44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2023 10:00AM
- May/11/23 5:37:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Mirabel, who seems to enthusiastically agree, which is good, because it means that I will not have to give a 20-minute speech when I have prepared a 10-minute speech.
As I have often stated before when rising in the House, I would like to be able to say that I am pleased to rise today. Unfortunately, I feel that I am here to debate a decision, regardless of whether it is a government initiative or an ill-considered McKinsey initiative. I am speaking about a decision that is anything but the idea of the century. I will later speak about where the idea really came from.
First, what is this about? It is about increasing Canada's population to 100 million people by 2100. Let us go back a little. At the end of last fall, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced new immigration targets for 2023 to 2025. The number of permanent residents for 2022, which was already a record 431,645 people, would set the tone for later years. The government informed us that it intended to welcome 500,000 immigrants a year by 2025.
The Bloc Québécois was already sounding the alarm last fall, outlining the various foreseeable consequences of this massive influx of newcomers. During question period, my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, asked the following question:
...is [the Prime Minister] providing more money for French language instruction? We just got our answer, and it is no. Is he increasing health transfers in response to demographic changes? The answer is no. What about the full-blown housing crisis? Is he providing more money to keep pace with the growing population? Again, the answer is no.
Later on, after the holidays, we learned that the government had dramatically increased its use of the firm McKinsey. One of the ideas put forward by McKinsey and its former president, Dominic Barton, was the Century Initiative. My colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, asked Mr. Barton about the demographic and language implications of this initiative by asking him the following:
...you said earlier that you were concerned about the French issue. In the Century Initiative and the growth council reports, which of the recommendations address the protection, development and promotion of French in Quebec and Canada?
Mr. Barton simply replied:
I think the focus, again on the growth council, was just on economics. It wasn't thinking about the social context. It was on productivity.
Productivity is exactly what the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Liberal government have been saying. The government did not bother to consider the impact this measure would have on the linguistic demography any more than McKinsey did. The government uses the same targets as McKinsey, the same reason for increasing the targets as McKinsey, and the same disinterest as McKinsey with regard to the impact increasing targets would have on French.
The minister is stubbornly telling us that the decision to raise the levels to 500,000 per year is his and his alone, but at least we have an idea where he is getting his inspiration from. This measure, no matter who is behind it, is wrong. Who, exactly, does this initiative serve?
Those who support the new targets have repeated this non-stop in the House today. The business community is complaining about labour shortages, and that is the only issue the Century Initiative is supposed to address. Should immigration policies not prioritize serving newcomers themselves? Unfortunately, the government missed the mark completely on that one.
My colleague from Longueuil-Saint-Hubert said it more than once it yesterday: Massive immigration is exacerbating the current housing crisis. It is a recipe for impoverishing tenants, young people and large families. Most importantly, it risks causing even greater distress for newcomers, who, as we know, have more trouble than the rest of the population finding housing that is both affordable and of good quality.
My colleague from Montcalm raised another issue today. He rightly reminded us that the government has only given Quebec and the provinces one-sixth of the health transfers needed to meet their current needs and provide adequate services. The member for Montcalm then asked on what studies the government based its claim that at least 500,000 more people can receive care each year with one-sixth of the money that is already needed. The government did not answer.
The same questions could be asked about other services for the public. One can think of education, for example, and the fact that the children of newcomers will bear the brunt of increased pressures on schools. There are good reasons to believe that French-language schools in Ontario might not be able to keep up with the growth, especially when we know that there is a severe shortage of francophone teachers. Officials from school board associations and francophone teachers' unions told us yesterday that the situation is bordering on disaster.
The government's immigration agenda does not seem to be aimed at the interests of newcomers, but rather to respond in a purely utilitarian manner to the demands of employers. In addition to being out of step with the needs of potential newcomers, the immigration targets of the current government have harmful and certainly not insignificant effects on Quebec. Although it has been recognized in the House that Quebec is a nation, the government did not hesitate to turn a blind eye to the will of Quebec when setting its targets.
The Century Initiative and its targets for Quebec are what I would call a catch-22. Quebec will be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, if Quebec decides to increase its immigration thresholds in line with the general Canadian trend, it will face immense challenges related to integration and French language instruction. As I mentioned earlier, access to health care, education and housing will be jeopardized. We also have to ask some questions about issues related to land use, the green transition, and more broadly, our ability to maintain the economic and social model that is unique to Quebec.
On the other hand, if Quebec decides to maintain its own targets regardless of what the feds want to do, then it is doomed to lose some of its demographic weight within Canada, which would translate into a significant decline in Quebec's political weight within the Canadian federation. As we know, the demographic trend in Quebec is already declining compared to Canada. In a little over 50 years, Quebec's weight in the Canadian federation has dropped from 29% to 22%. Canada's migration policies were much less ambitious in the past. This has an impact on the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments even at the most superficial level.
According to former Liberal minister and tenured professor Benoît Pelletier, the decline of Quebec's political weight in the Canadian federation is irreversible, and this decline will inevitably be accompanied by a greater centralization of powers at the federal level given that Quebec plays a role in slowing down this centralization.
One thing that was mentioned by the Bloc Québécois is that it is normal and healthy in a democracy to have public debates about important issues that shape the future, especially the demographic future, about the kind of economic growth we want, and the safety net that we want to build. These discussions include the immigration policy and its effects on the host society.
We keep being told that Quebec is free to set its own immigration targets. However, as I just mentioned, the federal targets cannot help but impact what Quebec will look like, and Quebec was not consulted. As proof, we have the three motions in that regard that were adopted unanimously in Quebec's National Assembly.
One might believe that the federal government inadvertently forgot to take Quebec into account. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However, the government now knows that Quebec opposes its intention to increase the thresholds. As of now, continuing with this proposal is to officially and knowingly ignore the will of Quebec.
Some may have said to themselves, in the fall, when the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship presented his new targets, that perhaps he was only thinking of economic interests linked to labour shortage problems. However, after today's debate, we will see if the minister decides to maintain his targets. As the member for Beloeil—Chambly would say, a known consequence constitutes intention. If the minister decides to go ahead, we cannot help but see a real intention in that, which is to see Quebec's weight diminish or to see the province unable to ensure its linguistic, cultural and socio-economic future.
Faced with these two choices that the federal government is trying to force upon them, I can only hope that Quebeckers will see the third and only real path to follow, which is to finally give themselves their own country.
1543 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:49:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are two things.
One of the problems with mass immigration is that when we try to look for top-notch people, we drain their countries of origin of the brains they need as much as we do.
The other thing is that we are talking about francophone immigration. That is great. We can welcome francophone immigrants. As I mentioned in my speech, however, the resources are not available. We are seeing that in Ontario right now, where there is a teacher shortage in French schools. If a francophone family moves here, but there are no staff at the French schools, what will happen? They will send their children to an English school, cancelling out the impact of francophone immigration.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:50:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if it is so simple to bring in French teachers, why has Ontario not already done so? One has to wonder, but there is clearly no acceptable answer because there are no francophone teachers.
Even if those who settle here are francophone and do not need to be francized, the government is still losing sight of the problem of anglicization and language transfer toward English. That problem will only get worse if services are not offered in French, as is currently the case. Francophone immigration in and of itself will not resolve the problem, particularly since the government's target of 4.4% francophone immigration, which has been met only once in 20 years, is insufficient to ensure that there is no language transfer toward English and that the demographic weight of francophones in Canada is maintained.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:52:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first things first.
The fact that there are so many newcomers whose status is irregular right now only proves that the immigration system does not work, and yet the Liberals want to put more people into it.
As for the regularization of undocumented workers, people who already contribute to the economy, I think that it is a path we must consider. To deal with the labour shortage, which is a multifactorial problem, we must have a multifactorial approach to finding a solution. That means, for example, that seniors should be able to work if given adequate tax incentives, that we should recognize newcomers' credentials, and that we should encourage people who have stopped working to return to the workforce. There are many solutions. We can consider automation—
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 6:06:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
