|
|Monday November 3, 2003 |
BACK |
NEXT
THE FEDS&FEDS LTD
TORONTO – "Madame has had enough. Mr. Chrétien will be out by the end
of November," a source told The Hill Times last week. "Madame" is, of course,
Aline Chrétien, the Prime Minister's wife and probably the most influential
people in this country after, of course, the Prime Minister himself. "He has
understood that the dynamics have changed," said the same source and "with the
possibility of a united right, it's better to call it quits." Moreover, said
the source, "Madame is tired of this petty politics and 40 years of
contribution to the political life is more then enough." And, the first sense
that the Prime Minister had made up his mind come from last week¹s caucus
meeting when he was talking more about the past, than the future.
It raised some eyebrows when he openly said that the
presence of the separatist movement in the Canadian Parliament might not be
good for the country, but it seems to be good for the Liberal Party. At least
this was the conclusion the Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made after 10 years
in government. Talking last week to the 85 MPs and some Senators attending the
now sparsely-attended national Liberal National Caucus weekly meeting, he
reminded them when the Prime Minister told them, "you guys were criticizing me
for giving money to ridings represented by the Bloc members, but you have to
admit that the outcome was very good for the Liberal Party." In fact, Quebec
federalists, whether they be militants of the Conservative or of the Liberal
Party, have built their political careers convincing the rest of the country
that only they are suited for the role of Prime Minister of our country. They
have convinced many of us that only can a Quebec federalist keep the country
together. This theory has dominated Canadian politics for the last 35 years,
since Pierre Elliott Trudeau stormed into power in 1968.
It might be a coincidence, but since then, all serious
longtime Canadian Prime Ministers have come from Quebec. Joe Clark, John
Turner, and Kim Campbell held office for only months. Since 1896, when Wilfrid
Laurier become the first French-Canadian Prime Minister in Ottawa,
francophones have been leading this country for 55 years out of 107. It is
important to stress that out of those 55 years, 34 of the past 35 years.
Beginning in 1968, Pierre Trudeau held office until 1978.
His term was followed by Alberta boy Joe Clark for nine months, then it
returned to Trudeau until 1984. Ontario boy John Turner held office for only a
few months, and then it was returned to Quebecer Brian Mulroney who held
office from 1988 to 1993, followed by another anglo meteorite, Kim Campbell
for a few months, then Jean Chrétien for another 10 years. All this got me
starting to think that the problem with Quebec separatism is not with the
separatists, themselves, or, as they want to be called, the nationalists; the
real problem is with the federalists who use the genuine sentiment of the
separatist-nationalist to scare the rest of the country and to increasing
their political stock. It¹s like a fireman asking for a medal for putting out
a fire he started.
When I asked an MP last week to confirm to me the statement
made by the Prime Minister regarding the funds to the Bloc ridings, the MP
said "Yes, what's the big news? He [the Prime minister] said so many times."
It all started with the so-called Révolution Tranquille,
1960-66. The father of the Quiet Revolution is considered to be none other
than the then Quebec Liberal Leader Jean Lesage. With the slogan "Maître chez
nous," he won the election in 1962 bringing about many interesting reforms and
it was he who asked the then French President Charles De Gaulle to be involved
in Canadian matters. It started with the Liberal Quiet Revolution of Lesage
that we ended up with the invocation of "Vive le Québec libre" on July 24,
1967 by the then French President.
Until then, France had no intention of meddling in Canadian
matters. Since then we¹ve been showered with controversial and creative
initiatives that go beyond the common political logic, belittle the criminal
code and challenge the ability of semiotics academics. Machiavelli would have
been very proud to hear Mr. Chrétien¹s statement of financing the "enemy" in
Quebec in order to strengthen the Liberal Party in the rest of Canada. And,
what about the "sponsoring programs" in Quebec, compliments of the federal
Minister for the Department of Public Works and Government Services? The
boundary between the Criminal Code and the "need to keep the country together"
has been blurred enough to confuse many lawyers.
Then there's the challenge to the semantics of the words
that have created considerable difficulties to experts in semiology. They had
to justify the convoluted meaning of "distinct society" without being
"distinct." And, what about the ingenious initiative of another great
federalist, Jean Charest, who¹s trying to convince Canadians that Quebec, is a
"state" without being a country.
In order to justify the presence in Canada of the
federalists you have to first of all make sure that we have separatists: done.
We have to rewrite our vocabularies: done. Rewrite history eliminating all
international agreement starting from the Treaty of Paris in 1763: not changed
but ignored. We have to approve two criminal code: not done, but it doesn¹t
matter.
Furthermore, we have to brand as un-Canadian all the people
who don't agree. In fact, as soon as you start talking with some Quebec
federalists about these issues, they shut you up saying: "You don't understand
our reality." Sure, we can talk about the reality in Afghanistan or Iraq and
send our troops all over the world because "we know," but we are all ignorant
when we dare to express our opinion on Quebec.
One might conclude that in Canada we've good federalism but
bad federalists. How can that be possible, liking federalism but not the
federalists? Well, we can adopt Jean Charest's ability to interpret the
semantics of the words and say: why not? |
