The prime ministers of Canada and Quebec continued their discussions on Monday on the thorny and complex subject of immigration. Justin Trudeau made a proposal, which does not meet all of the demands of the Quebec government, but which certainly represents progress. However, pro-independence leaders and commentators presented this proposal as a categorical “no”, further proof of contempt for Quebec. Thus, François Legault would have suffered a “defeat” in this matter and should draw the consequences, that is to say, achieve independence as soon as possible.
I strongly oppose several of the policies of François Legault’s government. When it comes to immigration, I think he mismanaged the issue from the start. According to the spokesperson for the official opposition on immigration, André A. Morin, the CAQ government should demand that the federal government cede management of the International Mobility Program to Quebec. Under this program, Ottawa admits tens of thousands of temporary immigrants to Canada, particularly to Quebec, without the province having a say. Unfortunately, Mr. Legault persists in blaming all of Quebec’s problems on temporary immigrants, which weakens his position vis-à-vis the federal government and the rest of Canada.
That said, it is grossly inaccurate to claim that Quebec has “once again” been told “no” by Ottawa. Federalism involves constant negotiations between different levels of government. The system holds because, for the good of all parties and the whole, reasonable compromises are reached.
When it comes to immigration, Ottawa has complied, at least in part, with some of Quebec’s requests. Roxham Road has been closed. Mexican nationals are once again required to obtain a visa, which has dried up the flow of asylum seekers from that country.
Quebec demanded 1 billion to compensate for its expenses in integrating the numerous temporary immigrants who arrived here; the federal government offers 750 million. In the four pages of proposals that Mr. Trudeau placed on the table of his Quebec counterpart, we note that Ottawa recognizes the “extraordinary costs incurred by Quebec in recent years to support asylum seekers” and the need to “reduce the disproportionate number of asylum seekers in Quebec in the short term”.
In short, Ottawa is suggesting a series of concrete measures. It’s not a “no”, it’s an offer. Negotiations continue.
The separatists maintain the illusion that if Quebec separated from Canada, it would be able to do as it pleases on all issues, without having to compromise with anyone. Now, one of two things.
Or the Parti Québécois (PQ) proposes a form of association with the rest of Canada, in which case there will be constant negotiations between the two countries, negotiations from which it would be very surprising if Quebec always came out a winner, especially that it would be the less populous and the less rich of the two.
Or the PQ proposes independence without political or economic association with the rest of Canada.
If the PQ considers the first path, they must admit that a separated Quebec will have no other option than to negotiate regularly with Ottawa, and that the outcome of these negotiations, on a host of subjects, is impossible to predict. There is a very big risk there. As the saying goes, “a pound is worth two.”
If they propose the second path, complete independence without association with the rest of Canada, sovereignists must make this clear to Quebecers.
In the meantime, the Legault government must stop sugar-coating immigrants and continue, in a rigorous and non-partisan manner, talks with the federal government. On Ottawa’s side, it would be in our interest to do the same and put aside simplistic and personal attacks.