Both in Quebec and in Ottawa, the usual debate on immigration targets seems disconnected.
The targets only relate to permanent immigration, while the number of temporary immigrants is significantly higher – approximately 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 hers the same day to the National Assembly. As usual, the focus was on numbers bingo.
That of Mme Fréchette: up to 64,000 for 2024. That of Mr. Miller: 500,000. For the CAQ, the slight increase exceeds the electoral commitment. For the liberal, the ceiling of 500,000 actually constitutes a record reached after an increase of 7.5% for the next two years.
Mr. Miller and Mr.me Fréchette seeks to respond to pressures from economic circles without making the housing crisis too much worse.
Their plans have one other thing in common: not limiting the number of temporary workers and students – “non-humanitarian” categories, made up of individuals who are not seeking asylum or reunification with their families.
In their targets, they do not count non-permanent residents, who now number some 2.2 million in Canada, including 471,000 in Quebec. In short, they evaluate the reception capacity without including the majority of people who are welcomed.
In defense of Mme Fréchette, if his targets relate to permanent immigration, it is because the law obliges him to do so. And also because for other categories, its powers are limited.
PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
The Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, Christine Fréchette, last Wednesday
Asylum seekers and family reunification are under federal jurisdiction. Currently, Quebec welcomes more refugees than all the 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 human beings like cattle.
As for temporary immigration, to simplify, we can divide it into three categories: foreign student, worker with a closed permit (linked to a specific job) and worker with an open permit.
There are three times more individuals with an open license than those linked to an employer. However, the federal government controls this popular program and does not want to cede management to Quebec.
In principle, Mme Fréchette could act on the rest. It could control the number of foreign students and temporary workers with a closed permit. But this would require painful trade-offs. Universities, regions and businesses are fighting to attract them. And according to the current system, they are the ones who invite them. We imagine that the minister does not want to say who will have to refuse candidates, and according to what criteria.
As for students, the CAQ government has already tightened the screws on around ten private colleges in recent years to offer short, expensive professional training of variable quality, the main merit of which is offering a post-graduation work permit to students. foreign candidates. UPAC had even carried out searches.
In Ontario, where the same strategy is being exploited for commercial gain, the pressure is increasing to act.
An important nuance, before going any further. How much and how are two separate questions.
We may want to control the volume of immigration while wishing to better protect 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 spends more time wishing for an increase in the number of foreign workers than seeking to improve their working conditions.
For this column, I am only interested in the question of how much.
According to the cliché, the “identitarians” would like to limit immigration, while the “inclusives” would prefer to facilitate it.
In fact, the identity approach exists on both the left and the right. Both camps have this in common: they start with the conclusion, dictated by values, regardless of the facts. They reduce the immigration debate to morality.
Principles matter. We must defend the dignity of these individuals and combat xenophobia. This approach is essential for the “how”. But for the “how much”, it is not enough.
Certainly, new arrivals are not responsible for the housing crisis. It comes from cumbersome municipal regulations, rising interest rates, labor shortages and large speculators. With their often modest incomes and weak network of contacts, immigrants suffer the consequences more.
Like it or not, the fact remains that there is a flatly mathematical truth. Under current housing market conditions, as the population increases, the housing deficit will worsen.
Allowing citizenship to be dangled to so many people, without processing their files within a reasonable time frame, without recognizing their skills, is also a form of injustice.
Unlike Quebec, Canada is only just beginning to become aware of this debate. Economists and bankers are talking about it. Even columnists attached to Canadian multiculturalism are concerned about it, as we have seen in particular in the Globe and Mail.
The population is also interested in it. According to a survey commissioned by the Century Initiative, an organization campaigning to double Canada’s population by 2100, a sudden and major change has occurred. Over the past year, the proportion of Canadians wanting to limit immigration has increased from 27% to 44%.
In Quebec, we are taking note of this, while looking for how to act. But in Ottawa, we are still struggling to realize what is happening.