Hockey Not So Live On NBC

I was watching the NBC coverage of the Wings/Penguins finals just to get a different perspective from RDS or the CBC. Sometimes I put both feeds on the split screen and judge the camera work and picture quality.


Yesterday, I encountered a weird problem, the NBC feed was six seconds behind the CBC feed and was actually being broadcast on a slight tape delay, at least on Bell Expressvu. The whole third period (at least) was broadcast this way.

I've seen this happen once before when comparing a RDS feed with that if the CBC in a Habs/Leafs game. The CBC feed was up to 12 seconds behind RDS, but it happened because the CBC was late getting back from a commercial and they caught up at the next commercial break.



At any rate, the picture quality (on my TV) was decidedly better on the NBC side and the camera work a little crisper with quick angle changes, especially in the corners.
There was a time, years ago when FOX broadcast the games rather amateurishly and even added a glowing puck. NBC coverage was definitely as good or better than the CBC.

Let's Honour Ben Weider

Before passing away, the late Ben Weider gifted his extensive collection of Napoleonic memorabilia to the Montreal Museum Of Fine Arts.
This priceless collection can now be forever enjoyed by the general public.
I had occasion to view some of these great artifacts in his home, many years ago when I called on him to solicit a charitable donation. His extensive collection included the famed tricorne that the emperor wore in the Russian campaign in the early 1800's.
His passion and enthusiasm for his Napoleon obsession was apparent and before sitting down to discuss his potential donation I was treated to a fascinating primer on Napoleon and his legacy.

Ben Weider was a fabulous Montrealer.

Born in the Laurentians to a poor Polish family, he rose to become a successful businessman who along with his brother Joe were the purveyors of the famous Weider brand of weightlifting equipment.
More than that, he was an author, philanthropist and historian.

His philanthropic endeavors were not limited to Jewish charities. Among other donations outside his community he built a gym for Palestinians in the West Bank and contributed to the re-construction of the Mary Queen of the World Cathedral in Montreal.
A francophile of the first order, he was awarded France's highest honour, the Légion d’Honneur for his work relating to Napoleon. Ben had friends across all ethnic and linguistic lines and I remember listening to him often as he recounted his stories on the air to radio host Gilles Proulx, another longtime friend.
He was dynamic, energetic and he will be missed.

I don't know what the the criteria are for getting a street named after you, but if ever a Montrealer deserved the honour, it is Ben Weider.
What say you, Mr. Mayor?

Get out the Violin for Teen Murderers

It really doesn't matter how much the public is outraged by violent acts committed by teens, the justice system continues to apply slaps on the wrists to murders, rapists and robbers who commit the most heinous acts.
We are constantly lectured by those in the justice system that treating teenage criminals differently than adults leads to a higher success rate in terms of rehabilitation.

Here's a flash- WE DON'T CARE!
There, I said it.

I speak for the majority of citizens who believe that punishment is more important than rehabilitation.

When it comes to those who commit violent acts that impact the families of victims for life, we demand that perpetrators be held accountable.

Let the punishment fit the crime.
How is it that in Canada this concept has gone down the toilet?

For too long, our criminal justice system has been about the criminal, not about the victims and their families.
Yes, it's expensive to house inmates for long periods of detention, but it's no excuse not to do so. Compared to all the other crap we pay for, it's a bargain.

Families who suffer a grievous loss get closure and perhaps a level of grim satisfaction when the perpetrators are judged for their crime and the sentence reflects the severity of the act.

When that punishment is ridiculously small, what is the family left to believe?
That the murder of a beloved family member by a teen means nothing more than a three year sentence in a teen facility that's nothing more than a glorified camp.

In many cases, families of victims haven't even gotten over their initial grief, before the perpetrator is let out.

The three Montreal North teens who killed a Vietnamese grandmother will likely get off with the proverbial three year sentence. (In fact two of them will probably get less, because only one of them actually punched and kicked the victim.)

Family and friends mourn the loss of Kim Ngu

Lieu, murdered by 3 Montreal North teens.

According to an article in La Presse, where the young murderers are cast in a most sympathetic light;

• They didn't do it on purpose and didn't plan to rob anyone, it just sort of happened.
• They've never done this type of thing before (never been caught?) and it was an unfortunate act.
• The victim was responsible for her injuries because she resisted. Had she given up her purse she still be alive.
• Psychologist Hubert Van Gijseghem, quoted in the article, has already laid out a 'Twinkie' defense. According to him, young boys between 15 and 16 years of age suffer from impulsiveness because of a elevated testosterone level.'

Arrrgh......

While we don't suggest the teens be locked away for life, a maximum of three year is completely unacceptable.

Pursuing Mulroney Has Cost Taxpayers a Fortune

For most of us, making sense of dollar amounts that run into the millions isn't that easy. Usually, the biggest number we will ever deal with, is the mortgage on the house that we own and 99% of the time, it's under a million dollars.

The media has been up in arms with the revelation that the taxpayers are once again on the hook for Mulroney's legal expenses and the figure of $2 million has been bandied about in the press. While most of the discussion has been centered on the appropriateness of the government footing his legal bill, I was astonished that the size of the bill has garnered so little attention.

Breaking down the numbers to something more understandable makes it easier to understand the depths of this obscene spending spree.
It's a scandal that eclipses the original sin and one that should offend us deeply as tax-paying citizens.

Since the Oliphant Inquiry was officially launched last June, Mulroney's legal bill has been mounting at an average of $7,500 EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Yup, every day. If you consider that his legal team doesn't work week-ends and holidays that brings the number up to over $10,000 per day. Ouch!!!

By the way, that works to the equivalent of 2 lawyers, working 40 hours per week, for 9 months, charging $500 per hour assisted by a junior lawyer or clerk, at $125 per hour for each and every hour worked!

Nice work if you can get it!

That's a lot of money and resources to be spending to clear up a relatively simple matter, especially if you've got nothing to hide. An innocent man knowing that there's nothing prejudicial to be uncovered wouldn't need that type of effort.

While it's debatable as to whether Mr. Mulroney is entitled to get the government pay his legal bill, we the public should be able to see a detailed breakdown of the bill, since we're paying it. I'm sure it'd be interesting reading. Freedom of information, anyone?

As it turns out Mulroney needn't have spent the money. Commission lawyers, who also spent millions, came up with zilcho new.

If the Privy Council believes that they should pay the bill, shouldn't they have given Mulroney a budget, after which he'd be on the hook for excessive payments. As it is, there's zero incentive to be reasonable. Those of us who have hired lawyers professionally know without a budget, a law firm can gobble up fees faster than Ms. Pac-Man.
Having been involved in plenty of litigation over my career, I can tell you that the bill is obscenely excessive, period.
Nothing less than an outrageous ripoff.

There's been talk that the government should sue Mr. Mulroney for the 2.1 million dollars settlement money they paid Mulroney in 1996, in relation to his defamation suit. It seems that he wasn't forthright in his deposition when he described his relationship with Herr Schreiber.
Government lawyers have gone on record as saying that the deal would never have been made had Mulroney not misled them under oath.
It would be sweet revenge to tackle Mulroney in court, but the problem is, that we the public would probably be stuck paying his legal bills again!
That's the way it works for former pols.

It time to swallow hard and go on. We don't need Oliphant's final report. It' just cost another couple of million. Pursuing Mulroney over Airbus and Schreiber has cost taxpayers too much.
So far it's cost us;

• It's been estimated that the Oliphant inquiry will cost in the neighborhood of $14 million. You know as well as I, that government estimates are usually off by 50%, so the true cost will probably be over $20 million
• Mulroney's $2 million dollar legal fee paid by the Privy Council.
• The $2.1 million settlement paid in the 1996 libel suit.
• The related legal fees in that case, perhaps another $2 million
• The cost of the long and unsuccessful RCMP airbus investigations- $3 million (a guess)

By the way, we haven't been told if the Privy council is paying the legal fees of the other politicians and civil servants who've testified. I'm sure Fred Doucet needed a lot of legal advice to help him craft his wonderful 'I can't remember a thing' testimony.

At any rate, the total cost of pursuing Mulroney must be close to $30 million dollars.
What can we buy for this money?.....Funding for 15-20 new permanent family doctors serving up to 200,000 patients.


Still think pursuing Mulroney was worth it?

Like It Or Not - NHL is English

How do you run a business/association where twenty nine of the thirty members speak a language different from yours and your customers.
It's a problem that not only the Montreal Canadiens face, but many Quebec based business' as well.

While the NHL pays lip service to the French language, it's hard to miss the fact that the league and it's teams operate exclusively in English. Like international air traffic control, English has been adopted as the common language of hockey. The league doesn't even offer a French version of it's official web site - NHL.com.

Players who enter the league from abroad all understand that if they can't converse in English, they will be at a profound disadvantage.

Since it's inception the Montreal Canadiens have always been an anglophone company. In recent years (starting with President Ronald Corey), the team began an earnest program of frenchification, with the non-hockey, day to day business of the team switched to French.
However, on ice operations have always been and still remain an exclusively English affair.

In Montreal, some fans with surprising media support, have demanded that this change. They believe that putting more Francophones on the ice and hiring Francophones to run the team will better serve the interests of the team and the community.

Can the Canadiens disastrous on-ice performance in recent years be in some way attributed to this language battle?

Sadly, yes.

The first shot in the hockey language war was fired back in 1991, when Eric Lindros was selected first overall in the NHL entry draft, by the Quebec Nordiques. Lindros had already signaled to the team hat he wouldn't play for the Nordiques, citing the French 'question' as his chief objection. The Nordiques who prided themselves on operating almost exclusively in French, didn't believe the threat and drafted him anyways. Good to his word, he didn't report and sat out the season until the Nordiques traded his rights to Philadelphia. (Ironically, the trade actually worked out in the Nordiques favour.)
The Quebec media tried to portray the incident as isolated case of a spoiled child and unrepresentative of the prevailing sentiment.

They were wrong.
While middling and journeyman players go to whatever team will take them, superstars shun Montreal like the plague.
Incredibly, that includes Francophone hockey stars who are warned that expectations are so high for native-sons, that the pressure of living under the microscope in such an intense environment is unhealthy, career-wise.

Those who insist on pushing the language debate onto the ice, do a great disservice to the team. The treatment of Saku Koivu by the media for his inability to speak French has sent a clear message to potential recruits- stay away.
Most hockey agents look at the Canadiens as a last choice destination and steer their charges far away from the franchise. Donning the storied Canadiens jersey has lost all it's caché.

It's hard to understand how insisting that there are two classes of players, (francophones and 'les autres') can possibly help the team's performance.
Holding a media wake every time a francophone is traded is dysfunctional and places an unacceptable burden on the GM. Demanding that the team boost the number of francophone players will turn the team into a CFL franchise, where Canadians by birth are guaranteed a certain number of spots on the roster, to the detriment of performance.

What can the Canadiens do?

Hire a Francophone GM who has the guts to tell the media that language will never be a criterion in player decisions. (Only a francophone can say this, an Anglophone would be run out of town). Make sure that he has experience and the intestinal fortitude to withstand language attacks. He also needs to have superior English in order to deal with the league's other GMs.

Once on an Air Canada flight, I was sitting in the first class cabin, across the aisle from Rejean Houle. He was on the air-phone, deep in conversation, his brow furled, trying as best he could to understand what was being. His stilted words, in broken English exposed the fact that he was struggling terribly and that's too big a disadvantage for the GM of the Montreal Canadiens.

The team needs to hire a Francophone coach with fabulous English. (the Canadiens have never had a problem finding these guys.) More importantly, let management trust him to run the players without interference from upstairs as was the case with the latest casualty, Guy Carbonneau.

I'm reminded of the famous TV commercial that reminded us, 'that you don't want tuna with good taste, but rather tuna that tastes good'.
In Montreal we should want 'a team that plays great, not speaks great'.

End the language debate and perhaps the team can improve, otherwise the Canadiens will remain as dysfunctional as they are now.

Interesting Montreal Police Stats

Leafing through the 2008 annual report published by the Montreal Police department provided these nuggets of information;

• Montrealers made over 1 million 911 calls.
  

• The police answered 37 thousand alarms, of which 94% were false, resulting in over $2 million in fines.

• 23 shots were fired by police officers, 8 of them in one incident by a deranged officer shooting up a gym and 6 in the Freddy Villanueva affair.

• All 8 bombs handled by police were diffused with no explosions. In 2001 there were to 24 incidents.

• Police used pepper spray 68 times, shot rubber bullet 25 times, used tear gas 4 times, expandable baton (beat stick) 38 times and fired their tasers 22 times. Al incidents were deemed justified.

• There were 96 car chases resulting in 3 suspects and 3 civilians being injured. There were no deaths. 21 police and 9 civilian cars were smashed as a result.

• There were 650 complaints by citizens against 983 police officers, but only 5 officers were called before the disciplinary board.

• 115 officers were were the subject of an internal police investigation file, resulting in a total of just 12 days of suspensions and 16 reprimands.

• Internal Affairs opened just 5 files resulting in just one resignation and no firings, but they did suspend officers for a total of 167 days.

• The average police car lasts about 5 years and drives about 150,000 kilometers. The service burns 4½ million liters of gas a year.

• The police force consists of 4,600 officers. For every 32 men, there are 13 women officers.

• 2,000 people were arrested for DUI.

• The police issued 315,000 tickets for moving violations, 150,000 for speeding and 145,000 parking tickets.

• The Green Onions gave out over 1 million parking tickets.
  

• Police investigated 29 murders, 29 attempted murders, over 1,000 sexual assaults and 6,000 robberies.

• Police investigated 1,000 arsons, 15,000 B&Es, 10,000 car thefts, 42,000 thefts, 14,000 mischief complaints and 5,000 frauds.

• Police made over 500 prostitution arrests and almost 3,000 drug arrests.
  

....interesting

Police Collude With Journalists to Target Montreal Hasids

Montreal's Hasidic community (an ultra-religious Jewish sect) is centered in the Outremont district, much to the displeasure of many Christian neighbours, who complain that the community flaunts city bylaws and disrespects neighbours on an ongoing basis.

I sympathize and understand their frustrations.
The Hasids are not particularly cooperative, whether they be in Outremont, Val-Morin, Brooklyn or even in Israel for that matter, where they are routinely in conflict with the majority of the Jewish nation who are mostly secular.

I am, however offended by the treatment of the community at the hands of Rue Frontenac journalists and police who are working hand in hand to humiliate them.

Rue Frontenac is a news website set up by striking journalist from 'Le Journal de Montreal' which has been running negative stories about Hasids flaunting the law.

The affair first came to my attention when a Rue Frontenac journalist, Valérie Dufour, wrote a story about a Hasidic block party celebrating a Jewish holiday, wherein the revelers unwisely and illegally lit a big bonfire in an urban neighbourhood after being denied a permit.
The story was documented by a surprising video, which was obtained, according to the journalist, because;

"A RueFrontenac.com team was in the district by accident and was attracted by the noise coming from a residential neighbourhood. They filmed this scene at 10PM, Monday night" (my translation)

Une équipe de RueFrontenac.com, qui était dans le quartier par hasard, a été attirée par le bruit depuis les quartiers résidentiels. Ils ont filmé cette scène aux environs de 22 heures, lundi soir.

As I read the story, I became sceptical that a team of striking journalists would happen to be working, camera in hand at 10PM, in a Hasidic neighbourhood and quite by accident happen by the celebration. It's highly unlikely and I made a mental note of the story.

Last Tuesday, Rue Frontenac ran another story about the Hasids and included another video, which absolutely defied any pretense that it was the result of happenstance.

Fabrice de Pierrebourg wrote a story about an undercover operation mounted by Quebec's transport police, the SAAQ (a government agency who are charged with monitoring licensing and regulations on Quebec roads), targeting a bus transporting Hasids between Brooklyn and Montreal, allegedly without a valid permit.

This time, no explanation of how a Rue Frontenac journalist was able to film the incident was offered. I guess another 'accident' would be too implausible. The video shot by Rue Frontenac was posted on their site and on Youtube .



I have no problem with journalists writing exposes and protecting their sources. But they shouldn't mislead their readers as to how they got the story.

It's obvious that the SAAQ informed the journalists of the undercover operation, which took place late at night and included an unmarked police vehicle.
There is no plausible explanation for the journalist's presence, except for the fact that they were advised beforehand, which begs the question as to what the quid pro quo was.


While the video posted by Rue Frontenac on Youtube was entitled "Arrestation", no arrest occurred and the bus and it's passengers were allowed to proceed. The word 'arrestation' has more than one meaning in French, but it's clear what is meant. They could have chosen 'Arret' or 'Intervention' which better describes what actually happened.

That the police allowed the stop to be filmed is more proof of collusion.
Try filming a Quebec cop in the act of making an arrest and you'll be told in no uncertain words to scram. Continue filming and you'll find yourself on the ground in handcuffs, charged with obstruction. That's a Quebec reality.
By the way, since when do police offer comments to journalists about ongoing investigations?

For the SAAQ police, it's an unacceptable breach of ethics to collude with journalists in this manner. They need to explain their actions and apologize for the fact that they arranged for the incident to be filmed.

When journalists and police work hand in hand, it becomes a news story in and of itself.
Doing investigative work in exchange for exclusive scoops crosses a journalistic line that needs to be exposed.

Rue Frontenac needs to apologize for the false inference that there was an 'arrest' made and needs to come clean about their 'pas de deux' with the police in targeting the Hasids.

Rue Frontenac opened the door to these questions. They could have said nothing about their sources, as in the second story by Mr. de Pierrebourg and let the public draw their own conclusions, but Valérie Dufour, who wrote the first story claimed that ;

"Une équipe de RueFrontenac.com, qui était dans le quartier par hasard",

If you believe that, you probably believe Mr. Mulroney's story.

We demand an explanation...

Ottawa Should 'Just Say No' To Returning Land

A new firestorm is brewing over the demand by nationalists that certain lands owned by Ottawa in Quebec City be transferred to the province.

Yesterday the Parti Quebecois' motion to demand that Ottawa cede the Plains of Abraham and the land adjacent to the National Assembly (owned by the Feds and rented back to Quebec for the princely sum of $50 a year) was defeated because the Liberals didn't want to get into another 'Plains' fight. Link

But the battle has just begun.

Nationalist groups are always looking for an issue that they can sink their teeth into and the last battle of the Plains of Abraham went their way when they forced the Battlefields Commission to cancel a re-enactment of the famous battle.

Watch for the militant RRQ to take up the cry which will undoubtedly culminate in a noisy summer of sovereignist demonstrations. What fun it will be!

Look for the same sad refrain and for these important watchwords;
Humiliation -Conquest- Colonization- Discrimination- Disrespect

Ottawa needs to draw a line in the sand.
If the land is returned, it won't be long before it will be turned into a Wall-Mart parking lot or better yet, be renamed the "Champs de la Conquete" where each year a wake could be held to commemorate Quebec's very own version of the Palestinian's 'Al-Naqba'.

Liquor Boards Run By Amateurs

Because of the massive profits generated by both the Quebec and Ontario liquor boards, the business plans of both agencies are subject to little government oversight. Managers of the LCBO and the SAQ believe that the profits generated are in some way related to their management acumen, rather than the fact that they run a monopoly that any drug cartel would be jealous of.

The fact is that both organizations are bloated bureaucracies where sound management practices that are normal in private industry, don't apply.

• After years and years of allowing employees to accept gift from suppliers, the LCBO finally decided it was a bad idea and banned the practice this year. LINK

• The SAQ is currently running a campaign to warn teens that they can't buy liquor if they are under eighteen. Someone in management should pay attention to their media buys, as the advertisements have been heard on classical music radio stations, hardly a hotbed of teenage listeners. On the other hand, the whole campaign is of dubious value. Is there a teenager that doesn't know the minimum age required to purchase alcohol? LINK (in French)

• The LCBO recently fired some employees for 'stealing' Air Miles points by sliding their own cards through the reader, when customers didn't present a card. The Air Miles program is designed to keep customers loyal by offering a benefit that competitors can't match. The only problem is that the LCBO is a MONOPOLY and doesn't have competitors. While there are privately owned agency stores, they serve smaller communities where the LCBO doesn't operate. LINK
  

• When SAQ employees went on strike, two years ago, the company kept about 10% of the stores open by sending in managers as replacement workers. Sales were hardly affected by the closure of 90% of the locations, as customers went to where they had to go, in order to buy their booze. The company actually made more money during the strike than before and as a result, the union caved. You'd think that management would realize that they really didn't need so many locations and would scale back. Not so, locations are expanding. LCBO employees, who are threatening to strike this summer, should take heed.

• In a wrongful dismissal suit an LCBO employee claims he was fired for reporting discrepancies in the amount of product leaving the LCBO warehouse and what was delivered to retail locations. According to John Alexopoulos, the LCBO's fired manager of retail accounting, an estimated 55 million dollars of product disappeared, en route. His lawsuit says that after he submitted the report, "harassment and criticism from his supervisor intensified and created a poisoned workplace environment." LINK
  

• Nothing beats the SAQ scandal of three years ago when management actually asked suppliers to raise wholesale prices. It seems that retail prices were tied to wholesale prices and when the Canadian dollar rose, prices in the stores fell, thus lowering profits. Someone had the bright idea that if suppliers raised prices, profits would be restored. What about the customers, who would have to pay more? Not a concern for the SAQ. When forced to resign, the chairman of the board, Raymond Boucher, blamed partisan politics along with the media for creating a 'storm' around the liquor commission, calling the controversy "unbalanced" and out of proportion. LINK

• The removal of bags from the SAQ is another dubious decision, given that the balance of inconvenience falls on the consumer. Asked why they don't accept bottle returns, the SAQ answered that there already enough recycling programs in place. When asked why they don't offer a cork recycling program (which the world-wide supply is suffering an acute shortage of) the Commission's answer was 'We're looking into it.'

• An LCBO executive (who requested anonymity) says the board continues to turn a blind eye to LCBO internal theft of alcohol. "There is so much nonsense going on in the stores," says the source. "There's so much product going out the door, it's really disgusting." LINK

• In a rare two for one scandal, the Quebec government is accused of appointing a crony to the Board of directors of the SAQ. After the interim president was fired for a trying to browbeat an SAQ store employee into giving her another Scratch'n Save coupon (she wanted a chance a a higher discount) her replacement was a big Liberal party contributor.

• How hard is it to sell whiskey, when you're the only one doing so? The LCBO 200 needs over 200 employees that make over $100,000 to do so.

Quebec Gov's Sad Tobacco Ploy

A bill that would allow the province to sue tobacco companies to recover health-care costs related to diseases caused by smoking is to be introduced in the National Assembly today.
A Quebec health department study estimates the direct and indirect costs of smoking in the province at $4 billion a year.... Montreal Gazette

The announcement reminds me of the great scene in Casablanca where Captain Renault closes down Rick's Cafe because, as he is quoted.
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"...just as a clerk hands him his gambling winnings.

The whole affair smacks of a cynical government attempt to deflect attention away from the current batch of problems it faces with a manufactured issue that is sure to fill newspapers pages and squeeze out negative reporting on issues like the Caisse de Depot.

For over seventy years, the Quebec government has been taking in billions of dollars in tobacco tax and to now proclaim that the tobacco industry should pay for related health care costs is disingenuous.

The saddest part of it all, is that the government has no case.
While smoking leads to premature death and is the cause of much illness and suffering, the lifetime health care costs borne by the government is actually smaller for smokers than for healthy people. That's right, lower.
Incidentally, that also goes for obese people too.

I know it sounds crazy, but for a variety of reasons (mainly that life expectancy is reduced), it costs the government more to provide health care to healthy people, because they live longer.
Here is a translated chart from the excellent blog Republique de Bananes which discusses the different lifetime costs to the public health care system for healthy people, the obese and smokers.


If you'd like to read the detailed study here is a link.

Once the government is calculating costs, they should also consider that the tobacco companies knock off about eight years of life expectancy of their customers, saving the government over a hundred thousand dollars in old age pension money.
I know it's ghoulish, but when you're calculating damages, mitigating factors are to be considered.

Let's remember that car companies also provide a product that is much more harmful than tobacco, should we sue then too?

Tobacco companies have been forced to pay up by American courts, but we should not expect a similar result here. In America, courts are political and activist. Here in Canada a judge will look at the cold hard facts and likely rule against the government.

Fun At The Oliphant Enquiry

Everyone seems to be having a great time at the Oliphant enquiry, everyone except Brian Mulroney, who is a sweating bullets as he spins his implausible defense.

This morning Justice Oliphant regaled the audience with a most interesting adventure (argh..) of missing his flight from Winnipeg and his relief that the replacement flight was not an Airbus.
Ha! Ha! Tres drole.

One of Brian Mulroney's lawyer's then wasted time when he took to the lecturn to gleefully announce the birth of the Commission's first baby. Grinning like a Cheshire cat, he detailed the facts of the birth of a baby girl to one of the staffers. If I was Mulroney, I'd of fired him on the spot for having such a good time on my dime(actually, the Privy Council's dime.)

Fun Fun Fun.

You'd be having fun too if you'd be billing out by the hour or collecting a fat per diem as are all the principle players in this pitiful exercise in futility. Judge Oliphant gets to fly cross-country, whenever he wants, all on the government's dime. Everybody gets top dollar and everyone wants to milk this charade for as long as they can.

How much money have Commission lawyers spent cranking out the many volumes of binders filled with photocopied agenda notes and day planner pages? A lot.
While the volume of material is impressive, it's too bad they uncovered nothing new and certainly no smoking gun. Not much value for the money.

Try as he could, the holes poked in Mulroney's improbable story haven't been wide enough to shake the former Prime Minister.

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

Commission lead counsel Wolson has failed to pierce Mulroney's armour because he brought nothing new to the table.
It's painfully obvious that the Commission won't have an 'Aha!" moment and Mulroney will leave with his tarnished reputation intact.

The public has already made up their mind on his guilt or innocence and the Commission provided nothing new but an expensive re-hash of events. Since it's obvious that no charges will result, it's time to pack it in.
Let the feeding trough be closed. Send out the clowns.

That we actually entertain the ridiculous defense spun by Mulroney is a testament to our naivete. Go....

Quebec Photo Radar Starts Today- Another Cash Grab

Notwithstanding Quebec Transport Minister Julie Boulet's promise that photo radar will not be used as a cash grab, don't hold your breath.
According to her announcement, photo radar will only be used as a deterrent for specific 'problem' areas with the public well-informed as to the where and when.
It seems like a reasonable enough explanation and one hard to detract, but do you honestly believe that the government is going to buy all this expensive equipment and not use it to make money? If saving lives is the rationale, then the money would be better spent by hiring more doctors and nurses.

Mindful of the uproar that the introduction of photo radar caused in Ontario a decade ago (the project had to be withdrawn), sugar-coating photo-radar's introduction is a good idea. For the first couple of months, only warnings will be issued. Once we get used to it, photo-radar will rapidly propagate and become an important revenue stream. Within a year or two they'll be placing cameras on the most lucrative spots with an eye to getting the biggest cash return.

Can I buy a franchise?

Why do I not believe that photo-radar isn't a cash grab?
Well, here in Montreal we just went through the same story in regard to radar traps. The city claimed that speeds had to be brought down because of the elevated danger to pedestrians and so a special police traffic detail was created and 130 officers added to widely expand the use of radar traps.

So how did police implement the plan? Did they go to dangerous intersections that had a history of accidents? Did they set up in front of schools, hospitals or where pedestrian traffic is particularly heavy?
Nope, they set up operations in places where they could give out the most tickets in the shortest amount of time. Pedestrian safety is not a criterion in selecting where traps are placed and in fact most of these spots are not dangerous in the least.
It's true.
I asked the cop who was writing me up, why he set up on such lonely stretch of road that wasn't dangerous at all and he wasn't shy to tell me that the goal of the police is to give out as many tickets as possible. Period. He called it deterrence.

Some of these speed traps are on deserted roads, devoid of pedestrians, such as in the Cavendish underpass in St. Laurent where police use the bridge as a sight barrier and nail people as they come up the hill.
The Autoroute 40 service road (at Place Vertu) doesn't see 10 pedestrians a day walking on it's sidewalk, yet the police set up on it on an ongoing basis strictly because of it's profitability.

The stupidest radar trap of all is on Decarie Boulevard service road near Jean Talon, which I've already written about. This one is of particular interest because the police actually represent a public danger as they run out into traffic, across three lanes to nab drivers who haven't slowed down fast enough when coming off the Decarie Expressway. All three lanes of traffic come screeching to a halt as the police officer leads the offender across the traffic to the curb. All this in the interest of traffic safety!
It's clear that Montreal Police radar traps have everything to do with revenue production and nothing to do with safety, so why will photo-radar be different?

Now let's get back to the stated rationale behind photo radar, the desire to get road speeds down. Every day we are reminded that speed kills, but it's actually not true.

The notion that going ten or twenty clicks over the speed limit is inherently dangerous is patently untrue. Please note that I differentiate between speeding and dangerous driving (where drivers go forty, fifty and more over the speed limit), which does represent a danger to everyone.

But, believe or not, speeding as the primary cause of road accidents, is towards the very bottom of the list.
In Germany the Autobahn has no speed limit, yet it records less accidents and fatalities per capita, than our provincial Autoroute system.

Statistics can be made to prove almost anything, and officials make the case, that excess speed is a large factor in car crashes. They remind us that in 30% of crashes, drivers are speeding.

It's like saying that in 50% of accidents the driver is listening to the radio and ergo radios should be removed from cars.
The fact is, that 30% of drivers are always speeding, so that it's quite likely that when accidents happen, 30% of the drivers were speeding.

Here is a list of the principle reasons for car accidents.

Unknown 18.7%
Failure to yield 18.1%
Loss of control 14.0%
Tailgating 12.6%
Driving too fast for road conditions 12.6%
Improper turn 7.9%
Disregarding signage or lights 6.0%
Improper lane change 5.6%
Improper passing 2.3%
Speeding 1.9%
Driving the in the wrong direction 0.2%
Driving too slowly 0.1%
Total 100.0%

As you can see speeding is towards the end of the list and represents less than 2% of the primary reason for car accidents. I bet you didn't know that!
People who speed are generally skilled drivers and represent less of a risk than your average grandpa driving below the limit.
In fact tired or distracted drivers represent a risk that is ten times more dangerous than speeders. Perhaps the government should force every driver to have a cup of coffee before getting behind the wheel, it'll save more lives than ticketing speeders!

Over the last thirty years, the number of people killed on the road has been cut in half. In Montreal, there was a thirty percent drop in traffic deaths between 2006 and 2007, so why the big hullabaloo.

Even if we believe the police that all this effort will save lives, the question is-how many?
In Montreal 24 pedestrians died in traffic accidents last year. Over half of them, according to police were breaking the law and themselves responsible for the accident. Every year, despite precautions there are couple of deaths related to snow clearing operations which have nothing to do with speeding.
That leaves about six or seven deaths in Montreal, to account for. How many were related to speeding?
Perhaps one, maybe two, maybe none.
Consider that number when you listen to politicians telling you that there is speeding crisis that photo-radar needs to address.

HUMBUG!!!

Veil Controversy Rocks Quebec

Last week, La Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ) voted to support the right of women to choose whether to wear religious 'signs' in the public service.
"No obligation, no ban," was how it was described.

The fact that FFQ has been accused by opponents of having been infiltrated by radical Islamists (although there is no evidence) underlines the fact that emotions are running high on this issue.

For once it's not a French/English thing, but it still remains an "Us versus Them" type of debate, something all too common in Quebec.

The resolution started a firestorm of controversy that has re-ignited the "Reasonable Accommodation" debate, pitting the radical women's rights group, which supports all manner of freedom of choice, against a the majority of Quebeckers who are mostly opposed to the idea of religious dress in the public service.
Some radicals believe that a veil of any sort is a symbol of male oppression and should not be tolerated in any form in public. There are also those who believe that the state should present a secular and neutral face to society.

Lost in the argument is the fact that the Federation never made any specific references to any sort of veils, but this seems to be the bone of contention between the two camps and is the subject of fierce media discussions.

Most of us agree that the state has, not only the right, but the obligation to limit or ban religious customs that are in opposition to society's basic principles and tenets. Customs such as animal sacrifice, polygamy or the unequal treatment of women are rightly disallowed. But whether these interdiction should extend to dress and specifically whether public employees should be allowed to wear religious regalia while serving the public on the governments behalf, is an open question.

Sadly, it seems that the debate is taking on an 'all or nothing' tenor, as extreme positions on both sides of the issue are being advocated without consideration to the 'reasonable' part in the 'Reasonable Accommodation' principle.

Since most of this polarized debate is based on the veil, let's look at the issue from a middle or 'reasonable' perspective.

Below is the headscarf (Hijab), worn by some Muslims. It is the most common of all 'veil' type of coverings. Those who wear them don't seem much different from anyone else in mainstream society. From cashiers to students, to lawyers and dentists, the majority of these women are modern and seem to be fully engaged in society. While some say it is a symbol of enslavement, I can't really see it.


It's not any different from what some Sikh's, Jews or Christians wear and I don't see anything more offensive than what is pictured below. It seems that these symbols are personal and I've never been proselytized by any of these people. In fact I tend to trust these people a bit more than the average person, but that's just me.


But that's not the case here the 'niqab, or burhka, veils that cover part the face.


Women who wear these veils are sending a very direct message to those around them, a message that is decidedly negative.
I've heard many explanations for why the veil is worn and I can't say that any of those reasons are justifiable in an open society as ours.
Some describe it as a benign modesty shield, but it is really a device, imposed by men to hide women's faces from other men and to publicly brand the women as a possession.
Masks in our society have always denoted a negative image. Much of how we interact with people is based on expression and body language and theses types of veils infringe on the public's right to interact in a normal and acceptable fashion.

Cowboys robbing stagecoaches, Bank robbers, Terrorists. From childhood our image of the mask is something evil and rightfully so, it is an attempt at deception.
Some western countries such as Holland, France Germany and Turkey have already placed limits on veils in public and we should consider limiting face-covering devices, regardless of religion.

As for a scarf, turban, hat or a skullcap, we should accept them for the inoffensive symbols that they are and allow people to wear them even when working in the public sector.

Comedy Festival Chief Irks Nationalists

Gilbert Rozon, president of the world's most important comedy festival, Montreal's 'Just For Laughs' (Juste Pour Rire) is not one to follow the crowd.
Starting with nothing, he has created a comedy brand that is showcased in 150 countries and which runs parallel comedy festivals in Toronto, Chicago and France.

Not one to keep his tongue in his pocket, he shocked nationalists, speaking before 'l'Association des économistes du Québec', when he said that's it's time to play up Montreal's multilingual nature.

"The multilingual character of Montreal should be promoted.... Let's not hide the fact that half the population is bilingual....It's 2009, time to stop talking about what happened in 1760."

Ce caractère multilingue de Montréal, il faut le mettre en valeur. ....Faut pas cacher derrière le rideau le fait que la moitié de la population est bilingue..... on est en 2009. Faut arrêter de parler de ce qui s'est passé en 1760! »

Them's fighting and treasonous words to nationalists.
While many Quebeckers enjoy being bilingual and love the concept of speaking another language, there's few francophones willing to say it out loud.

Perhaps the lofty position and success he has earned has afforded Mr. Rozon the luxury to say exactly what he feels without regard to the critics.

Always in search of an issue, nationalists have already taken the bait and are hammering out long treatises in response. Now that the controversy over President Sarkozy humiliating put-down of Quebec nationalists has played itself out, the words of Mr. Rozon arrive at a precipitous time for the polemics of the pro-French/sovereignty movement.

Gilles Grondin, a Montreal city councillor wrote in Point de vue, Le Soleil, 12 mai 2009 that notwithstanding Montreal being bilingual and multicultural, it is part of the greater Quebec society and should therefore present a French only face to the world.

Lucky that Mr. Rozon has a thick skin, he'll need it. Nationalists don't take kindly to "vendus" (sellouts).
He is officially on the shit list.

Habs Fans Responsible For Crappy Team

When Guy Carbonneau was first let go by the Canadiens, the overwhelming sentiment in the city was that it was a move that had to be made, even if it was unfortunate.

Two months later and after a disastrously short playoff run, fans and reporters are having second thoughts and now have shifted the focus of their rage to Bob Gainey with shouts of "Off with his head!' reverberating throughout the city.

But why Carbo was fired has more to do with the fans than anything that happened on the ice or in the dressing room.

Ridiculous fan expectations and the rabid media frenzy have made it nearly impossible to field a competitive team. The second-guessing is so exaggerated that the selection of the coach's necktie is up for review.

It's not unfair to say that fans and reporters actually believe that they could run the team better than management and take every opportunity to deconstruct, second guess, and denigrate every decision taken.
Fans who can't balance their own chequebook are convinced that they could better manage the salary cap than Bob Gainey.

The Habs players themselves, are subject to unprecedented scrutiny that includes outrageous invasions of privacy that make Hollywood paparazzi look like wedding photographers.
Players who are in a slump or otherwise under-perform are pilloried in the press and on radio talk shows which discuss the team 24 hours a day.

It's hard not to notice that players traded by the Canadiens always seem to do better wearing another uniform.

The booing of the team's players in the Bell Centre has become altogether too common.
Do fans actually believe their cruel treatment of Carey Price will somehow make him a better player or more motivated?
While fans say that they love their team, as much as they love their own family, would they ever consider booing their hockey-playing daughter or son because of a poor on-ice performance?
When Price ultimately becomes a free agent, do fans think that the memory of the humiliating treatment he was subjected to will add to the allure of re-signing with the Habs?

The situation is so bad, that for players, (including francophones) Montreal has become the Chernobyl of the NHL.
Could you imagine Guy Lafleur telling Sam Pollack that he'd rather play in Nashville!

The added kicker of the French language problem has also contributed to a toxic situation. Don't underestimate it.
It's rumoured that 75% of player agents discourage their charges from considering playing in our city. Cruelly, because of the Canadien's deep pockets, agents have entered into bad faith negotiations with Montreal management in order to jack up offers from other teams, à la Marion Hossa.

How long will it be before fans realize that the only big fish we're likely to land in Montreal is at Waldman's, off of St. Laurent Boulevard.

It's ironic that with all the media attention, nobody in the Quebec press is willing to tell the truth about the popularity of Montreal as a player destination.
The only exception is TSN commentator, Pierre McGuire, who is the only reporter with the guts to go public and say what everyone in the league won't.

Today the Montreal media is vociferously demanding the choice of a francophone coach to replace Bob Gainey and the team has already caved. The problem is, that most of the successful francophone NHL coaches have already worked for the Canadiens, all fired after the briefest of stints and all victims of fan and media abuse. The field of eligible francophone coaches is decidedly thin and being forced to choose from such a limited pool cannot be considered a bonus.

Guy Carboneau was not wrong when he openly questioned the wisdom of firing the Habs coaches every two years. When asked if he'd consider a return to Montreal as coach, Jacques Lemaire almost fell over himself laughing.

This year, the team captain, Saku Koivu has been the subject of a vicious smear campaign because of his inability to speak French, with calls for mandatory French lessons for players made by language zealots.
Do you think that Saku will be recommending the team to other Finns, or advising them to seek alternate green pastures? This abuse, for a player who was instrumental in creating an eponymous cancer clinic in the Montreal General Hospital, does not go unnoticed.

The latest fan and media campaign says that more francophone players are needed to shore up the team because, as the argument goes, only 'they' possess the heart to play in a French city. Argh!

Statistics are trotted out to show that past Canadiens teams who won the Stanley had large contingents of Francophones, but lost in the argument is the fact that Francophone players are few and far between in the NHL, with their numbers reduced to under 8% from over 20%, twenty-five years ago.

Things look decidedly grim for Les Glorieux, who are unfortunately destined to be glorious no more...

Luc Plamandon's Sad Refrain

Most anglophones are more familiar with Plamondon avenue, then they are with Luc Plamondon, but in the Francophone community he's an artistic saint. The playwright was awarded an honourary medal in the National Assembly (Quebec's Parliament), last week and took the opportunity to bitch and moan about the French language 'issue', while throwing a few barbs at the English language.

"the French language is plummeting." "Here everyday, the French language is in danger, more and more"
"la langue française dégringole un peu»: «La langue française, ici, est en danger tous les jours, de plus en plus"

Speaking of English in Quebec he spoke of "invasion" and "aggression"
En parlant de l'anglais au Québec, il a parlé d'"invasion" et d'"agression".

Jocelyne Richer, LA PRESSE CANADIENNE

Mr. Plamondon parrots the mantra that French is in mortal danger in Quebec. It's a popular myth repeated ad nauseum by sovereignists, nationalist groups and most francophone artists.

The trouble is, that there isn't an ounce of truth in it!

The idea that French is "falling back," is so ridiculous that it begs rebuttal.

Those who continue to spout this nonsense are masters of the classic propaganda technique, invented by the Nazis, known as "THE BIG LIE". It can best be explained by American comedian Richard Belzer, who describes it this way;

"If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap."

Last week, the LCN television animator Pierre Mongrain ran a story (in the spirit of French persecution) about a patient who was told to bring an interpreter with her to the hospital, because the specialist doctor, an allophone, spoke no French. The story was meant to show how badly in peril the French language is, but actually served to highlight the amazing strides that the language has actually made over the years.
Back in the day (thirty years ago), this story could never have made the news, simply because it was an everyday occurrence.
Today it's news, because it's a novelty.

As any anglophone born and raised in Quebec can attest, the anglophone community and the English language is in sharp decline.
For language zealots to claim that English is somehow on the upswing and a threat the French language is pure fantasy and self-serving propaganda.

Who can deny that Montreal, a bilingual city a generation ago has evolved into a francophone city.
Traffic signs, billboards, the Metro and just about everything is now uniformly French. Major stores, that by law are allowed to post English signs (with restrictions) don't even bother.
The odd smattering of English that remains is a sad reminder of what once was and serves only to fuel the ire and rage of language fanatics who are bent on eradicating any vestige or trace of the hated language of the 'oppressors'.

French is stronger today, than ever before. PERIOD!!

In 1851 anglophones made up 25% of the Quebec population. Today that number stands at about 8% and since 1971 the absolute number of anglophones has continued to shrink.

On the other side of the coin, there are more French speakers and people who's mother tongue is French living in Quebec today, than ever in the history of province!

It's an inconvenient fact for those claiming that French is on the decline.

So how can militants make that claim that French is threatened, when almost every statistic says differently?
How?.....Tell the "Big Lie'.
Find the one nugget, the one statistic that you can wrap an argument around and spin it wildly...and here it is..

It seems that the percentage (not the absolute number) of those who's mother tongue is French, has declined by two or three percentage points over the last years.

Voila!- There it is, the French language is on the road to extinction and to make the story better, it's also the fault of the English!

Now in crafting every 'Big Lie', certain liberties have to be taken with the truth and unfortunate facts have to be shaped or omitted. In this case, militants are loath to mention that the number of people who's mother tongue is English has also declined and much more drastically than on the French side.
You don't have to be a statistician to see which direction English is going according to the chart below.

The assertion that the decline in people claiming French as their mother tongue is proof positive of the decline of the French language is ridiculous enough, but that this supposed decline is in some way related to the influence of the English language is so outrageous that it can only be understood in the context of a the 'Big Lie.'

Because of a plummeting birthrate, immigrantion has been increased to shore up Quebec's sagging population. Without new blood, Quebec's population would fall by half, in less then sixty years.

Of course these immigrants don't all have French as a mother tongue and ergo the decline in those who claim French as their mother tongue.
But as these immigrant families settle into life in Quebec, their children are forced to attend French schools which ultimately leads the next generation to adopt French as a mother tongue.
Statistically speaking, the numbers balance out quite neatly. While new immigrants arrive without French as a mother tongue, their offspring ultimately adopt French as a mother tongue, in a process that repeats itself with each new generation of immigrants. The loss of two or three statistical percentage points is caused by this process. It is however, a one time loss and does not reflect any downward trend.

There was a time in the sovereignty movement when things like 'mother tongue' didn't count.
Rene Levesque and his colleagues went to great lengths to assure everyone that the movement was inclusive and based on language only.
That no longer seems to be the case. It appears that speaking French is no longer good enough for today's language crusaders, for whom, you have to be born French, to be counted among them.

At any rate, whatever the situation, it has nothing to do with anglophones or the English language, which itself is in rapid decline.

Mr Plamondon and his cohorts should get their facts straight before undertaking these vitriolic attacks on our language. How is using words like 'aggression' and 'invasion' to describe English not a racist act.

Stop blaming the English for a decline that doesn't exist and take heed in the famous credo of that great cartoon character 'POGO.'

“We have seen the enemy and they is us"