My father, Farouk, moved to Sherbrooke in 1975, at the age of 17, with a student visa. He was therefore a temporary immigrant.
He, his brothers and his sister lived together in a 4 and a half room apartment on Place Des Ormeaux in Sherbrooke. They were the first Malagasy Indians to settle in the Eastern Townships. A group of Indian Muslim teenagers who arrived at Saint-François secondary school did not go unnoticed. Sherbrooke residents were often surprised when they heard them speak perfect French, inherited from the French high schools of Tananarive.
One day they were asked to go from class to class to talk about their native country and their grandparents’ migratory journey from India to Madagascar. My dad says they became the “rock stars” of high school after that.
A friendly family, Réjean Roy, Elyse and their two daughters, helped my father settle in and, as he says, “understand Quebec culture”. He spent weekends at their house and visited their family on Christmas and New Year’s Day. His sister and brothers went to the Leblancs or the Ruels. One thing led to another and all these families, neighbors on Rue Dagenais, had offered to help the young Indians integrate.
This warm welcome forged my father’s pride in being Quebecois. He often jokes that he is more Quebecois than me, because he spent more time in the territory. He also learned from my mother’s brother, a Demers from Stoke, to make Muslim terrorist jokes at the table when a new person joins the family. I swear, after a little break from discomfort, it always lightens the mood. The famous dad jokes…
Debates on temporary immigration (students, workers and asylum seekers) have become a debate of numbers. A debate on our “carrying capacity”. A mathematical calculation that would determine beyond any doubt the number of new people who can settle in Quebec. This calculation is impossible to do.
Is a doctor who arrives here a burden on our public services or rather an asset? Does a foreign student who works in construction steal housing or help build more? Is a refugee who becomes a daycare teacher stealing a place in an early childhood center for her children or is she allowing us to have a group of additional babies?
The framing of the debate is crucial. The article from New York Times “The miracle cure of mass deportation” speaks precisely of the negative impact of expulsions on the American economy, estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars.
In late 1975, when about 60,000 asylum seekers arrived here from Vietnam, it began to be said that “immigrants are stealing our jobs “. Today, “immigrants are stealing our homes.” Since temporary immigrants do not vote, it is easy to blame them for our poor public management of recent decades. Lack of construction of affordable housing, underfunding and privatization of our public services, non-regulation of Airbnb, massive departures of retired nurses, and so on.
With hints of Trumpist rhetoric, François Legault proposed the “compulsory transfer” of 80,000 asylum seekers. In short, an expulsion from the territory. He suggests that we could override the consent of these people (which is contrary to international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and that of the provinces (which is contrary to the rules of a federation like Canada) .
The Charter assures each person residing in Canada “the liberty and security of his person”. Although section 6 of the Charter (on freedom of movement and establishment) only applies to citizens and permanent residents, if the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, it would be necessary to convince the latter of the legality of moving people (non-criminals!) without their consent. This would be a “humane” expulsion, underlined the Prime Minister. A “forced human transfer” is an oxymoron in the same way as a “gentle death”, a “mute cry” or “sustainable development”.
In this regard, a war between Quebec and Ottawa has also broken out. A public debate is necessary, but too often overused. It will be up to the experts, in parliamentary committees, in universities and in the ministries concerned, to make the important decisions. We must have open and transparent planning for temporary immigration, determined democratically.
For quite some time, decisions on this subject have been made behind closed doors. Since the pandemic, under the guise of a “labor shortage”, the government has constantly increased the thresholds for hiring temporary workers in companies and has increased its campaigns to promote this model abroad. It is therefore ironic that the federal government is accused of being the sole cause of the problem.
The two levels of government continue to insult each other in public when they should be sitting down together to negotiate in good faith. However, a distinction is emerging between Quebec (which wants coercive measures) and Ottawa (which relies on incentives and consent). And although the first continues to point the finger at the second, Ottawa’s actions have already reduced the number of temporary immigrants in the country. Notably through the temporary “relocation” program (which includes financial incentives, housing assistance and funds for the provinces which will welcome these people), but also through the imposition of a visa on Mexicans, no more refusals on entry for people coming from countries with the largest number of asylum seekers (India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, for example) and the end of an accelerated policy for processing visitor visas. The number of asylum requests has therefore decreased in recent months in Quebec, going from 5,200 in January to 3,758 in August (on average).
One thing is certain, temporary immigrants are not the cause of all our ills, just like windmills are not giants.