Canada’s Immigration Problem: Not Enough Homes for Newcomers

A classic example of immigration policy failing to account for its impact on other sectors. IRCC’s annual report to Parliament on immigration is largely silent on these. Externalities in economist jargon, intersectionality in social science jargon.

Canada’s bid to attract a record number of immigrants, required to fill job openings and drive economic growth, has run into a bottleneck: There aren’t enough residences to accommodate these newcomers.

Immigration into Canada is on pace to hit a record high in 2022 of 431,000, following the entry of about 405,000 the previous year, and the country is targeting entry of another 900,000 newcomers in 2023 and 2024 combined. Because of immigration, Canada’s population over the past half-decade grew at almost twice the pace of its Group of Seven peers, Statistics Canada said.

The aggressive intake, though, has had repercussions for Canada’s housing market, which among G-7 countries has the lowest number of dwellings per capita, economists at Bank of Nova Scotia calculate.

Population growth, a shortage of housing stock and low interest rates helped push up house prices in Canada’s biggest centers, prompting would-be buyers to look farther afield and drive up prices in smaller, far-flung communities unaccustomed to housing booms. The cost of a single-family detached dwelling has doubled over the past decade, according to data from the Canadian Real Estate Association. Data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas indicate Canada had, until recently, recorded some of the fastest growth in house prices among major developed economies.

And the pressure from immigration on housing keeps coming. In the second quarter, Canada recorded the fastest population growth over a three-month period since 1949, when Newfoundland and Labrador joined the country as its 10th province. Immigration accounted for 95% of that growth. Overall, Canada’s population sits at 38.9 million, up from 34.7 million a decade ago, with immigrants representing more than one-fifth of the populace.

“We can’t keep up with the amount of immigration coming to the country,” said Christopher Alexander, president of the Canadian unit of Re/Max Holdings Inc., the global real-estate listing company with 140,000 agents worldwide.

A rush is now under way among Canadian officials to build housing units and ease supply constraints. “There was a lack of forward thinking, lack of planning on the housing side, on what the actual [housing] need was going to be,” said Abe Oudshoorn, a professor at Western University’s nursing school in London, Ontario, and leader of a research group that since 2016 tracked the arrival of 51 immigrant families into Canada and their path to acquiring housing. He said the families his research group tracked remain stuck in housing that is either too costly or too small for their growing families.

Kanishka Noorzai and his wife, his four sons, his parents and his younger sister arrived here in February, from Afghanistan via Albania, and settled in the Waterloo region, an urban center of a half-million people west of Toronto. After a monthslong search that took him to apartments, townhouses and other domiciles, he found a three-bedroom bungalow—at a cost of nearly $3,000 a month for a one-year lease, or “really, really above our budget,” said Mr. Noorzai, 43 years old. He is currently working part time as a security guard but is seeking full-time hours.

“I really was surprised,” he said, “because I did not think it would be that difficult to find a house in Canada. It was a nightmare.” He has heard from friends who fled Afghanistan to the U.S., where they found reasonably priced housing. The bungalow he settled on isn’t ideal, Mr. Noorzai said, “but at least it’s better than a hotel,” where a local immigration agency had put his family up during their housing search.

Real-estate agents, home builders and economists say housing starts—which last year hit their highest level in over four decades—have to accelerate further to deal with immigration-fueled demand, against a backdrop of higher material costs and a labor shortage in the construction industry.

Mike Moffatt, senior policy director at the University of Ottawa’s Smart Prosperity Institute, a think tank, said one reason housing starts lagged is because regional and local officials underestimated population growth and overestimated the amount of housing stock. “Our zoning laws were set for a slow-population-growth country. When our population started growing, our regulatory environment didn’t adapt to that reality,” he added.

The national housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., said the country will require 3.5 million additional homes above current home-building projections by 2030 to restore housing affordability.

“It takes multiple years to increase housing supply to accommodate the sudden increase in immigration,” said Aled ab Iorwerth, CMHC’s deputy chief economist.

Representatives for Canada’s immigration and housing ministers said officials work closely with provincial and municipal governments in setting annual immigration targets, and the government has provided financing to help regions deal with immigrant-fueled housing pressures.

“Newcomers play a crucial role in the future of our communities and our economy, and we do everything we can to set them up for success,” the spokespeople said.

Canada intends to spend 10 billion Canadian dollars, or the equivalent of about $7.3 billion, to help double home construction over the next decade. Some of the money will be used to encourage municipalities to change zoning laws. Ottawa also wants to tie access to funding for municipalities for services such as public transit and wastewater management to a pledge to increase housing supply. The city of Toronto, a magnet for immigrants, recently allowed the building of self-contained, residential dwellings in backyards, or so-called garden suites, to help alleviate the housing crunch.

Hefty Bank of Canada rate increases this year have triggered a sharp decline in real-estate activity and a deceleration in annual house-price growth, though economists say immigration, and a trend toward smaller households as the population ages, will put a floor on the current price drop.

As for Canada’s rental market, it is tightening in major urban centers, reflecting immigration trends and house prices still at elevated levels. The average rent for all property types across Canada in August rose 11.1% from a year ago to nearly C$2,000, or the highest level in three years, according to data from Rentals.ca.

“Immigration has to be throwing gasoline on the on-fire rental market,” said Scott Ingram, a Toronto-based real-estate agent. Annual rent increases in Toronto and its suburbs and exurbs range from 10% to 26%, said Rentals.ca.

The Toronto Region Board of Trade calculates that one-third of Canada’s immigrants settle in Toronto, the country’s largest metropolitan area with 6.2 million residents. For every two immigrants who arrive in Toronto, at least one resident leaves because of high housing costs and limited supply, said Craig Ruttan, the board’s policy director.

“We’re sort of in a Catch-22. We need the immigration because of the labor shortages and the need for new workers,” Mr. Ruttan said. “At the same time, we’re hearing and seeing the shortage in housing.”

Benjamin Tal, an economist at CIBC Capital Markets who researches real-estate trends, said he is worried Canada lacks the labor capacity to build the required housing. Canada’s focus has been in attracting educated, high-skilled immigrants, he said. “We need to rethink immigration in the sense we also need a segment of newcomers to be lower skilled—because that’s what the shortage is.”

The most recent Statistics Canada data indicate the construction sector had roughly 82,000 vacancies, for a vacancy rate of 6.5%, or above the national 5.4% average. BuildForce Canada, labor-market data provider, anticipates nearly a quarter of home-building workers will retire by the end of 2031, requiring companies to recruit over 100,000 new workers to fill the gap.

“The competition for workers is going to be incredibly intense,” said Bill Ferreira, BuildForce’s executive director.

Source: Canada’s Immigration Problem: Not Enough Homes for Newcomers

Canada to temporarily allow international students to work more hours due to labour shortage

More and more, study permits are becoming effectively work permits, and the education objectives are being diminished:

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser says Canada will temporarily allow international students to work more than 20 hours a week to help address ongoing labour shortages.

Speaking at a coffee shop in Ottawa this morning, Fraser says the changes will start on Nov. 15 and be in effect until the end of 2023.

The labour market remains exceptionally tight, with nearly one million job vacancies reported in the second quarter of 2022.

Fraser also announced a pilot program to help automate the application process for students to extend their study permits.

That will allow for some applications to be automatically approved, but the new process will not automatically reject claims.

Fraser says the pilot is aimed at reducing immigration backlogs and freeing up officers to work on more complex applications.

Source: Canada to temporarily allow international students to work more hours due to labour shortage

Ottawa working on program to regularize status of 500,000 immigrants

Hopefully, the government is not only consulting with advocacy groups (CBA is the only one quoted with some concerns):

The federal government is aiming to create a program that will provide a path to permanent residency for up to 500,000 immigrants who are working in Canada but do not have official standing.

The program would have unprecedented scope and apply to people whose visa or work permits had expired, and to those whose refugee applications may have been denied or blocked due to a moratorium on deportations to their country, according to Radio-Canada.

“We’re looking into ways to regularize people who live in Canada with a precarious status,” a government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Radio-Canada.

Up to 500,000 people could be eligible, according to the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

In his mandate letter to Immigration Minister Sean Fraser late last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked Fraser to “further explore ways of regularizing status for undocumented workers who are contributing to Canadian communities.”

Immigration Ministry spokesperson Rémi Larivière confirmed that work to complete that mandate “is underway,” and that the ministry is consulting with university researchers, experts and industry advocates.

Ministry officers have approached several advocacy groups in recent weeks and over the summer to consult them on the program, Larivière said. Potential criteria and a launch date are still unknown.

“We’re hoping for an inclusive program that will help many people, but it’s still vague,” said Hady Anne, a spokesperson for the Montreal-based Solidarity Without Borders.

While there have been programs to regularize the status of immigrant groups before, none have included so many people, says Rivka Augenfeld, a lifelong refugee advocate and the former president the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, a working table of Quebec immigration organizations

“It’s never been seen,” Augenfeld said of the forthcoming program’s expected scope. But she warned that for it to be effective, the program will need “the will of a good minister as well as the prime minister’s support.”

Temporary workers and asylum seekers would not be able to apply — including the thousands who have crossed at Roxham Road in Lacolle, Que., an unofficial crossing point increasingly popular among migrants entering Canada from the United States.

There is a large backlog in processing asylum applications, meaning many people wait years before even having a chance to tell their story before an Immigration and Refugee Board judge.

Lisa Middlemiss, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, says that while the new program would be a positive step for people with precarious status who’ve lived and worked in the country for years, it could appear unfair to migrants who have temporary status in Canada without the possibility of obtaining permanent residency.

“It’s ambitious and interesting, but it could generate a lot of frustrations,” Middlemiss said.

Larivière, the ministry spokesperson, said Ottawa would “continue to support inclusive immigration programs that meet Canada’s economic needs and fuel our growth.”

Would Quebec buy in?

Advocates such as Augenfeld and Anne fear Quebec’s government could intervene to limit the program within the province.

During the pandemic, when the federal government created a program allowing asylum seekers working in health care to apply for permanent residency, Premier François Legault’s government objected to expanding the criteria to workers who did not directly care for patients, such as cooking staff and cleaners.

The move excluded thousands and was strongly condemned by immigration advocates.

In the spring of 2021, Legault also declined to participate in another federal program offering essential workers and graduates a new pathway to permanent residency.

Legault was re-elected on Monday with a resounding majority of 90 out of 125 seats in the National Assembly.

He came under fire leading up to the election after he associated immigration with violence and extremism and later said it would a “bit suicidal” for Quebec to increase its immigration levels, insisting that accepting more immigrants entails a threat to the French language.

“We’re worried Quebec will complicate things,” said Anne of Solidarity Against Borders.

Augenfeld also raised the possibility that Quebec could “throw a wrench” into the plan for immigrants in the province.

Because the program is expected to include people from countries for which Canada has moratoriums on deportations, Haitian nationals, largely based in Quebec, could qualify.

Frantz André, who has helped hundreds of Haitians apply for asylum in the province, hopes Legault will be more open this time around.

“We’re hoping he’ll be more generous,” André said. “These people have been living in system that is broken for too long. They’ve demonstrated that they are real citizens.”

Reached by Radio-Canada, the Quebec premier’s office declined to answer questions on the topic.

“We’ve had no information from the federal government on the subject,” a spokesperson said.

Source: Ottawa working on program to regularize status of 500,000 immigrants

New online immigration system’s many glitches are putting applicants’ futures at risk, say critics

Ouch. Hopefully just teething pains:

Having a tough time logging into your immigration application portal? Running out of space to fill out your information? Failing to upload a document because it’s oversized, or finding you can’t examine the files you just uploaded?

These are some examples of the frustrations that immigration applicants and lawyers say they have encountered in filing applications through the federal government’s online portals, as Ottawa forges ahead trying to modernize and digitize its antiquated system.

On Sept. 23, the immigration department kicked off its transition to mandatory electronic applications for most permanent-resident programs; people can no longer submit paper applications unless they are exempted due to an accessibility issue. However, some of the technical headaches predate that switch.

The stakes are high. A flawed application can be sent back months later for missing documents, omitted information or missed deadlines — delaying and jeopardizing a migrant’s chances for permanent residence.

Canadian immigration lawyers are urging Immigration Minister Sean Fraser to roll back the change and continue to accept paper applications at least until the system is perfected or proper technical support is put in place to assist users who need help.

“The government is … moving very quickly and the technology has not kept the pace,” said Lisa Middlemiss, chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration law section, who spoke to the Star in her personal capacity.

“The online PR (permanent resident) portal and online PR representative portal are fraught with technical glitches. And these glitches impede counsel or applicants from submitting their applications.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly hampered Canada’s capacity to process immigration applications because officials had to work from home, with limited access to traditional paper files and documents.

As of the end of July, there were 2.4 million immigration applications in the system, 1.3 million of which have already exceeded the standard wait times.

In response to surging backlogs, Fraser’s department ramped up the effort to expand its online applications beyond its temporary immigration programs (visitor visas, study permits, work permits) and what’s known as Express Entry, a management system to process permanent residence for selected skilled immigrants.

Last year, officials soft-launched several new online portals to accept electronic applications for a string of permanent-residence programs for family reunification and skilled workers. The government is spending $428.9 million over five years to deliver a new, departmentwide digital platform — but online applications remained optional until now.

Immigration department spokesperson Isabelle Dubois said officials have taken the necessary time to ensure the successful transition to online applications by thoroughly testing the platform, training employees and deploying it in a phased approach. A small-scale controlled group of applicants was used to test, adapt and improve the user experience before expanding it to a wider audience.

“Checks and balances were in place to make sure that any issues are identified and fixed before the system is rolled out more broadly,” said Dubois, adding that officials also closely monitor performance to avoid any system crashes.

She said there has been only one outage impacting clients, in June 2022, since the launch of the permanent residence portal.

Officials did identify an issue with the portal for authorized paid representatives, which prevented some representatives from receiving a confirmation email after submitting a payment and application, an issue Dubois said the department is trying to fix.

Ottawa immigration lawyer Tamara Mosher-Kuczer said some of the technical issues preceded the new portals but they have multiplied because now every application must be done online. Despite the department’s efforts to assist applicants, the online guidance for users is confusing to say the least, she said.

For instance, there are online forms that one has to actually fill out within the portal, and there are regular paper forms. However, the new guidelines say that those regular paper forms must now be signed digitally (using an encrypted and authenticated electronic fingerprint created by the signer).

“They say they must be signed in different places electronically, but they don’t exist on the form. On one of the forms, it says, ‘sign it digitally and type your name here.’ The instruction is on the form and not in the guide,” said Mosher-Kuczer.

“There’s no explanation of what digital means. So does it mean typing your name? Does it mean … print a PDF and then attach the electronic signature with a stamp in it? And then on one of the forms that now must be signed electronically, you can’t actually type in the signature.”

She said many lawyers have raised these issues with immigration officials over the past year but the majority of the problems have not been addressed. To safeguard the interests of clients, lawyers have to screenshot every page along the process for their records in case of disputes, which means an “insane” duplication of work, said Mosher-Kuczer.

The immigration department’s Dubois said applicants and their legal representatives can find answers to their questions on the department’s FAQ page. If no solution is found, they can ask for help through a web form.

In one recent post on the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association’s website, a Toronto lawyer said she submitted numerous web forms looking for help regarding an issue with the portal. Instead of responding to the questions, officials simply replied by emailing links to a web form.

The lawyer finally got a reply from the department, informing that her client had missed the deadline to submit a permanent-resident application. Officials apologized via email for the mishap “due to a technical issue with our online tools.”

Mosher-Kuczer said it can take weeks for people to get a response from immigration this way, if they get a response at all.

“Officials have been very clear that this is just their initial iteration and they will be building on these portals and making them better,” Mosher-Kuczer said. “But I don’t think you can force people and make it mandatory to use minimum viable products that have not been properly tested.”

There are also other issues such as the limit in some forms on the number of characters allowed, and problems with filing supplementary information without omitting something, creating grounds for applicants to be refused or pursued by officials for potential misrepresentation.

The system also restricts the size of documents one can upload, which becomes particularly problematic for complex cases, said Ronalee Carey, another immigration lawyer based in Ottawa.

“The new portal has no ability to upload (more) documents once it’s submitted. It’s basically an electronic courier service. They don’t communicate with you through that portal,” said Carey.

“You can only send an initial application. You can’t use it to submit any supplementary documentation.”

As it is, she said, the system is a “stopgap” way of accepting electronic applications, so immigration call-centre staff can manually determine which office is responsible for an inquiry.

Carey understands immigration officials must forge ahead with the digitization plan to address the backlog issue but tech support has to be there to support users 24/7, especially for overseas applicants in different time zones.

“My biggest issue is not being able to get into my portal. They need to stabilize the old system so that it’s not going offline so often and we’re not getting all of these error-403 messages,” said Carey, who was unable to access her own portal for over two weeks earlier this year, with requests (via web form) for help going unanswered.

Middlemiss said these problems are system-wide and her members are frustrated because immigration applications are time-sensitive; supporting documentations must be filed by deadlines or applicants might face devastating consequences.

“There are so many bugs and errors with the system. It also slows down everyone’s work enormously and it provides uncertainty. It would be better if we could continue with the paper-based option till all these problems are fixed,” said Middlemiss.

Source: New online immigration system’s many glitches are putting applicants’ futures at risk, say critics

Raj: Ottawa should scrap the logistical and political nightmare that is the Safe Third Country Agreement

Interesting that while the government defends the STCA, a “senior” IRCC official is quoted as saying “in our estimation, it might not change that much, because what would happen is you wouldn’t have a Roxham Road, the people could cross at the ports of entry and they might therefore go to different ports of entry.”

Politically, of course, it appears to undermine the assertion that immigration is managed and controlled, a point that the Conservatives have hammered in the past before IRCC backlogs became a top issue:

It challenges our conception of who we are as a country, questions the values core to the Liberal Party of Canada and yet, Thursday, the federal government is expected to be at the Supreme Court defending a longstanding agreement with the United States that it should have ditched years ago.

The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) aims to reduce the number of refugees crossing into Canada from the United States. By blocking access to asylum seekers at official ports of entries, however, it encourages them to use a back door, known to most of us as Roxham Road. That loophole is becoming untenable politically, especially in Quebec, and it’s causing logistical nightmares and year-long delays in refugee processing that even the government’s own immigration department suggests could be alleviated if the deal was scrapped.

Under the STCA, asylum seekers arriving by land at official crossings are turned away and handed back to U.S. authorities, where they often end up in detention in questionable conditions — unless they fall in specific exemption categories (e.g. if they have family in Canada, are an unaccompanied minor, or face the death penalty in the U.S.).

That’s at the core of the case before the Supreme Court. Does handing asylum seekers back to the United States — where they are detained, reportedly in freezing conditions without proper food, where they have fewer chances of being accepted as a refugee, and can face persecution when returned to their homeland — breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 

Refugee advocates say yes. The government says no. In fact, Ottawa has been unsuccessfully trying to get Washington to expand the STCA all across the border to address Canada’s current asylum crisis — a miniature one the Biden administration must envy.

The STCA came into effect in 2004, but it wasn’t until Donald Trump became president of the United States in 2017 and started deporting undocumented immigrants that people began to pay much attention. 

Eight days into Trump’s presidency, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.”

It was on-brand for Trudeau and the Liberals who were elected two years earlier on a promise to bring in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing persecution.

The welcome mat was laid out at Roxham Road. This illegal border crossing is really a ditch at the Quebec-New York border that’s now surrounded by infrastructure to handle the thousands of people arriving there each month. It’s a well-publicized route to enter the country quickly and have your case heard (not so quickly) with the tiny wrinkle that you must break the law (in a consequence-free manner) to cross into Canada.

There are no statistics for RCMP interceptions of asylum claimants on the government’s website prior to 2017. But that year, the numbers in Quebec jumped from 245 in January to 1,916 in December. In total, 18,836 persons were apprehended crossing the border irregularly into Quebec. That yearly trend continued up until the COVID-19 pandemic shut down Roxham Road and the Canada-U.S. border in 2020 and asylum seekers were told to wait to make their claims. In December 2021, the numbers were back up and so far this year, 23,196 irregular migrants have been intercepted at the Quebec border — more than any other year. Perhaps, it’s pent-up demand from the pandemic, or perhaps it’s just the new normal settling in.

It’s no wonder Quebec politicians are alarmed. Coupled with Premier François Legault’s focus on identity politics and concerns over the survival of the French language, provincial politicians fervently denounced the situation on the election trail, demanding the road be closed.

Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, for example, suggested the federal government left Roxham Road open purposefully to “destabilize” Quebec society. 

Ottawa is uninterested in closing Roxham Road. It argues blocking access would lead asylum seekers to more dangerous crossings and could line the pockets of organized crime. Making it an official crossing would have the same impact — and is unlikely since the U.S. would have to agree to place agents there. (Imposing the STCA on the entire border would also lead migrants to find underground routes, but I digress.)

Instead, an official in Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s office said the situation is “difficult, but it’s also not unmanageable.”

Right now, the system is breaking down. It gives the appearance of queue-jumping (it’s not), but does reward for circumventing the law. It’s also costing Ottawa hundreds of millions of dollars — so far more than $761 million in accommodation, security, health and transportation costs. It’s squeezing Quebec’s resources too, and a lack of personnel is forcing asylum seekers to wait nearly a year or more before obtaining a work permit and many years before having their cases heard. 

In court, the federal government has argued scrapping the STCA would lead to a flood of asylum claims at Canada’s official ports of entry. 

But a senior official from Immigration and Citizenship, speaking to the Star Wednesday, said that while Ottawa is contingency planning in case that happens, “in our estimation, it might not change that much, because what would happen is you wouldn’t have a Roxham Road, the people could cross at the ports of entry and they might therefore go to different ports of entry.”

In fact, suspending the STCA might relieve the bottleneck at the Quebec crossing and spread the burden of supporting asylum seekers across provinces.

“It might help a bit,” the official said, noting that bringing Roxham Road migrants who intended to go to Ontario to that province had helped them get their interviews faster.

Of course, scrapping the deal won’t solve everything. “The numbers are such that even if they were spread across the country, it would still lead to some problems,” the official noted.

Canadians have shown themselves ready to do more to respond to refugee crises around the world. But the system must be seen to be fair. People must be processed quickly, and given the tools to help them support themselves.

In the meantime, if the government’s own department doesn’t believe there is pent-up demand beyond what we’re already seeing, why is the Liberal government insisting on defending the status quo?

Source: Ottawa should scrap the logistical and political nightmare that is the Safe Third Country Agreement

Québec a «tous les outils» nécessaires en immigration, estime Pablo Rodriguez

Agree, but it will be interesting to see the tone of the discussions on immigration powers. Roxham Road concerns by Quebec (and others) legitimate, but substantive action may alway await SCC decision on the Safe Third Country Agreement:

Le lieutenant pour le Québec du gouvernement fédéral, Pablo Rodriguez, estime que Québec a déjà « tous les outils » à sa disposition pour sélectionner davantage ses nouveaux arrivants et protéger le français.

Celui qui est aussi ministre du Patrimoine s’est néanmoins dit, mardi, ouvert à discuter des demandes du gouvernement de François Legault, fraîchement réélu la veille.

« On pourra discuter du sujet de l’immigration éventuellement, mais je pense que Québec a tous les outils en main actuellement pour choisir la très grande majorité de ses immigrants », a dit M. Rodriguez dans le foyer de la Chambre des communes.

Il a affirmé que la province a les pouvoirs de sélectionner jusqu’à 28 % des immigrants qu’elle accueille et qu’elle n’en choisit dans les faits que 13 %.

« Ce qui veut dire qu’il y a un autre [pourcentage d’immigrants] que Québec pourrait choisir et qui seraient entièrement francophones », a ajouté le lieutenant pour le Québec du gouvernement Trudeau.

La Presse canadienne n’avait pas vérifié, dans l’immédiat, l’exactitude des données énoncées par M. Rodriguez.

Durant la campagne électorale québécoise qui vient de se terminer, le chef de la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), François Legault, a évoqué l’idée de tenir un référendum sectoriel sur l’immigration dans le but de rapatrier davantage de pouvoirs dans le giron provincial.

Actuellement, l’immigration est une compétence partagée entre Québec et Ottawa. L’idée de la consultation populaire serait de demander aux électeurs d’appuyer la démarche visant à ce que le Québec contrôle davantage son immigration.

Appelé à préciser s’il considère qu’un pareil exercice serait « voué à l’échec », M. Rodriguez a répondu qu’il n’avait jamais eu vent de l’intention de Québec de tenir un référendum.

« On ne m’a jamais abordé avec cette proposition-là », a-t-il soutenu.

Concernant le chemin Roxham

Le ministre a par ailleurs assuré qu’Ottawa travaillera en collaboration avec Québec pour trouver une solution face aux passages irréguliers de migrants par le chemin Roxham, en Montérégie.

Il a dit que les négociations progressent avec les Américains pour moderniser l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs, qui est au coeur de ces passages. Questionnés sur ce point durant la période des questions par les bloquistes, les libéraux ont évité de fournir tout détail sur l’avancement des discussions.

« Ça dure depuis cinq ans le chemin Roxham. Ça fait des années que le fédéral négocie. […] Rendu là, on est en droit de se demander comment les négos avancent », a lancé le porte-parole du Bloc québécois en matière d’immigration, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe.

La secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de l’Immigration, Marie-France Lalonde, n’a fourni aucune information sur l’état des négociations. « Le Canada partage la plus longue frontière démilitarisée au monde. Le chemin Roxham permet aux fonctionnaires de recueillir les pièces d’identité de ces demandeurs d’asile et de prévenir les traversées dangereuses. Ce que nous devons faire, c’est moderniser l’entente et c’est ce que nous faisons », a-t-elle affirmé.

M. Brunelle-Duceppe a vu dans cette réponse une confirmation qu’Ottawa avait bel et bien l’intention de faire des passages par le chemin Roxham une chose permanente. « Carrément, ils viennent de nous le dire ! », s’est-il insurgé.

Le ministre Rodriguez a pris la réplique pour appeler le Bloc québécois à « baisser le ton un peu ». Selon lui, le parti doit faire attention à ses propos pour éviter « de faire de la petite politique sur le dos d’hommes, de femmes, d’enfants qui, plus souvent qu’autrement, quittent des situations extrêmement difficiles ».

L’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs fait en sorte qu’un réfugié potentiel qui se présente à un poste frontalier officiel canadien et qui a d’abord foulé le sol américain est refoulé, puisqu’il doit poursuivre sa demande d’asile dans le premier « lieu sûr » où il est arrivé.

Ainsi, des personnes souhaitant tout de même demander l’asile au Canada traversent la frontière canado-américaine par des passages de fortune, comme le chemin Roxham. Une fois qu’ils sont au Canada, leur demande d’asile peut être traitée.

Les bloquistes et néodémocrates demandent depuis longtemps la suspension de cet accord. De leur côté, les conservateurs souhaitent l’application uniforme de l’entente, poste d’entrée officiel ou non.

Source: Québec a «tous les outils» nécessaires en immigration, estime Pablo Rodriguez

Manning: The link between growth and immigration: unpicking the confusion

One of the better explainers on growth, immigration and productivity (i.e., per capita not overall growth):

The new UK government with Liz Truss as PM and Kwasi Kwarteng as chancellor has told the Treasury to “focus entirely on growth” as the main objective of government policy. And it is rumoured that part of this dash for growth is to be loosening controls on immigration. As immigration restrictions have been argued to be the “greatest single class of distortions in the global economy”, that is perhaps not surprising for a government that seems ideologically committed to free markets. A more liberal immigration system is an idea that has been received favourably in some parts of the commentariat that are otherwise extremely critical of other policies such as directing tax cuts to the rich. For example, Lionel Barber, a former editor of the Financial Times, tweeted that it was good news “that Truss government plans to increase immigration to boost growth”.

Many of these commentators are people whose views I normally regard as sensible. But on the relationship between immigration and growth I think much comment is deeply confused. The root of the confusion is what we mean by ”growth”.  Growth might mean an increase in gross domestic product (GDP), the total amount of goods and services produced in the economy. Because immigration means more people and more people means a bigger economy, immigration almost certainly increases growth in this sense. But we normally think of growth as being desirable because it represents an improvement in the material standard of living in the country. Then, GDP per capita (per person) is a much better measure of growth and the relationship between immigration and growth more complicated as immigration raises GDP but also the capita bit of the formula.

The confusion over the link between growth and immigration is not new. A House of Lords reportfrom 2008 criticised the government for using the impact of immigration on GDP rather than GDP per capita in its analysis. With the benefit of hindsight, the garbled economics of immigration of the government at that time was one reason it got into trouble over immigration (the others being naïve visa design and a failure to monitor what was happening).

Before the pandemic disrupted the economy, UK GDP per capita was about £33,700. An extra immigrant will raise GDP per capita if their contribution is above this figure, reduce it if its below. Using this measure, immigration is no longer necessarily pro-growth; it depends. Assessing the contribution of migrants to GDP is critical to deciding whether more open immigration rules raise or reduce GDP per capita.

One contribution of immigration to GDP is the earnings of the migrants themselves. But their work also generates profits; labour income is about 60% of total income, meaning that 60p in earnings generates £1 in GDP on average. If a migrant’s earnings generate the same profit per pound as the average, this would mean that any single migrant earning above £20k would raise GDP per capita. The lowest visa salary thresholds are currently slightly above this level. But if the migrant has a non-working partner and child, they would have to earn over £60k to raise UK GDP per capita. Rules on rights to bring dependents, rarely discussed, make a big difference for the impact of immigration on GDP per capita.

But perhaps there are other effects on GDP per capita beyond the migrant and their employer. These effects might be positive or negative. As more immigration means faster labour force growth, some investment has to be directed to equipping the new workers with capital. If investment as a whole does not increase sufficiently, this means lower investment per worker in other jobs, which means lower GDP per capita. On the other hand, there is good evidence that higher-skilled migrants lead to more innovation, which is the underlying basis for productivity growth. Some studies also claim there are positive general effects on productivity of all migrants, not just the higher-skilled. The magnitude of the impacts in these studies are, for me, beyond what is credible. For example, some studies imply that the average immigrant is 2.5 times more productive than a Brit.

Also sowing confusion is a famous theoretical result in the economics of immigration; what is known as the ”immigration surplus” result. This says that in competitive markets, immigration of any type raises the average income of the locals as long as the skill mix of migrants and locals differs. There are two problems with the way this famous result is commonly interpreted. First, the impact works through changes in wages and prices. If, as the evidence suggests is the case, these do not change very much, if at all, with immigration, then the predicted benefits are small. More importantly, the growth measure being used is the GDP per capita of the locals only; it is as if the migrants themselves count for nothing. It is a country like the United Arab Emirates that probably comes closest to what this theoretical model would say is desirable. If the UAE is not your preferred model of the good society, don’t cite these results.

The effects of migration on GDP per capita may be more positive in the short run than in the long run. Initially, the migrants are on work permits, they have to work.  But if they settle, some will end up out of work (just like everyone else) and will eventually retire.  So settlement rules, again rarely discussed, matter for the impact of immigration on growth.

Productivity per hour worked is another measure of growth we might be interested in; the UK has a well-known problem with productivity; growth has been very weak since the financial crisis and we lag behind our competitors. ,We might want an immigration policy to raise productivity per hour worked.  That would lead to a more restrictive immigration policy than one that focused on current GDP per capita, as one now has to compare working migrants with working locals, not all locals.

So, the relationship between immigration and growth is likely to be far more complicated than widely assumed. The final migration advisory committee report produced when I was chair tried to estimate the likely impacts of different migration rules on the growth outcomes described here. Those estimates were based on assumptions that are not beyond criticism.  But the bottom line was that the impact of a well-chosen immigration policy on growth was very small unless one focused on total GDP, which is the wrong measure. For high-skilled immigrants, it is likely that GDP per capita is raised but for lower-skilled immigrants it is much more debatable. And a lot of the current discussion is about reducing restrictions on immigration to address labour shortages in sectors like agriculture and hospitality, where productivity and salaries are low.

I have discussed the impact of immigration on UK growth alone.  But perhaps we should take a global perspective. There is little doubt that immigration from lower-income countries to higher-income ones (like the UK) raises global GDP per capita even if it reduces GDP per capita in the UK. That is a strong reason to look to find ways to be open to immigration.  But we need to be aware that most of the benefits go to the migrants themselves, and that some controls are needed to avoid harm to some of the locals. Pretending there is a strong case that immigration always raises growth in the local economy may be in a good cause, but when that case is exaggerated, it runs the risk of undermining public confidence in the immigration system, something that tends to lead ultimately to more restrictive policies.

____________________

Alan Manning is Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics at LSE, and co-director of the community wellbeing programme at LSE CEP. His research generally covers labour markets, with a focus on imperfect competition (monopsony), minimum wages, job polarisation, immigration, and gender. On immigration, his interests expand beyond the economy to issues such as social housing, minority groups, and

Source: The link between growth and immigration: unpicking the confusion

Why Quebec’s election turned into a slugfest over immigration

Not a bad overview. Election will likely demonstrate the weakness of first-past-the-post in situations of one dominant party and a number of smaller parties:

David Heurtel walked into the room and immediately spotted the angry man at the back.

It was November 2017 and the Quebec Liberal Party’s immigration minister was hosting a town-hall meeting in Sainte-Claire, a town across the river from Quebec City, in a rural region that is considered the province’s nationalist conservative heartland.

The man he spotted was typical of the local population. Older, white and francophone.

And he emanated a lingering, pent-up frustration.

“I said, ‘Oh, that guy is going to give me trouble at some point,’” Heurtel, a lawyer, recalled in an interview.

And he did.

Toward the end of the meeting, the man raised his hand. Heurtel braced himself and invited the man to air his grievance.

But it was not what he was expecting.

Not a complaint about Muslims or hijabs. Not about clashes of cultures and Quebec values. Not about the thousands of asylum seekers who had begun streaming across the border the previous summer. Not about the French-language abilities of newcomers to the province.

Not about any of these sinkhole political debates that appear with troubling regularity in Quebec, sucking in elected officials, media commentators, activists and community associations.

“He says, ‘For Christ’s sake, I need workers! I don’t give a damn if they’re red, purple, yellow or green. I need workers right now and I’ll teach them French myself!’” Heurtel recounted, speaking in Quebec’s working-class joual to fully express the colourful language.

Five years later, after the economic ravages of the pandemic and the continued aging of the population, the “Workers Wanted” refrain has only grown in desperation. In this sense, Quebec is no different from Ontario, Alberta or any other Canadian province or territory.

Which is why the combination of political punches launched this week by candidates, in the final days of an otherwise sleepy Quebec election campaign that will be decided next Monday, was so difficult to comprehend.

The sequence opened with an innocuous jab, the likes of which have sadly become a routine occurrence in Quebec politics.

A candidate for the sovereigntist Parti Québécois, Lyne Jubinville, was exposed by Montreal’s Le Devoir and forced to apologize for anti-Islam rants about “hijabs” that “increasingly invade our public space,” and about mosques and Muslim calls to prayer taking the place of emptied Catholic churches and silenced church bells.

It was followed by a hook from Jean Boulet, Heurtel’s successor as immigration minister, who belongs to the governing centre-right party Coalition Avenir Québec. In a clip from a local election debate held a week prior, he appeared to write off newcomers to Quebec as good-for-nothings.

“Eighty per cent of immigrants go to Montreal, don’t work, don’t speak French or don’t accept the values of Quebec society,” he said in the debate.

Boulet apologized for the tone of his comments, which he said were not an expression of his beliefs, but he was denounced by Quebec Premier François Legault, who said the minister had talked himself out of his ministerial post if he is re-elected on Oct. 3.

But then Legault himself delivered the roundhouse shot that left so many in this province seeing stars.

He delivered a speech to the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce — an audience of employers and big-business owners — and spoke about this summer’s census report, which showed declines in the number of people who speak French across the country.

Legault said that if his party is re-elected, it would put in place tougher French-language requirements for immigrants and try to ensure that more of them settle in outlying regions of Quebec.

“But until we have stopped the decline of French,” he continued, “I think that for the Quebec nation that wants to protect its language it would be a little suicidal to go and increase immigration levels.”

“Suicidal.” The comments set off waves of anxiety among Quebec immigrants and second-generation Quebecers.

A journalist with the TVA network, Chu Anh Pham, wrote on Twitter about her parents, who fled the Vietnam War and settled in Montreal.

“Since they arrived here, they have always worked. We all learned French in Montreal and have never relied on social assistance. I have a tonne of other examples.”

Mamadou Doukara replied to her message and expanded on his experience in a radio interview. He explained how he spent his father’s inheritance to get from Mali to Quebec on a student visa, but immediately set about looking for work to reduce the financial burden on his family.

“Every provincial election was a source of stress,” noted Bao Long Hoang, another immigrant to Quebec, who wrote that he now lives in Ottawa. “So much stupidity voiced without shame.”

Dr. Joseph Dahine, an intensive care specialist who immigrated with his family to Montreal when he was a young child, said he likely never would have been able to afford his studies in medicine if his family had parents had immigrated to the United States.

He said Quebec should be celebrating what it has to offer — affordable daycare, publicly funded health care, low tuition fees and other attractions — rather than eternally fretting about cultural differences and religious backgrounds and mastery of the French language.

“Language is not the menace. It’s not the threat,” Dahine said in an interview. “It’s actually the reason why people come here. It’s usually their second language and they feel they could get by. They see an opportunity.”

Dahine likened the immigration process to joining a team and wanting to fit in. “You want to see people having fun, celebrating their culture. You want to look at these people and be inspired and say, ‘I want to be just like them,’” he said.

“As long as it’s a speech about the fear of losing something, it’s not an inspiring speech. Who wants to fit in with a group that is always talking about the fear of losing?”

Apart from the message such comments send to immigrants and homegrown Quebecers alike, Legault’s dark, defeatist tone is at odds with the great efforts and investments that the CAQ has made as a government, said Catherine Xhardez, an assistant professor of political science who specializes in immigration at Université de Montréal.

“They have this discourse that is a little alarmist and make these dark declarations,” she said. “In fact, the numbers are good and with (the Coalition Avenir Québec’s) policies they have invested a lot of money in francization (teaching French to newcomers) and integration.”

She also noted that the number of permits for temporary foreign workers has “exploded” under the CAQ. Recent statistics show the number of permits more than doubled from 13,030 in 2017 — the year before Legault’s party came to power — to 30,340 in 2021, the CBC reported.

“That’s what I find a little paradoxical with these dark speeches,” Xhardez said. “Do they think it’s useful to make comments that are much harsher than their policies? Because their policies have not been hard on immigration.”

It’s not just the CAQ, though. The immigration platforms of three of the five major parties competing in Monday’s elections hit similar notes.

The Parti Québécois, a diminished political force in recent years, proposes that knowledge of the French language, Quebec culture and the obligations and expectations that accompany citizenship be mandatory before immigrants set foot in the province.

And the newly significant Quebec Conservative Party, led by former radio shock jock Éric Duhaime, has suggested that new immigrants be screened to ensure they are “civilizationally compatible” with Quebec’s values, though Duhaime has taken steps in the campaign to distance himself from the term.

The other two parties, the Liberals and Québec Solidaire, have pro-immigration platforms. The left-wing QS promises to make it easier to have foreign education and employment credentials recognized; the Liberals suggest that priority be given to immigrants to immediately fill the gaps in health care, education and other in-demand sectors of the economy.

“Immigration is a solution. It’s not a problem,” said Heurtel, who said he is no longer an active member of any party. “Companies want them. Society wants them in general and the fact is that they’re a positive, not a negative.”

But for now, that ugly “Make Quebec Great Again” discourse persists, if only to drive the votes of those who feel most threatened by living on a French-speaking island in the midst of an English-speaking ocean.

Heurtel said the tendency will only be reversed by a radical change in the province’s political culture or a change to the voting system. As things stand ahead of Monday’s vote, the Coalition Avenir Québec are expected to win about 99 of the National Assembly’s 125 seats with just 39 per cent of the votes, according to opinion poll aggregator QC125.com.

The Liberals (16 per cent) are projected to take about 20 seats, Québec Solidaire (15 per cent) 10 seats and the PQ (15 per cent) just three. Despite having 14 per cent support, the Conservatives are not projected to win any seats.

But in politics, opinions and policies and allegiances are always shifting.

In politicians’ attitudes toward immigration, toward newcomers, there will be changes as well, said Dahine, the doctor. It just might take a while.

“As immigration happens — because it’s going to happen, because people need workers and brains and hands and arms — kids are going to grow up with a different picture of what society is. It’s going to be the new normal and one day it won’t be about where you come from but, ‘Hey! You’re from here as well,’” he said.

“It’s as though you’ll have a different flavour you add to the original Quebec recipe. Let’s put it that way.”

Source: Why Quebec’s election turned into a slugfest over immigration

Boisvert: La peur de l’étranger [Quebec’s immigration minister’s comments]

Good commentary on Quebec’s immigration minister that begs the question of his competence and knowledge:

Imaginons un ministre de l’Éducation qui ne connaît pas la différence entre une école primaire et secondaire. Un ministre des Transports confondant un aéroport et une autoroute. C’est trop gros ?

Dans ce gouvernement, vous pouvez être ministre de l’Immigration et ne pas connaître les faits les plus élémentaires sur les immigrants.

François Legault et tout son entourage ont sauté au plafond en entendant Jean Boulet dire que 80 % des immigrants sont à Montréal et « ne travaillent pas, ne parlent pas français ou n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise ». Le ministre s’est « disqualifié », a dit François Legault à Midi Info.

Il a sauté au plafond d’abord parce que c’est faux, archifaux. Les immigrants ont à peu près le même taux d’emploi que les Québécois nés ici. Et la vaste majorité parlent français.

Le ministre se base sur quoi pour dire qu’ils « n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise » ? Ils doivent pourtant passer un test… S’ils sont venus ici, c’est généralement qu’ils ont voté avec leurs pieds pour adhérer à cette société. L’histoire de l’immigration au Québec est largement une histoire de succès, quoi qu’on en dise.

Mais non, le ministre de l’Immigration lui-même véhicule de fausses informations et renforce les préjugés. Il suinte de tout ça une ignorance profonde, une peur sourde de l’étranger.

Ce ne serait déjà pas acceptable comme candidat de plonger aussi joyeusement dans la piscine des préjugés et des fausses informations.

Mais quand on est ministre, et ministre de l’Immigration, c’est impardonnable. D’autant que ce gouvernement insiste sur la capacité d’accueil, sur la difficulté d’intégrer, sur la menace qui pèse sur le français.

Coudonc, leurs politiques (quotas, apprentissage de la langue en six mois, etc.) sont-elles basées sur des données, ou sur des chroniques anti-immigration du Journal de Montréal ?

Jean Boulet n’est pourtant pas un idiot, loin de là. Il est sans doute parmi les politiciens les plus sympathiques à Québec. Il est depuis son élection un ministre du Travail compétent. Lui-même avocat spécialisé dans le domaine, il était « sur son X ».

Quand il a été question de délester Nadine Girault de l’Immigration, l’an dernier, François Legault a voulu choisir un ministre fiable. Qui de mieux que Jean Boulet ? Un ministre de région (la Mauricie), pour envoyer un message de « régionalisation » de l’immigration.

Pourquoi pas ?

Comme la CAQ veut arrimer l’immigration aux besoins économiques, fusionner Travail et Immigration chez un même ministre, c’était le plan logique.

Mais le ministre (le troisième en quatre ans) a-t-il la moindre connaissance de la réalité immigrante à Montréal ? Et ailleurs ? Est-ce qu’il en a rencontré ? Ou est-ce une masse informe de « capital humain » à « intégrer » ?

On tentera de blâmer une vision des « régions », mais je n’accepte pas ça. Il suffit de se promener un peu pour voir que les gens de toutes les régions du Québec veulent accueillir plus d’immigrants. Le discours anti-immigrant le plus fort vient souvent de quelques chroniqueurs montréalais qui n’ont jamais le moindre mot positif à dire sur l’immigration, cultivent une détestation pour Montréal, sa diversité, et selon qui « y a pas moyen de se faire servir en français à Montréal » – autre mensonge tenu pour vérité scientifique parce que répété assez souvent.

N’allez pas croire que cette « gaffe » était préméditée. Ça date d’une semaine, dans un débat à la radio locale. Et ça ne fait pas du tout l’affaire de François Legault.

Jean Boulet a piteusement présenté ses excuses, disant que ces propos ne reflétaient pas sa « pensée ».

Quelle pensée ? Il faisait des affirmations statistiques, du haut de son autorité de ministre de l’Immigration. Ça n’avait rien d’une opinion. Si le ministre des Finances dit qu’il y a un taux de chômage de 25 % à Québec, il n’exprime pas sa « pensée ». Il trompe les gens.

C’est comme si les peurs et les préjugés refoulés sortaient au grand jour.

La journée avait pourtant bien commencé pour François Legault, à la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain.

Aller visiter une chambre de commerce pour lui, c’est un peu comme aller faire un tour dans un cégep pour Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois : ça met de bonne humeur.

François Legault était dans sa matière forte à jaser PIB et productivité devant un auditoire réceptif, avec ses ministres économiques. Clair, convaincu, confiant, de bonne humeur.

On lui reproche de ne pas parler d’éducation. Il est d’accord. Mais chaque fois qu’il veut parler de l’augmentation « historique » du salaire des profs, de maternelles 4 ans ou d’orthopédagogie, les médias en font fi. Dans les points de presse, c’est toujours des questions sur l’immigration, ou le troisième lien. Troisième lien, immigration. Immigration, troisième lien.

Vrai.

C’est pourtant bien lui qui dit, comme mercredi, qu’une augmentation des seuils d’immigration serait « un peu suicidaire » pour la « nation québécoise ». Et je ne reviens pas sur tout le reste.

C’est lui qui a nommé Jean Boulet. On est obligé de se demander comment ils parlent d’immigration entre eux, au plus haut niveau, quand le titulaire est aussi mal informé. Est-ce que c’est juste des faux chiffres et des histoires de peur ?

Ce sujet est trop important pour l’avenir du Québec pour être traité avec autant d’incompétence. Si, comme prévu, la CAQ forme le prochain gouvernement, surtout, ne « continuons » pas ça.

Source: La peur de l’étranger

Legault says accepting more than 50,000 immigrants in Quebec per year would be ‘a bit suicidal’

Unlikely to have any impact in the election but another in a series of dog whistle politics, unlike the immigration minister who states his positions clearly (before having to apologize and retract – see Le Devoir article following this one for the factual analysis. You would of course like to think that a minister responsible for immigration would have the basic facts right):
The Coalition Avenir Québec is once again coming under fire for comments about immigration, including party leader François Legault saying that welcoming more than 50,000 immigrants per year would be “a bit suicidal.” Legault made that statement on Monday at the Montreal Chamber of Commerce while alluding to the need to protect the French language. Although his words drew criticism from his opponents, Legault also reprimanded one of his ministers on Monday for making his own controversial remarks about immigration. During a local debate on Radio-Canada last week, Jean Boulet — who serves as both the province’s labour and immigration minister —  said “80 per cent of immigrants go to Montreal, don’t work, don’t speak French or don’t adhere to the values of Quebec society.” Boulet then touted his party’s efforts to better welcome newcomers and get them speaking French. Shortly after Radio-Canada reached out to Boulet’s team today, he issued an apology on Twitter, saying he misspoke and the statement about immigrants not working and not speaking French “does not reflect what I think.” “I am sorry for having poorly expressed my thoughts,” said Boulet, who is seeking re-election in the Trois-Rivières riding. “We must continue to focus on the reception … and integration of immigrants, who are a source of wealth for Quebec.” Despite the apology, his words appeared to have cost him his immigration portfolio, if the CAQ is re-elected. Legault described Boulet’s statement as “unacceptable.” He was also asked if Boulet could remain as immigration minister if the CAQ is re-elected. “Unfortunately, I don’t think so,” he told Radio-Canada, adding that it’s a “question of image, perception and trust.” The CAQ campaign has been marred by controversial comments on immigration. Three weeks ago, Legault apologized for citing the threat of “extremism” and “violence” as well as the need to preserve Quebec’s way of life as reasons to limit the number of immigrants to the province.
That same week, he said non-French speaking immigration, if not limited in number, could pose a threat to social cohesion in the province.

Opponents blast Legault’s party for ‘divisive’ message

Opponents of the CAQ blasted the comments made by Legault and Boulet. During a news conference on Monday, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the co-spokesperson for Québec Solidaire said Legault’s comments about welcoming more than 50,000 newcomers per year were “hurtful” and “irresponsible.” Reporters also played him audio of Boulet’s comments. Nadeau-Dubois accused Legault of setting the tone within his party when it came to talking about immigration. “Since the beginning of the campaign, what Mr. Legault has done is send the signal that when you talk about immigration, you talk about it in a negative way, a divisive way,” he said.
When Mr. Legault sets the tone like that and says that immigration is dangerous for Quebec, it’s not only hurting people, it’s, I think, deeply not representative of what Quebecers actually think.” During her own news conference, Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade described Boulet’s comments as “mind-boggling.” “It’s dividing Quebecers. It’s dividing the population,” she said. Anglade called on Quebecers to put an end to the CAQ’s “politics of division.” “There are two options on the table. There’s this one option where we’ve already hit a wall and we keep dividing Quebecers…. And there’s another route: the route of the Liberal party where we say we need to unite.” She also said Legault’s reference to suicide showed a “flagrant lack of empathy.”
Source: Legault says accepting more than 50,000 immigrants in Quebec per year would be ‘a bit suicidal’
« 80 % des immigrants s’en vont à Montréal, ne travaillent pas, ne parlent pas français ou n’adhèrent pas aux valeurs de la société québécoise. La clé, c’est la régionalisation et la francisation. » Cette citation du ministre sortant de l’Immigration, Jean Boulet, a lancé un pavé dans la mare des débats sur l’immigration au Québec. Qu’en est-il réellement ? Vérification en trois graphiques. La part de nouveaux arrivants qui s’installent à Montréal décline au Québec depuis 2018. Pas plus de 70 % d’entre eux préféraient la métropole l’an dernier, selon l’Institut de la statistique du Québec. Par contre, si l’on entend par « Montréal », « Montréal et ses banlieues », Jean Boulet n’a pas tort. Année après année, plus de 80 % des Néo-Québécois s’établissent soit sur l’île de Montréal, soit à Laval ou en Montérégie. Au-delà de la dichotomie entre Montréal et les régions, notons que la ville de Québec attire de plus en plus d’immigrants depuis quelques années, passant de 5 % en 2018 à 8 % en 2021. Ces données ne concernent que les « destinations projetées » des candidats admis à l’immigration. Leur destination finale peut donc différer, et leur destination déclarée ne signifie pas qu’ils y resteront toute leur vie. La « francisation » Les nouveaux arrivants ne parlent-ils pas français ? En effet, il y a quatre ou cinq ans, la moitié d’entre eux ne possédaient aucune connaissance du français. La part d’immigrants qui ne pouvait s’exprimer qu’en anglais dépassait alors la proportion de ceux qui ne pouvaient s’exprimer qu’en français. Depuis, la tendance s’est inversée, et c’est plutôt le bilinguisme qui domine sur la langue des nouveaux Québécois. Nous pouvons même parler de multilinguisme, car environ 70 % des nouveaux arrivants possèdent une langue maternelle qui n’est ni le français ni l’anglais. Statistique Canada recense environ 150 langues maternelles différentes parlées dans les chaumières du Québec. Au boulot Les immigrants sont-ils majoritairement sans emploi ? Il est vrai que les Néo-Québécois, surtout ceux qui viennent tout juste d’arriver, peinent davantage à trouver de l’emploi. L’écart entre le taux de chômage de Québécois nés ici et ceux nés ailleurs s’explique surtout par la difficulté à faire reconnaître les compétences, observait une récente étude du Comité consultatif personnes immigrantes. Même s’il est en baisse, le taux de chômage des immigrants n’a pas retrouvé les seuils d’avant la pandémie. Cependant, la statistique inverse, le taux d’emploi, démontre que les nouveaux arrivants veulent travailler plus que jamais. En 2021, le nombre de personnes immigrantes en emploi au Québec s’élevait à 818 700, un sommet depuis 2006, soit la première année où ces données ont été compilées. Cette croissance s’observe autant chez les personnes immigrantes arrivées au pays récemment que chez celles établies de longue date. Le Québec a même rattrapé l’Ontario en matière d’emploi chez les immigrants dans la force de l’âge. Près de 82 % des Néo-Québécois entre 25 et 54 ans sont occupés par le boulot, comparativement à 81 % dans la province voisine, selon le dernier rapport de l’Institut du Québec.
Source: Les propos de Jean Boulet à l’épreuve des faits