The tensions between Quebec and Ottawa on the subject of immigration constitute a walking advertisement for the independence of Quebec. Because they illustrate better than any other the price of dependence. Because this is an issue that has a direct impact on our entire collective life.
Without being the cause of our problems, the meteoric increase in newcomers over the past five years is the super aggravating factor that is pushing our hospitals, our schools and our daycares to the breaking point. As well as our housing market, which is causing a marked increase in homelessness, even in the regions. Furthermore, according to calculations by the French Language Commissioner, since 2011, the influx of temporary workers has caused the number of Quebec residents who have English as their working language to jump by 40% and the number of those who do not know French.
Members of the Quebec government speak, precisely, of a “breaking point”, of “Louisianization” and of essential issues for the nation. While resolute action is necessary, they are reduced to holding press conferences, writing letters and calling meetings where they must plead their case to those more powerful than themselves. Like the Kremlinologists who scrutinized the photos to determine which character had appeared or disappeared in the tyrant’s entourage, we must compare the French and English versions of the press briefings of Justin Trudeau and his minister and childhood friend Marc Miller to determine if the openness displayed by one is partially or completely contradicted by the other.
In other words: we are not sovereign. On this essential point, we are subjects.
It is important to emphasize that no migrant can be held responsible for what happens. The new arrival has only followed the paths opened by our governments to find a better future for him and his family here. The migrant has made a good calculation of risks; our governments, no.
François Legault cannot invoke his own turpitude, he who was elected twice on the promise of controlling immigration, but who presided over the largest increase in the history of Quebec in the number of temporary workers. Nothing he has announced about them reduces their number. The fact remains that all the grievances expressed to Ottawa so that the latter curbs its immigrationist ardor express how much Quebec is at the mercy of federal moods.
One might believe that, as independent Quebec would be bound by the same international treaties and would face the same migratory flows, the situation would change little. We would be wrong.
First, the arrival on the world map of a new country clearly designated as French-speaking would provoke a change in behavior among would-be migrants. Those who cherish the Canadian – and English – dream would head for the next door.
Then, a sovereign Quebec would have the power to process asylum requests much more quickly. The Supreme Court of Canada once ruled that migrants have the same rights as citizens to appeal court decisions, adding years to the process. The Constitution of a sovereign Quebec could make a distinction between migrants and citizens and limit the acceptance or refusal process to a few months.
Quebec could also decide to limit family reunification to only spouses and children, and not the extended family. Like the UK, it could require a spouse of working age to demonstrate knowledge of the language of the host country at the point of entry to better ensure their integration.
Canadians settling in Quebec would also be migrants. While we are observing an increase in the number of unilingual English speakers moving to the Outaouais, they would need, in a sovereign Quebec, to meet the same conditions of knowledge of French as those coming from London or Singapore.
In his excellent work Immigration to Quebec. How we can do better, Anne Michèle Meggs places the creation of Quebec citizenship at the top of the list of advantages. “There is no stronger symbol of an immigrant’s adherence and belonging to their new society than naturalization or citizenship, but it is nation-states that determine the conditions of citizenship. There is the question of right of soil (one who is born in the country is a citizen) or right of blood (one is a citizen who is born to a parent-citizen), conditions of status and length of stay for the Obtaining citizenship status, linguistic conditions, but there are also conditions linked to knowledge of the new country (history, geography, democratic system, laws, values, etc.). »
The oath that new Quebecers would take would be different from the current one, which is as follows: “I solemnly affirm that I will be faithful and bear sincere allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, King of Canada, to his heirs and successors, that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirm the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and that I will faithfully fulfill my obligations as a Canadian citizen. »
Independence, notes Meggs, would free Quebecers from a difficult debate: does not following the demographic curve of the Canadian neighbor amount to a loss of power in the federation? If we stay there, yes. Quebec will become more and more politically insignificant. If we leave it, it no longer has the slightest political importance. Whether there are 8, 9 or 12 million, Quebecers will always have 100% influence in their political institutions. And we could, finally, remove from our vocabulary the expression “It’s the federal government’s fault.” “.