Patrice Roy popped what he called a killer question during the Radio-Canada special ordering the interviews with each of the five chefs last Sunday.

Faced with François Legault, who promises to limit Quebec’s immigration thresholds, the host reminded that Ottawa was preparing to raise its own significantly. “Will you be the architect of Quebec’s decline in Canada? The leader of the Avenir Québec (CAQ) coalition did not like the question. In fact, it was somewhat dishonest because it could have been asked…of the five counts.

There are four policy proposals on the table on immigration. At the CAQ, we promise to lower immigration caps to 50,000 after their temporary increase to 70,000 to make up for the delay created during the pandemic. Curator Éric Duhaime says he wants to do the same. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s Parti Québécois would go much further in this sense: they would lower the threshold to 35,000 (they would also limit the number of foreign students speaking English but not French to 20% of the total). At the end of the spectrum, Liberals and Solidarity would increase immigration. At Quebec Solidaire (QS) we are targeting a range of 60,000 to 80,000 newcomers per year, while at the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) we are targeting 70,000 in the first year. The threshold for the following years would be determined after discussions with partners in the regions where we would like more new arrivals. Liberals therefore say that the figure of 70,000 is neither a minimum nor a maximum.

In summary, depending on which head of state becomes prime minister, we want to invite 35,000 to 80,000 immigrants a year. However, during this time in Ottawa, the federal government plans to take in 447,000 immigrants by 2023 and 451,000 the following year. Before 2015, when Justin Trudeau came to power, Canada received about 250,000 immigrants annually. But the federal Liberals, for whom diversity is a real cardinal value, have pledged to work twice as hard.

22.5% of Canada’s population lives in Quebec. In order to keep its demographic weight in the Federation, if there is no second revenge of the cradles, it should absorb the same proportion of landed immigrants, i.e. about 100,000 per year. The Conseil du patronat du Québec is aiming for this number.

Even if Québec solidaire took over (!) and opened the floodgates, its 80,000 immigrants would account for only 17% of Canada’s new arrivals. With Dominique Anglade, 15.7% of Canadian newcomers would be welcomed by Quebec. With François Legault 11.2% and with Paul St-Pierre Plamondon 8.5%. In other words, each would contribute to Quebec’s decline within Canada.

It’s about a lot. By wanting to limit immigration to preserve its francophone character, Quebec will weigh less and less in Canada’s balance. Is there a solution? On Sunday night, François Legault responded with a good dose of magical thinking. “The federal government is his choice. We’re going to want to protect the number of federal lawmakers who come from Quebec. It’s important to protect Quebec’s power in Ottawa. That’s a promise he can’t keep.

When it was necessary last March to redraw Canada’s electoral map to accommodate the last census data, Quebec lost a seat, getting 77 instead of 78. Faced with Quebec’s outcry, the Liberals changed the rules to decree this one Province can never have fewer seats in the lower house from now on than in 2019. Problem solved? Powder in your eyes, dear!

Quebec may have regained its 78^e seat, but the total for the House of Representatives has risen to 343 from 338. Quebec’s weight in the Canadian Parliament has therefore fallen further: it will now be 22.7% instead of 23.1%. The drop may seem small, but it adds up to all those of the last few decades. As long as the total number of seats in the lower house is not capped, maintaining Quebec seats guarantees nothing at all.

To overcome population decline and maintain Quebec’s relative weight – say 25%, as suggested by the defunct Charlottetown Accord – we would need to amend Canada’s constitution. Mr. Legault alone will not have that power, whatever the size of his majority. This requires the approval of at least six other provinces. However, the idea was scrapped in 1992 and 30 years later, if we rely on the debates that took place that spring, it is clear that in the rest of Canada there is even less appetite for this “gift” than before.

So is Quebec doomed to go from Charybdis to Scylla, that is, to choose between drowning in Canada or drowning inland? Provincial parties are right to put Ottawa in the spotlight to increase the proportion of French-speaking immigrants selected for Quebec.

For example, figures from the Office of the Federal Minister of Immigration show that of almost 20,000 immigrants (family reunification and asylum seekers) approved by Ottawa last year, 44% did not speak French.

But Québec parties may want to consider proposing a broader pan-Canadian debate on the relevance of ever-increasing federal targets. If it’s true that Canada cares about protecting French, it should be sensitive to these legitimate identity concerns.