There is an essay worth reading on this subject, which I will rely on heavily for my response. Pearl, "Witchcraft in New France in the Seventeenth Century: The Social Aspect", Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques (Winter, 1977) pp. 41-55.

There were very few mentions of witchcraft in the records of New France. Most are passing references, nothing like the detailed court documents we have for places like Salem. Part of the reason was that in France, many of the witchcraft trials occurred before the 1630s when intellectuals began to lose interest in witchcraft and its prosecution. In the latter half of the seventeenth century, witchcraft was in the process of being decriminalized. While the national courts lost interest, there were some provincial courts that still prosecuted and investigated witchcraft, but nothing on the scale of previous years.

The population of Quebec in 1650 was less than 1,000, and by 1680 still less than 10,000 (Massachusetts in 1690 had nearly 50,000). Part of the reason for witchcraft trials and accusations lay in the social settings of larger populations, the cultural image of the crone or old post-menopausal woman as a threat to social order, and the potential or active worldly instability. In Salem, one of the elements cited was the general instability in the world from the Revolution in Britain to the recent warfare with the native people. All this could be linked in a religious mindset to the influence of the Devil (this is a bit of an oversimplification for Salem, but the idea of instability or the inexplicable were crucial to witchcraft prosecutions). Besides the lower population being less inclined towards explanations of witchcraft, there were also going to be fewer mentions of the crime due to having less people. Pearl refers to the "peasants" living in New France as beholden to the same superstitions as peasants in France, but that did not result in any mass witch hunt, in no small part because there was no population to pursue. He also makes a point that the majority of priests in New France were well educated Jesuits, less prone to supernatural explanations of worldly events (I'm less sympathetic to this argument, but it may be true).

Overall, New France had a different demographic make up than Old France, which was less receptive to witchcraft trials. There were far more men than women, there was more often peace with the natives, there was a smaller population, and there was a well educated clergy less willing to resort to witchcraft as an explanation. Lastly, the majority of people travelling to New France did so after 1650, when witchcraft was becoming decriminalized in Old France.

Other works I've relied on are McCusker, "Rum Trade and the Balance of Payments" Ph.D. (1970); Lyndal Roper, Witch Craze; Norton, In the Devil's Snare; Sharpe, Instruments of Darkness.

EDIT: As a follow up, I checked Alison Games' Witchcraft in Early North America, and she seems to agree with myself and Pearl. See her work, pp. 36-38.