Crystal clear for ugliness

The first time my daughter saw the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal she said it looked as if an asteroid had struck the Royal Ontario Museum and got lodged in the roof. Or was it the side? I can’t remember, but then it’s hard to tell which is the roof and which is the side. Nevertheless, my daughter is a teacher and I respect her opinion.

Ever since the Crystal, as it’s called, was unveiled I kept wondering if I was the only one who thought it was hideous. But an international organization called VisualTourist has ranked the latest addition to Canada’s largest museum as no. 8 on its list of the ten ugliest buildings in the world.

As a Toronto native, I have many fond memories of the ROM. When I was a little boy, the dinosaurs were my favourite exhibit. My parents would take me, and the visit would end at the gift shop with new additions to my fossil collection. The ROM was part of my childhood.

In the ‘80s, I wrote for a magazine called Key to Toronto. The October 1982 issue had my piece about the ROM’s ongoing renovations – a new curatorial centre and new terrace galleries, including an expanded reptile gallery. These renovations comprised the second major makeover for the ROM, and would last for years, but it was still the ROM. The ROM opened in 1912 and, as the literature says, was built in the Italianate Neo-Romanesque style with arched windows, decorative eave bracks, quoins, and cornices. This means the stone building was stately and traditional, and had a certain presence at the southwest corner of Bloor Street and Queens Park Crescent. That is a major intersection right across the street from a number of University of Toronto buildings, and near the Yorkville area with its shops, boutiques, and dining establishments.

The 1933 expansion of the ROM included the Byzantine-style rotunda with its ornate mosaic ceiling. The rotunda was the main entrance until the thing happened. Today that grandiose rotunda with the magnificent ceiling and circular structure that brought European-style classicism to a once bland North American city is largely abandoned. Instead, visitors must come through the Crystal.

Today I’m a member of the ROM and have to walk by the Crystal whenever I come to hear a lecture or see an exhibit. It was there when I took in four lectures related to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. It was there when I attended a Munk Debate on aid to Africa. It’s there every time I go for a walk around Queens Park Crescent and Bloor Street.

It is a monstrosity, and not just ugly, because ugly is a simple word and this is anything but simple. It is complicated, convoluted, and con-everything that is beautiful and sensible. I used to think the ugliest building in Toronto was the John Robarts Library. The reference library for the U of T is a disjointed structure of uneven proportions, sort of a three-dimensional ink blot without the symmetry. But next to the Crystal, the Robarts Library is the Taj Mahal.

The Crystal emerges from the ground like a metallic mushroom on steroids, its lines going off in all directions with no rhyme or reason. It rises out of the sidewalk like a cancerous tumor that renders the patient into a state of comatose terminitis. The fruit-explosion muffin from Tim Hortons has nothing on this glass-aluminum asterisk that could be a freeze-frame moments after the atomic blast to end the world. Don’t tell me about its deployment of shapes and geometry or the interlocking prismatic forms that turn the entire museum complex into a luminous beacon.

The Michael Lee-Chin Crystal – and I give cudos to the guy for donating all that money – is an abomination of the worst kind when free spirits who think they’re creative go off on a tangent and drag the community down with them.

For $270 million, the powers that be at the ROM gave us the Crystal with its in-your-face, American-style ego that, for all intents and purposes, destroyed the ROM. How dare they besmirch my memories of this once beautiful edifice. So here’s my idea. Tear the thing down and start over. Millions of people, especially those in Toronto, will say thank you.

The Art of Cabinet Making

Have you ever wondered why the United States, a country with 300 million people, has a Cabinet of 22 members, while Canada with its 33 million has a Cabinet of 38?

As I write this, incoming U.S. President Barack Obama – surely a breath of fresh air if there ever was one – is making plans for his Cabinet. He can select anyone he wants for whatever post. For Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, he can choose someone who is an expert in agriculture. For Secretary of the Department of Commerce, he can pick someone with experience in commerce. Same thing for Defence, Justice, Labour, Energy, Transportation, Health – you name it.

Of course, Obama is free to make all his selections from that pocket of America who are born-again, fundamentalist, diehard, bible-thumping Creationists. But I don’t think he’ll do that. He’s too smart to be that ignorant, and besides, this group already had their chance and we know how they fared.

I don’t believe for a minute that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States because he is of mixed race. He is the next president of the United States because he has shown himself to be the best person for the job.

This American presidential election went on for almost two years. Sure, we’re all sick to death of it, even though we remained glued to our TVs on election night. But think what Obama has gone through. At the outset, he was anything but a front runner. In the race for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton was said to have a lock on the job. Obama came out of nowhere, took part in over 20 debates with the former First Lady, won primary after primary, and impressed everyone with his oratory, his insight, and an apparent wisdom far beyond his years. Then he took on John McCain, and we saw more of the same. At this point in time, and it’s early, there is nothing not to like about the man.

Clearly, the single biggest mistake McCain made was in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. But then, that was purely a political appointment which backfired.

Today, Obama can choose his Cabinet from a pool of 300 million Americans. He can choose anyone he wants. Most of us have forgotten, but Canada just had an election too, and Stephen Harper put together a Cabinet of his own.

In Canada, an adoptee of the British Parliamentary system, we do things differently than the U.S. The Prime Minister selects his Cabinet from elected Members of Parliament, and with the odd exception, makes those selections from his party’s caucus. However, most all those selections tend to be political appointments.

If the PM has but a single MP from one region of the country, you can bet this person will be in the Cabinet no matter how little experience or little ability they possess. Why? Because it’s a political appointment. Likewise, a one-armed, legally blind, Aboriginal with strong Metis bloodlines from the North who went clean after an abused adolescence can rest assured that once they get elected they’ll be in the Cabinet as well. Because it’s a political appointment. This is why hapless sorts like Maxime Bernier masquerade in such key Cabinet posts as Minister of Defense – for a few months anyway – until the truth comes out in the form of an ex-biker gal with nice legs. Indeed, it’s why the Canadian Cabinet is a very weak entity, and why a leader like Stephen Harper is apt to run a one-man show.

Today, some guy named Jean-Pierre Blackburn is Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Agriculture. What does he know about agriculture? Not a thing. I checked his bio and he has as much experience in agriculture as I do. But he represents the riding of Jonquiere-Alma in Quebec, and that’s why he’s there.

Rona Ambrose used to be Minister of the Environment until she embarrassed herself, and in the last shuffle was moved to Labour. Oh, and she is “passionate about informing young Canadians on the important role that politics can play in their lives.” It says so in her bio. Maxime Bernier? He’s not in the Cabinet anymore.

But what if Harper had as much freedom to pick his Cabinet as Obama does? What if he really was non-partisan and sincere about picking the best people for the job? He might make Cabinet appointments like this:

Defence – Retired General Rick Hillier. He did more for the Canadian military than anyone else over the past 40 years.

Finance – Paul Martin. Remember him? He’s a Liberal and a former PM, but he was also the best Finance Minister we ever had.

Foreign Affairs – Maurice Strong is probably too old now, but what a minister he would have made in this portfolio.

Public Safety – Julian Fantino. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Environment – David Estrin. He was Canada’s very first environmental lawyer, is recognized internationally for his work, and currently leads this area of specialization at the prestigious law firm of Gowlings.

Minister of State for Sport – Wayne Gretzky. Enough said.

As for some other posts, well, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages should be … nobody. Harper ought to disband this ministry immediately. It’s a waste of time and money. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism? Nobody again. Same reason. 

How about the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification? Huh? I kid you not. This one should also go, along with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, and Minister of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

What was that last one again? I’m sure you never heard of it, but the Ministry of State for Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is a federal government department responsible for economic expansion in Quebec. It promotes small or medium-sized enterprises, and has 15 offices throughout the province. So how come this have-not province has its own ministry, while another have-not’er by the name of Ontario doesn’t?

Politics. It’s a four-letter word. Twice.

Email news@authorjerryamernic.com

 

Hero Worship: Facts and Foibles

I just returned from Washington, D.C. where I got a quick education in the art of venerating leaders. The U.S. capital, a city of inspiring architecture, venerates four presidents in particular – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Each has a memorial and each memorial is unique.

The Washington Monument rises 555 feet over the city, a massive obelisk honouring the father of a nation with 300 million offspring. As official sire of the republic, Washington rightly deserves to be recognized by the world’s largest phallic symbol. He is remembered not only as the first president, but as a general who won the nation’s independence from Great Britain, as a farmer who lived and died on the land, and as a cartographer, surveyor, connoisseur of wines, voracious reader of books, entrepreneur, and all things deemed good by Americans. He is on the dollar bill, the capital bears his name, and lampposts throughout the entire Capital Region have his silhouette. The man is ubiquitous.

Even his estate in Mount Vernon, Virginia has been restored to its former glory. The entire experience of his life as depicted on these grounds portrays him as a leader of men.

The FDR memorial captures this president in a different way, telling a story that recognizes his accomplishments through the Great Depression and World War II. But he, too, comes across as a leader.

The same is true of Jefferson and Lincoln. Now Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all presidents. The manner in which he sits – 19 feet from top to bottom, 175 tons, surrounded by 36 Doric columns in neoclassical magnificence with a look of wisdom that speaks courage and determination – is all you have to know about the man. But for good measure, the north and south chambers of the memorial are inscribed with the words of his Second Inaugural Address and Gettysburg Address, and people actually read them. Which brings me to my country. How does Canada venerate its leaders? And what leaders do we venerate? Aye, there’s the rub.

The house in Kingston, Ontario where Sir John A. Macdonald lived sits as a museum, but I don’t know a single person who ever visited it. He is on our 10-dollar bill and there are a few statues sprinkled about, but he is best remembered as a man with a large nose who drank.

Mackenzie King was prime minister for over 21 years – 21 years! – which is eight years or two full presidential terms longer than FDR served as US president, and for all that he gets his face on the 50-dollar bill, the odd statue, and not much else. He is remembered as a bachelor who was guided by the spirit of his dead mother.

When we consider more recent occupants of 24 Sussex Drive, I think it’s safe to say that leadership is not the first trait that comes to mind. John Diefenbaker was an able orator, in English anyway, but no leader. Lester Pearson earned his stripes on the international stage as a diplomat, but as prime minister he seemed more nice guy in the mode of Jimmy Carter than a man to follow into battle. Joe Clark had a soft chin and was led around by his wife. John Turner was in office just long enough to show he didn’t belong. Paul Martin wasn’t known as a waffler by accident.

What about long-time PM’s Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien? Mulroney spoke eloquently about the injustice of apartheid in South Africa and managed the economy, but will be remembered for the Schreiber affair, which puts him into Nixon territory. His debatable accomplishments aside, Mulroney will never be revered by his people. Besides, Americans don’t lionize their presidents, especially the dead ones, because of how they managed the economy. They lionize them because they were leaders.

As for Chretien, a rather arrogant and ignorant man, he did win three elections despite the fact he wasn’t conversant in either of the nation’s official languages, which I suppose is something of a feat. But let’s be honest, anyone proposing a monument when either of these two guys is gone would be laughed out.

Of all the prime ministers in my lifetime, Pierre Trudeau is the only one I would call a leader. The man had guts and he could make decisions. However, a monument or memorial to PET? Venerating a man who is the Father of Canadian socialism, who shied away from the fight against Nazi Germany and dismissed the battle as “England’s war,” and who for all his travels and alleged wisdom had precious little understanding of the country outside the province of Quebec, would be a bit much to swallow. Do you recall that after his death, it was announced that Canada’s highest mountain Mount Logan would be renamed after Trudeau? It would be our own version of Mount Rushmore. But it resulted in such ferocious debate that the idea was quickly nipped in the bud.

What about present PM Stephen Harper? He’s still new to the job, but I don’t get much of a sense of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln from him either.

Frankly, I envy how Americans wave their flag and venerate their leaders. It smacks of nation-building and the Americans have definitely built a nation. We seem to have inherited ours and that’s a big difference. Americans make their leaders larger than life – while they are in office and especially when they are out of office – and build spectacular monuments to honour them. Despite their foibles.

The bitter irony of George Washington and that 555-foot phallic symbol is that in 41 years of marriage the general didn’t impregnate Martha even once. And never mind that on his Mount Vernon estate he presided over slaves, or that one military campaign not recorded by American history was his decimation of 40 Seneca Indian villages on the finger lakes of New York State. Such things are conveniently overlooked, and let’s not forget that Washington’s career in politics was assured at the age of 27 when he married the young widow of one of the wealthiest men in Virginia.

It seems that having access to money through inheritance, marriage, or dare I say the word theft goes a long way to building a political career, no matter where you reside.

The point I’m trying to make is that if people were completely honest about their heroes, none of these men would be depicted as they are, and no nation would have any heroes. Not without some mythology. Jefferson wasn’t only a father of early America, he was also the father of many blacks who lived their entire lives as slaves. JFK was a womanizer. Nixon a liar. George W. Bush? Well, if the current Oval Office incumbent gets to Mount Rushmore – and I have my doubts – that huge bust of his head might well have nothing in it. It would be hollow. And if Bill Clinton ever gets there, what is on display likely won’t be a bust at all, but an altogether different body part.

Anyway, these guys won’t make it. Still, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt (Teddy, not FDR) look pretty damn good up on that mountain, don’t they? They look strong. And they are. Stone has that effect, as do all those monuments and memorials in D.C.  It’s all part of nation building and Americans are good at that, better than any people on this earth. Such things make them proud, while we Canadians are just … Canadians.

Whatever that is.

Toronto the Good

Frank Sullivan, who lives in West Vancouver, had a letter printed in the Globe and Mail last week. “Given the number of bullets flying around the streets of Toronto,” he said, “I’d think the city’s bureaucrats would be more concerned with preventing lead poisoning than skin cancer.” He was responding to the city erecting shade audits that would measure the angle of the sun at different times of day so as to protect children from the sun’s rays. I won’t get into that now, but I will get into the bit about lead poisoning. Or guns.

 

Frank’s letter made me think back a few years when I was working with a young woman from Sudbury, Ontario at an Ontario government office. At the time, Toronto’s so-called ‘year of the gun’ was making news all over the place, and this woman told me how her mother kept phoning from Sudbury because she was worried about her daughter being shot.

 

Well, let me tell you my story. I was born and raised in Toronto – and encountering such people is becoming more unusual all the time, but that will be another article – and have lived in this city for over half a century. Not once have I ever witnessed any situation or altercation where a gun was involved. Not once! I have never seen somebody get shot. I have never even seen a firearm of any type discharged. No AK-47. No Uzi. No sawed-off shotgun. No pistol.

 

Not a single time in over 50 years.

 

I’m sure that all you people in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, and everywhere else figure that I must be the only person in Toronto who has been shielded from all this violence, and for such a long time, too. Why, I must be living in a closet with my eyes closed. How could this be?

 

I’ll tell you.

 

The reason I haven’t witnessed any of this violence is because at 3 a.m., on any given morning, you will find me at home in bed. If I’m not in my bed, you will find me in the living room reading a book or watching TV as a means of fighting insomnia. But you won’t find me in those areas of the city infected with gangs and crack houses, which are generally found in low-income, government-subsidized, high-rise towers where thousands and even tens of thousands of people congregate in ugly, seedy ghettoes that breed crime. Which isn’t to say that everyone who lives in such places is a criminal. But the ratio of criminals to the population is a lot higher there than it is on my street.

 

I could draw you a map of Toronto – the entire city – and show you where these places are. This doesn’t mean that innocent people don’t get killed or shot through no fault of their own. They do, just as they do everywhere else in the world, but in Toronto it’s not common. As I say this, my heart goes out to any innocent victims of violence who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. But to imply that Toronto is a city where you one is in constant danger of being shot is ridiculous.

 

This tells me that something is very much amiss in how my town is perceived by those who don’t live here.

 

I have little doubt that if a poll was taken asking Canadians what they thought was the most crime-ridden city in the country, Toronto would be no. 1. How could it not? A day doesn’t go by when the print and air waves – right across the country it seems – aren’t blazing about gun violence or three men found slain in west end or mayor seeks to ban all guns. At the same time, recently released crime stats reveal that Canada’s largest city is also – are you ready? – the safest big city in the country!

 

The highest crime rate was in Regina, Saskatchewan. Population 200,000. In fact, cities with the highest crime rates were all out West.

 

Now I know as well as anyone that figures can lie, just as liars can figure, and politicians are especially good at this. But I just wanted to assure people like Frank Sullivan in West Vancouver that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and it’s not his fault. It’s largely the fault of the media, which has an increasing tendency to create stories, and more than stories, issues that may or may not even exist, and if they do exist what gets reported is way out of whack from the reality. It is also the fault of some of those aforementioned politicians to whom the mere scent of a possible voter can trigger an outbreak of unadulterated BS.

 

Toronto is a city which, in many ways, is under fire. Gridlock is horrendous. The streets are falling apart. Many areas are not as clean as they used to be. Some parts of the downtown are in a sorry state because of a proliferation of beggars, panhandlers and drug addicts who are allowed to breed like mosquitoes. But Toronto is the fifth biggest city in North America, and for all big cities in North America, it has the lowest crime rate. Don’t get me wrong. When it comes to dealing with the bad guys, I’m all for getting tough, and in some cases, throwing away the key.

 

But implying that Toronto is under fire from the gun is a bit like calling Afghanistan a democracy.

Physician heal thyself

With all the talk about our healthcare system, we’re missing out on what may be its most pressing problem – the arrogance of some doctors. Awhile back I was referred to a dermatologist for a skin condition. Healthcare being what it is in Canada, it was months before I saw him. He took a few scrapings and said he’d send them to the lab to see what it is. Then he booked me for a second appointment, and said at that time he’d have the results and would examine me again.

This was the dead of winter and on the next visit it was very chilly. I booked the first appointment of the morning. The doctor’s staff was there, along with many patients, but he was not. Some 45 minutes later he waltzed through the door. I asked the receptionist why he was late and she said it was cold outside.

The doctor confirmed the condition, but couldn’t say what type it is. He didn’t examine me as he had promised, and shooed me out saying I should call if things get worse. A wasted visit, at least, for me.

Later I saw another doctor for a different problem. He said he could treat it. He booked me for three weeks hence and, as before, I chose the first appointment of the morning. Alas, I waited 30 minutes for his arrival. He didn’t examine me as he had promised, and only wanted to make sure I had come to see him. I was out in three minutes flat. Another wasted effort for me, another fee for the doctor.

Meanwhile, a small growth had appeared on my chest. My G. P. referred me to yet another dermatologist who said he could remove it with a spray, but it would take three sessions at fifty bucks a crack. It wasn’t covered. And he said he could get rid of those little polyps I had. “I’ll just snip ‘em off. It’s $160. I don’t take debit or cheques. Cash or credit card.”

He talked with the all-business demeanour of a retail checkout clerk, then checked out my earlier skin condition, which he concluded was definitely not what the first doctor had said. I agreed to the polyp removals, which cost $10 a snip. When including the spray for the growth on my chest plus taxes, the total bill was $220 for a 15-minute visit. Add $50 for each of two subsequent visits after that and the guy cost me $320. I realize this was an elective procedure, but the reason I went was to make sure the problem wasn’t serious. Never mind the fact that many years ago I had a growth removed, only then they managed to do it in one visit and it was covered. Strange how inflation infects not only economics, but our biological health as well.

Now let’s move to 2003 when SARS hit Toronto. Where were our leaders? Prime Minister Jean Chretien was golfing in the Dominican Republic. Ontario Premier Mike Harris was golfing in Arizona. Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman, who didn’t play golf, got interviewed on CNN where he asked, “What’s the WHO?” (The World Health Organization had issued a worldwide ban on traveling to Toronto). Over the next few weeks, 44 people died and Toronto was widely seen as a pariah. The perception, especially by US media, was that of a massive outbreak in the community, everyone in masks, people afraid to go outdoors, and “rampant fear and paranoia” on the streets.

The facts were that only hospital staff and patients were in masks, and notwithstanding the media coverage, it was pretty much life as usual. But Toronto’s handling of the situation was a classic in how NOT to do crisis communications. There was no single point of contact with the media. No clear concise messaging. No plan. And no leadership. But one voice of reason did emerge. Dr. Sheela Basrur.

Leadership is tested when times are tough and this diminutive woman – a doctor no less – shone like a beacon when all others failed miserably. She took control. She explained things in a way that people understood. She said to be calm.

Dr. Basrur was a physician who embodied the Hippocratic Oath, and not only during SARS, but during her entire life. After obtaining her medical degree, she visited such places as Nepal and India where she learned first-hand about preventive medicine. So she went into public health. Because of her, restaurants must now post notices in their windows saying if they passed or failed a health inspection. She helped make Toronto’s smoking ban in public places a reality. She developed a plan to tackle bioterrorism. And during SARS she led.

Three weeks ago she died at the age of 51 from a rare form of cancer. Though I never met her, I felt the same way I did when Terry Fox died. As if I had lost a friend.

The Hippocratic Oath, which I once thought all doctors adhere to, says, “In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients.” Today doctors visiting your house has gone the way of the dodo bird. But what’s that about attitude? Like regarding patients as being so inconsequential it doesn’t matter if you show up on time. Or citing your services as if they are a shopping list. Or would you please not dally so I can move on to my next customer. Whatever happened to doctors being people who care for their fellow human beings and, in the process, show a little compassion? A person like Dr. Sheela Basrur. Unfortunately, such physicians seem to be few and far between.

Is Canada a CROC?

Stephen Harper is the first non-Quebecker to serve as prime minister of Canada for more than nine months since Lester Pearson. That’s more than four decades.

Pierre Trudeau, who was from Montreal, Quebec, was PM from 1968 to 1979 and again from 1980 to 1984 – a total of 15 years. Brian Mulroney, who was from Baie Comeau, Quebec, was PM from 1984 to 1993 – nine years. Jean Chretien, who hailed from Shawinigan, Quebec, was PM from 1993 to 2003 – 10 years. Paul Martin was born in Windsor but realized that only a Quebecker can lead the Liberal Party and become Prime Minister in the modern era, so he moved to Montreal and represented the federal riding of Lasalle-Emard. He too was a PM from Quebec, in power from 2004 to 2006 – a period of two-and-a-half years.

Trudeau, of course, was a Liberal as were Chretien and Martin, while Mulroney was a Conservative. But what about other prime ministers over the past 40 years? Well, for starters we have Joe Clark, a Conservative from Alberta who did all of nine months in 1979. Then we have John Turner, who was actually born in England but raised in B.C. and Ontario, and when he took over the Liberal Party from Trudeau represented a constituency from B. C. Turner did but a three-month shift in 1984. And finally there is Conservative Kim Campbell, who was from B.C. and lasted but four months in 1993.

Now math was never my forte, but if we look at our history since 1968, it’s clear that the province of Quebec has been awfully well represented in the top office of the land. Until Mr. Harper came along a little over two years ago, Canada was served by a Quebecker as prime minister for some 37 years and by a non-Quebecker for less than a year and a half – 16 months to be exact. In fact, we might conclude that prime ministers from Quebec are measured in years, if not decades, while prime ministers from TROC (The Rest Of Canada) are measured in months.

What about the Supreme Court? Did you ever wonder where those mysterious judges, whom as we all know are appointed by the federal government, hail from? Well don’t look now, but the Hon. Justice Michel Bastarache is soon to retire and his position will have to be replaced, but M. Bastarache is still with us and he was born in Quebec City, so he’s a Quebecker.

The Hon. Justice Louis Le Bel was born in Quebec City as well. The Hon. Justice William Binnie was not born in Quebec City – wouldn’t it be ridiculous if every Supreme Court justice was from the same town? – but he was born in Montreal, so he too is a Quebecker. Believe it or not, the Hon. Morris Fish was also born in Montreal. That’s yet another Quebecker. And just to ensure that Quebeckers have the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Marie Deschamps was born in Repentigue. That makes five out of the nine current Supreme Court justices who are from the province of Quebec.

Ontario, which has 13 million people or 4.5 million more than Quebec, has but one judge who was actually born in the province – the Hon. Louise Charron, who is from Sturgeon Falls. The other members of the Supreme Court are the Hon. Marshall Rothstein, who is from Winnipeg, Manitoba; the Hon. Rosie Abella who was born in Germany (but raised in Ontario); and Chief Justice the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin who is from Alberta.

Where am I going with all this? The current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is Stephane Dion and guess where he’s from? What makes this so ironic is that the first words about the man on the party’s website are: “Stephane Dion is a voice for change.” But I ask you, what kind of change is having yet another Prime Minister from Quebec?

There are all kinds of reasons why a Canadian citizen would vote for one party and not another, but one thing is crystal clear about the Liberal Party of Canada. It is focused on Quebec and has been for the past 40 years. What kind of country is this when our leader is always from Quebec and when five of our nine Supreme Court justices are also from Quebec?

I’ll tell you what kind of country. Cockeyed, that’s what. At least, that’s what we are if you don’t live in Quebec because that province seems to be getting pretty good value for itself. As for the rest of us, we are the Cockeyed Rest Of Canada or CROC for short. Add a ‘K’ and you have CROCK, which pretty well sums up the kind of leadership we’ve had for the past 40 years – unless you’re from Quebec.