SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   CAQ: reduce annual immigration by 20%; expel newcomers failing French test after 3yrs (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=235822)

saffronleaf Sep 16, 2018 8:41 PM

CAQ: reduce annual immigration by 20%; expel newcomers failing French test after 3yrs
 
In connection with Quebec's provincial elections in October, the Coalition Avenir Quebec, which is the party leading the polls, has promised to reduce annual immigration by 20% and expel newcomers who fail a French-language exam after three years of living in the province.

Link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ed-rhetoric-2/

Do you think Quebec should reduce annual immigration by 20% and expel newcomers who fail a French-language exam after three years of living in Quebec?

If you are not a resident of Quebec, do you think your home-province should adopt a similar policy (mutatis mutandis)?

Should it be done federally?

someone123 Sep 16, 2018 8:55 PM

Is there a specific test they say they want to administer? It's hard to say much about how reasonable this proposal is without knowing that. Expecting a person to have the French skills of a 4 year old after 3 years in Quebec is not unreasonable. Expecting them to pass a university level exam designed for native speakers is going to come at a higher cost because many otherwise skilled immigrants are going to have trouble with that.

One thing I wonder is why they want to wait until 3 years after the immigrants arrive. Why not add stricter upfront requirements?

Canada's skilled worker program already awards 24/100 points for language abilities. In practice people need these points to get in and they are much easier to get than other types of points. This reality makes the pearl clutching over the possibility of language requirements in the Globe and Mail article look a bit silly.

I also think it's a bit silly how they bring up things like the "street smarts" of Greek immigrants back in the 1940's who ended up doing okay. How are these stories from 70 years ago relevant to the modern Canadian economy and the modern reality of global immigration? We are not starving for factory workers and shopkeepers, and the Atlantic crossing is not the filter it once was.

once Sep 16, 2018 8:58 PM

I don't think immigration needs to be reduced, but we could be doing a better job at attracting better immigrants who integrate better. Maybe the reduction in absolute numbers would help with that. It's worth a shot either way.

The rest sounds fine to me. It's not unreasonable.

SignalHillHiker Sep 16, 2018 9:02 PM

I'd like to see immigration increased but the provinces given more power. And some stage of the process - say Permanent Resident - should be restricted to the province they applied in and simply not allowed to move to another until they are citizens.

As per language requirement - I think they're strict enough already. Even if Nan and Mom/Dad never really get a handle on the languages, the kids will be fluent.

SpongeG Sep 16, 2018 9:11 PM

I know someone who immigrated to Vancouver through the Quebec immigration system, it was cheaper, they came through on the investor route, I was quite surprised that they had their own immigration program separate from Canada's. They never had to live in Quebec.

SignalHillHiker Sep 16, 2018 9:18 PM

We had to cancel ours in the past for that reason. We're reintroducing it soon, though - it's already been announced, just isn't implemented yet. International Entrepreneur and International Graduate Entrepreneur. Students at Memorial or College of the North Atlantic, or anyone who wants to come set up a business, will be fast-tracked. It's not an investment thing though. The graduate category for example doesn't even require any net worth or deposit. The safeguards are strong. Business has to be here, has to employ locals, etc.

Architype Sep 16, 2018 9:44 PM

I think it's reasonable for there to be an expectation of fluency in one of our official languages; the standards for Quebec (French) should be the same as the standards in the rest of the country. There might be exemptions given for age, health, etc., perhaps a formula with a sliding scale. I don't think we need to reduce immigration numbers, but there is no reason why we can't have expectations of compatibility.

FrankieFlowerpot Sep 16, 2018 10:25 PM

The current immigration process requires passing exams in either English or French to prove your competency.

Drybrain Sep 16, 2018 10:53 PM

Is there any particular social problem being addressed by this? No, it's just the classic Quebecois xenophobia rearing its head. The only pearl-clutching here is from politicians stoking the fears of the ignorant over their language being diminished in some substantial way, which is simply not happening. Unfortunately there's a cultural moment right now when people are lending these perspectives a more sympathetic ear than they normally would, as we see with Bernier et. al.

But it's manufacturing a problem to "solve", where no problem exists. French is not under attack. Almost exactly the same percentage of Quebeckers claim it as their mother tongue today as did in 1901. StatsCan has the data. I don't think any additional requirements are needed, but if they are implemented, they should be upfront. Letting people in to build a life for three years, and then kicking them out because they fail a test is cruel.

Also, SignalHill, restricting mobility to immigrants until they become citizens is contrary to the charter of right and freedoms, and also seems cruel and heavy-handed. We'd have to revise the constitution to strip that right from people.

It's dismaying to see politicians jumping on this as some sort of easy issue they can look tough on, and undermining Canada's imperfect but pretty remarkable ability to integrate people from just about any background.

kwoldtimer Sep 16, 2018 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saffronleaf (Post 8316645)
In connection with Quebec's provincial elections in October, the Coalition Avenir Quebec, which is the party leading the polls, has promised to reduce annual immigration by 20% and expel newcomers who fail a French-language exam after three years of living in the province.

Link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ed-rhetoric-2/

Do you think Quebec should reduce annual immigration by 20% and expel newcomers who fail a French-language exam after three years of living in Quebec? Entirely up to Quebec, although complications might arrive wrt immigrants who come to Quebec under the Canadian rather than the Quebec regime. Quebec has no jurisdiction to expel immigrants from Canada, so that question is moot.

If you are not a resident of Quebec, do you think your home-province should adopt a similar policy (mutatis mutandis)? Ontario is free to ask Canada to reduce immigration levels, and that might have some support, but it might not be very effective, given that immigrants are free to move within Canada after arrival. A "similar policy" would seem unlikely, however, as Ontario has no jurisdiction over immigration and would not likely want to get involved in something that simply duplicates existing federal jurisdiction. I'm not aware that Ontario has ever had significant problems with immigrants who have not learned passaable English or French while in Canada. .

Should it be done federally? Immigration levels are adjusted annually and the Government is able to reduce immigrant intake if it wishes to do so.
While reduced immigration might have some support, it also has big implications, so it's not something I see happening without considerable study and public consultation.

To summarize, imho a bad idea for Quebec, probably a non-starter for Canada outside Quebec.

kwoldtimer Sep 16, 2018 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 8316724)
Is there any particular social problem being addressed by this? No, it's just the classic Quebecois xenophobia rearing its head. The only pearl-clutching here is from politicians stoking the fears of the ignorant over their language being diminished in some substantial way, which is simply not happening. Unfortunately there's a cultural moment right now when people are lending these perspectives a more sympathetic ear than they normally would, as we see with Bernier et. al.

But it's manufacturing a problem to "solve", where no problem exists. French is not under attack. Almost exactly the same percentage of Quebeckers claim it as their mother tongue today as did in 1901. StatsCan has the data. I don't think any additional requirements are needed, but if they are implemented, they should be upfront. Letting people in to build a life for three years, and then kicking them out because they fail a test is cruel.

Also, SignalHill, restricting mobility to immigrants until they become citizens is contrary to the charter of right and freedoms, and also seems cruel and heavy-handed. We'd have to revise the constitution to strip that right from people.

It's dismaying to see politicians jumping on this as some sort of easy issue they can look tough on, and undermining Canada's imperfect but pretty remarkable ability to integrate people from just about any background.

Although the proposal could give xenophobes a chance to strut their stuff, that is not CAQ's intention. They are simply exploiting the perpetual fear about the future of French in Quebec. I don't think there has been any suggestion whatsoever that immigration from some regions or by some groups would be curtailed more than others.

someone123 Sep 16, 2018 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 8316724)
Also, SignalHill, restricting mobility to immigrants until they become citizens is contrary to the charter of right and freedoms, and also seems cruel and heavy-handed. We'd have to revise the constitution to strip that right from people.

This is true for people who have permanent residency or citizenship but it's not true in general for immigration. Many work visas are tied to an employer. There are no mobility restrictions per se but in practice people have to show up for their job which is in a specific place or they'll lose their job, lose their visa, and "get kicked out" (leave or be deported, like anyone who overstays or doesn't have permission to be here; presumably the same as for those who fail the hypothetical language test).

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with programs like this, but they often exploit the workers who participate in them (due to their very nature; once your status in a country depends on your employer they can hold you ransom if they want) and they distort our labour market.

Frankly a lot of the TFW policies are just harebrained or corrupt. For example some people complained about TFWs getting paid more than Canadians so it is now permissible to hire TFWs at 85% of the prevailing wage for their job, whatever that means. I take it that many of the people behind these rules either have a skin in the game or never really understood Econ 101. Then again, there is no easy answer to how much labour mobility is the right amount in a world with hundreds of countries that all have complicated trade rules.

once Sep 16, 2018 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 8316724)
But it's manufacturing a problem to "solve", where no problem exists. French is not under attack.

Which province are you from and exactly how much time have you spent in Quebec? Just curious.

Quebec faces unique immigration concerns that tend not to surface in other parts of canada. Integration issues. The immigration make up into quebec is much different than other places in Canada. Our top countries tend to be places like France & french speaking countries in africa like Algeria. As such, the dynamic regarding immigration tends to take on a different character from the rest of canada, as most immigrants come from places like Philippines. Quebec also has a long tail of mish mash countries we accept immigrants from, many countries which teach english or english as second language. This presents unique integration problems with integration into quebec's society.

I don't say this to say negative things about any country in particular, only to mention that unless you are actually in quebec, you aren't really qualified to speak on the unique immigration challenges surrounding quebec.

It may be cruel to kick someone out after 3 years of attempting to build a life, but what is the quality of that life if they can't even speak our language to a basic ability? We aren't hiding the requirements. If you can't learn, maybe you will have more success elsewhere.

Why is it immigration levels can only politically be talked about going up? Why is it impossible for there to be benefits with immigration going down? Why jump directly to xenophobia? Again, have you been to quebec? Have you lived here? There is far less xenophobia in Quebec then there is in atlantic provinces (come from away!) or Vancouver (foriegners are ruining this place!).

This is a pragmatic policy, very reasonable, and the only people who could possibly be offended are the irrational ones jumping to xenophobia any time anyone commits the thought crime of considering lowering immigration.

once Sep 16, 2018 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer (Post 8316732)
They are simply exploiting the perpetual fear about the future of French in Quebec.

Is this how québécois are talked about on this forum? This is insulting, patronizing, and pompous.

kwoldtimer Sep 16, 2018 11:49 PM

edit.

lio45 Sep 16, 2018 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain (Post 8316724)
Is there any particular social problem being addressed by this? No, it's just the classic Quebecois xenophobia rearing its head. The only pearl-clutching here is from politicians stoking the fears of the ignorant over their language being diminished in some substantial way, which is simply not happening. Unfortunately there's a cultural moment right now when people are lending these perspectives a more sympathetic ear than they normally would, as we see with Bernier et. al.

But it's manufacturing a problem to "solve", where no problem exists. French is not under attack. Almost exactly the same percentage of Quebeckers claim it as their mother tongue today as did in 1901. StatsCan has the data. I don't think any additional requirements are needed, but if they are implemented, they should be upfront. Letting people in to build a life for three years, and then kicking them out because they fail a test is cruel.

Also, SignalHill, restricting mobility to immigrants until they become citizens is contrary to the charter of right and freedoms, and also seems cruel and heavy-handed. We'd have to revise the constitution to strip that right from people.

It's dismaying to see politicians jumping on this as some sort of easy issue they can look tough on, and undermining Canada's imperfect but pretty remarkable ability to integrate people from just about any background.

Couple questions for you:

1) Have you looked at your own data?

2) Do you have the ability to plot a linear regression over the last 30 years? (Or do you need me to do it for you?)

someone123 Sep 16, 2018 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by once (Post 8316758)
There is far less xenophobia in Quebec then there is in atlantic provinces (come from away!)

When you write this you are doing the same thing you accuse others of.

In polls, Atlantic Canadians are generally the most favourable to immigration in Canada or near the top. This makes sense because it's a region that could use some immigration and doesn't suffer from the affordability problems or immigrant segregation of other regions. It's not true at all that they are more xenophobic or don't want immigration. The existence of a phrase that was cooked up decades ago and has largely fallen into disuse means nothing.

lio45 Sep 16, 2018 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saffronleaf (Post 8316645)
Do you think Quebec should reduce annual immigration by 20%

We'd still be taking in 40,000 newcomers per year instead of 50,000. It's a decently high number, even after the reduction. I agree with the idea of integrating our immigrants better, and putting the cap at 40k helps with that, even though it's not the be all end all. Making sure they know we expect them to make progress in the language is more important, IMO.

lio45 Sep 17, 2018 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker (Post 8316658)
As per language requirement - I think they're strict enough already. Even if Nan and Mom/Dad never really get a handle on the languages, the kids will be fluent.

Spoken like a clueless North American Anglo. :P We don't give a fuck what language Nan speaks, or that she'll pass away still unilingual in some foreign language, we don't want the grandkids to only be fluent in English.

kwoldtimer Sep 17, 2018 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8316766)
We'd still be taking in 40,000 newcomers per year instead of 50,000. It's a decently high number, even after the reduction. I agree with the idea of integrating our immigrants better, and putting the cap at 40k helps with that, even though it's not the be all end all. Making sure they know we expect them to make progress in the language is more important, IMO.

Total immigration per year is higher than that, however, is it not? Immigrants still land in Quebec under federal programs, or so I thought. Or is that the Quebec and federal intake combined?


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.