This bonhomme’s post mortem

Martin Patriquin responds to the fallout from his cover story on corruption in Quebec


Beaudet, Rue Frontenac

Well, that was most interesting.

What follows is an odds-and-sods roundup of the last four berzerker weeks, which began as a series of discussions with my editors and ended with a parliamentary rebuke. It’s familiar ground by now, best summarized here, so I’ll limit myself to a few thoughts of the aftermath.

On being deliberately misunderstood. Journal de Montréal’s Richard Martineau wrote the following words last week in reaction to our articles on Quebec corruption. “No matter what Maclean’s journalist Martin Patriquin (or, especially, Andrew Coyne, the editor-in-chief [sic]) says, it is not our institutions that the Toronto magazine attacks. It attacks who we are. (‘C’est ce que nous sommes…‘)”

(Andrew is a big boy, so I’ll only speak for myself.)

Now, Martineau fancies himself a shoot-from-the-hip straight talker—his column is called Straight Talking, after all—so I read this passage with consternation. After all, it seems Martineau’s straight shooter eyes and straight shooter brain failed to pick up the bit where I mentioned how “[t]he history of corruption is sufficiently long and deep in Quebec that it has bred a culture of mistrust of the political class. It raises an uncomfortable question: why is it that politics in Canada’s bête noire province seem perpetually rife with scandal?” Or how the sponsorship scandal, largely perpetrated by Quebec politicians, had “damag[ed] Quebec’s collective psyche.” He Who Shoots Straight even failed to pick up on the conclusion of the piece: “For many Quebecers, though, talk of renewal is cheap. As they know all too well, rules in the bête noire province have a habit of being broken.”

Funnily enough, the straight shooter wrote these words after he had the straight shooter idea to invite me onto his television show (titled, you guessed it, Straight Talkers), though apparently his straight shooter prerogative allows him to forgo explaining himself. (I asked, and the straight shooter silence has been deafening.) So I’ll put the question to him here: who, exactly, is the we (‘nous’) you speak of, Richard, and why do I get the feeling that I, a born-and-bred Quebecer, am not a part of it? Strange, that.

It’s all the separatists’ fault! So said Le Devoir, in a review of the editorial package last week. Stéphane Baillargeon, the paper’s media reporter, claimed the story placed the blame for Quebec’s collective ailments squarely on the shoulders of the separatist movement. It didn’t.

Certainly, the threat of separation (or the Bloc’s incredible lobbying chops, at the very least) has been a boon for Quebec at the federal level. With the Bloc in Ottawa, equalization payments to Quebec have nearly doubled over the last five years, while those for other ‘have not’ provinces have increased modestly or even regressed during the same time.

Baillargeon’s notion, which isn’t particularly original in these parts, rests on the reference to Quebec’s “nagging existential question.” Yet it isn’t just the separatists who are to blame; the federalists are just as guilty. For nearly 35 years, politics in Quebec have been a war between entrenched camps, not only on the left and the right, but on the separatist-or-federalist line as well, and our political culture has atrophied as a result. On one side we have federalists, whose perpetual goal of “saving the country” has brought an equally enduring sense of self-entitlement amongst many federalist politicians. On the other the sovereignists, who purposefully stymie Canada’s political machinery if only to show to what extent the whole mess doesn’t work. Even last week’s parliamentary rebuke of Maclean’s was steeped in this wretched cliché: according to the Globe’s Jane Taber, several Conservative MPs were wary of the Bloc motion, yet voted for it out of fear what would otherwise happen to national unity. We’re totally stuck.

Fortunately, there is a growing realization of as much in the political class itself. On the left, Québec Solidaire, whose co-leader (and sole MNA) Amir Khadir was instrumental in uncovering the alleged excesses of the provincial Liberals’ fundraising activities. (QS, it must be said, is nominally sovereignist, but not obsessively so.) On the right we have the (faltering) Action Démocratique du Québec and the (burgeoning) Réseau Liberté Québec. The former has a handful of seats, while the latter has pledged to spread the righty gospel either through the ADQ or another, as yet unnamed, party. Myself, I pine for a Quebec where the politicians call each other lefty statist pansies or conservative, small-government knuckle-draggers, as they do in the rest of the free world. A man can dream.

Parliament wags a finger. The Globe’s Doug Saunders, visiting from abroad, put it best in a (ugh) Tweet last week. On the issue of parliament officially rebuking Maclean’s, Saunders wrote, “I seem to be visiting a country where the media wrote about government corruption and the whole parliament denounced them for doing so.”

I’m also very happy to point out that Jean-François Lisée, whom I both respect and respectfully disagree with, took issue with the Bloc’s rebuke motion.“Elected representatives should never vote on the use of freedom of expression, no matter what.” (Over the last week, Lisée and I have mastered that true instrument of free speech: the snarky, back-and-forth email war.)

One more thing. Warren Kinsella referred to me as “one of the biggest scumbags in Canadian journalism,” a phrase so delicious that it deserves to be written in icing across my next birthday cake. I look forward to sharing a big piece of scumbag pie with him sometime in the future. My treat.

Filed under:

This bonhomme’s post mortem

  1. You simply jumped the gun.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to the issue on the 7 Mafia families known to be operating in Ontario, the issue that traces all the billions in oil money that have gone missing in Alberta, and the issue on who is involved in the money-laundering for drugs in BC.

    THEN perhaps, you can declare a winner.

    • What's this about oil money missing in Alberta?

      • For about a dozen years Alberta had an oil boom…..billions and billions of dollars

        Klein openly admitted there was no plan for handling the massive influx of money…and there was no deficit or debt to pay off.

        So by now, Alberta should have the finest hospitals, universities and infrastructure in the country.

        But they don't.

        What they do have now is….a deficit.

        Soooo, where did all the money go?

        • Except we here in Alberta spend the most per capita on education, health care, and infrastructure. The government budget absolutely balloned during the boom. Plus I got $300 'Ralph Bucks' at one point during the boom. Keep digging.

          • Gee….300 bucks. Whoopee! World cruise eh?

            Sorry…no sale.

          • In Alberta you are allowed to give more to political parties than anybody else in this country. I read that a company can given $15,000 annually to parties, an individual can also give $15,000 annually and a total of $5,000 to riding associations. During an election campaign, these amounts are doubled. In Quebec, donations by a company to a party are totally forbidden. Individuals can only give a fraction of the legal amounts permitted in Alberta. If you could convince Quebecers to adopt the Alberta system of political financing and that it is ethical, there would never be allegations of corruption in that province. Quebec could become the most politically stable province in the county. Most of the allegations of corruption in QC stem from perfectly legal donations: making a legal political donation to the party in power is viewed as a corrupt gesture even when perfectly legal.

            No need to dig: one just need Coyne to wonder aloud if this huge difference between the two provinces and ethical perception when giving money to politicians has anything to do with the protestant ethics of the majority of Albertans.

          • Protestant ethics, huh?


            No need to wonder any longer…you can ask by asking the Protestants who made up the Grant Devine cabinet in the province next door. (Not knocking protestants, it's just that in my experience, no one group has a lock on virtue.)

            If Alberta seems corruption free, it's only because in a one party, one newspaper state, no one is looking.

          • But, but… Its a big tent party! And, everyone can participate; they just need to buy a membership.

            * sigh *

            And people wonder why I want a libertarian style alternative. People who don't live in Alberta, anyway.

      • Don't bother jdrob. She's beyond rehab.

  2. One humourous side note, the CBC did a nice interview with a couple of pundits, one from Nova Scotia and one from BC, who feigned hurt pride because they thought their province deserved to keep the top spot as most corrupt province in Canada; their noses clearly out of joint at being knocked off by the upstart Quebec.


    • I liked Vaughn Palmer's demand for play-offs to settle the title.

  3. Dont try to save yourself. Your arcticle was crap.

    • perhaps you should write an antarcticle in response?

    • What did you disagree with? Which fact was incorrect or argument do you counter?

      Your comment was crap.

  4. "Myself, I pine for a Quebec where the politicians call each other lefty statist pansies or conservative, small-government knuckle-draggers, as they do in the rest of the free world. A man can dream."

    Now that's a dream. I guess that's the kind of thinking that entitles you to call Quebec politics "atrophied" because it focuses on the founding principles governing the province. That's almost shallower than your very thin analysis of the current situation in Quebec.

    • Who's being facetious? I don't get it.

  5. So of all the people that responded negatively to your article, did any have a valid point at all? Almost half of your post is devoted to a beef with a columnist that no intelligent person would ever read for any reason other than entertainment. Lisee's reply, while it cried for a thorough editing job, is thoughtful and substantial. Isn't there a single point in it you'd grant him? What about Yves Boisvert's column?

    It's understandable that you're reeling a tiny bit. But then why not call this post "a few things that pissed me off" and not a "roundup" (albeit of the odds-and-sods kind)?

  6. I'm an anglo-quebecer and definately not what Martineau considers "nous" either. I watch his programs and read his atricles and can tell you that he's full of ****. He's just another cheap talking sensationalistic journalist, who's looking to win a popularity show with the uneducated blue-coller lecturs of the journal de montreal. With people like him nobody is a real quebecois unless they agree with his point of view, which is typically nationalist quebecois. We'll probably see him run in the PQ or Bloc one day.

  7. "It is not our institutions that the Toronto magazine attacks. It attacks who we are."

    Is it just me, or did he just admit that corruption really does run so deep in Quebec now that it's considered by many to just be "who we are"?

    • No, he did not. And you aren't usually so careless.

  8. The thing I've noticed with most of the outraged comments against the article is that commenters are using the "genetic" line that Charest put out– a deliberately misleading and ass-saving tactic. This shows they did not actually read the article and are very quick to believe that Charest's take on it is true without further investigation required. Never believe a politician's summary folks, even if you like him/her! See it for yourself and then judge.

  9. Over the last week, Lisée and I have mastered that true instrument of free speech: the snarky, back-and-forth email war.

    Any chance THAT exchange will get posted at Maclean's or at L'Actualité?

  10. Hey Patriquin, what are you going to do if you get an invitation to 'Tout le monde en parle?

    I am sure you are praying not to get one, cause francophones annoy you to no end. So stop whining about 'nous' and 'eux'. You never wanted to be part of 'nous' in the first place.
    Tu pues le racisme et l'anglo impérialisme.

    • 1) There is a lot of corruption in Quebec
      2) There is a lot of corruption in the rest of Canada
      3) Maclean's failed to prove Quebec was the "most corrupt", but its critics failed to prove that corruption isn't a huge problem in the province.
      4) None of this proves that either Patriquin or Coyne are racist.
      5) Trust me, Canadian Anglos have no imperialist designs on Quebec, and when faced with obnoxious resistance to the federation from a Quebecer, the impulse is to wash our hands of the province.
      6) Fortunately, most Quebecers, including my family members, prefer to stay, despite the odd irritating Maclean's headline. You see, they have something called "perspective".

    • Just what is the price of admission to become a membre du club des nous, anyways?

    • TOUT LE MONDE EN PARLE Invités du dimanche 10 octobre 2010:
      Les invités à l'émission cette semaine : la vice-première ministre et ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec, Nathalie Normandeau, le chroniqueur de L'actualité, Jean-François Lisée, le journaliste du magazine Maclean's, Martin Patriquin, auteur de l'article Québec : The most corrupt province, Sylvie Léonard pour son interprétation de Jackie Kennedy dans la pièce Jackie; Robin Aubert et Michel Barrette pour le film À l'origine d'un cri, Nicole Martin pour son anthologie Il était une fois… Nicole Martin, l'artiste Tex Lecor qui a reçu le prix Pierre-Bourgault et François Bourbeau, ufologue.

      • Je ne manquerai pas cette émission!

        Patriquin ne pouvait pas dire non…il doit être sur les calmants et faire de la méditation depuis qu'il a reçu l'invitation. Maudit qu'il doit avoir hâte que ce soit fini!

  11. So I'll put the question to him here: who, exactly, is the we (‘nous') you speak of, Richard, and why do I get the feeling that I, a born-and-bred Quebecer, am not a part of it? Strange, that.

    Not so strange. Lisée pulls it off, too, in his first rebuke, when he divides Quebecers into the "good" ones who did not vote for Chretien and the "bad" ones who did. And he aligns himself with half of his fellow francophone Quebecers who desire sovereignty, again implying that the less legitimate Quebecers have yet to see the light and are retarding this grand national quest.

    The notion of un vrai québécois is so commonplace that you can call it many names, but not strange.

    • Wow. That's almost spooky. "Guest" and "quebecdom" prove my point no further than the very thread below this one.

  12. Patriquin? He's just a two-bit sensationalist writer for an unworthy rag named Maclean's. An ex-Quebecer ( thankfully) '' yes man '' who panders and bows to his Anglo masters !!!
    En fait simplement un vendu de marde!

    • "En fait simplement un vendu de marde!"

      Google translate must have messed up the translation on this one.

      • Don't even try translating it my unilingual challenged Canadian…

        • A clarification:

          I may be bilingually challenged, but but I am definitely not unilingually challenged.

          In any event, people who assume that every Canadian should be bilingual, don't live west of Manitoba. Francophones make up less than 2% of the population of Alberta; most of which live in Francophone communities. The opportunity simply is not there for western Canadians to maintain more than basic French language skills.

          And, I say this as a person who took years of French language instruction in school.

          • Quebecers have never assumed that every Canadian be bilingual, that would be unrealistic for let's say the Asian living in BC, 5000kms from Montréal. But what we could/should expect is the anglo-quebecer would be bilingual in a province that's over 85% francophone, and be able to communicate with the majority. Thus the introduction of the " evil" and " demonic" Bill 101 to preserve and promote French as the first language for new landed immigrants , like my wife's Greek parents. Now both siblings are TRILINGUAL and thriving.
            Even that somber reality is lost on the racist and xenophobic masses who read and write for this very rag who at every occasion, denigrate and undermine french and even bilingualism .
            Only because THEY don't posses the mental capacity to learn and assimilate another language!!

          • I don't think that your statement is entirely accurate. I have often seen – in the comments section of "this very rag" no less – people being admonished for not knowing French.

            Nor do I agree with the persecution complex that you seem to have. People have serious concerns regarding Quebec's language laws that have nothing to do with Francophones or the French language. And most of the comments directed at Quebec (from the rest of Canada) have little to do with Quebec being French, and a lot to do with the perception that the Quebec hates Canada.

    • Il n'est même pas un vendu. C'est un anglo-québécois, un rhodésien anglo impérialiste par excellence qui méprise le Québec français. Après ça, il a le culot de s'en sentir "exclu". En 2009, il écrivait que Montréal était corrompu, chaotique et dirigée par la mafia. Le ROC carbure aux reportages qui salissent le Québec et ce Patrimesquin ne donne pas sa pareille pour beurrer épais.

      • À mon avis tout les anglo-québecois sont des rhodésiens qui méprise le Québec français, car ils s'attendent qu'on parle tous leur langue, alors qu'ils ne sont que 18% de la population totale de La Belle Province, et la majorité ne parle-pas la nôtre!!!

        • Euh, je croyais qu'ils étaient 13%…

        • Wow, avec toutes les fautes que tu fais, tu dois le mépriser, toi aussi, ton Québec français…

  13. Surprised there was no mention of the corruption surrounding the construction of the Olympic Stadium.

  14. M. Patriquin, n'utilisez pas le "nous" et "eux" pour vous détourner l'attention sur votre article minable. TOUTE la classe politique et journalistique du Québec (sauf Bernier et Pratte) vous a dénoncé. Irez-vous jusqu'à dire que toutes ces personnes sont corrompus et devraient se taire? Vous avez un sacré culot pour attaquer tout le monde tout en affirmant que vous seul savez la vérité. Vous avez déchaîné dans le Canada un mouvement complètement zêlé et xénophone envers tout le Québec. En anglais, je dirais que vous êtes un Hate monger. Vous ne parlez définitivement pas pour le Québec.

    • Après ses reportages haineux sur le Québec, Montréal, Parizeau, nos symboles, etc. voilà que Patriquin espère attirer la pitié parce qu'il s'en sent exclu. Pour que Patriquin se sente "inclu" au Québec, il faudrait:
      – Abolir la loi 101 (affichage), abolir l'éducation obligatoire en français pour les immigrants;
      – Favoriser une immigration qui parle déjà l'anglais;
      – Financer les écoles anglaises qui de ce fait, grossiront;
      – instaurer des écoles anglaises en région pour le bien des francophones;
      – dans les commerces, embaucher du personnel dont la première langue est l'anglais ou qui parlent anglais sans accent;
      – angliciser le gouvernement provincial en communiquant en anglais à l'interne et embaucher des anglos;
      – Faire de l'anglais la lingua franca du commerce;
      -Remplacer le fleurdelysée par le "Maple Leaf"
      – Mettre la hache dans la télévision française et couper les subventions aux artistes francophones;
      – Laisser au français sa place qui lui revient, soit le droit de le parler à l'heure du souper autour de la table

      • …(suite)

        et dans une dizaine d'années, il pourra dire "mission accomplie!" Le français ne sera plus qu'une langue comme d'autres au canal OMNI TV. Là, et seulement là, Patriquin se sentira entièrement inclu!

  15. Patriquin, you're right on one thing at least; Mr. Coyne is a much bigger boy than you. Now, since you are still asking questions, I have but one for you: which province is second worse after Quebec? I don't need the whole list; one single word. That would close the debate.

  16. You describe Martineau's show as being titled "Straight shooters"; in actual fact, the French "franc-tireur" is more accurately translated as "sniper", an incongruously accurate description of MM. Marineau and Lagace<s journalistic styles.

  17. Here is why Patriquin's article has generated so much controversy. Although Quebecer's know full well the problems of political corruption in their province (which is why both the federal and provincial Liberals are so unpolular and why both the Gomery and the current commissions are followed like soap operas):
    1) Quebecers don't like outsiders (English Canada) criticizing them any more than English Canadians would like it if the NY Times were to write an article describing them as the "most corrupt".
    2) By claiming that Quebec is "most corrupt" this means that English Canada is better but without any proof of this claim.
    3) Most importantly, it skates over the fact that the the political corruption in Quebec is mostly due to Federalist politicians (Federal Liberals, provincial Liberals, Mulrony Conservatives) which are the ones that English Canada is championing. So an English Canadian publication, which supports Federalist politics in Quebec, criticizes Quebec for being corrupt while downplaying the fact that the corruption is mostly due to Federalist pressure.

  18. Quebec politicians over the years use cultural and linguistic pride to blind many Quebecers from political corruption and inefficiencies.

  19. I think that you don’t understand Nationalism. You were a pawn in a much larger game. Your writing didn’t offend me. The way your employer published it offended all of us. The 50% support Coyne claimed from the Quebec Media is a statistic as useful as a tied plebiscite vote. Half of parliamentarians voted unanimously. That’s a statement, not a vote and it’s very useful. I doubt anything your magazine publishes in the future will earn a comparable historical footnote. It’s up to you to understand why not.

  20. What a bunch of crap. Its not Quebec thats corrupt its Canada. Most intelligent people know this and thats why more are moving to Quebec now.

  21. Wow. I just read Warren Kinsella's furious, spittle-flecked rant about Patriquin.

    "Personally, I hope every person in Canadian public life – and every person – kicks the living sh*t of Matrin Patriquin and his magazine this week." –WK

    Patriquin, what on earth made Kinsella hate you so much? Was it this article?

    • Funny, when I read that, I went out and bought a copy. The cover photo is classic.

    • If Kinsella's mad at you, you must have done something right.

      • If Kinsella's mad at you, you must have done something right.

        Kinsella is the ultimate contrarian indicator for all that is good and decent about humanity.

        • Kinsella is nothing more than a former bureaucrat who never made an honest dime in his life. Lived off the taxpayer and really shoud refrain from commenting out of shame. Wasn't he the former language commisioner at one time. You must be an overpaid civil servant!!

  22. With the imbecilities you spew , you've NEVER known Québec!

  23. Mr. Patriquin, quit wasting time justifying yourself. Your article, poorly justified, lacking comparison and methodology was destined to recycling bin. Is there corruption in Quebec? Yes. How do you measure it? How are other provinces doing? Give us a break. By the way, Martineau's "nous" ("we") simply appeals to all Quebecer's, from any horizon, who are sick of seeing under the belt attacks, vicious comments and segregative attitude from certain media of the rest of Canada. If you, a born-and-bred Quebecer, can't use a tribune like Maclean's to properly document and give perspective to Quebec's issues at hand rather than fall into paper-selling stereotypes of ROC toward Quebec, its your problem. Now, don't victimize yourself to justify poor judgement: That would be so typical Quebec…

  24. Dude with a blog about the "filth and delight" of Quebec (mostly the filth) thinks he's front page material. He's not.

  25. "So I'll put the question to him here: who, exactly, is the we (‘nous') you speak of, Richard, and why do I get the feeling that I, a born-and-bred Quebecer, am not a part of it? Strange, that."

    Typical federalist response when they are out of arguments against Quebec nationalists and sovereignists: divert the issue by blaming the other of racism.

    Your rebuttal is pathetic. You or Coyne said that corruption in Quebec is due to the pathalogy because of the Catholic faith and because of Quebec nationalism. Quebec defenders have responded that these are not so. Where is your rebuttal to those?

    Furthermore, what methodology did you use to claim that Quebec is the most corrupt province?

    You are a joke, Patriquin.

    • You're a joke. If you use the term racism, what is the "race" that you are referencing? French is not a race.

  26. Myself, I pine for a Quebec where the politicians call each other lefty statist pansies or conservative, small-government knuckle-draggers, as they do in the rest of the free world. A man can dream.

    Me too. But I gave up on that dream a long time ago when I was a resident of Quebec. Back then, I dreamt of the day that Quebec politicians showed the slightest concern for the welfare of all their citizens, not just the welfare of those pining to separate. The PQ tried to satisfy the goals of those people, and the Liberals tried to make those people want to stay. Those are the things that consumed the attention of both political parties.

    Meanwhile, things like jobs and taxes were an afterthought – most of the time people like me were told by our leaders that we should not complain, we had it good, why would we think about things like that? There was the matter of french education and french on outdoor signs that needed their attention. Eventually it was obvious that they had not the slightest concern whether I remained in the province or I left, it was easy to see that nobody would even notice, other than my own family and friends. So myself, and many like me, left the province to find jobs and careers.

  27. "Scumbag"? Kinsella and his best buddy "Lucy" have sued (Libel) for less than such fighting words.

  28. As long as Quebeckers take money from "outsiders", the exclusionary term used by some francophones to describe Canadians who don't reside in Quebec, then they had better accept criticism as well. "Would-be "maitres chez nous" should pay their own way. Quebec is a net taker, not giver since Confederation despite misinforming its French Canadian citizens on this point. Biting the hand that feeds you is bad manners like a sullen teenager who keeps demanding increases in allowance for no observable service while giving the source of that allowance a hard time. If you're a productive co-operative member of the family who's fallen on temporary hard times, that's one thing but if you're selfish and chronically disloyal to your family for decades, that's another matter entirely and hardly deserves to be rewarded. Hopefully the francophone Quebeckers who have posted comments here so far are not representative of the majority. How can they be since their false separatist utopia keeps losing market share?

  29. Being born and raised on the West Coast, I have never been able to identify with the Canada that seems to be in a continual silly contest that has nothing to do with me. aside from paying an outsize share of corruption dollars. I never met a French-speaking individual until I was in my mid-20s, but knew many First Nations, Japanese, Chinese, American, Scandinavian and German people who worked amicably together or in competition within the fishing and forestry industries and in the towns and cities. That's the Canada I identify with, but the media spends most of its time on topics that diminish my sense of being Canadian. Who cares if Quebec is more or less corrupt than the rest? I concluded that a long time ago by following National news, and I don't care.

  30. I can't believe it! Patri-mes-quin à "Tout le monde en parle"!

    Il doit être en train de chier dans ses culottes à l'heure qu'il est…en fait, il doit pratiquement regretter tout son Quebec-bashing. La pire chose qui puisse lui arriver, c'est de paraître devant tout le Québec français.

  31. Look, M. Patriquin and associates had it right.
    Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada. If you every had to to business there you would understand just how deep seated it runs. Canada would be much better off if Quebec was a separate country. Sorry, probably offends some but Quebec is nothing more than an irritating thorn n the foot to the ROC. Or course, you in Alberta, SK and BC have university tuition of 1668.00 per year, subsidized day care (7.00 per day) and a myraid of other social benfits, that are paid by others in Canada. Give me a break, Quebec is mired in corruption and further more the separatist "threat" has been beneficial in extorting many billions of dollars from honest hard working Canadians. In fact the entire backbone of Quebec is corrupt in the fact that they receive so much by fraudlent means such as artificial subsidies to residents and business to keep Hyro revenues low so as not to impact equalization payments. Good by and good riddance. When can we expect you to send us the change of address notice? Can you take Charest, Marois and Duceppe when you exit..