Topic: Manufacturing history, or did it really happen? The CBC Strikes Again ..

[Cloud Cover]

No CF-18s left Quebec before vote, officer says
But producer stands by his film's claim
 
ELIZABETH THOMPSON
The Gazette


Friday, September 09, 2005


The former wing commander of CFB Bagotville denies jet fighters were flown out of Quebec on the eve of the 1995 referendum and says he cancelled or postponed scheduled exercises to avoid lending credence to rumours the planes were being evacuated.

"There was supposed to have been another, larger exercise ... and the planes were supposed to leave Monday (the day of the vote)," retired maj.-gen. Richard Bastien said yesterday.

"At that moment, I asked for the departure to be delayed so that nobody got the wrong impression about it. It was either delayed or completely cancelled," said Bastien, wing commander at the time.

Bastien acknowledged that about five of the bases' 30 operational jets were flown to Beaufort, S.C., at the time of the referendum, but said it was for a joint exercise with the U.S. military that had been planned well in advance.

According to documents retrieved yesterday from CFB Bagotville's pile of paperwork to be shredded, the exercise was called Hornets Nest and was a Dissimilar Air Combat Training Exercise.

Bastien said he did not recall jets also being in Virginia at the time.

Bastien's comments come after a new documentary on the 1995 referendum, Breaking Point, which aired over the last two nights on CBC and Radio-Canada, said Ottawa flew many of the CF-18 fighter jets from the Bagotville base just before the referendum to U.S. air bases in Virginia and South Carolina. The documentary says the planes were flown out for fear they would become pawns in negotiations following a sovereignist victory.
Reached last night, producer Hubert Gendron stood by the documentary, saying the flight logs obtained under the Access to Information law and analyzed by a military expert show at least 16 planes left the base around Oct. 27 and returned Oct. 31, the day after the referendum. Moreover, researchers for the documentary spoke to witnesses who were at Bagotville during that period who told them that, exceptionally, no planes could be seen on the base that weekend.
Gendron said another National Defence source confirmed to researchers that the planes were removed to prevent them from becoming pawns.The Department of National Defence did not return calls from The Gazette Wednesday.

However, Bastien said in yesterday's interview that he had heard rumours a couple of weeks before the vote that his jets were to be flown out of Bagotville in the event of a Yes victory.

"I have to admit that at that time I had heard such a rumour, there was a rumour about two weeks before the event that such a plan existed. I was personally quite concerned because I was the wing commander and if there were any such plans, I should have been made aware so that we were ready to execute them," he recounted.

"I had never heard officially of such a plan, so I had a discussion with my boss to ask him if there was anything to that rumour."

Bastien said he discussed the rumour with both the head of fighter group and the head of air command, pointing out the need to stay non-political and to avoid any activity that could be misinterpreted.

"I was told that there was no such plan and that of course they would support me if we had to cancel activities in order to ensure that any military activity would not be misconstrued or misunderstood by the population."

Bastien said he was very concerned that military personnel on the base, located in the sovereignist heartland of Saguenay-Lac St. Jean, not do anything that could aggravate the situation.

Bastien said he was so concerned that he postponed or cancelled planned exercises to avoid any impression the planes were being removed from the base.

"We were looking at additional exercises and I was ready to cancel them if, for any reason, people could have construed them as being linked to the referendum whatsoever."

The documentary also says that plans were drafted to provide for additional security for military installations across Quebec in the event of a Yes vote.

Bastien, however, said he knows of no plan to increase security at CFB Bagotville in the wake of the referendum, nor would it have been needed because the base already had a high level of security.

"As a matter of fact, I would have found it a little silly to have a plan like that because we were quite capable of responding to any threat that would have come."

The Breaking Point documentary is not the first time there have been reports concerning the referendum and the CF-18 fighters stationed at Bagotville. In 1996, for example, there was a news report that the planes had been fitted with drop tanks just before the referendum to allow them to be flown out in the event of a Yes vote.

However, Bastien said the planes have long had drop tanks - a legacy of the Cold War and the need to fly in the high Arctic. Nor would it have been necessary to install drop tanks to get the planes out of Quebec, he added, pointing out that CF-18 fighters can travel from Bagotville to Toronto on a single tank of gas.

ethompson@thegazette.canwest.com

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2005

Ends.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



This is the reason why journalists are less and less able to take cover under Freedom of the Press provision of the Charter. Who are the so called experts- what documents exactly are they referring to- who is the inside source? I think there ought to be an Somalia like inquiry into the journalistic practices of the CBC, the National Film Board, RDI and the whole rotten ship.

   

[Thucydides]

I recall a similar news report just after the referrendum claiming the JTF-2 was conduction an exercise in Montreal right at the time. As usual, there were no attributable sources, just fear/scare mongering.

Today of course, the legions of bloggers will be unleashed on the story, and eventually the facts will filter out (remember what happened when the Liberals tried to pull a curtain across the Gomery inquiry? "Captain Ed's" server crashed due to the massive increase in Canadian traffic looking for answers they could not get from the media here). Don't look for any retractions by CBC, however (Dan Rather never made a retraction either, even though he was shown to be a fool or a lier within 48hr of the airing of the so called "Air National Guard" story).

I will stay tuned into the blogosphere, not the CBC, to see what really happened.

[FormerHorseGuard]

i tend to believe the story. it sounds reasonable to move big items out the province, the banks were moving large sums of cash by brinks and the boys, just in case, get it out of the province to where it would remain in thier safe keeping, why not move aircraft.

 a lot of strange things were done for the past votes, the first vote the QPP stopped guys where my dad worked ( we live in ontario) he worked in quebec,  on their way  home and told them if they leave might not be able to come back to work the next day. that company safe guarded a lot of things to make sure the investment was safe frombeing seized.

I am willing to bet warning orders were issused at high levels to have plans to protect Canadian Governement Offices, Indians wanted the army to guard the reservations incase of the yes vote winning they did not want QPP coming in to the land and taking over.

some member of the Block Party faxed various bases wanting French soldiers to come and get sworn in tothe Quebec army if they  won.

i am sure there was a lot planning that will never see light of day  unless another vote comes up.

securing the weapons at various armouries?
securing ammo on bases ?
aircraft movements, ship movements, troops outside of the province on alert or at least the commanders?
many other places would have to be guarded so the Canadian Goverment could pull out if the need was there.

so it could be very well truthful

[TCBF]

The ideal north american security environment consists of two friendly countries.  The second best scenario consists of three friendly countries.  any separation would be conducted with a view to maintaining continental defence.  The big country to the south has a stake in that, too.  You don't just fly interceptors around because of a vote?  What kind of idiot would hold ten year old jets hostage?  There would be an interim arrangement, and in three years or less, the Quebec Air Force (or the USAF) would have been flying '18 C/Ds, or F15s.

The taxpayers of Quebec paid for those planes, too.  I would think they deserve a cut.

Don't you?

This deserves a big (yawn) "SO?"

Tom

[GO!!!]

The taxpayers of Quebec paid for those planes, too.   I would think they deserve a cut.

Don't you?

This deserves a big (yawn) "SO?"

Tom

Yes, absolutely, as a reward for their treasonous attempts to break up our nation. Why not give them a going away present of a few billion as well?

[TCBF]

What do you mean break up our nation?

Boundaries come and go, nations endure.

Canada would have come out of that much stronger than it went in, eventually.  With or without rusting jets and tanks.

Tom

[Future Unknown]

I saw that doc, it said that support for sovernty is well over 50% at this point and there may be talks of another attempt.

[FormerHorseGuard]

there was some thought on breaking up of canada.
 if quebec left the following things could happen:

1) the native nations that  have land in quebec wanted army  troops to protect their land till they  could join the new native territory tot he north , which would of made quebec 50 to 70 percent smaller
counties in western quebec west of ottawa/hull area wanted to join ontario , make quebec smaller

those were some of in quebec issuses.

eastern canada would be cut off from the rest of canada , no direct route to the east coast, lead to eastern canada wanting to leave canada maybe

western canada  has always had a movement to leave canada , only reason parts of them joined canada was because of the railroads to link them to eastern canada, that was the agreement for confederation , railroad to the west or they were not joining.

money  is a huge factor for leaving or joining a country.
quebec wanted to use the canadian dollar as their own canadian passports, and other canadian systems till they got their own. so we would still be paying for them to be not in canada.

it would of torn canada apart as we knowq it. The usa would not of wanted to have a new country  spring up north of them,  quebec supplies a lot of hydro power to the states and if the first nations took their land to another territory  or country, they  would of lost the rights and cheap power sources. quebec would not want the high tension power lines running thru  their country if they were not getting the money  from the sale of power,  the dams are on native lands. 

There are military bases in the states that  have gone on alert for invading of quebec  if the need came up , during the flq crisis there are talk of plans in various books i read about that,, the states was worried about cuba having a too friendly  of a relationship with the flq people and the people who wanted toleave canada and create quebec as a country.

the f 18 s were the little moves to protect the canadian flag so to speak,  moving them from one base to another, just in case not a big deal. look at Iraq they moved parts of their airforce to Iran  before the americans could destory it, iran has not given the aircraft back yet.
lots of countries move stuff to safe guard in time of inknown power struggles

[KevinB]

FHG,

 Please, its called capilization.


ANY seperatists East or West, English or French (or Alien  ) can seperate peacefully and take any Federal toys they want too - Provided they pay off their share of the debt...

 Quebec cant pay its way out of a wet paper bag, ergo sum: JACK and ****

 Alberta - Hmm PPALI, LdSH(RA) etc. probably better funded and kitted out than under Canada....


Personally I want Quebec to stay, if they go Alberta will be 5min behind - and they she goes....

[Sir_Spams_a_lot]

On the up side, if Quebec separated, it would cut about 6 hours out of the roadmove from Pet to Gagetown...

[George Wallace]

To really test this theory, one only has to ask a couple of pointed questions.   Was the Royal Canadian Mint instructed to remove French from all of our currency being produced, in the event Quebec separated?   Was Supply and Services instructed to stop printing contracts, so as to remove half the documents, as there would no longer be a requirement to print everything in English and French?   Were any Government Translators put on notice?   Did Indian Affairs put into motion any contingency plans?   Did Transport Canada put into action any contingency plans?   What about the Coast Guard?   Were RCMP Constables in Quebec given any contingency plans?   How about CBC, itself, did they have any plans to close down CBC and Radio Canada in Monteal?   The questions are endless.....Conspiracy Theories abound.

[Bruce Monkhouse]

....and I've said it before, but just because "I'm an attention *****" I'll say it again, even if more than 50% said "lets go", who said they get to leave with Canada's land?

"Here's the boat, here ya go.....yoooo, separate away."

[Sir_Spams_a_lot]

At the risk of antagonizing my Franco brethren and sistren,  when do we get to vote whether or not we want Quebec to stay part of Canada?  If it's an issue effecting the entire nation, the entire nation deserves to vote, no? Again, not Franco bashing, just a question.

[TCBF]

We obviously have struck a nerve here, when normally sane people throw rationality to the dogs....

Tom

[Glorified Ape]

Personally I want Quebec to stay, if they go Alberta will be 5min behind - and they she goes....

Separation isn't as easy as the separatists make it out to be - Quebec and Alberta only have a right to negotiated separation and the international community's response to that separation would be questionable - IE whether they would recognize either as a sovereign state. Canada, if it was even semi-intelligent, would make the negotiations as long, costly, and painful as possible for Quebec (or Alberta for that matter) while actively sabotaging their attempts at independence on the international stage through undermining recognition (if there was any) of Quebec/Alberta as a sovereign state which, of course, would do wonders for putting either's economy in the crapper (that's not even taking into account the adverse economic effects of just the referendum and "yes" vote). Import and export embargos by Canada as well as any other countries it could coax into doing the same would worsen the situation further (and I have no doubt that convincing other countries to do so wouldn't be difficult - Canada has substantially more to offer in the way of "compensation" and "competition benefits" than either province by virtue of its size and trade volume). On top of that you have the terms of separation which Canada would (I hope) make as costly as feasibly possible - compensation for federal lands, assets, etc. The supreme court says the right to separation exists but that doesn't mean we have to make it a pleasant and non-destructive (for the province) affair, nor should we, I think.

I think separation in either province's case would be a very bad idea - for Canada but especially for the province. I think both provinces have legitimate gripes (though I think Quebec has had more than its fair share of attention and compensation for them) and I think they both deserve to be heard and accomodated (to some degree) but separation isn't the answer. A country shouldn't be something where someone can just up and say "Well, I'm unhappy for X and X reason so I'm just gonna quit." The Kurds have legitimate separation gripes, as do the Chechens and Tibetans. Neither Alberta or Quebec have gripes credible enough to warrant separation, though the right exists. I'm not saying we should go the way of the US during the Civil War (though I believe they were right and am not entirely opposed to the idea here) or Russia with the Chechens but we shouldn't just roll over and say "uncle" either.

who said they get to leave with Canada's land?

The Supreme Court.

[GO!!!]

The Supreme Court.

Source?

[Glorified Ape]

Source?

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html

[paracowboy]

yes, but if a Province is seceding, would it care what the Supreme Court of the nation it's seceding from had to say? After all, the ridiculous and flagrantly biased decisions of our hypothetical Supreme Court are part and parcel of why that province is leaving its' former country.

[Cloud Cover]

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html

That was some time ago, and I don't recall anyting persuasive in the opinion that the territorial integrity of Quebec would be status quo. The borders of Quebec were arbitraily and artificially created by Royal proclamation, parts of which are of questionable validity in the current context. Personally, it seems to me the determining factor would be variations of the level of support within the voting ridings within succeeding territory, minus all first nation land claims. Basically, an ugly result.

 

[Infanteer]

What is "Quebecois"?  Certainly Quebec (the province) doesn't have any significant claim for seperation - as Whiskey said, it is artiface, a province created by the British Crown.  Will all the Native groups of the PQ have the right to seperate from Quebec?

Is it language?  If I learn to speak French, does this give me equal entitlement to a French homeland, despite not living in Quebec?  What about the Anglo population of Quebec, which has only 150 years less heritage in the province.

Aren't we all Canadian?  Can I not move to the province of Quebec when I feel like it (aren't mobility rights guranteed by the Charter?).  So, if I am, as a Canadian, permitted to move to Quebec because it is part of my country, should I, and all other Canadians, not have a say in whether a group of people decides to take Crown land (meaning "all of ours") away from us?  How long does it take to become a Quebecois?  Does 6 months in St. Jean cut it?

[Glorified Ape]

That was some time ago, and I don't recall anyting persuasive in the opinion that the territorial integrity of Quebec would be status quo. The borders of Quebec were arbitraily and artificially created by Royal proclamation, parts of which are of questionable validity in the current context. Personally, it seems to me the determining factor would be variations of the level of support within the voting ridings within succeeding territory, minus all first nation land claims. Basically, an ugly result.

I agree with what you're saying and I think that would be a large part of what would be negotiated.

yes, but if a Province is seceding, would it care what the Supreme Court of the nation it's seceding from had to say? After all, the ridiculous and flagrantly biased decisions of our hypothetical Supreme Court are part and parcel of why that province is leaving its' former country.

I think they would care, since if they want to cite that decision as confirmation of their right to separation (which they need to do) then they have to abide by that decision. While it wasn't the affirmative response to a right to "unilateral secession" that they wanted, it's enough. They'd also stand a MUCH worse chance of being recognized internationally if they separated "illegally" when the only legal condition placed on them (after an affirmative vote by a majority) was to negotiate their secession.

What is "Quebecois"?   Certainly Quebec (the province) doesn't have any significant claim for seperation - as Whiskey said, it is artiface, a province created by the British Crown.   Will all the Native groups of the PQ have the right to seperate from Quebec?

Is it language?   If I learn to speak French, does this give me equal entitlement to a French homeland, despite not living in Quebec?   What about the Anglo population of Quebec, which has only 150 years less heritage in the province.

Aren't we all Canadian?   Can I not move to the province of Quebec when I feel like it (aren't mobility rights guranteed by the Charter?).   So, if I am, as a Canadian, permitted to move to Quebec because it is part of my country, should I, and all other Canadians, not have a say in whether a group of people decides to take Crown land (meaning "all of ours") away from us?   How long does it take to become a Quebecois?   Does 6 months in St. Jean cut it?

You're preaching to the choir - I love Quebec and I have a great deal of respect and affection for French-Canadian culture but I don't believe they should have the right to secede. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.

[Infanteer]

From what I understand, the 1998 Supreme Court Reference and the 1999 Clarity Bill made it much harder for the Seperatiste crowd - it seems to me that no "unilateral" declaration of independence means that more is needed then a simple "Oui" vote.

Anyways, found an interesting passage that was in my head after reading and agreeing with Ape's original post:

To set and protect its own interests, Canada needed to set clear and demanding rules and conditions under which secession could take place.   By making clear the difficulties and costs involved in separation, moreover, such rules might well cause Quebeckers to think twice before voting Yes in the next independence referendum.   This was Plan B.

The essential components of Plan B were set out in a remarkable exchange of open letters in the late summer of 1997 between Stephane Dion, the federal minister for intergovernmental affairs, and the premier (Lucien Bouchard) and deputy premier (Bernard Landry) of Quebec.   Dion's version of Plan B had three main elements.   First, although Quebec was entitled to separate, a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) would be illegal under both Canadian constitutional law and international law.   If Quebec wished to respect the rule of law, separation would have to be achieved through an amendment of the existing Canadian constitution.   Since such an amendment would require the consent of other Canadian legislatures, including the Parliament of Canada, the details of the disengagement - e.g., the division of the debt - would have to be negotiated first, while Quebec was still part of Canada, not after a UDI.   As part of this dimension of its Plan B strategy, the Chretien government had referred the question of the legality of a UDI to the Supreme Court of Canada [which, as we discussed above, makes it clear that a UDI is not permissable - Infanteer]

Second, Dion questioned the assumption that a 50 percent plus one Yes vote in an independence referendum would be sufficient to trigger even a legal secession process.   "Secession, the act of choosing between one's fellow citizens," argued Dion, "is one of the most consequence-laden choices a society can ever make."   It is one of those "virtually irreversible changes that deeply affect not only our own lives but also those of future generations," and should thus be subject to more than an ordinary majority decision rule.   "It would be too dangerous," he continued, "to attempt such an operation in an atmosphere of division, on the basis of a narrow, 'soft' majority...which could evaporate in the face of difficulties."   A more substantial consensus would have to be shown.

Third, Dion raised the contentious issue of the partition of Quebec.   If Quebec could separate from Canada, he suggested, parts of Quebec might with equal legitimacy secede from Quebec and remain in Canada.   Dion highlighted the right of Quebec's Aboriginal peoples to remain in Canada.   This example was no doubt strategically chosen, for immediately before the 1995 referendum, three Aboriginal nations held their own votes on whether to stay in an independent Quebec.   "The Cree voted 96% No; the Inuit voted 95% No; and the French-speaking Montagnais voted an astonishing 99% No."   Clearly, there would be pressure for the partition of Quebec, and Dion asserted that no one could "predict that the borders of an independent Quebec would be those now guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution."

Archer, Gibbons, Knopff, Pal, Parameters of Power: Canada's Political Institutions; pp 120-121.

Needless to say, I agree with Dion's assertions.

[Glorified Ape]

Good passage. I'd never heard of that before. It seems to me that excising one of the provinces, especially one as large as Quebec, would be so costly and difficult that it's possible the public will would drain away before it could be done (as the passage makes reference to).

[Code5]

wasn't the whole referendum found to be horribly corrupt?

[TCBF]

"have gripes credible enough to warrant separation, though the right exists. I'm not saying we should go the way of the US during the Civil War (though I believe they were right and am not entirely opposed to the idea here) or Russia with the Chechens but we shouldn't just roll over and say "uncle" either."

- From such thinking, blood flows.

-The idea is to make it as PAINLESS and as PROFITABLE as possible for all concerned.  This is nothing new.  Countries move their borders all the time.  Last I looked, Poland was doing just fine.

-Let them go.  Let them keep whatever they want.  If the north of the province explodes in a  follow on secessionist movement, don't get involved, and just let Darwin take his course. 

Then, adapt our own constitution so NEVER AGAIN can one social/cultural group hold an entire nation of 33,000,000 people hostage to the point where we let down our allies and cost lives.

Tom