Secret Plans for Canada to be 51st State

[Timótheos]

Conservative Party linked to pro-U.S. annexation cabal

Activities tantamount to Treason, involving Breach of Parliamentary Oath and conspiracy to overthrow Her Majesty

by Peter Mackenzie

"Stand Up for Canada" appears to have been devised as a technique of mass deception, under the joint auspices of former ultra-right wing Alliance Party and U.S. Republican Party advisors.

In the last 2006 Federal Election, the Conservative Party kept trumpeting its slogan that it would "Stand up for Canada". Then, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper during that elected indicated that he would similarly "Stand Up" for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Mr. Harper portrayed his party, as a party which would govern Canada with integrity and openness in a spirit of renewed democracy, in contrast with the 'corruption' of the Martin Liberals. As it turns out, these assertions by Mr. Harper could not be further from the truth.

Mel Hurtig, the founder of the Council of Canadians, and also a variety of other reliable sources including veteran CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, now reveal that senior elected representatives and advisors to the Conservative Party, are currently planning a scheme that would hand over Canada to the Bush regime by 2007. The official name for this scheme, is called "North American Union".

Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided researchers with the agenda and attendee list of the so-called "North American Forum" at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14, 2006.

Mr. Hurtig said the "secret meeting was designed to undermine the democratic process." In addition, the reported Agenda undermines the Statutory position of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, as the constitutional expression of a Canada independent from the U.S.

"What is sinister about this meeting is that it involved high level government officials and some of the top and most powerful business leaders of the three countries and the North American Forum in organizing the meeting intentionally did not inform the press in any of the three countries," he said. "It was clear that the intention was to keep this important meeting about integrating the three countries out of the public eye," Mr. Hurtig further indicates.

The motive for U.S. participation, according to Mr. Hurtig, was "to gain access and control Canada's extensive natural resources, including oil and water."

Documents obtained by researchers associated with the Council of Canadians were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release." At least three current Ministers of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party minority government are cited in the Document as "ring leaders" so-to-speak, of an unlawful and anti-constitutional effort to hand Canada to the Bush regime.

Canadian constitutional and related law is quite clear that any such effort by elected members of a government to subvert the political authority of the Government of Canada, constitutes breach of a Parliamentary Allegiance of Office, and broadly treason.

This is because the reportedly directed efforts of Ministers in the Stephen Harper government, to hand over Canada to the political authority of Mr. Bush, as the American Head of State, without the consent of the diverse Canadian public, can only be executed by the seditious overthrowing of the Crown, i.e. Canadian Head of State.

Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 indicates as follows:

Every member of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; .

The oath set out in the Fifth Schedule reads as follows:

I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty... [Elizabeth II].

According to the Sixth Edition of Beauchesne's Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada:

Should a member violate his oath he [or she] would be amenable to the penalty of not being allowed to sit in the House of Commons. He [or she] may be suspended from taking part in the sittings while still remaining a member of Parliament, or, in a case of extreme gravity, a Bill might be passed to annul his election...

The power of dealing with treason is inherent in the Parliament of every country.

The leaked document clearly substantiates that Ministers of the Stephen Harper Government are sharing information with representatives of the U.S. military-industrial-complex, for the purposes of "surrendering" Canada to a U.S.-based "non-democratic authority". This apparent government-sponsored effort is designed to destroy the sovereign authority of Canadians as co-owners of their society, in violation of all Canadian Constitutional Acts since 1867.

Pursuant to Section 46 (2) of the Canadian Criminal Codes "Every one commits treason in Canada, when someone (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 52 of the Criminal Code of Canada, to the extent that the apparent efforts of the Stephen Harper government to surrender Canada to a non-democratic American political arrangement is seditious to "(a) the safety, security or defence of Canada," the Stephen Harper government has executed treason. If that has indeed occurred, then the Stephen Harper government, if it has any semblance of integrity, must surrender its authority to the Governor-General acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, toward new Federal Election.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

 

[Laura]

Well, that's pretty heavy duty stuff, eh? And not like a few "voices in the wilderness" haven't been noticing some odd things and predicting just such a plot, either.

 

[henry]

And then there is this recent change from PM Harper on the nationhood of Quebec:

The outsider on the inside

Anne McIlroy on government plans to recognise Quebec as 'a nation within a united Canada'

Monday November 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

In two emotional and divisive referendums on the future of Quebec, the federal government fought hard to prevent the largely French-speaking province from becoming an independent nation.

So it was a shock to many Canadians when the prime minister, Stephen Harper, last week began pushing for the House of Commons to recognise Quebec as a nation - but with one important caveat.

Mr Harper introduced a motion declaring that "the Quebecois form a nation, within a united Canada".

What does it mean to be a nation within another nation? In legal terms, the Conservative government insists, absolutely nothing.

"Do the Quebecois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes," Mr Harper said. Do the Quebecois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no."

He called the motion an "act of reconciliation," saying it recognised the way in which many Quebecois see themselves - as a people and nation with their own culture, language and identity.

The premier of the province, the Liberal Jean Charest, was delighted, describing the recognition as "extremely significant". "We, the people of Quebec, form a nation," he said.

It is Mr Charest the Conservatives say they are trying to help. He faces an election within the next year and a half, and the Liberals are trailing the separatist Parti Quebecois in the polls.

If the separatist party wins, there could be another referendum. Pro-Canada forces won by a substantial margin in 1980 and by only a whisker - roughly 50,000 votes - in 1995. The next referendum could be the one that breaks up the country.

But at this point, a referendum seems a distant possiblity. Polls suggest that while roughly 45% of Quebecois support sovereignty, most don't want another referendum. So there appears to be no imminent threat, even if the PQ takes power again.

Mr Harper's efforts may have more to do with improving his own popularity, and that of his party, in the province. At the last election, he won 10 seats in Quebec - a breakthrough - and it is key to his dream of winning a majority government rather than the minority he now has.

But voters in Quebec tend to be progressive on social issues, and the government's lack of commitment to fighting global warming, for example, has cost Mr Harper support.

On foreign policy, Quebecois were not impressed with his staunch support of Israel in the recent war with Lebanon. Polls showed Conservative backing in the province plummeting.

His "nation" overture, expected to pass in the Commons today, is clearly part of a campaign to revive his standing in Quebec. It didn't come completely out of the blue. The Liberals, who are choosing their new leader next weekend, were divided over a similar motion on Quebec's nationhood.

The Bloc Quebecois, hoping to capitalise on the party's troubles, had been planning to introduce its own motion demanding that the Commons recognised Quebec as a nation.

Mr Harper's move pre-empted the Bloc, infuriating them because it stipulated that nationhood included being part of a united Canada. Nevertheless, separatists see the advantage of having Quebec's distinctiveness acknowledged by the Commons, and the Bloc says it will support the motion.

This raises the question of the long-term implications of Mr Harper's move. Will it loosen the bonds between Quebec and Canada, making it easier for the backers of sovereignty to win another referendum, and international recognition for Quebec, if they prevail?

Will the Conservatives have to back up their words by granting more power to Quebec, allowing the province to speak for itself on the international stage?

Mr Charest is expecting more than symbolic help to win the next provincial election, and Quebecois are unlikely to be that happy if they find Mr Harper's gesture to be an empty one.

Critics are convinced Mr Harper has made a serious error, and has sold Canada out.

"Stephen Harper has betrayed his own principles, his party and, most important, he has flouted his constitutional responsibilities as prime minister to defend the political and territorial integrity of Canada," Michael Behiels, a University of Ottawa historian and constitutional scholar, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen.

It is impossible to know who is right. Many Canadians, although tired of talking about Quebec's status within Canada, have no problem acknowledging that it is different from other parts of the country.

"Personally, I am delighted to acknowledge that Quebeckers are a distinct society, a nation, an extra-special unique collectivity unlike all others in the galaxy," the Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente wrote.

"Whatever. Just make it go away. I want closure. I want healing. I want never to hear a word about this again."

So is the next step for Harper to declare that Canada is a nation within the North American Union? :(

 

[Jacques]

Henry said: And then there is this recent change from PM Harper on the nationhood of Quebec:

Well, one must remember that this government is a minoritary government and the chance are very high that it will be defeated on the presentation of the next budget. Many observers think that.

What a wise way to tell the people from Quebec that they are special and the Canada finally recognize it.

If Harper wants to stay the prime minister of Canada and to continue his work as a agent of Bush and be able to say as Henry said: Canada is a nation within the North American Union...he must use of the tricks he knows to keep the people asleep.

That does not smell very good.

 

[domi]

One has to wonder what motivates these people to sell out their country. Maybe they are buying themselves a cozy room in some underground bunker system or perhaps the Shrub spying apparatus has collected enough on them to force their hand?
All is not well within the cranium of Mr. Harper.
I can't help but think about the Germany-Austria merger in our not to distant past.

 

[Timótheos]

Henry said: And then there is this recent change from PM Harper on the nationhood of Quebec:

Well, one must remember that this government is a minoritary government and the chance are very high that it will be defeated on the presentation of the next budget. Many observers think that.

I think it's a little too early to tell whether the Conservative government will be defeated in the spring. And even if they are, it doesn't mean the elected Liberals (who will also probably only have a minority) will be any better.

Especially if current front runner for the Liberal leadership race, Michael Ignatieff, is chosen as party leader. Here is a guy who has spent the last 30 years living outside of Canada, very supportive of Bush's Iraq plan, and with a weak record in politics, which will make him easy pickings for the opposition Conservatives.

Although for a brief moment the light shone through when he classified Israel's actions in Lebanon this summer as a "war crime". However, after voluminous criticism in the Zionist-owned Canadian media, Iggy quickly backtracked and then said war crimes were committed on both sides. He may pay for that comment yet still.

Then considering that all it would take is some manufactured terrorist attack in a major Canadian city, and most folks will be clamouring for the protection of Big Brother to the south. I wouldn't be surprised if a tactic such as this was used to establish permanent occupation of American troops on Canadian soil.

It will be an interesting week in Canadian politics.

Another disturbing trend is occuring right here in my own province of Alberta. The ruling Tories are also in the process of selecting a new leader, with the first vote last weekend failing to declare an outright winner.

What has most pundits surprised is the strong showing of ultra-right wing conservative Ted Morton, who ended up only five points behind the moderate Jim Dinning. The vote seemd to be split along a rural/urban divide, with farmers voting for Morton, and city dwellers backing Dinning.

Morton was born in California, and grew up in Wyoming. He didn't become a Canadian citizen until 1991. He is the author (along with current PM Stephen Harper) of the Alberta Agenda, which proposes erecting a firewall around the Provnce of Alberta, in effect to impede influence from Ottawa.

From Conservative Life:

"Some of his critics argue that Ted Morton is an extremist. They said the same thing about Stephen Harper. Ted Morton is a good friend of Mr. Harper and they share a similar ideology. I would fully expect that Mr. Morton would lead Alberta in a manner similar to how Mr. Harper has lead Canada."

This guy reflects all the nasty intolerant qualities of the right-wing Bible-thumpers from down south, and his ascension into the Premier's chair does not bode well at all.

Depending on how this all plays out over the next week, Canadians might be wise to consider packing up and getting out of Dodge.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Hi,

Maybe I'm being really pessimistic here, but I have foreseen this joint Union of America and Canada for some time now.

To more specifically pinpoint the time I started to feel Canada was starting to fall into psychopathic tyranny was the time when Canada first issued it's first troops to Afghanistan to help the US in the "War against Terror". Little do many Canadians know, that from the "peace keeping nation" that they were, they have fallen and become Terrorist of their own kind. Bringing terror to many families including innocent women and children while occupying Afghanistan.

But this was not where I thought Canada had lost for good. It was right after the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, when Mr. Harper blatantly told the Canadian people that he will stand behind Israel as they "defend" themselves. And that they will continue to fight, in the "War Against Terror". Which obviously did not bother enough Canadians to even protest.

Also, is it just me or does this sound like double-talk to anyone else?

"the Quebecois form a nation, within a united Canada".
[...]
"Do the Quebecois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes," Mr Harper said. Do the Quebecois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no."

Another thing that came to mind while reading this topic was this. I don't want to skid too much off topic here, but recently in the past 2-3 days in Vancouver, BC and all surrounding areas we have had one of the biggest snow storms ever to hit this early. I can tell you that the cities were NOT prepared. We have had massive power outages, and the city roads are all messed up. To a point where on the highway there was like 6 or 7 cars in the ditch one after another and more than a few accidents. It was -10 this afternoon, and I'm sure it is colder now. One thing that really caught my attention when I went out tonight was the main Canadian flag within our city. Tonight as I was driving by, I noticed that the giant Canadian flag had been ripped about 1/4th from the end, and it was hanging by a thread just flowing in the wind and snow. It seemed a pretty symbolic picture where I stand especially considering this article. I only wish I had my camera with me. I'll take my camera tomorrow to the city, and see if I can take a picture of the torn flag.

Nina

 

[Mr. Premise]

Forgive the nitpick, but the term '51st state' is not the right one, I think, because 'states' in U.S. constitutional theory won't exist anywhere in a North American Union. There will just be 'sectors' controlled by Norcom (the Northern Command of the U.S. military).

So adding some new northern states to a real constitutional republic (if that still existed) would not be such a bad thing for Canada. You would get a Bill of Rights and could ditch the Queen! ;)

 

[herondancer]

The thing I've been wondering about is what is all the foofarall about Quebec distracting us from? One might be the Finance Minister's (Flarhety?) new tax proposals. The"tax cuts" for the "lowest and highest incomes" sound an awful lot like warmed-over Reaganomics"trickle-down" theory. We've seen how that's played out. That plus NAFTA and we are just push-overs doing whatever our "largest trading partner" wants just to keep the business. Nevermind that the trading partner is dead broke. Our lovely positive balance of trade is 90% irredeemable IOUs.

As for the "Bill of Rights", as an ex-pat I'would have thought so at one time, but the BofR is a fiction now. Moot point.

So, what does everyone think the Quebec thang is supposed to divert our attention away from?

Herondancer

 

[Johnno]

I thought Australia already had the title of the 51st state, we just need to replace the Union Jack on our flag with the Stars and Stripes :)

 

[Alana]

I thought Australia already had the title of the 51st state, we just need to replace the Union Jack on our flag with the Stars and Stripes

No no, you are all wrong, Israel is the 51st state, having THE star and all :P

The key phrase seems to be this one:

The motive for U.S. participation, according to Mr. Hurtig, was "to gain access and control Canada's extensive natural resources, including oil and water."

 

[OPINMYND81]

The US annexing Canada has been a concern of mine nearly all my life and, like the invasion of Iraq & WW3, it is something that I have seen as "inevitable" as though I've been in this time cycle/universe/reincarnation before. All signs point to the fact that it is almost inevitable at this point, what with tha North American Union and the Amero set in place, all that's needed is a catalyst.

These "secret" plans are not that secret for anyone who bothers to pay attention. The plans are actually far behind since after the Free trade agreement we had Meech Lake which was supposed to decentralize the country and give Quebec the necessary force to seperate. Meech Lake thankfully failed and so they tried a slightly more "democratic" Charlottetown accords which also failed. The 95 referendum, which was supposed to win, also failed. All of this with a special thanks to Trudeau who intervened in all 3 and probably did more to save Canada than anyone else. Otherwise we would have been incorporated into the US by the year 2000, if not sooner.

After reading books like Mel Hurtig's** "The Vanishing Country" and ESPECIALLY David Orchard's "Fight for Canada" the US annexation of Canada has been contemplated, and acted upon, for centuries. The founding fathers would be surprised that the US hasn't annexed us already as they viewed it as a given even back then. Some Canadians are aware of the countless ways that the US has bullied us, treated us like one of their colonies (their ambassador almost views himself as a viceroy), especially undermining our sovereignty. They've sabotaged our aerospace industry as in the case of the Avro Arrow, sabotaged our space industry in order to incorporate it into theirs, prevented a rise of our own auto industry, sent warships into our waters during the 95 Referendum and no doubt have paid and sponsored seperatist and far-right conservative parties for that end. For a real good story I suggest reading about the TRUE story about the Free Trade debacle back in the mid to late 80s, I'll try to get the website for that to see just how bad it really was. Indeed, if America is our "friend" then who needs enemies? After all the only country that ever threated Canada and invaded it WAS the US!

**Mel Hurtig might not be entirely who he claims to be, i.e. Canadian nationalist. I've read something about him a long time ago which suggests he might be a double agent/Cointelpro who actually has a different agenda than the one who claims to have. I'll try to find that information online and post it when I get it.

I find it funny when Canadians are accused of being Anti-American because "they don't know anything about us" or "they don't pay enough attention to us" as though we have some collective inferiority complex...what's said is that there are many of us who do believe just that. Thankfully I'm not one of them since 1) Americans don't know much about their own country so I'm not going to criticize them for not knowing about other ones and 2) having American's attention is a BAD thing! Seriously, Americans NEVER pay attention to countries whom they approve of. Ask Iraqis, Afghanistanis or countless other countries if their happy with the "attention" America is giving them! America only pays attention to a country if that country has something that America wants and is willing to take it. Given our water and oil resources I'm more than happy with NOT getting any of America's attention.

Henry said: And then there is this recent change from PM Harper on the nationhood of Quebec:

Well, one must remember that this government is a minoritary government and the chance are very high that it will be defeated on the presentation of the next budget. Many observers think that.

What a wise way to tell the people from Quebec that they are special and the Canada finally recognize it.

If Harper wants to stay the prime minister of Canada and to continue his work as a agent of Bush and be able to say as Henry said: Canada is a nation within the North American Union...he must use of the tricks he knows to keep the people asleep.

That does not smell very good.

The whole Quebec thing is really bizarre for so many reasons. One is that Quebec nationalism is pretty much all but dead, not even Quebecois give a damn about it anymore. The seperation, unique identity issue is precisly a non-issue. Harper did court French Canada a lot in last year's election and this is probably just a little payback for helping him get into power.

Still I'm in agreement with other here, there is definitely something far more sinister about this. Not just Quebec as a nation within Canada = Canada a nation within the NAU, but also as a "divide and conquer" by stoking nationalism + removing centralized government = seperating the country into small parts which makes us easier to swallow up. This has happened in Europe already (particularly in the East when you look at NATO and the EU) so there's little doubt that this can and will happen here.

It's really funny when right wing anti-NWO'ers preach and worship nationalism and how the NWO threatens it. Actually the NWO has been ENCOURAGING it for the past couple of decades and the wingnuts don't seem to have figured that out. The entire reason being, if you take nationalism to its logical conclusion you'll have 100's of small, powerless countries, not unified in anyway, that are ripe for the picking by NWO entities like the UN, NATO, the EU, and now the NAU. Divide and Conquer indeed.

Another factor that might contribute to our losing our country is the military, or our lack thereof. Following WW2 we had one of the top 5 largest forces in the world (that includes all 3 - army, navy and air force) and our military continued to be impressive well into the fifties when we contributed significantly to NATO and even had Aircraft Carriers! Since then our military has been gutted and left for dead. Our equipment is a joke and is more lethal to us than to our adversaries. We're also stretched beyond our limits because the government has never met a peacekeeping mission they didn't like and they score votes for pushing the "Canada is a peacekeeper nation" schtick (more like boy scout/hallway monitor that no one takes seriously if you ask me!).

Indeed, most Canadians think the military is all peacekeeping and that we're nothing but social workers doing peace work overseas. The situation would be farcical if it wasn't so serious. It seems to me that since the government hasn't exactly been resisting assimilation into the US that by weakening our military we're weakening our sovereignty and it will make the takeover easier. The recent rises in military budget and manpower by the conservatives have more to do with helping US and NATO fight their overseas wars more than anything else.

I can't help but think about the Germany-Austria merger in our not to distant past.

I've thought about that for many years now, especially after 9/11 and learning about time cycles on this site. The fact that neocons took over in the US, then here a couple of years later seems too much of a coincidence (both Germany and Austria had nazi parties in power in 1938). Seems like a 21st century Anschluss by our new Nazi Germany to the south seems well on its way.

Especially if current front runner for the Liberal leadership race, Michael Ignatieff, is chosen as party leader. Here is a guy who has spent the last 30 years living outside of Canada, very supportive of Bush's Iraq plan, and with a weak record in politics, which will make him easy pickings for the opposition Conservatives.

Yeah the convention is happening at the Palais des Congres here in MTL as we speak, personally I don't trust the guy. WAY too pro-iraq war for one thing. cloakanddagger.de have some good info on him and speculate that we're being set up for him to take over power after the conservatives lose and he'll help with the NAU a lot more than Harper ever will.

On a side note, maybe the whole Quebec distraction thing could be to focus attention away from the liberal convention in Montreal, french people will ignore the liberals since Harper just gave them the ice cream sundae with the cherry on top that they've been asking for, for a VERY long time.

Forgive the nitpick, but the term '51st state' is not the right one, I think, because 'states' in U.S. constitutional theory won't exist anywhere in a North American Union. There will just be 'sectors' controlled by Norcom (the Northern Command of the U.S. military).

So adding some new northern states to a real constitutional republic (if that still existed) would not be such a bad thing for Canada. You would get a Bill of Rights and could ditch the Queen!

Yup forgot about good ole Norcom. Chossudovsky's site globalresearch.ca has some really excellent stuff on Norcom and has been writing about the annexation of Canada for quite some time now. Given that war is just a little over the horizon, military dictatorship over north america (complete with concentration/death camps of course!) makes all the more sense.

Actually we do have a "bill of rights" called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Turns out, just like the US's bill of rights, its not that effective in that the parts don't work for the good intentions but serve bad ones instead (kinda like how that ammendent, the 13th or 14th I forget which one, was supposed to protect black after the Civil war is indeed pretty much ONLY used by Corporations). Labour laws dictated by it are still not enforced just like many other rights and freedoms it preaches. As for the equality and anti-discrimination these serve more "political correct" interests that do MORE damage to everyone involved rather than really prevent discriminatino and help those to get an equal footing of power. Not surprised in either case. Looks like the CRF is just as dead as the American Bill of Rights.

Good idea of ditching the queen, been wanting to do that ever since I was a kid. Even refused to swear allegience to the queen in school and Army cadets! ;)

Then considering that all it would take is some manufactured terrorist attack in a major Canadian city, and most folks will be clamouring for the protection of Big Brother to the south. I wouldn't be surprised if a tactic such as this was used to establish permanent occupation of American troops on Canadian soil.

Seems to me this has been in the works for awhile. Read a psychic's dream where bombs were supposed to go off on Via Rail trains this sept 11th in Montreal, nothing of course happened. Then again another "terrorist" attack of the WMD variety was supposed to happen in the states for the past several years but nothing yet!

In either case I doubt they'd need a false-flag to get the troops up here. The writing and laws have already been enacted and all Bush has to do is declare a red alert and we'll have friendly GIs kicking down our doors in no time!

Depending on how this all plays out over the next week, Canadians might be wise to consider packing up and getting out of Dodge.

Agreed. I thought of moving to Calgary for the better economy/jobs and because its high up and I won't have to worry about drowning when the world's coasts are all flooded in in the next 10 years. But I get the impression that Alberta is just American farmers who settles north of the border before it got turned into a province and brought some good ole 'Merican Vaules to our "peaceful kingdom." Australia looks nice, and it might not get touched by WW3 but I don't know, if what Johnno says is true than I might have more than I would bargain for!

 

[Neil]

Well, just to add my two cents, there does seem to be a very porous political distinction between the US and Canada. Canada is a huge country with many natural resources that shares a large undefended border with a superpower. Canada doesn't seem to have much millitary compared to the good ol' Empire down South, so it does seem logical that Canada has been taken over given my country's imperialist diplomacy. However that's all pretty obvious, I read this post a week or so ago and then proceeded to fill out the Federal Application for Free Student Aid and I was surprised that Canadian provinces were listed in the same list as US states, and that all nations that weren't officially part of the US had to fill out a special form. All nations except Canada. So, if Canadians can apply for federal aid just like US citizens it lends support to the dominant theme of this thread, Canada belongs to the US, it just hasn't been officially declared. It was one of those "maybe it IS true" moments, we really are trying to take over Canada. I don't know; just thought that Canadian members may find that interesting.

 

[henry]

After the second world war, the US pretty much bought up Canada from the British. There was a brief flourish of Canadian nationalism in the 60's and early 70's, but it died out and the final nail was the free trade agreement brought in by Mulroney while he was PM in the late eighties.

 

[tractmec]

OPINMYND81 Wrote

I thought of moving to Calgary for the better economy/jobs and because its high up and I won't have to worry about drowning when the world's coasts are all flooded in in the next 10 years. But I get the impression that Alberta is just American farmers who settles north of the border before it got turned into a province and brought some good ole 'Merican Vaules to our "peaceful kingdom." Australia looks nice, and it might not get touched by WW3 but I don't know, if what Johnno says is true than I might have more than I would bargain for

As a grandson and son of two of those "American farmers" who happened to arrive in Alberta 23 yrs. after it gained provincial status mostly looking for a way off of the "merican" treadmill, my Grandfather was only ever back once that anybody in the family remembers and did not even return for his Father's funeral in 1939. I never heard him ever express a desire to return to those "merican values". He died at the age of 87 in 1973 after only five yrs of what could be called retirement. My Father did not even make retirement having died at the age of 64 in 1980.

My Father spent his whole adult life farming in south central Alberta on two different places. I never noticed any values differing from any of the people who were born here in the "peaceful Kingdom". I married a Daughter of a "native born"(actually decended from German imigrants in 1842) Canadian farmer whose Father Mother and Grandmother and Grandfather were born in Southern Ontario. I never noticed anything but a lot of hard work in either family. I could be a little biased however.

It may interest you to know that several northern farm communities were started by transplanted Quebec farmers, many decendants still speak french, and two small local communities are Icelandic and Danish which was my maternal Grandfathers home country.

As far as our economy goes, several poeple have reported being able to find jobs easily but no place to live and spent most of the year in tents and holiday trailers. Some are still there and November was -30C for about two weeks. It is not much warmer as I write this.

Overheated economies like Alberta at the moment only have farther to fall when the final crunch comes and I am not so sure that this is not an artificial prop up fueled by the heavy oil industry around Fort McMurry. One of the most overheated cities, houses and apartment blocks can't be built fast enough. Overheated economies like ours usually crash hard when the props are pulled out leaving a lot of people holding the bag.

About being safer from floods, maybe but our open prairie and parkland will probably become rageing infernos under cometary bombardment.

I think I will stop now, I seem to be somewhat depressed!

Ted