The debate on immigration thresholds has started for a new round. And if we want to arrive at solutions, it would be useful for all parties to listen to each other’s arguments instead of replaying the recordings of their old speeches.
Posted November 6
It’s picking up again thanks to a new federal target, to welcome half a million immigrants annually from 2025. Quebec says that’s far too many and sticks to its target of 50,000 new Venus. The federal government replies that nothing prevents Quebec from seeking out 100,000 French-speaking immigrants.
In both cases, there is a good deal of bad faith. First, let us repeat, the figure of 50,000 immigrants in Quebec is not demonstrated by any conclusive data. He came out of Prime Minister François Legault’s hat. “At 50,000, it’s hard to stop the decline of French,” he said again this week, without the necessary justifications. Firstly, because it means making immigrants bear the brunt of the decline of French alone, which there is no proof of. But also, because we have the right to ask ourselves if Quebec is making all the efforts it needs in terms of francization.
For example, we know that it does not spend all of the $700 million it receives from Ottawa for integration and francization. In addition, newcomers are not given the chance to take French courses that take into account their work. If they are faced with the choice to do one or the other, feeding the family will inevitably come first.
However, the response from the federal government, through Minister Pablo Rodriguez, is just as unrealistic. Quebec, he says, has all the powers to get 100,000 French-speaking immigrants if it so desires.
But Quebec is already working very hard to recruit French-speaking immigrants. But that’s only about 60% of the total.
We can assume that if it could, if it were so simple, Quebec would welcome many more francophones.
Mr. Legault also wants to win in terms of symbols: it is always important for a Premier of Quebec to “gain power” in Ottawa…
Hence the request to obtain competence on family reunification, since half do not speak French. That’s true, but in reality, it wouldn’t have much effect on the major linguistic balances.
These immigrants are either children—who will go to French school under Bill 101—or grandparents, who will not be in the labor market, or spouses, so people young enough to learn French to enter the job market or use government services.
But in any case, on this question, it is Minister Rodriguez who is right: family reunification is first and foremost a question of a humanitarian nature, which “is a matter of love rather than French”.
In fact, one wonders what Quebec could do differently from Ottawa.
And, to talk politics, would you like to be the Minister of Immigration who will have to respond at a press conference to a mother who will say that “the government of Quebec [l’]prevent you from seeing [ses] children ” ?
Finally, there is the issue of temporary immigrants, who fall under federal jurisdiction. A large part of the situation is due to educational programs — legal, but often of dubious quality — which have caused a very significant increase in the number of these temporary immigrants. But these schools will be heavily regulated from 1er September 2023. We will then see what the situation will be.
But there is a case that needs to be taken care of now.
Unlike all his federalist predecessors, Mr. Legault does not care at all about Quebec’s weight within Canada, saying that there are safeguards to preserve Quebec’s number of seats in the Commons. This is a very meager guarantee for a decisive issue for the future of Quebec.
If Canada considers it important to continue to be a bilingual country, it cannot continue with its current policies of wide-open doors in immigration, at the risk of drowning out the French fact.
Quebec must intervene in this debate by seeing more than just the effects on its jurisdictions. On the other hand, it will not be enough for Ottawa to say that Quebec just has to find more French-speaking immigrants.
Especially since it would be very naive to think that it has nothing to do with the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada has historically benefited — and still largely benefits — from the support of newcomers, once citizens. Two years before the elections, that can’t be unrelated to his concerns.
We need to have a healthy debate on immigration and put all the subjects on the table, even the angry ones. And above all, all parties will have to come to the table in good faith and leaving slogans and partisanship at the door.