Friday, November 12, 2010

Annual Remembrance Day Embarrassment in Quebec

It wouldn't be Remembrance Day in Quebec without the annual news story about a certain shopping center restricting the right of veterans to sell poppies in the mall.

Of course the story rockets to the top of the human interest section in all the English media and within days, the mortified owners of the mall, usually based in Toronto, reverse the gaff committed by a mid-level inexperienced mall manager.

This year was no exception, with the offending mall located smack dab in the middle of Angloville, in the Montreal suburb of Dorval, where veterans were told by the new mall manager of the Dorval Gardens Shopping Center that their poppy drive would be restricted to a couple of days.

The decision by the mall manager and the related fallout didn't likely sit well with David Jubb, the Toronto-based President and CEO of Edgecombe Realty, owner of the mall, as well as many properties across Canada, including Montreal's prestigious Ogilvy Department store development. I've met him on several occasions and I can assure readers that such shenanigans wouldn't sit well with him. He's a decisive, no nonsense type of executive who reacted immediately by reversing the decision quite publicly, as well as cutting a cheque for $10,000 for the Legion.
Well done! All's well that ends well.

The incident which repeats itself all too often in Quebec is not really a case of disrespect, but rather ignorance. The contribution of our military and the importance of Remembrance Day is roundly ignored in French schools, controlled largely by left-leaning unionized nationalists, who have little use for Canada's military which they consider a 'foreign military force.'

Although Quebec federalists outnumber the separatists, it's this latter group that dominate the media and the schools. Students are so badly brainwashed by separatists in schools, that it's a testament to the enduring qualities of Canada that there remains a stubborn federalist majority in Quebec.

And so this type of incident is nothing new and nothing out of the ordinary when it happens in Quebec. But when it happens somewhere in the rest of Canada, it's very big news.

A decade ago, a similar decision by a mall manger in the Champlain Mall in Dieppe, New Brunswick (a suburb of Moncton) led to a national outrage. 
When the local media got hold of the story, the mall manager, an arrogant sort, stood firm on her decision, making matters much worse by antagonizing the press. It took a couple days for the controversy to filter back to the Toronto head office and by then the story had gone viral.
Suffice to say that the decision was reversed rather quickly with the mall manager sent packing.
Its the way most of these stories usually end.

I met the Toronto-based executive, an old business acquaintance, who was in charge of that mall, on a flight out to Moncton, where I kidded him about the incident. I asked him where he found the one idiot in New Brunswick who would disgrace the Legion like that.
He told me dejectedly that it was he who hired the mall manager, who he had head-hunted away from a large mall. Now he was taking quite a bit of heat for the decision from his bosses.

All became clear when he explained that the mall manger in question was a francophone recruited out of  Montreal. .....Ouch!! I even knew who he was talking about ! No wonder the locals were so angry, she's a bitch nasty specimen!

Yesterday, I was watching the Remembrance Day ceremony on TV and immediately after the 11:00 am minute of silence, surfed the channels to see what the French language coverage was like.

Alas, it's sad to say that with the exception of the CBC French channel, there was nary an interruption in the local programming, not even on the two French news channels, RDS and LCN.

In a particularly classless and shamelessly partisan statement, Guy André the veterans critic of the Bloc Quebecois chose to remember only those soldiers from the Quebec based regiment, the Royal 22nd (Van Doos) in his press release... sigh...

It's no secret that the armed forces are viewed rather negatively by separatists and the Quebec media which is nationalist and left-wing. The fact that it was Canadian soldiers that helped liberate Europe, including France, from under the control of the Nazis, in World War II, is no never mind.

Every day we hear calls from them to spend the money 'wasted' in Afghanistan or on the F-35 warplane program on 'needy' and 'pressing'  projects in Quebec.

It seems that in Quebec, the latest rallying cry is " Make Civil Servants, Not War!"

That's not to say all Quebeckers feel that way. Too often the noisy separatist voices drown out the dignified and loyal Quebeckers who enlist and serve in the armed forces, their families who support them and the silent majority of Quebeckers who remain proud Canadians.

Last year's Remembrance Day celebration in Montreal which was moved to the McGill University campus due to construction, was a memorable affair. Students added an intergenerational connection that was excitingly fresh.(Check out the photo!)

I shall leave you with this stirring news story tribute to our fallen Canadian soldiers as seen through the eyes of NBC News in America. If you are a sentimental type, please watch it.

76 comments:

  1. There is not difference in death: black or white, Francophones or Anglophones, they all died to save us. I come from Europe and what that rotten unilingual worm called Guy André did is a blasphemy, a mortification of the human dignity, a paralysis of the reason.
    No mercy for rotten unilingual worms like him.

    Allophone ++

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am ashamed of quebec the most when it comes to remembrance day. Makes me mad and sad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My views on rememberance day are very different from the average person. In my opinion Canada, like say Mexico, could and should have avoided the senseless wars that didn't endanger her at all. I would say the guys who fought in WW1 in particular, (which included my own relatives) were a bunch of saps - not 'heroes'. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for posting that touching video, it made me proud of our fallen soldiers and those Canadians that show their heartfelt, dignified respect to the families. Sadly, the video underscored the shame I feel as a Canadian Quebecer. I’ve lived in Montreal for a long time, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the seppies have completely poisoned Quebec society with their intentional belligerence towards all things Anglos and Canadian. And as near as I can tell, the Quebecois (or so called silent majority) don’t give a shit how disrespectful and callous their business and political leaders are toward the ROC. Quebecois support for Canada is unspoken and tenuous at best, and it all depends on which way the political wind is blowing and the perceived gains. With the anti-Canadian nationalist agenda dominating the Quebec political landscape, the Quebecois have become keenly opportunistic and will give or sacrifice nothing to remain in Canada. Every Remembrance Day, Canada Day, and Victoria Day I am reminded just how incompatible we have become. Every day, Quebec drifts further away from Canada and Canadian values. Canadians should cut Quebec lose before the Franco-supremacist dogma infiltrates and corrupts the real Canada. Damn, I’m pissed off again…those xenophobic nationalist bastards make me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Jacques

    I did not touch the 1992 question because I’ve done it so many times already. And bringing the 1992 question anytime the clarity of the 1995 one is challenged is a tactic straight out of the PQiste handbook. I’ve seen it many times before.

    To me, the two things are so unrelated that I wonder how one could even try to compare them. You need the cynicism and delusion of a separatist in order to make such far fetched comparisons.

    A 1992 referendum was like many others in the world – a govt finalizes an act/law/bill and decides to hold a nation-wide referendum to see if people agree or disagree. The gist of the act is known to all, and those who want to know more can either ask or refer to the document directly, since it’s public.

    The 1995 referendum was also like some others in the world, however where others asked for independence and mentioned nothing else, ours mentioned a whole bunch of crap. And unlike the 1992 referendum that referred to a specific and concrete bill, the 1992 referred to a “formal offer made” (that it was NOT yet ruled on was not mentioned), a “bill respecting rights of Quebec”, and some “agreement signed” a couple of months earlier.

    So the 1995 mentioned THREE rather abstract things (FOR WHAT REASON?) and evaded the word “independence” (WHICH WAS THE POINT). And it totally misrepresented Parizeau’s true intentions.

    -----

    Related to this is a story described in “Fearful Symmetry” by Brian Lee Crowley. In 1995, diary producers from Quebec regions were leaning towards a Non since the federal govt guaranteed them a share of the ON market. The PQ sent its emissaries to convince the farmers that the ON market will REMAIN theirs even after Quebec’s separation. The PQ apparatchiks were actually able to sell this preposterous idea, and in the end the farmers in question backed the Oui side by over 70%. The effectiveness of the apparatchiks was not only possible on account of the gullibility of the farmers, but also on the fact that the feds sat idle and did absolutely nothing to counter the peqiste “inaccuracies”.

    ------

    So that’s it in a nutshell, Jacques. Even though I usually support independence movements, Quebec is one of a very few where I make an exception. And the reason is obvious – this particular movement is more about swindling people, than about people’s true wants and desires.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I use to be able to buy poppies at Windsor Station ( aka Lucien L'Allier ), but for some reason, this year no one was selling them. I guess they thought it would take away sales at the Canadiens Boutique.

    Its too bad that the video clip from NBC did not add a side note to that report to show how Quebec recognizes Remembrance Day. That way people who do not live here would see how pathetic this province is.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Editor, I don’t share your belief that the majority of Quebeckers remain proud Canadians. If that were true, where is the evidence? With so much blatant disrespect coming from the Quebecois, I wonder why Canadians care if Quebec separates? Are we that tolerant and stupid? Personally, I find our association with Quebec embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Adski at 12:38 pm,

    Excellent post as usual but I think it should have gone in the Nov. 9 thread. You may want to repeat it there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. To the Toronto guy at 12:28 pm:

    While I won't necessarily disagree with you about the threat to Canada from Germany in WW1, I don't think this was the case in WW2.

    Do you really believe that Nazi Germany would have left a neutral Canada alone if it had defeated Britain and the United States in WW2? Keep in mind that it was Germany that declared war on the U.S. after its ally Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And German submarines sank enormous numbers of American ships along the US eastern seaboard at the commencement of hostilities.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Anglo Basher:

    First my relatives fought in both wars. My uncle was at Dieppe and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp, where his health was completely undermined by the conditions and brutality he endured.

    However Canada was NEVER in any danger in any of the wars it fought. In a real sense they were all wars of choice for Canadians. Nazi Germany - Hitler - sought expansion in the east where the Slavic populations lived. He makes this abundantly clear in MEIN KAMPF. The TRUE MISTAKE the British and French made was not Munich but the pledge to Poland, which they couldn't fulfill anyways. This turned Hitler westward instead of eastward. The right strategy would have been to have stayed out of an impending Nazi-Soviet war while building up their forces and also seeking to aid anti-Hitler groups in Germany. This latter category included many, many senior German officers. None of this was ever done (for which Churchill is mostly to blame).

    How could Germany have invaded Canada? It couldn't get 20 miles across the channel to attack an 89,000 sq. mile island but was somehow going to get 3,000 miles across the Atlantic and over-run a country of 3,800,000 sq miles? I don't think so. How would it have "defeated" the U.S? Sinking ships along the seaboard is not the same as occupation or conquest and only happened because the incredibly stupid U.S. admiralty didn't immediately adopt convoying. True, Germany declared war on America but by this time it was a neutral country in name only, doing everything it could to supply Britain and Russia with aid, creating Lend-lease, escorting British ships across the Atlantic, occupying Iceland, openly attacking U-boats, etc. Actually by Dec 1941 the war was already lost for Germany. Operation Barbarossa had failed and the Germans were in dire quarters. Stalin launched a general counter-offensive across the whole front and almost destroyed the Wehrmacht. By the time of the much, much over-hyped D-Day operations the USSR had already inflicted 4.3 million casualties on the Germans and in a few weeks would destroy the entire ARMY GROUP CENTER in operation Bagration (a disaster dwarfing Stalingrad). Had it not been for Stalins' desire to occupy the baltic and Balkans, the Soviets could probably have over-run Berlin and ended the war by Nov 1944 at the latest. There is a huge mythology about WW2 - the so-called "good war". None of it is true. Because of the Nazis actions towards Jews, etc, there is the tendency to argue a moral imperative to fight. But I would counter that any such morality was lost when the allies sided with Stalin against Hitler. In any case it is very difficult to show that Canadian or American involvement saved many, if any, Jewish lives. The great bulk of Jews lived in eastern Europe far from where the allies fought in places like Sicily, southern Italy, northern Africa, Normandy, north-central France, etc. You may want to read the books NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and also CHURCHILL AND HITLER, THE UNNECESSARY WAR. Another book you may want to check out is BRUTE FORCE which shows just how lopsided the odds were against the Axis, since you seem to have no sense of Germany's strategic sealift capacity. Finally I would add that NONE of the 108,000 Canadians killed in wars in the 20th century were killed on Canadian soil. It is specious, at best, to argue Canada's "freedoms" or liberties were endangered or protected by what were essentially wars of choice. Much the same applies to our foolish involvement today in Afghanistan. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, I see Quebec has seen fit to have their own team in the upcoming international hockey event. "Team Quebec". Will be comprised of NHL players from Quebec only. Team Quebec, Team Canada. What a f'king embarrasement. The rest of the world must think were on drugs to put up with this BS.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mississauga Guy said...

    To my next town neighbour, the Toronto Guy: What are you? Some kind of mental case? It's easy to analyse any circumstances or events LONG after the fact. You can use technology today to analyse the world of yesterday, especially when there are seven decades of bits and pieces of fact and fiction to build a composition.

    In dogfights, life is moment to moment. Strategies like D-Day take at least some time and strategy and time to develop, and even that is using seat-of-the-pants circumstances and phenomenon as they are happening or SHORTLY after the fact.

    Had Hitler and the Japanese succeeded in Europe and Asia, you don't think they would then have worked their way into North America? You don't know THAT for sure, do you?

    Now to the rest of the readers...

    I'm sick and tired of Quebec, period, save the limited few and their families who did enlist and fight to assure their freedom, or die trying to save it. But if the supposed few revisionists who are trying to ignore and repel the history of those who fought and died to assure their freedom, why doesn't the so-called majority who supposedly and silently support what THEIR soldiers did try to break the silence and do what they can to suppress the revisionists?

    My answer to that wordy last question is EXACTLY what people in the occupied Eastern European nations did: (1) Cheer the expurgation and extermination of the Jews and other Nazi undesirables, and not lift a finger to help; and (2) Stay silent and let it happen.

    A friend of mine, whose Jewish father was Polish, was mercifully saved by neighbours who hid this man, possibly others, in their cellar for the duration of the WWII. Had these neighbours been caught for doing what they did, they likely would have perished in the concentration camps unless the Nazis had worse in mind for the sympathizers (though I can't imagine what worse than the camps could have been!) There were people who risked their lives to save their neighbours, but they were few and far between...unfortunately.

    As for the Francophone Quebecers, every last goddamn one of THEM a descendant of the French, how about those who fought in France to liberate THEIR people after the Nazis occupied them?

    Where was Trudeau? Too busy being a playboy riding his f--king motorcycle wearing a jacket with a Swastika on it, THAT'S WHERE!!! And now his son is aiming for the mantle of leadership? Believe me, he's being groomed for the job, and has been for the last ten years, at least. You saw how Chrétien was practically up Justin's rectum during his election campaign, and you can be sure is his head coach. Within ten years, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, you will see Justin Trudeau at the podium competing for the Liberal leadership at a future party convention, unless of course the party faithful who sit on a plane higher than God hand him the mantle on a silver platter à la Michael Ignatieff.

    Gee, another generation can watch history repeat itself in the name of Justin Trudeau. Can't wait to hear his rendition of the "just society"! Well...I actually CAN wait...a whole lifetime!

    It's time to remind our readers again that Canada is long overdue to for a federal political party that is run by true, loyal Canadians for true, loyal Canadians, and Quebec is put in its place for its dubious loyalties. Hopefully this will show us which Quebecers are indeed loyal to Canada and which ones are not...if they know what is good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mississauga Guy to Adski...

    Re your posting on NOVEMBER 12, 2010 12:38 PM: Either YOU ARE a separatist or YOU'RE NOT! You sound like Bourassa with your serpentine politics where one day you're one way and you're the other way the next!

    Like that despotic bastard dictator, Josef Stalin, he was on Hitler's side until Hitler pulled a 180 and attacked him. You play exactly the same game as Stalin!

    Had Hitler not been smart (but cowardly) and did not commit suicide, you can be sure Stalin would have caught and put Hitler in a cage, exhibit that caged animal around the world to show the world HE got Hitler, and Hitler would have fully deserved the humiliation and a whole lot worse!

    I think the same should be done to serpents like yourself. Either align yourself one way or the other. I personally despise hypocrites...even more than bigots who at least show their stripes! ...like the two Jacques!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yesterday, I was watching the Remembrance Day ceremony on TV and immediately after the 11:00 am minute of silence, surfed the channels to see what the French language coverage was like.

    Alas, it's sad to say that with the exception of the CBC French channel, there was nary an interruption in the local programming, not even on the two French news channels, RDS and LCN.


    RDS is a sports channel. Presumably you meant RDI, le Réseau de l'information.

    Well, here's what RDI actually programmed on Remembrance Day:

    JOUR DU SOUVENIR

    JEUDI 11 NOVEMBRE 2010 À 10 H 30 (HE)

    Du Monument commémoratif de guerre du Canada, à Ottawa, hommage aux soldats canadiens. Animation : Céline Galipeau. Intervenants : Gaston Côté, brigadier général des Forces canadiennes et Béatrice Richard, historienne militaire au Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Journaliste : Daniel Thibeault. Réalisatrice : Claire Deschênes. Réalisateur-coordonnateur : Dave Shymanski.

    Animation : Céline Galipeau


    http://www.radio-canada.ca/gh/rdi/ghFicheEmission.asp?numerodiff=64018423&regiongh=10&numero=597&date=2010-11-11&dateDuGh=2010-11-11

    v. le guide horaire de la semaine passée ici :

    http://www.radio-canada.ca/rdi/ghHoraires.asp

    That went on for 1 1/2 hours, til noon.

    Then it was reported about on the midday Téléjournal and on other news bulletins throughout the day.

    Then Remembrance Day was a major topic of discussion on the Club dex ex, from 12h30 to 13h30 :

    http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/pop.shtml#urlMedia=/global/Medianet/dernier/Dernier_RDI_LeClubDesEx.asx



    What was the subject of Grands reportages on RDI that day (20h-21h)?

    Le voici:

    ÉPOUSES DE GUERRE OUBLIÉES. Près de 45 000 épouses de guerre et 22 000 enfants nés outre-mer ont immigré au Canada entre 1942 et 1948. Ces Européennes, la plupart originaires de la Grande-Bretagne, ont épousé un soldat canadien lors de la Deuxième guerre mondiale. Les épouses de guerre et leurs enfants nés outre-mer ont perdu leur citoyenneté canadienne sans le savoir. Ce fut le cas du Lieutenant général, l’honorable Roméo Dallaire, sénateur. Ce documentaire nous offre le summum du dicton populaire : «Qui prend mari prend pays ».

    Animation : Simon Durivage

    Rediffusion à 2 h.


    In fact RDI provided several hours of Remembrance Day coverage throughout the day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anglo Montrealer...

    @ Mississauga Guy: Your idea of a rest of Canada first is nonsense. How the hell do you expect a party to win any federal election without any votes coming from Quebec? At the very MOST, they'll become the official position, but they won't be able to put Quebec "in its place"(although the idea does sound nice). We already have an illegal separatist federal party, and we definitely don't need another one.

    In any case, the "Real Canada" as you call it, has really no value to me for it has spit on me every time it has a chance to. If the "Real Canada" really gave a damn about the Quebec Anglos why do they add restrictive laws in the Constitution that support Bill 101? If a linguistic minority in Quebec wants to attend an English school, they can't...not only under Bill 101 but also under the supposed "Human Rights" charter. Parents from Drummondville went all the way to the Supreme Court to win the right to send their Francophone children to English school and but lost because section.23 of the Charter does not allow the majority to attend the school of the minority in Quebec.

    Anglos and Allos in Quebec have to get over their irrational love for Canada and consider the possibility that their minority rights might actually be better respected in an independent Quebec.I'm not advocating separatism, but it's something Anglos and Allophopnes should consider. Of course, this will only be true if Quebec decides to repeal the language laws if it becomes independent.

    Thanks Trudeau for your great contribution in destroying what was once a beautiful country where French and English cultures alike lived happily amongst each other.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In a particularly classless and shamelessly partisan statement, Guy André the veterans critic of the Bloc Quebecois chose to remember only those soldiers from the Quebec based regiment, the Royal 22nd (Van Doos) in his press release... sigh...

    Another [sigh] Richler-esque fib. André's actual intervention in the Communes is here (emphasis mine) :

    « Chaque année, le jour du Souvenir appelle à la commémoration de ceux et celles qui ont laissé leur vie au nom d’idéaux de justice, de liberté et de paix lors de conflits armés.



    Le Bloc Québécois se rappelle notamment des ceux et celles ayant fait partie du Régiment Royal Canadien-Français 22e bataillon (canadien-français), ancêtre du Royal 22e Régiment, créé lors de la Grande Guerre et seul régiment qui demeure à ce jour exclusivement francophone. Ceux et celles qui le constituaient ont dû non seulement combattre l’ennemi, mais aussi obtenir la reconnaissance et le respect des autres bataillons. Il recevra 18 honneurs de bataille. Près de 4000 des 6000 membres seront blessés ou mourront au front.

    Ayons aussi une pensée toute spéciale pour les soldats qui se sont battus et se battent toujours dans d’autres conflits, notamment ceux qui sont déployés présentement en Afghanistan ».


    Keep the day job, Nodogs. Ca t'empêche pas de t'amuser avec tes copains, le régiment des Laptop Bombardiers de sa Majesté.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I did not touch the 1992 question because I’ve done it so many times already....

    A 1992 referendum was like many others in the world – a govt finalizes an act/law/bill and decides to hold a nation-wide referendum to see if people agree or disagree. The gist of the act is known to all, and those who want to know more can either ask or refer to the document directly, since it’s public.


    Oh really, so that's why you didn't bother to tell us concisely what we were voting on? What was the "gist," without run-on sentences and without the aid of a search engine, adski, svp?

    The Projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec, the subject of the 1995 referendum was made public too. It was delivered to everyone's home, and made the subject of public consultations in every region. Didn't you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Help me out here, folks. Perhaps my comprehension of French is limited, but reading the text from that BQ MP's press release, I don't see any reference to Canadian troops other than the Van Doos. It does, however, appear that he refers to "troops who have fought and who are fighting in other conflicts, notably those who are deployed in Afghanistan".

    Of course that reference would technically include Canadian troops (along with those from several dozen other countries, including the Taliban), but in such a generic and snivellingly back-handed way as to be almost meaningless.

    Furthermore, the press release appears to scrupulously avoid any reference to his home country of Canada. Does Mr. André take pains to scratch out the word "Canada" on his pay-cheque and passport (and currency for that matter) also? The BQ are truly the comic relief of Canadian politics. To be honest, I don’t personally have a problem paying their salary; they fill the void left by the Rhino party.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mississauga Guy to Anglo Montrealer...

    1 of 4:

    I'm SO glad you asked: "How the hell do you expect a party to win any federal election without any votes coming from Quebec? At the very MOST, they'll become the official position..."

    I presume you meant to write "official opposition", so let's get down to brass tacks.

    Since «Canada» (my way of describing the Real Canada, the part without Quebec, or RoC as some others describe the "rest of Canada") has about four times the population of French Quebec, I think it's possible to win an election, but I will admit a lot of constituencies won outside Quebec would not necessarily be easy to get in order to achieve that...at least not at first.

    Official opposition? Very, very possible! If da Bloc Québécois achieved official opposition status with as few as 52 constituencies, official opposition status is very much within reach given «Canada» has a population of about 27 million people vs less than 7 million Francophones in Quebec. How do you like them apples?

    Too, this party of loyal Canadians would have to design a platform that appeals to its target market. Although desires between the Atlantic and Western Provinces can differ quite a bit, there are probably fewer differences between the two than the differences between Quebec and «Canada» as a whole.

    The biggest bone of contention between the East and the West is Westerners take to an economic-political doctrine known as rugged individualism while in the East, especially the Atlantic Provinces, take more to dependence on government transfers, especially federal-to-provincial transfers. Quebec is a demanding, downright leach in this area!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2 of 4:

    I'm not against the status quo for the Atlantic Provinces because they are very loyal to Canada and the "Canadian Way", and you can define THAT anyway you want to.

    The frustration re the East comes from the West, especially Alberta, the most conservative population in Canada and the greatest believers in the rugged individualism doctrine. Alberta has that luxury partially because of their emerging fortunes in oil, but also because of their good fiscal housekeeping. They're debt-free, while Quebec on a per capita basis, according to their own Ministry of Finance indicates they're the sixth most indebted jurisdiction in the world! Take their $8.5 billion away in Equalization payments and they're in a deeper hole than they are right now!

    Quebec's dependence on the federal system goes way, way deeper than that. They get far more immigration money than anyone else on a per capita basis. Ontario hosts about 50% of all immigrants and gets about 36% of the federal allocation while Quebec hosts about 12% yet gets 35% of the allocation! What the hell is that all about?

    When it comes to EI (Employment Insurance) monies for training and retraining, Quebec gets $4.75 for every dollar Ontario gets! What the hell is that all about? Answer: A deal Mulroney made with Quebec since his raison d'être as PM was to top Trudeau and bring Quebec onside constitutionally. We saw how THAT failed!

    Heritage Canada allocates federal funds for public (street) parties and festivals. Quebec has managed to get up to 70% of those funds yet only has 22% of the total population. Another imbalance tipped way in Quebec's favour!

    When it comes to fedreal government jobs, well...

    Well, how about how many jobs over the years have become "bilingual" or at least where French is required. Since Trudeau came to office, that number skyrocketed. Why? Well, consider this: Between the time Pearson resigned as Prime Minister in 1968, handing the reins to Trudeau, until 2006 when Harper won with his minority government, that 38-year period saw only a measly SEVEN MONTHS with an elected prime minister not from Quebec--Joe Clark and his short-lived minority government from June 1979 until February 1980! Otherwise, that time was filled by Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin...ALL from Quebec! I'm excluding Turner and Campbell from the mix because they were mere temporary gap fillers who not only never won elections, they were both soundly annihilated!

    Bilingual Francophones in the federal civil service were paid "bilingual bonuses", never available to Anglophones, even if they spoke French. I know because I was one for a short time in the early 1980s!

    ReplyDelete
  21. 3 of 4:

    Anglo Montrealer, you also brought up another interesting observation: "In any case, the "Real Canada" as you call it, has really no value to me for it has spit on me every time it has a chance to. If the "Real Canada" really gave a damn about the Quebec Anglos why do they add restrictive laws in the Constitution that support Bill 101?"

    I really think you're smart enough to figure that out, but your hypotheses may differ from mine, so I'm more than happy to answer your question.

    My best advice is to read a free online book entitled "Why Canada Must End", by Tony Kondaks. Here is the link: http://whycanadamustend.com/

    Kondaks starts first by discussing the generalities and history of it all, and comes up with a hypothesis that Quebec could achieve separation much more easily by creating a "language free" zone out of Montreal and limited areas surrounding Montreal. I think it's a real pipedream on his part because French Quebec will NEVER go for it, especially the nationalist zealots!

    Further in, he answers your question in great detail about how manipulative the Quebec-concentrated Liberal Party in Trudeau's day coordinated parts of the Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and even applied Bill 101 to maintain its loyalties of Quebec voters.

    In addition to what Mr. Kondaks has to say, your beef is part of the reason I don't want too many constituencies in Quebec represented by this party. The mainstream parties of today rely on Quebec voters to get their majority governments and have no choice but to bend over backwards to appease an unappeasable population in order to get their majority...and French Quebecers KNOW it!

    PM Stephen Harper handed Quebec their "Nation" status, and what was his reward for doing so? One more seat in the next general election? ONE LOUSY SEAT! Big deal! Was it really worth it for Harper to bend over backwards for ONE LOUSY SEAT? You decide!

    If the party I'm proposing became the official opposition, that would be more than enough to start swinging the pendulum the other way. Of course, this party of Canadian loyalists would have to be more than taking back the country of the our majority, but also come up with a social and economic platform. I can't do that alone. A grass roots organization would be required to get this thing rolling. The PQ was René Lévesque's party with one last echo in the mid-1990s (a.k.a., Parasite's 1995 referendum). Mind you, it was a loud echo and it almost worked notwithstanding the ambiguous question and cheating during the balloting by the poll officials, especially in my old stomping grounds of Chomedey, Laval where over 11% of the voters ignorantly didn't know how to properly cast a ballot. Yeah, and the snowpigs oinked and squealed while flying over Chomedey proving that mental challange was as accurate as the flying pigs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 4 of 4:

    The PQ is famous and notorious for eating its leaders once they start to flounder. Once René Lévesque started to cave in on his 1980 Referendum hopes and accept «le beau risque» of a more conciliatory tone with «Canada», his star faded fast and it was time for the PQ to seek out a new leader. That came in the name of Pierre-Marc Johnson, and the militants and zealots saw to his quick end for being far too moderate and not quick to pull the referendum trigger.

    Parasite was a one-trick pony, but the most effective leader they had post-Lévesque. Bouchard usurped Parasite after just one mandate, and Parasite was livid! Personally, I loved it because Parasite was a very sore loser, naming and blaming his scapegoats with a mouthful of sour grapes.

    Poetic justice came for Landry when he had his tantrum because a 76% vote of confidence wasn't good enough for him, and Pauline Marois is the Constantine Chernyenko of the PQ--the last gasp of the "Old Guard", tantamount to the Communist Party in the old U.S.S.R.

    Personally, I hope she wins the next Quebec election if for no other reason than she'll take Quebec backwards another few decades making my proposal that much more appealing. It would show «Canada» once and for all that WE are the majority and it's high time WE take back OUR country. Let Quebec take its backward policies, its antiquated, obsolete economic models and its racism on its own, and good luck. THEY'LL NEED IT--BIG-TIME!

    Oh, and Anglo Montrealer, don't expect a separate Quebec to take care of YOU. They'll take care of their kind, the «pur laine», but don't hold your breath about their taking care of you. Even if they do, do you really think they'll let you address them in English? Really!

    Does that answer your concerns, ex-copatriate of mine?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mississauga Guy to Montrealer in Alberta...

    I can only speculate Mr. André does not scratch out the word "Canada" on anything official as I'm sure he wants his paycheques from Canada to clear promptly and without incident.

    I did not read Mr. André's article and don't intend to as I trust the Editor's interpretation, and yours as well.

    As for da Bloc and the "comic relief" you refer to, there is nothing funny about the millions upon millions of dollars in funding, salaries and pensions these clowns of treason are getting now and in the future. If the Americans can execute the Rosenbergs for treason, why don't we at least put ours in jail (and revoke their pensions and other entitlements) until they come out in body bags? We, of course cannot execute them because the death penalty was abolished in 1976 by one of the Great Trudeau's right-hand men, former NDG constituency MP, Warren Allmand.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ The Toronto guy, Nov. 13 at 1:45 am:

    The government of Nazi Germany tried to buy Anticosti Island in 1937, two years before WW2 started. The island is in a strategic location in eastern North America, being smack dab in the middle of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. This might suggest that the Germans were looking past the confines of Europe in their plans for war.


    @ Jacques, Nov. 13 at 9:36 pm:

    While some French-Canadians fought in both world wars, there were large numbers who avoided military service by fleeing to the countryside and hiding in the woods.

    I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. I fish a lake near a small Quebecois town in the Outaouais region. There are caves located along a heavily forested shoreline of the lake. An acquaintance of mine who lives in the area said that many local men of fighting age hid in these caves during both wars.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Jacques

    What were we voting on? It seems like we all voted for different things, and we all had different expectations.

    I had absolutely no trust in the PQistes running the referendum circus, so I voted Non. I especially had doubts about “partnerships” with a country that they so antagonized and were about to leave.

    But what about other people? The dairy farmers, for example? They voted believing that a chunk of the market in a now foreign country will remain theirs. They voted while being totally deluded. And how nice would it be, a foreign country carves out a niche in their market to accommodate now foreign products at the expense of their own producers...A total pipe dream propagated by the PQ.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Mississauga Guy:

    Of course I’d prefer that the BQ just go away. However since we`re stuck with these clowns for time being, I`m of the view that we should just milk as much entertainment value out of them as possible before they fade away altogether. I don`t view the BQ as a clear and present danger to Canada or anything else. The BQ are without a doubt one of the most incompetent, weak, and utterly useless separatist parties in recorded history.

    I used to live in Duceppe’s riding; we’d regularly receive his junk mail, as well as door-to-door visits from his starry-eyed underlings during election season. They were friendly enough, but utterly deluded and naive with not even a dim sense of how ludicrous the whole exercise was. The whole concept is Python-esque level, really. Or perhaps Seinfeld is more a propos; the “political party about nothing”.

    As an aside, I have to shake my head when I read of polls where Canadians rate Duceppe as the most “respected” leader and such. The BQ are a twenty-year “temporary” protest party; the concept of making hard political decisions and bearing responsibility for governing is completely alien to them. It’s easy to look “above the fray” when all you’re doing is jeering from the cheap seats.

    Thus I’m not sure why Gilles would be in a big rush to succeed Marois upon her inevitable inglorious exit. The PQ will chew him up and spit out the pips.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "a "language free" zone out of Montreal and limited areas surrounding Montreal. I think it's a real pipedream on his part because French Quebec will NEVER go for it, especially the nationalist zealots"

    If that were to happen a huge number of linguistically and otherwise unqualified francophones who hold down jobs in every field, from the police and fire departments to the private sector, would be looking for jobs in the Three Rivers.

    "If the Americans can execute the Rosenbergs for treason, why don't we at least put ours in jail (and revoke their pensions and other entitlements) until they come out in body bags?"

    The federal government expects the loyalty of Canadians when it comes to foreign conflicts and they bring us back in body bags, but domestically loyalty seems to be an irrelevancy. Maybe if the US had an interest in Quebec, the federal government would finally act. It's a short march from Val Cartier to the "national" assembly.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It would likely be fair to say that the policies of Quebec are designed to keep their own citizens ignorant and uknowing as to what is happening in the ROC and world. Akin to the old saying "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen". I have come to understand that the average Quebecer (with exceptions of some areas of Montreal as this blog clearly illustrates) is totally in wardly focused on the province due to brainwashing carefully handed out from infancy via the biased school systems. Ask a Quebecois pure laine about day care and other social programs and you invariably get the answer "they receive more than us". This is the great charade which has been handed down to the people of quebec for the last several decades by the elite who need the people to be ignorant to prolong their existence.

    Time for Quebec to leave but I doubt it will every happen as those same elites realize they need the funds and programs from the ROC to further maintain the illusion to the people of Quebec.

    Poor, ignorant and uninformed people that they have allowed themselves to become. The only way for them to be emancipated is to learn the real truths and quite listening to their self serving politicians such as Duceppe, Charest, Marois etc etc. who really only care about themselves. After all, do they really think Canada will honor their pensions should Quebec separate. Guess again.

    Steps:

    Repeal the OLA, which will neutralize the french presence in the civil service which has been steadily infecting Ottawa with Pro Quebec strategies and policy

    End all equalization payments and federal benefit transfers and return to fair policies respecting demographics. This would undermine Quebec's continued raiding of the pockets of other Canadians by dubious measures (hydro subsidies)

    Draw legislation to make it illegal to restrict free movement of labor and products across provincial borders which would end one sided legislation allowing Quebec contractors to work outside of Quebec but restricting Ontario contractors from working in Quebec.

    End the 2.00 per vote subsidy to all parties in Canada which would essentially cripple the treasonist BQ party.

    Bring legislaton in which would preclude a party from running in a federal election unless they ran cantidates from all jurisdictions. This would result in parties being elected which represent all of Canada and not one particular geographic region.

    Go to free market systems with dairy products and other agricultural products which would effect real change and equities rather than the special treatments given to a particular province.

    End all Canadian heritage funding which the bulk currently by proportion goes to Quebec.

    Lastly,

    Present the facts to the people of Canada and have a clear referendum involving the entire population of the country as to if Quebec should separate. (Wonder how Quebeckers would vote :)) This would be immensely interesting.

    The above is a short list of items which would curtail the existing extortion Quebec and their elite have been using to extract from the ROC.

    Also,write you federal MP and MLA's provincially and ask simple questions such as when we in the ROC will be receiving subsidized day care, university tuitions etc. If no answer then ask the question, why are we funding this in Quebec with our tax dollars.


    Quebec is a bastard province whom sucks the blood from the ROC, and at the same time, arrogantly feel their culture is superior to ours and is also openly critical of their neighbors in Canada and also our neighbors such as the US.

    Quebec is simply not a good family member.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anglo basher:

    They DIDN'T buy the island. Nor could it have been used as any "base" to attack North America since they had zero sealift capacity or naval capabilities. Did the USSR use Cuba as a "base" to attack America? It is a historical fact that not one single bomb fell anywhere in North America. Do you understand SPATIALITY sir? No historical evidence was ever found to show Hitler had any designs on North America. May I kindly suggest you read the book NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Another writer is Major-general J.F.C. Fuller. You could check out any of his great books. The closest 'match' to Canada- North America would have been the USSR. Hitler was doomed just six months after that invasion. Operation Barbarossa had failed. The Germans had sustained over 800,000 casualties and were loosely strung out across a huge swathe of territory with no reserves facing a massive counter-attck and suffering TERRIBLY from the worst Russian winter in a century for which they were completely unprepared. Within a few weeks they were pushed back 150 miles in places and casualties were well over a million. THEY WERE DOOMED. 90% of all German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed by Red army troops. How much do you think Canada's contribution was to the remaining 10%? It was difficult for the Germans to operate 500 miles past their borders there because of the differing Soviet railway gauge and the absence of paved and metalled roads. To suggest Germany, which even after absorbing Austria, Sudenland and parts of Poland, was still only as big as Washington and Oregon was somehow a threat to North America is so absurd as to be ridiculous. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mississauga Guy said...

    To Montrealer in Alberta:

    If you're not Francophone, why the hell were you living in that East Montreal cesspool? Be that as it may. The "20-year protest party" as you put it was started by a true Quebec nationalist orator who was highly respected. Bouchard's politics aside, I think he's a pretty insightful guy myself, and in the end, he put his kids first. Unfortunately it cost him his lovely young wife.

    Duceppe, on the other hand, has nowhere near the polish on him Bouchard had, but he's riding the coattails as the "last emperor" or the party, much like Pauline Marois is of the PQ.

    You're absolutely right insofar as the PQ militants would have Duceppe's gonads for lunch eventually, but he can quit the BQ now, take his full pension as an MP and parlay that into extending his PQ career another five years, just enough time to collect more than a modest leader's pension off the Quebec taxpayer to add to his federal boodle.

    If he did this right now, he's got it made, but add that other five years in Quebec and he's really set for life!

    -----

    To the Anonymous respondant at 1:21pm:

    You answered WHY Mr. Kondack's "language-free zone" is a pipedream. After all, how many gas stations in Trois Rivières need attendants to pump gas? How many car washes are there and how many McBurger places are there for burger flippers. Not enough to take on the current unqualified "professionals" already in Quebec government jobs!

    As for your second point, the U.S. only has an interest in Quebec for its natural resources, but many are not environmentally friendly to exploit otherwise the separatists would be living high off the LG1, LG2, LG3 and LG4 hydro dollars. That was the big ticket to their affluent independence, plus asbestos. No hydro, no asbestos, no affluence, no separation. All they do is stick their fangs in «Canada» trying to suck whatever blood they can get out of the rest of us, and they don't give a tinker's damn about anything else. That's all we're good for, as long as we keep supplying the blood.

    Now living in Alberta as far on the other side of the political spectrum as you can be from Quebec, I reckon you'd relish the idea of putting Quebec where it belongs...behind «Canada»!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mississauga Guy to all readers and contributors of this blog...

    1 of 2:

    Let me clarify a couple of points. First of all, I'm not necessarily for the separation of Quebec from Canada, as long as they're willing to play the role of partner rather than advantagetaker, economically or otherwise.

    I don't think Quebec is entitled to mre than it puts in as too many of their generously subsidized programs strictly for Quebecers are NOT paid for by themselves, with federal money. If they raised tuition fees to market rates as well as hydro and daycare, they shouldn't even need equalization payments, or certainly much, much less than they do right now. Quebecers should have to pull their weight like everybody else.

    I'm NOT for eliminating the French language outside Quebec. It has official language status in Canada equal to English, at least for federal government services. I know people who have taken French immersion outside Quebec and it certainly enhances their careers. To state the least, it doesn't hurt having a second language and there is nothing wrong with French. It is a widely spoken language worldwide.

    My big bone of contention is Quebec has waged war against those who are not of their own ilk, a.k.a. «Québécois de veuille souche», i.e., old stock Quebecers, mostly of French descent, who are all of white, Roman Catholic, French mother-tonged residents of Quebec for hundreds of years are inferior and not to have privilege to overpaid and underworked Quebec civil service jobs and overunionized, protected blue collar public service jobs. It's strictly a gravy train for that one ilk, the majority of course.

    That ilk was led astray by corrupt leadership for the last quarter millennium, first by a Church who led them to manufacture ridiculously oversized families with the Church motto "God will provide" (when in fact was demanding their misled parishioners provide for them), and then a despotic political leader whose machinations weren't really far off from Hitler's, less the concentration camps (except, of course, if you were an orphan, or committed to an insane asylum).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mississauga Guy to all readers and contributors of this blog...

    2 of 2:

    By the 1960s, that was starting to flush out of the system, these poor, lost, ignorant souls were taken advantage of by a small elite of their ilk who were lucky and affluent enough to dig out of the Church fiefdoms (parishes) and ghettos, get the best education money could buy and good minds absorb, get their way into office and take over the anals of ignorance their way. Their objective was to create their own fiefdom.

    The minorities with their effective work ethics and goal of better educating their young, coupled with smaller and easier to support families, exceeded the misled masses of the majority with better education, entrepreneurship and in some cases, agendas that meant building their own fiefdoms.

    The majority couldn't swallow how the minorities were exceeding them, so the conclusion was the best way for them to catch up was to oppress and suppress the minorities at every turn until they caught up and surpassed the intelligent minorities.

    Their weapon of choice is much more genteel than most oppressors who use weaponry to impose their will. Their weapon was the law, and enforcing it as zealously and diligently as they could. It doesn't appear as brutal as guns and bullets because it's done a lot more quietly and behind closed doors than shooting people in the streets, or courtyards or in front of mass graves. No sensationalism, so to the rest of the world, they see it as no harm, no foul.

    Quebec minorities though, know the score, whether they still lived there or became expatriates like me. Because I lived there for the first half of my life, I know many of the nuances whereas those who lived outside Quebec have little or no idea and many don't care until their wallets are being touched by Quebec.

    With that occuring endlessly, outsiders are just starting to see how it impacts on their lives, and forutnately, they're just starting to become fed up. That MacLean's article recently touched nerves in Quebec, but it's seemingly OK when insiders write about their corruption. Hmmmm...

    It's no skin off my nose if Quebec separates and if there is subsequent partition in Quebec. I won't force it one way or the other, but I won't try to stop it either. All I'm asking for is that Quebec become a participant, an equal partner along with the rest of the provinces. No special treatment. If Quebec cannot accept that and if they'd rather separate than participate, so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. that's not what I asked adski. You're a bullshit artist. Which means, among other things, that you blend right in.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Reply to anon at 2:55 PM:

    Your various suggestions are appalling except for one. I do like the idea of a country-wide referendum on Quebec separatism. Think of it as a 'double-referendum'. This is what Czechoslovakia did. Both the Czech and Slovaks were each able to hold a referendum on dissolving their country. If there was a majority in either half it was a done deal. We now have the Czech republic and Slovakia. Both peoples are probably better off too. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anglo Montrealer to Mississauga Guy...

    Thanks for your great input as always. Although another problem, I think, is that people all across the country still have the "Canada at all costs" mentality and are too afraid to have a federal party to pretty much tells Quebec to f%$# off. I suggest a party that simply respect the majority position on all issues and if that majority of Canadians happen to be from Quebec, then so be it. You can't demographically distort democracy. If Quebec doesn't like the majority decision, it is more than welcome to leave Confederacy. Which brings me to the point: is secession of a province even legal? Is the existing of a separatist party, either provincal or federal, treason? I think so. If memory serves me right, Trudeau said something about the rise of the PQ being something Canadians should be proud of because it would have illegal in any other country.

    In any case, I'd rather live in a "language free zone" in an independant Quebec than in a Quebec within Canada. This, however, can only happen if the minorites and the PQ can make some pact that in the case of a YES victory, they'll have the right to their own schools, their own colleges/CEGEPs and universities and so on... Kondaks' Two Referendum Questions method should make this work out. My Canada is not one that creates parent/child discrimination, or defines what makes you "Indian", or one that bends backwards, sideways to please Nazis. Canada has betrayed Quebec minorities by not protecting minority rights as they said they would in 1867. If you read Kondaks' books, he explains that the fathers of Confederation wanted to protect minorities against oppression from the majority, which is why the federal government has the power any veto any provincial law.

    And to think that Stephane Dion calls Bill 101 "a great Canadian law"...

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ The Toronto guy:

    I have to agree with Mississauga Guy’s perception of your rant regarding WW2.

    Germany came close to defeating Britain. The Royal Air Force was on its last legs during the Battle of Britain and it was saved only because the Luftwaffe began bombing British cities instead of the airfields. If the Germans had eliminated the RAF, they would have attempted an amphibious invasion of England (Operation Sea Lion).


    “Did the USSR use Cuba as a "base" to attack America?”

    This is not a very good example. The placement of medium range nuclear missiles by the Soviets in Cuba almost caused World War 3.


    “It is a historical fact that not one single bomb fell anywhere in North America.”

    Actually, a small number of Japanese ‘balloon bombs’ landed in the US and Canada.


    “To suggest Germany, which even after absorbing Austria, Sudenland (sic) and parts of Poland, was still only as big as Washington and Oregon was somehow a threat to North America is so absurd as to be ridiculous.”

    What about Japan? It was smaller than California but it managed to occupy large areas in the Pacific. And after Pearl Harbor the Americans were fearful of a Japanese invasion of their west coast.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anglo basher:

    My "rant" was a well-reasoned viewpoint consisting of facts which you and others reject for emotional reasons and because you have swallowed the official propaganda and Hollywood nonsense. Everything you say here is false or disingenuous.

    Germany was not "close" to defeating Britain. Hitler never launched operation sea-lion because he knew it would never work. The Luftwaffe never achieved operational control over southern England and Germany had neither the navy or sealift capacity to send even a dozen divisions across the channel. In any case it was Britain that chose to declare war on Germany after making its ludicrous pledge to Poland. A pledge it knew it could never fulfill. You have swallowed the Churchillian propaganda line here. If you want the true facts please see the excellent book 1940: MYTH AND REALITY.

    Actually (kind of ironic since you have already said you don't disagree that Germany was no threat in WW1) the Kaiser's high seas fleet in 1914 was much, much stronger then the Kriegsmarine in 1940 was but even then it proved incapable of doing anything to Britain. It never broke the British North Sea blockade(instituted by Churchill and which caused a million German civilians to starve to death). It never operated in the channel or disrupted the flow of troops to the continent. It never landed any troops in Britain and only fought one inconclusive battle in 1916. Amphibious operations are very difficult, especially for countries with no experience with them.

    I think my Cuba example is no more wrong then yours was. And I only mentioned it to point out the ludicrousness of your example. And unlike you I was dealing with reality, not hypothesis, because Cuba really was under Soviet influence.

    Yes, I am aware of the 'balloon bombs'. Real strategic weapon huh? Worked out great for the Japanese didn't it? Did tremendous damage to America. Stopped their naval advance across the Pacific in its tracks. (Sarcasm off).

    Japan (bogged down in a ten year war in China which had already cost her 400,000 casualties) was admittedly well positioned to over-run CERTAIN parts of the eastern Pacific, including the Asiatic empires of the U.K. and the Netherlands (thanks to our involvement with Britain, Canadian troops were in Hong Kong, where they were DOOMED), but it was quite powerless to invade Britain or the USA. Those Americans who feared an invasion on their west coast were hysterical fools. Admiral Yamamoto rejected an invasion of Hawaii (2,400 miles FROM the west coast) to follow up his Pearl Harbour strike because he felt Japan was too weak to pull off such a move. And this was with the incalcuable advantage of total surprise. Later in June 1942 Japan wasn't even able to capture Midway island 1,200 miles WEST of Honolulu. In 1941 Japan's steel production was 7 million tons and America's was 200 million. Just do the math.


    90% of German servicemen killed in WW2 were killed by Soviet troops. How much do you think Canada contributed to that remaining 10%? Very little. Canada's war effort against Germany was analogous to Australia's towards Japan. Some historians estimate the Aussie contribution to Japan's final defeat was .07% - less then 1%. This is probably about the same for Canada too.

    I say again neither Japan or Germany was EVER any threat to the western hemisphere - Canada, America, Mexico, etc. But for people whose knowledge of WW2 is limited to John Wayne movies and Sgt. Rock comic books well, just keep on believing the comforting myths of the so-called "good war". The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well, a lot was said, but the usual Ontarians are favouring the Queen's wars again.

    Quebeckers, as some of you are so inclult in the way we refer to them in your blog Mr. Editor, have the right to forget the war we imposed to them years ago. Ontarians are really today making them responsible for their opinions. It wasn't their war, period.

    If the Ontarians who are all throwing a stone to the Quebeckers would be forced to go and fight to IRAK, well that would make your lovely situation without a paddle hey ?

    Finally, as far as the "ÉPOUSES DE GUERRE OUBLIÉES qui ont immigré au Canada entre 1942 et 1948...et leurs enfants nés outre-mer ont perdu leur citoyenneté canadienne" et bien ces gens-là sont bien mieux que ceux d'ici. Le Canada est un pays qui devient pourri à cause des Anglophones qui désire leur destruction. La France est d'ailleurs un pays qui possèdes les meilleures conditions de travail, de recherches médicales et de culture au monde. Ne l'oubliez pas mon ami. Cela vous donne les raisons pourquoi les Québécois marchent sur leurs pas.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @M.Guy

    You seem to think that separatism is inherently good, while federalism is inherently bad. But these things are very relative and depend on time, place, and circumstances. For example, you couldn’t say that some former USSR republics are worse off on their own. Same for the former Yugoslav republics. Or for the Flemish, who in my opinion would be better off if they dropped the freeloading Walloons. Or the Canadian provinces west of Quebec, which would be better off if they were to drop Quebec.

    In the case of Quebec, if the separatist movement made any sense, I might not oppose it like I do. The reason I oppose it is because it doesn’t fulfill the criteria of other movements which arise either:
    1. to cast off the shackles of the oppressive jurisdiction they are part of (former USSR, former Yugoslavia)
    2. to achieve an economic gain (Alberta, Flanders)

    In the case of Quebec, the SOLE purpose of the whole project seems to be to satisfy the egos of the Quebec “elite”, of whom the most prominent member is an aged and senile Anglophile who parades around parroting a colonial-era English lord. The persistency and fanaticism that they exhibit in pursuing a cause that has clearly lost traction with the general population is indicative of one thing - they're not doing it for anyone but themselves.

    But if we ever found ourselves in a highly unlikely situation where Canada would actually be dragging Quebec down economically, and a secessionist movement would arise run by dynamic people who do not bear the pre-1960's baggage of the senile separatists currently leading the charge, then I might back such a movement. And Canada might presently be one of the best countries in the world, but it doesn’t mean it will be such forever.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry, the first sentence should read:

    You seem to think that separatism is inherently bad, while federalism is inherently good

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mississauga Guy here yet again...

    I won't get into the intricacies of WWII between Anglo Basher and the Toronto Guy, but what I will express about the War is Quebec was full of chicken chested cowards and other layabouts who for some stupid reason were given a pass for fighting "Britain's War". That, of course, is notwithstanding the fact it was their precious France that was occupied by the Nazis and liberated by the few dutiful «Québécois pur laine» and mostly "British subjects" and soldiers from other nations.

    So much for "Britain's War".

    ReplyDelete
  42. "for fighting "Britain's War". "

    Note that one of the aims of this "British War" was to liberate France. By dodging the draft, Quebeckers showed how little esteem they had for their "mother country".

    And look where these ingrates run now while desperately seeking support for the independent Quebec. Back to mommy France.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The mother country France let Quebec go at the time. France was not financially well. Voltaire said " quelques arpents de neige" and the costs to keep Quebec was to great. Then Quebec had crises within English Canada because of their slave running over us, the French in Quebec. The number of man to kill in catholic families were greater than the English families. Their plans was a genocide. Of course, times have changed. This ombilical cord with France is not yours to judge. France is our mother and England is our mother in law. We have more in common with France than with you. So buzz off!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mississauga Guy to Adski...

    I'm not sure you read my view on the situation that I promulgated yesterday, in two parts, at 4:04 and 4:05 PM.

    I didn't specifically and unequivocally state I want Quebec to separate, but they are expending too much energy and demanding funding that goes beyond what the other provinces are entitled to.

    The Quebec government is subsidizing daycare and post-secondary education far more than the other provinces. Fiscal restraint unfortunately no longer enables most of the other provinces to subsidize university education the way it used to. I'm not happy about it, but the costs are prohibitive. Citizens of the other provinces, including Ontario have raised tuitions quite a bit while Quebec has frozen the fees for decades, or have kept them below the rate of inflation; furthermore, they have adopted an American attitude of one set of fees for residents, and out-of-province fees for other Canadians.

    In short, despite the fact the federal taxpayer is in part supporting Quebec, Quebec is not willing to return the favour. My girlfriend who lived in Quebec prior to moving in with me here in Ontario over a year ago. She worked in a community center that had a subsidized daycare, and you don't think some of the mothers who are welfare receipients endlessly spending their days smoking in front of the TV don't dump their kids in the daycare? THAT IS FLAGRANT ABUSE OF A WELFARE SYSTEM LACKING CONTROL!

    Those subsidized spots should ONLY be for full-time WORKING people who are trying to get ahead, and PAY INCOME TAX, not layabouts who just want to dump their disruptive kids so they can relax care-free; furthermore, WELFARE RECIPIENTS DON'T PAY INCOME TAX!

    Quebec has for more socialized programs than «Canada» (as previously defined). That's fine if Quebecers ALONE are ready and willing to pay the extra taxes required to have these extra social programs (lest we forget QPIP, and I wonder if it's raising enough to support its program).

    What is NOT fine is MY FEDERAL TAXES are going to subsidize programs that SOLELY benefit Quebecers, but do not benefit «Canada» and ME in any way, shape or form! If Quebec were to raise its hydro rates, daycare fees and university costs to the national level, that would merit future consideration for equalization.

    When it comes to language, this latest round of keeping a few hundred children away from English schools is being done with mean-spirited cruelty. Your former Captain Canada as a federal Conservative MP, now "federalist" Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest, is reverting back to the language testing cruelties first imposed in the mid-70s by the Bourassa "federalists".

    Back then, it was language testing administered by staunch separatists. In a formal, intimidating manner, little children were brought before an examiner to test each child's proficiency in English to determine their eligibility for English schooling. More often than not, children who made the slightest mistake were failed and ordered to go to French school. EVERY child whose parents sought English schooling were tested, including younger siblings who already had older siblings attending instruction in one language or the other. The examinors had complete discretion, i.e., if they chose, they could play God.

    Even René Lévesque saw the inhumanity in that scheme, so once one child qualified for English schooling, the other sibilings also qualified automatically, but the pendulum began to swing back in 2002 with the passing of Bill 104, and now the more restrictive bill, whatever number it will be (103, 115, whatever!) Again, bureaucrats will get to play God!

    I can get into how the language police persecute the "little guy" as opposed to the big American franchises, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on accommodation and volumes of other oppressive measures taken by successive Quebec governments, federalist and separatist, but I won't, at least not here and now.

    ReplyDelete
  45. M.Guy, I agree with your post at 2:13PM.

    And I'm not sure anymore what it is that I said that you're arguing against.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mississauga Guy said...

    Adski, your comment of 12:54PM earlier today is mildly eloquent, but certainly nice and succinct. Unfortunately, the Anonymous imbecile who responded about 20 minutes later has mother-in-law issues that I will not elaborate upon in fear of dignifying that response.

    As it is, France is in no financial shape to send Quebec an old franc and Quebec would not be able to pay France back as an independent nation no thanks to their financial position.

    France, as it was then, was split between sympathy for the Nazis and resisting them. In the meantime DeGaulle comes to Montreal and stirs our pot in 1967 with no intention to support Quebec even then, except morally perhaps.

    Seems both France and their distant descendants are nothing but a composite of s--t disturbers!

    Anonymous @ 1:16 PM (a.k.a. the imbecile): Manges tes mots de merde lentement et avec soin!

    ReplyDelete
  47. "DeGaulle comes to Montreal and stirs our pot in 1967 with no intention to support Quebec even then, except morally perhaps."

    Interesting fact - a decade before DeGaulle's proclamation of support for the "independence" of Quebec, his army attempted, in a most brutal way, to quash an independence uprising in Algeria.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Concerning daycare: yes there is a lot of abuse on control. I remember the days where anglos were barely paying French girls in Montreal to babysit... the harrassment they had to put up and the little money, was awful, tit for tat Mr. Rats.

    ReplyDelete
  49. THIS IS IT ! IT IS FRENCH, THE PROVINCE IS FRENCH AND IT WILL REMAIN FRENCH FOR EVER. There are 200 millions francophones in the world and they are not to stop because of your racism as English Canadians. You are discussing, arrogant and deserve to be punish to make such remarks about people in your own country.(No wonder why Quebec is a nation)

    ReplyDelete
  50. "THIS IS IT ! IT IS FRENCH, THE PROVINCE IS FRENCH AND IT WILL REMAIN FRENCH FOR EVER. There are 200 millions francophones in the world and they are not to stop because of your racism as English Canadians. You are discussing, arrogant and deserve to be punish to make such remarks about people in your own country.(No wonder why Quebec is a nation) "

    What country are you talking about...the nation of Quebec or Canada. Quebec was given nation within a nation status by Harper to shut you up for awhile. Racism you say; where in Canada are there bigotted laws restricting commercial language and laws restricting the language of eduction. Answer this question and you will realize whom are the real bigots. 200 million french speakers you say. How many people now speak english worldwide. The francos are less than 2% of the population in NA and are increasingly headed to insignificance. . Want to learn someting usefull...try espangnol or Mandarin as french is becoming less prominent on a daily basis in the world. A folklore language at best.

    ReplyDelete
  51. " A folklore language at best. "

    Well said, as this is why there are laws such as 101 to protect the language with Canadian taxpayer dollars at stake. Without protection it would no doubt become extinct in NA (and maybe the world) in short order due to lack of any real relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "THE PROVINCE IS FRENCH AND IT WILL REMAIN FRENCH FOR EVER."

    Doubtful, look at the island of Montreal which is becoming anglicized on a continuing basis even with your bigotted laws. It's only a matter of time, mon ami.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "The province is French and it will remain French for ever"...

    Only if immigration to Quebec and Canada is stopped permanently. The former dilutes Quebec's - especially Montreal's - French character, while the latter reduces Quebec's share of the total Canadian population, with a corresponding loss in political influence in Ottawa. Since Confederation Quebec has already 'lost' over a third of its 'weight' in the Canadian confederation, all due to immigration, and this century is going to be incomparably worse. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Another reason to encourage immigration and to send the overflow into quebec once they land in the rest of Canada as well.

    ReplyDelete
  55. NO BILL 101 IS A LAW WITH TEETH. QUEBEC IS SEPERATED AND YOU DON'T KNOW IT ! You on the contrary invite Islam,and everyonelse from the world in your bedroom.Did you know that at the age of 65, once someone lives in Canada for 10 years they will collect their pension ? English Canada is a bottomlom society and your system is sick. It is the same of the USA, nobody knows that they will have to vote differently. Someone will have to tell them: if you continue to vote for a war, your budget will allow you to die by the side of the road, in pain because you cannot afford a hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Someone is not checking their facts here about francophones. You are dead wrong. This is purely racist and destructive. You are afraid of another language ! Yes Quebec is a nation, we celebrate it on June the 24th. As far as other races and nations, this argument was not including them. Stay on Topic Mr. English and check your facts.

    ReplyDelete
  57. As confrontational the Anglos are on this site, this would not fly in Spain. The ETA if comparable to the old separatist would attack you viciously. This is how they survive, unfortunately with their violence, they survive ! Eukadia is proud of their culture and language. Unfortunately the mega English banking, the mega English world is a threat to cultures, all cultures and all languages, this is why Mr. English here in Canada feels hurt after 400 years of bashing us the French in Canada. They don't like to be told to back off from Quebec, ha! ha! ha! greedy Anglicans...

    ReplyDelete
  58. "...your budget will allow you to die by the side of the road, in pain because you cannot afford a hospital."

    This may be in the future for Quebec. It is massively in debt and has introduced medical user fees. And enormous numbers of people cannot find family doctors.

    ReplyDelete
  59. As usually, you are not making sense, by inviting the rest of the world to your Cdn bedroom and giving, yes giving them the old age pension after 10 years of living here only ! (Anybody can come to English Canada without skills, and they are barely speaking English). You are a bottomless feeder. Ashame on you ! You criticize again the French in your country as an ignorant Francophobe! I remember England sent to death the famished Irish succombing from the black plague;the Irish church in Montreal will trace its history for you. You ressemble your mother land England.

    Quebec will face its problems, without your help, as usually. The lack of good doctors are another topic. I am waiting for the Editor to control his site. I will have plenty to say about that.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I remember England sent to death the famished Irish succombing from the black plague;"

    Oh please, don't bring the Irish into this. I am so sick and tired of Quebec nationalists claiming Ireland and Scotland as their allies, while the ONLY commonality between Quebec and the other two is the “enemy” – Britain. HOWEVER, while the other two where victims of British colonial aspirations, France was Britain’s COMPETITOR in colonial conquests, and did to its conquered what Britain did to Ireland and Scotland.

    Another DIFFERENCE is in the treatment that the Irish and the Quebecois received from the Brits. The French in North America were considered by the Brits as subjects of a respected adversary (France) and were treated more or less as POWs, while the Irish were taken for inferior peasants and borderline savages. All of this is very well described in "Parallel Paths: The Development of Nationalism in Ireland and Quebec" by Garth Stevenson. Highly recommended for Quebec revisionists.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mississauga Guy to Adski...

    Thank you for your compliment at 2:47 PM yesterday. I was merely trying to point out I do realize, to quote your words through our modern technoligical wonder of cut-and-paste: "You seem to think that separatism is inherently bad, while federalism is inherently good" @ 11:49 AM yesterday.

    There is no doubt separation would NOT be all cream and no crap, but I definitely think it has come to the point the benefits [of Quebec's secession] would exceed the costs.

    For Quebec it would certainly hurt because of their domestic debt and fat social programs. Quebec would also have to assume its share of the federal debt at the time of secession, or face not becoming a member of NAFTA or any other trade bloc in the Americas that may come about. Canada can veto Quebec's admission (as unanimous consent is required for admission).

    Just the cost of promoting and labelling everything bilingually right now costs a fortune (and I'm referring to the private sector as opposed to the governments that should still continue to provide goods, literature and services bilingually where required).

    The Official Languages office would be killed immediately. That stupid department has cost us a fortune since its inception 41 years ago, as much as a half TRILLION dollars. Imagine what we could have done with that money if it went into health or education! Our current national debt is just more than that!

    Someone recently noted on the blog that the (amicable) separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia was relatively painless. They even agreed to a common currency. After 39 days, that had to be abandoned, and don't tell the Slovakians nothing has hurt!

    Sorry, Adski, but I don't see how Canada would be so badly hurt. If I need to go to Eastern Canada, I can cut through the New England states. If I want poutine and chow chow, I'll make it myself, or go to places that have it here. Poutineries are popping up in the GTA.

    Half the dairy farmers in Quebec would never sell another drop of milk or a wheel of cheese. What are they going to do? Embargo maple syrup?

    Oh, and lest we forget how many federal government jobs would disappear! We wouldn't need those two big tax centres in Jonquière or Shawinigan-Sud (I wonder WHO put THAT latter tax centre there?), and why would Ottawa employ foreigners from Gatineau?

    No doubt, it can get ugly, but business tends to supercede politics, so I'm sure whoever has business relationships now would maintain those relationships should secession take place.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, you are bringing everything to the French in Quebec... so, the gloves are off.

    England has a terrible record of treating people. The English were not kind with French Canada in the beginning. You probably did have a diaper then.

    I am sorry but I don't believe everything I read. I do not what happened to my family and neighbours. This is why I am so proud not to belong to anybody. QUEBEC BELONGS TO ITSELF NOW, IT IS A NATION, AND WE DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "QUEBEC BELONGS TO ITSELF NOW, IT IS A NATION, AND WE DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING AT ALL."

    Good, can you now refuse the equalization payments and other tranfers from Ottawa to your social welfare province. Leave, go, good riddance and the sooner the better. We will see who owes who at the end of the day and negotiations are commenced. Of course this will never happen as all you spineless bastards in Quebec are afraid to separate.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Sorry, Adski, but I don't see how Canada would be so badly hurt."

    ???

    Did I say it would? I said exactly the opposite (yesterday, 11:47AM):

    "Or the Canadian provinces west of Quebec, which would be better off if they were to drop Quebec."

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I remember England sent to death the famished Irish succombing from the black plague;the Irish church in Montreal will trace its history for you."

    You don't know what you are talking about - again. The Irish didn't die from the black plague/death at the time of the potato famine 160 years ago. They died from starvation and from other diseases.

    The Irish were treated much worse by the English than French-Canadians could ever claim to have been treated. I have some Irish heritage. But I am not going to hold the English and their descendants responsible for what happened ad nauseum for all eternity, like the Quebecois are doing.

    In 1066, the French speaking Normans invaded England, won the Battle of Hastings and laid waste to the countryside in their march on London. For 300 years the country was run in French and the survival of the English language was threatened. If the English were like the Quebecois, they would still be whining about what happened today. Instead, they celebrate and re-enact the Battle of Hastings, because for better or for worse, it is a part of their history.

    The Quebecois are a bit more selective when it comes to remembering their own history. There were threats directed at those who wanted to re-enact the Battle of the Plains of Abraham last year, so the event was cancelled.

    ReplyDelete
  66. To Anglo Basher;

    ..the survival of the English language was threatened..

    NOT TRUE. The Normans never made up more then 2 or 3% of the population of England, let alone Britain. By the way, not that it really matters, but English as it was spoken then, would have been unintelligible to modern speakers.

    ..they celebrate Hastings..as part of their history...

    But the Normans have been fully absorbed for several centuries so there is no cultural friction or ethnic antagonisms to speak of. As a proper corollary to your example all the Anglophones in Quebec today would be unilingual Francophones like the descendents of the Normans are unilingual English-speaking Britons. But that's not the case. The Toronto guy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Je ne comprends pas le gars de Toronto. Qu'il aille donc se faire foutre celui-là et qu'il se mêle de ses affaires à Toronto.
    La colonisation viking en Normandie, tout comme la formation du duché normand, s’étale sur plus d’un siècle car, dans les années 1020, des bandes vikings vinrent s’installer dans le duché sous le règne du duc Richard l’Irascible. Le duché de Normandie se constitue surtout sous les successeurs de Rollon, du duc Guillaume Longue-Épée et c’est seulement au siècle suivant, sous le règne du duc Guillaume le Bâtard, que le pouvoir ducal est totalement affirmé (à partir de 1060 environ), 150 ans après le traité de Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. L’adoption de la langue d’oïl autochtone par la classe régnante parlant le vieux norrois a introduit dans la langue normande un bon nombre de termes, notamment son lexique nautique, passé dans sa quasi-totalité dans la langue française. Plus de 11% des Québécois proviennent de cette souche.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To The Toronto guy:

    "NOT TRUE. The Normans never made up more then 2 or 3% of the population of England, let alone Britain."

    English was indeed threatened. It no longer appeared as a written language. The Normans may have been a minority, but they were the ruling class of the country. And during their reign many French words were absorbed into English. I suggest that you watch the excellent television documentary, "The Adventure of English," or read the accompanying book.

    "By the way, not that it really matters, but English as it was spoken then, would have been unintelligible to modern speakers."

    Of course English was different back then, but it has evolved into the language we use today.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anglo Basher:

    I suggest you read the book THE STORY OF ENGLISH. The Toronto Guy.

    ReplyDelete
  70. BRAVO ! I AM PLEASED YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. NOW YOUR TURN ABOUT MY PROVENANCE. PLEASE SEE : SI PARIS M'ETAIS CONTÉ (video clip movie and book).

    Something also I should share with you: our history books (Ontario-Québec) were written differently. It is normal and as everything is political, the education system is also political as well.

    Tell me what author did you study to learn the history of Quebec, in your student life ?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Nous n'avons pas besoin de lire vos histoires, nous en avons assez de vous regarder agir!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Quebec should rid themselves from the monarchy. This FRENCH farflung NATION has no interest in the English monarch. WE LIVE MODERN TIMES. NO, It is different living in the country your monarch resides. Queen Elizabeth's descendants are not popular in Quebec, and never where. The people suffered, they worked hard to recover from financial misery. Now they are too different, they evolve to become more different than the rest of English Canada and they could be one day with their gas wells, ahead of the game and becoming part of the European community. The economical situation is not a reason to chain them on a stake and throw stones at them. (which is what we are doing on this blog). We underestimate them. THey are independant with their system already: language, law system, hospitals, schools and universities, telephone companies,roads, lakes,lands, artisans, Entrepreneurship Development Program, culture etc.. The part they receive from the Feds is a reproach which they will regret deeply one day. In the meantime, I don't blame them to spend more, live better is their best revenge. TIme will come English Canada will pay for all this.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ya, may as well tell the Irish to honour and pray for the English Power and their descendant (Elizabeth II). The English put the Irish into such misery and refuse apologizing in this century. Today, Quebec is not prepare to pay for the Monarch's trips, nor to be under her the insignia of any royal emblems (Law Society). Certain hereditary titles that were originally established for Quebec by the King of France continue to exist and be recognised by the present Canadian monarch (and loath by the actual Anglophones); these include the Baron de Longueuil, which was created through Letters Patent from King Louis XIV in 1700.
    YES TIME FOR A CHANGE, they want us to be part of Canada and at the same time to want to dominate us, a strange utopia in this world of intolerance !

    ReplyDelete
  74. Pourquoi faire voter les Anglophones dans Montréal ? Faisons plutôt voter les francophones éloignés afin de nous rejoindre. Les Basques ont créé l'énergie de cellules rattachées, pour les basques éloignés. Le Québec devra se battre, mais il en a l'habitude. Pourquoi parlons nous de bataille, (moins sanglante que celle des Irlandais quand même)mais arrogante et dévastatrice au point où nos francophones éloignés souffrent au point de devenir malades. Si ce Canada est un camp de concentration pour les francophones qui vivent hors Québec, il n'existe pas pour la Nation du Québec. Ils endurent tout simplement et acceptent leur part de péréquation. Alors que les hyènes ne cessent pas de nous tomber dessus.

    ReplyDelete
  75. La plupart des francophones désirent oublier la guerre, alors que les anglophones sont encore accrochés par les héros ! quelle catastrophe que d'aimer son nombril à ce point !

    ReplyDelete
  76. Oui, en effet c'est Cocteau qui disait que les peuples qui ne peuvent pas blairer la critique sont des gens pédants. Bravo ! Les Québécois peuvent s'affirmer, non commes les autres qui sont moutons....

    ReplyDelete