Quebecers and Their Beloved Entitlements

Instead of the motto "Je me Souviens," it wouldn't be unreasonable for Quebec to change the old standard to "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" a more appropriate maxim that better reflects the reality of our modern Quebec society.

Last week a devastating report was published by a professor at Quebec's prestigious HEC business school revealing that Quebec was on its way to becoming the poorest province in Canada.

In almost every category, Quebec excels in economic underachievement, the buying power of its citizens eroded by the highest taxes in the country, coupled with lower earnings directly related to poor productivity.

Quebec society has adopted state-sponsored cradle to grave socialism that not only saps the economic strength of the province, but kills the entrepreneurial spirit and teaches indolence and dependence as well as destroying thrift.

But blaming our leaders for this calamitous state of affairs is disingenuous, the government serves at our pleasure and can reign over us only as long as we allow it.

The reality is that we have become used to our entitlements and are loathe to give them up.

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

And so daycare workers go off on strike, making the most absurd salary and benefits demands only because they can, caring not a whit for the pain and suffering they inflict on parents who must make alternate arrangements for the care of their children or stay home from work.

Listening to student leaders justify their position that their low tuition fees should not be adjusted upwards to more realistic North American standards, augers poorly for the future, as the next generation learns from the previous that entitlements are more important than fairness.

Reading the newspaper on Friday, I almost gagged on my coffee at the absurd arguments made by feminists to justify lower tuition for women, by a professor and a student of the illustrious Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University, an institute dedicated to feminism, where traditional male-bashing and female whining is honed to an art form.

I don't think I've ever seen so many false arguments and stupid conclusions in one newspaper article.

I can forgive the student, but the Professor who penned the article should be ashamed for polluting the minds of students with foolish feminist drivel that promotes the fiction that women are horribly oppressed and thus entitled to social redress. Read the entire article in the Gazette   Alternate Link

"For decades, feminists have argued that women earn less than men for doing the same work. Recent statistics support this claim: the latest data available, from 2008, demonstrates that women still earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by men."

The above statement, from the article, intimates that women are underpaid by men who choose to exploit them. It's the feminist holy tenet that they are victims of salary inequity, a holding that somehow isn't quite true.

Show me a male telephone operator who makes more money then the female operator sitting beside him or a female cop who is paid less than her male counterpart and I'll listen to the argument.
Of course feminists don't like to hear this type of inconvenient comparison, they choose to use the  'equivalent worth' argument, a clever way to avoid the obvious.

There are many reasons why women earn less than men, most of it is CHOICE!
Yes readers, women make less money than men because they choose to.

"There is no gender gap in wages among men and women with similar family roles. Comparing the wage gap between women and men ages 35-43 who have never married and never had a child, we find a small observed gap in favor of women, which becomes insignificant after accounting for differences in skills and job and workplace characteristics.

This observation is an important one because it suggests that the factors underlying the gender gap in pay primarily reflects choices made by men and women given their different societal roles, rather than labor market discrimination against women due to their sex."

 What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us about Labor Market Discrimination?

"Since marriage and having children affect male and female earnings differently, men and women workers can't really be considered "counterparts" in a statistical sense, and any unadjusted comparisons would be comparing apples to oranges. In fact, some research has concluded that the factors of age, marriage and motherhood explain all of the male-female pay gap."

Most or All of The Pay Gap Disappears After Controlling for Marriage and Having Children 

 

"A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men."

"Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics."

There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap 

For Francophone readers, here's a pretty good article on the subject as well.

Le mythe de la discrimination salariale

Finally here's an interview (with French subtitles) that you'll find most interesting.

But even if women earn less than men by choice or not, does it really make a difference?

"Since women still earn less than men overall, raising tuition fees will affect women first. It is an example of social policy that perpetuates gender inequality."

Does the good Professor contend that women should pay less for tuition just as seniors and children pay less at the movies?

Should women pay less for cars and groceries?
Should women pay less at restaurants and should women pay less to get on the bus?

Is this  the equality that the good professor seeks..... Methinks so.

"Members of the teaching faculty at the Simone de Beauvoir Institute maintain that raising tuition fees will have negative consequences for teaching and learning more broadly. The more expensive the tuition is, the less diversity there will be in the classroom, since access is dependent on financial resources"

 "...When social policy results in the exclusion of women and people from diverse backgrounds from post-secondary education, the work of teaching is compromised."

This passage posits that women are more affected by higher tuition than males. Why?
Is it because male students come to university with more money or that they have richer parents than female students?
Will more women decide not to start university because repaying student loans later in life is more of a burden on them, then for men?

This argument is particularly laughable because each year Canadian universities graduate 145,000 women versus 95,000 men.
Enrollment is almost 3 to 2 in favour of women!

Perhaps universities should be required to implement an affirmative action program in favour of men and maybe men should pay lower tuition fees than women in order to redress the inequality of male/female representation!
Maybe university quotas should be implemented to insure gender equality, especially in elite programs like medicine where 65% of students entering med school are women.

Is this over-representation of females in university a blatant case of gender bias and inequality?

No my dear readers, there in no great feminist plot, sometime differences between the sexes are not based on discrimination, other more benign factors are in play, just like the salary gap between sexes.

How do our feminists suggest our government fund reduced tuition fees for women?

"A redistribution of resources – for example, the $105 million given in bonuses to managers of sociétés d’état in 2010 – could make equal access to education possible. One idea: imposing a licensing fee of one cent per litre on mining and industrial manufacturing companies’ use of water could yield $775 million annually."

Let business pay!

Let the rich pay!

Let the men pay!

Let Ottawa pay!

Let me pay!

I myself have a good idea on how the government can save money.

Get rid of the Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University and get rid of professors that teach students that they are victims and that they are justified in whining for entitlements.

The reality is that in Quebec each and every special interest group, be it women, students, union workers, single mothers, natives, the infirm, the poor, and left-handed clowns with red hair, believe they have a special right to ask society to subsidize their existence.

Some groups (especially the poor and infirm) deserve consideration, most others, especially women students, don't.

When females students whine that they need special treatment, it is nothing more than a sad display of greed and avarice, just like the day care workers.

Shame on them and shame on us all who demand an undeserved slice of the social pie, just because we feel entitled to a free lunch.

Civil Disobedience and Bill 101

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

A recent story about the the controversial mayor of Huntington, Stéphane Gendron, inspired me to delve into the question of civil disobedience in regards to a law that many Anglophones believe discriminatory, the infamous Bill 101.

The Huntington mayor is certainly unafraid of tilting at windmills, he was forced to come off his position that Israel didn't deserve to exist after the television station which airs his new magazine program where he made the remarks, was inundated with complaints.

But that's not what I wish to address here today, rather, it is his controversial stand against Bill 101 and his promise that he will ignore the law and continue to maintain bilingualism in his tiny town, which historically was English, but no longer qualifies for bilingual status under the law.

"I have no use for the insecure and culturally impoverished that are tightly-knit within the French language, who let their lives be governed by its potential disappearance from North America. By focusing on this linguistic insecurity, Quebec has been impoverished while Ontario, which said yes to immigration, ended up surpassing us."

("Je n'ai que faire des insécures et des pauvres culturels que sont les tricotés serrés de la langue française qui ne vivent qu'en fonction de l'heure de leur disparition en Amérique, a-t-il indiqué. À force de focuser sur l'insécurité linguistique, le Québec s'est appauvri et l'Ontario - qui a dit oui à l'immigration et à la diversité - a fini par nous doubler au passage.") LINK {Fr}

The OQLF has confirmed that a complaint has been laid, but went to lengths to say that they are looking to settle things without resorting to court.

I imagine they would, but that may not be possible, as Mayor Gendron has committed to defying any ruling or ordinance issued by the OQLF in regards to removing bilingualism from the town.

Mr. Gendron has promised that if need be, the town will create a line item in the budget entitled  "Human Rights and Dignity," to pay for any fines.

That doesn't augur well for the OQLF who are desperate to avoid publicity, especially internationally.

A plucky mayor of a little town, who fights the big bad language police, is a David and Goliath story that is sure to capture plenty of print space and air time.

That is something the OQLF is desperate to avoid.
As long as the debate rages in Quebec, everything is fine as far as they are concerned, but if this story leaks out of Quebec and is picked up by the American press, it will be a public relations nightmare for the province.
Let us just say Americans are not quite so nuanced and see language laws as discrimination, pure and simple.

I don't have to remind readers about the negative repercussions that still reverberate over Mordechai Richler's condemnation of Quebec in the New Yorker and on 60 minutes. Even though these interviews and stories appeared back in the nineties, they still haunt French language militants who reserve a special hate for the sardonic Richler, for humiliating them south of the border.

If the mayor of Huntington actually decides to fight, as he said he will, it will be the first time any city or town defies the OQLF and there is little doubt that the affair will be messy and embarrassing.
Over the course of any litigation, which of course will drag out for years, Mr Gendron will have plenty of opportunity and will be afforded plenty of face time on television to denounce the OQLF in the most colourful and unflattering of terms.

Now, over the life of this blog, a sentiment by French language militants has been oft repeated, that is the idea that even though we Anglos do not like Bill 101,  we must 'respect' it, because ours is a society of laws.

Here's typical opinion;

"Nous ne faisons que faire respecter la loi. Dans notre pays les lois sont importantes et tous, sans exception, doivent s'y conformer,"

(In our country, laws are important and we must obey them all without exception)  

Now before I continue, I AM NOT comparing Bill 101 to the Nurenberg laws, the various Apartheid laws of South Africa or race laws that discriminated against Blacks in the USA.
So please, no comments that I am making such a comparison.
Bill 101 is nothing like those laws and to intimate such, is to belittle the trials and struggles of those people subjected to their cruelty .

This post is merely a discussion over whether one should be obliged to obey an unjust law, and whether Bill 101 falls into this category.

That sounds like a good description of what the mayor of Huntington is suggesting he and his town are going to do..

Readers, if you aren't familiar with Martin Luther King's famous  "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" I would recommend reading it. It is a masterpiece.
It's a bit long, so you might want to save it for the weekend. Prepare to be humbled and inspired.
READ IT HERE    IN FRENCH

Would the shoe be on the other foot, I wonder if these French language militants would be so 'respectful' of a law that discriminated against their language.

What if Mr. Harper passed a federal law that forced every sign in Canada to be in English, with minority languages (including French) allowed, but on a diminished basis?

I don't even make the case that there is an equivalency to the above and Bill 101, the point is whether Francophones would feel justified in disobeying what they would clearly perceive as a discriminatory law?
How would it play out in Chicoutimi, Quebec City or Val D'Or?
Would these same militants who tell Anglos to respect Bill 101 because it is the law, advise Francophones to 'respect' this Harper law, or would they feel justified in disobeying.

It's easy to fall back on the old chestnut, that the law is the law, and that we all must obey it because it was passed by the majority.

But philosophers greater than I have built a consensus that such is not the case.

And so readers, the question as to whether Bill 101 is just or unjust, may be a matter of perspective.
And for those who believe it is unjust, the question remains as to whether it rises to the level of discrimination that morally justifies disobeying it. 


Henry David Thoreau framed the question quite succinctly;

"Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?"

French versus English Volume 47

Danon Yogurt Tells Anglos & Ethnics not to bother applying for Job

Doesn't matter if you speak French perfectly, if it isn't your mother tongue, don't bother applying for this job posted by Danon.
See it here  Job Offer

It is the very first time I've ever seen a job offered with French as a mother tongue being a requirement.

This from the online ad;

LANGUES:
Français: Langue maternelle
Anglais: Courant 

Methinks that the employment agency that prepared the ad screwed up. I don't think it is legal to include 'Mother Tongue' in a job description.
That type of discrimination is usually exercised during the interview...Ahem..
(Thanks to Phil for the story)

As a commenter  pointed out, the job description has now been modified on the website to read:

• LANGUES:
Français: Courant
Anglais: Courant  

Danone has replied to this posting as follows;

Danone Canada also commented on No Dogs Or Anglophones's link.

"Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
You are correct in suggesting that “mother tongue” should not have been in the posted job description.
It is, in fact, never one of the criteria for a job application. In this case, the criteria regarding languages should have been “Fluent” in both French and English.
The field “mother tongue” is pre-formatted in our internal database within the General Information section, and it allows us to identify an employee’s mother tongue. The field “mother tongue” was inadvertently copy/pasted in the job description.

We would like to thank you as you have allowed us to not only correct our mistake but also to review our entire job posting process.

Danone has strong social principles and believes in welcoming diversity and allowing it to prosper."

Readers, I consider the matter CLOSED. 

The company has reacted responsibly.
Let's not have any talk of boycott ....

Ex-anglo rights activist joins CAQ

Nobody can question the dedication to Anglo rights of one William 'Pit' Bill Johnson, who has militated tirelessly on behalf of English rights in Quebec for decades. The ex-president of Alliance Quebec has written eloquently over the years, staunchly defending an alternate and inclusive view of Quebec society.

So it is signifigant that he has embraced Francois Legault's CAQ, a strong signal to the English community that it is okay to support the party and that fears of a latent separatist bent is unfounded.

While the Premier howls that the CAQ is a closet separatist party, the PQ is now adopting the line that the party is federalist.

By embracing Johnson, a strong federalist with an anti-Bill 101 pedigree, Legault, in one fell swoop, has displayed by his actions that his 'Rainbow coalition' really will set aside the sovereignty question to concentrate on fixing the economy and the failed 'Quebec Model'
Read Mr. Johnson's explanation on why he joined the CAQ  Montreal Gazette  Alternate Link

Speaking of Francois Legault, Here is a video posted on YouTube, of the leader of the CAQ struggling mightily in English.
It's a bit mean-spirited....so obviously I couldn't resist posting it!

As for speaking English, listen to this sound bite, where the importance of speaking English is underlined.

Guess who said it?

Quebec getting poorer- Quebec Prof

"A study from l'Université de Montréal's business school HEC Montréal has concluded that the income gap is widening between Quebec and wealthier parts of Canada – and that Quebec could be the poorest province in the country within a decade.

The research conducted by HEC's Centre for Productivity and Prosperity found that between 1978 and 2009 the net average household income gains in all other provinces outstripped Quebec's gains.

In 2009, the last year the study looked at, the average resident of Newfoundland and Labrador – traditionally Canada's poorest province – earned just $3,127 less than the average Quebecer, while an Albertan averaged $17,947 more than someone living in Quebec. Read the rest of the story

The fact that the study was prepared by a Quebecer of impeccable credentials augers poorly for the spin artists. I'm anxiously awaiting the explanations which will invariably blame you-know-who.
C'mon, Jean-François Lisée, you're up!

Here is a really good article in the National Post which says much about the economic problems of Quebec and eerily resembles much of what I wrote in my last post. I'm glad the story came out after mine, otherwise I might be accused of plagiarism! Link

Pierre Curzi - Nuttier than a fruit cake

In a piece that smacks of childish wishful thinking, Quebec's resident fantasist Pierre Curzi has pontificated on how Quebec can wrest more power from Ottawa.
Read it and weep over the fact that idiots like him can actually one day exercise power over us.

"There are two ways for the people of Quebec to obtain additional powers of the federal government. The first is to undertake the drafting of a Quebec constitution, irregardless whether it is a provincial constitution or constitution of a country. At the end of the drafting process which would define Quebec values ​​(French language, equality of men and women, secular state, etc..), democratic institutions and the powers necessary for the emancipation of Quebec, the new constitution would be ratified democratically by the Quebec nation and presented to English Canada. Canada would then be required to bargain in good faith with Quebec's constitutional powers enshrined in the first constitution of Québec.

The second way to get more federal powers would be to make several constitutional demands and to hold a referendum to determine which baskets of requests should be submitted as part of the negotiations with Canada.  

In this case, the caquistes could ask Quebecers if they want to repatriate their taxes or treaties like Kyoto. They could also provide citizens of Quebec  the opportunity to decide on the possibility of repatriating cultural sovereignty, justice, the maritime territory, the environment, unemployment insurance or old age pensions. Link{Fr}

Is it that hard to see the essential flaw in Mr. Curzi's argument?
Why on Earth would Ottawa negotiate any of this?

Quebec civil service sending nasty political messages

It seems that the civil service is now in the political message department, posting this rather nasty note to those recently arrived immigrants wishing to obtain information about obtaining a Health card, in English.

I find the whole thing nasty and objectionable and take particular exception to the part that says you can only participate in Quebec civic and social life in French. T'ain't so.

(Thanks to Frank for the story.)

Pauline Marois - Let the rich pay!

Pauline, Do the Math!

In an absurd piece of pandering, Pauline Marois promised to abolish the proposed Health Tax imposed by the Liberal government.
According to Madame Marois her measure will eventually return $950 million to taxpayers who will be able to inject the money directly into the economy.
To pay for the revenue shortfall, she intends on taxing the rich.

She told reporters at a news conference that a PQ government  would raise the tax rate on those making over $130,000 a year by 4% and by 7% on those making over $250,000 and by reducing certain tax credits such as certain capital gains and credits on dividends. Read the story in French 

But this is the same separatist math used by idiots like Mario Beaulieu intended to mislead and mesmerize.
You see readers, raising taxes on the rich by 4% or by 7% as she said,  may not seem like such a big deal, but it is when it is not really a 4% or 7% rise.

Madame Marois proposes increasing the tax rate on those earning between $130,000 to $250,000 from 24% to 28%, which in her book is a 4% increase and in mine (and anyone who can do math) a 16.6% increase. As for those who make over $250,000 Madame proposed that the tax rate be raised from 24% to 31%, a whopping tax increase of 29% instead of the 7% mentioned.

It means that someone making $130,000 will face a $5,200 extra tax bill and someone making $250,000 will face a $17,500 increase.

The rich already pay quite a bit.
The top 1.5% richest Quebecers pay 33% of the total tax collected and the top 20% pay 70% of all taxes.

In Quebec 40% of taxpayers of those filing a tax return pay nothing.

When asked by a reporter if the new measures would create an exodus of rich people out of Quebec, Madame Marois said that Quebec is still a better place to live than Alberta, because houses and education cost less. ARgghhh!!!  Link{Fr}

But hey, it makes good Press.
Think any of the mainstream media will do the math?

Daycare Strikers push greedy demands

As I told you on Wednesday, Quebec's unionized daycare workers are using a series of one-day strikes to terrorize parents into pressuring the government to give into their demands.
What are these demands?

The glorified babysitters, making between  $14.43 to $21.65 are demanding an 11% raise over three years .
In addition, they want between 11 and 13 paid holidays while the rest of we mere mortals must content ourselves to eight, so we can expect workers to be paid double time if they work on holidays like Valentine's Day or Remembrance Day.

The workers are also demanding 8-10 personal days and six weeks vacation.

There....did I make your day?
Those of you with university degrees making a lot less, you should have majored in Play-Doh!

By the way, in my article on Wednesday, I mentioned that the government subsidies each day care to the tune of $38 per child, per day. An article in La Presse indicates that the subsidy is higher, up to $58 a day. Link{Fr}

Amir Khadir-Too many English daycares

"Unless it is considered “indispensable,” the ability to speak English should not be a criterion for getting a job in this province, Québec solidaire president Françoise David told reporters on Saturday.

“We feel there are probably a lot of jobs where it’s not necessary to speak English,” said David, adding that the awarding of daycare centre permits be conditional to an assurance that “the predominant language in the education of young children be French."

“In Montreal at the moment we have plenty of family run daycares where French is not the predominant language,” she said. “And eventually we end up with children entering kindergarten who cannot speak French, which places them at a disadvantage to other children.” Read the rest of the story in the Montreal Gazette  Alternate Link

'Smoke meat' versus 'Viande Fumé.'

As you've all probably heard by now, Schwartz's, Montreal's iconic smoked meat restaurant is on the verge of being sold to a group that includes Céline Celine Dion's hubby/manager, René Angelil for a whopping 10 million.
For that price, it's obvious that the buyers are purchasing the brand, rather than just the restaurant and I guess it won't be long before we see  restaurants popping up in Chicoutimi and Quebec City.
As the restaurant climbs out of the kitsch and into the mainstream, it will face the inevitable language issues of Quebec.
First order of business will be to francize the name of business and get rid of that nasty apostrophe 'S'

Schwartz's = Chez Schwartz

Surely the OQLF will also be looking seriously at the issue of the restaurant's improper use of French in describing its plat-de-resistance as 'Smoke Meat' (which Francophone Montrealers have used for decades)
But perhaps a case can be made, considering that the French slang 'Smoke Meat' is different front the English 'Smoked Meat,' so perhaps the OQLF will allow the words to pass into the modern French lexicon.
Another issue is the translation of other favorites, like 'Karnatzel." In order to make the reference kosher for the OQLF (pun intended,) the restaurant will likely be obliged to add a French modifier to the Yiddish description,  hence 'Saucisse Karnatzel.'

As for the 'Nash' well, they'll have to work on a translation for that! (perhaps Grignote 'Nash')

The debate rages on as to whether Schwartz's is the best or not.

It is.....hands down.

All the other Montreal wannabes are good, but they don't quite get the spices and the texture perfect and that includes my favorite, Smoked Meat Pete's out in 'Île-Perrot, which I sometimes patronize because I'm out there on business often and Schwartz's is just to damn busy, crammed with tourists.

Don't go to Schwartz's if you're one of those people that orders dressing on the side, it is a guilty experience of decadence, akin to dining at Lafleurs or ripping into a box of Krispy Kreme donuts.

Don't order your sandwich 'lean' or you'll be taken for a Rube by the surely waiters. Schwartz's smoked meat is drier than the norm and needs the fat to complete the taste experience.

How to order. 'Sandwich - Fries - Pickles- Black Cherry.' That is the Schwartz's experience. Never forget the Cott's Black Cherry soda, it has been de rigueur for as long as I can remember.

Think I'm wrong about Schwartz's being the best in North America?

Read this account by an expert who has visited all the great North American delis and places Schwartz's head and shoulders above the rest. You can also watch famed jurist Alan Dershowitz biting into his first Schwartz's sandwich.  Great reading!

My favorite Schwartz's story;
One night after a hockey game at the old Montreal Forum we headed out to Schwartz's and as we were just about finished eating, four Calgary Flames (whom I will not name) were seated at our table (which are communal.)
Clearly out of their depth, they asked for the waiters recommendations and then ordered...gasp!... two glasses of milk and a side of mayonnaise for the sandwiches.
The waiter flinched, but after rolling his eyes, walked away and proceeded to loudly announce sarcastically to the entire restaurant that the hockey players wanted 'milk and mayonnaise.'
My eating partner was beside himself and could hold back no longer. Turning to the players he told them loudly that;
"If you put mayonnaise on your sandwich, I'll throw up all over you!" HaHa!

By the way, one of my favorite things at Schwartz's is the dry steak spice which they sell for a couple of bucks behind the counter and is well worth it.
Bring it home and use it on your steaks at your next BBQ and you'll be in for a treat.
Positively the finest, probably because they include coriander seed in the mix (the same spice as in the smoked meat.) Sprinkle a little on your meat (one side only) and grill. 
Add a little more at the table on the finished product. Simply the best. The real taste of Montreal.

May the Schwartz be With You.

Mea Culpa

Last week I had a bit of fun with a fellow who wrapped his new electronic electric meter from Hydro-Quebec with aluminum foil in order to block those 'harmful' rays.

I stated that I didn't know if these emanations caused any harm or not and I received quite a scolding, deservedly so, in several emails.
I should have checked my facts before saying something so stupid.

The so-called rays involved are in fact completely harmless.

"According to McGill Science and Society Director Joe Schwarcz, radio frequency studies are conclusive: the meters will not have negative health effects.

"We know that radio frequency cannot break chemical bonds and in order to induce cancer you need to break chemical bonds," said Schwarcz.

Poisson cited another concern, her feeling that Hydro-Quebec was ignoring her right to choose.

"I don't have a cell phone, I've never had one. As for WiFi, I will be switching back to cables because I have the choice," said Poisson. "With smart meters, you don't have the choice."

LINK  

Case closed......

Minister hits back at complainers

OTTAWA - The federal government is brushing off criticism of its plan to spend $7.5 million to celebrate the Queen's 60th anniversary on the throne.

There has been some grumbling from anti-monarchists, notably in Quebec, that the Diamond Jubilee would cost so much money at a time of deep budget cuts.

But Heritage Minister James Moore had an answer for those critics Tuesday.

He said the federal government had spent way more on other celebrations, and referred specifically to the 400th anniversary of Quebec City in 2008.

''These sums have always existed within the department for these kinds of events. Look, $100 million was spent on Quebec City's 400th anniversary,'' Moore told The Canadian Press. LINK

Touché, or as we say in English, Shaddup awready!

From Scotland, lessons on separatism
Here's an interesting article on a possible Scottish referendum written by Andrew Coyne for The National Post;

"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

That is the question Scotland’s separatist First Minister, Alex Salmond, proposes to put to Scottish voters in a referendum sometime in late 2014. Ten words, no subordinate clauses, its meaning incapable of confusion. Compare it with this little essay in obscurity:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" Read the rest of the article

Please have yourself a very nice weekend!

Quebec Students- A Study in Entitlement

We want an education   Not debt

Every time I hear Quebec students leaders threaten a strike over tuition fees, I grind my teeth and remind myself that this is exactly what is wrong with Quebec.

You'd never know it from listening to the incessant and annoying braying that Quebec students remain the most pampered in North America, with the lowest tuition fees and among the lowest entry standards for access to post-secondary education.

The average annual Quebec university tuition fee is $2,168, while the average in the ROC(Quebec excluded) is $5,445. In the United States that fee is over $10,000.

In other words, Quebecers pay less than 40% of what other Canadians pay for a university education and about 20% of what Americans pay.

The students are mighty angry over the fact that the Quebec government plans to boost annual tuition fees by $325 per year for five years, raising the fees to $3,793 by 2017.
Even with all the increases, Quebec will remain the biggest educational bargain in North America. (Yes that includes Mexico!)

Incidentally, Quebec students graduate with the lowest level of student debt in Canada with the Quebec average at $13,000, compared with a Canadian average of $27,000.

According to Quebec students, it's still too much. 

But Quebec students aren't any more guilty of greed and avarice than other Quebecers who have been conditioned to believe that there is no connection between taxes and the benefits doled out by the government, or to put it more simply, the idea that when the government gives a benefit to one, somebody else has to pay for it.

And so the lower tution fees are underwritten by taxi drivers in Montreal, government employees in Quebec City, construction and office workers in Sherbrooke, in other words, everyone else who works, pays taxes and has part of his or her wealth confiscated to pay for the shortfall between what students pay for their education and what it actually costs.

In addition to all this, Quebec students benefit from the fact that workers in Kelona, British Columbia, Calgary, Alberta and even Owen Sound, Ontario, also contribute to their reduced tuition fees, by way of equalization payments that the province receives from Ottawa.

When students whine about wanting to pay less for their education, they are in reality asking taxpayers across the country to contribute more of their hard-earned cash to subsidize them.
Because Quebec runs a deficit and carries a high debt load, students are also demanding that future generations pay for their education as well.

And while Quebec students have no problem hitting up taxpayers and future generations for a tuition subsidy, one group seems to be off limits.... their own parents.
Over 65% of parents of Quebec students, contribute absolutely nothing (other than taxes) to their child's education (this according to the student's union.)
When it comes to contributing to a  Registered Education Savings Plan, Quebec families put aside about half as much money as compared to British Columbian families.

There was a time when students marched against war, for human rights and for the enviornment.
Today the only issue that can motivate students to demonstrate, is the issue of tuition fees.
It is in fact the only issue they are passionate about.

Look at the effort they made in preparing a document arguing for reduced tuition fees, it's a masterpiece of deceptive and selective statistics that would make Pierre Curzi proud. Read it here

The students are not unique, they are but an illustrative example of what Quebecers and their society have become.
On Monday, babysitters educators (making over $20 an hour,) working in provincially-funded daycares, called a one-day strike that wrecked havoc on working parents, causing many to lose a day's work.

ENTITLEMENTS BREED GREED.

Now I don't want to make this an English/French thing, Quebecers are united in sucking at the teat of the gouvernemama. (the mommy state.)
We are all guilty of stuffing our faces with government goodies when we can, but in our defence, if the government is giving out benefits and entitlements, who of us is noble enough to say 'no thank you.'

First let us establish that these handouts are not free.
Because entitlement programs are run by the government, they are expensive and cumbersome.

Let me cite but one example- publicly funded daycare.

If any one program illustrates the mommy state and it's related cost to society, it is the $7 a day subsidized daycare program.
When first introduced in 1997, the program cost $290 million. Thirteen years later, the program has mushroomed to over $2 billion dollars, a seven-fold increase.

While parents pay just $7 a day directly to the daycare centre for each child in attendence, taxpayers contribute, wait for it.....$38.

So consider, publicly funded daycare costs taxpayers about $200 dollars per child, per week. If parents have two children in daycare, well... you do the math.

This $200 weekly subsidy per child in daycare is UNIVERSAL. That's right, everyone is eligible, even those earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year!
The only bugbear is that the government has restricted access because of the staggering cost of the program.
Snagging one of those rare places in daycare  is a question of who you know or how much you are willing to pay under-the table, so a wealthy lawyer has more of a chance to get his or her child into a publicly funded daycare, than a barista working at Tim Hortons.

Does this program make any sense at all?......To Pierre Curzi and friends, it does..
It is the famous Quebec Model.

Subsidized Daycare - Extended Paid Parental leave - low tuition fees - subsidized prescription medicine - extended pregnancy leave- convoluted pay equity programs are all part of Quebec's unique model that has the government paying for generous programs that no other provincial or state government seems to be able to afford.

But has it made Quebec a better place to live?

While proponents of the Quebec model, like Pierre Curzi, rave about the merits of the mommy state, the facts tell another story.
  
Because Quebec shares the same federal government as the other provinces, it is not that difficult to compare Quebec society to that of provinces which provide less services and subsidies.

For every seventeen entrepreneurs in Alberta or British Columbia there are only seven in Quebec. Link

While the country averages 70 businesses per 100,000 population, Quebec has around 60.

Quebecers are also about 20% less productive than other Canadians, that is producing less wealth, probably because they work less hours and retire earlier.

Quebecers remain the highest taxed citizens in North America, yet earn much less than the average Canadian family
According to Statistics Canada, a two-parent/two children family in Quebec, earns on average about $68,000 a year, while the Canadian average is $93,000.

More than one third of Quebecers (aged 55-65) have put aside less than $99,000 for their retirement, counting on the government to support them in their old age with a meager pension that now pays around ten thousand dollars per person.
The "Rule of 20" states that for every $1 of retirement income, you will need $20 saved in your retirement portfolio. With less than 100k saved, these retirees will receive less than 5,000 a year in income aside from the government pension. Not too comforting.
Only 7% of Quebecers in this age bracket have saved over $500,000 towards their retirement.

This is the effect of the cradle to grave subsidies.

As citizens become accustomed to government largess they become lazier and poorer and like our students, badly addicted to their entitlements.

On top of all this, the Quebec entitlements have been partly paid for with debt and equalization payments from Ottawa.

When that runs out, Quebecers, used to living on the arm of the government will be in for a rude awakening...just like the Greeks.

Quebec's latest Crisis Nothing to do with Language

The alarming uptick in the unemployment rate in Quebec during StatsCan latest reporting period should have set off a panic within the government and should very much be the issue of the day.

Somehow few seem panicked, least of all, the government.

While the rest of Canada saw the unemployment rate dip marginally, the loss of jobs over the last six months pushed the Quebec rate up a staggering 2 percent to 8.7%.
This while the country is supposed to be in recovery.

In fact, during this period Quebec lost a staggering 50,000 jobs while the rest of the country added 250,000!

In hindsight, the closure of the Shell refinery in east end Montreal a year ago, heralded the beginning of an unprecedented spate of closures, lockouts and shutdowns that has decimated Quebec's manufacturing base and which continues unabated.

The closure of the Shell refinery was brought on by union excess that saw the plant suffer from pitifully low productivity, coupled with overly generous salaries and conditions.
Sadly, unlike other companies which cannot compete paying high 'Quebec' salaries, the refinery would have remained functional had the union acted more responsibly.

But that being said, the handwriting is on the wall for Quebec's manufacturing base. Salaries and operating costs in Quebec are just too expensive compared to the Orient, Latin America and believe it or not, even the United States.

The Electrolux vacuum cleaner manufacturing plant is off to Tennessee where workers will make about ten dollars an hour less than in Quebec and where the costs related to employee benefits are considerably lower.

Last week MABE, a plant producing dryers announced that it too is moving its 700 jobs to either Mexico or the United States, the union pushing the fiction that it is America's 'Buy American' plan that made their product unattractive, rather than the real reason, the higher manufacturing costs associated with Quebec.

These latest closures continue the decline that started back in the seventies with the move overseas of Quebec's robust sewing industry. Back then, seamstresses were pulling in a healthy hourly rate of $15 an hour, which is probably equivalent to $30-$40 an hour today.

All this is coupled with Big Pharma scaling back research, after years of growth in Quebec. Last week AstraZeneca announced that it will eliminate 175 jobs and with recent layoffs at Johnson & Johnson, Merck and others, it means that another 1000, more than decent jobs, are out the window.

And so these well-paid workers, now jobless, are left to the dole, forced to exit the province or obliged to scrounge around with nothing but McJobs available.

Is this the future?
Is Quebec on the road to becoming a Detroit, having lost it's competitive edge and relevancy?
I hope not.

Sadly, Quebecers remain mostly ambivalent to these economic body blows and somehow, it doesn't seem to matter, or in fact, even register with those who seem more interested in debating an accent on the sign of the METRO supermarket chain. 

The province has got to find a way to maintain decent paying jobs, otherwise we will see that as the unemployment rate rises, coupled with a drop in remuneration for the remaining jobs, a catastrophic loss in government revenues, impacting the province's ability to support its bloated social programs.

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but if things don't change, we are headed for a meltdown.

The equalization program that brings Quebec about eight billion dollars a year is up for re-negotiation in two years and like it or not, Stephen Harper will be sitting on the other side of the table. If that program gets modified to the detriment of Quebec, it will be an unmitigated disaster.
With the province approaching it's debt ceiling rather quickly, anyone who can do math, can see an impending economic and social disaster unfolding.

One way or the other, Quebec needs new revenue streams, probably in the neighborhood of ten billion dollars, otherwise we can all start learning Greek.

The question remains - How to create wealth?

While Quebecers continue to demand the good life, they fail miserably to understand that wealth creation is the key to prosperity.

Let us shunt aside union extremism, poor productivity and the nanny government, realities that unfortunately aren't' going to change soon or ever.
Is there anything to be done?

Premier Charest has proposed just about the only thing that can save Quebec from itself, called LE PLAN NORD, an aggressive program to tap into the province's vast natural resources.

It is probably Quebec's last path towards salvation, but you wouldn't know it by the lukewarm reception it has gotten in the Press.

Jobs in the resource field are golden, a virtual gold mine, if you'll pardon the pun.

Quebec enjoys vast caches of gold, nickel, cobalt, platinum, iron and ilmenite and yes, even oil and gas, all waiting to be lifted from the ground.

Up in the Abitibi region, Quebec's largest mining region, jobs in the eight currently operating mines pay up to $70 an hour, with the company making plenty of money to boot.

The jobs are so enticing, that 70% of the classes of area colleges are filled with females, the men long gone into the mines!

Quebec's vast territory provides a wealth of natural resources, ripe for development, but the biggest obstacle is Quebecers themselves, who have no sense of urgency over the matter.

A powerful environmental and native lobby have partnered with radical nationalists to stall these plans.

The government, in the face of opposition has already put a halt to fractional gas drilling, with no plan or timetable to safely pursue this valuable resource.

The border dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland over the 'Old Harry' oil field in the Gulf of St. Lawrence seems to have been settled, but nothing concrete has been undertaken to get production underway.
More studies and wasted decades.

It has been proposed that the largely uninhabited Anticosti island holds 30 billion barrels of oil (3 trillion dollars at today's current price of crude) yet again nothing seems to be done to develop these resources very quickly.

There are currently 35 mining projects in various stages of planning, a number that exceeds Quebec's 25 currently operating mines.

The wealth that these projects could bring is staggering, yet all we hear in the Press is the demand for more studies and delays.
It seems that every single project is subject to five, ten or fifteen year delays.

Nobody seems to care, the initiative to create wealth, relatively unimportant.

Why? Because Quebecers have been used to getting something for nothing.

Vast borrowing and equalization payments have insulated us from believing that we must produce wealth in order to support our lifestyle.
After just two or three generations of being a something-for-nothing society, Quebec has become the proverbial welfare family, permanently on the dole with no industrious desire as long as money is for free.

With so much potential, the province remains lazy, uninterested and disconnected.

The most important question is not whether will we change, but rather whether we can change.