Scandal Brewing

We may have a pretty serious scandal brewing in Ottawa; certainly very bizarre.

In a soon to be released biography of the late Independent MP Chuck Cadman who famously kept the Liberals government alive in 2005 by voting for the budget, it is alleged by none other than Mr. Cadman's widow that two Conservative Party officials offered him a 1 million dollar life insurance policy in exchange for voting against the budget. For a man diagnosed with a terminal illness, this was a pretty tempting offer. And just to add another curious twist to it all, Mr. Cadman's widow in currently running in her husband's old riding... for the Conservative Party.

But things get more serious. The CBC has been given this evening a scratchy tape where the unmistakable voice of Stephen Harper is admitting to Cadman's biographer Tom Zytaruk that two party officials had indeed met with Cadman and offered him some sort of money deal.
"The offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election" said Harper.

He doesn't mention anything about a million dollar life insurance policy, but it is nonetheless cash, which is clearly illegal.

So where will this thing go? Nobody knows. It could turn out to be a fabrication, in which case we'd have a second edition of the infamous Gurmant Grewal tapes. Most likely, it will simply disappear and be shelved for lack of evidence and new revelations. If it were to have legs though, it could be a killer to the government.

The big thing is that amazing tape. Steven Harper's voice playing on a scratchy recording and telling a biographer about a money offer to Cadman, making sure to ask beforehand "this is not for publication?" I couldn't have thought of anything more damaging to Mr. Harper at this time; Maybe Stéphane Dion will start believing in god!

Anyhow, regardless of what transpires, there are a few mind-numbing questions that need answering:

-why is Dona Cadman, a Conservative candidate, alleging in a book (and confirming again today) that the Conservative Party tried to bribe her husband? What does she gain?
-how on earth could a life insurance policy been found for a terminally ill man? Was it really a life insurance policy or just a plain money offer?
-how can the Conservative Party deny an allegation coming from one of its own candidates? against a tape recording?
-why did Dona Cadman wait three years to release that information? Was this all planned in advance to try to hurt the Conservative Party?

The affair is all so bizarre. I mean, I'm not a great believers in conspiracies, but just smells so awfully odd. For tomorrow, at least, we'll have to see how Stephen Harper defends himself against his tape recorded admission that money was offered to Chuck Cadman. Things will only keep getting more interesting.

Budget

So the budget will pass. No surprise.

In fact, this wasn’t really a budget. The economic update delivered last fall was the budget; this is just a repetition of the same.

It’s long been the practice of governments to under-promise and over-deliver. Chrétien was a master in that art. But this time, the government has effectively under-promised and under-delivered. Really, there was no other way. The GST cut is has cost so much that, with the current economic woes, the government has simply run out of cash. And even though this was a very thin budget, they’ve already had to break the 3 billion dollar cushion which was traditionally inserted in the budget as a defence against unexpected economic disasters like 9/11. It’s unlikely, but, by the end of the year, the Conservatives could be in deficit.

The sad note of this budget is the environment as the Conservatives have clearly decided that it would not become an election issue. All they’ve included is a 500 million dollar plan for building public transit (needless to say, it’s peanuts), 300 million for nuclear research and 240 million for a “clean coal” plant in Saskatchewan. To put things into perspective, the GST cuts will cost 12 billion dollars a year.

So it looks like we’re destined for the status-quo. Let’s wait for the next budget!

Smart En vironment

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic carried out yesterday the world's first commercial flight of an aircraft powered with biofuel. “This breakthrough will help Virgin Atlantic to fly its planes using clean fuel sooner than expected,” he told reporters after the flight.

Clearly, there’s some good intent on the part of Branson and his firm. They seem serious about helping to address global warming, and have invested a significant amount of money into improving the energy efficiency of their firm.

But looks can be deceiving. This flight used a biofuel mixture of coconut and babassu oil. And while I couldn’t tell you the mixture’s exact carbon footprint, I’d be prepared to bet a significant chunk of change that overall, it’s about the same as plain old gasoline.

Why?

Because once again, when accessing the environmental impact of biofuel, we made the classic mistake of only factoring only the carbon emissions of the fuel consumption while forgetting entirely about the production. Biofuels are supposed to be carbon neutral because they produce very little CO2 during combustion and take carbon away from the atmosphere as they grow. But in fact, we’re realising today that the environmental impact of growing organic matter for biofuel makes it just as bad for the environment as fossil-fuel gasoline. Remember, biofuels are in most cases derived from corn or the sugar cane. To grow they need green space, water and heat. But finding space usually means cutting down trees and watering the crops excessively. So once you factor in all that heating and water, that biofuel business doesn’t seem quite as exciting.

This isn’t the only time this kind of thing happens. There was an article in a recent publication of the New Yorker magazine which essentially explained that lamb or apples imported from New Zealand have a lower carbon footprint that locally bought lamb or apples. Why is that? Because New Zealand farms don’t use fertiliser and the government doesn’t subsidize them.

So what does this teach us? Simple: we need to be careful and smart about helping the environment.

Botched Independance

Things don’t look too rosy in Serbia. First Kosovo unilaterally declares independence with Western help, then riots, then more riots, and now there are reports of a charred body in the U.S. Embassy. We’ve seen these kinds of problems for centuries in that part of the world, and the result has always been disastrous.

But the irony of the current state of affairs is that it could all very easily have been avoided.

Kosovo is a dangerous part of the world suffering from abject poverty and bitter xenophobia. The wounds left from the Yugoslav war won’t be healed for a long time, so separation from Serbia is all but inevitable. As we know, the trouble is that Serbia is refusing any form of separation, which leads directly to an impasse.

So to break that impasse, the United-States and the European triumvirate of France, Britain and Germany simply told the Kosovo government to unilaterally declare independence, promising in return to immediately recognize the new state.

It’s certainly radical, but it’s hugely naïve.

First and foremost, it goes against international law. The U.N. Charter is clear: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. The Helsinki Accords -signed by Canada, the U.S., all the European powers and the Soviet Union- are even more adamant, stipulating that relations between states must be guided by respect for the “rights inherent in sovereignty, inviolability of frontiers and territorial integrity of states”.

Serbia is a sovereign country with full sovereignty over Kosovo. In fact, the U.N. introduced in 1999 a declaration (number 1244) officially ending the fighting in Serbia and reaffirming its sovereignty over Kosovo. Therefore, since the Kosovo independence movement is clearly an internal matter, nothing would authorise the U.N. or its member states to intervene by recognizing Kosovo as an independent state.

So in the words of Former Canadian Ambassador to Serbia James Bissett, “we’ve now got an ironic situation where it’s the Russians who are standing up for the U.N. Charter and saying: look, you can’t do this, its illegal.”

This leads to my second point, that by encouraging a unilateral declaration of independence, the U.S. and its allies have all but guaranteed that Russia and China will veto any attempt at bringing Kosovo into the U.N. Never in a million years would Russia or China, countries that both have many Kosovos of their own, recognize a unilateral declaration of independence. The entire procedure would have to be revised for them to accept Kosovo’s entry into the U.N. This would take time and probably cause more blood to be spilt.

The Western countries could have been so much more creative with Serbia. With more time and imagination, they could no doubt have found a way to “convince” Serbia to accept Kosovo’s independence and sign a treaty that would have let the country keep its honour. This is what happened two years ago when Montenegro and Serbia “parted ways”.

But yet again, the Bush administration put passion before reason and let impulse dictate its international policy. The result will be more infighting at the U.N. Security Council, a new rise in the polls for Vladimir Putin, and a semi-state of Kosovo that will most likely spend the next ten years as a U.N. protectorate, awaiting official recognition and picking up in the process newfound hate for the Serbs.

The Greatest Tax In The World

B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor introduced today in her new budget the first serious carbon tax in Canadian history. Effective July 1, the carbon tax will start at a rate based on $10 per tonne of carbon emissions and rise by $5 a year to $30 per tonne by 2012. This is the equivalent of an extra 2.4 cents on a litre of gasoline, rising to 7.24 cents per litre of gasoline by 2012.

The carbon tax is expected to generate $1.8-billion over the next three years, all of which will be refunded to taxpayers through rebates and income tax reductions. It is not expected to pose a threat to B.C.s annual growth of 2.4% or to the government's $50 million surplus.

So just how good can this get ? The carbon tax encourages businesses to pollute less, it takes no money aways from the taxpayer, and poses no threat to economic growth. It's been used in Europe, and the results prove that it works.

So why not in Canada ? Go figure.

La semaine caricaturée

Parfois, quand je manque de temps ou d'informations à commenter, je me rabats sur les caricatures des journaux du pays pour résumer la semaine.

Aujourd'hui, j'ai choisi une caricature réalisée par Garnotte du quotidien Le Devoir, qui résume à merveille cette semaine en politique. Comme le montre son dessin, on a eu ces derniers temps beaucoup de secousses et de manoeuvres pré-électorales, mais la situation elle-même n'a pas du tout changée. Les Libéraux et Conservateurs sont encore à égalité dans les sondages, et Stéphane Dion contôle l'avenir du Parlement. Les prises de position libérales sur infrastructure et l'Afghanistan auront peut-être un effet positif à long terme, mais aujourd'hui, il semble que nous soyons de retour au point de départ!

Gun Control

There has been another shooting in an American University. At around 3pm today, a gunman walked into a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University and opened fire on fellow students, killing five people and injured 16 others.

This is the fourth shooting at a U.S. school within a week. In fact, it is the sixth this year, and the ninth since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 where a mentally deranged student killed 32 people.

In Canada, we've had seven school shootings in the history of our country.

The first incident, in 1975, where a student murdered a teacher and classmate, was so traumatizing that our government decided to start regulating the sale of guns. In 1989, after the mentally ill Marc Lépine walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal with a firearm and coldly executed fourteen women students, the devastation was such that the government decided to toughen gun control policies once more and create the national gun registry program, which, despite its huge cost, is popular with policemen across the country.

The young student who killed 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech in 2007 got his weapons from a licensed dealer and his ammunition from EBay.
The two students responsible for the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 got one weapon from a friend and another from salesman at the Tanner Gun Show.

In Canada, it's possible for almost everyone over 18 without a criminal record to get firearms. But the procedure is long and complicated, and you almost always have to register your gun with the government before being able to buy it. This makes it much less likely that a mentally ill student would kill peers out of revenge, as it forces that student to go through the long procedure of registering the gun, which takes a significant amount of time and patience, and increases the likelihood of that student being picked out as underage or unfit to own a gun. The student can't simply go to Canadian Tire, show identification proving he/she is over 18, and purchase the weapon.

The Harper Government has made it clear that it wants to scrap the national gun registry program, and has already exempted certain kinds of hunting rifles. It is undeniable that the cost of the gun registry program is extremely high (over a billion dollars), but judging by the low per-capita rate of school shootings and gun crimes in our country, it's part of a system that works.

Consider these figures: in the year 2000, the firearm homicide rate in Canada was 0,54 in 100 000. In the U.S., it was 2,97 in 100 000.

The gun registry program itself might not be the main factor explaining the low firearm homicide rate, but when a system as important as this one in working, we should be real conservatives and leave it as is. A billion dollars might be a very substantive amount of money, but if it helps keep the gun homicide rate this low, it's money well spent.

Deux événements à noter

Deux événements à noter aujourd’hui :

Tout d’abord, en fin de matinée, les Libéraux ont présenté une série d’amendements au projet de loi conservateur portant sur la participation canadienne en Afghanistan. Si on laisse de côté les fioritures exaspérantes, ils disent essentiellement que les soldats canadiens doivent arrêter après février 2009 de chercher activement les confrontations avec les Talibans, et concentrer uniquement leurs efforts sur la reconstruction, le soutien humanitaire, et l’entraînement de l’armée afghane. L’utilisation de la force en cas de légitime défense serait bien évidemment permise, mais il n’y aurait plus de missions de « chasse aux Talibans ».

Leur position m’apparaît parfaitement sensée, et je demanderais même pourquoi il faut attendre jusqu’en février 2009 pour modifier cette mission qui ne fonctionne visiblement pas. Comme vous le savez, les Talibans ne sont pas une force armée régulière avec un commandement organisé et des soldats entraînés. Ils forment plutôt une brigade souterraine de combattants mi-résistants mi-mercenaires dont les effectifs varient chaque semaine en fonction de l’argent ou de l’opium disponible. On ne peut donc pas gagner une guerre « contre » les Talibans, puisqu’au fond, on ne sait pas qui ils sont.

La responsabilité de reconstruire l’Afghanistan incombe aux Afghans. Si leur pays est en guerre civile, c’est uniquement de leur faute et il n’appartient pas à nos soldats de calmer le conflit. Nos forces armées apportent en Afghanistan de l’expertise et du soutien humanitaire, et sont prêtes à défendre la population civile contre des groupes militaires extrémistes. Mais si les Afghans ne veulent pas de notre aide et continuent à entretenir un état permanent de guerre civile en se joignant à des groupes armés comme les Talibans ou l’Alliance du Nord, le mieux sera de tout simplement retirer nos soldats pour les envoyer dans des endroits comme le Darfour ou la Birmanie où ils auraient vraiment un impact.

En mettant un terme à la mission de combat en février 2009, nous enverrons un signal clair aux Afghans que les guerres tribales et les Talibans sont des problèmes bien à eux. Nos soldats sont heureux d’aider à reconstruire les écoles et hopitaux du pays, et de protéger la population civile contre des groupes extrémistes, mais si les Afghans ne veulent pas déposer les armes et travailler ensemble, ils vivront un autre siècle de guerre et de famine dans l’isolement et la misère.

Le deuxième événement de la journée concerne une motion de confiance du gouvernement conservateur sommant les sénateurs libéraux d’adopter un projet de loi sur la criminalité avant le 1^er mars. Il est difficile d’imaginer une conduite plus partisane et puérile. La motion du gouvernement est non seulement inconstitutionelle –une chambre ne peut évidemment pas dicter la conduite d’une autre-, mais les sénateurs n’ont eu que trois semaines pour débattre du projet, ce qui n’est presque rien quand on pense à tout le travail de comité qu’ils doivent accomplir avant le vote final. Si la motion était rejetée, cela déclencherait des élections et le projet de loi serait donc définitivement annulé. Et si la motion était adoptée par la Chambre, il faudrait encore qu’elle traverse le sénat...

Les libéraux ont bien fait de s’abstenir de voter sur cette motion. Ils ont suivi les conseils du Globe and Mail en se comportant comme des adultes face à un véritable jeu d’enfants.

Numbers don’t Lie

We Canadians love to think of our country as the most virtuous in the world; the country that does everything right. But if we take a quick glance at the results of international studies comparing such things as quality of life, education, health care, and environmental sustainability, we quickly find that, while always doing well, Canada never reaches number 1.

Let’s start with the Human Development Index, the standard tool used for measuring quality of life. Following the UN’s statistics, Canada ranked fourth in 2007 terms of HDI, up two places from 2006 and behind Iceland, Norway and Australia.

The Economist magazine, which uses a slightly different method for calculating quality of life, ranked Canada 14^th in its last assessment in 2005.

Moving on to education, we should take a look at the results from the latest PISA test (2006), which compares the scholastic performance of schoolchildren across the world. Canada does, as usual, very well in the tests, but not as well as Finland or Hong Kong. Our country comes seventh in mathematics, third in science, and fourth in reading. This compares with two seconds and a first for Finland, and two thirds and a second for Hong Kong. Once again, we’re near the podium, but we’re not number 1.

The state of the health care system is actually quite worrisome. In its latest ranking of the world’s best health care system, Canada came a dismal 30^th, behind such countries as Morocco, Columbia and Saudi-Arabia. When it comes to health care, we’re not just narrowly missing out on the podium, we’re completely out of the picture.

The only competition we seem to be consistently acing is the “fossil awards race”. These awards, handed out by environmental groups, go the countries that have been doing the least to fight global warming. Canada is a leader in that regards. We have been picking up fossil awards at a record braking pace since the year 2000, and show no sign of slowing down. Last December in Bali, environment minister John Baird reached an average of nearly one podium finish per day.

As could have been predicted, we’ve come up with many excuses for our collective lack of action. “Our country is too vast”, some say, “we produce too much oil”, think the others. But the reality is that we didn’t find the courage to actually control spiralling emissions. It can be done: Norway, for example, is also a big oil producer and a fairly vast country –though obviously not like us-, but they’ve actually controlled their emissions and showed the world how it was done.

This can and must change. Canada must aim for number 1. But it will take vision, and this, unfortunately, has been lacking since Mulroney left office.

Afghanistan

You know, I think I've changed my mind on Afghanistan and the Manley panel's recommendations. I was initially quite taken by this idea of staying in Kandahar in a combat role as long as NATO supplied another 1000 troops, but I now think we're better off just pulling out.

Our politicians and journalists love to go on about the "fantastic" work that we're doing in Afghanistan. In some sense, they're probably right. While I haven't personally met any of our soldiers or seen them in action, there's every reason to believe that they're acting with great professionalism and bravery.

But there's a big difference between doing good work and making progress.

I'm sure our soldiers are building schools and encouraging girls to attend, but I'm also sure that these schools are being destroyed and girls kept home. I'm sure that our soldiers are trying to convince poppy farmers to switch to another crop, but I also know that poppy production in Kandahar has exploded like never before. I'm sure that we're training the Afghan National Army, but based on what I've read in British newspapers and magazines, I know that the Afghan soldiers are all horribly corrupt, intrinsically violent, under equipped, and in many cases, complete drug addicts. I'm sure that our soldiers are bravely putting themselves at risk fighting against the Taliban, but I'm equally sure that the Taliban are invincible.

In short, I don't think we're making any progress and I don't think we can make any progress. Afghanistan has been a disaster for the last 30 years and it is still a disaster. The country has been consummated by tribal warfare for ever, and shows little sign of wanting to move on. Corruption is rampant throughout the government, police, and the so-called Afghan Army, and the supposedly democratic Karzai government that we are defending practices torture and makes use of the death penalty for crimes against Islam such as carrying a text asking with "men can have many wives and not the reverse".

Today in the world, there are many countries governed by ruthless dictatorships whose population would like nothing more that to be "liberated" by NATO and given the opportunity to build a strong democracy. Burma stands out as the most obvious example.

There are also, today in the world, genocides being perpetrated. The situation in Darfur is particularly critical.

Yet we western nations are still wasting our resources and soldiers lives fighting in a country which doesn't really seem to want us there. In Afghanistan, it's "our western troops" agaisnt the Taliban, not the "People of Afghanistan supported by our troops", against the Taliban. The civiliants seem ambivalent at best, and would certainly be happy to help either us or the Taliban for some money.

I think that we should simply give the Karzai government a multi-billion dollar a year grant whose renewal would be conditional with the meeting of certain development targets. If the government and Afghan people truly want change, they'll make it happen themselves, otherwise, there's no point in trying to bring it by military force.

Les petits gamins des Communes

Tous les vendredis, les Canadiens nostalgiques de l’époque impériale ont la possibilité de regarder sur la chaîne parlementaire CPAC une rediffusion spéciale de la période des questions du Parlement britannique. Le spectacle en vaut la peine. Entassés dans une minuscule galerie sur des vieux bancs vert émeraude, les 646 députés de la vénérable Chambre des Communes passent une demi-heure de leur journée à poser des questions à leur premier ministre portant sur des enjeux principalement locaux. Celui-ci, ayant reçu à l’avance une copie des questions, a le temps de préparer quelques réponses sérieuses pour ses collègues qu’il lit alors flegmatiquement avec un petit sourire narquois franchement délicieux. Le tout se passe dans une atmosphère de bahut légèrement chaotique avec un gentil Président de la Chambre aux cheveux blancs prêt à intervenir pour rappeler à l’ordre tout Honorable membre qui oserait transgresser les traditions de la vénérable chambre de « gentlemen ». C’est très charmant, très instructif, et typiquement British.

Chez nous, à Ottawa, la période des questions fonctionne assez différemment. La tradition britannique de respect qui a tant inspiré les fondateurs de notre pays semble largement éteinte, et a laissé sa place à une sorte de comédie libre dans laquelle les députés peuvent crier, s’injurier, et se dérober devant des questions légitimes sans remords ni réprimandes. La Chambre des Communes, cœur politique de la nation, ne conserve plus rien d’honorable, et ressemble plutôt à une salle de classe pleine de cancres dirigée par un maître faible et béat incapable d’appliquer la discipline.

Le résultat est une période des questions dysfonctionnelle, inutile, et indigne d’une nation démocratique. Une perte de temps et d’argent.

Tout ceci pourrait pourtant être différent. Le Parlement de Westminster et les assemblées législatives de la plupart des autres pays démocratiques de ce monde nous montrent tous que le respect entre membres de formations politiques opposées est un idéal tout à fait atteignable. Nos élus ne sont pas génétiquement programmés pour le pugilat et peuvent travailler tout aussi efficacement pour leur pays sans s’insulter mutuellement à longueur de débats.

Si nos députés ont un tel problème de comportement, c’est parce qu’il est toléré – voire encouragé – par les médias et le public canadien. L’un des premiers ministres les plus admirés de notre histoire, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, aimait autrefois afficher son dédain pour la Chambre en répondant aux questions de l’opposition avec un air d’exaspération suprême. Parfois, dans des débats animés, lui et son opposant conservateur Joe Clark se narguaient en adressant leurs questions à l’ « honourable blockhead » ou au « millionaire d’Outremont ». Jean Chrétien, qui a règné sur le pays sans interruption 1993 à 2003, était connu pour son agressivité chronique en Chambre des Communes. Il bombardait souvent les députés de l’opposition d’insultes personnelles et gratuites pour marquer quelques points politiques. Mais loin de dégoûter les spectateurs, Chrétien les impressionnait plutôt par sa «combativité» et sa « personnalité de bagarreur de rue. »

La situation n’a toujours pas évolué. Aujourd’hui, le premier ministre Stephen Harper perpétue la tradition de ses prédécesseurs en traitant la Chambre des Communes comme une arène de gladiateurs où il peut lancer sans honte ni complexes des attaques basses et déshonorantes contre les députés de l’opposition. Les médias jouent le jeu, et admirent la «combativité» et la «force» du premier ministre. Quant à Stéphane Dion, le chef libéral qui est arrivé à la tête de son parti avec une paire de lunettes et des idées jugées trop complexes pour le Canadien moyen, il a droit au traitement contraire. Pour les médias, c’est un intellectuel, gentil, mais trop faible pour gagner en politique.

Les seuls qui peuvent véritablement mettre fin à cette tradition parlementaire méprisable sont les électeurs canadiens. Tant et aussi longtemps qu’ils continueront à élire des politiciens au comportement indigne en Chambre et de tolérer l’hypocrisie totale des médias, ils auront un Parlement dysfonctionnel. Nous ne pouvons donc qu’espérer qu’au prochain scrutin, ils envoient aux parlementaires un message clair et précis : la petite politique, dehors!

Une occasion ratée

On connaît depuis longtemps le prodigieux impact de la musique sur les capacités cognitives des enfants. Aussi récemment qu’en 2006, une étude menée par l’Université McMaster a révélé que les cours de musique agissaient sur le développement cérébral des enfants, conduisant à une meilleure capacité de mémorisation et de traitement d’informations. L’année précédente, l’Université de Stanford avait relevé elle aussi une corrélation entre l’apprentissage sérieux d’un instrument de musique et l’amélioration des capacités intellectuelles des enfants dans une étude menée par l’éminent psychologue John Gabrieli. Plusieurs autres travaux scientifiques entrepris dans les vingt dernières années en sont arrivés à la même conclusion.

Compte tenu de l’accord unanime de la communauté scientifique sur les bienfaits de la musique pour le développement des enfants, ou aurait pu espérer que le ministère de l’éducation de l’Ontario prenne des mesures sérieuses pour offrir à tous les élèves la possibilité d’atteindre un niveau d’excellence musicale. Or malheureusement, l’enseignement de la musique est toujours aussi rudimentaire, mal vu et particulièrement mal géré.

Jetons un rapide coup d’œil sur la Belle Province pour voir comment ils font les choses. Chez eux, l’enseignement de la musique est organisé dans un réseau de Conservatoires financés par le Ministère de la Culture. Les cours sont quasi-gratuits et offrent aux jeunes une formation musicale sérieuse de haut niveau. La plupart des pays européens ont un système semblable. En France, les Conservatoires pré-universitaires du pays sont organisés dans un réseau à trois niveaux qui culmine avec le Conservatoire National de Région de Paris, l’un des plus hauts lieus de formation instrumentale d’Europe.

Mais en Ontario, toujours rien. Les seules écoles de musique sérieuses sont des organismes privés à but non lucratif qui reçoivent la majeure partie de leur financement de la poche des parents d’élèves (plusieurs milliers de dollars par année). Mais quant aux jeunes provenant des milieux les plus démunis, ceux qui auraient le plus à gagner d’une formation musicale sérieuse, la responsabilité de les former musicalement incombe aux écoles secondaires qui n’en ont ni les compétences ni les moyens. C’est ce qu’on appelle une occasion ratée.