44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 12, 2022 10:00AM
- May/12/22 1:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, sadly, the critique of our motion the member advances in the speech she just read is quite disgraceful. I mean, her comment that somehow critiquing the violence being committed by the Communist Party of China and the threat that this poses to our own security is impermissible because that might expose people to prejudices is really missing the fundamental point.
We have great admiration for the Chinese people, and for the contribution of Chinese Canadians and others, but we have to recognize that the primary victims of CCP violence are the Chinese people. The House has recognized that the Government of China is responsible for an ongoing genocide.
To put it in clearer terms for the House, committing genocide against Uighur Muslims is a rather severe form of Islamophobia, and it is something the House should be calling out very clearly and responding to.
We dealt, in the past, with the detention of the two Michaels. Just this week, we had the arrest of a Canadian citizen and democracy activist, Denise Ho, in Hong Kong, as well as the arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen, a 90-year-old retired cardinal, who has also been a strong voice for democracy.
Can the member see past her desire to cast this issue in woke domestic political terms and recognize that these horrific acts of violence require a clear and decisive response from Canada and that creating this committee is a part of that response?
244 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 3:17:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, misleading the House is a serious matter and I am aware that it requires demonstration that a member or a minister knew they were misleading the House. The Minister of Immigration today made some comments with respect to what allegedly the Conservatives' targets would have been for Afghan immigration. This was the subject of discussion at a March 3 hearing of the immigration committee, in which the minister acknowledged—
An hon. member: This is debate.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, it is not a point of debate. It is a point of misleading the House.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 3:17:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration acknowledged at the March 3 meeting of the immigration committee that he was aware that the Conservative platform commitment applied only to non-emergency situations and that he was not aware of targets.
I think the minister needs to clarify whether what he said on March 3 or today was accurate. Otherwise, it is a matter of misleading—
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:16:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that our party is once again pursuing the resumption of the work of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. The committee was initially created in December of 2020, through a motion put forward by the then foreign affairs shadow minister, the member for Durham, and I want to recognize his leadership in bringing this initial motion forward. At the time, about the need for a special committee on Canada-China relations, he said, “this is the most fundamental foreign-policy relationship Canada will face in a generation. We do not need a three-day study at a standing committee. We need a specialized multidisciplinary committee”.
From its creation, the committee did critical and relevant work. One indication of that is that, while most parliamentary committees barely get mentioned in the press, this special committee broke news stories at virtually every single public hearing. Its work fed a public hunger to understand the challenges facing Canada in this context and to propose concrete solutions. Its work was covered and discussed not just here in Canada, but around the world. I have met with legislators in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Lithuania, and many other countries who were deeply interested in the work of and the information uncovered by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The committee had partisan moments and unifying moments. My hon. friends on the committee will remember that there were times when we heckled each other because we disagreed about the appropriate courtesy owed to a witness. There were also times when we cried together over the systemic sexual violence targeting victims of the Chinese Communist Party in East Turkestan. Regardless of these variations, it is beyond dispute that the committee was working.
The committee was driving public awareness and policy toward solutions that had not previously been on the Canadian or even the global political agenda. It unanimously endorsed Magnitsky sanctions for those involved in human rights abuses in Hong Kong. It unanimously endorsed the middle way approach for Tibet. It unanimously ordered the production of documents related to the Winnipeg Lab affair. It played a key role in furthering discussions about the Uighur genocide, which led to this Parliament to be the first in the world to recognize it. It highlighted the arbitrary detention of Canadians, including the ongoing detention of Huseyin Celil. It exposed the ongoing reality of the Chinese Communist Party's interference in Canadian domestic affairs.
Whether it was in agreement or disagreement, it must be acknowledged that what came out of this committee on Magnitsky sanctions, Hong Kong, Tibet, Uighurs, the Winnipeg lab affair, and many other points, were defining points of conversation that shaped the life of the 43rd Parliament. It was sometimes messy and not always easy, but the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations clearly got results, and it got those results in spite of the fact that it had its work repeatedly interrupted by the government.
The committee was suspended during the early months of the pandemic, even though all opposition parties wanted it to continue. It was then shut down for prorogation and dissolved prematurely with the election. All together, given the interruptions, the committee only got in about a year's worth of work. While it presented multiple reports and advanced key recommendations, the committee was not able to complete its agenda and many critical items remained unexplored. This special committee deserved an opportunity to at least bring its work to a fruitful conclusion, to bring forward recommendations out of its study on national security, to study strategic dependency and trade, to engage further on threats to Taiwan and various other human rights issues, and to speak to Canada's overall policy framework for principled engagement with China and broader engagement with the Indo-Pacific region.
As a result of the committee's diligent work, I believe the CCP, which actively seeks to advance its interests here in Canada, has clearly identified the fact that it does not want this committee to get back to work, and it is doing so shamefully by trying to suggest that criticism of the CCP, and even of the CCP interference in Canada, is somehow an attack on the Chinese people. Those slanders were repeated today on multiple occasions by some Liberal MPs.
As I have said repeatedly, the opposite is true. The Chinese Communist Party in its early years was explicit about trying to annihilate China's ancient and beautiful civilization. Today, the CCP is more subtle and seeks to co-opt the symbology of China's history and historical ideals as tools to serve Marxist materialism. However, Marxism is not China, and China is not Marxism. As I told the House two years ago:
...we must advance a decoupling of these ideas, a recognition that Marxism's dehumanizing materialism is deeply alien to China's rich and ancient traditions of personal responsibility, reverence for beauty, continuity with the past and respect for the non-material aspects of life.
It is no contradiction, and in fact it is quite a natural combination, to love China and hate communism.
The CCP wants this committee gone, yet here we are. I want to recognize the hard work and the courage of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Portage—Lisgar, and I particularly salute the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He has steadfastly worked to bring about the return of this committee, and he is the only member of the House to be personally named in Chinese government sanctions, which he has rightly recognized as a badge of honour.
As much as I would have liked for the work of the committee to continue uninterrupted, even last summer and last fall, it is important to use this opportunity to take note of what is happening right now and what has changed since the work of this committee was aborted just under a year ago. The global context has obviously shifted significantly. In the early months of this committee's existence, public attention was very much focused on the actions of the Chinese government because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The world was faced with immense disruption as a result of a pandemic that began in China and which was covered up for a long time by the Chinese Communist Party.
Even in the midst of that pandemic, many nations and many international organizations were unwilling to talk about the fact that a novel coronavirus emerged in the same region where gain-of-function experiments were performed on coronaviruses and where authorities did everything they could to hide the outbreak until it was too late. Although our initial motion was proposed and passed before the pandemic, its work aligned with broader public discussion, though a discussion that was ignored and dismissed by many elites, about the way that dangerous experimentation and the suppression of dissent may have created the environment in which a pandemic could start and spread.
For those who thought that China's basic dictatorship offered a model for more efficient and effective administration and management, the COVID-19 pandemic powerfully demonstrates the opposite. Although free societies did not always handle the pandemic well, they had the tools to hear the truth and to grow and change in response to new information. In the absence of open deliberation about the pandemic, scientific opinion was suppressed in China, and leaders who pursued failing strategies that caused this global pandemic were not held accountable for their failures. I think that the special committee should return to questions around the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic and the guard rails that we need in the context of scientific co-operation, as well as the pressing problem of CCP and other foreign state actor interference in Canada.
The context in which we holding today's debate is also one in which the focus of our foreign policy has rightly shifted to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It is worth asking this question: In light of the invasion of Ukraine, can we still say that the Canada-China relationship “is the most fundamental foreign-policy relationship Canada will face in a generation”?
I believe that it is. To start with, the invasion of Ukraine reminds us of past acts of violence by the CCP and future acts of violence no doubt being contemplated. The military and rhetorical attack on Ukraine's separate existence reminded many of the invasion of Tibet more than 60 years ago.
The attacks on linguistic and religious freedom we have seen in Russian-occupied Ukraine since 2014 mirror the escalating attacks on linguistic and religious freedom we are seeing in Tibet. The invasion of Ukraine could also establish a precedent, whereby revisionist powers ignore hard-won norms of international law and instead try to violently control their determined sphere of influence. Ongoing aggression from the Chinese state in the South China Sea and threats to Taiwan demonstrate that Russia is not the only revisionist power seeking to extend itself beyond its borders in violation of international law.
What is happening in Ukraine also demonstrates a profound failure of deterrence. Although the world has responded to the invasion of Ukraine, we failed to sufficiently demonstrate in advance what the costs of that invasion would be for Russia. We need to make sure that we do not repeat this failure of deterrence in the case of Taiwan. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia signed onto the Budapest memorandum guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine's relinquishment of its nuclear weapons. Prior to the handover of Hong Kong to China, the Chinese government committed to a one country, two systems framework, which was supposed to guarantee, as a matter of international law, the protection of Hong Kong's unique status.
Both the Putin and the Xi regimes have shown flagrant disregard for their own past commitments. This dishonesty in their dealings needs to be recognized, for our own security and our own protection. I note as well that while we have taken RT off the airwaves, Chinese state-controlled media continues to push disinformation, including disinformation about Ukraine.
There are, of course, many important differences between Russia and China. Notably, China is a much more important global player than Russia. It has a much larger economy. It has more institutional capacity, and it likely has a much more capable military. We also do not have the same developed structures of strategic co-operation among like-minded nations in the Indo-Pacific region as we do in Europe with NATO. In a scenario of potential further escalation of conflict with the predominant authoritarian power in the Indo-Pacific and in the world, we face a potentially larger threat, and we are potentially less ready to respond, compared to the situation in Europe.
This should underscore that what is happening in Ukraine should lead to a deepening of our commitment to engaging in the vital conversation around our position in the Indo-Pacific and our response to the growing power and aggressive potential of the Chinese state. In light of all these challenges, I look forward to engaging with colleagues and getting back to work at a special committee on Canada-China relations as soon as possible.
1901 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:26:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there are some similarities, but there are also some important differences. What we have seen in the case of the response to the Russian invasion is that by working together, the community of democratic nations can inflict serious economic consequences through sanctions. In the case of Russia, we on this side of the House believe that there is still more work to do.
It is important to point out that while a similar tool kit could potentially be used in response to an act of aggression against Taiwan, it would be much more difficult to do so against a relatively much larger and more integrated economy. If we were ever to get into that situation, I would advocate that we do what was necessary to deter that aggression, of course, but the goal here should be deterrence. The goal should be to recognize that there was a failure of deterrence in the context of Russia and Ukraine. We need to do better, in the case of possible aggression against Taiwan, and to be clear about deterring that aggression and about what the consequences would be.
This is why this committee is necessary, to dig into those critical issues at such a critical time.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:28:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I mentioned a number of items in my speech that we should address, but the member mentioned at the end of her question an important point that I did not address directly: the issue of forced labour in our supply chain. The government has been behind on action on this. We could be doing more to collaborate with other countries. There are other countries that have stronger regimes in place.
Personally, I am very supportive of something like the bipartisan Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that has been passed in the United States, which seeks to designate the area of East Turkestan. Perhaps we could envision a framework where regions could be specifically designated as being of particular concern, where there are high levels of slave labour.
There are various bills before the House right now that seek to deal with issues of slave labour. I see we are going to be debating Bill S-211 in this place very soon. These are important pieces of legislation for us to discuss and move forward on, but as well we should consider frameworks that are a bit different from that framework: frameworks such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, where we specifically identify regions with high levels of slave labour and place particular restrictions around trade involving those regions.
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:30:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of Nuctech was discussed at certain points in the committee. More broadly, we see this trend where my party, and some members of Parliament in other parties as well, are aware of the significant risks that come with doing business with Chinese state-owned and state-affiliated companies: the risks to our security and also the risks to human rights.
Notwithstanding the fact that these issues are being discussed, there does not seem to be a sort of fulsome penetration of the recognition of this problem within all aspects of the bureaucracy, where there still are significant gaps in terms of procurement happening that raise major questions and concerns about national security and human rights. We have yet to hear a decision from the government on allowing Huawei into our 5G network. It has been years that we have been told the decision is coming. We need to have decisions on this, and we need to move forward in a way that reflects the recognition of the problem across all levels of government.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:55:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the member's final comments, I serve on the foreign affairs committee and we are concurrently trying to study the issue of Taiwan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the question of global vaccine equity. All three are critical points of global crisis.
We are putting forward the humble suggestion that the special committee on Canada-China relations, which was a multidisciplinary committee looking at issues of foreign policy, security and a broad range of other issues, be allowed to continue its work. It is disappointing to see the Liberal members oppose it.
I want to ask the member a specific question about Taiwan, the primary subject of his remarks. At the transport committee, my colleague from Thornhill put forward a motion calling for the full participation of Taiwan in ICAO, and the Liberals proposed an amendment to say they do not want “full” participation but “meaningful” participation, which is ostensibly something short of full participation.
The member spoke a lot about meaningful participation, but I think the public will notice that that is different from saying Taiwan should have full participation and be able to participate on an equal basis. Could the member clarify whether he supports the full participation of Taiwan in international organizations?
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 5:21:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just briefly to the previous question, I think all members of the House agree that it is a terrible thing that a journalist was killed in a war zone. However, to presume, as one member of this House did, that this person was intentionally shot, execution-style, is not something that any independent investigation has concluded. It is important to have that independent investigation before making the presumptions that members of the House make. It is typical of some members of the House, when we try to have a conversation about the genocide going on in China, that they always want to say, “Well, what about Israel?”
I know the member spent some time living in Hong Kong. Many people were deeply concerned about the arrest we saw this week in Hong Kong of Cardinal Zen, who is a great champion of democracy. He is a 90-year-old retired cardinal who is much loved within the Catholic community and beyond. There is also the arrest of Denise Ho, a singer who is a Canadian citizen and a prominent activist on LGBTQ issues. There are a number of other people who were arrested as well. It is disappointing to see such prominent figures, including a Canadian and a senior religious leader, arrested. It shows the flagrant disregard of the Chinese government for the agreements it has made with respect to Hong Kong.
I wonder if the member, as someone who has spent time in Hong Kong, has a reaction to those events.
256 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things that I note in the bill is the section on francophone immigration. It talks about the minister creating a policy on francophone immigration, but without really any specifics.
We have had a target on francophone immigration that we failed to meet, and part of the problem is there have been very high refusal rates, particularly for applicants from francophone Africa. I believe there is an opportunity for Canada to strengthen our engagement with Africa, yet we are failing that opportunity because of big backlogs, high refusal rates and really a lack of engagement through the immigration system.
I wonder if the member has a comment specifically on how we can strengthen our francophone presence in Canada through better engagement with francophone Africa.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. My French is a bit rusty so I will begin by summarizing what I want to say. After that I will give more details in English.
First, the French language is very important to me. In my family, my wife and I speak a little French, but my children do not speak it at all, so it is very important for us to be able to use French in certain situations. I will not get into the details, but I have the opportunity to practise my French at home from time to time.
There is a strong francophone community in my riding. There are also a lot of francophiles, people who love French, anglophones who put their children in French immersion.
This evening, we are debating Bill C‑13. In my opinion, this bill is a weak legislative response to the urgent problem of the decline in French. We needed a reform, not amendments. It took six years for the Liberals to introduce a bill that is not the reform they promised. The Liberals could have acted sooner to protect and promote French.
The bill will not do anything to stop the decline of French. It lacks teeth and contains no binding obligations. The lack of strong measures is particularly evident when it comes to immigration. I will talk about immigration measures in general and how they affect our place in the world.
I am speaking to Bill C-13, which, in the opinion of the Conservative Party, is a rather weak response to the urgent problem of the decline of the French language, and we want to see more.
We will be supporting this bill through to the second reading, but we will certainly be active at the committee stage and try to propose amendments that respond to the concerns that linguistic minorities in Canada have and that will further strengthen the legislation.
I wanted to speak specifically tonight on the immigration section of the bill. It is a short section. It is an important section, but I think it is also emblematic of some of the broader weaknesses within the legislation.
For context, on the immigration section and its implications, let me say that I think, in terms of our engagement with other countries and our positioning in the world, that Canada's status as a bilingual nation is an incredible strategic opportunity.
The fact that we have anglophones and francophones and they have the opportunity to learn the other official language, and that many Canadians have an opportunity to become bilingual, presents a significant strategic advantage for Canada's engagement in the world. It allows people to travel to more places easily and to converse in the local language. It facilitates people-to-people exchanges. It facilitates opportunities for trade. It also means we can play a greater role in geopolitics. We can be involved in negotiation and mediation, and it is simply easier to have conversations with people when one is able to actually speak directly to them without relying on the services of translation.
Canada's status as a bilingual nation really does give us an opportunity. English and French, if one thinks globally, are very common languages around the world, so the fact that these are the two predominant languages here in Canada provides us with that much more of an opportunity for engagement.
I will say, in particular, that the French language in Canada provides us with a great opportunity for engagement with Africa. I do not think we talk enough in the House about the values and the benefits that come from increased engagement with Africa. I think we need to do better at thinking strategically in Canada about the opportunities that can come from strengthening our ties with African nations.
Africa has recently established a free trade area. Many African nations have very young populations, so we are going to see significant demographic growth continuing in Africa. In the decades ahead, that demographic growth, and the significant economic growth we are seeing in many countries in Africa, will mean that decisions that are made in Africa are going to shape global affairs to a greater and greater extent in the decades to come. We can be ahead of the curve by recognizing how free trade, economic growth and demographic growth, as well as incredible innovation, are happening in Africa and various sectors right now. Canada can be ahead of the curve if we start to think more about the opportunities that come with engaging with Africa.
It has been a problem in the past that, when we talk about Africa, it has often been only in the context of international development. That is a part of the picture. However, there is so much opportunity for trade, for strategic engagement and for other kinds of opportunities to emerge through greater partnership in and with countries in Africa. We need to recognize that, and recognize the opportunities for partnership that Canada has as a result of being a bilingual nation and the opportunities, in particular, for more engagement with francophone nations in Africa. We need to recognize the existence of competition for that at present.
We spoke during the day, prior to getting to the debate on this bill, about some of the issues and challenges in the Canada-China relationship. We know that the Government of China has a very aggressive strategy for strategic engagement in Africa, getting access to natural resources and some of the opportunities that come with that. Much of the democratic world has not done enough to be present in Africa to engage there, and I believe there are problems with aspects of the Government of China's engagement in Africa in terms of it not always involving respect for the people of those countries. We can engage, as an English-French bilingual nation. We can build those ties and connections and we can strengthen our presence in the process. It will provide economic advantages for Canada. It will provide greater cultural richness, in terms of the exchanges and interactions that can take place. That is part of setting the stage of recognizing the opportunities, in terms of foreign affairs and engagement in trade, that come with a relationship with nations in Africa.
I had a real aha moment recently, when I was talking to some ambassadors from African nations about the connection between immigration measures and other aspects of our engagement with other countries. When we have an immigration system that is operating below its capacity, and when there are significant backlogs, high refusal rates and delays, it makes it very difficult to have other forms of engagement.
If people want to come to Canada on a trade mission but they have an impossible time getting access to a visa, they are significantly delayed, they do not feel that they are treated with respect or simply feel that logistically it is too complicated, then there is less opportunity to have the people-to-people interaction that comes through trade. If people are coming diplomatically to discuss potential partnerships in trade or academic partnerships, or they are coming simply for travel or to build relationships that might have economic and other opportunities flow out of that, but their ability to travel is constrained by an immigration system that is not working to grant visitor visas in a timely way, and that is having disproportionate refusal rates associated with certain parts of the world, it holds back our engagement.
We need to engage more with countries in Africa. There are perhaps a variety of reasons why we have not done a good enough job of that in the past, as a country. One reason comes down to the immigration system. There is a much higher refusal rate for many countries in Africa, in terms of people being able to come to Canada. There are challenges for people getting visitor visas. We have recently done a study at the immigration committee about some of the challenges for people being able to access student visas. People are making applications to come as students to Canada, and there are very high refusal rates for African nations, in particular for francophone African nations.
If we are talking about the need to have more francophone immigration and to have policies around that to set targets, yet we are having very high refusal rates for those who apply, we are going to lose out on this competition for talent, and we are going to lose out on the opportunities for engagement that come from it.
The connection I have been able to make recently is to understand how those failures in our immigration system affect so many other areas of engagement. If a young person wants to come here to study in Canada, they might stay afterward or they might go back while preserving those ties and connections they have with Canada. They could go back to their country of origin and start a business there. They see, because they spent time in Canada, the opportunities that can come from expanding those connections. However, if we cut short that possibility of connection between our country and emerging leaders in various francophone African countries, in particular, then we are going to miss out on trade, economic and cultural sharing opportunities that could come further down the line.
In particular, the legislation we have before us, Bill C-13, the section on immigration reads:
“The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall adopt a policy on francophone immigration to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.” It then continues:
The policy shall include, among other things,
(a) objectives, targets and indicators; and
(b) a statement that the Government of Canada recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.
Substantively, what does that actually do with respect to francophone immigration? It says the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has to come up with some kind of policy, and that policy needs objectives, targets and indicators, and there needs to be a statement about the importance of this area. That does not have any teeth at all. That simply requires the expression of an aspiration. There is no indication in the act about what that policy should be, what the particular targets should be or how we might ensure the government meets those targets.
From what I understand, we have already had a target for francophone immigration for a very long time. Under the Liberal government, we have consistently failed to meet that target. We already have a target. We are not meeting it, and now we are putting in legislation and a statement saying that yes, we really need to have a policy and need to have targets.
The government needs to actually look at some of the fundamental problems that are holding us back. Yes, it is good to have a target, but we have to take that target seriously and we have to, as part of setting those goals, identify where have we failed up until now and why.
We know that there have been high refusal rates for many countries in Africa, particularly francophone countries in Africa. We actually have people who speak French who want to come here, who want to study, and maybe live and work here in Canada, and they are experiencing a very high level of refusal.
We have also been able to identify, through the work at the immigration committee, and much has been said and written on this elsewhere, problems of racism at IRCC and racism in those determinations. We also have massive immigration backlogs. People make applications wanting to come to Canada and are significantly delayed in doing so. That includes people who are coming as students. That includes people who are coming for work. That includes people who want to come for temporary visits.
We have people getting refused without a clear explanation as to why, or we have reasons that do not really make sense or fit the context. People are being told they do not have enough travel history, but there has to be a first time. If someone is a young person, and they have the skills and the abilities, and they have been accepted to come and study in Canada, but then someone will point out their travel history, that gets in the way.
Some of these reasons do not really seem to make sense and are really frustrating to potential applicants. It is unfair to these people who are making these applications, but it also a big loss for Canada. We are talking tonight about the benefits of our bilingualism and how we can reverse the decline of the use of the French language in Canada.
A big part of that response can be through immigration. If we are saying in legislation that we need to have a policy and a statement, and that we need to recognize how important this is, but then in practice, when people are making applications, they are experiencing a high refusal rate, we are missing a critical piece.
Over time, the implication of this is that people, the best and the brightest from around the world, will choose to apply somewhere else. There is a competition for talent that is part of our immigration system, and part of the way we compete is by making the immigration system effective, smooth and, as much as possible, a positive experience for the user of that system. On so many issues the government really wants to signal its aspirations, but we are not seeing the results.
This is on a different issue, but I was struck in question period today when members of my caucus were asking questions about setting up the three-digit suicide prevention line. It is such a very important issue, and the government is saying it is working as hard as it can to get it done as fast as possible. I am wondering how long it takes to set up a phone number.
The immigration minister said they would not remove the visa requirement for people applying from Ukraine because it would take them 12 weeks to remove the requirement. How does it take 12 weeks to remove a requirement? We are not talking about adding a requirement; we are talking about removing a requirement. The government is so slow to move on things that should not be that complex to get done. Again, with this legislation, Liberals are saying francophone immigration is great, they want francophone immigration and they want to have a policy on francophone immigration, but they are failing to meet the targets that currently exist.
As I emphasized, we have to understand the connections that exist between an immigration system that works and other forms of co-operation. If people are looking to do business and looking to build relationships, where maybe the first trip is purely a vacation, but then they meet other people and things come out of that, and our immigration system is not providing the level of service that people expect, then we are going to miss opportunities to build those connections and relationships.
I believe strongly that we need to strengthen our engagement with the francophone and other countries in Africa. There are immense opportunities for Canada that come out of the strengthening of that connection, but that requires us to have an immigration system that works well, that is fair to people in all regions of the world and does not have bias in it. Of course, applications will have to be refused some of the time, but applications should only be refused when there is good reason to do so.
That was what I wanted to focus on, for the most part, in my remarks. I do want to say that the failures in providing a clear road map on francophone immigration that we see in Bill C-13 are actually emblematic of larger issues in the bill. There is a lot of vagueness in the bill and a lot of desire to signal a commitment, broadly speaking, to good ideas and aspirations, but there is a failure to understand the mechanics of how those things could be delivered on. Some of the structural issues around the giving of many powers under this bill to the Department of Canadian Heritage as opposed to Treasury Board will lead to certain administrative problems and challenges. This is part of a larger issue around the effectiveness of some of these provisions in the bill.
Conservatives are very supportive of official languages. We are very supportive of having a strong linguistic duality in this country that benefits our country domestically, but, as I have also argued, presents us with significant strategic advantages and opportunities in our engagement with the world. However, it has to be real. It has to be substantive. It cannot just be about vaguely signalling commitments to things. We have to see the results.
I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”
2911 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there was something very odd in the member's question, so I was just quickly researching this. The member cited Bill C-32 from the last Parliament as an achievement of the government. That bill did not pass. The bill was tabled for first reading on June 15, 2021. What happened to that bill? The government decided to call a premature election, which dissolved Parliament and, therefore, the bill. Only a Liberal would present a bill that was not debated and did not pass as a demonstration of their great accomplishments on this issue.
The minister then also spoke about money spent, instead of results. How do the Liberals measure their achievements? They talk about the money they spend instead of the results they achieve, and they talk about a bill they tabled at the 11th hour before they dissolved Parliament with a needless summer election. I suggest we need a better way of measuring accomplishment than that.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question.
It is obvious that this bill does not have enough teeth to solve the problem. I spoke about some measures that I believe we should implement.
I think we need to address the problems of significant backlogs. I think people need to have clarity around the reasons refusals are given. I think we need to take the targets we have more seriously. I also think, at the very least, this act should require more, in terms of what the strategy looks like, and require the minister to be accountable when we fail to meet those targets. I do not think we can be too prescriptive on things that do naturally require the management of government, as opposed to the direct prescriptive action of the House of Commons, but we can expect more accountability when the government fails to meet targets.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, speaking from the perspective of an Alberta MP, there is great demand for people to be able to learn French. I see that in my community, and much of that is a question of what is within our education system. In my riding, we have a number of francophone schools for the francophone community. We have a very large and very successful French immersion program as well for people of all backgrounds, whether recent immigrants or people whose families have been in Canada for generations, who see the benefit and opportunities that are associated with being able to learn and study in French.
There is so much opportunity for French immersion, but I think one of the challenges is that sometimes there is less opportunity to actually use that French as people get older. People who have studied in French as students end up using the language less. I am not going to say anything that will surprise anyone, but generally the language of commerce and conversation where I live is English.
I think we need to think strategically about making those opportunities available to young people to study and having the federal government work collaboratively with provinces in terms of their areas of jurisdiction, and then also thinking about how we can create more opportunities for people to use French more as they get older.
228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bill, I gather, will go to the official languages committee when it is adopted at second reading, and I think it has support across the House to pass second reading. However, concurrent with that, the immigration committee, which I sit on, is doing a study of many of these issues and I believe will bring recommendations to the House for specific points of action. I think part of the deliberation and the feedback the official languages committee will want to hear is what kinds of amendments could really strengthen that section.
What we are hearing at the immigration committee as well is that there needs to be a broader strengthening of our immigration system. There are many systemic issues in our immigration system. We need to address the problems of why we are seeing those disparities in refusal rates from country to country, why we still have issues of racism at IRCC, which need to be addressed, and why we have these problems with backlogs. Part of addressing the issues around francophone immigration is also addressing the challenges with the immigration system that have crept in under this government writ large.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe we have fallen below the requirements of quorum.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order.
On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Maingot lists constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House. Page 186 states the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill that has been assented to.
Since Bill C-13 is currently being considered without quorum, I trust the courts will take note of my point of order today in the event that Bill C-13 is challenged in court. I note that if the government continues to sit late with this special order in place, every bill considered under this order could be struck down by the courts.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to be clear that I respect the authority of the Chair. We are debating a different bill tonight, and the implications for how courts might rule on what has taken place are important to put on the record in the context of a different piece of legislation that we are debating. I also want to emphasize—
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member spoke about non-compliance in the travel industry, and he talked about the appropriate responses.
Now, I wonder if the member could speak to the maximum fine that could be levied, and whether he thinks that maximum fine is sufficient, given the size and scale of the companies we are often speaking about in the case of that sector.
Could he also speak to the failures of his government to meet current targets around francophone immigration, and the fact that this bill asks the minister to put in place a policy? Frankly, the government is failing to meet its existing targets, so passing legislation telling it to have a plan and targets, when it is not meeting its existing targets, seems to really miss the need for action that is already lacking.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure working with the member on the immigration committee. I note that she focused a substantial portion of her remarks on this bill, as did I, on the issue of francophone immigration.
This bill includes another aspirational statement. It asks the minister to put forward a policy. Of course, there is nothing preventing the minister from putting forward a policy as it is on francophone immigration. Effectively, we have the government, through this legislation, asking itself to put in place a policy, and there is nothing wrong with that as such.
We have a bit of a sense already of what the challenges are with respect to francophone immigration. The member knows, from having listened to the witnesses, issues around backlogs, concerns about racism and high refusal rates, especially from francophone Africa.
How is the government going to tackle those issues that, up until now, have not been tackled? We have not met our target. Does she think the statement in this bill is actually going to change what the government does in this respect?
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
