Canada’s immigration landscape is constantly evolving, but recent developments in Quebec are raising eyebrows across the country. In a bold move, Quebec’s Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge has asked the federal government to impose a strict cap on the number of non-permanent residents in the province. This request, targeting federal immigration programs, aims to address regional labour disparities while preserving local services and housing availability. But what does this mean for businesses, temporary workers, and the future of immigration in Quebec?
Why Quebec Wants a Cap on Non-Permanent Residents
Quebec has formally requested that Ottawa limit the number of non-permanent residents under federal programs, such as asylum seekers and those in the International Mobility Program (IMP), to 200,000. This figure is significantly lower than the current estimate of 360,000.
According to Minister Roberge, this cap is crucial for:
- Reducing pressure on public services like healthcare and housing.
- Protecting the French language.
- Balancing labour market demands across regions.
The cap would primarily affect high-density urban areas like Montreal and Laval, where unemployment is relatively high. In contrast, rural regions still struggling to fill job vacancies would be shielded from these restrictions through a proposed “grandfather-type clause.”
The Labour Puzzle: Regional vs. Metropolitan Needs
Here’s where the complexity lies. While cities like Montreal are experiencing a surplus of workers in some sectors, regional areas are still desperately in need of labour, especially in agriculture, hospitality, and manufacturing.
The federal government had already reduced the limit for hiring Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) from 20% to 10% of a company’s workforce in most industries. Quebec’s response has been to push for exceptions for regional employers, highlighting the “crucial” role TFWs play in keeping essential services and businesses running outside the city centers.
“Refusing to process applications in census metropolitan areas with higher unemployment rates is an effective measure,” says Minister Roberge.
Federal Response and the National Outlook
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) appears to have already started tightening processing in metropolitan areas. Renewals for temporary permits are reportedly being denied more frequently in Montreal and Laval.
However, this local move is happening against the backdrop of a national plan to increase the proportion of immigrant workers. IRCC’s latest departmental forecast states that more than 25% of Canada’s workforce will consist of individuals with an immigrant background in the coming years, a number that has already reached 29% in recent years.
| Category | Current Number in Quebec |
| Asylum Seekers | 186,000 |
| IMP Work Permit Holders | 180,000 |
| Total Non-Permanent Residents | 366,000 |
What This Means for Immigration to Quebec
If implemented, Quebec’s proposed reduction of 45% in federal non-permanent residents could reshape the province’s immigration profile. It would prioritize long-term planning over short-term labour solutions, especially in areas where employment opportunities are dwindling.
But for regions with workforce shortages, the move could complicate recruitment and threaten the stability of key sectors. It’s a balancing act between economic needs and social integration.
Is This the Future of Canadian Immigration Policy?
This proposal signals a turning point in how immigration may be managed at both the provincial and federal levels. Quebec is urging Ottawa to reconsider the volume and distribution of non-permanent residents, aiming for more tailored, region-specific approaches. If the federal government agrees, it could reshape how temporary and transitional immigration fits into the broader labour and cultural policies across Canada. For now, the call for a federal cap on non-permanent residents has sparked important conversations about the future of work, housing, and immigration in one of Canada’s most unique provinces.
Leave a Reply