Friday, August 11, 2017

Can Things Get Worse for the Parti Québécois?

It seems that ever since Jean-François Lisée took over the Parti Québécois the fortunes of the party have gone from bad to worse.
Trailing both the Liberals and the CAQ, with just 22% support in the polls, each passing month sees more of its base dying off. With collapsing support in its youth wing, its hard to see the party renewing itself and with about 70% of Quebecers rejecting sovereignty, the raison d'etre of the party, it is hard to see where the PQ can go.
It occurs to me that if a poll was conducted over Quebec sovereignty in the ROC, a higher percentage of Canadians would support Quebec leaving Canada than the percentage of Quebecers wishing to do so.
Its gotten that absurd.

With sovereignty off the table, the PQ tried to harness Quebec's natural xenophobia, in proposing the Charter of Values, but overestimated the pushback. In that effort, the PQ tried to face-off the Montreal region with the rest of Quebec and surprisingly (or not so) the effort turned into a calamity, chasing the PQ from power and ushering in the current Liberal era of Philippe Couillard.

The latest humiliation comes courtesy of Statistics Canada which reported that the number of Quebecers having English as their first language in Quebec has had a meteoric rise since the last census.
This was of course fresh fodder for the hapless Lisée, a man and a party searching for some relevancy and so the "bad news," of the rise of the anglophone community is 'good news' for a PQ in desperate need of an issue.
The spectre of the evil anglophone community growing at a breakneck pace is a gift-wrapped issue for those who believe that Quebec is being attacked relentlessly by an English horde of barbarians at the gate.

And so like Chicken Little, Lisée has gone to town, declaring that the linguistic sky is falling by characterizing the notion that a growing English community is an existential threat to the preservation of French in Quebec.
He has proposed all sorts of changes calling for a new Bill 201 that would turn the thumbscrews on all aspects of English. He has demanded that no immigrant be allowed into Quebec if they cannot speak French and that a student cannot graduate an English CEGEP without mastering French. He wants to force federal agencies and companies to comply with Bill 101 (they are now exempt by federal statute) and he wants small business' to be subject to language laws.

It was a couple of good days for Lisée, spewing his tough new stance on English on every news channel and radio station that would have him, and there were plenty of takers.

But this all came crashing down today when after complaints by Anglo activists that the numbers Stascan published were nonsense.
In the race to find fault with the English, nobody in the francophone media looked at the Statscan numbers with an ounce of scepticism, a curious case of journalistic laziness. The numbers were so clearly in error that Anglo activists questioned the accuracy almost immediately.
"Are there almost five times as many English-speakers in Dolbeau-Mistassini, in the Lac-St-Jean region? Has Quebec City gained 6,000 residents whose mother tongue is English since 2011?
So say the results released last week from the 2016 census.
But some researchers who study Quebec’s anglophone minority aren’t buying it.
“It defies logic,” said Jack Jedwab, the executive vice-president of the Association for Canadian Studies. On Wednesday, Jedwab wrote to Statistics Canada questioning the accuracy of the findings on language in Quebec."  Link
Today StatsCan admitted that the entire 60,000 increase in the Anglophone community was an error, plain and simple. They botched the calculations.
The Anglo upsurge was but a figment of imagination, an error that not only humiliates StasCan but bleeds all over the PQ and Lisée who built a whole new election platform on a false premise.

What fun!

I don't know how Lisée can spin this. Does he retract the anti-English platform based on the fact it was built on a lie, or does he brazen it out and tell us that just the same, the policy is one that the party will continue to support.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Gender Parity in Parliament is a Bad Idea

I've heard complaints from women, not just feminists, that the number of bathroom stalls accorded to the ladies room in many venues, especially older facilities built when women participated less in public society, is unfair when compared to the facilities in the mens' room. They rightly complain that physiology and indeed other factors like clothing and social mores contribute to the fact that women spend twice as long as men in the bathroom and facilities should be built or retro-fitted to reflect this reality in order to reduce wait times in the ladies' room to equal that of the men's room.
Fair enough, I agree wholeheartedly.

But the argument actually underlines the fact that although supposedly equal, men and women are different, a fact feminists want us to ignore.

Much has been made of the fact that women earn on average 72 cents for every dollar earned by men, a dubious fact that feminists trot out as proof that women are discriminated against in the work place.
But putting aside the veracity of that fact (which is highly disputed,) the correlation between pay and gender is not ipso facto a result of discrimination.
It is like saying the fact that our prison population is 90% male is proof that our justice system discriminates against men.
Perhaps we can better deduce that men by nature are more likely to break the law than women. Take your pick

Yes, dear feminists, men and women are different, equal but decidedly different. It is when feminists ignore this glaring fact that we get into the absurdities of the gender equality movement.

A great example of this is the controversy launched by tennis star Novak Djokovic who complained that the politically correct trend of offering women equal prize-money in major tournaments like the US Open or Wimbledon is unfair since men are responsible for generating much more revenue.

In a convoluted rebuttal in Money magazine writer Kerry Close's number one argument for equal pay is that;

 "Female tennis players work just as hard as men."
According to this train of thought, an artist who works as hard and expends as much effort as Michelangelo should command the same price for the sale of his or her paintings. Hmmm....
She then goes on to say;
 "Female tennis players....already realize that both genders should receive equal pay for equal work."
The equal pay for equal work is a valid argument when the product of the work is equal, not the case in men's and women's tennis.
Two employees who shuck oysters may work equally long and hard, but if one shucks double the amount of oysters in the same shift as compared to the other, he or she deserves higher pay.
But that isn't even the case in women's versus men's tennis where men spend considerably more hours at work.
At Wimbledon in 2015, Novak Djokovic spent 16 hours on the court to win the championship, while his counterpart on the female side, Serena Williams needed only 10.6 hours to win her championship.

And finally  the author makes this argument;
"It's a myth that fans are always more interested in men's tennis." 
Alas, also not true. The author cleverly alludes to several rare exceptions that essentially prove the rule. Women's tennis generally attracts about half as much fan interest as men's tennis.
At Wimbledon this year, a tournament that offers equal prize money for men and women, viewership for the men's final was 9.2 million, while that for the women was 4.3 million.  Link
And so any argument for equal pay for women's tennis players is not based on economics, but rather irrational feminism where reality is always tempered by flights of discrimination.

There are actual domains where women make considerably more than men, the fashion industry a good example where the top male models make a fraction of what top women models make.
Is it discrimination or economics?

And so too is ridiculous the complaint that women pay more for dry cleaning or hair cuts because of discrimination. Unfortunately, few are willing to confront this feminist nonsense.
Women pay more for dry cleaning and haircuts because they want to. They are much more particular about quality than men and thus pay a premium.
If women were as price driven as men, certainly somebody, perhaps a smart woman, would open a dry-cleaning business and charge women the same as men, with the resulting avalanche of business from disgruntled women assuring that the enterprise would become a rousing success, leading other dry cleaners to follow suit or lose customers.  How come it isn't so?

If women earn just 72% of what men earn, why wouldn't a smart boss hire only those women and ignore the overpaid men. If the women produce as much as the men, then the company would have an astounding competitive advantage and profits would soar!

As for hair salons, nobody but nobody will disagree that women are generally much more concerned with their hairdo than men and willingly pay more for the right result. Otherwise, low-cost women's hair salons would flourish. Let us remember that most women's salons are owned and operated by women, so any perceived discrimination is self-imposed.
Now there are a few salons across the country that now charge by the length of hair, not by gender, but they are few and far between, making my point that choice isn't always about price, especially among women.
And by the way, should not those long-haired individuals complain about discrimination by virtue of their long hair being charged more?
Should fat hungry people pay more at the lunch buffet and if so, should not women pay less because they consume less food?
Isn't it age discrimination when children and seniors pay less at the movies?
What about happy hour where women pay less or night clubs that give out free drinks to women to encourage them to come?
All discrimination....

We live in a free enterprise society where businesses can and do easily jump in when opportunity presents. If women are over-charged or underpaid, there are simple market remedies that present. When bars want to increase the number of female patrons, they offer incentives. Theatres understand that kids and seniors have less disposable income and so offer discounts.
Markets generally regulate themselves, unless subject to monopolistic conditions. Barbershop and dry-cleaning prices aren't controlled by an anti-women cabal, they are a result of market forces.
It is too easy to blame perceived inequalities between men and women on discrimination when other factors are really at play.

Now to the idea of gender equality in Parliament, an idea that every feminist holds sacrosanct.
Regardless of what feminists say, political parties are bending over backwards to recruit women and visible minority candidates, even to the point of encouraging and promoting the under-qualified.
One only has to look at Justin Trudeau's gender equal cabinet that has led to the promotion of under-qualified women, two of whom which have flamed out spectacularly with others floundering in inexperience or incompetence.
The Liberals have elected 30% of its sitting members as women, yet offer them 50% of cabinet positions. This is a clear case of discrimination, or as feminists like to put it, affirmative action.
Clearly more competent men were left out to satisfy Trudeau's feminist fantasy where quality takes a back seat to gender politics.
Now let me preface all this with the opinion that women make equal or better politicians than men. If anything they are generally more honest and involved in corruption but a fraction of the time men are.

But there will always be fewer women than men in Parliament unless the numbers are goosed unfairly by idiots like Justin Trudeau who view perception as more important than substance.

There are a variety of reasons that women see being a Parliamentarian as less compatible and desirable than men do.
Parliament means long hours away from family and members cannot take maternity leave in good conscious, leaving constituents without representation. Unlike the office accountant who goes off on maternity leave and is replaced with a temp, women Parliamentarians cannot be replaced temporarily, and so face the difficult decision of having a career or a family.
Generally, women choose work that keeps them close to home and family to a higher degree than men, a fact which is a result of choice.

To blame society for the lack of gender equality in Parliament is to ignore reality, the withering fact is that for some very good reasons, women in a much higher proportion don't see the job as desirable. That is called choice and free will.

We can accept that Parliament will always have a disproportionate amount of men versus women because that is what women want.
Or we can promote from the lower ranks of the unqualified to fill the imaginary gap and suffer the consequences.

Fewer women in Parliament is not discrimination, but more women in Parliament certainly is discrimination.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Foolish Quebec Government To Open Racism Inquiry

"Saguenay is a White City"
Perhaps the modern equivalent of the mythical Pandora's Box is the very real IED, an improvised explosive device that once trifled with, releases nothing but pain and something that you wouldn't want to touch with that proverbial ten-foot pole.
It is that analogy in mind that I consider the utter foolishness of the Quebec's government's plan to hold a public inquiry into racism in Quebec society, a recipe for humiliation and embarrassment if I ever saw one, a political blunder that will no doubt explode in our collective faces.
What on Earth were they thinking?
"Quebec's upcoming public consultation on systemic discrimination and racism will seek concrete and permanent solutions, says Kathleen Weil, the province's minister of immigration, diversity and inclusion.
Weil unveiled the details of the public consultation, which will begin in September and continue through the fall, at a news conference Thursday.
"The fight against racism and discrimination is a continual priority in open, inclusive and democratic societies like Quebec.  It's a collective responsibility," she said. Link
I wonder if the politicians remember the humiliating fiasco that was the Bouchard-Taylor public consultations, the commission that looked into religious accommodations that degenerated into an embarrassing combination of racism and idiocy.

Click on CC button for subtitles
Whenever people ask me if Quebec is more racist than other provinces I always tell them that the answer is YES and NO, because Quebec is really two provinces, the largely bilingual, urban Greater Montreal region that includes the suburbs north and south of the island and which makes up almost half of Quebec's population. Ninety percent of of Muslims and other religious minorities including Sikhs and Jews live here and racism is a problem no different that in other large cities across Canada.

Outside this regions lies the hinterland of the great unwashed, the unilingual rural and small town francophones that live in a French/Caucasian/nominally-Catholic bubble. Some of the ridings boast 98% Quebecois purity, where seldom is seen a black or brown face and where Asians are as rare as a hen's tooth.

There's a lot of under-the water tension in this part of Quebec over Muslims and their place in Quebec society. The recent cemetery fiasco underlines that fact, and this Quebec reality is not reflected by our politicians or represented by the media and press which propagate the myth that Quebec is tolerant and open to minorities.
This is especially true in regards to religious minorities that openly display their observance through religious dress, such as Muslims, Sikhs and Hassidic Jews.
This 'other' Quebec cannot be described as strictly rural because included is many towns and cities like Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Trois Rivières and Saguenay.
Common among those who have a distinct fear and loathing of Muslims is surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, French unilingualism where people live in a closed and insular social order, where strangers are not welcome. With little or no contact with religious or visible minorities, it is easy to fear the unknown.

How deep is this fear and loathing?
A lot deeper than anyone would imagine and a lot deeper than politicians would admit. It borders on the hysterical.
In this context we can understand the referendum rejection of the Muslim cemetery in Saint-Apollinaire last week, where a door-to-door campaign led by an outside anti-Muslim group called 'Le Meute' (The Pack) warned voters that the cemetery would breed an influx of Muslims, then a mosque and then radicalism.  And so it goes.

The anti-Muslim hysteria sometimes borders on the sadly hilarious such as in Rimouski where a panic set in as an email campaign warned residents of a Muslim invasion.
"The email in question (or rather spam), which has been circulating for at least two years, describes an urban legend which says that Rimouski has gone from 4 Muslim families in 2004 to more than 1,000 families "of this kind" in 2011. "It's scary," says the message that people of "this kind" even got from the city a new street "in the name of their high Islamic priest". Link{Fr}
Of course the utter nonsense of it all is that some idiot residents believed that among the 50,000 Rimouski population were thousand of Muslims, when in reality there were but 130 making up just ⅓ of one percent of the population. The 'new' Muslim street name wasn't new at all and was named after oceanographer Mohammed El-Sabh, who made his mark in Rimouski and happened to be Muslim .

While Quebec City and its mayor purport to be cosmopolitan and friendly to strangers, it is here that not one, but three xenophobic groups La Meute, Atalante and Les Soldats d’Odin, operate openly.

This week, a racist handcrafted sign was placed over the nameplate of a Saguenay cemetery (pictured above) reminding everyone that the Saguenay is "White."
I guess people need reminding that out of the 140,000 residents, 96% are white francophone nominally-Catholics. The rest of the population is made up of 2% natives and one percent anglos. Immigrants make up less than half of one percent. The total Muslim population is about 300 persons, or about one-fifth of one percent, a frightening barbarian invasion to many.

 In 2015 the mayor of the city of Shawinigan admitted to refusing a zoning change to allow a mosque to open in an industrial park because of the anti-Muslim pressure put on the city council by 'concerned' citizens. During the debate, many Muslim families complained of being victims of hate messages. It took the intervention of the sitting member of the National Assembly to finally secure approval.
TABARNAK! I knew this would happen!

I am reminded of an television episode of 'Infoman' a Quebec humourist who put on a full body burqa and visited the small town of Hérouxville, (infamous for publishing it's anti-immigrant 'Code of Life') freaking out the townsfolk.  This screenshot of that episode is one of my favourites, a local's reaction to being greeted by the comedian in a full burqa.
Watch the funny video in French here.

I wish I could say that these are isolated instances, but sadly they are not and while everyone is quick to say that the shooting in a Quebec City mosque that took six lives was a one-off aberrant event, the work of a deranged nutter and nothing to do with Quebec society, I sadly beg to differ.
The palpable anti-Muslim hysteria that exists in areas of Quebec that are practically devoid of Muslims is  staggering and it is ironic, that in these parts of Quebec, the fewer the Muslims in the community, the more they are despised.  Go figure.
There exists an exaggerated toxic fear and loathing of Muslims and indeed foreigners in the ROQ (Rest of Quebec) and no commission of inquiry will dismantle it.

Before calling a public inquiry into racism perhaps the government can look into itself. As the old saying goes.....physician, heal thyself.
The participation of minorities in government and in government-run entities is abysmal. The
public service employs just under 5% of visible minorities less than forty percent of their demographic weight. The SAQ (liquor board) employs just 38 visible minorities out its 6,000 employees and Hydro-Quebec employs 300 visible minority workers out of 20,000. The Sureté du Quebec counts just 24 minority officers out of almost 6,000 police.
There is a government agency that sets guidelines for government and quasi-government organizations in terms of hiring visible minorities and the report card dismal.
Our good friends in the city of Saguenay have but one visible minority out 1,200 city workers and Terrebonne wins the award as the town with the fewest visible minorities with just 3% of their recommended hiring goal..
Of course as to be expected, Montreal does the best job of hiring minorities, with the Jewish General hospital earning the highest mark fulfilling 98% of its hiring goal. But no organization beats Cote-Saint-Luc's Donald Berman Maimonides, a Jewish geriatric centre which counts an astounding 420 of it 's 660 employees being visible minorities. It isn't just anglo or ethnic organizations of Montreal rising to the task. The Commission scolaire de Montréal, and the STM (bus company) also get high marks in visible minority employment.
As I said, there are two worlds in Quebec, Montreal and beyond.

At any rate, in calling the inquiry the government is sending out an invitation to minority and Muslim-bashing hayseeds to come out to bitch and moan in public and believe me, these rubes won't give up their chance to get a few racist things off their chest.

The truth is that the government is setting itself up for a huge fiasco where the true face of Quebec intolerance will be exposed.
Now that the entertaining Sean Spicer news conferences are a thing of the past I can't wait for this Gong show of an inquiry to get going.

It will be epic. Don't miss it.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Conservatives Better Hope for Russia Interference in Canada's Next Election

First of all, let me say how amused I am at America's visceral reaction to Russian hacking shenanigans in the last presidential election.
It appears that the master election manipulator that America is, has been schooled in the art of election interference by Russia and squeals of Congressional outrage ring as hollow as the pot calling the kettle black.
The CIA has been interfering in foreign democratic elections for over fifty years and in over 80 instances and this doesn't even consider the outright orchestration of successful and unsuccessful attempts at regime change through force. In fact the long-time American policy of engineering regime change was made official  with the implementation  of the "Eisenhower Doctrine under which the U.S. announced that it would intervene to protect regimes it considered threatened by international communism."  Link
Read:  A History of U.S. Meddling in Other Countries’ Elections

As recently as the last Israeli election, Obama tried to sink Prime Minister Netanyahu's re-election by funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to opposition groups;
"The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday." Link
No doubt Russia taught America a painful lesson that two can play this dirty game and protestations by various American politicians is pathetic, like crooks who complain bitterly that their stash of stolen loot has been pilfered or a longtime schoolyard bully who finds himself bullied.

Considering some of the stuff America has done in other countries to trigger regime change, what Russia did in the US presidential is mild by comparison. The Russians hacked the Democratic party and exposed some very damaging and embarrassing emails that Hillary wrote, revealing that her nasty private persona is nothing like what she presents in public. Should it have been a a disgruntled DNC employee, one who objected to Hillary's conduct, who leaked those same documents, he or she would be have been considered a hero by the American press.

But I digress...
Returning to the topic of the day, my premise that if the Conservatives hope to unseat Justin Trudeau in the next federal election they'll need some sort of Russian interference or otherwise divine intervention, because the numbers just don't add up and barring a miracle, Justin will get his second majority government.

Canada is generally much more Liberal than Conservative and there is just two ways that Conservatives can win power. They could sweep Quebec and carry the west like Brian Mulroney did in 1984 or take advantage of a serendipitous split of the left-leaning and separatist vote between the NDP, Liberals and the Bloc, exactly how Stephen Harper won and remained in power.
The key of course is Quebec where Bloc Quebecois or NDP success robs the Liberals of the necessary seats to form a government.
But when Justin Trudeau broke the dominance of the NDP and the Bloc in Quebec in the last election, he made the breakthrough that won him and the Liberals a majority government.
It proves once again the delicate balance that a three or four Parliamentary parties bring to the table, where the margin between winning big and losing big is razor thin.

So Justin Trudeau's election was a foregone conclusion once the massive shift away from the NDP occurred in the last federal election. And the likelihood of it happening again seems almost certain.
Well, the Bloc Quebecois seems to be a spent force, with it's base down to old-time traditional die-hards who are fast dying out. The current leader of the Bloc, ex-PQ and now independent member of Quebec's National Assembly is Martine Ouellet, who after losing her leadership bid for the PQ, shifted her attention to the Bloc. She was elected leader, mainly because nobody with any sort of a profile wanted the job. She is reviled by most Quebecers for cynically refusing to give up her seat and salary in Quebec's Parliament and is wildly disparaged by the press who mock her ceaselessly, not exactly a formula for success.

As for the NDP, it's fall from grace in Quebec cost leader Thomas Mulcair his job, as expectations of perhaps forming or participating in a minority government were dashed rather cruelly.

A Quebec resurgence with a new leader seems out of the question with the current NDP leadership campaign drawing frowns from the Quebec media.
The NDP seems to be flirting with  Harjit Sajjan for leader, a turban wearing Sikh who is absolutely toxic in Quebec. Should he be elected leader, the NDP would in all likelihood lose every single seat it owns in the Province.
Quebecers are so fearful and resentful of those who wear their religion on their sleeves (or in this case their head,) that the backlash would be devastating.
How much do Quebecers dislike Sikhs and their dastardly daggers?
Last February, when Canada's defence minister, the turban wearing Jagmeet Singh visited the work-site of the re-building of a defence installation in Quebec city, the contractor, received a warning letter of admonition from Quebec's workplace safety commission for allowing the minister onsite without wearing a safety helmet.
The depth of Quebec's animosity towards Sikhs is pervasive, with the adherents' insistence on flouting safety regulations for religious purposes absolutely unacceptable to the vast majority of Quebec voters, who don't want to see that type of agenda thrust upon them.
No Siree....The NDP would get more votes with Don Cherry as their leader.

Even though Sajjan is unlikely to win the NDP leadership, his presence in the race and the surrounding publicity which may work to the NDP's advantage in the rest of Canada, would be devastating to the party's Quebec fortunes.

As for issues that will rally the country to the Conservatives, I am sorry to say that there doesn't appear to be any, even the egregious $10 million payment and apology made to Omar Kadhr won't impact the election greatly as it will be but a distant memory come election time.
The deficit issue doesn't interest Liberal voters because it's easier for them to pretend it isn't there, rather than face reality.
Ask a liberal supporter about Justin's piling on the debt that future generations will have to pay and their eyes gloss over, their reaction like someone who has just bought a stolen X-Box off the back of the truck, and called out on it. They'd rather just pretend not know that where the stuff came from rather then face the reality that they are participating in a theft.

It is true that Canada is doing alright economically under Trudeau, but it is all based on a theft, like a breadwinner who goes out each day and steals to provide for the family.
Will any well-fed and well-dressed family ask the hard questions as to how the money was obtained?
Such is the simple and devastatingly effective Liberal strategy to keep the money flowing and until voters mature and face the dishonesty, he will maintain power.
Unfortunately, it ain't going to happen.

And so the Conservatives better hope that the Russians or perhaps more likely the Americans, dig up some horrific dirt on Trudeau, because short of that, the outlook is bleak.

There is one course of action left to the Conservatives, one which my old organizer persona would suggest as the only way to possibly defeat Justin.
Read about it in my next post.

How the Conservatives can Defeat Justin Trudeau.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Mass Resignations From MUHC a Good Start

When I read the story of the mass resignation of the independent members of the MUHC hospital board of directors my reaction wasn't one that most people would have.
“The 10 independent members of the board of directors of the McGill University Health Centre resigned en masse Monday, saying they have been hamstrung by Quebec Health Minister Gaétan Barrette.
The departures of more than half of the 19 board members followed a wave of public criticisms Barrette levelled at the MUHC for its chronic failure to rein in its deficits.
The board said it cannot function effectively with a health minister who threatens trusteeship and refuses to speak to them directly.
“He considers us an impediment. Our only interest is what is best for the MUHC and the community. It’s better that we resign,” board member Glenn Rourke told the Montreal Gazette of the official decision made earlier in the day “with much regret.”
The board represented the community and its expertise, “it was a good board,” Rourke said. “But the real power lies with the minister. The board couldn’t even name its chair or CEO.” Link
What shocked me was the bloated makeup of the board, with nineteen members, an unworkable number, a utter recipe for disaster especially since the members were voluntary, which actually makes things worse.
Now the average corporate board of directors is made up of between seven and eleven members with experts mostly agreeing that around eight members is the perfect number. Anything more and things inevitably bog down with each member trying to be heard.
Make no mistake, the more people involved in a decision, the worse the result.

The MUHC's nineteen board members is representative of the bloated bureaucratic mess that is the Quebec health system.
I have had some experience as a volunteer board member and can tell you that the experience was more than disappointing with so many unqualified voices around the table, all putting in their two cents, making every decision a long-drawn out affair that by nature precluded any bold or innovative initiative.
Volunteer board members are by nature ineffective, self-important blowhards where cronyism and mutual masturbation sessions the norm rather than the exception. Bah!!

The mass resignations have spawned a new crop of wannabees who are making their way to the forefront, all wanting a piece of the action.
The hospital union is demanding three seats on the board and I can only imagine the agenda they would bring to the table where the union member's interests would be placed before the good of the hospital akin to the lunatics running the asylum.
The solution?
Get rid of the board of directors completely. They are useless and redundant. The government pays for the operation of the hospitals and should run them themselves without the interference of an
amateur board of directors.
The same goes for school commissions that burn through money spent on a useless administrative layer that contributes nothing to the well-being of students. The baloney argument that our English school boards somehow protect our Anglo rights is a joke, where actually these commissions are awash with corruption, incompetence and intrigue. Good riddance!

The resigned board members of the MUHC objected to the minister's demand that they live within their budget, demanding meetings to plead their case, the entreaties which fortunately fell on deaf ears.

Make no mistake, bloated hospital administration is strangling the delivery of health care in Quebec and the revelation that Quebec has the worst emergency room response in the entire western world is a disgrace that is entirely the responsibility of idiot administrators, the MUHC board included.

It isn't as if Quebec spends less than other provinces on health care or that we have fewer doctors and nurses, we actually have more doctors per capita than Ontario. So it is the administration that is the disaster that our health care system faces.

Health minister Barette has demanded that the MUHC live within its budget, something easily enough accomplished if the interminable layers of bloated administration fat are pared back.

On my last trip to the hospital I was advised that I needed to secure a hospital ID card in order to receive treatment and so I trundled off to the office that issued these cards.
My question to the issuing clerk was what exactly is the raison d'etre of the card, since I had a perfectly good Quebec medicare card with an individualized ID number that could easily be used for my file.
Now the hospital card did not have a chip that had some sort of important patient information stored, it was a plain dumb card that just had an individual number that linked me to my hospital file.  But I already had a medicare ID number issued by the government that could easily be used. It's just really a number.
One medicare number and another hospital number. Does that make sense to you?

It is the same idiocy that requires students in our universities to secure an extra library card in order to borrow books, in addition to their university student ID, which could for all intents and purposes be used for lending purposes just fine.

This is bureaucracy, Quebec style. It is the real cancer destroying our healthcare.