- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Bloc Québécois
- Montarville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 59%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,582.71
- Government Page
- Oct/31/23 4:09:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.
During question period, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said his Bloc Québécois colleagues were foolish and frustrated. I would hope that the minister would not want to get carried away in a debate as important as this one and that he would be able to raise the level of debate a little.
Last June, I had the opportunity to take part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where there was a joint debate on the integration of migrants and refugees; social inclusion of migrants, refugees and displaced persons; and the health and social protection for undocumented and irregular workers. I was on the list of speakers and, although I was able to have my speech recorded in the minutes of the debate, I unfortunately was unable to deliver it to the assembly.
Since I thought that this speech was particularly relevant to the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to share its content.
Successful integration requires that the host society be able to allow newcomers to thrive. Quebec has the ability to select its so-called economic migrants. However, the federal government retains control over family reunification and refugees. For years, Quebec received more than 90% of all irregular entries into Canada through the infamous Roxham Road, which shows that the federal government can still impose much of the immigration coming into Quebec.
The various Quebec political parties seem to have their own conception of Quebec's capacity for integration, ranging from 35,000 to 50,000 or even 80,000 immigrants per year. The federal government, on the other hand, seems to like the idea promoted by an interest group, the Century Initiative, who believes that the Canadian population should be increased from 40 million to 100 million by the year 2100. This would result in immigration rates in Quebec of more than 200,000 per year. That is far more than the envisioned capacity.
The federal government claims it does not endorse that delusional vision, which is based solely on economic considerations, without taking into account its predictably disastrous effect on the situation of French in Quebec and Canada. The federal government recognizes that French is in sharp decline, both in Quebec and in Canada, but nevertheless set immigration targets of up to 500,000 newcomers in 2025. This means that more than 100,000 immigrants would come to Quebec each year, which is still a substantial number.
This puts Quebec in an impossible situation. Either it agrees to comply with these unreasonable targets at the risk of losing its linguistic and cultural specificity, or it sticks to its capacity for integration, which would accelerate the decline of its demographic and political weight within the Canadian federation.
Quebec and Canada have always been lands of immigration, and this will continue to be the case, particularly in this era of labour shortages. While employment is the most important factor in integration, it is important to give newcomers the tools they need to successfully integrate, which includes learning the common language and cultural codes. They must also have access to decent housing, and social and medical services, which brings us back to the central question of the host society's capacity for integration.
In my speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I referred to Roxham Road, and I remember the countless speeches we made in the House calling for the closure of Roxham Road. Some members on the other side of the House tried to imply that the Bloc Québécois wanted to close Quebec off and stop accepting newcomers. Some, even more insidiously, suggested xenophobic intentions on the part of the Bloc, but that was not the case.
What the Bloc Québécois was and still is concerned about is integration capacity. As soon as the federal government closed Roxham Road, the provinces, who had no concerns at all when it was open and Quebec was taking in over 90% of all the irregular migrants to Canada, suddenly realized that there was a cost to bringing in all of these people. At that point, the provinces started to be less pleased about it, because, obviously, they had to provide these people with health and social services. They had to ensure that they had decent housing. All of that is not easy.
It is all well and good for the federal government to be open to welcoming the entire world, but Quebec and the provinces are the ones that actually have to welcome those people, provide them with the minimum necessary services and help them to integrate into our society appropriately. As we were saying earlier, employment is key to successful integration, and to get a job, these people need to learn the language and the cultural codes. Do we have the capacity to bring in as many people as the federal government would like? I think the government needs to consult Quebec and the provinces. That is what the motion that is before us today is proposing.
As I was saying, after Roxham Road was closed, the other provinces suddenly realized it was not much fun having to make room for and integrate all those people who entered Canada irregularly, with all that implies financially.
Our Liberal Party friends, who tend to portray the Bloc Québécois, and Quebec in general, as xenophobic, should consider the results of an Environics survey. According to the survey, 37% of Quebeckers feel Canada has too much immigration. People might say that 37% is a lot, but that number might be informed by this kind of trauma, if I can put it that way, of having spent many years taking in over 90% of those entering Canada irregularly. Let me just point out that 50% of Ontarians feel Canada has too much immigration. In the rest of Canada, it is 46%.
I do not want to hear anybody tell me that Quebeckers are not welcoming. Even though we had to put up with the considerable impact of Roxham Road for many, many years, the percentage of Quebeckers who feel that there is too much immigration in Canada is only 37%, while in Ontario, where they have been experiencing this phenomenon just very recently, the percentage is 50%. In the rest of Canada, it is 46%.
I almost feel like asking my hon. colleagues from the Liberal Party to apologize for suggesting that the Bloc Québécois, and Quebeckers in general, may have somewhat xenophobic tendencies. The proof is in the pudding, and it is quite the opposite: Quebeckers are very welcoming. When the Bloc Québécois raised this issue, it had to do with our capacity to take in newcomers. It also had to do with the fact that there were criminal smugglers illegally making money off the backs of the poor seeking refuge in Canada. The federal government accepted this as something good, even wonderful, when in fact it was simply inhumane.
I therefore ask my colleagues from all political parties to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois's motion. Its purpose is simply to ensure that we can generously take in people from around the world. These people are an asset to our society. For them to live up to that expectation, however, their integration must be smooth and successful. This is what we are asking.
1275 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:14:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will note at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
I have been listening to my colleagues in the federalist political parties speak since this morning, except maybe our friends in the NDP, who like to make a big show of their Canadian pride by trying to protect a foreign institution at all costs. What is so typically Canadian about the British monarchy?
I hear the Conservatives and Liberals telling us how proud they are of Canada, telling us that it is the best and most beautiful country in the world, and telling us that they want to protect British institutions like the British monarchy. They keep saying that this debate is not important, that no one in their respective ridings wants to talk about the monarchy.
What is the point, then, of spending $67 million a year on an institution that no one in their ridings cares about? That is the real question.
If the monarchy is not important to their constituents, why take that money from them every year and spend it on that, when the $67 million could be spent on essential government services like housing or EI supports, for example? Why continue this wasteful public spending for the benefit of a privileged few?
Some citizens of this country that our colleagues are so proud of will never have the opportunity to go to Rideau Hall to have cake with Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada. They are struggling every day to cover the cost of inflation.
We are talking about the very heart of our democratic institutions, which are founded on the equality of citizens and the rule of law, not the bloodline of a handful of people who, simply by birth, would have the right to rule an entire country.
The monarchy goes against so many principles at the heart of our institutions, from, as I was just saying, the equality of citizens, to sovereignty of the people, to democracy, which is the corollary, and the separation of church and state.
We are told what people in this country think about this. According to a poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in April, 71% of Quebeckers are against maintaining the monarchy and want it to disappear from Canada. A majority of my colleagues' constituents, 51%, want the monarchy to be abolished.
The poll also indicates that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who want to maintain the monarchy is greater than the percentage of those who want us to get rid of it.
Those members who say that their constituents do not talk about this should take note of it. My colleagues must take note of what people think, and the majority of their constituents believe that we should abolish this useless institution.
Another poll conducted in June by Leger indicates that 56% of Canadians oppose the oath of allegiance. In Quebec, that number is as high as 75%. Australia, whose head of state is still His Majesty the King, decided to do away with the oath of allegiance. Why does Canada not do the same?
I would like to share with my colleagues a few words I spoke when I swore the oath for the very first time, in 2005, as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. I referred to the oaths I had sworn here, in the House of Commons, and said:
Previously, I swore oaths in a very private manner, and in complete anonymity. I never invited anyone to attend, not even my closest colleagues, not even my spouse.... I did so, as they say back home, “on the sly”.
I did not see any reason to celebrate. For me, the swearing-in was just a formality, something I had to do to be able to fulfill my responsibilities. In fact, I found this ritual very difficult because my common sense and my conscience were engaged in a bitter struggle. As I was swearing the oath, I was thinking of our Canadian ancestors who, under British rule, were forced to swear the oath of allegiance to be able to serve in public office. I was thinking of my Acadian ancestors who were stripped of their property and deported in wretched conditions under the false pretext that they supposedly refused to swear unconditional allegiance to prove that they were British subjects, a totally futile endeavour. I was overcome by a deep sense of helplessness and shame at the idea of betraying their memory in that way by performing this official act that was the source of such misfortune for them.
I am once again hearing our colleagues bragging about how proud they are to be Canadian. The parliamentary secretary even said that the Bloc Québécois initiated this debate because it wants to break up this beautiful country. However, some quintessential federalists share our position, not the least of which is John Manley. John Manley, who served as deputy prime minister and minister of finance under Jean Chrétien, made some statements that I would like to share.
I do believe when most people think about it and realize our head of state is foreign when she travels she doesn't represent Canada, she represents Great Britain. I think they kind of realize this is really an institution that is a bit out of date for Canada to continue with.
He went on to say that Prince Charles should not be allowed to become the country's king:
Having the oldest son inherit the responsibility of being head of state, that's just not something in the 21st century we ought to be entertaining. That's why it ought to be a person who is Canadian, who reflects Canadian diversity, and who is chosen by Canadians.
He also said this:
Personally, I would prefer an institution after Queen Elizabeth that is just Canadian. It might be as simple as continuing with just the Governor General as the head of state in Canada. But I don't think it's necessary for Canada to continue with the monarchy.
Here, we are not talking about an evil separatist and someone with ties to the Bloc Québécois, we are talking about a Liberal minister. We are not talking about a junior minister, we are talking about the former deputy prime minister and minister of finance under the Jean Chrétien government.
The Young Liberals, who cannot be suspected of being sovereignist supporters, even tabled a motion in 2012—not in 2002, as was the case in the John Manley era—at the Liberal Party convention to abolish the monarchy in Canada.
We can see that this has absolutely nothing to do with being a sovereignist or not, since the majority of my colleagues' constituents across Canada are also opposed to the monarchy.
When they say that their constituents never talk about the topic, I think that this in fact speaks volumes about the $67 million a year we spend on this institution rather than investing it in social housing, for example. There could be 670 new social housing units built each year if that money were invested in social housing rather than in maintaining Rideau Hall and the person who resides there at our expense.
I am not going to mention all the lavish spending that has been reported in the media for far too long in relation to the governors general of Canada and the lieutenant governors throughout the provinces. I will spare the House from having to listen to the list of all such people.
We have been told repeatedly that monarchy provides stability to Canadian democracy, so I will simply conclude my remarks by respectfully reminding the House that many, many democracies in the rest of the world are not monarchies but are nevertheless very stable and work very well.
1339 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:12:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Repentigny.
Today, we are being asked once again to participate in a very important debate on the situation unfolding in Ukraine. To present the Bloc Québécois's position on the Conservative motion, I would like to read it point by point.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills is proposing “That the House: (a) condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine”.
We completely agree with point (a). However, we were expecting that, a little later, they would make suggestions about possible additional sanctions to punish Vladimir Putin and Russia for the unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. We were also expecting them to propose additional sanctions on the oligarchs.
The member then suggests that the House “(b) stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”.
Again, no one could be against that. We have said many times over that we stand with the people of Ukraine. We are not going to stop standing with them now. We would have liked to see some proposals, though. What more can we do on top of the humanitarian assistance we have already sent to support the people of Ukraine? Will the government increase the $10 million cap it set to match the donations Canadians make to the Red Cross? We are waiting to hear.
Will the government lift the visa requirements that are still in place for Ukrainian refugees? These people are fleeing with a small suitcase, can barely find a place to sleep, and yet they are being asked to fill in 14 copies of forms in a language that is probably not their first language. They also have to pay fees to be able to seek refuge in Canada. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, Canada is allowing people to cross the border at Roxham Road without a visa but cannot lift the visa requirement for Ukrainian refugees.
We were expecting the Conservative motion to propose ways to meaningfully demonstrate our solidarity with Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian Canadians. We then jumped to point (c) thinking that we would see proposals for sanctions to punish Russia, Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs who support him. We expected to see proposals in point (c) to help Ukrainians, Ukraine and our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian origin, but no. What then did we find in point (c)?
It suggests that the House “(c) call on the Government of Canada to undertake measures to ensure new natural gas pipelines can be approved and built to Atlantic tidewater, recognizing energy as vital to Canadian and European defence and security, allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas in Europe, and being consistent with environmental goals in the transition to non-emitting sources of energy”.
If that is not a basely self-serving argument, I do not know what is. Honestly, even if we decided to go that route and build pipelines, despite the fact that it would first of all go against the idea that we need to phase out fossil fuels, the conflict would, hopefully, be long over by then.
What would be the purpose then, other than to export the dirty oil produced in western Canada? It would have no other purpose, because our German friends cannot rely on Canadian oil and gas to replace Russian oil. That is a bogus argument. What we find in point (c) is a bad idea masquerading as a solution.
More than that, it is an idea that would hurt Ukrainians. Why?
This morning, our friend Paul Journet, in La Presse, reported that some oil companies in western Canada are owned by Russian oligarchs who are still free from Canadian government sanctions.
I would have expected the Conservatives to tell us that they are also going to impose sanctions on the oligarchs who hold shares in western Canadian gas companies. No, they are not proposing sanctions against these oligarchs.
However, if we help these oligarchs, we are helping Russia and therefore hurting Ukraine. This contradicts points (a) and (b) in the motion that the House “condemn President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation for their unprovoked, illegal attack and invasion of Ukraine” and that we “stand with Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and Canadians in the Ukrainian community”.
What the Conservatives are proposing means giving more cash to Russian oligarchs who have shares in western Canadian oil companies. Is that how we want to help Ukrainians? Is that the great idea of our Conservative friends to help Ukrainians?
All the Conservatives want to do is help their oil industry, period. There is no other explanation.
I can name names. How about Roman Abramovitch, who owns 28% of Evraz, which supplies steel for pipelines? That is interesting. How about Igor Makarov, Coastal GasLink's primary shareholder? These are oligarchs who are still dodging sanctions, and we would sure like to know why the Government of Canada has not yet imposed sanctions on them.
If only the Conservatives had put forward the idea of punishing these oligarchs too. Let me reiterate: The chief of staff for Alexei Navalny gave the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development a list of oligarchs who should be sanctioned, and that was long before the invasion of Ukraine. We had that list. The Government of Canada had that list. When will it impose sanctions on all those oligarchs?
Today, the Conservatives actually want us to send more cash their way and help them help Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine. We wholeheartedly agree with parts (a) and (b) of the motion, but how could we possibly support the part (c) the Conservatives have put forward in this motion? Never in a million years would we support that kind of thing because supporting the Conservatives' proposal would hurt Ukraine.
If the Conservatives had been the slightest bit reasonable and honest in their desire to help, given the climate crisis as well, they would have said that this proposal will need to be accompanied by energetic measures, no pun intended, to undertake the green transition and significantly reduce the amount of oil and gas in our economy. Once again, they come up with no such proposal. They are simply proposing that we consume even more oil and gas and export it to other countries so they can continue consuming it, which runs completely counter to the idea that we need to start the transition immediately.
Allow me to reiterate: The Bloc Québécois is voting against this motion. We take no pleasure in doing so, but we have no choice. My colleague from Repentigny will most certainly provide even more reasons why, from an environmental perspective, the Bloc Québécois cannot subscribe to a motion like this one.
1171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
