Whatever anyone may say in Quebec, there will be no sectoral referendum on immigration. For three reasons: the machinery is too heavy, we do not yet know what we are asking and, the most important reason, a referendum would be too politically risky for the Legault government.
The machinery first. It is very cumbersome and requires, in practice, putting the National Assembly on pause for something like three months.
First, it will be necessary to modify the Law on popular consultation which is no longer up to date, according to Élections Québec. Among other things, the provisions on financing should be changed.
But above all, it involves all kinds of procedural requirements that are cumbersome and complicated to put in place. Once the question is decided by the government, a 35-hour debate is required in the National Assembly, which takes between two and three weeks, if we rely on the three previous referendums.
Then, there is a five-day period for MPs to register for either the Yes committee or the No committee, which must then hold a meeting. Finally only will the referendum campaign itself come, but which can only begin 18 days after the National Assembly has been seized of the question.
These are a lot of demands that take a lot of time – in all, about three months in which, practically, the referendum will take up all the space.
The Legault government should also clearly state what it is asking for in terms of immigration. “Full powers” is a slogan, not a political proposal. In any case, we must ask ourselves whether Quebec would really want full powers.
For example, this would imply – provided the federal government accepts – that Quebec becomes responsible for border security. Just a small example: there are five bridges used daily between the city of Gatineau in Quebec and that of Ottawa in Ontario. How could Quebec manage the security of this “migratory border” and at what cost?
In Quebec, we are mainly talking about a power to authorize or refuse the entry of temporary foreign workers or students on temporary stay and to include knowledge of French as a condition of admission. The problem is that Quebec already has this power under current immigration agreements and it does not use it.
All this to say that the drafting of the referendum question, if it comes to that, will be perilous.
But the main reason why there will be no referendum has nothing to do with immigration, it is political.
In history, we no longer count the examples of referendums where the debate no longer had much to do with the question posed by the government and where it became a sort of consultation on the government which posed the question or even , on the head of government himself.
In Canada, there is no doubt that the already palpable unpopularity of Brian Mulroney’s government in English Canada was a factor in the failure of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. Mulroney and his main ally in this referendum, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, left politics in the year following the referendum.
The Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom in 2016 was widely seen as a repudiation of political elites who wanted to remain in the European Union. After a narrow defeat (51.9% to leave the EU and 48.1% to stay), Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation.
Even historical figures like General de Gaulle saw their political careers end because of a referendum. After the student revolt and the strikes of May 1968, de Gaulle tried to regain control of the political program by proposing a regionalization of powers and a reform of the Senate.
But the issue of the referendum quickly became General de Gaulle himself, who was then 78 years old, and who had been in power for a decade. Playing it all out, the general pledged to resign if the No side won. But 52% of French people still voted No and de Gaulle left the presidency the same evening.
But let’s come back to Quebec. Mr. Legault could also have a very troublesome ally if he decides to hold a referendum on immigration. The PQ leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, has already announced that he would campaign with the Legault government if it triggered a sectoral referendum. But be careful, PSPP says that it would only be with Mr. Legault if he asks for “full powers” in immigration, nothing less.
Already unpopular, Mr. Legault would find himself faced with two equally unpleasant options. Or hold a referendum with the PQ and find yourself sharing the stage with the one who would be its main opponent in the next elections. Or campaign against PSPP and the PQ, who will blame him for having failed. In both cases, François Legault would lose.