ImBrock

It did you should history more. In 1763, the British used blankets exposed to smallpox as germ warfare in their attempt to subdue the Aboriginal uprising led by Pontiac. In 1775 during the American Revolution American troops besieging Québec City were stricken with smallpox.

Meanwhile the right really pushes the fascist agenda here and abroad. Inciting acts of terror everywhere.

We deliberately sold them blankets that had been used by people with small pox. Since europeans came to the region known as canada 9/10ths of the natives that used to live here have died.

This is true, though its not necessarily government sponsored anymore its kind of a lingering systemic problem which is harder to deal with. A lot of the issues kind of bubble under the surface or are deliberately kept under wraps by the people involved right. I feel like there is value in distinguishing between these different stages of whats going on, at least as a way of measuring our progress on solving the issues.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Arguably since the founding of the country we've done just that. It only ended 50 or so years ago.

Its actually a rather weak strawman argument. I'm going to give it a 2/10 on the strawman scale.

Letting people live on the streets is massively expensive for our country. Street people need huge amounts of medical care and police attention, which is not cheap. The most extreme examples of this end up receiving ICU care regularly throughout the year. ICU isn't cheap to run, not to mention that having regulars going through there repeatedly ties up beds and attention for normal cases. I've read a lot of well done studies suggesting and even testing out the idea that its cheaper to just house the worst habitually at risk street people and task a full time squad of people to baby sit them than it is to pay their ICU bills all year. So from just a pure money perspective, housing as a 'right' is going to save us money in the long run. I've included this link to an LA Times article citing a Utah housing assistance program and how much it saves that city in medical expense.

I feel like that gives an arbitrary benefit to Quebecois politicians. Generally the rest of canada learns a minor functional amount of french in order to facilitate communications with our Francois country members. There hasn't really been call to enforce french fluency on the rest of the country, but mandating bilingualism for politicians would make that into an issue. Personally I think our current system works alright. That being said I can see the international benefits of having more canadian politicians able to speak other languages (not necessarily french) fluently to facilitate diplomatic relations.