I was shocked and outraged at what I read in the National Post the other morning (September 24, 2004), at how Lisa Frulla, Canada’s new Minister for Culture believes that Quebec can speak for Canada at organizations like UNESCO, when Canadian representatives are not available.
Imagine: Canada, represented by the Province that wants to leave Confederation, or be recognized as a society DISTINCT from the rest of the country?
Then I read in a different article (same newspaper, same day) about Mario Dumont, who in the last Quebec election (2002) convinced many Quebec “Anglos” and “Ethnics” that he and his party were not Separatists.
Yet; in a statement he just released (September 23, 2004), Mario Dumont blames a speech he gave in Toronto (September 2002), prior to the last Quebec election for his impressive loss of votes in Quebec.
At the Toronto speech, Dumont was lauded for his insight and conservative approach to governance. And for his vision of a more cooperative Confederation. He was applauded by the Toronto Blue Bloods as if he was indeed one of them.
How Mario Dumont responded to this episode in his political life is appalling.
I QUOTE THE NATIONAL POST SEPTEMBER 24, 2004:
“I badly judged the echo in the media of English Canada. The impact of a speech given in a foreign land, the repercussions of a speech that was reinterpreted and re-re-re-interpreted – we learn from our lesson.”
The ONLY MEANINGFUL part of Dumont’s current speech is: “The impact of a Speech given in a FOREIGN LAND” – with an emphasis on FOREIGN LAND!
Here is a so-called Quebec federalist who considers Toronto a “FOREIGN LAND”.
Where do you begin to deal with this Québécois mind-set; especially when one takes into account that Mario Dumont considers himself a moderate?
When Lucien Bouchard, Quebec’s former Premier and Separatist leader during the 1995 referendum for Quebec to leave Canada claimed for all to hear: “Canada is not a real country” – he was right.
A real country doesn’t have different Constitutional Rights for citizens based upon where they happen to live in the same country.
A real country doesn’t permit just one province in 10 to restrict the rights of all Canadians to work in specific industries, as only Quebec closes its border to construction workers from other parts of Canada.
A real country has a national healthcare system that includes the entire nation, and not just 9 out of 10 provinces where Quebec opts out, but gets the federal money nonetheless.
A real country doesn’t have two blood collection services where Quebec collects its own blood. I guess they feel Canadian blood is not pure enough.
A real country does not have a retirement pension system for 9 provinces while Quebec gets its own.
A real country collects its income taxes for and from all provinces, but only Quebec collects its own.
A real country does not have one of its provinces deciding upon matters of national immigration. Quebec has its own immigration department.
A real country does not allow one of its provinces to speak on behalf of the nation. According to Lisa Frulla, having Quebec speak on the behalf of Canada at international events is a good thing.
A real country does not allow one of its provinces to exercise nation to nation status as Quebec enjoys with France and the absurd Francophonie.
A real country does not turn its back on approximately one million people in one province (Quebec), who are rendered second class citizens, denied provincial government jobs, disallowed entry into the school system of their choice, and rendered publicly invisible because of their culture and language.
And then turns its back on the rights of the majority (approximately 6 million people) in Quebec who also can not choose the language of education for their children.
Bouchard apologized almost immediately for his “Canada is not a real country” remark, and then said that Canada is a real country. He was right the first time.
If anything, Quebec is behaving like a real country, while Canada is trying to figure out what a real country is.
Paul Martin, Canada’s Prime Minister, in concert with Jean Charest, Quebec’s Premier, will together make Canada even less of a country; so much so, that there will be more compelling reasons for Canada to De-Confederate than stay together.
At this stage in Canada’s pathetic development, I believe the dismantling of Confederation is a better alternative than the status quo. And I am willing to work diligently to that end.
Successive Quebec politicians, union leaders, and intellectuals with compliant appeasing “Anglos” have convinced me; this country will be better off de-Confederated.
As an Ontarian, I would look forward to the day that my taxes will pay for my benefits, to be spent on the issues that are most important to me, rather than on official languages, a dysfunctional Parliament, a useless duplication of government services, and equalization payments that reward have-not regions for underperforming.
I will soon be publishing a book with this intent in mind. And if there is a public will for Ontario autonomy, I will do what I can to make it happen.
As I’ve written in the past: 5 autonomous mini-states pursuing their own destiny in one way or another, is considerably more preferable than one do-nothing country going nowhere.
PLEASE SEE THE LETTERS TO THE PUBLISHER.
There is a letter written by Kenneth T Tellis, a former Montrealer who resides in Mississauga, Ontario, that is worth the read.
Kenneth’s view reflects the sentiment I receive on a daily basis on this subject from an enormous number of correspondents.