Friday, October 25, 2013

French versus English Volume 95

Minority Quebec Liberal MNAs demonstrate their only talent.... self-preservation!

On Wednesday, the National Assembly voted unanimously to rebuke the federal government for supporting and now participating in the legal challenge to Bill 99 launched by Keith Henderson and pleaded by lawyer activist Brent Tyler.

One by one the Anglo and Ethnic Liberal members stood up and voted to support a PQ motion castigating Ottawa for mixing into affairs that supposedly only Quebecers have a right to consider.

Now I know these useful idiots are obligated to tow the party line, but when members of caucus are profoundly in disagreement with the party line and if it makes no difference to the outcome of the vote, they are sometimes (rarely) given an opportunity by the whip to skip the vote.
A really motivated member who is refused permission by the whip to skip the vote can always call in sick, but this sometimes has consequences, like losing travel perks and committee spots and other goodies dished out by the all-powerful whip.
It also puts at risks, the member's re-nomination, so it takes guts to follow your heart and let's face it, our Anglo and Ethnic members of the Liberal party have as much heart as the Cowardly Lion.

And so the Anglo and Ethnic Liberals voted along with the house in favour of the motion, seemingly happy to do so.

I was particularly disappointed with Lawrence Bergman who seemed to have had no qualms whatsoever about supporting the PQ motion.
Before the vote, an unconcerned and upbeat Bergman rose in the Assembly to make an all important statement, congratulating constituent Anthony Housefather, mayor of Côte Saint-Luc , for excellent performance in the Maccabiah Games, the Jewish Olympics held in Israel this past summer. 
"Mayor Housefather, congratulations, you’re definitally (sic) a source of inspiration for us all. You show us that, even in the hustle and bustle of our daily lives, determination and discipline can bring us even further. You’re also a superb and well-liked mayor of Côte-Saint-Luc. Thank you." Link
Arghhhhhh!!!!! Pee-ukke!!!.....

What an insipid  brown-noser, this on a day where he sells out the very residents of Mayor Housefather's town!
Now Mr. Housefather must be feeling a little embarrassed receiving such accolades from the spineless Bergman, Housefather is a very active defender of minority rights and has testified against Bill 14 before the National Assembly committee sitting on the issue.

Of all the MPs representing minorities and Anglos in Quebec, the nebbish MP from D'Arcy-McGee has always been the least effective, carrying zero weight within the party.
In fact Jean Charest wanted to dump Bergman in favour of a more capable Jew who had been lined up to take over the seat, one who could actually make the cabinet on merit and whose first language was French. I shall leave out that person's name, because it never happened.
A prominent Jewish senator from Ottawa was enlisted to have that conversation, in which Bergman flatly refused to give up his seat.
This information, to my knowledge, has never been made public.

In 2003 Bergman had a brief term as Minister of Revenue, but that was before the infamous 'meeting.'  After that, Charest left him out of the cabinet, now you know why.

Mr Bergman and supporters may be riled by these comments, but truth be told, he would have to step up his game considerably to become a lightweight.
As for the other Liberals, Geoffrey Kelly, Kathleen Weil, Yolande James, Filomena Rotiroti, and Gerry Sklavounos, all I can say is that they are what they are, nothing less than deadwood, or even worse, the Kapos of the English and Anglo community.
Now the argument that all these MPs make, is that they are doing the best they can considering their position trying to bring some level of moderation to government policy affecting Anglos and Ethnics, but truthfully how's that going?
By the way, given Bergman's precarious position in his party, he is highly dependant on the support of powerful people like Housefather, whose popularity among his townspeople is so high that he is running unopposed.
So that's what the Bergman's Assembly grovel was all about.

More PQ Smoke & Mirrors

Mr. Bamboozler

Bernard Drainville

I took in a masterful performance by Bernard Drainville, the PQ minister in charge of selling the infamous Charter of Values, wherein he held a news conference to give reporters his interpretation of the comments received on the government website created to solicit public reaction to the Bill.

"I feel confident that these results reflect for a large part the general opinion of citizens who participated in the exercise" -Drainville

How's that for a tap dance?
Josée  Legault, an avowed sovereignist and newly hired Journal de Montreal pundit, took Drainville to task;
"Presenting the results of this invisible consultation compiled by officials and a handful of law students, Minister Drainville proudly announced that  47 % of these "citizens" support the draft Charter of Quebec Values​​. The Minister also noted that among these comments, the most often requested changes were the removal of the crucifix from the National Assembly and the opposition to the right of withdrawal  for public institutions wishing to evade the ban on the wearing of ostentatious religious signs. A happy coincidence, it is precisely the changes the government itself has envisaged for some time. That is based on some of the many leaks in the dossier.The minister also said he was unable to provide a breakdown of these comments by region, age, sex, language , etc. .. In short,  Bernard when Drainville himself recognizes the "unscientific" nature of the exercise, it is clearly an understatement. During a press conference, facing questions on this issue, Mr. Drainville , smiled and responded to his former colleagues :

 
"Look, I 've been a journalist, you have the right to be skeptical .
If I were you, maybe I would be as well ." Link{fr}
More PQ Smoke and Mirrors
The truth is that intellectual separatists are having an extremely hard time accepting the B/S that Drainville and the PQ are offering up in the debate.

Now I have to call Drainville out one thing he said, that these types of comment boards usually receive a disproportionate amount of responses from those highly passionate over  the project, in this case he intimated, those affected by the ban on religious clothing.
This is plainly not true, because the amount of those wearing these symbols is dwarfed by the number of those supporting the project passionately.
I venture a guess that less than 50,000 people (probably less,) wear religious symbols, while those opposed include millions.

At any rate the whole thing is just grand theatre, or more likely, theatre of the absurd.
Imagine the editor of No Dogs or Anglophones pulling data from the comments section and proposing that the results are indicative of Anglo/Ethnic opinion in Quebec.
Oh, if it were only that easy!

Now this wasn't the only Drainville performance of note, he was in top form in the National Assembly in reply to a question by Amir Khadir who complained that in considering an election this December the PQ was violating the spirit of the law passed unanimously in  the National Assembly that made fixed elections every four years in September.

Mr. Drainville replied that while it is true, the fact that the opposition can dump the government at will, because it has a combined majority, the PQ has reserved the right to call an election at will, the law be damned!

Jean-François Lisée

Jean-François Lisée.... 'factually challenged'
Nobody in the PQ government gets it wrong more often than Jean-François Lisée, whose amiable manner belies a propensity to exaggerate, misinterpret facts and take outright liberty with the truth.
He is renowned for making statements that are altogether not true.
Last December, in defending Andre Boisclair's appointment as a deputy minister as well as Delegate General in New York, he cited in rebuttal, the example of Lawrence Cannon, ambassador to France about whom Lisée told reporters;
“Lawrence Cannon is the Canadian ambassador in Paris and he was named simultaneously assistant deputy minister to Foreign Affairs Link
Trouble is, the assertion was just plain untrue and when confronted by reporters Lisée admitted in his famous 'ah shucks' manner that he just made a 'gaffe' Link

In an incident in April, Lisée accused Justin Trudeau of overstepping his bounds by requesting a meeting with opposition leaders alone, again something that never happened.
"Lisée later said he misunderstood the Trudeau request, and volunteered to buy the new Liberal leader a beer to make up for his angry words." Link
Now you might recall Jean-François Lisée telling Montreal mayoral candidates at the beginning of October that they should keep their opposition to the Charter of Values to themselves and keep it on the sidelines as did Montreal's most famous mayor Jean Drapeau over Bill 101. Link

Turns out that isn't true as well, because Drapeau was actually a fierce opponent of Bill 101.

Kudos to Montreal's largest community newspaper,  The Suburban for ferreting out the truth in an editorial article about Mr. Lisée's liberties with the truth.
I'm going to reproduce the entire editorial because it is hard to access and not many people outside Montreal are aware of it.
Of course nobody in the mainstream press has called Mr. Lisée to task for another flight of fancy.

You can visit the Suburban website HERE and access the current and past issues HERE

Lisée, Drapeau and Montreal’s special status
One of the reasons that the nationalist narrative in Quebec gained currency over the past forty years particularly with young Francophones is that our history is not known. People buy into whatever version of history the nationalists sell, particularly the skewed version of Francophones having been victims of imperialists in their own native land when in fact their very presence here is as much the product of European imperialism as the Anglophone presence. History matters. And not just because, as Santayana wrote, `Those who forget it are bound to repeat it.” It matters because Its perversion is used as a political tool. Particularly in a jurisdiction with North America’s highest high school dropout rate.
That’s why Minister Jean-François Lisée’s comments last week professing the view that our current mayoral candidates should follow the lead of former Mayor Jean Drapeau - who according to Lisée, remained neutral and mute in the debate on Bill 101- and remain neutral in the Charter debate. Well Drapeau did no such thing. What he had to say in the October 1983 hearings on reforming Bill 101 mirrors what civil rights advocates have said for years and what has been most vociferously re-stated by opponents of Bill 14 just this past year. They are worth reflecting on and all Montrealers owe a debt to CBC Radio`s Bernard St-Laurent and his assistant Loreen Pindera for digging out the entire presentation and making it an issue this past week. We will go into some of Drapeau salient points later in this column. But we must first examine Lisée`s comments.
To begin with, no government official has any right to tell any citizen candidate or nor what to think, say or write. It is reprehensible for anyone, particularly a Minister, to make such a thoroughly illiberal and undemocratic intervention. But more than that, we have to examine the man who made them, and why. M. Lisée is not your ordinary Quebec-centric politician. This is an extremely well-educated and cosmopolitan politician. Post-graduate studies abroad; over a dozen years as a Washington-based correspondent; author of “ In the Eye of the Eagle” and winner of the Governor-General’s Prize. This is a man who knows his history.
Drapeau’s comments not only made headline news, but the political events around the October 1983 hearings on the then Bill 57 “assouplissement” of Bill 101 did as well.
René Levesque had just replaced Camille Laurin as Minister responsible for the French Language Charter with Gérald Godin who was considered a moderate on language.
Godin`s opening statement at the hearings already made everybody sit up and take notice. After explaining the need to protect French in a “sea of English” not only in North America but from global “assimilation”, he then made the “radical” statement for those times that “Let us be clear. Anglo-Quebecers have very little to do with this assimilation and it is not them that we should consider responsible, or their institutions.”
The background to the 1983 reforms have been widely written about. Marc Levine’s “The Reconquest of Montreal” and Andrew Sancton’s “Governing Montreal” are just two of the works that examined those events. Lisée is a student of history. He lived those times. He was senior aide to Premier Bouchard. For him to say what he did evidenced that either he thought no Quebecer would remember or that they would be too intimidated to reply. He was wrong on both counts.
But now that Lisée has opened this Pandora’s Box, let us repeat – again and again what Drapeau said in his testimony. He called for special status for Montreal exempting it from aspects of 101 because he felt the language laws were irreparably hurting the Montreal economy. He said that the most negative effects of Bill 101 were being felt not so much because of the words in the legislation as by the manner of their enforcement.
He called for exemptions for English-speaking executives bringing their children to Montreal so that they could send them to schools of their choice. And perhaps most poignantly, he made the point thirty years ago next week – that many areas of Montreal have non-francophone majorities and these citizens should not be estranged from their own city because of an insistence on unilingual signs. He called for bilingual and even trilingual signs as long as French was included. Today the City of Montreal has a non-francophone majority.
History matters! And quite inadvertently, Lisée has made many re-examine our own recent past. It’s lessons are important for today. Let`s hope everyone learns them.
We encourage everyone to go to the following link and read Mayor Drapeau’s words"
Link

Péladeaus cozy up to the PQ brass

"There are some concerns being expressed about media baron Pierre Karl Peladeau's role in Quebec politics, notably his close ties to the pro-independence Parti Quebecois government.
The province's opposition leader says he wants to know more about the political involvement of the chairman of Quebecor (TSX:QBR.B), which dominates the private multimedia landscape in the province and which owns the Sun TV and newspaper chain in English Canada.

Peladeau has been sitting in on cabinet meetings on green-transport projects in his other role — as chairman of Hydro-Quebec, to which he was appointed by Pauline Marois.

His tabloid newspaper, the Journal de Montreal, provided positive coverage in exclusive reports about the project two weeks ago.

More recently, the newspaper has offered prime real estate to a project spearheaded by Peladeau's wife, Julie Snyder, who was among several prominent feminists to organize a grassroots campaign in support of the PQ's controversial values charter.  Link

Pierre Karl Peladeau and wife Julie Snyder make it official. We're PQ separatistes!
Meanwhile his wife is getting busy politically on behalf of the PQ and the Charter of Values.
"We may be wrong to suspect that Pierre Karl Peladeau wants to enter politics, it is his wife Julie Snyder we should ask. It is she who  created the 'Janettes', Janette Bertrand revealed on the talk-show, Tout le monde en parle. It was she who called the signatories of the letter written by Mrs. Bertrand to a meeting to discuss the Charter of Quebec values​​.... Link
The article by  Gilbert Lavoie in Le Soleil went on to detail how Peledeau's wife solicited government aid for various productions.An indignant Snyder penned an article defending herself stating;
"I am a woman of conviction and claim the right to advocate for causes that are important to me."

She also defended her actions in seeking to help a company get government subsidies.


Suspension with pay over language insult makes no sense.

Most of us are  aware of the story of a hospital orderly in Gatineau who unloaded on a cancer patient for not speaking French.
OTTAWA — The orderly who yelled at a dying vet for speaking English in a Gatineau, Que., hospital has been suspended until an investigation is completed.
The Hull Hospital orderly yelled, "On parle francais ici, c'est le Quebec" as John Gervais, a 78-year-old navy veteran, was waiting in the emergency room to be admitted.
The orderly will receive his full pay while the hospital's ombudsman investigates.
"It's simply unacceptable behaviour," hospital spokesman Sylvain Dube said.
"For clinical issues, it's so important that doctors and nurses understand what the patient is saying." Link
I've no doubt that the public outcry led to the suspension, it seems that the hospital was on a course to covering up the whole incident in the hope it would just go away.
But as pressure built and the story grew legs, the hospital suspended the employee pending an investigation...with pay.

What a patently stupid thing to do, because the way things go in Quebec, the investigation may take weeks or months, while the employee keeps cashing a paycheck.

And let's face it, the employee involved has union protection and so the punishment at best will be a few days of suspension.
How much better to have let the employee keep working, under a cloud, while the investigation carries on and then apply any sanction at the conclusion.
The real punishment being meted out is to the hospital budget which is charged to paying the miscreant to sit at home.
Imagine getting a two, three week or longer paid vacation at a cost of only a couple of days suspension!

Me, I'd prefer naming the orderly publicly and let the shaming be the punishment, but on the other hand, he would probably earn a medal of valour by Gatineau's Impératif français,


************************

 Let's go to some lighter stuff, because this peice is getting long;

"125 National Assembly members united against Ottawa"
"The 125 members of the National Assembly, of all parties, have unanimously passed a motion this morning denouncing the "attack" by the federal government's prerogative to choose their future Quebec." Link{fr}
 I was pretty impressed that every single member of the National Assembly showed up to vote for the motion, that type of attendance is unheard of.
So I wasn't surprised that a reader in the comments sections called the writer of the story to order, telling him that only 111 members actually cast votes.
Yup, it's true, I checked, there were 13 members plus the speaker who didn't vote.

In reaction to the comment, one would think that the newspaper would retract or modify the story, but alas, no it did not, because after all, who reads the comments section and retractions are always a bit embarrassing...
Shame on the author and editors, but hey, it's LeJdeM.

************************

I don't know what to make of this story in La Metropole entitled; "Marois' very Gay Cabinet'
Even though these cabinet ministers aren't in the closet, I'm not sure they appreciate being made into poster boys and girls for the Gay movement.

Réjean Hébert, Sylvain Gaudreault, Bertrand St-Arnaud, Agnès Maltais,
"It was Daniel Breton, in a conversation a few days before the Gay Pride weekend, who pointed out to me how well gays are very well represented in the PQ government. Here are the names and positions: Réjean Hébert, Minister of Health and Social Services, Sylvain Gaudreault, Minister of Transportation and Municipal Affairs; Bertrand St-Arnaud, Minister of Justice and Agnès Maltais, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Employment and social Solidarity. Link{fr}

Speaking of gays and completely off the subject, you might have read the story of the Italian homophobic  CEO of Barilla, Guido Barilla, saying he wouldn't feature gays in any of the company's advertising.
As you can imagine, there was quite the backlash and a competitor, Bertolli, showed it up with this marvellous advertisement.
Well-played!



************************ 

"Canada’s two most populous provinces continue to lag behind most of the country when it comes to small business-friendly tax systems. Nova Scotia also makes the bottom three. The second edition of the Small Business Provincial Tax Index puts Ontario (#8), Nova Scotia (#9) and Quebec (#10) at the bottom, while Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick hold down the top three spots."

Read the article by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business Link
Read its assessment of Quebec.  Link


************************ 

Here's a recent survey of Montrealers attitudes about their city;


************************ 

I laughed out loud over this story in the Journal de Montreal lamenting the fact that Anglos know nothing about Quebecois artists and its 'Stars.'



The article reported that 98% of anglos don't know who 'Infoman' is and 95% don't know who 'M.Bougon' is.
For those of us Anglos who do speak French fluently, it isn't a question of language, Quebecois culture is second rate, like Canadian or Italian culture.
We proudly embrace and contribute English language culture which is world-wide and without equal on any level.

I can tell you this, if the above francophone actors and artists were English by birth, not a one would make an impact in his or her entertainment field, they just aren't talented enough.
It's simply a question of numbers, the pool from which we pull artists is a hundred times larger than Quebecois French culture and the competition is fierce.
Not to say Quebecois aren't talented, perhaps even more so than Canadians on a per capita basis, but it still means that only a fraction could make it into the elite Anglo entertainment scene.

This assertion by journalist Marie-Claude Ducas had me busting a gut!
"I 'll tell you a secret: if you really want to upset and hurt Anglo-Canadians , explain to them that there is no Canadian star system and there is no popular culture' in English Canada. This amounts to sticking a finger into a cultural wound. And don't forget to bring up existential question: "What exactly really sets us apart from the Americans? ".   Link{fr}
How utterly naïve and quaint!
It's like having your five-year old explain to you why Barney the dinosaur is the greatest entertainer in the world.

So here's a scoop, Madame Ducas, Anglo Canadians are not obsessed with local stars or Canadian pop culture and if you think we are feeling bad about that fact, you are sadly out of touch with reality.
We don't think about borders where talent is concerned and that is why Americans as well as people all around the world, flock to see Justin Bieber, Celine Dion or Arcade Fire, because they aren't constrained either.

If Guy A. Lepage (Quebec's most famous interviewer) spoke perfect English, what are the chances of him being a success on English television? 
Madame Ducas compares Lepage to Canadian George Stroumboulopoulos, who absolutely bombed on his attempt to break out of Canada on CNN. Link
I like Stroumboulopoulos, but in the rarefied air of elite English culture, few have what it takes to make it.

When I think of Quebec popular culture, one phrase comes to mind.....wedding singers.
Sorry to be cruel, but them's the facts!

Further reading!

Boycott the English language says top French intellectual
"French philosopher complains there are more examples of the English language in Toulouse than there was German during the occupation."  Link
 
Harel wants to add language watchdog to city’s executive committee
Louise Harel announced to her party Coalition Montreal — Marcel Côté wants to add the position of promoter of the French language to the city hall's executive committee, the city's top decision-making body.  Link

English should be Brussels' official language, Flemish minister says
Brussels aspires to be an international city, it should make English an official language, the Flemish minister for education Pascal Smet has told EurActiv. Link

ONE FINAL NOTE
I follow the hockey series 24 CH, which is a sanitized version of the similar HBO series called 24/7, which follows around sports teams and gives a behind the scenes look at what really goes gone.

The 24 CH series is produced by Bell media and follows the HABS, it is sort of an advertisement for BELL and content for its sports channels RDS and TSN.

This notice at the end of the last episode, which I caught this week, vaunted the fact that the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada offered tax breaks to help create the series. Watch an episode HERE

Now readers, I'm sure you'll agree with me that neither BELL or the CANADIENS are a charity case, so really, why are taxpayers contributing a nickel towards this project?
Do we really need to help highly profitable and rapacious over-chargers make more money?
Without the tax break would the series not be produced and if so, who cares?
Maybe the government could remove the tax element on the eleven dollars beer sold at the Bell Centre, so that they could make even more money.
Have we gone mad?
...and with that little rant, it is time to bid adieu!

Have a great weekend!

Bonne fin de semaine!

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Harper Lobs Hand Grenade at Quebec

Brent Tyler...dragon slayer!
Watching the separatists foam at the mouth over the announcement that the federal government will join a lawsuit to declare Quebec's Bill 99 unconstitutional is bittersweet, for too long Harper has refused to engage the Parti Quebecois over its constant baiting of Canada.

But the winds of fortune have shifted for the Conservatives and not in a good way with support softening, especially due to the Senate scandal.
In an effort to shift the optic, Harper is making a another major shift in policy towards Quebec, after first trying engagement, then benign neglect and now open hostility.

And so, once and for all, Harper is writing off Quebec in an attempt to consolidate power elsewhere in Canada and from here, there is no road back.
For the Conservatives, as with the PQ, it now suits the political agenda to enter into a 'chicane' with Quebec, where if and when the fight gets nasty and loud, he can count on a fed-up ROC backing his play to the hilt.
The louder constitutional war drums beat in Quebec City and Ottawa, the better for the Conservatives, that is the Harper rationale.

When the issue of sovereignty and Quebec nationalism rears its ugly head in any serious manner, it becomes the defining political issue of the day and voters, looking for a gladiator, will overlook almost any past transgressions and peccadillo.

Of all the federal leaders, most Canadians view Harper as the most viable adversary to Quebec's aggressive nationalist policy and best suited to defend Canada's interests.
Would you really want to see Justin Trudeau or worse still Thomas Mulcair take on Quebec?

There is a profound change in attitudes in the ROC concerning Quebec and Harper may be tapping into the growing sentiment that appeasement has gone too far.
Harper has demonstrated the ability to form a majority government without Quebec, so throwing the recalcitrant province under the bus, a cynical but altogether viable option.

The Achilles Heel of the federal Liberals and Ndper's is the issue of Quebec, both Trudeau and Mulcair seen to be coddling enablers.

Here's the NDP's sad-sack position on independence:


If the issue of Quebec gains traction as a bone of contention in the next election, you can count on another Conservative majority government and so the wheels are turning.
Harper now accepts what we all knew for a while, that Conservatives are dead and buried in Quebec, with no hope of improving fortunes in the next federal election.
Harper is the only federal leader who will benefit from a political fight with Quebec and this, big time.

Also to be considered is the impending court date for the Bill 99 challenge mounted by private citizen Keith Henderson, ably represented by Brent Tyler.

Clearly Bill 99 is going to be struck down and Harper cannot resist stealing the credit, after all, leaving it up to Tyler and Henderson to defend the Canadian Constitution, especially since they will inevitably win their day in court, is not good politics.
It would for all intents and purposes show up the federal government as negligent and perhaps gun-shy, not something that Harper could tolerate.

For Tyler and Henderson, its been a rough and expensive road and so if the Feds are going to steal their thunder, I hope Ottawa will have the decency to reimburse them fully for their time and effort.
I know it has been very rough on them, both financially and emotionally.

Now for those unfamiliar with the case, let's briefly deconstruct what has and is going on.
For an excellent and very detailed account read this Maclean's article.

After Quebec's narrow referendum loss, Stephane Dion, the then Liberal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs asked the Supreme Court to pronounce itself on the legality of independence and referendums via three key questions.

On September 30, 1996, Dion submitted three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada constituting the Supreme Court Reference re Secession of Quebec:
  1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
  3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature, or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada? Wikipedia
The court replied;
On August 20, 1998, the Supreme Court answered, concluding that Quebec does not have the right to secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law. However, the Government of Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede. It confirmed that the Parliament of Canada had the power to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear enough to trigger such negotiations. The Constitution of Canada would remain in effect until terms of secession were agreed to by all parties involved, and these terms would have to respect principles of democracy; minority and individual rights as outlined in the Canadian constitution. Wikipedia
This led to Ottawa drafting the Clarity Act which set out the terms and conditions for sovereignty which includes the requirement for a clear referendum question and a clear majority.

Lucien Bouchard and the PQ replied several days later with Bill 99, passed in the Quebec Parliament, which basically said that Quebec and Quebec alone could decide the terms and conditions of any referendum on sovereignty.
Bill 99
FINAL PROVISIONS
13. No other parliament or government may reduce the powers, authority,sovereignty or legitimacy of the National Assembly, or impose constraints on the democratic will of the Quebec people to determine its own future.”
Are you kidding me?
This last clause is not only unconstitutional but patently ridiculous, because under the terms, if a majority separatist government is elected, it could then make up its own rules, perhaps lowering the threshold to 25% plus one or restrict eligibility to participate in the referendum to citizens born in Quebec or allow children aged 16  to vote, or anything else they wished in order to tip the scales.

Ridiculous?

My examples may be exaggerated, but if the question of sovereignty is only a Quebec matter, to be decided by Quebecers alone under terms and conditions that itself dictates, there is nothing to stop a majority separatist government from declaring unilateral independence without a referendum

Clearly Bill 99 cannot withstand any court challenge, it is just too stupid.
Read the petition written by Brent Tyler, who remains one of the very few heroes in the fight against unfettered Quebec nationalism.


I caught Brent giving a couple of interviews on the French language network and must congratulate him on his calm demeanour and sang-froid.
In one interview on a morning show, Salut Bonjour!, the woman putting questions to Brent looked like she wanted to murder him.
Here's another  interview where Brent toys with his Radio-Canada interlocutor. Link{fr}

Everyone, including the PQ knows how this will turn out, with Bill 99 eviscerated and the Clarity Act, the law of the land.
It reminds me of the original Bill 101 that was so clearly unconstitutional, one provision after another has been struck down over the years.

The comical part about this, is that the majority of Quebecers actually support both the Clarity Act and Bill 99 at the same time, a contradiction in terms, which speaks to the intelligence of voters.

Lucien Bouchard admitted that if he had asked Quebecers to pronounce against the Clarity Act via a referendum, he would have lost and so clearly the province remains bound by its terms, like it or not.

No doubt the PQ will declare another 'humiliation' in the inevitable rejection of the courts of Bill 99 and if they'd like to make a fight about it, they have a partner in Stephen Harper.

If The Charter of Secularism is passed, there's no doubt now that Ottawa will challenge the law as well, Harper's action in regards to Bill 99 now paves the way.

Let us remember that next year, the Equalization Payment program is up for renewal and if Harper decides to punish Quebec in order to win support in the ROC, well.... I don't want to think about.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Thirty-Seven Years of Mediocrity

Back in the day, when my older brother had his bicycle stolen, two Montreal police detectives showed up on our doorstep to see if they could help, bearing a box of French fries to help placate our sadness and incidentally speaking very passable English.

Could it happen today?
I imagine if you call the Montreal police about your car being stolen from your driveway, they'd tell you to call your insurance company, as they couldn't be bothered with such trivial matters, perhaps too busy militating for a three day work week, instead of doing their job. Link

In almost all respects, life has gotten better and easier, largely because of technology, but looking back over the years, I sadly conclude that Quebec society has actually regressed to the point of being pathetic.

A few days ago we were treated to a news conference of concerned south shore mayors and chambers of commerce big shots complaining that the promised toll on the proposed replacement to the Champlain bridge would represent an unbearable hardship to commuters. Link
These whingers warned of the disastrous effect where drivers will shun the toll bridge in favour of the free Victoria and  Jacques Cartier bridges, supposedly causing massive traffic jams.
The toll on the Olivier-Charbonneau Bridge connecting Montreal to Laval is about $2, so the question remains....would you drive five kilometres out of your way and into a traffic jam to save two dollars?
Just a few days earlier, I drove into New York city via the magnificent George Washington Bridge and paid a toll of $13.....Yup, $13.

Come to think of it, the George Washington Bridge took only four years to build back in 1927, while the new Champlain bridge replacement is scheduled to take 10 years to complete!
Is that not pathetic?

Victoria Bridge...4 years to build, 153 years ago. Still standing..
I'll remind readers that Montreal's Victoria Bridge, spanning the St. Lawrence River was built over 153 years ago and is still doing yeoman's duty.  Built before the invention of steel, the wrought iron bridge was built in just five years, using innovative and cutting edge techniques, all without the use of power tools or computers! Link

Are we actually unable to compete with 150 year old technology?

A while back I posted a video of a 30 story hotel in China being built in just thirty days.
It's an attitude called 'can do,' something we had, but lost over the years, the ability to rise to the occasion and get things done through hard work and true grit.
Think of it, a skyscraper in thirty days. Here we couldn't do it in thirty months! Link

I don't want to get into stories of the good old days, but permit me a few observations.
When I was a kid, doctors made house calls and it didn't take 21 hours to be seen in an emergency room.
In modern Quebec people are literally dying, while waiting to be seen by doctors. Link{fr}
While Quebec has more doctors per capita than almost all the other provinces, 25% of us cannot find a family doctor, while the rate in the rest of Canada is about half that.
Why is this?

Respect has gone down the drain.
Cops walked a beat and kept the neighbourhood clean, or at least cleaner than today. They wore the uniform proudly and people looked up to them.
The picture of this Laval patrol car parked in handicapped spot is indicative of attitudes today, the pride and respect, all but gone.

Corruption has always existed in Quebec, but never on a level seen today, where the sophistication and scope of the graft boggles the mind.
Our  infrastructure is literally collapsing, overpasses falling down and cement flying off bridges on a weekly basis, built with inferior cement and shoddy workmanship, but at an astronomical cost. 

It is no coincidence that our almost forty years of mediocrity and 200 billion dollars plus of debt that we have racked up over that period, coincides exactly with the rise of nationalism and the promotion of the sovereignty movement.
So consumed has the province become with language, culture and sovereignty issues, that we've completely taken our eye off the ball, engaged in nonsensical debates while our society crumbles, as companies, citizens and  international investers flee to greener pastures.

On Friday I spent altogether too much time watching the French news channels starting with Mario Dumont's French language talk-show where the subject du jour wasn't waiting times in the ER, our massive debt, exorbitant taxes, or the lack of productivity, or come to think of it, any of the real issues that affect us.
Nope, what obsesses Quebecers today is but another red herring, the idiotic Charter of the Pathetic.

And so viewers were treated to an oral screed by some Francophone zartiste, a nobody that not one English person in the world would recognize, who was dishing it out to Muslim women, not only supporting the Charter, but intimating that nobody be allowed to wear a Hijab in public at all, because it offended her sense of citizenship.
According to her, the Muslims, left to their own design, will ruin Quebec, but alas readers, that ship has sailed, Quebec is already ruined and not by the Muslims, but by us.

Later on in the broadcast, a bit of good news, as Prime Minister Harper announced a free-trade deal with Europe, one that even Quebec supports, if you can believe it.
But I was confused, after all, why on Earth would spoil-sport Quebec support anything proposed by Ottawa?
All became clear a little later as our illustrious finance minister, Nicolas Marceau, proudly explained that Canada would compensate Quebec for any losses, like the cheese producers, who simply can't compete with French producers.

For God's sake, can you believe we can't compete with the French!

A local cheese producer who was interviewed on the news channel, admitted that it isn't only a question of price, but also the fact that Quebec can't compete on a quality level as well.
Of course we all understand that Quebec protects dairy farmers by artificially inflating the cost of milk through  'supply management,' a quaint euphemism for price-fixing.

While the rest of Canada is moving away of these anachronisms, (the Wheat Board cartel was stripped of exclusivity back in 2012,) Quebec is forging ahead with more price-fixing, now proposing  to control the price on newly issued French books, in order to support the authors and small bookstores.
Who believes that this measure will sell more books?
And so in Quebec, it isn't only at McDonalds where the Monopoly game is played!

In reaction to the falling gate receipts for Quebec made movies, the government is studying a new tax on theatre tickets and perhaps a levy on Netflix. Why not?
Think that's gonna increase ticket sales?
When interviewed about the proposed tax, one of the owners of the Guzzo theatre chain, (I can't remember which)  told a television interviewer that the real trouble is that the movies produced in Quebec, generally stink.

Pathetic...

Still later in the day, I caught a press conference by Diane DeCourcy, another PQ stalwart, who was describing the new rules to be implemented by the OQLF. It seems that language police are installing new protocols so that in its never-ending battle to terrorize English citizens and their businesses, care will be taken not to embarrass Quebec in the international press, à la Pastagate.
In Quebec, this is what we mean by progress.

Then there was a newspaper story last week detailing how Hydro-Quebec is no longer competitive because successive governments (both Liberals and PQ)  forced the once mighty power producer to absorb overpriced electricity from ridiculous pork-barrel wind-generating projects, this while we've got rivers up the whazzo, just waiting to be dammed. Link{fr}
The pride and joy of Quebec Inc. has been reduced to a laughingstock, where in the face of declining demand and collapsing prices for electricity, it is mothballing existing power plants with one hand, and accepting new wind farms with the other, which are producing electricity at a rate almost three times the price of the mothballed plants, worthy of a Monty Python skit!

Our government has become so bloated and incompetent that it cannot effectively provide services at any meaningful level or within any reasonable time frame. Every new proposal is bogged down in endless studies by bureaucrats who are reminiscent of the dysfunctional employees of Fawlty Towers.

I'm reminded of the famous Seinfeld episode where the ever bumbling and unsuccessful George Costanza decides to act exactly opposite of what he usually does because he hasn't been successful following his instincts.
"If every instinct that you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right!"

Perhaps our government should follow the same concept and lower taxes on books and movie tickets!
Instead of raising subsidies to video game companies, perhaps the government should consider  lowering royalties paid by mining companies. Jobs in the resource industry are high-paying and permanent, after all, production can't move offshore.
While our idiot Natural Resource Minister is creating a new higher royalty scheme, companies are pulling out of Quebec at an alarming rate.

I recently spoke with a manager of a ski hill in the Laurentiens who complained that the Quebec environment department nixed an expansion plan because it would intrude on a nesting ground of ducks.
I know how they'd handle the problem in China, it's called Peking Duck.

And so we are actually debating the environmental impact of oil drilling on Anticosti, an uninhabited island the size of Crete or the reversal of a pipeline, as if the direction in which the oil flows, East or West, is actually germane.
All manner of commissions, committees and study groups plow away, examining issues that in some cases actually become moot, like shale gas development, where the companies involved got tired of waiting for the government to issue permits and so packed up and left the province.
Projects take so long that sometimes they are obsolete before even completed. Take for example the project to computerize the health records , not exactly brain surgery.
"Auditor-General Renaud Lachance concluded that: “The initial parameters of the project, costs, scope and schedule, will not be respected. Given these changes, we consider that the project in its originally defined structure no longer exists and, in this sense, is a failure.”

Lachance asserted that the DSQ was budgeted in 2006 at $563 million and was to be in full operation by 2010. The program had the backing of Canada Health Infoway.

Now, the government is committed to spending $900 million more to computerize patient health records, bringing the cost beyond $1.4 billion when the DSQ becomes operational in 2016...
....Lachance would not venture a guess at the final cost of the DSQ.

What’s more, the strategy for the architecture of the system has changed. Instead of a new province-wide system for all regions and health providers, the strategy is to make use of regional solutions and to tie them all together." Link
Pathetic.

Quebecers now work about two full weeks less per year than those in the ROC, so it's no wonder family income in Quebec is about $77k, while $92k in Canada.
Quebec has about 30% more people on welfare, 44% more people using food banks, 8% less people employed and a startling 46% less individuals owning a business.

As the province goes to Hell in an handbasket we remain obsessed with the Charter of the Values, like discussing what type of music the band should play during the sinking of the Titantic.
Unbelievably, it has become the most important political issue since the last referendum.

Why am I so glum?
Because the public doesn't seem to care.
Our economic collapse has been papered over with debt and subsidies from the ROC, so no politician in Quebec (save Regis Lebeaume) is willing to tell the truth about our famous Quebec model, which is actually a fiasco, reminiscent of the Bixi project, something we all wanted to succeed, but where reality dictates that the model doesn't work.

I actually hope the PQ will be re-elected in another minority government so that they can finally tank the whole province, because like an addict who has to hit rock bottom before seeking the remedy, until Quebecers come face to face with the reality of their own addiction to laziness and entitlement, we can never recover.

And it is coming sooner than later. The next budget, regardless of who presents it, will finally confirm that Quebec under its present circumstances can not operate in the black.

But by all means let us ignore all this and obsess over the Charter of the Pathetic.

Have I used the word 'pathetic' enough?

Friday, October 18, 2013

Quebec Human Rights Commission Deals Stunning Rebuke to Charter of Values

"The Quebec Human Rights Commission is warning the Marois government that several elements in its proposed Charter of Quebec Values would not stand up in court.  
The Commission is especially concerned about the ban on the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants.  It says the ban contravenes both the letter and the spirit of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and would deprive some Quebecers of their right to equal access to employment.  
The Commission says the Marois government is misinterpreting the notion of neutrality of the state, which applies to institutions but not employees, beyond a general duty to be impartial in dealing with the public.  
The Commission also warns that it would be difficult to apply the notwithstanding clause to the Charter of Values because the proposed wording does not meet strict conditions governing substance and form." CJAD


Here is the statement published by the commission.
"On September 10, 2013, the Minister responsible for Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship released the government policy paper regarding secularism and guidelines for requests for religious accommodation, entitled Parce que nos valeurs, on y croit.
The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse believes that the government’s policy paper – Parce que nos valeurs on y croit – jeopardizes fundamental rights and freedoms

Montréal, October 17, 2013 – The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse believes that several proposals in the government’s policy paper Orientations gouvernementales en matière d’encadrement des demandes d’accommodement religieux, d’affirmation des valeurs de la société québécoise ainsi que du caractère laïque des institutions de l’État, contravene Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and infringe fundamental rights and freedoms.

In particular, the Commission considers that prohibiting the wearing of “conspicuous” religious symbols by public sector employees does not meet the Québec Charter test and that the proposal to formalize “religious” accommodations could restrict the scope of accommodations granted on the basis of other grounds of discrimination, including for disabled people.

In its comments released today, the Commission concludes that the government’s proposals are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Charter, which is designed to protect the rights of everyone.

“The government’s proposals are cause for serious concern. They represent a clear break with the text of the Charter, a quasi-constitutional law adopted by the National Assembly in 1975. It is the most radical proposal modifying the Charter since its adoption,” said the President of the Commission, Jacques Frémont.

Thus, if the proposal to ban public service employees from wearing “conspicuous” religious symbols was adopted, it would clearly be in violation of the Charter and would not withstand a court challenge in the current state of jurisprudence. Such prohibition could not be valid without resorting to the notwithstanding clause, which cannot be done without meeting strict conditions as to substance and form.

The right to display one’s religious beliefs is protected by the Charter, which guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Banning religious symbols would exclude people from a large number of jobs based on the wearing of a religious symbol and inferred perceptions of that symbol, thus infringing their rights to freedom of expression and to equal access to employment.

The proposed prohibition of religious symbols stems from a misconception regarding freedom of religion as protected by the Charter and in international law. It also misinterprets the duty of state neutrality. In fact this obligation applies to the state institutions, but not to its employees or representatives, other than their duty of reserve and impartiality.

“It is unreasonable to presume the partiality of a public sector employee due to the simple fact that he or she wears a religious symbol,” the Commission explains. By linking the wearing of “conspicuous” religious symbols to the definition of proselytizing (to attempt to convince someone to adhere to his or her religion), without taking into account the person’s conduct, distorts the legal approach developed in regard to the protection of freedom of religion and opens the door to a restriction that would be contrary to the Québec Charter.

Equality between women and men

Moreover, the Commission questions the objective set out in the government’s policy paper to change the guidelines that presently govern the duty to accommodate by defining the concept of undue hardship. One of the proposals would be aimed at “reinforcing equality between women and men” and would make it the first condition for approving a reasonable accommodation request.

The Québec Charter already provides protection against gender discrimination and guarantees the right to equality between women and men, and has done so since 1975. Moreover, the interpretative provision of Section 50.1 added to the Charter in 2008, reiterates that rights are equally guaranteed to women and men.

The Commission also underlines that there already exists guidelines governing the duty to accommodate and that an accommodation that would infringe the right to equality, including equality between women and men, must not be granted.

In its comments, the Commission explains that the government’s proposal to assess accommodation requests on the basis of “shared values” and “core community values” is problematic as those concepts are too vague. Moreover, the government’s wish to formalize the duty to accommodate only when it involves religion also presents several legal and practical challenges. These elements are likely to have significant adverse effects on the concrete exercise of rights and freedoms, in particular, of disabled persons, pregnant women and the elderly.
 For interesting points, go to the commission's website and read the powerful rebuke to the Charter offered by the Human Rights Commission; 
Commentary on the government policy paper regarding secularism and reasonable accommodations


Read a Montreal Gazette story

Here are the first few comments under the story about the Commission's rebuke in Le Journal de Montreal. Quite interesting. Link{fr}




Here is a translation of the above.
Baruch Laffert
It seems to me that before proposing legislation, the minister should first check to see if it contravenes charters already in existence. Not to bright, Drainvill


saintmichel66
 Drainville should resign
Not only is his proposed Charter a danger to social peace. It is illegal'

konasutra
No problem, the PQ is above the law because only it knows what is good for us.

BabordToute
Very simple solution: Amend the Charter of Rights so that the (future hypothetical) Values ​​Charter is no longer in conflict with the First

jemefoudetout
Bernard Drainville's reaction:
"The
Human Rights Commission is entitled to its opinion"
Reaction of Pauline Marois:
"
The Human Rights Commission is entitled to its opinion"
soleillevant
Many of us knew it was not difficult to predict, but .. all this waste of time and energy.

saintmichel66
Exactly. Hopefully all this waste of time and energy will not leave too many after effects..
Haha! good stuff.

Jacques Frémont
Bernard Drainville made the rounds of the news stations to downplay the opinion that the charter could not possibly survive a legal challenge.

He told a Radio-Canada interviewer that if the government paid attention to whether a piece of legislation may or may not pass a legal test, nothing would get done.
"We don't share the same perception of reality," he said of the Commission.. 

What an utter and complete fool....

Over at vigile.net the character assassination has begun.
Richard Le Hir must have stayed up all night digging up dirt on Jacques Frémont, the president of the Commission, reaching the startling conclusion that he is a virulent multiculturalist. Link{fr}

I can't wait for Richard Martineau to pipe in with another ad hominum attack, after all if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger!


Here's how cartoonist  ygreck saw things;