Earlier this week I started to write about a December 28th newspaper advertisement placed in this newspaper by the Town of Shediac.

It was a public notice of the Town’s intention to amend its Municipal Development Plan and Zoning by-laws. One of the intents in the proposed amendment is to permit the conversion of a near downtown residential property, adjacent to Rotary Park on the south side of Main Street (home of the world’s largest lobster) to a commercial designation that appears to allow the extension of a seasonal trailer park to butt up against Rotary Park.

In my view, the application should be denied.

Maybe I’m a naive romantic but the entrance to Shediac, particularly as you approach the bridge crossing the entrance to the inner Shediac Bay, is one of the most beautiful village or town entrances in the world. It’s a visitor’s first impression of Shediac and the entire Shediac Bay shoreline.

On the north side of Main Street, across from Rotary Park there is a second trailer site, also seasonal. In mid-summer, it becomes a high density tent/trailer city.

It’s a visual eyesore. A rogue wave or a fire at the site could put hundreds of lives at risk. It dishonours Shediac Bay and the entrance to Shediac.

It should be replaced with trees and nicely tailored, cedar-shingle structures that would enhance the property and draw attention to the beauty of its bayside views.

The south side trailer park applicant seeking the expansion permit, has, until now been discreet in its Main Street presence. However, its proposed expansion would push tent and trailer tenants into full view of passers-by and visitors to the lobster park.

In my opinion, neither the north nor the south side parks should be allowed to exist or operate in these locations.

They should be expropriated and the land they situate on should be re-developed as classic Maritime-sights similar to the Tate House, the Belle Court Inn or some of the beautiful residential structures that line Main Street.

Indeed, Shediac zoning laws should be amended to require all new commercial structures or business enterprises on Main Street leading into Shediac to conform to the historic architecture of the Town. What ever happened to town planning?

I admire the initiative and entrepreneurship of these trailer-park developers but I admonish those who permit their location on such beautiful land sights.

I’m jumping here but an editorial this week in the Times & Transcript jerked my mind from Shediac to Canada and I wasn’t able to finish my rant about the beauty of Shediac.

The T&T editorial dismissed ‘national unity’ as a “straw man” and non-issue in the current federal election. In my view, the editorial premise is totally misinformed. This election is about the future of Canada and the future of this region. The Bloc Quebecois is on the verge of winning a majority in Quebec. Their mission is to separate from Canada. That is not a straw man issue to me, to New Brunswick or to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Québécois and Action Démocratique have been joined in agreement since 1994 with the intent of separation from Canada. On October 30, 1995, Québec voted on the question of sovereignty for Quebec. Support for sovereignty (the YES side) was 49.4% while the NO side obtained 50.6% of the votes, barely enough to turn back the separatists. Voter turnout was 93%.

According to recent polls, Bloc support has passed the 50% mark (ranging from 51% to 55% of Quebecers depending on the day).

In a recent speech in Quebec City, Stephen Harper promised to give Quebec international status in trade and cultural affairs. He promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces (code for reducing federal government spending power). He wants to push federal taxing powers to the provinces.

His promises if implemented would lead to the defacto separation of Quebec.

The Times & Transcript editorial argues that it is not the Conservatives who have created the problem in Quebec but the Liberals and their sponsorship programs. Implicit in the T&T argument is that attribution of blame is more important than consequence or outcome. I’m not defending the sponsorship program or its handling. My concern is what happens in Quebec after January 23rd.

This newspaper seems to think that Quebec separation is a non-issue, that support for separation has passed and that support for the Bloc is tied exclusively to sponsorship programs.

In my view, that’s incredibly naive. Sponsorship reaction is symbolic of a much deeper problem.

A large segment of Quebec society, perhaps a majority of its population appears to have disengaged from Canada. Neither the Liberal Government, its leaders, its spokespeople or any of its political competitors (except perhaps the Bloc and its leader) appears to understand today’s Quebec, knows what to say to Quebec, has a spokesperson with the credibility to speak to Quebec or to engage with the people of Quebec. That is by far, the scariest circumstance of this election.

For most, if not all of the last century, Canada has had a prime minister or a prime minister’s lieutenant who connected with the people of Quebec, who understood Quebec, who was sensitive to Quebec and/or could speak to Quebec.

Today, this Country is disconnected from that Province.

There is no chance that Stephen Harper or Jack Layton will make that connection. There is little chance that Paul Martin will make that connection unless he finds a way to reach out to those who were once supporters of Quebec’s inclusion in Canada.