.png&w=3840&q=100)
Quebec can't afford to be ‘the most generous welfare state in North America'
On Wednesday, the Coalition Avenir Québec government pledged to invest $540 million into student services — less than one month after it was met with fierce backlash for slashing $570 million in education funding.
While former senator André Pratte is 'happy for the education system,' he says this flip-flopping by Quebec means more drastic cuts are on the horizon.
'We can't afford everything that we want from the government of Quebec, as a society. I'm all for government intervention in many different fields, but we have to choose (to take) into account our means, to pay for all this,' Pratte told hosts Bill Brownstein and Aaron Rand on this week's episode of The Corner Booth, where he discussed his latest op-ed for The Gazette: A welfare state Quebecers cannot afford.
'This $540 million that they just found, they need to take from somewhere else.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
12 hours ago
- Montreal Gazette
Westmount qualifies for exemption from high-density development requirements, former mayors say
Montreal Politics By Westmount Mayor Christina Smith says the municipality is open to tweaking its controversial redevelopment plan for its southeast sector, bordering downtown Montreal, before it goes to a vote in September, but critics are demanding that she invoke Westmount's designation as an exceptional heritage sector to prevent highrise development. 'We're probably going to see some slight modifications, for sure,' Smith told The Gazette last week. She was referring to continued opposition from residents to a proposed seven- to 12-storey development on Dorchester Blvd., across from Victorian row houses that are characteristic of Westmount, and to a proposed row of four 20-storey towers on Ste-Catherine St. W., just west of Atwater Ave. 'We heard a lot of feedback ... so we're continuing to debate that,' she said. One idea came from a resident at a public meeting on the plan in June, Smith said. Jonathan Wener, founder and chairman of real-estate company Canderel, told the meeting that four 20-storey highrises on Ste-Catherine is 'too much mass' and suggested two 25- to 30-storey highrises instead. 'That may not even be feasible, but that's something that some people are now asking for,' Smith said. 'Where I don't think we need to go is there's a call to scrap it all together and let the next council deal with that.' However, former Westmount mayors Peter Trent and Karin Marks are asking why Westmount hasn't invoked its designation as an exceptional heritage sector to get an exemption from higher building-density requirements that are to be introduced next year by the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM) and that Smith has cited as the impetus for Westmount to include several highrise towers in the southeast sector plan. 'Westmount's heritage designation clearly allows it to claim an exemption from density thresholds,' Trent and Marks conclude in a July 20 letter to the members of Westmount city council that was copied to The Gazette. 'You now have the obligation to correct the serious misinformation that was given to citizens.' The former mayors oppose the redevelopment proposal for the southeast sector, produced for the municipality by architecture firm Lemay, saying in their letter that the heights being proposed for Ste-Catherine, in particular, will 'result in a cheek-by-jowl series of highrise towers like the Square Children's (at Atwater Ave. and René-Lévesque Blvd.); a form, with the exception of the short-lived 1960s highrise delirium, that is antithetical to Westmount's built heritage.' Marks and Trent contend that Smith, the civil service and the Lemay firm misinformed the public by stating that Westmount is obliged to respect a new minimum density of 480 dwellings per hectare that's in the CMM's new 2026-2046 metropolitan land-use plan, and by omitting to mention the exemption available to Westmount. Smith has publicly said that Westmount must respect the density requirement in the CMM plan, adopted on June 9, for 'hypercentre' transit-oriented development zones, such as the Atwater métro area. But Trent and Marks point out that the new and old CMM land-use plans allow exemptions from its density requirements under special circumstances. The circumstances include 'the need to protect sectors with heritage components of interest where densification could compromise cultural, historical or natural values,' the new CMM plan states. The Montreal agglomeration council, which includes the City of Montreal and all island suburbs, would have to request the exemption on behalf of Westmount. However, the CMM delegates responsibility to the agglomeration to identify heritage sectors requiring protection on the island, Trent notes. And the agglomeration's land-use plan designates Westmount's entire southeast sector — and almost all of the municipality, for that matter — as a 'sector of exceptional heritage.' The agglomeration land-use plan also provides for exemptions from minimum density requirements, including for 'an area of exceptional value, or an area of significant value' as indicated on the plan's heritage map. The map is where Westmount is categorized as 'exceptional heritage.' However, Smith maintains that Westmount is obliged to respect the CMM's density requirements and has a legal opinion from an urban-planning lawyer to back that up. 'We did our homework,' she said. 'We can't opt out. I'm disagreeing with his (Trent's) notion that we have no obligation to do this. We have checked with the CMM, we've checked with the (agglomeration), I've called in outside legal counsel. ... We've asked every which way on this.' Smith suggested that other legal protections exist for historic properties in Westmount's southeast sector, including provincial heritage protection for the Congrégation-de-Notre-Dame motherhouse now occupied by Dawson College. A Westmount bylaw on site planning and architectural integration requires council approval for projects that affect the exterior of properties, she added. The CMM exemption clause is applicable to densification that could compromise cultural, historical and natural values, Smith said. 'At this point, no one could claim that what we are doing in the southeast would be compromising historical values.' However, Trent disagrees with Smith's interpretation. 'The argument fails the minute you open up the agglomeration (land-use plan),' he said. 'The fact that individual buildings are protected (by additional laws and bylaws) is irrelevant.' Westmount plans to adopt the southeast sector plan and a bylaw amending its master plan to accommodate it at its last council meeting on Sept. 8. Trent, Marks and other critics of Westmount's southeast sector redevelopment proposal have argued that Westmount council should postpone its vote until after the municipal election on Nov. 2. However, whether the plan is approved before or after the election may be up to the Montreal administration of Mayor Valérie Plante. That's because the agglomeration, where Montreal has a majority, must approve changes to the master plan of any municipality on the island to ensure they comply with the agglomeration's land-use plan, Montreal spokesperson Gonzalo Nunez said. The agglomeration council delegated power to the Montreal city executive committee to issue 'certificates of conformity' for master plan changes, he said. The Montreal executive committee will continue to meet weekly into October, he added. 'It is impossible to specify when the executive committee will rule on the compliance of the city of Westmount's bylaw,' Nunez said. 'The deadline will depend on the date on which the adopted bylaw is submitted to the agglomeration. The file will then be submitted to the executive committee for approval or disapproval of the bylaw, within a maximum of 120 days.' This story was originally published
Toronto Sun
a day ago
- Toronto Sun
GOLDSTEIN: Alberta's separation question, unlike Quebec's, is crystal clear
Premier Danielle Smith speaks to reporters during a press conference at the Alberta Legislature, in Edmonton, May 6, 2025. Photo by David Bloom / Postmedia Network Whatever one thinks of Alberta's separation movement, the referendum question it seeks to pose to Albertans is a vast improvement over those confronting voters in the 1995 and 1980 Quebec referenda on separation. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Proposed by Mitch Sylvestre, chair of the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project, it seeks a 'YES' or 'NO' answer to the question: 'Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?' That would appear to satisfy the first requirement of the federal Clarity Act passed by Parliament in 2000, incorporating the legal advice of the Supreme Court of Canada, that the question on separation must be 'clear' to those voting on it. Particularly so when compared to the question posed to Quebecers in the 1995 Quebec referendum on separation. It read: 'Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. While Quebecers are astute followers of politics, understanding this question required knowing, as explained by The Canadian Encyclopedia online, that 'the bill' referred to Quebec's Bill 1, An Act Respecting the Future of Quebec, which included a declaration of sovereignty in its preamble, while 'the agreement signed on 12 June 1995' referenced an accord between the Parti Quebecois and the Action democratic du Quebec (ADQ) party, ratified by then-Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau, then-BQ leader Lucien Bouchard and then-ADQ leader Mario Dumont. The question posed to Quebecers in the first separation referendum in 1980 was even more complex. It read: 'The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The 'NO' side, opposed to separation, won the 1995 referendum by the narrowest of margins — 50.58% to 49.42% for the 'YES' side — a winning margin of a mere 54,288 votes out of 4,671,008 valid ballots cast, with a registered voter turnout of 93.52%. The 1980 Quebec referendum on separation failed by a much wider margin, with 59.56% voting 'NO' to 40.44% for the 'YES' side — a winning margin of 702,139 votes out of 3,673,843 valid ballots cast, with a registered voter turnout of 85.6%. In the wake of those votes and, in particular, given the razor-thin vote for the 'NO' side in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the 2000 federal Clarity Act specified that in addition to a 'clear question,' a 'clear majority' of voters was required to decide the issue, without explaining what a clear majority meant. The proposed referendum question in Alberta still has several legal and political hurdles to clear and faces a competing referendum question asking: 'Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?' That said, it would be hard to fault Alberta's proposed question on separation for a lack of clarity. Read More MLB Celebrity Wrestling Toronto & GTA Ontario
National Observer
3 days ago
- National Observer
Pipelines won't unite Canada. Clean energy will
Canada doesn't need more fossil fuel infrastructure. In the wake of the Building Canada Act's adoption, pipelines and fossil fuel infrastructure are being proposed as national interest projects, even though they are costly, risky and out of step with public opinion, especially in Quebec. The province has long rejected fossil fuel supply projects and opted for a smarter future with renewable energy. Ironically enough, it is precisely here that yet another new project concept for an LNG plant is being touted. In a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney and government ministers, more than 100 organizations illustrated how an east-west electricity grid could serve national interests by prioritizing renewable energy and Indigenous rights. This united call is aligned with Quebecers' long-standing opposition to fossil fuel proposals running through the Saint Lawrence River and their communities. In May, hundreds of groups and individuals called on federal and Quebec politicians to oppose new pipelines. Earlier this year, in February, within a week of the media's renewed interest in fossil fuel projects, such as Energy East and GNL Quebec — and following US President Donald Trump's return to the White House — a coalition of 100 Quebec organizations and experts from environment, labour, student, urban planning and academia also issued an unequivocal statement reiterating that Quebec civil society wants to maintain its long-standing opposition to fossil fuel project expansion. A Leger survey showed that, when presented with a choice between investments in renewable energy or fossil fuels, three out of four Quebecers would choose the former, further indicating that pipelines are a challenge to so-called Canadian unity. This public consensus against fossil fuel development wasn't formed lightly but rather through decades of mobilization, culminating in 2022 when Quebec adopted legislation prohibiting oil and gas exploration. This secured the province an appointment as co-president of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a global group of jurisdictions committed to phasing out fossil fuels and implementing policies to do so. Any new oil and gas pipeline or facility project will face a fundamental reality: the lack of market need. Europe's demand for natural gas may already have peaked, in part due to aggressive efforts to accelerate electrification and expand renewable resources. Even without taking into account the fact that an east-west pipeline would be useless for Asian markets, with the continent's energy needs being met by a mix of renewables, electrification, efficiency and nuclear energy; Canadian gas can't compete in the Asian market dominated by the United States and Qatar. Betting, once again, on the same fossil-fuel horse might be what keeps Canada from becoming the energy superpower it could be, write Andréanne Brazeau and Charles-Édouard Têtu Building massive infrastructure to carry fossil fuels is a mistake in the face of global market volatility. Fossil fuel expansion and profiteering are primary drivers of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. New pipelines are an investment in yesterday's energy model while the world rapidly shifts to renewables. As the global energy transition accelerates, they could easily become costly 'stranded assets.' Federal financing of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion should serve as an example. Not only did the cost skyrocket from $4.5 billion to $34 billion to cover a fourth of the distance of a west-east project, but it is also still not achieving full capacity. Furthermore, fossil fuel pipelines are notorious for taking years before becoming operational. Trans Mountain was approved in 2019 and started transporting fuel in 2024. Projects such as Energy East and GNL Québec would not be different and aren't a 'quick fix' to uncertainty around trade. It's also important to note that even if Energy East were operational today, it could not close the capacity gap needed for full energy autonomy. Uncertain times require policy-makers to act fast, but that doesn't mean forgetting the basics of economics and business by wasting, yet again, public money in sectors that have no future. Canada should take inspiration from the European Union's response following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Launched in 2022, the REPowerEU initiative aims to stop the EU's dependence on Russian gas by investing in renewables and energy efficiency, which has already helped reduce demand for Russian gas by 18 per cent, with an aim of 26 per cent by 2030. Betting, once again, on the same fossil-fuel horse might be what keeps Canada from becoming the energy superpower it could be if it were to finally get serious about phasing out oil and gas and focus on solutions that will work in tomorrow's economy. Building a new deal of Canada's own to answer the crisis, while also answering the country's energy needs, will only work if public money supports projects aligned with our climate goals. As the US administration becomes more unpredictable in its climate and trade policies, Canada must invest in its resilience. A real nation-building project is a strong national grid that will increase our economic competitiveness, create lasting jobs, support our climate commitments and shield Canadian households from rising fossil fuel costs.
