New Party (CAQ) Wins Quebec Election

[butters]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

I would say it was for a while. 1993 to 2005 and possibly longer if not for so much liberal sandals and corruption during that time. In fact Chretien is the only PM to win 3 straight majority governments so yes I think conservatives were in a bad spot at that time. I think traditional liberals feel they are in the centre.

for a while... exactly... these things are always cyclical. Just like left wing politics ain't going anywhere either.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, butters said:

for a while... exactly... these things are always cyclical. Just like left wing politics ain't going anywhere either.

Well like I said it most likely would have been longer if not for all the liberal scandals and internal fighting between Martin and Chretien. Left wing politics are being defeated all over the globe. What do you think the reason is?

 

And again a true liberal party of Canada should be a centre party not a left wing or far left party.

[6string]

18 minutes ago, butters said:

antifa? really? the USA is thataway man (and that group is nothing more than a right wing bogeyman anyway)

Funded by George Soros who has backed the Clintons for decades, that right wing?

[butters]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Well like I said it most likely would have been longer if not for all the liberal scandals and internal fighting between Martin and Chretien. Left wing politics are being defeated all over the globe. What do you think the reason is?

 

And again a true liberal party of Canada should be a centre party not a left wing or far left party.

before getting to the reason, I would first have to agree that left wing politics are being defeated all over the globe. Most of the time a big swing in parties come when the old one is taking down by scandals, and people vote for the next viable party that isn't the one on the hot seat. Then eventually they blow it as well and it happens again. 

[butters]

4 minutes ago, 6string said:

Funded by George Soros who has backed the Clintons for decades, that right wing?

When I say right wing bogeyman, I mean that they are insignificant, and hyped up by the right because people like you get all excited. They are mostly astrotrurf. 

Get a grip. You are talking about the Clintons, Soros, and antifa non ironically in a discussion about canadian politics.

[VanGnome]

10 hours ago, DonLever said:

All political parties in Quebec have some degree of anti-immigrant to them.   Remember, in Quebec,  Quebec identity is utmost  to most everyone.   Unlike the rest of Canada, multiculturalism is not how they view society.  

Multiculturalism is fine, but it should not be the focus of what identifies a nation. It should be one aspect of a healthy immigration policy. The CPC and Liberals are guilty of pandering to the globalist idea of how Government should function, and of playing identity politics vis a vis gender equity issues, multiculturalism, etc.

Like anything, there are many ways to frame the context of a thing, and multiculturalism is one of those things. Max Bernier is 100% right, it should not be the multicultural differences that define Canada as a nation, but rather the shared values regardless of country of origin that unites the country.

Canada would not have become Canada if not for the tireless hard work of immigrants who came here. The difference between that level of immigration and what we have today is stark, and while it's currently but a fraction of the current representation, the refugee issue is a troubling harbinger of what is to come if domestic immigration policy is left unchecked.

However it seems in this day and age, you cannot be critical of one aspect of immigration without being labeled as a heretic or ignorant, intolerant, racist, xenophobic, islamophobic which to say the least is incredibly disheartening. In order to have strong policy, you must foster a discussion and be critical of the parts that don't work while praising and highlighting the aspects that do. The Liberals right now, and to a lesser extent the CPCs seem to bundle immigration regardless of context as an all or nothing affair, which you simply cannot do.

[xereau]

The new national party should probably see similar kinds of gains.  People are hungry for this kind of leadership.  I am still skeptical though.

[Lancaster]

On 10/1/2018 at 9:27 PM, butters said:

When I say right wing bogeyman, I mean that they are insignificant, and hyped up by the right because people like you get all excited. They are mostly astrotrurf. 

Get a grip. You are talking about the Clintons, Soros, and antifa non ironically in a discussion about canadian politics.

To be fair... Soros' fingerprints are all over Canadian elections.  Just follow the money trail for campaign donations.  

[butters]

1 hour ago, Lancaster said:

To be fair... Soros' fingerprints are all over Canadian elections.  Just follow the money trail for campaign donations.  

have you?

[Lancaster]

1 hour ago, butters said:

have you?

A quick one off the top of my head..... his organization (Tides Canada) contributed about $1 million to Gregor back in 2008.  

That same organization also contributed $4.3 million in a negative publicity campaign against the oil sands.  

 

[Ronaldoescobar]

MCGA!!

[Ryan Strome]

6 hours ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

MCGA!!

You need help.

[Russ]

On 01/10/2018 at 6:04 PM, Violator said:

Anti immigrant party this should go well.

I haven't read their policy but could it be that loophole immigrants use to get quick citizenship by going thru Quebec where they invest something like 800k and are supposed to spend 5 years in province eventhough most move well before then?  I assume thats been a sticking point for a while, the concept wasn't bad but the execution of that rule was bad.  Or I assume the refugees who keep hopping over aren't helping since the citizens are footing the bills on them to keep them safe and alive?

 

Either way it'll be interesting to see all the policies this party goes forward with.

[Ronaldoescobar]

6 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

You need help.

Wanna lend a hand?

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Wanna lend a hand?

No, I'm far from normal. It would just make things worse.

[TheAce]

On 10/1/2018 at 9:00 PM, nuckin_futz said:

All these people complaining about immigrants and voting in anti immigration parties just don't get it. Ask yourselves why do western governments bring in so many immigrants when it's not always popular with the established population? When it's tough for them to integrate, etc?

 

As Bill Clinton so famously said "It's the economy, Stupid". Birth rates especially across the western world are declining. This is not a good recipe for growing an economy. A growing economy needs more jobs, more workers, more consumers, higher wages, greater velocity of money, more inflation, more everything. So if people are not being birthed at needed levels, governments are going to bring in immigrants. Not because they want to, because they have to.

 

Just look at how western governments dealt with the Great Recession. They didn't let things fail and let the natural order of economics do it's thing. They wallpapered over it by plowing into trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt to get the economy growing. Because the resulting stagnation/deflation and possible breakdown of social order is unacceptable.

 

Western governments are willing to put up with the odd immigrant being a rapist or murderer. Because the fallout out from that is minor compared to the fallout of a stagnating or declining economy.

 

If you're one of the anti immigrant group, ask yourself how many kids do you have or are you planning to have? If the answer is 0,1 or 2 you're part of the reason why Canada is being inundated with immigrants. Either Canadians are going to have larger families or immigrants are coming.

 

It's the economy, Stupid.

If the average Canadian wasnt paying over 40% of there pay cheque to some form of tax then maybe they would have more kids.

[Warhippy]

On 2018-10-06 at 11:17 AM, TheAce said:

If the average Canadian wasnt paying over 40% of there pay cheque to some form of tax then maybe they would have more kids.

If the average Canadian wasn't such a whining bud more women would want to spit their kids out

[Warhippy]

So I had a feeling that Legaults notwithstanding clause in his push to ban muslims from wearing religious garb from public institutions would simply be a small pithy way of masking some sort of underlying but apparent bigotry.

 

Well looks like I might have been right

 

Today he came out and stated that the crucifix, the CROSS OF JESUS and the bloody icon of the catholic and christian churches...was not a religious item and therefore not part of his ban on religious garb/symbols from public institutions.

 

Call me shocked, really.  

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-francois-legault-crucifix-religious-symbols-1.4858757

 

The crucifix hanging in Quebec's National Assembly is a historical symbol, not a religious one, even though it represents the Christian values of the province's two colonial ancestors, premier-designate François Legault said Thursday.

Legault made the comments as he defended his decision to keep the crucifix in the legislature while moving forward with plans to ban certain civil servants from wearing religious symbols.

"We have to understand our past," Legault told reporters in Yerevan, Armenia, where he is attending the summit of the Francophonie.

The crucifix, he said, invokes the role of French Catholics and British Protestants in Quebec's history. He made no mention of Indigenous people.

 

The crucifix has hung above the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly since it was installed there in 1936. (Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)  

"In our past we had Protestants and Catholics. They built the values we have in Quebec. We have to recognize that and not mix that with religious signs." 

The crucifix was installed above the speaker's chair in the National Assembly in 1936. A government-commissioned report into secularism and identity issues recommended in 2008 that it be removed, but no government has done so. 

A delicate issue

Since his Coalition Avenir Québec won a majority in last week's provincial election, Legault has said one of his priorities will be preventing civil servants in "positions of authority" from wearing religious symbols, such as hijabs and kippas.

Among those to be affected are police officers, provincial judges, prison guards and teachers. The move is necessary, according to Legault, in order to protect Quebec's secular society. 

He raised his plans in a meeting earlier Thursday with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is also in Yerevan attending the Francophonie summit and who has publicly opposed Legault's proposal. 

"This is a ... delicate issue with Mr. Trudeau," Legault said in an interview with Radio-Canada.

"I told him I want to do this quickly. It's an issue that has lingered for 10 years, and now there is a consensus in Quebec."

Asked whether he feared a confrontation with Ottawa over the issue, Legault added: "Quebec is a nation. It is a distinct society. We have support. We just received a clear mandate in the election. I think all that has to be taken into account."

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Quebec's incoming premier, François Legault, in Armenia on Thursday.(Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Quebec's new immigration model

Along with religious symbols, Legault also raised his immigration polices with Trudeau.  

The incoming premier informed the prime minister that Quebec intends to accept 20 per cent fewer immigrants next year.

Legault also told Trudeau that Quebec will add language and value requirements for immigrants seeking to settle in the province.

Though immigration falls under federal jurisdiction, Quebec has an agreement with Ottawa that allows it to select its own economic immigrants.

According to Legault's account of the meeting, Trudeau raised the possibility that Quebec would be able to alter how it selects immigrants without reopening that agreement.

"He wasn't certain that we would need to modify the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa," Legault said in the Radio-Canada interview.

He added that representatives from the province would meet federal officials in the coming weeks to detail the "new immigration model that my government will put in place."  

Legault is scheduled to appoint a cabinet next week.

[Ryan Strome]

@Warhippy didn't the liberal government introduce the ban on religious stuff?

[Warhippy]

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

@Warhippy didn't the liberal government introduce the ban on religious stuff?

Parti Quebecois did in 2013 for obvious religious symbols in the public place

In 2017 The Liberals in Quebec introduced a motion to ban face coverings in public institutions including masks/toques/balaclavas etc and yes religious garb

Legault is reintroducing this as ALL religious symbolism BUT....is dictating what is and is not a religious symbol by saying the cross/crucifix is not a religious symbol

 

I know that over a billion christians and catholics will be shocked to hear that the lower case T in their house with the little man attached to it is not a religious symbol