Singh promises bump to Quebec’s immigration funds to address labour shortage

Sigh. Quebec already receives about 40 percent of settlement funding and only received about 16 percent of immigrants in 2018:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his government would give a boost to Quebec’s immigration funding to help prepare immigrants to fill the province’s labour shortage.

At an announcement in Drummondville, Que., on Saturday, Singh promised to increase the federal immigration transfer payment to Quebec by $73 million per year to improve settlement services for newcomers, if he is elected prime minister.

The province has been dealing with a labour shortage, with more than four per cent of all jobs in Quebec left vacant for four months or longer, according to a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report. That’s roughly 120,000 jobs.

“Quebec is dealing with a serious labour shortage, and needs immigration to help meet the challenge,” said Singh.

“It’s a critical issue.”

The NDP’s platform also commits to bolstering immigration settlement in rural areas of Quebec. Many immigrants arrive in Quebec with no French language skills, which affects their ability to work in the province. Singh said that a funding increase from an NDP government would help to target those language barriers.

Quebec will already receive $25.5 billion from Ottawa this fiscal year in the form equalization payments and health and social transfers. In the 2017-2018 fiscal year, $490 million was allocated for immigration supports.

But the provincial government isn’t completely sold on the idea of increasing immigration.

Leaning on temporary foreign workers

The CAQ government intends to accept around 20 per cent fewer immigrants this year, or 40,000 instead of the nearly 52,000 accepted last year.

However, Premier François Legault said temporary foreign workers can counter the shortage.

His government recently launched a $21-million plan to make it simpler for smaller businesses to recruit foreigners. It includes subsidizing recruitment missions by Quebec companies overseas and offering to cover $1,000 in moving expenses for the workers.

The province also announced $34 million for measures aimed at better integrating immigrants into the workforce.

Source: Singh promises bump to Quebec’s immigration funds to address labour shortage

Laïcité: une campagne contre la loi 21 est lancée

Of note:

Le lancement a eu lieu à Montréal dans un lieu de culte protestant, soit l’église unie Saint-James.

Ehab Lotayef, l’un des coordonnateurs de la campagne, qui est de confession musulmane, avait une kippa sur la tête, une calotte portée traditionnellement par les juifs.

« Je vais la porter tout le mois de septembre », a-t-il affirmé.

Cette loi a peut-être été adoptée, mais c’est une loi injuste, a-t-il lancé près de l’autel de l’église. Pour les opposants, elle viole la Charte des droits et libertés et limite les possibilités d’emploi de personnes sur la base de leur religion. « On ne va pas juste l’accepter. »

La Loi sur la laïcité de l’État — connue avant son adoption comme le projet de loi 21 — interdit le port de signes religieux à certains employés de l’État lorsqu’ils sont dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions, dont les policiers, procureurs de la Couronne et gardiens de prison, ainsi qu’aux enseignants des écoles publiques du primaire et du secondaire.

Une enseignante d’origine tunisienne portant le voile, qui n’a révélé que son prénom, Ola, a témoigné qu’après une année extraordinaire dans une école primaire publique de Montréal, elle a frappé un mur pour l’année scolaire en cours. Comme elle n’est pas une employée permanente, si elle accepte un contrat pour cette année, elle devra signer une clause selon laquelle elle s’engage à ne pas porter de signe religieux dans la salle de classe, a-t-elle déclaré. Pour elle, cela signifie enlever son voile.

« Cette loi vient me priver de mes droits, d’être une femme libre, capable de décider où travailler, que porter. Personnellement, je ne vois pas ce que cette loi va apporter de plus ou de mieux à la société québécoise », a-t-elle dit.

« Sauf la tension sociale que je sens et que je vois. Et que je vis. »

Elle a souligné qu’il lui a été difficile de témoigner, se disant déstabilisée par les commentaires « inacceptables » qu’elle voit sur les réseaux sociaux.

Selon le rabbin Michael Whitman, « les effets négatifs de cette loi iront bien au-delà des personnes qui sont directement touchées […]. Elle a donné la permission à l’incivilité. »

Les membres du groupe de citoyens invitent les Québécois à porter les macarons qu’ils ont fait produire en grande quantité et qu’ils distribuent librement. Sur ceux-ci, on peut voir les mots « Loi 21 », barrés d’une ligne rouge. Porter le macaron montre publiquement son opposition à la mesure législative du gouvernement caquiste et le soutien à ceux « dont les droits sont niés par cette loi discriminatoire », font-ils valoir.

Leur but est de rassembler d’ici le 6 octobre quelque 50 000 personnes portant le macaron et le signe religieux de leur choix, qui participeront ce jour-là à une journée d’action publique. Ils veulent aussi générer une discussion sur la loi et changer l’avis de ceux qui la soutiennent.

Lors du lancement jeudi, des représentants de différentes communautés religieuses étaient présents.

La Loi sur la laïcité de l’État a été adoptée en juin dernier par l’Assemblée nationale.

Ce fut un jour très triste, selon Manjit Singh, de confession sikhe, qui a été dans le passé l’aumônier de l’Université McGill à Montréal.

« Nous sommes venus ici légalement, et soudainement, parce que nous avons quelque chose sur la tête, ce n’est plus acceptable désormais », a-t-il déploré.

Et cela ruine la vie des gens, a ajouté l’homme.

Leur opposition civile à la loi se fait de façon parallèle à la contestation judiciaire qui est en cours, ont-ils affirmé.

À la mi-juillet, un juge de la Cour supérieure a rejeté la demande de groupes de défense des libertés civiles et religieuses qui réclamaient la suspension de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État. Le juge Michel Yergeau avait alors tranché que la loi continuerait de s’appliquer jusqu’à ce qu’un tribunal se prononce sur le fond de l’affaire. Car le but ultime de ces groupes est de faire invalider cette mesure législative. En août, la Cour d’appel du Québec a accepté de se pencher sur la demande d’injonction.

Source: Laïcité: une campagne contre la loi 21 est lancée

Migrants irréguliers: Ottawa verse 250 millions à Québec

Hard to disagree with the principle.

However, important not to forget that Quebec has a sweetheart deal with respect to the amount transferred annually for economic immigrant selection and settlement services (all categories) that is based on the percentage of of Quebec’s population, not the percentage of immigrants.

Given the current cuts in Quebec levels, and the increase in Canadian ones, the imbalance continues to increase:

À l’approche des élections fédérales, le gouvernement Trudeau sort le chéquier pour régler un différend avec Québec: il versera à la province 250 millions de dollars en guise de compensation pour les coûts liés au soutien des milliers de migrants qui ont franchi la frontière de manière irrégulière en 2017 et en 2018.

Le ministre des Finances, Bill Morneau, a confirmé cette décision par voie de communiqué jeudi après-midi, permettant ainsi au gouvernement Trudeau de tourner la page sur un dossier qui avait provoqué des frictions entre les deux capitales.

Depuis 2017, quelque 43 000 personnes sont entrées au pays de manière irrégulière. Plus de 90% d’entre elles ont franchi la frontière canado-américaine en passant par le chemin Roxham, près du poste frontalier de Lacolle.

«L’augmentation au cours des deux dernières années du nombre de migrants irréguliers qui entrent au Canada par le Québec a imposé au gouvernement du Québec des pressions particulières et sans précédent. Nous apprécions sa collaboration pour la gestion de cet enjeu», a affirmé le ministre Morneau.

Selon lui, le financement accordé au gouvernement du Québec devrait permettre de défrayer l’ensemble des couts extraordinaires liés à l’afflux de demandeurs d’asile en 2017 et 2018.

À Québec, le gouvernement Legault a fait savoir que l’entente conclue avec Ottawa ouvre la porte à d’autres compensations pour les dépenses liées au passage de demandeurs d’asile pour l’année en cours, une fois que leur nombre total sera connu.

En outre, les fonctionnaires de Québec et d’Ottawa poursuivent les négociations afin d’établir un mécanisme de répartition qui doit permettre de rediriger plus rapidement les demandeurs d’asile vers leur province de destination après leur arrivée à la frontière canadienne.

«Pour le Québec, il était primordial de compenser toutes les dépenses extraordinaires encourues pour les demandeurs d’asile au cours des années 2017 et 2018. Après plusieurs mois de négociations, nous avons obtenu le remboursement complet de nos dépenses pour les années 2017 et 2018 ainsi que l’engagement du Canada de rembourser les sommes encourues pour 2019. Il s’agit d’une avancée majeure et cela confirme le rôle du Québec en matière d’immigration», a affirmé le ministre de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion, Simon Jolin-Barrette,

Dans le passé, les partis de l’opposition ont accusé à plusieurs reprises le gouvernement Trudeau d’avoir perdu le contrôle de la gestion de la frontière avec les Etats-Unis.

«Le gouvernement du Canada vise d’abord et avant tout à assurer la bonne gestion du système canadien d’immigration et d’asile et à faire en sorte que les flux de migration soient gérés de façon sécuritaire et ordonnée. Le gouvernement du Québec a été et continue d’être un partenaire extraordinaire. Nous sommes impatients de poursuivre notre étroite collaboration avec lui», a pour sa part déclaré le ministre de la Sécurité frontalière et de la Réduction du crime organisé, Bill Blair.

Dans le passé, les partis de l’opposition ont accusé à plusieurs reprises le gouvernement Trudeau d’avoir perdu le contrôle de la gestion de la frontière avec les États-Unis.

Dans un rapport publié en novembre dernier, le directeur parlementaire du budget Yves Giroux estimait que cet afflux de migrants qui traversent la frontière de façon irrégulière a coûté pas moins de 340 millions de dollars au gouvernement fédéral seulement en 2017-2018.

Source: Migrants irréguliers: Ottawa verse 250 millions à Québec

Why isn’t ‘unthinkable’ Quebec’s religious symbols ban a federal election issue? Selley and Urback

Two very similar columnists raise the same question and criticize the answer. Starting with Chris Selley:

Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans civil servants in certain positions of authority from wearing religious symbols on the job, passed in the National Assembly in June. And Quebecers are now gradually getting to know the victims of their pseudo-secularist misadventure — and what they intend to do about it.

Amrit Kaur, a 28-year-old recent teachers’ college graduate who wears a turban, has been in the news recently after picking up stakes for Surrey, B.C. Chahira Battou, a 29-year-old teacher who wears a hijab, was the subject of a similar news cycle back in April, telling various outlets she would rather be fired than obey the law — “If I submit to the law, and I remove my scarf when I go to teach, that is when I become a submissive woman,” she told the Washington Postand rilingnationalist commentators when she suggested to TVA host Denis Lévesque that Quebec cannot be a country of laïcité, because it isn’t a country at all. Nadia Naqvi, another teacher who wears the hijab, told the Post she wouldn’t take off her hijab out of respect for her students: “We’re supposed to teach them to stand up for their beliefs.” (Already-employed civil servants are not officially affected by Bill 21 unless they are so presumptuous as to want a promotion.)

Most of those affected will be teachers, most women, and most — not by accident — Muslim. But not all. Sondos Lamrhari is reportedly the first hijab-wearing Quebecer to study police tech, and hopes to apply to the Montreal or Laval police force in the near future. Not far behind her is 15-year-old Sukhman Singh Shergill, who has dreamed his whole life of being a police officer. His cousin, Gurvinder Singh, was part of a successful campaign at the New York City Police Department to allow officers to wear turbans and beards on the job, and Shergill has already started his own campaign in Montreal.

We will meet more and more of these people in coming months and years, and it will quickly demonstrate that Premier François Legault’s stated goal in passing Bill 21 — to put the issue to bed — will not be achieved.

In the meantime, every federal party leader has strongly opposed the law. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called the restrictions “unthinkable.” “A society based on fundamental freedoms and openness must always protect fundamental individual rights and should not in any way impede people from expressing themselves,” Conservative leader Andrew Scheer told reporters in Quebec City in March. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, a criminal lawyer who could not work as a Crown attorney in Quebec by dint of his turban, has correctly argued that “there are a lot of people in Quebec who don’t feel this is the right way to go,” and is gamely auditioning to “be their champion.”

That being the case, it’s no surprise the issue has been totally absent from federal election discussions. All three major parties agree the ban is wrong; all of them want the votes of people who support the ban; and no one wants the Bloc Québécois to leverage federalist/non-francophone opposition into renewed relevance.

A braver person than me might call this a victory for federalism. As consumed as Quebec has been for 15 years in the reasonable accommodations debate, Éric Grenier’s poll tracker at CBC has the Bloc at just 18.5 per cent, the Conservatives at 23 per cent, and the Liberals — led by Canada’s most ardent multiculturalist, son of the fiend who foisted multiculturalism upon Quebec in the first place — leading at 35 per cent.

The poor NDP, which under Jack Layton squashed the Bloc in 2011, languishes at 11 per cent, not even two points clear of the Greens. But the other parties have in essence adopted the Sherbrooke Declaration principles that helped Layton appeal to soft Quebec nationalists: In exchange for abandoning separatism Quebec gets, if not every single thing it wants, then very asymmetrical treatment indeed — not just in substance, but in political rhetoric.

Bill 21 is stretching that compromise right to the breaking point, however. The idea that Quebec’s restrictions on minority rights are a “provincial issue,” and that this explains their absence from the federal scene, is rather belied by the fact that Trudeau is running his campaign as much against Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his various budget cuts as he is against Scheer. If Alberta had instituted Bill 21 — which it wouldn’t, but if it had — we would be looking at a very different federal campaign. Liberals would hold it up as evidence of shameful, intolerable intolerance, and they would have a point.

Can it really be a purely “provincial issue” when a government uses Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to impose restrictions on minority rights that the prime minister considers “unthinkable”? What’s the point of national unity if it means keeping shtum on such a fundamental question of individual rights and freedoms? Federal leaders utterly deplore the restrictions — fine. Voters should ask them what exactly they intend to do about them.

Source: Chris Selley: Why isn’t ‘unthinkable’ Quebec’s religious symbols ban a federal election issue?

From Urback:

What’s happening in Quebec is a national disgrace.

It’s the type of thing for which a future government will apologize, much in the same way the prime minister of present has taken to apologizing for policy wrongs of the past.

Indeed, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has shown no reservation in apologizing to the LGBT community for discrimination in the civil service decades ago; to Jews for Canada’s refusal to accept German Jews fleeing Nazi persecution; to Indigenous communities for the hanging of chiefs in the 19th century.

Trudeau appropriately called these policies “unfair, unequal treatment” and “state-sponsored, systemic oppression.” Of course, it’s easy to call out injustice when you’ve had no hand in its propagation.

Forced secularism

Discrimination is currently enshrined in law in Quebec. As of June, public servants in the province who work in so-called positions of authority — teachers, judges, police officers and so on — are prohibited from wearing religious symbols. Those who flout the ban are effectively shackled to their spots thanks to a grandfather clause that says they can’t be promoted or moved. Those who wear kippahs, turbans, crosses or hijabs need not apply.

This too is state-sponsored, systemic oppression, an affront to religious freedom that ought to outrage anyone who believes in equal opportunity and freedom from state interference.

It is not merely a “dress code,” as some who have tried to defend the law have insisted; wearing open-toed shoes or spaghetti straps at work is not a deeply held religious conviction. Nor is it simply a “Quebec issue.” When state-sponsored discrimination becomes the law anywhere in Canada, it is everyone’s business, and our national shame.

2015 Niqab controversy

This should be a major election issue. Back in 2015, the question of whether a new Canadian should be allowed to wear the niqab while swearing a citizenship oath was fodder for a national discussion, and the Liberals, to their credit, took the position of freedom and tolerance.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, huffed about the symbolism of taking an oath of citizenship while wearing a niqab, as if feelings should have any bearing on a state’s infringement on an individual’s rights. You don’t have to like the niqab to believe that — except in situations where security and identification are tantamount — a country shouldn’t tell a woman what to wear.

Public opinion polling at the time found that Canadians overwhelmingly supported a niqab ban, just as public opinion polls now show that Quebecers overwhelmingly support a religious symbols ban.

That’s why federal leaders (with the exception of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who pretty much has no prospects in Quebec) have been loath to bring up the topic and tepid in response to questions about it. No one wants to risk alienating Quebecers ahead of the fall election.

But majority opinion in this case is merely that; it certainly doesn’t mean the law is righteous or good. In fact, we have laws that protect individual freedoms and minority rights precisely because the majority can’t be counted on to uphold them — which of course is why Quebec has pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause to avoid a Charter challenge.

But the federal government’s hands are hardly tied just because of the notwithstanding clause. It can put pressure on the Quebec government through economic means. It can support the legal challenge currently underway by the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. And it can speak out, forcefully and repeatedly, about an unjust policy that should not be on the books in Canada in 2019.

(Some have claimed this would be “political interference” akin to the SNC-Lavalin affair, which is a laboured and ridiculous comparison. This would not be a prime minister waging a clandestine operation to influence the attorney general to prevent a criminal trial for a major corporation, but a prime minister openly standing up for minority rights against a clearly unconstitutional law.)

Trudeau recently made a campaign-style trip to Quebec, where he made an announcement about transit, talked about protecting the environment, visited small businesses and boasted about the middle class. He did not talk about how the province is discriminating against its own residents.

In fact, all the prime minister has offered by way of critique so far is a few milquetoast comments akin to what he said back in June: “We do not feel it is a government’s responsibility or in a government’s interest to legislate on what people should be wearing.” It’s hardly the full-court press he and his ministers have assembled to speak out against other issues, such as efforts to quash the carbon tax or Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s record on gay marriage or even Canada’s Food Guide.

In another universe, with a different electoral map (or if, say, this was an Ontario law under Premier Doug Ford), Trudeau would be harping on it at every opportunity, with every minister on board, and with the fury this sort of state-sponsored intolerance demands. And Scheer, for whom freedom from religious discrimination is surely a most important priority, would be too. We cannot look down our noses at the societal divisions in the United States while people in Canada can’t get jobs because of what they wear out of faith.

There’s no question that any sort of intervention would be abysmally received by Quebec and within Quebec, and could very well decide the election. But it would also be a true demonstration of putting principles above political interest — which is probably too much to ask. Doing the right thing often comes with an enormous cost, and it’s quite evident that whoever becomes our next prime minister will not be willing to pay it.

Source: Quebec’s secularism law is a national disgrace — and yet barely an election issue: Robyn Urback

When an Influx of French-Canadian Immigrants Struck Fear Into Americans

From a time when Canada had large scale emigration and a reminder of francophone fears of assimilation, as was the case with most who emigrated to the USA.

And a certain irony: Quebec’s fear of the “other,” as seen in its endless debates over identity, immigrants and integration, are the same issues that played out with respect to the large numbers of Quebec immigrants in the late 19th century.

In 1893, Clare de Graffenried, special agent of the United States Department of Labor, published an article in The Forum describing an invasion of America’s northeastern border. For 30 years, Graffenreid observed, hundreds of thousands of French Canadians had been pouring into states like Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, finding work in the region’s burgeoning industries. “Manufacturing New England, Puritan and homogeneous no longer, speaks a French patois,” she wrote.

Furthermore, Graffenreid continued, French Canadian workers huddled in “Little Canadas” of “hastily-constructed tenements,” in houses holding from three to 50 families, subsisting in conditions that were “a reproach to civilization,” while “inspiring fear and aversion in neighbors.”

Within the two years after Graffenried’s piece appeared, both of my grandfathers were born in Maine’s Little Canadas. A century later, when I began researching these roots, I uncovered a lost chapter in U.S. immigration history that has startling relevance today—a story of immigrants crossing a land border into the U.S. and the fears they aroused.

Inheriting an ideology of cultural survival from Québec, the French Canadians in the U.S. resisted assimilation. This led a segment of the American elite to regard these culturally isolated French speakers as a potential threat to the territorial integrity of the United States—pawns, conspiracy theorists said, in a Catholic plot to subvert the U.S. Northeast.

While French-speaking people had lived in North America since the 1600s, the French Canadians Graffenried discussed crossed the U.S. border during the late 19th century, mainly to earn a living in New England’s cotton mills. Cotton textile manufacturing began in earnest in the region during the War of 1812, and by mid-century, it was the U.S.’s largest industry in terms of employment, capital investment, and the value of its products. When the United States blockaded Confederate ports during the Civil War and prices for raw cotton soared, New England’s mills shut down or slashed hours. Textile workers turned toward other industries, joined the army, or headed west.

After the war, with cotton shipping again, the mills reopened, but the skilled textile workforce had scattered. The corporations launched a campaign to recruit workers, and Canada’s French-speaking province of Québec answered the call. Before the Civil War there had been a trickle of migration from Québec to the Northern states, but when hostilities ended, trainload upon trainload of French Canadians began to settle in neighboring New England. By 1930, nearly a million had crossed the border in search of work.

They arrived in extended family groups, establishing French-speaking enclaves throughout New England in small industrial cities like Lowell, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire; Woonsocket, Rhode Island; Lewiston, Maine; and elsewhere.

These Little Canadas, often wedged between a mill and a Catholic church, formed a cultural archipelago, outposts of Québec scattered throughout the Northeast in densely populated pockets. By 1900, one-tenth of New Englanders spoke French. And in the region’s many cotton mills, French Canadians made up 44 percent of the workforce—24 percent nationally—at a time when cotton remained a dominant industry.

French-Canadian workers often lived in overcrowded, company-owned tenements, while children as young as eight years old worked full shifts in the mills. Contemporary observers denounced the mill town squalor. When 44 French Canadian children died in Brunswick, Maine, during a six-month period in 1886, most from typhoid fever and diphtheria, local newspaper editor Albert G. Tenney investigated. He found tenements housing 500 people per acre, with outhouses that overflowed into the wells and basements. Tenney excoriated the mill owners, the prominent Cabot family of Boston. Conditions in the tenements, wrote Tenney, “show a degree of brutality almost inconceivable in a civilized community. … A sight even to make a Christian swear.”

Brunswick was not the only mill town with poor living conditions. Journalist William Bayard Hale visited Little Canada in Fall River, Massachusetts, in 1894. “It would be an abuse to house a dog in such a place,” Hale wrote. Some Fall River tenements, continued Hale, “do not compare favorably with old-time slave-quarters,” a not-so-distant memory in the 1890s.

Other immigrants also faced pitiable conditions, but the French Canadians were unique because they thought of themselves as Americans before they came to the U.S. “The French Canadian is as American as someone born in Boston,” said Civil War hero Edmond Mallet, “it is all the nationalities that emigrated here that truly constitutes the American people.” Mallet was part of the small, educated French Canadian elite in the U.S., which included priests, journalists, professionals, and business owners. In their view, “American” was not a nationality, but a collection of “all the nationalities” living under the Stars and Stripes. In keeping with this understanding, they coined a new term for their people living in the U.S.: Franco-Americans.

Franco-American journalist Ferdinand Gagnon argued in an 1881 hearing at the Massachusetts State House that French Canadians were among the original constituent elements of the American Republic. He cited “Langlade, the father of Wisconsin; Juneau, the founder of Milwaukee; Vital Guerin, the founder of St. Paul, Minn.; Menard, first lieutenant governor of Illinois,” among his compatriots who had founded “nearly all the large cities of the Western States.”

While Gagnon encouraged French Canadians to pursue U.S. citizenship, for him naturalization implied a narrow contract. If naturalized citizens obeyed the laws, defended the flag, and worked for the general prosperity, he felt their duties were discharged—language, religion, and customs could remain in the private sphere. Gagnon’s concept of citizenship was based on Québec’s history, where French Canadians had maintained a distinct cultural identity despite British rule since 1763. The Franco-American elite expected their people to maintain their identity in the U.S. just as they had done in Canada.

But U.S. opinion demanded of the naturalized citizen something more than a merely formal participation in civic life, and Franco-American efforts to preserve their culture soon aroused suspicion and enmity. By the 1880s, elite American newspapers, including The New York Times, saw a sinister plot afoot. The Catholic Church, they said, had dispatched French Canadian workers southward in a bid to seize control of New England. Eventually, the theory went, Québec would sever its British ties and annex New England to a new nation-state called New France. Alarmists presented as evidence for the demographic threat the seemingly endless influx of immigrants across the northeastern border, coupled with the large family size of the Franco-Americans, where 10 or 12 children was common, and many more not unknown.

Anti-Catholicism had deep roots in the Northeast. The region’s Revolution-era patriots had numbered the Quebec Act of 1774 among the British Parliament’s “Intolerable Acts,” not least because it upheld the Catholic Church’s privileges in Canada, establishing “popery” in North America. In the mid-19th century, supporters of the Know Nothing movement led attacks on Catholic neighborhoods from New York City to Philadelphia. In New England, among other incidents, a Know Nothing-inspired mob burned a church where Irish and French Canadian Catholics met at Bath, Maine, in July 1854. In October of that year, Catholic priest John Bapst was assaulted, robbed, tarred and feathered, and driven out of Ellsworth, Maine. While the Know Nothings faded away, in the late 19th century the nativists regrouped as the American Protective Association, a nationwide anti-Catholic movement.

In this climate, the supposed French Canadian Catholic subversion of New England became national news. Between about 1880 and 1900, as immigration peaked, it attracted coverage in daily newspapers; think pieces in outlets such as Harper’s, The Nation, and The Forum; articles in academic journals; and books in English and in French. The New York Times reported in 1881 that French-Canadian immigrants were “ignorant and unenterprising, subservient to the most bigoted class of Catholic priests in the world. … They care nothing for our free institutions, have no desire for civil or religious liberty or the benefits of education.”

In 1885, the paper reported that there were French Canadian plans “to form a new France occupying the whole northeast corner of the continent”; four years later, it outlined the purported borders of New France: “Quebec, Ontario, as far west as Hamilton, such portions of the maritime provinces as may be deemed worth taking, the New-England States, and a slice of New-York.”

And in 1892, the New York Times suggested that emigration from Québec was “part of a priestly scheme now fervently fostered in Canada for the purpose of bringing New-England under the control of the Roman Catholic faith. … This is the avowed purpose of the secret society to which every adult French Canadian belongs.”

Protestant clergy responded by leading well-funded initiatives to convert the Franco-American Catholics. The Congregationalists’ Calvin E. Amaron founded the French Protestant College in Massachusetts in 1885, offering a training course for evangelizing the French Canadians of New England and Québec. Baptist missionaries fielded the “Gospel Wagon”—a hefty, horse-drawn vehicle with organ and pulpit, lit by lanterns at night, preaching Protestantism in French to the Little Canadas of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

New England had become “a magnet attracting the world to itself. … [Québec is] repellant and shunned by the world’s best blood,” thundered the Baptists’ Henry Lyman Morehouse in an 1893 pamphlet. “The one a mighty current. … that has been as the water of life to the civilized world—the other, a sluggish, slimy stream, that has fructified nothing and given to mankind nothing noteworthy … a civilization where mediaeval Romanism is rampant. … Against the abhorrent forces of this Romish civilization we are contending, especially in New England.”

Amaron and Morehouse identified Protestantism with Americanism. For them, it was unthinkable that the U.S. could accommodate a variety of religious traditions and yet retain its political culture.

In retrospect, the fevered discourse about New England’s class of destitute factory workers reveals how little chattering classes in the U.S. knew their neighbors—a people whose presence in North America preceded Plymouth Rock. The “invasion” rhetoric did not discourage Franco-American sentiments in favor of maintaining their identity but intensified them. The Little Canadas continued in vigor for at least another half-century, and slowly dispersed, not due to nativist provocations, but for economic reasons—the decline of New England’s manufacturing base.

Talk of a French Canadian threat waned in the first years of the 20th century, as migration across the northeastern border slowed temporarily. This Victorian episode faded from memory only when U.S. fears were transferred to new subjects: the even more foreign-seeming Jewish and non-Protestant immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who, in the early 20th century, began to arrive in growing numbers on U.S. shores.

Source: When an Influx of French-Canadian Immigrants Struck Fear Into Americans

As Quebec cuts immigration, businesses turn to temporary foreign workers

Understandable effect:

As the Quebec government slashes immigration levels this year, it is also overseeing a huge increase in the number of temporary foreign workers coming to the province.

The inflow of temporary workers is helping Quebec deal with an increasingly dire labour shortage, but experts say the strategy is unsustainable economically and makes newcomers more vulnerable to exploitation.

Under the federal temporary foreign worker program, Quebec’s consent is required to bring a worker to the province.

The number of new Quebec employees hired through the program has jumped dramatically in recent months, and not just in the agricultural sector, but other sectors as well, such as tourism, food processing and manufacturing.

In 2018, 17,685 permits were issued to foreigners for temporary work in Quebec, a 36 per cent increase from the previous year, the biggest jump of any of the largest provinces.

The numbers are on track to rise again in 2019. In the first three months after the fall provincial election, the number of active permits rose by 32 per cent compared to the same period the year prior.

Permits were up 21 per cent in the first three months of 2019.

This increase comes despite plans by the Coalition Avenir Québec government to reduce the number of immigrants by 20 per cent this year.

That goal has drawn sharp criticism from business groups, who say they urgently need immigrants to help fill the 120,000 positions currently vacant in the province.

These groups warn the government that with Quebec’s aging population and low birth rate, the labour shortage will only get worse in the years ahead.

Province’s workforce is aging

Quebec’s Immigration Ministry said in a statement the objective of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program is “to meet the urgent and specific needs of Quebec employers facing difficulties in recruiting local workers.”

Economists and business lobby groups, however, are skeptical about the program’s ability to meet the province’s long-term economic needs.

The higher number of temporary workers in the province is indeed helping offset the labour shortage, according to a recent analysis by Scotiabank.

But Marc Desormeaux, a provincial economist with the bank, said it doesn’t address the underlying structural crisis facing the Quebec economy: an aging workforce and shrinking labour pool.

“The question is whether the explosive recent pace of temporary foreign worker intake can be sustained over the longer run,” he said.

Denis Hamel, vice-president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, a lobby group for employers in the province, likened the rise in temporary foreign workers to a “Band-Aid solution.”

It wasn’t addressing the labour shortage or the backlog in the immigration process, Hamel said.

“Employers have to look at the TFW program because they don’t have a choice. Delays are so long with the regular immigration path that if you want to fulfil a job in a six- to eight-month period you have to turn the TFW,” he said.

Process can take 6 months: lawyer

In order to hire a foreign worker, companies must demonstrate they would otherwise be unable to fill the position, a federally run process known as a Labour Market Impact Assessment.

Foreign workers must also obtain Quebec’s consent through what’s called a Quebec Acceptance Certificate.

Immigration lawyer Ho Sung Kim said the whole process can take up to six months and cost thousands of dollars, which can be prohibitive for a small business, such as a restaurant.

“But they do need people, and they are not able to find people locally, and that’s a big problem,” said Kim, who sits on the board of the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Moreover, those hoping to become permanent residents also have little recourse if they are mistreated, given their uncertain status.

“It’s not the ideal situation,” said Kim.

“Their stay is temporary and the renewal of the work permit is not always guaranteed and a lot of times they come with their family and want to settle down, and the pathway to permanent residency is less clear.”

The CAQ government is holding legislative hearings in Quebec City to discuss its immigration plan, which envisions a gradual return to the immigration levels hit in 2018, that is, somewhere around 50,000 newcomers.

Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said Tuesday the province is in talks with the federal government to make the Temporary Foreign Worker Program more flexible.

Business groups countered by saying the red tape involved with the program isn’t the only problem.

The Quebec Restaurant Association, for instance, called on the government to dramatically increase the number of immigrants to satisfy the needs of its members.

“Immigration is an undeniable tool that can alleviate the current labour shortage,” said Vincent Arsenault, head of the organization.

Source: As Quebec cuts immigration, businesses turn to temporary foreign workers

Martin Patriquin: The Quebec Liberals’ sad interculturalism gambit

Of note:

The Quebec Liberal Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. About 150 years into its existence, the party finds itself in the very unfamiliar position of being out of power and largely out of favour with the province’s electorate — it has been left bobbing in the deep blue wake of Premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Quebec. So the Quebec Liberals appear to have staked their future in targeting the gut-level issues of identity and cultural insecurity. In so doing, Quebec’s de facto multicultural party is distancing itself from the very concept, and the consequences are both huge and unfortunate for the province as a whole.

Last weekend, the Liberal Party’s youth wing voted in favour of the adoption of a law on interculturalism. For those of you rushing to the nearest dictionary, don’t bother; the term is obscure in origin and application. Essentially, it’s a contract between Quebec society and its new arrivals, in which integration happens by way of a common language (French) and culture. Apparently, it’s official Quebec policy, though when I asked in 2011, no one could tell me for how long. “It’s been like that for a number of years, I think,” a spokesperson told me at the time. The word barely appears on the government’s website and is rarely uttered by its ministers.

But the definition of the term isn’t nearly as important as the context in which the Liberals are suddenly pushing it. Quebec’s Liberal Party has long been the parking lot of choice for the anglophone and allophone vote. Though this has given the party a long and enviable advantage in Montreal and its immediate environs, this sizeable voting bloc was a millstone for the party in the last election. The CAQ savaged the Liberals for being too English, too urbane, too out of touch and too … multicultural.

The CAQ’s trope, shabbily hidden behind these code words, is simple enough: that recent arrivals to Quebec don’t assimilate, are ambivalent or worse toward the French language, and are as such a detriment to the future of the Québécois nation. It worked like hell, and now the Liberals want in.

Granted, it isn’t the first time the party has been late to the identity game. In 1974, in an attempt to stave off a surging Parti Québécois, the Liberals introduced Bill 22, which made French the official language of government and the workplace. The party was at first fervently against Bill 101, the Parti Québécois’s ensuing (and far more restrictive) language law before coming out in its favour.

But there is a massive difference between Quebec’s language laws and the CAQ’s more recent legislation targeting immigrants and religious minorities. Bill 22 and Bill 101, the latter of which has thankfully been law for over four decades, addressed a quantifiable problem concerning the French language. Namely, without legislation buttressing its precarious existence in Quebec’s classrooms and workplaces, French would disappear. Conversely, the alleged non-integration of recent arrivals to Quebec is an unsubstantiated fear — a “crisis of perception”largely conjured by certain members of the political and media classes eager for a wedge issue to exploit. In fact, and contrary to this fear, Quebec’s language laws have ensured that successive waves of immigrants are schooled in French. Interculturalism had exactly nothing to do with any of this.

Its interculturalism gambit is the Liberal Party’s attempt to ingratiate itself with the white francophone majority by appealing to its baser fears. Even sadder: I doubt the party will suffer one iota because of it. This province’s immigrants, allophones and English types, long supporters of the Quebec Liberal Party out of conviction or convenience, have no one else to vote for. They are a captive audience, for better and now for worse.

Source: Martin Patriquin: The Quebec Liberals’ sad interculturalism gambit

CAQ’s immigration plan blasted for favouring European white francophones

I think this critique may be overblown if we look at the impact of the federal Express Entry system, where an offer from an employer is given considerable weighting: In 2008, immigration from Europe/UK was 17 percent of economic class, in 2017, it declined to 13.7 percent, from the USA, it declined from 3.1 percent to 2.4 percent:

Immigration hearings got off to a rocky start Monday when a group said the government is ignoring the issue of systemic racism faced by new arrivals even with a series of reforms that have been put in place.

And if you add into the mix the requirements of a Quebec values test and plans to give more power to employers to pick their own workers, the future is shaping up to mean most new arrivals will be white francophones from Europe, the group said.

The comments were made by representatives of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI), which represents 150 groups across Quebec who aid immigrants and refugees.

Refugees and families from diverse countries will be overlooked because they are seen as a burden to society, while others with the right skills won’t stand a chance because of “unconscious ethnic profiling” by employers, they said.

With the Quebec business lobby exerting enormous pressure on the government to boost immigration levels to as high as 60,000 a year, the TCRI warned Quebec must not overlook the human side of the equation.

As it stands, the Coalition Avenir Québec government’s immigration plan is “simplistic and utilitarian,” light years from the dreams of diversity and so focused on plugging labour shortages it represents a “historic setback” for Quebec’s immigration policies, they said.

The TCRI representatives were presenting a brief on the opening day of legislature committee hearings into Quebec’s immigration plan for the next three years.

After slapping a reduction on the number of immigrants for the year 2019 at 40,000, Immigration, Diversity and Inclusiveness Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette shifted gears and is proposing to gradually increase it to 52,500 a year by 2022.

But he proposes to increase the percentage of qualified workers from 59 per cent to 65 per cent of the total to meet labour shortages, which has upset immigration groups. There are 120,000 vacant jobs in Quebec.

On his way into the hearings, Jolin-Barrette was cautious when asked whether he will boost the numbers as high as Quebec Inc. wants, saying he wants to listen to the views of everyone first.

But the TCRI gave the government an earful, saying cutting the number of refugees and candidates in the family unification category is wrong because they actually settle better into Quebec society while workers often move away.

“Immigration should not be instrumentalized to respond to economic needs,” Veronica Islas, a member of the group, told the committee.

“Immigration needs to be seen in a global sense. Yes, business plays a role. They need workers. But we need to avoid the privatization of immigration access.

“If we give business all the power, we could wind up with very homogeneous immigration. An employer could say it’s easier to integrate someone who is already like me.”

The group said they doubt Quebec’s much vaunted Arrima system — which matches immigrants with open jobs before they arrive — is the miracle solution, either.

It gives more power to employers to select workers, but there is no mention of how Quebec proposes to counter discrimination experienced by candidates with “non-Québécois”-sounding names.

That won’t disappear overnight with the new system, they said.

“Like it or not, there is a problem that can be qualified as systemic racism,” group member Dominique Lachance said during her testimony.

“It’s not so much intended by the employer, but there is a built-in discrimination in the system because people come from foreign countries, don’t know our system and don’t have the network of contacts others do to make their pitch (for work).”

The group said employers are completely unprepared to handle such powers.

“The TCRI fears that the net result is that we will observe a homogenization of permanent immigrant profiles to be more and more European white francophones,” it says in its brief.

“In partially leaving the power of selection of immigrants at the discretion of employers, and the bias of employers in this area is well documented, we can reasonably expect some candidates will never be approached despite their skills due to an unconscious ethnic profiling.”

Speaking to reporters later, group spokeswoman Eva Lopez said such discrimination hits the Maghrebian and black communities the most.

Some new arrivals even try to change their names to get around the problem of getting a job.

Speaking at the committee, Jolin-Barrette countered the comments, saying the Arrima system is based on skills and experience and “not the region of the world they come from,” so everyone has an equal chance of being admitted.

The immigration and refugee group is the first of 31 who will appear this week.

During the next few days, Jolin-Barrette will face an intense business lobby that will argue Quebec has to open the door to more immigrants than ever before.

The minister will present his final plan in November.

Source: CAQ’s immigration plan blasted for favouring European white francophones

Lise Ravary: Multiculturalism, interculturalism and Quebec

Yet another example of a comementator who does not understand the intent, history and practice of multiculturalism in Canada, which is based upon integration with accommodation where warranted, all within the context of Canada’s constitutional, legal and regulatory frameworks.

And generally, with some exceptions, Canadian multiculturalism is working well, whether in terms of linguistic, social or economic integration:

Tricky words like nationalism, patriotism and multiculturalism dominate today’s public discourse in much of the developed world. These are essential topics of debate in these days of migration, but there is one problem: these words have different definitions, meanings and populist undertones.

An official research document from the Library of Parliament suggests that multiculturalism can be interpreted in three different ways, as a sociological fact, ideology or policy.

As a sociological fact refers to a society made up of people of different origins. The ideology is that found in the 1971 Multiculturalism Policy established Canada as a mosaic as opposed to the American melting pot, one key objective of which was to assist cultural groups to retain and foster their identity. And teaching immigrant children their heritage language, culture and history in public schools, something Quebec has done since 1979, is an example of a good multicultural policy, because it facilitates integration.

So how do we know we’re all on the same page?

If I say I’m against multiculturalism, you may think I am saying that I am opposed to diversity, when what I am doing is stating that I prefer to see immigrants integrate and become non-hyphenated Canadians who do not bring conflicts in their native lands to their new home. This should not be mistaken for a call for assimilation, the aim of Canada’s residential schools for Indigenous people.

Let’s be clear, Quebec has never been opposed to being a pluralistic society, starting with Samuel de Champlain, who forged brotherly relationships with Indigenous peoples of eastern North America whom he saw as “nations indiennes.” (Read Champlain’s Dream by American historian and Pulitzer Prize-winner David Hackett Fischer. It is an eye-opener on how this country began.)

Every Quebec government since 1971 has officially rejected multiculturalism, an ideology devised by Trudeau père that serious nationalist thinkers believe was meant to destroy Quebec nationalism. Later, Gérard Bouchard promoted Quebec’s own “interculturalism” as an alternative that recognizes the existence of a majority culture, something multiculturalism does not.

I have travelled all over Canada and lived in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto. Canadian identity exists, regardless of people’s origin. I don’t understand why Canadians did not condemn Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ignorant and truncated view of Canada as a post-national country.

Canadian multiculturalism, whose 2011 redefinition by the federal government includes “improving the responsiveness of institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population,” has far-reaching consequences. For example, judges have been known to consider an accused’s culture of origin as a mitigating factor at sentencing time.

Similar debates go on elsewhere. Boris Johnson’s recent demand that immigrants learn English to feel British was condemned by some as “imperialistic” and “racist.”

But without a common language, or two — and such shared fundamental values as gender equality, the separation of Church and State and loyalty to Canadian institutions — it’s hard to imagine a harmonious future.

Neil Bissoondath raised some important concerns in his 1994 book Selling illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, concerns that remain pertinent. His message: “Canada has sought to order its population into a cultural mosaic of diversity and tolerance. Seeking to preserve the heritage of Canada’s many peoples, the policy nevertheless creates unease on many levels, transforming people into political tools and turning historical distinctions into stereotyped commodities … highlighting the differences that divide Canadians rather than the similarities that unite them.”

Speaking a different language helped Quebecers sidestep this cultural tug-of-war. Quebecers know who they are: it’s the rest of Canada that struggles with Quebec’s identity as a nation 400 years-plus in the making, with the help of immigrants along the way.

The Coalition Avenir Québec government has just announced it will invest massively in the integration of newcomers: I can’t think of a more generous gesture to people who seek to join us. And telling proof that immigration is not an dirty word for most Quebecers. Unlike multiculturalism as ideology.

Source: Lise Ravary: Multiculturalism, interculturalism and Quebec

Le français est bafoué dans une communication du ministère de l’Immigration

Amusing (although I would not assume some of the written French of the federal government is above reproach):

Le ministère de l’Immigration ne prêche pas toujours par l’exemple dans son maniement de la langue française.

C’est ce qu’a pu récemment constater La Presse canadienne, à la lecture d’une communication écrite produite par un service du ministère de l’Immigration et rédigée dans un français très approximatif.

La courte missive d’une quarantaine de mots transmise à l’agence, document officiel affichant le logo du ministère dirigé par Simon Jolin-Barrette, était bourrée de fautes de français.

Pourtant, en cette matière, l’appareil gouvernemental n’a pas le choix : il doit donner l’exemple. La Politique gouvernementale relative à l’emploi et à la qualité du français dans l’administration, rédigée en 1996 et mise à jour en 2011, stipule clairement que les ministères doivent accorder « une attention constante à la qualité de la langue française ».

Dans ses communications écrites, l’appareil de l’État québécois doit utiliser en tout temps un français de qualité irréprochable, selon la politique en vigueur.

Or, le Service de l’accès à l’information et de la gestion des plaintes au ministère de l’Immigration a accompagné sa réponse à une demande d’accès d’une lettre de présentation visiblement rédigée par une employée de l’État maîtrisant mal la langue officielle du Québec.

La missive débutait par ces mots : « En lien avec vous demandes d’accès aux documents ».

« Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, trouvez ci-joint une copie des lettres décisions », écrit-on par la suite. On remarquera que le verbe « trouver » aurait dû être à l’infinitif, et que le style télégraphique des « lettres décisions » a de quoi surprendre le lecteur.

La fonctionnaire notait ensuite avec une ponctuation douteuse que « les lettres originales, sont également, envoyées par la poste » et elle concluait par une formule de politesse, « cordialemente ».

Fait cocasse, à la fin du message, le ministère responsable de la francisation des immigrants faisait la promotion de sa campagne « Apprendre le français, c’est gratuit et c’est gagnant ».

« Inacceptable »

Il n’a pas été possible de savoir si l’écart linguistique observé constituait un incident isolé ou non.

Impossible aussi de savoir dans quelle mesure le français créatif est toléré, voire s’il est devenu la norme dans les communications établies entre le ministère de l’Immigration et ses destinataires, clients ou autres.

Alerté au cours des derniers jours, le ministre Simon Jolin-Barrette a jugé la situation rapportée « inacceptable ». Par la voix de son porte-parole, il a affirmé avoir pris aussitôt les mesures nécessaires pour que les correctifs requis soient apportés, afin que ce genre de bavures ne se reproduise plus.

Source: Le français est bafoué dans une communication du ministère de l’Immigration