Battle for Canadiens Turns in Gillett's Favour

It seems that the sale of the Canadiens is finally going to happen sometimes next week and don't be surprised if the price is higher than predicted.

Every buyer dreams of having competing groups in a bidding war that sends the value of what is being sold beyond it's intrinsic value.

The current situation in relation to the sale of the Canadiens has Bell and Quebecor in a desperate fight that is less about owning the team than it is about preserving or enhancing the value of their broadcast assets.

The fact that the interests of both parties goes way beyond the actual value of the team augers well for Gillett.

Bell cannot allow Quebecor to buy the team from under them, as it would spell disaster for it's RDS network and perhaps Bell Expressvu, the satellite network.

Should Quebecor buy the team, it would certainly move the team's broadcasts over to it's TVA network or worse still, start it's own sports network that would showcase the Canadiens, rendering RDS virtually worthless.

By law, the TVA network, as a basic service, is obliged to provide Bell Expressvu it's signal for free.
By switching to a new sports network of it's own (unregulated), Quebecor can chose not to sell the channel to satellite providers and could carry it exclusively on it's own cable network, thus forcing fans to abandon satellite for cable.

For Quebecor, owning the Canadiens means that it's media network could get exclusive Canadiens content for it newspapers, television and soon to be, cell phone network.
It's a match made in heaven.

By owning the Bell Centre (it would become Centre Quebecor), the company can direct the lion's share of the advertising dollars in relation to shows and events into it's own newspapers and television assets, a synergistic dream come true.

All of this means that the team itself is more valuable to Bell or Quebecor than it is to an individual owner, like the Molson family and that will send the price soaring.

In this battle of titans, let's hope that Quebecor loses to Bell. The track record of the latter is ruthless.

Ownership of the Canadiens has always been considered a sacred trust and although Gillett has been a model owner, fans were nervous about someone outside the province owning the team.

If they are looking at Quebecor's Pierre-Karl Peladeau as a savior who'd buy the team and run it as a public trust, forget it.

He has a nasty history of squeezing every division for maximum profits. Quebecor World was sent into bankruptcy when it was obvious it was not longer viable. His lock-out of Journal de Quebec journalists is based solely on increased profits, not survival.

If Peladeau acquires the Canadiens, it will be to make money, as much as he can.

He will no doubt raise ticket prices and squeeze advertisers. The very worst case scenario is that he'll turn the team's broadcasts into a combination of pay-per-view or start a rival sports network that would charge much higher access fees than RDS.

Peladeau is immune to public pressure and is a fighter by nature. It's likely that the team will be milked mercilessly at the expense of fans and advertisers.

On the other hand Bell wouldn't change things much, with it's goal being to preserve what it already has. Riding rough over fans would negatively affect their other business divisions.

If I was a betting man, I choose Bell as the eventual winner, losing to Quebecor would be unacceptable and heads would roll in senior management.

Canadiens fan should hope that I'm right.

Quebec is Protectionist Too

While newspapers and politicians decry protectionist measures in the US, we should perhaps look at our own buy-local program.

While Raymond Bachand, Quebec Minister of Finance complains that American protectionism may cost Quebec 70,000 jobs, our province is not exactly the best of free-traders.


Both Canada and the United States are both signatories to the AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT (GPA), which means that they cannot discriminate against suppliers based on country of origin or organize buy-local programs on their own behalf.

Canadian provinces and American states are not bound by this agreement unless they specifically announce that they will voluntarily abide by it's provisions. Thirty-seven American states have agreed to do so, but no Canadian province has made the commitment.

While Mr Bachand complains about American protectionism, his government is right in the middle of a $14 million advertising campaign urging Quebeckers to buy local agricultural and food products. Local radio stations in Montreal are also running public service announcements encouraging their listeners to buy-local.

As protectionist sentiment rises, companies are jumping on the bandwagon. 'Oasis' brand orange juice is already running a television ad urging Quebeckers to save local jobs, by buying their juice. (although I can't understand how orange juice qualifies as a 'local' product)

The real problem is sentiment, not law. Most of the protectionism is a result of misguided patriotism. The fever to buy 'American' is a result of the deep crisis in the US economy. These sentiments crop during every depression and Canada is not exempt. How many times does our Quebec government give local business' the edge with a wink and a nod?

Canadians are always quick to accuse the Americans of trading unfairly. When the US imposed duties on soft-wood lumber, the politicians and the industry screamed blue murder and slung all sorts of accusations of unfair trade across the border.

This year, without much fanfare, those countervailing duties were upheld by the WTO. The Amercian assertion that we unfairly subsidize soft wood lumber was accepted by the tribunal as true.
Somehow, that uncomfortable turn of events didn't make front page headlines.

Before we call for boycotts, let us not claim that we are guiltless. Trade restrictions between our provinces themselves are so severe that it is practically impossible to get a provincial government contract if you are not a local company.

There are signs that cooler heads are prevailing south of the border. The American Chamber of Commerce has already gone on record as opposed to buy-American programs.

Let's not fan the flames of protectionism, it's a war that we cannot win.

Instead of advocating for more buy-local programs, we should destroy those programs that we have.

Ottawa has the legislative authority to ban inter-provincial trade barriers and should act to ban all buy-local programs by provincial governments.

Only then, will we have the moral authority to demand the same of the Americans.

Harel sets Stage For Race & Language Battle in Mayoral Election

With Louise Harel throwing her hat into the ring for this fall's mayoral race, the stage is set for a nasty war between nationalist francophones on one side and a rainbow coalition of francophone federalists, ethnics and anglos on the other side.

The first straw poll taken by Montreal's CFCF channel 12 last night indicated that the battle lines are clear. Harel is going to get zero support in the anglo and ethnic communities.

If Mayor Tremblay plays his cards right and convinces the ethnics and anglos to vote en masse , he'll overcome his disastrous performance of late. For the mayor, Mme. Harel is like manna from heaven, he couldn't ask for a better opponent.

This election will the most negative campaign ever undertaken in Montreal, complete with attack ads and dirty tricks.

There will be but one central issue. Will the sovereignists or the federalists run the city. Nothing else will matter.
Municipal elections have historically low voter turnout rates. The winning side will be the one who convinces their constituency that the sky is falling.

Take a Ride with Urgence Santé

Here's a video of what it's like to answer an Urgence Santé call with lights flashing and siren blaring.

It's pretty scary.

Count how many idiot drivers react badly or not at all to the siren.

I wonder how many accidents they get into a year.

I once saw a senior citizen plow his fifteen year-old Cadillac into an ambulance on Van Horne & MacDonald. I stopped to be a witness for the ambulance driver. When the driver asked the old guy if he saw the lights and heard the siren, the senior complained that he had the right of way, since his light was green. Arghh....

If you like this sort of stuff, here's a link to see other Montreal emergency vehicles in action.

Quebec's Pay Equity Blunder

Regardless of political stripe, nobody can argue against the principle of equal pay for equal work. It's a simple concept. In a group of workers where everyone does essentially the same task, everyone should be paid equally. Not exactly rocket science. Demanding that employers respect this principle is reasonable and fair and the government can't be faulted for demanding it.

Unfortunately that's not what pay equity is about in Quebec.

Last week, the Quebec Parliament unanimously passed an amendment extending the application of the pay equity legislation to companies with as few as 10 employees. The legislation will force small business' to implement the costly and onerous measures called for in the law without any discernible benefits to women employees. All this at a time when the economy is in recession and small business' are being squeezed by the banks.

Political leaders have demonstrated their utter ignorance and contempt towards this segment of the economy that is the most important contributor to our economic prosperity.

Unaware and unconcerned with the havoc that they have unleashed and the harm that they will bring to the workplace and the economy, the 107 members of Parliament are busy patting themselves on the back for advancing the cause of women's rights.

It is as if we live in a alternate universe. A province where the recession doesn't exist and where market forces, competition and reality don't matter.

The iron grip that the women's movement holds over the our politicians is so powerful that not one member of the assembly had the guts to rise up and declare that the pay equity legislation already in place, is flawed and unfair.

Imposing this law on small business' is shear lunacy.

Why?
Because the pay equity legislation is socialistic attempt to control company's ability to compensate employees as they see fit. It makes the presumption that all women are underpaid and that every employer is an exploiter.

The PAY EQUITY ACT is so draconian that it must have been written by the most militant of feminists, it practically drips with male-bashing hatred. The language of the law is clear and Clause 1 of the Act says it all.

"1.The purpose of this Act is to redress differences in compensation due to the systemic gender discrimination suffered by persons who occupy positions in predominantly female job classes."

Every employer that has a group of employees that is largely female is deemed an exploiter by default, period. The guide provided to employers by the Pay Equity Commission makes no bones about it.

'GUIDE FOR ACHIEVING PAY EQUITY IN ENTERPRISES WITH 10 TO 49 EMPLOYEES'

"YOUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PAY EQUITY ACT;

As an employer whose enterprise employs 10 to 49 employees, you must:

• determine the compensation adjustments needed to achieve pay equity;

Not content to demand equal pay for equal work for individuals, the government decided to stretch the bounds of credulity by imposing pay equity for job classes. That's right, job descriptions.

How does it work?
The legislation demands that employers look a your job and decide whether it is 'male' or 'female' by nature. If you work as a telephone operator, the government assumes it's a female job because most of those holding the job are female. It doesn't matter that some of the operators are male. From here the government presumes that this group (and all other 'female' groups) has been subject to discrimination and demands that the company determine what pay adjustment should be made to redress discrimination.

Pay equity isn't about paying all the operators both male and female equally, it's a fantasy where employers are forced to divided employees into groups, decide whether the group is 'female' or 'male' by nature and then evaluate the relative contribution made by these groups to the company's bottom line. If, for example the 'female' group of telephone operators is deemed to contribute as much as the 'male' group of, say telephone installers, then they need to be paid the same. If the women are paid less, a pay equity adjustment needs to be made to all operators including the males.

The interpretation of who is who, what is what and which equals which, is so complicated that it takes an army of accountants and actuaries to do an accurate assessment, one that is subjective and ultimately open to interpretation. In fact the government already assumes that workers will object to the company's determination and has empanelled a review board to adjudicate.

While big companies can deal with these issues, they have the staff and deep pockets, how can you apply this principle to a company with just 10 employees?

How can a company with ten people compare groups, where no groups exist?

The provisions in the law to determine pay equity for these small groups is so stupid that it reeks of Orwellian fantasy.

The government has failed to consider the following;

• It is well nigh impossible for a small business to undertake the crushing paperwork demanded by the legislation and being forced to hire a professional consultant, at thousands of dollars, is unfair.
  
• It is impossible to compare salaries based on classes of jobs, when there are so few employees to compare.
  
• Small business' don't have the capacity to increase salaries anyway. If the government was fair, they'd allow companies to lower salaries of groups considered 'favoured ' to achieve parity.
  
• The provisions that require posting a sign in the workplace that tells women that they are exploited, can only contribute to a hostile work environment.
• Regardless of intentions, the program is a waste of time, small business' just won't pay. If it means arranging their affairs differently, that's what they'll do, including firing women or reducing their workforce to under ten employees by contracting out.
• In a small business, employees work closely with the owner and creating conflict is not in the best interest of anyone. For every employee who complains and seeks redress under the law, there will be 100 complainers who will be punished for 'unrelated' reasons. In the case of pay equity complaints, there is no black and white for a complainer. They can expect a long and punishing judicial process, which may in the end garner them a raise of 3% or 4%. Nobody but a zealot would pursue such a self-destructive course of action.

If you are a women working for a small company, don't hold your breath for a raise.
Complain about pay equity at you own peril.

As for the Quebec government, continuing to enact absurd and costly social and language legislation makes Quebec the most unattractive destination in North America for a company to locate in.

One day, the rest of Canada will wake up and refuse to subsidize these Quebec programs that are too rich for them to implement in their own province.