Quebec

Saturday August 3, 2019

August 3, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday August 3, 2019

New credit card payment rules for Quebecers take effect today

January 18, 2018

Quebec’s new rules on minimum credit card payments, which take effect Thursday, will likely be followed closely by other provinces, the head of a consumer advocacy group says.

The new rules require banks to set a minimum payment of at least two per cent of the balance owing starting Aug. 1. It will eventually rise to five per cent.

“I suspect that other provinces are looking at this carefully, looking to see the impact from this, [and if there are] any objections from the credit-granting community,” said Scott Hannah, president and CEO of the Credit Counselling Society.

“But really this just makes good fiscal sense. For those who’ve gotten themselves into debt, this will help them.”

May 13, 2010

Twenty years ago, a five per cent minimum payment was fairly standard, Tanguay said. But the minimum percentage has dropped since then.

Banks have the option of raising the minimum payment rate to five per cent right away, although Hannah doubts many institutions will do so because that change could have negative consequences for people with higher debts.

There are no federal rules about minimum payments, but there is nothing preventing other provinces from coming up with their own.

Consumer protection policies can happen at a provincial level, but Hannah said that there tends to be continuity between provinces on these kinds of rules.

“Other provinces in Canada will be looking at this carefully, and if they’re not seeing a lot of challenges or uproar from consumers or credit granters, they may elect to adopt similar legislation,” he said. (CBC) 

 

Friday July 12, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday July 12, 2019

Legault backs Education Minister’s comment, says Malala Yousafzai ‘couldn’t teach’ in Quebec with head scarf

Quebec Premier François Legault says Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and renowned advocate for girls’ education, would not be allowed to teach in his province unless she removed her head scarf, saying his Education Minister did not make a mistake when he made that assertion.

Jean-François Roberge, Quebec’s Education Minister, faced a barrage of criticism over the weekend that made headlines as far as Britain and the Middle East, after tweeting a picture of himself with Ms. Yousafzai after they met in France, saying that they discussed education and international development.

Mr. Roberge was asked in a Twitter exchange with a journalist named Salim Nadim Valji whether Ms. Yousafzai, who wears an Islamic head scarf, could teach in his province, which has banned religious symbols in the public sector. Mr. Roberge said it would be an honour for Quebec to have Ms. Yousafzai teach, but that in Quebec, “as in France … as well as in other open and tolerant countries, teachers can’t wear religious signs while performing their duties.”

Quebec’s legislature adopted Bill 21 last month, which bans public sector workers – whether they are teachers, judges or police officers – from being able to work if they wear a religious symbol, such as a turban, a head scarf, or a kippa. The Canadian Human Rights Commission said months before the bill became law that it targets people for their religious beliefs and would limit people’s opportunities to participate in society.

October 11, 2014

Ms. Yousafzai was born in the Swat region of Pakistan, where she became an advocate for girls’ education. She was shot in the head by the Taliban at the age of 15 while she was on the bus home from school. She survived the attack and, in 2014, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in supporting young girls’ right to education.

The activist, now 21, runs the Malala Fund, which raises money to help girls around the world access education. Since 2018, she has been studying philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford.

Mr. Roberge’s response prompted outrage on social media. Liberal MP Omar Alghabra tweeted that, “No government should ever tell a woman how to dress.”

Speaking with reporters in Quebec on Monday, Mr. Legault was asked whether Mr. Roberge made a mistake and the Quebec Premier made it clear that he does not believe he did. (Globe & Mail) 

 

Thursday December 13, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 13, 2018

‘Dirty’ oil finances Quebec’s schools, hospitals, Alberta reminds Legault

December 15, 2015

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley on Tuesday invited Quebec Premier François Legault to “get off his high horse” when it comes to what the latter dismisses as “dirty” energy, reminding Legault that her province’s oil revenues help pay for Quebec’s social programs and infrastructure.

“He needs to look at what’s in the ground, and he needs to understand that not only is our product not dirty, but that it actually funds the schools, the hospitals, the roads and potentially even some of the hydroelectricity infrastructure in Quebec,” Notley told reporters.

October 13, 2016

The Alberta premier was reacting to comments made last week by Legault during a speech to the first ministers meeting in Montreal. Legault said there was no “social acceptability” to the idea of running a pipeline that would carry “dirty energy” through his province, particularly when Quebec could offer “clean” hydroelectric energy at a competitive price.

Legault’s comments took on a bitterly ironic aspect on Monday during a meeting with provincial finance ministers, when it became clear that despite posting a budgetary surplus, Quebec would receive the lion’s share of federal transfer payments for 2019-2020 — more than $13 billion.

Ottawa will pay a total of $20 billion in equalization payments to five provinces to ensure a uniform level of public services across the country. Apart from Quebec, cheques will also be sent to Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Alberta, considered a rich province when it comes to equalization eligibility, complains it is going through an economic crisis because of the weak price for oil. The Notley government is forecasting a $7.5-billion deficit for the current financial year. (Source: Montreal Gazette)

Some Social Media jousting over this cartoon…

Tuesday November 13, 2018

November 13, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 13, 2018

The good, the bad and the ugly of corporate welfare

Federal government investment in private business — disdainfully called “corporate welfare” by critics — can raise the blood pressure of even the most Zen taxpayer. Consider:

April 4, 2017

Last month, Ottawa wrote off a loan and other subsidies granted to Chrysler for $2.6 billion. The interest is also in the wind. Or how about the Ontario government’s $220 million investment in Toyota to create some 450 jobs (which works out to a $488,888 subsidy per job). And then, of course, there is Bombardier, the grandmother of all corporate welfare recipients.

The Quebec-based transportation company got its first government handout in the mid-1960s. By now, depending on who you believe, Bombardier has received something like $3.7 billion from Canadian taxpayers. And just to add insult to injury, the company isn’t exactly prospering.

October 13, 2016

Last week, it announced it was cutting 5,000 jobs, including 500 in Ontario, and it sold off one of its aircraft divisions. It also announced a new contract to provide rail cars to the City of Montreal, but that good news didn’t offset bad news about its stubborn corporate debt. Analysts are again speculating that Bombardier’s turnaround may be wishful thinking, and its share prices took the expected nosedive at that news.

Most galling is the reality that those billions, just like the billions in Chrysler bailout money Ottawa just wrote off, are never coming back to public coffers.

February 18, 2016

What can we do, other than get all red in the face and grind our collective teeth? It’s not like you can vote for a different party to avoid these so-called investments. All parties do them, in Bombardier’s case, pretty much equally.

Or, we can try and do what makes sense but is typically very hard for average taxpayers struggling to get by in this challenging world — look at the big picture, and look at it over time, not in the moment.

First, so-called corporate welfare is far from new. It goes back as far as the days when Canadian railroads were getting royal treatment in the form of prime pieces of real estate. But what if, back in the ’60s, the government of the day had said no to Bombardier and set the tone for the future? (Continued: Hamilton Spectator)  

 

Wednesday October 25, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 25, 2017

Trudeau, Scheer and Singh do the math in Quebec and none champion an anti-racist stance

The tepid response from federal leaders to Quebec’s ill-conceived and offensive Bill 62 tells us three truths about Canadian politics.

They are not comfortable truths.

September 14, 2013

It tells us that all three major party leaders may harbour suspicions that the bill forcing face coverings to be removed while accessing public services may be more popular both inside and outside Quebec than what might be expected.

They may be right. This has all the trappings of a Donald Trump presidential run or a Brexit referendum in that the louder the protestations and the deeper the indignation of the mainstream pundits, editorial boards and the elite, the more popular the candidate or the legislation.

Secondly, it tells us that the further from power one is, the easier it is to be the champion of rights and liberties.

And thirdly, because it is Quebec, we know that any federal intervention is seen as a political third rail, which would not be the case if, say, a government in Manitoba or Nova Scotia had passed such legislation.

This is particularly true when the Quebec premier is a federalist.

No one wants to poke the hibernating PQ bear, everyone is leery of meddling in provincial jurisdiction, particularly when you have opposition parties who believe Premier Philippe Couillard’s absurd bill does not go far enough. (Source: Toronto Star) 

 

SaveSave