quebec homelessness François Legault approval rating premier canada

Legault’s proposed forced relocation of asylum seekers and ‘would-be refugee camps’ are alarmingly dangerous

According to federal immigration data, there are 96,021 asylum seekers in Quebec — far less than the 160,000 cited by the CAQ to sell the idea of forcing 80,000 people out of the province, which would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I heard Quebec Premier François Legault declare, during his recent trip to Paris, that he wanted Ottawa to forcibly relocate half of the asylum seekers from Quebec, but in a “humane” way, I rolled my eyes so far back my head I may have permanently hurt myself. 

Forcibly removing someone from their current home in a “humane” way is not possible. It’s an oxymoron. You can’t remove or negate people’s agency and pretend you can do it in a compassionate and gentle way, because those are two very contradictory terms. Such obfuscatory political language is, as George Orwell stated in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” “largely the defence of the indefensible.”

Targeting vulnerable people — who, in most cases, have fled war, violence, persecution and often the threat of certain death — people who have no home to return to, and willingly contributing to even more trauma and upheaval in their lives, is uncalled for. Many of these asylum seekers and their kids, a group of people that Premier Legault is suggesting should be forcibly removed, have settled down in Quebec for years and have finally created a sense of community and home. Many of their kids were born in Quebec, and attend Quebec daycares and schools while their parents work and pay provincial taxes.

Legault has also suggested that Ottawa create waiting zones for asylum seekers entering the country, advocating for “would-be-refugee camps,” if you will. It’s all rather unsavoury and irresponsible because, as others have already pointed out, the premier is making these suggestions knowing fully well that while it may excite some of his voting base, it completely violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international refugee law and Canada’s obligations to asylum seekers worldwide. 

Quebec has shouldered a bigger burden

Has Quebec indeed received more than its fair share of asylum seekers? Absolutely. Should other Canadian provinces be doing their part and taking in more of their share of asylum seekers entering the country? A resounding yes. Was Quebec unfairly or deliberately targeted and is Roxham Road a malicious ploy by Ottawa to undermine and overwhelm our province? Not even a little bit.

As many migration experts clearly explain in my book, Seeking Asylum: Building a Shareable World, multiple factors came together for Montreal and Quebec to quickly become an easy funnel for many asylum seekers to come through. Political and geographical factors influence the choice of entry point. 

Ending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) would have allowed for asylum seekers to safely enter Canada at any point of entry and would have alleviated some pressure on Quebec. But there was no real support for the idea of removing barriers to entry, both in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and so the Roxham Road loophole remained until 2023, when the STCA was expanded across the entire land border.

As a result, Quebec has borne a disproportionate burden, leading to such consequences as a lack of resources in areas that were mostly underfunded for years, like healthcare and education, and an inabilty to keep up with current demand, such as francisation courses. 

Better collaboration will be needed

Many interacting factors will ensure that migration will only be increasing around the world, and the sooner we recognize that and acknowledge our collective responsibilities, the better. At some point, this province and this country will have to adjust to a new reality, and a more collaborative approach between both parties is certainly desirable. 

In Seeking Asylum, I quote Mireille Paquet, an accomplished researcher in the field of immigration politics, who explains that changing times will require reassessing and reshaping provincial-federal relations regarding migration. 

“Provinces have always thought that refugees were solely Ottawa’s responsibilty,” she says, “since the federal government is responsible for status determination. But refugees live in provinces, they go to provincial schools, they pay provincial taxes, they’re provincial citizens.” 

They’re also our neighbours, our friends, our colleagues, the very people potentially taking care of your mom in her CHSLD or your kid in daycare. They are not faceless, anonymous garbage to be discarded. They are human beings stuck in a situation they didn’t ask for, often forced to rely on the decency of others.

It’s equally important to highlight that the number of asylum seekers thrown around needs to be clarified. According to data prepared by the federal government, there are 96,021 asylum seekers in Quebec, a far cry from the 160,000 claimed by the Legault government.

Where does the truth lie? I’ve heard that many asylum seekers have long left Quebec, while many of course remain. Is the correct number somewhere in between these figures, which are constantly thrown around as political weapons? Numbers, by the way, which aren’t nearly as high as required to pose the kind of profound problems Premier Legault claims they’re causing. After all, there are only so many things one can blame on immigration and asylum seekers before Quebecers start realizing that a failure to allocate adequate resources and questionable policies may have something to do with many of Quebec’s current issues, which would explain the CAQ’s current abysmal ratings

Incentives to motivate relocation preferable

Christine Frechette Francois Legault
Quebec Immigration Christine Frechette with Premier Legault

I don’t think anyone is against offering incentives to asylum seekers to relocate if that interests them. Many of them were, after all, entering Canada via Quebec, without our province being their final hoped-for destination. Proactive measures that would encourage some to move elsewhere in the country (and many already have, citing French language restrictions) are most welcome. Ottawa is already offering financial incentives to provinces that want to take in more asylum seekers, and threatening to reduce the number of economic immigrants for provinces that resist, in an attempt to evenly redistribute asylum seekers.

Quebec could also consider offering financial incentives to encourage some asylum seekers to relocate to the regions where labour shortages persist. Like most of North America and Europe, Quebec, too, will soon be feeling the pinch of low birth rates. It’s projected that, by 2027, deaths will outnumber births in Quebec, which means that only through immigration will our population growth be sustained. While some may bemoan the disapperance of a more homogenous Quebec, untainted by “others,” the fact is we continue to need immigration. And a large number of these asylum seekers (many of them highly educated), which our premier would prefer to see gone, are currently employed in our healthcare sector, in seniors’ homes, in manufacturing and in areas with severe labour shortages. 

Reframe and elevate the conversation 

Having a public conversation about forcibly relocating people and pretending that this can be done in a “humane” way is both painfully simplistic and alarmingly dangerous. In addition, recent declarations by certain pundits and politicians alluding that an independent Quebec wouldn’t have this issue also leaves me perplexed. What are these folks proposing, exactly? Are they suggesting that an independent Quebec wouldn’t respect international obligations towards asylum seekers? Would it build a wall, forcibly remove all non-citizens, expel undesirables? Because that’s certainly not a project many Quebecers I know would support.

How we discuss migration matters. How we treat the most vulnerable matters. How we respect and live up to our international obligations as citizens of the world matters. 

I think what I dislike most about this type of rhetoric is that it centres privilege. The focus is no longer on asylum seekers — people who often have nothing and who endured so much through no fault of their own — but on us as being inconvenienced and bothered by the burden of displaced people coming here. We shouldn’t support a political debate on how best to “remove” this problem and throw it in someone else’s backyard. We should demand a constructive, proactive, compassionate and responsible debate on these issues — a debate that doesn’t forget that this so-called “problem” is essentially other people. ■


Read more weekly editorial columns by Toula Drimonis.