CHAPTER 18
Conclusion
Is Quebec a nation?
If it is, it’s going to become one by hook or by crook. And no parliamentary
motion by Stephen Harper in the House of Commons saying as much will make it
one.
Of course, Mr. Harper -- in full hand-me-down Sorcerer's Apprentice mode --
doesn't really mean what he says. You see, Quebec isn't actually a "nation"
because, as his motion stated, Quebec does not form an independent nation apart
from Canada.
I’m sure that has made Quebec Nationalists very happy. You constitute a pretend
nation, Harper is telling them. To paraphrase Gilles Vigneault: "Mon pays ce
n'est pas un pays, c'est une motion parlementaire". You're not a real
country, you're something else; something other than what is commonly understood
and recognized by the international family of nations. Something less.
Mr. Harper regards Quebec as the cranky, stubborn infant who nevertheless
expects to be treated as an adult. And he is responding as any parent would.
Daddy placates with syrupy language: Oh, how grown up and important you are. Oh,
what a big boy you are. Of course you‘re not a mere province like the other
nine; oh, no, you’re a grown up, adult nation but, please, could you stop
stamping your feet and holding your breath because it’s upsetting Daddy.
Nationhood built upon a papier mâché foundation of glue and motion paper will
certainly reap results but not the one the Prime Minister is looking for.
Instead of encouraging Quebec to come back into the fold of constitutional bliss
it will be interpreted as the covert insult that it really is and, in the end,
prove to be a most effective stepping stone to procuring the real nation that
independentistes seek.
Harper’s Nation motion fits in quite nicely with the Great Canadian Law.
Together, they keep Quebec snugly ensconced within the bosom of Canada,
manipulating Quebecers into believing that they can protect their language and
culture within the Canadian context.
As a result of such shenanigans it must become patently obvious to the true-blue
independentistes that they must no longer support Bill 101. If they do,
Quebecers will never have their own country. A Harper/Dion inspired Quebec
nation includes Bill 101 with no room for independent countries.
Where’s the necessity of leaving? You can have your pretend nation along with
the benefits of staying in Canada -- equalization and transfer payments, the
Canadian currency, living in the same federation as oil-rich Alberta, etc. --
and treat your minorities dismally all at the same time. No chocolaty mess. None
of the consequences that real nations incur by the same actions. What a great
deal: nationhood without any of the responsibilities or costs that actually come
with being a real nation.
Quebecers will soon enough ask: are we a pretend nation or a real nation? If we
are a real nation, calling us a nation in name only, as Harper’s motion does,
insults us.
We want to be a real nation.
In the preamble to Bill 101 it is claimed that the French language is the
instrument by which the Quebec people articulate its identity. No. People of
genuine nations express themselves through having complete control over taxes,
treaties, and laws which, in the Canadian context, includes all of the powers
under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution. Plus, of course, the boundaries of
an independent nation.
Real nations don’t need artificial help for their culture and language from
language laws and real nations don’t need equalization and transfer payments to
help prop them up economically. Real nations exist on their own two feet.
To the English community of Quebec I say: separation will be your punishment for
not being vigilant in standing up for your precious rights and freedoms. Quebec
West will be the opportunity to redeem yourself.
Like Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz", who always had the ability to get back to
Kansas, Quebec’s Anglos could have, at any time, gotten back all their rights
and freedoms . The Good Witch of the West had to tell Dorothy that the ruby
slippers she had on all along would get her home. And Quebec’s Anglos have
constantly been told over the past thirty-five years that all they had to do was
stand up for their rights.
But they never chose to exercise this prerogative, choosing instead to cower in
fear and give in to the elites of the Montreal Gazette, community leaders who
majored in appeasement, and a federal government intent upon selling them out at
every turn.
Yet all they had to do was follow the very simple instructions from a song they
had all practiced since Kindergarten: “O, Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”
The Canadian equivalent of the adage “Vigilance is the eternal price of
freedom,” Quebec anglos were required to resist and not give up so easily.
But they did.
Vigilance meant not voting for the Liberal Party of Quebec.
But they did. In massive numbers.
Equality meant supporting those tireless champions who fought the language of
education provisions of Bill 101 all the way up to the Supreme Court.
But the Anglos stood by, meekly, without lifting as much as a finger to help,
financially or otherwise, choosing instead to snicker from the sidelines at
supposed dinosaurs and rednecks
Certainly, they were there for Canada when it came to sovereignty referendums;
the non-Francophones of Quebec single-handedly saved the country --twice --
through their massive no block vote. But when it came to opposing human rights
abuses their vigilance was almost non-existent. With one significant exception,
Anglo Quebec’s voting record over the past 35 years is all the evidence one
needs. You don’t reward the Liberal Party of Quebec with over 90% of your vote
in the general election immediately following the mandate in which they passed
Bill 150 into law. Blaming the victim in this one instance is justified.
Looking towards Ottawa. The federal government had both the responsibility and
the mandate to step in at the first instance of violation of minority rights and
veto such provincial legislation. They didn't. Not only that but they have, far
too often, sided with Quebec in the violation of our rights over the years.
Why would I want to stay in a country that won't protect me and my rights? Why
would I want to be part of a country that broke the very promise that is part
and parcel of the deal that created the country in the first place?
I have no love for Canada. Canada spat on me and my community. Canada did
everything it could to destroy my community and, in turn, I'd like to see Canada
visited by those same demons..
Canada: they gave a country but no one came.
I invite my fellow Anglos to consider the proposal contained in this book. If
you won’t or refuse to, that’s fine because I can still count on you to be
dictated to by fear when the time comes. You see, thanks to the
hedge-against-the-inevitable factor, you will vote “yes” on Question 1
any way. It would, however, be infinitely preferable to have your input as the
rest of us forge the new nation of Quebec.
I’m going to create the Canada of my dreams, one in which equality and the
primacy of the free individual is respected. And if that takes splitting Canada
in two in order to do it, then so be it. It matters not whether the capital is
in Quebec City or Ottawa. What does matter is how free I am.
There is only one place in the world I feel completely comfortable: the streets
of Montreal. But the Montreal I know and love is an English Montreal, an ethnic
Montreal. I like my ghetto and I don’t apologize for it. I will have my vision
of Canada refashioned in my own little enclave, my own little ghetto known as
the West End.
William Johnson was right: I would much rather live in an independent Quebec
that respected human rights than live in a Quebec within Canada that didn't.
Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his most precious possession -- his son -- for
a higher good. Quebec’s non-Francophones must ask themselves whether it is worth
sacrificing Canada for the higher good of individual rights.
I, for one, am ready to sacrifice Canada to save Canada. Are you?
Canada is dead; long live Canada!
---