Quebec’s ‘Tea Party’ is born

[Shwa]

Should we be worried? From the Star:

Quebec’s ‘Tea Party’ is born

But the RLQ risks attracting all sorts of conservative “radicals,” Montmarquette says, including those who are anti-immigrant or socially conservative.

“You can’t control your members,” he warns, and that could turn off even conservative Quebecers.

Leduc agrees the religious aspect won’t fly, but the network is already welcoming those who worry about the accommodation of immigrants’ cultural and religious demands.

Still, Montmarquette says, there are far more with right-sided values in Quebec than is portrayed in the media, largely dominated, he claims, by left-wing journalists.

Can't control your members? Worry about immigrant's culture? Left-wing dominated media?

Yep, sounds like 'tea-party' to me.

[Shady]

Should we be worried? From the Star:

Quebec’s ‘Tea Party’ is born

Can't control your members? Worry about immigrant's culture? Left-wing dominated media?

Yep, sounds like 'tea-party' to me.

Actually, that doesn't sound much like the Tea Party at all. The Tea Party in America is focused primarily on economic issues, not social.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, that doesn't sound much like the Tea Party at all. The Tea Party in America is focused primarily on economic issues, not social.

And the Americans have already invented the Tea Party brand, so why be original?

[Aleksandar Maksimovic]

And the Americans have already invented the Tea Party brand, so why be original?

I agree with this...

I don't get the main idea...

[kimmy]

Didn't we have another thread last month alleging some kind of Canadian "Tea Party" was being formed?

And a "Fox News North" thread?

Are there any other big bad American bogeymen that the Canadian left can trot out to scare people?

-k

[Pliny]

Didn't we have another thread last month alleging some kind of Canadian "Tea Party" was being formed?

And a "Fox News North" thread?

Are there any other big bad American bogeymen that the Canadian left can trot out to scare people?

-k

They are scaring people or are they just pointing out there may be an option in the future and scaring themselves?

[mikedavid00]

But the RLQ risks attracting all sorts of conservative “radicals,” Montmarquette says, including those who are anti-immigrant or socially conservative.

So being anti-immigration is all of a sudden 'radical'?

funny I just came back from Montreal and am wondering where all the immigrants were. Some Chinese people here and there? Was it the 2 dozen Haitians I saw who are Christian and spoke French?

The immigrants they have there is NOTHING... **NOTHING** compared to here in the GTA. I still fail to see what Quebec is so upset over. There are so few immigrants that it's almost like there isn't any. All I hear is French being spoken and the rare English. Come here and you will hear neither being spoken.

Edited September 7, 2010 by mikedavid00

[Smallc]

So being anti-immigration is all of a sudden 'radical'?

In a country that was built by immigration and immigrants? Yes.

[Wild Bill]

In a country that was built by immigration and immigrants? Yes.

There are immigrants and there are immigrants. Also, times change. You can't just fling out such a statement without qualifying it. Someone might think it was...anecdotal!

Immigrants in "olden days" often took jobs as labourers and tradesman. Yes, indeed they DID build much of this country!

Is it the same today? Apparently up to 3/4 of our immigrants are here under family reunification. How many grandmothers does it take to build a house?

Have you stopped to watch a construction site lately? How many workers look like they came from East Asian countries like India or Pakistan?

Perhaps you can explain to us how your comparison is still valid today.

[Smallc]

There are immigrants and there are immigrants. Also, times change. You can't just fling out such a statement without qualifying it. Someone might think it was...anecdotal!

Immigrants in "olden days" often took jobs as labourers and tradesman. Yes, indeed they DID build much of this country!

Is it the same today? Apparently up to 3/4 of our immigrants are here under family reunification. How many grandmothers does it take to build a house?

Have you stopped to watch a construction site lately? How many workers look like they came from East Asian countries like India or Pakistan?

Perhaps you can explain to us how your comparison is still valid today.

Perhaps you can provide some numbers. The vast majority of immigrants to Canada, from what I've seen, are economic immigrants. Immigrants still build this country. The post above is simply part of your general 'Canada sucks, things are going to hell theme'.

[mikedavid00]

Perhaps you can provide some numbers. The vast majority of immigrants to Canada, from what I've seen, are economic immigrants.

Stop spreading mistruths.

70% of immigrants are family sponsored.

Even those under 'economic' are a joke. 70% of those cannot find solid work within the first 5 years they are here.

[Smallc]

Ok....

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2009-summary/permanent/01.asp

[Shwa]

Ok....

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2009-summary/permanent/01.asp

So let me get this straight smallc, just so everyone is clear on what you are advocating and have provided a "facts and figures" link. Because if this is your position - you know -providing data from CIC - then I think we need to be sure of your position on this:

According to the data supplied by CIC, using the column for 2009 it says that of the 252,179 immigrants, 65,200 (roughly 25%) were "family class" type immigrants while the remaining (roughly 75%) were "economic immigrants" (153,498) "refugees" (22,846) or "other" (10,634).

So are you saying that only 25% are actually family sponsor type immigrants like the tables from CIC suggest? Because from what I read from Wild Bill and mikedavid00 they are stating that 70% are family sponsor type immigrants that don't build houses and so on.

It seems there is quite the disparity between the figures you supplied, from CIC statistical data, and what is actually observed by the other two gents in their daily routines within the GTA.

[Michael Hardner]

Wasn't the ADQ supposed to be a right-wing party ? Arent' they still around ?

[Smallc]

It seems there is quite the disparity between the figures you supplied, from CIC statistical data, and what is actually observed by the other two gents in their daily routines within the GTA.

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Of course, I lack experience, so the figures don't count.....

[August1991]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ksLlAi3iIc&feature=player_embedded#!

This will eventually come to Canadian provinces too.

No Comment.

-----

Well, I'll add this : http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=174945

BTW, Johanne Marcotte has a blog and I read it regularly. (She took a break this summer and I missed her.) She is far more reasonable than English-Canada's equivalent, Kate McMillan in Saskatchewan.

If you can read French, and you're curious about Quebec politics, I suggest that you add Marcotte's blog to your favourites.

English-Canadian journalists would be foolish to ignore this.

Edited September 10, 2010 by August1991

[mikedavid00]

English-Canadian journalists would be foolish to ignore this.

August I've been saying this for years and years and no one 'gets it'.

1 in 4 people work for the gov't who work full time in Canada and pay taxes.

About 80% of the combined household income over 100k a year, is from the gov't workers. The majority of private sector workers actually make about $16 an hour if I remember correctly.

Each gov't worker workers will cost the tax payer (private sector worker) between 3 million and 11 million dollars through their lifetime.

We 'Reverse Robin Hood' system where we take from the poor and give to the rich so to speak.

The gov't workers pay dues to their union to protect themselves and promote their interest. You should read a fire fighters publication. Or some of the teacher magazines. They have huge political motives because it's the politicians that will determine their salary raises.

This is the reason why Mayors like unions and always give into them. These are why public workers never get laid off.

I'm suggesting that there are SO MANY public workers in Canada, that they are a voting bloc that matters and can sway any election so they are treated well.

Basically it's a form of corruption: a conflict of interest. I've said over and over that gov't workers should NOT be allowed to vote, and unions should be outlaws.

The key to higher wages is to STOP saturating the labor market with immigrants and let the natural law of supply and demand take place ($20/h Tim Hortons workers during Calgary's boom).

But I can talk about this until I'm blue in the face but people simply don't get it. It's intellectually not on their level I guess.

Edited September 10, 2010 by mikedavid00

[mikedavid00]

It seems there is quite the disparity between the figures you supplied, from CIC statistical data, and what is actually observed by the other two gents in their daily routines within the GTA.

I hate it when people are disingenuous. It's a very low life thing to do to lie and promote an agenda. We should all be here to find out the truth and learn. Go visit the site again and do some reading:

Skilled workers - principal applicants 40,735

You can do the rest of the math.

[charter.rights]

But I can talk about this until I'm blue in the face but people simply don't get it. It's intellectually not on their level I guess.

I agree with you. The intellectual level you are presenting this at is "infant". Crying equals demand, delay equals being ignored and a bottle equals adequate supply.

[Shwa]

I hate it when people are disingenuous. It's a very low life thing to do to lie and promote an agenda. We should all be here to find out the truth and learn. Go visit the site again and do some reading:

Skilled workers - principal applicants 40,735

You can do the rest of the math.

Not wanting to be disingenuous of course, I revisited your post:

Stop spreading mistruths.

70% of immigrants are family sponsored.

Revisited the wesbite, did a little math and still came to the conclusion that your were thoroughly pwned by smallc. Not even close. The only thing left for you to do is getting fitted for your collar, if you know what I mean.

Now... if you want to start playing around with definitions to try and get out of being pwned by smallc, you are free to do so. Start here:

CIC - Sponsoring your family

Added in edit:

Even those under 'economic' are a joke. 70% of those cannot find solid work within the first 5 years they are here.

The Stats Can Daily for Monday, Sept. 7th, 2007:

Very recent immigrants who have been in Canada five years or less, that is, who landed between 2001 and 2006, had the most difficulty integrating into the labour market, even though they were more likely than the Canadian-born population to have a university education. In 2006, the national unemployment rate for these immigrants was 11.5%, more than double the rate of 4.9% for the Canadian-born population.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

But I can talk about this until I'm blue in the face but people simply don't get it. It's intellectually not on their level I guess.

Would you care to source these claims ?

[Michael Hardner]

Would you care to source these claims ?

Sorry, I didn't notice the other points where you were called out for not providing support for your claims.

Let's service their requests first, ok ?

[mikedavid00]

Would you care to source these claims ?

That's all I've done here these past years and my HOURS of research go in one ear and out the other. All I do here is source claims.

[charter.rights]

That's all I've done here these past years and my HOURS of research go in one ear and out the other. All I do here is source claims.

Good for you. However your problem is that you do not appear to read your sources. Likewise, those sources again prove that you have been making things up and trying to present them as facts.

Talk about disingenuous......

[Michael Hardner]

That's all I've done here these past years and my HOURS of research go in one ear and out the other. All I do here is source claims.

All you do, and yet you didn't do it.

If we could look at these numbers, then we could move forward. But as it is, we have you saying something that we don't know is true.