44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2023 10:00AM
- May/11/23 10:12:45 a.m.
- Watch
That, given that,
(i) the Century Initiative aims to increase Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100,
(ii) the federal government’s new intake targets are consistent with the Century Initiative objectives,
(iii) tripling Canada’s population has real impacts on the future of the French language, Quebec’s political weight, the place of First Peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure,
(iv) these impacts were not taken into account in the development of the Century Initiative and that Quebec was not considered,
the House reject the Century Initiative objectives and ask the government not to use them as a basis for developing its future immigration levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, there was a company called McKinsey and a scheme known as the Century Initiative. I am deeply averse to speaking English in the course of my official duties, but I believe in calling a thing by its right name. An initiative that will sabotage French in Quebec and Canada over the long term cannot be called by a French name or by a name that can even be translated to French. I feel it is only right to continue to use the name Century Initiative when speaking French, not its amorphous French name, “Initiative du Siècle”.
It outlines a vision of an economy serving capitalism, a vision of people's labour serving the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, thinks it should be the other way around, that the economy should serve the people.
The idea is to increase the population of Canada, should it survive in its present form until then, to 100 million inhabitants by the end of the century. Truth be told, that is rabble-rousing lunacy. It is a delusional vision of the future whose true purpose is more immediate.
They say they want Canada to be a global superpower. What are Canada's greatest resources? They are: brains, institutions and democracy, of course, but also natural resources, such as oil, which some of us are still mulishly dependent on, forestry, ever the poor cousin, mines, which could be Quebec's ticket to leading the transportation electrification charge, a role some would rather see Ontario take on using polluting western Canadian natural gas, and water, which will be on the table sooner or later.
Add to that cheap labour, the labour market imbalance, and the struggle for collective representation that is increasingly coming under fire, the struggle for unions and the labour movement that are so readily demonized. Backed by the NDP, which claims close ties to unions, this pro-scab government rejects the importance of prohibiting strikebreakers, proof positive that it is not a pro-worker government.
I find it hard to understand, moreover, how the labour movement can still identify with a Prime Minister who repeatedly said yesterday that he had spoken to businesses or with an NDP that supports big business against workers. It is like trusting this government to protect jobs in the forestry sector. We have no such trust.
McKinsey has a terrible reputation in human resources. One does not have to get to the end of the book When McKinsey Comes to Town to realize that the same story keeps repeating itself. We see the same manoeuvres: breaking workers, degrading working conditions.
The Century Initiative is a vision that has blindly, or complacently, been adopted by Ottawa with, moreover, an outsourcing of certain immigration services. Ottawa either has a hostile bias or is indifferent to a normal Quebec desire to make, at least in some respects, its own way in Canada, or not.
Mr. Barton acknowledged in committee, in response to a question I put to him, that he had not considered Quebec at all in the development of the Century Initiative. For them, passively or actively, Quebec was simply a community created by earlier immigration and it had to fit in the anglicized mosaic of Canada.
At least Mr. Barton admitted in his testimony that they were making recommendations and that the Prime Minister was the one responsible for deciding on the implementation of a policy whose known effect—which we can assume was at least partly intended—was a direct threat to the continued existence of a Quebec people.
There are many benefits to immigration. Are labour issues part of that? Certainly, subject to how we treat people who choose to come to make their life in Canada or in Quebec. Is it the solution to the labour shortage? It is certainly one of the possible solutions, but it is not the solution. Here again, it falls under the slogan that a former colleague called the kinglets of chambers of commerce.
Immigration comes with humanitarian and intake responsibilities. It comes with the responsibility of an unavoidable fact: With climate change, in which Canada is a central player with its insistence on toxically exploiting hydrocarbons that directly heat the climate, tens of millions of people around the world will need to move. Those are climate migrations. It would be very irresponsible to not welcome at least some of them, but on what terms? That is another part of the debate, but they will have to be welcomed. Accepting responsibility in sharing the weight of the misery inflicted on those who are less fortunate than us is itself fundamental to a sound immigration policy.
There is also the inevitable desire of people to immigrate and make a better life for themselves. That comes with uncertainties. It has been said and repeated. Without protecting a political lever, those who said it were not heard, here in Ottawa.
There will be an enormous impact on the costs of an educational system, which increase much faster than the economic or fiscal contribution of newcomers. The same reasoning applies to a health system that is severely underfunded due to willful ignorance, an ignorance some might argue the Prime Minister cultivates. So there are issues and demands for health transfers.
There will also be pressure on child care services. The housing crisis will not be addressed by welcoming 500,000 people a year in Canada, 110,000 of which would be destined for Quebec. The same is true for income support for these people who are arriving and who are sometimes helpless and, of course, for francization and the development of a sense of belonging to this people, this nation that is welcoming them. There is a risk of different kinds of social problems. There is the issue of the coherence of a cultural body that allows everyone to function within the same society, with a big neighbour trying to ensure its dislocation. There is also the appearance or increase of pockets of poverty for those that the system will be unable to integrate harmoniously and the appearance of cultural-linguistic ghettos of people who will not integrate and for whom it will quickly become too late, because the correct action was not taken or action was not taken at the right time or, in Ottawa's case, action was not taken with the right intention.
There is also the issue of the indigenous peoples. I cannot speak for them, but the numbers speak for themselves. The natural growth of the indigenous populations cannot keep up with the immigration of 500,000 people per year, which, hypothetically, would mean 100 million people in Canada by the end of the year. This great scam requires associating, integrating and amalgamating first nations as if they were immigrant populations. In the eyes of the first nations, I am an immigrant. We are the immigrants. Unlike this potentially infinite influx of people who are welcomed through immigration, no one can immigrate and say they are indigenous. One is indigenous or one is not. A person is born indigenous or is not born indigenous.
There is a threat strictly in terms of demographic weight. Maybe this is an opportunity for the first peoples to realize that Ottawa is not working for them.
There is a risk, as a nation, of losing part of our soul, most of our weight, and of failing to bring forward a different and unique culture in which and to which the contribution of immigrant communities is essential; it transforms who we are. Do we want to say in a very healthy way that we have a common language, that we have common values, that all equalities are eminently valid, that the state, to be progressive, must be secular? These are fundamental elements that define us. Besides that, there will always be a cultural and artistic contribution that enriches us, as long as it is done harmoniously. We must not fail.
We therefore have three choices. The first is to shrug our shoulders, increase immigration levels and lose our language. The second would be to obtain a guaranteed percentage of seats in the House, which we were refused outright. The government knew very well what they were doing. They knew very well that, by refusing a predetermined percentage of seats for Quebec and by implementing an immigration policy involving an extremely large number, they were condemning Quebec to being reduced and diminished within the federation.
However, there is a third way: The appropriation of all attributes of sovereignty for the Quebec people. Sovereignty is not a fictional intellectual concept or a bargain-basement anglophone bogeyman. It is the normal appropriation of all the means we have to choose, even if some are then freely and consensually shared.
Let us not fool ourselves, the NDP and the Conservatives agree with this idea of 100 million Canadians and 500,000 immigrants per year. Maybe the means could be debated? Maybe this issue could be reviewed? Maybe there is an opening, particularly among the Conservatives, that I would welcome with great enthusiasm? However, care must be taken to not create consensus that will isolate Quebec. I will come back to that.
There is a concept that exists in the intelligence community, that of useful idiots. That is the second English term in my speech. When someone, without realizing it, serves the interests of someone else, such as systematically supporting policies that benefit big money and disadvantage Quebec, while imagining that they are doing good, they may be a useful idiot. They are people who do not realize that, if they conducted themselves differently, Canada and Quebec would be better off.
Immigration is not simply good or bad. We need to make sure that integration is effective and that the people who choose us have the tools they need for a new successful life. First, there is language and then adjusting to employment, where language is the primary factor. There is also the recognition of diplomas and full training or supplementary training for a diploma to be recognized. There are many issues.
Is immigration really a numbers issue? I would say that anything is possible. I have always been very resistant to debates about numbers. A number like 110,000 looks high for Quebec, anyway. I would say that if Quebec chose to increase the number of immigrants it receives, the levels should be increased gradually. We would need tools to measure the success of everything put in place to promote sound and successful integration. There needs to be a common melting pot of a changing national culture.
We are told that sovereignty would change nothing. That is also what I heard yesterday on television. In fact, sovereignty would allow for clear integration policies, a clear message about places where people would arrive and full political weight to make decisions on our soil. Above all, sovereignty would end Ottawa's usual practice of undoing what Quebec has done through heavy-handed legislation, gobs of money and court decisions.
Because of the fiscal imbalance, and according to the government’s own figures, in 30 to 40 years the total debt of the federal government would be eliminated, while at the same time, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, most provinces would technically be bankrupt. This is known as the fiscal imbalance. This is essentially Ottawa grabbing fiscal resources that it does not need at the expense of the provinces and Quebec, which do not have what they need. This is how to dismantle the provinces and the Quebec nation.
The naive, high up in their ivory tower in Toronto, believe that the fiscal imbalance, the Supreme Court biases, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—designed against the Quebec nation—and the activism that replaces collective rights with individual privileges will save Canada. God Save The King. Some of these naive people are francophones from Quebec, but I am not looking at anyone. They are wrong. Quebeckers are patient, generous and welcoming, but there are many who realize that the immigration policy advised by McKinsey, which is laughing all the way to the bank, threatens the very existence of the Quebec people. They will want to act.
Sooner or later, this will be known as Quebec’s sovereignty. In the meantime, someone here has to stand up and denounce this vision that is harming Quebec, and that someone is the Bloc Québécois. We will not wait long. We will get ourselves a country.
2225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 10:36:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was a wild speech with a lot of hot air, to put it as politely as I can.
Anyone who goes to the trouble of the putting the words “French”, “extreme right”, “Bloc Québécois” and “Pierre Karl Péladeau” in the same sentence deserves nothing short of my contempt.
As for taking lessons from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP did not take them from the Bloc Québécois. It took them from Quebec. There is one lesson left.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 10:41:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleagues for giving me the opportunity to take part in the important debate we are having here in the House of Commons today.
I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support as I attempt to improve the quality of my French. Members from every party have helped me learn this new language. When I arrived in Ottawa after the 2015 election, I did not speak French. In fact, all I could say was, “bonjour, je m'appelle Sean”. Before, when my colleagues asked how I was doing, I sometimes forgot how to answer that question in French. Thanks to my colleagues' support, I am now able to convey simple ideas in French.
Today, I would like to share an idea that is simple, yet important for Canada's future. It is the idea that we can welcome newcomers to areas across the country and still protect the French language and francophone culture. Not only can we do it, we actually are doing it.
During the debate, I will make several points.
First, immigration is essential for growing our economy and offsetting the demographic decline caused by population aging. It is very important to continue to welcome new immigrants, while protecting the demographic weight of francophone individuals and communities.
Before getting to the crux of my speech, let me be very clear: The Century Initiative does not dictate federal government policy. I am the one who tabled the immigration levels in the House, I am the one who made a commitment to organizations that represent francophone communities, and I am the one who signed the agreements.
I will now address the importance of immigration for Canada's economy.
It is essential that Canada welcome new immigrants, and the current situation in this country is very interesting. To understand why Canada needs to favour people with skills that are useful to the economy, it is essential to understand the current economic context.
Like other countries, after the COVID-19 pandemic, that is, following the reopening of the borders and the economic recovery, Canada entered a major recovery period. There have never been as many workers in Canada as there are now. Many people have good jobs. The GDP is higher today than it was before the pandemic. Despite this success, there are currently more than 700,000 vacant positions in our economy. Employers are seeking workers to help them grow their businesses.
Without immigration, Canada cannot maximize its economic potential. Immigration is extremely important because there are not enough Canadian workers to fill the vacant positions, either today or in the future. It is important not only for the economy, but for society as a whole. It is especially important that Canada offset the demographic decline caused by population aging.
Fifty years ago in Canada, there were seven workers for every retiree. Today, that number is close to three workers, and when I am ready to retire, I think it will be only two.
Immigration is essential for us to welcome people who have the skills we need and face demographic challenges. If we do not change our approach to immigration, it will not be possible to make the investments needed to ensure the delivery of public services.
Immigration is very important, as it allows us to welcome the people who have the skills we need. The people who are currently participating in our economy have skills, and it is essential that we find other people who have the same skills. Given our aging population, we need more employees to ensure the delivery of health care. There are many reasons for welcoming new immigrants. They make an enormous and essential contribution to the vitality of our communities.
I can give an example of a situation that happened in my riding. Right after the 2015 elections, we lost a school because many families were leaving the community.
Mr. Speaker, I think you know what I am talking about, because you are from Nova Scotia. Young people were leaving Nova Scotia to find work in other provinces and countries. I am familiar with the situation. I myself worked in Alberta for five years because I was looking for a good job.
Right after the 2015 elections, my community also lost a mental health professional. My community lost mental health services. It was very difficult for the community to lose the school and health care services. However, the people in my community can find another school and another doctor. It will not be easy, but it is possible.
That said, consider the consequences for francophone communities facing the same problems. When I visited with francophone communities, I saw that finding a doctor who speaks French is not just difficult; it is impossible. When schools close, people cannot simply decide to attend school in a neighbouring community. If the neighbouring community is anglophone, it is impossible for these families to live in French or have access to day cares where people speak French. Students cannot study in French. Customers cannot be served in French at the store. For these communities, this is a matter of identity.
It is extremely important to continue ensuring that people who live in francophone communities can live their lives in French. We know that the French language is in decline in North America. It is very important that we continue to ensure the sustainability of francophone communities and to put in place conditions conducive for these people to speak and live in French.
It is not just a matter of ensuring the sustainability of francophone communities. It is a reality now. I am very proud to be the minister who welcomed the greatest number of newcomers to Canada, in general, but I am also very proud to be the minister who achieved the 4.4% target for the first time in 20 years.
We are working closely with stakeholders to ensure that francophone communities have the capacity to accommodate people who have essential skills and language skills. The fact that we have achieved these targets is not an accident or a coincidence. It is the clear result of the decisions our government made last year. Our government put in place a plan to welcome francophones. We introduced an action plan for official languages with the necessary investments to ensure its success. We also continue to make investments in organizations that provide settlement services. We are making sure that these people not only come to Canada, but also integrate into their communities.
We continue to hold events to recruit and promote Canada as a destination to people who are looking for opportunities in another country.
We continue to propose essential solutions for protecting the demographic weight of francophones across Canada. We are making changes to the express entry program so that francophone and bilingual applicants get more points.
The next changes include new paths in the express entry program exclusively for francophones. This initiative is very important to me because, if we want to increase the number of workers in this country, we absolutely need to support French speakers to protect their demographic weight as well. It is essential for the future of francophone communities in Canada. All this is possible thanks to our government's immigration policies and decisions. We are already seeing the results.
Of course, the situation in Quebec is different. The federal government has an agreement with the province of Quebec. Under this immigration agreement, Quebec is responsible for establishing immigration thresholds and the number of new immigrants arriving in the province each year. It is also up to Quebec to choose the immigrants it welcomes for economic reasons. That decision is not under the federal government's jurisdiction. All this is set out in the agreement with the Quebec government.
The federal government's role is to process applications, verify admissibility and ensure safety, but it is up to the province of Quebec to determine the number of immigrants, assess their language skills and choose which immigrants will be welcomed based on their skills and how they impact the economy. These decisions are made by Quebec.
In order to support the integration and francization of new immigrants to Quebec, the federal government gives Quebec almost $700 million a year. That is a good thing. When I meet with Quebec entrepreneurs, they ask me to continue welcoming workers. It is essential to protect jobs in their companies.
There is currently a labour shortage within and outside of Quebec. One does not have to listen to me or look up what Statistics Canada has to say to understand that there is a labour shortage. One only has to walk down main street in every community in Canada to see the extent of the situation. Employers need workers to help the economy recover after the COVID‑19 pandemic. It is very beneficial for Canada to welcome people into our communities.
I have spoken with my international counterparts. It is not right that Canada is the only country that is having such a hard time processing applications more quickly to meet the needs of communities. It would be a good idea to seize this opportunity and to have the courage to welcome people with essential skills so we can ensure a bright future for Canada's economy and communities.
It is important for me to explain the many reasons why I will be voting against this motion. First, I am being accused of following the Century Initiative. Once again, I want to be very clear. The Century Initiative did not establish the Government of Canada's plan. My plan includes many other policies like the Century Initiative. For example, there is a whole chapter on francophone immigration, which is very important. There is a plan to welcome the most vulnerable people. I also think that it is very important to ensure that the smaller provinces are able to welcome newcomers. Normally, newcomers prefer to settle in Canada's bigger cities.
Whoever looks at the details of my plan, including its immigration thresholds, can see that we are protecting the accommodation capacity of the Atlantic and northern regions, and that we are allowing the francophone community to benefit from immigration while also protecting its accommodation capacity.
It is not right for the Bloc Québécois to hide behind the Century Initiative and say that Canada needs to reduce the number of new immigrants. In my opinion, that is not right. If they think that Canada should reduce the number of immigrants, let them just say so. The House is the best place to hold that debate, but today's debate is a red herring, because the plan is the government's, not the Century Initiative's. The signature on the dotted line is mine.
I began learning French after the 2015 elections. I learned a lot of things. I am not perfectly bilingual, but I can hold a conversation. It turns out that I did not only learn a new language. I also learned the importance of protecting the francophone community's continued ability to exist. I learned the importance of protecting francophones' ability to live their lives in French, to live with their children in their francophone communities.
People who vote in favour of the motion are voting against Canada's ability to welcome the most vulnerable and the people with essential skills for our economy.
I have a message for Acadians, Quebeckers, Franco-Ontarians, people who live in francophone communities in western and northern Canada: I work every day to protect their ability to speak French, to ensure the sustainability of their communities and to protect their ability to live their lives in French. I worked on it today, I will work on it tomorrow, and I will continue to work on it in the future.
1985 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague. I will never be able to congratulate him enough on the fact that his French is improving every day. It is a praiseworthy achievement. I think that it is the first time my colleague has spoken in French for 20 minutes, and I congratulate him.
My leader took the floor earlier and explained that there were three options before us. One of them is that they have their thresholds in Canada, we have ours in Quebec, and they are different. Looking at the thresholds as they are now, there is a difference between the demographics of Quebec and the demographics of the rest of Canada.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Drummond tabled Bill C‑246, in which we asked the government to guarantee that Quebec's number of seats in the House never drop below 25%. The bill was rejected, however.
Prince Edward Island, for example, has four members, and apparently the rest of Canada is fine with that. When Quebec asks for 25% of the seats in the House because it believes it deserves them, the government says no.
Would that not have been a solution? We might not be having the same debate today.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 11:03:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, many people may not know this, but prior to doing this job, I spent over eight years working with newcomers to Canada in the region I represent. I remember being very overwhelmed by their generosity, kindness and gratitude, and what it meant to be Canadian. I went to a lot of citizenship ceremonies, and I have to say that those were some of the most amazing parts of my life. They also really made me appreciate in a new way how important it is to be a Canadian.
I am sad that we are having this discussion today. I think immigration brings a richness and a profound deepness to our communities. I do not believe we have to lose our identities while we welcome other identities. They create a much more diverse and dynamic community. I am wondering if the minister could talk about why it is important to bring more French-speaking immigrants to Canada and how that would add to the beauty of our country.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 11:04:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her service before politics to support newcomers in the community that she calls home.
There are a number of different reasons why I think we need to embrace immigration if we are going to benefit from what diversity can offer our communities. In particular, there is a reason we need to continue to bring more French-speaking newcomers to communities across Canada.
In general terms, I reflect on the experience of my own community. Thankfully, though things have changed since 2015, we still have not seen the schools return, and we still have not seen mental health services return, but we have seen more people move into communities, including newcomers, as a lot more people have moved home. We are not talking about more schools closing. We are talking about building houses to welcome all the people who would like to come join our communities.
For francophone communities, supporting people who speak French is critically important. Without immigration, when businesses shut down, when schools are closed, it will be impossible for francophones to continue living their lives in French. They will be forced to leave the community to seek employment in other communities.
It is extremely important that we take into account the impact on different communities, including linguistic minority communities. If we continue to support the ability for francophone communities to attract newcomers, it will allow them to raise their families in French, in the language of their choice, in their community. This is the kind of thing that will keep people on board with our immigration policy if they see a future for themselves in it. By living in a community that embraces newcomers and diversity, I can say from personal experience that it has made my community a more vibrant and dynamic place to call home.
306 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 11:07:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.
This is a challenge not just for Quebec businesses, but also for francophone communities across the country, where it is a big problem. When touring the community of Saint‑Quentin in northern New Brunswick, we introduced a new pilot program for essential workers. When I visited the plants that were using this immigration program, I saw with my own eyes how much the arrival of these newcomers benefited both the businesses and the community.
That is just as true in Quebec. When people arrive in a community, especially in a rural area, the community can continue to have positive experiences, to live in French and to give children the opportunity to do so as well.
It is very hard when a plant closes for good, because families leave the community. Often, immigrants are then forced to go to an anglophone community and thus lose the possibility of having the next generation continue speaking French.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 11:38:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciate the quality of his French, which he uses regularly.
Today, we are hearing many speeches that say it is easy and it is important. Yes, French is spoken in some parts of Alberta. We are hearing stories about how French is found here and there, but the reality is that the Government of Quebec is having a hard time welcoming the immigrants it is already receiving. Why? It is because we lack the resources for our social and health services and for services to newcomers, and, in the meantime, the federal government hangs onto the money. Not only does it hang onto the money and prevent us from properly welcoming these people, but it tells us that even more people will be coming to Quebec. That is what does not make sense. We are being reasonable in the arguments we are making today.
Does the member not believe that the Government of Quebec should set its own thresholds without the federal government dictating them?
Furthermore, could we please get our money back so we can take care of our people?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 11:55:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how Canada's rich diversity has actually seen expansion in many ways. I have used the example of Manitoba, where more French is being spoken than there ever has been in its history. With respect to the diversity, I have reflected upon people of Filipino and Indian heritage, in particular from the Punjab. I often meet with youngsters and they are actually speaking French or learning to speak French. I believe this is healthy in the long term for the French language.
Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the way many immigrants see learning and understanding French as a wonderful thing?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not an expert on Manitoban history, but we do need to be somewhat careful. I think there was a time when the majority of people in Manitoba spoke French, before French was banned from being taught in schools. We have to put things in perspective, from a historical point of view.
Today, it is true that there is an interest in French and immersion classes. It has even reached the point where, in many parts of the country, there is not enough capacity in French or immersion schools to offer spots to newcomers and children.
That being said, is French under threat? Yes. Will it always be threatened? Yes. Do we need to do more in Quebec and on the federal government side? Yes, absolutely.
I think that significant steps will be taken this afternoon when we pass Bill C-13. The same can be said of the agreement that was reached between Ottawa and the Government of Quebec regarding this bill and the place of French in federally regulated companies.
Yes, we applaud diversity, but we have to give ourselves the means to properly integrate people into Quebec's culture and history and into the beautiful French language. I think we all need to work towards that, but without pointing fingers at immigrants, without portraying them as a threat.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 12:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a bit perplexed by the Bloc motion today. I understand that there is a feeling that the French language and Quebec's weight in Canada are the real concerns. There are two ways, I guess, that such concerns could be approached. One is the defensive and negative way, which I see in this motion. The other is to tap into the great source of immigration abroad in the francophonie. There are more than 450 million French speakers around the world; they have some of the largest and fastest-growing populations and some of the youngest French-speaking populations. They could be a source of those immigrants.
Would an alternative approach not be to try to make sure that we raise those rates of immigration to help replace the aging population here and to help bring the diversity of francophones into Canada?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 12:37:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and neighbour from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot on his excellent speech, and at the same time wish him a happy birthday.
There was a lot of passion in his speech, and a lot of facts too. There is one thing that concerns me greatly about the erosion of the political weight of Quebec within Canada. Laws are being passed in Canada to protect certain aspects of culture, including French, culture itself and the people who shape our cultural sector, which is always under threat, always at risk. In fact, it is often in danger, and we often have to come to its rescue.
With the Century Initiative, Quebec risks losing its political weight. What does my colleague think Quebec will have to do to protect itself from this increased risk of Quebec culture withering away?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 12:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since my colleague worked on the broadcasting file, I think he would know how hard it is to get the message across that we need policies that support our cultural community and give them some leverage.
I think that the history of Quebec shows it. Just look at the Charter of the French Language. A very ill-advised former Liberal government minister named Stéphane Dion, whom we hardly miss in the House, once said that Bill 101 was a great Canadian law. What he meant was that it proved that we are perfectly equipped to defend the French fact in the current system. It is true that it has become a great Canadian law: there is nothing left of it. It is just a skeleton and a shadow of its former self. Of course, it has become “Canadianized” to the extreme.
Naturally, the only choice we have is to make all our own decisions without being at the mercy of the Constitution and the government of judges in Ottawa.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 12:47:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is indeed a challenge, especially for a company's human resources department, which devotes a lot of time to ensuring that the company is welcoming and that the employees are happy with the programs the company has in place for them. This is a challenge for every company, no matter what region they are in.
We need to encourage people to learn French. I think that any newcomer in Quebec who can see the magnificent culture and quality of life that we have to offer will be happy to live here.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 12:51:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.
We need to attract newcomers to Quebec who speak French or who are open to learning it. However, we need a strong economy to attract them. To have a strong economy, we need to address the labour shortage, so it is a bit of a vicious circle.
A weak economy will not help Quebec. If the economy is weak, then people will look for work elsewhere. That happened in the 19th century when there was an exodus from Quebec because there were no jobs there. We therefore need a strong economy. That is essential to having a strong Quebec within a united Canada.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before addressing the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to the family of Sergeant Eric Mueller and the two police officers who, unfortunately, were injured in Bourget, which is in my riding. I want to salute their courage and thank the community, including the police officers and first responders who responded to this tragedy.
I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and the distinguished members of the House of Commons for giving me the opportunity to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition motion concerning our government's immigration policy. It is important to point out that many considered efforts have been made by people across the country to support immigration, and that many different groups and think tanks have provided suggestions, comments and advice. The perspectives, including those of the Century Initiative report, are part of a national dialogue on immigration and are accessible by any member or Canadian. The only thing they do not represent is a government policy.
As a Franco-Ontarian, I would like to focus my remarks on one important aspect of the reform of Canada's language regime, specifically francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Government of Canada's vision for official languages reform, which was announced in February 2021 in the document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”.
Francophone immigration has been the subject of numerous studies, reports and parliamentary debates, and often makes headlines in the Canadian media. There is no doubt that francophone immigration is one of the factors that will contribute to slowing the decline of French and increasing the demographic weight of official language minority communities.
Overall, our reform of Canada's language regime is based on two complementary components that include important measures on francophone immigration. First, legislative measures on francophone immigration are included in Bill C‑13 to strengthen and modernize the Official Languages Act. Second, seven new or enhanced initiatives for francophone immigration have been included in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, with an investment of more than $137 million over five years.
Now let us talk about Bill C-13, which gives concrete expression to our desire to halt the decline in the demographic weight of francophone minorities, specifically by ensuring that the demographic weight is restored and increased. In addition to adopting a strengthened francophone immigration policy, the bill reiterates the importance of sectors that are essential to the development of official language minority communities, such as culture, education, health, justice, employment and immigration.
In addition, by strengthening part VII of the act and specifying the obligations of federal institutions to take positive measures and to evaluate their effects, federal institutions are encouraged to take positive measures in all of these key areas, for all of their policies, programs and major decisions.
I would now like to speak in more detail about our official languages action plan, entitled “Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration”, which was unveiled to Canadians on April 26 at the Cité collégiale, where I had the pleasure of being a student, once. We are very proud of this plan, which includes a historic investment of more than $4 billion over five years.
Francophone immigration is one of the four pillars that define and guide our five-year official languages strategy. This pillar confirms our government's commitment to fostering the vitality of francophone communities by addressing economic and demographic challenges through francophone immigration. As I mentioned, this pillar represents new investments of more than $137 million over five years, divided among seven initiatives in support of francophone immigration.
The first initiative is the implementation of a new francophone immigration policy, similar to what is provided for in our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, Bill C‑13. This new policy will include objectives, targets and indicators to guide the development and implementation of policies and programs across the entire continuum of francophone immigration, from promotion to selection and integration of French-speaking newcomers to Canada.
The second initiative focuses on targeted expansion and increased promotion and recruitment support in order to raise potential immigrants' awareness of francophone communities and the services and programs available in French.
The third initiative provides a corridor for the selection and retention of French teachers in Canada through interconnected initiatives that aim to boost foreign recruitment and retention of French and French-speaking teachers.
The fourth initiative involves establishing a strengthened francophone integration pathway to facilitate the settlement and integration of newcomers to Canada and bolster the reception capacity of francophone minority communities.
The fifth initiative focuses on creating a centre for innovation in francophone immigration that will enable francophone communities to take part in activities to promote, identify, support and recruit French-speaking and bilingual candidates.
The sixth initiative relates to developing a francophone lens that is integrated into the economic immigration program so as to improve the selection of francophone and bilingual immigrants.
Finally, the last initiative aims to provide and develop measures to help newcomers learn French or English by increasing grants and contributions therefore expanding the geographic coverage and improving the quality of language training for newcomers.
I would also like to add that, alongside these initiatives, which will be developed and deployed by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Canadian Heritage backs the initiative to recruit and retain French and French as a second language teachers in Canada, which aims to recruit and retain teachers who are recent immigrants. Canadian Heritage also provides contributions to provincial and territorial governments for minority language services. Our agreements enable these governments to focus on enhancing services in priority sectors, such as francophone immigration.
Lastly, I also want to point out that, in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, our government committed to promoting diversity, inclusion and equity through new initiatives designed to support more vulnerable clienteles. That is what we will do.
In conclusion, immigration is absolutely a pillar of our Canadian language reform agenda. We hope opposition party members in the House can see that we kept our promises with historic investments in excess of $4 billion over five years for official languages. We hope they will support Bill C‑13.
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 1:00:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his defence of Bill C-13. We will have ample opportunity to debate it in the House.
I want to remind the House that, in regard to this bill, Quebec once again claimed its full rights with respect to French integration. Only Quebec laws should govern what happens in Quebec. That claim was also denied. The answer is always no when Quebec asks to be treated as nothing short of a French-language Quebec nation.
I would like to know what the member thinks of the motion our party introduced today. Basically, what we are saying is not just about simple mathematics, it is about our accommodation capacity and our capacity to preserve what is most fundamental to us: our common language, which is French.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 1:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, several studies over the past few months and years have shown that francophones outside Quebec rely heavily on the strength of French in Quebec and on the support for French in Quebec to protect them in their official language minority community.
Why does my colleague think it is a good idea to improve and strengthen French outside Quebec but let it get weaker within Quebec? Does he not think that francophone communities outside Quebec are ultimately at risk of suffering the consequences and getting weaker themselves?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 1:15:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member underestimates the impact of the growth of the French language within the province of Manitoba, my home province, and I do not think this is unique to Manitoba.
Through immigration policies, and I made reference to this earlier, more people than ever are speaking French in the province of Manitoba. I attribute it to communities, whether they be Portuguese, Filipino or Indian communities. We can hear people speak French, Tagalog and English. There is a growing admiration for the French language, and we hear more and more people speaking it.
Would the member not recognize that, as opposed to trying to paint immigration in a negative light, we can see the benefits of the diversity of people from around the world who come to Canada, learn the French language and pass it on?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 1:16:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
First, I take issue with one of the premises of his question. We are not painting immigration in a negative light. On the contrary, we are in favour of immigration. We are in favour of immigration policies that will ensure that French is able to thrive and that get people interested in speaking French, as he said about people in his province of Manitoba.
I think it is great news that francophone immigration is on the rise, that francophones are being welcomed, that French is being seen in a positive light and that people in Manitoba and other provinces are interested in learning to speak it.
However, the situation in Quebec is different than in the rest of Canada because French is the common and official language in Quebec. It is in danger in the English-speaking ocean of North America and Canada. The reality is not the same in Quebec. We need to protect French because it is at risk. We are not trying to help a minority grow. It is a majority language in an ocean where it is a minority and at risk. That is the difference.
That being said, we are all in favour of immigration.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
