Quebec's Election Law Encourages Cheating

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

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

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

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

First things first;
There are three major ways to finance political parties;

1. Unlimited donations by any individual or corporation, as is practiced in the United States.
2. Public financing of political parties on a per vote basis.
3. Limited donations by individuals or companies with caps and restrictions.

None of these systems are perfect and like the debate between medicare and private health insurance, the discussion can go on forever, with neither system proving to be the ultimate panacea.

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

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

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 Harper repealed it recently, the system favors the also-rans, those parties that get votes, but few seats in Parliament.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DGE Jacques Drouin,  misguided sap.

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

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

Now readers, a little maturity.

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

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

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

I never did anything illegal, but that doesn't mean I didn't see things.
As a junior bagman in those days, I tagged along to meetings and dinners, some in those famous Montreal restaurants you read about in the newspapers.

Money was passed between fundraisers and political aides, (never the politicians themselves) and whether it was legal or not was beyond my purview.
It was however the first time I ever saw or became familiar with the term 'Pinkie.' (a thousand dollar bill.)
Readers should understand, that contrary to what the press leads you to believe, the envelopes were never brown or particularly big, you can actually stuff $50,000 in an everyday regular envelope, using pinkies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did he expect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language Militancy Breeds Institutional Disrespect

This last month, several incidents involving the Société de transport de Montréal (STM,) Montreal's publicly run bus and metro operator, focused the spotlight on some pretty poor behavior by employees who disrespected clients based either on language and or ethnicity.

First there was the story of a bus driver being so frightened of a twelve year old black girl, who incidentally is cute as a button and looks about as menacing as Tinkerbell, that he called the police,

The young lady, who is slightly challenged made the mistake of insisting that the driver answer her question which she posed in English.
The police met the bus and boarded to find the girl sitting quietly at the back of the bus.
Their response?
Strong-arm the girl off of the bus on the say so of an obviously oversensitive and thin-skinned driver.
Obviously the police over-stepped their authority, after all, the girl was on the bus legally and was not doing anything wrong when the police intervened.
Of course we all know, that in relation to the police, 'Driving while Black' is a hazardous experience in Montreal. It now appears that  'Riding the bus while Black' is also an automatic determination of guilt by our supposedly colour-blind police. Read a frightening account of the story

Then there was a Montreal professional soccer player who Tweeted to his fans that Montreal was a racist city because of his harsh treatment at the hands of ticket sellers in the Metro. Link

"A Montreal Impact reservist is calling Montreal racist after problems with a city transit employee.

Soccer player Miguel Montano says in a pair of tweets today that he was unable to buy a ticket to ride Montreal’s metro system because he didn’t speak French.

The Colombian-born soccer player alleges that when he tried to converse with a ticket taker in English, he was told that he needed to speak French and his money was returned to him.

“They are so racist in Montreal,” he wrote Wednesday on Twitter, in Spanish. “They didn’t want to sell me a ticket to let me in the metro because I don’t speak French.” Read the rest of the story

Then this story, just last week.

"Michael Dunning told the QMI Agency that when he asked, in English, for an all-day pass at a Montreal subway station on Monday, the two employees behind the glass laughed and cursed him.

"They didn't say: 'We don't have to speak English,'" Dunning, 55, told the QMI Agency on Friday. "They told me: 'We don't serve English people.'"

Moreover, Dunning said he was dismissed on the phone when he called to register a formal complaint two days later. He said it was only when Montreal's English-language media reported on the story that he received a call from the transit authority's legal department. 

Read the rest of the story

Now I'm not going to tear into the above mentioned employees.
The vast majority of agents and drivers at the STM are polite, diligent and pleased to offer service in English if they can.

Like any large company with thousands of employees, there is a small minority of nasty,  jaded racists, looking for an opportunity to pass along their anger by dumping on the innocent.

But it is the company's responsibility to keep things in check, first by creating a positive culture and next by punishing employees who embarrass the company with racist and anglophobic outbursts.

So readers, blame the company.

Over the last year, we've heard of disgusting sexist behavior within the ranks of the RCMP, where many detachments have in large part degenerated into a hostile work environment for female officers and employees.

The problem was so serious that the government had to take extraordinary actions, by bringing in an outsider to run the RCMP in order to break the institutional culture of sexism that permeated the organization, up to the senior ranks.

While employees bear responsibility for their personal behavior, the RCMP hierarchy itself is almost completely responsible for the breakdown in discipline and the loss of moral compass.

Company culture at the STM, just like the RCMP is driven by management and so responsibility for the recent spate of poor behavior by rotten employees can be laid directly on the doorstep of management.

Unfortunately for us, unlike the RCMP which is going through a cathartic process of renewal and redemption, at the STM, it is the same old, same old, with nobody in oversight, the least bit concerned with the culture of hate and intolerance condoned AND PROMOTED by management.

The real question Montrealers must ask themselves is 'Who really runs the STM?"
There's little doubt that a timid and frightened STM management has abrogated its responsibility to lead, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by militant French language fanatics and union goons.

Every time a language or race incident occurs, management rushes to cover up employee malfeasance by dropping a cone of silence on the incident, conveniently claiming that an investigation is underway and that any public comment would be prejudicial.

Invariably these so-called 'investigations' go nowhere and those who complain about their treatment at the hands of STM racists and goons are put through an institutional ringer that lasts for years, the entire process expressly designed to sap the energy of the complainer and to serve up an example to others, sending the message that if you attack the STM, you will be tormented until you give up.
We are not fooled.
Readers  of this blog are sophisticated enough to understand that this rope-a-dope strategy is a disgusting abuse of the public trust.

In the incident described at the opening of the story, the young girl was painted in the most unflattering light by the STM spokesperson, leading one to conclude that no fair disposition of the incident can ever occur.
While the girl's identity and reputation was sullied, the identity of the bus driver and supervisor is kept secret.
Where is the transparency?
How on Earth is keeping the identity of the employee involved going to promote the public perception of fairness?

"Marianne Rouette, spokeswoman for the city's transit department, said it received Dunning's complaint and "an investigation is underway."
Rouette said the investigation into the two soccer players' complaints had been concluded, and the transit authority wasn't going to publicize the results, nor say if any employee had been reprimanded.
She said she couldn't speak to the specifics of either case, but said by Quebec law, the city cannot force its employees to speak another language other than French.

I find myself at a loss.
How do we tolerate a public corporation telling us, without any shame, that they concluded and disposed of an investigation into a complaint of racism, but will not reveal the result.

Can any reasonable observer come to any other conclusion but a coverup?

Then the idiot spokesman dropped this beauty, evidence that the company has completely sold its soul to language militants;

"Article 45 and 46 of Quebec's French-language law stipulates that an employer cannot reproach an employee for not being able to speak a language other than French. Nor can employers force an employee to speak anything other than French on the job, unless their specific duties necessitate them knowing another language"

Really?
Many government and quasi-government agencies, corporations and offices do offer English services and no, they aren't breaking any law either.
The STM excuse about Article 45 and 46 is hollow, dishonest and vacuous.
I cannot believe that the English media allows the STM to bluff their way with a lame excuse about the law.

All the STM has to do is to change some job descriptions for certain employees and voila, they could be required to offer service in English.
It is simply a question of either wanting or not wanting to provide service in English and clearly, enlightened readers know the answer to that question!

Would it be such a big deal to have one ticket selling window per station designated as bilingual with a sign indicating that English service is available?
Like I said, it's a question of motivation.

Now before I get a spate of comments about Montreal being a French city (which it is not) and that Montreal should be as French, as Toronto is English, lets throw cold water on this oft repeated fantasy.  
I imagine that in certain Metro stations downtown and on certain bus routes in the West island, the majority of passengers and/or tourists are English speaking, which cannot be said about French anywhere in Toronto or anywhere else in the western hemisphere.

That the powers that run the STM can ignore this English reality is a demonstration of the fact that they are afraid to challenge the union, which like almost all unions in Quebec, are anti-English.

The sorriest and saddest aspect to all this is the position taken by French language militants against employees being offered extra pay for speaking English, which would probably be a neat solution.

Their position is that this practice is discriminatory because it puts unilingually French employees in a poorer financial position than bilinguals, something that they consider unfair, if you can believe it!

This same argument was put forward last year in Sherbrooke and Hull where bilingual employees were offered a small increase in salary, if they were able to offer service in English.
There was a huge outcry by French language militants decrying the practice, leading both cities to drop the program.

How very sad, petty and oh so typical of what passes for fairness in Quebec!

And so the STM continues to foster the fantasy that it does not tolerate racism and anglophobia.
It isn't true.
The STM encourages poor behavior by refusing to confront the bullies within and by refusing to make some English service available.

It is time for a monumental shift in culture at the STM and the first thing needed is a dose of the stern medicine that was delivered to the RCMP.

Fire the bosses.

Why Carey Won't Speak French...

For unilingual francophone hockey fans in Quebec, the hiring last year of unilingually English Randy Cunneyworth, as coach of the Montreal Canadiens, was a painfully traumatic experience.
The underlining message, that French had crossed a tipping point and was no longer relevant in the NHL and more to the point, in Quebec, was a frightening development for those who can't speak English who had been promised by their leadership that they need not make the effort.

The issue of French and the Montreal Canadiens is particularly sensitive to French language militants because it strikes at the heart of their argument that learning English is not a necessity for the majority of Quebecers who work and live their lives exclusively in French.
But if hockey fans, of which there are a considerable amount among Quebecers, cannot directly understand what an English coach or player is saying, it becomes a powerful argument for learning English, an anathema to French language militants, and so the exaggerated reaction.

So panicked are these defenders of the French-only principle, that even if the Montreal Canadiens were forced to field an inferior team to satisfy the desire for players and coaches who speak French, it's a tradeoff that they are willing to make.
 One can only shudder if this rule is transmitted to general society, which unfortunately, methinks it is.
Just today, I read another tedious article, complaining that the wildly successful, Quebec Summer Festival is showcasing too many English artists. It's a rehash of the same old, same old, so I won't even offer a link.

Limiting the choice of a coach to those who speak French, eliminates 80-90% of candidates available and in the end quality must suffer.
That's how the Habs ended up with the universally panned and mediocre Michel Therrien as coach, culled from decidedly slim pickings.

But militants don't see it that way and continue to whine that players aren't making an effort to learn French once they alight in Montreal, just another reason for free-agents to strike Montreal from the list of possibilities.
As it is, Montreal is the city where the highest taxes are taken out of a player's paycheck. In fact, a player making $2 million gets the privilege of paying $200,000 more in taxes than that of a player toiling in sunny Florida! Salary Table

For French language militants, it's really just a case of wishful thinking, the idea that hockey players making millions of dollars will learn a foreign language in order to give a few interviews, for the few years they play hockey in Montreal.

For blowhard sports commentators like Rejean Tremblay, the old chestnut of 'Respect' is trotted out every time he demands that players on the Canadiens learn French, reminding his readers that it is the public that pays the players salaries.

Tremblay was particularly critical and scornful of Saku Koivu for playing twelve years in Montreal and never learning French, as if learning French was part of the job description.

He and other French language militants, remind we Anglophones, on a daily basis, that we owe the Francophone majority 'respect' purely based on our minority status.

What utter balderdash.

First things first, 'respect' is never owed, it is earned.

When a father whips out his belt and decides to teach his son some 'respect' with a few disciplinary whacks, one can hardly call what the child is learning 'respect'. Some might call it 'obedience,' some might call it 'fear,' but nobody should ever confuse it with 'respect.'

Pardon me if I don't believe that we Quebec Anglophones owe the Quebec Francophone majority any more respect than the Canadian Francophone minority owes to the Canadian Anglophone majority. (That was a mouthful!)

As for the idea that hockey players owe respect to their fans, because it is they who ultimately pay their salary, it's just another convoluted argument made to justify the demand that they learn French.
Try reminding the cop who pulls you over for speeding, that you pay his salary.

Hockey is a business, nothing else. The players are employees, nothing more.
They are paid to play hockey for a team and a league that operates in English alone.

Players come to Montreal, but few if any make it a home. Like contract oil workers sent to the middle east, most live in an English ghetto where nary a word of French is ever heard. Almost all go home when they're done with hockey.

When players do make Montreal their home, people like Hal Gill, who moved his American family here, embraced the city, his children learning French in school and his wife involved in charity work, they aren't given bonus points or preferential treatment by the fans or the Canadiens organization itself.
Gill was dumped rather unceremoniously for almost nothing in return and without any consideration for him or his family and his effort to integrate.

Hockey is cruel.
Players are expendable and exchangeable, to be bartered, traded and used up for what they are worth during their short career.
I'm no expert, but what is the average career of a player donning a Montreal Canadiens uniform? Two, three years?

As for players on the Canadiens learning to speak French, I'm afraid it's a fantasy driven by an unreasonable dream of what hockey is and what hockey players are. Link{Fr}

Today, players make too much money to be bothered shilling for car dealerships on the weekend and so learning French, a difficult process that takes years to achieve, solely for the purpose of giving out a few interviews seems hardly worth the bother

When Carey Price is done with Montreal, he'll go back home to BC.

While he is here, he'll live and work in English and remain part of the Anglo community in Montreal.
It is this fact that so peeves the likes of Mr. Tremblay and his ilk, that hockey players embrace the anglophone community, instead of the francophone majority.
But really, what would you expect?

Carey Price isn't going to learn French, just as those fans in the boonies aren't going to learn English
Such is reality.

As for Saku Koivu being a bad citizen for not learning French, I beg to differ.
He was a marvelous member of the Anglo community and helped raise money for a diagnostic unit in the Montreal General Hospital.
As for 'respect,' he too was dumped rather cruely and shipped off to Anaheim for a pittance, with zero consideration for anything else but business.

That's hockey, a business, an English business.

As for Mr. Tremblay, who makes a living covering sports, doing so means speaking English, which he does rather well.
Telling fans that players are showing bad faith by not learning French does a disservice to everyone, fans, players and the team.

Telling Carey Price to learn a third language, and newly drafted Alex Galchenyuk to learn a fourth, because fans cannot be bothered to learn a second, seems a bit cheeky.

It isn't going to happen just because people want it to happen. That is life.

There is a price (pardon the pun) to be paid for remaining unilingually French, despite what French language militants tell Quebecers, even for those who don't venture outside the friendly environs of Quebec.

Pretending that Quebec can be kept English-free is a pipe dream that can only be realized in a country like North Korea, but truth be told, it's something that the bilingual Mr.Tremblay already understands.

Weak Justice System Contributes to Quebec Corruption

For years and years, successive Quebec governments, both sovereigntist and federalist have pursued a course that could only be described as 'soft on crime.'

Our current justice minister Jean-Marc Fournier, was so furious at the Prime Minister for toughening up the law in Bill C-10, whereby punishments and jail times were beefed up for serious crime, that he raced off to Ottawa to demand that the law be softened, his supplications falling on deaf ears.

For many Quebecers it is a source of pride, giving rise to a smug, snobby, sense of superiority that Quebec treats criminals more 'compassionately' than do other provinces in Canada.

That Quebec has a slightly lower crime rate as compared to the ROC has many Quebecers proudly crowing that their penal system which encourages short, or non-existent sentences and which focuses on rehabilitation is the reason.

This of course is poppycock.

One of the principal reasons for the difference, is the fact that Quebec is home to less than 8% of Canada's aboriginals, this in a province with 24% of the national population.

Sadly, Aboriginals represent 20% of Canada's prison population, five times what we'd expect demographically.
Since Quebec has statistically fewer natives, (by a factor of 66%) there's enough of an impact to account for the small statistical difference in the crime rate between Quebec and the ROC.
I'm not putting the knock on natives, but it is what it is.

Now every time somebody raises the specter of more severe punishment for criminals, the leftist intelligentsia mounts a ferocious attack on proponents, describing them as a bunch of Cro-Magnons, out of touch with modern criminal rehabilitation practices.
They invariably trot the argument, that while the United States incarcerates sevens times as many people (per capita) as Canada, there are no tangible benefits as pertaining to the crime rate or recidivism.

There is a legitimate question as to whether tougher sentences have effects on violent or career criminals, the best example is the death penalty, the scariest of all sentences that seems to have no deterrent effect on those contemplating murder.

But today's blog piece is not about those hardened career criminals, but rather the white collar types, the businessmen who cheat the government out of millions by way of rigged tendering, over-billing, under-delivering and phoney-invoice schemes that fraud not only the contracting authority, but the tax department as well.

Here, I contend, that a vigorous enforcement coupled with meaningful jail time for offenders would make a significant contribution to lessening the stain of corruption and fraud.

Unfortunately, our justice system has failed us miserably, it is simply not up to the task of meting out real and effective punishment that would have a real and signifigant deterrent effect.

While it may be true that a gang member from Montreal North has no fear of jail, it being an occupational hazard, such is not the case for businessmen, who can still make a good living without resorting to fraud.

Lax enforcement and insignificant punishment lead otherwise honest citizens to consider 'crossing the line.'
Let us take for example those 'honest' citizens who cross the border and make dishonest custom declarations.
It's a risk they take based on the slim chance they will be caught and the assessment that in the remote eventuality that they are caught, the punishment will be nothing more than a fine.

For most of us, just the humiliation of getting caught is enough to keep us honest, but for those who are adventuresome, the risk to reward is worth it.

But what if border agents started putting people in jail for smuggling, even if it is just for that one gorgeous pair of $1,000 shoes. What if the punishment would be a weekend in jail or some community service?
Simply put, the harsher the penalty, the higher the chance that honest law abiding  citizens will be discouraged from cheating.
But the government in its wisdom, deems this type of border enforcement to be a waste of resources and so a higher level of smuggling is the acceptable by-product.

I repeat what I said earlier, for hardened criminals, increased jail sentences aren't much of a deterrent, crime is their life and jail an occupational hazard.
But for otherwise genereally honest citizens, heightened penalties and the real possibility of incarceration would be a serious deterrent and this Mr Harper and everyone else in authority fails to understand.

Increased penalties for white collar crime would definitely have a significant dampening effect.
Unlike career criminals, these people think very carefully about the consequences of being caught. Generally they have homes, families, savings, and reputations that they care about. If they do cheat, it's because like the border under-declarers, it is just too easy and the punishment just too lenient.

Recently, through fits and starts, our province has arrived at a place and time when we are finally prepared to confront corruption and fraud in the public service and the construction industry.

Though we are lurching forward, with two steps forward and one step back, progress is being made, arrests are happening and even a cyncal public has to be impressed at the forward momentum we are witnessing in uncovering malfeasance, with quite a few impressive headline-grabbing arrests of late.

My fear however is, that our justice system is woefully unprepared to do its part.
If things go on as before, cases will drag on for years and in the end, prosecutors will give sweetheart deals to the defendants because they are outgunned by topnotch defense lawyers who can grind down crown prosecutors who are working on a timetable and a budget.

If the anti-crime units do their part, and they seem to be doing just that, it is on the justice system to punish cheaters and crooks in a signifigant manner.

First, Canada Revenue Agency and Revenue Quebec must clean up their act and re-orient their goals.
Up to now, both agencies concentrate on recovering as much money as it can from cheaters, foregoing criminal prosecution in the process.
In other words criminals who cheat the tax deparatment, sometimes out of millions can buy their way out of jail.

"...Construction magnate Antonio Accurso personally signed cheques at the heart of a tax-evasion scheme and used part of the funds for luxurious home renovations and fancy clothes, a court document alleges. The Canada Revenue Agency agreed to a deal last year in which two companies administered by Mr. Accurso - but not the construction magnate himself - pleaded guilty to $4-million in tax evasion and paid an equivalent fine.
By agreeing to the plea deal, Simard-Beaudry Construction Inc. and Louisbourg Construction Ltd. were affected in their ability to obtain government contracts. However, there was no direct consequence for Mr. Accurso." Link

The practice of buying ones way out of a tax fraud must be eliminated, with jail time the priority for those who organize schemes to defraud the government.
At a certain point, the money is secondary and examples must be made.
It's also time to raise the ante and if fines are to be levied instead of jail time, they should be enormous, say ten times the amount of the fraud!
It's time to take off the gloves and teach cheaters that when caught, they will have Hell to pay.

By the way, the Canada Revenue Agency needs to clean up its own act as well and finally put to bed the nasty corruption scandal that rocked the Montreal office. Link

Fighting this type of crime also means that the government must react quickly to shifting circumstances.
We are now seeing another phenomena, whereby those facing lifetime bans in relation to bidding for government contracts, are transferring their companies and assets to family members who are acting as 'innocent' fronts.

This ploy should be attacked on all angles and perhaps the government can use the new definition of a criminal enterprise as defined by the Supreme Court last week, to define families and even companies as criminal enterprises.
Let the crooks involved who object to being banned have the onus to prove their innocence. Good luck.

In the town of Mascouche, site of the arrest of the mayor and a construction king, Normand Trudel, for fraud, it seems that business is as usual.
Mr. Trudel's old company, Transport et Excavation Mascouche, at the center of the controversy, has been re-launched under his son's ownership and under a new name.
Nothing has really changed, the person who answered the telephone before, is still answering the phone now!

Tony Accurso is alleged to have installed his daughter as titular head of many of his enterprises to avoid problems in the event of he himself being blacklisted, a likely scenario, the way things are going

Mayor Richard Marcotte, at the center of the corruption scandal in Mascouche is refusing to stand down as mayor and made an appearance at a town council meeting for five minutes this week, in order to preserve his position as mayor. Had he been absent for three months consecutively, he'd have been put out on his rear end.
To the boos and hisses of townspeople who crowded city hall to demand his resignation, Marcotte made a mockery of them all, the arrogant bastard thumbing his nose at the justice system and maintaining his $100,000 salary, doing nothing for the money!

All these types of shenanigans must be recognized and stamped out. Laws need to be enacted in reaction and all that's required is a desire for justice and a burning resolve to rid our public spaces of these white collar scoundrals and thieves.

Finally, resources must be poured into the system to speed up trials, so that cases involving high profile fraud cases be completed within a year, at the most.
Right now, this is a pipe dream as cases can linger for five years, all to the defendants advantage.

A special corruption court needs to be established with priority given to those high profile trials of politicians, civil servants, consultants, engineering firms and construction magnates.

Convictions must include jail time for those at the top of the heap, sentencing guidelines must be established so that paying a fine, no matter how big, is not an option.

Without the cooperation of the justice department and the courts, all the good police work and arrests will go for naught.

It remains to be seen who will win the war, the crooks or the good guys.

Right now, its too early to tell, but I am confident that good things can happen, as long as the justice system doesn't let us down.

Let's cross our fingers!

Should English Canada Subsidize Separatist Radio Canada?

The latest story involving a Radio-Canada journalist quitting his job to join the separatist Parti Quebecois as a featured candidate in the next provincial election, should give rise to a debate relating to the number of separatists populating the national broadcaster.

The storm surrounding Pierre Duchesne centers on the fact that he was Radio-Canada's point man covering the National Assembly and is accused of covering the political beat while negotiating his potential candidacy with the Parti Quebec, a clear conflict of interest.

His story that he left Radio-Canada in June of his own volition, never having discussed the issue of his candidacy with the PQ while on the a job, had analysts laughing at the absurdity.

“MONTREAL—Less than a month ago, Radio-Canada journalist Pierre Duchesne was on television rating the performance of Quebec’s provincial leaders on the heels of an uncommonly hot pre-election season.
On Friday, he confirmed that he plans to run in a plum Parti Québécois riding in that election.
In between, Duchesne resigned his position as bureau chief for Radio-Canada at the National Assembly. At the time, he dismissed the already rampant rumours of an impending jump to partisan politics.
In hindsight, it seems he was the last person to find out about the PQ’s designs on his own future.
According to La Presse, Carole Lavallée — a former Bloc Québécois MP with solid connections to the PQ network — was told three months ago that she should not set her sights on the vacant riding of Borduas as it was set aside for “a star candidate from Radio-Canada.”

"....Still, a fair-minded person could question whether Duchesne lived up to the exacting ethical standards that he imposed on the ministers he so recently assessed. On that score, one can only wonder how he — as a journalist — would have commented on the optics of his own actions. " Chantal Hebert, Toronto Sun

Apparently, the PQ has shown itself to be as deceitful as the Liberals.
In the news conference held by Mr. Duchesne, he was hardly convincing denying that he spoke to the PQ while on the political beat at Radio-Canada.
Mr. Duchesne was a bit nasty and indignant, making himself appear guiltier and guiltier.
"Methinks the journalist doth protest too much"

And so the Liberals have made a complaint to the Quebec Press Council, headed by none other than the infamous John Gomery, the judge who headed the Sponsorhip Scandal Inquiry.
If the complaint goes forward, it'll be interesting to see whether those involved stick to the ludicrous story that they are pedaling today.
By the way, on Mario Dumont's political show the host recalled that when he was leader of the ADQ, he considered Duchesne hostile, a reporter who tried to sabotage the ADQ campaign every which way.

All that being said, the attack by the Liberals is just another political ploy to discredit an opponent. Even if everything they say proves true, it is no biggie.
Journalists joining political parties isn't such a big deal, I don't recall any national stink when Mike Duffy, who covered Canada's Parliament, left his job to be appointed to Canada's Senate, representing the Conservative party.

Don't tell me Duffy didn't have discussions about the appointment while serving as host for a CTV's afternoon political interview show, 'Mike Duffy Live' and as a journalist, he was every bit as partisan as Mr. Duschene and was even reprimanded by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for undue partisanship.

Then the case of Peter Kent, now in the federal cabinet, another journo turned Conservative.

At any rate, this isn't the gist of today's blog piece, just a bit of background concerning the steady stream of separatists having careers at Radio-Canada, which includes the likes of Bernard Drainville and Jean-François Lisée and yes, even René Levesque.

That separatist journalists leave Radio-Canada to become PQ militants doesn't bother me at all, but the fact that so many militant separatists are working in Radio-Canada certainly does!

Let us remember that the Radio Canada, the CBC, the National Film Board (Office National du Film) are all subsidized organizations created by Ottawa to foster a national identity and to promote national unity.

It seems a bit disingenuous to employ separatists when the mission of the organization is to promote Canada.

I know you can't exactly vet people over political preferences, but let's be honest, Radio-Canada employs a heckova lot more separatists than federalists, something that should be unacceptable to those who pay the bills.

My separatist friends will argue that they too are taxpayers and as such, deserve representation where their tax dollars help pay the freight.
Now I don't particularly agree with this point of view, that Ottawa should spend federal tax dollars to promote sovereignty,  but even if we accept the separatist argument of equal representation, it still doesn't make any sense.

Radio-Canada doesn't just have proportional number of separatists, they make up the vast majority of the on-air news staff and back room reporters!

Quebec's most watched political/entertainment talk-show, Tout le Monde en Parle is hosted by an openly militant sovereigntist, bringing us that certain anti-Canada slant to the issues at hand, each Sunday.

Could you imagine a universe where any Quebec government, either separatist or federalist, would underwrite a prime-time talk-show hosted by Howard Galganov?

I'm not putting forth anything new in stating that Radio-Canada is a hotbed of separatists, it's common knowledge, a fact repeated by bigger and better journalists and bloggers than I.

The most recent manifestation of this love affair with separatists was the decision to hire Gilles Duceppe as a political commentator, immediately after his defeat as Bloc Quebecois leader.
Only a firestorm of criticism had the head honchos at RadCan ducking for cover and ultimately backing down, but the temerity to hire a radical separatist on the Canadian dime, showed how comfortable the powers to be at RadCan are with promoting sovereignty.

Radio-Canada's love affiar with sovereignty goes back all the way to the beginning of the Quebec independence movement itself, Aislin, the Montreal Gazette's award winning political cartoonist took a shot at the issue way back in 1977.

"Me a separatist at Radio-Canada? It's not true, otherwise they'd have given me the job they promised in October!

And as for separatist tax dollars, let me tell you who really pays for Radio-Canada.
Here's a chart showing the expenditure for both the CBC and its French equivalent Radio-Canada.

For the 22% of the French population across Canada, Radio Canada's budget for radio and television is $566 million dollars or 38% of the combined CBC/Radio Canada English and French budget.
That represents a 55% premium over what demographics dictate.
It means that over $200 million dollars is taken out of the English CBC to subsidize Radio Canada and out of that $200 million dollars, about $130 million is paid for by Canadian federalists, with about $16 million paid for by separatist taxpayers and about $54 million by advertisers.
So much for fair representation of separatist tax dollars, how about fair representation for federalist tax dollars?

That's right, Jane from Orillia, Robert from Saskatoon, Eric from Smith Falls and the other 32 million federalists in Canada, give a financial premium to Radio-Canada, all so that it can promote sovereignty!

In Canada, its hard to get people politically motivated and so the separatist shenanigans over at Radio Canada are not only tolerated by federalists, but also subsidized!

Here's an example of Radio-Canada promoting sovereignty. On Friday last, viewers of Radio-Canada's news channel, RDI, were treated to a whole hour of Louise Beaudoin shilling for sovereignty.
This wasn't a news story, it was nothing less than an hour long infomercial for sovereignty.

Here's a brief clip, where Beaudoin makes her sovereigntist pitch, after being lobbed a softball by the moderator.

Not to nitpick, but Beaudoin actually misspeaks twice in that short clip.

First she tells viewers that the number of Francophones in Canada is diminishing from census to census, which of course is not true. It is the percentage of francophones which is diminishing.

Second, she states that the number of anglophones outside Quebec who are bilingual is 6%. Again not true.
What she should have said, is the number of Anglophones who speak French is 6%.

At any rate, this is what Radio-Canada has become, an organization chock full of separatists, using  Canadian tax money to provide separatists with hundreds and hundreds of hours of air time a year, all to promote the destruction of Canada.

If this is what Radio-Canada's has become, it is time to change things or get rid of the broadcaster altogether.

If separatists want to promote sovereignty over the airways, let them start their own network or buy time on commercial networks.

The recent budget cuts at CBC and Radio-Canada are a fine start, both networks are a waste of taxpayer dollars, but in Radio-Canada's case, we have created an ugly separatist monster and like Frankenstein, it is running amok.