World Cup is a Colossal Bore

Soccer is the fine art of diving.....

As the hockey season winds down, I am reminded why soccer is such a colossal bore and while billions and billions of people all over the world are fans, over here in Canada and the USA, most native born cannot stomach the sport, with good reason.

Yes we mere mortals are told that we do not properly understand the sport, that it is a game of anticipation and it is that anticipation that is to be celebrated.
Really?
The Chinese Water Torture is also about anticipation.
 
What's not to understand about a sport where the object is to put the ball in the opponents net, something that happens barely often enough.

So here is my top ten reasons to hate soccer and skip the World Cup in Brazil altogether.

10. Low scoring.  Just too few exciting plays around the goal and way too few  goals.

09. Lack of complexity. How come all those fancy backward/forward, inside/outside soccer moves that we see players strut in practice are NEVER seen in a real game.

08. Diving players. It's just pathetic to see these so-called 'talented' athletes pretend they've been fouled by an exaggerated dive. It's even more pathetic that referees who are standing too far away fall for these antics more often than not. Cheating defines soccer.

07. Refereeing. The field is gigantic and the two referees have no chance to accurately call the game. Considering the rampant diving, it's ridiculous that every big game is contested by the losing team complaining about poor refereeing. And how about no video review for goals. What century is soccer in?

06. The field is too big. It takes forever to get from one end to the other and so most of the action is in the utterly boring mid-field.

 05. Penalties. They play too large a role in the game. It's hard enough to score in soccer but ridiculously easy to score on a penalty kick awarded near the goal. The free kick  is just too large an advantage when the success rate is 87%. Considering that most penalties in soccer occur after a dive, it somehow doesn't seem fair.

04. Game-fixing. The Sport is rife with cheating on and off the field and any sport you can't bet on with confidence is no fun at all.

03. The time clock. First problem is that the clock counts up not down, a senseless state of affairs, when the only thing that counts is how much time is left to play. Then there is the fact that soccer hasn't learned how to stop the game clock at an appropriate time as in the case of a player being carted off the field. Instead the game is extended by the referee after time runs out, but nobody knows for how long until the end of regulation time. Confused? Yup......

02. FIFA. The organizing body makes the International Olympic Committee look like choir boys. The governing body of soccer known by the acronym of FIFA the shadiest international sports body in the world. Bribes are alleged to be in the millions otherwise how on Earth can you explain awarding the 2022 World Cup to QATAR,  a tiny middle eastern oil with no soccer stadiums or even soccer teams, a country that regularly hits 50 degrees Celsius in the summer when the tournament is scheduled to be held.

01. Hooliganism. The sport attracts the very worst elements of society and this across the continents. From skinheads to Nazis, antisemites and various other racists. A large proportion of soccer fans are a drunken band of brawling misfits who tear up cities and towns across the world.

And here's a bonus reason ... The annual soccer stadium disaster that invariably happens somewhere in the world, caused by a deadly grandstand collapse, fire, or just general overcrowding and poor safety measures, resulting in dozens, if not hundreds of deaths.

Yay, soccer!!

Marois Leaves the Stage With One More Lie

It's finally summer here in Quebec and most of us can be forgiven for wanting to make the best of the sun without thinking about the perils of politics, corruption, deficits or the merits of federalism versus sovereignty.

Perhaps we are more inclined to consider the weighty choice between beer or wine, hot dogs or burgers and in truth,  whatever our political beliefs we all share the common desire to get the most out of our skimpy summer, whether it's a trip to Old Orchard beach or a picnic in the local park.
From the already completed Grand Prix to the upcoming festivals, Montrealers will take to the streets and parks with reckless abandon, adopting minimalist garb, both men and women, sometimes a people watcher's delight, sometimes not so much...
It is of course, our famous 'terrace' season, where sipping a libation during the afternoon in a restaurant, al fresco, an experience only topped by doing the same at night beneath the stars sky.

So I'll try to keep this light, a commentary on the very sad and humiliating exit of Pauline Marois from the Quebec political stage and do so in quoting the famous bard, in the spirit of...  "A countenance more in sorrow than in anger.."

It is the Canadian and indeed Quebec way to give an outgoing politician a break, a merciful  and unchallenged exit with few in the media prepared to kick the hapless sap delivering their swan song.

In this respect, the media reminds me of a pack of vicious dogs that attack and savage an animal, but who give up after a thorough mauling, leaving the victim badly injured and barely alive, as if the fun lasts only as long as the victim resists.

And so Pauline gave her final speech before an audience of pequists in Drummondville, perhaps unawares or deliberately innocent of the fact that almost everyone in the room blame her for the debacle of the last election that saw the PQ not only removed from power, but decimated as well.

Pauline has taken the PQ from a legitimate political force in Quebec, to a laughingstock, rejected by just about everyone except its political core, down to third place at 20% in the polls, a disaster that few could have predicted or even fathomed just two months ago.

So it's a little strange that nobody has called her out on her improbable ramblings and musing over the events of that spectacular fall, topped off by her claim in that speech in Drummondville that she had "no regrets."
Stealing a line from Edith Piaf, "Je ne regrette rien" I sat in stunned disbelief when I read the line, aghast by her incredible ability to lie straight-faced, but I guess we should be used to it.

So really.. no regrets?
All I can say is that if she has no regrets she's an idiot, and if she does, as she should, then she is a liar in saying that she has none.

The election fiasco is highlighted by the entire PQ party regretting their actions and admitting as much in public. One Pequist after another offered up their take on the errors and miscalculations that they made and voiced unabashedly the very real regrets they felt over the mistakes in the runnup and especially during the election campaign.
I bet every single member of the PQ regrets very badly....

• calling an election when one was not necessary.
• acting as a majority government whilst a minority.
• refusing to compromise on the Charter of Values
• reacting badly in the face of PKP's separatist fist salute.
• responding to the Liberal party attacks on the referendum.....etc.etc.
• vaunting the benefits of an independence during the campaign.

Nope, Pauline has many regrets, of that I'm sure, but offers an alternate reality, perhaps in order to ease her conscious, an exercise in self-delusion, constructed to alter reality and avoid responsibility for being the political fool.

Her delusion or dishonesty did not end with her claim that she had 'no regrets,' in an interview with LE DEVOIR she continued to blame others for the PQ meltdown, including the Globe and Mail, for publishing an unflattering photo of her and for taking a harsh stance against her and her party. Evoking the bogeyman of the big bad Anglos from Toronto, she remained unchallenged by the interviewer who never asked the obvious question as to how much an English article in a Toronto newspaper could possibly affect the outcome of the election, considering that the article was never even referred to in the French press.

" La réaction a été « virulente du côté des anglophones de Toronto », se remémore-t-elle, pointant une « photo [d’elle] grande comme ça qui n’était pas très belle à voir » à la une du Globe and Mail." Link{fr}

In that article Pauline did however reveal some truths, the fact that she was demolished by the defeat and the fact that in her mind she never considered that she and the PQ could lose the election, at worst being returned as a minority.
Calling the defeat a brutal shock, its a bit hard to accept her statement that she had no regrets.

She went on to attribute the election loss to a clever and underhanded Liberal party strategy wherein they evoked the spectre of a referendum, an unfair election ploy in her opinion, because she promised Quebecers a referendum only under 'winning conditions'.
Hmmm.
She then went on to explain that the PQ needs to better explain sovereignty, a line offered by all desperate sovereigntists, as if the PQ hasn't explained sovereignty over the last forty years. And so she parrots the latest PQ stratagem to add a ribbon and slap some lipstick on the pig that sovereignty has become.

Not everyone gave Pauline a free ride, it fell to longtime sovereigntist Josée Legault in Le Journal de Montreal to point out the surreal world that Marois paints for herself and the PQ.
I give Legault credit for remaining consistent and true to heart. She has in the past attacked Marois and the PQ throughout the Charter of Values debate, offering an alternate sovereigntist perspective, one shared by ex-PQ leaders, an opinion roundly ignored by the PQ and Marois. Those opinions should have set off alarm bells in the PQ that perhaps the party was flirting with disaster and when that disaster hit, I guess Legault had every right to gloat. Link{fr}

For those who question why Pauline and the PQ went to an election, it  wasn't just the fact that the party was doing okay in the polls, it was the fear within the party itself of being found out as frauds.

It is the same reason Jean Charest called the election in 2012 a year ahead of schedule. It was his fear that the Liberals would be later exposed as corrupt at the Charbonneau inquiry, a fear which I imagine was magnified by the inner knowledge that it was true.
Interestingly, the subsequent revelations at the commission weren't near as bad for the Liberals as they feared and the election and the defeat could be chalked up to a guilty conscious as well.

So to was the PQ mindset in calling the election, the leadership fearful that its mismanagement of the economy and the dire straights of government finances would surely sink it later on.
So like Jean Charest before her, the PQ rolled the dice with disastrous results.

Pauline leaves the PQ in shambles, discredited as incompetents, but worse, branded as liars.

In true form, Pauline in defeat and retirement reveals her true self and that of her husband.
Like a super-villain disguised as a friend, when found out, she rips her mask off in defiance, revealing her true evil inner-self.

Gone will be the shack that she has maintained in her God-forsaken riding in the boonies, a contrived symbol of her attachment to the region, as fictional as Mike Duffy pretending that he is a resident of Prince Edward Island.
No more pretending that she and her oily husband are modest, if not financially but in practice and taste.
Claude Blanchet's purchase of a shiny new red Ferrari is a not so subtle signal to Quebecers that the couple will survive just fine, no longer bound by the fiction of modesty and anxious to throw off the constraints of the fictional charade they have led during her political rise to the premiership.

Marois will perhaps go gentle into the night, but pride will preclude the quiet life. The couple will splash around their hitherto closeted money to validate their new existence, so don't be surprised to see a new 'chateau' in the near future.

One thing that Marois cannot do with her money or influence is to re-write the reality of her fall from grace and her responsibility of steering the party into uncharted and dangerous waters.

Her legacy will be of failure and greed, an ambitious and selfish politician willing to sow social discord for personal gain, a woman so obsessed with self that she was blinded to the harm she sowed.

She has nobody to blame but herself, she was warned by friend and enemy.

And so we gladly bid her adieu, the common opinion shared by both sovereigntists and federalists... good riddance! 

Quebec Sovereignty's Risk to Reward

I've waited a long time to write this piece, probably because I didn't quite know how to frame the argument.
But I came across a television show where a daredevil explained the concept of risk to reward so well, that it inspired me to write this piece which endeavours to explore the potential positive elements of Quebec sovereignty, versus the potential negative effects.

Now please watch this three minute video clip as an expert explains the concept.
The clip is from the National Geographic Channel's television show called "The Number's Game"  hosted by Jake Porway and is an utterly fascinating look into the world of statistics, probabilities and little known human traits.
I highly encourage you to view the show and consider a subscription to the National Geographic Channel, it will amaze you.
At any rate, I hope this little blurb for the NGC, will convince them to let me use this tiny clip about Jeb Corliss and how efficiently he analyses the risk to reward, in relation to any given stunt.

Humans are magnificent risk evaluators and while we all have different ideas about what is acceptable or not, we all do have a threshold beyond where we will not take a certain risk because the chance and consequences of failure is determined to be unacceptable.

Perhaps it's most simple to explain by a hypothetical challenge whereby you are asked to walk across a footbridge over a thousand foot gorge and where there is a possibility that the bridge may give, plunging you to your death, but where on the other side of the gorge is a satchel with a million dollars with your name on it.

Would you walk across the bridge if the chances were one in a million that it would collapse?
......I would.

But, what if the chance was 1/100,000, 1/10,000, or 1/1,000,  1/10 or 1/3?
Those are the types of decisions we all make every day when we get behind the wheel of our car or take an airplane flight, go bungee jumping or play dominos. Some people have a higher level of risk-taking than others, but in the end we all have a limit.

So here I'd like to discuss with devoted sovereigntists the concept of risk/reward of Quebec independence.

Has anybody ever really made a legitimate risk to reward analysis?
So let us consider...........

THE REWARD....
If you are a sovereigntist, the benefits of independence is clear. Bye-bye Canada, hello to Quebec the country.
How will Quebec be different?
Well, obviously the entire purpose of sovereignty is to make Quebec a French nation and that will certainly occur.
There won't be any chance that immigrants assimilate on the English side of the language equation because English will be phased out, there's no other reasonable expectation.
Public English services and education will be phased out and English will generally disappear, perhaps slowly, but ultimately completely.
For most sovereigntists, this is the ideal outcome, the ultimate safeguarding of a French future for Quebec by the elimination of English from all manner of Quebec life.
Additionally Quebec will be freed to explore its own version of society and those differences and compromises that it was forced to make in the past (like the gun registry) with Ottawa.

All this must be weighed against;

THE RISK...
To my mind the biggest risk is the amount of Quebec citizens and companies that will leave Quebec in favour of Canada. There's little doubt that there will be movement, but the question is how much.
The more that leave, the shakier the Quebec economy gets and if too many leave it could trigger a social and economic disaster.

Now to many sovereigntists  getting rid of Anglos who choose not to live in Quebec may seem as a reward but at a certain point, the exodus could make Quebec's situation untenable.

So is that number of people leaving Quebec 10,000 or a million? What say you?

Then there is the question of businesses leaving.
Like the head offices that stampeded out of Quebec during the 1970's, Quebec independence would force companies to make a decision of whether to stay or leave/
Having a Bombardier or CGI, or any of the large employers leave would be a staggering loss, having dozens or hundred or thousands of companies leave would be a disaster.

People and companies will move, but how many remains the issue to be considered.

The wild card in all this is whether Canada will make it easy for these people and these companies to move.
Let us remember the United Empire Loyalists who were British subjects enticed to come over the border from the newly created United States with offers of free land.

Let's look at it from Canada's point of view.
Once the dust has settled and Quebec is independent, Canada can make offers to Quebec businesses to jump to Canada for certain advantages, perhaps a ten or twenty year tax holiday.  Many businesses would jump at the opportunity given the uncertainty of an independent Quebec.
The problem for Quebec is that it will have to match the offers, just to keep what it already has.
I  can't really see Quebec in a position to make the same offer to Canadian companies, because frankly, there's the language barrier and also the fact that it's highly unlikely that any company based in Canada would consider moving to Quebec.

What if Canada makes the same re-location offer to average citizens, that is perhaps, a ten year holiday from federal taxes?
Will Quebecers on the fence be enticed with such an offer?

I'll tell you one thing readers, everybody will make a selfish decision based on self-interest.
If Quebec became a country tomorrow, I would rent a tiny apartment in Ottawa and declare myself an Ontarian, keeping my present Quebec residence as a 'second' home. A federal tax break from Ottawa would make the whole thing a no brainer, a win/win situation for me and a lose/lose situation for the Quebec tax department.
Every person  and every company will make a decision about the future and the only question is how much Quebec will bleed.

And I'm not even getting into the discussion of whether Quebec pulls out more money out of Canada then it puts in each year.
Dedicated sovereigntists have been trying to convince Quebecers that such is not the case, usually by some sleight of hand and fanciful cyphering, but lately Quebecers have become more and more skeptical of these claims.

So if you are a sovereigntist you really need to consider these risks against the reward, because the risks are real.
For too long the sovereigntist leadership has kept their heads firmly planted in the ground like an ostrich, never daring to play the 'what if' game.

You will recall that Bernard Drainville never sought legal opinions over the Charter of Values, because clearly he anticipated an unacceptable response.
This has been the sovereigntist position for over forty years.....don't ask/don't tell/don't discuss.

The current drop in support for sovereignty has nothing to do with the drop in nationalism. It is more likely because Quebers have performed their own risk/reward analysis in their own minds and have come to the conclusion that the reward of Quebec sovereignty is not worth the risk, most concluding that Quebec gets too good a deal out of Canada to give it up.

That is what the PQ has to reflect upon.
Is the reward of Quebec sovereignty worth the risk? Until now they've been asking Quebecers to bet the house without knowing the odds and it's clear that Quebecers are no longer prepared to do so.

Until they can show Quebecers a sovereignty plan that considers all the risks, they are dead in the water.
What the PQ must really consider during this period of reflection, is whether it is at all feasible.

I think not....

NOTE TO READERS.....
I will be taking it a little easy over the summer and be posting erratically, but keep checking back, I'll be around..

French versus English Volume 108

PQ 'loses the room'

You've all seen the scene, either in a movie or in real life, where a politician or a spokesman gives a speech defending a policy or action in front of a crowd which becomes progressively more hostile, to the point that nothing that the politician can say placates the crowd and where he or she is shouted down and forced to flee the scene.

In the trade it is called  'losing the room' and there's little doubt post-election the PQ has clearly lost the room.
Since the election, PQ fortunes have fallen to historical lows;

"One month after its crushing electoral defeat to the Liberals, a new Léger poll done for Le Devoir shows that, had an election been held May 7-8, support for the party would have been a mere 19%.
In 28 years of polling, “I never saw this,” a shocked Jean-Marc Léger told the paper." Link

Part of the collapse can be attributed to the revelations that the PQ, particularly Bernard Drainville and Pauline misled Quebecers over legal opinions concerning the Charter of Values.

There's no coming back for a politician branded as a liar and so for the PQ, Bernard Drainville remains a ball and chain, one who the public and more importantly, the media, have come to mistrust.
Now it's revealed that the former finance minister Nicolas Marceau also misled the public over the deficit, under-reporting by several billion dollars the true fiscal mess.
This latest revelation of PQ deception isn't even accounted for in a survey that pegs PQ support at just 19%, polling which took place before the revelations by the auditor-general that the deficit as predicted by Marceau was over three times as large.

Quebec’s acting auditor general says the former Parti Québécois government provided an “ambitious” portrait of public finances that was nowhere near the current fiscal reality facing the province.

In a new report tabled today, Michel Samson said the proposed budget brought forward by the PQ government last February grossly underestimated the province’s deficit, which the PQ projected at $1.75 billion for 2014-2015.

Samson said the actual deficit Quebec is facing is closer to $5.5 billion Link

It's hard to survive a lie like that, so add the name of Nicolas Marceau  to the list of the PQ's dead men walking.

 Worse still, is how the PQ is doing with the younger generation;

"The majority of young Quebecers are turning their backs on the PQ and sovereignty, according to a new CROP survey that polled Quebecers between the ages of 18 and 24.
The 500-person survey found that just 16 per cent of people in that age group support the Parti Quebecois. The Liberals have more than double the number, with 34 per cent.
The group also overwhelming reject the idea of an independent Quebec. The poll showed that 69 per cent of Quebecers between 18 and 24 years old would vote "no" in a referendum.
“I wouldn't vote for the PQ because it will cause a lot of problems if we separate from Canada,” said CEGEP student Philippe Deschenes. Link

While the PQ is putting on a brave face, it is clear that the introspection that it has claimed it must undertake, must include a complete house-cleaning, with the departure of Drainville and Lisée from leadership positions.
Even that doesn't go to the basic question of whether sovereignty is a one generation issue.
That remains to be seen..
So unrealistic has sovereignty become that even many of those who wish in their heart for a sovereign Quebec, would actually vote against the idea over financial considerations.

Quebec Liberal Party soon to face corruption music

If there's anything we learned over the last eighteen months, it is that when UPAC (the special provincial police unit investigating corruption) raids an office, it isn't just on a fishing expedition. It is usually a precursor to charges being laid, even if months away.

We all learned our lesson when ex-mayor Michael Applebaum brazened it out, telling reporters that the visits by the special police unit to his office weren't anything to be concerned about. While UPAC didn't reply in public, it probably didn't appreciate the lie and when they came to arrest Applebaum months later, there was a measure of payback. Instead of asking Applebaum to come to the station to be charged, they went to his house early in the morning and made sure there were reporters on hand for the arrest and infamous 'perp walk.'

So it doesn't auger well for the Liberal party with the latest raid;

"The anti-corruption police unit has carried out another raid at the Quebec Liberal headquarters in Montreal, the party said Tuesday night....
...The search warrant says police wanted computer data from the account of the party’s former director, Joël Gauthier, and two others, according to The Gazette. Gauthier, who was the former head of the regional transportation authority, recently quit his new job at Investissements Hexagone in the wake of damning allegations from UPAC.  Link

Now Joël Gauthier is quite an interesting character, he's the former director of the Quebec Liberal Party who left in 2003 and was awarded a plum patronage job, running the regional commuter rail agency, the AMT.

"Gauthier, the former director of the Quebec Liberal Party, ran the AMT for nearly 10 years. He was pushed out in January 2012, when more than $300 million in cost overruns accrued on a new commuter line linking Mascouche and Montreal."

When the PQ got elected, it installed their own stooge, defeated star PQ candidate, Nicolas Girard who took over the job and who later discovered 'irregularities' in Gauthier's agenda and squealed to police.

"An investigation into his dealings at the AMT began when Gauthier's successor, Nicolas Girard, found what he believed to be irregularities in Gauthier's agenda, and turned it over to UPAC.  Link

Those irregularities showed that Gauthier had an incestuous relationship with engineering firms dealing with the agency. Gauthier accepted many gifts from them including a trip to the Vancouver Olympics.
Hilariously, a newspaper report describes how Gauthier asked an assistant to stomp on his Blackberry in a moronic attempt to delete the history, oblivious to the fact that the information was stored on the company server! Link{fr}

After Gauther was dumped from the AMT by the PQ, he landed at Hexagone, a firm created expressly to buy the construction empire of disgraced construction magnate Tony Accurso, who decided to retire in the wake of damning revelations at the Charbonneau Commission.
It wasn't exactly an arm's length sale, with Acurrso's two sons, James et Marco, two of the six shareholders. Other shareholders alongside Gauthier were former Accurso company employees. Link{fr}
In the wake of the raids and the potential embarrassment, Gautheir left Hexagone.
As I said, Gauthier is one murky character.
Oh, by the way, Hexagone just won a multi-million dollar contract with the city of Montreal.
No problemo!

And so moving right along, in testimony before the Commission, a former aide to then Quebec Minister Nathalie Normandeau confirmed that Liberal party held ridings were favoured in the awarding of discretionary projects, but defended the Minister, telling the commission that it was not her doing, but Normandeau's  evil cabinet secretary.

According to both witnesses, some provincially subsidized projects were approved faster than others depending on political affiliation. While certain projects were given the go-ahead quickly and easily, Binette testified, other files might sit gathering dust in the minister's office because the ridings where the projects were being carried out were not Liberal ones — or because the engineering firm partnered with a given municipality "wasn't the right one."

 It was the non-urgent projects that may have been ranked based on how constituents had voted in the last election, he explained.

Binette also told the inquiry that three engineering firms — Dessau, BPR and Roche — snapped up more than 80 per cent of all provincially-subsidized municipal contracts in Quebec. Both witnesses confirmed that the firms were in regular contact with the minister's office, and that they provided Normandeau's chief-of-staff, Bruno Lortie, with lists of projects that they were working on.

While Normandeau was painted as a dedicated and friendly boss, Lortie received the opposite treatment on Wednesday.

The chief-of-staff "loomed large" in Normandeau's inner circle, Binette testified, and met with executives from the engineering firms regularly. Lortie was also allegedly in charge of arranging fundraising events and ensuring that the minister met the $100,000 annual fundraising goal set for her by the Quebec Liberal Party. Link

More bad news for the Liberals is the visit that UPAC paid to Îles-de-la-Madeleine, MP Germain Chevarie. They wanted to have a little chat.
And Tony Tomassi, the ex-Liberal cabinet minister pleaded guilty  this week and was sentenced to 240 hours of community service in relation to fraud over expense claims when he was in the National Assembly Link

It seems that nobody is safe from UPAC's reach. In an absolutely bizarre turn of events, the corruption cops raided another office, the office that oversees its own operations!

"Quebec's anti-corruption unit (UPAC) carried out two raids in Quebec City Wednesday — one of them inside a building used by the provincial public security ministry.....

....Coalition Avenir Québec’s François Bonnardel said the government has a lot of explaining to do given that UPAC reports to the public security ministry.

“It’s extremely worrisome when we see that the police are investigating the police. In these circumstances, I think the ministry and the government should give us information on this impromptu visit,” said Bonnardel." Link

Employees rights in Quebec trumps all

When do employee rights trump good sense and public safety in Quebec.... ALWAYS.

Here's a video of a rogue school bus driver filmed by a concerned citizen.

"A man driving on the 40 westbound between Sources and St. John's says he noticed a minivan tailgating him, and when he saw the school sign on the minivan and the vehicle filled with kids, he followed the driver and videotaped him.
In the video, you see the school minivan driving over 100 km/h in a 70 km/h zone, and weaving in and out of traffic.
“I stopped filming because he noticed me and it was getting dangerous, he started following me at speed, I was driving to get away from him and he was zigzagging through traffic like a crazy person,” the man who wished to remain anonymous because he is also speeding in the video, told CJAD.
The man called the school transportation company, R. Crevier, to complain, but he says they were not interested.
CJAD spoke to the owner, Robert Crevier, Tuesday morning; he was unavailable for an interview but said he received a complaint from a citizen and the Sûreté du Québec.
He said it was the employee's first offence, that he gave him a warning and he could be fired after three." Link

What was the police reaction to all this?
They asked the anonymous filmer to come forward so that they could issue him two citations, one for dangerous driving himself and another for filming while driving.

As for the driver of the school bus, just a warning, he's entitled to three strikes, according to the owner of the company
Hmmmm.... Wold you let your child board this guy's bus tomorrow?

Oh,oh.. we all know what these caricatures indicate!

In another case of employees before the public, the union is trying to reverse the firing of two employees who were caught on tape abusing patients in a government run old age facility.
Both employees were charged by police with various crimes, including drug trafficking, assault etc. etc.

Despite all this, the union representing the workers has filed a grievance, demanding that the two former employees be reinstated.

Now the union representative said that when the grievance was deposited, the union wasn't aware of all the facts, but it hasn't withdrawn the grievance in light of evidence revealed. Link{fr}

Hmmmm.... Wold you entrust a elderly family member to the care of these two? 

Quebec defends marriage principle

If there is one issue where this editor defends Quebec's contrary position to that of the ROC, it is in the principle that marriage (or civil union) or the lack thereof should define the status of couples.

For the majority in the rest of Canada, couples are to be declared defacto married by virtue of living together continually for a number of years.

This means that marital rights are bestowed upon couples who never marry, rights like pension eligibility, alimony and in the case of death, pension and RSP rollovers as well as the right to  inherit.

Quebec has always taken a different approach, where 'common-law' marriage doesn't exist and a couple's status is up to them to define, not the law.

In Quebec, to benefit from marital rights, a couple must be married or joined through a civil union. It should be noted that support for children in the case of a breakup, is obligation that is irrespective of status.

Quebec has gone to court to defend principle of free choice and has maintained that it will continue to do so.

And so in Quebec, with  double the percentage of unmarried couples living together as opposed to the ROC, their  status is very much different than in most provinces in Canada.

I have never heard a meaningful argument for common law marriage. 

Feminists who contend that women are equal to men in all respects, look to the law to trap men into marriages they never agreed to.

Why don't women just demand that their mates commit through marriage, a seemingly simpler solution?

Every argument that feminists advance to force men into de facto marriage, make women look stupid and weak or so biologically driven to partner that they are forced to accept a lessor status.

If the latter argument is true, well, then I can accept the need for special protection. 

So which is it?

I can only wait for the outraged responses in the comments section, but Quebec seems to back the position that the decision to marry or live as a couple be made freely and consciously and not imposed by government. The Quebec government takes the 'outrageous' position that women are free to choose their own status, while the rest of Canada believes women are too-feeble minded or biologically-driven to do so.

And now to Canada's new prostitution law that seeks to criminalize the men engaging in sex for hire, while giving prostitutes a pass, another acknowledgement that women are deserving of unequal and preferential treatment under the law.

The idea that prostitutes are trapped into a lifestyle and are powerless to choose another path, just more evidence that feminists themselves view their sex as inferior and weak. 

In a country where anyone can get welfare, choosing prostitution is a conscious decision and those who make that decision should bear the responsibility.

It is strange how we always hear about 'women trapped in a life of prostitution' as if they had no hand in their fate or no alternative. Nope, not in Canada...sorry.

The hooker with a heart of gold, is an idea as ludicrous as the hooker paying her way through university. Prostitutes are prostitutes and attempting to rehabilitate their image by calling them 'sex-workers' doesn't change who and what they are.

Let us consider a drug transaction, where the pusher of illicit drugs faces no legal sanctions, while the buyer may be sent to jail. Would Canadians accept that?

If you read French, here's an interesting article about how Quebec is determined to protect the marriage principle and also protect the individual right to choose one's status. Link{fr} 

Canadiens Mascot 'Youppi,' pays off Jimmy Fallon bet

xxx 

Euginie Bouchard trips up on and off the court

If there's one things that irks Quebec francophones, it is that  the French from France largely detest the Quebecois accent. I don't know why, but Quebec movies are generally dubbed when shown in France, something that really is unnecessary.
If I can understand Haitian French, as a non native French speaker, I'm sure that those in France can very well understand the Quebecois accent.

That being said, Eugenie Bouchard had an incident when a fan asked her if she could speak French with a real 'French' accent to which she gave an unfortunate answer that saw some local journalists seeing red.
The French interview is subtitled, it starts at 1:20.

Yikes!!!!
Perhaps local media will finally admit that Genie is a Quebec anglophone, named after a British princess who doesn't place an accent over the second 'é'  in her name.
While Pierrre Foglia of the Journal de Montreal took exception to her jibe, that is, that it's good that she doesn't have a Quebecois accent, other Frenchmen noted that Genie's accent is actually much easier on their ears then that of the Quebecois!  Link{fr}

Is BBQ chicken commercial racially insensitive?

St. Hubert BBQ, Quebec's largest chain of rotisserie chicken has come under fire for this commercial, which Chinese community leaders have branded racially insensitive. Link

'

Offence, like beauty, is always in the eye of the beholder and so I'd like a few opinions from the readers as to whether you think this commercial crosses a line.

For francophone readers....
Would you be offended if McDonalds ran a commercial where not so flattering stereotypical portrayal of a francophone Poutine shack owner railing at the unfairness of being undercut by a big corporation.

Interestingly, this story hasn't made it into the Francophone media yet.
What do I think?....dunno.

Then there's this  Swiffer commercial featuring a stereotypical  elderly Jewish couple that is absolutely precious, so I guess it's a fine line.
The commercial is so popular that Swiffer made another one featuring Morty and Lee (actually I don't know which came first)..... Watch it

Further reading

Quebecers signing up for accent modification classes

7 Interesting Montreal Statistics About Every Borough In The City 

Quebec students tops in math 

Canadian brands ignoring francophones on social media 

Denis Coderre, Mayor of Montreal makes good on a bet with the mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio over the Canadians/Rangers series.

That Coderre had to fly the Rangers flag over city hall is nothing, but being forced to eat a disgusting New York bagel is real punishment.

More English belongs in Quebec’s French schools: report

Language group blast government for providing English version of budget {fr}

French lessons for dyslexic employee likely to cost DND over $70,000

Bonne fin de semaine!

Have a good weekend!

UQAM's Nutty Professor

UQAM's finest

Last week, the francophone media was doing cartwheels trying to convince readers and viewers that Quebec isn't really a beggar province, a welfare bum living large on the Canadian dime.
It was all in response to Quebec billionaire depanneur king, Alain Bouchard saying exactly that in a speech before the Montreal Board of Trade.
Bouchard didn't mince words and told the audience that Quebecers should be ashamed of themselves for being so needy, something that didn't go down well with Quebec nationalists, as you can imagine.

And so certain journalists like Josée Legault were doing contortions, an editorial version of the TWISTER game, trying to find the right statistics that would counter what they believe is the myth that Quebec is indeed a beggar province. Link{fr}

I won't dissect their arguments, because it doesn't really matter,  Quebecers have come to believe that they are indeed beholding to Canada and a few commentators saying it ain't so, just doesn't matter.
Whether true or not, it is said that perception is more important than reality and even if it were true that Quebec doesn't live off Canadian largess, the notion that Quebec is a province living in part on ROC wealth is as well entrenched here in Quebec as the rest of Canada.

As I said before I'm not going to engage in a exercise of counterarguments to these articles, it's like pointing out the flaws in the arguments of the Flat Earth Society, but I am going to offer a translation of an article written by a UQAM (where else) professor, Jean Denis-Garon, one that few Anglophones would ever be aware of, because it was published in the Journal de Montreal and tucked safely behind a pay wall.

Le Québec est-il le BS fédéral ?

Is Quebec a stowaway in the great Canadian ship of prosperity? This has been recently suggested, as we receive more than $ 9 billion in equalization payments, this year. According to some, we should carry the stigma of a beneficiary province supported by the wealth created elsewhere. It is argued that an economically inert Quebec should create more wealth as quickly as possible.

Seven out of ten provinces receive equalization. Even the manufacturing heart of the country, including Ontario, now seems helpless against the provinces teeming with hydrocarbons. To free ourselves, we are generally suggested to maximize exploitation of our natural resources.

These resources are actually the heart of the problem of the Canadian imbalance. Let's take a specific example : Alberta. It has significant oil reserves, which are nothing more than a bank account filled to the brim, but buried underground. Exploiting its oil, the Alberta government gradually depletes its treasury.

Alberta creates little wealth by exploiting its oil: it extracts. To an economist, this distinction is crucial.

With this extraction, Alberta has it both ways. Its government can both deliver better public services and lower taxes ... the dream of Mr. Leitao! Left to itself, Alberta would have a vampire effect on the Canadian federation. Providing its citizens with tax benefits incommensurate with their actual productivity, it would attract the youth, families and a qualified workforce from other provinces. It would take away everything those provinces need to thrive and become richer.

A big problem put in perspective..

Fortunately, equalization helps to correct this inefficiency. Helping Quebec to provide good public services at acceptable rates of taxation while making it less attractive to move to Alberta.

Equalization has the effect of discouraging profiteers from profiteering ... It is clearly light-years away from being a social welfare program. Moreover, the provinces can spend the money transferred by Ottawa as they see fit. Some use it to reduce taxes for the rich, while others prefer to pay for public childcare.

It is also true that equalization can have the effect of a tax on our economic development, a failure in the program that can be corrected. Otherwise, it compensates us for the economic damage caused by the overheated exploitation of oil in other provinces: it is not a gift. It also encourages them to moderate their resources to better protect the environment and better accommodate future generations.

If Quebec wants to "get out of Equalization," let's hope it will create actual wealth. It should focus on education, try to attract more investment, in order to increase our productivity. It's an interesting paradox because without equalization which allows us to retain talent in Quebec, it would be more difficult to accomplish.

I'm not going to go into a big deconstruction of this piece, I'd like to point out a few facts and then let readers run with the discussion.

I guess things start off badly when the author, editor and fact-checker get the facts wrong right off the bat. Mr Garon claims that seven out of ten provinces receive equalization payments, which is wrong because it is six. Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland do not presently collect. Which provinces get equalization fluctuates over the years, but right now it is six, not seven. It's hard to take the rest of the article seriously, when such basic error is presented so early in the article.

But six out of ten provinces still sounds like Quebec is in good company and so no standout, so this is the first line of attack for defenders of Quebec's good reputation

But it all boils down to these simple truths...
All Canadians contribute to the equalization fund through federal taxes and levies. But these contributions are not equal. Quebec, with 23% of the population pays in about 19%, we all know why.

But Quebec takes out $9 billion of the $16 billion dollar fund, or 56% against a contribution of about 19%.

PEI, the province that Quebec defenders love to hold up as an example as a bigger beneficiary of the fund per captia, takes out only about 2% of the fund.
Quebec defenders always talk about the per capita benefit to provinces, or how much each citizen benefits from the fund, because then Quebec doesn't seem like the biggest loser.
But like it or not, Canada sends $9 billion to Quebec and $340 million to PEI. To those who pay into the fund and receive nothing, that is all that counts.
Quebec defenders also point out that Ontario now gets equalization payments too, but never use the per capita argument here, because each Ontarian receives only about one-eighth of what each Quebecer receives. (QC- $1,130 per citizen, Ont.- $146 per citizen.) Link{fr}
Ontario takes out about 18% of the fund, while contributing over 40%.

Defenders of Quebec use both ends of the argument at different times, depending on circumstances, something Quebecers are famous for arguing, the idea that they are both a Francophone majority sometimes and a minority when it suits their purpose.

But what is most galling about this article is the nonsensical idea that pumping out oil from the ground is not real productivity, when indeed it is the very definition.
The idea that creating wealth by exploiting oil, or timber, or gold or zinc or uranium deposits or indeed creating electricity is not real productivity, is an argument that is beyond the pale for an economics professor.

The article smacks of an infantile jealousy and sour grapes and seems to desperately reach for any straw, no matter how unlikely.
I think my favourite part is when the good professor tells us that Albertans should pay higher taxes so to diminish its attractiveness.
It reminds me of the old Pantene Shampoo commercial.
"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!"

The idea that a Quebec professor deems to be concerned about future generations of Albertans is just plain laughable.
Alternately, could you imagine an Albertan saying that the Montreal Canadians should be penalized and perhaps receive a lower draft pick as a penalty, because they've won too many Stanley Cups? 
It is almost as insulting as Desmond Tutu coming from that cesspool of a country of South Africa to give us life lessons. Beneath contempt!

At any rate, I can't imagine ever letting my child go to a university with such professors.
That is why so many highly qualified francophone students fight to get into McGill, because it says a lot about them.
UQAM versus McGill, the very definition of 'antithesis.'