How Gilles Duceppe Betrayed Quebec

If there's one thing agreed upon by just about all political parties, including federal politicians, it is that the sovereignty issue will be decided in Quebec by Quebeckers alone. 

The Bloc Quebecois themselves admit that Ottawa is not the locale to promote sovereignty and describe their presence in the national Parliament, as an effort to defend Quebec's interests.

Much has been said and written about the appropriateness and the utility of a regional party dedicated to the interests of one particular province acting on the federal scene. But, nobody can deny that the presence of the Bloc in Ottawa irks the rest of Canada to no end and on a certain level, to many Quebeckers, that fact alone is justification for the Bloc's presence in Ottawa.

Appropriate or not, the inescapable truth is that the presence of the Bloc in Parliament  remains a powerful symbol of Quebec's dissatisfaction with the political status quo, particularly in regards to the constitutional issue.
In this regard, the Bloc accomplishes its mission just by showing up, and while many complain that it is a waste, the party's presence in the House of Commons is a powerful and painful reminder that Canada remains an unfinished product

Undeniably, the Bloc dérange...

But as successful as the party is, in achieving their primary mission of 'annoying' Canada, the Bloc's alter mission, to protect and advance the interests of Quebec, has been an abject failure that has cost the province dearly.

One of the knocks against the Bloc, is the notion that by sitting in opposition, they can hardly bring 'home the bacon.' It is widely held that real influence can only be achieved by having a large representation in the sitting government of the day, albeit federalist.

But for well nigh twenty years, enough Quebeckers have made the choice not to follow that course and because of the split in the federalist vote, the Bloc has been able to slide in with representation, far exceeding its electorial support, winning about two-thirds of the available Quebec seats with under 40% of the vote.

For the first ten years of it's existence the Bloc faced a Liberal majority government and could hardly effect any change at all. Facing off against their nemesis, Jean Chretien, the party wandered the opposition benches like the lost tribe of Israel roaming the desert, essentially wasting time and political capital. In this respect they were no different than the other opposition parties, especially the NDP, a party not dissimilar to the Bloc, perennial losers doomed to collect splinters on the opposition benches, heckling and moaning, as Shakespeare described- "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

There was nothing the Bloc could do in the face of a majority government, but with the arrival of successive minority governments, the Bloc was presented with a golden opportunity to produce tangible results.

Instead they sat on their hands and delivered nothing.

Perhaps Mr. Duceppe followed a strategy that dictated that it was wiser to let the Quebec 'situation' deteriorate, in the hope that it would ultimately lead to those chimerical 'winning conditions.'  After all, one might argue,  if Duceppe managed to wring a host of concessions out of Ottawa, the urgency of sovereignty would certainly dissipate.
If this was his aim, he achieved his goal magnificently, though I don't think that most Quebeckers envisaged nor approved of this type of a strategy.

This current election is proof that the Bloc follows a mindless and bankrupt philosophy that reminds me of a stubbornly spoilt child, who shakes his head vigorously and shouts 'NO!' to anything and everything offered by an appeasing parent.

Mr. Duceppe's unrealistic and very public demand that Harper cough up 5 billion dollars in goodies in order to win Bloc support for the budget was never serious and was in fact an 'in-your-face' call for an election.

Why? To what end?
Instead of going off into a quiet corner to do a hush-hush deal with the Conservatives that would keep the current government in power, in exchange for some tangible goodies for Quebec, the Bloc chose to go to the polls, where the very best that they could hope for was to be back in Ottawa, in the exact same position that they were before, but WITHOUT the goodies!
Does that make sense?

Would Harper do a deal with the Bloc? ......Of course he would.

In exchange for solid support and the promise of a long political life, Mr. Harper would sell his children. That's the nature of our politicians. Look at the Liberals and the Ndp, who were both ready to sign a very public devil's pact with the Bloc. Political whores, the lot of them.

There's a host of issues that the Bloc would be interested in, where they could actually win concessions if they made a commitment not to bring down the government.

As for a shopping list, I can think of these issues, near and dear to the Bloc, where the Conservatives could bend, without even appearing to be pandering to Quebec.

First and foremost, the Bloc could bargain for a commitment to slash Canada's disastrous immigration, a policy which is doing more to destroy the Quebec position in Canada than anything else.  Each year Canada allows over 250,000 immigrants to enter Canada, double or triple what other Western democracies allow and with 90% of these immigrants assimilating into the English side of the language equation, the ongoing damage to Quebec's demographic position is irreparable. Interestingly, there would be little opposition to this move in the rest of the country, and the policy could be enacted administratively and thus without the spectre of a political storm.

Secondly, the Bloc could get an unofficial commitment that Quebec would get it's fair share of federal contracts (plus more,) something it always had taken as a given, but as of late has slipped dramatically. Again this commitment would be administrative and not be subject to a vote in Parliament.

Thirdly, a commitment not to arbitrarily change the demographic weight of Quebec's representation in Parliament, something Harper planned to do. In exchange for the Blocs cooperation, Harper could easily drop the project, another easy trade-off.
The Bloc could also win a concession not to cut political subsidies, perhaps the most frightening of all scenarios to a party that is three times more dependent on the public subsidy than its closest competitor. Link

All of this and much more could be achieved with a little quiet cooperation, secret back room dealings and honest to goodness, old fashioned political horse-trading.

All these goodies could be had in exchange for a commitment not to bring down the government, a good deal considering that any new election changes nothing for the Bloc.

Why Mr Duceppe has chosen to tread water instead of doing something constructive for Quebec remains a mystery.

His actions in triggering the latest election is an unpardonable betrayal of all Quebeckers, both federalist and sovereignist.
Instead of taking the steak he went for the sizzle and as Chantal Hebert said in a recent column, Duceppe is a dog that has traded his bite for a louder bark.

Further reading:  

Does the Bloc Quebecois Want to Succeed or Fail?

Gilles Duceppe Queers Any Chance of Arena Subsidy

Vigile.net Deserves to be Heard

I cannot say that I agree with a lot of the opinions found on Vigile.net and particularly in the 'Tribune Libre' section.
But even if I were opposed to every single article, I would defend its right to publish.

Open and free debate is essential to any democratic society and listening to opinions, even those that make your skin crawl, is an essential element. Have we forgotten our civics lessons?
Free speech is a principle easy to espouse, but one that takes maturity to embrace in practice.

I remember the sad case of David Ahenakew a Native leader who made a most thoroughly racist rant to a reporter, including his opinion that Hitler was just trying to "clean up Europe" when he "fried six million of those guys."
Clearly a kook and off his rocker, he was vilified in the press, stripped of his honours and then finally dragged through the courts by the Crown for years until he finally dropped dead. It was clearly a case of overkill of a sad pathetic man.
While Mr. Ahenekew got what was coming to him in the press, I deplore the over-reaction by the government. It was clearly a case of politically correct overkill.

If I can defend a character like Mr. Ahenekew, I certainly will defend Vigile.net.

Did Vigile.net publish antisemitic opinions?
The Canada-Israel committee believed it did and it exercised its democratic right to complain. The reaction to that complaint in the Press and media was also an expression of free opinion, with some supporting Vigile.net, most not so much.

Mr. Frappier, the webmaster, reacted by removing some content. Others would have hoped he'd act more forcefully, but it is his right to do as his conscious and principles dictate.
At any rate, what remains is content no worse than found on other websites across Canada and I don't hear a great big hullabaloo over other so-called 'offensive' posts found elsewhere.

Today comes news that the Canadian Shia Muslim Organization has re-posted on its front page,  a thoroughly distasteful video by notorious American White Supremacist and antisemite David Duke. If perchance the video disappears you can find the original here on YouTube.

And so one wonders if politicians will rise in Parliament to denounce this clearly hateful piece with the same vim and vigour that we observed in the Vigile.net affair.

Now we get word that Vigile.net is subject to a $500,000 defamation lawsuit and I cannot help but fear that it may be an effort to restrain free expression.

In our system of justice, when one is without the substantial financial resources needed to defend oneself, the process of getting sued is in most respects more painful than the outcome. Most cases are dropped after the complainant has made his point and exacted his pound of flesh in the guise of debilitating legal expenses.

While I'm not commenting on this case in particular, (I don't even know who the principle is) suing for defamation is an act of aggression meant to punish, more than it is an effort to re-establish one's good name (if that is even possible.)
When convicted cheaters and crooks can sue for defamation (with zero chance of winning), it is open season on anyone that challenges the rich and powerful. It's just a matter of using deep financial resources to inflict pain.

Vigile.net has a right to be heard. If others disagree with the content or believe that certain opinions go beyond acceptable bounds, they should speak out.
Our system is pretty good at exposing the truth, whatever it may be. People can and will make their own minds up about the site, after all views are heard.

Mr. Frappier walks a fine line and publishes some articles that others may find offensive. He should expect a vigorous response and shouldn't moan about being attacked by those who disagree. That reaction is part of the game.

That being said, heavy-handed and shamefully politically motivated attacks in the National Assembly should be denounced.
Lawsuits meant to inflict financial pain (I have no idea if the above-mentioned suit is such) in an effort to stifle opinion, should be rejected by all.

Writing to defend a political opponent is always difficult, but I cannot in good conscious stand by and watch a political lynching.

I know that if each of us who is in a position to do so doesn't stand up for free speech, it will disappear.

Today Vigile.net.....Tomorrow me.
and next week......you!

The Jewish Lobby Revisited

Click HERE for original page

I archive a lot of articles and snippets that I find while scanning what is probably 1,000 articles a day.
Every now and then I go through my RRS Reader to try and get rid of the stuff that is no longer pertinent.
Recently I came across the original post on Vigile.net by our good friend Robert Barberis-Gervais, which was the subject of much debate over accusations of antisemitism.

Now when the shit hit the fan whole affair broke into the mainstream press, the webmaster of Vigile.net, Mr. Bernard Frappier, removed some of the content from the contentious posts, inserting a note that certain parts were redacted because they were 'controversial.'

But the Internet being what it is, nothing is ever really lost and trying to get rid of something that you published, is like trying to put the genie back into the bottle.

And so I'm going to put back into the permanent Internet record exactly what he wrote, without the redactions. I've also provided a translation so that those without French can get a sense of the complete article as originally published.
The yellow part is what was redacted.

The Jewish lobby is responsible for the Michaud affair in 2000 and 2010

If the rich Jews of Montreal and Laval treat Francophone Quebeckers like Palestinians without respecting their right to self-determination, (and their language and own culture) with the same contempt as the Jews of Israel who have all the rights, while the Palestinians have none, it's high time that the truth be told.

I'm speaking of the Jews that summoned Lucien Bouchard to a meeting. I'm talking about Jews who got Lucien Bouchard all in a lather because some members of the Parti Quebecois protested because the Minister of Education was ready to change the universal pedagogical schedule to satisfy certain Jewish schools, which served as a pretext to mount a crisis against Pauline Marois. Lucien Bouchard, who is one of those responsible for the Michaud affair, is now working in a Jewish law firm, making lots of money by denying his own.

Lawyers like Jean Charest and Lucien Bouchard dragged the National Assembly into committing an injustice which denied an honourable private citizen his right to be heard. Like in Palestine where Jews deny Palestinians their rights by advancing their own interests before anything else.
 What was Mr. Michaud's crime? His crime was to question the unanimous political behaviour of the Jewish community who acted against Quebec independence. The Jews immediately viewed Mr. Michaud as an enemy. And their spokesman Lawrence Bergman made ​​a motion to humiliate he who dared to stand up to them at the expense of his right to be heard and to defend himself. For the Jewish lobby, it was of no importance. They had to destroy their adversary, It's wasn't important to respect his rights. That was the year 2000

Later on, when he became the"Robin Hood" of banks, Yves Michaud continued to thwart the interests of the Jewish lobby. It was therefore necessary to continue to humiliate him by arranging for the National Assembly to not acknowledge its mistake when it  unanimously passed the motion of December 14, 2000. The Jewish lobby, by funding the Liberal Party and for being a dominant economic force is responsible for the first Michaud affair of 2000 and the second Michaud case of 2010.

The Palestinians of the New World and one of its leaders, Yves Michaud, must understand once and for all that there is a big price to pay when you attack the Jewish lobby.

Yves Michaud continues to fight and remains un-intimidated by the Jewish lobby. Without denying anything I wrote so far, I say he deserves our support.

Here is the original French version.

"Le lobby juif est responsable de l'Affaire Michaud en 2000 et en 2010.

Si donc les riches Juifs de Montréal et de Laval traitent les Québécois français comme des Palestiniens sans respecter leur droit à l'autodétermination (et à leur langue et leur culture propre) avec le même mépris puisque les Juifs d'Israël ont tous les droits et que les Palestiniens n'ont aucun droit, il est grandement temps de dire la vérité : c'est le lobby juif qui s'appuie sur l'argent qu'il donne au Parti libéral et sur l'argent qu'il contrôle dans les banques et ailleurs dans la société qui est responsable de l'affaire Michaud.

Je parle des Juifs qui ont convoqué Mario Dumont à une rencontre. Je parle des Juifs qui font que Lucien Bouchard s'excite le poil de jambes parce que des députés du Parti québécois protestent parce que la ministre de l'Education est prête à changer le régime pédagogique et l'horaire prévu pour tout le monde pour accommoder quelques écoles juives ce qui sert de prétexte à Lucien Bouchard pour faire une crise contre Pauline Marois. Lucien Bouchard qui a été un des responsables de l'affaire Michaud travaille actuellement dans un bureau d'avocats juifs, fait beaucoup d'argent et renie les siens.

Des avocats comme Jean Charest et Lucien Bouchard, pour plaire au lobby juif, ont entraîné l'Assemblée nationale dans une injustice qui a privé un citoyen honorable de son droit à être entendu. Comme en Palestine où les Juifs privent les Palestiniens de leurs droits en faisant passer leurs intérêts avant toute chose.

Quel était le crime d'Yves Michaud ? Son crime a été de contester le comportement politique unanime de la communauté juive contre l'indépendance du Québec. Son crime a été de remettre en question le mépris des Juifs riches envers les Québécois. Les Juifs ont tout de suite vu que Michaud était un ennemi, leur ennemi. Et leur porte parole Lawrence Bergman a présenté une motion pour humilier celui qui osait leur tenir tête au détriment de son droit à être entendu et à se défendre. Mais pour le lobby juif, cela n'a pas d'importance. Il faut abattre l'adversaire. Ce n'est pas grave de ne pas respecter ses droits. C'était en 2000.

Puis, plus tard, en devenant le Robin des banques, Yves Michaud a continué contrecarrer les intérêts du lobby juif. Il fallait donc continuer à l'humilier en s'arrangeant pour que l'Assemblée nationale ne reconnaisse pas son erreur commise en votant à l'unanimité la motion du 14 décembre 2000. Le lobby juif en finançant le Parti libéral et en étant une force économique dominante est responsable de la première affaire Michaud de l'an 2000 et de la deuxième affaire Michaud de l'an 2010.

Les Palestiniens du Nouveau Monde, un de leurs leaders Yves Michaud, doivent comprendre une fois pour toutes qu'il y a un gros prix à payer quand on attaque le lobby juif.

Et bien Yves Michaud continue le combat et ne se laisse pas intimider par le lobby juif. Sans rien renier de ce que j'ai écrit jusqu'ici, je dis qu'il mérite notre appui.

***

Robert Barberis-Gervais, Vieux-Longueuil, 13 décembre 2010 View the redacted article on vigile.net

Now readers will decide for themselves whether the above post is antisemitic.
At any rate, it's probably a safe bet to say that Mr. Barberis-Gervais is no fan of Jews.

His article contains numerous falsehoods, most egregious, that Jews control our banks, a statement that sadly reveals his tenuous grip on reality. (Jews have almost nothing to do with our banks)
When he complains of the rich Jews of Laval, he exposes his geographical ignorance. (Rich Jews don't live in Laval.)

And so it's hard to take seriously anything Mr. Barberis-Gervais' writes. His attitude towards Jews and his predisposition to invent facts, made it easy for me to conclude that his improbable story about the lovely 'Isabelle and four Jews' just another flight of fancy.

Read Mr. Barberis-Gervais orignal post J’ai honte des Juifs racistes de Montréal{FR} (I'm ashamed of racist Jews")
Read my reply- "Four Jews and the lovely Isabelle"

In re-reading the article it occurs to me again that those who most deserve an apology, are the Palestinians. Mr Barberis-Gervais' comparison of the plight of Quebeckers to that of Palestinians is sadly delusional and makes a mockery of the very real tribulations that they are living through.

At any rate, let the readers decide...

Quebec's English Schools- When Facts Don't Matter

"The steady reduction of the anglophone population in Quebec is taking its toll on schools in Montreal, with councillors from the English Montreal School Board debating the fates of 20 schools.......... Under the initial proposal, more than 20 schools and their students could be affected by mergers or closures....The crux of that report was a recommendation to close nine schools..... Another 11 schools would either be moved or merged.   CTV Montreal

It seems like an annual event, the painful debate in the various English school commissions in Quebec as to which schools to close in the face of declining enrolment.
What makes the annual cull so sad is the continued drum-beating in the French language militant community that English is somehow taking over.

Incidentally, the meetings discussing the school closings and mergers, at the English Montreal School Board took place at the same time the Quebec government was announcing 300 million dollars to build 20 new French schools! LINK

So what gives? 

First of all, I don't agree that the Anglophone population is declining as stated in the CTV news report quoted above. Recent numbers from the last census actually show that the community has grown slightly.
What is true, however, is that the number of students attending English primary and high school has dropped precipitously.
Now if as I stated, the English community's numbers in Quebec are remaining relatively steady, how is it that we are seeing our elementary and high schools closing and merging at an astounding rate?

The first reason that is happening is because anglophones are choosing to send their children to French schools in greater and greater numbers.
The second reason for the decline is of course, Bill 101 and its prohibition on new Quebeckers (replacement citizens) attending English school.

Both English and French Quebeckers don't produce enough children to keep our population steady. Each family needs to produce about 2.1 offspring to maintain equilibrium, but that doesn't happen.
In Quebec, just like the rest of the western world, we are well below that threshold, somewhere between 1.4 and 1.6 children per family, about thirty percent too few.

So that is why we allow for immigration. Some argue that we let in too many newcomers, but that is another argument for another day, however, there is no denying that we do need immigrants to keep our population stable.

Now according to Bill 101, almost all of these immigrants must go to a French school. There is an exception for Canadians educated in English but this represents the tiniest of percentage. The vast majority must attend French school, Anglophones included if they arrived from anywhere but Canada, and even if they speak nothing but English. 

If our English community is naturally shrinking, it's fair to ask how can we maintain our numbers if all the newcomers are forced into French schools? 
It would seem logical that in order to maintain linguistic balance, some immigrants should be streamed into English schools.
But that of course, is not the case. Not according to Bill 101!

And so it's natural that our English schools continue to close in a slow and inexorable decline.

But curiously, our community does persevere and we do maintain our numbers.

How?
It seems that many immigrants choose to associate and assimilate to the English community despite being forced into French schools. Apparently, the heart wants what the heart wants.

It is this linguistic 'transfer,' of immigrants who although forced to attend primary and high school in French, choose to learn English on their own and associate and settle in with the Anglophone community.

It is this 'transfer' that so infuriates French language militants who see this go-around as dangerous and unfair.

In a furious effort to diminish this 'transfer' effect, language militants are now demanding that Bill 101 be applied to cegeps (colleges) and that those ineligible under Bill 101 to attend English school be forced to attend college in French as well.

It's a silly and futile response, meant to somehow stave off linguistic transfers to English. I've written about this before,where I argued that English cegeps aren't responsible in any way for the anglicization of non native anglos who attend the school.

This week a detailed study on the subject, commissioned by the Conseil supérieur de la langue française was released that came to that very same conclusion. Download the PDF{FR}

The 40 page study is very detailed and well prepared and as can be expected, its conclusions have rankled French language militants who have reacted rather bizarrely, accusing the commission, which is charged with advising the government on French language policy, as being a 'sellout,' lacking independence or alternately just plain wrong in its findings.

Pierre Curzi and Mario Beaulieu were beside themselves, stunned at the 'betrayal', that the Commission concluded that the status quo should remain in effect and students should have a choice vis-a-vis the language of instruction.

The report has been cast aside by those in the PQ who wish to hold onto the fiction that English cegeps anglicize students. The party has re-iterated that it wants to go ahead with legislation to apply Bill 101 to cegep, even in the face of the damaging report. 
The facts don't seem to matter not when it comes to English!

Whether students go to English cegep or not, people will continue to learn English, and assimilate to the anglophone community.  The process of transformation and the commitment to English commencing years and years before cegep.

And so English primary and high schools (perhaps cegeps in the future) will close, yet English will survive.
It's a nightmare scenario for those who believed and hoped Bill 101 would have the effect to cripple or eliminate the English community over time.

For these people, it's annoying that the plan didn't work and frustrating that there is no other 'cure' available to take care of the 'English' problem.
Demanding that Bill 101 be applied to cegeps in the face of such compelling evidence that it won't change anything, smells of desperation.

The real problem is that there is no problem.

The English community is stable and no threat to French. The anglicization of Montreal is a myth, dreamed up by separatists looking for a new scare issue that can justify sovereignty.

About Yesterday's Post-April Fool!!

Read the original story {FR}

 Of late, there's been a lot of negative submissions in the comments section, made by those who wish to find fault with this blog on every level and for any reason.
I'm not talking about legitimate debate and difference of opinion, it's really just a bunch of nasty stuff meant to cast a pall. 

Attacks over my anonymity and condemnations of this blog for what it is, rather than what it says, has become rather routine, an effort to drown out a single voice of opposition.

Yesterday I set out to prove that these commenters are complaining as a matter of form, in a sad effort to discredit this blog based only on the perceived notion that it is an affront to Francophone Quebeckers. Free speech it seems, is only fair if Anglos and Canada are being attacked.

The campaign to demonize this blog is not ineffective.

Believe it or not, NoDogsOrAnglophones is blocked on many company internal networks, including if you can believe it,  the Bell Centre in Montreal, home of the Habs. No such prohibition for Vigile.net.
For those who call me paranoid for safeguarding my identity....well.

Yup, there's a bunch of you out there that are so offended by the existence of a blog promoting Anglo rights, a blog that harshly exposes the truly vindictive and petty nature of some in the militant French language and sovereignty movement, that you've got to do your little part to mitigate the hurt.
No matter what I say or write, you'll continue to insult and denigrate.
It's okay, I can take it (unlike most of your preferred bloggers) and so can our readers who recognize these attacks for what are.

Yesterday was typical, with an assortment of nasty ad hominem attacks and at least one threat.

.....but I have a confession to make.

Yesterdays blog piece wasn't written by me.

It was a translation of a story written in La Presse by Claude Picher on Tuesday. It was a pretty straight forward bit of reporting and was presented in of all places, the business section!

I added and subtracted nothing. Just a translation.

But that didn't stop the regular band of merry men from attacking that article as a dangerous piece of fiction congered up in the deluded mind of an anglo radical.

You've been pwned!

Anonymous @9:31AM

“But you don't care for that, you're just happy you got your biased headline.”

Sorry, even the headline is taken straight from his piece. If you want to complain, write a letter to La Presse, but somehow, I don't think you will.

Do you think Mr. Picher received as many nasty comments as we did? Especially considering that his article must have been read by thousands more people than my humble translation?  I heard no particular outrage.

And so reproduced here on my blog, as if it were me writing, the piece became another outrageous affront to Quebeckers and the French language, a cruel and unfair attack, according to my ever present detractors.

Anonymous @12:47PM

“More Quebec basssshing!!   you are again in our face!”

Dog killer from West said...

“Vous et votre site------ fatiguant.

Effectivement.Nous devrions commencer a regarder comment se débarasser de tous ces anglos (bedbugs).Un autre petit "clean up" s'impose.Ils croient que nous ne comprenons pas leur tactique d'idiot,a savoir,monter nos immigrants contre nous.
Ce sont nos importés et nous allons les éduquer comme bon nous semble.”

Don't worry, I'll continue to print these attacks, they remind me why I write this blog. Go ahead, rant on.

But be advised that here on this blog, readers are more intelligent than you're used to, not so easy to fool.You can't pass off your illogical and fallacious arguments without being called out.

An example;  Again, I refer to Anoymous @9:31AM

“Nevertheless, a 3% difference overall isn't that significant, especially (sic) when EVERY PROVINCE HAS AN IMMIGRANT POPULATION FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.”

You must have graduated from the Mario Beaulieu school of variable statistics. He once stated that the difference between 20% and 28% is 8%, when in fact the difference is about 40%! YouTube

The unemployment rate among immigrants in Quebec 13.7%, while in Canada it is 10.0%. That's not a 3.7% difference (3% as you say,) it is almost a 40% difference. 

I don't know if you are mathematically challenged or just trying to pull a fast one over on us. That type of smoke and mirrors works only at the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Please take a statistics course and take Mario along with you! Then come back and give us lessons.