I am not sure whether this is a sincere query or not (this is one of those threads which tends to be more infected by trolling). Not just because it is hard to imagine anyone seriously contesting just how anti-immigrant the Conservative Party is, but especially considering the mischaracterization the query is premised on. I did NOT say that the "
NDP is better for immigrants." In fact I said:
While the NDP has some MPs (such as Jenny Kwan) who are strong supporters of immigrants, as a party the conflict between labour union interests and some immigration policies results in some platform compromises that do not support immigrants as uniformly as the Liberals.
So no, I cannot prove what is contrary to what I said.
If you claim to be looking for evidence that the Conservative Party is the worst, I will concede that I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bloc Québécois history or current platform in regards to immigration policies to prove which is actually the absolute worst. I would note, however, that in many ridings where there is a Bloc Québécois candidate, voting Bloc Québécois likely amounts to an anti-immigrant vote because it increases the chances of a Conservative government. My
not-all-that-well-informed (never seen a Bloc Québécois candidate on the ballot in the riding where I live or in any riding within a thousand km of here) impression is that as a more or less nationalist party the Bloc Québécois is probably at least as anti-immigrant as the Conservative Party.
Frankly, if you are challenging the characterization of the Conservative Party as the more or less anti-immigrant party compared to the Liberals or the NDP, that suggests the query is not sincere. That is in the vein of asserting "
to go up, go down," given how utterly obvious this is.
While it hardly tells the whole story, and was published early this year before the season for making campaign
promises began in earnest,
the National Post (rarely kind let alone favourable to the Liberals) noted polls indicating:
. . . that those who identified themselves as Liberal supporters are much more supportive of immigration than self-identified Conservatives. According to the same EKOS poll, only 15 per cent of Liberals thought Canada was admitting too many members of visible minorities as new immigrants, while a whopping 69 per cent of Conservatives thought so.
. . . members of the Conservative base are not just socially conservative but many have an antipathy to increasing numbers of immigration of visible minorities to Canada.
It warrants noting that O'Toole has been making claims contrary to what he has historically advocated and contrary to what the Conservative Party has advocated and will almost certainly continue to advocate when it comes to actually governing. Language in the current Conservative Party platform referring to improving "
fairness" in immigration proceedings echoes the meaning of "
fair and balanced" in some U.S. media, which is oriented to what is fair for certain people . . . example, the Conservative Party wants to implement expedited immigration services for those who will pay extra. Fair for those with more money. Not really fair. Not close (especially not for families).
The membership of the Conservative Party itself embraces profoundly conflicting attitudes toward immigration and immigrants, much of their constituency rather militantly anti-immigrant, while among the leadership there is a recognition that certain types of immigration, focused on importing cheap labour, need to be supported in order to tip the economic balance in favour of big business. The more militant anti-immigrant members of the Conservative Party tend to be concentrated in Alberta. The members looking at how immigration can be a boon for big business tend to be concentrated in Ontario. Of course generalizations tend to unfairly paint some, and not all those driving the party these days are derived from the Jason Kenney camp, but the
sheep's clothing should not be fooling anyone.
Politics has always been beleaguered with empty promises, but in recent years the gap between truth and lies, honesty and deception, has grown more pernicious and pervasive than I recall in the history of modern governments in the West.
Some say, and I at least partially agree, do not focus on what they say, watch what they do. So some real history may be illuminating:
Immigration path for Permanent Residency:
-- Conservatives let applications fall further and further into backlog and then abruptly, and not legally, terminated all skilled worker PR applications and told prospective economic class applicants to start over; since that was illegal, knocked down by the courts, Kenney's Parliament rammed through legislation to retroactively close all skilled worker applications
-- Liberals have consistently increased numbers year after year
Physical Presence Requirements for grant of citizenship:
Minimum presence in Canada:
-- Conservatives implement a four year minimum presence requirement; minimum ratio: 66% (4/6 rule)
-- Liberals revised the law to adopt a three year requirement; minimum ratio: 60% (3/5 rule)
Pre-PR credit:
-- Conservatives revised law to give NO credit for time in Canada prior to becoming a PR
-- Liberals revised the law to give up to one year credit for time in Canada prior to becoming a PR
Language and knowledge requirements for citizenship:
-- Conservatives adopted law requiring some children and all adults up to the age of 65 to meet language and knowledge of Canada requirements
-- Liberals revised the law to not require children (immigrants under 18 at the time of making the application) or adults aged 55 or older to meet language and knowledge of Canada requirements
Forced residency in Canada after applying:
-- Conservatives adopted an "intent to reside" requirement, which provided grounds for rejecting any citizenship applicant who was determined to be living outside Canada after applying
-- Liberals immediately ceased enforcing that requirement and proceeded to repeal it
Revocation of PR status:
-- Conservatives expanded grounds for revoking PR status and applied these retroactively (complicated issue involving refugees who become PRs -- see discussion elsewhere in this forum)
-- Liberals, unfortunately, have done nothing to reverse the egregious injustices inflicted under the Conservative provision; NDP MP Jenny Kwan is among the very few who have made an effort to undue the harm inflicted by the Conservatives
Grounds for revoking citizenship:
-- Conservatives adopted provisions for revoking citizenship validly obtained (even citizenship by birth) based on certain crimes; this was part of the Conservative governments much expanded policy to pursue revocation of citizenship generally
-- Liberals repealed the provisions which would allow the government to revoke citizenship based on criminal acts, reestablishing misrepresentation/fraud as the only grounds for revoking citizenship
RQ-related non-routine processing of citizenship applicants:
-- Conservatives implemented (OB-407) strict criteria for issuing RQ, which included full blown RQ issued to applicants for things like having a drivers license issued less than three months prior to applying for citizenship; being self-employed, employed as a consultant, or unemployed; during one period of time soon after Kenney obtained a majority government the Conservative government was issuing RQ to as many as one in four citizenship applicants
-- Discussions about RQ in this forum since 2016, since there has been a Liberal government, have dwindled to a trickle; it is readily apparent that this government is not abusing the RQ procedure the way it had been under the Conservatives
Current Conservative promises, much of which are NOT actually part of their platform but rather are rhetorical talking-points (typically using terms lacking substance . . . like "fair" and "accountability" and "welcoming" (talk about BS, that one is major BS coming from the Conservatives), do not reflect who the Conservative Parties have been in Canada and are not at all an indication of who they will be.
My political leaning toward the NDP, if and when there might be some chance of them resuming a major role in government (they have never formed the Federal government), derives from many additional factors and preferences; as some might discern, I lean to the left of the socialists. I am not a one-issue voter. But all that is beside the point here.
Homework done. FWIW.
