In both Quebec and Ottawa, the usual debate about immigration destinations seems disjointed.
Published at 1:21 am. Updated at 6:00 am.
The targets only apply to permanent immigration, while the number of temporary immigrants is significantly higher – about four times more in Canada, nine times more in Quebec.
On Wednesday, Federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller presented his plan. Coincidentally, her counterpart Christine Fréchette submitted her statement to the National Assembly on the same day. As always, the focus was on number bingo.
Ms Fréchette’s: up to 64,000 for 2024. Mr Miller’s: 500,000. For the CAQ, the slight increase exceeds the electoral commitment. For the Liberals, the 500,000 cap actually represents a record achieved, following a 7.5% increase over the next two years.
Mr. Miller and Ms. Fréchette are trying to respond to pressure from business circles without making the housing crisis too much worse.
Their plans have one more thing in common: there will be no limit on the number of temporary workers and students – “non-humanitarian” categories made up of people who are not seeking asylum or family reunification.
Their targets do not take into account non-permanent residents, who currently number about 2.2 million in Canada, including 471,000 in Quebec. In short, they assess reception capacity without including the majority of people admitted.
In Ms Fréchette’s defence, if her objectives relate to permanent immigration, it is because the law obliges her to do so. And also because its powers for other categories are limited.
PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVE
The Minister of Immigration, Frenchization and Integration, Christine Fréchette, last Wednesday
Asylum seekers and family reunification are the responsibility of the federal government. Quebec is currently accepting more refugees than all other provinces combined. The minister is calling for a better balance, and that is understandable. Provided, of course, that you do it with dignity. We don’t move people like cattle.
As for temporary immigration, for convenience we can divide it into three categories: foreign students, workers with a closed residence permit (which is tied to a specific job) and workers with an open residence permit.
There are three times more people with an open license than those tied to an employer. However, the federal government controls this popular program and does not want to cede management to Quebec.
In principle, Ms. Fréchette could take care of the rest. It could control the number of foreign students and temporary workers with a closed residence permit. However, this would require painful compromises. Universities, regions and companies are fighting to attract them. And under the current system, they are the ones who invite them. We assume that the minister does not want to say who has to reject candidates and according to which criteria.
As for students, the CAQ government has already tightened the screws on around 10 private colleges in recent years to offer short, expensive vocational courses of varying quality, the main benefit of which is granting foreign candidates post-graduation work permits. UPAC had even carried out searches.
In Ontario, where the same strategy is being used for commercial purposes, the pressure to act is increasing.
An important nuance before we move on. How much and how are two separate questions.
We may want to control immigration volumes while better protecting vulnerable workers – particularly those in the agricultural sector and those linked to an employer.
And conversely, those who call for an increase in thresholds do not necessarily do so out of humanism. For example, the employers’ lobby hopes more to increase the number of foreign workers than to improve their working conditions.
For this column, the only question I’m interested in is how much.
According to the cliché, the “identitarians” would like to limit immigration, while the “inclusives” would prefer to make it easier.
In fact, the identity approach exists on both the left and the right. Both camps have one thing in common: they start with the conclusion dictated by values, regardless of the facts. They reduce the immigration debate to morality.
Principles are important. We must defend the dignity of these people and combat xenophobia. This approach is essential for the “how”. But it’s not enough for “how much.”
Certainly newcomers are not responsible for the housing crisis. It is due to cumbersome municipal regulations, rising interest rates, labor shortages and large speculators. Because of their often modest income and weak network of contacts, immigrants suffer more from the consequences.
Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that there is a simple mathematical truth. Under current housing market conditions, the housing deficit will worsen as the population increases.
Allowing so many people to be denied citizenship without processing their files within a reasonable time and without recognizing their abilities is also a form of injustice.
Unlike Quebec, Canada is just beginning to wake up to this debate. Economists and bankers are talking about it. Even columnists close to Canadian multiculturalism are concerned about this, as we have seen particularly in the Globe and Mail.
The population is also interested in it. A sudden and major change has occurred, according to a survey commissioned by the Century Initiative, an organization committed to doubling Canada’s population by 2100. Over the past year, the proportion of Canadians who want to limit immigration has increased from 27% to 44%.
In Quebec we take note of this and are looking for appropriate measures. But in Ottawa we still have difficulty recognizing what is happening.