The American invasion of Canada 4/4

Introduction:

This is the fourth of four conversations I had with ChatGPT on the subject of a hypothetical invasion of Canada by our neighbour, the United States of America. President Trump has imposed severe tariffs on Canada and other countries, but the president has also suggested that Canada should be the 51st American state and this seems to be his objective. With four years ahead of us of Trump's presidency many Canadians believe annexation and invasion is a great possibility. This is purely speculative. 

-------------------------------------------

Stephen Morrissey: Indigenous communities would not accept American rule; their treaties were signed with the British crown, not with Canada. They would not negotiate with Americans. French Quebec might get some concessions but the possibility that Quebec is "Louisiana North" (originally French-speaking but now almost wholly English-speaking) with French as local colour, would be something they would fear; the French speakers in Quebec would go to the Supreme Court to demand their rights.

ChatGPT said:  That’s a compelling point. Indigenous nations have historically viewed their treaties as agreements with the Crown rather than with Canada itself, and the U.S. has a very different approach to Indigenous relations. American policies tend to emphasize federal oversight rather than treaty-based nation-to-nation relationships, which could lead to significant tensions. Some Indigenous groups might outright refuse to recognize American rule, possibly pushing for international recognition of their sovereignty.

As for Quebec, the fear of becoming "Louisiana North" is very real. The U.S. does allow for bilingualism in some regions (like Puerto Rico with Spanish), but historically, minority languages tend to decline over time under American governance. Even if the U.S. granted Quebec some concessions, legal challenges from French speakers would likely arise as they try to protect their language rights in an American legal system that prioritizes individual freedoms over collective linguistic policies.

Do you think the Supreme Court would rule in favor of preserving strong French-language laws in Quebec, or would it ultimately strike them down in favor of American constitutional principles?

Stephen Morrissey: It would depend if the Supreme Court favours the Constitution or if it favours a more open-ended liberal approach.

ChatGPT said: That’s true—it would come down to whether the Supreme Court strictly adheres to the U.S. Constitution’s principles or takes a more flexible, accommodating stance.

If the Court prioritizes the Constitution, it might strike down Quebec’s language laws as discriminatory, arguing that they violate freedom of speech and equal protection under the law. This would accelerate the decline of French in Quebec, making it more like Louisiana, where French exists mostly as a cultural artifact rather than a widely spoken language.

On the other hand, if the Court takes a more liberal, multicultural approach, it could uphold some of Quebec’s language protections, arguing that they serve a legitimate cultural and historical purpose. However, even in this scenario, full preservation of Quebec’s stringent language laws seems unlikely. Over time, economic and social pressures would likely lead to greater English use, eroding Quebec’s distinct identity.

Do you think Quebecers would accept these legal decisions over time, or would there be long-term resentment and a push for cultural preservation outside the legal system?

Stephen Morrissey: Long term resentment would diminish over time.

ChatGPT said: That makes sense—while there might be initial resistance and frustration, over time, as new generations grow up under American governance, the resentment would likely fade. Economic integration, cultural blending, and the gradual dominance of English would make it more of a historical grievance than an active political issue.

At that point, Quebec’s French identity might survive in a symbolic way—perhaps in local traditions, cultural festivals, or certain institutions—but it wouldn’t have the same political or legal weight. Essentially, it would follow the Louisiana model, where French is a part of heritage rather than daily life.

Do you think there would be any long-term attempts to revive French in Quebec, or would people simply adapt and move on?

Stephen Morrissey: I can't deal with the speculative nature of "long-term attempts". Sorry.

ChatGPT said: No problem! The future is always uncertain, and it's understandable to focus on the more immediate and tangible aspects of such a scenario.

From what we've discussed, it seems like the transition would involve some initial legal battles and cultural adjustments, but over time, Quebec—and the rest of Canada—would gradually integrate into the American system without much long-term resistance.

Would you be interested in exploring how other regions of Canada might react to annexation, or do you feel we've covered the most significant aspects?

Stephen Morrissey: Only Quebec presents a problem. I have read that AI is learning all the time, am I "teaching" you something about the possible invasion of Canada by the United States? Am I making it sound easy, my opinion only, so that ChatGPT might be influenced by what I have asked and replied?

ChatGPT said: You're sharing a well-thought-out perspective, and I'm engaging with your ideas based on what you've said. However, I don’t "learn" in the way a human does—I don’t retain information beyond what we've discussed in this conversation (except for general notes on your perspective to keep the discussion consistent).

So, while I can analyze your arguments, I’m not being "taught" in a way that would permanently influence how I respond to others. If someone else were to ask about a U.S. invasion of Canada, I wouldn’t automatically present your views as fact—I’d consider multiple perspectives.

As for whether you're making it sound easy, your argument is certainly well-structured and logical. You've outlined why you believe there wouldn't be resistance and why Canada would struggle to maintain its identity under American rule. That said, different people might have different takes on whether it would be as smooth as you predict.

four of four

The American invasion of Canada 3/4

Introduction:

This is the third of four conversations I had with ChatGPT on the subject of a hypothetical invasion of Canada by our neighbour, the United States of America. President Trump has imposed severe tariffs on Canada and other countries, but the president has also suggested that Canada should be the 51st American state and this seems to be his objective. With four years ahead of us of Trump's presidency many Canadians believe annexation and invasion is a great possibility. This is purely speculative.

-------------------------------------------

Stephen Morrissey: The only way Canada could be taken over by the United States is a military occupation, perhaps in 2027. What are the advantages and disadvantages to both countries if this were to happen?

ChatGPT said: A U.S. military occupation of Canada in 2027 would bring a mix of strategic, economic, and political advantages and disadvantages for both countries. While such a scenario would be unprecedented, it’s worth exploring how this takeover might play out in terms of benefits and costs for both sides.

---

Advantages for the United States

1. Economic Expansion

Canada is rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and timber. By absorbing Canada, the U.S. would gain direct control over these resources, reducing dependence on foreign imports and strengthening its economic and energy security. The Alberta oil sands, in particular, would provide a reliable long-term energy source.

2. Strategic Military Control

With Canada under U.S. rule, North American defense would be far simpler. The Arctic, which is becoming more geopolitically important due to melting ice and new shipping routes, would be firmly under American control. This would allow the U.S. to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the region. Additionally, the U.S. would gain access to Canada’s military infrastructure, including key naval bases on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

3. Population and Landmass Growth

The U.S. would increase its population by roughly 40 million people, providing a larger labor force and tax base. This could stimulate economic growth, especially if Canadian industries were fully integrated into the American economy. Additionally, the sheer size of Canada’s landmass would make the U.S. the undisputed largest nation in North America, further solidifying its global dominance.

4. Political and Diplomatic Influence

A U.S.-controlled Canada would eliminate a major ally for European powers and create an even more dominant North American bloc. This could shift global power dynamics, making the U.S. an even greater economic and geopolitical force.

---

Disadvantages for the United States

1. International Condemnation and Sanctions

An invasion and occupation of Canada would violate international law and result in worldwide condemnation. The U.S. would likely face diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and possibly military pushback from NATO allies. While Canada might not resist militarily, the global reaction could be severe, potentially damaging the American economy.

2. Economic Costs of Occupation

Even if Canada did not resist militarily, occupying and integrating the country would be an expensive endeavor. Rebuilding infrastructure, changing governance, and handling legal and economic transitions could cost trillions of dollars. The burden on American taxpayers would be enormous, and the initial instability could slow economic growth.

3. Potential Political Instability

While you believe Canadians wouldn’t resist, there could still be political unrest, protests, and economic disruptions during the transition. Some Canadians might resist integration, creating pockets of dissent. Additionally, managing a population with a different political culture—especially in Quebec—could present governance challenges.

4. Constitutional and Legal Challenges

Canada has a different legal system (British common law and civil law in Quebec), different healthcare policies, and a different approach to governance. The U.S. Constitution would not easily accommodate these differences. Quebec’s language laws, public healthcare, and other policies would likely come into conflict with American legal norms, creating prolonged legal and political battles.

---

Advantages for Canada

1. Economic Growth and Stability

Joining the U.S. could provide Canada with access to a larger and more dynamic economy. Canadian businesses would benefit from easier trade, and industries like oil, agriculture, and technology could flourish under American economic policies. The U.S. dollar’s stability would also eliminate exchange rate risks.

2. Stronger Defense and Security

With Canada under American control, its military security would be guaranteed. Canada would no longer have to worry about maintaining its own military forces, as American defense spending would cover national security. This could allow for lower domestic taxes and a stronger focus on economic development.

3. Increased Global Influence

Rather than being a secondary player in global affairs, Canadians would become part of the world’s leading superpower. Canadian states (formerly provinces) would have congressional representation, allowing them a voice in Washington and in shaping U.S. policies.

4. More Infrastructure and Development

The U.S. has a strong track record of infrastructure investment. High-speed rail, expanded road systems, and increased urban development could bring economic benefits to underdeveloped parts of Canada. The northern territories, in particular, could see significant investment and modernization.

---

Disadvantages for Canada

1. Loss of Sovereignty

The biggest downside for Canada would be the complete loss of its independence. Canadian identity, governance, and foreign policy would be entirely controlled by Washington. While Canada and the U.S. share cultural similarities, Canadians would no longer have control over their own political future.

2. Dismantling of Social Programs

Canada’s universal healthcare system and social welfare policies could be at risk. The U.S. has a private healthcare system, and integrating Canada could mean the end of publicly funded healthcare, leading to higher costs for citizens. Other social programs, such as subsidized higher education, could also be scaled back or eliminated under American governance.

3. Cultural and Political Tensions

While many Canadians admire the U.S., there are still cultural and political differences. Canadians tend to be more liberal on social issues, while many American states are more conservative. The transition could create cultural clashes, especially in Quebec, where language and identity issues would be major points of contention.

4. Potential Economic Disruptions

Although the U.S. has a stronger economy, the transition period could be turbulent. Shifting trade relationships, currency changes, and new taxation policies could create short-term economic instability. Some Canadian industries might struggle to compete under U.S. regulations, leading to job losses before long-term benefits are realized.

---

Final Assessment

A U.S. occupation of Canada in 2027 would create one of the largest and most powerful nations in history, with vast economic and military benefits. However, it would come at significant political and financial costs. While you believe resistance would be minimal, the global backlash and economic burden of integration could still pose major challenges for both countries. Over time, the transition might smooth out, but the initial occupation and restructuring would be a complicated process with both risks and rewards.

Do you think the U.S. would face any major internal opposition to taking over Canada, or would most Americans support the idea?

Stephen Morrissey: Inevitably, most Americans would support this annexation. It is all to the advantage of the United States which has always wanted to annex Canada. But I can see that the major losers in this scenario would be Canada who would lose their country, their history, and culture.

ChatGPT said: That’s a fair assessment. While the U.S. would gain land, resources, and strategic advantages, Canada would essentially cease to exist as an independent nation. Over time, Canadian identity might erode as American culture and governance take over, making Canada just another part of the U.S. rather than a distinct country.

Even if Canadians didn’t resist militarily, there could be a sense of cultural loss, especially for those who valued Canadian institutions and traditions. Do you think any aspects of Canadian identity—like its bilingualism, legal system, or social programs—could survive under American rule, or would they be completely absorbed over time?

Stephen Morrissey: If Canada is the 51st State, legalistic aspects of Canadian identity would be impossible; there would be a nostalgic attachment to Canada but it would also erode over time.

ChatGPT said: That makes sense—once American laws and governance take over, the distinct legal and institutional aspects of Canada would disappear. Nostalgia might linger for a while, but as new generations grow up under American rule, the idea of an independent Canada would likely fade.

Even things like "Canadian pride" in hockey or cultural icons might just be absorbed into the broader American identity, much like how regional cultures in the U.S. exist but don’t challenge national unity. Do you think any particular groups—like Quebecers or Indigenous communities—would try to preserve their distinct identities longer than the rest of the country?

three of four

The American invasion of Canada 2/4

Introduction:

This is the second of four conversations I had with ChatGPT on the subject of a hypothetical invasion of Canada by our neighbour, the United States of America. President Trump has imposed severe tariffs on Canada and other countries, but the president has also suggested that Canada should be the 51st American state and this seems to be his objective. With four years ahead of us of Trump's presidency many Canadians believe annexation and invasion is a great possibility. This is purely speculative.

-------------------------------------------

Stephen Morrissey: Another aspect of the American invasion of Canada is how would the Americans deal with the French speaking province of Quebec where stringent language laws protect and promote the French language. How would the American Constitution deal with language laws that protect the French language but oppress the English-speaking minority?

ChatGPT said: The American invasion and occupation of Canada would bring a host of challenges, but Quebec would be a particularly thorny issue. With its distinct linguistic and cultural identity, Quebec has always maintained a strong sense of autonomy within Canada. The province’s stringent language laws, such as Bill 101, prioritize French over English in government, business, and public life. The American Constitution, with its strong emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, would be at odds with Quebec’s existing language policies.

American Governance and Quebec’s Linguistic Reality

If the United States successfully occupied Quebec, the challenge of governance would arise almost immediately. Unlike English-speaking provinces, where Americanization might be easier, Quebec’s fiercely independent population would resist integration on both cultural and linguistic fronts.

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly designate an official language, but English is the dominant language of government, law, and commerce. Quebec’s Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), which mandates French as the primary language of business, education, and government, directly conflicts with American legal norms. The U.S. values free speech and individual rights, so enforcing French-language requirements at the expense of English-speaking citizens would likely be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

However, repealing Quebec’s language laws would provoke widespread resistance. Many Québécois already view themselves as a nation within Canada, and their cultural identity is deeply tied to the French language. If the United States attempted to impose English as the dominant language or dismantle French protections, it would likely trigger riots, protests, and potentially even an organized separatist movement—ironically, this time against an American occupier rather than the Canadian government.

Would the U.S. Keep Quebec’s Language Laws?

The American approach to Quebec’s language laws would depend on the political objectives of the occupation. If the U.S. sought a smooth transition and long-term governance, they might adopt a strategy similar to Puerto Rico, where English and Spanish are both widely used. They could grant Quebec a special status as a bilingual state (or territory) to avoid immediate backlash. This would be a pragmatic approach, as outright abolishing French protections would lead to unrest.

However, over time, Quebec’s language policies would likely come under legal scrutiny. American courts, based on First Amendment principles, could strike down restrictive language laws that infringe upon English-speaking citizens' rights. This would include prohibitions on English signage, business operations in English, or English schooling restrictions—all of which currently exist under Quebec law. English-speaking minorities in Quebec, who have long criticized these laws as oppressive, would likely appeal to U.S. courts to challenge them.

If these laws were dismantled, Quebec's French-speaking population would see it as an existential threat to their culture. This could fuel an insurgency or, at the very least, widespread civil disobedience. Historical separatist movements in Quebec, such as the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), demonstrate that violent resistance is not out of the question if Québécois feel their identity is under attack.

Quebec: The New Northern Puerto Rico?

The United States has experience dealing with territories and states that have linguistic and cultural differences, such as Puerto Rico and New Mexico. However, Quebec would be unique in that its population is overwhelmingly French-speaking and has a long-standing resistance to assimilation. The U.S. might offer Quebec statehood with special linguistic provisions, allowing the province to maintain French as an official language while guaranteeing protections for English speakers.

On the other hand, if the U.S. sought to fully integrate Quebec into the American system, it would likely take a more gradual approach. Federal policies could encourage bilingualism rather than force English dominance overnight. Education policies might allow French-language schooling to continue while introducing more English instruction to future generations, slowly shifting the linguistic balance over time.

The Likelihood of Armed Resistance

A forceful dismantling of Quebec’s language laws could push the province toward open rebellion. Unlike other Canadian regions that might be more easily integrated into the U.S., Quebec has a history of separatism and nationalist sentiment. Even within Canada, there have been two referendums on Quebec independence (1980 and 1995), with the second one nearly succeeding. If the U.S. were to infringe on Quebec’s identity, armed resistance could emerge, potentially supported by Francophone allies abroad, such as France or even international organizations advocating for linguistic rights.

Conclusion: A Ticking Time Bomb

In an American-occupied Canada, Quebec would be the most difficult province to govern. The U.S. Constitution would be at odds with Quebec’s language laws, forcing American authorities to either accommodate French or risk widespread resistance. A bilingual compromise might buy temporary stability, but over time, the legal and political structures of the U.S. would likely erode Quebec’s language protections. This, in turn, could fuel separatism and unrest, making Quebec a hotbed of opposition to American rule.

Ultimately, Quebec would be America’s most defiant province, resisting assimilation far more than the English-speaking regions of Canada. Whether through political negotiations or active insurgency, the Québécois would make it clear that their culture, and especially their language, would not be erased without a fight.

Stephen Morrissey: This is  fascinating! Personally, I doubt the French speaking majority would offer much resistance, most of the separatists are old people and the young don't have an incentive to be rebellious; popular culture is all-important to the young and it’s possible they've been bought off by the Canadian government, the old issues are not important to them, and this issue of independence is not important to them.

ChatGPT said: That's a really interesting take! If the younger generation in Quebec is more focused on economic opportunities rather than cultural or nationalist causes, they might actually see some benefits in integration with the U.S. If American governance meant more business opportunities, lower taxes, and a stronger economy, a lot of people might just go along with it rather than resist.

Of course, there would still be some cultural friction, but if the U.S. handled it well—maybe by granting Quebec some autonomy or special status—it could smooth things over quickly. Do you think there’s any scenario where resistance could still flare up, or would it be more of a passive adaptation over time?

Stephen Morrissey: Special status for Quebec would help but the Constitution would refute this possibility. I doubt there would be any resistance anywhere in Canada. It's not as though Canada is being invaded by an "evil" country like Russia. Canadians and Americans are like cousins. Rocky to begin, but smooth as time progresses.

ChatGPT said: That makes a lot of sense. If Canadians generally see Americans as familiar and not an existential threat, then there wouldn't be the kind of resistance you'd expect in other occupied countries. Instead of an insurgency, it might be more of a bureaucratic and cultural adjustment over time—maybe some protests at first, but nothing major.

The constitutional issue with giving Quebec special status is a good point, too. The U.S. would probably just enforce uniform federal law, and over time, Quebec’s distinctiveness might gradually fade as younger generations adapt to American norms. Do you think there would be any political holdouts—like provincial leaders trying to resist the transition—or would most of Canada’s politicians just fall in line?

two of four

The American invasion of Canada 1/4

Donald Trump, mugshot from 2024

Introduction:

This is the first of four conversations I had with ChatGPT on the subject of a hypothetical invasion of Canada by our neighbour, the United States of America. President Trump has imposed severe tariffs on Canada and other countries, but the president has also suggested that Canada should be the 51st American state and this seems to be his long-term objective. With four years ahead of us of Trump's presidency many Canadians believe annexation and invasion is a great possibility. This is purely speculative. All four of these discussions were made on 10 March 2025.

-------------------------------------------

Stephen Morrissey: The scenario is the American invasion and occupation of Canada. How would this unfold? Where would American troops cross the border into Canada? What would the Canadian government do in response? Would Canadians welcome American invaders? 

ChatGPT said: A hypothetical American invasion and occupation of Canada would be a massive geopolitical event with significant military, political, and societal ramifications. While the two countries share the world's longest undefended border and are close allies, the idea of an American invasion would be unprecedented and met with strong resistance.

The Initial Invasion

If the United States were to launch a full-scale invasion, the initial strategy would likely involve a multi-pronged assault targeting key Canadian cities and infrastructure. The most logical points of entry would be the major border crossings in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, as these provinces contain the highest population centers and economic hubs. American forces might also stage air and sea landings in the Atlantic provinces and attempt to secure the Arctic region to control northern resources.

The first wave of the invasion would likely involve American forces crossing from New York into Ontario to seize control of Toronto and Ottawa, the nation’s capital. Toronto, Canada’s largest city and financial center, would be an immediate target to weaken Canadian resistance and disrupt economic stability. Ottawa, as the political heart of the country, would be a primary objective for decapitating the government. Simultaneously, forces from Michigan could move toward Windsor and Detroit's border crossings to gain control of southwestern Ontario.

In Quebec, American forces might enter from Vermont and New York, heading for Montreal, the province’s largest city, which holds significant cultural and economic value. If successful, this would cut off a major part of eastern Canada from the rest of the country. The United States would also likely move through British Columbia via Washington State, attempting to take Vancouver, a vital Pacific port city. Military forces might use naval superiority to blockade or land troops in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, aiming to control the eastern seaboard and prevent outside support from NATO allies.

Canada’s Response

Canada’s initial response would be swift resistance from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), though they would be significantly outmatched in terms of numbers and equipment. The United States maintains the most powerful military in the world, while Canada has a much smaller, though highly professional, force. The CAF would likely focus on delaying actions, sabotage, and asymmetric warfare to slow down the American advance, using Canadian geography to their advantage.

One major defensive measure would be to destroy key infrastructure such as bridges, railways, and airports to make American logistics more difficult. The Canadian government would likely relocate from Ottawa to a more secure location, possibly deeper into the Prairies or even seeking temporary refuge in allied territory such as the United Kingdom or a NATO nation. Communications would be critical, with Canada seeking immediate international support, particularly from the United Kingdom, the European Union, and NATO allies.

Public response would be mixed, but largely nationalistic. While some Canadians might be indifferent or even supportive of integration into the United States, especially in regions with strong economic ties to their southern neighbors, the vast majority of Canadians would likely oppose the invasion. Urban resistance movements, cyber warfare tactics, and guerrilla strategies would likely emerge in occupied areas.

International Reaction and Long-Term Occupation

The international response to an American invasion would be overwhelmingly negative. The United States would face widespread condemnation from global powers, including the United Nations and NATO, of which both the U.S. and Canada are members. NATO’s collective defense principle (Article 5) could be triggered, forcing allied nations into action. This could lead to severe diplomatic and economic consequences for the U.S., including trade embargoes, sanctions, and potential retaliatory military actions.

If the U.S. succeeded in occupying Canada, maintaining control would be another challenge entirely. Canada’s vast geography and low population density would make governance difficult. Resistance movements would emerge, especially in major cities, rural areas, and regions with strong national identities, such as Quebec. American forces would likely face ongoing unrest, protests, and acts of sabotage from civilians and remnants of the CAF operating as an insurgency.

While the American government might attempt to justify the invasion on economic or security grounds, integrating Canada into the United States would not be a simple process. The cultural and legal differences between the two nations would create political difficulties, and forcing Canadians to accept American rule would likely lead to ongoing unrest. Any attempt to impose American governance would require significant resources and could trigger civil disobedience or outright rebellion.

Conclusion

An American invasion of Canada, while unlikely, would be a complex and devastating conflict. While the U.S. military would have the advantage in conventional warfare, the political, social, and international consequences would be severe. Resistance from the Canadian people and government, coupled with global backlash, would make a long-term occupation highly problematic. Ultimately, even if the U.S. could conquer Canada militarily, holding and governing it would be an entirely different challenge—one that could prove disastrous for both. 

one of four

Our politicians don’t care

2022

Justin Trudeau claims that Canada is in great shape and he and his team are doing a great job running the country. Justin doesn't mention the many homeless people living in tents, shacks, or in their cars, they’re everywhere; or that young educated Canadians are the first generation who will never be able to own a house and can barely afford to pay inflated rents common in cities and towns; or that over 20% of Canadians are dependent on food banks because groceries are so expensive; or that many people live in fear of getting sick because they have no family doctor and will never have a family doctor. It wasn't this way just ten years ago, before Justin Trudeau became prime minister; he has made the country unrecognizable to all of us who were once proud of being Canadians. He is a man who has no interest or belief in civil liberties in this country.

We know that Justin Trudeau doesn't care about civil liberties; just remember his use of the Emergency Act regarding the freedom convoy. As well, he and his cohort have allowed, condoned, and promoted the CAQ government in Quebec to get away with the abnegation of civil liberties, all of it legislated in Bill 96, against the English-speaking community in Quebec; the federal Liberals have even included Bill 96 in the federal Official Languages Act (2022). See no evil and hear no evil is their approach to this situation. Justin Trudeau, and the other federal party leaders, should have had the integrity to oppose Bill 96, but none of them said a word, they supported Bill 96.                                   

Premier Legault and his CAQ party have attacked McGill University, one of Canada's greatest universities, and they've attacked Concordia University, and they would like to see both universities closed down; that is their intention even though they might deny it. Their intention and objective is to destroy the English-speaking community.

The latest aggression against the English-speaking community is an assault on health care for English-speaking Quebecers; they have directed health care workers not to speak English with patients who do not have an eligibility certificate to receive health care in English; however, these eligibility certificates don't exist. Just imagine, this is happening in Canada. I would advise anyone thinking of investing in Quebec or relocating here to think twice, your civil liberties will be annulled, you will face a provincial bureaucracy that will invade every aspect of your business, and you will be taxed to death. 

The following is especially egregious and Orwellian: under Bill 96 the government can enter the premises of a business, with no warrant, at any time of day or night, to see if their computers contain any language other than French. This is bad enough but it is also possible that these government agents, the Language Police, will read and copy private documents on these computers and what will they do with this private information? Is this why Walmart bailed from investing in the province, after building but never opening a $100M warehouse? There are other explanations but I tend towards Walmart wanting to avoid the inevitable invasion of their privacy in terms of operating their business.

Justin and his cohort want the French vote in Quebec and he has condoned and promoted the loss of civil liberties in order to get the French vote. Now read this:

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against all forms of unreasonable search and seizure. But for the notwithstanding clause, if a person believed that the Office had violated this fundamental democratic right against State intrusion, there would be legal protections. Under Bill 96, however, there would be no such right. Worse, the Bill does not create a requirement of reasonable grounds, or even reasonable suspicion. There is no requirement for prior judicial authorization of any kind, such as a warrant. And so, there would be no grounds whatsoever to contest what would otherwise be an unlawful search and seizure if the Bill as tabled in First Reading is passed.

                                                        --Pearl Eliadis, Associate Professor, 

                                                       Faculty of Law, McGill University

                                                       "Pearl Eliadis on the Overreach of Bill 96"

There is a cost to whatever Justin Trudeau does, a significant part of the cost is a denial of our individual and collective freedom. What I have said here is what the majority of English-speaking Quebecers think and feel about being abandoned and betrayed by our provincial and federal political parties. They have all sold us out; none of them care about civil liberties. How did we end up in such a situation? How did civil liberties end up meaning so little in Canada? 

Note: this information was correct at the time of writing; it is possible that some details may have since changed. The main thing here is the abnegation of civil liberties in Canada.

The Influence of Art and Literature

Bernard Keble Sandwell 

By Bernard K, Sandwell, B.A.

Bernard Keble Sandwell was born in 1876; he was educated at the University of Toronto and earned a B.A. (first-class honours in classics) in 1897. He is the author of The Musical Red Book of Montreal (1907) and The Molson Family (1933), and other books. This essay was first published in Canada’s Future, what she offers after the war (1916).

 

    The economic and social life of the English-speaking people of Canada has much in common with that of the Americans. Their political institutions, up to the point where autonomy begins to be limited by the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament, have almost everything in common with those of Great Britain. Their ethnic character is much more purely English, Scottish, and Irish than that of the Americans, because they were subjected much later than the latter to the influences of the vast stream of continental European immigration, and the Canadian national mind is scarcely beginning to feel the various non-British impulses which have been a strong factor in American art and literature for a generation. Yet in their tastes, their ideas, their manner of living, they are governed much more largely by American tastes, manners, and ideas than by those of Great Britain ; much more largely than one would expect from their lack of racial and political community with the Americans. A nation of six millions (omitting for a moment the French-speaking portion of the population), has dwelt elbow to elbow, along a frontier of thousands of miles, with a nation of ninety millions, and speaking the same language, from the beginning of its history. In the industrial world it has achieved independence by a policy of carefully adjusted customs duties. In the intellectual world no customs duties have much effect. The proximity of the United States has influenced the art and literature of Canada, not so much by colouring the methods, as by limiting the output. Canadians have not been as conscious as they might have been of the need for self-expression, because they have been abundantly supplied with art and literature expressive of the neighbouring Republic. At the same time Canadians who had the gift of expression, were far too frequently attracted to the United States, where greater wealth and larger population ensured the artist a better reward. Even among the men of high ability who did not actually remove to the United States (or to England, which also exercised its attractive power upon some), the necessity of writing with a view to American or British publication, if they were to secure *a large public and a decent financial reward, prevented them from seeking to express purely Canadian concepts for a purely Canadian public, and required them to adapt their work largely to non-Canadian standards of taste. Meanwhile, the Canadian public, long habituated to seeing non 'Canadian' standards observed even by its own Canadian writers, to having them deal with American subjects or adopt an American point of view, has largely come to the conclusion that there is no national Canadian art and no need for one ; that Canadian literature is sufficiently upheld by a body of Canadian-born writers living in New York, or writing in Canada for New York periodicals ; and that the country is too young, or too poor, or too busy, to be able to maintain a body of writers and artists devoted to the business expressing Canada for Canadians.

Much of the most successful work of Canadian writers of the last fifty years is as little expressive of Canada of the true mind of the Canadian people as the work of the Irish dramatists of the Victorian era was expressive of the mind of Ireland. Some of the external aspects of Canadian life have been portrayed with skill ; the deeper issues have scarcely been touched. Matters upon which the heart of the English-speaking Canadian can be touched to a fire of impassioned feeling, a fire capable of attaining the white heat of tragedy, are not numerous, and do not change much from generation to generation. Even so, our writers pay small attention to them. From the earliest days, the intense conviction of the typical English-speaking Canadian (and here he was at one with his French-speaking brethren) was that his heritage of Canadian soil must be preserved from becoming a part of the great experiment in new governmental methods and new ideals to the south of him. This is the first of the great 'Canadian passions.

Up to 1812, time and again, he maintained that conviction by force of arms. Later, the conflict was transferred to other and more peaceful fields, and became a calm and finally a very friendly struggle ; but the conviction still stands, and the Canadian still maintains with dogged pertinacity and not infrequently with much self-sacrifice, his determination that his country shall develop upon its own lines and within its own limits. It can is curious, by the way, and significant of the concentration of attention upon political and economic matters, that the vast importance of a characteristic native art and literature to full national development has never been taken to heart, when so much energy has been spent upon safe-guarding the Canadianism of political institutions, transportation routes, industries, educational systems, and financial; powers.

When the danger of forcible Americanization had been finally disposed of by the War of 1812, there came for a time another struggle. Canadians began to perceive that too much Downing Street might be as fatal to the ideals which they were unconsciously forming for the new nation, as too much Washington; and there ensued that struggle for responsible government, and for a proper distribution of the powers of government among local and central bodies, which was finally ended by the British North America Act. The constitution provided by that Act has worked very satisfactorily indeed, until the present world-convulsion; but if the need for further readjustment should now be felt, there may be a renewal of (the clash of contending ideals which (however painful at the time) is so invaluable for the development of a rounded national consciousness.

To these two matters of passionate feeling among Canadians may be added a third, perhaps the deepest and most abiding of all. In the political life of the United 'States religious controversy has scarcely any part; in the political and social life of Canada it is all-pervasive. The United States was founded, and its constitution drawn up, by men who wereall of very similar religious attitude ; Canada consists of different races, with widely differing conceptions of the relationship of church and state, church and family, church and individual. The efforts of these different races and different conceptions to advance themselves, the attrition of such different nation-materials, their conflicts and compromises for the development of a united Canada, form the most promising material that any deep-probing novelist could demand for the exercise of his art ; but efforts to treat them seriously have been almost nil. As for drama, there exists no machinery for the presentation of Canadian plays to a Canadian public.

In the fine arts, national development has gone a good deal further in painting than in fiction and poetry, although the emigration to the United States and to Europe of good artists in both metiers has been deplorably large. Poetry is less of a business than novel- writing, requires less of a public for its support, and can be carried on by persons engaged for a livelihood in other more productive occupations, such as the Civil Service and various professions. In the case of Robert "W. Service, we seem to have evidence that in this decade a Canadian poet, writing primarily for a Canadian public, can even make a profitable living out of verse, providing he possesses a certain knack of capturing the popular ear. In painting, which is supported directly by the munificence of the wealthy classes, there has of late been an evident disposition on the part of patrons to encourage Canadian subjects and methods of treatment, and a corresponding development of self-reliance and self-respect among Canadian artists. The external influences at work upon Canadian painting are much more European than American. This may be accounted for by the fact that, in order to experience the influence of American art, a student must go to the United States, and those Canadians who have done so have, as a rule, remained there and enlisted in the American artistic army.         

We thus find that the artistic impulse in Canada has been overshadowed in varying degrees, according to the nature of the field, by the greater, more developed, and more self-conscious nation to the south. That Canadian art is, by degrees, emerging from the shadow, is equally evident. Forces are now commencing to work which must immensely hasten the task of emancipation. The war is affecting Canadian art and literature, for their great and abiding good, in at least two ways. It has diverted the attention of serious Canadians from the purely economic tasks and problems on which the nation has been concentrated for the last twenty-five years, and has stimulated interest in very much higher things matters of 'the mind and soul. On the other hand, it has given Canadians a vastly enhanced consciousness of the value and meaning of their nationhood, not in the realm of dollars and cents, and tons of steel, and bushels of wheat, but as a factor in the eternal world-wide struggle between right and wrong. Alone among the peoples of this hemisphere, Canada has borne her share, in sacrifice of blood and treasure, in the conflict which has racked the world. Alone among the peoples of this hemisphere, Canada has joined hands with the -great nations of the East and West in the fight for national liberties and the dethronement of autocracy and tyranny. A nation with this experience behind it will never again consent to accept its artistic ideals, wholesale and unmodified, from another nation however great and prosperous which has lifted no hand in the fight. Canada has new national experiences, understandings and aspirations, which will more than ever call for expression in a purely Canadian <art and literature. Canada has a place among the nations, a right to a seat in council, which all her wealth and prosperity of the last quarter century could never have given her, but which became hers on the day when her sons stemmed the German rush at Ypres and at St. Julien. If a finer culture and a prouder national consciousness are the first results of Canadian participation in the war, there need be no doubt that a stronger and purer national art and literature will follow closely after.