CHAPTER 4

You’re a separatist? Let me reward you!

What, specifically, are you referring to?

Successive Canadian prime ministers have appointed and nominated Quebec politicians to high government positions who supported and voted for the most dangerous pro-separatist law ever enacted by the Quebec National Assembly.

Bill 150, An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Quebec, was the brainchild of then Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa and became law on June 20, 1991. Calling for the holding of a “referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec” if the results were 50% plus one vote, the bill declared that Quebec would, unilaterally, “acquire the status of a sovereign State one year to the day from the holding of the referendum.” In other words, a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI). Section 1 reads:

The Gouvernement du Quebec shall hold a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec between 8 June and 22 June 1992 or between 12 October and 26 October 1992. If the results of the referendum are in favour of sovereignty, they constitute a proposal that Quebec acquire the status of a sovereign State one year to the day from the holding of the referendum.[42]

Are you saying the governing Quebec Liberal Party actually passed such a law? But it calls for a referendum on the separation of Quebec from Canada. The Liberals are supposed to be the federalists in Quebec, yet the section you reproduce above sounds like something the Parti Québécois would come up with.

Actually, it was worse than anything the PQ had every come up with. Up until that point, not even the PQ had been so brash in their attempts to break up Canada. After all, the 1980 referendum was merely a mandate to negotiate the weak-kneed concept of sovereignty-association.[43]

Quebec's continued intransigence in insisting upon more and more powers in constitutional negotiations got to the point at which even the so-called federalist party -- the Liberal Party of Quebec -- used the ultimate tactic of calling for a sovereignty referendum unless their demands were met.

Reading the preamble of Bill 150 in conjunction with section 1 makes it clear that the Liberals' intent was UDI. Here are two of several paragraphs from the preamble:

Whereas Quebecers are free to assume their own destiny, to determine their political status and to assure their economic, social and cultural development;

Whereas the National Assembly continues to hold the sovereign power to decide on any referendum question and to pass appropriate legislation where necessary;

The Liberal Party of Quebec, so-called federalists, have promoted separatism. This is outrageous!

Is it not fair to say that all those Quebec Liberal Members of the National Assembly (MNAs) who voted for Bill 150 deserve the epithet “separatist”?

Yes, it is, although let’s remember that it was the Liberals who led the “no” side in both sovereignty referendums.

The Liberal Party of Quebec is a totally different entity when they are in opposition and do not form the government.

Who voted for this bill?

In Appendix A -- Liberal MNAs who voted for Bill 150 is a list of all Liberal MNAs who voted, in one or more of the three readings of Bill 150, “yea“.[44]

The outrage is even more pronounced when you consider how those who voted in the affirmative were rewarded for their betrayal of Canada.

Separatists -- people intent upon the breakup of Canada -- were rewarded for their actions? By whom?

Successive Canadian prime ministers.

Rewarding those who support and encourage Quebec separation with appointments to high-ranking positions in the federal government has become commonplace. Remember all the hoopla about Michaelle Jean’s appointment as Governor-General of Canada?

She was appointed by the former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, wasn‘t she?

Yes. At the time Ms. Jean was accused of being a closet separatist. Her alleged pro-separatist leanings pale in comparison with the actions of those appointed to other high-ranking positions by the federal Liberals. Words are one thing; actually voting for a law that came close to ushering in a UDI is quite another. I remember thinking at the time of Ms. Jean’s appointment how well she would fit in with all the other Liberal appointments.

For example, Lise Bacon was a cabinet minister under Robert Bourassa when Bill 150 was passed. Jean Chrétien saw fit to appoint Bacon to the plumb position of Canadian senator on September 14, 1994.

Liza Frulla was, of all things, appointed as Minister of Canadian Heritage. This supporter of UDI headed a Canadian ministry that was responsible for the Department of Canadian Heritage which, according to its official website, is described as:

…responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians.[45] (my emphasis)

It’s hard to believe that people who worked so hard to destroy Canada land positions of authority and respect within the Canadian government!

Maybe it’s me but I can’t understand why those with a record of undermining the very foundation of the country get rewarded with positions of such trust.

And it’s not like Quebec’s Anglophone and federalist institutions are losing any sleep over this.

For almost ten years, Lucienne Robillard represented the federal riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie, an Anglophone/federalist stronghold on the Island of Montreal. Another Bill 150 alumni, the Montreal Gazette described her as a federalist whose “credentials were fine” and who had “eminent qualifications” as a candidate for a pro-Canada party because she was a former Quebec cabinet minister![46]

And there’s the rub. By virtue of her presence in and voting record as a Bourassa cabinet minister at the time Bill 150 was passed, Ms. Robillard became then and forever after completely unacceptable either as a representative of a federalist riding or the Canadian government. Yet, at the time of her candidacy in federal elections, we never heard a peep of complaint from the Gazette Editorial Board or, for that matter, the Montreal federalist community at large.

Here are the exalted positions Robillard held under two different Liberal prime ministers:

- Minister of Labour
- Minister responsible for the federal campaign in the 1995 Quebec referendum
- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- President of the Treasury Board
- Minister of Industry and Minister for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
- Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy council for Canada
- Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
- Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons.

Of course, it is understandable that the voters of Westmount, the main municipality in the riding she represented, didn’t raise any objections to having Robillard represent them. On the provincial side, they were -- and still are as of this writing -- represented by Quebec Liberal Jacques Chagnon, another MNA who voted for Bill 150.

Ah, Jacques Chagnon. I had the pleasure of meeting him once. It was at the nominating meeting of William Cosgrove, the Liberal Party of Quebec candidate for Westmount during the 1989 general election. I personally asked Chagnon what he thought would happen if the Meech Lake Accord did not become an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. With both glee and satisfaction, Chagnon looked me in the eye and told me: “then we’ll separate!” And the people of Westmount thought they were rid of separatists when PQ member Richard Holden’s tenure as MNA ended.

It is quite clear from the evidence above that successive federal Liberal governments have appointed and rewarded those who have worked for the destruction of Canada. What about the Conservatives?

Playing footsies with separatists is not the exclusive domain of the Liberal Party of Canada. Former Liberal MNA Lawrence Cannon voted for Bill 150. So, of course, it was only natural that Stephen Harper appoint Cannon as Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and then Canada’s representative to the world as Minister of Foreign Affairs whose website describes their mandate as:

…ensuring Canada’s foreign policy reflects true Canadian values and advances Canada’s national interests. (my emphasis)

But Cannon’s canonization pales in comparison to Brian Mulroney’s appointment of Dr. Victor Goldbloom.

Which appointment was that?

Although to be expected because half of his Quebec caucus at the time was make up of quasi-separatists, one of the most egregious appointments every made by a Canadian prime minister was when Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Victor Goldbloom as Commissioner of Official Languages.

Although the farthest thing from a separatist, Victor Goldbloom is the last person on the face of the earth that should ever have been appointed a commissioner of official languages. The man's public record is one of going out of his way not to promote one of Canada’s two official languages in Quebec. Indeed, his professional and personal actions both before and after his appointment have been directly opposed to the very concept of official bilingualism.

In his soliloquy to the departing Commissioner, Montreal Gazette columnist Don MacPherson perpetuated the myth that Goldbloom has actually been of benefit to the English-speaking minority of Quebec. MacPherson wrote that the brave Goldbloom had "defended Bill 22" and, as a result, incurred personal “scars” for his sacrifice.[47] For goodness sakes, as MNA for D’Arcy McGee the man voted for the bill which is a lot more than merely “defending” it.

Tell me more about Bill 22.

Passed into law in 1974, the Liberal Party’s Bill 22 was Quebec’s first-ever language legislation which significantly reduced the legal status of English in Quebec. It was the forerunner of Bill 101 and, indeed, paved its way by serving as the first law to restrict minority rights in any significant way.

Did Goldbloom actually believe in promoting minority languages? Representing the riding with the largest percentage of English-speakers in the province, Goldbloom rarely spoke English in the National Assembly, a right protected under Section 133 of the Canadian Constitution.[48]

As if this abandonment of an official language -- and his constituents -- was not enough, not long after Goldbloom was appointed Commissioner he appeared before a National Assembly committee on MNA pensions, a topic Goldbloom was active in as an MNA alumnus. This was during the period in which Bill 178 was in force, which had officially suspended freedom of expression and equality guarantees in Quebec and had maintained the policy of erasing English from view on most commercial signs in Quebec. If ever there was an opportunity for the symbolic use of English in the National Assembly, it was then.

In what language did the nation’s foremost representative of official languages speak? In French. The Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada refused to speak one word of English during his entire appearance.[49] And this by someone who, when traveling across Canada as Commissioner, always made a point of peppering his speeches with equal doses of both French and English. When it came to Quebec, Goldbloom's alleged love of bilingualism was nowhere to be seen.

I wrote an article on this incident that appeared in the May, 1994 edition of Dialogue, a publication of the Chateauguay Valley English-speaking People’s Association. Goldbloom responded to it by letter. His excuse for not speaking English before the committee? As he was not appearing in the capacity of Official Languages commissioner he did not have to.

Well, that’s a pretty damning indictment of bilingualism if one has to obtain the status of an official languages commissioner to be compelled to promote and use the English language in the National Assembly!

Compare Goldbloom’s record of speaking English in the National Assembly with that of Richard Holden. One of four candidates from the Anglo-rights Equality Party elected to the National Assembly in 1989, Holden eventually became a member of the Parti Québécois. To his credit, Holden spoke more English in the National Assembly for the few years he sat as a pequiste MNA than Goldbloom did for the entire eight-plus years he was an MNA.

Even worse was Goldbloom’s response to Bill 199, The Charter of the French and English Languages. This was a first reading bill which then-Equality Party MNA Neil Cameron introduced in the National Assembly in 1993.[50]

Strictly symbolic, Bill 199 would never have seen the light of day as law. It’s purpose was to serve as a blueprint for both English and French as Quebec’s two official languages in counterpoint to the unilingualism of Bill 101 and was meant to promote discussion and debate. It mirrored the provisions of Bill 101 section for section: both English and French as the official languages of Quebec, freedom of choice in language of education, abolition of restrictions against languages other than French on commercial signs, etc.

I wrote to Commissioner Goldbloom asking for his support of the bill. As one of the custodians of Canada’s Official Languages Act, the commissioner is responsible for its implementation as well as promoting and endorsing the spirit of the law. Indeed, Section 41(b) of the Act states:

The Government of Canada is committed to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

Now, the last time I looked, Quebec was part of Canadian society. And in every annual report I have ever seen issued by the Office of Commissioner of Official Languages, there is extensive comment and assessment of provincial laws and services as they pertain to the two official languages.

Goldbloom refused to support it.

Silly me. I though one lone individual attempting to promote Canada’s two official languages could, at the very least, count on the Commissioner of Official Languages for support. But how naive could I have been? The High Priest of Bilingualism has never practiced what he preached.

In Canada the tradition is: if you participate in the reduction of rights for a particular group, as a reward the Prime Minister will appoint you Commissioner overseeing the promotion and protection of the rights of the group you so recklessly abandoned. In the words of Howard Galganov, “We live In A Topsy-Turvy World.” “Canada is sometimes stranger than fiction, and the strangest part of it seems to be how we so readily accept the political and social absurdities of our leadership at all levels.”[51]

Certainly all this support and promotion of separatists and, in the case of Goldbloom, those that oppose bilingualism must be countered by equal support of loyal Canadians.

Of course not. Take, for instance, how the most loyal Canadians of all are treated: people such as Keith Henderson, Robert Libman, Stephen Scott, Brent Tyler, Don Donderi, and Howard Galganov. These are the folks that stood up for Canada in Quebec when no one else would.

After five years of representing the riding of D’Arcy McGee in an unrelenting defense of Canada and the principles of individual freedom and bilingualism, Libman stood for reelection in 1994. This was the first election since the passage of Bill 150 and the opportune time for the federalist electorate of Quebec to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the Liberals that they would no longer put up with such disloyalty to Canada.

And how did the people of D’Arcy McGee reward Libman for his exhaustive service to Canada and his community, his almost singular opposition to Bill 150 from the federalist perspective, and rights abuses? They voted for a Liberal candidate by a margin of more than two to one.

Keith Henderson, who succeeded Libman as the new Equality Party leader, bravely ran in three provincial elections. He and his candidates received dismal support from federalists and the non-francophone community which returned to voting massively for Liberal candidates.

Attorney Brent Tyler has probably spent more time than anyone challenging the provisions of Bill 101 in a number of areas, receiving little or no support from either the Canadian government or the community. Tyler has brought cases all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Certainly, the federal government supported Tyler and his clients before the courts.

Not only did the federal government not side with Tyler, their proxy -- in the personage of attorneys representing the Office of Commissioner of Official Languages -- intervened in one of the court cases against Tyler and on the side of Quebec.[52]

That must have been a first!

It wasn’t. When Maurice King of the Chateauguay Valley English-speaking Peoples’ Association challenged Bill 101’s language of signs provisions before the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee, Brian Mulroney’s then Justice Minister, Kim Campbell, ensured that the Canadian government intervened.

Although quick to point out that it was not taking any position regarding the Quebec legislation being challenged, The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, it should be noted, did not side with the aggrieved party but, instead, devoted its submission to convincing the U.N. Centre for Human Rights to reject King’s application for redress.[53]

Brian Mulroney’s ministers loved to cater to Quebec nationalists.

That was over 15 years ago. Certainly, that sort of thing doesn’t continue today.

It most certainly does. In a recent challenge to Quebec’s Bill 104, the federal government has, once again, decided to support Bill 101 and intervene against those who seek greater rights in choice of language of education. Debbie Horrocks, president of Quebec’s English School Boards, explained:

On Monday, Canada’s minority-language communities will once again have to defend themselves before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The question this time is access to English public schooling in Quebec, but the real scope will be the very place and future within our confederation of English-speaking Quebecers and French Canadians in the rest of Canada. All Canadians should be interested to know that their national government will be arguing alongside the government of Quebec against an open and generous interpretation of the Constitution it is elected to defend.

Whatever the court’s decision, this is unfortunate news, indeed. This case involves Quebec’s six-year-old Bill 104, which added further restrictions to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language by eliminating the right of parents to gain access to English public schools for their children by first enrolling them in private, unsubsidized English schools. Quebec will argue, contrary to the ruling of Quebec’s Court of Appeal, that the law is perfectly constitutional, in fact, essential if Quebec is to preserve its French language and culture.

The federal government will agree, and go farther.[54]

I see no reason for Anglo-Quebecers to hold one ounce of loyalty towards Canada which has, at every turn, done everything it can to abandon them.

Perhaps it is time for Quebec’s non-francophone community to consider other allegiances.
 

PREVIOUS CHAPTER                 NEXT CHAPTER

---