44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/8/24 10:53:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Bloc for his fine speech. It is clear that the Liberal government has broken the immigration system. We absolutely need a plan for health care and affordable housing, but I have not seen a plan from the government.
The Standing Committee on Official Languages studied immigration. We need many immigrants who speak French. However, once again, this government has no plan.
What does the leader of the Bloc want to see in the plan for Quebec?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 11:24:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on a Bloc opposition day motion. To summarize it briefly, it would recall a vote in the House that tied immigration targets in Canada to various areas of capacity in social services, French and English-language training, transportation infrastructure, health care, jobs availability and education. This was voted on at the end of last year, typically when the permanent residents plan is tabled in Parliament, but also the temporary residents plan of the government. A three-year rolling plan is put forward. This motion refers to it and tells the government to do its homework once again, in light of a lot of new announcements that have been made.
This debate involves the Minister of Immigration. My experience on the immigration committee is that often invectives are hurled toward members who simply have questions, concerns and comments. A few members of the Bloc have already said that whenever they expressed a concern about the integration capacity in Quebec, especially on the island of Montreal where there is a lack of capacity, for example, for French-language training, they were quickly called names and insulted by the Minister of Immigration outside of the House quite often. It happened again yesterday at committee and on the minister's Twitter account.
The Conservatives have that same experience very often from Liberal members of Parliament. If the Liberals do not have an argument, they move on to insults. Margaret Thatcher loved to say that quite commonly.
Today, I will outline what I think is a common-sense Conservative proposal to what we should take into account when redoing the targets. A lot of it comes directly from government sources. We see it in government talking points and what different ministers have said. We have the bizarre situation today of there being a junior and senior minister of immigration. The new Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control, by his own admission. He has said it several times. He was quoted as saying it in the National Post. He said it on CTV's Question Period. He also said, “That volume is really disconcerting. It's really a system that has gotten out of control.”
In an article by journalist Ryan Tumilty, the headline was, “'Out of control': Immigration minister says he wants to reduce international student arrivals”. It goes on to say, “The increase is considered one of many factors leading to housing shortages and rent hikes across the country.” That is the tie-in to housing.
Then there is the senior minister of immigration, who is now the Minister of Housing, and he has a lot of regrets, because for two and a half years he essentially let the system get out of control. That is what the Minister of Immigration is saying today about his predecessor's work. It is not Conservatives, Bloc MPs or New Democrats saying it. Over the last three months, two ministers have been fighting it out in public about whose fault it is that the system became out of control.
The Minister of Housing now, the senior minister of immigration, went even further. In a different article by Touria Izri for Global News, the housing minister was quoted as saying, “temporary immigration programs are putting pressure on the housing system and creating a 'serious issue we need to address.'” Why did he not address it when he was the immigration minister? Why has he only discovered this now?
In fact, the journalists refer to a briefing note that was given to the minister, the new Minister of Housing, the senior minister for immigration, that warned him that the targets the Government of Canada was setting, especially on what it was doing with temporary resident permits for international students, foreign work permits for the temporary foreign worker program and the international mobility program, were going to lead to pressures in rental housing. People were going to have a tough time affording housing, either purchasing or renting a home.
The Bank of Canada said that 60% of newcomers would rent, especially for the first 10 years. I know this for a fact as I was a newcomer. When my father came here in 1983, he rented. When the rest of the family came here in 1985, we rented for many years on the south shore of Montreal. I am very well aware of the newcomer experience. When newcomers first come to Canada, they rent, and rents across the country are going up.
In the last nine years, rents have doubled. Down payments have more than doubled. The price of homes is out of control, and that is not the fault of immigrants or newcomers. That is the fault of the government for vastly overspending during the pandemic, $600 billion of pandemic spending, $205 billion of which had nothing to do with the response to the pandemic.
When a lot of cash is chasing fewer goods, it leads to higher prices. When a briefing note is provided to the minister by his own immigration department that tells the minister about concerns of continuing to allow a lot of newcomers to come to Canada, well over a million last year and I think it will be a million before the same deadline this year, as well as over a million in the next six months, then we have a system that is out of control. I am referencing the junior immigration minister. The system is a mess. I am quoting the senior immigration minister, who is titled as the housing minister.
Of course they have regrets. They are going on different podcasts, complaining about each other's work and drawing attention to whose fault it is. It is the fault of the Liberals. They have been in government for nine years. They bear responsibility for the chaos on our streets today, with crime that is out of control. They are responsible. If we are renewing our leases this year and we see a 20% or 30% increase to them, we have only three people to blame: the Prime Minister, his housing minister and his immigration minister.
Every other minister on the front bench bears cabinet responsibility for the decisions they make. The Conservatives are not making this argument; I am using their own words. They have been in the news. At the end of November, Mia Rabson from the Canadian Press quoted the senior immigration minister, who is now moonlighting as a housing minister.
The current minister said of the student visa system, “It’s a bit of a mess...It’s time to rein it in.” He then went on to talk about Uber drivers. On the international student program, he was making comparisons, saying some of these colleges were behaving like puppy mills. What kind of bizarre commentary is that, to try to insult international students who are here?
I was an international student at one point in the United States and I do not remember being insulted in such a way. If, in fact, for the last two and a half years there were these private colleges and others, which the minister is now accusing of being puppy mills, it was the department that was issuing visas for them. Why were they doing that? They were warned.
A briefing note was circulating somewhere. Some journalists have it, but I do not. I was actually asked by a journalist from the Toronto Star whether I had it. It is the one that ties temporary immigration numbers to the potential for housing crisis. That is not me saying it; that is the department. The immigration department was warning the previous minister, the now housing minister, that this might happen. The articles go on and on.
We have these two ministers who are having a public debate, an argument. I am sure that it started some time in cabinet. There is a Yiddish proverb I am reminded of, because I love Yiddish proverbs, as many members know. My grandmother used to say them in Polish, but Yiddish used to be a common language and culture to eastern Europe. The proverb is that when a fool and a wise man are debating, there are only two fools debating. Sometimes it feels that way when I am watching the debate in public, because—
1406 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 11:53:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, concerning the first part of my colleague's question, it depends. I know that this is not the answer he was hoping for. However, it depends. We will see how the debate unfolds.
As for the second part of his question, as the member knows, we Conservatives voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's motion on the Century Initiative. At the time, we voted with the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties in the House.
I think that answers his question.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:29:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who is also my treasured whip. One must always be kind to one's whip.
The federal government needs to revise its immigration targets if it wants to build a successful immigration model and make sure that newcomers find favourable living conditions here. On its opposition day on Tuesday, October 31, 2023, the Bloc Québécois invited elected officials from all parties represented in the House to vote in favour of its motion asking the federal government to revise its immigration targets after consultation, of course, with Quebec, the provinces and the territories.
Today, the Bloc Québécois reiterates this invitation and asks the House to reaffirm its unanimous vote on November 1, 2023, calling on the government “to review its immigration targets starting in 2024, after consultation with Quebec, the provinces and the territories, based on their integration capacity…all with a view to successful immigration.” Also, the Bloc Québécois “call[s] on the Prime Minister to convene a meeting with his counterparts in Quebec, the provinces and the territories in order to consult them on their respective integration capacities”. Finally, it asks that the government “table in the House, within 100 days, a plan for revising federal immigration targets in 2024, based on the integration capacity of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.”
There is no doubt that Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to understand their reality on the ground. Considering their integration capacity for health, education, language and housing services is a necessity to build a successful immigration model and to ensure that newcomers can find good living conditions here, with us. Ottawa must respect our integration capacity.
Quebec is generous and welcoming. What we want is for all newcomers to be received in the right way, with access to housing, health care, child care and education services and, of course, to French-language training so that they can fully integrate with us and become “us” as well. Basically, what we want is to have the means to welcome everyone through the front door and with the dignity and respect they deserve.
What is unfortunate, for lack of a better word, is that the Liberals, at the exact same time that they were supporting the Bloc Québécois motion for successful immigration, unveiled new immigration targets that they set without consulting Quebec. On November 1, 2023, the federal government announced new targets without knowing if new immigrants would have access to housing, health care, child care, education and French-language training services. It is too bad for the federal government, but the Bloc Québécois will not let that slide.
Recently, the Premier of Quebec wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada mainly to address the issue of asylum seekers. Let us be clear: This issue is also linked to Quebec's integration capacity. Support organizations are overwhelmed. Quebec alone welcomed over 55% of all asylum seekers in Canada. That is a major financial burden. By the way, Quebec is still awaiting the reimbursement of the $470 million it had to spend to welcome these asylum seekers, which is a federal jurisdiction. As usual, the federal government cloaked itself in virtue and announced a $100-million payment, thinking that would silence Quebec. I do not think it is the responsible thing to do.
As members know, I love democracy. It is normal and healthy, in a democratic Parliament such as ours, to hold public debates on important subjects that shape our future. It is also essential for the government to consider the requests of the opposition parties, just as we must also respect differences of opinion. Understandably, I am not here today to play politics at the expense of the lives of migrants and asylum seekers. On the contrary, I believe that, as a parliamentarian, it is more than necessary to rise to the occasion and be there for the most vulnerable and those who are seeking a better life.
The migration path is not easy. It is often costly and sometimes perilous. In the face of such a situation, it is our duty to be responsible and worthy of the trust of people who leave their homes and travel a long distance with their families and children in the hope of finding a host community and happier days. The problem is that the federal government is not giving Quebec a chance to keep doing what it is doing. Quebec has far exceeded the capacity it considers essential to welcome immigrants with dignity.
Since the House came back, we have been called every name in the book, but “armchair quarterbacks” has to be the most ridiculous one. Unfortunately, that shows the level of respect this government has for opposition parties, such as the Bloc Québécois, here in the House. They wave us off, call us names and use the typical Canadian insult that Quebeckers are always looking for a fight. Worse still, they turn a deaf ear when we speak. From what I understand, that is also how the federal government treats the Quebec government when it comes to discussing immigration thresholds.
Yesterday, Quebec's immigration, francization and integration minister said that Quebec is at its “breaking point” and that “the situation has become unsustainable”. It has gotten to the point where, as we speak, the people on the other side of the bridge are considering holding a referendum to repatriate immigration powers in full.
Do I really need to explain my position on this? The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of what is good for Quebec and we will always support what is good for Quebec. If Quebec's relationship with the federal government is as good as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship claims, if things really are that good with Quebec City, which is what he says every time we ask him a question, I think it is time he showed a little more openness. Something tells me that this relationship is in tatters.
Quebec's immigration minister said yesterday that she did not sense any openness on the part of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. That is how the media reported it. Quebec's minister is considering holding a referendum on the issue of whether to repatriate all immigration powers to Quebec. Meanwhile, the minister in Ottawa keeps saying that everything is just hunky-dory, that the relationship is great and that they have had some good discussions. I think I trust the Quebec immigration minister more than the federal immigration minister.
The Bloc Québécois motion that we have brought back again today aims to ensure a better future for all Quebeckers and those who hope to become Quebeckers. It cannot be done haphazardly or at any price. It has to be done in a responsible manner by showing newcomers and their families that we can be trusted in Quebec.
1211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:37:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois talked about problems with the current immigration system. Here is my question. What would the Bloc Québécois's plan be if Quebec were responsible for immigration?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:38:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to a Leger survey, 70% of Quebeckers believe that the Quebec government should do more to increase the pool of available workers through economic immigration. Does the Bloc Québécois agree?
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:56:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her question. I know she is very attuned to this issue as well.
When we welcome around 40 students from francophone African countries and we are so happy to have them in Salaberry—Suroît because they speak French and they want to study to become nurses and contribute to our health care system, it breaks my heart to know that they get here but do not have everything they need for a successful immigration experience. Some are forced to rely on donated clothing or food banks, some need help moving house, and some have nowhere to live or are forced to share an overcrowded home.
In all sincerity, I cannot imagine the government not voting for the Bloc Québécois motion. It makes sense, and it is specifically targeted to newcomers, who are human beings who need to be taken care of.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 3:34:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House and have the opportunity to respond to the opposition motion concerning our shared responsibility in welcoming newcomers.
I would first like to share a little reflection with the House. When I read the text of the Bloc Québécois motion, I wondered why the Bloc Québécois would move such a motion. After researching the various programs and agreements currently in place, I concluded that using an opposition day to move this motion was unnecessary, because the mechanisms and tools for collaboration between the Quebec government and the Government of Canada have already been put in place to address the Bloc's concerns. I will explain.
First, it is important to note that since 2015, the Government of Quebec has received more than $4.4 billion in federal funding through the Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens to support its immigration needs. It is also important to note that the federal government has allocated more than $700 million this year alone.
As a Nova Scotia MP, I understand the importance of Quebec's place in the federation. That is a very impressive number. We can see that the federal government is co-operating with Quebec. In Nova Scotia, it is different. I believe that this initiative could also be a good idea in the other regions of Canada in order to meet their specific needs.
The governments of Canada and Quebec have a long history of working together to advance shared immigration priorities. Quebec's immigration powers are enshrined in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord. I would like to get into the details of the Canada-Quebec accord.
Quebec is the only province that receives an annual grant from the federal government to compensate for the delivery of settlement services to newcomers. In all other provinces and territories, the federal government provides annual funding directly to settlement service providers in local communities, who provide services directly or indirectly to newcomers in those regions. Funding is therefore available directly to the Government of Quebec. I think that is important to say in the circumstances.
Quebec receives an annual adjustment to regularly update the amount of federal funding. The funding formula takes into account net federal spending on immigration, as well as the number of non-francophone newcomers who have arrived and settled in Quebec, compared to the previous year.
The accord ensures Quebec's integration capacity by guaranteeing that the federal grant cannot decrease from one year to the next, regardless of the proportion of permanent immigrants requested by the province. The grant must either remain constant or increase. The amount granted in a given year becomes the basis for calculating the following year.
I would like to note that the value of Canada's grant to Quebec continues to increase. This is very important in order to continue offering programs, subsidies and resources for integrating newcomers in Quebec. In fact, it has more than doubled from $387 million in 2016 to over $724 million this year.
Quebec is not required to tell the federal government how it spends the funds it receives. However, under the Canada-Quebec accord, the province is required to provide settlement and integration services comparable to those in the rest of the country.
It is very important that a strong relationship between governments, with public servants and with the elected ministers responsible for this portfolio be sustained. The agreement defines the bilateral relationship between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Quebec. Its main objectives are to preserve Quebec's demographic weight within Canada and support the integration of immigrants in the province while respecting Quebec as a distinct society. I mentioned the principle that recognizes Quebec's distinct character within our federation.
The accord aims to ensure co-operation between the governments of Canada and Quebec throughout the immigration process in all immigration categories. The federal government is responsible for setting national immigration standards and objectives, including national levels of permanent immigration, admission criteria, and conditions for granting citizenship. It must also ensure that Canada's international humanitarian obligations are respected.
The Government of Quebec has the right to decide the number of permanent immigrants it wants to welcome every year. I will say it again: The Government of Quebec is allowed to figure out the number of newcomers it wants to welcome to the province based on federal thresholds. It retains the right to exceed this figure by 5% of the Canadian total for demographic reasons, in order to protect the Quebec identity, but also the French language, of course. We understand the importance of protecting the French language in this context as well. However, recently, Quebec asked to meet only 10% of Canada's target for permanent immigrants, even though its population represents 22.5% of the country's population. The Legault government decided that Quebec's desire was to maintain a low level in relation to the federal total. That is Quebec's right and it is a decision based on capacity. At the same time, it was the Government of Quebec's decision.
I am a little confused. Why is the Bloc Québécois moving an opposition motion today in relation to the decisions made by the Legault government? Is the Bloc Québécois opposed to the Legault government's measures and decisions to accept a relatively low number of newcomers in relation to Quebec's percentage of the Canadian population?
I understand that Quebec and Canada have a special relationship given its place in Confederation. I am a Nova Scotia MP. The accord contains different tools and mechanisms to ensure that a certain relationship exists, in addition to certain mechanisms and tools for managing the newcomer arrival process in Quebec and in the federation. I see no need for this motion. Both governments are following the proper procedures.
999 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 4:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can well understand the Bloc wanting to have a day to talk about why the Liberals are not balancing the number of people coming into Canada with our resources. Quebec is receiving a larger share compared with the other provinces, and this could impact its culture.
However, why did the Bloc choose to have this motion instead of the one on the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River? I was so looking forward to talking about the clean electricity generated through nuclear power and clarifying the misinformation about it being a low-level, completely encased place for booties, gloves and not a deep geological repository—
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 4:13:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked one of the member's colleagues. Bloc members talk about the importance of consultation in regard to the immigration file, and they have done so a lot in the last couple of months. When we factor in things like the provincial nominee program, international students, temporary workers in agricultural communities, and so forth, there is no doubt there is a need to have ongoing conversations, which have taken place in a wide spectrum of ways.
Has the Bloc had any official discussion with the Government of Quebec with respect to the motion it is proposing today?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 4:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, if the Bloc Québécois has discussions with the Quebec government, that is really none of his business. That is between the Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government.
Second, I have indeed mentioned the importance of consultations several times. How is it that Quebec's premier, François Legault, is talking about a breaking point?
To my mind, that means that if there have been consultations with Quebec, the government is incompetent. If there have not been any, perhaps it is time there were.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 5:14:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out the reality of the impacts of leaving one's homeland.
Does the Bloc agree with the NDP that the answer to respecting immigrants is to stop pointing fingers at them and instead address corporate greed and profiteering in Canada's housing sector and beyond?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
