Is François Legault Quebec's Donald Trump?

I must say I'm taken a bit aback by the aberrant behaviour of the newly minted CAQ Premier of Quebec who unleashed a surprisingly aggressive political attitude right off the bat of his election, something that was hitherto unseen.

Throughout the campaign Legault portrayed himself as a safe, capable and comfortable politician, but his demeanour changed rapidly upon victory.

It's rather disturbing because not only are his first announced priorities inflammatory, but also ill-thought-out, as if he is excitedly shooting from the hip, like someone who's waited patiently outside the nightclub in an eternal queue only to go immediately crazy on the dance floor, once let in.

Was the whole 'I am a federalist, friend of the Anglos," nothing but a sinister ploy?'
Is Legault really a wolf in sheep's clothing, like a burlesque villain in a Marvel comic who rips off a false mask to reveal a nasty and sneering face, a triumphant scoundrel exposed once he has wormed himself into our confidence?

I'm not so sure it isn't true, and its a bit scary.

Not only are his priorities suspect, but he is displaying a tenuous grasp of the realities and limits of government, the law and the consequences of his proposals, acting very similar to Donald Trump who shoots first and asks questions later,

Let me say how disappointed I am, that even before he is sworn in as Premier he told his first political lie, actually two.

"The crucifix hanging in Quebec's National Assembly is a historical symbol, not a religious one, even though it represents the Christian values of the province's two colonial ancestors, premier-designate François Legault said Thursday."

Really, only a Donald Trump type character could dare come up with that nose-stretcher, that a depiction of Jesus on the cross under the motto of 'INRI' (signifying that a true Christian lies here)  is not a religious symbol.
The second lie he told is that the crucifix and the Quebec flag references historical Catholic AND Protestant influence on Quebec, are an utterly blatant lie.

"We have a cross on our flag. I think that we have to understand that our past, we had Protestants, Catholics, they built the values we have in Quebec. François Legault said Thursday."

Is Legault  actually pedalling the falsehood that Premier Maurice Duplessis installed the crucifix in the National Assembly to honour Protestant contributions to Quebec as well as Catholic, rather than to underline Quebec's holy commitment to state Catholicism?

When Duplessis and the infamous Abbé Lionel Groulx sat down in 1948 to create a distinctive Quebec flag, do you think they were honouring the contribution of Quebec Protestants in creating the modern Fleur-de-Lys flag.
Not only an absurd idea, but a patent lie.
Congratulations Mr Legault, in the vernacular of the vulgar, as Premier-elect you've broken your cherry of truthfulness.

As for his promise to reduce immigration from 50,000 per year to 40,000, he is actually shooting Quebec in the foot.
There is no way Justin Trudeau will lower the current level of Immigration from 300,000 to 290,000 to accommodate Legault, those immigrants will just go to the rest of Canada with painful effect.
Given that about 20% of the current 50,000 immigrants Quebec receives each year skedaddle out of Quebec to greener pastures in other provinces, the effect of the demographic loss will be amplified.

Let us do some math.
Canada accepts 300,000 immigrants of which (under Legault) 40,000 will come to Quebec, of which 8,000 will move away to other provinces.
That means that in ten years English Canada will grow by 2,700,000 people and Quebec will grow by 320,000 or just 12% of the immigrants.
By reducing immigration to Quebec, Legault will be exacerbating an already bad situation where Quebec's proportion of Canada's population is shrinking.

As for kicking out immigrants who don't adopt, I can't think of a stupider idea politically.
Imagine the photo op of those poor rejected shlubs with packed bags and crying children being trundling onto a flight out of Quebec like a criminal deportee.
More likely they will be accepted like heroes at the Ontario border with an enthusiastic welcome, another disastrous photo op for Quebec.

As for banning religious headgear, Legault has charged full-steam ahead into shark-infested waters. Telling us that he'll ban religious regalia for public employees in positions of power, he has forgotten or never understood that he cannot tell judges what or what not to wear and he cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause against the courts which are independent.
As for people in positions of power being banned from wearing religious symbols, he has said that it will include judges, policemen, prison guards and teachers in the public system.
Suspiciously absent is politicians from his list because banning an elected official from serving would be a United Nations human rights disaster.

At any rate, Legault is lurching forward and backward, now offering a grandfather clause to those already in the system. The idea of some teacher in a hijab being escorted out of a school by police, perhaps too much of a political disaster to anticipate.

Being Premier is no easy task and there are few easy solutions to complex situations where the interests of all Quebecers must be balanced.

I hope Legault's early blunders serve him as a wake-up call that he hasn't got the cat by the tail and that good governing is a lot more complicated than he anticipated.

But I'm not getting a good vibe, his nasty statement that Quebec is a nation and can decide for itself without consideration that it is a Canadian entity is troubling because he gave opposite signals during the election campaign.

I like the quality of the potential cabinet members from which he will pull together and I hope they will serve to calm down Legault's impetuous nature and perhaps convince him to get off the dance floor until he has learned some better moves.

Rise of Quebec Solidaire a Gift to Federalists

The Quebec provincial election was not surprising for the fact that pollsters once again got it woefully wrong and miscalculated the popular vote falling outside the famous so-called margin of error of plus or minus 4%. Claiming that their polls are accurate to 4% points nine times out of ten is becoming a recurring joke, as I can't remember when a Quebec election prediction that fell within this norm.
At any rate, the results shouldn't be surprising, Liberal backbenchers and ministerial defections before the election presaged the upcoming Liberal debacle.

But the majority CAQ government is a good thing for federalists as a minority government would be subject to blackmail by the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire, thus elevating both parties to relevancy and a measure of control.
 So federalists should take joy that Quebec Solidaire improved its showing beyond the lunatic fringe, adding disgruntled PQ sovereigntists to the fold, thus splitting the separatist vote, casting both parties into oblivion, having both failed to reach party status. Failing to win twelve seats or twenty percent of the popular vote means that Quebec Solidaire and Parti Quebecois members will have to sit as independents and although the ruling CAQ may grant an exception as has been done in the past, I don't think Francois Legault is in that generous a mood.

But let's dig into the numbers a bit;

Here's how the election actually finished.

As you can clearly see, the CAQ forms a majority government with the Liberals in opposition and both the PQ and QS forced to sit as independents.

But consider if the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire actually merged as was proposed a while back and that their respective votes were combined.
The assumption isn't a stretch, I can't see any of a combined QS/PQ coalition losing any of it's combined strength to the CAQ or Liberals.
In fact, an alliance of sovereigntists might even attract those apathetic and disgruntled sovereigntist voters who just gave up voting in frustration.

This is what the election results would look like if we were to combine the PQ and QS votes.

And so the QS/PQ alliance would have won party status and a combined 19 seats which is less shabby a performance than what actually happened. The 34% popular vote is respectable and probably lines up with the reality of those who continue to support sovereignty.

But here is the gigantic kicker.
I reviewed the voting tallies riding by riding and if the votes of the PQ and QS were to be combined, it would have significantly affected the outcome in twelve ridings where the CAQ winner would have been upended by the QS/PQ candidate.

Yup, in all of the twelve ridings listed below, the CAQ winner would be replaced by the PQ/QS candidate who polled more combined votes than the actual winner.

For example, in Bourget, the CAQ candidate Richard Campeau, won with just 27.5% of the vote, while the PQ's Mako Kotto lost with 26% of the vote and QS candidate Marlène Lessard lost with 24% of the vote.
Had the PQ and QS votes been united, the riding would have gone to them easily with a vote count of 50.4%
Amazing!

These are the twelve ridings won by the CAQ, that would have gone over to a PQ /QS coalition.

St. Jean
Abitibi-Ouest
Bourget
Gaspé
labelle
Saint-Jean
Pointe-aux-Trembles
Saint-François
Maurice-Richard
Lac-Saint-Jean
Taillon
Ungava
Verchères

 If that happened, look at what the National Assembly standing would be today, a minority CAQ government.

Yes, anglos will have no representation in this CAQ government but on the other hand, those Anglos in the former Liberal government were complete sell-outs, kowtowing to the party line which disdained English and Anglophones in general, so it is no real step backward.

As for Francois Legault, it remains to be seen from where he governs from.
Will he stay true to his nature and expose himself as another Doug Ford, or will he moderate and rule closer to the center, albeit from the right side.

I look forward to seeing this government with a free hand and a fresh start and want to officially thank Quebec Solidaire for doing so well, thus paving the way for four years of peaceful, responsible government.

To all the idiots and fools who voted for the wacky and loony Quebec Solidaire, we federalists should all give them a heartfelt thank-you.

In Defence of Montreal Bagels

The Montreal food world is in an uproar after a New York food writer and ex-New York Times food critic insulted Montreal-type bagels in a flippant and cavalier slam.

"Former New York Times food critic Mimi Sheraton stirred up a ruckus on Twitter Thursday night after criticizing Montreal-style bagels, complaining that “it’s like chewing glass.”
It all started when a former Montrealer and current New York Times writer, Adam Gopnik, claimed that the best bagels are the wood-fired ones Montreal is famous for.
Sheraton chimed in, slammed our famous bagels and the reactions from Montrealers on Twitter are priceless." Link

The reaction on Twitter by Montreal natives was swift and vicious, as one might expect when an insult so deep and hurtful is gratuitously proffered.
I don't know Ms. Sheraton, but her credentials are impressive and so the tweet probably goes along the lines of a good troll, meant to elicit a lively reaction bringing with it the attached notoriety, publicity that every writer needs in order to sell books.

Could you imagine the reaction of New Yorkers if a Montreal travel writer mentioned in a column that the Statue of Liberty was decidedly ugly and obscene?

As for the bagels, I'll not get into the comparisons as food tastes vary and my mom taught me that if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.

But on second thought, I shall do just that, that is troll New York City food in order to assuage the rage and frustration of Montreal food lovers in response to the hurtful tweet.

Now I'm no expert like Ms. Shereton, but I do travel to New York City many times a year to visit family and eat out more often there, than in Montreal. I don't eat at the Michelin-starred restaurants that NYC boasts because these few establishments are unrepresentative and grossly over-priced and require a couple of hours at the table, an experience I eschew.

But when it comes to the rest of the food scene, Montreal is equal or better than NYC, where middle-priced restaurants in Montreal are just plain better than their counterparts in New York.

As for that sophisticated New York foodie, it is a sad myth. New Yorkers eat trash that Montrealers would never touch.

Let's start with the lower end, where disgusting food carts do a booming business selling gross looking mystery meats cooked up on an unsanitary looking grill by a guy who doesn't bother to wear a hat and who handles the money and the food bare-handed without a second thought.
The famous New York hot-dogs carts, serve over-boiled dogs directly out of a pool of dirty looking slimy hot water topped with globules of floating fat. Ugh!!
Other staples like frighteningly greyish shawarma accompanied by a warmish bottle of water or coke, are meals only a New Yorker could tolerate.
As for street food, NYC boasts just about the most disgusting offerings in THE WORLD and cannot compare to cities like LA or Miami, where street food is an art.

The famous hot dogs at the Papaya King are terrible and the service and attitude obscene.
Most of the offerings and toppings can best be described as slop. What Montrealer would actually want to eat the hot dog pictured here?

Now the world-famous Nathan's at Coney Island is just about the worst fast food restaurant I've ever eaten at.
I can understand tourists wanting to be a part of the famous Nathan's lore, but how locals can eat here is beyond the pale.
There isn't one item on the menu that is in the least bit palatable with a special mention of the waffle fries being the worst.

As for New York's best fast food burger joint, the Shake Shack, hamburgers are indeed delicious, but everything else sucks, especially the crinkle fries that are so dry that they taste like cardboard and require mounds of ketchup to get down.

There isn't a poutinerie in Montreal that doesn't beat the heck out of New York fast food joints for taste variety and value.

Now the reason I dwell on the New York food cart industry is that it is omnipresent. Every street corner has its version of these eyesores. It seems that half of New York eats at these shitholes, a sad testament to the New Yorker palate.

As for New York bagels which I promised not to critique,,,, well I lied.
The hallmark of a New York bagel is huge lead-like dough ball with a tiny hole in the middle so as to better carry the massive amount of fillings that are required to balance out the dryness. New York bagels are indistinguishable from any other plain bread product, with zero personality and zero oomph. Toasted, they taste like white bread..ugh.

Montreal bagels are really two treats in one. Toasted they are light and delicious, where a dash of topping is all that required to bring out the best. A Montreal bagel, well-toasted or lightly toasted is sublime, whether topped by a dash of jam, cream cheese or classic European churned butter.
But the real culinary treat is when Montreal bagels are bought fresh out of the wood-fired oven (something that doesn't exist in New York.) The delicate bagels are placed in an open paper bag (so as to let the bagels cool slowly) which ultimately leads to the baker's dozen turning into twelve on the trip home. New Yorkers aren't sophisticated enough to fathom a Montreal bagel because, in New York, bagels have to be obscenely massive.
The only similar experience I can compare to a fresh-out-of-the-oven Montreal bagel is that which every Frenchman enjoys in France.
On a Paris holiday, I skipped the hotel and went across the street to a café that served freshly-baked baguette with outstanding European butter and a generous wedge of Camembert. Delicious!
This delicate bread experience is something New Yorkers are never able to comprehend because everything has to be over-sized, over-salted, over-spiced and over-stuffed.

The only redeeming factor in the bagel scene in New York is the famous but fading in popularity bialy, which when freshly baked is something special, but a product that doesn't toast well and so is an ethereal but fleeting experience at best.

As for the vaunted New York pizza scene, all I can say is pizza is pizza and most of us have our personal favourite type, be it regular, thin-crust, deep dish or Napoli style. The street version of New York pizza is that sloppy gooey mess of a slice that needs to be folded over in order to eat. Okay, but nothing to write home about.
You can find as good or better pizza in just about every single North American city.
At the top of the heap are the over-rated famous NYC pizza joints that live on reputation and so can charge an arm and a leg. Di Fara's is perhaps the most renowned, charging a whopping $38 ($50 Canadian) for a four topping extra-large.
Only an idiot New Yorker with more money than sense would pay that much considering that there are dozens of other pizza joints in the city making pizza as good or better for less than half the price.
But reputation is everything in New York, where over-paying is the rule, where money replaces taste as a criterion.

Take for example the famous Peter Luger steakhouse in Brooklyn where tourists flock and uniformed richnicks blow an exorbitant amount of money on steaks that are good, but no better than most fine steak-house across America. To boot the side dishes liked steamed broccoli are exorbitantly priced yet are pedestrian and uninspired. Bah!
If you are looking for a better place to blow big bucks on steak try M. Wells Steakhouse in the Bronx, which actually owns a Michelin star and is described by the famous Michelin guide "with its distinct French-Canadian culinary influence," It is of course run by Montreal expatriate chef Hugue Dufour.

Miami has a lively Cuban food culture, New Orleans has sublime cajun, Boston is seafood and LA and environs have a bold Mexican food environment. All delightful and original.
What is New York famous for?
Deli.
A lost food culture that is in its death throes. Where the once hundreds and hundreds of Jewish style delis populated just about every neighbourhood, New York is now reduced to about a dozen or two dinosaurs where innovation is a dirty word and where the same old, same old has less and less appeal.
The one bright light is the innovative and brass Mile End Deli in Borem Hill, where ex-Montrealers (who else) have brought traditional Montreal Jewish deli to New York with an updated and fresh approach.

King of the hill is the famous Katz's Deli on the lower east sides of "When Harry met Sally" fame. Sadly it is a dreary military-like mess hall atmosphere where sullen New Yorkers wolf down crappy food with nary a look left or right.
Katz's reminds me of BEN'S deli in Montreal, which while full of lore and a deep history suffered and ultimately closed because the food just wasn't that good.
On a late night, after-wedding nosh at Katz's our group was singularly unimpressed with the service and the food. My turkey sandwich was dry as a bone and the matzah-ball in my chicken soup was stone cold.
Unacceptable.

Probably the only deli of interest is Junior's, a massive old-style Jewish deli converted to Jack of all trades, where the food isn't anything special, but the experience delightful. Junior's safeguards the New York reputation of excess, where an egg salad sandwich is eight inches high and probably consists of a dozen eggs and a cup of mayonnaise. While the food isn't great, the people watching is. It is mesmerizing to see people put away so much food, an experience that will have you shaking your head.

I won't bother describing the rest of the food scene but will offer that Los Angeles, Miami and New Orleans all have a style and personality that is unique, fresh and exciting, something sadly lacking in New York.

As for middle-of-the-road restaurants, I've never had a meal in New York where I've commented that you can't get that in Montreal, but the opposite is true.
New York restaurants are generally uninspired, over-priced, over-crowded and staffed by an arrogant uninterested, rude and surly waitstaff.
It is, I suppose a badge of honour that New Yorkers wear with pride. Have at it.

As for Montreal bagels tasting like glass, all I can say is that New York bagels taste like shit.

Maxime Bernier Will Win 30-40 Seats in Quebec Alone

If there is one thing certain that can be said of the Quebec electorate, it is that there is nothing to be taken as certain.
Quebec voters, unlike Canadians outside the province, have always been volatile with little brand loyalty.
Take for example the great Bloc Quebecois wave of 2000 and 2004 where they elected 54 MPs from Quebec with 49% of the popular vote as well as the Orange crush of of 2011 where the NDP wave took 59 of the 75 Quebec seats with an 43% of the popular vote.

Commentators and pundit who predict the demise of Maxime Bernier and his descent into obscurity are either dead wrong or whistling through the graveyard.

Maxime Bernier arrives on the political scene in Quebec at the most opportune moment, with voters itching for a new face and a new ideology.
With the Bloc in its death throes and the shine off the Trudeau apple, voters are desperate for a choice, one that Bernier fits to a tee. That support will transcend English/French lines as well as federalist/separatist ideology.

First let us look at the sovereigntists and soft nationalists, who understand that the Bloc is a spent force, and who now see Bernier as the only legitimate defender of Quebec culture, a stalwart against forced multiculturalism of the federal Liberals.
To hard and soft nationalists alike, the notion that if they are to be stuck in Canada, a party that defends traditional Quebec culture in Quebec as well as traditional Canadian culture in the ROC is a compromise made in Heaven.
Those remaining Bloc MPS already understand that an independent Quebec is no longer an option and so most, if not all, would jump to support a Bernier party.
Bernier would be careful to demand that BQ MPs publicly disavow sovereignty before allowing them into the party and I'm sure those who wish to preserve their cushy jobs in Ottawa would make the pragmatic decision to do so.

There are many Canadians who support Bernier's view on preserving Canadian culture and the danger of a European type of illegal immigrant invasion. This percentage  is even a higher in Quebec.
Justin Trudeau's branding those who wish to preserve the Canadian identity as it is as intolerant, is already alienating Quebec voters who refuse to be insulted because they fear that their Quebecois culture being eroded by uncheck illegal immigration.
It is a much bigger issue than anyone in the federal Liberals understand because it touches two raw nerves, protecting traditional Quebec identity and law and order.
Quebecers have always been a people of law and order and throughout the tumultuous years of the independence movement, have never shown an inkling of support for lawlessness or upheaval.
The idea that foreigners can traipse over the border with impunity, while regular Canadians must put up with interminable line-up at the border crossing in order return home from vacation is utterly unacceptable.

Bernier's deep conservatism, his opposition supply management and call for an end to government subsidies may in theory hurt him in Quebec, but it won't.
While the organized unions and dairy farmers will cackle, ordinary Quebecers will ignore their entreaties, with the issue of defending Quebec's French identity in Canada as the over-riding issue of the election.
Let us remember that the Bloc Quebecois wave and the subsequent NDP wave were both predicated on the defence of traditional Quebec culture and language.

The last election saw Quebecers caught up in Trudeaumania like the rest of the country. While Trudeau's support is slipping, but holding in Canada, Quebec is a different story where Trudeau is fast gaining a reputation as selling out Quebec to immigrants.
As for the NDP, its already weakening support in Quebec is further collapsing because  of their new leader, Jagmeet Singh, a character who represents what the majority of Quebecers loathe, foreign religious orthodoxy.

Bernier is an extremely popular figure who will get re-elected in his home riding no matter what the party affiliation. His status as a favourite son and staunch defender of traditional Quebec and Canadian culture is the one and only issue that matters federally.
And so it seems that the stars are aligned for Bernier who perhaps realizes what the pundits are incapable of understanding.

When I say Bernier can win 30-40 seats in Quebec, I am being conservative, with the Liberal fortress Montreal and Laval, just about the only safe ridings for the Liberals.

As for a Bernier political party in the rest of Canada, the decision to run candidates will be difficult and I shall leave that discussion for another blog post, but there is a scenario whereby Bernier can actually insure a Scheer Conservative government through coalition.

As for the pundits predicting the premature political death of Bernier, consider their track record where none were able to foretell seismic shifts in Quebec voter intentions.

Canada's Foreign Policy Blunder Dooms Those It Meant to Help

Nobody in the mainstream media will say it but Canada's momentous blunder, an ill-thought-out tweet calling out Saudi Arabia on human rights issues will turn out disastrously for those it meant to help.
If Donald Trump has taught us anything, it is that Twitter is just about the worst tool that politicians can use to communicate government policy.

Why Canada's mainstream media is shying away from reproducing the Tweet, I don't know, but try searching for the tweet yourself and you'll not find the original on the CBC, CTV or mainstream newspapers.
It seems the tweet is as toxic as the Danish cartoons of the profit Mohammed that had the Muslim world in an uproar and led to the murder of several journalists.

I am publishing the original so that readers can see what is arguably the tweet with the worst negative consequences in the history of the platform.

Worst of all, the tweet and this tweet by Canada's Foreign Minister has all but condemned those whom it was trying to free.

Samar Badawi and Raif Badawi can take little comfort in the Canadian government's stupid attempt to pressure the Kingdom and can now look forward to their situation getting much, much worse.
And in Saudi Arabia, much, much worse is really much, much worse.

How Canada's foreign affairs department can so badly under-estimate the reaction to their tweet is a testament to the amateurs who run foreign affairs who believe that lecturing and hectoring dictatorships can effectively cough up positive results.

Saudi Arabia is the Beverly Hillbillies of nations, a country of autocratic religious yahoos who inherited a fortune à la Jed Clampett.

 Do Canada's idiots at foreign affairs actually believe their lectures about human rights will sway a country that has no shame in putting up a sign like this which underlines its policy that non-Muslims are actually barred from the country's 'holy' cities of Mecca and Medina?

We must have the dumbest foreign affairs department in the world, filled with dough-headed liberal dilettantes who believe that Canadian liberal values apply to the entire world and that their inflated self-importance will have a significant influence.
Canada's allies are laughing their asses off at our utter stupidity and amateurness. They have told us in no uncertain terms that they won't back Canada's play in condemning the Saudi government over human rights. None of them wants to bet on such a losing hand, so don't expect any statements of support from our allies.

Instead of attempting the impossible task of lecturing a dogmatic, ultra-religious and anti-democratic country like Saudi Arabia into changing, perhaps we should better spend our capital on warning Canadians that travel to the Kingdom is hazardous to those who want to embarrass the government.
It's like a bear-trap, better to avoid than to extricate from.

At any rate, I'm happy about the whole fiasco because it is another huge embarrassment for the Trudeau liberals who can be rightfully humiliated for making a bad situation infinitely worse.
I do feel bad for the detained, they are sadly collateral damage caused by the Liberal government incompetence.

As for Saudi Arabia's reaction, restricting trade between our countries, calling back students and hospital patients and cancelling flights to Toronto, we should shrug off the moves as utterly unimportant.

Canada's trade with Saudi Arabia is negligible and the one huge contract for military vehicles now in place was not cancelled by the Saudis because of its importance to them.

The media may be aghast over the announced reprisals but the truth is that these measures hurt them worse than us.
The threat to stop buying grain from Canada is hollow because they haven't bought any in a long time, replacing us with a cheaper alternative from China.

The announcement that flights by its national airline to Toronto are being cancelled is also a ho-hum measure because none of the flights were nonstop and if you have to make a stop anyway, you can pick a flight there from anywhere in Europe.

At any rate, flying on Saudia is a bit off-putting with the slogan 'God Bless You' plastered on the nose of the aircraft, knowing the Kingdom's opinion of infidels.


As for the situation whereby medical doctors from Saudi Arabia get their training here and then work as indentured servants as residents, it is repugnant.
If Canada cannot train and pay its own doctors we are truly losers of the first magnitude.
The 4,000 places held by Saudis over the years in medical schools rob Canadians of the opportunity to become doctors and even with the inflated tuition rates the Saudis pay, we still underwrite their education in exchange for a couple of years of meagre-paid service in our hospitals. It is a deal with the devil.
The same goes for Saudi patients using our hospital facilities. No matter what they pay it isn't enough. They come here for treatment because it is cheaper than in the USA.  Good riddance.

As for the 15,000 Saudi university students studying in Canada who are paying full tuition, Canadian taxpayers still underwrite their education.
Let's do a little math for those claiming foreign students are a benefit to our universities.
McGill University has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion dollars. Split among its 40,000 students, it comes out to about $30,000 spent on each student. Saudi undergraduate students pay about $20,000 for tuition and Saudi post-graduate students pay about $10,000 in tuition.
By the way, these fees include full Medicare coverage.
The foreign students also have the benefit of the infrastructure paid for and built up over the years by Canadian taxpayers and the benefit of the billion dollar endowment fund.
We lose $10,000 to $15,000 for every foreign student enrolled, so good riddance.

As for selling off Canadian assets by the Saudi treasury, it is again no big deal. They own little.

Perhaps the silver lining in all this is oil, which the Saudis have not said they will stop shipping.
If they do, it will demonstrate Canada's vulnerability and hasten the construction of the pipeline to eastern Canada.
One can only hope!