This story is evolving rapidly as some evidence is showing up that it's the CAQ (the party currently in power) that first tried to push the existence of the DARC blog post to the journalists, then informed CSIS when they didn't report it since it seems to be just one blog post from a think tank, not a coordinated effort.
The report by Quebecor media quoted two unnamed sources from Fréchette’s government who said American government officials had attempted to negotiate tariffs with Quebec directly.
This incident aside, doesn't Quebec already have special rights within the confederation to manage certain international relationships? E.g. quasi-diplomatic General Delegation in Paris, Francophone offices overseas, certain aspects of immigration to Quebec?
Doesn't Canada have trade barriers literally between their own provinces? I'm not sure Canada has a lot of ground to stand on here, if provinces are arguing about trade between themselves. Why not negotiate independently? They are free agents.
Correct on all counts. I don't know how much control Quebec City has over international[1] tariffs, however.
So the shocking allegations boil down to
* US attempt to talk to Quebec City about tariffs, and
* a US think tank publishing something in February 2026 about how the US might benefit from the (meaningful, longstanding, legal) Quebecois pro-sovereignist sentiment.
Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
[1] I have to specify this, because Canada does not have internal free trade! In some ways, trade with the US is freer than intra-Canada trade. Yet more proof of how as Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>.
i'm confused - the allegations are that us officials attempted to negotiate with quebec, and then a separate think-tank published a blog post?
can someone explain where the election interference is? this seems more like an attempt by the leader of a party which is losing in the polls to try to leverage anti-american sentiment.
> Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon questioned both the allegations and the timing of their release, saying he has not seen proof of interference.
> “There was an obligation to act promptly if there is a genuine risk; it was not done by the CAQ…and then if there is no risk and that’s why they didn’t do anything, why are they sending out this information two days before voting?”
You don't understand; it's only ever election interference when the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian government, or for that matter any Russian, Chinese, or Iranian person, openly supports a candidate in a foreign election.
When the US pours millions or billions of dollars covertly into a foreign election, or even into street militias and paramilitaries on one side of an election, it's actually a human rights violation if you stop us.
This story is evolving rapidly as some evidence is showing up that it's the CAQ (the party currently in power) that first tried to push the existence of the DARC blog post to the journalists, then informed CSIS when they didn't report it since it seems to be just one blog post from a think tank, not a coordinated effort.
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2287702/caq-scrs-ingere...
The report by Quebecor media quoted two unnamed sources from Fréchette’s government who said American government officials had attempted to negotiate tariffs with Quebec directly.
This incident aside, doesn't Quebec already have special rights within the confederation to manage certain international relationships? E.g. quasi-diplomatic General Delegation in Paris, Francophone offices overseas, certain aspects of immigration to Quebec?
I wouldn't be surprised. That would be one of many failings of the Canadian constitution/government.
What else do you have?
Doesn't Canada have trade barriers literally between their own provinces? I'm not sure Canada has a lot of ground to stand on here, if provinces are arguing about trade between themselves. Why not negotiate independently? They are free agents.
Isn't this referring to Quebec trying to negotiate with the US?
Which would be completely different from province-to-province negotiation, obviously.
Correct on all counts. I don't know how much control Quebec City has over international[1] tariffs, however.
So the shocking allegations boil down to
* US attempt to talk to Quebec City about tariffs, and
* a US think tank publishing something in February 2026 about how the US might benefit from the (meaningful, longstanding, legal) Quebecois pro-sovereignist sentiment.
Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
[1] I have to specify this, because Canada does not have internal free trade! In some ways, trade with the US is freer than intra-Canada trade. Yet more proof of how as Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself <https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>.
i'm confused - the allegations are that us officials attempted to negotiate with quebec, and then a separate think-tank published a blog post?
can someone explain where the election interference is? this seems more like an attempt by the leader of a party which is losing in the polls to try to leverage anti-american sentiment.
> Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon questioned both the allegations and the timing of their release, saying he has not seen proof of interference.
> “There was an obligation to act promptly if there is a genuine risk; it was not done by the CAQ…and then if there is no risk and that’s why they didn’t do anything, why are they sending out this information two days before voting?”
You don't understand; it's only ever election interference when the Russian, Chinese, or Iranian government, or for that matter any Russian, Chinese, or Iranian person, openly supports a candidate in a foreign election.
When the US pours millions or billions of dollars covertly into a foreign election, or even into street militias and paramilitaries on one side of an election, it's actually a human rights violation if you stop us.