Re the website: It kindof offends me, insofaras it a) misrepresents the realities of living in Canada, b) misrepresents the feelings of English Canadians and French Canadians towards one another, c) misrepresents history, and d) has nothing resembling a cohesive logical argument within its text. It is pure, unadulterated propaganda, and can be easily debunked with logic -- and, because logic seems to be a rare faculty, I do feel it's kindof dangerous because people who don't know better will read it and could believe in it.
That said, I don't really like the idea of Quebec separating. However, if the Quebecois felt that it was in their best interest to separate, I would respect that decision. The only rejection I offer to separatists is their previous desires to become a sovereign nation who retain 0% of the Canadian national debt rather than their share, and also while retaining all of the infrastructure, etc.
Would I rather have Britain or the US as head of state? Britain. Britain has been nothing but good to us in the past. So what if they're only a figurehead? At least we retain our health care and the like with Britain. Even though it might disappear as it is now, it would definitely disappear with the US governing us.
What would I say to the guy? I wouldn't, because I don't really feel that giving attention to his ideas is worthwhile, especially if giving attention to his ideas propagated the wrong kind of attention -- the kind that would cause his following (if any exists) to grow. I love my country and I'd rather it stay as it is.
That said, it has crossed my mind to move somewhere a little farther away from the US, because honestly, it isn't Americans but the US government which is something of a political loose cannon and I don't want to be anywhere near them when some chain of events causes them to set their sights to the north. Norway, here I come.
--
Edit:
I should go on, actually. The section about the debt vs. ownership of lands is absurd. 'Owning' one of the two official languages (for lack of a better description) by no means equates to half ownership of the entirety of Canada's territory. Divide by population, current provincial boundaries, and relative GDP. Dividing debt strictly by territory owned is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with relative richness of that territory nor its production capacity. Not to mention that there's the whole issue of Native territory claims, to both Northern Quebec and to much of the valuable lands in Canada which the author suggests Quebec seek claim to. I find it intensely interesting that the Native non-issue in the states carries over into the discussion of Canada, where it is a significant one.
Like I say, though. Propaganda.
Incidentally, when he suggests that the French could be a figurehead over Canada instead of the English, I would fully endorse that alternative. Really, they would be no worse than Britain, and much better than the US.