Statistics Canada Reports II

[ssiguy]

Sunsetmountainland................If you have "lost your patience" because someone offers a different view or perspective from yours, then you shouldn't be here.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

The CAQ is a political party. It is not the same thing as the Quebec nation. And yet you are suggesting that any criticism of the CAQ is criticism of Quebec as a whole.

We live in a democracy, not a one-party state. Martin and I both live in Montreal, we have every right to disagree with and criticize the governing party. Nearly 60% of people in Quebec did not vote for the CAQ. Deal with it.

And if you have trouble with the fact that people here have opinions that differ from your own, there's always r/quebec... the mods there tend to ban any divergent thinking so you'll be right at home there.

This is one thing not to like a party, it is another to call it racist or xenophobic for the comments of one guy, or even for a policy you just don't like. I don't like Projet Montréal, that doesn't mean that everyone involve with them, or everyone voting for them is a communist or something like that.

I wasn't saying criticizing the CAQ was the same as criticizing Québec as a whole, I was merely making a comparaison on how some people were picturing the more unfortunate opinions or declarations from an entity (a province, a party or others) as the main view of said entity.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by Nite

If I am delusional it should be pretty easy for you to show me some evidence that Canadian wage are being suppressed lastely

International students aren't competing for high wage jobs.

They're treating competition and suppression in the low wage economy. Fast food. Retail. Warehousing. Other low-wage work.



The abundance of cheap and easily exploitable labour is having an impact on our productivity. There's not enough low-wage jobs to fulfill the number of people willing to work them right now

[MolsonExport]

Eight to go.

Quebec 8,999,992

Revanche des berceaux!

[ToxiK]

Done !

9 000 000

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Done !

9 000 000

Awesome. I had the population clock open on my computer for the countdown, but I got distracted while I was editing a paper for a journal submission.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Awesome. I had the population clock open on my computer for the countdown, but I got distracted while I was editing a paper for a journal submission.

Same - had it at 8,999,999 then a colleague showed up and by the time he left it was at 9,000,001!

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Awesome. I had the population clock open on my computer for the countdown, but I got distracted while I was editing a paper for a journal submission.

Originally Posted by Zeej

Same - had it at 8,999,999 then a colleague showed up and by the time he left it was at 9,000,001!

Better luck at 10 000 000...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

The CAQ is a political party. It is not the same thing as the Quebec nation. And yet you are suggesting that any criticism of the CAQ is criticism of Quebec as a whole.

We live in a democracy, not a one-party state. Martin and I both live in Montreal, we have every right to disagree with and criticize the governing party. Nearly 60% of people in Quebec did not vote for the CAQ. Deal with it.

And if you have trouble with the fact that people here have opinions that differ from your own, there's always r/quebec... the mods there tend to ban any divergent thinking so you'll be right at home there.

The CAQ is not Quebec but it's a fact that a number of the CAQ's identitarian and nationalist positions are shared by other parties as well and probably two thirds of the Quebec population or more.

So for example if you think the CAQ's position on secularism is xenophobic and racist then that's essentially like saying most people in Quebec are xenophobic and racist because support for that polls quite higher than the CAQ does. Of course you can say you disagree with it for reasons XYZ and make up an intelligent argument against it, without insinuating that everyone or most everyone in Quebec is a xenophobe, but this takes a lot more work so the shortcut most people prefer to take is "Quebec(ers) = xenophobes".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

This because of attitudes like yours that we can't have a real discussion on immigration in Canada. Someone hold an opinion different than your preferred one, therefore xenophobes and racists...

The bad news for him is that views on immigration are hardening all across Canada, and they're actually hardening more in the ROC than in Quebec.

In all honesty, it's probably not fundamentally good news that views on immigration are hardening, but the silver lining is that it might finally be possible to have a rational debate about who we let into the country and how many, beyond the group-think of recent years and decades which was "we want to increase intake to XXX0000 (insert any number, really), and if you're against it you're racist."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sunsetmountainland

The truth is the government does not care a cent about Canadians it is all virtue signalling. We are just a tool to advance government propaganda.

It's actually extremely powerful big business objectives that are behind the government propaganda you are referring to.

But either way it's true that the impact on Canadians and Canadian society is not the primary preoccupation.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The CAQ is not Quebec but it's a fact that a number of the CAQ's identitarian and nationalist positions are shared by other parties as well and probably two thirds of the Quebec population or more.

So for example if you think the CAQ's position on secularism is xenophobic and racist then that's essentially like saying most people in Quebec are xenophobic and racist because support for that polls quite higher than the CAQ does. Of course you can say you disagree with it for reasons XYZ and make up an intelligent argument against it, without insinuating that everyone or most everyone in Quebec is a xenophobe, but this takes a lot more work so the shortcut most people prefer to take is "Quebec(ers) = xenophobes".

I'm not sure that saying that Bill 21 is xenophobic equates to saying that most people in Quebec are necessarily xenophobic.

Bill 21 is complex... there are reasons why 60% of Quebecers would support it, without necessarily having a prejudice towards minorities/newcomers/others.

Perhaps on balance, the desire to be a secular society and supposedly aiming to promote gender equality is more powerful than the side effect of potentially alienating a small share of the population in a collectivist society, so the bill gets net support?

I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but I contend that calling Bill 21 xenophobic does not equate to calling Quebecers xenophobic. It's a false equivalency.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I'm not sure that saying that Bill 21 is xenophobic equates to saying that most people in Quebec are necessarily xenophobic.

Bill 21 is complex... there are reasons why 60% of Quebecers would support it, without necessarily having a prejudice towards minorities/newcomers/others.

Perhaps on balance, the desire to be a secular society and supposedly aiming to promote gender equality is more powerful than the side effect of potentially alienating a small share of the population in a collectivist society, so the bill gets net support?

I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but I contend that calling Bill 21 xenophobic does not equate to calling Quebecers xenophobic. It's a false equivalency.

It's arguably a shortcut that most people take, at least in the ROC.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's arguably a shortcut that most people take, at least in the ROC.

I agree with this. Attitudes may finally be starting to align on some of these issues. Either way, it's high time for real conversations to take place.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Zeej

I agree with this. Attitudes may finally be starting to align on some of these issues. Either way, it's high time for real conversations to take place.

If we are talking about secularism (laïcité) and Bill 21 specifically, I'd say the political debates about it in Quebec are largely over for the time being.

Of course, there is a good chance it gets kickstarted again once the Supreme Court of Canada rules on it, depending of course on what that ruling is.

If you're talking about immigration, then yes attitudes between Quebec and the ROC are starting to align more, and this will likely lead to more honest discussions about it.

Though it's noteworthy that even in Quebec the defenders of pedal-to-the-floor immigration are bearing down and are now in the media blaming banks and the business sector for the housing crisis and saying that it has absolutely nothing to do with how many people are coming into the country. They don't realize they are beating a dead horse and that no one is listening to that type of argument any more.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The CAQ is not Quebec but it's a fact that a number of the CAQ's identitarian and nationalist positions are shared by other parties as well and probably two thirds of the Quebec population or more.

So for example if you think the CAQ's position on secularism is xenophobic and racist then that's essentially like saying most people in Quebec are xenophobic and racist because support for that polls quite higher than the CAQ does. Of course you can say you disagree with it for reasons XYZ and make up an intelligent argument against it, without insinuating that everyone or most everyone in Quebec is a xenophobe, but this takes a lot more work so the shortcut most people prefer to take is "Quebec(ers) = xenophobes".

The ecological fallacy relates to making a incorrect inference at lower level (individual) using the information at higher level (group). There is, however, a fallacy associated with the obverse, the atomistic fallacy, which is making a incorrect inference at higher level using the information at lower level.

I am open to seeing data to corroborate your (vague) claim that the CAQ's "identitarian and nationalist positions are shared by...probably two thirds of the Quebec population or more."

Either way, are you suggesting that criticizing a political party's stance on an issue is tantamount to criticizing a (provincial) population's stance on an issue? I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. And even if this were the case, so what? For decades, most people were opposed to gay marriage, and even the notion of homosexuality. This majoritarian viewpoint did not make it the right viewpoint.

It is entirely possible to support Quebec's need to protect its French character, while opposing the means to that ends promoted by the CAQ.

To suggest otherwise, is like suggesting (which many have done in the media and elsewhere) that criticizing Israel's military incursions into Gaza is tantamount to being antisemitic.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The ecological fallacy relates to making a incorrect inference at lower level (individual) using the information at higher level (group). There is, however, a fallacy associated with the obverse, the atomistic fallacy, which is making a incorrect inference at higher level using the information at lower level.

I am open to seeing data to corroborate your (vague) claim that the CAQ's "identitarian and nationalist positions are shared by...probably two thirds of the Quebec population or more."

Either way, are you suggesting that criticizing a political party's stance on an issue is tantamount to criticizing a (provincial) population's stance on an issue? I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. And even if this were the case, so what? For decades, most people were opposed to gay marriage, and even the notion of homosexuality. This majoritarian viewpoint did not make it the right viewpoint.

So would that have made Canada (primarily) a nation of "homophobes" then? Because that is really the question at hand here.

Another example: in the minds of many Americans, universal healthcare is socialism or even communism. Yet, it is strongly supported by most Canadians. Does that mean that Canadians are socialists or even (gasp!) communists? Surely not, but some Americans draw that 2+2=6 conclusion.

The Quebec bashers with their intellectual shortcuts do the exact same thing.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So would that have made Canada (primarily) a nation of "homophobes" then? Because that is really the question at hand here.

Another example: in the minds of many Americans, universal healthcare is socialism or even communism. Yet, it is strongly supported by most Canadians. Does that mean that Canadians are socialists or even (gasp!) communists? Surely not, but some Americans draw that 2+2=6 conclusion.

The Quebec bashers with their intellectual shortcuts do the exact same thing.

I think you are trying to argue from both sides here.

Going back to the issue at hand, if you want to play this game, are you suggesting that people like Kilgore Trout (who's entirely reasonable comment set off this thread tangent) are "Quebec bashers"? Surely not.

Might I suggest reserving the self-righteous indignation for those that are actually bashing Quebec (and yes, there are plenty of these types, who I hold with utter disdain), not those that love the Province and its people, but that may harbour a point of view that isn't (allegedly...still waiting for the data) shared by two-thirds of the population.

Meanwhile, it is categorically wrong to suggest that people cannot criticize a party's ideological position and/or policies.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I think you are trying to argue from both sides here.

Going back to the issue at hand, if you want to play this game, are you suggesting that people like Kilgore Trout (who's entirely reasonable comment set off this thread tangent) are "Quebec bashers"? Surely not.

Might I suggest reserving the self-righteous indignation for those that are actually bashing Quebec (and yes, there are plenty of these types, who I hold with utter disdain), not those that love the Province and its people, but that may harbour a point of view that isn't (allegedly...still waiting for the data) shared by two-thirds of the population.

Meanwhile, it is categorically wrong to suggest that people cannot criticize a party's ideological position and/or policies.

Kilgore Trout may not be a Quebec basher but if we want to narrow the focus in this way, he's still taking a lazy intellectual shortcut by calling the CAQ xenophobic based on certain things he doesn't like.

(The party is clearly and self-avowedly identitarian and nationalist, which is probably equivalent to xenophobia in his mind.)

[Kilgore Trout]

Acajack and ToxiK are both going on a dérive that conflates my statement with all sorts of Quebec bashing they've heard over the years. Saying "the CAQ is xenophobic" is literally not the same as saying everyone who voted for the CAQ is xenophobic. And it certainly isn't the same as saying Quebec itself is xenophobic. I'm not the National Post. Stop putting words in my mouth.

What I said was very specific: the CAQ is xenophobic. And I stand by that. It's not just the statement of one minister, it's many things Legault himself has said over the years in addition his party's policies. When the CAQ announced cuts to immigration, it framed them primarily in identitarian terms, not out of practical concern for social services. Bill 21 is another example: the goal of state secularism is by no means racist or xenophobic, but when you look at the political context of the law as it was created by the CAQ, you can't ignore the hypocrisy of maintaining an enormous loophole for the "cultural heritage" of Christian practices while disproportionately targeting a specific group, which is Muslim women who wear hijabs and who work in the public service.

(I'm no fan of religion. I can be happy with a law that prevents any public worker from wearing religious garb while representing the state. But what we have now is deux poids, deux mesures.)

The CAQ talks a lot about reducing the number asylum seekers but if they were actually concerned about the welfare of newcomers or Quebec's capacity to handle more people, why have they dramatically increased the number of TFWs since the start of the pandemic? It's hypocrisy: they want the economic benefits of cheap foreign labour while still appearing to maintain a hard line on immigration. Apparently, people fleeing for their lives are unwelcome, but indentured servants? Come on in!