Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just with regard to that point, I did mention the amendment, and I said that the amendment in and of itself does not negate the language in the motion, which already insinuates and points the finger directly at newcomers, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Redekopp was listening carefully, he would have caught that.
However, let me go on to say this: I do think that it is important to talk about Canada's immigration system. I do think that it is vitally important that we also address the housing issue. As it happens, I'm the NDP housing critic, and this issue was brought up in study at the housing committee through different motions and in different ways. Most certainly the NDP has been going after the government with respect to its lack of action in addressing the housing crisis and its failure to make good on its own promise that housing is a basic human right.
Now the reality, of course, is this: We have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments for the last 30 years, and what has happened in the last 30 years? They heavily relied on the private sector to deliver housing, housing that is not affordable for Canadians. Hence, we have this housing crisis because successive Liberal and Conservative governments cut housing programs.
How does that tie into immigration? It ties in because when you don't ensure that housing is developed, you do actually create a crisis for both domestic people—Canadians and people who are already in the country—and newcomers. There's no question.
With regard to this point more specifically on immigration, what do I think needs to be done instead of engaging in a process that continues the narrative that blames newcomers? Mr. Chair, I think that we need to be very specific and say what we need to have the minister come and address.
I want the minister to come and address the work of the task force in addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students. Many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status. That is an issue that all committee members were seized with. We have had the minister come back to report, to say that, yes, there wasn't good enough communication, and we asked for a bunch of information. However, do you know what? The situation is not finished.
I just talked to some students who are faced with deportation. They have gone before the task force and still have not had any outcome. That, to me, Mr. Chair, warrants ongoing study. We need the minister to come back to explain that and why students are still in a state of limbo. Why isn't the task force engaging in communication with these students?
I think we need to continue to have that, Mr. Chair. I think we need to understand from the government the measures that are being taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes. We know it's happening, so what is being done? I think the public needs to know. I would like to know. I think the students deserve to know. We need to have a serious conversation with respect to that.
I think that we do need to have the government, and the minister more particularly, provide information to the committee on what the justification is for increasing the financial requirements for international students by more than 100%. I want to be very specific about that, because that was an announcement that was made. What is the justification for that, Mr. Chair? I think we need to have a conversation about that and we need to be able to ask the minister questions about it.
I also think we need to have the minister come to talk about the justification for the cap on international students. There are a lot of repercussions, by the way, with respect to the cap. It's not just to say we're not going to let international students come in anymore, and the insinuation is that somehow they are responsible for the housing crisis. There are international students, for example, who are elementary students. Many of them actually come into a homestay environment. Are they captured as part of that cap? They per se are not renting apartments. Many families take on homestay students for additional income to help with their mortgage and so on. Is that all going to be shut down now, Mr. Chair?
What about international students who have a scholarship with the institution, a scholarship that provides all the resources and support that they need when they come? Are they also eliminated? I know there are a number of Afghan women who won those scholarships and whose costs are all taken care of. Are they now also excluded? There are many questions with respect to the cap.
Then, of course, there is this whole notion that international students are to be blamed for the housing crisis. There is no talk about the contributions by international students either, or of how Canada is constantly on the record—both the Conservatives and the Liberals have said this—as saying that we want to attract talented young people. What are the implications of this with respect to that, Mr. Chair?
I also want to talk about the responsibility of governments with respect to housing for students—the federal government, the provincial governments, the territorial governments and the institutions. What plan is in place to ensure that housing is provided for students? I want to be very specific about the work that needs to be done and the issues that need to be addressed, with no innuendos, finger pointing or blaming, as though somehow those things will help solve the problem, because they won't. All those things will do is hurt people even more and escalate this idea that newcomers are to be blamed.
Lord knows—and I've been around long enough to know—that I am literally blamed for everything because of who I am, all the time. With COVID—Jesus—people called it the Kwan virus. Do we really need to go down that track with innuendo that will escalate the tensions? It seems to me that whenever there are challenges in the community, the easiest people to blame are newcomers. We have to stop that. We have to be responsible for that, and let's be clear on what we need to study and not put in language that frankly inflames the situation, as opposed to de-escalating it. As an elected official, I take that responsibility and that part of the job very seriously. I think about how I can help address the issue and not just do it for political calculus and a political win. If those are the only reasons we're here, Mr. Chair, then we should not be here.
I will not be supporting the amended motion, because the thrust behind the language of the amended motion is dishonest, in my view. I really do appreciate my friend's, my Bloc colleague's, amendment. I really do, because it does add that, but that is insufficient because the main motion itself is problematic.
I do want to say thank you to my colleague for his valiant attempt to make it right, but I'm sad to say that even the amendment doesn't make it right. I do appreciate the effort, which is the reason I supported the amendment. I want to say thank to my Bloc colleague here for that.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, I will not be supporting this motion. At the appropriate time, when there's a chance after this has been dealt with, I would like to move an alternative motion that brings both ministers to this committee so that we can get answers from them in a responsible way.