Debates of Oct. 31st, 2023

Housing

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I appreciate the precision, but that is bordering on if not crossing the line into debate.

Oral Questions

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you often mention the need to improve the tone in the House, and it is with that in mind that I rise on a point of order.

In answer to the second question of my hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that “on the Bloc Québécois side, there is a foolish refusal to understand”.

I think you will agree that these remarks are unparliamentary. I therefore demand that the minister withdraw those comments and apologize.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for La Prairie for his intervention, which concerns decorum in the House.

I note that the minister is not here. I will take that into consideration and return to the House with a ruling, if necessary.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier, during oral question period, I must admit that I made a mistake. I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to put the question to his former organization, which is Equiterre, not Greenpeace. I would like the minister to ask Equiterre what they think of him.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, but I think that his point is more a matter of debate.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:24 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country to the motion for concurrence in the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #436

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #437

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 29 minutes.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on the amendment standing in the name of the member for Brantford—Brant, relating to Motion No. 38 to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, November 8, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration Capacity

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the crux of the opposition day motion deals with the important issue of the targets established by the Department of Immigration and the impact those targets have on the country as a whole. What members are hoping to see is consultation with the provinces, and ultimately with the territories and others, to ensure that we get the numbers right. Much as the minister explained earlier today in question period or in responding to the motion earlier this morning, there is a great deal of effort that involves consultation and work with not only provinces but all sorts of stakeholders and individuals. Whether it is labour, business or the many others, a lot of work goes into establishing the immigration targets for Canada.

I always find it interesting to look at the province of Manitoba. I have been following the immigration file since the early 1990s and the impact it has had on not only my city of Winnipeg but Manitoba as a whole. Suffice it to say, in this one part of the country, I have recognized the true value of immigration. In many different ways, our communities big and small have benefited from immigration. In the province of Manitoba, for example, all one needs to do is take a look at the city of Winnipeg's growth and prosperity and compare it to communities like Neepawa, Steinbach, Brandon, Winkler, Morden, Selkirk and many other communities to see how a solid immigration policy has helped those communities in many different ways.

The biggest and most important immigration program, from my perspective, that has contributed to Manitoba's success is the provincial nominee program. It is now accessed by all provinces and territories. It sets an example for the degree to which provinces can work with Ottawa to deal with immigration issues. Quebec has an even more detailed program that allows for more independence within Quebec when making a determination of target numbers and the people who are going to Quebec.

If we look at the early 1990s and the average number of immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba, we would find it is probably somewhere in and around the 3,000 mark or a little less than 3,000 in some years. After the signing of the nominee program brought in by Jean Chrétien, which enabled provinces to have agreements with Ottawa, we saw a rapid increase in the number of immigrants.

During the 1990s, in the Manitoba legislature and in particular in committees, I talked about achieving a higher number of immigrants. While I was an MLA, I often talked about the 1% factor and said that Manitoba would be able to sustain 1%. In fact, it has been proven now that we can do better than 1%, because it is all about the mixture. It is the types of immigrants, whether economic, family or other streams, they bring into Manitoba that enable it to receive the numbers we have witnessed.

When we compare the 1990s to what took place at the turn of the century in the years from 2003 to 2014, we see that the numbers shot up significantly. They more than doubled, and in many years they quadrupled or more. It is because the province was able to work with Ottawa and get immigrants to Manitoba, where there is a strong connection to family. I can say that the impact on Manitoba has been profoundly positive.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your patience. I arrived in the House and in this seat at just the right time.

I listened carefully to the comments from my colleague from Winnipeg North.

We can all agree that immigration is a strength for our country. I am the son of immigrants, and I am very proud of that. I have to preserve it. The point is that, in today's reality, after eight years of the government, what we see is a backlog for 2.2 million people. As my colleague from the Bloc said, they are not cases; they are people. People are waiting to have clearance from the government.

After eight years, 2.2 million people are waiting. Does my colleague think that is a good situation for Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague across the way. Having said that, the member needs to recognize that, when I was the critic for immigration under Stephen Harper, the backlog was actually greater.

It got so bad and reached a degree that the former Conservative government actually deleted hundreds of thousands of files in order to get rid of the backlogs. People were waiting for years; the delete button was hit, and they were gone. The former Conservative government actually closed the parent and grandparent program. People could not sponsor a parent or grandparent. Back then, we had to wait years in order for a spouse to be able to come to Canada.

We have seen significant changes in immigration. That does not mean all our immigration issues are resolved. We still need to do more work. In particular, my issues are with respect to international students. I will continue to advocate for them and look for ways we could improve that particular aspect of the program.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

First, does he consider it legitimate that Quebec, the only francophone state in North America, wants to ensure the future of French? The federal government seems unwilling to take account of our capacity to integrate and provide French instruction to newcomers. To sustain the demographic weight of French in Quebec, we have to provide French language training to 90% of newcomers.

Through its legislation, its funding of official languages and its institutions, the government seeks to provide services in English and simply support English in Quebec.

Does my colleague believe that integration capacity needs to be accounted for, and that the federal government should stop trying to anglicize Quebec?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Province of Quebec is actually in a great position to deal with the issue the member raises.

In the province of Manitoba, under the provincial nominee program, they get additional points if they can in fact speak French. We have a wonderful French community, and it is more than one community, in Manitoba. Additional points are assigned, through the nominee program, because we too would like to be able to attract French-speaking people.

The Province of Quebec has the ability to do that as well. I would encourage the member to get a better, more wholesome understanding, in terms of the potential impact that immigrants, in general, have on all communities in Canada, no matter where those communities are, in all regions of our country. We develop programs to ensure that we protect culture, heritage, language and so forth.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, over the last 15 years, through our work in Vancouver Kingsway, my staff and I have seen that the family class is one of the most successful streams of immigration in this country. This is no surprise, because families provide support for newcomers to come here.

We have always noticed that the definition of family in our immigration system is very narrow. People can sponsor only their parents, their spouse or their children. We have often and long thought this should be expanded to include siblings and perhaps even aunts and uncles, because that is how the entire world views their family.

If we expand the definition of family, Canadians could sponsor their sisters or brothers, or perhaps even aunts and uncles as part of their family class, if they so wish, to unite their families. Does my hon. colleague agree that it is time to do this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in fact, there are limitations in each of the different categories. One of the nice things about the provincial nominee program, and I advocated for this between 2003 and 2010, is that we should be expanding and assigning more points for brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and more extended family. What we saw in Manitoba is that this is exactly what happened. Through that, we were able to retain more immigrants in the province of Manitoba once they arrived. Family unification through economic development is hugely successful; Manitoba demonstrated that very clearly.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

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.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker and very proud of my language.

In my hon. colleague's opinion, what is preventing Quebec from choosing francophone immigrants?

As for integration capacity, I can reassure him right away. I personally participated in the family reunification program. My husband is from Michigan. I made him feel very welcome, and he even speaks very good French. Our two children were educated at a French school in Gatineau. The member spoke about the capacity to integrate newcomers, but I would remind him that Quebec has that capacity.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague did not listen at all to the speech I just gave. Quebec can indeed contribute and participate in selecting its so-called economic immigrants. However, I did present figures showing that the federal government still has the ability to control some of the immigration going to Quebec.

This means that part of the immigration to Quebec is outside the control of the Government of Quebec. The federal government can impose a higher number of immigrants than Quebec is able to integrate. We are talking about integration. Our Liberal colleagues seem very generous when they say that Canada welcomes the whole world. They are not the ones paying for any of this. Quebec and the provinces pay to welcome immigrants and pay for schools, social services and health care.

The Liberals need to stop lecturing us and saying that we have the ability to integrate immigrants properly. We have to have the means to integrate all these people. Quebec says it is ready to welcome 35,000 to 80,000 people. The federal government wants to require it to take in more than 100,000 a year. It is more than the number Quebec can possibly integrate into society.