The Legault government

237 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

Pondering wrote:

So which take priority? Freedom to practice religion or equality? 

In Canada, in practice, religious rights nearly always take priority. In Québec, that remains to be seen.

lagatta4

One of the topics at La Grande transition this weekend is indeed organizing under a CAQ government.  Unfortunately I can't copy the text of that workshop; it is a pdf or something. You have to refer to the general programme; it is on Saturday afternoon, 2:30 pm.

swallow swallow's picture

Wow. That white-supremacist activist wasn't being racist at that moment. OK. 

 

pietro_bcc

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

I am scared that the CAQ won't even consider these alternatives and will just close the schools because that's what they want to do.

lol...I laugh loudly at the brain dead anglos that voted for CAQ buying Legault's promises to the anglo community... I also laugh at the anglo rubes who think he's telling the truth when he calls himself a 'federalist'

Of course they are trying to close these schools. As is many of us who don't and could not afford a condo are being squeezed into eviction. I am sure they would like to privatize public schools. I think Quebecers voted this province a really huge mistake a la Trump. The pain this government is going to inflict on Quebec is immeasurable. A gentrifation of the entire province. It's the reason I voted Liberal. At least I know exactly what to expect from a PLQ government. I don't believe they are as radical or as right wing as the CAQ. Imo. of course.

Do you have any information concerning the number of anglophones voting for CAQ? Do you know anyone who believes Legault is a federalist?

Its impossible to have a precise number, especially because polls don't have anglophone as a category. They list "non-francophone", which would be anglo/allo.

If I had to guess I'd say that maybe 20% of anglos voted CAQ? Maybe 10%? but that's speculative and not based on polling.

Its not much, but I do know a couple.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Wow. That white-supremacist activist wasn't being racist at that moment. OK. 

 

So she was wearing a sign stating so? The question wasn't racist. I agree that the federal government should take on the entire cost of refugees. No province should have to shoulder a penny of the cost. 

swallow swallow's picture

Mme Blain lui reprochait d’avoir dépensé 146 millions$ pour les « immigrants illégaux », alors qu’en réalité ce sont des demandeurs d’asile et nous sommes obligés d’étudier leurs demandes en vertu des traités internationaux. Ces gens ne sont pas là sous l’invitation de Trudeau, mais ils fuient plutôt les politiques de Trump et tout cela s’inscrit dans un contexte international où il y a une crise des réfugiés.es depuis au moins 2015. ...

« Vous M. Trudeau, êtes-vous tolérant avec les Québécois de souche? !? » Pendant ce temps, un autre complice lança une remarque raciste à propos des autochtones, tandis qu’un autre (Richard Majeau) apostropha Trudeau avec une pointe islamophobe.

Une fois sur place, un de leurs compagnons s’était mis une ceinture fléchée et distribuait des petits drapeaux du Québec pour troller les libéraux :

Mieux encore, le vidéaste qui avait filmé la scène, Carl Brochu, a admis lors d’une web-émission que tout avait été minutieusement planifié. 

De plus en plus de groupes d’extrême-droite talonnent Trudeau, non pas pour les bonnes raisons (économiques, environnementales, etc.), mais parce qu’on l’accuse absurdement de favoriser l’immigration soi-disant « illégale » et d’« islamiser » le Canada. Au lieu de critiquer les « élites » et les inégalités pour exiger un monde plus juste, on se braque contre les minorités culturelles et les nouveaux arrivants.

Ces groupes font une fixation sur Trudeau, appelant à des actions directes. ...

https://xaviercamus.com/2018/08/20/diane-blain-nouvelle-coqueluche-de-lextreme-droite/

pietro_bcc wrote:

If I had to guess I'd say that maybe 20% of anglos voted CAQ? Maybe 10%? but that's speculative and not based on polling.

Its not much, but I do know a couple.

I know a couple too, but I know a lot more anglos who voted QS than CAQ (most vote Liberal of course). 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Mme Blain lui reprochait d’avoir dépensé 146 millions$ pour les « immigrants illégaux », alors qu’en réalité ce sont des demandeurs d’asile et nous sommes obligés d’étudier leurs demandes en vertu des traités internationaux. Ces gens ne sont pas là sous l’invitation de Trudeau, mais ils fuient plutôt les politiques de Trump et tout cela s’inscrit dans un contexte international où il y a une crise des réfugiés.es depuis au moins 2015. ...

« Vous M. Trudeau, êtes-vous tolérant avec les Québécois de souche? !? » Pendant ce temps, un autre complice lança une remarque raciste à propos des autochtones, tandis qu’un autre (Richard Majeau) apostropha Trudeau avec une pointe islamophobe.

Une fois sur place, un de leurs compagnons s’était mis une ceinture fléchée et distribuait des petits drapeaux du Québec pour troller les libéraux :

Mieux encore, le vidéaste qui avait filmé la scène, Carl Brochu, a admis lors d’une web-émission que tout avait été minutieusement planifié. 

De plus en plus de groupes d’extrême-droite talonnent Trudeau, non pas pour les bonnes raisons (économiques, environnementales, etc.), mais parce qu’on l’accuse absurdement de favoriser l’immigration soi-disant « illégale » et d’« islamiser » le Canada. Au lieu de critiquer les « élites » et les inégalités pour exiger un monde plus juste, on se braque contre les minorités culturelles et les nouveaux arrivants.

Ces groupes font une fixation sur Trudeau, appelant à des actions directes. ...

https://xaviercamus.com/2018/08/20/diane-blain-nouvelle-coqueluche-de-lextreme-droite/

Part of that appears not to be true. She didn't ask Trudeau about his having spent 146 million. It is Quebec that spent 146 million. 

Trudeau made the remarks after the woman interrupted him during an event in Quebec on Thursday to ask when the federal government would repay the province for the $146 million that Quebec says it has cost to handle an influx of asylum seekers.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4397026/trudeau-calls-out-woman-racism/

I want an answer to that question regardless of whether or not the woman asking it is or was racist. The question wasn't racist and it deserves an answer not an accusation. 

swallow swallow's picture
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

Translated transcript and video of full exchange is at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tranlation-transcription-trudeau-heckler-video-1.4793229

Thanks for that. Clearly this woman is a racist and her friends shouting, "this is not Mohawk land" reminded me of the ugly scenes in Châteauguay during the Oka crisis.

Using the term illegal immigrant instead of refugee is victim blaming terminology. Pondering your lack of empathy is very macho.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Translated transcript and video of full exchange is at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tranlation-transcription-trudeau-heckler-video-1.4793229

Thanks for that. Clearly this woman is a racist and her friends shouting, "this is not Mohawk land" reminded me of the ugly scenes in Châteauguay during the Oka crisis.

Using the term illegal immigrant instead of refugee is victim blaming terminology. Pondering your lack of empathy is very macho.

It is your accusation that is macho. I have been very specific in stating the question itself is not racist and that I want an answer to it as well. It is not racist nor lacking in empathy to expect the federal government to pick up the tab. 

Racism is fed by feeling social systems are under stress and they are under stress. I have always said it is not a choice between providing social housing and supports for refugees versus providing for needy Canadians but refugees do carry a financial cost in health care and housing and social supports in general. Supports which they need and should have. 

I did not watch the video, I quoted the article I was referring to. I said the question wasn't racist not that the woman wasn't racist. 

The attack nature of the board is really tedious and detracts from political discussion. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering you are railing about "illegal immigrants" and you think you are on the high road. I did not hear any coherent question from that racist woman you seem to admire so much. The numbers are public knowledge that is where she got them from. They are the cost of providing border security in your province. Do you have a question about the funding formula then try asking it in a way that does not imply that these people are a burden on you personally.

Quebec has the largest stretch of border accessible to people fleeing the North East US so that is why so many are crossing there. I always love the white settler mentality that says I'm here now and have my piece of stolen indigenous land so lock the gates and don't let anyone else in, unless they look like me.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering you are railing about "illegal immigrants" and you think you are on the high road. I did not hear any coherent question from that racist woman you seem to admire so much. The numbers are public knowledge that is where she got them from. They are the cost of providing border security in your province. Do you have a question about the funding formula then try asking it in a way that does not imply that these people are a burden on you personally.

Quebec has the largest stretch of border accessible to people fleeing the North East US so that is why so many are crossing there. I always love the white settler mentality that says I'm here now and have my piece of stolen indigenous land so lock the gates and don't let anyone else in, unless they look like me.

You are lying but that doesn't seem to bother you. I am not railing against immigrants. I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees. I really don't want you to miss this sentence.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees.  I think we should increase immigration and accept more refugees. 

Do you understand yet?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

https://itsgoingdown.org/montreal-no-borders-no-one-illegal/

https://noii-van.resist.ca/

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No one is illegal.

Some of them are here illegally, though.  Or how shall we euphemize that?

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

Worth repeating. Thanks, krop.

By the way, who is paying for all these gay-straight alliance things in our schools? And who is paying for all these abortions in our health care system for otherwise healthy mothers?

I never said I'm against those things. I just want to know who's paying. Can't I just find out who's paying? I'm all for those things. Really. Just want to know who's paying. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

Worth repeating. Thanks, krop.

By the way, who is paying for all these gay-straight alliance things in our schools? And who is paying for all these abortions in our health care system for otherwise healthy mothers?

I never said I'm against those things. I just want to know who's paying. Can't I just find out who's paying? I'm all for those things. Really. Just want to know who's paying. 

You should want to know who is paying. Abortions are paid for through medicare insurance which is not free.  Gay Straight alliances in school are free as far as I know.  As noted the Quebec border is popular for geographic reasons. The federal government should be picking up the tab, unless you are just cheap and want Quebec and Ontario to do all the spending? Kropotkin,maybe you should put your money where your mouth is instead of using accusations of racism to protect your wallet. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My money? Gee I pay taxes just like everyone else. I frankly do not know how the provincial federal share is allocated but apparently you think it is unfair to you personally. Please explain, with some links to articles, why you have a problem with the current arrangements for paying for a necessary service. Careful you don't stumble across any articles that imply many things like immigration are areas that Quebec has demanded to have more say in than other provinces and that might actually be part of the reason for the higher costs besides for the fact that way more people cross the border into Quebec than any other province.

cco

Québec has no jurisdiction over refugees. Ottawa reserves that category for itself to manage.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Québec has no jurisdiction over refugees. Ottawa reserves that category for itself to manage.

Correct in which case they should be picking up the bill not laying it on provinces and municipalities. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

My money? Gee I pay taxes just like everyone else. I frankly do not know how the provincial federal share is allocated but apparently you think it is unfair to you personally. Please explain, with some links to articles, why you have a problem with the current arrangements for paying for a necessary service. Careful you don't stumble across any articles that imply many things like immigration are areas that Quebec has demanded to have more say in than other provinces and that might actually be part of the reason for the higher costs besides for the fact that way more people cross the border into Quebec than any other province.

Yes, way more people cross in Quebec which is why the federal government should pick up the tab. 

You don't pay taxes in Quebec. All I have said is that the question as to who is paying, the province or the feds, is a fair question and it seems there is some disagreement over how much of the cost is absorbed by the federal government who should be picking up the entire tab. 

You classify the question as racist. You are very anti-eastern Canada. I can't imagine any other reason for wanting Quebec to pick up the tab other than you don't want to pay your share.  I don't really believe that I'm just responding the way that you do. Attack. Fling accusations. Assume the worst possible motivation. 

The refugees that get to our boarders or fly here are the strongest. Refugees from camps are often the weakest. 

https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html

There are 25.4 million refugees under UNHCR. 3.1 million asylum-seekers. Canada's population is about 37 million. We won't take them all but we can take more than zero.

It should be possible to discuss the practicalities of how many immigrants and refugees we take in which category. I am very big on family reunification for immigrants. If a family in Canada has family that have become refugees anywhere in the world it is even more important to take them all if that is at all feasible. I don't know that it is because I have no idea what kind of numbers that represents. 

Is the most moral approach to accept anyone who can set foot on Canadian land but make everyone else wait in line in squalid refugee camps? Does it tempt people to take chances? Does it take the strongest leaving the weak behind? What is the percentage arriving at our border versus the percentage we take from camps? What is the success rate at integration? 

Discussions such as these cannot be had at babble. Anyone with concerns about immigration will find that only the right is willing to discuss it with them. The left is its own worst enemy. You drive people to the right. 

voice of the damned

Pondering: 

If the heckler in Quebec was simply asking a question about which level of government bears fiscal responsibility for the refugees, what on Earth was this all about...? 

BLAIN (repeatedly): Are you tolerant of Québécois de souche [white French Quebecers]?

MALE HECKLER (repeatedly): We are not in Mohawk territory.

TRUDEAU: Yes madam, I am tolerant of all perspectives, it is you, madam, who is intolerant, and you don't have a place in this beautiful gathering of Liberals. Thank you, friends.

(Cheering. Trudeau descends from stage and begins shaking hands with people in the crowd.)

BLAIN: Have you spread intolerance towards Québécois de souche?

Why bring Trudeau's attitude toward white people into it, if her concerns had nothing to do with race? Was she mistranslated or misquoted?  

voice of the damned
lagatta4

De souche would be better translated "old-stock", but the translation used is not misleading; perhaps a bit loaded.

Pondering

I don't care about the heckler. If background information and other things at the event prove she is racist fine, I accept that conclusion.  She is one person. That doesn't mean no one in the world can ask the same question because that woman was/is racist. The question itself is not racist.

I stand by my statement that immigration can't be discussed here or generally speaking with anyone on the left unless it is to say we should have unlimited immigration and no borders. 

Unionist

"Québécois de souche" refers to Quebecers who can trace their descent to the French colonizers from the 16th century onwards. If her innocent question about "who's paying for the illegal immigrants" left any doubt as to motive and meaning of the question, her persistent accusations that Trudeau doesn't care about "old-stock" Quebecers certainly removed any doubt.

And the question of "who pays" is worse than disingenuous. All immigration (leaving aside the refugee issue) is under federal jurisdiction. Have you heard anyone say: "You feds let them in, so you should pay for their health care and to school their kids and build more roads and sidewalks and collect their trash!!"? I didn't think so.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm guessing this happened in the Quebec City/ Regions area. That's our Alabama. This woman sounds like a raving racist pig. Probably a La Meute plant. A CAQuiste low life.

And I think Trudeau's reaction was proper. Why shit on Trudeau here? It's this bigoted idiot that deserves attacking.

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

I'm guessing this happened in the Quebec City/ Regions area. That's our Alabama. This woman sounds like a raving racist pig. Probably a La Meute plant. A CAQuiste low life.

This happened last August, in Sabrevois, in the Montérégie. Read this:

Was the Trudeau Heckling Incident Staged By Far-Right Groups?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm guessing this happened in the Quebec City/ Regions area. That's our Alabama. This woman sounds like a raving racist pig. Probably a La Meute plant. A CAQuiste low life.

This happened last August, in Sabrevois, in the Montérégie. Read this:

Was the Trudeau Heckling Incident Staged By Far-Right Groups?

 

Thanks Unionist,I appreciate it. I was sure she was a plant for some far right group. I can't keep track of all these groups. Donald Trump is to blame. He is the one that over turned the rock these right wing maggots had been slithering under all these years all over Europe,the US and Canada.

And this woman sounds like she may be a professional provocateur.

The real provocateur is the MSM wsho reported the story solidly bent to the defense of this bigoted POS

Just a quick google search would show who this woman really is. But that's typical of the MSM. They research NOTHING.

JKR

Pondering wrote:
I stand by my statement that immigration can't be discussed here or generally speaking with anyone on the left unless it is to say we should have unlimited immigration and no borders. 

I think our immigration levels should be maintained around 1 - 3% of our population and I like our borders pretty much as is although it would be nice if we could annex Alaska.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

"Québécois de souche" refers to Quebecers who can trace their descent to the French colonizers from the 16th century onwards. If her innocent question about "who's paying for the illegal immigrants" left any doubt as to motive and meaning of the question, her persistent accusations that Trudeau doesn't care about "old-stock" Quebecers certainly removed any doubt.

And the question of "who pays" is worse than disingenuous. All immigration (leaving aside the refugee issue) is under federal jurisdiction. Have you heard anyone say: "You feds let them in, so you should pay for their health care and to school their kids and build more roads and sidewalks and collect their trash!!"? I didn't think so.

Fine. She is racist. It still doesn't make the question itself, independent of the woman, racist.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-legault-to-press-ottawa-for-300-million-to-cover-costs-of-refugee/

Since 2017, there has been an influx of asylum seekers entering Quebec across the United States border. Legault said it takes more than 18 months for would-be refugees to find out if they can remain in the country.

In the meantime, Quebec pays for their housing, education and health care costs, which have totalled roughly $300 million over two years, Legault said. He said Ottawa is responsible for the lengthy delays in the system....

Federal authorities processed 24,745 asylum claims made in Quebec in 2017 – five times more than the previous year. The pace has continued this year, with 23,595 claimants in Quebec processed through the end of October.

The province receives more than half of all asylum claims in Canada, including the vast majority of those entering through non-official border crossings.

Do you not get that the above situation fuels resentment and racism? Call the woman racist for whatever other reason but the objection to Quebec being stuck with the tab for a federal issue is valid and not rooted in racism. 

 

swallow swallow's picture

Thanks for conceding the point she is a racist provocateur, Pondering. 

Asking about the financial arrangements is not in itself racist, in my view. The staged provocation, posing as an ordinary woman, was an effort to trap Trudeau. Seeing the context, that she was with a group of racist provocateurs, slinging insults at Mohawks and pleading persecution of “old stock” Quebecers, and in no way some innocent ordinary Québécois, Trudeau shut her down. As he should have. 

Exact financial arrangements can be discussed between Quebec and Ottawa, as they always are. Doesn’t mean clear racist provocations should be shrugged off. 

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:
Seeing the context, that she was with a group of racist provocateurs, slinging insults at Mohawks and pleading

I was confused by those Mohawk-related comments at first, but reading them again, I think they might have been directed against the woman, ie. she says something meaning "old stock Quebecers", and the guy replies "We are not on Mohawk territory", meaning that her comments would only really be relevant if they WERE on Mohawk territory, since Mohawks are the true "old stock Quebecers".

That's just my interpretation, but I really can't think of another that would encompass an anti-Mohawk intention. Okay, so maybe the guy doesn't like Mohawks, but how does that relate to whether or not he is standing on Mohawk land at that particular time?

Unless he was trying to refute the claim that the land was owned by Mohawks. But was that the topic of Trudeau's or anyone else's speech that day?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Do you not get that the above situation fuels resentment and racism? Call the woman racist for whatever other reason but the objection to Quebec being stuck with the tab for a federal issue is valid and not rooted in racism.

Pondering the problem is that it is generally accepted that Quebec does very well in its fiscal arrangements with Ottawa and in fact some politicians call the imbalance in Quebec's favor shameful.  You want to take one item out of the myriad of line items in the federal/provincial relationship and focus on it. Why does the one item that involves brown people seeking refuge in our country require a special debate?

In 2017, the Coalition Avenir Québec pointed out that since 2003, federal equalization payments to Québec have tripled to more than $11 billion. The party's leader, François Legault, found it "shameful".[16] Federal MP and People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier says that the equalization program leads provinces into what he calls a "poverty trap", where they become dependent on government funds.[17] In 2010, he cited the example of Québec, with an economy that had been lagging behind that of the rest of Canada for four decades, receiving equalization payments that were unfair. The rest of Canada helping to pay for Québec's bills. Bernier wants the Québec "to be richer" through more "individual freedom and responsibility and less government".[18] In May 2019, The People's Party of Canada called for a new equalization formula, that respects the Constitution, that would give lower income provinces, like Québec, incentives to develop pro-growth economic policies thereby avoiding the "welfare trap".[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada#Alberta

swallow swallow's picture

He was trying to refute the claim that they were on Mohawk territory - which is a standard pro forma land acknowledgement at many events in the greater Montreal area these days. Quite likely someone had acknowledged they were on Mohawk land earlier in the event, since it would include the Monteregie. 

There’s even a Six Nations (Mohawks are one of the six) emblem on Montreal’s flag now, the tree of peace. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Thanks for conceding the point she is a racist provocateur, Pondering. 

Asking about the financial arrangements is not in itself racist, in my view. The staged provocation, posing as an ordinary woman, was an effort to trap Trudeau. Seeing the context, that she was with a group of racist provocateurs, slinging insults at Mohawks and pleading persecution of “old stock” Quebecers, and in no way some innocent ordinary Québécois, Trudeau shut her down. As he should have. 

Exact financial arrangements can be discussed between Quebec and Ottawa, as they always are. Doesn’t mean clear racist provocations should be shrugged off. 

In my opinion Trudeau is rude and demeaning towards ordinary people who challenge him. I used this incident as an example because I had read about it. The article did not identify the woman or any affiliates therefore I was unaware of the surrounding facts. I haven't even watched the video because I take your word for it. So, she was a poor example. I never defended her as not-racist. I only ever claimed that the question in itself is not racist which it isn't. Solely based on that question she can't be accused of racism. Only the surrounding facts tell us she is racist. 

Aside from denouncing her he still should have addressed the question because the question is valid. It isn't just a conversation for Quebec and Ottawa to be having. Quebec citizens have a right to object to picking up the tab. In this particular case Trudeau may not have been exibiting his discrespect but I maintain in other incidents he has. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Aside from denouncing her he still should have addressed the question because the question is valid. It isn't just a conversation for Quebec and Ottawa to be having. Quebec citizens have a right to object to picking up the tab. In this particular case Trudeau may not have been exibiting his discrespect but I maintain in other incidents he has. 

The question is not valid, please try to pay attention to what others are posting. You are wrong.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Do you not get that the above situation fuels resentment and racism? Call the woman racist for whatever other reason but the objection to Quebec being stuck with the tab for a federal issue is valid and not rooted in racism.

Pondering the problem is that it is generally accepted that Quebec does very well in its fiscal arrangements with Ottawa and in fact some politicians call the imbalance in Quebec's favor shameful.  You want to take one item out of the myriad of line items in the federal/provincial relationship and focus on it. Why does the one item that involves brown people seeking refuge in our country require a special debate?

In 2017, the Coalition Avenir Québec pointed out that since 2003, federal equalization payments to Québec have tripled to more than $11 billion. The party's leader, François Legault, found it "shameful".[16] Federal MP and People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier says that the equalization program leads provinces into what he calls a "poverty trap", where they become dependent on government funds.[17] In 2010, he cited the example of Québec, with an economy that had been lagging behind that of the rest of Canada for four decades, receiving equalization payments that were unfair. The rest of Canada helping to pay for Québec's bills. Bernier wants the Québec "to be richer" through more "individual freedom and responsibility and less government".[18] In May 2019, The People's Party of Canada called for a new equalization formula, that respects the Constitution, that would give lower income provinces, like Québec, incentives to develop pro-growth economic policies thereby avoiding the "welfare trap".[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada#Alberta

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:

He was trying to refute the claim that they were on Mohawk territory - which is a standard pro forma land acknowledgement at many events in the greater Montreal area these days. Quite likely someone had acknowledged they were on Mohawk land earlier in the event, since it would include the Monteregie. 

There’s even a Six Nations (Mohawks are one of the six) emblem on Montreal’s flag now, the tree of peace. 

Yeah, I thought of that after I posted, but was nowhere near a computer. Makes sense, I wasn't thinking of those pro forma declarations when I wrote that. Thanks.

lagatta4

Projet Montréal brought that in; more recognition of the original presence has been a longstanding demand from Indigenous cultural organisations. The tree is at the centre of the flag. I'm annoyed that Amherst street has not yet been renamed.

There are some questions as to whether the Mohawks were actually the Indigenous people on the island, but it certainly was a related Iroquoian people. It is utterly ridiculous to refute that proto-Iroquoians have been present here for thousands of years. The French settlers would be dead without Indigenous knowledge and technics. Even maple syrup wasn't just a tasty treat; it was a lifesaver in a hungry season.

swallow swallow's picture

Apparently some even claim the St Lawrence Iroquois were Abenaki. But to me the claim for Mohawk land seems irrefutable and a matter of basic justice. The whole "proto" stuff seems to rest on an idea that Indigenous cultures are fixed and can't change, when of course all cultures change over time. The Great Law of Peace and people who ulohold it have bene in the Montrelaa rea since time immemorial. 

lagatta, that's so strange - is Amherst Street in the renaming process still? What's the delay? 

lagatta4

Obviously peoples and cultures evolve, including the Iroquoian language family.

I don't understand why Amherst hasn't been renamed yet, and will consult the Indigenous cultural association I freelance for as well as Projet Montréal. I it is no-name street now. By the way, the same street farther north is named Christophe-Colomb.

pietro_bcc

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-amherst-street-rename-1...

This is the last news about the rename that I can find, don't know what the hold up is.

pietro_bcc

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/legault-considers-unplugging...

Hopefully he gets rid of the VLTs, its been known for decades that Lotto Quebec purposefully targetted poorer neighborhoods by putting VLTs in bars, with almost none in rich areas. Take them all out and while you're at it ban people at the casino from gambling while drunk. The whole purpose for lotto Quebec was to protect those who gamble, they should do their job rather than treating people with gambling problems as the province's piggy bank.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The question is not valid, please try to pay attention to what others are posting. You are wrong.

Pondering the problem is that it is generally accepted that Quebec does very well in its fiscal arrangements with Ottawa and in fact some politicians call the imbalance in Quebec's favor shameful.  You want to take one item out of the myriad of line items in the federal/provincial relationship and focus on it. Why does the one item that involves brown people seeking refuge in our country require a special debate?

In 2017, the Coalition Avenir Québec pointed out that since 2003, federal equalization payments to Québec have tripled to more than $11 billion. The party's leader, François Legault, found it "shameful".[16] Federal MP and People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier says that the equalization program leads provinces into what he calls a "poverty trap", where they become dependent on government funds.[17] In 2010, he cited the example of Québec, with an economy that had been lagging behind that of the rest of Canada for four decades, receiving equalization payments that were unfair. The rest of Canada helping to pay for Québec's bills. Bernier wants the Québec "to be richer" through more "individual freedom and responsibility and less government".[18] In May 2019, The People's Party of Canada called for a new equalization formula, that respects the Constitution, that would give lower income provinces, like Québec, incentives to develop pro-growth economic policies thereby avoiding the "welfare trap".[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada#Alberta

So basically Quebec is being blamed for not being richer because we aren't sufficiently right-wing. That’s your argument for why we should be picking up Ottawa’s tab.  Equalization payments and the cost of processing refugees have nothing to do with one another.

The color of the people has nothing at all to do with the subject.  You use race as a debating technique and a cudgel. Suggesting that all discussion of refugees and immigration must be racist increases racism.  Why would you want that? It is ridiculous that these topics can’t be discussed on the left.

If we continue on this track we will see a rise in right-wing populism. Good kind people who are not racist are fed up with the constant silencing accusations. You succeed in silencing people but not influencing them.  You leave that to the right wing who acknowledges their concerns while encouraging worker programs that allow businesses to abuse employees and use them to drive down wages. The left is its own worst enemy.

The position on the left is 100% acceptance of all immigrants and refugees and it isn't open for discussion because anything else is racist. 

I wish I was exagerating but I am not. With that as your position you will lose to the right every time because it would destroy Canada. People read that position from the attitude on the left which knocks them out of the running for power. I would not elect a party or representative with that position no matter how bad the alternative because nothing could be worse than Canada not surviving as a country. No way could we fight climate change or anything else. The US wouldn't tolerate completely open borders on their doorstep. The idea is perposterous. 

The left seems to want to shut down discussion by making people trip over their words to not be accused of racism. 

If no one is illegal then anyone can take a plane or car or walk into Canada and have the right to stay here. That is open borders. Within a month or two BC would be unrecognizable. 

JKR

Who’s proposing open borders?

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

Who’s proposing open borders?

Anyone who says "No one is illegal". Because the statement means that no one can be legally prevented from crossing the borders. 

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

Who’s proposing open borders?

Anyone who says "No one is illegal". Because the statement means that no one can be legally prevented from crossing the borders. 

Are any political parties proposing open borders?

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

Who’s proposing open borders?

Anyone who says "No one is illegal". Because the statement means that no one can be legally prevented from crossing the borders. 

Are any political parties proposing open borders?

Maybe not, but Pondering is debating Kropotkin, who wrote in post 164 of this thread... 

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

 

voice of the damned

^ Personally, I agree that the heckler in Quebec was racist, but not simply because she believes it's okay to call some people "illegal immigrants". Rather, it's because she seemed to think that old-stock Quebecers should be given preferential treatment over other people, which calls into question her reasons for raising the issue of immigration in the first place. 

Had she simply gone to the microphone and said "Mr. Trudeau, there is some concern that the financial burden for the recent influx of immigrants from the USA is not being properly shouldered by the federal government, given their sole jurisdiction over the matter" or even "Do you have a plan in place to ensure that all immigration to Canada takes place within the bounds of the law?", I wouldn't be calling her statements into question.

Pondering

I think everyone agrees that she is racist so I am not sure what the point is of discussing her so much. 

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

Who’s proposing open borders?

Anyone who says "No one is illegal". Because the statement means that no one can be legally prevented from crossing the borders. 

Are any political parties proposing open borders?

Maybe not, but Pondering is debating Kropotkin, who wrote in post 164 of this thread... 

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

 

No, VOTD, not even close. Here is what Pondering is saying over and over and over again:

Quote:
The position on the left is 100% acceptance of all immigrants and refugees and it isn't open for discussion because anything else is racist.

Not kropotkin. "THE LEFT". I have never heard of anyone, left, right, or butterscotch, who says anyone who wants to come to Canada any old time must be allowed in, no questions asked, refugee claimant or not. Refugee claimants - yes, they must be allowed a hearing. That's, like, what we call, international law. If their claim is denied, they can't stay. Other immigrants? Nope. If kropotkin actually advocates that, then he needs to give himself a serious shake. But I don't believe he advocates that for one second.

Pondering has created a straw left in order to perpetuate this idiotic "debate" about one putrid heckler last August. A "debate" that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

Please don't fuel Pondering's flame. Her own spontaneous combustion is more than adequate in that regard. And I sincerely apologize for participating, however briefly, in this toxic thread drift.

Pages