Letters: As feds seek unity, Quebec digs heels on divisive tuition hikes
Unfortunately, the latest stance from the Coalition Avenir Québec government — sticking to its contentious tuition hikes for out-of-province students despite a court order — runs counter to this vision.
Premier François Legault's claims that the French language is being eroded appear unfounded and risk deepening divisions at a time when unity is more critical than ever.
Canada is facing serious external pressures, particularly from our southern neighbour. Now is the time to set aside narrow political interests and focus on strengthening and preserving our country — together.
Robert Tellier, Westmount
Bill 40 belongs in Supreme Court
Re: ' On death, taxes and the fate of minority rights ' (Robert Libman, June 7)
Columnist Robert Libman asserts that the Supreme Court should decline to hear the Quebec government's appeal concerning education reform Bill 40. He highlights that two Quebec courts have unanimously ruled on what appears to be a straightforward matter.
I respectfully disagree, as this issue extends beyond the jurisdiction of Quebec's interests.
In Quebec, our public school system has two governance systems — one for the English-speaking community and the other for the French-speaking community. No other province in Canada has a system of school governance where language determines the rules, resulting in different standards for democracy, accountability and transparency.
I feel this situation is unacceptable in any context. The issue requires additional scrutiny.
Chris Eustace, Pierrefonds
Asylum seekers face more hurdles
Re: ' Group holds protest against proposed federal security bill ' (The Gazette, June 10) and ' Critic calls out border security bill provision ' (NP Montreal, June 6)
It's perhaps surprising that one of the first pieces of legislation proposed by the Mark Carney government, Bill C-2, will make it far more difficult for refugees to apply for asylum in Canada.
Under the bill's provisions, people who have been in Canada for more than a year will not be permitted to go through the refugee determination process. Those who cross by land from the U.S., with some exceptions, will not be permitted to stay, and the post-14-day period through which they can currently apply will be nullified.
Bill C-2 would also give the government the power to cancel anyone's pre-citizenship or residency status.
It's as though huge 'refugees need not apply' banners were placed at the Canadian border — a throwback to the Mackenzie King era.
Shloime Perel, Côte-St-Luc
Finding right fit for Bay building
Re: ' 'A Trophy Asset' ' (The Gazette, June 10)
The recent closing of Hudson's Bay stores has raised the question of the future vocation for the flagship store in downtown Montreal.
My preference would be to repurpose it as another department store, at least for its older part fronting Ste-Catherine St. W., to maintain the street's character as a major commercial artery of Montreal.
I suggest inviting Galeries Lafayette — a major department store chain in Europe with roots in Paris — to open a branch in the former Bay location. Given Montreal's French character, establishing a store in Montreal would be a natural fit.
Robert Hajaly, Montreal
Submitting a letter to the editor
Letters should be sent by email to letters@montrealgazette.com
We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette.
If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one.
Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication.
Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation.
We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer's argument.
Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or 'open letters' addressed to third parties.
Letters are published with the author's full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published.
We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
10 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. NDP acts fast in defence of private ownership of land
VICTORIA — The New Democrats were quick to respond earlier this month when a far-reaching B.C. Supreme Court judgment cast doubt on the status of private property in the province. 'Owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty and the real estate market,' Premier David Eby said after the decision was posted. 'We remain committed to protecting and upholding this foundation of business and personal predictability, and our provincial economy, for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike.' A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Next came Attorney General Niki Sharma. 'We disagree strongly with the decision,' she said in a statement on Aug. 11. 'British Columbia will be filing an appeal.' Both were responding an Aug. 7 decision by Justice Barbara Young, which recognized Aboriginal title for the Cowichan Tribes over a tract of land in Richmond that included some private property. Not the usual timing when the B.C. government loses an Aboriginal title case, as it has done more often than not in modern times. Typically the implications will be studied for weeks before a decision is announced on whether to appeal. Yet this time the decision was taken over a weekend, even though the attorney general had to acknowledge that her 'legal team' was 'still deep in its analysis' of the almost 900-page judgment. Already the government had decided the main basis of the appeal would be a defence of private property rights. The New Democrats had long maintained that reconciliation with B.C.'s 200 Indigenous nations would not encroach on the private property rights of the rest of the population. Now, for the first time, a court decision had cast considerable doubt on the status of fee simple land, to use the technical designation for private property. For as Young put it in the most widely quoted passage on the implications of her decision 'what remains of fee simple title after Aboriginal title is recognized in the same lands?' Precious little, judging from the preliminary comments of the B.C. attorney general. 'The ruling could have significant unintended consequences for fee simple private property rights in B.C., and that must be reconsidered. It will be amongst the arguments that we will be making in our application for appeal,' Sharma told reporters. 'We obviously have a very strong property title regime here in B.C. and what that does is protect the interests of property owners. So when they own a title or they own property, that's protected under our various legislation that's out there. We believe that needs to be defended in the court.' The province tried hard to defend private property rights during the marathon five years of proceedings leading up to Young's judgment. B.C. argued that 'a declaration of Aboriginal title would have a significant adverse effect on the private landowners who are not parties in this case, as well as all British Columbians.' Young conceded government lawyers mounted a 'vigorous' case to that end, even as she rejected most of it. Much has been made of the fact that the Cowichan Tribes excluded privately held lands from the claim they filed in court. B.C. saw that as a preliminary move, arguing Cowichan's long-term goal was to recover the entire site, including the private land. Young did not dispute the possibility. 'They are not pursuing exclusive use and occupation of privately owned lands in the Cowichan Title Lands at this time. What they may choose to do in future negotiations or litigation is speculative and does not alter my determination that declaratory relief is appropriate. Nor did she dispute that her declaration of Aboriginal title 'may give rise to some uncertainty for the fee simple titleholders and it may have consequences for their interests in land.' But that, too, was a matter for future negotiation, litigation, or both. In the meantime, private land owners should suck it up. 'To achieve reconciliation means that the status quo must sometimes change. In the process of that change some will bear the brunt,' wrote the judge. 'Sometimes the hardship will be borne by Indigenous peoples and First Nations, and sometimes it will be borne by non-Indigenous Canadians.' In passing, she also levelled a blast against the City of Richmond for its take on the implications of a grant of Aboriginal title to the lands in question. 'Richmond's submission that a declaration of Aboriginal title will destroy the land title system, wreak economic havoc and harm every resident in British Columbia is not a reasoned analysis on the evidence. It inflames and incites rather than grapples with the evidence and scope of the claim in this case.' Yes. But the judge having herself asked what remains of private property rights after her broad recognition of Aboriginal title, it is not much of a stretch to suggest these findings could inflame and incite the public. Indeed, I expect that is why the New Democrats rushed to announce the appeal. They are rightly concerned that public support for Indigenous reconciliation will be undermined if the courts add private property to the mix for negotiation. vpalmer@
Winnipeg Free Press
11 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about Bolivia's election that elevated a centrist shaking up the political landscape
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — One candidate is Rodrigo Paz, a conservative centrist senator and son of a neoliberal ex-president who is pitching himself as a moderate reformer. The other is former right-wing president Jorge 'Tuto' Quiroga galvanizing voters largely through promises of harsh austerity and a scorched-earth approach to transforming Bolivia's state-directed economic model after 20 years of leftist dominance. At stake in the outcome of Bolivia's consequential presidential election is the fate of one of South America's most resource-rich nations, where inflation has soared to heights unseen in decades and polls show growing distrust in major institutions. 'There has been a paradigm shift,' said Bolivian sociologist Renzo Abruzzese. 'What is truly historic is that the old cycle is over. It has carried away the classical leftist thought that dominated much of the 20th century.' The shadow of unrest among the fervent supporters of charismatic ex-President Evo Morales, the founder of Bolivia's long-dominant Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, hangs over the next weeks of campaigning until the men face off in an unprecedented runoff on Oct. 19. Front-runner Rodrigo Paz surprises Screenshots of the Wikipedia entry for Paz's past political allegiances elicited waggish mockery on Bolivian social media Monday about the fluid ideology of this former mayor and governor. Paz began his political career in the Revolutionary Left Movement of his father, former President Jaime Paz Zamora. His movement emerged as a radical Marxist-inspired party and suffered brutal repression under Bolivia's 1964-1982 military dictatorship. Paz was born in exile in Spain. His father pivoted right as a pact with former dictator Hugo Bánzer vaulted him to the presidency in 1989. The younger Paz rose through the political rinks over the past two decades in opposition to Morales' platform of generous subsidies and hefty public investment. He joined Quiroga's right-wing party before drifting toward Bolivia's technocratic center. Analysts say that his enigmatic pragmatism — a focus on specific policies rather than ideological crusades — served Paz in Sunday's election, as it did his father before him. 'Voters don't want hard right or hard left. They want things to function,' said Veronica Rocha, a Bolivian political analyst. 'Ambivalence is a political asset right now.' Even his supporters aren't sure how to describe him politically. 'I don't care about politics, I'm sick of it, I just support the candidate who I think will steal the least,' Emma Gesea Mamani, 57, said from her kiosk, selling snacks to hungry truckers wasting their days in lines for diesel as a result of Bolivia's crippling fuel shortages. Jorge 'Tuto' Quiroga promises spending cuts A former vice president, Quiroga briefly held the presidency after then-President and ex-dictator Bánzer retired for health reasons in 2001. Fluent in English and educated at Texas A&M University, Quiroga has fashioned himself into a pro-business modernizer vowing to save Bolivia from what he calls '20 lost years' under the MAS party. He pledges drastic spending cuts, a bailout from the International Monetary Fund and fire sales of Bolivia's inefficient state-run firms. After years of Bolivia's foreign policy alignment with China and Russia, Quiroga vows to restore relations with the United States and claims to be close with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 'For years we lived in a time of darkness and lack of opportunities like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua,' said 60-year-old engineer Jimmy Copa Vargas. 'With Tuto's government, we'll open ourselves to the world.' Quiroga has run for president three times before, losing twice to Morales. Now 65, he hopes the fourth time's the charm. To attract young voters, Quiroga threw flashy concerts and named a wealthy young entrepreneur as his vice president. He appears in campaign posters wearing a stern expression, tailored suit and Apple Watch and often peppers his speeches with wonky macroeconomic data, fueling the perception among some Bolivians that he's out of touch with the rural poor in this majority-Indigenous nation. 'I can't trust that he's not going to be the first one out on a lifeboat when Bolivia starts sinking,' said Luis Quispe, a 38-year-old taxi driver. Paz's unusual campaign — and running mate Paz and his popular running mate, former police captain Edman Lara, crisscrossed Bolivian cities holding modest rallies filled with cheap beer and grilled meat, often recording videos to post on TikTok. Despite undergoing emergency knee surgery earlier in the year, Paz hit dozens of campaign stops in the traditional bastions of Morales' party, engaging with disillusioned voters at once desperate for change but wary of a dramatic lurch to the right after 20 years of the MAS economic model. He has rejected an IMF bailout and proposed 'capitalism for all,' touting accessible loans to boost young entrepreneurs and tax breaks to stimulate the formal economy. Many see his running mate, ex-police captain Lara, known here as El Capitán, as the driving force behind his win. After 15 years in the police force, Lara in 2023 gained national prominence by posting tales of police corruption to his followers on TikTok and Instagram. His videos went viral, becoming must-see dispatches for disgruntled Bolivians and social media-savvy youth who tuned in regularly to watch him talk to the camera. He faced disciplinary measures over the exposés and was fired from the force, solidifying his status as something of a folk hero. After his dismissal, he struggled to scrape by selling secondhand clothing. His wife drove for a ride-hailing app. That has resonated with many workers in Bolivia's vast informal economy who have watched politicians enrich themselves while their own finances collapse and the country's economy spirals. The election may not mark the end of politics for Evo Morales Sunday's presidential election marked the first since 2002 without Morales or a stand-in on the ballot. Still, the outcome confirmed the maverick ex-union leader's enduring influence after serving three straight terms marked by relative prosperity and political stability until his 2019 disputed reelection and subsequent ouster. Disqualified from the race by a court ruling on term limits, Morales called on his followers to spoil their ballots against what he deemed an illegitimate election. He campaigned hard for null votes, at times condemning his leftist rivals — Eduardo Del Castillo, nominated by the unpopular President Luis Arce, and Senate leader Andrónico Rodríguez, a former protégé and coca farming union activist — more than the right-wing opposition. While the election results swept aside those splintered MAS party factions, the null-and-void vote captured third place in Sunday's elections. Spoiled ballots appealed to nostalgic Morales supporters who fault Arce for Bolivia's economic collapse and to voters disillusioned by politicians across the spectrum who they say are more focused more on their own power games than on the people they are supposed to serve. 'Those who say Evo Morales is finished are mistaken,' Abruzzese said. 'Morales and MAS won't disappear.' ___ Associated Press writer Carlos Valdez in La Paz, Bolivia, contributed to this report.
15 hours ago
Who controls the food supply? Proposed changes to seed reuse reopens debate
It's a small change that risks cultivating a big debate. On one side is the principle of farmer's privilege — the traditional right of Canadian farmers to save seeds at the end of a growing season and reuse them the next year. On the other is the principle of plant breeders' rights — the right of those who develop new seeds and plants to protect and profit from their discoveries. The issue has been dormant for a decade. Now, proposed changes to government rules regarding plant breeders' rights are reviving that debate. It also raises questions about how Canada gets its food and who controls what is grown. Ultimately, it's about food security, said Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The group supports the changes, which include narrowing the scope of farmer's privilege. Not only keeping us competitive to keep food costs down, but also to make sure that we maintain new varieties coming forward for that food availability. Enlarge image (new window) The proposed changes could reduce the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds for crops like fruits and vegetables. Photo: The Canadian Press / Giordano Ciampini In a notice (new window) dated Aug. 9, the government announced proposed changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations — a form of intellectual property protection for plants, similar to a patent. The regulations give plant breeders a monopoly over the distribution of their product for a set period, as a way to to encourage investment and innovations such as varieties with higher yields or more resistant to drought or pests. It's a big business. Estimates of the economic impact of the seed industry in Canada range from $4 billion to $6 billion a year. The right to reuse The changes would remove the right of farmers to save and reuse seeds and cuttings from protected fruits, vegetables, ornamental varieties, other plants reproduced through vegetative propagation and hybrids. For most plants recognized under the law, the protections last for 20 years. Personal gardens and many other kinds of crops such as wheat, cereals and pulses, where seed saving is more widespread, would not be affected. Among the other proposed changes is to extend the protection for new varieties of mushrooms, asparagus and woody plants like raspberries and blueberries to 25 years from the current 20 years. A public consultation on the changes runs until Oct. 18. Enlarge image (new window) NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns is calling for parliamentary hearings into the proposed changes. Photo: Kendal Hanson/CHEK News NDP agriculture critic Gord Johns says the changes raise an important issue for Canadians. He questions why the government is holding the consultation in summer when most farmers are focused on growing and harvesting crops — not drafting submissions for public consultations. They keep doing this over and over again, said Johns of the federal government. They announce regulatory changes that impact farmers and their livelihoods [and] they schedule the consultation period during the busiest time of the year for farmers. Johns said companies producing new kinds of seed should be adequately compensated for their innovation and intellectual property. But he said farmers who grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn't be starved by big corporations choking off their seed supply. He wants the House of Commons agriculture committee to hold hearings and take a closer look at the changes being proposed. A spokesperson for Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald said the government is committed to encouraging innovation, investment, research and competitiveness in Canadian agriculture, horticulture and ornamental industries. The spokesperson said the government will review all feedback before determining next steps. Access vs. innovation Former prime minister Stephen Harper's government triggered a debate in 2015 when it adopted measures to bring Canada's rules more in line with guidelines adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, known as UPOV 91. The rules are separate from patent law or technology use agreements which some seed companies use to prevent farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Changes to plant breeders' rules are now again on the table. Last year, a government consultation resulted in 109 submissions, the majority supportive of change. Meanwhile, lobbyists have been busy behind the scenes. According to the federal lobbying registry, 13 people from several different groups or companies are currently registered to lobby on plant breeders' rights including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Swiss-based Syngenta, owned by Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Enlarge image (new window) Wheat is not included in the proposed changes, but a research director for the National Farmers Union worries they could be the start of a 'slippery slope.' Photo: Reuters / Todd Korol Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy for the National Farmers Union, says the proposed changes risk hurting farmers while increasing profits and the power of seed-producing companies — often multinationals with foreign ownership. While the changes are focused on an area of agriculture where seed saving is less common, Holtslander warns the changes are a slippery slope that could lead to an erosion of the rights of farmers. If they were to go after wheat with the amendment, there would be a huge uproar and people would really be angry and push back, Holtslander said. She said what's being proposed paves the way for other crops to be included later. The seed industry does not want farmers' privilege to exist for any seed. They want to be able to require people to buy new seed every year, she said. Holtslander's group plans to fight the proposed changes. She said the issue goes beyond the question of individual farmers reusing seed. If the big multinational companies control the seed, they control our food supply, she said. Lauren Comin, director of policy for Seeds Canada, acknowledges the issue can be controversial but argues Canada needs strong intellectual property protection if it wants access to the newest innovations to compete on the world stage. It's incredibly important to have these frameworks to encourage investment companies, businesses, public entities, to know that they are going to somehow be compensated and protected, Comin said. She said that while the changes provide that certainty and that incentive for investment, she wants them to go further. While acknowledging there isn't enough certified seed for all of Canada's cereals and small grains crop, Comin would also like to see farmers compensate plant breeders when they reuse seeds, as they do in Europe. The farmer's privilege does not say that that use is free, she said. [Farmers] can choose to buy the latest and greatest product of innovation, which means that there is a tremendous amount of investment and effort that went toward developing this improved variety. Or they can decide that they don't value innovation, and they can go back to a variety that's unprotected and grow that. Currie, an Ontario grains and oil seed farmer who saves and reuses seeds, says Canada needs to balance the two principles. He says farmer's privilege is key to Canada's competitiveness, but so is access to new varieties of seeds and plants. While I do understand where some of the multinationals want to have better control, I believe in order for the industry to be viable, farmers have to have some control as well, he said.
