a little joke:
How come Newfoundland wants Quebec to leave Canada?
Because then it would only be a half-hour drive to Toronto.
:laugh4:
Goofball: You are a conservative in Canada? Does that mean the liberals are communists or that the terminology is the opposite of American definitions?
The federal fraud you speak of was nothing more than cash being pumped into add agencies and plane and bus tickets being bought for people who wanted to come to Quebec for the big Love In in Montreal. No votes were affected.Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
What the separatists did was orchestarte a banana republic referendum with outright vote fraud. Old people were kept standing in line for hours, asked for endless pieces of ID, and misdirected to the wrong polls. Many, many English people and immigrants of all ages were given a very hard time by over zelous voting scrutinizers. Not to mention some 80,000 NO votes that were deemed to have been thrown out for no good reason at all.
If there was no vote fraud, why didn't the PQ call for a judicial recount after they lost by 1% of the vote. Nobody losses by 1% and doesn't have a recount. Except when they know that a recount will expose a massive fraud. Also, why did the PQ fight like rabid dogs in court for years and years to deny anyone the right to open the ballot boxes and examine the votes after the election? once again, they knew that a judicial review would have exposed the same massive fraud.
Thank you! I wear them with great pride. :canada: :knight:Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyandHasty
I think your mixing your centuries up. Canada hasn't had to consult Britain constitutionally on anything, for like 70 years man, you do realise this, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
No, it just means that our Conservatives focus on the important aspects of conservatism, and pay less attention to the silly ones. A few examples:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
1) They believe that citizens are more qualified to decide how to spend their money than the government is.
2) They believe that more business = more money for everybody = good
3) They don't believe that we should make national policy decisions because of what the Bible says we should do.
4) While some in the party are not entirely comfortable with homosexuality or gay rights, they realize that it is a personal issue and will allow all members of parliament to vote their consciences if the issues are ever raised, which would allow the true will of Canadians to be done, rather than the will of the party hierarchy.
5) They believe that our military has been sadly neglected, and would like to do something about it.
6) They believe that property rights should be enshrined in our Constitution.
7) They are free-traders who are against protectionism.
In a nutshell, we Canadian conservatives don't really care if gays want to marry each other, but we really don't want the government taking any more money away from us than is absolutely necessary for the running of the country.
The Republicans (recently anyway) have discarded just about all of the solid economic principles which are important to real conservatives, and have made a point of focusing only on trying to instill as much Old Testament as possible into everyday life in America. Think how much more they could accomplish if they just stayed the hell out of peoples' bedrooms and library records, and focused on running the damn country properly.
Sad really...
The Quebec separatists are very left wing. Huge government, huge amount of government employees, huge social programs, and huge taxes. It's not all bad, we have some first rate social programs, but the paper work this province puts out would stun even an American lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Our right wing federalists are close to your right-leaning Democrats. Our Liberals are left-leaning Democrats. Our left wingers, NDP, Green party, Bloc Quebecois, make Jesse Jackson look like Louis Farrakhan.
All of Quebec is cold in the winter. We get the most bizarre and horrid weather imaginable. From +10 to freezing rain ice storms to -20 and back to rain within a day or two. never boring.
In the summer it can hit 90+ with humidity that sucks the life right out of you.
Maybe we need to convince some Canadian conservatives to move to America and run for office. Our conservatives have caught that nastiest of diseases 'success'. We have a more bloated budget now (even without the war) then at any time under Clinton. $400 billion so grandpa gets his constitutionally mandated free Viagra? Hello? Which party are you in? I can't tell any more...
No doubt. This Sunday's Doonesbury pretty much says it all:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
https://img178.imageshack.us/img178/...01087ny.th.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060108.gif
EDIT->Damn you imageshack, damn you to hell. Where did my pic go?
Goofball, you surprise me because most of the time I hear you siding with Tribesman and AdrianII. I thought you were a leftist?!?!
I thought I remembered you espousing the wonders of socialist economic policy, such as nationalized health care. Also, being a "conservative" and pro-military, one would conclude that you would naturally tend to support the ongoing global war against terrorism and the campaign in Iraq.
I know you know but I'm gonna tell you anyway. That hasn't been true in almost 24 years. The amendments to the BNA in 1982 patriated the BNA. It removed the need to have all our acts of parliment approved by London before they recieved Royal accent from the GG. We were followed in this by New Zealand and Austrailia 5 or 6 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
While I can't say your wrong I will say that only the conservative who aren't from Alberta are as you say. Alliance people have the social ideas that is permiating the Republicans. Which is why I will never trust Harper as our PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
But if you look back, that's usually only with respect to social issues. Just go back and have a look at some of the downright nasty exchanges Tribesman and I have had over Israel in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
You can't judge a Canadian's "rightness" or "leftness" by looking at his views on nationalized health care. We are almost universally in favor of it, and don't view it as socialist economic policy at all, but as something any civilized nation would offer to its citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
You have to look at the nuances. For example, I am in favor of allowing private, "for profit" medical clinics in Canada, operating alongside and outside of our national healthcare system, for the use of people who don't want to wait in line, but don't mind footing the bill themselves. Beirut, on the other hand, thinks I am a traitor to the Canadian way of life for even suggesting such a thing.
~D
I am very pro-military (as a matter of fact, I have my Regimental Board Interview on Feb 4 to be admitted back into the army as a reserve infantry 2nd john). And I'm all for fighting terrorism. But I find that being in favor of those two things has very little to do with being in favor of the war in Iraq. Frankly, as a former (and soon to be current) soldier, I don't really understand how any soldier can support the war in Iraq. In my opinion your Commander in Chief has spent the lives of his soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen needlessly and carelessly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I supported (and still do) the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that Iraq took resources needlessly away from that more important theater of operations.
Quite frankly, I think the invasion of Iraq was a Godsend for the Islamic terrorist movement and has only increased the threat of future terrorism against the U.S.
Eh, I consider Louis Farrakhan, convicted on two counts of torture against two women, and a racist and anti-semite, to be worse than Jesse 'Love Child' Jackson. Did you think that JJ was worse?Quote:
Our left wingers, NDP, Green party, Bloc Quebecois, make Jesse Jackson look like Louis Farrakhan.
Crazed Rabbit
Good Lord, not a traitor at all; merely one more fortunate individual ready to enjoy true enlightenment with regards the benefits of socialized medicine and then the challenge of helping to perfect its implementation in Canada. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Ugly, are alright? You seem to be taking this discussion pretty personally.
And as a Maritimer living in Ontario, I think it's fair to say that if the Atlantic provinces were swallowed by a sea monster, Ontario would sit up and notice. There are more ex-Newfies living in Toronto than there are still living Newfoundland, after all.
Aaand interestingly enough, who can tell me when and where the first separatist movement in Canada started?
Why would anyone want to live in Canada instead of the U.S.?
Hmm I can't rightly remember. But I think it's some where east of Quebec. I think that Ugly is taking this pretty well.
Getting warmer.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
DA, don't be a bumnut.
No No, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I am just trying to see what the impetus to move to Canda would be. I mean, aside from country loyalty of course, why would one choose Canada over the U.S.?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I hear alot about Canadians moving South, but not so much the other way around. I remember looking at some property that was cheap but it looked colder than a caribous arse.
I imaginge caribou arse is pretty warm, actually. Where was the property, and have you ever been up north?
I thought it was in Quebec. It was a long time ago. I remember that it was near a rather large body of water, as it appeared to be on a beach.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
And no I have never been to Canada. I'm plenty curious though.
Honestly, as a nation, we're simply more relaxed. It's who we are. And that's what some people seek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I think part of what makes you guys so techologicaly and militarily progressive is that you're pretty wound up. You worry about keeping your place in the world and proving that your way of life is the right one. That might make you the superpower, economicaly and militarily, but it does not make for a relaxed society.
Scientific test conducted in Manitoba, which gets cold enough to freeze a Siberian, showed that caribou fur made the warmest clothes, better than all the polar fleece and hollowfill combined. So it's my guess that the caribou's arse is mighty warm indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Thanks for clearing this little bit up for me. I knew the act in 1982 stopped the British government signing Acts of the Canadian Parliament and stopped the British parliament amending the British North America Act 1867 (although I don't think such a thing is constitutional in the UK...). I'm not entirely sure what patriated means, however. But there are other acts concerning Quebec being owned by the British, and concerning boundaries? The Union Act, I think... Or were these also patriated?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Very interesting stuff.
Just a couple of queries.
If the Quebequoise do secede on a referendum would that still require the Queens assent?
If the above is possible would the 'rest' of Canada allow one of it's richest and developed provinces to leave?
If they don't feel inclined to, is there really a possibilty of civil war?
And last but not least. Having read posters from Canada, some type in English English and some in American English, which one is correct for Canada. ( My ££££s are on English English)
thnx.
- No. At least not in any way that would have any relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
- Yes and no. The democratic right exists, but that right is interpreted differently by both parties. Quebec thinks it walks away with everything intact. The federal government does not.
- Yes and no. More widespread civil disobedience and unrest than actual war. But there would doubtlessly be shots fired somewhere. There are millions of people and millions of guns in this province and the issue is very emotional.
- English English. It is neighbour, not neighbor. And never, ever will it be nite or lite. It is night and light.
Thanks Beirut.
As we are all experienced RTW players, I think we know what happens when somewhere decides to stage a bit of civil revolt...*sharpens axe blade*.:skull:
I think 80,000 seperatists crucified along the motorway between Quebec and America would be quite a touritst attraction ~D.
Where is General Wolfe when you really need him?
I'm not entirely sure but I believe it means that in 1982 the BNA became the Canadian constitution. Those other acts on Quebec could be dealing with the city when it was taken by the Brits in 1759 (I need more details). Quebec the province didn't exist until 1867, neither did Ontario. In the 1860's when Sir John A MacDonald (a Scotman born and bred) drafted the BNA the 4 BNA provinces in this new union were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Upper and Lower Canada, these were the French names for the territories that the Brits kept using. Canada however was the name chosen for the whole nation. So upper Canada became Ontario, and lower Canada Quebec (after the city). But as I said we didn't have our own constitution we just used yours until 1982.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Ah, okay. The Quebec referred to before 1867 must be the entirety of New France, which the British took in at about 1760...
My north american history is spotty in some places but if I remember my junior high history New France was all the territories belonging to France in North america. Basically snaking along the St. Lawrence in the north through the great lakes and down the mississipi river to the delta. But usually the northern parts are Canada, the parts that are now the USA mid-west are New France and the Mississpi delta are Louisiana.
Many firsts for Europeans in the new world were French in what is now Canada. For example the first road and first social club were all built by the French in Acadia in like 1605.
Well, parts of Quebec are..rather northern and others not so cold all the time. You should take a trip up yourself and enjoy the superior beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Nordiques have moved, so no, nothing really there for me.
"Where is General Wolfe when you really need him?" Dead
Joke apart, I think that during the 702 it was some terrorist activities in Quebec due to some bad governance, like they said in the UN. Minorities’ rights ignored, and probably discriminations, things like that. I visited Canada, liked it but too cold, too much mosquitoes.