If my tax dollars built it, shouldn't I get in for free?

I wonder what advice the PM received before embarking on what promises to be a foray of federal spending on sports facilities.

The original idea of luring back an elite team to Quebec City with a shiny new venue is admirable. After all, two Quebec teams in the NHL are better than one. The yawning deficit should, however, deter any politician from spending more than what's strictly necessary to keep the country afloat.

This is hardly a vote-grabbing initiative: Quebec City is one of our most reliable electoral areas in QC, and the "gratitude" vote in the province is fickle. Those who doubt my analysis need only remember how the "Quebec nation" shtick was wiped out by a tiny cut in elitist artists' subsidised holiday budgets. Harper doesn't seem to be attempting to indulge Quebec nationalists either: he'd choose a much better chance at winning big in QC at the price of disgruntling his AB base.

Probably QC hasn't anything to do with the decision. Lavishing money on activities popular with the masses is likely to endear the PM and the Party to quite a few voters. This might be the reason why, following the announcement of Quebec City's cash shower, promises of similar largesse in other parts of Canada began rolling in.

I can see this working to everyone's advantage, provided the small print is well negotiated. Throwing cash at an arena is useless. Making the subsidy into a revenue-sharing agreement could, instead, placate both interventionists and fiscal hawks. On one hand, the Government finances what Canadians like. On the other, it expects a return.

I won't get started on the grants system. I'll simply advocate that, in times of economic uncertainty, the Government prove it isn't giving someone a free ride.

A great event with Minister Paradis in Montreal.

I had the honour of attending a reception with Christian Paradis, Minister for Natural Resources and Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative party. It was a remarkable turnout (in excess of 150 people) in the heart of Bloc territory, at bar Saint Sulpice.

I was joined, among many others, by my friends Dr Roy and Jess Weiser,  secretary for Westmount-Ville-Marie conservatives.

I was also able to gauge the level of Conservative organization and strategy in the province. It was gladdening to learn that the party is actively engaging with its QC ridings and building up a more permanent presence than before. Riding associations are being structured, candidates are being sourced and, more importantly, Tories no longer have to hide their views.

There's tons of work still to be done, but the fight is well and truly on. If, that is, holding a reception in the heart of an opposition leaders' riding wasn't enough of a message.

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Whenever education, children, religion and public money mix, you know there's an explosive cocktail brewing. A Quebec court has allowed a Jesuit school to teach its children about world religions however it wishes, rather than by governmental diktat. On the surface, this ruling is a welcome break from government intrusion into private education. On the other, Pauline Marois welcomes it as well, which promptly rings all alarm bells in my head.

Is it really a school's duty to teach religion in any way? Indeed, religious scholarship is so subjective as to be twistable into many shapes. If sociology and economics - those banes of the unflexible mind -  have axioms, shouldn't academically taught religion be expected to conform to the same standard? No sir, not a chance.

Rather than persevere in the vain attempt to reconcile religious parents, private schools and an intrusive secular government Quebec should at least try to transcend religion altogether.

There hardly is a single ethical teaching in any religion that does not contribute to making a good citizen. Charity, temperance, humility, fortitude, you name it. Who needs religion when these citizenly virtues can be taught as part of an all-encompassing civic education course?

Leave religion to the history courses, where children learn more than just the tenets. When studying a religion, one has to know HOW it emerged, WHERE and WHY. Otherwise it's just empty faffle. Classrooms should educate good citizens, and leave the forging of good Christians to the church pews.

Bernier talks freedom

In ten minutes Maxime Bernier managed to say, at an event in the West Island, a lot more than most politicians say in an hour of pompous waffling.

His speech to an event organized by the Lac-St-Louis and Pierrefonds-Dollard conservative associations, the former Minister addressed the need for Quebec and Canada to embrace greater tax and individual freedoms in order to unleash Canada's potential.

I have been thinking lately: how can a "Less federal government" slogan not appeal to Quebec?

One-size-burns-all

Quebec teachers burn out by the dozen. With anxiety, stress and depression on the rise (according to union stats) those who are to ensure Quebec's intellectual future reach their breaking point and refuse to cope passively with the system. From walking out on a misbehaving class to taking long term leave, a signal is sent that something just isn't right.

Before we suspect malicious intent, let's stop and think. Let us now imagine the frustration of discovering that your students don't care for your knowledge, that you may not uphold your right to be respected as a superior and a teacher, that there's always someone who will expect more and more of you without any right to demand it but their own perceived worth of your skill. I would quake too, and throw everything to the dogs.

One of the oft-cited concerns is the integration of special-needs students in the classrooms. Though everyone has the right to education, let's be honest and admit that learning is not something that can be fit into a one-size-fits-all model. Some may be inclined to interpretation rather than calculation, some will excel in areas of investigation and fact, some will be best served by different teaching tools and techniques. Quotas, targets and o.s.f.a. classrooms eventually lead to frustration. Compounded with discipline lack and some parents' arrogance (well, yes, there is, we the public aren't faultless either) this creates an environment which any teacher, unionized or not, would find unacceptable.

Those with no passion for teaching and learning wouldn't care to walk out or feel any sort of frustration at their growing inability to perform the job to the highest standards. Quebec's woes may be the warning sign that many of the real teachers we should guard as a jewel of our education system are about to crack.

Charest delivers!

Jean Charest wrestled a majority in the National Assembly today. What conclusions can we draw?

1. Support for Pauline Marois' Parti Quebecois has not waned. Conclusion: whetever happens, PQ support is unshakable.
2. Dumont is off the map. Populism doesn't fly in QC. Neither did a local Conservative Party.
3. The sitting government wins during a recession. Conclusion: Charest is a good friend to have.

With this in mind, I believe the (sadly not may) Tories in Quebec should rally behind the one party that can unite the anti-PQ vote and deliver something resembling brindled capitalism to the province. If we are to bring about a paradigm shift in Quebec while keeping the province safely out of sovereignist hands we should work with the LPQ and through policy and initiatives blend moderate Tory and libertarian ideas into LPQ platforms.

I strongly urged my friends to vote LPQ, and I am thus very happy for a federalist majority government in Quebec City.

Does anyone like election spoofs?

Campaign signs and slogans are so bland there's barely anything to spoof. But this one was begging for it!

Populist ADQ

Despite being the only party to advocate some decent free market policies (although selling 7% of Hydro Quebec hardly counts), if I were a Quebecker I'd think twice before ticking the ADQ box on the ballot.

First and foremost the ADQ seems to jump most bandwagons they can get a grip on. Today they jump on the "identity" one, while the PQ endorses the school course that teaches children about different religions. I have qualms with the way it being fed to children with no option for parents to opt out. However it is a valuable addition to the curriculum, and may avoid embarrassments when the ignorance of certain members of the general populace is exposed for all to see and hear (Bouchard-Taylor commission, anyone?). If one's a true libertarian or Tory one advocates choice (i.e. opt-outs). Dumont waving the history and identity flags is just the caricature of a party desperate for support, appealing to all fringes ending up appealing to no-one.

Besides, this isn't the first instance of Dumont's erratic judgment. A few months ago he sought to bring down the Quebec government over the low turnout in school board elections, presumably because people cared. Had they really, turnout would've been higher.

The ADQ election posters decorating (note: sarcasm) Montreal's streets in their befuddling triviality deliver one message: the campaign team should think twice on their slogans. "Donnez-vous le pouvoir" is as redundant as some of Dumont's rhetoric. Quebeckers already have the power, and I fear they're going to use it against him in a few weeks' time.

And not a moment too soon, if you ask me. With the current economic situation a Quebec version of Berlusconi would be a disaster. His populist tendencies, combined with an evident one-man show party and a mercurial character make him unfit as Premier. Right now, at least.

Why we aren't winning yet

After three weeks of vacationing plus a few days of other sadly more important business to sort out, I'd like to offer a honest opinion as to why the Tories have been shown in a poll again in a smaller lead over the Liberals than they truly deserve. Plus, a poll shows the Party at odds with Quebeckers and Ontarians. In a whole month since the beginning of July's poll, hardly anything has changed.

Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.

Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?

Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.

Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.

Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.

So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.

What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.

Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.

Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:

Liberal Ontario/BC waste and tax, Tory Alberta/SK invest and enrich.

It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.

Cocoa Puff Conservatism

What a great comment in the National Post network on the unintended negative effects of well-intentioned government regulations. Focusing on Quebec's ban on advertising aimed at children, William Watson makes a striking case for conservatism and non-interventionism in the market.

Cocoa Puff Conservatism - a highly recommended read, also because he teaches at my same university :)

Intentions aren't evidence in a Court of History.

No referendum, huh?

Pauline Marois wants the PQ to abandon its referendum pledge for the time being. Unsurprizing.

Having realized the continued impunity with which Quebec can pursue its most questionable discriminatory objectives through indiscriminate (pardon the pun) use of the notwithstanding clause and provincial prerogative, Pauline Marois is contemplating maintaining the status quo.

Why? My guess is Madame Marois has the wonderful idea of continuing to wrestle with Ottawa, claim more and more prerogative, continue applying or proposing her insane policies such as the law on Quebec citizenship without the province being hailed before an international body and held accountable for its despicable course. In its perverseness, the current situation allows Quebec's harassment of English speakers and potentially many other categories to be shielded from global ridicule by the cover of the Canadian umbrella and the notwithstanding clause. Smart as she undoubtedly is, Marois has all the interest in preserving Quebec in Canada in order to continue scaring us with insane legislation without fear of reprisal and build up the party's support base.

Marois' stance on pushing the referendum back in the priority list is a decoy, and everyone knows it. Except Dion, of course, who appears to contemplate an independent Quebec sometime:

In Ottawa, of all places, Marois's plan received a somewhat more favourable
reception.
"I think it's a good move," Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told
reporters after a caucus meeting.
"I think a responsible secessionist leader should not rush to a referendum, should first build strong support, a clear majority for separation and once it's done, it's time to go to a referendum."

Referendum time has passed, people don't want to leave Canada. Unless Dion wants more businesses to move to Toronto his remarks are a destruction of his credibility as a federalist. If he were a chameleon I'd say this time he's shown his true colour.

Team Franco' strikes again

Words failed me then, and words still fail me. Quebec's government-subsidized franco-fascists have taken a shot at one of my favourite Montreal drinking establishments, McKibbin's Irish pub, with the accusation that many of its signs aren't in French. This matter becomes laughable when this apparently includes vintage Guinness advertisements, and some outside menus as well.

As far as the menu goes the language street gang might have a point, but their actions make a laughing stock of the entire province, all with the Quebec administration's blessing and tax dollars. Furthermore, this does nothing to foster a positive attitude towards the French language in Quebec, portraying it instead as an imposition by an evil and insensitive overlord, which Charest's government isn't as far as I know.

Monsieur Charest, get rid of your zealot beating squads, stop the rampant ostracism against Anglos and institute some real positive incentive for speaking French. Even the silliest of brownie point systems would be better than the intimidation we have now.

I propose that all intelligent, hard-working and commonsense Montrealers of all races, religions and language show the OLFQ rottweilers some well-deserved middle finger, go to McKibbin's to imbibe in the liquid goodness of their pleasing and merrily intone "The Maple Leaf Forever". Both the good old-school version and the new bilingual one.

Ou' est ma Guinness?

Bouchard-Taylor in Montreal. Report from the field.

I have been a fervent critic of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. Tonight I changed my mind. I did not see a racist and bigoted forum, but rather a gathering of mostly well-educated and respectful people who wanted to share their success stories or their tribulations with a commission that has heard enough drivel and was probably relieved to hear some decency.

The testimonies were varied, ranging from the ostracism against anyone who wasn’t a native Quebecer with a French-sounding surname to stories of community involvement by church groups that foster cooperation. One point that kept cropping up was whether the crisis really existed. Many speakers speculated that the whole reasonable accommodation debate was being fuelled for political gain. I agree.

Biggest groups: Church representatives telling about projects, Anglophones telling stories of discrimination (if anglos face discrimination, imagine the immigrants), students who were the most open-minded of the bunch, Quebecers who focused on the language and how it might serve to unite Quebec society even more if it were made the only public language. Overall a solid bunch of folks who didn’t want to shut up and who MOSTLY expressed commonsensical views.

However, the platformists were there. First a Mohawk lady drowned her valid points in rhetorical exaggerations about colonialism and holocausts. Then came anti-Zionists, anti-Afghanistan mission people, you mention it. Was quite fun.

Some vaguely unsettling remarks were overheard by yours truly, a sign that even in a bunch of seemingly educated people something’s lurking. However I did not witness the overt racism and bigotry that characterized other meetings chez les francophones.

Taylor’s concluding remarks were a bit incomplete (one has to stick to the key ones) but were nevertheless strong. Fostering familiarity and communication will decrease fear and distrust, aboriginal rights are not in the mandate of the Commission and thus will be left out of the final report and, most importantly, the system of immigration and employment is in trouble because Quebec (as far as I can remember) has the worst record in Canada for immigrant unemployment.

True to my free market and individualism beliefs, I spoke about accommodation being a personal business, which people must be left to do at their own discretion. Discrimination doesn’t pay, and those who discriminate will lose business, lose connections and lose money. It is not up to the government to impose behavior models beyond the ones governing civilized coexistence in abidance of the Law.

Before I placed no hope in the commission, now I just wish they’ll have both the courage and the commonsense to say that any solution has to be a two-way road. Quebecers (those who are ignorant) need to be educated that there’s a wider world beyond their borders and one can’t prosper in isolation. Immigrants need to be taught Canada’s laws and history (that’s where values are enshrined, right?). And society must be left to adjust itself as it sees fit.

I will post a transcript (sort of) of my speech tomorrow morning.

What's the talk about?

Quebec's Jean Charest nags for a conference to discuss the recent rise in the value of the loonie against the US Dollar. What this would result in is another big wonk talking shop. The Premier's concerns for his province's exports are legitimate, but what can Stephen Harper do? This sounds like dragging a political opponent at federal level into a debate that shouldn't be held.

Firstly concerns about the currency should be addressed by the market. A rising loonie was fuelled by the turmoils in the US economy as well as the rising costs of oil. The tempest has passed, and the two currencies are approaching parity again. What's the urgency?

Secondly, despite the Premiers and the Prime Minister presiding over the respective executives, financial and trade matters are better discussed by the portfolio owners, the (duh) finance and trade ministers.

Thirdly, the Bank of Canada belongs to the federal government, but this is no excuse to see it as an all-encompassing solution for all the economic woes. The current loonie surge is helping Canadian manufacturers realize that competitiveness isn't something they can take for granted. Surely this sudden shift couldn't be predicted or budgeted for. I am however sure that the overall consequences of this shock will be beneficial for the country's competitiveness.

The same cannot be said for the consequences of a government intervention, be it tinkering with the interest rate, dumping or bailing out manufacturers. Charest's Liberals might fancy this kind of economic dealing. I for one do not. I am sure Stephen Harper and his cabinet don't either. As a politician Charest should know this, and no quantity of nagging can do the job of fixing the situation. His time will be better spent finding ways to mitigate the negative consequences of the recent shock and emphasize the positive ones.

Where's her brain?

One seriously wonders how Marois' neurons are wired, because despite being attacked from all sides and blatantly going against common sense she perseveres in her insanity, going head-on against Charest, claiming she isn't intolerant but a "democratic person" who wants to have that debate (on law 195).

Enough discussion on law 195. Pauline Marois is demonstrating a lack of commonsense and totalitarian apartheid-like tendencies that probably stem from some kind of frustration. If this is true, someone please send her some chocolate! She might have taken example from the wackos who showed up at the Bouchard-Taylor hearings suggesting only french-speakers should be entitled to free Quebec healthcare and other drivel.

This means she's going after the most unrecommendable bunch of voters there can be. This might win her a few seats but will be a catastrophe for a province that needs skilled immigration if it wants to survive at all.

StatsCan reports that the net outflow from Quebec is highest since the year of the sovereignty referendum. Please, someone in the PQ pop their head out, open their eyes and take the hint!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/29/qc-quebecmigration1029.html

Pauline, take a piece of advice. The group you are brown-nosing to is not a voter platform one can be proud of, let alone court. If anything parties should unite to inculcate some intelligence into those heads reverberating with dull and sinister hollowness. Have you still got anyone whose IQ is above 1 supporting you?

Please think. It's something you haven't been doing for a few days.

Premier speaks, doesn't say enough.

In a somewhat unsurprising move Jean Charest intervened directly in the debate over reasonable accommodation, to salvage the salvageable bits of Quebec's reputation of tolerance and openness. The Bouchard-Taylor talking shop, better defined a circus by now, has been an unfathomable failure, providing a relief valve for many people's repressed bigotry, ignorance and hate of anything that's not like them. If anything, the commission's conclusion should be that the greatest problem aren't the immigrants but some Quebecers' heads.

For the sake of Quebec's reputation and everyone's mental health please pull the plug on that commission right now, or bring it to Montreal and then pull it.

Lashing out at law 195 comes a little late. As Premier he should have condemned such a proposal the very second Pauline Marois pulled it out of her backside. Rather than promoting a culture, this law creates a government-imposed one, with severe punishment (privation of rights) for those who do not accept it. Unless one comes from Cuba or North Korea I think anyone would shiver at the thought of such an aberration.

It sounds like the whole province is going nuts. Charest should know that there's no problem a cup of tea can't solve. However he mostly lashes out at the other parties for "fanning the flames". He's not completely wrong, but the letter becomes just another bit of fire and political machination. It's time to call a tea break in this acrimonious debate. Pull the BT commission, get rid of law 195 and just all shut up for a month, take the time to learn the lessons from this debacle and do some self-analysis. Then start over.

As a responsible Premier, Charest should have done just that. Instead, he produced just another half-baked invitation to be more polite and restrained.

PQ plus royaliste que le roi.

Some commonsense from those who are charged with overseeing French in Quebec: immigrants shouldn't be forced to learn French (CBC). Preserving a language can't be done through coercion and punitive laws. That's just a way to get the language hated and drive people away from Quebec. The PQ's dictatorial stance on this issue is unjustifiable, yet they still try to defend Bill 195 despite the failings in the French teaching system.

Personally I'd love to learn to speak French better, but I haven't got enough opportunities and time. Does this make me a bad student immigrant?

Come on, pequistes! The intelligent people in the province, all other political parties and even the language watchdog are against you. Plus royaliste que le roi, eh?

More madness from QC nationalists

Who do quebecers vote for, seriously? Local Councillor Andre Drouin declared that Quebec shouldn't tolerate any kind of religious or cultural accommodation of immigrants, and advocated sovereignty as the only way to pull out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and enforce this astonishingly wrong vision of secularism. Now, secularism is not about intolerance. For instance France's secularism is commendable, as it bans every prominent display of faith.

People can believe whatever they want and not force it upon anyone or display it prominently. If I want to have lunch and my office colleague is fasting I don't mind. If my colleague wants me to fast too I mind, a lot. If someone else says my colleague has to eat lunch like everyone else, I mind even more. I do mind not seeing a person's face, if it were a Muslim woman I'd rather she wore a hijab rather than a full niqab (which is not a dress prescribed by Islam anyway). But I'm not the one ripping veils off faces.

Mr Drouin's kind of secularism is of the wrong kind. What's more, he brings the whole Quebec into disrepute, as are doing some of the Reasonable Accommodation Commission hearings. The guy should relax.

A little relaxation might also help him stick his head out of his, er, you get my drift.

Parti Quebecois gone bananas

Outrageous, discriminatory, nuts as a squirrel's dinner: defining the recent Parti Quebecois proposal to create basically two tiers of citizenship requires no big effort.

Understandably, the PQ platform consists mainly of defending the French language and getting Quebec as close to independence from anglophone Canada. What makes their agenda unacceptable for anyone with a pinch of salt in their head is their aim to cut through people's rights with a chainsaw. From Laws 101 and 104 (if I remember correctly), which all but ban the right to choose an anglophone education, now the PQ goes to the lengths of creating a Quebec citizenship and barring non-francophones from any kind of political participation, including the tabling of petitions at the National Assembly.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a provincial citizenship: either you are a Canadian or not. If Quebec wants its citizenship then it has to leave the Federation, and it doesn't seem likely.
Secondly, if they are so heavy on Quebec values then equality must be among them. What they are proposing goes against their own platform, since discriminating on the basis of language is a form of racism.
Thirdly, if the PQ is so aiming to avoid the formation of ghettos and separate communities among immigrants by demanding they assimilate Quebec culture, proposing this nonsense law creates a government-sanctioned ghetto: non-francos denied every political right in their own country.

Although I doubt this will ever pass, it is a stain on the PQ and, thanks to the media attention, on the reputation of Quebec and Canada as a whole. In a country that prides itself of its multiculturalism, open-mindedness and excellent immigration record the existence of such proposals is an unacceptable offence. Pauline Marois offends me, decent Quebecers, Canada and anyone who places any kind of value on equality and rights. I hope she gets a nasty rash.

This reeks of racism, and I would be curious to see how well it would go down with Canadian and international courts and human rights watchdogs. I'd love to see the PQ investigated for this, it can't be legal!

I have a proposal. If the Federation applied the same rule for English anyone without a good knowledge of English would be denied election to the Parliament in Ottawa. This would rid us of Stephane Dion overnight. Who would we laugh at, then?

The Bloc in agony?

The Bloc Quebecois is running out of steam, as is blind Quebec nationalism at last.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071011.duceppe11/BNStory/National/home

While Mr Duceppe might relish in the knowledge that only his party is truly Quebecois, one seriously asks oneself the question of whether people actually care. To add to his ill-concealed xenophobia he garnishes his anti-Conservative and anti-Ottawa rants with slammings of multiculturalism, immigrants, English language and anything else he can think of, citing Quebec culture as ever so special as to not be manageable by some federal party that wasn't truly Quebecois.

Quebec is different from the rest of Canada, as is Ontario from Nunavut or PEI from Alberta, however speaking French more than the rest of the country seems to be a valid excuse for Mr Duceppe to lambast the Federation and claim even more protection for French in the province.

This kind of ill-aimed vitriol is a symptom of a deep ideological crisis within the Bloc. As always a party on its way into oblivion resorts to last-minute populism, trying to stir up the most mediocre feelings of those still foolable by harsh talk and gratuitious abuse. Conservatism will bury nationalism under the banner of freedom, common sense and tolerance. Forward!