The Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) doesn't put it as bluntly as the above headline,
but the conclusion of a remarkable study it published is obvious:
for immigrants, the Quebec labour market is much more difficult to penetrate than in other provinces.
It is based on statistics for 2009, the last full year for which data is available which compares age, gender, education level, region of origin. The document provides the most complete portrait ever published on the subject.
In Quebec, immigrants occupy 12% of total employment, representing 451,000 jobs. It
is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these jobs are in the
Montreal area, by far the first choice of residence among newcomers.
From
the outset, one figure is obvious: in Quebec, the unemployment rate among
immigrants is 13.7%, compared to only 7.6% among Canadian-born workers
(the experts call these workers "natives.") This
situation is not unique: in most countries of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), there are variations of
the same order.
But the rest of Canada is able to do much better.
In Ontario, the unemployment rate among immigrants is 10.7%, compared to 8.4% among the "natives." Across Canada, the corresponding figures are 10% and 7.8%.
In
some categories of workers, disproportions are considerable: among very
recent immigrants (arriving within the last 5 years), unemployment is
only 7.4% in Saskatchewan, compared to 22.4% in Quebec. Certainly, over time, the situation of immigrants improves. Thus,
we see that in the long-term immigrants (here for at least 10 years), the unemployment rate falls to
10.7% in Quebec, but still substantially higher than the Canadian
average of 8.3%.
What
these numbers tell us is that the situation in Quebec can be reasonably compared to other countries
internationally, but in a Canadian context, Quebec lags far
behind.
What can cause this?
The paper, first and foremost is dedicated to describing the situation and thus remains fairly quiet on the subject. According
to the study director, Jean-Marc-Malambwe Kilolo, the relatively strong
presence of immigrants in a host society facilitates the integration of
new entrants to the labour market. But all things considered, Quebec attracts fewer immigrants than other provinces. We see that immigrants account for 12% of employment in Quebec. In British Columbia, the proportion is close to 27%, 29% in Ontario, with a high proportion of long-term immigrants. The statistical weight of Ontario contributes greatly to raise the Canadian average to 20%.
In
both provinces, immigrants are obviously a critical mass, much more
important than in Quebec and this can certainly contribute, through the
multiplier effect, to facilitate access to the labour market.
We must also question the usefulness of diplomas. The unemployment rate reaches 20% among educated immigrants from Africa
(including the Maghreb countries), but falls to 16% among Asians and
only 9% among Europeans.
However, the Maghreb countries (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) provide many more immigrants in Quebec than across Canada.
One remarkable statistic is that when immigrants, regardless of country of origin, decide to do their training in Canada or to get a diploma in a
Canadian educational institution, the unemployment rate falls dramatically to 8.5%.
The
document also sheds light on the very interesting employment rate (i.e.
the proportion of people of working age who hold a job). The higher the employment rate, the better. As might be expected, the rate of immigrants holding jobs in Quebec is 53.2%, well below that of Canadian-born workers at 60.8%. The most striking difference is for young women aged 15 to 24 years. Among young immigrant women in this category, the employment rate falls to 36%, compared 60.6% among "natives" in the same age group. The
document offers no explanation on the subject, but we can ask the question:
Could this gap have anything to do with the high proportion of North
African immigrants and their attitude towards women at work?
Download the report in French
See an important note tomorrow about this post.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Crucifix Ban is Really About Islam
While lapsed or reluctant Christians have abandoned the Church in droves, they remain unwilling to part with the symbols and trappings of their Christian heritage.
There's no doubt that the position is a bit ambiguous, but interestingly most of those who have become 'non-practising' or lapsed, remain firmly attached to the philosophy and teachings of the the Church, nonetheless.
Like it or not, those advocating secularism in public must accept that the fundamental tenets of our society are based on the Judeo-Christian values described in the Ten Commandments and that those values remain as legitimate to the non-practicing as to the orthodox.
And so, most Christians, practicing or not, believe that traditional Christian symbols, the crucifix included, remain a symbol of these societal values that all can share.
Removing Christian symbols from the public, is not as easy a question to decide as those in the secular movement would have us believe and the question is certainly not exclusive to Quebec.
Europe has been grappling with this very same question for quite a while now and recently an interesting court decision came down.
"The European Court for Human Rights has ruled Italy has the right to have crucifixes in the country's schools. The sentence passed by the Grande Chambre overturns the sentence dated November 3rd 2009, which had found Italy guilty of violating religious freedom, following an appeal..... The judges established that there is nothing to prove that students are allegedly influenced by the presence of the crucifix in classrooms." Link
"In fact, the Court recognized that in countries with a Christian tradition, Christianity has a specific social legitimacy which is distinct from other philosophical and religious beliefs and justifies the adoption of a differential approach where necessary. It is because Italy is a country of Christian tradition that the Christian symbol can legitimately have a specific visible presence in society" Read the Court DecisionRemoving all vestiges of Christian tradition in public is no easy task. The secularists demand that crucifixes should be taken down from public buildings and that the state must remain firmly neutral vis-a-vis religion in public.
But taking that argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean the elimination of Christmas and Easter as public holidays and would require the removal of the Christian names from our towns and streets.
Interestingly the pressure to remove Christian symbols from public display hasn't come from the minority religions who seem to have no dog in the fight. As long as they are free to practice their own religion in public, they seem at ease with public displays of Christianity.
And that may be the rub.
Many of those asking to remove public Christian symbols, are in fact promoting a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with secularism.
The rise of Islam in Quebec and the perceived attendant threat to society is driving many to embrace public secularism in an effort to thwart Muslims from publicly advancing orthodox Islamism on society in general.
The veil, Sharia law, the inequality of the sexes and other religious fundamentalist beliefs are an anathema to mainstream Quebeckers and restricting the proliferation of these ideas is of no small import to most Quebeckers.
Many of those pushing for secularism are actually pursuing a strategy whereby they are ready to sacrifice their Christian symbols in order to make sure that Muslims and the trappings of orthodox Islamism can't make inroads.
It may be a question of deliberately throwing out the baby with the bath water and it's a part of the secular vs. religion debate that nobody is willing to speak about.
When the trade unions and womens groups speak out against public displays of Christianity and when politicians rail in favour of strict neutrality, their passion and zeal is mostly based on an anti-Islam agenda.
The spectre of loudspeakers blasting from minarets in local neighbourhoods, calling Muslims to prayer many times a day is frightening. The idea of veils and Sharia law becoming part of our life is so unnerving that desperate measures seem to be called for.
Many won't like what I'm saying, but the question remains;
Is not Quebec's panicked rush to secularism, simply a reaction to the infiltration of Islam in public life?
Monday, April 4, 2011
LOWER CHURCHILL- Manufacturing Dissent
It didn't take long for the politicians of all stripes in Quebec City to come out loudly against the announcement by the Conservative government that they'd support the Newfoundland project to build an underwater cable to carry electricity to American markets from the prospective Lower Churchill hydro-electric project.
Quebec has long held that the overland route through Quebec makes more
economic sense, but the chances of Newfoundland entering into any
agreement with Quebec vis-a-vis electricity transmission is, as they
say, slim to none.
The deal that presently carries Newfoundland power across Quebec with almost all the profit accruing to Hydro-Quebec, remains a powerful humiliation to Newfoundlanders, who although responsible for their own stupidity, hold Quebec responsible for refusing to re-negotiate the one-sided deal.
The Quebec position, that a deal's a deal, is thoroughly defensible, but insures that Newfoundland won't do another deal with the province as long as the current Churchill Falls accord remains in place.
The Quebec government remains peeved that its promise not to screw Newfoundland again, on a new deal for the Lower Churchill, is falling on deaf ears. For Newfoundland, it's a case of- Once bitten, twice shy.
By the way, one could only imagine what would be if the shoe was on the other foot.
For Quebec to complain now, that the decision to bypass Quebec is somehow unexpected and unfair smacks of self-delusion.
And so, Quebec politicians are howling that Ottawa has chosen the Newfoundland side unfairly and are pedalling the notion that it's the crime of the century and that once again Quebec is being disfavoured.
First the facts;
Ottawa has promised to guarantee the loan related to the project. There is NO DIRECT FINANCING.
It's like signing for a loan for your son to buy a car. You only pay, if he stiffs on the payments and let's hope Newfoundland is a better risk than junior. By the way, that loan guarantee isn't that risky, the deal is pretty sound, but it does allow Newfoundland to borrow at a lower rate, shaving millions from the cost of the project.
To listen to Bernard Drainville a bigwig in the PQ, the entire project is being financed in part by federal tax dollars, an outrageous claim that goes beyond merely colouring the truth.
Mr. Drainville made a four-minute YouTube video in which he explains the deal telling by one whopper after another.
I knew I was in for a treat when Mr. Drainville started the explanation telling his audience that Newfoundland once belonged to 'us.' He carefully avoids using the term Quebec, because Labrador never belonged to Quebec at all. It was at one time part of Lower Canada, but when Quebec entered confederation as a province, Newfoundland was not part of the deal.
In 1927, the permanent border was adjusted in Newfoundland's favour, but nobody seemed to care, it was an uninhabitable wasteland.
In fact the Newfoundlanders tried to sell Labrador off to Quebec twice, the first time during the boundary dispute for a paltry 9 million dollars and later on in the Depression for 110 million. Both offers were rejected. Read an interesting article on the subject.
But the truth never seems to get in the way of a good story and Mr. Drainville goes on to tell us that the Newfoundlanders don't want to use the Quebec route because they're not ready to pay their fair share, a bald-faced lie.
Newfoundland tried to get access to the Quebec power grid following the open access rules that govern the fair use of transmission lines to bring power to market. But Quebec put a spanner in the works, claiming that the grid couldn't handle the power, holding out for a deal that would screw Newfoundland again, demanding that the power be sold to Hydro-Quebec at a cut rate fee rather than being wheeled through Quebec for a service fee. LINK
Mr. Drainville's idea of a fair price is likely the price that Quebec now pays for Churchill power;
Mr. Drainville next tells us that the Newfoundland government asked Ottawa to finance a part of the project and that this represents an unfair treatment of Quebec because Quebec paid for its own electrical development.
Cleverly, he intimates that Ottawa is financing the project, when clearly it is not!
Building on his pack of lies, he then tells the biggest lie of all.
"And so we find ourselves in a situation where Quebeckers will finance 25% of a project that will compete with our state company (Hydro-Quebec.)"
In a few short sentences Mr. Drainville has changed a simple loan guarantee into a financing scheme where Quebec is paying 25% of the whole Newfoundland project!
He then sanctimoniously tells us that Quebec never asked for money to develop its own hydro-electricity and so Newfoundland shouldn't be allowed to get money either.
Mr. Drainville would actually have us believe that Quebec somehow pays its own way, conveniently forgetting the billions that pour into the province each year from Ottawa.
By the way, even his statement that Quebec pays 25% of the federal taxes is false, another exaggeration. Quebec has less than 23% of the Canadian population and since Quebeckers make less money than Canadians, the amount they pay in taxes must be somewhere between 20%-22%.
But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Of course Gilles Duceppe, Pauline and even the Premier are up in arms.
The real hurt in all this is the sombre realization that Newfoundland is actually doing what it said it would and after 40 years of being mocked, it is ready to leave Quebec out of the equation.
Believe it or not, Quebec really believed that in the end, the overland route through Quebec would be chosen because of expediency.
Using the land-sea route will cost Newfoundland a bundle, a lot more than the Quebec route, but the project remains viable and that's all that counts.
So all that's left to Quebec is to make the best of a bad situation and that's to bash Ottawa over the deal, manufacturing dissent through dishonesty.
Good Luck.
And as I've reminded readers this past year.......
Payback's a bitch!
Read: Quebec versus Newfoundland- Whiners Square Off!
Read: Danny Williams Bashes Quebec
The deal that presently carries Newfoundland power across Quebec with almost all the profit accruing to Hydro-Quebec, remains a powerful humiliation to Newfoundlanders, who although responsible for their own stupidity, hold Quebec responsible for refusing to re-negotiate the one-sided deal.
The Quebec position, that a deal's a deal, is thoroughly defensible, but insures that Newfoundland won't do another deal with the province as long as the current Churchill Falls accord remains in place.
The Quebec government remains peeved that its promise not to screw Newfoundland again, on a new deal for the Lower Churchill, is falling on deaf ears. For Newfoundland, it's a case of- Once bitten, twice shy.
By the way, one could only imagine what would be if the shoe was on the other foot.
For Quebec to complain now, that the decision to bypass Quebec is somehow unexpected and unfair smacks of self-delusion.
And so, Quebec politicians are howling that Ottawa has chosen the Newfoundland side unfairly and are pedalling the notion that it's the crime of the century and that once again Quebec is being disfavoured.
First the facts;
Ottawa has promised to guarantee the loan related to the project. There is NO DIRECT FINANCING.
 |
| Bernard Drainville |
To listen to Bernard Drainville a bigwig in the PQ, the entire project is being financed in part by federal tax dollars, an outrageous claim that goes beyond merely colouring the truth.
Mr. Drainville made a four-minute YouTube video in which he explains the deal telling by one whopper after another.
In 1927, the permanent border was adjusted in Newfoundland's favour, but nobody seemed to care, it was an uninhabitable wasteland.
In fact the Newfoundlanders tried to sell Labrador off to Quebec twice, the first time during the boundary dispute for a paltry 9 million dollars and later on in the Depression for 110 million. Both offers were rejected. Read an interesting article on the subject.
But the truth never seems to get in the way of a good story and Mr. Drainville goes on to tell us that the Newfoundlanders don't want to use the Quebec route because they're not ready to pay their fair share, a bald-faced lie.
Newfoundland tried to get access to the Quebec power grid following the open access rules that govern the fair use of transmission lines to bring power to market. But Quebec put a spanner in the works, claiming that the grid couldn't handle the power, holding out for a deal that would screw Newfoundland again, demanding that the power be sold to Hydro-Quebec at a cut rate fee rather than being wheeled through Quebec for a service fee. LINK
Mr. Drainville's idea of a fair price is likely the price that Quebec now pays for Churchill power;
"The provincial government (Newfoundland) has claimed that Quebec reaped 95 per cent of net revenues from Churchill Falls - $19 billion of a total $20 billion - up to the end of 2006." LinkRead Danny Williams speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa of Ottawa last year, in which he destroys any pretension of fairness on the part of the government of Quebec in regards to cooperation. LINK
Mr. Drainville next tells us that the Newfoundland government asked Ottawa to finance a part of the project and that this represents an unfair treatment of Quebec because Quebec paid for its own electrical development.
Cleverly, he intimates that Ottawa is financing the project, when clearly it is not!
Building on his pack of lies, he then tells the biggest lie of all.
"And so we find ourselves in a situation where Quebeckers will finance 25% of a project that will compete with our state company (Hydro-Quebec.)"
In a few short sentences Mr. Drainville has changed a simple loan guarantee into a financing scheme where Quebec is paying 25% of the whole Newfoundland project!
He then sanctimoniously tells us that Quebec never asked for money to develop its own hydro-electricity and so Newfoundland shouldn't be allowed to get money either.
Mr. Drainville would actually have us believe that Quebec somehow pays its own way, conveniently forgetting the billions that pour into the province each year from Ottawa.
By the way, even his statement that Quebec pays 25% of the federal taxes is false, another exaggeration. Quebec has less than 23% of the Canadian population and since Quebeckers make less money than Canadians, the amount they pay in taxes must be somewhere between 20%-22%.
But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Of course Gilles Duceppe, Pauline and even the Premier are up in arms.
The real hurt in all this is the sombre realization that Newfoundland is actually doing what it said it would and after 40 years of being mocked, it is ready to leave Quebec out of the equation.
Believe it or not, Quebec really believed that in the end, the overland route through Quebec would be chosen because of expediency.
Using the land-sea route will cost Newfoundland a bundle, a lot more than the Quebec route, but the project remains viable and that's all that counts.
So all that's left to Quebec is to make the best of a bad situation and that's to bash Ottawa over the deal, manufacturing dissent through dishonesty.
Good Luck.
And as I've reminded readers this past year.......
Payback's a bitch!
Read: Quebec versus Newfoundland- Whiners Square Off!
Read: Danny Williams Bashes Quebec
Friday, April 1, 2011
Living the Canadian Dream in Quebec
One of the most contentious issues in the Quebec/Canada language and culture debate is the accusation made by nationalists that Quebec Anglophones and most ethnics are disloyal by refusing to assimilate to the culture and language of the majority.
The debate was started by Jacques Parizeau on the election night" after his famous comment about "Money and the ethnic vote"
Five years later, the issue was brought to the forefront with Yves Michaud's speech to the Estates General where he complained that in the heavily Jewish town of Côte-Saint-Luc not one voter had cast a ballot for sovereignty in the 1995 referendum. See Is Yves Michaud Racist?
This led to a motion of condemnation in the National Assembly which still remains a sore point today with sovereignists complaining that Mr Michaud was rail roaded.
But the Michaud affair, highlights the current debate where some nationalists advance the theory that ethnics are disloyal and hence poor citizens because of their collective refusal to give their loyalty to Quebec, instead of Canada.
The idea that everyone living in Quebec must embrace the French language and common French culture is what Michaud and some writers on vigile.net advance.
Let us consider the mythical story of a make-believe town in northern Ontario where 20% of the residents are Franco-Ontarians, the rest English speaking 'pur-laines'
Now before I get a slew of comments saying that my story isn't comparable to the situation in Quebec, my only point is that Francophones in other provinces have a right to live speak and live in French. I know it's a harder situation for them than anglophones in Quebec, but it's an ideal that is fair and noble.
Secondly, is my point that people have a right to vote selfishly in their own best interest, even if it conflicts with the majority.
Honestly, in the above story, can you see any francophones voting YES in the referendum?
Seeing things from another point of view is difficult, especially for some sovereignists here in Quebec who cannot understand how someone can live in Quebec, while living the Canadian dream in English.
For these people assimilation of the French minority in Ontario is a cruel circumstance of ethnic cleansing while assimilation of Quebec Anglos and Ethnics in Quebec is a noble and entirely justifiable cause.
It a question of perspective, I imagine.
Talking to a leader of the Jewish community (one of those accused of inciting the community to vote NO) in light of Michaud's rant that 95% of Jews voted No in the referendum, I was told jokingly that he couldn't understand what the 5% of Jews who voted YES were possibly thinking!
And so today, attacks on the Ethnics and Jews in particular, on websites like vigile.net is based on the bankrupt and wrong-headed notion that certain citizens have an obligation to live and act as the majority wants them to act.
Most of the hatred displayed on vigile.net comes from a very small group of frustrated old farts, who realize rather painfully that like Pierre Falardeau, they are destined to die in the country of Canada and not an independent Quebec and for Yves Michaud and company, somebody has to be blamed.
The debate was started by Jacques Parizeau on the election night" after his famous comment about "Money and the ethnic vote"
 |
| Yves Michaud |
Five years later, the issue was brought to the forefront with Yves Michaud's speech to the Estates General where he complained that in the heavily Jewish town of Côte-Saint-Luc not one voter had cast a ballot for sovereignty in the 1995 referendum. See Is Yves Michaud Racist?
This led to a motion of condemnation in the National Assembly which still remains a sore point today with sovereignists complaining that Mr Michaud was rail roaded.
But the Michaud affair, highlights the current debate where some nationalists advance the theory that ethnics are disloyal and hence poor citizens because of their collective refusal to give their loyalty to Quebec, instead of Canada.
The idea that everyone living in Quebec must embrace the French language and common French culture is what Michaud and some writers on vigile.net advance.
Let us consider the mythical story of a make-believe town in northern Ontario where 20% of the residents are Franco-Ontarians, the rest English speaking 'pur-laines'
Everybody always got along famously in Mythica, the two language groups although sharing a different language and culture co-existed in peaceful harmony.
The Francophones while living among an 80% English majority enjoyed French language television produced in Quebec, had access to a local French newspaper and went to movies in the town's French language movie theatre and of course the children attended French schools. Stores in the 'French' part of town operated largely in French, but welcomed Anglos just the same, after all, a buck is a buck. Life was good.
But the 'French" situation irked a certain group of English language militants who were organizing politically on a platform of eliminating the bilingual nature of Mythica. Lo and behold, after several years of fear-mongering, a member of this group was elected mayor, as well as a majority of city council.
The mayor organized a referendum around the question of changing Mythica to a unilingual English town. The referendum would decide if the city could eliminate all bilingual city services, French signage, and restrict access to French schools.
Obviously the francophones weren't pleased and decided to organize to help defeat the referendum proposal come voting day.
The principle of the French high school led a furious campaign to convince francophones to vote NO, warning them that the passage of the referendum would mean the end of their community.
The referendum came and went and when the votes were tallied it seemed that 99% of francophones voted NO. On the other side, a majority of 60% Anglophones voted YES but combined with the francophone vote, the NO side won by the scantest of margins.
The mayor was furious.
We lost because of the French! These people, acting as a disloyal bloc, thwarted the will of the majority English, he ranted.
Many English radicals took up the call. Those damn Frenchies! Bad citizens the lot of them, watching French TV, remaining apart, refusing to embrace English and worst of all, insisting on keeping their French culture! Outrageous!
The leader of the Francophone NO side boasted gleefully that it was the bloc of French votes that defeated the referendum, a statement for which he was roasted royally by the Anglo militants, furious that their will was thwarted by an ungrateful minority.Hmmm.......
Now before I get a slew of comments saying that my story isn't comparable to the situation in Quebec, my only point is that Francophones in other provinces have a right to live speak and live in French. I know it's a harder situation for them than anglophones in Quebec, but it's an ideal that is fair and noble.
Secondly, is my point that people have a right to vote selfishly in their own best interest, even if it conflicts with the majority.
Honestly, in the above story, can you see any francophones voting YES in the referendum?
Seeing things from another point of view is difficult, especially for some sovereignists here in Quebec who cannot understand how someone can live in Quebec, while living the Canadian dream in English.
For these people assimilation of the French minority in Ontario is a cruel circumstance of ethnic cleansing while assimilation of Quebec Anglos and Ethnics in Quebec is a noble and entirely justifiable cause.
It a question of perspective, I imagine.
Talking to a leader of the Jewish community (one of those accused of inciting the community to vote NO) in light of Michaud's rant that 95% of Jews voted No in the referendum, I was told jokingly that he couldn't understand what the 5% of Jews who voted YES were possibly thinking!
And so today, attacks on the Ethnics and Jews in particular, on websites like vigile.net is based on the bankrupt and wrong-headed notion that certain citizens have an obligation to live and act as the majority wants them to act.
Most of the hatred displayed on vigile.net comes from a very small group of frustrated old farts, who realize rather painfully that like Pierre Falardeau, they are destined to die in the country of Canada and not an independent Quebec and for Yves Michaud and company, somebody has to be blamed.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
NDP Running Separatist Candidate in Montreal
 |
| Marching with 'Uncle' Thom Muclair & radio bore Anne Lagacé Dowson |
A recent article in Le Devoir. discussing a Quebec Solidaire weekend convention, caught my eye because of a paragraph buried at the tail-end of the story.
"A Québec solidaire militant, Alexandre Boulerice, also a spokesperson for CUPE, is the NDP candidate in the constituency Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie. In an email exchange, Mr. Boulerice underlined that he was still a member of the Québec solidaire and a separatist. "Anyone who supports the NDP program can be a member. We can place in the forefront, social and environmental issues before the national question." Le DevoirI'll gently remind readers that the Quebec Solidaire, is a much more radical and sovereignist political party than the Parti Quebecois. It's the party of Amir Khadir and the happy home of Quebec's Communist Party, which is an officially recognized wing of the party. At a weekend convention last week, the party called for raising the minimum wage to $16 an hour and the party's leader, Françoise David, called for deliberately slowing down our economic growth because it's bad for the health of citizens. LINK{FR}
That the NDP would run a
His official
Here from his blog is part of an incredible letter written in rebuttal to a collegue in Quebec Solidaire who is arguing that members of the party should vote for Gilles Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois
Reply to Francois Cyr, Quebec Solidaire activist who encourages people to vote strategicly for the Bloc
Dear Francis,
I have a series of questions for you:
What is the the story behind this text on pressegauche.org over the need to vote for the Bloc? Since when does an activist in Quebec Solidaire promote the concept of "strategic voting?" Is it a question of promoting the "best of the worst?" Is this the new strategy for the Quebec election? Is that what you'll tell people in the face of the dangers of a majority Charest government? And so we should all vote for the PQ, in order to stop the evil Liberals (or ADQ)?
Don't you realize that the Bloc is the little brother of the Parti Quebecois that you battle? Comprised essentially of the same activists, the same people who finance and make the decisions? Don't you see that the Bloc may appear more progressive because it will never be able to exercise power, unlike its PQ sponsor in Quebec?
What is this mania to peddle the same old Bloc cliches that say that the NDP is centralist? You've read the Sherbrooke Declaration adopted at the 2006 convention? What do you think of the possibility for Quebec to withdraw from a federal program with compensation? Is it centralizing?
Do you remember that Jack Layton, as a young student in Montreal, militated in favour of McGill University becoming French? Have you considered that Mulcair worked for the Council of the French language in the first term of Levesque? No, you push this under the carpet. Do you counter the Bloc arguments by pointing out that the NDP caucus supported - last spring - a motion that Bill 101 applies to federally regulated companies in Quebec . No. A strange silence suddenly prevails ... LINK TO THE NDP CANDIDATE'S OFFICIAL BLOG
 |
| Layton +separatist = |
For Layton and the NDP, their new-found strength in Quebec hasn't led to an avalanche of people lining up to run for office.
With so many elections so closely bunched over the last few years, NDP candidates have been essentially cannon fodder and few want to re-live the experience of taking a month and a half off of their life, working the shopping centres and street corners, just to get their ass kicked in the election.
In The Lac-St-Jean region, the NDP has found just one person to represent them so far, a retired unionist. Link{FR}
The party is hard put to find enough poteaus to fill the ranks.
In case you didn't know, a 'Poteau' is a disparaging insider political term that refers to a candidate who has zero chance to win and runs only to show the party colours. The candidate is usually a young idealist and his or her campaign consists largely of just placing election posters on city light poles, and thus the term 'poteau' (pole.)
Here's a classic example of a POTEAU;
Royal, a riding that consists in part with one of Quebec's wealthier Anglo/Jewish communities of Hampstead/Cote Saint Luc, coupled with an across the railroad tracks working ethnic community in Snowdon.
The Liberal party has had a stranglehold on the riding all the way back to Pierre-Elliot Trudeau and it is presently held by Irwin Cotler the ex-justice Minister, who is running once again, this time challenged by another high-profile Jew, Saulie Zajdel.
Mr. Thibodeau is an environmentalist who dreams of spending 2 billion dollars to cover the Decarie Expressway, a big issue in a riding that probably has more BMWs and Mercedes than anywhere else in Quebec. He has run unsuccessfully before, winning an amazing 7.7% of the vote. GOOD LUCK!!!
By the way, Mr Thibodeau's campaign poster omits the English version of the riding's name, 'Mount Royal' and actually has different messages in English and in French, which is, I guess, a neat metaphor for NDP policy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)