In a column published Wednesday in The duty, Jean-François Lisée directly attacked my comments relating to Quebec’s reception capacity in terms of immigration. In addition to distorting my thinking and attacking my credibility, he asked me to retract my statement. Here is my answer.
Last week, Québec solidaire (QS) refused to support a motion in the National Assembly which determined that Quebec’s reception capacity was exceeded. For what ? Because to this day, we have no definition of what this reception capacity means and the elements that make it up. We have also not held the debate to quantify it or established the figure based on which we can judge it to be outdated. We therefore once again requested that a non-partisan committee of experts look into the issue.
If science then shows us that our reception capacity has been reached and cannot be increased, then I am ready to accept this fact. But we believe that this is the way to deal with the matter, and not by voting on a motion on the fly in the Assembly.
I went to present this position at a press briefing and took the opportunity to submit a few questions to those, like the Parti Québécois (PQ) or the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), who believe that our reception capacity is exceeded. Basically, I asked them, if that was the case, what their solutions were. I submitted a few options.
First, it is possible to invest in our reception capacity in order to improve it. Otherwise, it is possible to aim for a plan to reduce the number of temporary workers over five years to return to pre-established levels. Finally, while maintaining that I would be surprised if this were the position chosen, another option would be to require the departure of a certain number of temporary residents, while at the same time demonstrating how this proposal would be unreasonable and impractical. I have therefore submitted these scenarios so that those who demand better immigration control can explain to us how they suggest proceeding.
However, Mr. Lisée and others accused me of raising the specter of mass deportations and attacked my credibility on all fronts. Obviously, rather than explaining to us what their options were to now resolve a situation that they consider uncontrollable, they preferred to distort my words.
Mr. Lisée claims that temporary immigration is always ephemeral, but nothing is less true today. A significant part of permanent immigration comes from temporary ones: to pretend otherwise is ignorance or willful blindness. In the parliamentary committee, all economic players explained to us that these temporary workers met permanent needs.
We must also admit that we are very dependent on our foreign doctors, our agricultural workers, our regional students, and more. I know full well that these people pose pressure in terms of housing and access to social services, in particular, but I would also like to point out that a large number of them received authorization issued by the Quebec government after verification of the labor shortage in their sector.
I have been very clear that it is not acceptable to have an immigration system that relies on more than 470,000 temporary residents maintained in a precarious status. What I am asking for is a debate on the issue with experts in order to establish a game plan. So, what I ask is that those who advocate reducing immigration explain their short-term solution to us, without avoiding difficult questions and that we fully understand what they are proposing.
Until then, I will continue to raise these inconsistencies whether they like it or not.
Replica from the columnist
Dear Mr. Cliche-Rivard, you had a great opportunity to admit that, in the heat of a press briefing that I quoted very precisely, your words went beyond your thoughts when you mentioned the risk of “mass deportations “. You maintain this shameful position. You choose to be blind to the seriousness of the social situation caused by an uncontrolled increase in immigration. The National Bank informed us on Tuesday that with the “unexpected influx of new inhabitants due to immigration”, the deficit in the supply of housing had “worsened to the worst level on record”. You are free to continue playing ostrich.