FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Why Performance Pay Doesn’t Work in the Public Service

Recently, both federal administrations in Canada and the U.S. have reintroduced plans to implement merit-based pay systems in the public service. Every few years, discussions about the introduction of a more performance-based pay system for public servants surface. This year is no different. From past experiences the problem is that, for the non-executive groups in particular, the implementation of such pay systems doesn’t work very well — if at all!

In the U.S., the Partnership for Public Service has proposed a plan to introduce a federal pay system that would compensate workers at a level on par with their cohorts in the private sector, with extra pay for only those who perform above expectations. Federal-worker unions have opposed the plan, saying the current pay system has served the nation well. The government has experimented with pay-for-performance programs in the past, particularly with the Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System, which Congress canceled in 2009. According to unions and other federal-worker groups, that program failed in part because employees did not trust that it would work fairly.

In Canada, the federal Treasury Board, which oversees pay structures for federal departments, recently introduced pay-for-performance programs for the non-executive categories of public servants. However, federal unions are challenging the Conservative government’s new performance management regime, touted as a “new beginning”. The government claims it will make Canada’s public servants more productive and efficient while weeding out poor performers. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed a policy grievance on behalf of 17 unions against key provisions of employees’ new mandatory performance agreements, saying these violate collective agreements. The unions are also concerned that the performance appraisal approach is unfair, biased and flawed, often depending on the personal relationship between managers and departmental staff.

Proposing performance-based compensation systems to bring the public sector into line with private sector approaches is like comparing eggs and apples. So much of what the public service does is in immediate response to the policies and politics of the government of the day. This more-or-less precludes any reference to a genuine “bottom line” when assessing results and achievements in meeting organizational objectives. This leaves managers with a need to simply assess employees’ contributions to meeting daily operational activities and their ability to effectively adjust to the whims of one’s political masters. Even measuring short-term efficiencies can be tricky, if not impossible, under such circumstances. Measuring long-term effectiveness is even more difficult given the ever present winds of political change.

Setting up a valid and legitimate merit-based appraisal system is the first and foremost ingredient for any potential success. Ensuring that managers are adequately trained in order to respect and maintain such a system on a continuing basis is the next most important requirement. Finally, the system’s development and implementation has to involve consultations with those employees who are directly affected, otherwise there can be no employee buy-in. Without these three key elements, any performance-based approach will result in an inequitable and fraudulent compensation system. What the stressed-out pubic service doesn’t need right now is another claim to disrepute!

Leave a comment »

Can Putin Be Stopped in Crimea’s Annexation ? Not Really!

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s newly self-proclaimed master strategist, must be having a pretty good chuckle right about now. With the annexation of Crimea a fait-accompli and thousands of Russian military firmly entrenched within its boundaries, there is little that the West can do but espouse a bunch of nice sounding platitudes. So much for diplomacy!

With over a million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada is making as much political hay as possible with his recent touch-down-and-jet-off visit to Ukraine. Moreover, Canada has as much influence with the Russians as it does with the Chinese, if not far less. Even though such comparisons may make good press back home, let’s stop comparing Putin to Hitler.

Meanwhile, President Barak Obama can only cautiously back any European response to the Ukrainian situation. As usual, his speeches back home have been very carefully orchestrated. Any talk of further sanctions against Russia is viewed by most as being minimalist, if not farcical. The President is well aware that the G-7, the European Union and NATO are only in a position to take small countervailing measures in response to Russian actions. Military intervention has already been ruled out, and economic sanctions can only go so far.

As for Prime Minister Harper, he needs to lay off the vague threats and rhetoric. As one Canadian journalist wrote, he’s becoming the “butt of Putin’s sick joke”. Even the long-term Russian Ambassador to Canada mused openly as to why Harper was so keen to visit Kyiv at this particular time. Especially since the international community is still trying to grapple with how best to react to Putin’s strategic manoeuvring.

To achieve a long-term solution, the two immediate belligerents have to resolve the current situation themselves. Firstly, the interim Ukrainian government has to get its act together and hold elections to establish a credible and legitimate government. Next, the new government has to urgently sit down with Putin and work out some realistic working arrangements, while ensuring the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the rest of Ukraine. The best that Ukraine can do is recognize that Crimea is now part of Russia and ensure that the remaining Ukrainians in Crimea are protected by Russian authorities.

Leave a comment »

What’s Going On With All That Snail Mail?

Well, it looks as if the time has come once again to replace the horse and buggy with the horseless carriage. Yes, what we’re talking about is the ongoing debate over the viability of postal services in Canada and the U.S. Both postal services are loosing significant amounts of money with so-called ‘snail mail’, and need to reduce their costs and increase revenue sources. They are billions of dollars in the red, and the federal governments apparently are not interested in intervening to save their butts. Governments claim that they have enough on their plates with current deficits and the ubiquitous desire to balance their books.

In Canada, over the next five years Canada Post is planning to cut door-to-door delivery where it currently exists in favour of the use of more community postal boxes. In addition, there will be about 8,000 fewer postal positions by the end of this period. In the U.S., talks have evolved around discontinuing Saturday postal deliveries and reducing the number of outlets in communities. Of course, the cost of postage stamps keeps climbing in both countries!

The removal of direct postal delivery has raised the ire of some citizens, although community postal boxes have been around for some time now. It is argued that seniors and persons with disabilities will find it especially difficult to get to such boxes to pick up their mail. Indeed, for many seniors and persons with disabilities the loss of mail delivery is a major concern, particularly as these persons most likely rely heavily on this service. Given this winter’s severe weather, I can certainly understand their reluctance or inability to leave their homes. Some kind of alternative ways of picking up their mail will have to be worked out, either through volunteers or other subsidized means.

Let’s face it, in some communities the postal service is the most direct way in which the federal government communicates with its citizens. Not everyone has access to the Internet, can afford it or wishes to have access to it. For this reason, politicians are going to have to deal with these issues. Already, municipalities, local community bodies, businesses and charities are expressing their concerns over what impact the reduction in regular door-to-door mail delivery will have on them. Up until now, the debate has narrowly centered on the bottom line of the postal service and how to improve competition with private delivery services.

However, now is the time for a much broader and in-depth discussion as to the consequences of such policies for our citizens, especially at the community level. Such decisions are far too important as to not include much more debate at the federal political level. As an essential national service, there still is a need to explore all possible alternatives. In turn, the rationale for any resulting policies must then be clearly explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Otherwise, there could be the danger of a citizen revolt and countless actions against the postal services. It may be snail mail, but its delivery is still important to many individuals and communities through rain, snow, wind or hail.

Leave a comment »

Keystone XL – Pipe Dream or Nightmare for Canadian and American Politicians

Well, it appears that the proposal for the Keystone XL pipeline has finally passed at least one of its biggest hurdles. In its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the U.S. Department of State concluded that completing the pipeline’s northern leg would not have a major impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, this statement still doesn’t guarantee that the pipeline, facilitating the north-south movement of Canadian heavy crude over 4,000 miles across North America, will receive final approval from Washington. As events have shown, there has been a fundamental confusion in the Obama administration’s policy approach to Keystone from the very beginning. Given environmentalists’ opposition and some emerging legal challenges, President Obama may yet choose to take his merry time to decide on whether to allow the pipeline’s construction.

One thing is for sure, whether the Keystone XL pipeline is built or not, the development of the Alberta “oilsands” will continue. Too much has been invested to date to stop the flow and transport of its so-called dirty heavy crude. Indeed, North American railroads have been taking up a good deal of the slack, much to the dismay of communities located along their tracks and a real fear of future derailments of oil-hauling trains. The cry of “remember Lac Megantic” goes up and rightly so.

In addition, the Americans don’t appear to be in any hurry to bless such endeavours given the vast amounts of oil now coming out of American ground. The U.S. has become fairly energy self-sufficient in oil and natural gas supplies due to “fracking” technologies. Indeed, record U.S. oil production, which rose by 992,000 barrels per day in 2013, more than cancels out the amount of oilsands bitumen that the pipeline would transport to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. However, experts estimate that within the next 15 years the U.S. will still have to import about 30% of its daily oil requirements. This compares to only a few years ago when Americans were looking at importing 70% of their needs. Having ready access to Canadian heavy crude oil could provide one distinct advantage with respect to ensuring American national security. If all of that 30% were to come from Canada, future “energy independence” would most likely encompass an entire continent. No more need to rely on Arab oil imports.

However, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have dropped the ball on this file. Refusing to take “no” for an answer, the PM even gave hints of a threat to divert the heavy crude to China via a new pipeline to the Pacific coast. The mighty Chinese already have a very small but important stake in oilsands development. Sorry, but trying to bully the American President into quickly approving such a project is probably not a good strategy! Demonstrating that the Canadian and Albertan governments are really serious about dealing with the problem of carbon pollution may have been more advantageous and useful. Furthermore, TransCanada and the other pipeline companies will have to better demonstrate their capacity to minimize any environmental and economic damage from potential pipeline leaks — and inevitably there will be more such leaks.

In the meantime, numerous American industry associations and environmentalists continue to battle it out to convince the Obama administration and Congress as to the merit of their respective positions. All the Canadian administration can do is sit awkwardly on the sidelines, patiently wait and see what will happen. Who knows, Canada’s pipe dream scenario may yet become its worst nightmare!

Leave a comment »

New Year and Crazy Politics to Look Forward To

Well. A new year has arrived and with it the certainty that politicians in the U.S. and Canada will provide us with plenty of entertainment — no matter how painful. Once again, one is starting off the year with new scandals, thanks largely to Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and what is now being called “Bridgegate”. Apparently, four days of George Washington Bridge delays in September were allegedly caused on purpose by Governor Christie’s office in order to punish a local Democratic Party mayor. In addition, questions are being raised about how the good Governor had directed some of the federal recovery funds in aid of the victims and extensive damage resulting from Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey Lt.-Gov. Kim Guadagno strongly denied that Christie’s administration had tied Superstorm Sandy recovery funds to support for a prime real estate project in Hoboken. However, Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer ratcheted up her allegation about the funding link and apparently has turned over documents to a federal prosecutor investigating his staff. Remember, Governor Christie was expected to be a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination for 2015. Maybe not so much anymore?

Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is still going to have to deal with a number of Senate spending scandals — some of which are currently under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). With federal elections coming up in October 2015, it will be very interesting to see just how long it will take for the RCMP to proceed with any potential criminal charges? In the meantime, the current government’s standing in the polls is going down. It appears that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been making headway with average Canadian voters, despite his apparent inexperience and having misspoken a number of times. Given the Liberal Party’s position in support of the legalization of marijuana (alias pot, Weed, reaper, Mary Jane, food, ganja, kush), I’d certainly vote for his party! Think of all the revenue one could raise. It may even help some people cope better with what’s going on!

Then we have President Obama telling us how we all need “Big Brother” to oversee your interests, whatever those may be. If the American spy agency is reading this, please note that I love spy movies. As your neighbour, I love Americans and would never walk on your manicured lawns without your permission and for fear of being shot. Carry on Mr. President and please let us know how it all works out in the name of national security.

I can’t wait to see what the coming year has in store for us. More of the same I trust. Meanwhile, keep smiling and enjoy the rollercoaster ride. Happy New Year!!!!!

Leave a comment »

Canada’s Arms Trade and Unequal Balance Between Making a Buck and Human Rights

Lately I’ve been reading about Canada’s desire to increase its arms trade with developing countries — most notably countries such as Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Chile, Peru, South Korea, India and Kuwait. As you may be aware, a number of these countries have demonstrated recent violations of their citizens’ human rights.

These and the other countries were or are expected to be added to what is called the Automatic Firearms Country Control List, all in the name of expanding Canada’s share of the global arms trade. The arms industry represents a $12 Billion sector in Canada, and is said to be responsible for about 109,000 jobs in Canada. The list itself was established more than 20 years ago by the Canadian Government to represent the only states to which Canadian defence companies and others can export prohibited weapons and military equipment. At the time, its intentions certainly appeared to be honourable.

However, experts now believe that the above list is being expanded to take into account a significant drop in arms sales to such traditional markets as the U.S. and Britain, primarily as a result of the current reduction in the NATO-led mission to Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. and British governments, in general, have also drastically slashed defence spending in an effort to get their financial books in order. There is little doubt that both countries will continue to compete with Canada for arms sales to developing countries, regardless of the purposes of their eventual use in those countries.

For example, Canadian-made light armoured vehicles of the type used by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were sold to Saudi Arabia several years ago and later used in 2011 to help crack down on protesters in neighbouring Bahrain. The addition of Colombia to the list in December 2012 was followed several days later by the sale of 24 similar armoured vehicles for $65 Million despite concerns about human and labour rights inside that Latin American country. Peru has also struggled when it comes to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly around mining projects. Brazil was swept with protests for more than a month that include allegations of police brutality. In addition, Canada may be contributing to further destabilizing relationships between bordering countries such as India and Pakistan.

The Conservative government has been promoting Canada’s defence industry as an economic priority, in large part because it hopes doing so will help offset the thousands of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in other sectors. But at what cost to the advancement of human rights in the listed countries? Although Canada is a relatively small arms dealer on the international market, its contribution to domestic abuses by governments in certain countries cannot and should not be ignored. The Conservative government’s high-profile refusal to sign on to an international treaty aimed at curbing the illicit sale of arms and ammunition, and a lack of transparency on Canadian arms sales in recent years doesn’t inspire confidence. We might very well ask whether selling guns to developing countries is the wisest and best way for Canada to make a buck.

Leave a comment »

Why Rob Ford Can’t Handle the News Media as a Reflection of Today’s Politics.

Toronto Councillor Doug Ford, the brother of the city’s controversial Mayor Rob Ford, has accused the media as practising [Soviet] Stalin-era Pravda journalism and has blamed a left-wing “media conspiracy” for the Mayor’s continuing problems. What does this say about the relationship between the media and today’s politicians? It’s no surprise that certain political leaders, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper, try to stay clear of media scrums. In Harper’s case, any regular media events are strictly controlled and orchestrated to publicize the ruling party’s objectives. Let’s face it, the media can make or break political careers. Like his career, Rob Ford’s recent handling of the media has been a mess.

One must remember that reporters or journalists are put in place to represent the public. They’re trained and obligated to ask the questions that people would ask if they could speak to the leaders directly. After all, when the Fords and Harpers refuse to answer reporters’ questions, they’re refusing to answer the people’s questions. Some politicians even attempt to bypass the media either through their own talk shows as in the case of the Fords or through the practice of holding press conferences without taking questions. Such efforts to bypass the media speak to an alarming trend of addressing voters without the checks and balances that journalists are meant to provide. One important reason why we have freedom of the press is because we want politicians’ statements to be subjected to intense scrutiny. So what is lost (when politicians speak directly) is that needed scrutiny of those statements. Good journalists do their homework, and are usually better prepared to ask those tough questions.

In Canada and the U.S., there is little doubt that many people have become suspicious of the press in recent years, labelling some media representatives as either too “leftist” or “right wing”. For this reason, the “blame the media” strategy has worked to an extent. In some cases, such as in the Rob Ford situation, supporters of a particular viewpoint can easily lump the media in with the so-called “elites” — who supposedly don’t care about the average person. What people fail to realize is that the media is simply reporting the news, normally with as many facts and careful objective scrutiny as is required.

Of course, the media itself can be manipulated by politicians themselves. Indeed, Rob Ford has offered photo availabilities with his family in the past for his own political reasons. When things began to turn bad in the media (claiming an expectation of privacy) he immediately lambasted the press for approaching or indirectly referring to his family. Sorry Mayor Ford, you can’t have it both ways! If he were, at any point, to ask the media to refrain from taking photos of his children or his wife, the media would very likely have respected that and stopped. However, he never did.

Then there are those crazy off-the-cuff scrums before the media. Mayor Ford could have and should have made himself available for more real press conferences, with one question and follow up at a time. You see President Obama doing these all the time. Or he could have done more longer sit down interviews with one reputable media outlet which could ask follow up questions and broadcast or show the entire video of the interview. Either way, the public would have been able to see and judge his answers to every question still unanswered. From this example, one can only conclude that he and numerous other politicians should relearn all about media relations and stop blaming the messenger for each of their faux pas. After all, the free press thankfully isn’t going away any time soon.

Leave a comment »

Is there a shortage of strong political leaders in Canada?

In the past year, we have seen a Canadian population that has become more and more cynical about their political leaders and governing parties. This has been particularly true at the municipal level. For example, as many as four Quebec mayors and interim mayors have been forced to step down amid a province-wide corruption investigation, two other big-city mayors have faced court challenges on their mandates, and another faced criminal charges. Of course, Toronto’s mayor Rob Ford stands out from the crowd.

At the federal level, there have been the expense scandals in the Senate, resulting in the suspension of three implicated senators. Payoffs to one senator were made through the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), resulting in the resignation of the PM’s Chief of Staff. While it is obvious that numerous officials in the PMO were aware of the illicit financial arrangements, Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues to deny any knowledge of such activities. What makes matters worst is that it was Harper who had appointed the three suspended senators in the first place.

There is a difference between a “strong” leader and one who is “strong-willed”. A strong leader builds support among elected and appointed officials and facilitates a “team” approach in dealing with policies and political interests. A strong-willed leader simply believes in his or her ultimate entitlement to do whatever they see fit, while loosing the confidence of supporters and potentially the electorate. Strong leaders delegate responsibilities to members of their executive, all the while maintaining transparency and accountability within the administration. Strong leaders lead by example, both personal and public.

The adage that the “buck stops here” becomes an even more important one. Strong leaders will accept their ultimate accountability for their behaviour and that of their administration. Failure to do so will result in reduced public confidence in the abilities of political leaders. A recent Leger survey of Canadians showed that only 14 percent of respondents said they were significantly confident in the provincial governments they elected. A matching 14 percent expressed significant confidence in the federal government. Only 21 per cent of Canadians said they were confident in the work of their local officials.

Have we set the bar too low? Are we discouraging potential strong candidates from entering politics? Is the Canadian electorate tuning out, fed up with the shenanigans of federal, provincial and municipal leaders? Public life is hard enough without having to carry the baggage of past scandals, political corruption and discreditable conduct. For once, I’d like to see more reports of incidents of strong leadership in Canada. Unfortunately, it seems that this doesn’t make the news! I wonder why?

Leave a comment »

Obamacare – Solution or Stop-Gap Measure?

Well it’s finally here, much to the consternation of the Republican Party and half of the American population according to recent polls! As of the first of October, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect and the uninsured multitudes were invited to go on-line or in person to seek out an appropriate health insurance plan. However, the continuing debate is anything but over. Article after article continues to explore the pros and cons of this new healthcare initiative. Critics see it as being too costly for middle class families, forcing many small and medium-sized businesses to lay off workers, being overly complex or hurting the quality of healthcare in the U.S.

On top of which, a Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid, the government’s medical insurance program for the poor. As a result, some claim that millions of poor people will be left uncovered by the ACA. They live in states, mainly found in the South, largely controlled by Republicans who to date have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states, many of whom are Black or Hispanic. They are now among the eight million Americans believed to be impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help.

Regardless of the implementation of Obamacare, the fact is that according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, a private healthcare foundation, almost half of working Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 currently have no insurance or are under-insured. Other recent studies concluded that more than 65 percent of personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to healthcare costs. Compared to other member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who have universal government-run healthcare programs, Americans are paying a lot more for healthcare and getting a lot less value for services provided. Furthermore, it pays to be rich in the U.S. in order to have access to quality health care. Lack of regulations essentially allows hospitals to charge whatever they like. According to a database of hospital medical charges, there are huge disparities for pretty well every medical procedure everywhere in the United States. Sticker prices are shockingly inflated and the differences are in many cases astronomical. In 2005, the average cost of a day in a hospital was anywhere from $1,629 (for for-profit hospitals) to $2,025 (for nonprofit hospitals). For cancer patients, the average cost was $3,000 a day.

Dependent upon the private insurance sector in U.S., an important reason for the high healthcare costs is that prices for healthcare goods and services are negotiated between individual health insurers and physicians, hospitals or drug companies. On top of which fees in the private healthcare sector have been jealously guarded trade secrets among insurers and providers of healthcare. In other countries, prices either are set by government or negotiated between associations of insurers and providers of care, on a regional, state or national basis. In Canada, healthcare costs are regulated by provincial healthcare agencies, in consultation with hospital and physician representatives.

One of the major problems with Obamacare is its complexity and general coverage. Indeed, polls indicated that most of the uninsured Americans didn’t know that the health insurance exchanges or marketplaces had opened on October 1rst. It is there that persons who don’t have coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits. Incredibly, failure to secure health insurance can end up in one being penalized by the government. Starting in 2014, almost every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances.

All of this is complicated and even confusing. However, it appears to be the best that the current administration can do at this time under difficult circumstances. It certainly isn’t the end all and be all to healthcare reform, and is often portrayed as a stop-gap measure to at least insure the estimated 30 to 40 million Americans that had no health insurance what-so-ever.

Still, here we have former members of the Tea Party holding the Republican Party hostage in a senseless act to delay the ACA’s implementation and its subsequent funding, three years after the Act was passed by Congress. Oh, let’s just shutdown the government and blame the President for not willing to compromise and proceeding with “socialized medicine”! Compromise on what? As in Canada, the healthcare debate will go on for years to come, especially given an aging population and ever increasing healthcare costs. Politicians in both countries will have plenty of future opportunities to bicker over the numbers and options, public or private, short-term or long-term. Bandages aren’t enough when only major surgery may be required.

Leave a comment »

Quebec’s Proposed Charter of Quebec Values – Why We Should Be Concerned

The Oxford dictionary defines “dogma” as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertible. By incontrovertible, one believes that something cannot be denied or disputed. “Xenophobia” is defined as “an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange”. “Secularism” refers to the view that “religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education”.

Although the bill proposing a Charter of Quebec Values has as yet not been introduced, there is already a good deal of concern being expressed as to its implications, not only for Quebec but for Canada as well. Initial indications are that it will prohibit the wearing or display of religious symbols in publicly-funded institutions such as hospitals, schools, day-care centres, etc. Leaked details, published in media reports, suggest that the plan is to prohibit people like doctors, teachers and public-daycare workers from donning turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes. The dogma here appears to be the belief that such a ban will somehow protect Quebec’s intrinsic values and culture.

According to the province’s Premier, the proposed charter would affirm, once and for all, the equality between men and women and would reflect not only “universal” values, but Quebec values as well. The position taken is one that the imposition of Quebec values through the reinforced secularization of public institutions is simply the culmination of a long process that began a half-century ago in Quebec. However, some critics of the proposal see this simply as another form of the recent emergence of xenophobia in the province as part of Quebec’s independence movement led by the Parti Quebecois. With globalization, such notions are generally seen as being outdated and detrimental to the well-being of any country: the current unrest in France often given as an example of such policies.

How the wearing of religious headwear or symbols by individuals undermines basic Quebec culture is difficult to explain. This is like the belief that openly gay teachers could influence children in some unhealthy way, in a province where the rights of gays is currently respected. To many Quebec-born residents and recent immigrants, the wearing of religious garments, headwear or symbols is an important part of not only their faith, but also of who they are as individuals. To most, being part of a society and being devoted to their faith is considered a normal part of everyday life, and not some form of dogma. Tolerance of all faiths is seen as an indispensable Canadian trait, internationally making Canada among the most recognized leaders in the effective integration of immigrants into its society. Should Quebec move forward with its proposed Charter, it may very well damage Canada’s reputation in the international arena and Quebec’s reputation within Canada. As was the case throughout history where a perception of state “persecution” existed, there is always the danger of a resulting exodus by the targeted population.

Leave a comment »