HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 8:41 PM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,239
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 8:55 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,628
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 8:58 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2019, 3:47 PM
rotten42's Avatar
rotten42 rotten42 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by once View Post
I don't think immigration needs to be reduced, but we could be doing a better job at attracting better immigrants who integrate better. .

You mean like the people/government in Quebec integrates with English Canada?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2019, 4:19 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Wears a grey cowboy hat
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 49,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotten42 View Post
You mean like the people/government in Quebec integrates with English Canada?
If you're seeing the Quebec vs. English Canada issue through the lens of immigration (ie Québécois francophones are recent immigrants to a pre-established English-speaking country called Canada), then you're either not Canadian or maybe 12 years old.

I'll leave it up to you to tell us which one it is...
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2019, 10:49 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
If you're seeing the Quebec vs. English Canada issue through the lens of immigration (ie Québécois francophones are recent immigrants to a pre-established English-speaking country called Canada), then you're either not Canadian or maybe 12 years old.

I'll leave it up to you to tell us which one it is...
Some view things through the worldview of "minority/less powerful group must assimilate to majority/more dominant group" (although few would admit to this worldview directly), which is a different lens than "immigrants assimilating to pre-established group", because in the former, it isn't necessarily about who was here first or not, but who's the majority/hegemonic group.

Assimilation isn't always about immigrants vs. "natives", in the eyes of some, and history shows it. The loss or reduction of the Irish, Welsh or Gaelic languages in the UK, or Aboriginal languages, from the New World and Australia to European languages like English and Spanish, and even then the loss of Spanish (and others like Cajun French, Dutch etc.) to English in North America, Uyghurs/Tibetan culture vs. Han Chinese, French regional languages vs. Parisian French are about "assimilation", in many cases, heavily coerced forced assimilation, but the one doing the assimilating isn't the latecomer.

English-speaking Canadians (or English speakers more broadly in the Anglosphere, who are lucky to speak a language that is hegemonic so much that they even expect English in places it's not native to) would rarely admit that assimilating is often about this kind of thing (eg. who's more powerful rather than who is later arriving or earlier arriving) though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 6:53 AM
HousesForMontreal HousesForMontreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
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.
The language requirements right upfront for immigrants is already strict and has always been strict. The problem with Canada's immigration is not with the skilled worker program or even the family members program or even the investor program. It's the Refugee program that nobody dares to talk about in fear of being labeled "racist", "bigots" or "discrimination" that basically pushes Canada's door wide open to receive anybody who otherwise wouldn't have qualified under any of the "legitimate" immigration programs. It's basically become the backdoor to immigration to Canada and it totally negates any of the efforts and the criteria that all these other programs, the skilled worker program, the family program and even the investor's program have painstakingly put in place to ensure qualified and potentially contributing immigrants come into Canada. Under the skilled worker program, you do have to meet the language requirements, either English or French to come in to Canada and if you can't, you don't get to come in. Under the investors' program, if you have money at least to contribute to Canada's economy, you get to come in. But under the refugee program, you don't have to be anything, you just have to show up and you get to come in. You don't have to have skills that Canada needs or wants, you don't have to be able to speak either of Canada's official language and you don't have to have money of course and you get to jump to the front of the line, cut in in front of all of the otherwise qualified applicants and gets an exclusive entrance to Canada. This is the problem. This is where you get people who speak neither English nor French, have no skills to offer to Canada to resolve any supposed labour shortage and they end up being taxing on previous Canadian resources. This is why now as a desperate measure, the CAQ came up with this mandatory language test hoping that after 3 years, those newcomers after taking free language classes provided by the government, paid for by you and me, would at least be able to speak French or English to function in Canada. It's not to test those qualified immigrants from the skilled worker program even though they would have no problem passing; it's to test those workers who came through the backdoor via the "refugee program" who really wouldn't have come to Canada otherwise. It's not pearl-clutching; it's having no choice but to have to deal with something that we shouldn't have to deal with in the first place, being forced to compromise with an invasion of our sovereignty and challenge to our independence all in the name of "humanity and generosity" when Canada was neither the cause nor the one responsible for the plights of these refugees that come to our door. Ironically the country that is responsible and/or is the direct cause of these refugees' suffering (we all know which country I am talking about) is actually shutting its doors tightly shut against refugees. Of course we are Canadians and we are all about "doing the right thing". That is all very noble and honorable but is it fair and correct to sacrifice our own existing Canadian's well-being, our children's well-being, spending our own precious resources to "help them" when they could've gone to other countries like China who has the world's second largest economy or Japan or actually needs immigration badly with their worsening negative population growth? It's not like Canada's so rich that we are having gold flowing out of our faucets here. It's like starving your own children to take in far-away neighbours when there are other far richer and far more capable neighbours that actually need people that choose to just watch and do nothing. What does Canada get in return for taking in all those extra refugees, from either the international community or domestic acceptance? Nothing. No at the end of the day, we still get accused of being xenophobic, racist and etc. if we ever dare to raise one point of protecting Canadian interests a bit.

But then again, what do you expect when you have a Minister of Immigration who's a refugee himself? He's planning to increase total number of migrants to 1 million over the next 3 years with 330K this year and increasing 10K every single year. That is 40,000 over the Canadian target of migrants. That's a lot of migrants that CAQ will have to test for their French speaking ability. Québec might become bankrupt just by printing testing materials and hiring examiners to adjudicate those tests. LOL

Last edited by HousesForMontreal; Sep 24, 2019 at 7:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 9:02 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 29,813
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.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2018, 12:00 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 30,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
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. 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 9:11 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 36,076
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.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 9:18 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 29,813
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.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 9:44 PM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,888
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 10:25 PM
FrankieFlowerpot's Avatar
FrankieFlowerpot FrankieFlowerpot is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,299
The current immigration process requires passing exams in either English or French to prove your competency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 10:53 PM
Drybrain Drybrain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,386
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:04 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 20,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
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.

Last edited by kwoldtimer; Sep 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:48 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:49 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 20,029
edit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2018, 1:34 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cold Garden
Posts: 21,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by once View Post
Is this how québécois are talked about on this forum? This is insulting, patronizing, and pompous.
I happen to find fear mongering, intolerant, xenophobes to be insulting. So I mean, to each their own.
__________________
Strong & free

'Hate is a burden, you don’t need to carry it with you.' — Annushka Volovodov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:13 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 25,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2018, 11:46 PM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drybrain View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.