The Coalition Avenir Quebec (or CAQ, for short, which really brings to mind a whole host of new acronym joke possibilities) was, if you recall, ahead in polls even before it existed. And now, Legault’s generic statements about wanting to move Quebec “forward” and “focus on the issues that matter” sound just like the tired same-old-same-old, even on the day he announces something that’s supposed to be shiny and new.

Barry Wilson of CTV Montreal called Legault the “flavour of the month” in an editorial that pretty much points out the obvious: Quebecers vote according to fads, which fizzle quickly. Witness the ADQ, which rose to official opposition status under Mario Dumont before virtually disappearing from the electoral map in the following election. Witness the meteoric “Orange Crush” rise of the Federal NDP this past election, which crashed and burned almost days afterwards when people figured out that they’d voted for unqualified candidates who couldn’t speak their language and had never even been to their riding.

Legault is repeating tired old clichés and avoiding saying very much. He’s getting a lot of media attention for it. He’ll have his fifteen minutes in the sun.

But it won’t last. We’ve seen this before. When it comes to politics, there really is nothing new under the sun.

In another sign that Quebecers are rejecting decades of political debate surrounding the Quebec sovereignty issue, the poll found that respondents were reluctant to identify themselves with traditional ideological brands. Only 19 per cent identified themselves as sovereignists, 20 per cent as federalists, 17 per cent as nationalists and eight per cent as autonomists.

The biggest portion of respondents – 37 per cent – did not identify themselves with any of those categories.

Which raises the question of terminology and phrasing. I’m not convinced that the national identity debate is dead; I think it’s just going through a re-branding. Words like “nationalism” and “sovereignty” are turning off the current generation – in both languages. But the sharp divide still remains, possibly reinforced by the Harper government’s massive lack of popularity here in Quebec.

Another thing going on here might be a sense of security. Quebecers, thanks to two generations of protections, now feel like their identity is less threatened than ever before. At the same time, they’re extending beyond borders. The struggles of today are more global and less local in scope, and the nationalism debate is going to naturally seem outdated to a bilingual francophone from HoMa who is organizing a G8 protest and campaigning for human rights in North Africa.

The point is, I don’t think that Quebecers feel more Canadian than they do in the past. I think they’re just less interested in talking constitutional debate.

Still, this is the first cautionary piece of good news that we’ve seen on the federalist side in ages. I’d like to see some reinforcing polling numbers over time, but it could mean good news in terms of how the next provincial election debate will be shaped. Especially if Francois Legault keeps beating the “beyond sovereignty” drum and forcing the other parties to talk about something else. Like, maybe healthcare, or infrastructure, or the economy, or issues of real concern to Quebecers of all political stripes.

One can hope, anyway.

François Legault, who is on a 17-stop tour across Quebec to seek feedback on his ideas to reform politics in the province, says he is “humbled” by polls suggesting he would win a provincial election if it were held now, even though he still has not formed a party.

That, right there, says everything you need to know about the wisdom of the electorate. Or, more accurately, the lack thereof.

Quebecers don’t actually care about silly things like party platforms or issues. We just care about what’s new and shiny this week. (Orange Crush, anyone?)

Cartoonist Yvon Roy has proposed three new designs to Transport Quebec for road signs:

The critical problems with the Ville-Marie were known about as early as 2008. And, as with the Turcot, the Champlain Bridge, the Mercier Bridge, and – tragically, the De La Concorde Overpass that collapsed in 2006, city and provincial officials are long on finger-pointing and blame, and short on solutions.

The best example of a picture saying a thousand words might have come from the Catholic Church, which, last April, posted a billboard urging people to pray before driving across the Champlain Bridge.

Looks like when Josh Freed predicted that we might soon be prisoners on the island of Montreal, he was a little too close to the mark.

And everyone is asking, what the hell happened? How could a party that had a commanding lead in the polls, whose leader won a 93% confidence vote less than two months ago, and who most pundits predicted had a virtual lock on winning the next provincial election, be self-destructing like this?

The ostensible catalyst – a vote on a private member’s bill that would have guaranteed naming rights for a new arena in a bid to attract an NHL team back to Quebec City – was merely the trigger; the ingredients of this turmoil have been marinating much longer than that. That vote has been shelved now anyway, though it’s entirely beside the point.

So what happened in a mere two months?

Well, the NDP happened, for one thing. The media wanted to claim that the Layton sweep of Quebec – and the Bloc Quebecois self-destruction that accompanied it – meant that Quebecers had moved past sovereignty, and were embracing their role as part of a united Canada. Bloggers claimed that sovereignty is dead in Quebec.

Those of us who live here know different. We know that the NDP win here, coupled with the Tory win just about everywhere else, actually led to an increase in support for sovereignty in the aftermath of an election that made us feel more alienated from the rest of Canada than ever.

And the defecting MNAs from the PQ know it too. They see the tide turning, and they’re getting impatient. They’re pushing for a sea change. No more “winning conditions”, no more of Marois’s strategy – so eagerly backed just two short months ago – of putting referendum timing on the back burner and concentrating on winning elections and on governing. They don’t want to govern a province; they want a country. And they feel like fifteen years since the squeaker referendum of 1995 is fifteen years too many.

This position is being made clear by Jean-Martin Aussant, the fourth PQ member to defect and the most openly blunt about his reasons:

“I’m here to work on sovereignty. And I don’t think she’s the one Quebecers will want to follow, at a very high rate, towards sovereignty,” Aussant told a news conference.

“That’s a very cruel statement. It’s a hard one to say. It’s probably a hard one to hear, from them, but that’s what I think.”

And now former Premier Bernard Landry is speaking out, too:

Landry says the PQ has become too complacent and its members, who want a more strident pursuit of the party’s raison d’etre, are now pushing back.

“There are other things (causing this),” Landry told Radio-Canada on Tuesday. He said the pursuit of power should take a back seat to principles — like the quest for independence.

Such a move would represent a strategic shift for a party which, for more than 15 years, has placed its emphasis on governing or winning government — and has simply expressed its hope to hold a vote on independence eventually, whenever the conditions are right.

“Rene Levesque did not found this party to govern the province of Quebec,” Landry said Tuesday. “The obsession should be public service — not taking power. It’s better to take power later — but to take it with dignity.”

The Pequistes who are dialing up the sovereignty-now talk aren’t doing so off the cuff. They’re seeing the same things we are; hearing the same conversations, feeling the same winds in the air. They’re seeing how Stephen Harper in power and Jack Layton in opposition is making many Quebec soft nationalists re-evaluate just how Canadian they feel after all. And they feel like it’s time to strike while the iron is hot.

On the surface, the self-destruction of one sovereignty party and the turmoil of the other would be good news for federalism. Under the surface, it’s anything but.

Okay, not in so many words, but that was the gist of the Pequiste leader’s remarks to the press after a group of Sikhs were denied entrance to the National Assembly. They were there to speak out against Bill 94, a racist piece of claptrap that would deny services to Muslim women wearing face coverings, for instance, and is supported by an overwhelming 95% of Quebecers. This law as written won’t impact the Sikh community specifically, but the people who came out to speak up were there to represent the 5% of people who disapprove of the Quebec government’s attempt to further infringe on religious freedom for xenophobic reasons.

Now, there is a very legitimate question about the kirpan, and whether any kind of weapon – ceremonial or otherwise – should be permitted past security screening at the National Assembly. Beaudoin could have taken the high road, saying “we would like to hear from all Quebecers, and we invite the views of the Sikh community on this issue, and we regret that security concerns did not allow us to admit them” or something to that effect. It wouldn’t have solved the tricky kirpan debate, but it would have signalled an openness to at least discuss it.

But Beaudoin chose the low road. Specifically, she said that:

“Religious freedom exists, but there are other values,” she added. “Multiculturalism may be a Canadian value. But it is not a Quebec one.

“And we haven’t signed the constitution of Canada because it contains this notion of multiculturalism.

“I think we can be different.”

If by “different”, she means “more xenophobic”, then she’s hit the nail on the head. At least there’s no hypocricy in Beaudoin’s position. It’s getting harder to call racism one of Quebec’s “dirty little secrets” when it’s being promoted so openly. Quebec has never wanted to be pluralistic, accepting or tolerant. If the disastrous reasonable accommodation debates showed us anything, it’s that most people in Quebec would prefer us to turn into France and do away with religious freedom altogether.

Meanwhile, the Liberals missed an opportunity to take a strong position against Beaudoin and company. Charest’s team waffled on the issue, staying quiet and basically stumbling through an attempt to walk the fine line between not pissing anyone off and not pissing anyone off. All of that to cover the dirty little secret that, if it weren’t for the fact that the Liberals rely on the “ethnic vote” to get elected, most of them would be as opposed to multicultural values as their Pequiste compatriots. That’s some strong leadership we’ve got in Quebec City, folks.

My logical follow-up question to Louise Beaudoin is therefore this: If multiculturalism isn’t a Quebec value, how can we change that and turn it into one?

My Quebec resembles the Swiss or Swedish kind of socialism way with shelter and food as a basic human rights, one where large decisions are made in a perpetual referendum where everyone vote and gets a say in where tax money goes. Out with representatives and in with True democracy.

Alexandre expanded on the thought in a follow-up comment:

The democracy you describe is strangely similar to the one I have in mind, one where each issue debated at the political level needs to be voted on by mini-referendums (by computer votes, secured, etc.). Ultimately, we could downsize the government significantly and use that kind of system to steer all the debates. Do you want an investigation on the construction industry: Yes, No… Political parties would then have 1 month on big issue and 2 weeks on smaller issues to inform, convince and steer the population to vote and then the vote would be held and the PEOPLE would chose the outcome, totally oblivious to any party in power at the moment, with no veto, no muzzling, just the people choosing their way. That would be true democracy.

I’ve heard these arguments before. They’re the basis for the anti-Charest petition, and, in fact, are at the heart of the political system itself. How much of an obligation do politicians have to vote according to the mood of their constituents? How far can – or should – they go in using opinion polls as a basis to govern? And at what point do they no longer represent the people who put them in office, by ignoring them too much?

We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative democracy. That means, we vote every once in a while for people to represent us and make the decisions of governing on our behalf. If we don’t like their decisions, we can vote them out of office. But we don’t put every decision to a direct vote, and I don’t think we realistically could, or even should.

A pure democracy would be impractical. It would get bogged down with the logistics of endless votes. It would cause a self-selection bias with low turnout and only the fringe minority casting ballots. It would force people to make decisions on issues that they know little or nothing about, because – unlike politicians – they have day jobs and can’t possibly keep up with every issue that elected officials and their paid staff spend time on.

And, more importantly, a pure democracy would be irresponsible, even if we could implement it practically. Why? Because a majority-rules only system has no built-in protections for minorities. “Do you want an investigation into the construction industry?” seems like a fairly straightforward question - if the population wants it, do it; if not, don’t.  But what about other questions, like, “Should people have to prove that they can speak French before being allowed to vote?” A 2007 CROP poll showed majority support for the idea, which went much further than even the Marois-proposed legislation at the time. How about, “should people be allowed to wear a hijab in the workplace?” Do we take France’s example and strip the rights of religious minorities, just on the majority’s say-so?

And hey, just look at what happened when the Habs started letting people vote on the three stars of the game. Agree or disagree with the old star rankings, at least they were usually reflective of the game itself, and players from the opposing team would earn stars if their performance merited it. Now, with Price getting top star virtually every game, it’s turned into a joke. Good thing it means next to nothing. But now imagine a similar system in place for things that actually matter.

Governing is already largely about a popularity contest. If governments stray too far from what the people want, they pay the price on election day. It’s why they already rely so heavily on polling data and public opinion in order to govern. But to take it a step further and assume that all significant decisions should be taken to a vote would be to make matters all that much worse.

No, I’m not in favour of the nanny-state approach or the “father knows best” idea of governing. I don’t think our politicians know best. I think we need lots of scrutiny and checks and balances to avoid letting them do whatever they want.

But I also think that decisions sometimes need to be made that aren’t just reflective of what the mood of the people is on a particular day. Sometimes, people with a little bit of inside or expert knowledge about a situation are better qualified to make the kinds of day-to-day decisions that it takes to run a government.

And that’s why a pure democracy wouldn’t work, and a representative democracy – to borrow an old, tired, Churchill-ism, is the worst system, except for all the other ones we’ve tried.

Under the portability requirement, every Canadian is entitled to full medical coverage, no matter where he or she lives, and provincial health insurance plans are supposed to be good anywhere in the country.

But that tenet is showing cracks at the Quebec-Ontario boundary. Quebec patients are turned away or pay out-of-pocket for medical services outside their home province, essentially denied portability.

[ . . . ]

And physicians inside Quebec have their own issues to contend with. Louis Godin, head of the Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec, says the government needs to resolve the problems in its home province before appeasing doctors elsewhere. Two million Quebeckers don’t have a family physician. Meanwhile, in the four faculties of medicine, 250 family-medical spots remained vacant over the past four years because doctors are paid roughly 30 per cent less than their counterparts elsewhere in the country. There’s a lack of medical infrastructure, especially along the boundary, which has resulted in a number of doctors moving to private clinics or simply picking up and leaving for other provinces.

Basically, what this means is that there are much longer waiting lists for elective procedures inside Quebec, due to a severe shortage of doctors and resources. So people go to Ontario to get health services. If they pay up-front and ask to get reimbursed by RAMQ, they’ll only get part of their money back — if they’re lucky. And many doctors in other provinces will refuse to see Quebec patients, because they’re strained enough meeting the demand from the local populace, and because of the bureaucratic roadblocks that get thrown up when they themselves try to bill RAMQ for their services.

This is an inevitable consequence of a system that makes federal promises but relies on provincial jurisdictions to carry them out. Quebec’s healthcare is a mess, and understandably, the rest of Canada doesn’t particularly want to enable or subsidize the mess.

If the Quebec government were truly serious about fixing healthcare, it would pay doctors as much as they’re getting paid in other provinces, make more spots available, and commit funds for infrastructure and services, to stem the steady tide of doctors across provincial borders. Canada already has a hard enough time hanging onto doctors who are seduced by the private salaries and perks south of the border in the US. But this inter-province competition needs to stop.

Of course, it won’t happen. Quebec will point a finger at Ottawa, at once demanding more funding, and then loudly decrying it when it’s offered as “interference” in a provincial matter. Biting the hand that feeds — nothing new for La Belle Province.

So if you’re living in Quebec and are one of the rare few with a family doc, consider yourself lucky. And if not, well, best hope you don’t get sick anytime soon.

A former Harper cabinet minister’s politically radical idea that Quebec be required — by law — to hold an independence referendum every 15 years is being swiftly mocked.

Michael Fortier, the Tories’ one-time public-works minister, argued Thursday that mandatory referendums would actually help Quebec move beyond its eternal unity debates.

Referendums brought Canada to the brink of rupture in 1980 and 1995 but, Fortier says, mandatory plebiscites would at least ensure 14 years of peace between votes.

His idea was emphatically ridiculed by the Prime Minister’s Office and Quebec’s federalist politicians Thursday.

But is it such a dumb idea? Really, what Fortier was calling for was to have designated periods, spaced far apart, for the national unity question to be discussed, and for everyone to shut up about the sovereignty debate the rest of the time.

There’s just one problem with that theory: We don’t need any more referendums in order to shut up about sovereignty. We just need to stop talking about it. Which, need I point out, we pretty much already have been… until Fortier opened his big mouth.

Quebecers quickly organized large street demonstrations when the government announced it would charge taxpayers a $200-a-year health premium, then bill patients another $25 for each hospital visit.

[ . . . ]

Quebec’s user fees would have brought an estimated $500 million a year to the provincial treasury.

 The province says it now has to find another way to fill that budget shortfall; health care costs in the province are now more than $20 billion per year and are projected to grow five per cent annually.

Here’s a thought: How about we start by scrapping $20 million annual budget for the Office de la langue française?

And the Gazette publishes this under the inflammatory headline: Smokers cost Quebec $930M a year.

Erm, did anyone think to ask how many of those people are actually in the hospital for health issues even remotely related to smoking? Or, more prosaically, what proportion of the general population either smokes or used to smoke?

I think this blog needs a headdesk tag.

A new survey of Quebecers’ attitudes on education shows that two out of three prefer to have the right to send their children to any school in the province they choose, public or private.

The poll, conducted for The Gazette by Léger Marketing, asked whether students other than those now allowed, including franco-phones, should have access to English-language schools if they wish.

A total of 66 per cent of a representative sample of Quebecers agreed that they should – including a 61-per-cent clear majority of francophones.

Non-francophones were even more overwhelmingly in favour, at 87 per cent.

It’s about time that the francophone majority realised that they’re the ones getting most hurt by the current policies. After all, their kids will grow up learning French at home regardless, and without a strong foundation in English, their opportunities will be very limited in today’s world. Then, there are the anglo parents who would prefer to send their kids to French school so that they could grow up fluent in French, but opt instead to send them to English school in fear that their children will lose their right to choose.

This poll is long overdue and I hope the provincial parties will actually take notice, rather than resorting to the same rationalizations as the SSJB. The protectionist stance that the Quebec government has taken with schools has not preserved the status of French; it’s impeded the potential of Quebec. Unfortunately, it’s not likely to change anything in the short term. But in the long term, it may demonstrate that there’s a real willingness to embrace change and institute policies that open doors instead of chaining them shut.

M. Bouchard est persuadé qu’il ne verra pas un autre référendum sur la souveraineté de son vivant. L’ancien chef péquiste est toujours souverainiste, mais la souveraineté est devenue une question hypothétique; elle n’est donc pas une solution aux problèmes du Québec.

Bouchard also blasted the PQ for intolerance towards religious minorities, claiming that they were fishing for votes among former ADQ supporters and that the debate around reasonable accommodation was really nothing more than thinly-disguised racism.

Predictably, Bouchard’s comments have caused a stir. Gilles Duceppe is playing spin doctor. Jean Charest is cozying up to his former rival and colleague. And Pauline Marois reacted to Bouchard’s racism charges by opposing a Liberal plan to allow Jewish schools to teach on Sundays. Way to prove Bouchard’s point for him nicely, there, Pauline.

Even in the worst divisive moments of the lead-up to the 1995 referendum, Bouchard still commanded respect among federalists, in a way that the bumbling buffoonery of the Jacques Parizeau set never did. I can’t and won’t ever agree with Lucien Bouchard on his politics. However, since leaving political life, he has shown that he isn’t afraid to speak the unpopular truths, whether it was speaking out for Israel at the 2003 Yom Ha’atzmaut rally (to a staunchly federalist crowd, no less), or calling for a “Québec lucide” in 2005. It’s ironic, perhaps, that the man responsible for bringing Canada to the brink of breakup has somehow emerged as something of a voice of conscience of the sovereignty movement.

With the PQ in opposition and sovereignty off the radar of most Quebecers, Bouchard’s comments may actually have an opposite effect, stirring the pot and re-igniting a dormant debate. And he’s shrewd enough that you have to wonder if that was his intent. Although, I’m more inclined to believe that he meant what he said, and that he’s calling for some soul-searching in a movement where intolerance has always been one of the dirty little secrets. When Bouchard speaks, people still listen, though what difference it will make is anyone’s guess.

On principle, I usually oppose excess government regulation, especially when there’s scant evidence that it is warranted (e.g. the handheld cell phone ban, which has popular but virtually no evidentiary support). But, unlike that law, I happen to think that this one is very sensible.

Look, people, it’s quite simple. In Quebec, we have winter. Winter means lots of snow. And ice. And cold. If you’re driving in that weather without proper winter tires, you’re not only endangering yourself, you’re endangering everyone else on the road. The rubber compound in winter tires is designed for the cold temperatures, and the tread provides more traction on snow and ice. Last winter, 10% of cars on the road didn’t have winter tires, but they accounted for 38% of accidents. Driving without winter tires in winter isn’t safe. Period.

There are provisions made for people who store their cars or go south for the winter. There was plenty of warning to get equipped. The main difficulty will be in enforcement, and police will probably grapple with that one for a while. But aside from that, it’s a good law, designed to protect drivers and passengers and prevent deaths.

Most of the whining seems to be about the cost of winter tires. But owning and operating a vehicle costs money. Even if you own your car free and clear and are no longer making car payments, there’s insurance, gas, parking, maintenance, all to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. Winter tires will cost you several hundred dollars, true, but you can amortize that cost over several seasons. Plus, you’ll extend the life of your summer tires by only using them for half the year.

Bottom line: The cost of winter tires is a fraction of the total cost of car ownership. If you can’t afford the tires, you shouldn’t be driving a car, so quit whining and get a bus pass. You’ll save thousands and help the environment, too. Otherwise, invest in a good set of winter tires. For your sake, and for everyone else’s.

• A slim Liberal majority: Much slimmer than anyone, including Charest, was predicting. He’ll have to work hard to win his votes in the National Assembly. Any resignations, by-elections or MP absences could be costly.More importantly, the Liberals had been predicted to win seventy-something seats, not the sixty-six they ended up with. So this is a disappointment for Charest, who, even though he got his majority, has to contend with the fact that he dropped in support over the last few days of the campaign. Most of the people voting Liberal did it holding their noses, anyway; Charest’s not particularly loved, he’s just seen as the best-of-the-worst right now. Majority or not, Charest will have to tread very carefully.

• Marois’s bait-and-switch: I’m referring to the S-word, of course. Sovereignty. A word that was scarcely mentioned by the PQ during the campaign, but was the main theme of Marois’s speech last night.Most of the people who voted PQ yesterday do not necessarily want Quebec to separate. I’d venture to say, most of them don’t want it. They voted PQ because they were disillusioned Adequistes, or because they don’t like Charest, or because they felt that the PQ should be in opposition again, or for a variety of reasons.But Marois is neatly implying that, with 51 seats won, she now has a mandate to work towards sovereignty. And it’s hard to argue with her rhetoric, because, after all, downplaying the S-word during a campaign isn’t the same as disavowing it. Marois’s argument is that the PQ has always had sovereignty as its raison d’être (true) and that people voting for them are doing so knowing that, so they’re justified in their claim that the PQ’s rise in fortune during this election implies a rise in support for sovereignty.Of course, Stephen Harper helped her here a lot, by voluntarily demonizing himself as Monsieur anti-Quebec last week. Harper’s rhetoric not only helped the PQ jump in the polls and capture more seats than predicted; it also gave the PQ an excuse to start beating the sovereigntist drums again.And what better time to do so than during an opposition period? Marois knows she has about three or four years, at least, to hammer sovereignty at every turn. And as long as Harper is in office federally, she’ll have lots of help. No wonder her speech last night sounded more like a victory speech than Charest’s did.

• Back to the future: The 2007 election was hailed as a landmark, “breakthrough” election for Quebec. The ADQ won official opposition status, the PQ was seen as increasingly irrelevant, and we were finally going to get a “normal”, left-right political spectrum where we were talking about actual issues, you know, like education and healthcare and silly things like that. Single-issue voting along strictly federalist-separatist lines? Nah, we were past that. We were evolved.So much for that.The rightist ADQ, which was so fond of fence-sitting on the nationalist question while insisting that Quebecois were past it, has disintegrated in this election. Seems we’re not past it after all. Now, we’re back to a two-party, Liberal-PQ, federalist-sovereigntist divide. Never mind that most of those voting PQ were not voting for separation; it’s the spin that will matter now, and the spin doctors are hard at work convincing everyone that this is exactly what it means. And so, we regress into old patterns, and the issues can be damned.

• Voter apathy: As predicted, the election had the worst turnout in Quebec’s history with only 57% of people in the province bothering to cast a vote. That would mean that there were more people who stayed home (43%) than people who voted for the winning party (42% of those who voted). Again, it’s not too surprising; people are fed up with elections, felt this one was superfluous and unnecessary; were distracted by the goings-on in Ottawa; were just too cold to go to the polling stations. Whatever. But it means that all the political leaders are going to have to do some serious thinking about how to get the public engaged in politics again. Conventional wisdom holds that lower voter turnouts are better for the Liberals, and higher turnouts favour the PQ, which doesn’t say much for Charest’s claim of a strong governing mandate. Apathy is always bad for democracy.

• The rise of Québec Solidaire: Amir Khadir’s election in Mercier means that the far-left QS now has representation in the National Assembly. So we’ve gone from right-middle-left to left-lefter-leftest. Kind of like a university campus political spectrum, really. And so appropriate for Quebec. For those who think it’s just a blip, remember that the ADQ also started with only one MNA – Mario Dumont. Will the Québec Solidaire be the next third party to rise and fall? Stay tuned.

• The federal implications: And this one’s the biggie. Quebec’s election will matter not only to Quebecers, but to all Canadians. With Ottawa in crisis, yesterday’s election may have a big impact on how things shake out over the next few weeks until Parliament resumes in January. The unity question is suddenly an issue again (thanks a whole lot, Stephen) and that’s going to influence how people view the Liberal leadership question, the coalition question, and the potential results of a possible federal election, should the government fall. It’s something that all the federal leaders are thinking about very carefully.

So, the election may end up mattering a great deal. Those of you who were among the 43% of eligible Quebec voters who stayed home yesterday might want to reflect on that.

Meanwhile, Jean Charest’s Liberals were re-elected with what CTV just officially projected will be a majority government. On the one hand, between the cold weather and general voter apathy, I have a feeling the turnout numbers will be record lows. On the other hand, the majority means no more provincial elections for a few years, which is the best news I’ve heard in a while.

The Parti Québécois instructed supporters to email media blogs throughout Quebec saying they thought PQ leader Pauline Marois won the debate.

According to a story in the Journal de Montréal, Marois’s press aide Brann Blanchette-Emond instructed supporters to stress “the power of Madame Marois’s arguments and her ardour.”

“You have to take the approach that you were undecided and now are going to vote for the PQ.”

Ouch! I guess nobody is confident in Marois’s abilities, least of all Marois, who also grabbed headlines today for admitting that the forced municipal mergers were a disaster. Charest hardly has to do anything, with the way Marois keeps shooting herself in the foot.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, the brand-new “strengthened” minority Conservative government, which cost taxpayers a $300 million election, is on the verge of collapse after only a few weeks. Since nobody wants a third election, the talk is turning to coalition government, which should last about, oh, five minutes.

Couldn’t we just declare a moratorium on all elections for a while?

That’s Sarah Palin, laughing as she digs her own grave, getting prank called by CKOI’s Les Justiciers Masqués. It’s kind of like watching a car wreck; equal parts entertaining and horrifying.

When Obama wins on Tuesday, as is expected, Montreal will have played its part.

I’ll be traveling during the election, so there won’t be any commentary on the results on this blog for a couple of weeks. That said, to all Americans out there, make sure to exercise your civic duty and vote!

The Quebec government today announced several measures to help immigrants better integrate into Quebec society.

Immigrants will now be able to take free French courses before they leave their home country – either online or at an Alliance Française.

Well, okay, free French classes aren’t the worst idea in the world. But it doesn’t stop there.

Starting next January, all immigrants coming to Quebec will have to sign a declaration saying they will respect Quebec’s common values.

They must promise to learn French and respect the fact that Quebec is a secular society where men and women have equal rights.

The declaration will be included in the application to immigrate to Quebec and anyone who refuses to sign it will not be permitted to move here.

Right, as if forcing people to sign a declaration that is nothing but a formality, completely unenforceable, and utterly lacking in context in most of their home societies is in any way relevant. And since when did we start legislating people’s thoughts and opinions, anyway?

“Coming to Quebec is a privilege, not a right,” Immigration Minister Yolande James said yesterday at a press conference.

Apparently, now, so is freedom of expression.

The province also plans to favour immigrants who have the job skills that the Quebec labour market needs.

Except in refugee cases, most governments do this to an extent, so there’s nothing new here. But what about all those foreign-trained doctors who are currently driving taxicabs? Our problem isn’t in attracting skilled immigrants; it’s in getting rid of the yards of red tape that prevent those immigrants from actually using their skills.

Once they arrive in Quebec, the government will ask immigrants to attend seminars on adapting to life here and will increase the amount of support it gives to immigrants who are having trouble finding work.

For more on the folly that is these seminars, see Yannic’s blog.

James said the government also wants to persuade businesses to hire more minorities and said the public service must also hire more minorities.

At present, minorities make up 19 per cent of the public service. The government’s goal is to reach 25 per cent.

Yes, because quotas always work so well, don’t they? Well, it’s a chance for new immigrants to learn a few quintessentially Quebecois values, like tokenism, and hiring based on ethnicity instead of based on merit.

Many of the measures announced today were suggested by the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation.

That explains a lot, actually.

Charest seems to think that the time is ripe, given his lead in the polls, the ADQ official opposition being in shambles, the unstable minority government, and the negative economic outlook that would make this a lot tougher on him in a year or two. I would almost be inclined to agree with him if I weren’t so electioned-out.

If you’re really quiet, you can almost hear the collective groans being emitted all the way from Gatineau to Gaspésie. I predict record-low turnouts, whatever happens.

Solstice
This evening, summer officially arrived. It’s also the longest day of the year, which means that it’s all downhill from here. Yay! No need to worry about that, though. Summer solstice also kicks off…

Festival season
Montreal’s annual lineup of festivals, big and small, starts this weekend with the Fireworks competition and the Fete Nationale celebrations, followed closely by the Jazz Fest and of course, the annual July 1st Montreal tradition: Moving Day. (Oh yeah, and Canada Day too, for anyone who notices among all the rest of the hoopla. Seriously, the local festivities are lame. If you want maple leafs and Canadiana, go to Ottawa.)

Not famous, just drunk
Two weeks ago the limos were filled with the Hollywood set. Tonight, they’re filled with the high school set. Yep, it’s prom night, and the city is full of kids in tuxes and gowns pretending to be grown-ups. Enjoy your night of debauchery, kids, and remember that no matter how disappointing this night might be, at least you’ve escaped from high school.

Sidewalk sale
The St-Laurent merchants are trying really hard to get back on their feet after nearly two years of construction hell. The sidewalk sale is on this weekend, so if you’re around, check it out.

Sunshowers and rainbows
During my drive to Dollard this evening, there was sunshine, followed by heavy rain, followed by sunshine, followed by one of the most brilliant rainbows I’ve ever seen. Where’s my camera when I need it?

Getaway
The four-day weekend means a great opportunity for a camping trip. Of course, the weather forecast isn’t cooperating. Another camping trip in the rain, so what else is new? Regardless, it’ll be great to get away.

On that note, I’m off till Tuesday. Later, all!

And now, we have some new poll results on antisemitism with discouraging, though not altogether surprising, results:

According to the poll results, 41 per cent of Quebecers agreed, and another 41 per cent disagreed, with the idea that “Jews want to impose their customs and traditions on others.” By comparison, only 11 per cent agreed and 74 per cent disagreed in the rest of Canada. The average nationwide was 19 per cent agreeing and 64 per cent disagreeing.

To another statement – “Jews want to participate fully in society” – 41 per cent of Quebecers disagreed and 31 per cent agreed, compared with a mere eight per cent disagreeing and 72 per cent agreeing among other Canadians. The national average was 16 per cent disagreeing and 63 per cent agreeing.

On the idea that “Jews have made an important contribution to society,” 35 per cent of Quebecers disagreed and 41 per cent agreed, compared with only 10 per cent disagreeing and 74 per cent agreeing in the rest of Canada. The Canadian average was 16 per cent disagreeing and 65 per cent agreeing.

As a cegep student, I naively wrote a research paper on the history of antisemitism in Quebec. A product of the Jewish school system bubble, I was genuinely surprised when my Quebecois professor was less-than-thrilled with my choice of subject and my treatment of it, and graded the paper accordingly. Not that I’m claiming bias; I freely admit that the paper was graded poorly because, well, it wasn’t much good. But I was still rather taken aback at the prof’s personal reaction, and his subsequent coldness to me.

What I didn’t really “get”, as a naive 18-year-old, was that people don’t much like being accused of racism, and that accusing an entire group of people of racism is a form of racism in and of itself.

All this to say that polls like this one are double-edged swords. If people use these results merely to finger-point, then not much gets solved. “Quebec nationalism is xenophobic” is a statement with some elements of truth, a lot of elements of falsehood, and ultimately one that gets us nowhere.

But it won’t do to hide the truth under a cachet of hearts and flowers, either. If there is genuinely a distance between Quebec and the ROC in attitudes towards Jews, or minorities in general – and admittedly, there is – then it’s time to identify what we can do to help make things better.

To understand Quebec antisemitism, we need to understand the different political, cultural and historical factors that have led to Quebec nationalism, because there are a lot of tie-ins. Knee-jerk anti-Americanism is higher in Quebec than elsewhere. Defensiveness about language and culture, the perception that Quebec is a French island fighting a rising tide from a sea of English surrounding it, and a generally more left-wing, socialist, collectivist political bent (despite our strong support for private sector healthcare involvement) are a few of Quebec’s quirks.

I know this sounds like it has nothing to do with Quebec antisemitism, but it does. Despite the large francophone Sephardic Jewish community in Quebec, antisemitism here is largely tied in with the perception of many that the Jews are part of “the English”, the oppressor, the Other. The historical archetype of the rich English business owner exploiting the poor French worker is ingrained in the mindset of the province, even if it no longer reflects modern realities. It’s part of the psyche of many in Quebec.

On a one-on-one level, particularly in multiculturual Montreal, people in Quebec are mostly open, genuine and accepting. They just express it differently. Outside of Montreal, many people do not encounter many minorities in their daily lives. When they do, they generally approach them with an open – if sometimes uninformed – attitude. People who move from les régions to Montreal often find themselves, for the first time, making friends with different religions, skin colours and backgrounds, and I’ve found that they are more than willing to ask questions, approach people as individuals, and work together. Like with the language issue, when the politicians stay out of the game, the people, for the most part, do a pretty good job of getting along.

But there are the ugly incidents. From Lionel Groulx’s rampant antisemitism to Jacques Parizeau blaming the 1995 referendum defeat on “money and the ethnic vote”, the stories are many and not so far between. Not to mention the powerful alliance between Quebec’s labour unions and the antisemitism on the left, particularly from the anti-Israel crowd. The recent reasonable accommodation hearings were only the icing on that particularly unsavoury cake.

So which model is true? Quebec as the closed, defensive, xenophobic and racist society? Or Quebec as the open, tolerant, welcoming and progressive society? Well, both, actually. It seems like a logical impossibility, but in this “distinct society”, it makes perfect sense.

Well, according to statistics at least, the baby boom is very real. 2006 saw the biggest birth rate jump in Quebec since 1909, and, though 2007’s numbers aren’t fully in yet, but if preliminary numbers are any indication, it will only be higher. And, just looking around, I’m guessing 2008 will be a bumper year.

What’s causing this baby boom? Is it the new parental leave program that the provincial government introduced in 2005, and which many people claim is responsible? Is it the “baby-chic” culture created by celebrity pregnancies and births? Is it the economy, stupid, which until recently has been booming? Is it the fact that the echo generation (the kids of the baby boomers) hit their main child-bearing years? All of the above?

Whatever the reason, it’s definitely on. It seems like every couple of days, a friend or coworker announces that they’re expecting. Women’s clothing fads have become materinity-looking for everyone, even the non-pregnant. The baby is the latest must-have fashion accessory. And one after the other, people who used to have lives are dropping like flies, trading in their martini glasses for baby wipes.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like babies. They’re cute, they’re cuddly, most of them grow up into very nice people. And besides, who can look into eyes like these and not melt?

My baby cousin. Isn't she adorable?

All that said, it’s starting to feel like an us-versus-them mentality in the ranks between two groups: people with babies, and people without ‘em. It’s no secret that you can only be in one camp at a time, and that once you switch sides there’s no going back.

I’m starting to wonder if it will take nothing short of a good old-fashioned recession to put the breaks on the baby boom. Conveniently, one seems to be right around the corner.

You know it’s been a slow news month whenever the media decides to whip up the language debate again. Honestly, give it a rest already! (In other words: Journal de Montréal, ferme ta gueule!)

That vote, he claims, would pass in a landslide… and therein lies the problem with democracy: The people, quite often, are stupid.

Well, this isn’t quite the same thing… but it’s close:

Marois’s proposed Quebec Identity Act, with its loyalty oaths and French tests for office seekers, is cynically demagogic as well as discriminatory and demeaning. It has little chance of being adopted, and would probably be found unconstitutional if it were.

[. . . ]

And as with Bill 101 30 years ago, it seems everybody opposes the identity bill but the people.

Results of the latest monthly CROP-La Presse poll, published last week, suggest that the PQ has pulled into first place in popularity among the parties, with the ADQ slipping farther back into third.

And another poll commissioned by the strategist behind Marois’s bill, Jean-François Lisée, indicates overwhelming support for the bill.

In fact, it seems that most Quebecers would be willing to go even farther. Lisée tested the idea of requiring a “minimal knowledge” of French not only to run for office, but even to vote.

Seventy-two per cent of Quebecers were in favour of the requirement for future immigrants, and 65 per cent for people from other Canadian provinces moving to Quebec.

Yes, and in a lifeboat, two drowning people may vote to throw the third one overboard. That doesn’t make it right.

If the reasonable accommodation debate has only served to expose the deep-rooted xenophobia and racism of the vast majority of Quebec’s population, the proper response isn’t to cater to it, or to pass laws to enshrine it.

No, the proper response is to start working to change those attitudes. It won’t happen overnight. But at least it would be going in the right direction – something we don’t seem to be doing much of, lately.

No public servant – including Muslim teachers and judges – should be allowed to wear anything at work that shows what religion they belong to, leaders of Quebec’s two biggest trade union federations and a civil-servants union told the Bouchard-Taylor commission yesterday.

“We think that teachers shouldn’t wear any religious symbols – same thing for a judge in court, or a minister in the

National Assembly, or a policeman – certainly not,” said René Roy, secretary-general of the 500,000-member Quebec Federation of Labour.

“The wearing of any religious symbol should be forbidden in the workplace of the civil service … in order to ensure the secular character of the state,” said Lucie Grandmont, vice-president of the 40,000-member Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec.

Dress codes that ban religious expression should be part of a new “charter of secularism” – akin to the Charter of the French Language – that the Quebec government should adopt, said Claudette Carbonneau, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

Such a charter is needed “to avoid anarchy, to avoid treating (reasonable-accommodation) cases one by one,” Carbonneau said yesterday, presenting a brief on behalf of the federation’s 300,000 members at the commission’s hearing at the Palais des congrès.

Same point of view at the 150,000-member Centrale des syndicats du Québec, which includes 100,000 who work in the school system, the commission heard.

Quebec needs a “fundamental law” akin to the Charter of Rights that sets out clearly that public institutions, laws and the state are all neutral when it comes to religion, said Centrale president Réjean Parent. The new law would also “define (people’s) rights and duties … in other words, the rules of living together.”

Nobody should be too surprised that our unions would like to see us turn into… well, France. And by dressing it up as an anti-Muslim initiative, playing into people’s hatreds and stereotypes, they may just succeed in drumming up enough support for this asinine idea.

The “reasonable accommodation” hearings really ought to have been renamed long ago. My vote is for “Forum to allow all pissed-off, intolerant, inbred and otherwise racist idiots to vent their stereotypes and prejudices in public”. Okay, maybe it doesn’t quite have that nice ring to it. But it’s a lot more accurate.

“It’s really a mentality that’s separate,” St. Hippolyte resident Lise Casavant said of the Hasidism, adding that immigrants should sign a new Quebec citizenship charter “or choose another province,” a sentiment several other speakers also evoked.

John Saywell, of Argenteuil, said when he hears a Hasidic Jewish leader speaking only in English on the TV news, he thinks it’s wrong. The community should make the effort to speak French, he said.

And Lise Provencher, of St. Jerome, said immigrants are “buying their way in” to Quebec and that Jews are the worst because they’re “the most powerful. … It’s always been said that the Jews are the trampoline of money in the world.” After she spoke, the crowd applauded.

It’s useful to remember, at times like these, that – despite the vast quantities of media coverage seemingly indicating the contrary – the small subset of people who actually show up to these sorts of forums to spew their hatred are not representative of the population at large. Thankfully.

But then, if that’s the case, what exactly is the province spending all the money on these hearings for, anyway?

Update: Michaelle Jean thinks this debate is “healthy”.

This is the way the tide has been moving for a while now, all over the world. So I can’t say I’m too surprised. I even understand the arguments for it. Distracted drivers are dangerous, and cell phone use is distracting, no doubt.

But I still strongly disagree with the ban, for several reasons:

• Plenty of other distractions exist aside from cell phones. Are we also going to ban fumbling with the radio dial, sipping morning coffee, talking to passengers, dealing with crying children in the backseat, driving while distracted, or driving while tired? Where does it end?
• Cell phones reduce stress, which in turn reduces accidents. Who do you think the better driver is going to be? The person driving erratically through traffic to get to a client meeting on time? Or the one who can simply phone ahead and explain that the traffic has caused a delay, and then relax and drive the rest of the way there without panicking?

• Cell phones are most useful in cars when there’s an emergency. The man who phones ahead to the hospital to let them know that his wife is in labour and they’re on their way in surely doesn’t deserve a ticket.

• On very long drives, it can actually help to phone someone and talk to them, to avoid road fatigue and to stay alert.

• Truckers, bus drivers and taxi drivers communicate via CB or central radio dispatches. Are there plans to ban those practices too? If not, why not? If the excuse is because to them it’s useful, then consider that to many individuals, the ability to talk on the phone while driving is also useful. What’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, after all.

• It’s a naked revenue grab. Too many people are bound to break this law, resulting in higher ticketing revenue for the government.

• It’s a politics-only move. Like restricting liquids on planes. It plays into the stereotypes of the evil, SUV-driving suburbanites with their cell phones wreaking havoc on the roads. It doesn’t really make anyone safer, it just makes people feel safer. In my opinion, that’s a shoddy reason to restrict personal freedom.

The point is, this is probably going to be law, one way or the other. It’s too unpopular, politically, to make arguments against a total ban. But it’s a waste of a law. To truly improve our road safety, energy could be better focused elsewhere.

Natural Resources Minister Claude Bechard, who announced Wednesday that a 0.8-cent-a-litre carbon tax will come into force on Oct 1, added that he hopes the oil companies, which are reporting record profits, would absorb the tax and not pass it on to the consumer. Oil industry spokespeople were unavailable for comment late Wednesday afternoon.

[ . . . ]

Asked why he thinks the oil companies will absorb the carbon tax, Bechard said, “Well, we count on the goodwill of the gas companies.”

Hah! Yeah, right. Cause we all know that the gas companies have philanthropy as their main purpose.

This may be a popular move for votes (big bad oil companies versus the underprivileged environment) but people don’t necessarily understand the impact of higher fuel prices. It’s not just SUV owners who get hit; trucks, public transit itself, shipping and the economy in general will all have to pay. The trickle-down effect raises prices on all consumer goods and on cost of living in general.

But of course, our government has a solution for that, too:

Bechard has also threatened to impose a ceiling price on gasoline. Wednesday he said an announcement on that matter would be made in a “few days.”

Right, because everyone knows that what our economy in Quebec desperately needs is more government regulation.

And to think, I was so optimistic after last week’s budget. Looks like that was a temporary blip; we’re back to business as usual in La Belle Province.

A whopping 70 per cent of Quebecers are opposed to the $950 million in tax cuts announced in last week’s provincial budget.

“One to look at it is that we’re the only people in North America not to want a tax cut,” he said in a follow-up interview.

[ . . . ]

A significant part of the explanation for opposition to the tax cut is the fact that 42 per cent of Quebecers of taxpaying age already don’t pay any income tax and stand to benefit from increased public-service spending at zero cost to themselves.

The standard answer in Quebec to any economic woes goes something like “tax the rich, the anglos and the corporations more”. And when that doesn’t work? The standard fall-back, right out of a South Park movie: Blame Canada.

But with more people living off the system than paying into it, Quebec’s economy is on the brink of collapse unless something is done. And when Canada can no longer be blamed, what then?

The irony is that, for the most part, I actually think the budget presented by the Liberals was good. I don’t often say that about budgets. But Charest’s team had the right priorities here: Lowering taxes to reduce our overly outrageous tax burden, increasing funding for healthcare and education, ending the crippling handcuffs on universities by lifting the tuition freeze gradually while supplementing with additional loans and bursaries, and additional investment in city infrastructure, while cutting spending in a whole host of other areas.

Sure, the budget’s not without its problems. But the ADQ and the PQ have both put themselves in the position now of toppling a government to force an election because they oppose tax cuts. Where else in the world could political parties believe that this would earn them votes in a subsequent election?

Unfortunately, in Quebec’s political climate, this has a fair shot of working. Which is, in a nutshell, exactly what’s wrong with our society. People want more spending and they will pay more taxes for it, and when they complain about the taxes, the politicians can just point to Ottawa and blame the “evil Federal government” for creating the “fiscal imbalance” (you know, the one that Jean Charest took credit for solving right before the last election).

If the ADQ and the PQ both make good on their threats to bring down this government by voting against the budget, then Charest’s political career will be over. Marois’s election coronation as PQ leader will be fast-tracked, and Dumont will humbly refuse to try to form an opposition government, even though he might be asked to do so, because it would be bad form. And one of the two will probably get elected.

Shame. Just when I was starting to think that this Liberal/ADQ minority government was actually working surprisingly well.

Really now, wouldn’t it have been better to do it right after the election, André?

I give it about 5 more minutes before Gilles Duceppe calls his own press conference.

Layton told about 100 NDP supporters on Saturday that the rise of the ADQ was spurred by a rejection of the province’s two “old” parties.

“They wanted to see something new,” he said of Quebec voters.

Well, yes, that’s true. But the similarities between the right-of-centre ADQ and the decidedly left-wing NDP end right there. People wanted change, sure, but they flocked to the ADQ, not to Quebec Solidaire. Layton might do well to remember that.

Final results: 48 seats for the Liberals, 41 for the ADQ, and 36 for the PQ.

There’s no doubt that Mario Dumont’s ADQ is the big winner tonight, going from 5 seats to a whopping 41, and capturing the balance of power. Charest’s Liberals were reduced to minority status, and Charest himself only narrowly won his own seat. As for Boisclair’s PQ, after widely being expected to achieve sweeping victory only a few months ago, they were just plain embarrassed. Boisclair’s days in provincial politics are surely numbered – most likely in the single-digits.

Then again, in the popular vote, the Liberals lost 13 percentage points, compared to the PQ who only lost 5. Arguably, it’s the Liberals who lost out in terms of mandate – if not in terms of seats. A lot of people in “safe” Liberal ridings were casting protest votes this time around, which may have accounted for this seeming discrepancy.

And my own riding? As expected, Liberal incumbent Lawrence Bergman sailed to victory with over 84% of the vote, but second place went not to one of the other major parties but to the Greens, with just over 6.5%. Not much of a contest here, but I voted anyway, ever the dutiful citizen. I still maintain that if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch about it later.

What will this mean for Quebec? In the immediate term, it means no referendum, anyway. It also means that the Liberals have lost their mandate to govern. The ADQ is going to get a lot more of a say in how things are run in the province. And we’re probably looking at another election in about 18 months. And the PQ may be down right now, but don’t count them out; under new leadership, they could still come back to threaten for victory the next time around. Let’s just hope that support for sovereignty continues to ebb in the interim, because I’d kinda like my country to stay together for a while.

All in all, though, a minority government might not be the worst thing in the world. It’s not as though the Liberals were doing a whole lot with their hands untied, before.

As far as I’m concerned, minority governments are a good thing. The less a government is able to do while in power, the better.

And, memo to Jean Charest: I’m voting for you, but I’m still waiting for my tax cut.

Boisclair refused to apologize Thursday for having referred to Asian students as having “slanting eyes.” “I have no intention of apologizing,” he replied when asked what he meant by his choice of words. The PQ leader, who was campaigning in Quebec City, said it’s a term he uses frequently.

Boisclair’s campaign theme soung really ought to be “My Own Worst Enemy”.

I’ll have to take their word for it, I suppose. I was otherwise occupied, watching the Habs beat the Isles 5-3 from seats in the reds that gave me a great view of the game’s many blows – including the head-on collision between Steve Begin and Rick DiPietro. It was a night of heated hockey, and a fantastic comeback win for Les Boys, who picked up what might be a critical two points in the race to squeeze into the playoffs.

Can’t say I’m too heartbroken about missing the debate. All told, I think I got the much better show.

Not too surprisingly, my result was overwhelmingly for the Liberals (85 points), distantly followed by the ADQ (25 points), the Green Party (11 points), the PQ (8 points) and Quebec Solidaire (0 points). Not exactly shocking news.

Sure, the media is making an effort to report something – anything – about the campaign trail.

But that deafening silence out there? That’s the sound of seven million Quebecers not caring.

Almost nobody’s talking about the election at the water cooler, over brunch, at the nail salon or the dry cleaner’s. There’s a remarkable lack of debate. People are spending more time discussing Paris Hilton’s driving habits than Andre Boisclair’s – erm – other habits. If an alien landed here from outer space, he’d be hard-pressed to learn that there was an election at all.

Not to mention a complete lack of care or concern about the S-word. Sovereignty, that is. Ask around and this issue that has inflamed passions here for decades will generally be met by a shrug. And I don’t think it’s because people are any less committed to their positions. Rather, I think it’s because the sovereigntists are uninspired and unencouraged, the federalists aren’t feeling too threatened, and the rest are just ready to move on.

I’ll vote on election day. Until then, I’m perfectly content with this snoozer of a campaign. It’s not as though a loud campaign would raise any interesting issues, so as long as the same bunch of yahoo politicians keep talking about the same bunch of ridiculous non-issues, I’m plenty happy to let them do it at a whisper.

Nevertheless, this won’t be an easy campaign for Charest to win. The Liberals start every campaign with a built-in handicap due to riding distribution, and Charest has never been exactly loved as a premier; his temporary popularity surge is mainly due to the unpopularity of rival Boisclair. Of course, this also means that Boisclair has the lead in the expectations game for the moment, since Charest has a reputation as a strong campaigner, and expectations pretty much couldn’t be any lower for Bosiclair right now if he were a slug.

If Charest wins a second term, Boisclair is sure to be replaced. Under new leadership, the PQ will surely regroup and rebuild, using a likely Federal election in the next year or so to help increase support for sovereignty and lay the groundwork for a decisive election victory in five years followed by a snap referendum. Of course, that’s a long way away, which makes it highly unpredictable.

On the other hand, if Boisclair wins, it will likely be with a weak finish and a murky mandate for sovereignty. Under those circumstances, he may not even call a referendum. Even if he takes a chance and calls one, in today’s political climate, it’s highly unlikely to pass. Ironically, a PQ victory may actually help give another blow to Quebec nationalism, which might be the best-case scenario.

(On the other hand, we’d have André Boisclair as our premier).

Too many ifs at this point. But the gloves are about to come off, so stay tuned for the body blows and the knockout punches. It’s game time.

Canada’s indigenous peoples are feeling a bit snubbed by Parliament’s decision to recognize Quebecers as a “nation” within a united Canada and not them too.

Native Indian leaders say the vote in the House of Commons, which has helped reignite debate over the role of French-speaking Quebec within largely English-speaking Canada, ignored the peoples who lived in North America before European settlers arrived.

Either Stephen Harper completely didn’t think of this one, or he calculated that there weren’t enough votes among the First Nations communities for it to make a difference. In any case, this is just one more egg contributing to the giant omelette cooking on Harper’s face thanks to this issue that he should’ve refused to touch with a 10-foot pole.

A new poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that now, five years after 9/11, over one in five Canadians believe that the whole thing was a US-concocted conspiracy:

One in five Canadians believes the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans, according to a poll released on Monday.

The Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians, and 26 percent of young Canadians, agree with the conspiracy theory. The number was the highest, at 32 percent, in Quebec, which has shown the least support for the U.S. war on terror.

The poll asked if the events of Sept. 11, “including the thousands of American citizens who lost their lives on that day, were actually orchestrated by a group of highly influential Americans and others as part of a wider global conspiracy to profit from and gain power and who are actually protecting Osama Bin Laden from being captured.”

Objection, Your Honour, leading the witness? Er, not exactly. Though another one of my favourite sayings is that “figures don’t lie but liars figure”, if anything, I’d expect that the blatant nuttiness of this question would, if anything, underestimate the number of people who believe in some sort of 9/11-related conspiracy theory. In all likelihood, there are even more people who would’ve answered “yes” to a question with softer wording. Scary thought.

And here in La Belle Province, next time you’re out for drinks with a few friends, look to the left and look to the right; one of you has been taken in by the conspiracy theorists.

Take, for example, the planned Quebec anti-racism initiative, which is being launched in response to public hearings and a report by the Task Force on the Full Participation of Black Communities in Quebec. Among the report’s recommendations:

- The Quebec government should adopt an official policy to fight all forms of racial discrimination.

- Quebec’s civil service should consider hiring quotas for blacks and other visible minorities.

- The province should document how blacks are portrayed in the media so it can inform journalists and media owners about how they ”often portray blacks negatively.”

- The Ministry of Education should review school textbooks to make sure they mention the contribution of blacks and other visible minorities to Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Hiring quotas? Media portrayal standards? Are we really back there again? Hasn’t anyone realized by now that this stuff doesn’t work?

Anyway, all of this is nothing but a smokescreen. The real problem with anti-racism initiatives in Quebec is that they’re politically-motivated. Any real efforts to combat racism would have to expose the nasty little secrets about Quebec society that nobody – particularly the politicians – wants to talk about.

The truth is, racism is a problem everywhere. But in Quebec, it’s more politically-correct to be racist against some groups than others. Sure, everyone will get on board when we talk about racism against people with different skin colour… so long as their first language is French. But racism against anglophones? Against Jews? Against Asians? Against groups that the Quebec government won’t even allow in as immigrants because their command of the French language is less than perfect? Anyone who dares bring any of those up is accused of being part of the bourgeoisie elite, or the oppressive “rich white English” from “Westmount” trying to keep down the poor, downtrodden working-class French.

Most of us who live here know that Quebec society has evolved past these outdated stereotypes. So why do government officials still insist on propagating them? And why is it that any discussion of racism only focuses on some groups and not others?

Quebec society is much more open-minded, multi-ethnic and multicultural than it used to be. Look how tolerant we are for, say, Hezbollah supporters who want to march downtown with flags comparing Israelis to Nazis… and with the backing of prominent Quebec politicians.

But racism isn’t going to go away here until we scrape under that surface. In the meantime, initiatives like the one proposed by the Quebec government serve only as expensive window-dressing.

“There are more cases this year of people telling us they’ve been refused an apartment because they smoke,” said Francois Saillant, head of Front d’action populaire en reamenagement urbain, a prominent local tenants’ rights group.

Quebec’s landlord association says some of its members have suddenly become interested in inserting no-smoking clauses into their leases.

If they’re going to target smokers, do you think they can do anything about my pothead downstairs neighbours who leave the building smelling constantly of marijuana?

This much-touted bilingual cop caper is an over-the-top parody of every shopworn Two Solitudes cliché in the book, with a whole lot of Québécois swearing thrown in for good measure. Anyone who takes this movie too seriously, and goes looking for minor things such as plot, suspense, logic or insight into human nature will probably be disappointed. But if you want to see some equal-opportunity bashing in two languages, then it’s highly worth the price of admission.

I hope some of you reading this in the ROC will go see this little gem when it’s released in theatres across the nation. Patrick Huard has perfect comic timing and one of those rubber faces and I hope this is the film to finally give him some much-deserved crossover success. Colm Feore is good at comedy – who knew? And Louis-Jose Houde steals every scene he’s in. The hockey plot as a backdrop is ludicrous, of course, but that’s kind of the point. It’s self-aware parody, and should be viewed as such.

Oh, and Rick Mercer’s imitation of Don Cherry is priceless.

Quebec agency offended by “Outgames”

Not by the existence of the event, a sort of gay and lesbian Olympics, but by the fact that organizers didn’t bother to give the name “Outgames” a French translation.

People unfamiliar with Quebec society might think I am making this up.

I am not.

Nope, not surprised at all. Pauline continues with a rant about the OLF that is pretty much what I would say about them. (Oh wait, I think I did. Yep.)

But what really gets me is this tidbit, linked to by Pauline at the end of her post:

But what IS news, and what brought this to my attention today, was this report:

Iranian Leader Bans Usage of Foreign Words

Way to go, Ahmadinejad, your repressive tactics have finally caught up with those of the Province of Quebec.

It’s refreshing to see that this language nonsense is the only controversy that the OutGames seem to be generating. Just another reason why I love Montreal so much. When I consider the very real problems of the rest of the world, I love how petty ours are in comparison.

By the way, I haven’t actually attended any of the OutGames events just yet, but it will be going on for a couple of weeks so I hope to make it to something-or-other. Downtown has been a lot of fun, though, in the leadup to the event. This is big from a tourism point of view, and it’s nice to see so many businesses getting into the spirit of things and flying rainbow flags or otherwise rolling out the welcome mat.

It’s also nice to see the influx of extremely fit, good-looking men, in town for the event… in particular, the three guys in Finland shirts walking down St-Denis this afternoon. (No, the point of the OutGames isn’t lost on me. But hey, a girl can look, right? No harm in a little eye candy.)

The CROP poll for the La Presse newspaper showed only 34 percent of Quebecers would vote “yes” in a referendum on whether to split from the rest of Canada, down steeply from 43 percent before last week’s federal election. The number who would vote “no” rose to 58 percent from 49 percent.

The newspaper linked the drop in support for separatism to the election result. The Conservatives beat the Liberals, who had been badly hurt by a corruption scandal in Quebec which damaged the image of federalism in the province.

The Conservatives promised to be more sensitive to Quebec’s demands for more freedom inside Canada. They won 10 of the provinces’ 75 seats, up from none before the election.

That’s all very well and good right now. But the Tories haven’t even taken office yet. Just wait until they have a chance to break those promises. By the time the next provincial election rolls around, I suspect sovereignty support will be up again.

I think Charest should call a referendum immediately, with a question phrased such that a “no” vote would put the matter to rest for another, say, 50 years. Such a strategy would catch the separatists off guard and take advantage of the timing quite nicely. Not to mention being a big waste of time and money. But hey, that’ll happen anyway, right? So why not head it off at the pass?

Update 02/02: CROP now says the polling numbers were wrong; it should’ve said that 37% of people would vote “yes” and 55% would vote no. CROP apologized and blamed “data compilation error” for the incorrect figures. This still indicates a drop in support for sovereignty, albeit a smaller one.

La Presse is one of Montreal’s major newspapers and is widely considered the French federalist voice in Montreal (as opposed to Le Devoir, which leans separatist) and it had previously endorsed the Liberals almost automatically. But with the sponsorship scandal tarnishing the Liberal name, there’s a feeling now that the Tories may actually make some inroads. I’ve been saying it won’t happen for a long time, and if it does I may have to admit I was wrong and eat my words.

Then again, as they say, the only poll that matters is on election day. I’m still not convinced that this surge in polling numbers is going to translate into seats. And there’s no way the Liberals will be shut out of Quebec – whatever else happens, the Liberal stronghold seats in English Montreal are safe. As for percentages, since polls are not conducted riding-by-riding, there are as many ways to predict how the distribution will break as there are political opinions in Canada. I still believe that the surge in polling for the Conservatives in Quebec will translate into a lot of second-place showings in ridings where the Bloc wins, as opposed to seats. (The Election Prediction Project has the Tories ahead recently for the first time, but too many seats are too close to call to truly predict the outcome).

Nonetheless, with less than a week to go, Stephen Harper has overcome his toughest challenge: fear of a Tory government. With 55% of Canadians saying they believe a Conservative majority is a good idea, it seems that the Liberal attack campaign backfired on itself. And take a closer look at those numbers: the percentage of people who think a Tory majority would be a good idea is highest in Quebec – even higher than it is in Western Canada. (For the record, I’m not among those 55%, but then, regular readers already knew that).

Ontario, of course, remains the key battleground, and if it turns out that people are all talk and no action on election day, then we will be ushering in another Martin government. If Ontario goes blue, however, Stephen Harper should start preparing for his new job as Prime Minister.

Dumont said the Bloc limits the province’s influence on the national scene and acts more like a millstone around Quebecers’ necks.

He said he would vote Conservative, but only recommended that voters not vote for the Bloc.

This is a truly odd move for a politician whose party has practically defined fence-strattling on the sovereignty issue, but is nonetheless pretty clearly separatist. The ADQ spiked in popularity a few years back, but came down pretty quickly when people in Quebec realized the party’s platform was a lot further to the right than most of them agreed with.

So ideologically I can understand why Dumont might vote Tory. Politically, I’m not quite sure what he’s doing. Viewed in context of the next election, is Dumont perhaps repositioning himself as a federalist? Doubtful. Though he usually answers questions about sovereignty with the convenient answer that he wants to “get past” the issue, Dumont has never been anything but nationalist.

More likely, he’s betting that the provincial Liberals have lost so much support, that if the ADQ wants to win seats in the next provincial election, their real opponents will be the Parti Quebecois. He sees Bloc momentum as leading to PQ momentum, and he wants to position himself as an alternative voice.

At any rate, most people in Quebec are unlikely to listen. Whatever happens in the rest of Canada, Gilles Duceppe has never been more popular in Quebec right now, and the Bloc is positioned to win perhaps 60 seats, maybe even more. Despite recent polls showing the Tories taking a slight lead overall in Quebec over the Liberals, this is unlikely to translate into any Tory seats, as their numbers will put them second in a number of Bloc ridings but the Liberals still have concentrated support in many Montreal ridings (including my own).

So Dumont’s comments will probably have little effect in the short-term. But they’re worth keeping an eye on for how they might affect the political landscape ahead of the next Quebec election.

The possibility of another referendum on independence will help persuade Quebecers to re-elect the provincial Liberals, says Premier Jean Charest.

“In proposing to deeply divide Quebec society, to plunge us back into a referendum fight that will profoundly divide us and create conflicts, it’s an invitation that Quebecers will refuse,” Charest told The Canadian Press in a year-end interview.

Charest is also already using the cocaine card against Boisclair… something usually reserved for a campaign dogfight. The thing is, Charest’s government is about as unpopular as it is possible to be, and these are Charest’s only cards. With the Bloc set to virtually sweep Quebec on the federal scene and support for soveriengty on the rise, is Charest conceding the game before it even begins?

Some believe that Harper is going to score points in Quebec thanks to this move:

Aside from the possibility that the Liberals may try to spin this as giving Gilles Duceppe a legitimacy he does not deserve – even though they agreed to let Duceppe take part in the main leaders’ debates, in French and English – I think this is an absolutely brilliant move by Harper. And once again, Martin dropped it right in his lap.

Many Quebec federalists are sick of the Liberals, but feel like they have no other choice if they want to keep the separatists under control. [. . . ] The Conservatives have to change that, and this would be an excellent step forward. We should be using that “stand up for Canada” line as often as we can.

I disagree. Harper has practically zero chance of making gains in Quebec no matter how many times he claims otherwise. He simply doesn’t have his pulse of the political nature of the province. He’s running a campaign marketing his party as the “anti-Liberals”, but we already have the “anti-Liberals” in Quebec in the form of the Bloc.

Even soft nationalists or Quebecois federalists will be willing to vote Bloc if they’re mad at the Liberals, realizing that it’s a far cry from an actual vote for sovereignty. (Hell, 40% of Quebecers think that even a vote for sovereignty still means that they want Quebec to stay in Canada. Our electorate ain’t always the brightest).

So Harper can’t score too many points in the province by saying “the Liberals are corrupt, don’t vote for them”. Because Quebecers will simply counter with “we know the Liberals are corrupt, thanks” and turn around and vote for the Bloc.

However, Harper’s move isn’t all idiocy. He has nowhere to really climb in Quebec, but he probably will pick up support based on this challenge, where it counts: in the rest of Canada. He can use this to make Martin look soft on sovereignty and himself look like the guy willing to stand up for Canada. And with that, he may pick up some support in Ontario, a critical battleground.

Here’s Pauline’s take on the issue:

Sovereignty, after all, is a noble cause in our age especially in a democratic setting. Who would have the heart to deny a people their sovereignty?

Separation, on the other hand, can be messy.

Just ask any pair of conjoined twins.

So, it’s a case of spin, whitewashing, Disney-ficiation, the end justifies the means, etc. etc. Whatever.

To that I’ll just add that most separatists would prefer that we use neither word; both are in dreaded English.

Boisclair faces high expectations. Charest has been stuck at staggering levels of unpopularity since shortly after coming to power in 2003. The PQ expects to beat the Liberals and snap Quebec’s 35-year tradition of electing governments to two terms.

Considered a relatively soft sovereigntist and a right-winger in a party of progressives, Boisclair must unite a party whose hawkish elements have taken down Bernard Landry, Bouchard and even Rene Levesque for showing hesitation on independence.

This isn’t good news for federalists. Boisclair, despite his battle to get elected, is just the kind of young, charismatic leader that can recruite “soft nationalists” and increase support for sovereignty. It will remain to be seen what changes he brings to the PQ platform, but one thing’s for sure: he has an excellent chance of steamrolling to victory in the next provincial election.

It’s ten years after the last referendum.

The PQ, energized by several years in opposition, is electing new leadership and is gearing up for a post-election victory referendum. We could be less than two years away from the next battle to save Canada.

Where the hell are all the federalists?

The sovereignty movement is ready. Student groups, unions, youth groups, political groups, artists and musicians and businesspeople and rabble-rousers and just about everyone else on the separatist side are organizing. They’re fundraising. They’re unifying. They’re strategizing. They’re recruiting volunteers and getting ready for the fight.

And on the federalist side? Well, we have Michaelle Jean, our new Governer-General, who seems 99% separatist anyway. Besides, nobody cares about her, unless they’re trying to use her to discredit the Canadian government.

The point is, there’s nobody left to fight. There are less Jean Charest fans in Quebec than there are Korn fans in a nursing home. The Federal government is weakened, devoid of any true leadership, and handcuffed thanks to the Sponsorship Scandal.

Grassroots organizations such as Alliance Quebec are so destroyed as to be nonexistent. Only a dozen people showed up to a federalist “rally” downtown last week to commemorate the massive 1995 unity rally that many say saved Canada at the eleventh hour.

I did a Google search looking for websites, citizens’ groups, hell, even a weekly Federalist poker game. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The few links I did find were woefully out of date and mostly defunct. Even the Quebec Liberal Party can’t be bothered to spend two words on federalism on its website (though they were sure to remind us to turn our clocks back this weekend).

And outside of Quebec? The situation is even bleaker. An alarmingly high percentage of Canadians have a “good riddance” sentiment toward Quebec. If they held another unity rally, would anyone come?

It seems incredible to think that only a couple of years ago, we thought Quebec had moved past sovereignty, that it was no longer a “big deal”, and that the threat of another referendum was as laughable as the threat of a hurricane coming to wipe out half of New Orleans. Well, we all know how that turned out.

See, the thing is, I’m not content to sit back and watch my country face the brink of destruction yet again. I value it too much. I happen to think that being Canadian is a pretty wonderful thing… and that keeping this country together is worth fighting for. And if I’m right, there are an awful lot of people out there who feel the same way.

We need initiatives. We need to get organized. We need ideas. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t exactly trust Charest, or whoever his successor will be, to take care of it all for us. I’m thinking it’s time for us ordinary Canadian federalists to get up and do something.

So, at risk of sounding like Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off… “Anyone? Anyone?”

If you’re a federalist and you’re proud of it, clap your hands. Better yet, post a comment here if you want to get involved. Post your ideas. And watch this site for news in the coming days.

It’s the SWIK No Campaign, to be launched right here, real soon. Keep it locked to this station.

Will Mayor Gerald Tremblay have to stop using “Go” in his election slogan?

Quebec’s language watchdog yesterday said it will investigate complaints that Tremblay is contravening the provincial French language charter by illegally using English on election material.

[ . . . ]

The use of the English word “Go” is not a problem on election posters and billboards because the charter doesn’t apply to signs that feature “religious, political, ideological or humanitarian” messages of a non-profit nature.

But that exception does not extend to pamphlets.

The OLF is also chasing Bourque for the crime of distributing English-only brochures in my area:

Il y a quelques jours, l’équipe Bourque/Vision Montréal a également été montrée du doigt après avoir distribué des dépliants uniquement en anglais dans les arrondissements de Côte-des-Neiges et de Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

This election is actually very sad, because I detest both Tremblay and Pierre Bourque. I voted for Tremblay last time because he promised to de-centralize the megacity… and he promptly reneged on that promise and spent his entire term trying to circumvent the demerger process. As for Bourque, it was his egomaniacal ambition that sparked the whole merger fiasco in the first place. I have no intention of voting for either of them.

So it’s amusing to see both candidates on the defensive due to language policies designed to oppress the “maudites anglaises”.

The best graffiti of election posters seen so far: on the corner of Sherbrooke and Decarie, under a big poster of Tremblay reading “Go Montreal”, someone scribbled the word “away”. Please, M. Tremblay, just go away.

Why? Simple. None of the candidates for PQ leader has any more personality than a toadstool.

Andre Boisclair? Pauline Marois? Louis Bernard? These people make Bernard Landry look like Lucien Bouchard.

The “old guard” PQ has been said to be making its last-ditch stand for years now. But instead of new ideas and dynamic energy, all we’re seeing are the same hard-line policy proposals, anti-English rhetoric, choruses of “Blame Canada”, and tired leftist slogans from the same group of PQ leaders.

Of course, people will probably pay more attention as the November 15th vote approaches. But to most Quebecers – especially those on the other side – the leadership race is a bunch of same old, same old.

Being a former Quebec separatist shouldn’t, all by itself, disqualify you from being Governor-General. But when Jean won’t say how she voted in the 1995 sovereignty referendum, and when her “loyalty” statement contains little more than weasel words about never belonging to “a political party or the separatist movement”, well, what are we supposed to conclude?

For a completely opposite (and more optimistic) view, here’s Josh Freed in last week’s Gazette on how Michaelle Jean can be considered the first “cool” federalist in Quebec – and perhaps could even start a trend:

As long as I’ve followed politics in this province, the fun, cool, party people have always been on the separatist side, while the federalists have been square. Sovereignty attracts all the singers, artists, poets, writers, dancers and everyone else who dresses in black. Federalism attracts business types who look grey.

In Quebec’s 30-year-old Cool War for the hearts and minds of young francophones, the federalists have been massacred. To even suggest in public that you back Canada can get you tarred as a nerd.

So when Jean recently announced she was “proud to be Canadian” and “fully committed to Canada,” she became the first cool federalist I can recall to come out for Canada since, well, Pierre Trudeau. That’s probably why she’s such a threat to hard-line sovereignists. They seem to spend every waking hour issuing documents to show Jean is really a separatist, as if they’ve ever really cared who represents the queen they can’t stand.

I guess they sense that Jean may make it fashionable to be a federalist in Quebec and threaten to close the cool gap.

[ . . . ]

As governor-general, Jean is a great new role model: she’s a highly articulate woman and a Haitian immigrant who became a TV star. She’s in a mixed-race marriage with an adopted child – and she speaks five languages.

She couldn’t be more 21st century unless she was gay, too. And yes, she’s also a great dancer.

Maybe she once drank a toast to independence at a party. Sure, her husband was probably in favour of sovereignty. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, you can’t throw a stone in Quebec without hitting a separatist. Most francophones have flirted with independence at some stage in their lives and many still double-date even if it irks their English-speaking partner.

All that federalists should want is to make it easy for more Quebecers to release their inner Canadian child – and Jean seems willing to be the poster girl.

Who knows? She’s so appealing Jean might even tempt a couple of other trendy Quebecers to come out for Canada, and help make it as fashionable to be a Quebec federalist as it is to be a Quebec separatist.

That would be cool.

Yeah, I’m not so sure… but hey, could happen.

This is a frequent source of frustration among friends currently in med school, many of whom would like to stay here but can’t get jobs in Montreal. This despite the fact that the province has a shortage of hundreds of doctors, and the shortage is actually worse in Montreal than it is in many outlying regions. Anyone who’s tried to find a GP lately can attest to that.

The Quebec government needs to realize that a stick-only approach only works when you can restrict people from leaving; when they have other, better options, you’d better break out the carrots.

In the meantime, if you get sick, you’ll be better off in Alberta or Ontario.

Excuse me for saying this… but duh!

Us make up less than 10% of Quebec’s population, we’re mostly concentrated in Montreal, and we’re not exactly what most people have in mind when they refer to the “Quebecois” culture.

MacPherson believes this is yet more evidence of the province’s oldest, and worst-kept secret prejudice: Anglophobia:

So the question of whether Quebec is ready for an anglophone premier is so hypothetical that it’s a wonder La Presse was willing to blow the cover of “civic” Quebec nationalism by having its pollster ask it.

The answers should have come as no surprise, since anglophobia is the one form of prejudice that remains socially acceptable in an otherwise tolerant Quebec, justified on the grounds of historic rivalry and a minority’s insecurity. And the opinion leaders in French Quebec who could lead the fight against this prejudice, as their counterparts have done elsewhere, instead, with few exceptions, feed and nurture it.

I would be the first to deny that there is a deep prejudice against English or English-speakers in this province. Anyone who has tried to apply for a job here – even with fluent French – has surely run up against it.

However, I don’t think I’d go so far as to claim that anyone who believes an Anglophone shouldn’t be premier is prejudiced against English. In a province where language has been the political issue for decades, is it so far-fetched to believe that people think the best person to lead a province is someone who represents most of the people on that particular issue?

I’m not defending Anglophobia. But it’s nonsense to claim it’s on par with racism or sexism. Those things have nothing to do with a person’s political leanings. Language, on the other hand, has everything to do with it here. Have we become so politically-correct that we are refusing to acknowledge this obvious fact?

Le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe, a annoncé ce matin à Ottawa qu’il renonçait à se lancer dans la course à la direction du Parti québécois. M. Duceppe ignore donc les appels de ceux qui le voyaient succéder à Bernard Landry.

M. Duceppe croit que c’est à Ottawa qu’il servira le mieux la cause indépendantiste. “La prochaine étape dans la longue marche du mouvement souverainiste, ce sont les élections fédérales. Deux courses au leadership en même temps et une élection, c’est ça qui m’a convaincu de rester ici.”

I must say, I’m astounded. Duceppe would have been a shoo-in for PQ leadership and almost a dead certainty as Quebec’s next premier. He also would have given the sovereignty push a shot in the arm, leading to an increased likelihood of a “yes” win in the next referendum.

Duceppe’s decision may backfire on his popularity among sovereigntists, who saw him as the next Bouchard, the great white hope for nationalism. Now that he’s essentially chosen federal politics over provincial ones, will it be interpreted as sending a message of Canada over Quebec to his supporters?

More to the point, who will be the next PQ leader now? Pauline Marois? The PQ has plenty of hard-liners but very few charismatic or popular leadership candidates that can bridge the gap and bring in the “soft nationalists” needed to win a referendum. And while it’s true that they came within a hair’s breath in 1995 with the buffoonic Parizeau at the helm of the party and Bouchard calling the shots from Ottawa, a repeat seems unlikely. I hope and suspect that Duceppe’s decision will deliver a real blow to sovereignty.

Un columnist bien connu ayant assisté au congrès péquiste ce week-end me disait aujourd’hui à quel point il avait été surpris par le fanatisme des militants péquistes et à quel point le Parti était un mouvement barbare d’extrème-gauche. Dur d’être en désaccord avec ces affirmations.

Pour ma part, les images de tous ces partisans hystériques et en pleurs à l’annonce du départ de Landry me faisaient penser aux habitants d’une petite république de banane ayant perdu son dictateur, élevé au rang de demi-dieu. Leur Grand Leader n’est plus…une vraie religion que le séparatisme! Ça fait peur…

The Quebec population is luckily a lot less extremist than the PQ hard-liners, who espouse sovereignty like a fanatical religion. Trouble is, most people don’t see this fanaticism; they just tacitly agree with the general direction of the party, without worrying about the details.

If you speak French, read the whole post. It’s an interesting insight into the P.Q. and the developments of the last few days.

So Bernard Landry is not satisfied with his approval rating of 76.2 per cent.

I’m sure the Parti Quebecois will now realize that it’s only fair that the Yes side should have to attract at least 76.2 per cent of the votes in the next referendum to break up the country.

Sounds good to me.

Unfortunately, the PQ old guard is determined to take the party down the old familiar road again:

Outgoing party vice-president Marie Malavoy warned that the leadership candidates must embrace the party program adopted yesterday, one that was largely influenced by Mr. Landry.

The program, which calls for a referendum on sovereignty “as soon as possible” should the PQ form the next government, reflected Mr. Landry’s approach. Party hard-liners failed in their bid to adopt a more radical program, and say they will now use the leadership race to influence candidates to ensure that whoever becomes party leader will be committed to governing Quebec as though it were a country, with the determination to achieve Quebec independence.

If this is indeed the “old guard’s last stand”, we can expect a full guns blazing sovereignty campaign to kick off right about now. The next election may be a couple of years away, but that just gives the PQ more time to rally support for separation. And with the federalist camp in shambles, it’s gonna be a *long* few years.

Update: Right on cue, Duceppe now says he’s considering running for the job. This is all for show; he wouldn’t have announced that if he hadn’t decided to run. Prepare for Premier Duceppe by 2008. *Sigh*…

Perea, 31, and Plagaro, 33, sought political asylum in Quebec but the request was suspended when they were arrested in Montreal in June 2001 after the Spanish government requested their extradition, the Interior Ministry said.

Political asylum in Quebec.

Now, I suppose they could’ve come to La Belle Province for any number of reasons. Maybe they spoke fluent French. Maybe they had friends here. Hell, maybe they just liked our summer festivals and our lower drinking age, for all I know.

But is it possible that they thought that Quebec, with its separatist leanings and history of FLQ terorrism, might be more sympathetic to Basque terrorists than other places? Maybe they were banking on some sort of worldwide separatist reciprocal solidarity?

In any case, they’re heading back to Spain now to face the music. And despite my fears of Quebec separatism, I’m glad that the FLQ has been pretty much relegated to the fringe, and that our movement – unlike the Basque one – is for the most part political and non-violent in nature.

Landry made the surprise announcement after getting a 76.2 percent confidence vote from party members at the Parti Quebecois’ convention in Quebec City, capital of the mainly French-speaking province of 7.4 million.

“It breaks my heart to tell you this, but I’m doing it in the national interest,” Landry said, according to a report by CBC television. “I’m sorry to do this.”

Landry said previously that if he got more than 76 percent in the leadership review vote he would remain at the helm, but the 68-year-old politician has faced criticism from within the party since losing the 2003 provincial election.

Who’s surprised? Not me. Landry was never going to be party leader in the next election campaign, and this timing gives the PQ a chance to bring in somebody new before election frenzy hits.

My bet for new party leader? Gilles Duceppe. After all, he’s the most popular politician in Quebec right now, and the leadership of the Bloc is really nothing but a launching pad for provincial leadership, as established by Lucien Bouchard’s precedent.

It was already pretty much guaranteed that the PQ would win the next election, with the Liberals’ numbers somewhere down around the temperature in centigrade on a mid-January day in Montreal. But with Landry as premier, it was doubtful that the separatists could win a referendum. If Duceppe takes the helm, however, that changes the whole ball game. And unless the federalist camp starts gearing up for a fight soon, there’s a frighteningly realistic possibility that we could lose.

Personally I can’t wait until this comes into effect. It will be really nice being able to go out without having to breathe in cigarette smoke all night. Adults can make their own decisions about their health… but smoking in public spaces affects nonsmokers too. If people want to smoke, let them go outside and leave the rest of us free to breathe clean air.

Sure, restaurant and bar owners may gripe. But the ban on smoking is long overdue here; it’s been law in Ontario for a while now, for example, and people still go out to eat and drink in that province. Hell, even Ireland banned smoking in bars… and the pub culture hasn’t disappeared overnight. Somehow, I think that Quebecers will learn to adapt, too.

Quebec has long had a reputation as “Canada’s smoking section”. I, for one, think it’s high time for us to base our reputation on something healthier… like poutine.

For a long time I have thought it would be best for Quebec to just go. Have a referendum on a clear question without the feds violating Quebec election laws and, if the soverigntists win (which they almost certainly will), go.[ . . . ]

Indeed, can anyone provide me with a reason why we should not be encouraging Quebec to stand on her own two feet and moving on?

Gee, thanks a lot guys. So nice to know that you’ll be defending us and leading the federalist fight.

But since you asked so nicely, Jay, here are a few reasons why not to encourage Quebec to separate:

• Most Quebecers want to stay in Canada. We voted that way… twice (even despite the rejected ballot scandal). Even 56% of people who say they would vote yes think so too. They aren’t really sovereigntist… they’re just not too bright.
• Sovereignty wouldn’t work. Idealism aside, even most nationalists recognize that a sovereign Quebec would be a practical and economic disaster.
• We’re Canadian, dammit! I’m a fourth-generation Canadian who is not part of the “Quebec nation” by any means, but is certainly part of the Canadian one. You seem awfully callous about the idea of stripping me of my citizenship.
• Come to Montreal or Quebec City or the Laurentians or even the Gaspé once in a while, visit for a bit, and remember that you’d be giving up some of the nicest places in Canada.
• Relinquishing Quebec is just admitting that Canada’s a failure. Next would be the West, and maybe Newfoundland if it ever gets control of its oil revenues. Hey, I know some of you lament Canada’s problems day in, day out… but at heart, you must recognize how great this country is, and realize that it’s worth fighting for.
• You know you don’t really want to give up poutine.

Really, I’m getting quite tired of trying to convince you guys to want us and to defend our right to stay in our own country. A little Canadian solidarity would be nice now and again, you know?

So instead of pushing us out the door, how about helping out and joining the federalist campaign? We’re feeling awfully lonely and unwanted these days, and we could sure use some support here.

Former child star Nathalie Simard, trying to heal from years of sexual abuse at the hands of a man she considered a second father, is suing disgraced entertainment czar Guy Cloutier for $1.2 million.

This has been a major story in Quebec since it broke, mostly because Cloutier, and his daughter, mega-vedette Veronique Cloutier, were so well-known before on the Quebec entertainment scene. Nathalie Simard’s decision to go public is sure to keep the story going for even longer.

Now, it’s been announced that it will be phased out entirely by 2008.

In sharp contrast to the controversy stirred back in 1997, most people in Quebec seem to be backing this new plan, with polls showing about 75% in favour of the elimination of instruction and replacement of it with a “culturally inclusive” course about religion in general. Quebec is a fairly secular society these days, and it seems most people are inclined to accept that education belongs in the classroom and religious instruction belongs in the home.

As it happens, I agree. Ironically perhaps, since I’m a product of religious school myself.

Many Americans are surprised to know that religious instruction still exists in public schools here. It’s admittedly not been a huge issue since most of Quebec outside Montreal is overwhelmingly Catholic by denomination, even if their level of adherence to the religion varies. The Protestant schoolboards were mostly English and that was where most of the Jewish kids went if they weren’t attending private Jewish schools. By the time my generation attended, they were fairly secular and the religious aspect was mostly nominal.

But the system still created awkward situations. And in some cases even the new linguistic system as it stands can ostracize kids if they’re the only ones opting out of religion classes. That’s not cool. Montreal is a diverse, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city, and even if this diversity isn’t reflected province-wide, schools that offer only Christian instruction are really limiting when we consider how many religions coexist among the student populations.

Religion doesn’t really have a place in public schools, in my opinion. But parents should still have the option to send their kids to (heavily subsidized) private schools if they feel religious instruction is important. That’s what a large portion of the Jewish community does. I think we’ll be seeing more private Christian schools cropping up after 2008, to fill a need that the phasing out of such education in the public system will create. And that’s okay too.

It’ll be interesting to see whether this gets more press in the coming days, or how people will react.

It looks like there might not be an election after all, as the Conservatives’ polling numbers slip and Harper looks increasingly like a vengeful opportunist each day. The Conservatives are going to have to come up with a better argument than “we’re not the Liberals” if they want a turn in power. In the meantime, Martin’s gamble seems to be paying off, and his shaky government might get its life support extended a little longer.

More idiocy on parade as the annual workers’ event of May Day results in “clashes with police”. That’s the media’s non-judgmental way of saying that a bunch of idiots smashed things and then reacted violently to police who tried to get them under control. Oh yeah, and they really really don’t like Jean Charest. Just in case we didn’t know that already.

North Korea’s getting bolder as the Dear Leader of Death Camps slowly realizes that the rest of the world can’t or won’t do anything to stop them. Canada won’t sign onto the US’s missile defense plan, but Japan certainly sees the value in it.

Violence is on the rise again in Egypt, as suicide attacks on tourists by Islamist terrorists sent a chill through the region. This pretty much rules out any hope that last month’s attacks at Taba were isolated incidents. One thing we can pretty much count on: if Egypt’s tourism industry suffers, they’ll find a way to blame Israel somehow.

And last but certainly not least, Passover is over and I’m back to eating real food again. It’s great to have a meal that doesn’t taste like cardboard!

But mostly, what is sorely lacking is vision. Though the vision of a sovereign Quebec is an unrealistic pipe dream, many Quebecers buy into it because people prefer vision to pessimism. The brightly-coloured posters advertising that a “yes” vote would “make it possible” didn’t really need to get into the details of what exactly would be possible; it was a vision. A sharp contrast to the the “no” campaign in 1995, which was a negative, fear-based campaign focused mainly on dispelling the “yes” campaign’s lies.

In that spirit, here are some things that the federalist side can do to campaign for Canadian unity:

• “Federalists Come Home” campaign

Invite as many former Quebecers who have moved to the Rest of Canada to move back home for the minimum period required in order to be eligible to vote in the next referendum. Open the floodgates and welcome back our expats from Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary just in time to give the federalist side the needed numbers at the polls to deliver a resounding defeat to the sovereignty forces.

• “Birthright Canada” trips

Hey, it’s a big success for Israel. Send groups of Quebec college students on free 10-day trips to some of the most beautiful parts of Canada. Air Canada could provide free flights in exchange for their government subsidies. After 10 days of partying in Whistler or Banff, my bet is most young Quebecers will think twice before giving up being Canadian.

• Colour War

So Gerald Larose wants a colour war? Fine, we’ll give him one. Let’s show our Canadian colours by celebrating the “anniversaries” of all dates relevant to Canada with “pro-Federalism signs on balconies, marches, conferences and cultural events” of our own – but more, bigger, and louder. Canada Day, Flag Day, Law Day, the anniversary of the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey summit… there’s no shortage of opportunities.

• Switch the Question lifeline

“Yes” sounds so much nicer than “No”, doesn’t it? Since the question of the next referendum is sure to be just as confusing as the last one, let’s lobby to get a question written that would make “Yes” a vote for federalism. Not only do we get the nicer, more positive campaign term, but the 40% of Quebecers who don’t have a clue what the vote means might accidentally vote “Yes” thinking it’s a vote for sovereignty. Which would be OK, because most of them want to stay in Canada anyway. So really, we’d be doing them a favour.

• Secret Weapons

How much money do you think it would take to bribe Gilles Duceppe into working as a secret agent for the Federalist side?

Feel free to tack on your own.

Quebecers can expect to see pro-sovereignty signs on balconies again, as well as marches, conferences and cultural events over the next six months as the sovereignist movement prepares to mark the 25th and 10th anniversaries of the referendums on Quebec independence.

The Conseil de la souverainete du Quebec has organized several activities designed to prove to Quebecers that the referendums were not failures for the sovereignist movement, but rather important steps in the right direction.

“These two events were significant democratic exercises which advanced the Quebec people toward independence, and the third exercise will be the final one, because we will achieve our goal,” said Gerald Larose, who heads the two-year-old Conseil.

In other words: “we’ll keep asking the question until we get the answer we want”.

Here we go again…

New poll results suggest that sovereignty support is at a 7-year high here in La Belle Province… but as usual, most Quebecers want their Quebec and their Canada too:

When asked whether they would support sovereignty based on an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada — the same question asked in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum that spurred the now-defunct sponsorship program — 54 per cent said they would.

[ . . . ]

When asked whether a vote for sovereignty still meant that they wanted Quebec to be part of Canada, 56 per cent of respondents said yes while 40 per cent said no.

This was the same confusion back in 1995 that led to the Clarity Act.

Needless to say, this is not good news. With Bloc support spiking in light of the Liberal scandal, and Charest about as likely to win re-election as a monkey is to win Miss America, it looks like we’re in for another referendum.

And with nobody in Quebec strong enough to lead the “no” fight, and with a large part of the rest of Canada wishing us good riddance, the referendum has a frighteningly real possibility of leading to separation – whether the voters understand that or not.

So-called “highlights” include tax cuts – which will basically give me an extra loonie a year – as well as small increases in spending for health and education. Overall this doesn’t seem too bad. The budget is balanced and avoids excessive spending increases in nonsensical areas. It’s the type of budget that will leave everyone whining for more, but was probably the most sensible course of action at this point for a government whose chances of re-election are somewhat smaller than the head of a pin: sensible, not overly political, and ultimately a real snoozer.

The message from the Office Quebecois de la langue francaise to anglophone and immigrant nurses is as clear as it is ridiculous: Learn French, but don’t learn it too well. For the second time in as many months, the Office has decided to reject a set of professional test results because they were too good.In both cases, the too-fluent applicants are required to write the darn thing again if they wish to practise their profession in Quebec. The latest victim is Scottish-born Janice Douglas, who works in the emergency room at the Jewish General Hospital. After failing the written part of the test on four previous occasions, Douglas hired a tutor and buckled down and spent three months mastering the intricacies of writing a business letter in French.

On her fifth attempt, she passed with flying colours, which for most people, would be an occasion to celebrate both Douglas’s industry and the competence of her tutor. But not for the Office. It’s not saying she cheated, but it is saying her mark was suspiciously high.

If this nonsense continues, second-language teachers are going to have to teach their students to be mediocre.

Too late, they already are. This really begs the question of what exactly the OLF is trying to accomplish, other than restricting job access to non-Francophones.

Hat tip: Suburban Guy, who comments:

The Office de Measuring Signs says that a person is sometimes asked to rewrite a test when they are suspected of memorizing a text rather than writing a business letter off the top of their head during the exam.Not only do these idiots get paid to measure the size of letters on signs but they can also read people minds and determine whether they actually memorized a text or wrote it off the top of their head.

This is all happening in democratic Quebec.

Ms. Pevreal has told the Brown Shirts err, I mean, the OLF that she would not rewrite the test.

Good on her.

But, the OLF has told her if she doesn’t retake the test she will lose her license to work in Quebec. It’s not good enough that she passed it but they have to make her life a living hell. Why? Because she is not a francophone.

Arrrggghhhhhhh!

In the meantime, the students continued to make asses of themselves and an unholy mess of things as they protested at Wal-Mart. This was an obvious repayment to the labour unions for all the money they gave them to fund the protests in effort to topple Charest’s government and restore their buddies the PQ into power. Not that it would require much effort at this point. Roadkill would have an easier time getting re-elected than Charest, who is down to a 23% approval rating according to the latest CROP poll.

Anyway, there were reports of women and children shopping at Wal-Mart being pushed and shoved around. The protesters blocked entrance to the store with shopping carts and decided to provoke police yet again. Traffic was tied up on the Decarie Expressway for hours.

The bottom line is that this “victory” for the students is actually a massive loss for Quebec. No government will try again to cut bursaries for years. And nobody will even dare suggest lifting the tuition freeze; they’ll be too scared. That means that Quebec’s postsecondary education will remain chronically underfunded and will continue to fall behind the rest of North America in terms of quality.

What many students fail to understand about education is that it’s an investment. And, like any investment, you have to put in some money and effort up front to get a payoff later. Ironically, if tuition was double or triple what it is (in other words, a bit closer to what it should be), we wouldn’t see such massive strikes and protests. Students who had to cough up serious money for their classes would actually attend rather than engage in a massive strike where the chief victims are themselves.

The unions know exactly what they’re doing. But most of the students who are tacitly or overtly supporting them don’t understand. They think it’s “cool” to fight for the communist ideal, but I can’t imagine any of them would ever want to experience life under true communism. They talk about “accessible” education, but have no concept of the notion of accessible quality education.

To Jean Charest: grow a spine. Quickly. You desperately need one.

To the students: You love communism so much? Fine, go live in a communist country and quit hassling Wal-Mart shoppers and Friday afternoon commuters… you know, people with actual jobs. Come to think of it, just get a friggin’ job and quit griping about a measly $2,000 in university tuition.

The Quebec government is welcoming two Supreme Court decisions on the province’s language laws.

The court ruled against an attempt by francophone parents to win the right to free access to English public schools.This is an English-rights issue in a way… but in reverse. It’s not anglophones in Quebec who are the second-class citizens here, it’s francophones. The oppressive language policy allows us English kids to become fluently bilingual in grade school, but doesn’t allow French kids to learn English at an early age and become fluently bilingual. That’s why so many people feel stuck in Quebec – especially those who live outside Montreal, where English instruction in French schools is often of poor quality.

Quebec is my home but it’s also a very closed, defensive society. Paranoia about English means that restrictive legislation designed to “protect” French actually holds Quebec Francophones hostage here. It’s a policy of fear with no basis in reality, since all evidence indicates that learning a second or third language at a young age helps, rather than hurts, kids’ language skills in their mother tongue.

And of course all the politicians who merrily protect these laws don’t care; they send their kids to private schools, where many of them do learn to be fluently bilingual.

There was a bit of a silver lining, as a second ruling tried to make it easier for immigrants to have access to English schools. I predict that the legislation will be reframed to avoid that as well.

And so, Francophone parents will continue to be restricted by policies intended for the “common good”. Not much changes.

Last week, the McGill Daily reported that the PQ youth wing and that major Quebec labour unions were supporting the student strikers, in an effort to topple the Charest Liberal governement and get the PQ re-elected. Yesterday, the Liberals angrily accused the unions of funding the strikers, lashing out at them for mixing issues:

Liberal party whip Norm MacMillan says unions appear to be piggybacking on the student strike in order to advance their own contract negotiations with the government.

“Everybody’s in negotiations right now: civil servants, teachers in universities and CEGEPS,” he notes.

MacMillan says some union money may even have paid for buses to help the students mobilize large demonstrations.

The university students federation doesn’t deny some funding has come from outside groups.

It’s not exactly news that the labour unions in Quebec overwhelmingly support the PQ and have been engaged in a bitter battle with the Liberals since their election. And the student cause seems to be a popular one; a Léger poll conducted two weeks ago found that 24% of people think that the government should cave to the student demands, and another 48% believe that a portion of the $103 million in cuts should be re-invested into the bursaries program. Furthermore, 44% of people said they would be willing to forego a tax cut in order to put the money back into the bursary program.

In the media circus surrounding the protests, rock-throwing at police, arrests and threats of cancelled semesters, the voice of dissenters is getting drowned out.

I’m talking about the students who actually want to go to class. The ones who want to graduate eventually. The ones who recognize the value of their education, and are willing to make an investment into it. Though disorganized and quiet, there are an awful lot of them. And they’re tired of being deprived of classes they paid for, of having their opportunities that they’ve worked hard for yanked away from them, and of the general attitude among their fellow students and even professors that they’re “selfish” or just plain “wrong”.

Times like this, I’m glad I’m not still a student. Because it’s tough enough dealing with the pressure without having to face the Quebec reality: that this is a socialist province where everyone seems to think that society “owes” them. Everyone wants to take out of the system, nobody wants to contribute into it. This is how we end up with massive economic failure. (But of course, the students and the labour unions have a perfect solution to this: tax the rich more. Never mind what happens when all the rich leave the province; they’ll just tax the next richest.)

Or, to quote the CASSEE spokespeople:

Members of the CASSEE say they’ve tried holding demonstrations.

Blocking traffic and offices works better, they say.

“We started by drawing up petitions, we held protests; our pressure tactics have escalated,” said Xavier Lafrance, another CASSEE spokesperson, and a political science student at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

[ . . . ]

Funding for higher education could be raised, they said, by ensuring private corporations pay their taxes – in full.

[ . . . ]

“Aggressive unionism is a Quebec tradition,” added Mathieu Cousineau DeGarie, a third CASSEE spokesperson.

“We at the CASSEE want to revive that tradition.”

So they continue to strike. And I continue to rant. Because nothing will improve while the student unions are allowed to hold the Quebec education system – and its students – hostage. No government has the political capital to change the situation; only the students can make a difference by rallying to oppose their oppressors. Sadly, their voices seem too scattered, and students opposed to the strike have no choice but to grumble and sigh.

A five-hour blockade at the Port of Montreal ended yesterday in a standoff with riot police and the arrest of six students protesting against cuts to financial aid.

The typical accusations of “police provocation” on the part of the student shit-disturbers followed, of course.

It goes beyond mere rock throwing and idiocy, though. Votes to strike at several university campuses are threatening the semesters of students who actually want to attend class. Most of my friends are absolutely livid that their semesters may be delayed or even cancelled. To quote one friend at UQAM:

Now the students are saying they don’t give a d*mn if our term is cancelled. I am really pissed at them, and considering suing my student association. If it is cancelled, I want my $1000 back. It is not by throwing that much money out the window that we are “helping future generations”… And then these idiots throw rocks at policemen and block streets.

But the union leaders and protest agitators don’t actually give a crap about the students they’re supposed to represent. None of them care about losing out on class time, since few if any actually ever set foot in a classroom. None of them care about graduating since they don’t actually intend to ever graduate. None of them care about the effect of a delayed semester on summer or other job prospects, because none of them actually ever intend to get a job. Never mind that Quebec university tuition is so cheap, they could pay it off easily if they actually got a job instead of spending their days throwing rocks at police. Where’s the fun in that?

It’s all well and good to try to protect students against spiraling or unreasonable tuition hikes. But things have gotten way out of control. The tuition freeze is crippling Quebec education, but no government can lift it without paying a severe political price. This has disastrous long-term effects on the health of Quebec’s economy and society in general. Accessible education is one thing; accessible quality education is another altogether. If the student agitators get their way, Quebec will have free education that’s completely, utterly useless, creating an entire generation of people who intend on living off the backs of the state.

Unfortunately, the students who understand this basic fact are disorganized and lack a powerful political voice. So as the strikes and protests continue, who is going to stand up for the rights of students who actually want an education?

The FEUQ is demanding that the Charest government rescind its decision to transform $103 million worth of student bursaries into loans.

Federation spokespeople maintain that this move is not an effort to rebuild an image some might say was tarnished by the violent incidents that occured at their Monticello demonstration last week, but rather to make the public aware of the issues at stake.

Just to clarify: they’re mad because students will actually have to repay the money they get from the government. Cause that would mean students would actually have to get jobs when they graduate… you know, the kind that pay money.

It’s so much better to live off of handouts that nobody expects you to ever repay, isn’t it? Then you can stay in school forever, taking one class at a time that you never attend, and spend your time organizing protests and drinking fair-trade coffee.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the student protests and strikes are jokes. Quebec students pay a pittance in tuition compared to anywhere else in North America. But the way the student unions work, the people elected to leadership are the ones who promise more strikes, more fights, more protests.

The tuition freeze in Quebec is sort of like ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Everyone knows that they’re damaging, but it is suicidal for any government to even suggest revoking them. And so we have a university system that is cash-strapped and an endless cycle of students coming to believe that it’s more honourable to live off of handouts than to actually work for anything.

*Sigh*.

Reports say the union managed to negotiate more permanent and temporary positions, and a guaranteed minimum number of hours, while the SAQ got more flexibility to operate.

Yawn. Someone please explain to me why it took months to reach this deal, when everyone knew the government would cave? Actually, never mind, I’m still trying to figure out why “guaranteed hours” for part-timers should be offered to anyone in retail, let alone people selling such a seasonal product like alcohol.

Oh well. People in Quebec can rest easy now, knowing that our liquor demand will be fulfilled by diligent part-timers earning nearly twice minimum wage, paid fully by our tax dollars. Ain’t life grand?

I disagree. And I’d like to explain why, by addressing his arguments:

A/ This isn’t the US, private schooling is not something that should involve getting a second mortgage. If you are absolutely hell-bent on sending your offspring to private school yet can’t afford it right off the bat, make a few sacrifices if you value your child’s education that much.

Private Jewish school tuition, last I checked, runs in the neighbourhood of $6,000 a year or thereabouts. Per child. That may not force most families to get a second mortgage, but it’s not pocket change either. And when you factor in the fact that many families are paying this for two, three, four kids at a time, you can see how it quickly spirals out of reach for parents quickly.

B/ Wouldn’t a reduction in our overall level of taxation provide people with more than enough spare money to do this, rather than providing selective credits, vouchers, etc. from which only taxpayers with children could profit? (To coin a phrase, wouldn’t that be democracy in taxation?) Moreover, how many new civil servants would have to be hired to administer the granting of vouchers, or other things along those lines?

Of course it would, and that argument can be made about pretty much any government subsidy program. In general I believe in less government spending and greater tax cuts.

But education is something that is government-funded, at least in the public sector. Everyone pays school tax, whether they send their children to public schools or not. So parents who opt for private schools are in essence double-taxed, as they pay both for the private school and for a spot in a public school that their kids aren’t using.

C/ If parents want to send their children to fully-subsidised schools that won’t cost them much of anything, they already have that option in the form of public schools. Sure, they may not be all that they’re cracked up to be, so maybe some sort of public education reform might be in order (and one may argue that the creation of a public school curriculum that actually teaches something and is available to all might be a more equitable and responsible use of our money).

I think there’s some confusion about the Reid plan here. The intention was never to fully subsidize private schools (i.e. no tuition), it was to fully subsidize the secular portion of the private schools’ education. The religious portion – which is not available or offered in the public system – is subsidized at 0% and would continue to be. So essentially, parents would be paying only for the part of the program that isn’t available in the public system.

Quebec used to have religious schoolboards – Catholic or Protestant. If you were neither, you could either send your kids to one or the other (usually Protestant), or you could fork over the dough for private school. Now, we have linguistic schoolboards, which is a step in the right direction, but the public schools still offer Catholic or Protestant religious education courses. The Jewish option doesn’t exist in the public sector, so the private schools fill a void. And parents who select them usually aren’t doing so because they’re snobby or find the schools posh (a laughable thought, considering the state of disrepair of my high school), but because they want their kids to learn something about their background and culture that they can’t get in the public system. Ditto with the Greek schools, which are fully government-subsidized in their secular programs – students can’t learn Greek language or culture in the public system, so these schools fill that void.

So sure, parents have a choice of where to send their kids to learn the 3 Rs. But they don’t have a choice if they want their kids to have some cultural or moral education as well.

D/ If private education becomes financed entirely (or mostly) by the Government and available to all, who’s going to be left to go to public schools? Considering that private schools are located mainly in large urban areas and their surroundings, I don’t see how inhabitants of rural areas are supposed to benefit from your position on democracy in education.

There would still be plenty of people left in the public system, out of choice or convenience. If the Quebec government increased secular funding to the Jewish schools to 100%, thousands of Catholic kids wouldn’t suddenly enroll. In fact, it’s doubtful if the schools’ admission would go up at all, considering that parents who can’t afford the tuition currently receive financial aid. Anyone who wants to send their kids to Jewish school is probably already doing so.

But the broader issue is the underlying claim that if private schools are more accessible, they’ll steal students from the public system. But by creating a sort of “protectionism” for the public schools, it gives them a disincentive to improve or to hold themselves to higher standards. Give parents a choice and schools will have to shape up to compete. Many already have. It’s doable.

E/ Government funding of private schools only makes some sort of sense if public schools are privatised and forced to live up to the same standards as other private schools. I can’t quite see that happening, though. No matter what, it sort of negates the point of private schools, i.e., that they’re not public.

There’s no need to privatise public schools. There is a need to fund public schools better. And the one argument against the Reid plan that I think is valid is that of opportunity cost: the money going to the Jewish schools is needed more by the public schools. There’s something to be said for that. But that’s a problem of chronic underfunding, not one of an ideological impasse. In theory, the public school system should be able to meet the needs of most people to the greatest degree possible, with the private system filling in the holes where needed.

For the record, I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the Jewish school system. Grade school was fine, but by high school it was a bit much. But I do think that parents ought to have the option, which is why I was in favour of the Liberal plan.

Those asking me for clarifications ought to be satisfied now… hopefully.

After discussing the matter with his cabinet for the first time, Charest acknowledged that the plan was doomed to fail without the backing of the population.

[ . . . ]

“With the Marguerite Bourgeoys school board not wanting to pursue this and with the very strong reaction within the population of Quebec, this initiative is not one that’s going to be able to succeed,” Charest said.

If all 15 schools had signed on, the program would have cost $10 million a year. The seven schools that signed agreements will still get a portion of that total for the remainder of the school year before the program is abolished. Charest has authorized Reid and Citizens Relations and Immigration Minister Michelle Courchesne to work with the school boards and cultural communities to find an alternative.

Worse than a leader people disagree with is a spineless leader. Charest will likely find that retreat with his tail between his legs is much more politically costly than an unpopular plan in the first place.

Ironically, there’s no public outcry against the Greek schools who receive this funding model. Greeks, I suppose, are less politically objectionable than Jews.

At least one prominent person has the courage to tell it like it is:

Marcus Tabachnick, chairperson of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, said the project should have continued.

Stressing that it was his personal opinion and not necessarily that of the board, Tabachnick said the controversy hinted of anti-Semitism.

He said he’s been asked by at least one reporter for the origin of his last name and his religion.

“I’m disappointed,” Tabachnick said. “I think in the last few days we’ve seen the ugliest side of Quebec.”

Unfortunately, his is one of the only voices making that argument. A Leger poll suggested that 90% of the population of Quebec was against the initiative.

At times like this, I’m reminded of something I’ve said before: If an opinion poll was held in Quebec, asking people if the Jews should pay more tax than everyone else, the initiative would overwhelmingly be favoured.

I guess this proves that point.

Update: Judging by Tommy Schnurmacher’s tirade on the subject, he agrees with me… and then some. Not that I’m too surprised.

Far from a last-minute decision made behind closed doors, Charest said, allowing Jewish day schools to form an association with public school boards and boost their secular funding is an idea that has been in the works for more than 10 years.

The premier angrily denied reports the decision was related to financial contributions to the Quebec Liberal Party by members of the Jewish community.

“There is absolutely no link between political financing and the decision taken by the government,” Charest said at a late- afternoon news conference. “If some people want to piece together events to say there is an appearance, they can always try to do that, but I am here to say clearly that’s not the case.”

Sounds liek a standard-issue denial. But there’s much more than simple political criticizing going on here.

First of all, the decision had initially been approved by two public schoolboards, who signed on:

And Reid was acting with the approval of the two school boards involved, the Lester B. Pearson School Board and the Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys, which voted in favour of the deals at their own meetings and passed the requests up the line, Charest said.

Both schoolboards would also get additional funding for participating. But little attention is being paid to that.

Also, there’s a clear double-standard at play, since Greek schools in Montreal are already 100% funded:

Charest said that despite criticism the government is creating a precedent, the Greek community already has associations with school boards that entitle its schools to more funding. The Liberals had decided to give private Jewish schools associated status as early as 1994 but lost power to the PQ, which did not implement it.

[ . . . ]

[Former PQ education minister Pauline] Marois added that in the nine years the PQ was in power, the government refused just such a request from Jewish leaders for reasons of fairness and because the government wanted to get away from the religious aspects of education as part of the transformation from religious school boards to linguistic ones.

“My biggest fear is that this has the reverse effect sought by the Jewish community and by the minister, that it raises the objections we see today and it leads to intolerance between one group and another,” Marois said.

“The minister is creating a climate of tension, insecurity, and is not acting in the interests of all.”

Marois admitted, however, that despite her criticism of the deal with Jewish private schools, the PQ did nothing to reverse the same associated status the Greek schools enjoyed when the PQ was in power.

So funding Greek schools does not create a “climate of tension”, but funding Jewish schools does. That’s crystal clear, I suppose.

Marois even went so far as to suggest that the Jewish schools should refuse to sign on for the plan, ostensibly to avoid being criticized by the likes of her party.

Anyone notice a pattern here? When people “suspect” the Jews, it’s beacuse we brought it on ourselves by doing things that “create a climate of tension”. Marois’ comments were a bit more subtle than Parizeau’s infamous “money and the ethnic vote” speech… but not much.

The plan is simple, on the face of it. Jewish schools, previously getting 60% of their funding from the government, will now get 100%. In exchange, they sign a deal promising “cultural exchanges” with public schools, in order to foster better community relations and understanding.

But Charest’s government would never escape scrutiny for this move. Any sympathy for the Jewish community’s added financial burden of providing security for schools in the wake of the UTT firebombing has long faded. Reverting to type, the Quebec public sees a potential scandal involving Liberals, Jews, and money… and smells blood.

This from the Gazette’s Don Macpherson:

But, as everyone but apparently the government could have predicted, the increase is likely to worsen relations between Jews and non-Jews.

Other than the government, Jews and other religious groups using it as a precedent, nobody supports the decision. As the chief editorialist for the usually Liberal-friendly La Presse, Andre Pratte wrote yesterday the government managed to fan not one controversy but three: public funding of private schools, public funding of ethnic schools and the place of religion in publicly funded schools. And it awoke “the old demon” of anti-Semitism. The title of the editorial was an incredulous single word:”Incomprehensible!”

In other words, it’s bad policy because it gives fodder to the antisemites.

Now, Charest’s government is being attacked by the PQ for supposedly granting this extra money as a payout for the Jewish community’s support of his party:

Quebec Opposition leader Bernard Landry demanded Tuesday that Premier Jean Charest reconsider his decision to increase the funding of private Jewish schools from 60 to 100 per cent, which is the same as public schools.

Landry and Parti Québécois education critic, Pauline Marois, also called for Education Minister Pierre Reid to step down from cabinet because of his poor management of the education portfolio.

Landry said that Charest must make public his reasoning behind the decision in order to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest linking major contributions from the Jewish community to the Quebec Liberal Party.

Bernard Landry went on camera and called for Pierre Ried’s resignation. Never mind that there’s zero foundation. Never mind that the PQ has a long history of taking care of its friends (metro to Laval, anyone?) or that the Jewish community has its own reasons for supporting the Liberals and doesn’t require a cash incentive. Never mind that there are no ways to prove the allegations.

The Societe St Jean Baptiste is calling for an inquiry into the matter because it may have been “politically motivated”. Anyone who knows the SSJB knows how ridiculous that is.

Personally, I think an increase in public education funding should have been a higher priority. But I also know from experience that most of the Jewish day schools are desperately cash-strapped. Far from the stereotypical “posh” private schools, most of the buildings are falling apart, the facilities are in urgent need of replacement, and the textbooks are so old that my grade 10 history book had only 9 provinces listed in Canada. Ok, maybe I’m exaggerating… but not by much.

Many families who send their kids to Jewish school can’t afford the tuition, and the schools work out financial aid for any family who needs it. Given all that, I can’t imagine any of the Jewish schools turning up their nose at more money.

The problem isn’t the added cash. It’s the fact that the government can pour money into union coffers, other ethnic communities, rural communties and just about anyone else’s pockets without people batting an eyelash. After all, we’re the most heavily-taxed province in Canada and there’s no shortage of people getting handouts. But the minute a dime goes to the Jewish community, it’s an “appearance of conflict”.

“The writing’s on the wall,” Couillard said. “We’re going toward smoke-free restaurants, bars and other types of institutions.

[ . . . ]

Couillard plans to table legislation in the National Assembly this spring after hearing from the various interested parties. He said the plan is to have the new law ready for implementation by fall 2005 or January 2006 at the latest.

As a non-smoker, I look forward to the days when I can breathe freely. And my usual arguments against nanny-state interference don’t really apply here, because smokers aren’t only hurting themselves, they’re hurting those around them.

But I’m not sure how well this is going to go over here in Quebec, traditionally known as Canada’s ashtray. The bar owners are sure to mount a protest, rather than risk losing their beer-and-cigarette crowd. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Charest government could reopen constitutional talks if it wins another mandate from the Quebec population.

“I think that we should never forget that it’s important to eventually come to a system where the provinces would be better represented in a reformed senate,” said Intergovernmental and Native Affairs Minister Benoît Pelletier in an interview.

No no no no no, Jean! Didn’t you learn anything from the Mulroney years? From Meech Lake and from Charlottetown? From the events that led up to the 1995 referendum? Why in god’s name would you even suggest stirring this up again?

Hey Liberals: are you desperately trying to do everything in your power to lose the next election? Because you’re sure doing a nice job at it. And the mere word mention of the C-word “constitution” is even dirtier than the R-word “referendum” among most Quebec voters. Even the threat of restarting that nonsense is sure to get your MPs a one-way ticket to the unemployment line.

What is it about politicians and their total utter incapability of learning from past mistakes, anyway?

Blue-collar workers intent on disrupting snow-clearing operations Monday night intimidated colleagues into refusing their work assignments, Quebec’s Essential Services Council heard yesterday.

Assignment foreman Gerard Poissant of the Sud-Ouest borough said that as he went from worker to worker, others would call out in the background: “The others refused, the others refused.” And Poissant testified that a union delegate followed him around, saying: “This isn’t union advice I’m giving you, but were it me, I would refuse.”

The stress was so intense that two employees who had been prepared to take out the machines assigned to them booked off sick, he said.

In one case, the worker had already agreed to go out. But with the intimidation, he returned the keys, trembling, and announced he was going home, Poissant said.

Another blue-collar worker, a woman, badly wanted to work, and even told her colleagues that she desperately needed the money, he said.

“The others kept saying, ‘The others refused.’ She started crying and shaking,” and at 9 p.m., she, too, booked off sick, Poissant said.

Unions have so much power under Quebec law that it’s hard for employees to avoid caving under the pressure. And all too often, union leaders don’t actually have the best interests of their members in mind; instead, they’re out for their own political gains or personal victories. Employees in unionized fields have no choice but to be members, pay their dues, and toe the line… even if they disagree. And in cases like this one, where the Blue Collars are on an illegal work stoppage, it seems not even court injunctions can protect workers who actually want to do their jobs.

The system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Fast.

Quebecers’ hopes of an early Christmas gift in the form of an end to the three-week-long SAQ strike were dashed last night as liquor-store employees turned out in force to reject their employer’s latest offer by a vote of 88 per cent.

Strike there:

Hoping a strike during the holiday rush will pressure Canada Post into a new contract offer, postal workers have launched rotating strikes in two Atlantic centres. Without a contract since October, the striking postal workers in Fredericton, New Brunswick and Antigonish, Nova Scotia are among 2,500 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in a legal strike position.

Strike, strike everywhere:

The dishes, garbage and dirty laundry would pile up for days when Cat and Harlan Barnard’s teenage children refused to do their chores. So the Barnards went on strike, moving out of their house and into a domed tent set up in their front driveway. The parents refuse to cook, clean or drive for their children — Benjamin, 17, and Kit, 12 — until they shape up.

Add a labour dispute:

With more freezing rain and snow to hit the city this weekend, Montreal blue collar workers will not rule out work stoppages to protest conditions in their new city contract, a union spokesperson said Thursday.

[ . . . ]

Roads and sidewalks in Ville Marie and Côte des Neiges-Notre Dame de Grâce were especially treacherous after blue collar workers there refused assignments from managers, a task that was handled by unionized workers under the old contract.

And let’s not forget the ongoing lockout:

The league and the Players Association held a four-hour meeting Thursday, the first session in three months, with the union presenting the latest proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. The six-year, six-point offer, which did not contain a salary cap, will be reviewed by the league and addressed on Tuesday at the next scheduled meeting.

With all these strikes, sometimes it seems like I’m the only person who’s actually working.

The hospital’s administration will ask staff to address patients using the formal French pronoun “vous’”instead of the informal “tu.”

[ . . . ]

He says staff who repeatedly ignore the new measure will face disciplinary action and could eventually be suspended without pay.

Hey, any hospital that addresses patients by a name instead of by the name of a disease is a positive development.

But as a person who frequently stumbles over her French, I’m a little sensitive to this rule in particular. I’m sure this isn’t much of an issue in Saguenay, where French is spoken by basically everyone, but I personally have a particularly hard time with the tu/vous distinction. Oh, I understand it well enough, but when I’m speaking quickly or I’m flustered, the wrong one often slips out. I blame it on my grade school French curriculum, which – ostensibly to avoid confusion – taught us to say “tu” when addressing any person in the singular second person, including our teachers. It’s hard to break the habit now and I have made some embarrassing gaffes when addressing professors or even clients too familiarly.

Maybe I’m being over-sensitive, but instituting a rule that could result in suspension seems a bit heavy-handed to me. If the lesson the hospital is trying to teach to staff is respect, maybe they could try having a little respect for their staffers. Most likely, a simple memo reminding people to use “vous” would be enough, rather than a rule. Besides, there’s a lot more to respect than pronouns, and any staff members with truly disrespectful attitudes should be disciplined regardless of what exact words they use.

The NHLPA met again yesterday, supposedly to discuss “strategy” but in reality to browbeat dissenting members into submission (perhaps by tattooing “no salary cap” into their skulls… for any players who might have been confused on that point).

And a suggestion for the SAQ workers planning to strike: consider as an alternative… a drink-in.

The blue-collar union maintains the binding contract, reached Oct. 4, falls short of union demands. It has the support of its 5,000 members, who voted unanimously on Sunday to reject the contract.

The Federation of Labour’s Henri Massé said the contract creates unacceptable work conditions, including eliminating the four-day workweek.

“The situation is very serious and the blue collars won’t accept the situation,” Massé said Monday. “Now we ask the mayor to discuss but after that, we’ll have to see.”

The union agreed to binding arbitration, but now it doesn’t like the result and wants to appeal. Why does this not surprise me? The unions in Quebec have more power than pretty much anywhere else in North America. Union members get fat paycheques, lots of benefits, and short hours. Heaven forbid the poor babies should have to work 5 days a week like the rest of us!

Even Quebec law, however, probably won’t cave to the union’s demands this time around. It’s about time that they grow up and join the real world.

(Hat tip: Jonathan).

Protesters rushed into a university building where Quebec Premier Jean Charest was scheduled to speak on Wednesday afternoon, forcing organizers to cancel the speech.

The premier had just entered the hall where he was scheduled to address a cultural conference when about 150 students crowded into the area and chanted slogans. The students were angry at recent government cuts to bursaries.

The sad thing is, these students didn’t even have to let their protest turn violent. They just had to mass and threaten violence… and the university decided they couldn’t risk it.

Here is solid evidence that violence – or even the mere threat thereof – works like a charm in shutting down any viewpoints they oppose. This isn’t just about Israel, it’s about any kind of free speech… and the evidence took less than two days to appear.

The number of Canadians receiving social assistance cheques fell sharply in the second half of the 1990s, a new study says, blaming reforms to the welfare system that made many more people ineligible for the money.

Blaming?

That one word pretty much says everything you need to know about the good ol’ Canadian attitude about being a welfare state. I mean, it would be tyrannical of us to expect people to quit abusing the system and actually get jobs!

One element of this study, at least, was no surprise:

For poor people in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador, the welfare rate rose sharply in 1993, then remained high through to 2000. The rate in those provinces surpassed that of all other provinces by 2000.

In 2000, Quebec had the highest overall welfare rate of 21 per cent, but Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest welfare rate for couples with children.

In other words, more than one in 5 people in Quebec sit around and live off handouts. And while I can accept that some of them legitimately need it, there’s no way that 21% of the Quebec population is utterly incapable of doing anything useful to make a living.

But why work when you can get paid to sit at home and drink beer, right? It’s the Canadian way!

Update: Justaguy pointed out that, according to Statistics Canada, that figure is actually 21% of “unattached” people in Quebec on welfare. I still think that’s pretty sad.

Jacques Parizeau wants the PQ to declare sovereignty without a referendum the next time they get elected:

Rather than wait for a referendum, the Parti Québécois should run Quebec as if it is independent after it wins a provincial election, says former leader Jacques Parizeau, giving tacit support to a growing core of members who want to change the PQ’s modus operandi of the past three decades.

“Many sovereigntists have concluded that the game isn’t playable under the current conditions and that we need to find another way. ….. Quebec entered the Canadian confederation by a vote of lawmakers, despite calls for a referendum. It can leave in the same fashion,” Mr. Parizeau wrote in an essay published in the newspaper La Presse.

Because after all, according to Parizeau, what does the will of the people matter? Especially the dreaded “money and the ethnic vote”?

The Parti Quebecois has not been averse to trampling the will of the people in order to push its unpopular agendas. The forced municipal mergers – just partially undone this year – were perhaps the best recent example. Quebec governments have always had a somewhat paternalistic attitude, figuring that they know what’s best for us even if we strongly disagree.

But this would be beyond the pale. Taking Quebec out of Canada without the clear support of the population simply goes too far. Maybe Parizeau is conceding that he doesn’t think the PQ could win a referendum? Or maybe he just doesn’t care about the will of the citizens.

Even Bernard Landry recognizes this idea as a non-starter:

“The birth of a country cannot take place without the support of a majority of the men and women of Quebec. That’s a matter of dignity,” he said during one of several broadcast appearances.

Analysts said the idea might be well received by the “impatient” wing of the party but is unlikely to find support in the population at large, which has elected PQ governments but said no to secession.

That said, the PQ has a history of using hardliners like Parizeau to float trial balloons that meet with universal opposition and then somehow end up on the party’s agenda.

I’d almost love to see them try to pull a stunt like this. It would surely fail, and lose them about a zillion votes in the process.

Assuming – that is – that our votes still count.

Gilles Duceppe on June 29: “We will carry through with this struggle until we reach the country we need to give ourselves.”

Why does this not surprise me?

The thing is, many of the people who voted for the Bloc were not, in fact, voting for sovereignty. They were trying to teach the Liberals a lesson, angry about the sponsorship scandal and believing that the Bloc could best represent Quebec’s interests in Ottawa. But they would vote “No” in a referendum.

However, the Parti Quebecois has been sitting on the sovereignty issue far too long. Look for them to start talking about it more and more, as Charest and his Liberals lose popularity with each passing day of their term in office. The people don’t want another referendum, but the politicians sure do, and something tells me we’re in a countdown to one that launched on Monday.

I can’t wait. *Groan*.