Can Jacques Duchesneau Stop Construction Price-Fixing

Once again Jacques Duchesneau has landed an important position, this time as head of an anti-collusion unit set up by Quebec Transport Minster Julie Boulet. The unit will review contracts to make sure that bids are no longer rigged in relation to public construction projects.

The question remains open as to whether such a unit can be successful and whether Mr. Duchesneau is the right man for the job.

Many years ago in a steak-house in South Florida, Jacques admitted to me that he'd be leaving his position as chief of the Montreal Police force to pursue a career in politics. At the time, he was at the top of his career and I asked why he'd risk such a secure and important job for the fickle business of politics.

He and another senior officer seated at the table couldn't contain themselves and burst out laughing. It was then when I learned about the 'Cadillac' pension plan that they and the rest of the police force enjoy.

They explained to me, that once an officer hits a certain age and had a certain number of years on the force, he could essentially retire with benefits that equalled about 75% - 85% of their yearly take home pay. For those officers who joined the force out of high school, it means that they could take retirement in their early fifties! 

Yikes! An 80% pension at 50-55, no wonder they retire! I commented that if senior officers avail themselves of this option, the effect was to rob the police force of it's most experienced talent. 

"What about you?" I asked the other officer (who I won't name). "Two more years and I'm gone. Working for 20% of your salary isn't that exciting!"

Losing Duchesneau and other highly ranked officers at the top of their game was a blow to the city and it seems that the city of Montreal has learned it's lesson. When it's current police chief Yvan Delorme, became eligible for retirement they made him an offer to stay on, that he couldn't refuse, a $400,000 bonus!  Some system!

I had worked with Jacques for about two years as we served on the board of directors (He was president) of a large Quebec volunteer organization and it was there where I witnessed his forte - delegation. Jacques was always on the lookout for talent and people who he could get to do the work for him (me, among others.) Jacques is a shameless self-promoter, but one of the best, and he gets things done.

After leaving the police with his juicy pension,  he ran for mayor of the city of Montreal and lost rather badly to Pierre Bourque. It was during this campaign that he came face to face with the reality of the corruption in Montreal politics. Jacques wasn't about to make any sleazy deals or accept any dirty money from promoters and construction industry czars. He blamed his loss on his honest campaign and remained furious at the crooks who controlled city hall.

As  a double-dipper extrodinaire, he went on to run CATSA, the Federal agency that screens passengers in all of Canada's major airports and left the agency in 2008. He is much in demand as a consultant and speaker and advises various international agencies on security matters.

His record is impeccable and he is incorruptible. He also loathes organized crime and it is something he is passionate about. Another thing, he isn't intimidated or afraid.

I know that his appointment came directly from Premier Charest and although nobody in the press is excited about the appointment (they are too busy playing up the demand for a public inquiry) it may just be what the doctor ordered, a crime-fighting Eliot Ness type to take on the crooks and those who benefit from corruption in the halls of power.

Those who have played the crooked price-fixing game have much to fear. The usual method of getting over a problem (with bribes) just won't work.

I think the Premier got it right on this appointment and given the right tools and the personnel, the problem of collusion can be tackled rather quickly.

Niqab Complainer Hammers Last Nail in Coffin in Reasonable Accommodation Debate

Sometimes, just sometimes you get to witness a clearly defined historical turning point, or to put it in modern vernacular, a 'tipping point' or profound and cascading shift in public opinion.

The recent issue with the niqab wearing Muslim being expelled from French Class in Montreal may not have the impact of the fall of the Berlin Wall or the effect of 9/11, but it does represent a final and permanent shift in Quebec's "Reasonable Accommodation" debate.

If ever there is someone who did a disservice to her own cause, it is certainly Naïma Atef Amed, who refused to remove her veil in French class at a Montreal junior college.

Her refusal to unveil herself so that her enunciation could be critiqued, plus her demand to speak facing backward and that male students not be seated beside her, was so over the top that it made the decision to expel her rather easy.

The demand for such accommodations are to the vast majority of Quebeckers unacceptable, especially to women who see the veil as an instrument of subjugation.

When famous Montreal human-rights lawyer, Julius Grey and Bouchard/Taylor commissioner, Gérard Bouchard come out against the accommodation, you know you've hit the bottom of the well in public support. Politicians are scrambling to get on the 'right' side of the issue and Federal Minister Josée Verner has already added in, that she wouldn't open the door to a Niqab-clad person.

Apparently Ms. Amed has found another school that is allowing her to wear her niqab in class. This news didn't please Immigration Minister Yolande James who has ordered her to remove her niqab if she wants to stay in school.

At any rate, it seems that a consensus has been reached and that politicians now feel comfortable attacking the veil, so it's bad news for Naïma Atef Amed and others sporting extreme wear.
 
I think I know why so many of us hate the burqa and niqab, it reminds us of the Grim Reaper, as depicted in my cleverly 'shopped' montage.

Curiously, the newspapers have stopped referring to Ms. Amed by name and mention her only as the mysterious "Naïma." Could it be that the young woman has been in for a rough ride?

Notwithstanding, Ms. Amed Naïma has plenty of guts and has pledged to take the case to the  Commission des droits de la personne du Québec (Human Rights Commission). Unfortunately, it's another miscalculation.

The commission is not an impartial court where judges don't give a hoot about public opinion. Commissioners sit for a fixed term and are subject to re-appointment. They are vulnerable to public pressure. Would the commission rule in her favour, the august body would be discredited permanently and I've no doubt commissioners would think long and hard before defying public opinion, especially in this case, where opinion has crystallized so clearly against accommodating the veil.

I can only imagine the hilarity of Ms. Amed refusing to give testimony in open court, unveiled. After all, it is a fundamental principle to confront one's accuser ' face to face' in open court. If she refuses to unveil, her case could be thrown out. What fun!

People object to the niqab and the burqa for a variety of reasons, either fear, racism or because they consider it a symbol of subjugation or misogamy.

Personally I object that there is no letter "U" in either 'niqab' or 'burqa,' after the letter "Q," it's something that offends my sensibility and attacks my fundamental belief in good spelling!

The right of religious and personal freedom is, in a free society, subject to reasonable limitations and where those limitations are placed, is of course, subject to fair debate. 

Religions are mostly free to do what they want so long as they don't violate basic societal principles. 

That is why polygamy, stoning, animal sacrifice and other unacceptable religious traditions practised elsewhere in the world are banned in this country.

There's no doubt that veiled women offend public sentiment in this province. The right to look at someone in the face when dealing with them in a public place is a right that we as a society apparently refuse to give up, or so it seems.

Whether women wear the veil by personal choice or by force is quite beside the point. Defenders of the veil always refer to 'personal choice', but personal choice is not a passkey to do whatever one pleases. Those who take drugs and commit crimes also do so by personal choice.

The issue of Naïma and her niqab is a Godsend (excuse the reference) to those who oppose any accommodation based on religious beliefs. This sad episode spells the beginning of the end of tolerance towards women wearing burqas and niqabs and for that matter, any other religious accommodation.

The debate is over. Naïma made it just too easy to say no.

It's sad that small accommodations, that are truly reasonable are going to suffer in the backlash.

Which is Worse- Quebec-Bashing or Anglo-Bashing?

If you go to Wikipedia, there's an entry devoted to "Quebec-Bashing" which is defined as ;

"The term Quebec bashing is used in the French-language media to refer to what is perceived and depicted by Quebec nationalists as defamatory anti-Quebec coverage, in the English-language media,"

There is no equivalent entry or term related to Anglo-Bashing, but there should be, along with Ottawa-bashing, which seems to be a national sport here in Quebec.

According to Wikipedia:

"Bashing is a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack on a person, group or subject."

During the Vancouver Olympics, Pauline Marois branded several letters to the editor, printed in various English newspapers as "Quebec-Bashing."

The said letters were in reaction to Quebec media whining that there was not enough French at the Olympics.

So which is worse, Quebec-Bashing or Anglo-Bashing???

I recently watched a taped lecture by reknowned Anglo-basher Patrick Bourgeois who gave a rather unimpressive and long-winded discourse on Quebec-Bashing. He brought up a few examples, some dating back to the stone age, which indicates to me that there isn't that much material out there. He read an infamous passage from Mordechai Richler's book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! where Richler made a reference that Quebec francophone women were treated as "sows," (for the high birthrate, demanded by the Catholic Church,) probably the most famous example of Quebec-bashing quoted by language nationalists.

Listen to Mr. Richler defend himself in a taped interview

As for Anglo-bashing, it's hard to go through a day without reading Anglos described as 'colonizers', 'humiliators', 'exploiters', 'racists' and purveyors of 'cultural genocide.' Most of this Anglo bashing is in the camp of the Anglo-hating clan of militant sovereignists, but sometimes it gets into the mainstream media.
Usually these idiotic generalizations make me laugh. It's hard to imagine a drunken, homeless bum on a Toronto street as a colonizer or an exploiter.

One particular case of Anglo-bashing that I saw on TV was particularly distasteful because it happened on a mainstream show on the RDS sports network. (TSN in French)

The commentators were furious that the Montreal Canadiens had brought up unilingual Anglo coach Don Lever, from the minors to help out the team.
The discussion was nasty and the sneering way that he was referred to, left me cold. They even made fun of his name and compared it to soap. When I wrote to the management of RDS, I got absolutely no reply. I firmly believe that these public attacks on him as a unilingual Anglophone led to his eventual dismissal after years of loyal service. Read my post and see the video here. 

There's little doubt that Anglo-Bashing is far worse than any sort of Quebec-Bashing.

That being said, it's all strictly minor league. If you want to witness professional bashing, just look south of the border where Americans are the kings of the vicious attack.
Not even the most ardent separatist can work up the rage that the anti-abortionist, the gun lobby and various other militant groups display.
Egged on by by cheer-leading talk radio, Americans make full use of the term 'freedom of speech' to say the most outrageous and cruel things about their opponents.

Here is an example of the very worst Franco/Quebec-bashing I have ever seen.
It comes from American Conan O'Brien, ex-late-night star, whose character, "Triumph, the Insult Dog" is legend.
You need a strong stomach to watch!

CLICK to view video at YouTube

I promise you, it's nasty!

Cultural Genocide..... Where?

In a pamphlet entitled "Le génocide culturel des francophones au Canada" the author argues that Canada has undertaken a program of 'cultural genocide' against Quebec Francophones.

"The figures speak for themselves: Since 1867, Francophones in Canada have suffered a decline that will ultimately lead to their disappearance. In Quebec, the future of the French is threatened."

(Les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes : les francophones au Canada subissent depuis 1867 un déclin qui les mènera à terme à la disparition. Au Québec même, l’avenir du français est menacé.

The author uses a table to show that French, as a mother tongue has declined in Canada from from 29% in 1861 to 22% today.

When I saw the reference and read the arguments made to describe Francophone Quebeckers as the subject of cultural genocide, I decided to use the same test and applied the same criteria to the Anglophone minority in Quebec.

Let's re-phrase the statement and exchange the word 'Francophones' to the word 'Anglophone Quebeckers.'

"The figures speak for themselves: Since 1867, Anglophone Quebeckers in Quebec  have suffered a decline that will ultimately lead to their disappearance. In Quebec, the future of  Anglophones is threatened."

Just as the pamphlet shows that French has declined in Canada, I too can use a chart to show how precipitously English has fallen in Quebec.

From a high of 25% in 1844, English as a mother tongue, has declined to just 8.5% in Quebec today.

 So which group if any, has suffered cultural genocide?

Now I'm not going argue against the assertion by French language militants that they are the subject of cultural genocide, it's a nasty term that indicates racism and hate, by it's very definition.

The United Nations describes "cultural genocide" in part, as;

"the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political, military, religious, ideological, ethnical, or racial reasons." LINK

The assertion that Canada is deliberately trying to 'cleanse' the country of Francophones is nonsense, but even if it were to be true, what do militant Quebeckers have to complain about when their own actions towards the minority English community in Quebec actually fits the terms of 'cultural genocide' a lot better than any actions by Canadians.....

For militant and even mainstream Francophones Bill 101 has become a sacred cow, an untouchable and unassailable 'necessity' required to save Francophones from what they perceive as the inexorable fall and decline of the Francophone fact in Canada and Quebec.

Bill 101 was conceived back in 1977 to make French the one and only official and working language in Quebec and one of it's many provisions was to restrict access to English schools narrowly, resulting in French and immigrant families losing the right to send their children to English schools. The definition by which families could send their children to English schools was somewhat complicated, but ultimately came to mean that if any parent or sibling spent a reasonable amount of time (one year) in an English school anywhere in Canada, that family was eligible for English schooling. The law however only applied to public schools and so a loophole was left open.

Ineligible parents could still choose an English education by sending their children to a private English school. Worse (or better) still, some parents sent their children to a private English school for as little as one year and them switched them to a public English school, claiming eligibility under the terms of the law that allowed children to attend English school if they had previously been schooled in English!

Then in 2002, along came Bill 104, an amendment to Bill 101 meant to close this loophole. It was passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly, to specifically bar the use of these 'bridge' schools to circumvent the spirit of Bill 101 and it immediately faced a constitutional challenge by English rights activists. Portions of that amendment were struck down in Quebec courts and in response, the Quebec government appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, where the issue was finally decided last year in favour of the Anglo rights. The court allowed the province one year to revise the law so that it fell in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This of course sent French language militants into a linguistic rage. They were furious that the 'evil' Supreme Court  thwarted the will of the Quebec people, and it's National Assembly, conveniently forgetting that the law was shot down twice in Quebec courts before ever seeing the docket in Ottawa.

Today militants are demanding that Bill 101 be amended to cover both private and public schools and that no child be allowed into any type of English school if he or she doesn't qualify under Bill 101. Some are even proposing that the law be extended to college and universities and comically, even to daycare centres.

 
The language law was passed thirty-three years ago and since then, Canada and the rest of the democratic western world has suffered from a catastrophic decline in it's birthrate, with immigration the only option available, to shore up the population base. LINK

In Quebec, both the English community and the French community cannot maintain their numbers strictly by reproduction.
So immigrants make up the difference.
But since immigrants are not allowed to go to English schools, how can the English community remain viable?

I put this question to a militant acquaintance of mine and asked him, that in fairness, "Shouldn't 8.5% of immigrants be allowed to enter English schools, so that the community can maintain itself?  Otherwise, isn't the community doomed to wither and die?"

"Nope!" he answered and went off into a lengthy convoluted explanation as to why it was fair to restrict any access to English schools by immigrants.

"French is so badly under attack, that the English minority may very well be sacrificed if need be.  After all the whole continent is English and Anglos can all immigrate if they don't want to live in a French society..."

Hmmmm.......Now that sounds to me, painfully like 'Cultural Genocide," with a generous spattering "Ethnic Cleansing!"

That being said,  I don't like using any of these terms, they infer a level of hate that doesn't exist, except in the minds of a very small minority.

 This whole brouhaha over Bill 104 and the closing of the loophole is another great big discussion about something very small.
Over the last thirty years only 10,000 students have used the loophole to gain access to English schools and this fact, according to Pauline Marois. In the meantime over 30,000 Anglophone students have chosen voluntarily to attend French schools themselves, so what's the big deal?

Now 10,000 people out of almost 8 million Quebeckers, what does it mean demographically?

Only that the English community will decline at a little slower rate, that's all. 
If immigrants aren't allowed to bolster Anglo numbers, the writing is on the wall.

But even a slower decline of Anglo Quebeckers infuriates certain French language militants. They want to destroy the English community once and for all and by any means possible. They firmly believe that Quebec can never be truly French, until the English are gone.

If they can't do it through sovereignty, they will use the back door.

By screaming about 'cultural genocide' they attempt to spread fear throughout the mainstream Francophone community and hope to artificially boost support for militant positions. It's high time that these "Chicken Littles" whose "sky is falling" refrain, be outed for what they are.

Bill 104, or the whatever law will eventually replace it, may make it illegal to use the back door to get into English schools, but the real issue is that the front door remains firmly locked.
That is the injustice.

The Myth of the Overfinancing of English Universities.

A while back, Mario Beaulieu, president of the the ultra-nationalist Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, wrote an article repeating and expounding on the hackneyed theme that English universities are over-financed.

Nationalists are forever spinning statistics and twisting facts to 'prove' that Francophones and Quebec institutions are under-financed, under-represented and generally screwed by Anglos and Ottawa.

I recently read a well-prepared, but nonsensical piece entitled "Equalization - an Urban Myth" - wherein the author goes to great lengths to prove that Quebec doesn't actually benefit from the annual seven billion fifteen billion dollar transfer payments from Ottawa!

Stephane Dion, while a member of Paul Martin's Liberal cabinet took on these nationalist propagandists in a clever series of public letters in which he demolished the myths that the sovereignists were spinning. His intellectual and fact supported arguments were so punishing that he became the hated foil of sovereignist intellectuals. Dion authored the famous 'Clarity Act,' a law that would force a future Quebec government to ask a clear and concise question in any future referendum.

He rightly accused the Quebec government of trying to fool Quebeckers in the last two referendums into voting YES by way of misleading and ambiguous questions. The law imposed honesty as a condition of Ottawa accepting any potential YES vote and it drove the sovereignists wild with rage. Dion's direct hard-nosed rebuttal of sovereignist fantasies, made him the most reviled Quebecker by sovereignists since Pierre Trudeau.

Mr. Beaulieu follows the fine Quebec tradition of using selective and misleading facts to arrive at the preconceived conclusions that he repeats ad nauseum.

In his latest missive, he blames this so-called under-funding as the principle cause of the recently revealed statistic, that shows that 40% less Francophones graduate from university than Anglophones.

His claim that English universities, representing an Anglo proportion of just 8.5% of the Quebec population, receive more than 2.7 times the financing that their demographic weight would entitle them to, sounds reasonable on the surface, but it is misleading on almost every level.

What Mr.  Beaulieu fails to mention is that despite Anglos representing just 8.5% of the population, the number of students attending English universities in Quebec is an astounding 38%!

Source: Wikipedia- University enrolment- Quebec

In Quebec language laws do not apply to university enrolment and anyone can choose to go to whatever university they choose to, provided that they are academically qualified. This is the meat of the matter, with language nationalists demanding that freedom of choice be removed and that Francophones and Allophones be refused entry into an English language university as per Bill 101.

What the two pie charts above show, is just how many Allophones and Francophones choose an English university. A remarkable 22% of McGill students are Francophone.

The problem is not that English universities are over-funded, it is that they are over-attended, in terms of demographics.

McGill and Concordia get funding commensurate to their student enrolment, just as French universities do.

The reality is, that despite what French nationalists demand, people do what is in their own best interest and for many Francophones attending a English university is the perfect recipe to a rounded education, one that will place them in an ideal position to deal with an international world, where English is a requirement for success.

What further infuriates militants, is that McGill with it's Ivy league and world reputation, attracts a good number of the very best and brightest Francophone students, eager to earn the valuable pedigree of a McGill diploma.

The issue of over-attendance is what sends militants into a rage, the idea that many Francophones students 'betray' their own demographic group in order to do the best for themselves.

Does going to an English University turn a Francophone into an Anglophone? I think not.

Someone who is born into a Francophone family, attends French school right up to high school isn't going to change his cultural roots because he has learned another language.

I spent thirty years working exclusively in French, travelling the province from one end to the other, to the point that during the working day, I would think in French.

But I remain an Anglophone and always will be.

Going to an English university doesn't turn a Francophone or an  Allophone into an Anglophone, but it does earn them advantages that non-English speakers miss and to militants, that is a problem.

What English language skills provide is opportunity. Some militants have even said it out loud, that going to an English school gives Francophones an opportunity to work outside Quebec,something that should not be encouraged.

If a Francophone wants to be promoted to the head office in Calgary, Toronto or New York, he or she needs to speak English. Ditto, if he or she aspires to a highly placed position in the Federal government or any type of international position.

In the old days it was said that in order to dominate women, one "Should keep them barefoot and pregnant"

Today that dictum is parallelled by nationalists that hold that Quebeckers should be kept "Unilingual and Isolated"

The issue comes down to a battle between personal freedom or collective obligation. Are Quebeckers by birthright obligated to follow a narrow French educational path dictated by nationalists, or do they have the right at some point, to chose their own destiny?

If so, at what age does a Quebecker earn the right to choose for him or herself?

Nationalists are furious that a great deal of people are not listening to their doctrine of isolation and unilingualism.

The question to be asked is what gives language nationalists dominion to impose their narrow isolationist view on others?

Should Quebec become a North Korea, where everyone's life path is determined by 'Dear Leaders" who 'know better?"

As to why Francophones in French universities don't have a high graduation rate, don't blame the English schools or the red herring of 'over-financing.'

The last I heard, places are going begging in French Universities and that in order to attract more students, admission standards have fallen so low, that you can successfully apply to get in with a graduation certificate from Driver's Ed! Some French universities are even starting to offer English courses, another anathema to language militants.

There is a big problem in the French educational system. The dropout rate is appalling. French universities operate at less than capacity and the graduation rate is just about the worst in Canada.

It has nothing to do with money, Anglophones or English universities.

Instead of blaming others, it's time for educators to face the reality that there is a cultural and/or educational problem in the French system that needs to be addressed instead of blaming Anglos and English Universities.