Debates of May 10th, 2022

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Permanent Residency for Temporary Foreign Workers

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know I speak for hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers, students, families, employers, communities and hard-working industrious community-minded people who long to be a part of our magnificent country of Canada. My friend and colleague, the hard-working member for Surrey Centre, with Motion No. 44, is the hope that all of these great people need, that our economy needs and that our country needs.

We have an economy that is leading the G7. With a strong plan to continue that growth, budget 2022 is all about economic growth, jobs, community and country building. That is why Motion No. 44 is vital at this time.

Every week at my office in Mississauga East—Cooksville, I have employers coming to let me know how much they are growing, how they are scaling up and how they need more workers. These employers are from all sectors: manufacturing, transportation, logistics, hospitality, health care, construction and trades. I could go on.

Statistics Canada shows us that our unemployment rate is the lowest we have seen ever. Since we started measuring unemployment in 1976, our unemployment is the lowest today, at 5.2%.

Canada has always been a beacon of hope for people fleeing from wars, persecution, fascism, dictatorships and totalitarian states. Waves of immigrants have come to Canada for its democracy, peace and freedom.

I have a Ukrainian intern, Olha Louise Boleyn, who just arrived here in Canada a couple of weeks ago. She is working in my office. She is a courageous young woman of 22 years old. On February 24, when Putin started the illegal, illegitimate war against Ukraine, a sovereign state, this woman's world changed. All of a sudden her family had to flee. Her home and her building were hit by a missile and they lost power. She knew she had to move her family. Her mother and three siblings have gone to Poland to find refuge, her father is still in Ukraine and she has come here to Canada, having helped her family find safe haven. This young woman speaks English, French and Ukrainian.

I thank our Minister of Immigration, our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister and all parliamentarians here, because I know we all stand together strong for Ukraine. We are here to help Ukrainians find safety, find help and build a better life.

There is a legacy of Ukrainians coming to Canada, and they have farms right across our Prairies. My wife Christina Yaremczuk's family is from Ukraine. Her parents had to flee World War II. They went to a displaced persons camp and then were brought here to Canada. Her grandfather worked at a factory and her mother worked in health care, helping to build our country. Her father went to school here and became a citizen and dentist.

Let us consider stories like the story of my wife's parents. I could tell colleagues a bit about my story and my parents. This is about Portuguese people, Italians, Filipinos, Polish people, Ukrainians, Asians, South Asians and the entire world, because outside of our indigenous people, Canada has been built on immigration. We have brought people here from all over the world and given hard-working industrious people an opportunity to succeed.

This is all true for our temporary foreign workers and our foreign students. Many of them have come to my office, as I am sure they have visited many of my colleagues' offices. They love their adopted community and country, and want to stay here.

Their employers want them to stay, but they have barriers in front of them. They are looking for, and need, a pathway to permanent residency. That is what Motion No. 44, brought forward by my colleague from Surrey Centre, is about. Permanent residency for temporary foreign workers is a comprehensive plan to address many of our labour shortages. It would continue to build our country, to build Canada.

Motion No. 44 builds on the success of our Atlantic immigration program, our temporary resident to permanent resident pathway program, rural and northern immigration programs, agri-food immigration pilot and provincial nominee programs. We have learned a lot from all of these programs, including what works and what does not and how to best address our labour shortages, all while working with our partners, provinces, employers, businesses, stakeholders and communities.

Temporary foreign workers know our culture, our work environment, our standards, and our health and safety standards. They have enough language proficiency to do their job, whether driving a truck, understanding our rules of the road or being able to get the licences they require. They also have to be proficient when working at construction sites, in terms of health and safety, or working in food processing or agriculture, and understanding how to work on a farm.

They have settled, and they have already contributed. They pay taxes. They want an opportunity to grow deep roots, to raise their families and become a part of the Canadian family, not just temporarily for the season, and not just for a couple of years, or four or six years, while having to renew their temporary foreign status year over year. They want to stay here permanently, and we want them to be here. Motion No. 44 is the road map to that.

I have spoken to so many temporary foreign workers. Tears come to their eyes because they want to be here to be a part of Canada and to grow their families here. However, there are barriers when it comes to language proficiency and formal education, be it high school or higher education. Some may say that those are low-skilled jobs. I would suggest that those with Ph.D.s, and there may be some in the chamber, to try to frame a home, put a brick wall together through masonry, or put up a piece of Sheetrock or drywall. These are skilled professions. they take a lot of work and a lot of skill. All of these workers are able to do these jobs so well, and we need them.

We talk about what we are achieving here in Canada. As we continue to grow with our population, people need a place to live, a place to call home. It takes these construction workers and those transporting all of those construction materials to make that happen. As we build, over these next three or four years, 100,000 more new homes, we will do it through our many temporary foreign workers. Why would we not want to keep them here permanently? This is what Motion No. 44 is all about.

It is about continuing to grow our country the way it has from its inception, through waves of immigration, and with people who roll up their sleeves, who are here to work hard and who have the spirit of Canada, of building our country. I thank my parents, Maria Fonseca and Joaquim Fonseca for coming here. Mom worked in health care while Dad worked in a factory after they had left a fascist dictatorship in Portugal. I am so proud that they worked hard.

Unless Motion No. 44 gets done, people like my parents would not be able to come to Canada. Let us all support Motion No. 44 and make sure we help our great country and those who want to be part of it.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Motion No. 44, which seeks to force the government to:

...develop and publicly release within 120 days following the adoption of this motion a comprehensive plan to expand pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, including international students, with significant Canadian work experience in sectors with persistent labour shortages...

Furthermore, we are debating the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, with whom I sit on the immigration committee. It seeks to strengthen this motion.

Let me start by saying that this is my first opportunity in this Parliament to speak during Private Members' Business. I have had the chance to speak to multiple government bills and budgets since my re-election by the good folks of Saskatoon West, but it is always a pleasure to discuss ideas that originated from MPs outside of the Prime Minister's inner circle.

I would remind my Liberal colleagues across the way that they have the actual power to implement these things right now. I am glad to hear them talking positively about the motion, and I encourage them to actually implement it.

In Saskatoon West, as in all parts of Canada, our economy is driven through job growth. As our population ages and the boomers retire, we need people to fill those jobs and continue to grow our economy.

Like many western nations, Canada's demographics play against our economic survival. Birth rates in Canada are at a historic low of 1.47 children for every woman. An economy needs a replacement of 2.1 births just to keep the population stable, and that assumes that all people want a job and want to work.

Unfortunately, as we now know, some people, for one reason or another, would rather take a government cheque than work. Members should not kid themselves: I get emails from constituents demanding that what they and the NDP term as a “universal basic income” get implemented. This social experiment replaces working with a government paycheque, allowing people to stay home and watch Netflix all day. Not only are we short citizens, but not all able-bodied citizens want to work.

How do we fix this problem? Well, for the past 20 years or so, the answer has been immigration: bringing in people to do the work the so-called old-stock Canadians no longer want to do. They pick our vegetables, drive our taxis, serve our coffee, drill our oil, mine our lithium for electric cars, drive our big-rig trucks, take care of our children and elders, perform our surgeries, fly our planes, become our members of Parliament and so on. There is actually no limit to the skills that immigrants bring to our country.

Many of my constituents in Saskatoon West know that I support immigration. Conservatives are proponents of immigration. I sit on the immigration committee, and I believe in the value and hard work of our immigrants.

I take the opportunity when I am back in the riding to meet with Canadians of all backgrounds. Two of the main complaints I hear about are the issue of backlogs and the pathways to permanent residency. Both of these systems are broken.

Let me start with backlogs.

On Sunday, the latest figures reported by the government put the immigration backlog at two million people. These are Afghans and Ukrainians who are waiting. They are fearing for their lives. These are wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters and parents who are waiting patiently to join their families already in Canada. They are waiting for IRCC to shuffle through paperwork.

Our citizenship backlog sits at almost half a million people. These are people who are now in Canada: They have gone through the immigration backlog, and have successfully applied and been accepted for Canadian citizenship. They are waiting for the day to give that simple oath that will give them the rights and privileges of being a Canadian citizen. Can members believe that? There are two and a half million people waiting for the nod of approval from the Liberal minister.

Clearly, there are major problems in the systems we use to manage immigration in our country. We have highlighted some ideas, such as having the entire process online, complete with notes and reasons for decisions to allow for complete transparency. Our system badly needs to be modernized and updated, and Conservatives will continue pushing for that.

It is the folks on temporary visas who are the most vulnerable to the whims of the minister and his backlogs. Immigrants come to Canada on a wide variety of temporary visas, such as study and work visas. Imagine that we have just spent four years educating someone as a doctor, engineer, accountant or something else, or a company invests months to train and provide experience to a worker, and then we send them home. Now, sometimes these folks want to return home, and that is just fine, but very often these people want to stay in Canada. When we send them home, Canada loses out on their talent and skills just when they are blossoming into productive workers.

In our last Conservative election platform, we promised to:

create pathways to permanence for those already living and working in Canada, so long as they are prepared to work hard, contribute to the growth and productivity of Canada, and strengthen our democracy. It does not make sense to attract the best and brightest, provide them training and knowledge, and then force these people—with all their potential—to leave.

Permanent residency is the best way to achieve this. Yes, the Liberals have played around the margins of many immigration programs, such as the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway, the Atlantic immigration program, etc., but what have they accomplished? I do not know.

Hopefully, this motion will pass and force the government to report back and tell us, but here is an easier answer: permanent residency. The question is, which classes of immigrants will it be for? Let us tackle that one.

Many immigrants come to Canada with credentials in their country of origin that allow them to practice medicine, be a nurse or a lawyer, drive a big truck, fly a plane, engineer a road or be a plumber, electrician or a boilermaker. When they come to Canada, either the federal or provincial regulatory body that controls their licensing says that they do not meet the standards. Sometimes that is fair, as when someone is a lawyer coming from India who speaks English. If the person expects to move to the Gaspé to practice law in French, he or she needs to meet certain requirements specific to that province's law association.

In other areas, training is training. An easy example to understand is aviation. If people are qualified to fly a Boeing 737 in Indonesia, they are equally qualified to fly that same plane in Canada. It is substantially the same. Therefore, a pilot coming from Indonesia should be able to pick up roots, move to Saskatoon and start flying for WestJet or Air Canada with very minimal training requirements.

In cases when there is some Canadian-specific training required, we need to simplify the process to achieve that education. Indeed, in our election platform, we promised to launch a credential recognition task force to develop new, timely and appropriate credential recognition strategies. I will be introducing in the House my own private member's legislation soon enough to accomplish this very task, so I encourage all members to look out for that.

Let me touch on the amendment from my colleague for Vancouver East. Her amendment would add the caregiver program to the list of programs that needs to be examined. In the past two studies we have done in the committee, I have asked multiple witnesses about this very program and about caregivers. Many of these folks come from the Philippines and settle in Saskatoon West. What I hear is unsettling. There was no pun intended.

MD Shorifuzzaman, who is an immigration consultant from my riding of Saskatoon West, appeared at our committee and said, “Let me focus a little bit about the caregiver program, which can be an example of mistreatment of those foreign workers who work hard to protect the vulnerable in our communities. This program was offered in 2018, but unfortunately, what happened was the priority of the IRCC shifted to the other programs.”

Mr. Gurpratap Kalas, another Immigration Consultant from Saskatoon West, also commented on the caregiver program and said, “The processing time has been an extensive amount and, because of the lengthy processing, the majority of the applicants' relationship stresses are often causing breakdowns in their relationships, with marriages falling apart, children reaching the age of majority and other areas. In some cases, employers have either already passed away, or the person to be cared for has already reached the age of majority, as is the case with child care providers.”

These immigration consultants are on the ground dealing with the failed caregiver program. I point this out, because I had asked the associate deputy minister of Immigration Canada, when she was at committee, about her thoughts on the caregiver program. She told me that “the caregiver program is one that is a priority for the department.” If a program that is a priority for her as deputy minister is such an abysmal failure, I hate to imagine what a non-priority program would be doing.

I want to conclude my remarks by reflecting on the need for compassionate immigration: our refugee program. The wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine have driven home the fact to many Canadians that we can and should be there to welcome people displaced by war. This is a role our country has taken on time and again.

Many immigrants came to Canada in the wake of the First and Second World Wars. We know that Hungarians fled here in 1956, and Eastern Europeans did throughout the Cold War. Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese people all fled conflicts. People from Hong Kong, Chinese citizens and practitioners of Falun Gong escaped China's basic dictatorship. Stephen Harper brought boatloads of Lebanese people over during their war with Israel, and the Syrians were after that.

Canada must continue to be open for refugees, but for that to happen, we must fix our immigration system, eliminate backlogs, implement new technologies and modernize our bureaucracy.

Let us get this motion passed and see what the government says in response. Hopefully, we can get on our way.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion, which outlines ways to increase avenues for temporary foreign workers to obtain permanent residence. This motion focuses on occupations in key sectors that are under-represented in existing economic immigration programs.

I am sure many members in the House are wondering if there is a way to compel a department like Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to provide timely and predictable services to small- and medium-sized businesses.

I am also convinced that the immigration process needs to be streamlined to help mitigate the devastating effects of this labour shortage. There are steps the government can take to make immigration to Canada attractive for employment in sectors that are vital to our economy.

I want to give the credit to Richard Kurland, a lawyer and policy analyst with Lexbase, who appeared last week before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

As a first step, he stated that the issuance of work permits should be subject to the Service Fees Act, and IRCC should be responsible not only for delivering work permits within the set processing times but also for refunding applicants if it misses the deadline.

The second item is something called the labour market impact assessment, or LMIA. There is no need for this in the province of Quebec, as Quebec is already doing it. We have an ecosystem that is doing it. This is a classic example of government duplication and waste. Where Quebec is already providing the service, why do it again? Quebec has paved the road once, so why do it twice? The LMIAs are a useless duplication.

With today's technologies, we have the means to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses do not duplicate their time and effort by sending the same information to two levels of government, and that governments do not simultaneously share information common to both levels of government.

The IRCC has always been reluctant to relinquish power and control over its processing times. It is therefore time it was held responsible for upholding service standards that meet businesses' needs, particularly in the context of a labour shortage. There is no reason why the processing times for applications from Quebec should be different than those coming from other places in Canada.

The federal government needs to modernize the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reflect the labour needs, objectives and strategies established by the provinces, such as the regionalization of immigration in Quebec. There is no reason why we cannot think outside the box and take risks, particularly when it comes to immigration.

There is so much global competition for the same people, so I do not understand why we need to make it so difficult for the candidates selected by Quebec to come to the country. Qualified young workers will want to immigrate to countries that require less paperwork. It is time to be effective because many communities in the various regions of Quebec depend on these workers coming here.

The motion moved by the member for Surrey Centre is perfectly legitimate and humane. It proposes a pathway to permanent residency for these workers and supports their integration in the communities where they came to work.

The temporary foreign worker program is a very costly and complex solution to the labour shortage at this point, but small and medium-sized businesses have no choice but to go with this time-consuming immigration program. We need a better solution fast.

I would like to share part of an April 29 article by Romain Schué on Radio-Canada:

Right now, a skilled worker selected by the Government of Quebec has to wait an average of 31 months for permanent residence. That wait time used to be six months in the branch serving other Canadian provinces, but it recently rose to 27 months according to data on immigration Canada's website.

That is a huge disparity. Do you know the difference between my riding and yours, Madam Speaker? A worker in my riding has to wait 25 to 30 months, but a worker in yours, which is just a few kilometres away from mine, might get through the process in a year. That disparity is unacceptable.

Also, there is a backlog of more than 29,000 files. In a brief submitted to the Federal Court on April 19 and obtained by Radio-Canada, IRCC discloses that there are currently more than 29,000 permanent resident applications from skilled workers in Quebec waiting to be processed. Nearly 10,000 of these files were sent to Ottawa before 2020. Some of these workers have been waiting for a federal decision for more than 10 years.

The department says that the delays could be due to a security or criminal risk or a lack of co-operation. This is unacceptable. The real cause is the lack of consistency from the federal government and perhaps a lack of resources. This may be a result of the labour shortage that is hitting Service Canada so hard.

Another way that our regions have shown creativity in attracting workers and addressing the labour shortage by hiring foreign workers is through universities and colleges. An article by Lisa‑Marie Gervais published in the February 18, 2022, edition of Le Devoir indicated that the regions are most affected by the rejection of international students, and the data are rather shocking.

For example, the rejection rate at the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières is 79%. At the college level, international students are being rejected because they come from Africa, because they are francophone students, or for other reasons. It may simply be because they want to settle here in the long term and that goes against the current mandate of the international student program. That has to change. There is also the Chinook system, which Minister Fraser already talked about.

The rejection rate is 73% at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, 71% at the Université du Québec à Rimouski and 68% at the École nationale de l'administration publique. That is not working. It is the same thing for CEGEPs, such as the Cégep de l'Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which has a rejection rate of 75%.

These are all educational institutions that want to take matters into their own hands and that are spending large amounts of money to attract students from all over the world, only for those students to be systematically turned down. This is a problem, because part of our strategy for combatting the labour shortage in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is to attract people with the promise of good living conditions and training programs that meet the needs of our business owners and businesses.

Motion No. 44 can go much further. It would be interesting to consider, but Ottawa must act quickly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think that the hon. member named the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which he must not do.

Resuming debate with the right of reply, the hon. member for Surrey Centre has five minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the members who have spoken to this today, including the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Bloc members, the NDP member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and many others. I also want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, who moved an amendment that I am very supportive of. Hopefully it goes as planned very shortly.

I am very pleased to be here to speak for the second hour of debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 44, for permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. I would like, again, to extend my sincere gratitude for all the support I received from my colleagues for this motion, and I thank all the individuals, the organizations and industry groups whom I have met with or who have corresponded with me and voiced their support for Motion No. 44. A group of constituents in Surrey Centre have even started an e-petition to show their support for the motion. In fact, because of them, I want this motion to be referred to as the “new hope motion”, as it gives new hope to those who have little.

I chose to bring this motion forward for Private Members' Business to address ongoing challenges with our immigration system and to help find ways to fill critical gaps in our labour market by creating more accessible pathways for permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. This includes important sectors like agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, trades, health services and many others that are desperately trying to fill persistent gaps in the labour market.

The implementation is even more important and vital today as we deal with inflation and acute labour shortages resulting from the pandemic, a retiring and aging labour force and low birth rates. Not a day goes by that I do not receive a call or an email from an employer stating that they cannot find workers for their businesses. From restaurant owners, produce packers and logistics companies to IT groups, everyone needs workers. In fact, the labour shortage is so drastic that the Quebec government is looking for 170,000 workers and is losing over $18 billion over the next two years because of sales losses due to the lack of a workforce. No one wants temporary foreign workers; they want permanent workers.

While the temporary foreign worker program has evolved over the years in order to address the challenging demands of the labour market, we must continue to update Canada's immigration system to be more flexible. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, things can change very quickly, and the work that temporary foreign workers do to support our economy is vital to Canada's success. Despite the delays that temporary foreign workers have experienced and continue to experience in renewing their permits, the uncertainty of their status and their sometimes precarious employment, their hard work keeps our country functioning.

According to a 2020 research publication from the Library of Parliament on temporary foreign workers in Canada, temporary foreign workers face exclusion from society and experience a lack of access to important settlement services and other services because of a common viewpoint that their work is for the short term and they will not be in Canada long, despite the fact that many work, live and contribute to the communities they live in over many years. This leaves many temporary foreign workers in a vulnerable position, as they are not eligible for federal settlement services and must rely on individual employers to support those needs. This motion would address some of these vulnerabilities faced by temporary foreign workers by giving them more access to resources, safeguards and pathways to PR for their contribution to our country.

As I mentioned in the first debate back in February, with an aging population and a low domestic birth rate, Canada is seeing a decrease in population. Some estimate that by 2030 our population growth will come exclusively from immigration. Fortunately, Canada has a great recipe for growth and to fulfill that labour shortage. That is immigration. Therefore, I urge members in this chamber to remember that and commit to always keeping a healthy discourse on this topic.

Immigration already accounts for almost 100% of Canada's labour-force growth and 75% of Canada's population growth, mostly in the economic category. Since 2016, we have seen a continuous increase in the number of labour market impact assessments approved as Canada's unemployment rate fell. LMIAs ensure that there is a need to hire TFWs in positions where there are not Canadians or permanent residents available to fill those positions. Last month, we saw the lowest unemployment rate on record.

I was pleased to see budget 2022 introduce proposed investments to support temporary foreign worker programs. While we have a great pathway for many TFWs, we do not have pathways for those who do not possess the prescribed education and language skills required for permanent residency, despite having the prerequisites to fulfill the job they have been hired for. Therefore, we must—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up.

It being 5:56, the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on the questions that I had brought to the government's attention and my concerns with its lack of action in ensuring that Afghans who are fleeing and hiding from the Taliban would be able to get to safety. I also raised with the government during this period that there are over 300 former Afghan interpreters whose families have been left behind. They have made an application and done a tremendous amount of work in guiding the government in bringing forward the necessary immigration measures to support their loved ones so that they can get to safety. Unfortunately, even with all of that guidance, the government has not been able to move forward in bringing their loved ones to Canada.

The problem rests with the government's inability to process these applications in an effective and efficient manner. The government is requiring individuals to provide documents that many of them would not have because they have had to burn them, because if they are found to have documentation that they are supporting or working with the Canadian military or have any links to the west, the minute the Taliban finds such documentation on them or in their residence, they would be targeted. This cannot be allowed to happen.

The Afghan interpreters have made these applications following the government's rules, and of those 300 applications, only 35% have been processed and 65% have yet to receive a G number. They have not received acknowledgement from the government. This is the reality. The urgency is getting grave. In fact, we found out yesterday at the Special Committee on Afghanistan that the Department of National Defence has submitted 3,800 applications that it has approved and vetted to Immigration, yet of those 3,800, only 900 have been processed. Some 2,900 are sitting somewhere and nobody knows where they are or what is happening with them.

In the meantime, we are getting media reports that Afghans who have supported the Canadian military are being hunted down by the Taliban. They have been tortured by the Taliban. That is the reality. There is such urgency in this situation that I really do not get what the government is doing. Liberals can get up every day and say what a great job they are doing, but the reality is that they are not doing a great job. There are so many family members who have been left behind and their lives are in danger every minute of the day as we speak. This cannot be allowed to happen.

I want know from the Minister of Immigration what is happening to those files. Why can IRCC not find them in the system? Global Affairs Canada has also made referrals to IRCC, and I am learning that those referrals that have been sent to IRCC have also vanished into thin air. In fact, IRCC is now asking the families of the representatives here in Canada to go back to GAC and ask it to resubmit those referrals. What on earth is going on with IRCC? Has it lost these files? Does it not realize that every minute of the day matters in the lives of these individuals and that we as Canadians owe these families to bring them to safety?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for her deep concern about the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan and for the people who are affected there.

We in Canada, as a country, remain deeply concerned about the ongoing crisis. We take this very seriously and remain committed to do all that we can to support the Afghan people. Canada is also unwavering in our commitment to defend the fundamental rights of all Afghans, and this is an important part of who we are as Canadians. This is a personal thing for me, actually. My mother arrived here as a refugee in 1956. It is an important part of how we engage with allies and how we contribute to global stability around the world.

Since the Taliban forcefully took over Afghanistan, the world has witnessed the steady deterioration of social and economic systems in the country, leading to the largest humanitarian crisis around the world. We have also seen violence and the erosion of fundamental rights, including those of women and girls in religious and ethnic minorities.

That is why Canada has no intention of recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. That being said, Canada is also aware of what this crisis could mean for regional stability and global security.

We understand our role and our obligations. We have committed to welcoming at least 40,000 Afghans to Canada under our special immigration measures and humanitarian immigration programs. We are doing everything we can to help the many who supported Canada's efforts over the years but still remain in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. We are helping them resettle in Canada.

I would say that a couple of former Canadian Armed Forces members in my riding of Milton have been in touch with my office, and we have successfully resettled a couple of dozen in Milton. I am proud of that work.

We have also responded quickly and expeditiously to bring Afghan citizens and their families safely to their new homes. We are ensuring that, as we bring in new arrivals, they are being managed in a way that sets them up for success and that communities and service providers have the capacity to integrate those individuals and families successfully.

In addition to our immigration programs, in 2022 we have allocated $143 million in humanitarian assistance to support the humanitarian response inside Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. Canada is doing this through the United Nations agencies which prioritize the provision of life-saving food and nutrition assistance. It is essential that humanitarian support remains principled, needs-based and separate from political and security objectives.

Canada, along with other like-minded donors, is also carefully weighing how to address basic needs beyond humanitarian needs, while following closely the Taliban's actions towards protecting the fundamental rights of all of its citizens. This includes maintaining an inclusive and representative government and the rule of law. The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has made it more complex to carry out activities in the country without risk of contravening Canada's Criminal Code. The Taliban remains a listed terrorist entity. Departments from across the government are seized with this issue and are actively working to identify a solution.

In closing, Canada's commitment to Afghanistan and the Afghan people is clear. We are working closely with our international partners to provide support that gets results.

As we work together to explore mechanisms for assistance beyond humanitarian means to support basic human rights, we will be guided by our long-standing values. It will not include a course of action that deliberately or inadvertently legitimizes the Taliban regime.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government just does not get it.

It is not acting with the level of urgency that is required. It is not waiving the burdensome red tape that has been foisted on the families, asking them to fill out application forms, only to layer more application forms on them, even though all of that has been done. Even though the Department of National Defence has verified that these individuals have an enduring relationship with Canada, are at risk and have serviced Canada, the government cannot find the files that have been referred by the Department of National Defence or from GAC. How is this even possible?

Does the government not realize that, when it delays the processing and delays acting, it is putting lives at risk?

I am calling on the government to waive the documentation requirements and to immediately issue single travel journey documents so these Afghans could get to safety now.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada is committed to Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

Tonight I have outlined a series of concrete actions taken in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the Taliban regime. We recognize that there remains vulnerable people in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, and we are doing what we can to assist them. The only viable way to improve the situation in Afghanistan is through continued collaboration with our international partners.

We will continue to call for the safe passage of vulnerable people and the provision of humanitarian aid.

We will also continue to call for inclusive and representative government and the protection of fundamental rights, including the rights of women and girls and religious and ethnic minorities.

Let there be no doubt that Canada's commitment is demonstrably clear. We have allocated financial resources and have taken concrete action through a whole-of-government approach, and we are changing lives every single day.

Health

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to take the opportunity, on behalf of Canadians who are wondering, to ask the government when it will end the mandates.

I have asked this question a few times in here, and I knew that my remarks this evening would draw a big crowd in the government benches, and rightly so. There should be a lot of attention on this from government members and from backbenchers of the governing party, because we are two years into this pandemic and we know an awful lot more about COVID now than we did in March 2020.

What we are looking for from the government is the same thing that we have been calling for, which we have formalized in motions in this place: the benchmarks that need to be hit for federal COVID mandates to be lifted. This was an entirely reasonable position for us to take several months ago. However, the government has failed to provide them, so now our position is for the government to catch up to the science and end the mandates.

The opportunity to furnish Canadians with the information that the government is using to keep the mandates in place has come and gone. Now the government needs to catch up. It needs to catch up with the chief medical officers of health in the provinces across the country, who have put in place plans and lifted mandates. It needs to catch up with our allies, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and the list goes on.

Some of the mandates that we have in place here were never put in place elsewhere, but they remain in place. They are extremely restrictive and include domestic requirements for taking flights and trains in this country and for continuing work in a federally regulated job or in the public service.

The vaccine mandates that the government put in place, as we have heard from the minister on more than one occasion, have served their purpose. They drove vaccine rates up. If that was the raison d'être and it has been successful, then let us hang up the “mission accomplished” banner and end the mandates.

This is what we have been looking for. What are the epidemiological factors that the government has been relying on to keep the mandates in place? Are they based on waste-water surveillance? Are they based on vaccination rates? Are they based on regional or provincial case counts? We do not know and when we have asked, the government does not seem to know. We have even heard from the top doctor at the Public Health Agency of Canada that it is not her decision when to lift the mandates.

I therefore have a couple of questions, and I expect that my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, is going to offer a response. My questions are as follows. Whose decision is it to lift the mandates? What are the benchmarks that are being evaluated for them to arrive at their decision to end the mandates? On what day or date does he reasonably expect that the mandates will be lifted? Canadians deserve to know.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for his ongoing engagement and collaboration on the health committee. I would also like to thank him for the opportunity to talk about what the government is doing to protect Canadians' transportation systems, their employees and their users.

Throughout the pandemic, the Government of Canada has taken clear and decisive actions to ensure the safety and security of Canada's transportation system, its employees and its users.

The Public Health Agency of Canada continues to examine short- and long-term vaccination strategies, including opportunities to promote confidence in vaccines and reduce barriers.

The agency needs to take several factors into consideration when considering vaccine mandates. It considers global and domestic epidemiological situations, vaccine effectiveness against circulating variants and the benefits and longer-term consequences of these measures.

In the fall of 2021, vaccine mandates were implemented for federally regulated air, rail and marine transportation sectors to pursue key objectives. The first was to ensure the safety and security of the transportation system, passengers and transportation employees and the public, delivering protection from infection and severity of illnesses in workplaces and for travellers. The second was to increase uptake to provide broader societal protection, and to play a leadership role in protecting the health and safety of our workplaces, our communities and all Canadians.

Vaccination is one of the most effective tools we have to protect our transportation system and to combat the pandemic. Vaccination is also an important layer of protection. Even though it does not give us full immunity from infection, it can prevent us from getting very sick and having unfortunate outcomes. In addition to that, it can reduce the potential need for hospitalization.

The incentive for vaccines is evident, as data from recent weeks shows. Across the country, the most recent data indicates that unvaccinated individuals are still four times more likely to be hospitalized than individuals who have been vaccinated with the primary series. Also, unvaccinated individuals are six times more likely to be hospitalized than those who have received a third or a booster dose. We will continue to monitor the spread and impact of COVID-19 in Canada, and will continue to take the emerging evidence around the vaccine effectiveness into account and to inform our vaccine strategy.

In the meantime, we know that multiple layers of protection, including vaccination, protect against severe health outcomes from COVID-19. Getting as many Canadians as possible vaccinated and boosted and continuing to adhere to individual public health measures is expected to help us get through this phase of uncertainty and support Canada in managing COVID-19.

I would also add that I was recently looking at some numbers with respect to deaths in this country. In 2020, approximately 15,000 Canadians died from COVID-19. In 2021, it was 15,000 and up until now, in 2022, a little more than three months into the year, it is almost 10,000. This looks like it is going to be the worst year yet for deaths from COVID-19. It is not time to lift all of the mandates, unfortunately. It is time to look for new ways to protect each other, and the lives of Canadians, from COVID-19. I hope that Conservative members start offering some specific ways that we can continue to support each other.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are looking for some certainty. I appreciate that there was uncertainty two years ago, when we did not know, but now we know an awful lot. We also know, and the parliamentary secretary knows, that I come from a community that has a higher vaccination rate than nearly any other place in the country. The people in my community are looking for some certainty from the government.

Is it reading the tea leaves or is it reading the numbers? Is one of the factors that it is using to keep these measures in place the number of fatalities that it is attributing to COVID-19? If that is the case, it should be transparent and tell Canadians. Is there a set number of booster doses that needs to be administered before it is going to lift the mandates? It needs to tell Canadians that. In the absence of that, it looks like it is just throwing darts at a dartboard and guessing at what it is going to do next, or worse, making decisions based on political factors instead of on scientific factors.

Again, I will ask the parliamentary secretary, and I am genuinely looking for an answer here: When does he think that they are going to lift the mandates?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his ongoing advocacy and also congratulate him on the high vaccination rate in his riding. That is excellent. I have to presume that he is advocating for a very small number of individuals in his riding, then, because no federal mandates apply to people who are vaccinated, even with just two doses. I have three doses, and I know some members of the House have received a fourth. They are incrementally safer from COVID-19. It is worth pointing out that none of these mandates applies to those who have received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

I have also heard from members of my community who cannot receive a vaccine, or who are allergic. It is important that we take them into consideration. It is important for Canadians to stay up to date on all the vaccination requirements for which they are eligible: This means a COVID-19 booster for all adults over 18. Doing this will help protect them and others against severe infection.

Housing

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this evening to once again talk about the important issue of housing, which is something all members are aware of in their own ridings. It is something we are seeing as a crisis across the country.

Today, over 80% of young Canadians do not believe they will ever be able to afford a home. That is something I do not really blame them for, considering it will take young Canadians, on average now, 13 years to save up enough for a down payment. That is comparable to the only five years it took for folks to save up back in 1976. Of course, that is only if they are able to actually save up enough money after paying all their bills and having other expenses.

This housing crisis is something that is touching a lot of people in a lot of different situations and from different walks of life, but it is hitting young Canadians disproportionately harder. There are many in my generation who have completely given up, frankly, on their dream of home ownership.

In advance of the recent federal budget, the government promised to release a plan to address this crisis. With my respect to the parliamentary secretary and the government, they have unveiled a plan that really just contains more of the same failed policies that have exacerbated the housing crisis to date over the last seven years of their government.

To put it into perspective, the finance minister noted in the budget that the government was going to double the number of housing units it has built. When our finance critic, the hon. member for Abbotsford, rose to ask the minister how many units had been built, she could not answer the question. Therefore, the government is going to double a number it does not know, which is definitely concerning. It shows the government is great at making announcements and allocating funding, but when it comes to delivering results, there is certainly a gap there.

The fact we are seeing this housing crisis today just shows the government has failed to incentivize enough development. It has failed to build enough units and adequately address this.

The government has announced a new special savings account and, I believe, a $500 benefit to help Canadians, but with my respect to the parliamentary secretary, my friend and colleague from Milton, the fact that housing prices are now five times the average household income shows these boutique policies are missing the mark. They are not addressing the root issues, particularly around the supply of housing.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can explain why his government refuses to admit its policies to date have failed on this file and why it refuses to change course to bring forward a real plan to address this housing crisis, particularly around the lack of housing supply.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the member for Kenora, for his question and for his continued advocacy for young people, particularly those who would like to buy houses.

The member is correct that buying a house is indeed out of reach for too many Canadians, but fortunately he is wrong to say that our government's policies are not having an impact. He mentioned that this government is good at making announcements. We are also good at building houses. Since 2015, we have invested over $30 billion with real results for Canadians. These investments have created and repaired nearly 440,000 units across this country. That is a big number. That is 440,000 places to call home, especially for the most vulnerable Canadians. Many of these homes have been created through our 10-year national housing strategy. Programs that make up this strategy are making a huge difference to families across the country, including in my colleague's riding of Kenora and in my riding of Milton as well, where we just finished a new housing project for vulnerable seniors. For example, in Kenora, our rapid housing initiative is quickly creating 85 permanent affordable housing units for first nations people in Kenora, and much more is coming with budget 2022.

As the member acknowledged, budget 2022 is a housing budget, and we are proposing even more measures to make housing more affordable for Canadians. These measures are designed specifically to get keys into the hands of first-time homebuyers. It is not only for homebuyers, and I will get to that in just a moment. For example, we are proposing a tax-free first-home savings account. As home prices climb, so does the cost of a down payment. With this program, first-time homebuyers can save up to $40,000. As in RRSPs, contributions would be tax deductible and withdrawals to purchase a first home, including investment income, would be non-taxable, just like a TFSA. In other words, it is tax-free in and tax-free out. We are also proposing to double the existing first-time homebuyers' tax credit to $10,000. This enhanced credit would provide up to $1,500 in direct support to homebuyers.

On the other side of the House, members simply do not believe there is a role for the federal government to play. In fact, prominent members of the Conservative opposition are on record as saying that the federal government should do less and pull back from investments in housing, and that we should simply leave it to the provinces to do it on their own. This is a disastrous approach that we simply do not agree with.

Finally, we know that buying a home is often the most significant financial decision that young Canadians will make in their lives, and our proposed homebuyers' bill of rights would help curb unfair real estate practices such as blind bidding and asking prices, and asking buyers to waive their right to a home inspection, which make buying a home more stressful.

Our housing plan does not stop there. We are also addressing head-on the single most important issue affecting housing affordability, which is a lack of supply. It just has not kept pace with our growing population. Budget 2022 proposes measures that would put Canada on the path to double our construction of new housing to meet Canada's housing needs. These measures would help make a difference for Canadians who are looking to buy a home, but not just those who are looking to buy a home. In addition to that, we are also proposing $1.5 billion in the budget for the rapid housing initiative, which has been fantastically successful. In addition to that, there would be $1.5 billion for 6,000 new co-op units.

I have spoken often in the House on co-op housing. I am a proud co-op kid. I would not have had access to a lot of the things that I did as a young person if not for co-op housing. When we take a market problem, such as the lack of available supply, and the fact that people's wages just have not kept up to the rising costs of homes, we cannot always just rely on a market solution. Housing co-ops and non-market housing are non-market solutions to the housing strategy. That is something that we could never count on the Conservatives to propose. They do not believe in things like co-operatives. They do not believe in non-ownership. They do not believe in non-market solutions. Canadians know that they can count on the Liberal government on our side of the House for support: 440,000 people in this country have a place to live because of the national housing strategy. We are going to double that number in the coming years.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased that my colleague across the way was actually able to provide some figures in terms of housing units built. That is relatively new for the current government. It is something that we have not heard quite yet. The fact of the matter is that since the government took office, housing prices have doubled. The member mentioned a number of programs that the government has brought forward and a lot of dollars that it wants to spend, and that is important. Absolutely, the government has a role to play in co-op housing and in direct affordable housing, but it also has a role to play in helping the market and helping create a situation where we can incentivize more development.

It is clear that many regions are different and a one-size-fits-all solution is not going to work. We need all hands on deck here. Respectfully, could the member comment further on what his government is going to do to help incentivize private development of housing? That is also a very important aspect of this, and I would just like to get his thoughts on that.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, specifically, I think my friend and colleague was referencing the housing accelerator fund, which we will incentivize municipalities and regions to build more homes. I am not an expert on that, but I am sure somebody from our government can get back to him on it.

Young Canadians deserve the same opportunities as the generations before them. The member is a couple of years, or many years, younger than me, but I think we have a similar sort of outlook when it comes to our mutual generation, and we know that we have to do more.

Our government is here to help them. We are here to ensure that Canada continues to be the best place in the world to live, work and to raise a family, and we are truly making it easier for Canadians to save for a down payment. We are proposing to get rid of unfair real estate practices that would make the home-buying process more stressful and onerous than it should be, and we are building more supply to bring down housing costs across the board.

In closing, my friend for Kenora said that it is an “all hands on deck” situation, and I could not agree more. That is why I would ask the member opposite and his colleagues to provide solutions rather than just the blame game we have been hearing from across the floor with respect to the housing crisis.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:27 p.m.)