We have two choices in front of what is happening at Roxham Road.
1) Ripping his shirt off saying what’s going on there is unacceptable, then shouting for a simplistic solution that has no chance of working.
2) Keep your shirt intact, roll up the sleeves and deal with the situation.
So far, we see many more politicians and commentators choosing the first option than the second. No wonder: it is much simpler.
The PQ leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, is the last in line. Last week, he said he feared that the flow of migrants crossing by this irregular route would cause a “rise of extremes” in Quebec and threaten “social peace” and the “social fabric”.
These comments are not very different from those made by François Legault during the election campaign, who notably expressed fear that immigration threatens “national cohesion”. At the time, Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon had appealed to the “sense of responsibility” of his adversaries, encouraging them to “raise the level of the debates” on the subject of immigration.
We return this call to him. Because in addition to maintaining fear, the PQ leader does not offer much constructive.
His main solution – to send the Sûreté du Québec to shut down Roxham – is doomed to failure. We have already compared it to placing a rock in a river hoping to block its course. Migrants will simply pass through the woods and you will have to run after them.1
The reality is that all over the world, violence, poverty and the consequences of climate change are pushing people to seek better skies. Colombia faces floods of refugees from Venezuela. The southern border of the United States is crossed by 250,000 migrants… every month. Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta have seen boats loaded with asylum seekers landing on their shores for years.
Quebec is now faced with the same phenomenon. Of course it is troubling and poses challenges of all kinds. But simple solutions do not exist.
Lift the Safe Third Country Agreement between the United States and Canada, which stipulates that a migrant must file his asylum application in the first country where he arrives?
It is to circumvent this agreement that the migrants go through Roxham instead of the regular routes. Groups like Amnesty International are calling for the abolition of the agreement, a request currently being studied in the Supreme Court.
But that would mean that any migrant arriving from the United States could reach Canada by the regular channels, therefore going through customs. The consequences on the number of migrants knocking on our doors are unknown.
Renegotiate this agreement with the United States so that Canada can turn back migrants who come to Roxham? It would obviously suit us, but not Joe Biden’s – especially since the United States is in a much more complex geographical situation than ours and grapples with much more serious irregular migration at its southern border.
In short, if it is easy to demand such a renegotiation, it is far more complex to convince the Americans to board. Not to mention that, renegotiated agreement or not, not much will prevent a migrant who wants to reach Canada from going through the woods.
What to do while waiting?
We see three things.
First, better distribute the flow of migrants across the provinces. As we have already written, Quebec’s burden is disproportionate.2
Then, in concert with other countries, including the United States, combat the networks of criminal smugglers who contribute to the problem by extorting money from particularly poor people.
Finally, deploy all the necessary resources to welcome the people who come to us with dignity. At present, the official reception structures are overflowing and the community sector (again him!) finds himself trying to absorb the damage with means that he does not have. The story of this young pregnant and homeless asylum seeker, told recently by our colleague Caroline Touzin, is intolerable.3
Human migrations will not stop suddenly. Let’s organize ourselves to deal with the situation instead of shouting and wishing it would magically disappear.