Home » Political Related

Category Archives: Political Related

Julie Snyder : « Je ne peux plus produire des émissions de télé » (#299)

June 30, 2015 10:47 am / Leave a comment

Ce billet en sera parmi les plus directes que j’ai écrit jusqu’à présent.

Bien qu’on en parle très peu au Québec, il demeure un fait que partout au Canada, nous sommes tous impactés par les ruses politiques de Julie Snyder et son but ultime.  Hier, devant les caméras, elle a pleuré sa maison de production – son « bébé » comme elle a dit – sans jamais démontrer le moindre égard pour les millions de gens ailleurs au Canada et au Québec qui auront bien plus en jeu que le bien-être de sa société.

En effet, nos vies — telles qu’on les connaît — sont en jeu.

Je ne peux simplement me contenter laisser-faire l’ironie, l’hypocrisie et la tromperie que j’ai vue aujourd’hui à la télévision.

Même le TVA 22h d’hier n’y a pas passé plus que 40 secondes sur l’histoire.   40 seconds: À mon avis, c’est bien courte comme « manchette de la soirée » – et peut-être un message en cachette qui pourrait en dit long sur l’avis de l’entourage à Snyder.  Radio-Canada en a parlé plus longtemps au Téléjournal d’hier (après un reportage sur la situation en Grèce), mais d’un œil bien plus critique.

Les réseaux principaux ont fait allusion à ce que je m’apprête de vous dire.   Mais en raison des politiques qui entourent l’affaire, ils étaient bien plus polis et diplomatiques dans leur choix de mots que moi.  Bien qu’ils ne soient pas prêts à prononcer ce qu’ils en pensent vraiment, cela ne m’empêche pas de prononcer mes pensées à moi.

(Voici une version “polie et discrète de Radio Canada qui explique l’affaire des crédits d’impôts et comment ils sont liés à la maison de production de Julie Snyder:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media-7309274/le-fonctionnement-des-credits-dimpot)

————————————————

Hier, Julie Snyder a annoncé qu’elle ne peut plus « produire des productions de télévision pour son entreprise», Productions J. (sans les détails, on n’a aucune idée de ses intentions).

Voici la couverture de LCN sur la conférence de presse de Julie Snyder:  http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/4328615372001/julie-snyder-se-dit-laquoforceeraquo-dabandonner-la-production-demissions-point-de-presse/

Le voici le reportage de LCN sur l’histoire même: http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/4328956566001/julie-snyder-abandonne-la-production-tele-reportage/

Voici l’article écrit de LCN :   http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/artsetspectacles/general/archives/2015/06/20150629-114846.html

Voici l’émission 24/60 à RDI :   Anne-Marie Dusseault était absente aujourd’hui, et on est chanceux que Sébastien Bovet était à la barre de l’émission.  Alors, finalement on a pu voir les bonne questions posées à 24/60 à l’endroit des intentions de Snyder / PKP :  http://www.radio-canada.ca/widgets/mediaconsole/medianet/7309403  (Bravo Sébastien!  Très bonne entrevue.)

Mais attention:  Snyder n’a jamais dit qu’elle « fermerait la boutique! ».

J’ai l’impression qu’elle se réserve pas mal plus de cartes à jouer.

Nous allons à très bientôt découvrir les projets pour son entreprise.   Je ne serais pas étonné de voir plus qu’un lapin sauter de son chapeau.  Peut-être elle va se métamorphoser dans un autre genre d’actionnaire assez créative à la scène de sa société.  Ou peut-être elle donnera pour 1$ vendra la division de télévision de sa société à un « frontman » personnage bien connu afin de s’assurer que son entreprise demeure à l’avant plan aux feux de la rampe nationaliste, et dans « le cœur et l’esprit » du public (malgré tout, si vous êtes une politicienne de facto comme Julie Snyder, à quoi sert-il de détenir une société médiatique si vous ne pouvez pas exercer un control orwellien d’une échelle massive sur gagner le cœur et l’esprit des téléspectateurs?)

Snyder invoque le fait qu’elle est privée des crédits d’impôts gouvernementaux comme raison de ne pas pouvoir continuer produire des productions pour son entreprise (les « crédits d’impôts » est un nom de « fantasie » pour les cadeaux gratuits en forme de subventions gouvernementales).

Sa déclaration pourrait facilement donner l’impression au public que Productions J. n’est plus rentable sans subventions (mais garder à l’esprit que Snyder n’a jamais prononcé le mot « rentable » au cours de son discours.  Alors, je me pose la question si la question de « rentabilité » est la vraie question dans l’équation).

En mars 2015, le gouvernement Couillard coupa les crédits d’impôt pour les sociétés de production qui ne produisent que pour un seul réseau médiatique.  La raison invoquée est qu’une telle société est quasiment une compagnie interne par extension du réseau médiatique qui achète ces productions en question (Productions J. ne produit que pour TVA, tandis que d’autres entreprises de production – telle Fabienne Larouche – produisent pour plusieurs réseaux).

Le système des crédits d’impôts est en place afin de permettre une meilleure rentabilité pour les maisons de production qui doivent éliminer considérablement leurs marges face à leur concurrence, qui tentent eux aussi obtenir les mêmes contrats.

Cependant, si une maison de production ne doit pas livrer concurrence (telle Productions J., qui d’ailleurs est assurée une rentabilité en raison de la promesse d’octroi de contrats par TVA – la société de PKP), on pourrait dire que d’octroyer des subventions à une telle maison de production n’est qu’un gaspillage de fonds des contribuables.

Je vous offre un exemple simple::

Imaginez que vous êtes le/la propriétaire d’une épicerie.  Vous avez une équipe de 8 commis aux caisses qui mettent les produits achetés dans les sacs de plastique pour les clients.

Supposons que l’industrie de “l’emballage” (pas dans les épiceries) a droit aux crédits d’impôts du gouvernement à l’ordre de 14% à 20% sur le montant de leurs dépenses totales et sur leurs revenus.   Le gouvernement donne des “remboursements” car l’industrie de l’emballage est hautement compétitive – au point où les marges (et les chances d’obtenir de nouveaux contrats) sont si minces qu’il est trop facile de faire faillite.

Mais vous, avec votre épicerie, vous n’avez pas besoin d’embaucher une tièrce compagnie d’emballage (aux frais supplémentaires) pour mettre les produits dans les sacs des clients.  Alors l’industrie d’emballage n’a rien à faire avec vous.  Vous avez votre propre équipe de 8 commis (emballeurs).

Pourtant, un jour, vous constatez que si vous détachez, sur papier, votre équipe de 8 emballeurs de votre épicerie — et encore sur papier, si vous faites en sorte que l’équipe devienne sa propre société (à l’intérieur de votre épicerie même), vous aussi, vous pouvez recevoir un rabais gratuit du gouvernement de 14% à 20% sur l’équivalent de la valeur de tous les produits mis dans les sacs en plastique.

Mieux encore, vous auriez l’avantage de ne pas avoir les maux de tête des autres sociétés d’emballage qui doivent faire promener leurs commis ailleurs à la recherche du travail supplémentaire.  Et de plus, vous ne serez pas obligé de faire venir d’autres sociétés d’emballage travailler à l’intérieur de votre épicerie.

Vous demeurez content(e) parce que vous pouvez toujours controler les hausses salariales de votre équipe de commis, et votre équipe de commis demeureront heureux car ils seront toujours payés et n’auront pas a craindre d’être mises à la porte par d’autres travailleurs concurrentiels moins chers.

Bref, la seule chose qui change, c’est que vous, en tant que propriétaire de l’épicerie, reçevez une maudite grande somme d’argent gratuit des contribuables pour n’avoir rien fait — à part une modification sur papier du statut de vos employés.

C’est une situation semblable à qui est en train de déjouer devant nos yeux au petits écrans (sauf que Snyder et sa société se sont jointes à celle de PKP suite à leur rencontre).  La maison de production de Julie Snyder serait l’équipe de 8 commis (la société d’emballage), et vous êtes TVA (l’épicerie).

Puis il y a un hic additionnel:   Vous, le/la propriétaire de l’épicierie, est marié(e) avec le/la chef de l’équipe des commis emballeurs.   Félicitations!  Vous êtes riches, tous les deux!!

Dans de telles circonstances, les subventions ne servent que de remplir les poches de la maison de production plutôt que de la rendre plus rentable face à sa concurrence.  C’est un transfert direct des fonds des contribuables au bilan de l’entreprise.

En mars 2015, le gouvernement Couillard a déclaré que cela suffit.  Il a terminé l’ancien régime de crédit d’impôt aux sociétés qui ne livraient pas concurrence (et à l’heure actuelle, la société à Julie Snyder est la seule au Québec qui fonctionne de cette manière hautement bizarre).

Des restrictions aux subventions devraient exister pour toute société qui conclut un accord de relation exclusive.  Et il va de soi qu’une règle semblable s’appliquerait pour n’importe quelle société qui ne livre pas concurrence, et qui n’est pas exposée aux risques des pertes financières — même s’il n’y avait pas de question à l’égard de la société de Julie Snyder (N’ai-je pas raison?)

Fait peut-être plus intéressant encore; Snyder ne semble pas récolter aucun appuis publique des autres maisons de production.   Hormis un groupe de pression, personne dans l’industrie n’est sorti publiquement pour dire que le gouvernement avait tort (en effet, le premier ministre est allé jusqu’à dire qu’il avait l’appui de l’industrie, qui d’ailleurs se réjoui de sa décision).

Il ne fait aucun bon sens de donner de l’argent à volonté lorsque le récipiendaire ne livre aucune concurrence et n’en a pas besoin.  C’est plus vrai encore lorsque d’autres maisons de production qui livrent concurrence ont réduit leurs offres de contrat (et leur rentabilité), faisant qu’ils ont besoin désespérément des fonds afin de rester concurrentielles.

L’Hypocrisie des revendications à Snyder

Avant février 2014, une maison de production comme celle de Julie Snyder n’avait pas droit aux crédits d’impôts.

Il semble que tout allait bien à la société de Snyder avant février 2014, et ce sans recevoir des crédits d’impôts.  Malgré tout, La Voix et Le Banquier se trouvaient en haut des cotes d’écoute.  Et corrigez-moi si j’ai tort, mais j’avais le sentiment particulier qu’une petite et obscure émission qui s’appellait “Star Académie” aurait connu un certain succès… un tout petit succès.   Est-elle le fruit de mon imagination?

Mais sérieusement, peu après Star Académie, en hiver 2014 est venue l’amie à Julie Snyder Pauline Marois et son gouvernement péquiste.  Dans sa grande générosité, le gouvernement Marois a alloué des crédits d’impôts aux sociétés comme celles de Snyder.  Ce versement a eu lieu tout juste avant que PKP a fait le saut à deux pâtes dans l’arène avec le poing en l’air pour se joindre aux rangs de Marois (la table se dressait).

C’est par pure coïncidence que mon p’tit doigt me dit que les locaux du Parti Québécois se situaient convenablement au bout du même couloir, du même étage, du même édifice qu’occupaient les locaux de Productions J. de Julie Snyder (1200, avenue Papineau – Bureau 160 dans le cas de Snyder, Bureau 150 dans le cas du siège social du Parti Québec… Bon!  Regardez — Ils sont des voisins!  La porte à côté!  Voilà!!  Pourquoi j’ai l’image en tête d’une chambre d’hôtel avec une porte qui s’ouvre à la chambre d’à côté?)

Maintenant, revenons à hier, et Julie Snyder dit qu’elle ne peut plus fonctionner sans ses subventions.  Elle n’offre pourtant aucune explication pourquoi elle n’éprouvait aucune difficulté avant l’entrée en vigueur des subventions il y a 16 mois.

Mais aux fins de son allocution « tragique » d’hier, elle plaidait qu’elle ne pouvait tout simplement pas vivre sans ses subventions (« She could not live without them » — je crois bien qu’il s’agit d’une chanson de Mariah Carey, non?).

I CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT YOU — Mes subventions!!

Dans sa façon habituellement grandiloquente, Snyder a convoqué les caméras du Québec à sa conférence de presse afin de prononcer sa victimisation aux mains odieuses de Philippe Couillard.  Elle proclame la fin de sa carrière comme réalisateur des productions à la télé.

Pendant qu’elle faisait la morale au monde, on apprenait que la vie devait être tellement dur pour une certaine productrice nommée Julie Snyder.  Mais sur une note plus optimiste, on est sorti avec le sentiment que le séparatisme ne poserait aucune inconvenance pour personne!   Non — pour absolument personne – pas une âme.  En effet, la vie post-indépendance sera merveilleuse.  Malgré tout, les efforts de Julie feront qu’on devrait se réjouir à l’idée des familles brisés à travers le pays, d’un peuple brisé, et au fait que nos cœurs seraient arrachés de nos corps encore chauds avant d’être piétinés dans la boue.

Dans une performance digne du mauvais côté du monde du show-biz, pourquoi se contenter d’avoir le projecteur sur soi-même lorsqu’on peut l’arracher de ses adversaires? 

Je le trouve fort intéressant que Snyder ait choisi la journée d’hier pour lancer son cri de rivière souffrante.  Les preuves démontrent à quel point elle est une adepte du show-biz – in extrēmus.

Au début de sa conférence de presse, elle a dû croire le pointage Julie-0, reste du monde (RDM)-1.

Mais il est devenu vite évident qu’elle semblait vouloir régler son compte, et probablement bien plus encore.

  1. Elle a amené une avocate sur scène de sa conférence de presse pour déclarer que Snyder est la victime aux mains des Libéraux provinciaux. Pointage dans sa tête : Julie-1, RDM-1.
  2. Elle a fait venir une deuxième avocate pour dire que Snyder est la victime du sexisme et qu’elle ne se trouverait pas dans une situation semblable si elle était un homme (Vraiment? Sérieusement?  Alors, cela veut dire que PKP est une femme déguisée comme homme?  Car lui aussi, il subit les mêmes pressions de se dessaisir de son empire médiatique).  La carte maîtresse du sexisme qu’elle prétend nous flasher a rapport aux commentaires de François Legault (chef du parti CAQ) qui remontent à novembre 2014 lorsqu’il a appelé Snyder « la femme de l’autre ».  Dans sa tête:  Julie-2, RDM-1.
  3. Elle a décidé tenir sa conférence de presse la même journée que les Libéraux de Couillard annonçaient leur premier grand réinvestissement multi-milliardaire (La stratégie de la voie maritime) suivant la fin des compressions budgétaires de l’année. Snyder semble avoir choisi cette journée-là afin de voler la vedette à Couillard, et de recentrer les feux de la rampe directement sur son visage plein de larmes de crocodile.  Dans sa tête:  Julie-3, RDM-1.
  4. Par pur hasard (ouais), sa conférence de presse se tenait en même temps que l’annonce de la nouvelle plateforme Libéral fédérale sur l’environnement de Justin Trudeau (une que tout le monde attendait depuis longtemps… trop longtemps [et peut-être trop tard]). Encore, l’adepte du jour semble savoir comment jouer les caméras à son avantage.  Il va sans dire que les amis de Snyder au Bloc devaient se réjouir d’une telle tactique.  Dans sa tête:  Julie-4, RDM1.

Mais à la fin de la journée, il est devenu assez évident que Snyder voulait passer le message qu’elle demeure la seule personne au monde lésée.   Malgré tout, elle n’agirait jamais de façon sournoise elle-même (non… jamais — baff!).

J’ai hâte de voir comment elle va “manipuler” le sort de sa société.

Je conclurai par un ou deux conseils pour Julie

Si vous allez, en tant que femme d’affaires, vous engager de façon très publique au jeu très risqué qui joue sur la rupture d’un des meilleurs pays au monde, et la destruction des vies des millions de gens et de familles qui sont profondément attachés les uns aux autres (peu importe leur origines linguistiques), bon, vous devez être prête à subir les grosses bosses et les courbes raides de la chaussée sur laquelle vous vous êtes embarquée.

Et c’est d’autant plus important de faire ce constat si vous vous utilisez de vos affaires pour s’élever au-dessus des autres afin de gagner cœurs et âmes dans cette lutte politique.

La performance d’hier n’était qu’un exercice de marketing afin de marquer des buts politiques et pour recueillir l’appui public.

Tout comme vous voulez créer le pays de vos rêves (pour que vous puissiez se vanter être « la » superstar de votre propre pays à vous), il y a bien plus de gens au Canada (au Canada anglais et au Québec) qui partagent un intérêt très profond à se battre pour la survie de leur pays, et leur famille Francophone-Anglophone qu’on a tous créé ensemble.

Cependant, quand les choses ne se sont pas passées comme vous auriez voulu, pas besoin de brayer que vous êtes la victime des politiques d’amertume lorsque vous avez créé ces politiques vous-même (car si je ne me trompe pas, c’est vous qui avez fait le saut en politique bien avant votre mari).

Août 2012 (18 mois avant le saut en politique de son époux, PKP)

« Comme on fait son lit, on se couche », selon le proverbe connu.

C’est dommage: Les productions de votre maison de production sont d’une grande qualité et me plaisait vraiment avant que vous et votre époux les avez politisé.   Je me sens mal pour tous les merveilleux chanteurs et artistes qui sont entraînés dans le bourbier de vos actions (mais je présume que vous allez continuer opérer le côté musique de votre société comme d’habitude).

—————————————-

ADDENDUM:  2015-06-30

Voici un excellent reportage de RDI avec les chiffres qui vient de confirmer beaucoup de ce que je viens de dire:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media-7309560/mur-video-julie-snyder-abandonne

ADDENDUM MAJEUR QUI CONFIRME JUSTEMMENT CE QUE J’AVAIS PRÉDIS ALLAIT ARRIVER: 2015-07-13

Bon, regarder ce qui viens d’arriver…

Pour un montant “secret” ($1??), Julie viens de vendre l’aspect télévision de Productions J à son ami et ancien collaborateur, Benoît Clermont.  Clermont va continuer produire les mêmes émissions de Productions J (La Voix, etc.).

Il aurait du être très bien payé ces quelques dernières années afin de pouvoir acheter une telle société pour une valeur juste.  Mais tout ce gang refuse d’en parler aux médias, alors nous sommes dans le noir quant à tout sujet qui touche cette transaction.

Intéressant.

Advertisement

Julie Snyder’s statement today stating she can no longer run her production company – with MAJOR addendum at the bottom (#298)

June 29, 2015 7:40 pm / Leave a comment

This is going to be one of the most direct posts I have written.  I simply cannot let the irony, hypocrisy and sneakiness of what I saw today go by the wayside.   The major news networks have politely alluded to what I am about to say.  But because of the politics involved, they have been too polite and too tactful to use straight talk to call out what they too are seeing.  So if they’re not going to do it, then I will.

(Radio Canada’s “polite & tactful” attempt to explain the whole tax credit humdrum:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media-7309274/le-fonctionnement-des-credits-dimpot)

————————————————

Julie Snyder announced today that she can “no longer make television productions” at her production company, Productions J.  (Whatever that means???)

Here is the 24-hour news channel LCN link to Julie Snyder’s news conference:  http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/4328615372001/julie-snyder-se-dit-laquoforceeraquo-dabandonner-la-production-demissions-point-de-presse/

Here is the LCN video news story on the event:  http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/4328956566001/julie-snyder-abandonne-la-production-tele-reportage/

Here is the LCN written story on the event:  http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/artsetspectacles/general/archives/2015/06/20150629-114846.html

Careful though.   She has not stated she is “closing shop”.

We will soon find out what her plans are for her company.  I am sure they will be interesting.  Perhaps she will morph herself into some other type of shareholder in her company.  Perhaps she will sell it to a high profile individual to ensure the production company remains front-and-centre in the nationalist limelight, and in the “hearts and souls” of the public (after all, if you’re a de facto politician like Julie Snyder, what is the good of holding a media company if you cannot Orwellingly control on a massive scale capture the hearts and minds of viewers).

Snyder’s states her reason is that she is no longer able to operate her company owing to being shut out of government tax credits (a fancy name for free government handouts… otherwise known as a subsidy).

This could quite easily leave the public with the impression that Productions J. can no longer be profitable without subsidies (although note she has quite interestingly avoided using the word “profitable”, so I’m left to wonder if profits are truly an issue here).

In March, 2015, the Couillard government eliminated tax credits for production companies whose productions are purchased by only one media outlet and for those who are not at arms length from their main clients (by way of family relations).  The reason was that such production companies are basically in-house extensions of the purchasing company (Productions J. produced only for TVA, whereas other production companies – such as Fabienne Larouche – produced for various networks).

Let me give you a perfect example:

Imagine you own a grocery store which employs “baggers” to bag groceries.  Now imagine that competing “packaging companies” are entitled to a 14-20% government rebate on their overall expenses (including salaries) so as to compete better against other companies in the packaging industry.   But you, as a grocery store owner, come up with the wild idea that if you spin off your team of 6 grocery baggers as a separate company, operating within your grocery store, the government will give you the equivalent of 14-20% on the total value of the groceries being bagged, and 14-20% of your salary expenses.

And better yet, you don’t have to open yourself up to any competition from other grocery baggers.   What a gift from heaven; free taxpayers money and you don’t have to do anything to get it.   That’s a similar situation to the one we’re looking at with Julie Snyder’s production company (the bagging company) and her relationship with TVA (the grocery store).

Tax credits are in place to allow production companies to be more competitive when competing against each other to obtain production contracts.

However, if a company is guaranteed to get a contract (and full profitable payment) under an exclusive arrangement (such as that which appeared to exist between Productions J. and Julie’s de facto spouse’s company, TVA), then it could be argued that the tax credits were useless, and a waste of tax payers money.

Under such circumstances, subsidies only serve to make money for the production company, by transferring taxpayer’s money directly into the company’s balance sheet.

In March, 2015, the Couillard government declared enough was enough, and ended such a tax credit scheme.

Subsidy restrictions should be in place for any production company which is in an exclusive relationship, even if Julie Snyder did not own a production company (am I wrong?).

I do not see a plethora of other production companies in Québec coming to the defense of Julie Snyder or saying the government is wrong (in fact, the premier went so far as to say that the entire productions industry has been rejoicing at the rebalancing of the tax credits).

Giving production companies free money when they do not need to compete against other companies does not make sense.  Especially when other companies desperately need the funds – considering that they have to lower their production bids (and profitability) in order to compete and secure business.

The hypocrisy in Julie’s claims

Before February, 2014, a production company like Julie Snyder’s was not entitled to such tax credits.

Julie Snyder was apparently doing just fine before February 2014, even without the tax credits (La Voix and Le Banquier were at the height of television ratings.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but was Star Académie not just a teeny-weeny little bit of a success?  Just a little?).

But then came along Julie Snyder’s friend Pauline Marois and the PQ government in the winter of 2014.  Marois’ government graciously doled out the tax credits to companies like Julie’s.  This occurred just before hubby (PKP) jumped into the arena with both feet, and a fist in the air, to join Marois’ plan for the world (it looks like the table was being set).

Coincidentally, I am told that Marois’ party headquarters were conveniently down the hall, on the same floor of the same office building in which Productions J. was located.

But now Julie says she can’t operate without the subsidies.  She offers no explanation why she could operate without them year-after-year until only 16 months ago.  But for the purposes of her heart-tugging plea to the public today, she pleaded that she simply can’t live without them (sounds like a Mariah Carey song).

In grand style today, Julie summoned Québec’s cameras to her press conference so she could tell the world that she is a victim of Philippe Couillard’s heinous tactics.  She claims that her professional life as a producer has come to an end.

Life apparently is very rough.  And if you’re Julie Snyder, it is apparently very, very rough (but hey… separatism won’t be rough for anyone!  Nope – not a soul.  Life will be marvelous for us all.  After all, we rejoice in broken families, a broken people, and having all of our hearts ripped out and trampled on).

In real show-biz sensational style, why would you steal the limelight for only yourself when you could wrestle it away from your foes at the same time?

Snyder’s choice of day on which to cry us a river is even more interesting.   She certainly has proven to be quite a show-biz officiado – in extrēmus.

At the start of the press conference, the score was Julie-0, rest of the world (ROW)-1.   But it looks like she had every intention to settle that score, and then some.

  1. During the press conference, she brought a lawyer on stage to say she is a victim of the provincial Liberals. This is an apparent attempted score against the Liberals. (Julie 1, ROW-1)
  2. She had another lawyer on the other side of her saying Snyder is the victim of sexism and none of this would be happening if she were a man (Really? Does that mean PKP is a woman disguised as a man?  After all, he is under the same pressure to divest himself of his own media empire).  The “sexist” card she is pulling relates to a joke the CAQ leader made many months ago.  This is an apparent attempted score against the CAQ.  (Julie 2, ROW-1)
  3. She held her press conference on the same day that the Couillard Liberals were making their first major multi-billion re-investment announcement to create jobs – the Québec maritime strategy. Julie’s chosen day looks like an apparent attempt to one-up the Liberals by taking the cameras off them, and to squarely refocus the lenses on poor, suffering Julie.  (Julie-3, ROW-1)
  4. Her press conference was also held on the same day as the Trudeau Federal Liberal’s environmental platform announcement (environmental matters are very close to the hearts of many Québecois). Again, it appears to be Julie’s attempt to take away the attention the Federal Liberal’s announcement would garner in same-day headlines.   Interestingly, Julie’s friends in the Bloc (foes of the Federal Liberals) directly benefit from such a move.  (Julie-4, ROW-1)

But at the end of the day, apparently Julie is the only person hard done by in this world.  After all, she would never do anything sneaky herself.

I can’t wait to see how she “crafts” the fate of her company.

Some last thoughts for Julie

If you, as a business person, are going to very publicly enter politics in such a high-stakes game of ruining and tearing apart one of the finest countries in the world, and the lives of millions of people who desperately care for each other (regardless of which side of the linguistic line they fall), then you better be ready to ride a good number of sharp bumps in the road – Especially if your business is one in which you intend to use to elevate your status so as to win hearts and minds.

I view today’s performance as a move to mark political points and garner public sympathy.

Just as you are fighting for a new country… there are way more people in Canada (both in Anglophone Canada and in Québec) who have a deep emotional interest in fighting with full hearts to keep their Francophone-Anglophone family together.

When things don’t go your way, don’t cry a river to say you’re a victim of politics when you created the politics yourself (I believe you stepped into the political arena before your husband did).

If you make your bed, get ready to lie in it.

—————————————————

If you perhaps are not in the know, here is an earlier post I wrote explaining who is Julie Snyder —  Her background from media-personality to present-day de facto politician:  Click here for post #263

—————————————-

ADDENDUM:  2015-06-30

Here is an excellent report from RDI (in French) with the numbers to support much of what I just stated above:  http://ici.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media-7309560/mur-video-julie-snyder-abandonne

MAJOR ADDENDUM CONFIRMING EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICTED WOULD HAPPEN:  2015-07-13

Gee, guess what happened…

Julie, for a “secret” amount ($1??) sold Productions J to her friend / VP, Benoît Clermont.  Cermont will continue to make the same ‘ole, same ‘old TV productions (La Voix, etc.).

Wow, he must have been very well paid all these years to be able to buy Productions J outright.   But he won’t talk to the media, so we know nothing about the “transaction” (and likely never will).

Interesting.

ADDENDUM:  2015-08-16

As of last Friday, rumour has it that Julie will be heading back to the TV studios and will once again take the limelight as the host of Le Banquier.

Sale of Productions J = Didn’t end up cutting the umbilical cord in the end anyway (leave it to Julie to find a way around it).

Star-cum-politician = roadmap to her ultimate goal, regardless?  Quoi de neuf !?!

Conditioning: Daily examples of “an Incomplete picture” – post B (#286)

June 4, 2015 5:38 pm / Leave a comment

I can give you additional examples of how historic societal conditioning has influenced how we relate to our country.

In this post I am again going to lean a bit heavier on Francophone perspectives – simply because most of this blog already deals with helping Anglophones to see what aspects of Canada their own partial conditioning has perhaps them from being aware of.

A couple of post ago, I gave an example of conditioning from one of the better produced and conducted French-language radio interview programs, Radio-Canada’s Desautels le dimanche.  I believe this program is one of the most objective and probing interview radio programs in Québec.  But even with this status, it too and its guests are not immune from conditioning.

Using a similar program as an example, a few weeks ago the program “Faut pas croire tout ce qu’on dit” interviewed a number of people who were talking and debating about one of Québec’s hot topics in 2014/2015:

  • The question was “How to “de-radicalize violent tendencies towards violence” or prevent “violent religious radicalization” of Canadian youth and citizens, all in the context of world jihadist movements?”

The issue stems from too high of numbers of Canadian youth

  • having gone to fight in Syria alongside ISIS, or
  • who were stopped from going to fight in Syria, or
  • who have attempted to / succeeded in implementing violent acts in Canada based on violent religious radicalization.

Other high-profile interview and debating television programs have also featured this same topic many times over the past 18 months.  These programs include well-known programs such as Le Club des ex (on RDI), TLMEP (on Rad-Can), 24/60 (Rad-Can), Mario Dumont (LCN).  The debate has been brought up numerous times in the National Assembly of Québec, and is constantly tossed around by very “passionate” columnists in all newspapers.

The argument and debate in Québec has mostly revolved around two questions:

  • What measures should Québec explore and use to deal with this issue?
  • What measures is Québec taking versus those which “Ottawa” is not taking, or which do not work when taken by Ottawa?

This has been made into one of many of Québec’s election issues (federally, and provincially in by-elections).  It is one being which is used by opposition parties to garner better polling results in Québec.

Yet, I yet have once to hear anyone ask, in any of Québec’s high-profile public platforms, “How have other provinces been dealing with this issue?”, or “What has happened in other provinces which we can learn from in Québec?”

Rather, Québec’s high-profile public platforms seem to have fallen victims of incomplete conditioning regarding the above two questions.  Media or political platforms seem to be oblivious to the fact that:

  1. These are issues which other provinces across Canada have been dealing with longer than Québec,
  2. Other provinces have already taken measures to counteract “violent religious deradicalization”,
  3. There appears to be results from initiatives taken in other provinces (either at an intervention, education, community, and religious level),
  4. That Ottawa is not the only “platform” with which Québec should compare its own efforts or goals on these issues,
  5. That Ottawa’s jurisdiction (and abilities) in this matter can be much different from those of the provinces, and thus the “obsession” with which Québec’s high-profile public platforms use Ottawa as a point of comparison are perhaps grossly misplaced.

You may recall the “wave” of jihadist adherents from Calgary (Alberta) who went to fight in Syria quite some time ago.  You may remember the Via Rail bomb plots in Toronto (Ontario).  Yet, mysteriously, when Québec’s public platforms talk of similar issues in Québec, why is it that other provinces’ experiences and “deradicalization initiatives” are not brought up?  It is as if they never existed and that any “jihadist radicalization” issues are unique to Québec.

I believe the answer is that Québec’s public platforms of discussion have fallen into a narrow conditioning trap..  As with these issues, Québec’s platforms often approach other important matters from a rather narrow, introspective and Québec-centric approach.  It creates a false “expectation” on the part of Québec’s public platforms that Québec is unique, isolated and at odds with and from whatever else may be happening elsewhere in Canada.   This stem from much of our recent history (which I covered in previous posts in this series on conditioning).

Yet, this disconnect with what is happening in Canada is artificial and should not be promoted.  Other provinces have been dealing with these same issues — all within the same legal, societal and political frameworks as Québec.  A few provinces have vital experiences they could share with Québec on this front, and there is evidence their efforts have had an effect (hence, note the drastic drop-off in the last 6 to 12 months of such incidents occurring in provinces outside Québec).

Yet, such incomplete conditioning (ie: misplaced expectations and exposure) on the part of Québec’s public platforms and forums risks a dangerous side effect of allowing segments of Québec’s population into believing they are isolated, unique, and at odds with their compatriots elsewhere in Canada.

It is a conditioning trend which is frustrating, to say the least.   Furthermore, language barriers does not help either.

Language barriers prevent much of Canada’s high-profile Anglophone media, political figures and societal experts   from being able to partake in, and cross-communicate with French-language media forums.  It does not allow people in Québec to see their same daily and societal issues of importance are also being shared across Canada.

A lack of bilingualism (on the part of Anglophones) and ignorant disinterest (on the part of Québec’s public forums) does not help one bit.  A lack of Anglophone participation in Québec’s media circles perpetuates the notion of the Two Solitudes.

Both sides need to make efforts.

I’ll have more examples in upcoming posts.

SERIES:  HOW THE PRESENTATION OF EVENTS IN MODERN HISTORY WHICH HAVE CONDITIONED US ALL REGARDING HOW WE VIEW OUR PLACE IN CANADA (13 POSTS)

Conditioning: A few words regarding the death of Jacques Parizeau (#285)

June 2, 2015 5:13 pm / Leave a comment

A short word on today’s passing of Jacques Parizeau.

This will be quite an unexpected lesson in conditioning (the subject of the current series of several posts) – one which was not planned and is completely by chance owing to today’s sudden announcement of Mr. Parizeau’s passing.

Although controversial, Jacques Parizeau was a man of incredible vision and one of the most influential people in not only Québec’s modern history, but also Canada’s modern history.

The book “Jacques Parizeau, un bâtisseur”, by Laurence Richard, was the first biography I ever read (in the early 1990s, strangely enough when I was in was about 14 or 15 years old).

During his time as Premier, it was quite apparent to most people that he had one goal. He had the integrity to head straight for that goal as fast as possible — No detours, no hesitation. It was understood that the any pieces and “collateral damage” resulting from that goal could be dealt with after. Regardless if people agreed or not with his approach or end goal, people knew where he stood, and were invited to take it or leave it. In 1995, people left it.

Mr. Parizeau was generally upfront in this sense (as upfront as he could be considering he had to form and maintain coalitions with others who were more hesitant), and he deserves everyone’s respect for having the integrity to let it be known where he stood on issues under such circumstances.

It is a lesson all politicians from all political stripes can learn from.

How this fits into conditioning:

As a builder of government institutions during Quebec’s Quiet Revolution, he achieved more in his time as a cabinet minister during René Levesque’s government than what several ministers achieve in the course of a few governments.   He embarked on a wide range of industry nationalizations, the setting up of sovereign investment and pension funds, and other government institutions – many of which have since been copied across Canada – provincially coast to coast, or federally.

I always thought that had Mr. Parizeau been federalist, and had he sought to change the federation, the country in its entirety would have achieved heights never before conceived of.  However, history made it so he assumed a different role.

Yet his role as a builder of Québec’s fundamental institutions, and the values which have ensued from those institutions have undoubtedly had a spill over imbued effect into Canada’s overall collective psyche (one region of the country invariably and eventually affects other parts of the country).

In a strange twist of fate, Parizeau’s role as a “builder of modern Québec” has made him a builder of Québec’s modern psyche and society — and through the spill-over affect, of Canada’s modern psyche and society also (which heavily revolves around our highly province-to-province integrated collective welfare & social systems, economic and political systems, and societal expectations).  Thus, Mr. Parizeau has indirectly (and probably quite unknowingly) played a role in bringing Québec’s and English Canada’s collective psyches and societies closer in line than any time before.

He likely thought that Québec would have achieved independence decades ago before such a phenomenon could have ever occurred.

In this sense, a little bit of Jacques Parizeau will always be with all of us, regardless if you are Anglophone, Francophone, or regardless if you are from Vancouver, Saskatoon, Yarmouth or Hamilton.  We have all be impacted in some way by Parizeau’s society-building efforts.

Yet neither Anglophone patriotic conditioning, nor Francophone nationalist conditioning has him seen in this also equally valid light.

SERIES:  HOW THE PRESENTATION OF EVENTS IN MODERN HISTORY WHICH HAVE CONDITIONED US ALL REGARDING HOW WE VIEW OUR PLACE IN CANADA (13 POSTS)

Conditioning: What happened after the Estates General? (#281)

May 29, 2015 6:14 pm / Leave a comment

In the last post, I discussed the circumstances surrounding the failure and collapse of the Estates-General of French Canada.  Despite its failure, there were still many people across Canada (both Anglophones and Francophones) who believed that progress could be made in the absence of the weight and momentum which would have come from the Estates-General — despite the betrayal and non-participation of Québec’s delegates.

A quick reminder that I am presenting events from the point of view of how Canada’s Francophones outside Québec tend to often view Canada’s recent history.  It is a version which places extra weight on the failure of the the “Estates-General of French Canada” (Les États généraux du Canada français” as being one of the root causes for other constitutional events snowballing over the past 40 years.  It’s a very poignant and powerful version of our recent history, and thus I believe it is beneficial to also view things from this vantage point.

Trudeau’s first attempt at a solution:

The Bi-Bi Commission made four major recommendations to the Federal government (in addition to other recommendations which touched upon various levels of jurisdiction).  There were nuances to each of the recommendations, but notwithstanding the nuances, the four major recommendations were:

  • The creation of bilingual districts in certain areas of Canada,
  • The creation of Francophone education rights in areas of Canada where there were needed,
  • That French and English become official languages of Canada,
  • That Ottawa be declared bilingual.

Prior to the collapse of the Estates-General, there were perceived signs of a softening by several provinces towards increasing Francophone and bilingual services.  However, in the wake of the collapse of the Estates-General and the pressure it would have brought to the table, Anglophone provincial governments were no longer so inclined to act of their own (in a sense, they too were “flipped the same bird” that Francophones outside Québec were “flipped” – so hey, what do you expect).

In the early 1970’s, the task was mostly left to the Federal government to take action alone, but their jurisdiction only reached so far (compared to the Federal government, the provinces held jurisdiction over many more matters which touched the daily lives of its citizens and Francophones across Canada).

The new Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, did what he could within his power, but he could only deal with what was within the Federal government’s jurisdiction.   He introduced greater bilingualism within the Federal government, and sought to protect Francophone rights across Canada at a Federal level.

However, with Trudeau having seen what happened with the collapse of the Estates-General, I would not be surprised if he felt as betrayed and as bitter as everyone else across Canada who expected a successful outcome of the Estates-General.   As Prime Minister, Trudeau was now facing difficult choices.

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (the Bi-Bi Commission) was initially advocating for a bi-cultural country… one in which new immigrants would integrate into Canada’s two linguistic cultures (in some people’s minds, had the Estates-General succeeded, pressure from the outcome of the Bi-Bi Commission could have led to spin-off changes as dramatic as immigrants in places like Saskatchewan having to take English and French lessons, and even being compelled to pass French and English exams to obtain permanent residency or citizenship).

Eventually, it was possible that new segments of Anglophones also would have had to have adjusted to a new bilingual and bi-cultural reality (over a break-in period of a couple of decades or course).  One area being discussed was perhaps having to achieve a certain level of French prior to gaining a university diploma, or to be granted certain professional licenses.  Anglophone companies may have been required to have a core number of bilingual employees in order to secure federal incorporation status (Federal incorporation is necessary for any incorporated business which wishes to operate beyond their home province).   All of this would have made Canada a very different country than it is today.   To a major extent, it would have involved provincial governments in a whole new way.

Some of the above views may have been overly optimistic.  But had the Estates-General succeeded, there could have been a concerted, long-term movement in this direction all across Canada.

However, considering that Québec drew a line in the sand out of self-interest, I personally believe it led Pierre Trudeau to become fearful that accentuating that line, possibly by adopting an official policy of bi-culturalism, could increase the possibility for future betrayals – perhaps the kind which could tear the country apart in one fell swoop.

Thus, Trudeau did introduce a culturalism policy… but it was not bi-culturalism.   It was multiculturalism.   One of the people involved in the Bi-Bi Commission, Jaroslav Bohdan Rudnyckyj (of Ukrainian Cultural descent) advocated for multiculturalism.  But I’m inclined to think that perhaps in Trudeau’s mind, multiculturalism served as much a tool to ensure that no single linguistic or cultural group could ever “highjack” the country again, as it did as a nation-building tool for accommodations in a country becoming increasingly diverse.

And the 1970’s roared on:

In the meantime, nationalism in Québec soared during the 1970s.   It was actually quite ironic.   On one hand, war-cries were heard coming from Québec that sovereignty was necessary because Canada was not changing.  But on the other hand, much of what could have changed in Canada was killed by Québec’s own delegates during the Estates-General.  What could have been the most likely engine for change across Canada over the coming 3 to 4 decades was blasted to smithereens by the actions of Québec’s delegates.

As a side note:  Having grown up to a great extent in French in Alberta, I can attest to the fact that to this very day, there are Francophones outside of Québec and across Canada who remain bitter over what they perceive as having been betrayed and stabbed in the back by Québec’s delegates in 1967.   Thus it should come as no surprise that the reasons invoked to support the sovereignty movement in Québec are viewed as pure hypocrisy on the part of many Francophones outside Québec.

The 1970’s nationalist movement in Québec served to build arbitrary mental walls around Québec’s borders.   It created a “them and us” attitude at a time when grassroot movements outside Québec were trying to break beyond that notion.

This wall building exercise would have a conditioning effect on Québec’s people which continues to be felt today.

Trudeau’s job became more and more difficult.  I do not know if he made right or wrong decisions.  I do have thoughts regarding some of his decisions, but I have a difficult time concluding if my opinions are correct or not in light of the situations of the day (Should have Trudeau he chosen a different direction?  Did he go too far with some of his decisions?  Did he not go far enough on the socio-linguist front?  I truly do not know…).

But I am pretty sure Trudeau was between a rock and a hard place.  Either way, any decision he made would have left someone upset or disappointed (sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other).

Despite any errors he made, and despite if I or any others do or do not agree with his actions and decisions, he likely was acting in good faith considering the disappointing and “hand-tying” actions which came out of the Estates-General.   Had the Estates-General advocated as one strong voice for change from sea-to-sea, Trudeau’s job could have been much easier.  With the federal government in his pocket and the support of the Estates-General, it would have given him the ammunition and moral justification needed to go to all of the provinces to say “Fix this! Because I stand behind our people, coast-to-coast”.  But that opportunity was taken away from him in 1967, and from all others across Canada who wanted to fix Canada’s linguistic inequalities in the 1970s.

Instead, Trudeau was left fighting a referendum in 1980, during which ultra-nationalists were asking Québécois to leave Canada because Canada was not changing (do you too see the irony?).

The story does not stop here.  Numerous other events occurred after the 1980 referendum which provide background to today’s societal conditioning.

SERIES:  HOW THE PRESENTATION OF EVENTS IN MODERN HISTORY WHICH HAVE CONDITIONED US ALL REGARDING HOW WE VIEW OUR PLACE IN CANADA (13 POSTS)

Post navigation

← Older posts