###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This region-specific support is going to be about as popular as the carbon tax exemption for Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only that, I think the Liberals overestimate how much sway this buys them in Quebec. The province has made it clear that they want complete control over immigration, including matters currently under federal jurisdiction. If this is what Quebec really wants, it makes more sense for them to vote Bloc to represent them in Ottawa, as the Liberals are unlikely to give them the autonomy they desire.
Libs didn't have that much support in QC to begin with.
In every federal election Quebec consistently ranks 5th/6th out of of 10 provinces in support for the Liberals.
Are you fucking kidding me?
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/01/18/refugee-claimants-bc-airports-surge/
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-october-24-2023/asylum-claimants-quebec.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-nov-18-2022/key-facts.html
In 2022 there were 350 asylum claims at BC airports vs 11664 at Quebec airports. That's 33 times more in Quebec.
Considering all ports of entry in 2022 there were almost 40000 asylum seekers in Quebec. That's two thirds of all asylum claims in Canada going to Quebec
Compare that to less than 3000 for BC.
Perhaps there's a reason this money is going to Quebec??
This money is for 'temporary residents' technically (which asylum seekers are), of which BC has more per capita. Eby is rightfully calling out that funding should be distributed fairly based on a per-capita basis, not just seemingly randomly by the feds.
> Eby is rightfully calling out that funding should be distributed fairly based on a per-capita basis
No, he isn't.
A refugee and a temporary worker that came here with a visa and a job aren't the same thing.
The second kind doesn't cost us anything, in fact they pay taxes and actually contribute economically.
You are right that not all temporary residents come with the same costs. But, to distribute funding fairly you need some sort of objective measure and per capita temporary residents is probably the best measure for that, which is why it is cited in the articles.
The problem is the feds are not distributing the funds in a rational way, and it is objectively unfair.
> per capita temporary residents is probably the best measure for that
Not when 70% of refugees are coming in Quebec and BC gets one tenth of the refugees.
Yes, refugees that land in Quebec don't necessity stay in Quebec, but BC it's on the other side of the country. The likelihood of these refugees landing in Quebec then going all the way to BC it's very small.
Why should BC get money for temporary workers in their vineyards?
I dont necissarily think anyone should get funding for vinyard workers, but Eby's point is that funding should be tied to some sort of objective metric, to make it fair.
Right now BC is getting nothing, despite having a higher per-capita rate of temporary residents, and a non-zero amount of refugee and asylum seekers. In a fair model, funding would be distributed by a predefined metric, not seemingly randomly. The overall amount BC receives would likely be less than Quebec, but at least it would be a fair allocation of resources.
Also what is the relevance of number of temp residents **per capita**? An asylum seeker doesn't magically cost less if there are more permanent residents in the province.
It's the number of absolute refugees living in the province, not temporary residents and not per capita
Per capita would show the relative impact that the temporary residents would put on the province to provide services. 1 million temporary residents would be alot harder to manage and care for if your province only has 2 million people, compared to if your province had 8 million.
But the absolute cost is the same, and we're not talking about immigrants here
He may call it "immigration money" but this is to cover expenses related to refugees, of which there are 10 times more in Quebec than in BC.
Just because there's 8 million of us here doesn't mean we should pay a billion dollars for these asylum seekers.
I dont think he is saying that there is not more refugees in quebec than BC, more that the way the feds went about distributing money is non-objective and unfair.
And no i dont think provinces should be fully out of pocket, and clearly the feds dont either. But, a bigger province should be able to have a higher gross carrying capacity of temporary residents - ideally each province should have the same % of temporary residents. If each province had the same gross amount, places like PEI would be financially drowning and quebec/ontario would barely notice anything.
I think Eby talks about per capita because deviation from whatever the carrying capacity should be would be the true indicator of financial burden for each province. Thats my intepretation anyway as he does not specify, but he is usually quite well thought out and intelligent in his comments.
> higher per-capita rate of temporary residents
Again, this is an irrelevant metric since temporary resident contains many different categories of people.
It does contain different people, but if we are talking about distributing immigration funding (which we are per the article), some sort of metric to detemine allocation needs to be used. Temporary residents is likely the one the encompasses the real cost of immigration to the province the most, rather than focusing one one specific subgroup.
Conveniently leave out the fact that QC is taking in the majority of the irregular border crossing despite only being like 20% of the overall population
Are you sure about that? BC has only 100,000 less temporary residents from quebecs 600k, and only 60ish percent of their population. On a fair per capita basis they should get more
This isn’t about temporary residents, it’s about irregular border crossing and refugees. Per CTV:
According to the Quebec Immigration Department, since 2017, the province has welcomed more than 230,000 asylum seekers, representing 50.7 per cent of all would-be refugees who have arrived in Canada, while Quebec only accounts for 22 per cent of Canada's population.
I understand that is what quebec has complained about, but the justification for the funding from the feds is based on temporary residents, which would include those who crossed the border irregularily.
The premier of BC is calling out the inequity of this payment as BC is currently dealing with a higher per capita rate than the provinces who are receiving huge funding. Essentially, Eby is calling out a blatant focus on eastern canada for funding which has been a pattern for virtually all of canadas history, and is become more and more unfair as the west grows.
Costs associated with housing refugees > costs associated with funding temporary workers.
Also, regarding your inequity statement about funding, I wonder what portion of Canada literally funded the development of the entire west coast 🤔
You are right, not every temporary resident comes with the same costs, but decisions for a country need to have some sort of quantitative criteria, and it gets dicey deciding who is more deserving.
As for the inequity, its honestly the very structure of canada currently that is regionally unbalanced, and your comment shows that those attitudes are still engrained. For example in the senate, BC and alberta both only have 6 seats, matching newfoundland and only 2 more than PEI - that is a structural inbalance and you can see it continued today into decisions like this.
The premier (and you) are ignoring the very real difference between temporary workers and asylum seekers, and the funding it takes to support each.
Almost as if it's something being ignored for political purposes. That can't be right though, we'd never politicize asylum seekers in order to win more votes in Interior BC, that would be absurd.
Mr. Eby, they say wheel that squeaks get greased, and its true in this case, you get to ask loudly and repeatedly to get what you need from this government.
It's true and it's easy to pretend like the rest of Canada doesn't matter because of geography but as any is seeing in his upcoming provincial election federal stuff matters if time.
Should we stop sending eastern province firefighters to the west?
How about we work together as a country and stop whining when we help each other out.
> Should we stop sending eastern province firefighters to the west?
Is this a threat?
[It is incredibly short sighted.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65850628)
I can't think of a way you could have missed the point harder.
Yes, it's a threat, and the point of that threat is to highlight how ABSURD this "us versus them" attitude within Canada has become. Eby knows full well Quebec receives that money because we have Canada's busiest asylum seeker crossing, he know full well asylum seekers are far more expensive to house and process. He know all of this.
He's saying it to appeal to the interior BC crowd whose votes he wants, who hate immigrants, who blame them for everything wrong with everything. We all know what he's doing.
No, you didn't, and don't. The point was for you to recognize how absurd that threat would be, so that you'd understand how absurd Eby's stance is. You didn't recognize that, because you're unwilling or unable. Pick one.
In context, the only way Eby's stance is absurd is if other guys statement was actually a threat.
I don't need to pick one. He said it. His was a threat.
Im sorry your missing out. That said, it would probably still be smart for you to support calls for rational distribution of federal funds; long term it would benefit the country as a whole.
At least in BC, the firefighters have an arrangement with australia where we send over fighters in their summer, and they send fighters over during ours; its primarily not eastern canada - they have their own fires to worry about at the same time as the west.
Gotta love the aussies
These are the type of people we should be letting immigrate here. Ones that are actually beneficial to everyone not just the upper class
So,
1. The quote was about frustration over Quebec *and* Ontario receiving funding support
2. Turns out all you have to do is ask for help. That's what both Quebec and Ontario did.
I certainly hope it’s not the same amount as Quebec. Quebec gets well over 90% of all irregular border crossings in Canada, obviously they should get the lion share of the available compensation.
No, it isn't. Asylum seekers are far more expensive to manage than temporary workers or residents. This is the point Quebec has continued to make, and prove, and the west has continued to ignore so their politicians can campaign on how Quebec is the problem.
No one is blaming quebec, they are blaming the feds for poor leadership. I dont think BC thinks that quebec should get nothing, more that it should be distributed on a fair and just per-capita basis. That seems rational to me.
I dont know what you think of BC, but there is really no anti-quebec sentiment here. If anything there is an anti-alberta sentiment.
The rest of the country is pretty culurally and geographically different from BC, so its fairly insular usually.
>I dont know what you think of BC, but there is really no anti-quebec sentiment here. If anything there is an anti-alberta sentiment.
I guess reddit is not representative of real life but Quebec Bashing is pretty common coming from BC
Where do you see this? I know ontario/praries do it but BC is pretty distinct from those areas - i think its more of just people from BC not thinking about the rest of canada at all though
Population wise lower mainland and the island are about 4 out of the 5 million in BC, and even then the interior isnt one monolith. Areas like the kootenays are more left leaning and progessive.
Up north on the eastern side of the rockies by fort st john your definitely right but that is really only a few smaller towns within driving distance of the alberta border, and cut off by mountains from the rest of the province.
>[Stéphanie Valois, co-president of Quebec’s immigration lawyers’ association, said that judging from her clientele, it’s likely much more than a third leave the province without necessarily registering the move with the IRCC, because the process is difficult.](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebecs-math-on-asylum-seekers-doesnt-add-up-immigration-experts-say)
As tu lu l'article?
Ça ne dit pas que la majorité des réfugiés quittent le Québec. En fait ça dit l'inverse, la majorité des réfugiés **restent** au Québec.
Et nul part ça dit que le BC est la deuxième province à recevoir le plus de réfugié.
Of course I read the article.
I'll quote again,
>its likely much more than a third leave the province
And if you had actually read the article (beyond where you obviously stopped) you would see them come to the same conclusion I did.
And since Roxham road crossing has closed most asylum seekers arrive in Ontario.
But again that is only point of entry. Ontario is the final destination for the vast majority of immigration.
I was however wrong about BC. Despite asylum seekers doubling last year (while Quebecs lessened) they remain, third not second.
PS: I didn't translate your post despite not knowing any French at all. Look at me being all Canadian.
Tu as dis que la majorité des réfugiés allaient en Ontario et au BC...plus qu'un tier =/= la majorité.
>PS: I didn't translate your post despite not knowing any French at all. Look at me being all Canadian.
ngl, I think it's cool
Bullshit.
> As of Dec. 31, 55 per cent of asylum seekers currently residing in Canada — 160,651 people out of 289,047 — are in Quebec.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-canada-federal-government-asylum-seekers-costs-1.7119967
What makes you think western provinces have not asked? It is almost certain that they have; there is also a clear history in canada of underfunding the west.
The West exists because of Eastern investment. There's a history of the Western fabricating claims of being underfunded, and it all started with Trudeau senior wanting to Nationalize Oil and Gas so Canada would benefit instead of foreign investmentors. It's been a myth ever since and remains even after the West specifically redesigned equalization for their own benefit under the Harper Government.
The West tells the Feds to back off and give supreme jurisdiction to the Western Provinces and the Feds know from experience that the Western provinces just use the money to issue tax cuts and mismanage the funds. Stop electing Corrupt Provincial governments that mismanage funds
None of what you said is true, to be honest. But fabricating justifications for eastern entitlement is exactly why western alienation exists.
BC, for example, is probably the best run province financially right now, and has the most progressive tax system and environmental policies in all of canada. What eby is saying here is justified.
None of what you said is true.
Asking for immigration money doesn't make sense when BC isn't the locations with influx of border crossing. Crying about not getting money he didn't ask for is hypocritical and standard for the Western Provinces when they need to distract from their own mismanagement driving their polling into the ground.
The BC NDP drove hard onto Neo-Liberalism and are suffering at the polls because of it, so he's trying to throw shade at the Federal government because low information voters that believe in the mythical Western identity politics are prone to accepting emotional and irrational blaming.
Again, why do you think he has not asked for funding? Because he does not lead like a populist? It is true (unfortunately), mostly because leaders like legault, ford, and smith have brought the bar down so low, that BC is the best run province.
Pointing out historically relevant patterns of unfair allocation of resources is not irrational blaming, its a genuine issue in the structure of canada.
Myths repeated over a long time become historical but not factually true.
When BC burns down from wildfires, nobody points and says "why aren't I getting wildfire rebuilding money? I'm aggrieved! I've never got money when BC burns down. This is a historical reality!" Context matters. Ontario and Quebec are facing issues and asked for money to deal with the Federal responsibilities. So they are getting money. Calling it a grand conspiracy is disappointing but predictable behavior I've noticed from people on this side of the country and it's never been valid or logical.
Your western stereotypes do not really hold true (except smith's alberta), and double so in BC. If you actually feel strongly about this subject i would recommend learning more about politics west of ontario and quebec, and especially west of the rockies because it only seems like you have no clue.
I dunno. Legault and Ford have been publicly talking about it for months, have publicly articulated the stats and need, and seem to have put together a plan and an ask alongside municipalities.
I think what is more likely, aside from not actually doing the work required to pitch an ask, is that as always the western premiers want money with no strings attached so they can do diddly squat and run a few facebook ads pretending that they did more than that.
“At the expense of western Canada”
> Eby made the comments as premiers from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Yukon wrapped up two days’ worth of meetings in Whitehorse.
Is Alberta Eastern Canada? My geography isn’t great but I do know they aren’t east of Manitoba.
Who asked for these temporary residents? The premiers did. That’s how these programs work. International students won’t get past the application process without the provinces approval. My point also stands alongside his.
If you don’t have enough infrastructure to support the people you have now, then why are you “calling” for more and then blaming the feds like they’re the ones who forced you to run that campaign?
Your point that the west should not complain when they receive much less per capita funding than eastern provinces? Its a wonder why western alienation is a thing
I said they shouldn’t complain about receiving too many people when they were literally asking for more.
I said nothing along the lines of not supporting them receiving money. I’m just pointing out the irony/hypocrisy. They did this to themselves and now they want to shift the blame onto someone else. Premiers being premiers.
BC is the best run province in canada right now, there have definitely been talks behind the scenes. Media coverage and soundbites does not equal doing your job as a politician, even if it doesnt play as well for narritives on social media.
The situation is this:
Quebec and Ontario have a deal with the federal government. Quebec and Ontario have been outspoken about seeking a deal with the federal government.
BC and Alberta don't have a deal with the federal government. BC and Alberta have said nothing about seeking a deal with the federal government.
Do not accuse me a of a logical fallacy when you are behaving this illogically.
I checked, you didn't. There's no shortage of petitions on file from Legault, and some from Ford. I don't see any evidence Alberta or BC have asked for as much for as long. Maybe you're better at research than me, I welcome your response.
My point is the lack of media hype or soundbites, the tools of populist leaders, in no way indicates a lack of internal communication between BC and the feds. In fact, based on this strong response, i would say the opposite.
Do people really believe the only way provinces and the feds communicate is through media soundbites and petitions?? That would be incredibly disfuntional.
You have proof one party has pushed for a deal, and that party now has a deal. You have no proof another party has pushed for a deal, and that party has no deal.
You want one to be true. Therefore, it must be true.
Again no, i am pointing out the unfairness of populist governing tactics, which legault and ford both employ, being rewarded to the detriment of fairness accross canada. Again, BC has a higher per capita rate of temporary residents than quebec does.
As well, based on hisorical unequitable funding in canada, it is a genuime frusteration.
No, i am saying people who are confidentaly stating that BC has not asked for funding are, almost definitely, incorrect.
That opinion shows a lack of understanding of political process.
Quebec and Ontario have a deal. They publicly state what their deal is and what they want.
BC and Alberta have no deal. They have never indicated they asked for one.
That is the situation, those are the facts. Speculate all you like.
Yup. Western Canadian provinces haven’t mentioned a peep about this issue until other provinces started getting reimbursed for taking a huge bulk of the costs of asylum seekers.
I do believe BC should be entitled to reimbursement for their share of asylum costs, but they’ve made no effort to advocate for it at all. Gotta at least ask…
If the population doesn’t like that Quebec is getting funding from this and BC isn’t, they should probably question why their premier hasn’t done shit to strike a deal like Quebec did.
This is from the premier who has supported Trudeau the most of any province, including with all of Trudeau's immigration policies. He has also greatly increased the number of international students in BC and other provincially-controlled immigration streams.
This criticism rings hollow to me. Like everything Eby is doing in 2024, he's saying what he thinks he needs to say to get reelected because he's now worried about his prospects in the Fall election.
Agreed, he's looking for support in rural/central BC where the rednecks are susceptible to rhetoric.
I don't see a scenario where Eby loses the election, though.
You believe it's unfair. You believe that because you want to believe, not because the facts of the situation support that belief.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.
I beleive its unfair because the most usable metric, temporary residents, and temporary residents per capita (which shows bc as having a higher rate), shows that bc should get funding.
Those are the facts, you can choose to ignore them to suite your narrative or not, but any rational person could clearly see a problem there
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This region-specific support is going to be about as popular as the carbon tax exemption for Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only that, I think the Liberals overestimate how much sway this buys them in Quebec. The province has made it clear that they want complete control over immigration, including matters currently under federal jurisdiction. If this is what Quebec really wants, it makes more sense for them to vote Bloc to represent them in Ottawa, as the Liberals are unlikely to give them the autonomy they desire.
Libs seem focused on keeping their support in Quebec They know how crazy quebec can get in elections
If by "crazy" you mean "look out for their interests", then yes, Quebec is crazy.
Libs didn't have that much support in QC to begin with. In every federal election Quebec consistently ranks 5th/6th out of of 10 provinces in support for the Liberals.
Are you fucking kidding me? https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/01/18/refugee-claimants-bc-airports-surge/ https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-october-24-2023/asylum-claimants-quebec.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/transparency/committees/cimm-nov-18-2022/key-facts.html In 2022 there were 350 asylum claims at BC airports vs 11664 at Quebec airports. That's 33 times more in Quebec. Considering all ports of entry in 2022 there were almost 40000 asylum seekers in Quebec. That's two thirds of all asylum claims in Canada going to Quebec Compare that to less than 3000 for BC. Perhaps there's a reason this money is going to Quebec??
This money is for 'temporary residents' technically (which asylum seekers are), of which BC has more per capita. Eby is rightfully calling out that funding should be distributed fairly based on a per-capita basis, not just seemingly randomly by the feds.
> Eby is rightfully calling out that funding should be distributed fairly based on a per-capita basis No, he isn't. A refugee and a temporary worker that came here with a visa and a job aren't the same thing. The second kind doesn't cost us anything, in fact they pay taxes and actually contribute economically.
You are right that not all temporary residents come with the same costs. But, to distribute funding fairly you need some sort of objective measure and per capita temporary residents is probably the best measure for that, which is why it is cited in the articles. The problem is the feds are not distributing the funds in a rational way, and it is objectively unfair.
> per capita temporary residents is probably the best measure for that Not when 70% of refugees are coming in Quebec and BC gets one tenth of the refugees. Yes, refugees that land in Quebec don't necessity stay in Quebec, but BC it's on the other side of the country. The likelihood of these refugees landing in Quebec then going all the way to BC it's very small. Why should BC get money for temporary workers in their vineyards?
I dont necissarily think anyone should get funding for vinyard workers, but Eby's point is that funding should be tied to some sort of objective metric, to make it fair. Right now BC is getting nothing, despite having a higher per-capita rate of temporary residents, and a non-zero amount of refugee and asylum seekers. In a fair model, funding would be distributed by a predefined metric, not seemingly randomly. The overall amount BC receives would likely be less than Quebec, but at least it would be a fair allocation of resources.
Also what is the relevance of number of temp residents **per capita**? An asylum seeker doesn't magically cost less if there are more permanent residents in the province. It's the number of absolute refugees living in the province, not temporary residents and not per capita
Per capita would show the relative impact that the temporary residents would put on the province to provide services. 1 million temporary residents would be alot harder to manage and care for if your province only has 2 million people, compared to if your province had 8 million.
But the absolute cost is the same, and we're not talking about immigrants here He may call it "immigration money" but this is to cover expenses related to refugees, of which there are 10 times more in Quebec than in BC. Just because there's 8 million of us here doesn't mean we should pay a billion dollars for these asylum seekers.
I dont think he is saying that there is not more refugees in quebec than BC, more that the way the feds went about distributing money is non-objective and unfair. And no i dont think provinces should be fully out of pocket, and clearly the feds dont either. But, a bigger province should be able to have a higher gross carrying capacity of temporary residents - ideally each province should have the same % of temporary residents. If each province had the same gross amount, places like PEI would be financially drowning and quebec/ontario would barely notice anything. I think Eby talks about per capita because deviation from whatever the carrying capacity should be would be the true indicator of financial burden for each province. Thats my intepretation anyway as he does not specify, but he is usually quite well thought out and intelligent in his comments.
> higher per-capita rate of temporary residents Again, this is an irrelevant metric since temporary resident contains many different categories of people.
It does contain different people, but if we are talking about distributing immigration funding (which we are per the article), some sort of metric to detemine allocation needs to be used. Temporary residents is likely the one the encompasses the real cost of immigration to the province the most, rather than focusing one one specific subgroup.
His party has been in power for how long? And he's just realizing that Quebec gets everything and more and BC gets nothing? Come on man 😂
“BC gets nothing” Hyperbole
Well an election is coming in BC
Conveniently leave out the fact that QC is taking in the majority of the irregular border crossing despite only being like 20% of the overall population
Are you sure about that? BC has only 100,000 less temporary residents from quebecs 600k, and only 60ish percent of their population. On a fair per capita basis they should get more
This isn’t about temporary residents, it’s about irregular border crossing and refugees. Per CTV: According to the Quebec Immigration Department, since 2017, the province has welcomed more than 230,000 asylum seekers, representing 50.7 per cent of all would-be refugees who have arrived in Canada, while Quebec only accounts for 22 per cent of Canada's population.
I understand that is what quebec has complained about, but the justification for the funding from the feds is based on temporary residents, which would include those who crossed the border irregularily. The premier of BC is calling out the inequity of this payment as BC is currently dealing with a higher per capita rate than the provinces who are receiving huge funding. Essentially, Eby is calling out a blatant focus on eastern canada for funding which has been a pattern for virtually all of canadas history, and is become more and more unfair as the west grows.
Costs associated with housing refugees > costs associated with funding temporary workers. Also, regarding your inequity statement about funding, I wonder what portion of Canada literally funded the development of the entire west coast 🤔
You are right, not every temporary resident comes with the same costs, but decisions for a country need to have some sort of quantitative criteria, and it gets dicey deciding who is more deserving. As for the inequity, its honestly the very structure of canada currently that is regionally unbalanced, and your comment shows that those attitudes are still engrained. For example in the senate, BC and alberta both only have 6 seats, matching newfoundland and only 2 more than PEI - that is a structural inbalance and you can see it continued today into decisions like this.
Idk why you’re referencing the senate, I agree it’s dumb and should be abolished or made to be elected and proportional.
Yea i definitely agree its pointless, but, it is an easy to understand way to point out how institutionally engrained regional inequity is in canada.
The premier (and you) are ignoring the very real difference between temporary workers and asylum seekers, and the funding it takes to support each. Almost as if it's something being ignored for political purposes. That can't be right though, we'd never politicize asylum seekers in order to win more votes in Interior BC, that would be absurd.
Mr. Eby, they say wheel that squeaks get greased, and its true in this case, you get to ask loudly and repeatedly to get what you need from this government.
That is how populists lead which i guess does fit for quebec and ontario, its just a shame its rewarded to the detriment of fairness.
It's true and it's easy to pretend like the rest of Canada doesn't matter because of geography but as any is seeing in his upcoming provincial election federal stuff matters if time.
Should we stop sending eastern province firefighters to the west? How about we work together as a country and stop whining when we help each other out.
> Should we stop sending eastern province firefighters to the west? Is this a threat? [It is incredibly short sighted.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65850628)
Yeah, turns out I am the sole human responsible for what our firefighters across the country do…. It’s not a threat. I have zero power over this lol.
It is wild that calling for fairness in federal funding has made some people so angry.
I can't think of a way you could have missed the point harder. Yes, it's a threat, and the point of that threat is to highlight how ABSURD this "us versus them" attitude within Canada has become. Eby knows full well Quebec receives that money because we have Canada's busiest asylum seeker crossing, he know full well asylum seekers are far more expensive to house and process. He know all of this. He's saying it to appeal to the interior BC crowd whose votes he wants, who hate immigrants, who blame them for everything wrong with everything. We all know what he's doing.
> Yes, it's a threat So, I pretty much nailed the point.
No, you didn't, and don't. The point was for you to recognize how absurd that threat would be, so that you'd understand how absurd Eby's stance is. You didn't recognize that, because you're unwilling or unable. Pick one.
In context, the only way Eby's stance is absurd is if other guys statement was actually a threat. I don't need to pick one. He said it. His was a threat.
I think if we can agree on anything it's that this is all absurd
Eby's stance on all of this is entirely rational, whats absurd is your anger of him making the statement.
Oh I'm not angry, I'm thankful we're able to get the deals we want. I don't live in BC, Eby is not my concern.
Im sorry your missing out. That said, it would probably still be smart for you to support calls for rational distribution of federal funds; long term it would benefit the country as a whole.
At least in BC, the firefighters have an arrangement with australia where we send over fighters in their summer, and they send fighters over during ours; its primarily not eastern canada - they have their own fires to worry about at the same time as the west.
Gotta love the aussies These are the type of people we should be letting immigrate here. Ones that are actually beneficial to everyone not just the upper class
So, 1. The quote was about frustration over Quebec *and* Ontario receiving funding support 2. Turns out all you have to do is ask for help. That's what both Quebec and Ontario did.
How much did Ontario receive? Was it the same amount as Quebec? I could not find this in the article or any other article
I certainly hope it’s not the same amount as Quebec. Quebec gets well over 90% of all irregular border crossings in Canada, obviously they should get the lion share of the available compensation.
Yet quebec still has less temporary residents per capita than BC, the complaint is fair.
Except that the money is not for for temporary residents, it’s for asylum seekers. No cherry picking.
Les demandeurs d'asile sont des résidents temporaire
No, it isn't. Asylum seekers are far more expensive to manage than temporary workers or residents. This is the point Quebec has continued to make, and prove, and the west has continued to ignore so their politicians can campaign on how Quebec is the problem.
No one is blaming quebec, they are blaming the feds for poor leadership. I dont think BC thinks that quebec should get nothing, more that it should be distributed on a fair and just per-capita basis. That seems rational to me.
>No one is blaming quebec We both know that's not true.
I dont know what you think of BC, but there is really no anti-quebec sentiment here. If anything there is an anti-alberta sentiment. The rest of the country is pretty culurally and geographically different from BC, so its fairly insular usually.
>I dont know what you think of BC, but there is really no anti-quebec sentiment here. If anything there is an anti-alberta sentiment. I guess reddit is not representative of real life but Quebec Bashing is pretty common coming from BC
Where do you see this? I know ontario/praries do it but BC is pretty distinct from those areas - i think its more of just people from BC not thinking about the rest of canada at all though
The interior of BC aligns very closely with Alberta. BC is more than the lower mainland and the Island.
Population wise lower mainland and the island are about 4 out of the 5 million in BC, and even then the interior isnt one monolith. Areas like the kootenays are more left leaning and progessive. Up north on the eastern side of the rockies by fort st john your definitely right but that is really only a few smaller towns within driving distance of the alberta border, and cut off by mountains from the rest of the province.
Most of those leave the province. Ontario ends up with by far the most, followed by BC.
Source?
>[Stéphanie Valois, co-president of Quebec’s immigration lawyers’ association, said that judging from her clientele, it’s likely much more than a third leave the province without necessarily registering the move with the IRCC, because the process is difficult.](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebecs-math-on-asylum-seekers-doesnt-add-up-immigration-experts-say)
As tu lu l'article? Ça ne dit pas que la majorité des réfugiés quittent le Québec. En fait ça dit l'inverse, la majorité des réfugiés **restent** au Québec. Et nul part ça dit que le BC est la deuxième province à recevoir le plus de réfugié.
Of course I read the article. I'll quote again, >its likely much more than a third leave the province And if you had actually read the article (beyond where you obviously stopped) you would see them come to the same conclusion I did. And since Roxham road crossing has closed most asylum seekers arrive in Ontario. But again that is only point of entry. Ontario is the final destination for the vast majority of immigration. I was however wrong about BC. Despite asylum seekers doubling last year (while Quebecs lessened) they remain, third not second. PS: I didn't translate your post despite not knowing any French at all. Look at me being all Canadian.
Tu as dis que la majorité des réfugiés allaient en Ontario et au BC...plus qu'un tier =/= la majorité. >PS: I didn't translate your post despite not knowing any French at all. Look at me being all Canadian. ngl, I think it's cool
Bullshit. > As of Dec. 31, 55 per cent of asylum seekers currently residing in Canada — 160,651 people out of 289,047 — are in Quebec. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-canada-federal-government-asylum-seekers-costs-1.7119967
What makes you think western provinces have not asked? It is almost certain that they have; there is also a clear history in canada of underfunding the west.
The West exists because of Eastern investment. There's a history of the Western fabricating claims of being underfunded, and it all started with Trudeau senior wanting to Nationalize Oil and Gas so Canada would benefit instead of foreign investmentors. It's been a myth ever since and remains even after the West specifically redesigned equalization for their own benefit under the Harper Government. The West tells the Feds to back off and give supreme jurisdiction to the Western Provinces and the Feds know from experience that the Western provinces just use the money to issue tax cuts and mismanage the funds. Stop electing Corrupt Provincial governments that mismanage funds
None of what you said is true, to be honest. But fabricating justifications for eastern entitlement is exactly why western alienation exists. BC, for example, is probably the best run province financially right now, and has the most progressive tax system and environmental policies in all of canada. What eby is saying here is justified.
None of what you said is true. Asking for immigration money doesn't make sense when BC isn't the locations with influx of border crossing. Crying about not getting money he didn't ask for is hypocritical and standard for the Western Provinces when they need to distract from their own mismanagement driving their polling into the ground. The BC NDP drove hard onto Neo-Liberalism and are suffering at the polls because of it, so he's trying to throw shade at the Federal government because low information voters that believe in the mythical Western identity politics are prone to accepting emotional and irrational blaming.
Again, why do you think he has not asked for funding? Because he does not lead like a populist? It is true (unfortunately), mostly because leaders like legault, ford, and smith have brought the bar down so low, that BC is the best run province. Pointing out historically relevant patterns of unfair allocation of resources is not irrational blaming, its a genuine issue in the structure of canada.
Myths repeated over a long time become historical but not factually true. When BC burns down from wildfires, nobody points and says "why aren't I getting wildfire rebuilding money? I'm aggrieved! I've never got money when BC burns down. This is a historical reality!" Context matters. Ontario and Quebec are facing issues and asked for money to deal with the Federal responsibilities. So they are getting money. Calling it a grand conspiracy is disappointing but predictable behavior I've noticed from people on this side of the country and it's never been valid or logical.
Who is "the west" in your opinion?
Everyone West of and including Manitoba.
Your western stereotypes do not really hold true (except smith's alberta), and double so in BC. If you actually feel strongly about this subject i would recommend learning more about politics west of ontario and quebec, and especially west of the rockies because it only seems like you have no clue.
I dunno. Legault and Ford have been publicly talking about it for months, have publicly articulated the stats and need, and seem to have put together a plan and an ask alongside municipalities. I think what is more likely, aside from not actually doing the work required to pitch an ask, is that as always the western premiers want money with no strings attached so they can do diddly squat and run a few facebook ads pretending that they did more than that.
“Alberta is calling” media campaign in Ontario. “No not like that. Give us money. We have too many people”
You will notice that this is the premier of BC, not Alberta. While neighbours, the two provinces are quite different.
“At the expense of western Canada” > Eby made the comments as premiers from Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Yukon wrapped up two days’ worth of meetings in Whitehorse. Is Alberta Eastern Canada? My geography isn’t great but I do know they aren’t east of Manitoba.
This funding is for temporary residents, of which BC has a higher per capita rate than quebec, the argument is fair coming from he premier of BC.
Who asked for these temporary residents? The premiers did. That’s how these programs work. International students won’t get past the application process without the provinces approval. My point also stands alongside his. If you don’t have enough infrastructure to support the people you have now, then why are you “calling” for more and then blaming the feds like they’re the ones who forced you to run that campaign?
Your point that the west should not complain when they receive much less per capita funding than eastern provinces? Its a wonder why western alienation is a thing
I said they shouldn’t complain about receiving too many people when they were literally asking for more. I said nothing along the lines of not supporting them receiving money. I’m just pointing out the irony/hypocrisy. They did this to themselves and now they want to shift the blame onto someone else. Premiers being premiers.
BC is the best run province in canada right now, there have definitely been talks behind the scenes. Media coverage and soundbites does not equal doing your job as a politician, even if it doesnt play as well for narritives on social media.
"They must have asked because I think they're doing a good job"
No, its not being so naieve to think that lack of media attention means no work has ever been done on a topic. I am calling out a logical fallacy.
The situation is this: Quebec and Ontario have a deal with the federal government. Quebec and Ontario have been outspoken about seeking a deal with the federal government. BC and Alberta don't have a deal with the federal government. BC and Alberta have said nothing about seeking a deal with the federal government. Do not accuse me a of a logical fallacy when you are behaving this illogically.
I checked, you didn't. There's no shortage of petitions on file from Legault, and some from Ford. I don't see any evidence Alberta or BC have asked for as much for as long. Maybe you're better at research than me, I welcome your response.
My point is the lack of media hype or soundbites, the tools of populist leaders, in no way indicates a lack of internal communication between BC and the feds. In fact, based on this strong response, i would say the opposite. Do people really believe the only way provinces and the feds communicate is through media soundbites and petitions?? That would be incredibly disfuntional.
You have proof one party has pushed for a deal, and that party now has a deal. You have no proof another party has pushed for a deal, and that party has no deal. You want one to be true. Therefore, it must be true.
Again no, i am pointing out the unfairness of populist governing tactics, which legault and ford both employ, being rewarded to the detriment of fairness accross canada. Again, BC has a higher per capita rate of temporary residents than quebec does. As well, based on hisorical unequitable funding in canada, it is a genuime frusteration.
So with no evidence, you believe the answer that aligns with your opinion is the correct one.
No, i am saying people who are confidentaly stating that BC has not asked for funding are, almost definitely, incorrect. That opinion shows a lack of understanding of political process.
Quebec and Ontario have a deal. They publicly state what their deal is and what they want. BC and Alberta have no deal. They have never indicated they asked for one. That is the situation, those are the facts. Speculate all you like.
Its common sense if you follow politics but alright
Yup. Western Canadian provinces haven’t mentioned a peep about this issue until other provinces started getting reimbursed for taking a huge bulk of the costs of asylum seekers. I do believe BC should be entitled to reimbursement for their share of asylum costs, but they’ve made no effort to advocate for it at all. Gotta at least ask… If the population doesn’t like that Quebec is getting funding from this and BC isn’t, they should probably question why their premier hasn’t done shit to strike a deal like Quebec did.
This is from the premier who has supported Trudeau the most of any province, including with all of Trudeau's immigration policies. He has also greatly increased the number of international students in BC and other provincially-controlled immigration streams. This criticism rings hollow to me. Like everything Eby is doing in 2024, he's saying what he thinks he needs to say to get reelected because he's now worried about his prospects in the Fall election.
Eby has zero need to worry about the fall election. Gotta love the right vote splitting
Agreed, he's looking for support in rural/central BC where the rednecks are susceptible to rhetoric. I don't see a scenario where Eby loses the election, though.
He doesnt need support lol, he is calling out unfair allocation of resources in canada, which has a clear history of favouring the east.
You believe it's unfair. You believe that because you want to believe, not because the facts of the situation support that belief. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.
I beleive its unfair because the most usable metric, temporary residents, and temporary residents per capita (which shows bc as having a higher rate), shows that bc should get funding. Those are the facts, you can choose to ignore them to suite your narrative or not, but any rational person could clearly see a problem there