Fagstein » Quebec politics

A study into Quebec media

Fagstein — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:51:54 +0000

Quebec culture minister Christine St-Pierre announced at the FPJQ conference that she has ordered a study be done on the future of media in Quebec. Dominique Payette, a professor at Université Laval and former journalist for Radio-Canada, has been put in charge of this study.

The scope seems to be pretty large, and could touch on everything from whether newspapers should be subsidized to whether the government should fund a news department at Télé-Québec. (My knee-jerk reaction to both would be "no".)

Although the situation in Quebec media is different from the rest of the world (some would say we're behind the times, which is a plus for newspapers and television networks), I don't know if it's so different that a study like this will bring any new insight into this debate that has already been over-analyzed by self-proclaimed experts all over the world.

More information at Le Devoir, Agence France-Presse (!) and Projet J, which has an interview with St-Pierre.

Anglophone séparatissss

Fagstein — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:40:38 +0000

We're doomed. (via Le Monde Selon Jay)

Inside Bill 60

Fagstein — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:17:08 +0000

Laurent Maisonnave on his iPhone, not that he'd ever cancel his contract unilaterally

The Quebec Liberals this week announced Bill 60, proposed legislation that would strengthen (or "modernize") consumer protections particularly where it concerns long-term service contracts like cellphones. The bill has already (and unsurprisingly) gained the support of the Union des consommateurs, and others. Cellphone providers have stayed silent for the most part, though their advocacy group says the bill is redundant because the industry is already looking to self-regulate (those who buy this please raise your hands).

The full text of the bill is online. It hasn't been debated in the National Assembly yet, so it could very well be changed significantly before it becomes law.

Here are some of the highlights:

Changes to contracts must come with 60 days' notice and the consumer has the ability to cancel the contract without penalty if the changes involve "an increase in the consumer's obligations or a reduction in the merchant's obligations"
Such changes can't affect "an essential element of the contract" like the nature of the service offered
Fixed-term service contracts can't be unilaterally cancelled by the provider
Consumers can't be required to pay penalty fees beyond simple interest charges for missed payments
Merchants are required to fully explain existing warranties before asking customers if they would like extended warranties
If you buy an item second-hand that's still under warranty, manufacturers can't require that you prove the previous owner abided by the warranty's conditions
Gift certificates and gift cards cannot have expiry dates, and must come with written explanations of how to check the balance on them. They also cannot be subject to fees
Contracts must come with various things in writing, including the total dollar value of "inducements" (like free cellphones)
Contracts cannot be automatically renewed
You can't be charged for service while the device you use to access that service (assuming it was provided with the contract) is being repaired
Consumers can unilaterally cancel contracts and pay back the value of any inducements provided at contract signing (or 10% of the remainder of the contract, or $50, depending on the circumstance)
Advertisements must include the full cost of services, less taxes (though it's hard to see how this would be enforced since cellphones, cable, Internet and other services come with different plans)
In case a company breaks any of these provisions, the government or a recognized consumer advocacy body can seek an injunction forcing the provider to comply
The bill also contains some minor provisions dealing with travel agents

A lot of these are common sense (no one should be allowed to unilaterally change a contract without the other side's consent, and companies shouldn't get free money out of gift cards). Others will probably be criticized because they allow loopholes that lead to abuse (for example, if I know Rogers is about to change their contract, can I get a three-year free iPhone deal and then cancel the contract a week later without paying a penalty and get a free iPhone?). Still others are open to interpretation (we could expect arguments about whether a certain change really increases the obligation of a consumer).

Others sound like they could be downright annoying, like being forced to sit down while a Best Buy employee reads out the complete text of a manufacturer's warranty to you.

But all in all, it's a good bill, and provides some valuable protections for consumers against abusive contracts. Law-abiding businesses should be able to point out loopholes that might be exploited against them, but let's hope the lobbyists don't start torpedoing parts of this bill just because it might cut down on their bottom line.

C’est quoi le 24 juin? (UPDATED)

Fagstein — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:59:45 +0000

UPDATE: L'Autre St-Jean seems to have changed its mind again. See below.

As an anglophone Quebecer, it always annoys me when people confuse "Québécois" with "French-Canadian". Not all Quebecers are francophone, and not all francophones in Canada live in Quebec.

It's not just the Rest of Canada that does this, it's also many of the Québécois themselves. Us anglos are really better off living in Toronto, where we belong. And French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec are ignored because they won't be part of the new sovereign country anyway.

Thankfully, these views aren't shared by the majority. Which is why I'm heartened at the near-universal outrage in the comments section of an article by La Presse's Martin Croteau about two anglophone bands being banned from Fête Nationale celebrations on June 23. (The fact that hell is being raised by francophone publications (see also Voir, Bang Bang, Josée Legault) instead of just The Gazette, CJAD, CTV or The Suburban is also nice. Those outlets would be quickly dismissed for bringing up stories like this first.) There's even a petition going around to bring them back (with requisite Facebook group).

It seems that the Autre St-Jean organizers were getting pressure from Fête Nationale directors (read: SSJB) and others to remove Bloodshot Bill and Lake of Stew from their event, even to the point where protests were threatened if they were allowed to go on. Though both are Quebec bands, their songs are in English, and that's just not right, they argue. Fête Nationale is about celebrating a French Quebec.

This, of course, comes mere days after celebrating the fact that they were including anglophone bands and being more inclusive.

UPDATE (June 15): A short, bilingual message posted on the event's website says they are "maintaining" their list of invitees, including the two anglo bands:

Montreal, June 15th 2009 – As the producer of L’AUTRE ST-JEAN, we, C4 productions, have been mandated by l’association Louis-Hébert to create an alternative musical event to celebrate our National Holiday. In that sens, we maintain our choices for the line up of the event with Malajube, Vincent Vallières, Les Dales Hawerchuk, Marie-Pierre Arthur, Lake of Stew et Bloodshot Bill which represents forty minutes of anglophone music on a six hour show.

We wish that the event on June 23^rd at Park ‘du Pélican’, which is, in our opinion, in the image of Québec and Montreal in 2009, will be peaceful.

More info will be communicated wednesday.

Mind you, in Quebec City, it's still French-only.

Whether or not they'll actually get to play, I think back to the basic question: What is the Fête Nationale supposed to be about anyway? Is it about language, culture, or about the province of Quebec?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Fête Saint-Jean-Baptiste was about language and culture before the Quebec government got its greedy little paws on it. It was about French culture, and by that logic you might consider having only francophone bands perform at such an event.

But the Quebec government turned it into the civic Fête nationale holiday, wrapping it in the fleur de lys, blocking off non-Quebec francophones and making it to Quebec what Canada Day is to Canada.

Perhaps it's because of their proximity on the calendar, combined with the political Quebec-vs-Canada divide that's overwhelmed our politics over the past half century that people see an equivalence. Patrick Lagacé suggests if we turned this around - francophones being banned from Canada Day celebrations because of threats of protests from Albertans who want it to be English-only - that the outrage would be much higher.

If we accept that le 24 juin is a civic holiday about celebrating the state, then the comparison has some credence. The only catch is that Quebec wants to be unilingual while Canada does not.

But if it's about culture, then a more apt comparison would be with St. Patrick's Day in Quebec (indeed, the holiday has its genesis from those who wanted a celebration of the Québécois on June 24 like that of the Irish on March 17). And anyone who's been to a St. Paddy's parade in this town knows they're very liberal when it comes to who can call themselves Irish. It's not just Scottish pipe bands that slip by. Ukrainians, Israelis, Chinese are all welcome. Just put a shamrock sticker on your cheek and some green in your beer and you're accepted into the club. So even then, anglophones (and any other language) should be welcome.

Provincial civic holiday, or francophone cultural celebration? Which is it? And which should it be?

Suburbs have too much transit clout

Fagstein — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:35:36 +0000

Proposed extensions to Orange, Blue and Yellow lines

This week, La Presse came out with the news that the mayors of Montreal, Laval and Longueuil have joined forces to suggest to the Quebec government that proposed metro extensions in their cities be acted on simultaneously.

Because these projects require such a huge infusion of cash from the provincial government (they cost $150 million per kilometre, and that's a low estimate), the decision to proceed with them tends to have as much to do with politics as it does with need. The Laval extension, for example, was pushed forward ahead of the extension of the Blue line mostly because of the fact that Laval has swing ridings whereas the east end of Montreal tends to be pretty well PQ blue (when the PQ has a chance of winning elections, anyway).

The three proposed extensions aren't new. The Blue line extension has been on the books for decades now in one form or another. Laval's closed loop was suggested in 2007, Longueuil's plan is a bit more recent.

But why these three? Why not extend the green line in either direction? Why not create a line on Pie-IX, or Park Avenue, or through NDG?

The answer is that Montreal only has one mayor, and because of the way politicians have setup our cities, the mayor of Montreal has no more say than a smaller suburb on either side. So in order to get a much-needed metro extension in the dense neighbourhood of St. Leonard, we have to approve two comparatively useless extensions in underdeveloped off-island areas.

The idea isn't going over so well, even among people who you'd think would support it. Some transit activists are arguing that less expensive (and less sexy) projects should be dealt with first, like improving commuter trains and setting up a tram network.

Let's hope common sense prevails before the government writes that $3-billion cheque.

Marois on Gesca’s case

Fagstein — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:35:50 +0000

Pauline Marois, apparently desperately looking for something to be outraged about, thought she found something in a report from the Caisse de dépôt et placement. There she discovered that the Caisse had lent money to Gesca Ltée, the company that owns La Presse.

The scandal, she figured, had to do with the fact that the former head of the Caisse, Henri-Paul Rousseau, now works for Power Corporation, the company that owns Gesca. Clearly this presented a conflict of interest.

Except, as the government pointed out, the first loan was issued before Rousseau was hired at the Caisse (by the PQ government, no less).

That revelation doesn't entirely absolve Rousseau of the appearance of conflict (other loans were issued during his term), but one wonders if Marois would have been so critical if it involved a company that didn't have such apparent ties to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Hey baby, wanna second my motion?

Fagstein — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:37:39 +0000

A friend of mine asked me if this National Assembly romance qualifies as a news story. I think it does, especially because they belong to opposing parties. The opportunities for conflict of interest are simply too large to ignore. It's not the story of the year or anything (how many of you recognize these people?), but it should be out there for the record.

We'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, as Jean Charest is doing. But you know something's going to happen. Either one of them (probably him) is going to switch parties, one (or both) will leave politics, or they're going to break up.

And if they do decide that the National Assembly isn't for them, Nathalie Normandeau and François Bonnardel could become odd-couple political commentators.

I mean, if James Carville and Mary Matalin could find a way to tolerate each other, anything's possible with love.

Le français, avant tout

Fagstein — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:48:42 +0000

I'm getting a bit tired of the language debate in Quebec.

I feel a bit guilty saying it, because the neverending battle has become so central to the province's identity that it's almost like I can't call myself a true Québécois unless I have a spot on the front lines. What does it mean to be a Quebecer if not to constantly argue about French vs. English, federalism vs. sovereignty, Liberal vs. PQ/BQ?

The most popular post on this blog, by far, in terms of comments is a criticism I made in 2007 about anglo rights crusader Howard Galganov. The comment mark on that post just passed 500 (all of which I had to individually approve), and new comments are added every day. Discussion of the statements made in the post or of Galganov himself have long fallen by the wayside. The four participants who keep the thread going just yell at each other, call each other racist and compare each other to Hitler in their discussions of the great divide. I block those comments that go too far, but if I deleted those that I didn't think advanced the conversation enough, over 90% would disappear immediately. At this point, I'm just watching the counter go up, in awe about how much time people can waste trying to change the mind of someone who is obviously never going to agree with you.

Autre

I'm an anglophone. Even though I've lived in Quebec my entire life, I'm seen as the enemy. No different than the Rest of Canada. It's assumed that I'm just waiting for my chance to make it in Toronto or New York, and that I don't really belong here because I don't really want to be here. Though I love Quebec as much for its culture (which is inescapably intertwined with its language) as its politics (which is inescapably intertwined with language issues), because I use English more than French in my daily life I'm set aside from real Quebecers.

Once, in a conversation with some young francophone journalists, I was asked about my opinion on Quebec politics in a way that gave me the impression I was introducing these people to a culture they'd only read about. I felt like I was giving them a sociology lesson on what it's like to be an anglo Quebecer.

One of the things that was odd about the conversation is that it came a bit out of nowhere. People don't stop me in the street to debate politics. I've never been refused service at a commercial establishment on account of my language. Francophone bloggers link to me, and I link to them, with little regard to the fact that our posts are in different languages, unless the thing were talking about is language politics. Quebecers are more concerned with daily life, gossiping or getting laid than they are convincing others of their point of view on separation.

I got dragged into a brief debate about my positions on Bill 101 recently, and though I have serious issues with some of its provisions that seem more anti-English than pro-French (and the psychological factor and selective enforcement only exacerbate the anti-English sentiment), part of me wanted to scream out at one point: "I don't care!" I can read French signs fine. I can communicate fine in that language (just don't ask me to write in it for a living). In that sense, Bill 101 doesn't really affect me. Though I cringe at how much the government is spending on language enforcement rather than language education, I think there are far more pressing issues for it to deal with than reforming our language law.

Pure laine

I bring this up because of a couple of debates going on that really make me wonder where Quebec's priorities lie.

La Presse's André Pratte had to apologize on Friday for noting that Michael Sabia, the ex-Bell CEO who has just been named to head the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, is (a) not a Quebecer and (b) doesn't speak French very well. It seems he was wrong on both counts. Sabia has lived in Quebec for 16 years ("how long do you have to live in Montreal before you become a Quebecer?") and his French, while accented, is fine. He attributed his first error to "un détestable réflexe québécois" - namely that if you're anglo, you're not a Quebecer. Believe me, this is a big problem. It's not just in Quebec, of course. People, media and PR agencies all over Canada will look at someone with brown skin and assume they're an immigrant. In the U.S., if you're latino, it's assumed you're an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one.

I accept Pratte's apology, but he wasn't the only one to bring this up. Sabia needed to defend himself from an attack by Bernard Landry, saying he's now chosen to live in Quebec three times since 1993.

UPDATE: No, wait, La Presse has gone back to saying he doesn't speak French well enough for their liking.

Now we know why there are rules against political interference in the Caisse's affairs. If something as petty as province of birth is a political issue (and deemed more important than making money for Quebec pensioners) then who knows how many ways 125 MNAs could figure out to screw with the system and doom our finances in order to maintain political correctness.

As Martin Patriquin points out, "Quebec must be the only place in the world where it actually matters what language money speaks."

Not just money, but pucks.

Jeu de puissance

The other debate, which has just started, is over who will fill Guy Carbonneau's shoes as head coach of the Canadiens. For any of the other 29 NHL teams, the only criterion would be the ability to coach a team of players to a Stanley Cup victory. (Well, that and not being a child molester, hockey gambling addict or 9/11 terrorist, I guess.) But in Montreal, they want to add another: the ability to speak French. And because former Hamilton Bulldogs coach Don Lever is a prime candidate (he was promoted to Habs assistant coach when Carbonneau was fired), there's already discussion that, no matter how good a hockey coach he might be, he can't get the job because he won't be able to speak properly to the media and to fans. Even Bob Gainey, who speaks French fine but with a strong accent, isn't good enough for the people at RDS.

The Gazette had a little fun with that Saturday, suggesting some intensive training courses and giving a list of simple phrases for an anglo coach to learn.

This debate should come as no surprise. The same debate has been going on ever since Saku Koivu was promoted to be the Canadiens' captain. Patrick Lagacé complained about it when he was at the Journal (though he's softened his stance at La Presse - Lagacé the old softy disputes this in a comment below) in a column more notable in media circles for its hilarious follow-up. Of course, there are plenty of NHL players who don't speak a word of English, but nobody complains about that. After all, their job is to play hockey, not to give speeches. But, in defence of this particular point, there aren't any NHL captains who can't at least carry on a conversation in the language of Gary Bettman.

And then there's debate any time you see a trade, a call-up, a healthy scratch, or even a line-change which alters the makeup of the team to make it less francophone. It doesn't matter what Guillaume Latendresse, Maxim Lapierre or Mathieu Dandenault's skills are. What matters is that they can be interviewed in French on RDS during intermission, and therefore they must be on the team and in the lineup. For these people, a Patrice Brisebois is more valuable than an Andrei Markov, and certainly more than a Mike Komisarek.

Fans can demand these things. It's their right. And Canadiens fans aren't exactly known for their logic or cool-headedness anyway. And it's the government's right to demand that the head of the Caisse is a Quebec-born francophone who watches Star Académie.

Priorités

But when you say that language and nationality is more important than skill, you can't complain when you don't get results compared to others. You can't complain that the Caisse is losing more money than other pension funds when you passed over a qualified anglophone for a less qualified francophone for the job. You can't complain that the Canadiens failed to bring home their expected 25th Stanley Cup when you cut the field of head coach candidates to less than half of what it was so that RDS viewers don't feel uncomfortable.

In the United States, the military is mocked because it fires gay Arabic translators even when it's in desperate need of them. We make fun of the Americans because they put what you are above what you know, to their own disadvantage.

Sometimes, I wonder if Quebec is any better.

Except, I'm tired of debating the point. So I'm just going to hit "publish" and move on to something more interesting.

UPDATE: More discussion of this on Lagacé's blog, which also talks about Simons's opposition to that stupid OQLF sticker campaign.

Politicien noir de la télé

Fagstein — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:59:55 +0000

TQS announced today (though La Presse had the scoop this morning) that Mario Dumont will be joining the network as a show host starting in September. You'll recall TQS already has a daily newsish show hosted by a politician in André Arthur (who's been a bit lacking in his Parliamentary attendance duties lately because of it).

Perhaps more interesting, Dumont is also being brought on as a consultant to the Rémillards, to advise them on the regenesis of their television network.

What do you think Dumont is going to recommend as far as TQS's regional stations go?

UPDATE: Pat Lagacé has some tips for someone trying out TV for the first time. Richard Therrien meanwhile points out that the ADQ opposed Remstar's gutting of TQS's news division, and now Dumont is profiting off of it.

Vien, donc

Fagstein — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:15:14 +0000

So apparently a provincial minister is in a bit of a conflict of interest because her partner writes for a community newspaper. The newspaper, La Voix du Sud, responded on its website saying that political stories would be handled by its other journalist.

Yes, it has two journalists.

I don't remember any major provincial government scoops being broken by La Voix du Sud, so I'm kind of wondering what the big deal is.

Quebec City goes crashy-crashy Saturday night

Fagstein — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:26:42 +0000

If you've never seen Red Bull's Crashed Ice event, you need an immediate injection of testosterone. Every year, "competitors" in this event gather in Quebec City to "skate" down a 550-metre track whose grade is better suited for tobogganing than anything one would do on skates. (It's a 56-metre vertical drop, according to this PDF press release).

The point is not important, I guess it's a race of some sort. The fun is watching everyone crash as the tumble down the ice. And this year, for the first time, they're opening it up to women.

Of course, because it's harmless fun, there's gotta be someone out there to spoil it. The Mouvement Montréal Français, apparently confused because this event is in Quebec City, is demanding that Red Bull give it a proper French name. The government, desperate to appease francophone activists, has passed on the request with official backing, though they're stopping short of asking Red Bull to change its own name.

I think it's a bit insulting to have an event like this in Quebec City with an English name. I'm sure Red Bull's marketing people could come up with a bilingual one or a clever French name that would solve this situation easily. (They've already done it for Italy's Toro Rosso F1 team) But this should be a result of grassroots pressure, not government fiat.

Either way, let's not let the political discussion ruin the fun.

Crashed Ice is being broadcast live at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday in French on TVA and in English on TSN HD.

Premier’s Job 1: Tree naming

Fagstein — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:41:50 +0000

For any of you who thought we here in the True North Sane and Free were too good for the "War on Christmas" and other nonsense, Jean Charest would like to set you straight.

UPDATE: CTV also wasted time on this non-story. It's funny how pundits can argue at the same time that nobody cares what it's called and that it must be called Christmas because that's our tradition.

Post-election thoughts

Fagstein — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:44:19 +0000

Three election nights in as many months. I'm starting to get the hang of this.

The biggest surprise of the night was Mario Dumont's decision to leave his party leadership. The obvious question that comes up now is: Who the heck is going to lead the ADQ? Can you even name another ADQ MNA?

Amir who?

The biggest electoral surprise is clearly Amir Khadir winning the Plateau riding of Mercier for Québec solidaire. Not only did he unseat the PQ's Daniel Turp, but he surprised a lot of news outlets who hadn't planned for one of the "autres" to get a seat in this election. (Our front page needed a last-minute redesign to add a fourth box for QS's seat total.)

In the early stages of returns, the seat seesawed between Khadir and Turp, but another riding way off near Quebec City was also showing a QS lead (with one poll reporting), reminding everyone that these results were still early. That other candidate ended up dead last with 1,000 votes.

But as the night wore on, the lead became more constant, and slowly started to grow. Cynicism that Khadir's lead would vanish when more conservative mainstream votes came in slowly started to vanish. As the party's co-leaders (they're really going to have to get rid of that co-leadership system) gave their news conference, the networks called the seat for Khadir, and another political party officially entered relevance.

Now, does this mean QS will be invited to leaders' debates?

They almost got it wrong

CTV Montreal is very proud of the fact that they called a majority government first, just after 8:30pm. This means they're cool and their penis is larger than everyone else's, I think. The seats certainly looked to be going to a solid majority early on.

But around 9pm, the number of leading and elected Liberal seats started holding steady at 63-64. This was right on the razor's edge. All it would take is a couple of Liberal-leading seats to shift to another party and Charest loses his majority. Part of me wanted exactly that to happen so that overeager news directors would have to explain why they got it wrong.

In the end, though, the Liberals got 66 seats, pending recounts, and their majority isn't in doubt. Only a couple of ridings in the Montérégie area were close enough (the lead in votes is significantly less than the number of spoiled ballots) that a recount might change something.

Media analysis

I didn't watch any of the live TV coverage (beyond glancing at the changing numbers on the screen), so I'll leave commenting on that to you, or Richard Therrien, or Mike Boone, or Paul Cauchon.

There were liveblogs from Lagacé/Ouimet at Cyberpresse (you can cut the metrosexual tension with a knife) and Philippe Gohier at Maclean's in case you want to re-live the night in real-time.

Here's how the main news sources handled their online results:

CTV had its own custom election system which failed in a very important way: It couldn't process a win by a candidate outside the three main parties. Seat totals don't include Québec solidaire, and Amir Khadir is not listed as elected in Mercier, nor is QS or the Green Party listed under "party leaders". It also doesn't list incumbents.
Canoe (TVA/Journal) had a very basic, non-Flash elections page. A table of results by party, and individual tables of results for each riding. Québec solidaire was listed under "Autres".
CBC, which has been at online election results longer than everyone else, had an interactive election map with colour-coded ridings. The map format made it easier to find ridings visually, but it also meant if you wanted a Montreal riding you had to "zoom in" three times. It also had a separate page with results tables by region (and links to tables by riding). No indication of incumbency here either, which surprised me.
Radio-Canada had a different online election setup (do these people not talk to each other? Surely it's easier to translate existing software than create an entirely new system?). It's not much to look at.
Cyberpresse, Le Devoir and The Globe and Mail used a flash widget provided by Canadian Press/Presse Canadienne. The interface was slick, with square tiles representing each riding. When you click on them, they jump out and form a staacked bar graph. But it was also incredibly basic. It didn't even provide percentage totals for each candidate. The tile system also made it more difficult to find ridings visually, compared to a real map.
The website of the director general of elections (which The Gazette pointed to for results) had the advantages of being official and fast. But around 8:45pm, it stopped updating (while CP and CBC's feeds kept going), panicking reporters and editors who were using it for results. It came back around 9:15 and stayed reliable for the rest of the night. The table system is simple, which is good, but because it's an official site it doesn't declare candidates elected like the news networks do, and it also doesn't note incumbents or incumbent parties.

Don’t forget to vote

Fagstein — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:30:47 +0000

Lisette Lapointe, the PQ candidate in Crémazie riding (and Jacques Parizeau's wife), campaigns in the Sauvé metro station last week.

The polls are now open in 75 125 ridings (my civics knowledge sucks) across Quebec, and the voters have 22.5 10.5 hours (my math sucks) to make their choice. Polls close at 8pm tonight.

If you need help, the DGEQ website has information available. If you're not registered to vote, sorry, but you're screwed. Unlike in federal elections, Quebec doesn't allow registration on voting day. The deadline was last Friday. Better luck next time.

Now go vote. I'll be busy editing election copy tonight, but I'll see you in the aftermath. Be sure to let your local journalist know of voting-day irregularities.

TV results schedule

For those watching the returns on TV tonight, here's what the networks are planning:

RDI's election special starts first at 6:30pm, a full hour and a half before polls close. Rad-Can joins in at 7:30.
CBC and Newsworld have live coverage starting at 8 p.m.
CTV Montreal has local anchors Todd Van der Heyden and Mutsumi Takahashi quarterbacking coverage starting at 8 p.m. CTV Newsnet will be picking up the feed from CTV Montreal, also starting at 8.
TVA and LCN go all-election at 8.
Global Quebec, not wanting to give up Prison Break and Heroes, only goes live at 10pm.
CPAC has no scheduled election coverage
TQS will have wall-to-wall election coverage with live returns throughout the night and reports from hundreds of journalists based in all 125 ridings and ... oh just kidding, they're ignoring it entirely. Maybe André Arthur will mention it tomorrow.

Online, most news outlets will be running data from Canadian Press. I'd recommend CBC or the DGEQ website directly for results.

Quebec parties’ transit promises

Fagstein — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:19:32 +0000

Now that the debate is over, I guess we can assume that the party platforms are out there. I was interested in how each party is looking at public transit. Even though the economy and health care are the big issues, it's never been sexier to be green.

From news interviews and party platforms, here's what I've been able to piece together about what the parties have promised for public transit in Quebec.

The promises are about what you'd expect: practical but uninspiring from the Liberals, pandering and expensive from the PQ, non-existent from the ADQ and completely unrealistic from the Green Party and Québec solidaire.

Nothing radical or even particularly interesting comes out of the main parties (the PQ's promises, in particular, involve many things that are already being planned), but it does give an idea of what portions of the electorate each party is targeting.

Liberal Party of Quebec

Increase the frequency of train trips to Laval and the South Shore suburbs by 35% within 12-24 months, an additional 230 train departures each week, or 264,000 seats
10,000 new parking places at commuter train stations (a 35% increase)
Consider Montreal proposal for construction of tramways

Total cost: $260 million ($200 million through the province, $60 million from the AMT)

Sources: Charest promises increased transit to Laval, Longueuil

Parti Québécois

Extend blue line east
Build a tramway to Old Montreal
Create a direct rail link to Trudeau Airport
Create express bus lines on Henri-Bourassa Blvd.
Create an LRT from Brossard to downtown
Build a commuter train to Repentigny
Build a commuter train from Longueuil to Châteauguay
Create reserved bus lanes on Highways 13, 15, and 19
Increase public transit use 16 per cent by 2013 (double the current Liberal goal)

Total cost: $3.6 billion, not enough says Normand Parisien of Transport 2000

Sources: PQ promises $3.5B for public transit, Transit union boss backs PQ

Action démocratique du Québec

The ADQ has nothing in its platform (PDF) about public transit beyond a vague promise to "modernize its management", though Mario Dumont has said in the past he would make public transit an essential service, removing from its unions the right to strike.

Québec solidaire

Reduced fare for low-income earners
In the long term, the complete elimination of transit fares
Encouraging the use of fully electric vehicles
Increase use of collective taxis in low-density areas where bus service is impractical
Unspecified extensions to metros, commuter trains and bus network on the island of Montreal

Total cost: $1.2 billion over five years

Source: Party platform

Green Party of Quebec

Create high-speed rail link between Quebec City and Windsor
Extend Montreal metro's blue line east to Anjou
Build tramways in Montreal (including, apparently, on Pierrefonds Blvd. in the West Island), Quebec, Longueuil, Gatineau, Laval and Sherbrooke
Electrify existing rail links connecting Quebec City, Alma, Gaspé, Sherbrooke and Montreal
Reduce the cost of transit passes by 50%

Total cost: $40 billion over 20 years (includes non-public transport measures), financed by a carbon tax and road tolls

Sources: Party platform (PDF), Transport plan announcement

What do you think? Which party has the best public transit platform?

Why wasn’t the debate broadcast in English?

Fagstein — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:03:46 +0000

Richard Therrien points out that TQS was the only "généraliste" (read: broadcast) network that didn't broadcast the Quebec leaders' debate last night.

Well, that's not exactly true. CBC, CTV and Global didn't broadcast it either, even though all three are based in Montreal and have a duty to the people to bring these kinds of things to them. So the question is: Why didn't they? Why wasn't the debate broadcast on the English networks?

The basic answer, of course, is that it was in French. Rebroadcasting it would have required simultaneous translation, and wouldn't have had as much of an impact on the voters. But does that mean it's irrelevant? Unlike the federal leaders' debate, we don't have an English version to turn to. That was it. Two hours at a table was all we would get of the leaders facing each other directly, of the networks showing political programming that wasn't paid for by the parties or filtered through news anchors.

The other argument you could make is that those who wanted to watch the debate could just turn to RadCan or TVA. But if that's the argument, why bother having "broadcast consortiums" at all? Why not just leave it to Télé-Québec and CBC?

What's worse is that anglos with cable couldn't watch the debate translated either. While RDI and LCN carried it live, CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet didn't. Even CPAC didn't carry it live, though they repeated it later (it's not on their online schedule, so I can't tell if it's being repeated again).

Of course, you could also argue that anglos don't matter because they're all going to vote Liberal anyway. So perhaps nobody but me is going to be outraged that a million Quebecers are being left out of this entirely.

But it bothers me that not a single anglophone television network, even those specifically devoted to news, could be bothered to show two hours of a political debate that will affect how this province is governed over the coming years.

Was simulcasting House really more important?

UPDATE (Nov. 29): CTV's Barry Wilson touches on the lack of an English debate, without saying why his station decided not to show the debate live (or taped, for that matter) with translation.

The Leaders’ debate: By-the-minute boredom

Fagstein — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:04:01 +0000

Not having anything better to do, might as well liveblog the leaders' debate tonight. Will there be enough snide sarcastic comments about the leaders and TV networks to sustain a whole post? We'll see.

Other liveblogs:

19:00: LCN and RDI go live an hour ahead of the debate with boring analysis. LCN starts off with John Parisella, who is much better in French than I thought. It also features a CNN-style countdown to the debate. RDI, meanwhile, brings in their politician-hack-has-beens "Club des ex" for insight.

19:05: Oh wait, RDI's coutdown is up, using some strange font which makes it unreadable (except in HD?). Among their important updates: Pauline Marois inspected the podium this afternoon, Mario Dumont has his hands in his pockets, and the leaders will be taking a group photo shortly.

19:07: RadCan's Marc André Masson is at a bar in the Saguenay, assuming that people who watch political debates in bars form a representative sample of the electorate.

19:10: "L'analyse de nos ex" - would you want your ex analyzing you on TV?

19:12: Uncontent with their own analyses, LCN is asking its viewers to weigh in online.

19:13: What else is on? TVA has Occupation Double, CTV and Global have their entertainment gossip shows. CNN has Lou Dobbs. There's never anything good on between 7 and 8.

19:15: RDI is asking an ADQ hack about how Mario Dumont will do tonight. Shockingly, the strategy will involve "talking directly to Quebecers" and getting away from those partisan politics everyone dislikes, but also talking to his opponents to their face and calling them on their policies.

19:18: LCN has also moved to asking politicians about politics, asking a PQ hack about Charest. Are they going through some playbook about how to fill time with nothing?

19:20: CPAC isn't covering this yet, neither is the National Assembly channel.

19:21: LCN has the scoop: Jean Charest is late to his group photo! What does this mean for the election campaign? How will voters react to this stunning development?

19:22: LCN interrupts its partisan hack to show live video of the group photo. Everyone's wearing black today (Charest's ill-fitting suit last time was black, maybe they think it's lucky?). Mario Dumont improvises a three-way handshake.

19:24: Analysis of Marois's neckwear, or lack thereof.

19:25: First comparison to the Biden/Palin debate. Don't get our hopes up, RDI.

19:33: Jean Lapierre is doing analysis from inside the Quebecor election bus.

19:34: Pauline Marois was apparently a bit nervous, but confident during the photo op handshake.

19:36: RadCan's Vincent Grou is using a giant touch screen to talk about Québec solidaire's response to the debate. It's no magic map, but it is big.

19:39: Macleans is also running a liveblog tonight.

19:43: Richard Martineau is live from a boardroon somewhere. Whoever's handling his audio should be fired.

19:54: Can we start this thing already?

19:56: These LCN headsets are really bulky. What is this, 1990?

19:57: "There are two minutes left until the debate, which means there are only two minutes left until the debate starts"

19:59: Stéphane's right. That's a really sleek-looking table.

20:00: And we're off! TVA, Télé-Québec, RadCan, RDI and LCN carrying it live. No anglo stations doing the same (including Montreal-based CBC, CTV and Global, because local programming is for wussies). And wasn't the National Assembly channel supposed to have this too? And where's CPAC? CTV Newsnet? NewsWorld? Isn't this important?

20:03: Pauline, you're leaning too far forward. Posture! Ooh, she's promising to present a great plan.

20:05: Opening statements were short and infomercial-esque. Actually, that doesn't sound like such a bad thing. If political debates were more like competing infomercials, they might be more entertaining.

20:06: I'm missing House for this. It's better be good.

20:11: RDI's running a news ticker, in case you can't watch a debate without being ADD about it. RadCan and Télé-Québec are running the debate without graphics (besides their network bugs).

20:13: 10 minutes to retire a doctor, 10 years to train a new one, Charest says. Everyone take a drink!

20:19: Charest and Marois are arguing over who screwed up health care more. Dumont, meanwhile, hasn't governed, so he can live in a fantasyland where "private" health care means "non-profit community-based cooperatives run by vegan hippies"

20:24: Marois and Charest are starting to sound like a married couple at a divorce hearing.

20:25: Charest repeats his "10 minutes to retire a doctor" line, for those who might have missed it all of 12 minutes ago. Time for another drink!

20:30: Someone's being touchy with the sound levels. Just tape them down, everyone's going to talk over each other anyway.

20:35: Mr. Charest, you have 45 seconds. Because people can easily formulate explanations of government policy in 45 seconds without descending into meaningless soundbites.

20:36: Galen Weston in a commercial on TQS reminds me that we should be thankful we don't have non-francophones in this debate.

20:39: Spoiler alert: House is being taken hostage!

20:43: The Weather Network has a report on winter tires.

20:44: Charest's tie was a bad choice. It's giving that striped-tie-blurry effect on my TV.

20:46: Marois has a nice jacket. But is she wearing anything underneath it? (Oh good God why did I put that image in my head?)

20:52: Now all four of them are talking at the same time.

20:56: These people are talking over each other about pension fund management? Seriously?

21:01: Things we're missing this hour:

TQS: Translated version of Moment of Truth
CBC: The Tudors
CTV: Dancing with the Stars
Global: NCIS
NBC: The Biggest Loser

I guess this really is the most entertaining thing on right now.

21:05: The leaders are given 45 seconds to answer a question that took more than that to ask.

21:07: Marois rolls her 'r's really hard. I hope she has enough water to reload.

21:09: Marois takes credit for CPEs helping families and ... nevermind, Charest just made my point for me. Marois stepped right into that hypocrisy.

21:14: Charest breaks the rules to point out the hypocrisy again. We heard you the first time, Jean.

21:19: Dumont almost got through his kids-want-to-wear-school-colours-not-gang-colours line. Do we drink?

21:21: Marois: "Si on était souverain..." Drink!

21:30: Le Québec de demain. Here's the fun part. First question is about how Quebec's fraction of the Canadian pie (population-wise) is getting smaller. Marois's answer, is of course, to give up and separate. Dumont says we'll reopen the constitution after the economic crisis is over (and once the kids are grown up, and when we get around to it...). Charest has no real answer, saying that Dumont and Marois are tied to the federal parties. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this question about Quebec's dwindling population?

21:34: Dumont is saying - with a straight face - that the PQ's position on sovereignty is vague.

21:37: Dumont's talking contraband cigarettes. He points out that Health Canada doesn't inspect them, and so we don't know what they contain. This is an outrage. We need our kids to be smoking healthy cigarettes.

21:48: I really have nothing to add here. I lost interest 10 minutes ago. What's tonight's West Wing rerun about?

21:50: Did Dumont just check Marois out? What is he looking at down there?

21:51: Question: How will you be cool like Barack Obama?

21:52: Dumont is reassuring us (again) that every child has a talent. Really? Is there not a single child in the province that's completely useless?

21:53: Marois's "Quebec dream" is, of course, a strengthened Bill 101. That's true. So many young kids in Quebec yearn for a future in which there is more government regulation of language. Yes we can!

21:55: Dumont seems confused about whether the PQ is for sovereignty or not.

21:57: Closing statements. Back to infomercial time!

21:58: Charest, try to look more frustrated at having to take part in this exercise. ("Tempête économique!" Drink!)

22:00: Wow, he just made it under the wire there. Only RDI jumps right into post-debate analysis. Everyone else switched back to regular programming at 10 on the dot.

22:02: LCN just went dead. Oops. Now it's back.

22:03: TVA already has a package together. Not bad.

22:05: If you were watching the anglo newscasts, you'd have no idea there was a leaders' debate tonight. Then again, you'd get the same idea watching TQS.

22:08: Everyone's asking who won. (The spinning hasn't started yet.) I think I won.

22:09: Jean Lapierre says he got over 1,000 emails from TVA viewers. I'm betting half of them want to help him make his penis bigger.

22:13: The candidates themselves will have self-spinning news conferences. TVA has gone on to more important news: It snowed today.

22:24: Did I miss anything? I was watching Prenez Garde aux Chiens.

22:26: Dumont's talking anglo. But no anglo network is covering this, so I have to listen to the simultaneous translation and then re-translate it back to anglo in my head.

22:27: CPAC's running the debate tape-delayed. Because it was so exciting the first time, you have to see it again!

22:29: Charest says if you didn't like the debate, blame the consortium that planned it. Not his fault they acted like children.

22:47: That's it. Now we're getting into the hockey metaphors. That's three and a half hours of my life I'm not getting back. Good night.

Hi done need to lurn hinglish

Fagstein — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:11:11 +0000

Seen on a bulletin board at U de M (and submitted by a loyal reader). Coincidence, or suggestion?

UPDATE: The PQ posted a short video on YouTube of Marois's speech. She doesn't mention anything about learning English.

Bun in the sun: a running pun

Fagstein — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:45:45 +0000

For obvious reasons, I always cringe when people make fun of others' family names. This is at constant odds with my job as a headline writer, which half the time involves exactly that.

And yet:

Painchaud: Get it?

Spotted on the Montreal LiveJournal community.

Benevolent dictators, with rules

Fagstein — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:26:15 +0000

The Quebec government is planning a new law that would impose minimum requirements on university boards of directors/governors/regents/Imperial Senate. They include ridiculous things like gender quotas, and things that seem to make sense like requiring community consultation before big decisions.

One of the provisions requires that at least two thirds of the boards' members must come from outside the university and be chosen from the "community"

That sounds great, in theory. Universities are government-funded, so they should belong to the people.

But in practice, there's a major problem with these boards that the law doesn't fail to address: How they are appointed.

Currently, board members are chosen out of applications from the community by a committee set up by the board, who then make recommendations to the board which are then approved by the board.

In other words, these boards are self-appointing. They literally dictate their successors like some sort of monarchy.

Fortunately, the boards of universities (which, in theory, can be overruled by the Quebec government) are benevolent dictators, take their responsibilities seriously and work to better the universities out of a sense of civic responsibility.

But these boards also have a very strange sense of what "community" really means. They're predominantly business elites, CEOs of large corporations and their friends/wives/tennis partners. You won't find many plumbers, community activists or artists here unless they bought their way onto the board with huge donations to the university. Though there's never a formal quid pro quo, the reality is that your chances of being appointed to a university's board are much greater when you've given a substantial amount of money in donations.

This is what the Quebec government has to deal with, this idea of informal shareholders who buy a stake in a university in exchange for a bit of control over it. But the government won't do that because they rely on these donations to offset the huge cuts the government made to education over the past two decades.

All this makes the new law seem a bit silly, don't you think?

Fagstein » Quebec politics

A study into Quebec media

Related Posts

Anglophone séparatissss

Related Posts

Inside Bill 60

Related Posts

C’est quoi le 24 juin? (UPDATED)

Related Posts

Suburbs have too much transit clout

Related Posts

Marois on Gesca’s case

Related Posts

Hey baby, wanna second my motion?

Related Posts

Le français, avant tout

Autre

Pure laine

Jeu de puissance

Priorités

Related Posts

Politicien noir de la télé

Related Posts

Vien, donc

Related Posts

Quebec City goes crashy-crashy Saturday night

Related Posts

Premier’s Job 1: Tree naming

Related Posts

Post-election thoughts

Amir who?

They almost got it wrong

Media analysis

Related Posts

Don’t forget to vote

TV results schedule

Related Posts

Quebec parties’ transit promises

Liberal Party of Quebec

Parti Québécois

Action démocratique du Québec

Québec solidaire

Green Party of Quebec

Related Posts

Why wasn’t the debate broadcast in English?

Related Posts

The Leaders’ debate: By-the-minute boredom

Related Posts

Hi done need to lurn hinglish

Related Posts

Bun in the sun: a running pun

Related Posts

Benevolent dictators, with rules

Related Posts