Where is Hydro-Quebec's Thierry Vandal?

If ever there was a cowardly display of cynicism and disdain, it is Thierry Vandal's arrogant and shameful decision to hide from the public.

Caught with his hand in the public purse, sending Hydro-Quebec money to his alma mater, (College Notre Dame) where he sits as the president of the board of directors, it remains inconceivable that he is stonewalling the media and the public.

It is also a sad testament to the complacency of the public and media who make a big deal about the story for a couple of days before getting back to the more important business at hand, bitching and moaning about anglophones and Ottawa.

Why does public indignation over dishonest or unethical behavior by public officials evaporate so soon?

Why is the public's attention span so limited?

It may not be fair or decent, but Mr. Vandal may be right to hide out and ride out the storm.

Quebeckers are notorious for their short memories.

Look at the example of our illustrious Premier, who is again riding high in the polls. Who would have believed he could recover so quickly from the fury directed at him for essentially fooling voters about the disaster at the Caisse de Depot

We deserve the leadership that we have.!!

Pigs at the Trough Come to Hydro-Quebec's Defence.

Recently we've seen a spate of defenders make public pronouncements defending Hydro-Quebec's donation program.

The controversy surrounding the now cancelled donations to the private schools has opened up a can of worms that has sent shock waves around Quebec's francophone arts community.

Hydro-Quebec's donation policy has come under the loupe and many are questioning the legitimacy of a provincially owned monopoly doling out money without public oversight.
While Mr. Vandal seems to have survived his attempt to steer money to his alma mater, the question of Hydro-Quebec donating to the arts has become an open question.

Shocked by the direction of the debate, leading francophone editorialists are flocking to the defence of the program whereby Hydro-Quebec shells out money to it's favorite festivals, theatres and arts programs.

By the way don't bother asking Hydro-Quebec for dough if your name is Clark, Cohen, Collevechi, Costas, Hadid or Chong. This money is meant to support 'real' Quebec culture and education.

Here's some of Hydro's biggest beneficiaries;

OSM ($600 000 )
le Musée Pointe-à-Callières ($400 000 )
le festival Montréal en lumière,($900 000 )
Les Grands Ballets canadiens ($70 000)
l'Opéra de Montréal ($42 500 ),
le Moulin à images de Robert Lepage ($250 000)
Festival du cinéma international en Abitibi-Témiscamingue ($60 000),

Here's an example of what Hydro-donates to in the Sagenuay region;

Fondation de ma vie (Hôpital de Chicoutimi): $476 500
Fondation Hôtel-Dieu Alma: $25 000
UQAC (campagne de financement 00-09): $25 000
UQAC (projet Balsac): 25 000 $ Cégep Jonquière Fondation Asselin: $20 000
Dolbeau-Mistassini (comité spectacles): $25 000
Festival international des Rythmes du Monde: $25 000
Orchestre symphonique du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean: $21 000
Camp musical du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean: $15 000
Cathédrale de Chicoutimi (concerts d'été): $50 000
Chambres de commerce: $8700
Grands jardins de Normandin: $10 000
Randonnée à vélo Hydro-Québec: $30 000
Traversée internationale du Lac-Saint-Jean: $30 000

Of course all these beneficiaries of Hydro largess are spurned to action, fearing that the tap will soon be turned off. There hasn't been such a call to action since the Harper government cut off funding to Quebec artists. Maybe we'll have another parade.

The $26 million that Hydro-Quebec has spread around the francophone art community has bought it a lot of defenders.

Former Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, who is president of the board of directors of the l'Orchestre symphonique de Montréal penned a letter in Saturday's le Devoir which is representative of the type of argument used to defend the program;

"WE NEED THE MONEY!!!"

Things are much more serious for Nathalie Petrowski in La Presse;

"Without the support of Hydro-Quebec, there wouldn't be any culture, not only in Montreal, but across Quebec"...

Not everyone in the French press agrees. Richard Martineau in Le Journal de Montreal asks;

"Is it the role of Hydro-Québec to invest $26 million in culture? Don't we already have a minister?
As far as I know, the Minister of Culture doesn't invest in the production of electricty"

There seems to be a chasm between the Francophone inteligensia and the man in the street.

When Pierre Duhamel wrote a fatuous defence of Hydro-Quebec in L'Argent, his readers were not amused and the comment section was overwhelming negative. If you read French go over to the article and see for yourself. In fact, most of the comments are better written and make more sense than does Mr. Duhamel's article.
At any rate here is my favorite comment which I have taken the liberty to translate;

1) Every dollar that HQ gives in sponsorship is a dollar less returned as a dividend to the government and a dollar more that needs to be collected in taxes. As the anglos say; "no taxation without representation"...

2) HQ is a badly run enterprise, wasteful and notoriously inefficient. By the way at least 70% of it's profits come from the sale of electricity from Churchill...
(ed. note - Hydro Quebec re-exports energy produced in Newfoundland because the power lines need to cross Quebec territory to reach markets. Hydro forces Newfoundland to sell it the power at the border for a pittance and makes a huge profit upon it's resale.)

3) HQ is a monopoly and doesn't need to promote it's image in a captive market.

4) HQ is probably one of the coziest havens for unionism on the planet, the average citizen probably has no idea how its employees (and managers) are living large, but they should understand that they help fund these golden pensions while often without a pension fund of their own. Ultimately it is the citizens who are funding these "gifts" to Hydro.

HQ is basically a mediocre enterprise which wasn't always the case, (but is now) which uses our money to brush up it's image. -Pierre Brasseur

By the way I like the nickname given to Hydro's boss Thierry Vanadal by another commenter- " l'invisible PDG".

Passport Photo Flap Makes Little Sense

In a recent post, I wrote that if I was manning the passport station in Kenya when Suaad Haji Mohamud came through, I too would have refused her passage based on the photo in her passport.

Passport 'loaning' is a rampant scam whereby a legitimate passport is used for the short period that it takes to pass immigration controls. Before boarding the airplane the passport is returned and the passenger lands in Canada as an undocumented traveller claiming 'refugee' status. It is legitimate for consular and passport officials to be suspicious when documents don't match the bearer, either because the photo or the personal details such as age don't match.

That being said the actions by Canadian consular officials in resorting to DNA testing to prove Ms. Mohamud 's bone fides shows a disturbing lack of sophistication that is not only puzzling but disheartening.

Does it really take DNA evidence and three months to uncover the truth? There are a lot easier ways to establish one's identity without resorting to such a drastic, expensive and time-consuming process.

Thirty years ago, before boarding an EL AL flight to Israel, I was (along with every other passenger) put through some pretty thorough vetting by Israeli security agents.

Regardless of your feelings about Israel, you've got to give them credit for having the most effective security in the world. For them, establishing one's identity is more than keeping illegal refugees out of the country, it's about keeping the airplanes in the air.

To the Israeli security team a passport is an essential element in establishing an identity, but it is by no means the only criteria.
Each passenger, before boarding the airplane is subject to an interview by a security screener. The agent's role is to establish that the person before them is the same person represented in the passport and that their travel aboard the El Al airplane is non-threatening.

Back then, my screener was a young slip of a girl who didn't look more than nineteen years old, not the hard nosed sort you'd think you'd come up against. She was friendly and polite and explained that she needed to ask me a couple of questions. She asked for my driver's license and studied my travel documents, the airline ticket, hotel reservation, etc. The questions started out with the standard queries that you'd expect.
Who packed your bag? What's the purpose of the trip? Did anyone give you a package to take on the airplane. etc.etc.
Pretty standard stuff, but then things got personal.
Tell about your neighborhood? What's the name of your Member of Parliament? What's the closest food store to your address? etc. etc.
The questions were harmless, but incredibly effective in determining that I was who I said I was. If I was an impostor there's no way I would have successfully passed the screening.

If EL AL can successfully confirm an identity in a short interview, why couldn't Canadian officials determine Ms. Mohamud's identity by using the same method?

Would it be so hard to ask her questions that a passport 'borrower' would never be able to answer.
They could ask her personal questions that only she would be able to answer and they could add questions about life in Canada and Toronto in particular, that a long time resident would easily answer, but which would prove difficult for an impostor.

Unless Ms. Muhamid was a spy out of a John LeCarre novel and had undergone months of intensive training at a KGB type of school that taught the art of assuming another identity, she'd be hard pressed to fool her interrogators.

The interrogators could ask the questions, email the answers to Canada for someone to verify and during this verification period Ms. Mohamud could be kept incommunicado in order to make sure she doesn't communicate her answers to anyone.

Under this scenario it wouldn't take more than 24 hours to establish whether she was who she said she was.

Just for fun, here's a list of questions that I would ask her. I bet you could come up with an effective list of your own.

• Describe your apartment building and tell us about your neighbors?
• Describe the view from your bedroom window.
  
• How much rent do you pay and whom do you pay it to?
• Describe your kitchen? What's in the pantry?
  
• Where do you work and how much do you get paid?
  
• What is the name of your boss?
  
• Name a few co-workers.
• How do you go to work? Describe the trip.
• What school does your son attend and what is his teacher's name?
• Name some of your son's friends.
• What does he eat for breakfast?
  
• What did you buy your son for his last birthday?
  
• What will I find in your bedroom closet?
  
• Recite as many phone numbers as you can and who they belong to.
• Describe your neighborhood.
• Where's the closest place to your apartment to buy milk.
  
• Who do you pay your electric bill and telephone bill to?
• What's the closest bus stop to your apartment? The closest park? Hospital?
  
• What colour is a Toronto tram painted?
• What is a loony? What colour is it?
• In which supermarket do you shop?
  
• Do you have cable TV and if so what is the name of the cable company?
• Which Canadian television shows do you watch?
• What is Tim Hortons?
• What caused last year's big Toronto explosion?
• Name five people who aren't related to you, who could identify you from a current photo.
  

Enough!!!
I bet you've thought up a few good question of your own by now! No impostor could possibly know all the right answers. It would take a couple of hours to run down the answers and determine if she is really the person she claims to be.

I hope that there's some sort of inquiry that will determine if there's more to this story or if our officials are really the bumbling fools that they seem to be.

Law Not Done with Fraudster Vincent Lacroix

The public remains thoroughly confused and angered by the court's handling of fraudster Vincent Lacroix.
His original 12 year sentence has been hacked down to five years by the appeals court, resulting in his immediate eligibility for parole, in accordance to the ridiculous rule that allows non-violent first time offenders to seek bail after having served just one-sixth of the sentence.

Ironically, this whole sad fiasco may work for the better and we may yet see Mr. Lacroix rot in jail for a very long time!

To understand how this can be, it's important to review what has happened up to now and how those circumstances will affect the future.

When Mr. Lacroix's shenanigans came to light, he came under the scrutiny of the RCMP, who opened a fraud investigation, as well as the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers), Quebec's regulatory agency, which oversees stock markets and the companies and agents that sell financial products to the public.

The AMF was to first to act, as the the RCMP fraud investigation dragged on for four long years.
Too bad, since the more serious fraud accusation carried a much stiffer sentence.
At any rate the AMF's prosecution and the potential conviction of Mr. Lacroix would in no way impact the RCMP fraud investigation, they are two different and distinct crimes.

Mr. Lacroix was sent to trial facing 51 accusations of violating the Securities Act by influencing or attempting to influence the market price or the value of securities by means of unfair, improper or fraudulent practices (27 counts); and by providing the AMF with documents containing misrepresentations (24 counts).

The Court of Québec (Criminal and Penal Division), district of Montréal, found Vincent Lacroix guilty of the 51 charges filed against him by the AMF, on March 9, 2006.

Judge Claude Leblond handed down a sentence that totaled 12 years, which consisted of five years less a day for the first 27 accusations (27 counts of attempting to influence the market price or the value of securities illegally), and two 42 month sentences for the the other 24 counts of misrepresentation.

The judge threw the virtual book at Mr. Lacroix. He gave him the most time that he could, in fact he gave him too much, as we would find out later. The first part of the sentence, 5 years, less day, is the maximum allowed in Provincial court. Sentences in excess of five years are subject to a jury trial in Federal court.

The judge also ruled that the three elements of the sentence were to be served consecutively (one after the other) which meant that Lacroix would serve 5 years, then 42 months and then a further 42 months, totalling 12 years in all.

Mr. Lacroix's lawyer, Mr. Monterosso, argued in appeals court that the sentence was too harsh and the judges agreed that the two 42 months sentences were redundant. They lopped of one of them off and reduced the sentence to eight and a half years.

In a second appeal, before the judges of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Monterosso changed tactics and now argued that the cumulative sentences were illegal and that five years, less a day sentence was all that the court was entitled to impose.
Subsequently, the Court began a lengthy analysis of the legality of consecutive sentences. It concluded that without a law that allows judges to add up the penalties, the practice is not allowed and so again, they reduced the sentence down to the five years less a day.
That is where we are today, with Mr. Lacroix getting out of jail very soon.

The real problem was not with the court, but rather that Mr. Lacroix faced charges that could only bring a maximum of five years in prison.
Had RCMP charge Mr. Lacroix with fraud, he'd of faced fourteen years of imprisonment.

And now here's the interesting part.

The RCMP finally completed their investigation and while in jail, re-arrested Mr. Lacroix and charged him with fraud. He faces trial this fall and if convicted will likely get the maximum 14 years.(if the mood of the previous court is to be considered.)

He will be going back to jail and this time is no longer a first time offender, having already been convicted of the security violations.

As a repeat offender, he will not be eligible for accelerated parole and will in all likelihood serve out the majority of the sentence.

SWEET!

BIXI's French Only Airport Ads

If ever there's a place where we can expect bilingualism, it's at Montreal's Trudeau International Airport.

Even the Quebec government accedes to that principle and advertises it's services in both official languages.

Arriving from Washington yesterday, I spent some time in the arrival hall, snaking through the long line awaiting my turn to go through.

The new arrival hall has many television monitors placed up high on poles that are used to show advertising that generates revenue for airport. As you can imagine, the ads are closely related to travel and visitors. Car rental agencies, restaurants, Tourism Quebec, etc. etc.

All the ads run bilingually, all except BIXI.

I watched the ads rotate a couple of times to confirm that what I saw was right- and yes, BIXI advertises in French only.

As you know, the majority of tourists who come to Montreal speak English as a first or second language and the idea of advertising in French
only makes little senses.





It seems that all of BIXI's outdoor advertising is exclusively in French as well. I noticed this billboard as I drove away from the airport.

The value and efficacy of this French-only program leaves much to be desired, Bixi is not exactly a world-wide recognized product like Coca-Cola. Placing an ad that says "Bixi- est Montreal" may be classy, but as a device to promote their product, it is money down the drain.

I imagine that 99% of tourists, both English, French or whatever would have no clue as to what the billboard meant.
Ignoring the fact that the majority of tourist don't read French is arrogant and stupid.

Trudeau Airport's New U.S. Terminal Disaster

It was with a measure of trepidation that my wife and I ventured out to Trudeau Airport for a flight to Washington DC last Thursday. I had read the news that a new terminal for flights destined to the USA was to be inaugurated on Wednesday, the day before our scheduled departure and fearing that it might suffer from teething problems, we left extra early.

I was not to be disappointed.

Arriving at 7:30AM for a 9:20AM flight, we assumed that we'd be in the clear. Alas, it was not to be.

I punched in our reservation code into the ATM-like machine that prints out boarding passes and was met with a long series of questions.

"Where are you staying?" asked the machine.

"Maroi" - "Marriet" "Marriot Htel" - "Marriot Hotel." Yes, finally!

Typing on these keyboards is never an easy task. Next time, I'll skip this supposed time-saving maneuver and let the agent ask the questions!

With boarding passes in hand, we joined the surprisingly long line to process our bags.
This new automated terminal doesn't look so automated. Half an hour later, the Air Canada agent who scans our boarding passes, tells us politely that the baggage system is down. Arghh!

Notwithstanding, we are told to pick up our bags and proceed to the next queue, the one where our luggage is to be passed through a scanner and then sent on a mini-elevator ride to the basement for loading onto the airplane.
We proceed posthaste, but the agent's warning proves quite true, the line is not moving. Ah, technology!

After ten minutes of shuffling our feet, an airport employee points to a sign that says "OVERSIZE LUGGAGE." He winks and I the cotton to the message rather quickly. We drift out of the queue and make our way to the oversized baggage room as unobtrusively as possible. There's absolutely no lineup and the scanner is humming. The bored and uninterested employee that is manning the front end of the machine takes no notice that our bags are not particularly oversized.
Hooray for higher intelligence!
She scans our boarding passes and then puts the bags through the machine. Another agent removes them on the other side and sends them onward, downstairs. Before we egress, another agent scans our boarding passes...that's the fourth time!

Pleased with our good fortune, we join the next queue and happily, it is of reasonable length. After about ten minutes we accede to the security station where we are both to be personally scanned. What fun!
But before entering the hall, our tickets, of course, are scanned again, it's getting annoying!

"Take off your shoes , please!" shouts an agent as we approach.
"Whaa?'

This the first time I have ever been in a Canadian airport where everyone, as a matter of course, is required to remove their shoes.

It seems that this new terminal is run by American rules.

Come to think of it, the majority of the security and baggage agents are speaking Spanish amongst themselves. Perhaps this is the 'Twilight Zone' and we have already been magically transported to America! Strange thoughts occupy an idle and bored mind.

We get scanned, quickly pick up on footwear and attempt to make good our getaway, only to be thwarted by another agent who informs us that my wife has been randomly selected for a further security check. RATS!

She is steered over to the side and given as thorough a frisk as can be done in public. The agent searches every inch of her belongings, opening and closing every zipper including her wallet.. Bah!!!

"You won't find many terrorists that way, my friend! Middle-aged couples travelling together are on the lowest rung of the profile" I think to myself, careful to keep the thought private, lest I run afoul of authorities for mentioning the dreaded "T" word.

We make our way onto the US Customs hall, foolishly believing that all this foolishness is behind us, but as we pass through the portal, we are thrown for quite another shock.



The hall is filled to over-capacity. "Shit!"

I do a rough head count and realize that there are about 300-400 people ahead of us with only ten agents to process all of us. Worse still, the line is not moving, the agents are twiddling their thumbs.

"What's going on?" I ask someone ahead of us in the line.
"Dunno. System is down or something. Nobody is telling us anything."

I look at my watch and the sickening realization that we aren't going to make our flight comes over me. Frustration and anger can best describe my state of mind.

'We're are stuck in the lineup, like cows on a death march in a slaughterhouse," I ruminate. "There is no way out of the queue, no "Oversize Baggage" escape route here!"

We wait, we wait and we wait. Nobody tells us anything. People with Blackberries are saying that some flights are being delayed for half an hour.

There are no overhead electronic signs, no airline or airport agents to question, only Montreal city cops who look mildly amused at our predicament.

The line, starts to move, the agents begin processing passengers. "Hooray!"
Unfortunately, it takes another hour for us to get through. It's now 10.25 and our plane was scheduled to depart at 9:20. AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

We shuffle off to the gate to embrace our fate, dishearteningly, but upon arrival are astonished to see that our airplane has not left, it is still parked, awaiting latecomers!
It occurs to me that the airport authority has no doubt frozen the US departures in an attempt to alleviate the ongoing fiasco and perhaps salvage their reputation.
In my entire career of flying, I've never seen a airplane wait for over an hour for latecomers.

Our tickets are scanned for the sixth or seventh time and we show our passports to the gate agent, who mercifully represents the very last barrier to freedom.
We gleefully skip down the ramp towards the airplane door.

"STOP!!!!" shouts another security agent hovering in the gangway.

"You've been selected for a random security search!"

"WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTFFFF!!!! .....Are you insane!!!!"

Once again a physical frisk and once again the agent opens everything we have, every zipper, every bag.
Time ticks onward.

Three hours to board a plane for an hour and a half trip. Aargh!...

Thank you, Trudeau Airport for allowing Homeland Security to dictate security procedures in our airport.
Our new terminal is now as indistinguishable as any of the nightmare facilities in the USA. Bah!!!
I have a question. Why the hell did we need a new terminal?

The old one worked just fine, as any regular flier to the USA can attest.
The truth is that air traffic between Canada and the USA is going down, not up.

Don't tell us that you're planning for a future full of millions of new passengers. We've heard that before... it's called M-I-R-A-B-E-L. Spare us, please!!!!

The Trudeau Airport authority is out of control and on a spending spree that makes little sense.

Excessive landing fees for airlines and additional fees, tacked onto passenger tickets, are needed to pay for all this foolishness. Delux airport installations and ridiculous and over the top security controls are as stupid as they are unnecessarily expensive.

The new US terminal represents a giant step backward. Enjoy!

Hydro-Quebec's Code of Conduct

Quebec's minister in charge of Hydro-Quebec, Nathalie Normandeau finally commented on the the donation affair over at Hydro-Quebec.
Conveniently on vacation, she waited out public reaction to see where the chips would fall and then when the media and the public gave up on the story, she defended Mr. Vandal saying that it wasn't a conflict of interest because he didn't gain anything personally.

According to her and André Pratte, the editorialist in La Presse, unless the money ends up in your pocket it isn't a conflict.
By that logic you could send money to your sister, your mother, your uncle's company and you'd be in the clear!

It's utter nonsense. Had the donation gone through to the school, Mr. Vandal would have gotten a direct benefit, perhaps not monetary but a very direct benefit none the less. As he was the one who clearly brought in the donation, he would have received the credit and recognition. Doesn't that count? For rich and powerful people, recognition is as important as money.

Does Mr. Vandal really believe that he didn't fiddle the system to his advantage?
We don't know his side of the story because he continues to duck the press, a sure sign of a guilty conscience. I imagine that if he did face the press, this is what he'd say;

"I respectfully decline to answer the question based on my fifth admendment rights the fact that my position is indefensible."

Perhaps Mr. Vandal and all those defending him should read the Hydro-Quebec 'Code of Conduct.' It's got quite a bit to say on the subject of conflict and by the way, look who wrote the preface!;

Page 2
...The company’s reputation is a precious asset, and customers have very high expectations in terms of honesty and transparency...

...This Code of Conduct is designed to help us determine the attitude we should adopt in the performance of our duties. As employees of Hydro-Québec, we must all familiarize ourselves with the Code and apply the ethical principles it is based on. Let us apply it to everything we do and to each decision we make, in keeping with our shared values.

-Thierry Vandal
President and Chief Executive Officer

Page 3
...We must be honest and responsible. In a public utility, the conduct of each employee has to be irreproachable and beyond suspicion...

....Good faith alone will not necessarily protect us from an error whose consequences could be detrimental for us and for Hydro-Québec . The appearance of conflict of interest, for example, may create doubt or uncertainty on the part of the public and tarnish the company’s image...

...The Code of Conduct cannot cover all the situations that are likely to arise, and leaves it to each of us to demonstrate good judgment .

Page 5
...As Hydro-Québec employees, we must behave irreproachably in managing the property entrusted to us . The principles of ethics go beyond applying corporate guidelines, and call upon the company’s internal culture and a natural sense of justice. In the absence of rules or in situations not covered by company guidelines, Hydro-Québec expects us to adhere to the general rules of sound management . Transparency must characterize our every action.

...When are we in a conflict of interest?
A conflict of interest exists when we are placed in a situation where we risk favoring our own interests or those of a third party rather than Hydro-Québec’s. We must avoid placing ourselves in a situation where our personal interests or those of our spouse, a family member or a business partner could be in actual or apparent conflict with Hydro-Québec’s interests . Such conflicts could lead us to favor our own interests in certain situations, whereas those of Hydro-Québec should always prevail.

Page 7
We must not place ourselves in a situation of actual or apparent conflict of interest, regardless of the honesty of our intentions...

“Conflict of interest” does not refer only to financial transactions or economic benefits. It may take various other forms as well: influencing a decision related to the hiring process, for example, or giving preferential treatment to individuals or corporate entities. Accordingly, we must avoid having external interests, activities or influences that could compromise our independence in any decision we make or any other initiative within the company .


When is there an apparent conflict of interest?
There is an apparent conflict of interest when, even in the absence of an actual conflict, a situation creates the impression that a conflict of interest could exist .
For example, if a relatively well informed person might conclude that your performance of a task or duty has been or could be influenced by your own interests or those of your spouse, a family member, a friend or a business partner, you are in an apparent conflict of interest.

You can read all about Hydro-Quebec policies here.

In relation to the code of ethics Mr. Vandal's actions can best be described in one word....FAIL!

Quebec News of the Weird- Volume 03

"Do As I Say, Not as I Do!"
The SAQ, Quebec government-owned liquor selling monopoly has come under fire for being hypocritical.
Six months ago they removed all one time use bags from their stores, in favour of reusables, which they sell in an effort to be enviornmentally friendly (and make a profit).
However they haven't cut back on the practice of advertising in Quebec's famous 'Publi-Sac', an advertising medium whereby paper advertisements are distributed directly to homes in a plastic bag. A spokesperson for the SAQ didn't see the contradiction in the policy that sees the distribution of up to 14 flyers a year, nor in the fact that the SAQ offers no recycling program in relation to bottles or corks.

Daredevil Fundambulist wows. A French tightrope walker Ramon Kelvink Jr. walked across a tightrope strung up between two landmarks in Quebec City. He successfully completed the walk in fifteen minutes, 50 meters above the ground and without the benefit of a safety net, to the great relief to the crowd watching below.
What's weird about this? Quebec is the province where in May a woman was given a $420 ticket for not holding an escalator handrail in a subway station in Montreal. How the heck did he get a permit to pull off this stunt?

Montreal gets 'new' district. "Little Italy and Chinatown are getting a new sibling 'LE PETIT MAGHREB" is the new appellation of a few blocks of Jean Talon located between Saint-Michel and Pie-IX blvds.
Just in case you don't know what exactly 'Maghreb' refers to, it is what the French-speaking Arab community that hails from North Africa, in the old French colonies of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are commonly known as. Let's hope that Louise Harel, the mayoralty candidate who is opposed to creating 'ethnic boroughs' isn't too upset. The community was given $40K to refurbish the area. Maybe they'll put up an identifying symbol, like the gate in Chinatown.

Perhaps a minaret?

Montreal forced to rehire-hire worker who forged doctors notes. The city fired a blue-collar worker who was repeatedly absent and who furnished doctors notes excusing her absence which she had forged. The employee who had sixteen years on the job appealed the firing to a tribunal which reduced her punishment to a 21 day suspension

Man Arrested because Officer is a TMNT fan. Michael Ruckenstein and his wife were at Trudeau airport in Montreal to catch a flight to Australia. Despite being a septuagenarian, he is an avid martial arts practitioner and carried in his luggage two tridents used in the practice of the sport. The daggers have no edge and are harmless, he has travelled with them on countless occasions, having already verified with the airline and custom agents that they were perfectly fine to travel with. After his luggage passed through the X-ray machine, he was summoned and arrested by Montreal Police. Despite his explanations, he was held up at the airport until custom agents arrived and confirmed that the 'weapons' were harmless, an hour later. The Rukensteins missed their flight, but more importantly had their names 'flagged' and now are exposed to secondary searches each time they fly.
The couple sued the Montreal Police and in court the arresting officer admitted that he didn't exactly know what the 'weapons' were, but recognized them as dangerous, from watching 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." The Ruckensteins were awarded $7,500.

Public Accountability Not an Important Issue in Quebec

Today's editorial in La Presse, by André Pratte defending Thierry Vandal and Hydro Quebec for the $250,000 donation to a private Montreal high school, is indicative of the very different standard of public accountability that this province operates under.
If Quebec's leading editorialist can excuse a public servant for funneling taxpayer money to his alma mater, an institution where he serves as the chairman of the board of directors, is it any wonder that abuses abound?

"Un faux pas n'efface pas des années de travail au service du Québec."
("A mistake doesn't erase the years of service to Quebec")

Nobody can deny that Quebec marches to a different political and social beat, but our propensity to forgive public servants the most egregious of gaffes and outright abuses of power is a characteristic that not only reflects badly on us all, but hurts our collective pocketbook.

It isn't fair to blame the politicians, the civil servants or the mandarins of our government corporations, for not taking responsibility for their misdeeds. The reason we don't have public accountability is, quite simply, because the public doesn't demand it.

Years ago, I rented an apartment for the winter in Florida. One evening a spry gray-haired senior, knocked on my door and asked if I'd be joining the tax protest down at city hall. I explained that as a renter, it didn't much concern me, to which she replied;

"Then you're an idiot. Don't you know that taxes are part of your rent. If you don't protest then you're agreeing to the increase. That's fine if that's your position, but if you don't agree, it's your duty as a citizen to protest!"

Wow! She told me!

I have to admit she was right. It made me think of how apathetic and removed Quebeckers are from the public decisions that affect our lives.
Faced with conduct like that of Mr. Vandal, instead of sustained outrage and pressure that leads to action, we collectively shrug our shoulders and lean on the old slogan of losers- "What can you do?"

Most western democratic societies live by the important principle that has evolved from the Parliamentary system of government that makes senior officials responsible not only for their own conduct, but that of their employees. Any serious breech of conduct, one that causes embarrassment for the government is met with a immediate resignation or firing.

With responsibility goes accountability, but not in Quebec.

In Ontario, a scandal recently erupted amid revelations that the provincial agency 'Ehealth' awarded lucrative contracts to consultants without competitive tenders. The agency boss, Sarah Kramer resigned abruptly in June along with former chair Alan Hudson.

Last week an Israeli general was forced from the army for loaning a military car to his wife and lying about it to a superior, this after a thirty year career.

Maxime Lapierre, Quebec federal member of Parliament was forced to resign from cabinet for the unpardonable sin of accidentally leaving a confidential document at his girlfriend's house.

Too harsh? Unfair?

It is sometimes sad to have a long and successful career come to an end over a seemingly trivial affair, but it does serve an important purpose as a warning to others that only the highest level of ethical behavior is acceptable when entrusted with the public purse.

Quebec has sadly abandoned, or in fact never embraced the principle of true accountability.

Miscreants are allowed to remain in position after grudging apologies or outright stonewalling as demonstrated by Mr. Vandal.

Instead of being fired on the spot, abusers of the public purse are allowed to finish their mandates rather than face the sack or worse still, as in the case of Jean-Guy Chaput who's lavish expenses as head of SODEC (Quebec film agency) included a $1300 a night hotel at the Cannes film festival, get paid for doing nothing. He was told that because of his unacceptable spending spree, his services were no longer required, but instead of being fired, was paid over $100,000 to do nothing while finishing out his term.

One of the very few instances whereby a resignation was triggered by a scandal was that of the chairman of the board of the SAQ, Raymond Boucher, Quebec's liquor monopoly which was exposed in a price fixing scandal that artificially raised the cost of alcohol to Quebec consumers. Quebeckers were so offended that they did manage to force his resignation. It was the exception that proved the rule.
That being said, it remains a mystery as to how those involved on both side of the conspiracy, (SAQ executives and the producers) avoided criminal prosecution. To date none of the producers have been held accountable or even named. None have been required to refund the ill-gotten gains.

Why no class action suit to recover money, if not from the SAQ, then from the producers involved?

Sociologists can argue why Quebeckers are so docile, but the fact remains that we get the performance from our public servants that we demand.

Let them steal - and they will steal.
Let them pad expenses - and they will pad expenses.
Let them abuse their position - and they will abuse their position.

On the other hand if we demand better, we will get better, it's strictly up to us.

By the way one other point in Mr. Pratte's editorial begs comment;

"Cela dit, il est abusif de parler ici d'un conflit d'intérêts; M. Vandal n'avait absolument rien à gagner, personnellement, de cette subvention."

("That said, it's abusive to talk of a conflict of interest, Mr. Vandal had nothing to gain personally from this donation.")

What? He didn't gain personally? Nonsense!
Just because the money didn't end up in his pocket doesn't mean that he didn't benefit. Surely bringing in such an substantial donation would garner him honor and respect, an important consideration for a man in his position. If Mr. Vandal sent the money to his sister instead of the school, it would also be alright, according to Mr. Pratte, as 'he didn't benefit personally.' Bah!

Mr Vandal is one more example of those who's sense of entitlement offends our sense of justice. He is unrepentant and arrogant, refusing to face the media and hiding behind a statement that says the public utility considers the case closed.

He is the poster boy of a cynical, arrogant and elitist cadre of public officials who populate the higher echelons of Quebec public service and it's agencies.

When the story first broke,the opposition clamoured for Mr. Vandal's resignation.

How did the government react?
Stall. The silence is deafening, as the Premier waits to see how public opinion plays out.
If things get too hot, Mr Vandal will walk the plank, otherwise he will ride out the storm.

Quebeckers have no one to blame but themselves for the Thierry Vandals, the Henri-Paul Rousseaus and the Raymond Bouchers who scoff at our lazy stupidity.

Quebec's Sad Doctor Fiasco

The latest round in Quebec's ongoing doctor fiasco is the news that doctors from Ontario are still facing roadblocks despite the bilateral agreement signed between the two provinces that was supposed to allow each province to recognize the other's professional accreditation and thus pave the way for elimination of the inter-provincial barrier.

This week it was revealed that the five Ontario doctors that applied to work in Quebec still can't get the green light despite the four month old agreement which remains blocked by red tape.

In the meantime, since August 1, doctors from Quebec are free to cross the border into Ontario and start practising immediately. Already close to one hundred Quebec doctors have made the move towards Ontario.
This has infuriated some opposition politicians who have demanded that Quebec withdraw from the agreement rather than take remedial action.

This reaction would border on hilarious, were it not not so sad. Quebec could certainly withdraw from that agreement, but even if they did, that wouldn't preclude Ontario from continuing to honour Quebec credentials. It would then become the worst of both worlds, with Quebec doctors leaving for Ontario and no Ontario doctors allowed in. Our politcos aren't too bright.

Despite what we hear on the news, Quebec does not really have a doctor shortage. Really.

There are more physicians per capita in Quebec than any other province (except Nova Scotia): 215 per 100 000, compared with 179 in Ontario and 166 in Alberta.

Quebec's real problem is the type of doctors that we have.

Although there is an appalling shortage of family medicine doctors, the other specialties are so over-represented that the government is restricting licenses (PREMS) and has actually frozen the hiring of new specialists. For some reason the mainstream press refuses to report that aside from a few specific specialties and family medicine, the government isn't hiring doctors.

When it comes to finding a family doctor, twenty-five percent of Quebeckers are out of luck. Estimates vary as to how many family doctors are needed to fill the gap, but the figure of 700 does sound reasonable.

Why the extreme shortage in family doctors?

Mismanagement. For years the government imposed such harsh conditions, that it drove doctors towards other specialties or worse, out of the province.

First by imposing a salary cap. Doctors could earn so much and no more, regardless of how many patients they saw. It led to the ridiculous situation where GP's were working only three out of four weeks, having maxed out their renumeration, leaving patients in the waiting rooms and doctors twiddling their thumbs. This policy has since been rescinded.

Second was the policy that attempted to blackmail doctors into working in the backwoods of the province, where the doctor shortage was critical. Doctors who set up shop in urban areas were paid less than their counterparts in the sticks. This policy remains in force.

Third, the actual remuneration is inferior to that offered outside Quebec. Quebec has always counted on the language and cultural barriers to keep doctors at home.
The majority of graduating doctors in Quebec are unilingually French (except McGill grads) so few of them, upon graduation, have the option to take up residencies outside the province.
This is why that up to now, it's the Anglos who were leaving, but it is changing as Francophone doctors wise up and learn English.

What to do.....

The answer is much simpler than you could imagine.- Increase the amount of family doctors trained.

Require each of Quebec's medical schools to accept a proportion of their applicants based on a contract that streams them towards becoming a family doctors. Applications to medical schools are so overwhelming, that given a choice between being a family doctor or no doctor at all, applicants would jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, regularize pay and conditions. Quebec could still pay less, but it's got to be more reasonable.
Family doctors are the best investment that the government can make. Their offices are small and extremely efficient compared to the burdensome CLSCs, who's level of care leaves much to be desired, not to mention expensive emergency room visits that could be handled in the doctor's office. Experienced family doctors are a health system bargain, they see more patients a day than any other specialty, with some practices of more than 5,000 patients!

For towns and cities outside the urban hubs, it would be smart to make it worthwhile for doctors to come, instead of bitching and moaning. A free home and office facilities would be a start. The government should allow communities to directly subsize doctors if they want to do so.
It would cost a small town of 20,000 just $5 person to offer a $100,000 yearly bonus to a doctor to set up shop. Believe me, there would be a stampede to the hinterland.

Remember in the real world the carrot is always better than the stick.

Chickens Come Home to Roost for Passport Canada

The blame for the sad affair that kept Torontian, Suaad Haji Mohamud, a Canadian citizen from returning from Kenya because both Kenyan and Canadian consular personnel didn't believe that she was the person portrayed in the photo can probably be blamed on her Canadian passport picture:


In all honesty, would you let her through if it was your decision at the border?

Here is some of her other ID.


Both her OHIP card and her driving license, where she is wearing a hijab are impossible to match to the picture on the left.
However in the ID photo where she isn't wearing the hijab, even though her hair style is different, clearly resembles the picture on the left.

Instead of banning smiles from passport pictures, officials might want to consider banning hijabs instead.

But this being Canada........

Hydro-Quebec Boss Unlikely to Survive Scandal

Had Thierry Vandal quickly apologized and taken responsibility for his lack of judgement in the donation scandal now swirling around him and Hydro-Quebec, he might have survived, but like Martha Stewart, he's going to pay the price of the coverup which is presently going on.

Hydro-Quebec's decision to give $250,000 to Collège Notre-Dame, to upgrade it's sports facilities, is appalling enough, considering that the school is Mr. Vandall's alma mater and of which he just happens to be the president of the board of directors, but defending the gift is beyond the pale.

The BS that is pouring forth from the Hydro-Quebec building on Rene Levesque Street in Montreal exposes the fact that the princes who run the public corporation are unaccustomed to account for their actions and their sad attempt at public relations is as laughable as it is pitiful.

Our advice to you--Better get professional spin doctors in ASAP, but it may already be academic.

When the story first broke in La Presse, a Hydro-Quebec spokesman François Taschereau, denied that Mr. Vandal was involved in the decision to give the donation. This lie was corrected the next day when the corporation realized that the truth would probably come out and so Hydro-Quebec then admitted that the president might have been in the loop.

The spokesman then defended the donation to the private school by pointing out that the sports facilities funded by Hydro-Quebec would be available to the public when school was out for the summer. He went on to say that Hydro had already approved a similar request for upgrading facilities at another school, but refused to name the facility, nor the amount pledged. Arghhh!.......

If that is true, the donation to the other 'school' was no doubt an attempt to make the first donation seem legitimate.

Marcus Tabachnick, Lester B. Pearson school board's director, commented that when he approached Hydro Quebec for a donation to its Pearson Electrotechnology Centre, something Hydro-Quebec would certainly be interested in considering the shortage of electricians, Hydro's response was- "We don't fund schools"

A greater issue here is why does Hydro-Quebec give out donations, or provide sponsorship money for public events ?

Come to think of it, Why on Earth does Hydro-Quebec sponsor the Zambonis that clean the ice between periods at the Montreal Canadiens hockey games at the Bell Centre? Advertising is meant to encourage people to use your product instead of competitors. Hydro has no competitors. Could it be that the Zambonis are part of a package that includes an executive box, one that Hydro bosses can use for their personal benefit?

The company is a state monopoly with the mandate to produce and sell electricity for the benefit of Quebeckers, so what business do Hydro executives have donating money that belongs to taxpayers?

That's the job of the government.

If the education department wanted to fund Collège Notre-Dame, they could do it themselves, full well in the knowledge that they'd have to face the consequences of their decision to fund a private institution in Parliament or at election time.

Just because Hydro-Quebec makes money for the government, doesn't give it the right to spend money as they see fit.

How would the public feel if Revenue Quebec started doling out money to their favorite private schools or paint up the Zambonis in the Bell Centre with a big "REVENU QUEBEC" logo, after all, they also raise a lot of money for the government?

Mr. Vandal will likely not survive the scandal.

With the opposition parties screaming for his head, Jean Charest has no political upside in defending Mr. Vandal.

For Vandal it's resign or be fired.

Not to worry, there's probably a huge golden parachute waitng for him.

General Amherst versus Lionel Groulx

Another idiotic French versus English controversy has erupted with independent Montreal city councillor Nicolas Montmorency, of the Rivière-des-Prairies-Pointe-aux-Trembles district, saying that since the city is officially French, it's street names should be too.
Aside from that, he also wants that the name of Amherst street be changed, claiming that recognizing General Amherst is akin to having "Adolf Hitler Boulevard in Germany."

In 1760, during the Seven Years War, General Jeffery Amherst was commander-in-chief of the British forces that conquered Montreal. In 1763, during the Pontiac rebellion (which pitted the British against the local Indians), it was suggested by Colonel Henry, in an exchange of letters with Amherst, that smallpox might be employed as a weapon for the racial extermination of the Indians. General Amherst was favorable to the idea. Read a defence of Amherst in the Montreal Gazette.

"The culture and history of Montreal's English should not be unjustly represented by someone overtly in favour of the extermination of a people," reads Montmorency's city council motion.

Not for one minute am I going to defend Amherst's actions, nor attack the idea of changing the street name, but starting a debate on the subject opens a whole can of worms, one that can't be helpful to French/English relations.

The city is just recovering from the fiasco wherein the proposed name change of "Parc Ave." to "Robert Bourrassa Ave." (after the late Premier) was met by a furious backlash in the city's Greek community and which ultimately led to the city backing down.

Montreal is perhaps unique in that many street names represent rival historical figures of both English and French heritage. Some of these figures are nothing less than demons to militants on the other side. Perhaps the best example of this is are the Montreal streets 'Wolfe' and 'Montcalm' which are located back to back and honour the two generals who led the opposing English and French forces at the Plains of Abraham. Ironically the streets lie adjacent to Amherst St.

Most Montrealers are mature enough to let sleeping dogs lie. Better to accept the differences and go on with life.

Upon examination, there's are a lot of other streets named for historical figure that if judged by today's standards would also be eligible for a name change.

Lionel Groulx (Metro station and street name) is the one that is at the top of the list. A priest who is proudly remembered for his spirited defence of the French Canadian nation during the first two-thirds of the last century. Unfortunately his brand of nationalism included a virulent case of anti-semitism and a belief in the fascist doctrine that was then currently in vogue in France and Germany. He preached for a racially and religiously pure Quebec. Groulx argued against the immigration to Canada by Jews, Mennonites, Mormons and other non-Catholics.

In his book L'Appel de la race (The Call of Race,) he taught that;

"the children of ethnically mixed marriages suffer from a form of schizophrenia because they are inhabited by two different souls."

Although apologists argue that his views should be seen in the context of a time when the Catholic Church was also espousing these views, it remains an open question as to whether it is appropriate to continue honour him.

Come to think of it, does Henri Bourassa, also a rabid anti-Semite, deserve a street named after him?

"Indeed in 1905 in the most vituperative anti-Jewish speech in the history of the House of Commons...Bourassa urged Canada to keep its gates shut to Jewish immigrants."- Canadian Encyclopedia

How about James McGill. Shouldn't being a slave owner, preclude one from the honour of an eponymous street name?

I'm sure we can go down the list and find, that judged by today's standards, a great deal of our heroes, who's names adorn city street signs, would not pass muster.

Do we really need or want a 'Truth and Reconciliation' commission concerning street names.

I don't think so, but there are those still spoiling for a fight.

Gabrielle Dufour-Turcotte des Jeunes Patriotes du Québec has entered the fray with an online petition advocating the changing of the name of Amherst street. This thick-witted organization hasn't had an original thought since it's inception, but rises to action every time a good confrontation can be found.

The best comment on the controversy was made in a letter to the editor in the French language daily, Metro Montreal;

Change English street names? I am tired of this nonsense. It's University Street and not Université because it's adjacent to McGill University, which also goes for McGill College.

Eliminate the name of Jeffrey Amherst because he was a "scoundrel", according to Gabrielle Dufour-Turcotte des Jeunes Patriotes du Québec? Fine, if we also remove the name of anti-Semite Lionel Groulx from the metro station and the streets that bear his name.

Yes, it's ridiculous, like the endless desire of some of us to eradicate any evidence of the presence and history of the anglophone population of Montreal. Remember that we are not the enemy and that Montreal is ours too.

-John Ronald