HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1721  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2019, 2:30 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 16,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I assumed it could still be appealled to the Supreme Court of Canada. Not sure if it will, though.
I hope it will be - the reported Court's view that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply, but that Quebec's charter did apply needs a second look, istm. But as I said, the outcome of the decision is the correct one, istm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1722  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2019, 2:37 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 40,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I hope it will be - the reported Court's view that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply, but that Quebec's charter did apply needs a second look, istm. But as I said, the outcome of the decision is the correct one, istm.
I believe Julius Grey is the truck drivers' lawyer. So that alone tells you it's probably going to the SCC.
__________________
Nobody's perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1723  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2019, 10:57 PM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 39,959
Why has no one invented a hard hat that can go over a turban? Yes, it would look fucking silly, but it's about safety.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1724  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 12:44 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 40,520
The Commission scolaire de Montréal (CSDM), the biggest school board in Quebec, has reported that this September Bill 21 has had a "effect" on 5 of its new hires.

Of the 5 new hires, four of them decided to remove their religious garb, and in one case the prospective teacher and the school board parted ways without that person becoming employed.

I don't believe anything has been said about the religion(s) involved.

A number of CSDM teachers were already wearing ostentatious religious garb before the law was passed, and their right to do so has been grandfathered unless they move up in the hierarchy (to vice-principal or principal positions, for example).
__________________
Nobody's perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1725  
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
     
     
  #1726  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 7:41 AM
HousesForMontreal HousesForMontreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 21
The bottom line and the crux of the issue with immigration is being able to protect one's sovereignty and independence. It should be a choice for us Canadians to decide whether to let people into the country, how many and what kind of people we want to let into this country to live right beside us as neighbours, very much the same as you being able to decide who and what kind of people you want to allow to be in your house and how many. If everybody can just come into your house whenever and however, does this house still belong to you? Would you still consider this house yours? The same applies to a country. If Canada, because of some kind of arbitrary duty or obligation just lets whatever, however, whoever come into our country, with no criteria applied to them, then how is Canada still a sovereign country? Where is Canada's independence when we as a nation can't even independently decide whether to let anybody come into your country or not? Honestly we owe nobody no nothing to ever take in anybody nor should we ever feel any guilt in deciding not to take in anybody to our country.

Yes it is a noble and honorable thing to help others in need but it should never be at the expense of us existing Canadians, to the sacrifice of existing Canadians' well-being, to expend our precious resources just for the sake of "doing the right thing" simply because we must live up to some "ideal". No, everything should be our CHOICE. And it should always be Canada first, Canadians first. When and only when we have extra, we will happily help those in need as we, as a nation have done on countless occasions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1727  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 7:54 AM
HousesForMontreal HousesForMontreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
The Commission scolaire de Montréal (CSDM), the biggest school board in Quebec, has reported that this September Bill 21 has had a "effect" on 5 of its new hires.

Of the 5 new hires, four of them decided to remove their religious garb, and in one case the prospective teacher and the school board parted ways without that person becoming employed.

I don't believe anything has been said about the religion(s) involved.

A number of CSDM teachers were already wearing ostentatious religious garb before the law was passed, and their right to do so has been grandfathered unless they move up in the hierarchy (to vice-principal or principal positions, for example).
That's that newhire's loss. Good riddance. I don't know why honestly this Bill 21 is ever needed in the first place. Freedom of Religion just means that you have the choice and freedom of practicing whatever is your religion without being persecuted but that doesn't mean that you should ever have the right to stop others from practicing their religion just because theirs is different from yours; that's an infringement upon other people's freedom of religion. If you don't agree with another person's religion because it's different from yours, then just walk away and don't practice it yourself. And I don't know why this Bill 21 has to be introduced to sacrifice the practicing of one's own religion just for the sake of secularism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1728  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 8:34 AM
HousesForMontreal HousesForMontreal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulwillyjean View Post
If I recall correctly Quebec recently changed their Investors immigration program to make it harder for applicants to apply for the program in Quebec, then leave for other provinces. Among other things, they now look at current investments and family ties in other provinces and can approve or deny applications based on those metrics. It's not peachy by any metrics, but changes were made in that sense. Constitutionally speaking, we can't restrict the movement of permanent residents within the country. So here we are.

As for Quebec seeing refugees as a burden, it is very strongly implied in everything from the CAQ's request to have control on refugee claims in the province (it's still of federal jurisdiction and we only have control on economic immigration), to recent immigration policies and general discourses on the failure of the economic integration of new Quebecois. Were still far from Trumpian levels of discourse, but we shouldn't wait for Legault to start calling immigrants unwashed rapists to push back against it.
Honestly the investment amount for Québec's investor program should be an amount that takes into account of the potential loss of tax revenue, loss of future investment if the stay rate of the investors in Québec is so low. That way Québec would still be covered if they move away. After all they are investors and they are investors of Québec so Québec is supposed to be getting their investment not just their initial loan.

Our constitution does guarantee freedom of mobility but it didn't say mobility would not have consequences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1729  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 3:25 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 40,520
Regarding the values test for immigrants to Quebec, the CAQ are now switching gears in order to avoid a standoff with the feds, who do not want to make it a condition for permanent residency (which is under federal authority).

So what Quebec is going to do is include it in the earlier selection process that is completely under Quebec's control, which is how immigrants obtain a Certificat de sélection du Québec, or CSQ.

Requirements for knowledge or learning of French will also be tightened up, again in the stages of the process that are controlled by Quebec.

Immigration lawyers (generally opposed to this, and to Bill 21 as you can imagine) have referred to the Minister responsible, Simon Jolin-Barrette, as sneaky and a sly fox.
__________________
Nobody's perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1730  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2019, 11:15 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by HousesForMontreal View Post
Honestly the investment amount for Québec's investor program should be an amount that takes into account of the potential loss of tax revenue, loss of future investment if the stay rate of the investors in Québec is so low. That way Québec would still be covered if they move away. After all they are investors and they are investors of Québec so Québec is supposed to be getting their investment not just their initial loan.

Our constitution does guarantee freedom of mobility but it didn't say mobility would not have consequences.
Who cares if Quebec is covered. Where is the money for BC which has to deal with the societal costs of welathy queue-jumpers who come through the Quebec backdoor?

Quite frankly it is ridiculous that Quebec has powers over immigration that other provinces do not. It is a province, not a country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1731  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 3:48 AM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 1,334
The CAQ is moving forward with its plan to abolish elected school boards and replace them with councils, but what's interesting is that to address concerns about violating the minority language education rights of Anglo-Quebecers, they're going to continue to have elected councils for the anglophone schools, while having appointed staff for the councils running the francophone schools.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1732  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 8:09 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,759
Quebec's Language Stormtroopers are at it again:

Quebec government moves to ban popular bilingual greeting ‘bonjour/hi’

François Legault’s government is looking for a way to ban "bonjour/hi,” a bilingual greeting many shopkeepers and receptionists have adopted in Montreal to the great irritation of some Quebec nationalists.

The Premier’s right-hand man on Quebec identity files, Minister of Immigration, Francization and Integration Simon Jolin-Barrette, revealed his intention to crack down on the expression on Friday, about a month after he became the minister in charge of protecting the French language. Mr. Jolin-Barrette’s previous files included the religious-symbols ban for some public servants and cuts to immigration quotas...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ing-bonjourhi/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1733  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 8:49 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 1,334
I mean.. I'm sympathetic to the position of QC nationalists on language but this seems rather draconian.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1734  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 9:04 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,157
Isn't this literally a freedom of speech issue?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1735  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 9:06 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 40,520
Pure unadulterated evil. As usual. We can wear it.
__________________
Nobody's perfect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1736  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 9:18 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 16,515
[QUOTE=milomilo;8708290]Isn't this literally a freedom of speech issue?[/QUOTE

Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1737  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 9:31 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,329
Can we quit pretending Canada is a bilingual country. Quebec should have all the freedom in the world to protect the French language and be a French society. The rest of Canada is obviously English speaking majority. English rights in Quebec and French minority rights outside Quebec are a joke and time wasters frankly. All the phony bilingualism has done is given francophones outside Quebec an unfair advantage for federal employment opportunities when the vast majority of Canadians are not francophone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1738  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 9:50 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 21,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
All the phony bilingualism has done is given francophones outside Quebec an unfair advantage for federal employment opportunities when the vast majority of Canadians are not francophone.
Why is it unfair? Even if what you say is true and everybody speaks French in Quebec and English outside of Quebec, isn't there an advantage to being in Ottawa and being able to talk to somebody in an office in Quebec City or Saskatoon?

And we'd still need bilingualism for, say, the House of Commons.

I think your "two solitudes" version of Canada's linguistic landscape would actually make bilingualism more advantageous than it is now.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1739  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 10:36 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
Why is it unfair? Even if what you say is true and everybody speaks French in Quebec and English outside of Quebec, isn't there an advantage to being in Ottawa and being able to talk to somebody in an office in Quebec City or Saskatoon?

And we'd still need bilingualism for, say, the House of Commons.

I think your "two solitudes" version of Canada's linguistic landscape would actually make bilingualism more advantageous than it is now.
We have had bilingualism in the house for a very long time before bilingualism can into being in the late 60's nationwide. Why should a small clique of bilingual people have the advantage of landing federal jobs when close to 80% of the population is anglophone? What is the point of Bilingualism if Quebec premiers and governments refuse to practice it and don't want it since the 1970s ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1740  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 11:15 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 11,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Pure unadulterated evil. As usual. We can wear it.
No, just the usual pure unadulterated stupidity. The government will control how you greet people.
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 7:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.