PQ says Quebec needs full control of immigration

[Leafless]

Quebec should have total control over its immigration to send a clear message to newcomers that the province is a francophone state, not a bilingual one, Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois said yesterday.

If Quebec is a francophone state it must have acquired that title by Mr. Harper giving it the status of a nation (within Canada).

This then makes Quebec:

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeo...statenation.htm

But of course this does not qualify Quebec as a sovereign 'State' with a capital 'S'.

So, to demand this type of control over its immigrants when it is not a real 'State' smacks of outright racism and is an illegal move since it does not qualify as a sovereign State but is simply another province in Canada with the status of a nation-state which has the same borders has a State.

Does this prove the PQ is off the deep end or is Pauline Marois correct in saying what she said.

[Leafless]

Sorry, here is the link to the above story.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/n...d4-741c307a2d14

[August1991]

Leafless, you entirely miss the point.

Marois' comment comes in the middle of a debate between the three parties about how Quebec should accomodate immigrants (a topic which is hardly unknown on this forum - and BTW, the debate in Quebec is just as interesting and open as debates here. It's too bad that such a debate doesn't occur n English Canada.)

Anyway, immigration is a shared jursidiction and Quebec now selects its own immigrants with the exception of family class and some refugee cases. Family class immigration is dictated by family reunion issues and Quebec would be unlikely to have radically different policies. Quebec could conceivably take on the refugee cases that it does not have now.

IOW, Marois has shot a boring old PQ cannonball in a broader debate about immigration.

[Leafless]

Leafless, you entirely miss the point.

Marois' comment comes in the middle of a debate between the three parties about how Quebec should accommodate immigrants (a topic which is hardly unknown on this forum - and BTW, the debate in Quebec is just as interesting and open as debates here. It's too bad that such a debate doesn't occur n English Canada.)

The purpose of the commission was:

The comments came as a politically charged commission starts to look into the immigration issue and how to accommodate for religious and cultural differences."

If you notice Ontario does not go near this issue as religion is a component of culture is protected by Charter Rights. I agree it is a problamatic mess.

This is why I have been advocating the scrapping of the Charter, as these rights enshrined in our constitution makes it difficult, if not impossible to implement any type of controls, to protect Canadians from being buried in foreign ideologies which if left unchecked will eventually change our countries current Western ideologies.

Anyways it's clear Pauline Mario is beating Quebec's language drums again in a way that tarnishes her reputation because what she is saying that 'Quebec is a francophone state' could be true in that context , but with no powers to demand this type of power over its immigrants, since Quebec is not a sovereign State or a country.

After looking at the 194 countries and Sates in the world, I do not see Quebec as being one of them.

Looks like Pauline Mario is shooting for or at least opening that 'Pandora's Box' relating to 'country status' for Quebec.

[capricorn]

In terms of the PQ raising its popularity among Quebecers, I think Marois is on to something. The PQ has plugged into the sentiments of many Quebecers that is, fear of visible minority immigrants. It makes no difference that Quebec already controls most of its immigration. Average Quebecers are not aware of this. Don't ask me for links. This sentiment is quite visible if you read francophone Quebec blogs.

[Wilber]

As long as residents of Quebec have the right to travel and live unrestricted in the ROC, the ROC has to have a say in who becomes a Canadian, no matter what part of the country they chose to live in. I don't have a problem with Quebec having a say in who immigrates to Quebec but those people have to be acceptable as Canadian citizens to all of the country, not just Quebec.

[BornAlbertan]

Classic example of "we can be equal as long as I can have more"...imagine if Alberta decided we had too many Francophones and starting issuing deportation notices to sne some back to Quebec.

I absolutely detest everything Quebec...and I know it is not the fault of Quebecors but their politicians. But the elect their politicians. And by and large they are all "sovereigntists" but they are also cowards and extortionists who know the gravy train would come to an end if it weren't for the money train coming from Alberta and Ontario. Between Quebec and the Maritimes, Canada will be destroyed by the dissent created by these perpetual have not and whiny regions.

Said it once....I will say it again: Canada is too diverse geographically, culurally and politically to survive. It is only a matter of time. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment and globalization is the NWO.

Edited August 17, 2007 by BornAlbertan

[guyser]

Classic example of "we can be equal as long as I can have more"...imagine if Alberta decided we had too many Francophones and starting issuing deportation notices to sne some back to Quebec.

Why invent a scenario that is totally unrelated. Imagine the price of beer was $0. So?

[Higgly]

In a pig's eye. Let them win a referendum first.

[jdobbin]

Leafless, you entirely miss the point.

Marois' comment comes in the middle of a debate between the three parties about how Quebec should accommodate immigrants (a topic which is hardly unknown on this forum - and BTW, the debate in Quebec is just as interesting and open as debates here. It's too bad that such a debate doesn't occur n English Canada.)

Anyway, immigration is a shared jursidiction and Quebec now selects its own immigrants with the exception of family class and some refugee cases. Family class immigration is dictated by family reunion issues and Quebec would be unlikely to have radically different policies. Quebec could conceivably take on the refugee cases that it does not have now.

IOW, Marois has shot a boring old PQ cannonball in a broader debate about immigration.

What are the three parties stance on immigration now?

[ft.niagara]

Said it once....I will say it again: Canada is too diverse geographically, culurally and politically to survive. It is only a matter of time. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment and globalization is the NWO.

The melting pot concept works only if the pot is small enough for the heat to get to all parts of the pot. In Canada's case the pot is very large and parts of it are protected.

The US has Puerto Rico which enjoys its startus between statehood, and self rule. The best of all worlds.

[August1991]

What are the three parties stance on immigration now?

The PQ wants Quebec to decide all immigrants to Quebec. The Liberals are statisfied with the status quo. Dumont (ADQ) has said ambiguously that Quebec has enough immigrants now and can't assimilate more. (The ambiguity concerns whether he was referring to the absolute number or the rate of arrivals.)

The Liberals (Q) are in the tightest position on this since they are (increasingly) perceived as a party of Montreal, anglos and allophones. If Charest wants to get a majority, he's going to have to look more like Bush and less like Kerry.

As long as residents of Quebec have the right to travel and live unrestricted in the ROC, the ROC has to have a say in who becomes a Canadian, no matter what part of the country they chose to live in. I don't have a problem with Quebec having a say in who immigrates to Quebec but those people have to be acceptable as Canadian citizens to all of the country, not just Quebec.

France chooses its immigrants (and its visitors) and yet these foreigners can travel to or live in Germany. Frankly, I'd like to see a similar policy between Canada and the US.

BTW, Wilber, have you considered that Martin named Robillard as federal immigration minister? She was an MP from Quebec supervising a programme selecting immigrants for provinces other than Quebec.

Edited August 19, 2007 by August1991

[Wilber]

DEL

Edited August 19, 2007 by Wilber

[Wilber]

France chooses its immigrants (and its visitors) and yet these foreigners can travel to or live in Germany. Frankly, I'd like to see a similar policy between Canada and the US.

BTW, Wilber, have you considered that Martin named Robillard as federal immigration minister? She was an MP from Quebec supervising a programme selecting immigrants for provinces other than Quebec.

This could not happen unless there was a common agreed upon system for screening immigrants and visitors. What Quebec sovereigntists like Mario can't seem to get into their thick heads is that the EEC came about because countries were willing to give up some control, not demand "total control". If these people want an EEC type relationship with anyone, they will have to understand that it will come from compromise, not demanding that others do it their way or accept without question things that effect them directly without having any say in the process. The more sovereigntists try to pass themselves off as sophisticated European types, the more they tend to expose their immaturity.

I don't have a problem with a Quebec MP supervising an immigration selection program (someone has to do it) as long as the criteria is the same for all provinces and they all have an equal say in how that program operates.

[jdobbin]

The PQ wants Quebec to decide all immigrants to Quebec. The Liberals are statisfied with the status quo. Dumont (ADQ) has said ambiguously that Quebec has enough immigrants now and can't assimilate more. (The ambiguity concerns whether he was referring to the absolute number or the rate of arrivals.)

The Liberals (Q) are in the tightest position on this since they are (increasingly) perceived as a party of Montreal, anglos and allophones. If Charest wants to get a majority, he's going to have to look more like Bush and less like Kerry.

Does Quebec now have control to a certain degree to how immigrants are naturalized? What does the PQ want now: its own staff to recruit overseas, an option of first pick on all immigrants coming to Canada or the ability to control total numbers of immigrants coming to Canada? Do they want to treat anyone coming from another province as an immigrant?

I have no idea what the ADQ position is. Do they mean *no* immigrants? How would they control the flow of people who are landed immigrants in Ontario and move to Quebec for a job.

If the Liberals are the party of anglophones and allophones, does that mean the PQ and the ADQ are the party of francophones are never the twain shall meet?

[Borg]

Classic example of "we can be equal as long as I can have more"...imagine if Alberta decided we had too many Francophones and starting issuing deportation notices to sne some back to Quebec.

I absolutely detest everything Quebec...and I know it is not the fault of Quebecors but their politicians. But the elect their politicians. And by and large they are all "sovereigntists" but they are also cowards and extortionists who know the gravy train would come to an end if it weren't for the money train coming from Alberta and Ontario. Between Quebec and the Maritimes, Canada will be destroyed by the dissent created by these perpetual have not and whiny regions.

Said it once....I will say it again: Canada is too diverse geographically, culurally and politically to survive. It is only a matter of time. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment and globalization is the NWO.

Well spoken.

However Kebek will continue to rule the roost using fear of separation as the final and ultimate threat.

I say - Let them go! We will be better off without them.

Borg

[Wilber]

However Kebek will continue to rule the roost using fear of separation as the final and ultimate threat.

It's the political equivalent of the old sandbox, "do it my way or I will pick up my ball and take it home". It can't go on. One day they will have to be called on it and we will all have to live with the result. It's inevitable, you can't have one part of the country continually holding the rest hostage to the threat of leaving. It will only work until those being held hostage finally get fed up with it.

[jbg]

In terms of the PQ raising its popularity among Quebecers, I think Marois is on to something. The PQ has plugged into the sentiments of many Quebecers that is, fear of visible minority immigrants. It makes no difference that Quebec already controls most of its immigration. Average Quebecers are not aware of this. Don't ask me for links. This sentiment is quite visible if you read francophone Quebec blogs.

This is a naked attempt to preserve the separatists' prospective ability to stage yet a third referendum, as if 1980 and 1995 weren't enough. Without control of immigrants the separatists would undoubtedly lose.

[capricorn]

The clout that Quebec held and still holds over the ROC is that it is one of the two founding peoples. That is the principle that led "country saving" politicians like Lester B. Pearson and P.E. Trudeau toward Bilingualism and Biculturalism which then mushroomed into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and multiculturalism. These concepts are so ingrained in our politics, federal institutions and justice system that turning back is virtually impossible. I believe that is why the Conservatives today are treading water. The deck is stacked against them, whether they hold a majority or a minority government. There are just too many changes to be made to go back the level playing field that existed before the imbalance between Quebec and the ROC came about.

IMO, average Quebecers are federalists for one thing only. It's because the ROC is a cash cow and they don't want to turn off the tap to all those lop-sided federal transfer payments. I don't believe that the majority of Quebecers feel any kind of patriotic attachment to Canada. IMO it is a marriage of convenience. Similarly, I don't feel a great attachment to Quebec remaining in Confederation. I used to care, but my sentiments have changed over the years. If the PQ could make the case to Quebecers that Quebec would be viable economically on its own, they would win their referendum for independence. If there are any economists out there that could give them a hand, I would be grateful.

[jbg]

Similarly, I don't feel a great attachment to Quebec remaining in Confederation. I used to care, but my sentiments have changed over the years. If the PQ could make the case to Quebecers that Quebec would be viable economically on its own, they would win their referendum for independence. If there are any economists out there that could give them a hand, I would be grateful.

As someone who, I think, is an Anglophone, would you trust the tyranny of the majority in Quebec? I suggest you study French history between roughly 1989 and 1796 as a guide to the resuls of French tyranny of the majority.

[capricorn]

As someone who, I think, is an Anglophone, would you trust the tyranny of the majority in Quebec? I suggest you study French history between roughly 1989 and 1796 as a guide to the resuls of French tyranny of the majority.

jbg, I am a Franco-Ontarian resident of Ottawa. Many of us "francophones outside Quebec", as some like to refer to us, have no ties to Quebec. The only common denominator is that we have French as our maternal language. I am quite aware of the French tyranny of the majority, as presently exercised in Quebec through its language law, Bill 101. Therefore, I don't have to go back to 1796 for a similar example or understanding.

So I choose to live in Ontario as a minority and reject residing in Quebec to form part of a majority. I'm quite comfortable with my choice.

[jbg]

So I choose to live in Ontario as a minority and reject residing in Quebec to form part of a majority. I'm quite comfortable with my choice.

The US and to a lesser extent English Canada have always been open about blending in immigrants. Not so Francophone countries.

[marcinmoka]

The US and to a lesser extent English Canada have always been open about blending in immigrants. Not so Francophone countries.

Nonsense. Since the days of De Gaulle all the way through to Chirac, they assimilated the immigrant population to such an extent that they could not even acknowledge their existence overtly. Those people you run into on the RER near the banlieus were just figments of the nations imagination.

As per your reference of "Francophone" countries, I haven't a clue. I know little about the assimilation of new comers in Cote d'Ivoire or the Congo. Although I doubt they are radically different from those of Liberia or Sierra Leone.

Edited August 24, 2007 by marcinmoka

[geoffrey]

Let Quebec have their own immigration policy, I'd like to see Alberta have more control over our own as well. We need skilled workers (the 6% of Canadians choosing not to work aren't interested). Canada doesn't provide. We need to go elsewhere, but have to deal with typical centralisism red tape.

Canada can't work, let's get over it and start working towards more autonomy for the provinces. If the people of Quebec want a certain type of immigrant, let them have it. Who are we to tell them otherwise?

[August1991]

Let Quebec have their own immigration policy, I'd like to see Alberta have more control over our own as well. We need skilled workers (the 6% of Canadians choosing not to work aren't interested). Canada doesn't provide. We need to go elsewhere, but have to deal with typical centralisism red tape.

To bring this thread back to the topic (and drop the facile Quebec-bashing that is so easy when there are so few to present an alternative viewpoint), Alberta once did control its immigration.

The BNA Act states explicitly that immigration is a matter for both provincial and federal governments. (Keep in mind that the BNA Act was written at a time of burgeoning free trade and small government. In 1867, people didn't require a passport or a visa to travel - indeed, passports and SINs didn't exist).

Trudeau, a strong central federalist and protector of the Constitution, agreed to hand over to a PQ government all selection of foreign skilled workers expressing a desire to live in Quebec. Nowadays, Quebec has many bureaucrats abroad selecting skilled workers and needless to say, Quebec chooses people who speak French or show an aptitude to speak it. Once selected by Quebec, the federal government invariably issues an immigrant visa.

If the Albertan government wanted, it could do the same. It could determine the criteria for selecting immigrants destined to Alberta.

It is true that once in Canada, an immigrant is free to move elsewhere but that's really an issue of selecting properly.

The federal government has kept control of the criteria for selecting family reunification cases and refugees (although the provinces are involved in this too).

----

IMV, if Alberta is to be a serious province, it should have its own police force and not rely on the RCMP. Before immigration, I would change this.

jbg, I am a Franco-Ontarian resident of Ottawa. Many of us "francophones outside Quebec", as some like to refer to us, have no ties to Quebec. The only common denominator is that we have French as our maternal language. I am quite aware of the French tyranny of the majority, as presently exercised in Quebec through its language law, Bill 101. Therefore, I don't have to go back to 1796 for a similar example or understanding.

So I choose to live in Ontario as a minority and reject residing in Quebec to form part of a majority. I'm quite comfortable with my choice.

Excepting Acadians, most Francophones outside Quebec have Quebec origins. That makes them very much like Loyalists in Canada - Americans who left America. IOW, like Loyalists, they have issues with the place they left. Edited August 24, 2007 by August1991