Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Quebec's Election Law Encourages Cheating

Those who advocate massive state intervention and regulation generally fail to understand that you cannot easily pass laws to control human nature and that in many cases, regulation has the effect of doing more harm than good.

I'm always amused at those do-gooders who advocate getting rid of bottled water in the misguided belief that people will change their habits and run for the water fountain. The sad truth is that any ban on water bottles will have the unintended consequence of sending most people over to bottled soft drinks and juices, infinitely worse for the diet and no better for the environment.

You can't legislate good sense or righteous behavior and sometimes when we try we to, we suffer the slings and arrows of unintended consequences.

Such is the case of Quebec's beefed up rules concerning political contributions, a good idea in theory, but one that only hurts our democracy in practice.

First things first;
There are three major ways to finance political parties;
  1. Unlimited donations by any individual or corporation, as is practiced in the United States.
  2. Public financing of political parties on a per vote basis.
  3. Limited donations by individuals or companies with caps and restrictions.
None of these systems are perfect and like the debate between medicare and private health insurance, the discussion can go on forever, with neither system proving to be the ultimate panacea.

This whole blog piece is based on the proposition that there is no 'perfect' system for regulating political financing and no matter which system we choose, it will be anything but perfect.

Of course, we in Canada and Quebec in particular would never accept the free-for-all system of campaign financing as is practiced in the USA, where anything goes. Barak Obama spent almost a billion dollars on his presidential campaign, a frightening scenario for Canadians who would never accept a situation where companies regulated by federal statute could donate millions to the candidate or political party that best represented its interests.
In the American presidential and senatorial campaigns, the unbridled need for money makes candidates vulnerable to those that control the purse strings and offers large donors an unprecedented advantage to influence elected officials.

As for public financing of political parties using a per vote subsidy, as we practiced in federal politics until Mr. Harper repealed it recently, the system favors the also-rans, those parties that get votes, but few seats in Parliament.
In the end, it would encourage minority governments, something that really doesn't serve the country well.
I know many people like the idea of a minority government, but ultimately it can lead to too much power given to those small parties that control the balance of power, as in the case of the Bloc Quebecois for the twenty years prior to the last election.
In it's worst manifestation, it can cripple a country like in the case of Italy, which hasn't enjoyed a stable government in my lifetime, or worse still, the example of Israel, where the 10% share of Parliamentary seats owned by the ultra-religious, means that the 90% of Israelis, (both Jewish and Muslim) who don't share their religious views, are subject to parliamentary blackmail which forces the country to adopt ultra-religious measures.

And so it leads us to the third system, the one adopted by Quebec where the public may donate to political parties under a rigid and controlled set of rules.
It sounds like the best of a bad lot and it probably is, except for the fact that the rules adopted by Quebec are so draconian that it begs politicians and donors to cheat.

And trust me.....cheat they do!

The campaign finance laws in Quebec reminds me of those well-intentioned laws pertaining to the sale of cigarettes, which put consumers through so many hoops in their quest to buy tobacco products, that it is easier to buy contraband.

First the government raised the prices sky high and restricted where cigarettes and to whom it could be sold to.
Cigarette machines were banned, even in bars and clubs, where no under eighteen year-olds were allowed to be on site.
Then depanneurs were forced to build expensive cases that hid cigarettes from view, another expensive and useless exercise in futility.
All of the above measures have had the unintended effect to drive Quebecers to buy contraband tobacco from Indians, at a much reduced price and bother.

In 2007, it is estimated that 44% of cigarettes sold in Quebec were contraband. A newspaper investigation by the Journal de Montreal indicated that over 20% of the cigarette butts found directly outside the National Assembly in Quebec were contraband. Oh, the hypocrisy!

And so it seems that you cannot control human nature through legislation and at this point, any more restrictions placed on consumers in relation to buying cigarettes, will drive the 44% number even higher!

In certain situations, where citizens have simple options, it's important to understand that the more restrictive the rules, the more law-breaking it encourages.
This is the lesson the government should have minded in making it harder and harder to donate money to politicians legally.

DGE Jacques Drouin,  misguided sap.
Recently the Quebec government did two extraordinarily foolish things, they lowered the maximum permissible donation to $1,000 from $3,000 and then they decided to make public the names of everyone who donates to a political party or candidate.

Both these provisions will have the most extraordinary unintended consequences and will increase fraud and those famous stories of 'brown envelopes'

Now readers, a little maturity.

On this subject, I think I have a little more experience as to what goes on, than the DGE himself, Jacques Drouin.

For many years and as many of you might have guessed from reading this blog, I was a volunteer fundraiser and was privy to a lot of what happened on the inside of a political fundraising machine.

I'm also going to choose my words carefully now.

I never did anything illegal, but that doesn't mean I didn't see things.
As a junior bagman in those days, I tagged along to meetings and dinners, some in those famous Montreal restaurants you read about in the newspapers.
Money was passed between fundraisers and political aides, (never the politicians themselves) and whether it was legal or not was beyond my purview.
It was however the first time I ever saw or became familiar with the term 'Pinkie.' (a thousand dollar bill.)
Readers should understand, that contrary to what the press leads you to believe, the envelopes were never brown or particularly big, you can actually stuff $50,000 in an everyday regular envelope, using pinkies.

I've seen many envelopes passed but never that famous 'brown' one!
By the way, I fully understand why the government in its wisdom removed pinkies from circulation. (later on they were red.)
By the way, the reverse side of the old $1,000 bill featured a picturesque covered bridge from, you guessed it, Quebec!
 
Back then, lobbyists and fundraisers like Karlheinz Schreiber were given a free rein. They had unfettered and free access to Parliament Hill. 
I'm not lying when I say that a lobbyist could drive up to the front door of Parliament Hill, park his car at the curb and tell the guard that he was going to see so and so. Things were a lot different before 9/11.

The access surprised me. When I asked a colleague if he found it strange that a man like Schreiber could waltz into a certain cabinet minister's office as if it was his own, unabashedly offering secretaries Hermes scarves and expensive French perfume, he reminded me of the old adage-
Money talks and bullshit walks!

In those days (less than twenty years ago) things were less structured and believe it or not, giving wads of cash to a politician wasn't necessarily illegal.

Things have changed, the rules have been tightened up, but in the end, nothing is different.
When I started my 'fundraising' career, I was reminded of this phrase over and over again.
"Cash has no provenance."
In other words, get the donation in cash if you can!

So trust me......the money still flows and as long as cash exists, somebody will be handing it over to politicians.

What the government bureaucrats don't understand is that campaign finance laws can only be applied to traceable transactions, they are completely useless when cash is the currency of influence.

As the summer recess of the Charbonneau construction probe arrived, one of the last bombshells was delivered by my friend Jacques Duchesneau who told the disbelieving commission, that 70% of the money given to political parties was done so illegally.
Yikes!!!

Speaking mainly off-the-cuff but partly from prepared notes, Duchesneau told co-commissioners France Charbonneau and Renaud Lachance on Tuesday that a full 70 per cent of political donations in Quebec are being made illegally, without the knowledge of Elections Quebec.  LINK

Jacques Drouin,  the Quebec Directer of Elections, was stunned by the allegation and like a cuckolded husband, the fool seemed to be the last to know!

What did he expect?

The consequence of the new public disclosure rule of donors led to the publishing of the names of those who contributed to the Quebec Liberals by the nationalist RRQ, who used the opportunity to publicly harass the donors by way of intimidating letters sent in the guise of friendly advice.
It was without a doubt, a case of political intimidation extrodinaire! Read the story

The DGE remained stupidly mute in the wake of such an egregious abuse, hiding his head in the ground like the proverbial ostrich.  For shame!

The law was clearly proven to cause more harm than good.

So readers, if you were a Liberal donor, could you see yourself giving money again?
How much easier and less bothersome to pass a brown envelope and to Hell with the tax deduction!

In Quebec, democracy is diminished by over-regulation and the misguided idea that transparency always serves democracy. 
If we are to accept that everyone who makes a donation to a political party should be outed, we should accept that everybody's vote should become public and that our tax return be the subject of open scrutiny.
The other side of transparency is privacy and the election law has destroyed the political finance system by creating a climate of fear for those who donate. 

Limiting contributions to such a pittance ($1,000) and publicly naming those who donate will only lead to more under the table contributions.

Quebecers are the champion cheapskates in Canada when it comes to donation, so adding another barrier is going to drive donations down even further.

As it stands, by my calculations, few individual candidates can run a successful campaign based on what the rules provide.
So where else is a politician going to get the funds he needs to run a decent campaign?

The restrictive rules guarantee dishonesty and demonstrate once again that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Drouin is enforcing rules that will forever perpetuate brown bag financing and like cigarettes, putting up more barriers just sends people over to the illegal side.

Like the fools in the government who run the anti-tabacco campaign, he should learn that more is less and perhaps he and the other public servants and legislators should be required to take an oath similar to doctors....
First do no harm!

56 comments:

  1. First!

    Editor,

    Unlimited donations by any individual or corporation, as is practiced in the United States.

    Would you mind checking your data on this statement? A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that there are limits on donation allowed by individuals, and that corporations and unions are not allowed to donate directly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have a workaround for unlimited donations called Super Pacs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_pac#Super_PACs

      Delete
  2. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/22/in_landmark_campaign_finance_ruling_supreme

    ReplyDelete
  3. Remember the Golden Rule: "He who donates the gold, makes the rules!"

    This is exactly why Obummer couldn't get congress and the senate to pass his tax-the-rich proposal, supposedly that taxes the richest 1% of the population. Who do you think raises 99.75% of the money for political campaigns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about "he who pays the piper calls the tune"?

      Delete
  4. Follow the money...Interstingly enough it cannot be made or spent illegally as their are systems to regulate. For a large company to donate money to a cantidate by cash, the cash has to be accounted for at year end. Of course, if the tax enforcers (revenue Canada) are complicent and wish to turn a blind eye this will happen.

    In short, I agree with the Editor that laws which are too restrictive will be violated. For sure the politicians don't like this as it impedes their fund raising efforts, and of course, at the end of the day there is influence on the bureaucrats who regulate the system..

    Neat little package, isn't it. All politicians are shit-birds as is clearly evidenced over the last few years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you mean like the three $75,000 envelopes (or was it $100,000) Karlheinz Schreiber slapped in Brian "On the Take" Mulroney's hand that Mulroney forgot and then suddenly "remembered" when he was brought before a committee investigating that scandal?

      Lest we forget all those pictures Mulroney had taken with all his entourage and then "donated" them as a gift to Canada giving him a nice tax writeoff.

      Let's face it: Politicians are given a license to print (their own) money.

      The communists have always referred to the American ideology as imperialism. Now the US Supreme Court has confirmed this is what the US now is. Run by the super rich for the super rich. Where the US constitution includes the word "people", replace that with "super rich".

      "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

      Delete
  5. I remember (or should I say Je Me Souviens) the RRQ pulling their little stunt and trying to intimidate Liberal contributors. I also remembered the following detail:

    “What’s worse,” wrote Amyot, “is that both Marois and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe refuse to denounce the RRQ’s dubious political activities.”

    ...that little detail goes on to explain why we have such restrictive political donation laws in the province. The sovereignist side is not favored by the business vote and therefore stands to lose big in a "money showdown."

    We recently heard talk about how the language hawks want corporations like Canadian Tire and Second Cup to convert their trademarks to the French version. With aggravating demands such as those (as well as biting the hand that feeds) the last thing the sovereignists would ever want is for the Canadian Tires and Seconds Cups to donate as much money as they see fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the need be, the Canadian Tires and Second Cups of the world will, and should support those who keep the monkey off their backs. Too bad, though, there aren't any monkeybuster parties in Quebec. Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest hired 26 tongue troopers last year. Remember?

      Delete
    2. Harvey Dent for Premier of QuébecWednesday, July 18, 2012 at 1:11:00 PM EDT

      Actually I had no idea they hired more tongue troopers. But you're right, this province needs someone with balls of steel to step up and serve out the bitchslaps.

      If I were to take the leadership, one of my first orders of business would be to draft the strictest anti-hate/anti-discrimination laws in North America so that organizations like the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and the Mouvement Montréal français are forced to shutdown on the grounds that they promote intolerance, segregation and cultural profiling.

      And after I'm done cleaning house with the separacistes, I'd finally do what so many Québécois openly and secretly wish for --- the abolition of Revenu Québec.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Mr.Sauga est le plus courageux de vous tous,les anglos chialeux.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. Harvey Dent the Hannah BarbarianWednesday, July 18, 2012 at 5:39:00 PM EDT

      Réponse typique d'un séparatiste. En fait, c'est vraiment ton genre qui devrait crisser son camp. While thousands of responsible citizens of Québec are trying to embrace a more common sense approach to reducing the corruption and excessively high taxes that cripple the economy you just keep on ignorantly perceiving fiscal responsibility and economic common sense as some "tight-ass Anglo/American thing."

      So you have two options my little parasite:

      1. Grow a spine and face up to what your narrow-minded separatist movement has caused and move forward to stop whining about what Ottawa and Quebec City can do for you and what you can contribute to the society you helped cripple.

      2. Move to France. French is prevalent there and they just elected a socialist president so out of fucking touch with reality, he wants to tax people who earn $1 million a year to the tune of 70%.

      Delete
    7. Vive François Hollande!Nous nous contenterons de Madame Marois...Pour l'instant,petits droiteux :)

      Delete
    8. Harvey Dent...Helping you swallow the ugly truth since '77Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 5:56:00 PM EDT

      Ah oui, notre p'tite Pauline, la socialiste: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1ZwfktNvAMI/Tu0fazvZNtI/AAAAAAAAAfI/nac88ldrPL0/s1600/5874384.jpg

      T'as besoins de faire face a ton hypocrisie. Les séparacites seront toujours le problème et non la solution.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. Pas évi...Dent d'être un droiteux au Québec mon Harvey?...MDR!

      Delete
    11. Ben non, j'aimerai bein avoir mon propre château...sans prétension d'être gauchiste. Mais même les partisans de la souveraineté dois l'avouer - Pauline Marois n'est pas une "rouge" and for that matter, she's a horrible person. She stabbed Gilles Duceppe in the back. Even for a federalist like me, that's cold.

      Delete
    12. Harvey: You're giving the trolls a wall to bounce their ball of gibborish. Ignore them because responding is what they want you to do.

      Next, do realize this ball of manure has been rolling from a baseball to a medicine ball to a boulder and now to the size of an asteroid, maybe a whole planet. The PQ, when elected in 1976, not only encouraged anti-minority rhetoric, but contributed directly to the problem as well. It has taken 35 years or so to reach this point, and of course the stench of manure increases when there is more of it around.

      What sickens me more than anything else is the so-called federalists, the PLQ, started this manure with Bill 22 in 1974, a full 2½ years before the PQ was elected. Next, in his second iteration, Bou-bou Bourassa comes around again with Bill 178, i.e., 22 + 178 = 200. Bourassa screwed the minorities 100% x 2!

      Next, your current gonadless leader, none other than Premier John James "Goldilocks" Charest, replaces Bill 104 (let's call it the "Tweedledum" law) with a carbon copy (let's call it the "Tweedledee" law). Tweedledum, Tweedledee; to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to; po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to; anti-minority party #1, anti-minority party #2, anti-minority party #3...same old s--t, different name, bigger stench.

      Conclusion: All Québécois «pur laine» are separatists, except for the needles you can find in that ilk of a haystack. The more things change in Quebec, the more they stay the same. Think Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,....Quebec. Backward, backward, backward.

      Delete
    13. Harvey Dent could use a Harvey's burger right now.Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 6:26:00 PM EDT

      @OQLF - non, pas pour l'instant...mais le Québec a déja fait preuve d'une faim pour le changement. Eric Duhaime pour premier ministre!

      Delete
    14. I agree with MrSauga, you shouldn't waste your time replying to the resident troll.
      This is the same person who claims that tourists shouldn't come to Quebec unless they're fluent in french... He's not trying to discuss or debate with you, he's just being a typical troll. You'll never get more than a one line answer from this guy.
      Either that or he has a learning disability. You never know!

      People here complaint about Yannick and Michel Patrice, but at least they are willing to actually have a debate and they will give you good honest arguments to defend their ideas, even if you don't agree with them.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    17. Harvey Dent...But you can call me MisterWednesday, July 18, 2012 at 6:34:00 PM EDT

      Mr. Sauga, I agree the spes are looking for a fight and I admit to being prone to giving them what they want.

      I'm afraid I have to disagree with your statement that all Québécois <> are separatists. I've met quite a few unilingual francophones who've never ventured out of the province in their lives exhibit very open hearts and minds.

      It's funny really because when you think of some of the so-called urban separatist "sophistocrats" they probably laugh at those "rednecks" for their "lack of sophistication" but in the end those "rednecks" could probably give them some major schooling on the topic of true joie de vivre and accepting others for who they are.

      But you are right about Québec being our Alabama. We have a severe outward-perception deficit.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    21. Dent, no point in arguing with the hardcore racists, they are hopeless. When you confront them with comments made by a racist like Curzi, they deem it “unfortunate“ or a “dumb mjoke.“ when you confront them with the most disgusting elements of Bill 593 they hide behind the protection of french. You‘ll get called a racist or a rhodesian and mocked for being an oppressed anglo. They hide behind this like cowards. I‘ve seen them mostly on social media and arguing with them is enough to make one feel as pissed off as Mr. Sauga (not an insult man, I feel your anger).

      Delete
    22. How about Bill 63 done by a Union Nationale government? Seems like just about every party that's ever held power in the Quebec legislature since Confederation -- perhaps with the notable historical exception of the Conservative Party of Quebec -- has passed a law on language...

      Delete
    23. Thanks James. Unfortunately I know these types very well. In some ways I feel sorry for some of them because they couldn't help turning out that way...after all if you have parents that think like Pierre Falardeau, you're almost guaranteed to turn out socially retarded.

      "Now you see Jean-Lucien, the reason daddy's been a janitor for 40 years, has both an ulcer and a drinking problem is because of Anglo Canada. It's the neo-British dogs that did this to daddy."

      Delete
    24. I actually got into it with one racist who said 101 should be extended to post secondary because francophones don‘t master their language until those years. I was like “wow, why would you insult the capabilities of your own people like that?“ next he finally allowed that if they fixed the school system that those kids could be “permitted“ to so long as they pass a french test. Permitted? These are young adults we are talking about! These losers want governemaman clamping down on every aspect of their lives. Its all about “collective“ rights. It fucking reeks of fascism.

      Delete
    25. " - Now you see, Peter, daddy will bring the family to Ontario. Since we're anglos, I can't get a job in Quebec civil service.
      - But, dad, what about that job opening in Rimouski.
      - No Peter, Rimouski is full of xenophobic unilingual french speakers. This place is a futureless failure because, you know Peter, these people don't have the work ethic that we have. We are moving to Ontario, this is what these racist bastards did to us."

      Please, do not bother pointing out that this little play full of prejudices, odious, contemptuous and inflammatory. It is, I know. See this as an exercice of style. I wanted to write something that would underline the subtle prejudices that one can read between the lines of Mr. Dent's Jean-Lucien piece. You know, la poutre et la paille (what is that in english? my english religious lexicon is limited...)

      ---
      (I unfortunetaly missed the Separatist at Radio-Canada post. I would suggest to the Editor to do something on the separatists factory that we call schools and something on teaching history in Québec (anglo and franco vision of history). These would be, I believe, very rich themes.)

      ---
      Mr Dent, you seem fond of Falardeau. Quick quizz : who wrote that Pierre Falardeau was "a likeable and talented artist, with a rakish sense of humour and an impish smile"?

      Delete
    26. So Patrice, you dismiss the personal experiences of those like me who went to those Québécois Separatists Factories that you call schools as mythology in order to prop up you racist self? I hope that if Editor ever does cover your RACIST “schools”, he seeks the testimonial of people like me who attended!
      I can tell you this; the more you speak, the more you prove what a NeoTerrorist supporter you are!!

      Delete
    27. GensDenis,

      I am not dismissing your personnal experiences. I am saying that the Québec schools theme would be a very rich theme to explorate. You will have plenty to say about it and it will be interesting. (If you actually went to french school and attended our history classes, for instance, it will be even more interesting.) I have some ideas about it too, ideas that we will probably not all agree on, which will be interesting too.

      By rich theme, I mean a theme that will foster a lot of discussion.

      Editor,

      I once thought that I could provide copies of the tables of contents of my daughter's history books, or relevant parts of those books. Someone else could provide parts of anglos's history books. That would be a interesting starting point. Unfortunately, during summertime, those books are at school...)

      Delete
    28. Even for a federalist like me, that's cold.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Harvey Harvey Harvey Dent....
      Love that district attorney!

      Delete
    29. Quick quiz: who called David Suzuki a “bearded little Jap“?

      Delete
    30. I don't know much about propaganda in quebec schools but it's something you should keep an eye on.
      Check out this kindergarten in the Gaza,

      http://acidcow.com/pics/34903-kindergarten-graduation-in-gaza-7-pics.html

      Delete
    31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. Élections : le PLQ s'inquiète des intentions de la CLASSE

    http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/18/elections-plq-dge-classe_n_1681720.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-quebec

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a word for this: NeoTerrorism.

      It will have to stop somewhere. Involve the army.

      Delete
    2. No need for that. Just cut off their main source of funding: the unions. Nobody wants to admit it, but the unions are at the heart of nearly every major problem this province has faced over the past few years..

      Without any (questionable) funds like they are receiving now, these terrorist student organizations would not be able to survive and they wouldn't receive nearly as much media attention.

      At the same time, you'd be dealing a huge blow to the PQ, and it would take care of the corruption issues for the most part.

      In fact, is there any valid reason for which the unions are using their members funds to finance these organizations?

      Unfortunately, unionized workers are brainwashed into thinking their union is helping them (right former employees of Shell, Electrolux, Aleris, ...?), and anyone who speaks out against unions is a "dirty capitalist who doesn't care about the poor workers"..
      It's quite similar to the separatists actually, if you don't agree with their ideas, you're a damn federalist who wants to destroy this province and who doesn't deserve to live here. No wonder the two go hand in hand..

      Not that I agree with their way of doing things, but I'd be curious to see what would be done with these groups of students, who are willing to go as far as paralyzing our transportation networks, if they were in the states..

      Delete
    3. Yes Moofo,
      The word is: NeoTerrorism and the poster boy is Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois!

      Quebecker of Tree Stump is right. The key is the unions but not all unions, just QC public sector unions. Private unions have to face the equalizer when going on strike witch is a company bankruptcy. Public unions are a conflict of interest because governments can’t prove that they can’t afford to up the ante since they have the power to tax. In QC this problem reaches critical mass when the public unions are lead by racists whose job it is to create un coup d'état!

      This brings us back to the NeoTerrorist, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. I heard that a documentary is in the works which will expose many of his death threats toward the QC Premier, Jean Charest along with his many actions and statements witch promote intolerance, segregation and cultural profiling as Mr. Dent would put it.
      From what I understand, a website will be lunched where concerned and disgusted citizens would post evidence which the filmmakers would use in the “Documentaire Realite” style movie. This should try this maggot in the public eye. I think even if he tries to retract and hide things he’s done, his racist Québécois NeoTerrorist goose is cooked!!

      Delete
    4. Agreed. We need to investigate the "corruption" and "collusion" in the trade-union/student union milieu.

      Charbonneau commission for the construction people
      Law 78 for the students' unions...

      Not too hard to see why there's been so much aversion to both...

      Delete
    5. Can't believe I didn't bring this up earlier, but if you want to fry Nadeau-Dubois, help fund the case against him: http://www.outragenadeaudubois.com/

      I've already donated money.

      If you have trouble reading the site copy, the purpose of this site is help a "green" student fund a suit he filed against Nadeau-Dubois for inciting the "reds" to block his entry to school and to have students bully him for even trying.

      Should we get the right judge on the case, a verdict in favor of the green student could actually see Nadeau-Dubois going to jail for a while.

      Delete
    6. Quebecker of Tree Stump: "Unfortunately, unionized workers are brainwashed into thinking their union is helping them (right former employees of Shell, Electrolux, Aleris, ...?), and anyone who speaks out against unions is a "dirty capitalist who doesn't care about the poor workers".."

      Ironically, both assumptions here are correct. That unions as they function today do not help unionized workers as much as they help the politicized union management (and actually hurt the non-unionized workforce, by treating it as competition and keeping it outside any gains made by the unions), and that capitalists still don't care about workers and they never will (worker's welfare is and always will be an anti-thesis of capitalism. Marx got that one right).

      Delete
  7. I say the next government who will take over power in the upcoming election, will be a minority government as it's shown in the polls and hardly picture marois becoming the prime minister of this province since she's just nothing but an old ugly washed up hag that will cause further damage in all provincial sstems !!


    btw,going off to an irrelevant question to the topic... can somebody exactly tell me who exactly built those "greystone"(gray nun siters, united church, le "greystone condominum) buildings in Montreal because I'm struggling to figure if it is of Scottish, French or English origin or just typically Montrealer??? Now, don't confuse them with the ones you see in the old part of montreal because I know they're of french origin(the buildings that have chimney on sides of the outside walls)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry I meant to say system not "sstem"

      Delete
  8. The world is getting scary when I start nodding in complete agreement with Normand Lester.

    An interesting commentary of his on the CLASSE here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here.
      Does he ever hit the nail on the head about the left wing of fascism. They think if they hide behind the label “progressive“ they will escape this. They have to be called out on it.

      Delete
  9. La Commission des droits de la personne dénonce la loi 78

    http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/dossiers/conflit-etudiant/201207/19/01-4557149-la-commission-des-droits-de-la-personne-denonce-la-loi-78.php

    Tiens donc!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same commission that is dead silent on the abuse of anglophone minority rights?Give me a break.

      Delete
  10. "La Commission des droits de la personne dénonce la loi 78"

    And the United Nations denounced Bill 101.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did you think about exchanging with the best Bitcoin exchange service: YoBit.

    ReplyDelete