In the last two decades, we have seen the birth in Quebec of a significant politicization of the identity question. More recently, the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) has worked hard to politicize the issue of immigration levels. “Take less, but take care of it”, as the saying goes. This is not a bad thing in itself. But the way we go about it is problematic and counterproductive.
Posted at 11:00 a.m.
From the PLQ to the CAQ
Compared to the recent past, annual immigration levels in Quebec experienced a decline at the start of the CAQ’s current mandate (52,000 in 2018 to 40,000 immigrants in 2019). But in 2022, the CAQ government aims to receive up to 52,500 immigrants.1. These are thresholds equivalent to those that marked the years of liberal rule.
The break then lies in the way of speaking publicly about the issue of immigration.
Certainly, the CAQ has increased the resources allocated to the Ministry of Immigration, Francisation and Integration (MIFI), in order to better integrate newcomers and so that they perform better in the labor market. The CAQ thus acted to “take care of it”. However, on the “take less” aspect, it has taken a ceremonial posture: announcing many actions, but giving birth to half-measures.
Because what we are seeing is an exponential growth in temporary immigration, for market needs. In this regard, remember that temporary foreign workers represent a more vulnerable category than permanent immigration. Not speaking French, ignoring the extent of their rights, being legally bound to a single employer: these are some examples of the challenges specific to them.
On the Louisianization of Quebec
When the Prime Minister speaks of the potential “Louisianization” of Quebec, he stirs up fears and mistrust. By linking the future of the nation to the condition that Quebec obtain more powers in immigration, while fueling the specter of a folklorization of French in the province, his speech can give the impression that immigration, and, by extension, immigrants are the direct causes of the decline of our language.
This discursive strategy is counter-productive and problematic.
The snake then bites its tail: we want to limit permanent immigration, saying that the capacity for reception and integration is limited, while holding public discourse that makes society more reluctant and wary of accepting thresholds of higher immigration. In doing so, Legault thus pleases his partisan base.
But what he gives with one hand — by slightly lowering permanent immigration at the start of his mandate — he takes back with the other — by allowing and encouraging a massive increase in temporary immigration — while scouring in passing the public perception of immigration.
Quebec v. Canada
Through its speech, the Legault government suggests that by refusing to cede increased powers in immigration—more specifically the family reunification category—the federal government is not only harming Quebec’s ability to ensure its future in French, but also imposes harmful migratory choices.
This reading lacks nuance.
First, Quebec controls approximately 65% of its permanent immigration, for which it can require prior knowledge of French. It also issues certificates of acceptance for a significant portion of its temporary immigration. No other province enjoys this level of control.
Secondly, Quebec does not only passively submit to Ottawa’s decisions: it is consulted in determining the levels of immigration it intends to receive. If Canada welcomes more immigrants, Quebec should not ipso facto receive more than it wishes. In this respect, the argument put forward in particular by Robert Laplante2wanting that Canada deliberately aspires to drown French-speaking Quebec under an ocean of immigrants, is simplistic and alarmist.
Third, the family reunification category concerns slightly more than 20% of permanent immigration to Quebec. Even if Quebec were granted full responsibility in this area, there would be limits to requiring prior knowledge of French from spouses, dependent children, parents, grandparents, who are waiting to find members of their family. The successful integration of immigrants and their lasting establishment in Québec also depend on the possibility of reuniting their families.
Thus, even if it had it independently, Quebec’s selection criteria would not diverge that much from Ottawa’s policy.
The problem is therefore not that Quebec wishes to be fully responsible in this regard. After all, it is a key institutional parameter to ensure our ability to “create society”, according to the terms that we are willing to give ourselves collectively and democratically.
However, the end should not justify the means.