From an economic point of view, immigration is not the catastrophe that some claim nor the panacea that others hope for, experts warn. In fact, they say, it would ultimately have relatively little impact on the economy in general and on labor shortages in particular.
François Legault caused an outcry this week by saying that if Quebec did not obtain more powers from Ottawa in immigration, it risked the same fate as Louisiana in the defense of French. He also closed the door on the idea of increasing the annual immigration threshold from 50,000 to 58,000. “We think we have reached the capacity for integration,” said the Prime Minister.
In fact, Quebec already welcomes many more immigrants than that each year, recalled the Institut du Québec in a study on Wednesday. If we take temporary immigration into account, we were even talking about a record gain of almost 93,500 newcomers in 2019. However, labor needs are so great in Quebec that this has not prevented, over the years, a dramatic improvement in the economic integration of landed immigrants. It can be seen in particular by the marked decline in their lag in terms of employment rate and remuneration compared to other workers.
These facts clearly show the extent of the needs of the Quebec economy, which is grappling with a marked aging of the population, the Conseil du patronat pointed out last month in a white paper on immigration. “We are facing an unprecedented labor shortage, but we are not giving ourselves every chance of overcoming it,” declared its president and chief executive officer, Karl Blackburn, before appealing in particular to the raising permanent immigration thresholds “to at least 80,000 people per year for the next four years”.
Modest impact
All these debates tend to exaggerate the impact of immigration on the economy in general and on the labor shortage in particular, observes the economist emeritus of the University of Quebec in Montreal Pierre Fortin in a memoir of about forty pages produced at the request of the Quebec Ministry of Immigration.
Based on research summaries as well as new analyzes of his own, he first observes that “there is no scientific evidence that the growth in the standard of living of Canadians would react positively (or negatively) to a accelerated expansion of immigration”. This standard of living does not only depend on the increase in gross domestic product (GDP) that is mechanically generated by an increase in the number of workers, but also on the increase in GDP. per inhabitant. However, the size of the population and the weight occupied by immigration have, in the long term, no influence on the growth of this wealth per inhabitant.
Nor does immigration have the ability to substantially alter the current aging of the Canadian population, says Pierre Fortin, citing a study by the CD Howe Institute. Firstly because immigrants also end up getting old, like everyone else, and also because they often bring their parents to live with them. In fact, to halt the steady rise in the proportion of the population aged 65 and over, CD Howe had estimated, annual immigration targets for Canada for 2024 would have to be tripled, from 451,000 to 1.4 million people.
Finally, while welcoming foreign workers can meet the urgent and particular needs of certain companies, immigration, in general, can only have an overall modest effect on the problem of labor shortages, found experts. Immigrants who come to fill vacant positions also become consumers and end up, “at the other end of the economic circuit”, by stimulating the demand for workers in return.
Beyond the economy
And there are not only economic considerations, of course, emphasizes Pierre Fortin. We must also take into account the demographic weight of Quebec in Canada, the defense of the French fact and the risk of xenophobic slippage.
“That said, immigration must progress. It is a tremendous source of renewal and cultural and human progress. It makes possible a society that is more diverse, dynamic and open to the world. It is our contribution to the global fight against income and wealth inequality,” nevertheless concludes the economist in his memoir. “But you have to understand that optimal immigration is not maximum immigration. »