Flag Friday: The Many Unofficial and Proposed Flags of Canada

I'm not always about Alternate History, as many should know by know. Real historical things, places and events can be just as interesting as timelines we make up, and often is a great leaping off point for AltHistorians. Often, proposals and "unofficial" things can be made official, and tell a brand new story.

Case in point: Canadian flags. Before the Maple Leaf flag was declared official, Canada used a series of unofficial flags, some more unofficial than others, and almost all of them were modified Red Ensigns, to proudly proclaim that Canada was still a loyal member of the British Empire.

That said, here are a few of the unofficial designs for flags that were flown (or almost suggested) at one time or another.

This was the first official unofficial flag was simply the British Red Ensign (used by the British Merchant Marine) "defaced" with a shield composed of the Coat of Arms of the four original provinces. From top left clockwise: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

But as the years went on and more provinces joined Confederation, the number of spots on the shield went up, starting with Manitoba in 1870, complete with the uber-Canadian maple leaf wreath and very British crown on top...

...to the addition of a white circle background that nearly took up the entire flag in the 1880s after BC and PEI joined... (this design was dated to 1891 when BC adopted its current coat of arms)

...until 1905, when Alberta and Saskatchewan entered, and got rid of the white disk, the maple leaf wreath and the crown. And, frankly, it's a mess. Imagine getting school aged kids to draw this in a bought of patriotic furvor!

But finally, in 1921, the Canadian government, unofficially, adopted this version. This version pays homage to the four "founding" nations of Canada: England, Scotland, France and Ireland. And, being the time frame, it also left out the First Nations people. That would never fly today, but this is the version that flew the longest, from 1921 to 1965, with a slight change in the 50s to make the maple leafs at the bottom red instead of green.

Personally, I have a soft spot for the Red Ensign, and not just because maybe secretly I wish to see the British Empire rise and rule the world again. But, rather, I see it from a historical point of view: this flag, variations notwithstanding, the one that Canadian soldiers fought World War One and Two under. There are issues with it, namely in that it prioritizes four European nations (and, in fact, with the Union Jack it represents England, Scotland and Ireland twice) as the "founders" of Canada. A modern version would have to find something else. My personal vote would have been a Red Ensign with a maple leaf of some kind, like this:

And finally, two other proposals:

The "Pearson Pennant" proposed by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in 1964 to encapsulate the motto "From Sea to Sea" (and worthy of any alternate Canadian flag, I say)

And the "Unity Flag" first made in 1995 during the second Quebec Referendum, with the Blue representing the proportion of Quebecers in Canada. Though, I honestly would feel a bit insulted if all I got was a couple narrow blue bars but, hey, Quebec remained in Canada then (by a squeaker), so maybe it worked.

I plan to do Flag Friday's more often, and maybe with some flags designed for Alternate History scenarios. So if you have a flag you want to suggest, message me on Twitter (@tbguy1992) or email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com.

Multiversal News: Liberal Backbenchers Vote Against PM, Cabinet to Turn Canada into a Hivemind

Liberal Backbenchers vote against PM, Cabinet to turn Canada into a Hivemind

Members of the Liberal Party moments before they voted in
favor to make all Canadians part of a collective Hivemind.

OTTAWA - In a surprising show of independence, Liberal backbench MPs voted in favor of a private member’s bill to turn all Canadians into a gigantic hivemind, despite the opposition from Prime Minister Trudeau and his cabinet. Bill S-190, proposed by New Democrat NDP Joshua Halford, MP for BC’s North Okanagan—East Kootenay riding, would mandate that all Canadian citizens would receive microchips implanted into their brains to allow all Canadians instant communication with each other, computational knowledge to solve the nation’s issues, as well as access to everyone else’s memories, knowledge, and figuring out where the hell we left the keys for the van.

“Since this was an open vote, many Liberal backbenchers believed that S-190 would benefit all Canadians,” Mary Lemonut, Liberal MP for Toronto-Yorkdale, said. “While the PM made some convincing arguments, I think it would be really cool if all Canadians would think and speak as one.” As she spoke, other members of the Liberal Party also said the exact same words in a creepy monotone and with unblinking eyes to other reporters.

When the votes came down, 101 Liberal MPs voted in favor of the bill, as well as all 44 NDP members. Conservatives were split, with most of those that voted in favor of the bill running for the leadership of the party. Analysts believed this was in order for some of the 14 candidates to be able to put their vision of the future of the Conservative Party to as many people as possible. As of press time, however, all Canadians have agreed to erase any existence Kellie Leitch from the hivemind after they found out that she was basically trying to be a Canadian Donald Trump.

“This bill will solve all known problems currently facing all 36 million Canadians,” Swanson said, moments before being the first to step into the doctor’s office to receive an implant into the glorious new cyber-future of Canada. “Racism, misogyny, poverty, lack of education, bilingualism, and deciding if Kevin O’Leary really should be the leader of the Conservative Party are just some of the issues we can solve by being all unified in thought, mind, and spirit.”

“I do believe that this bill is unconstitutional,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said outside the House of Commons after the vote. “It interferes with the provincial right to determine what dystopian future our nation should take, as well as grave concerns over privacy and electronic security. But I remain committed to holding open votes in the Liberal caucus, and will abide by the results.” He was then lead away to prepare for the procedure, which, the PM was assured, would maintain his impeccable hairdo.

“This is all a trick! This will destroy all human autonomy, and turn all Canadians into mindless drones to an unknown overlord! And add billions more to the deficit! We are all doomed!” Conservative MP Tony Clement for Parry Sound–Muskoka screamed at reporters as he was being dragged away by impossibly strong, nearly robotic, glassy-eyed RCMP officer’s already implanted into the hivemind. Compliance agents are currently tracking down former Prime Minister Stephen Harper with the aid of of all 1,392,609 people in Calgary, who is currently on the run but will be assimilated in 5.4 hours.

Quebec has already said they will implement their own, French only hivemind program separate from the federal program. Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister is resisting the inevitable and refuses to submit until a healthcare deal with his province has been reached with the Federal Government. 

Editorial: An American Westminster Democracy?

With all the hoopla of the current election in the United States, and all the talk of primaries, conventions, the Electoral College, polls, scandals, etc. etc., it can all seem just a little bit overwhelming.

Mostly because of him...

American democracy has a lot going for it, but it's a hopelessly outdated system, with only minor tweaks since it was put together by the Founding Fathers in 1787. Take the Electoral College: it was designed to make sure the "mob" didn't dominate the country, with men above the political fray making the deciding vote on who would be President. The Senate was to be elected by the different states, and only the House of Representatives was elected by the citizens at large (and back then, only white men with some property). But over the years, eventually almost every office in the US, from President to Judges to State Governors to Dog Catchers were elected, though I think jobs like judges should be kept above the partisan fray. The checks and balances of the system are also something to be proud of, until of course it bogs down when two ideological opposites are in charge of the Executive and Legislative branch.

But the problems with the US system is still immense. The Electoral College is unfair for everyone: Smaller states have a larger vote than bigger states, but at the same time only a few states, like Florida and Ohio, can determine who will win the Presidency. Federal electoral districts are drawn up by the states, and in many states they are gerrymandered to give the party a better chance in Washington. It's more or less the way for successful candidates being able to choose their voters, and not the other way around.

I present to you... the Illinois Fourth District. Do I need to explain why this is stupid?

So why don't we just scrap it? Why not try a government system like in the United Kingdom and Canada? Of course, history wise we know it wasn't going to be even considered by the new US, considering what Parliament in far-off London did to piss off the colonialists, and I'll be the first to admit there are some issues with this form of government. But let's do a thought experiment, and see how the US would look if it had a system of government similar to the Westminster parliamentary system?

Well first of all, everything you know about US elections will have to be thrown out the window. Their will be a Prime Minister who is the leader of the government, and is usually the leader of the largest party (or coalition of parties) in a representative body, which can still be the House of Representatives in this version. The President can still be head of state, and he can be powerful (like in France) or weak (in Germany) as see fit. My guess, in order to maintain some checks and balances, the President would have a lot of power in this alternate American system. I'd give him the power to call elections for the House of Representatives (either with or without the "advice" of the PM), veto laws, and appoint judges and other executive positions, barring confirmation from the Senate. How the President is selected can be left up to debate. Maybe this is where the Electoral College would come in, but I'd be more willing to just have him either elected directly by the people, or selected by a joint session of Parliament/Congress. The Senate, if it would be similar to the UK or Canada, would have appointed members: say they are chosen by the State Legislators to sit until they retire, are removed, or died. In Canada, the mandatory retirement age is 75, so something similar could be seen here.

As soon as you reach sixty, you not only get the Seniors Bonus discounts at the Senate Restaurant, you also can apply for a lift chair in the chamber!

The Prime Minister, however, will have a huge amount of power, being the leader of the largest party in the House of Representatives. Now, the way the House would be divided up will be similar to OTL, but with one huge change: the electoral districts will be set by an independent, non-partisan committee. The UK's districts had been before determined by the monarch when Parliament and the House of Commons was being set up, but in many cases they didn't change. It got to the point in the early 1800s that many of the largest growing industrial towns like Manchester and Birmingham had no representation, while agricultural areas that had only a tiny population, or sometimes no population at all (Old Sarum, for instance, had only seven voters), would still elect two (TWO!) Members to Parliament. These "Rotten boroughs" were eventually done away with in 1832, though it wouldn't be until 1944 that non-partisan electoral boundary committees were set up to determine the boundaries. The US, in this Alternate History, might be sooner than that.

Elections will also be interesting. In the case of the federal government, they could serve a term as long as 4 or 5 years before mandatory elections, as long as the Prime Minister, and by extension his party, maintains control. Now, elections can be called sooner: In the event that the largest party doesn't have an overwhelming majority, a vote of non-confidence, say the opposition uniting to defeat the PM's budget or a major platform policy, can be enough to force the PM to ask the President to dissolve the House and call elections. For example, in Canada, between 2000 and 2015, we had six elections (2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2015), of which only three resulted in a "majority" government, or one where one party had more than half the seats (2000, 2011, 2015).

Justin Trudeau's hair also won a seat in a Montreal area riding, further bolstering the Liberal majority.

So, how would this version of the House of Representatives be made up? First, we'll say there are 435 seats, like OTL, and that they are evenly distributed by a non-partisan body like in Canada and the UK. If we use the numbers from the 2012 election (as it would be more representative of the US population, as turnouts are lower in "midterm" election IRL, and would more accurately determine the US's political view point at the time), the Democrats would have more seats, but only 212 seats. The Republicans, with 207 seats, would be the opposition. The other 16 would be held by third parties...

BUT WAIT! Unless the US decided to also change to something other than a first past the post system for elections, then it's not a guarantee that the Democrats would actually have that many seats, or that third parties would even gain a seat (which, unfortunately, is a problem still with the US's two party system). Possibly they might have more than that. After all, say there are three districts, each with 100,000 voters. In one district, 80% of the voters chose the Democrat, so that seat went to the Democrat. In District Two, 80% of the Vote went to the Democrat. But say in District three, the Democrat got 45% of the vote, the Republican 40%, and a Libertarian candidate the other 15%. Even though the Democrat didn't get a full 50%+1, he still won the election. This is just as true in the current system as it would be in the Westminster Democracy.

As with any election, you need three things... A map, different coloured pens, and numbers to decide everything!

However, one thing about the Westminster Democracy: third parties do have a much easier time in getting seats, especially regional parties. In the UK, the Scottish National Party holds 54 Seats, and with the other third parties and independents, there are 89 seats that are not held by the Conservatives of Labour party in a 650 member House of Commons. Similar in Canada: The Liberal Party holds 184 seats, the Conservatives 99, the New Democratic Party 44, the Bloc Quebecois at 2, and the Green Party at 1. But the Liberal Party, despite winning so many seats, only actually received 39.5% of the vote. So in the alternate US system, third parties, especially regional parties, would have a much easier time getting seats. For all we know, a "New Confederacy" Party could have swept the Southern States, or split the vote with another party to let a different party win.

"See, if only we didn't vote for the 'Haven't Got a Chance in Hell' Party, we could have prevented the Conservatives from winning!"

So would this system be better? In some ways, such as allowing third parties a chance to get more seats, yes. It would also make the House of Representatives more powerful in the Federal Government, as it's the body most directly in turn with the average citizen, with a President that has more limited powers and a senate composed mostly of appointees. In breaking deadlocks, perhaps. After all, if the party in power doesn't have a commanding majority, or a formal coalition, then it could be taken down at any moment, and a new election being held. But in more accurately representing the vote, that would be a no. In some cases, with more third parties, it could be worse than it currently is with the gerrymandering in the US system.

Now I'm not saying the US should use this system. But I think the US system needs a complete overhaul. It was established when a man on a horse was the fasting transportation possible, and concerns about full-fledged democracy was a major concern to the framers of the Constitution. But now with cars, cell phones, the Internet and cable news networks, the old fashioned system is showing it's strains, and will eventually completely fall apart.

Unless that is actually what America wants to do...

But what do you think? What would the United States be like if it took the political system Ye Old Englande? Or if you have a topic or idea you would like me to talk about, please leave comments below, email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter @tbguy1992.

AltHistory Scenario #19: What if the French Colonized America?

Alright, so the title is going to confuse some people, because they know that they did colonize parts of it, namely New France (aka, modern day Quebec, the area called "just a few acres of snow," and the reason why French is one of two national languages of Canada and everyone bends over backwards to make sure they won't leave...), but they were evicted by the British in 1759. Other areas like Louisiana and different Caribbean islands also have a significant French background.

No, what I mean is, what if the area we know today as the Thirteen Colonies, the ancestors of the modern United States, was a French dominion?

Couldn't make these jokes now, could you 'MURICA?

Note: For the sake of simplicity, I'm just going to name most of the towns after their IRL name, with a few exceptions that will be noted.

Point of Divergence

This one is pretty easy: Samuel de Champlain, when he set out to colonize areas of North America for the King of France, landed not in the St. Lawrence River, but further south, closer to modern day Boston in 1608. This settlement grew slowly, serving mostly as a trading hub for the few farmers who settled outside it's walls, as well as a trading post with the nearby natives, though not with the furs they originally anticipated. Eventually more towns would sprout up up and down the coast, the most prominent being Acadia in Nova Scotia, which was founded before Boston.

Immediate Outcomes

Over the next 100 years, further European colonies began to sprout along the coast of North America. The Dutch still settled around New York, and other small colonies by nations like Sweden also were started. But like our history, the colonization of North America was mostly done by the French and the British.

So... flip the blue and the red around, and this map should be just about good. I think.

The French, with their colony in Acadia, Boston, and further south along the coast, as well as outposts in Newfoundland, held a huge tract of land mostly focused on the Eastern seaboard, and later on around New Orleans and up along the Mississippi River. The British, on the other hand, focused on the north: what would have been OTL Quebec is mostly British, with settlements at Montreal and Quebec City, and stretching down to the Niagara Peninsula.

The colonies, and the nations that controlled them, were very different. One way the colonizing of the America's was explained in regards to those Natives that were already there: The Spanish exterminated and enslaved, the British scorned and neglected, and the French embraced and welcomed. This approach, along with some other parallels with our history, would remain. The British focused more on settling the land. Besides the bigger towns, many smaller towns also sprouted up along both sides of the St. Lawrence River, serving local farmers, a growing merchant and artisan class, and the fur traders. Whereas the French in OTL had about 60,000 settlers and inhabitants in Quebec by 1750, the British would have had many times more, say closer to 250,000. But like OTL, the British colonists wanted more land, and they pushed south and west, coming into constant conflict with the Indians and the French.

The Governor of New France participating in a ceremonial dance. Imagine a British guy doing this.

The French, with their colonies on the seaboard, were more focused on trading with the natives. However, the richness of the land, and the growth of crops like tobacco to sell back to the homeland and food stuffs like corn to support a growing population, lead to more settlers going to New France ATL. However, unlike the British, the natives got along a lot better with the French, to the point that the French aided the Iroquois and other tribes resisting the English, and gently pushing them to set up their own confederacies, kingdoms, and nations to better withstand the English expansion. Intermarriage was also a huge factor, with many single Frenchmen marrying native women, leading to the growth of the Metis. With more room (or, at least, less frigid, more hospitable room), more settlers, and more Metis, New France ATL would have close to 500,000 people, which would have been half of what the Thirteen Colonies OTL would have had in the 1750s. Louisiana, similar to OTL Louisiana Territory, would have have thousands more people, but mostly focused on the trading and supporting native alliances.

Other colonies, like New Amsterdam and New Sweden, would most likely trundle along, or be sold/captured by the other colonial powers in the course of European Wars. So, to simplify this article, I'm going to just say that by 1750, only the French and English were in North America (minus the Spaniards holding Florida and most of the land from California to Texas with Mexico).

This would have a huge impact on the future. Whereas the history of European colonization in North America from about 1650s until 1763 was a story of the huge, but sparsely populated New France loosing ground in war after war to the more populous, land hungry British settlers, in this TL, the roles would be almost flipped. Almost. The French, with all their land and less intensive colonization, but larger population and alliances with the natives would be able to hold back the British, and confine them to the St. Lawrence River basin. Wars between the French and British in the 17-18th centuries would be pretty much confined to limiting the expansion of each other, and then eventually a balance of power.

Just hang in there... Turkey! Push your bayonet up more!

This would also have some bigger issues. Without one colonial power dominating the continent, the need for support from the homeland for defence would mean that independence fights like the American Revolution would be not only unfeasible, but unpopular with the majority of the colonialists. I'm also unsure that, despite the distance and taxes, that the citizens of New France would be willing to leave the Kingdom. If anything New France would already have a large amount of autonomy, and would be willing to live like they were. The British would still try to gain more land, and they might thanks to victories in Europe, but it's hard to see how they would be able to drive all of the French out of North America unless the British focused only on North America, which seems very unlikely. If the Quebec colonists did try to rebel and form their own country, what's to stop New France from occupying Quebec as well? Or, at the very least, relegate it to a second-class position to New France.

So without a decisive victory in a French and Indian War like OTL, and with the New French holding a slightly stronger position along with their autonomy, I'd think the colonies of Britain, France and Spain would continue along as they were. Maybe in each war the borders shift a bit, but nothing massive. About the only thing that I'd see breaking New France from the motherland would be a financial crisis that came from the American Revolution, or wars in Europe, that would lead New France to question their relationship with the homeland. But it would most likely be a demand to have a representation in the Estates General, or official autonomy or responsible government, or go so far as to give a son of the King of France the title of King of New France. But this wouldn't happen for a very, very long time.

They are busy, busy people.

This also means that the French Revolution would be delayed, if it happens at all. It was the expenses of the American Revolution, along with the failure of the French and Indian/Seven Years War that was one of the major catalysts of the calling of the Estates General in 1789. So the 18th century Balance of Powers would most likely continue until such a revolution did occur, in France, Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy... who knows where?

So that's where I will leave this article. About 1800, with the colonies of New France and British Quebec not going anywhere. Maybe someday in the future I will try to write a full fledged story, and make a nice map to go with it. Or maybe even try to a New French Revolution. Or just let us keep powdered wigs and massive poofy dresses right until the present.

But what do you think? What would have happened if the French colonized OTL's Thirteen Colonies? Or if you have a topic or idea you would like me to talk about, please leave comments below, email me at tbguy1992@gmail.com, or tell me on Twitter @tbguy1992.