# History, Veterans, Remembrance, Honour and then there's the Bloc



## Johnny Canuck (5 Nov 2004)

Some of you may have heard that a Bloc MP- Andre Bellevance -a federal MP sworn under oath to serve ALL his constituents, has refused to supply veterans with Canadian Flags for Remembrance Day saying a he's a separatist and so doesn't want to show support for Canada.

It is my intention to draw a Canadian flag and send a copy to both his fax machines. No text will be needed as the flags themselves will speak volumes.

 If you wish you may do the same, or perhaps send another message if you so choose. The story from the Globe and Mail of today (Nov 04)   follows
Marc


Andre Bellevance
Ottawa Office # 613-995-1554
Ottawa Fax 613 995-2025
Bellevance.A@parl.gc.ca

Riding office (Victoriaville)
Tel 819- 751 1375     OR the free line***** 1-877-751-1375
Fax 819 751-5517


FROM THE GLOBE AND MAIL
.
Bloc MP refuses flags for Legion
By INGRID PERITZ   Globe and Mail Update 

Montreal â â€ A Bloc Québécois MP is refusing to hand out Canadian flags to the local Legion for Remembrance Day services this year, angering veterans as they prepare to remember their fallen comrades.

MP André Bellavance says he was elected as a sovereigntist and if his constituents want Canadian flags, they should call Heritage Canada.

â Å“A majority of people here elected an MP who's a Bloquiste and a sovereigntist â â€ I never hid it during the campaign â â€ and I don't want to become a distributor of Canadian flags,â ? he said in an interview yesterday from his office in Ottawa.

However, he said he wouldn't have any problem giving out Quebec flags if someone asked him, even if he had to buy them himself.

Mr. Bellavance's position has upset the aging veterans at the Royal Canadian Legion in Richmond, about 120 km. east of Montreal.

Every year, the Legion has turned to its local member of Parliament for a new flag to hoist up the pole outside the Legion hall on Remembrance Day and another at the town cenotaph. Both fly alongside Quebec's Fleur-de-lis.

The veterans used to obtain Canadian flags from their MPs, who have included a Tory and a Bloquiste. And other Bloc MPs from the region still reportedly supply the flags to constituents.

â Å“The vets here are so disappointed. They feel this is a lack of respect for what they did and for their country,â ? said John Hill, vice-president of the Legion. â Å“Whatever Mr. Bellavance's platform is, he represents Canadians and he represents me in the federal Parliament.â ?

Bruno Lavoie, 88, has taken part in Remembrance Day ceremonies since he was a boy. He says he never understood why his father shed tears at the cenotaph. Then Mr. Lavoie went to war himself, â Å“and I understood.â ?

Mr. Lavoie disembarked on the beach at Dieppe, one of the great disasters in Canadian military history, and so he has many comrades to remember on Nov. 11. He will make the annual Remembrance Day march from his legion hall to the cenotaph, leaning on a cane.

â Å“We crossed the Atlantic with Canada marked on our shoulder, and we were very proud of that,â ? he said in an interview from the legion. â Å“The flag of Canada is as valid in Quebec as anywhere else.â ?

â Å“This is a real insult to veterans,â ? he said of his local MP's decision.

Mr. Hill says he heeded Mr. Bellavance's advice and called Heritage Canada in Ottawa. He was referred to a number in Montreal, and he left a message on an answering service there two weeks ago. He has not heard back yet.

â Å“I'm ready to buy the Canadian flags myself.â ?

In Ottawa, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe defended his MP.

â Å“It's not that he's refusing,â ? Mr. Duceppe said. â Å“We give these people the information to go to Heritage Canada, or if not, it's the [Bloc] whip's office who gives them out, so that each MP is not caught in this little game that some Liberals enjoy.â ?

He insisted that Liberal MPs have often asked their Bloc counterparts if they can have their flags, and the Bloc MPs agreed. The Liberals then criticize their Bloc counterparts for not having them available at their riding office.

â Å“People will receive them if they want them, but we won't open a shop in our office to distribute Canadian flags.â ?


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> It is my intention to draw a Canadian flag and send a copy to both his fax machines. No text will be needed as the flags themselves will speak volumes.



If you really want to have fun with that, here's what you do:

draw two of them (on two pieces of paper) and then tape them together.  Feed the result into your fax machine, and as the bottom sheet comes out of the machine, tape it to the top portion of the second sheet, forming a loop.  Leave running for 2 hours or so.  then send a fax asking him to pass those out amongst the veterans


----------



## canuck101 (5 Nov 2004)

That sounds evil but on the other hand go ahead and to it.


----------



## Gayson (5 Nov 2004)

I just sent an angry email.


----------



## Figure11 (5 Nov 2004)

How about this for an idea. Take a piece of regular issue writing paper and on it register your thoughts in a polite, concise manner. Obtain from your local buiding supply store, one common house brick. Wrap and tape your letter to the brick in question and instert into the largest brown, bubble wrap envelope that you can find and address it to the MP in question, c/o Parliament Hill. The last time I checked, it was free to send a letter to our elected representatives. Somehow the thought of about a thousand bricks ending up in this numptys office gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. >


----------



## bossi (5 Nov 2004)

Figure11 said:
			
		

> How about this for an idea. Take a piece of regular issue writing paper and on it register your thoughts in a polite, concise manner. Obtain from your local buiding supply store, one common house brick. Wrap and tape your letter to the brick in question and instert into the largest brown, bubble wrap envelope that you can find and address it to the MP in question, c/o Parliament Hill. The last time I checked, it was free to send a letter to our elected representatives. Somehow the thought of about a thousand bricks ending up in this numptys office gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. >



Umm ... ya, but ... it's only "free" inasmuch as the sender does not have to purchase postage stamps.
However, we all know there's got to be a catch ... and in this case, Canada Post has to use transportation resources (which run on fuel) to move the bricks to the Blockhead's office - thus, a cost is incurred, and in the end ... Canada Post's customers end up paying for it either through increased postal rates or ... tax dollars ...

Nice idea, though (I've actually done it when I get annoying junk mail from a commercial source that I dislike ... but one has to also be mindful not to commit "public mischief" ... enough said).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...



> *Tories provide Remembrance Day flags*
> RICHMOND, Que. (CP) - Veterans will get Canadian flags for Remembrance Day services from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper following a refusal from the area's Bloc Quebecois MP to provide the flags.
> 
> John Hill, vice-president of Richmond's Royal Canadian Legion branch, said Thursday night he had received a call from Harper's office telling him the branch would be getting 10 flags in time for their ceremony. "I said I would be glad to accept them," Hill said, adding Harper was also going to send a letter of commendation to the branch.
> ...


----------



## Jungle (5 Nov 2004)

Hmmm... I wonder if those Bloc MPs will refuse their MP pension checks. After all, the checks will bear a Canadian flag on them.
Bellavance is an immature prick for doing this.


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2004)

It's a good thing that idiotic organization and its ethnicist-racist adherents is slowly sinking below the demographic waves of this country.That idiot should be happy to live in a country that gives him the freedom to act and speak as he does, instead of flinging him headfirst into a particularly dark and smelly dungeon or dealing with him in one or two other summary ways I can think of....... Cheers.


----------



## Guardian (5 Nov 2004)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I wonder if those Bloc MPs will refuse their MP pension checks. After all, the checks will bear a Canadian flag on them.
> Bellavance is an immature prick for doing this.



The Canadian flag is just fine for them when it's convenient. These are the same people who assured Quebecers in the last referendum that they would keep the Canadian dollar, the Canadian postal system, have a trade arrangement with Canada, etc.

He may not like the idea, but until such time as Quebec actually secedes, he's still a Canadian. 

The slap in the face he's given to those veterans, who've given much more than he would ever be prepared to give in order to allow him the freedom to be an ungrateful prick, is inexcusable. 

This traitor should resign for refusing to serve his constituents. And then he should spend several weeks visiting the gravesides of all the brave Canadian soldiers from his riding who died in our wars, apologizing in person for his thoughtlessness.

But, as Jungle implied, it'll never happen.


----------



## Bograt (5 Nov 2004)

This really is a small issue. Last week the leader of the Bloc mused that Quebec needs to seriously plan for sovereignty. Including developing the framework of instituting its own military.

My question is: When does it become treason? When does it become sedition? If you recall during the 95 referendum, Bloc MPs fax various Quebec bases soliciting francophone members to participate in the "National" militia. Bouchard commented that in the event of a yes vote, a third of military equipment would belong to Quebec- including all the Hornets in Baggotville.


----------



## bubba (5 Nov 2004)

i would like to reply but im on verbal warning >


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

> Constituents can obtain flags by calling the federal heritage department or going through the whip's office, he suggested.



So my question is - so what?  Why are Members of Parliament suddenly expected to be flag vendors?  Don't we think they have better things to do, like governing the country?

Seems like a tempest in a teapot, to me.   

What exactly are the flags used for, anyway?  The only flags I've seen used on Rememberance Day are either flying at half-staff over the Legion Hall (and those aren't put up special just for the day), or else the ones the colour party carries, which are usually gold fringed, and are not provided by any Member of Parliament that I know.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Nov 2004)

Doesn't Sheila have some left-over?  Oh yeah, they can't be flown ...


----------



## THEARMYGUY (5 Nov 2004)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I wonder if those Bloc MPs will refuse their MP pension checks. After all, the checks will bear a Canadian flag on them.
> Bellavance is an immature prick for doing this.



Ditto Jungle.  I can't believe this guy and his refusal to give a VETERANS group a flag.  They fought for our (and his) freedom and he needs to give his bucket a shake and check the rocks for holes.  Just my 2 cents.    LEST WE FORGET  

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Nov 2004)

My bad, i didnt notice this thread was already up.....

On topic, I think he has forgotten that a) he is a FEDERAL MP, and b)he is electied to serve as the voice of the people, not the voice of his political agenda.

He needs a serious attitude change


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (5 Nov 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> He needs a serious attitude change



I look foreward to seeing how long he stands by his initial decision, or whether he'll cave under the pressure. Im hoping cave..


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> My bad, i didnt notice this thread was already up.....
> 
> On topic, I think he has forgotten that a) he is a FEDERAL MP, and b)he is electied to serve as the voice of the people, not the voice of his political agenda.
> 
> He needs a serious attitude change



No one is answering the question - is it really his job to be a flag vendor?


----------



## Bograt (5 Nov 2004)

Micheal,

It is the principle that is outrageous to the general public. It is well know that when people travel they ask their MPs for the little Canadian pins to give away. Its a good will gesture that symbolically connects "the common man" with the leaders in government. It is matter of tradition. It is a matter of basic respect and decency.

I'm upset that we think this is acceptable. Its not a question of politics, it is a question of what is right and wrong. These veterans gave their lives to a cause greater than themselves and their feats will never be equalled. This MPs most courageous action was to deny a flag to a veteran- and we as Canadians think this is acceptable?

When did we disentergrate as a society. When did we loose the sense of basic right and wrong? When did we become a nation of moralistic opportunists?

The MP is wrong. He is a coward, and I do not know how these guys look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Micheal,
> 
> It is the principle that is outrageous to the general public. It is well know that when people travel they ask their MPs for the little Canadian pins to give away. Its a good will gesture that symbolically connects "the common man" with the leaders in government. It is matter of tradition. It is a matter of basic respect and decency.
> 
> ...



Coward?

I disagree.  He is an advocate for an unpopular political position, and he is following his ideals.

Like you, I disagree with his actions - Rememberance Day isn't supposed to be political.  However, I wouldn't call him a coward.  You're presuming this is causing him no personal angst.  

On the contrary, he may be quite brave to be taking what he realizes is an unpopular opinion, in the pursuit of his political objective which is an independent Quebec.

Again, I disagree with the action but I think it, and his personal characteristics, are being blown way out of proportion here.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Nov 2004)

Thats not the thing Michael, he refused to do it not because it isnt his job. He refused because he said it is not for the best interest of his party, but like i said, he is there to serve the people, not his agenda. If he had politley said that it is not his job, but here are some places that will do it, then it would be cool. He said what he said, he should be held responsible, kick him out of politics, if he cant honour the national flag, how can he be a MP?????


----------



## Bograt (5 Nov 2004)

Micheal,

I disagree. It does not take courage to privately deny a veteran (and senior citizen) a flag. He did not publically announce his position, but instead privately whispered it. Only when the Legion went public with the situation was his "stance" publically know. At that point his position was defended by his leader. 

He stumbled into a position of principle by tripping over his arrogance. He is a coward. A coward that is backed into a corner, and instead of doing the right thing he is hiding from his responsibility under a guise of political principle. Otherwise, have we reached a point in this country where is behavior is considered leadership?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> Thats not the thing Michael, he refused to do it not because it isnt his job. He refused because he said it is not for the best interest of his party, but like i said, he is there to serve the people, not his agenda. If he had politley said that it is not his job, but here are some places that will do it, then it would be cool. He said what he said, he should be held responsible, kick him out of politics, if he cant honour the national flag, how can he be a MP?????



I'm still waiting for someone to explain why veterans need to get flags from their MP?  Didn't he have a good point about getting flags from Heritage instead?

If a veteran came up to me at the armoury and said "can I have a flag?" what do you think I would tell him?  "Sorry, sir, thank you for your service, but this is regimental clothing stores - we don't have any flags here.  Why don't you try...."


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Micheal,
> 
> I disagree. It does not take courage to privately deny a veteran (and senior citizen) a flag. He did not publically announce his position, but instead privately whispered it. Only when the Legion went public with the situation was his "stance" publically know. At that point his position was defended by his leader.



I would say doing it privately was the optimal way to go, to prevent embarrassment and avoid making a scene - or turning it into a political event.  So I guess we blame the Legion for that one.



> He stumbled into a position of principle by tripping over his arrogance. He is a coward. A coward that is backed into a corner, and instead of doing the right thing he is hiding from his responsibility under a guise of political principle. Otherwise, have we reached a point in this country where is behavior is considered leadership?



Are you sure you understand what a coward is?  Cause I just don't see that here.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for someone to explain why veterans need to get flags from their MP?   Didn't he have a good point about getting flags from Heritage instead?
> 
> If a veteran came up to me at the armoury and said "can I have a flag?" what do you think I would tell him?   "Sorry, sir, thank you for your service, but this is regimental clothing stores - we don't have any flags here.   Why don't you try...."




ya but you wouldnt say im not giving you the flag because i am part of a political party that doesnt honor the national flag, and on those grounds refuse to give you one. Like i said, you are way off topic here, you are not grasping what has happened. I am not saying it is his or any other MP's job to do this, but his comments still stand.


----------



## Bograt (5 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Are you sure you understand what a coward is?   Cause I just don't see that here.



I think I have a pretty good handle on what that word means. If someone shirks doing the right thing because it is too hard, I consider that cowardice. If someone doesn't take responsibility for their actions and fails to admit wrong. I consider that wrong. Don't turn this guy into a hero, or a man of principle. He is neither. To suggest otherwise diminishes all others- and in this case those who truly sacrificed.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

From the article:


			
				Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> However, he said he wouldn't have any problem giving out Quebec flags if someone asked him, even if he had to buy them himself.



So much for the "flag vendor" theory. Frankly, if a BQ offered me a Canadian Flag, I'd say "no thanks, keep it ... its yours anyway."


----------



## white (5 Nov 2004)

Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> However, he said he wouldn't have any problem giving out Quebec flags if someone asked him, even if he had to buy them himself.



Why would they want to put up a Quebec flag to remember the soldiers who died in war, they weren't fighting under the Quebec flag it was the Canadian flag and Quebec didn't even want to help out in WWII they didn't even want to help out in WWI.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Nov 2004)

I think he shoud be given the boot, this isnt just some mistake, he is backing his decission, so he means it, punt him.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

mwhite said:
			
		

> Why would they want to put up a Quebec flag to remember the soldiers who died in war, they weren't fighting under the Quebec flag it was the Canadian flag and Quebec didn't even want to help out in WWII they didn't even want to help out in WWI.



That is a very serious mischaracterization of those issues, and frankly I don't think its for you to say where the loyalties and motives of those who died as French Canadiens lie. Take on the BQ all you want, that's fair game ... but to write off the sacrifices of a province in the manner that you have lies at the heart of the problem in this country - genuine lack of respect and refusal to recognize the contributions made for the benefit of others.   And it wasn't the Canadian flag, it was the Dominion Flag. Frankly, I think very few of them fought for or under the flag, they just did a job that had to be done.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (5 Nov 2004)

well said whiskey, though in the defense of mwhite, Quebec does have a very long history of refusing to participate in armed conflicts.


----------



## white (5 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> That is a very serious mischaracterization of those issues, and frankly I don't think its for you to say where the loyalties and motives of those who died as French Canadiens lie. Take on the BQ all you want, that's fair game ... but to write off the sacrifices of a province in the manner that you have lies at the heart of the problem in this country - genuine lack of respect and refusal to recognize the contributions made for the benefit of others.   And it wasn't the Canadian flag, it was the Dominion Flag. Frankly, I think very few of them fought for or under the flag, they just did a job that had to be done.



Obviously the french Canadians who served want the Canadian flag up or else this wouldn't be a big issue.   And one thing about me not having respect for those who fought is not true, everytime I see a veterans license plate I don't see that person as a normal person but as someone who helped extinguish the evils of the wolrd.


----------



## bubba (5 Nov 2004)

mike,i been giving your statements some thought.as you said the bloc has it own agenda for independance,i say give it to them.pay out there canada pension's for the amount of time before independace.take away all other federal support,let them look after themselves like they want. i want to see a united can.i am tired of them whinning and running our nation down.me personally i was't impressed with the rest of the country sucking there a** to stay but hey that's just bubba.the ques. was,is he a coward/flag supplier-no,what he and the bloc are to me is anticanadian..heres athought,alot of modern counrties had civil wars,could that happen between the bloc supporters and the rest of can.relax boys ol'bubba just thinkin out loud/////


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

mwhite said:
			
		

> Why would they want to put up a Quebec flag to remember the soldiers who died in war, they weren't fighting under the Quebec flag it was the Canadian flag and Quebec didn't even want to help out in WWII they didn't even want to help out in WWI.



Actually, it was the British flag, since we didn't have our own yet.   We started using the Red Ensign officially in 1944, however, but that still isn't a flag you can get from your local MP....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

foerestedwarrior said:
			
		

> well said whiskey, though in the defense of mwhite, Quebec does have a very long history of refusing to participate in armed conflicts.



Really?   Name one.


----------



## atticus (5 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Really?     Name one.



Wasn't there a big uproar in Quebec during both wars when the government wanted to send Quebecers overseas?


----------



## Jungle (5 Nov 2004)

atticus said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a big uproar in Quebec during both wars when the government wanted to send Quebecers overseas?


There was an uproar when the govt decided to go ahead with conscription. There wasa large number of French-Canadian units overseas in all conflicts from WW1. Ask the Vets from Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal who landed in Dieppe in 1942, or the Royal 22e Regt who did the entire Italian campaign then went on to Northwest Europe, or the Régiment de la Chaudière who landed on D-Day... and the list goes on.
Do not forget that less than half the population of Québec are separatists...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

atticus said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a big uproar in Quebec during both wars when the government wanted to send Quebecers overseas?



Yeah.   They also fielded four infantry battalions in NW Europe and Italy.   They were going to have an entire French speaking brigade but didn't have enough staff officers. 

How is that the same as a blanket refusal to serve?   Thousands more served in French speaking regiments in Canada also on home defence duties.   

The Van Doos also served in WW I and Korea.


----------



## axeman (5 Nov 2004)

Bellevance.A@parl.gc.ca     heres his email address let him know how you feel  . freaking politician :rage:


----------



## Johnny Canuck (5 Nov 2004)

Some good points by several people. On this topic re Mr Bellevance: PERHAPS he is courageous (hmm) for taking a stand for his beliefs, but   I doubt it. This "stand" could be extrapolated to say if he (and the Bloc) reject Canada then why is he, or the Bloc for that matter even involved in FEDERAL politics. This would seem to fly in the face of their so-called beliefs, ideals, priniciples...whatever.. 

Thus the Bloc has "selective" ideals..whie accepting Federal money in their paychecks. And I ask, upon retirement from federal politics, will he/they refuse the federal pension? I think not. _ on this subject read further below re Lincoln's speech of 1861_
I would also insist that the oath he swore upon accepting the position was to serve all his constituents whether of his religion, colour, or political beliefs. and it seems to me failure to do so should be cause for removal, orat least sanction. Although this is not a major case, it does point out a clear desire on his part not to serve the obligations of his oath.

RE the flags: Federal constituency offices are not perhaps legally "obligated" to provide the national flag. However, certainly as a service to a recognized organization like the Legion, and in response to specific and reasonable requests   such as in this case a nice condition new flag for the Remembrance services,   such requests are readilyl and willingly granted. This is not the same as Joe Bloggins walking in off the street with such a request, and as such it is at least a case of pure "petty" behaviour.

As for separation itself, perhaps one should read the inauguration speech of Abe Lincoln in 1861 wherein he addressed the real threat of the destruction of the US through seccession of the Southern states. Most of his comments seem directly applicable to the Canada/Quebec issue.

some notes:

In speaking of a negotiated separation by the South (as the BQ/PQ wants from Canada) , Mr Lincoln said 
.......â Å“Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.â ? .......

He goes on to say, that no â Å“stateâ ? (of the United States) can legally decide upon its own to break away and that no declarations by them are valid. Any act of aggression against the federal government is also considered as an â Å“insurrectionâ ?

He then asks,....... â Å“Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not.â ?..... I mean when can any separatist here in Canada claim their civil rights to language, liberty, and freedom of expression, (or any other right) have been denied?

Mr Lincoln then wisely points out as is the case here, that a separation of Quebec, by its very premise could   result in a further separation or partition of a â Å“newâ ? nation of Quebec 
........â Å“If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority......


.....Sooooo, food for thought


----------



## cgyflames01 (5 Nov 2004)

This; however, unfortunite, is proof how rampant reginal disparity is in our nation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2004)

Quote from Jungle,
Do not forget that less than half the population of Québec are separatists...

Just wanted to point out that its even less than that, remember Jungle that was less than 50 % who even wanted to negotiate a better deal with Ottawa.


----------



## MdB (6 Nov 2004)

I must comment this as I am french canadian, quebecois moreover.

First of all, I think there's a great lack of respect here when talking about Bloc MP Bellavance, because on one side he's refusing to give canadians flags to vets and on the other accepting his federal pay and pension. We are in a free country that gives us the freedom of opinion. Even though is a people, somebody or a political party. The french canadians WENT to war in WWII and that's not because of the cash. So have at least a little bit of respect here. 

As pointed out by mwhite, french canadians didn't fight under Quebec flag, but have there been the right to do so, the soldiers would have fought all the better. BUT, it's not true that french people didn't want to help. I refer to Canadian Army, Granatstein pointed out some stats that, despite uproars, there was almost as much french soldiers as english ones during WWII. Don't forget that people from Ontario opposed too. But, it's simpler to point french as uproars made a lot of noise. Another thing to underline is that the roots of french people go back to France and less to England as opposed to english people. When England conquered New France, it became took power and Quebec has a long history of commercial and political domination by the english-speakers. In this way, it's easier to understand opposition from french canadians. Last thing, but not the less one, the Canadian Army was at that time almost entirely composed of english-speaking soldiers and seen as the actualisation of english dominance. How should french canadians recognize a bond when they were leaded by anglos? What confidence in your superior(s) is it supposed to bring when you consider what I just mentioned? As Michael Dorosh said, there has been almost an entire french brigade. Quebecois could have fought with french soldiers whom their leaders were also francophones.

As we know all, a soldier is fighting with friends and we know all that french and english canadians weren't the best friends at that time. I want, you want, we all want to fight among peers, brothers, not strangers, neighbors or even people full of animosity. I think it's really better now. I think this great ideology of the Empire is less present and that, because Canada is fully independent now (hear interior politic), this canadian identity is bonding us all.

PS: those who aren't living is Quebec should watch what they say: Separatists in Quebec is a lot more than just a stat. It's really more than just 48,5% at the last referendum. The thing is that we can't reduce this to stats. Believe me, the Parti Québécois (PQ) doesn't know where to go. I think now it's time to go somewhere else and not with the PQ. The population for a majority (i believe) is fed up of referendums. And remember that great political events tend to polarize opinions: I'm pretty sure that right now not even 30% would say yes to a referendum asking separation from Canada. I really don't know what's really goin on in the West provinces and I wouldn't rely on stats to explain issues, I would talk with people, go there, live there. So please, weight your words.

On this, have a great evening, hockey will come back sometime.  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2004)

MdB said:
			
		

> The french canadians WENT to war in WWII and that's not because of the cash. So have at least a little bit of respect here.
> 
> Last thing, but not the less one, the Canadian Army was at that time almost entirely composed of english-speaking soldiers and seen as the actualisation of english dominance. How should french canadians recognize a bond when they were leaded by anglos? What confidence in your superior(s) is it supposed to bring when you consider what I just mentioned?
> 
> ...



Well said. [sic]. Thank you for your perspective on this issue.
Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2004)

Harper walks into flag flap
Last Updated Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:10:23 EST 
RICHMOND, QUE. - Veterans at a legion branch in Quebec will have Canadian flags for Remembrance Day ceremonies after all. Conservative leader Stephen Harper will personally deliver 10 flags on Saturday. 

André Bellavance, the Bloc Quebecois MP for the Eastern Townships community, told veterans in Richmond he would not provide the flags because it would amount to promoting federalism and hurt the party's separatist cause. 

Bellavance suggested the Royal Canadian Legion branch in the Eastern Townships could ask Heritage Canada for flags. 


Harper said the controversy shows the Bloc is a one-issue party and is not standing up for all Quebecers. 
"What's being asked here is that they treat their constituents with the same respect as constituents would be treated in any other part of the country, regardless of their political allegiance." 

Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he supports his MP's decision, while Prime Minister Paul Martin said the party's behaviour is beyond belief. 


"Heritage Canada is sending me a whole bunch of little Canadian flags. There'll be more Canadian flags at the cenotaph this year than there ever was. Every man, woman and child that wants one will have one in this town." 


Written by CBC


----------



## Jungle (6 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Jungle,
> Do not forget that less than half the population of Québec are separatists...
> 
> Just wanted to point out that its even less than that, remember Jungle that was less than 50 % who even wanted to negotiate a better deal with Ottawa.


Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the separatists are a minority.
MdB, relax... I'm also a French-Canadian, born and raised in Québec. I now have 21 years of service in the R22eR, and will be around for a few more. Bellavance made a stupid mistake. He should have shut-up and provided the flags out of respect for the Vets. His party will now make him deliver the flags, which proves that he was wrong and is not supported by his party.
Je me souviens


----------



## nULL (7 Nov 2004)

The Liberals sent flags too. 

Why are quebec separatists tolerated? Private groups aren't allowed to train militariily because it's a threat to national security - isn't separatism? I know that that's oversimplifying the problem, but the quebec "issue" has gone on for long enough.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (7 Nov 2004)

If you research back throughout the years you will find specific incidents of seperatist's commiting varying degrees of anti-Canadian acts that have outraged Canadians and headlined the news for weeks, however whatever their excuses I've noticed the government has been extremely leniant, whereas if it were for any other non-Quebec person they would be most likely made an example of.This is adressed to the seperatist lot and not Quebecers as a whole but Ottawa is obviously too scared to do anything to avoid rocking the boat with the seperatist movement and my opinion is, Mr. Duceppe has Ottawa by the balls and we all have to live with it.


----------



## gozonuts (7 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> Goo
> My question is: When does it become treason? When does it become sedition? If you recall during the 95 referendum, Bloc MPs fax various Quebec bases soliciting francophone members to participate in the "National" militia. Bouchard commented that in the event of a yes vote, a third of military equipment would belong to Quebec- including all the Hornets in Baggotville.



Good question! The answer is it is treason or sedition only if you are an Anglophone committing similar offences, apparently, if you are French you can get away with murder. Last year in Montreal we had an English-speaking mayor who was not very adept in the French language, which of course irked many French-speaking people, although the mayor was in a predominantly English speaking town. Convicted FLQ terrorist and pathetic weasel, Raymond Villeneuve sent some inbred cronies to take care of her office, spray painting nasty messages like "die English scum" and other original sentiments. Explosive devices were also found on the culprits who were caught red-handed. In English Canada, this would be considered a hate crime and very possibly an act of terrorism. But not so in good old Quebec! The judges claimed the ole' boys were just steamed up because of the mayor's lack of French, and that they were doing what most people would have done in their mindset. Their sentence was not to set foot west of St. Laurent Street, understood to be the middle ground of English/French Montreal. 
This is the province that got almost 90% of the Federal money allocated for Canada Day celebrations throughout the country, which is a laugh as Canada Day isn't even celebrated here, it is actually the official moving day when leases run out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Nov 2004)

A little slice of humble pie?


MONTREAL (CP) - The Bloc Quebecois reversed itself Sunday and promised to send Canadian flags to insulted Quebec war veterans after all. 

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said rookie MP Andre Bellavance's decision not to provide flags to the Royal Canadian Legion branch in Richmond, Que., was misunderstood and politically exploited. "It's not a question of not providing flags," he told reporters outside a Parti Quebecois meeting in Montreal, where Duceppe explained his vision of a sovereign Quebec. 

"There is a difference, I think, between providing a service and promoting (Canada)." 

Duceppe said the party's whip will send several flags to Richmond veterans on Monday. 

The gesture was appreciated, said John Hill, vice-president of the Royal Canadian Legion branch in the town of 3,500. 

"It's nice, but it would have been nicer if we could have just had one in the first place," he said.  


Since the snub, the Legion has received dozens of flags from across Canada. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin sent the Maple Leaf that had flown over the Peace Tower on Saturday morning and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper personally dropped off a dozen flags in the afternoon. 

"It's amazing. Right now we have 30 flags. It gives us a three-year supply," said Hill, who said he never expected anyone outside of Richmond to care about the issue. 

Martin invoked the name of Richmond during a Remembrance Day speech in his hometown on Sunday when he praised veterans for reminding Canadians of their sacrifices. 

The prime minister later said he invited members of the Richmond Legion to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa on Nov. 11. 

"I think it's quite disappointing the attitude that the Bloc took," Martin told reporters. 

When asked if Harper was playing politics with the issue by personally delivering flags, Martin said: "I don't think anybody should play politics with this issue." 

Bellavance said he was elected as a sovereigntist and doesn't supply Canadian flags. He instead offered a toll-free number to the Heritage Department. 

"This isn't about politics for us. We just wanted to be able to pay respect to our veterans," said Hill. "We have no malice to Mr. Bellavance. He's welcome to come here for a beer any time he wants."


----------



## Johnny Canuck (8 Nov 2004)

> We are in a free country that gives us the freedom of opinion. Even though is a people, somebody or a political party. The french canadians WENT to war in WWII and that's not because of the cash. So have at least a little bit of respect here.


. 
In response to Michel de B, (MdB) Thank you for your efforts in English, well done. 
***NEANMOINS, il ya une grand difference entre la liberte de choisir et de ses croyances, attitudes, et le devoir assermenter de servir,, ainsi que la liberte de ses actions et la loi.

(Translation) "There is a big difference between freedom of choice, and a sworn oath to serve, freedom of expression and the law of the land."

One can choose in Canada to believe in whatever they want and do what they want-but within the law! And when one swears an oath, one should respect it! This obviously was not Bellevance's case, and he rightly deserves the denunciation he has received.

No-one on this forum that I can see is slagging French-Canadians who served valiantly iin all conflicts from the Great War to Korea, and now "peacekeeping-making"   It is a known fact there was a fairly strong resistance to conscription in Quebec from French-speakers, but as you rightly point out, there was also a good measure of resistance to overseas service elsewhere in Canada (Zombies). 

The roots of Quebec go back to France perhaps, but please study your history. The reason French Canadians (generally) were not eager to help France in its time of need, was because they thoroughly rejected France as having abandoned them (figuratively and literally) on the battlefields in Canada centuries ago.

Yes French-Cdns joined up and served honourably, especially as their language helped considerably in many circumstances in NW Europe. Their bravery and courage has been amply recognized by everyone on this forum. And for that matter,  I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of surviving French Canadian veterans reject the Separatist mantra.



> it became took power and Quebec has a long history of commercial and political domination by the english-speakers. In this way, it's easier to understand opposition from french canadians



As for the above statement, this may have been true once, but is absolutely no longer the case, nor has it been for decades. French culture has flourished in Canada far more than even in France!- look at TV, films, music, literature, theatre..and yes -businness- you name it there is no "oppression or domination" of French speakers by English speakers.. (indeed English Canadian culture is more threatened by outside sources than is French-Canadian culture!!!)
    English domination? Really when we have in the last few years had a very French-Canadian dominated government, at one time with the Prime-Minister, Supreme Court, CDS and more all French-Canadians... a fact conveniently forgotten by â Å“separatistsâ ?, as is the whole thing about â Å“les patriotesâ ? as a solely   â Å“Quebecâ ?-based revolution and a typical French-English thing.. again distortion by separatists.

I am also very glad you didn't don't drag out the complete falsehood that Quebec gives money to the rest of Canadaâ â€ie yours and MY tax dollars (as I am in Quebec too) going to Ottawa, and not all coming back.. FOUTAISES!!!   A complete, utter lie still bandied about by the PQ and BQ. Quebec is a net benefitter of the federal system and has been for many decades!!!

As a Quebec resident   â Å“'chui tannéâ ?- Im fed up with the constant bickering and enormous waste of my tax money over this Quebec-Ottawa thing. 

I strongly suspect that most members of this board, including many serving members of the forces, have a great respect for French-Canadian military personnel of the past and current CF personnel who perform their duties honourably, faithfully, and to the best of their ability.   

Do not expect respect for those who shirk their responsibilities and obligations, who transgress or ignore their sworn oaths, or who otherwise seek to obtain their goals through dishonouable   or illegal actions. Singling out such people or groups will occur regardless of their â Å“beliefsâ ?, colour, or language.

Personnellement, j'appricie beacoup votre contribution dans cette discussion.

(Speaking for myself, I appreciate your participation in this disscussion, thanks)
M.


----------



## jmacleod (9 Nov 2004)

The Maple Leaf Flag, introduced by the Lester B. Pearson MP government, was not the flag that Canadian troops took with them to the Boer War, World War's I and II, and Korea. The current
flag was created as a placebo to Quebec and also to show the United Nations that Canada was
not "British" because of the Suez War - which Pearson refused to support, and led to the concept
of "Peacekeeping". There was a great deal of opposition to the introduction of the Maple Leaf
flag in Canada during that period, especially by the Royal Canadian Legion - but it is, after all our
National Ensign. Members of the PQ in the House of Commons pose a major problem in our
democratic process, where they openly advocate separation from the Canadian confederation
by Quebec - is this sedition? One thing is clear however, Journalist Peter Worthingon writing in
the Toronto Sun, advocates an Oath of Allegiance be required by all MP's and Senators - a Bill to accomplish this has been presented twice on the Order Table in the House of Commons in recent years but died before a vote by MP's. Despite the tendency of the media to down play the PQ in our national future, they do in fact pose a significant problem to Canadian Unity - MacLeod


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Nov 2004)

Johnny Canuck said:
Do not expect respect for those who shirk their responsibilities and obligations, who transgress or ignore their sworn oaths, or who otherwise seek to obtain their goals through dishonouable  or illegal actions. Singling out such people or groups will occur regardless of their â Å“beliefsâ ?, colour, or language.
Personnellement, j'appricie beacoup votre contribution dans cette discussion.
(Speaking for myself, I appreciate your participation in this disscussion, thanks)

Well said. I presume that applies to non-separtists as well?




			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> The Maple Leaf Flag, introduced by the Lester B. Pearson MP government, was not the flag that Canadian troops took with them to the Boer War, World War's I and II, and Korea.



It was the flag that Canadian troops took with them to Kosovo, A'Stan etc., and it's the only flag 40 percent of the population has ever known to be "theirs", quite distinct and apart from perhaps the flags of their "heritage."   



			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> The current flag was created as a placebo to Quebec and also to show the United Nations that Canada was
> not "British" because of the Suez War - which Pearson refused to support, and led to the concept
> of "Peacekeeping".



I don't think that is an accurate statement. Millions of Canadians wanted a flag that stood as a referential symbol of Canada as an independent country, and simply wanted a flag that reflected that desire. It certainly had very little to do with loyalty to the Crown and as a matter of fact if Quebecers wanted to be placated, I suppose we would have a different flag today if they wielded the type of influence suggested by your post. 

Peacekeeping as a concept pre-existed the invasion of the Suez. Pearson did not, on his own, take a decision not to support the foolishness undertaken by the Brits et al in the Suez. He simply didn't have that sort of authority. I see the Suez era as the half way point of a steep upward curve in Canadian independence in the 1950's and early 1960's, peaking in the mid 60's and plateauing until 1988 FTA, then declining ever since. 
Why would a country such as an independent Canada in the 1950's support such foolishness?   Our national interest  was not engaged and therefore not preserved by war making in the Suez, [ironically opposed to our circumstances today where we are at war and most of nation is in denial], and in fact it was in our best international interest to take the appropriate position that was taken, _at that time and in those circumstances_.[again, this is somewhat ironic given our position, or lack of position, on Iraq.]               



			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> Members of the PQ in the House of Commons pose a major problem in our
> democratic process, where they openly advocate separation from the Canadian confederation
> by Quebec - is this sedition?



Sedition means to advocate, teach publish or circulate in various means the use of force to overthrow the government of Canada. That has never been the intention of modern elected separtists, they simply want a sovereign Quebec in the Westphalian sense. That doesn't mean that the use of force or violence has not been employed, but this bunch is not advocating Quebecers overthrow the government of Canada. They have tried, and failed miserably, in attempts to trigger popular uprisings to force a removal of parts of Quebec from the legal and territorial jurisdiction of the federal government. That is a completely different concept from sedition. In fact, as long as the law is followed, it is not a seditious offence to attempt to procure an alteration of any matter of government in Canada. We now have the Clarity Act, and therefore a legal mechanism to accomplish sovereignty as long as the ratio of the _Reference Re: Quebec Succession _ is followed. 

Incidentally, the offence for actually using force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province is "treason." 
   


			
				jmacleod said:
			
		

> One thing is clear however, Journalist Peter Worthingon writing in
> the Toronto Sun, advocates an Oath of Allegiance be required by all MP's and Senators - a Bill to accomplish this has been presented twice on the Order Table in the House of Commons in recent years but died before a vote by MP's.



Despite the good things going for him, Peter Worthington's musings on this subject [and others] are grounded in idealism rather than the "logic" expressed by the Supreme Court as well as our own current set of laws. Any such bill would not survive Charter muster since it would violate freedom of expression. Anybody who thinks the courts would shy away from interfering with the rules of Parliament is seriously underestimating the constitutional authority of the wool sack. Parliament cannot attempt to force allegiance on one hand, and permit divided loyalties on the other in the absence of a significant change to the Charter.              

Cheers ....


----------



## MdB (9 Nov 2004)

Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> In response to Michel de B, (MdB) Thank you for your efforts in English, well done.



Thanks, I just hope it isn't ironic. Hehe. ;D
But, I think I was misunderstood, part because of my english, part because it's not everytime meant so hard. I just wich to have a healthy discussion on that case and I just wanted to rectify some fact, give my perspective to oppose some, and finally set the record right on a part of our history, which is the one of Canada and Quebec particularly. I just felt that some would have biased Quebec's history knowledge. I don't say it is all the way, I just wanted to put in some depth and details to it.

One can choose in Canada to believe in whatever they want and do what they want-but within the law! And when one swears an oath, one should respect it! This obviously was not Bellevance's case, and he rightly deserves the denunciation he has received.



			
				Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> The roots of Quebec go back to France perhaps, but please study your history. The reason French Canadians (generally) were not eager to help France in its time of need, was because they thoroughly rejected France as having abandoned them (figuratively and literally) on the battlefields in Canada centuries ago.



Hmm, I would guess maybe that was the case in the 19th century, but not in the 20th. I tend to think that was long gone and that English "domination" was putting a lot more pressure on Quebec society than the sentiment not to help France because it abandoned New France in 1760. Quebec society was trying to protect itself by plunging in Catholic Churh's fervor. Up to the 40's, most of businesses were owned by english. To exemplify it simply, Quebec business life has been done up to the 50's almost all in english among a less than bilingual population.



			
				Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> As for the above statement, this may have been true once, but is absolutely no longer the case, nor has it been for decades. French culture has flourished in Canada far more than even in France!- look at TV, films, music, literature, theatre..and yes -businness- you name it there is no "oppression or domination" of French speakers by English speakers..



One place I could have been misunderstood is here. I just wanted to point out that that was the case before the 40's, but not anymore. I just wonder sometimes how is it weird that Canada has ever had french-canadian PM since the 60's. Is Martin french?? I'm wondering. Frenglish, hehe.



			
				Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> Do not expect respect for those who shirk their responsibilities and obligations, who transgress or ignore their sworn oaths, or who otherwise seek to obtain their goals through dishonouable   or illegal actions. Singling out such people or groups will occur regardless of their â Å“beliefsâ ?, colour, or language.



I don't respect what Bellavance's done neither. But, as I said, I just wanted to put in my perspective as french speaker. I don't respect what he's done or what Martin or Harper have done by recuperating the affair to built some political capital. Harper is not up to his word when he comes in Richmond and say it's just for the sake of the vets. Come on boys. I think Bellavance is too cranky, it's a damn flag, just give it and respect other canadians with other beliefs than yours, vets moreover. 

But what oath has Bellavance broken. None that I can see and neither whiskey. I suspect he knows a lot more than me on the subject and I pass him the question. By the way, great explanation whiskey.

Thanks for all comments.


----------



## Johnny Canuck (13 Nov 2004)

Mais non Michel....my comments were neither "ironic" nor cynical...I am very glad to read about your thoughts from a different perspective than most of us here on this forum.     ;D

I am however, somewhat perplexed by your comment that Canada hasn't had a francophone PM since the 60's...leaving aside two of our greatest Prime Ministers- Sir Wilfred Laurier, and of course Louis St Laurent of the pre 1960 era , what about Pierre Trudeau, PM for over 15 years? and have you forgotten 10 years of   Mr Cretien?... of course Mulroney, not a Francophone   perhaps- although perfectly bilingual- was certainly a Quebecker...same for Mr Martin...so there has been a very good representation of francophones, and certainly Quebeckers as Martin and Mulroney are every bit as much a Quebecker as Bouchard, Parizeau, Landry or headBloc Gilles Duceppe or yes even Mr Bellevance.

As for Quebec resistance to the world wars First and Second..in fact the general attitude was that many French-Canadians felt it was a European war..and that they didn't want to be dragged into Europe's (or France's) problems. 

The term   â Å“Quebecoisâ ? is only a very recent phenomenon...until at least the 60's French speaking Canadians, were not â Å“Frenchâ ? nor â Å“Quebecoisâ ?..they were â Å“Canadiensâ ? or â Å“Canayenâ ? while English-speaking Canadians were â Å“Englishâ ?. 

(((BTW-somewhat aside from this discussion-One must also remember that there is a relatively large contingent of French speaking Canadians outside Quebec- who feel a little resentment at Quebec's attitude that only it speaks for francophones in this country.)))

French-Canadians -several centuries distant from their European roots, and with the bitter memories of political and military abandonment by France, thus felt very little connection to   the "old world".   Meanwhile, for much of the rest of Canada, there was still a very strong connection to Britain, and elsewhere in Europe such as Poland, as many enlistees were relatively recent immigrants from the UK and elswhere, or were second generation. This was the case for example in the city of Verdun Quebec ( now a Montreal borough) where virtually every eligible male enlisted in WW-I, specifically because almost all of them fitted into this category and still had immedate family in England and thus had very strong ties.

Meanwhile, Quebec's participation in both wars, even not in "uniform" was absolutely vital in other ways, as most manufacturing during the first half of the last century was in Quebec and Ontario. 

During WW-II Quebec turned out everything from a variety of Ships,: Tanks, Planes, to torpedo boats, field artillery, shells, vast amounts of raw materials vital to the war effort-wood for example,-and of course most of the uniforms and other canvas goods came from mills in Quebec. The major % of aluminium for the entire allied effort came from Arvida for example, not to mention steel, foodstuffs, research (the atom bomb research moved from England to McGill for example before being moved to the US) etc etc

So one cannot say Quebec didn't do its part in the war effort, it certainly did! Not everyone can or should be fighting..someone must be behind the lines producing the armaments, clothing, and food to carry on the fight!

Quebec only began to lose its stature in Confederation as manufacturing and capital   began to leave Quebec when the Parti Quebecois came to power in the province, around 1976 and has continued since then through successive PQ govt's ( and somewhat accelerated by Mr Mulroneys   Free Trade Agreement)

As for the current Canadian Flag, Whiskey 601 explains it very well indeed. And in no-way can it be construed as a pandering to separatists. It was designed as a logical step in a country â Å“growing upâ ? and seeking to establish its own identity. The red and white meanwhile are the â Å“officialâ ? colours of Canada and were established- I believe- somewhere back around 1920 by Royal Decree. 

Whiskey also points out very rightly the strange relationship between parliament and the supreme court as to ruling on Canadian society.. of course Parliament has often abdicated its responsibility to the Supreme Court for political expediency so as not to held responsible for certain â Å“contentiousâ ? decisions... 

Let the debate continue!


----------



## Boydfish (14 Nov 2004)

Interesting topic.

A couple of related thoughts to ponder...

*Flags, of convienience and otherwise.*

The soldiers of the British Columbia Regiment fought in both world wars and several other wars with honour.  Would we be equally critical of a British Columbian veteran who marched under BC's flag in a Rememberance Day parade?  Or what of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment?  Or even men like Air Marshall Raymond Collishaw, British Columbia's greatest combat pilot, who served in the RN and RAF in both WW1 and WW2, remaining steadfastly British Columbian in all of that time, but never once serving in a "Canadian" organization?

What my point is that there is nothing wrong with a person from _any_ province feeling pride in marching under the flag of that province.  All contributed and the varying degrees of contribution does not mean we should have any one province raised above or below another.

Granted, I really think that if the MP in question had been thinking, they would have offered to provide both flags to the vets.  In many ways, this highlights why the PQ/BQ is inherently unsuccessful in it's objectives:  They can't speak positively of Quebec without bashing the rest of the confederation.  In many ways, they're much like thier other half, Ontario, which tends to define itself as being "Not American because Americans are bad".

*Treason, sedition and other such concepts*

There is nothing even remotely treasonous in seeking to have a province exit confederation.  The entire confederation sprang from and evolved from the more global and monolithic British Empire.  The simple fact is that our entire system of government was designed to grow local nations from a larger whole.  The pivotal difference in this trend from what the PQ/BQ is trying to do is that the root structure of Westminster government is retained, as is the framework of the parent organization(In the case of the confederation, the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth).  The PQ/BQ et al want to abandon that and impose a franco-republic system.

The funny thing is that if they went by that approach, using the tradition of the Westminster government system of evolving local governments, they would force the pro-confederation forces to argue against themselves and the original intent of the confederation.  Why don't they?  Who knows.  I'm just a simple British Columbian.


----------



## MdB (15 Nov 2004)

MdB said:
			
		

> I just wonder sometimes how is it weird that Canada has ever had french-canadian PM since the 60's. Is Martin french?? I'm wondering. Frenglish, hehe.





			
				Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> I am however, somewhat perplexed by your comment that Canada hasn't had a francophone PM since the 60's...



I wanted to write 'always had' instead of 'ever had'... hehe.

Hehe, I'm quoting myself!!  In reverse chronological order, here are the PM's since 1968 (without circa 6-month-term PM's), btw, they are all french speakers (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/pm/index.asp?lang=E&param=pi&param2=gen):
Paul Martin
Jean Chrétien
Brian Mulroney (he's born in Quebec, for those who doesn't know...)
P.E. Trudeau

The next PM was Pearson. So, since '68 have we french PMs. I find it quite weird. I think to myself that's an incentive why Quebec is still in Canada... But this is just a feeling I get.

Johnny, I really liked your comment. I myself come from a manufacturing city where there's steel plants. In the 30s-40s, they made warships, cannons, shells... So I quite understand what it is.




			
				Boydfish said:
			
		

> *Flags, of convienience and otherwise.*
> What my point is that there is nothing wrong with a person from _any_ province feeling pride in marching under the flag of that province.   All contributed and the varying degrees of contribution does not mean we should have any one province raised above or below another.
> 
> Granted, I really think that if the MP in question had been thinking, they would have offered to provide both flags to the vets.



Well said. The CF even recognize province's 'coat of arm' (really don't know what it is in english), an example is the 34 CFBG's coat of arm with his big fleur-de-lis...
For Bellavance, providing Quebec flags would have been really smarter... well, what's done is done.



			
				Boydfish said:
			
		

> *Treason, sedition and other such concepts*
> There is nothing even remotely treasonous in seeking to have a province exit confederation.   The entire confederation sprang from and evolved from the more global and monolithic British Empire.   The simple fact is that our entire system of government was designed to grow local nations from a larger whole.



Hmm, it makes some good to hear that. I really think that's lawful to put efforts in order to make a referendum deciding what the future of the province could be. There's no civil war here and remember there's so many places where a civil war is going on because people want to separate and have independance.

I heard some people pushing forward Canada should be only federal gov't (that's in last Maclean's or the one before...) and others who want to separate, like Quebec, but also Alberta (sometimes...), and Newfoundland (lately, because of fishing rights). I must say that for Quebec is more a political ideology. Anyway, I think that Canada should be a real Federation where all provinces would have their own political power. A confederation suits us no more. Management is costly, gov't levels always arguing this and that... At least, on a more cultural level, let us promote provinces specificities, that's a start. Let's decentralize the whole thing...  I don't know how Canada could be a Federation, must read on that.



			
				Boydfish said:
			
		

> The pivotal difference in this trend from what the PQ/BQ is trying to do is that the root structure of Westminster government is retained, as is the framework of the parent organization(In the case of the confederation, the Empire evolved into the Commonwealth).   The PQ/BQ et al want to abandon that and impose a franco-republic system.


I'm not aware of that...



			
				Boydfish said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that if they went by that approach, using the tradition of the Westminster government system of evolving local governments, they would force the pro-confederation forces to argue against themselves and the original intent of the confederation.   Why don't they?   Who knows.


Wow, never thought about that. Nice. But, still, because it's a political party, it observes laws and don't have the choice to make their way in those boundaries. Otherwise, that would be a civil war or unlawful at the very least, encouraging people not to observe laws and make law disorder.

Well, nice discussion so far.


----------



## Johnny Canuck (20 Nov 2004)

Some very intersting points being made by many people   re this subject.

"ships and artillery" ??....MdB would you therefore be from Sorel? ;-)

Meanwhile, having visited the Parti Quebecois own discussion forum on the subject, I was astounded at the venom, hatred, and totally ignorant, blind, and puerile ranting on that site...absolutely different from the balanced and well thought out level of discussion here!!!

MEAHWHILE, I actually went to Richmond to take part in their ceremony. 

NOTEA) It was well attended for such a small town, maybe the weather helped, maybe the controversy, nonetheless a good turnout. 
(B) The ceremony was conducted in English AND French-
(C) The national flag AND the provinicial flag were both flown
(D) Almost all the veterans I met- remember these are older gents- were fluently bilingual. And as far as I could tell, this was pretty much the case of ALL the Legion members.
(C) French was the mother-tongue of many of the Vets I spoke to... and my own feeling is that, regardless of their reasons for joining up, whether economic, adventure, or patriotism... whether they felt themselves to be more "French" than "Canadian" at the time they enlisted, I'd be willing to bet big money that coming out of that war, they all felt "Canadian".. That's sure the impression I came away with.


----------



## MdB (22 Nov 2004)

Johnny Canuck said:
			
		

> "ships and artillery" ??....MdB would you therefore be from Sorel? ;-)



You've hit the bull's eye. ;D


----------

