CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: February 2009

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Charles F. Doran Testifies on the "Unravelling" of Canada


LexisNexis(R) Email Request (1842:64373708)


Print Request: Selected Document(s): 1

Time of Request: October 05, 2005 03:28 PM EDT
Number of Lines: 109
Job Number: 1842:64373708
Client ID/Project Name:

Research Information:

Copyright 1996 FDCHeMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony

September 25, 1996, Wednesday


LENGTH: 1776 words



Charles F. Doran

Andrew W. Mellon Professor of International Relations

Nitze School of Advanced International Studies,

Johns Hopkins University

September 25, 1996

House Committee on International Relations

Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere

Will Quebec secede from Canada?

If Quebec secedes, will English Canada unravel?

What's the impact on U.S. interests of
Canadian fragmentation?

How should the United States respond?


In the Fall 1995 referendum on Quebec separation, the ruling Parti Quebecois government came within about 50,000 votes of a majority in favor of secession. Quebec separatists claim that independence is necessary to preserve Quebec language and culture. This claim has created political tension within the province of Quebec between federalists and the separatists and within Canada as a whole.

Premier Bouchard has indicated that the top priority for the PQ government is, for the present, fighting the large financial deficit and governing effectively. He argues that Quebec will not call another referendum before the next Quebec election scheduled for 1999 or earlier. But he has also and he promises that Quebec voters will insisted that separation remains on his government's agenda, he promises that Quebec voters will get another opportunity to decide this issue.

Prediction of future political events with any degree of confidence is impossible. There are many reasons, however, for believing that the threat of Quebec separation ought to be taken seriously. According to The Globe and Mail, Canada's leading English newspaper, 52.5 percent of Quebec voters currently support separation. Each generation of Quebec voters has become more supportive of secession, especially in the aftermath of the unsuccessful attempts at country-wide constitutional reform during the so-called Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Younger voters are more independence-minded than older voters, and as each generation ages, it tends to retain this profile of preference for independence.

Ottawa has made bold efforts to meet the demands of Quebec interests, while at the same time trying to satisfy the concerns of mostly English-speaking voters living elsewhere in Canada. Prime Minister Chretien's government has introduced legislation to address some of Quebec's concerns regarding the acknowledgment of Quebec as a "distinct society," regarding the creation of a veto for Quebec and other provinces over constitutional change, and regarding worker retraining. The problem is that as large a majority is against these provisions elsewhere in Canada as is supportive of them in Quebec. Hence, Ottawa has an extremely difficult time getting the changes entrenched in the constitution and unless they are so entrenched, Quebec rejects them as ephemeral.

Canada is thus faced with a dilemma of how to meet Quebec demands without antagonizing the rest of the country and without undermining the capacity to govern effectively. Language issues, educational policy, immigration rules, and joint Federal-Provincial funding of public programs all have inflamed opinion inside Quebec between the anglophone minority and the francophone majority.

Many things can happen to affect future Outcomes in Quebec, including a return of the pro-federalist (but nationalist) Liberal Party to power, a downturn of the business cycle that temporarily could shock voters, and new policy initiatives on all sides. But the seriousness of Quebec separation remains a priority issue for Canada and indeed for all of North America.


Quebec secession is normally regarded as the only conceivable event that could lead to an unravelling of Canada. Canada enjoys nearly a century and one-half of formal integration as a confederation. Its political institutions are sophisticated and deeply committed to democracy. Consistently, Canada is ranked by Opinion Surveys as the number one polity in which to live. Despite all of these advantages, Canada would receive a sharp political jolt if Quebec decided to opt out.

English Canada undoubtedly would attempt to reconstitute itself politically after Quebec separation. The central question is whether Such reconstitution would satisfy both the voters in Ontario, Canada's largest, most populous, and richest English-speaking provinces. Quite a few hurdles exist.

First, the eastern Maritime Provinces would be cut off from Canada by an independent Quebec. Despite the best of intention by of Canada a sense of being alone and distant in geographic avoided. The Maritimes themselves might regroup politically, but loss of geographic propinquity with the rest of English Canada would not be easy to adjust to.

Second, large financial transfer payments currently pass from the rich industrial and oil-abundant provinces to the poorer, less industrialized provinces like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Once federation collapses, the voters in the rich provinces may have second thoughts about continuing to support the less prosperous provinces. If transfer payments disappear, the "glue" that has traditionally held the country together in public policy terms might dissolve.

Third, the Canadian West has historically suffered from what analysts call "Western alienation." Some 12 percent of voters in British Columbia, for example, say they should become a separate country. This sense of alienation from the Canadian heartland has many causes, some of which like tariff inequities are either fanciful or have disappeared. Yet the sense of disenchantment with the industrial and political center of Canada lives on. A difference in electoral and party preference, combined with problems of political representation in the major governing parties, all have contributed to the feelings many Westerners have of being "left out."

Fourth, in a Canada bereft of Quebec, Ontario would tower over its neighboring provinces in terms of virtually every measure including political clout. Surely, Alberta, for instance, would demand a new Senate in which every province has equal representation. Smaller provinces would probably need to regroup on a larger regional basis. The constitution would require re-drafting. Ontario, of course, would be expected to yield substantial sovereignty and political leverage so that all of these far-reaching constitutional changes would be allowed to go forward.

The problem is that, in the end, some provinces might decide to go their own way politically. Ultimately Canada could fragment into three, four, five, or more entities, each independent, but also relatively weak and isolated. No one would consciously seek the unraveling of Canada, but Canada could unravel just the same, as the unintended result of a failure to overcome the fissiparousness of government action and the monumental challenge of political reconstruction.


Accustomed to "peace, order, and good government" above the 49th parallel, Americans have a difficult time imagining a situation in which a number of small, disparate states would occupy the space that once was a united Canada. Should such an agent occur, the interests of the United States would be at stake. Political, economic, diplomatic, administrative, and defense concerns would emerge. What once was a coherent, friendly,and well-governed polity would become in the parlance of international politics something of a political vacuum.

Administrative interactions would become more numerous, complex, and burdensome. Coalitional arrangements might arise with non- hemispheric powers. Defense arrangements would require multiple participation by independent actors theoretically capable of vetoing policies adopted by the majority representation. How all of these innovations and changes would evolve is beyond the ability of the analyst to systematically explore and delineate.

While all of the actors undoubtedly would prefer membership in NAFTA, keeping NAFTA whole and vigorous might prove demanding. Once individual political borders arise, trade, commercial, and financial obstacles often follow. Continuation of effective trade liberalization on a regional basis is the challenge.

In short, the goal of many to see North America evolve into a broad, open liberal trade order might stumble in the face of an unravelling of Quebec and English Canada.


Canada must be allowed to decide for itself, without interference, according to democratic principles, what political fate it prefers. Farsighted leadership in Ottawa, and in Quebec City, as well as in the other provincial capitals, may well head-off imminent break-up and create a new foundation for a united Canada in the twenty-first century. Yet enough indicators presently exist to suggest that this set of initiatives will not come easily or with large guarantees of success.

It is time for the United States to take Canada's problems seriously and to begin to consider how its own interests will be affected by an unravelling of Canada. At a minimum, the United States ought to consider various contingencies, and, without precipitating the outcome that it seeks to avoid, work out the responses that will be in the best interest of each of the polities of North America.

(1) The United States might, in the event of Canadian unraveling, offer the isolated political fragments a kind of regional affiliation with the United States. They would pursue their independent domestic policies. But they would forgo building their militia and attempting to establish unique foreign policies. Terms could be established to promote mutual security for all of North America.

(2) Difficult though the path to statehood would be both for the United States and for a Canadian fragment attempting such a venture, the United States should be prepared to consider such requests if regional affiliation proves insufficiently attractive. Proud of Canada, most Canadians rightly reject any thought of alternatives to Canadian citizenship. But if English Canada fragments, all of the political cards will have been shuffled. It is very difficult to see what preferences might then eventuate. Better that the United States keep an open mind regarding its options than to rigidly foreclose some of them now based on presently inadequate information and an imperfect understanding of what a very different kind of North America could require.

LOAD-DATE: September 26, 1996

CFR Involvement in the Planned End of Canada


Source: Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes, Charles F. Doran, in Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996, article preview: first 500 of 4,294 words total.

Source: Charles Doran Testifies on the "Unravelling" of Canada.

Working Notes: This transcript, file name 1182VW-4.htm, documents events on the date of 25 September 1996, in which Charles F. Doran, a card-carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) gives testimony to the US House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee On Western Hemisphere concerning the Secession of Quebec.

This, of course, is a year after the failed referendum of 1995. That referendum, by the way, was illegal. It was sedition and treason against Canada. There is no power for a province to secede from Canada; the Constitution was designed in 1867 to prevent the annexation of Canada to the USA and thus necessarily to prevent secession, which would cause the annexation to happen.

A couple of paragraphs at the bottom of Doran's testimony to the Subcommittee are similar, but not quite as explicit as Doran in fact becomes in his September/October 1996 article for the CFR entitled "Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes," in which Doran specifically proposes an arrangement that cannot be anything other than "North American Union", and where Doran goes further to suggest that if Quebec secedes, not only Canada, but all of North America could "unravel". Here is an extract from a preview (at the CFR web site) of Doran's article:
"This more complicated picture of Quebec's separation and its consequences may be described as a worst-case scenario. But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada."
At my web site,, I have begun to expose that the Secession of Quebec was from the outset always intended as a ruse to implement the legal and political institutions of the European Union on North American soil. See my Grounds page, and then my Statement of Purpose.

The testimony of Doran before the Western Hemisphere committee directly connects the "unravelling" of North America with Quebec Secession. He then proposes to that Subcommittee the implementation by the USA of a regional "supranational affiliation". That generic term is clearly North American Union a decade before the official publication of the "Building A North American Community" ("BANC") plan by the Council on Foreign Relations at its web site.

And, we should note, the BANC was published in 2005
in the absence of Quebec Secession. In other words, events have caught up with these people. North American Union was always intended. As the 1980 and 1995 referendums for the phoney Secession of Quebec did not pan out for them, they are moving ahead anyway.

Of great concern to me, and perhaps to others, is that they are now moving ahead based largely on the notion that the attacks on New York's World Trade Center in 2001 require a common North American external security perimeter. To date, there has been no independent inquiry into events on September 11th, 2001. To the extent that those events are being used to drive the annexation of Canada to the US and Mexico, concerned Canadians should be demanding a full and independent inquiry into how those events of September 11th actually transpired.

In short, the CFR has an agenda, part of which is called North American Union. The CFR has been working for decades with its affiliates in the Bilderberg Group and in the Trilateral Commission, and with other allies, including but not limited to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, to take down Canada by an illegal Quebec referendum. Tricking Canadians into destroying their country served as a cover for the fact the CFR has always intended to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico as part of its October 1940 plan to equip the USA with the political, military, economic and territorial resources necessary for the CFR to use the USA as their private enforcers to run the whole planet.

They also need the phoney secession of Quebec as a trigger to help ignite separatist sentiment in other countries in order to finish them off by breaking them up for attachment to the European Union, and to the Asian and African Unions. These clones of the European Union are intended to be merged together into one-world union under the self-appointed rule of those controlling the CFR, the international bankers.

They have not been able to get the phoney Secession of Quebec, so they are proceeding as planned, anyway. Covert "working groups" under the banner of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and hosted by those detaining the governments of Canada, the USA and Mexico, are working feverishly to harmonize the regulations attached to our laws. Multinational corporations are thus altering our laws by a back door in order to merge all three countries into a common legal system that is not a part of the Constitution of Canada, and undoubtedly not the result of your democratic vote for your Member of Parliament.

There remains the extreme risk that they still will attempt, one last time, to precipitate a final illegal Quebec referendum by stirring up trouble somewhere in Canada to ignite separatist sentiment as a cover for their own subterfuge of an imperialist attack upon the sovereign nation of Canada. Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois -- a federal phoney separatist party, counterpart to the provincial phoney separatist Parti Québécois -- has recently indicated plans to rev up his Quebec constituents for a new "Sovereignty" debate. Of course, there's no "Sovereignty" in it, the referendums are a scam to dissolve Canada by imposing the structures of the European Union on Canadian territory.

Loyal Canadians must be at all times on guard for attempts by red necks and blue necks of all persuasions to foment discord and racism amongst Canadians. We have too easily fallen prey to these tactics in the past few decades. Our responsibility as citizens of Canada is to respect and care for the well being of one another, not attack each other like rabid dogs on a short leash controlled by the CFR and their agents agitating for division in our country to take us down.

It's time for us all to wake up and treat one another as colleagues in the same nation. No more language wars, no more Quebec vs. The Rest of Canada nonsense.

Each and every Province is distinct. Each and every Province was endowed at Confederation, or at the time it entered Confederation, with a unique heritage and culture which the Union of Canada was intended to preserve, while promoting a common political nationality for all of us to enjoy.

It is our duty as citizens to live up to this heritage, to promote peace, goodwill and harmony amongst all of our Provinces. And to welcome the members of each Province into every other Province when they come, by respecting the Constitution of Canada which protects us all and provides for distinct features in every province, and bilingual government structures.

If we are too small for this task, if we are unwilling to be the nation that our ancestors and founders meant us to be, then we must be willing to accept the consequence of becoming nothing but a chunk of landmass attached to the fascist military dictatorship unfolding south of our 49th parallel under CFR control.

The American people have a huge and tragic problem to deal with in that regard: the loss of their Constitutional Republic, which stood to be admired before its take-over from within by the CFR. Canadians also must deal with this problem, preferably by maintaining our sovereignty and our independence. And that begins at home by regarding our fellow citizens as members of the same country, not regardless of Provincial distinction, but very proudly because of it.

The passage of Charles F. Doran that I quoted above shows a direct connection being drawn by that card-carrying CFR member and author, between the SECESSION OF QUEBEC and what is very clearly NORTH AMERICAN UNION, described by him in generic terms in 1996.

Thus, plans for North American Union did not just pop up suddenly in 2005 with publication of the Building A North American Community blueprint for annexation.
Doran's term, the "remnants of Canada," is, of course, an uncharitable reference to virtually the richest natural resource-bearing territories remaining on this planet. And they are all on Canadian soil. It is quite an understatement for someone in 1996 proposing what is clearly an NAU-style regional, "supranational affiliation" to refer to these extremely rich areas of water, forestry, mining, oil and gas as "remnants" of anything.

The Canadian Provinces are in fact key to provisioning, for the next century, not of the USA, but the future one-world government which the CFR intends to wield through its own puppet on American soil, created by it in the 1940s: the United Nations.

Charles F. Doran of the Council on Foreign Relations also acted as an as "expert" witness before the Supreme Court of Canada in the phoney Reference re the Secession of Quebec. That farce and scam had no remote connection to fact or law. It was the personal rule outside the Constitution of the Supreme Court bench complicit with our entirely corrupt Executive, most of whom are members of Bilderberg, a sister organization of the CFR. In other words, it was treason.

The Reference re the Secession of Quebec was also an exercise in public brainwashing, to convince Canadians that their country could be terminated by "principles" the Supreme Court of Canada pretended to find in the Constitution. In fact those "principles" are the so-called international "law" standards developed in 1991 for the express purpose of destroying Yugoslavia, a sovereign nation apparently sitting on an oil pipeline feeding directly into the European Union. For more information on this particular aspect of the scam to take down Canada, see my 2008 Elections Bulletin linked to the front of and look for the "Badinter Applicable Standards," which later become the European Union's 1993 "Copenhagen Criteria". [If clicking on the Bulletin doesn't work, paste the direct address into your browser:].

Doran was accompanied at the phoney Secession Reference by another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Thomas M. Franck. The testimony of both of these so-called "experts" in support of the breakup of Canada was solicited by the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer, now deceased, who appointed Quebec lawyer André Joli-Coeur as "amicus curiae" (friend of the Court) to represent Quebec during the phoney Reference.

Joli-Coeur submitted the testimony of Franck and Doran, both of whom are CFR, as "expert" witnesses.
In addition, CFR author Robert Lloyd Howse, also a former speech writer to our Federal Cabinet (and now you can see where Canadian federal policy is coming from), aided the 1998 coup on Canada by recommending these "bogus principles" to the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of the Secession Reference. In an article he penned together with then-law student Alissa Malkin, entitled "Canadians are a Sovereign People: How the Supreme Court Should Approach the Reference on Quebec Secession," (1997), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 186, Howse repackaged the Yugoslavian take-down for Canada. [If clicking on that doesn't work, paste the direct address into your browser:]

It should be noted that Chief Justice Antonio Lamer received a controversial, but perhaps not well publicized pension hike a few months before the Secession Reference. At least one astute academic, Professor Ted Morton of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, raised an important objection when speaking to the Canadian Senate on the subject of the "Lamer Amendment" to the federal
Judges' Act on Thursday, 17 October 1996 (Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue 30 - Evidence - Afternoon Session):
"The pension change is before the Senate at the very time that Mr. Rock is proceeding to the Supreme Court with a reference on the legality of Quebec's so-called right to secession ... it invites the charge that the pension benefits that would accrue to the Chief Justice, or more probably to his wife, payments that could be in the millions of dollars, compromise the requirement of the appearance of impartiality... Sceptics can, and I suggest will, claim that it is unacceptable for a Chief Justice who is about to benefit from Mr. Rock's proposed pension policy change to also sit in judgment on Mr. Rock's Quebec reference, the most politically sensitive constitutional case of this decade."
In similar proceedings, Senator Anne C. Cools raised the following issues concerning that particular pension hike, which, as it only benefited the Chief Justice and his wife, was referred to in debates as the "Lamer Amendment" or as the "Tremblay-Lamer Amendment", Justice Danielle-Tremblay being the Chief Justice's wife [I'm going to translate this because I can't find my English version right now]:

FRENCH proceedings:
(2nd Session, 35th Legislature, Volume 135, Number 38, Tuesday, 1st Octobre 1996, the Honorable Gildas L. Molgat, President)

TRANSLATION [Senator Anne C. Cools]:
Honorable Senators, let us now examine the Lamer, Tremblay-Lamer amendment. Section 44 of the Judges Act prohibits surviving spouses of Judges from receiving more than one pension. Section 3 of draft bill C-42 would permit a surviving spouse to receive more than one pension. I informed myself on the subject of the number of judges and of cases affected by this amendment. I have been informed that there is only one case and marriage, that of Chief Justice Antonio Lamer and Madame Justice Danielle Tremblay-Lamer. They were married in 1987, and Mrs. Tremblay-Lamer was appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Canada on 16 June 1993.

FRENCH ORIGINAL: Honorables sénateurs, examinons maintenant l'amendement Tremblay-Lamer, Lamer. L'article 44 de la Loi sur les juges interdit aux conjoints survivants de juges de recevoir plus d'une pension. L'article 3 du projet de loi C-42 permettra au conjoint survivant de recevoir plus d'une pension. Je me suis renseignée au sujet du nombre de juges et de cas touchés par cet amendement. On m'a informée qu'il n'y a qu'un cas et un mariage, celui du juge en chef Antonio Lamer et de Mme la juge Danielle Tremblay-Lamer. Ils se sont mariés en 1987, et Mme Tremblay-Lamer a été nommée juge à la Cour fédérale du Canada le 16 juin 1993.

Having successfully, if illegally, led the Supreme Court bench in formulating an official procedure to break up Canada in the absence of any right or power to do so under the Constitution, the Chief Justice, Antonio Lamer, died on 24 November 2006, and Mrs. Lamer, herself a Judge in Ontario, has presumably now benefitted from that pre-Secession-Reference and possibly multi-million-dollar pension.

[FN] This page of working notes was made in Montreal on 9 December 2008 and revised slightly on 25 February 2009 [CrazyforCanada].