House of Commons Hansard #243 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the member's expanding definition of immigration and the benefits of immigration across Canada, not just for Quebec.

I was thinking of the timeline of immigration. When my grandfather came in 1920, he had zero dollars and zero prospects that showed on his immigration card. Within a generation, there were teachers and engineers in our family, people working in different sectors. Sometimes it takes a few generations to get the benefits of the investments we are making today. Could the hon. member comment on how immigration is a long-term strategy for the country and is not just to address the current issues?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. He raises a good point.

There was a time when our cities were not overcrowded and we did not have major housing problems. The current crisis is extremely worrisome. There was a time when taking care of people was not nearly as difficult. Our health care systems in Quebec and the rest of Canada were robust enough to take people in, but that is no longer the case.

When people immigrated here 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago, the situation was not the same as it is today. Above all, we did not take in as many newcomers at the time as we plan to going forward. We had the necessary infrastructure to welcome those many people. That is no longer the case.

The responsible thing to do would be to resolve this issue first. Let us ensure that we have the infrastructure, that we have the means to fulfill our ambitions, and that what we have here is enough to properly welcome the people who choose to come and settle here.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned housing, because that is one of the core issues we are facing today with immigration. I know he knows of my riding in the South Okanagan, how beautiful and attractive it is and how people want to move there. People go there for tourism, but it is almost impossible for people to find housing there. That is because, even though we are building more housing units every day in, for example, my hometown of Penticton than we have ever built before, every day we have fewer housing units that are affordable, because all those housing units being built are being bought by investors. People like immigrants cannot afford them, so there are hotels buying motels to house their workers. There are wineries buying big houses to house their workers.

I am wondering whether the member can comment on what we can do as a government to discourage housing as an investment and make sure that housing is built for people who can afford to live in that housing, such as immigrants.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, my answer to my Liberal colleague's question was somewhat along the same lines.

We have problems to solve here before we open the floodgates. We have young people starting out in life who have brilliant careers ahead of them, but who cannot afford to buy their first home, no matter how modest it may be. Home ownership has become an extraordinary challenge and a privilege truly reserved for the luckiest members of society, and not just the hardest working, unfortunately.

Injustices are being created because of real estate investments by people who had the means to buy homes in the most beautiful places and drive up property values in certain areas. We have some work to do before we start being too ambitious about immigration targets. I think I completely agree with my colleague about the situation he described.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague why the debate on numbers is so taboo. The ministries are responsible for determining integration capacity. I think the operative word here is “capacity”.

A Quebec government minister in a previous legislature talked about taking in fewer immigrants but taking better care of them. This idea would be a reasonable topic for debate. Why is everyone so quick to hurl epithets at us?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, it is true that this is a sensitive subject. I think it is irresponsible to immediately stop the debate by hurling epithets.

Today, my parliamentary assistant and I simply tried to bring it down to a level that is a little more accessible to the public. For example, we thought that, for the people of Drummond, it would be like welcoming three more people per household without changing the number of bathrooms, the number of bedrooms or the grocery budget.

Let us imagine that we took in three more people per family. That is what the immigration targets currently being proposed by the government correspond to on a national scale.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my learned colleague from Drummond for his very clear presentation. I would also like to thank him for repeating the motion, because I was just about to do so. It is easy to see that we share some ideas and that we belong to the same party.

We are also serious about wanting to bring the debate back to the forefront at the end of the day. A lot of things have been said throughout the day and, at some point, things have gotten off track. It is important to remember what we are working on. I will not reread the entire motion because the member for Drummond has already done so. However, we are basically saying that immigration thresholds need to be reviewed in consultation with Quebec and the provinces to ensure successful immigration.

What we are talking about today is successful immigration. We are not saying that we do not want immigration. On the contrary, all the members of our party who have spoken today have said that. They spoke about ensuring success for these people.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of people leaving their homeland. Even if someone leaves with their immediate family, they are leaving behind their extended family, their friends, and their birthplace. Just think of the emotion that wells up when you see the house where you grew up.

I am from Senneterre, in Abitibi. It is a long way from where I live now. I do not go back often, but every time that I pass through Senneterre, in Abitibi, I stop in front of the house. The last time I was there, I even went to chat with the new owner. I did not dare ask if I could come in, but I certainly would have liked to see the place again, which seemed so huge at the time; looking at it now, it is actually quite small. Perspective changes with time.

I digress a bit, but I am talking about the sense of belonging and the emotional connection that people can have with physical places. When people give that up, they have good reasons. Most of the time, they are not doing it for themselves, because they know it will not be easy. They are leaving behind a legacy, wealth they have accumulated and physical places that may mean a lot to them. They often do it for the next generation, telling themselves that however difficult it may be, their child will have a better future in Quebec or Canada.

We therefore have a responsibility to welcome them properly. That is what we are saying today. We are talking about human beings, respect and richness. We are talking about people. We all hope that immigrants arriving in Quebec and Canada will be workers, of course. However, that is not all they are. They are citizens. We want them to integrate into society, to participate alongside us and to enrich our collective experience.

Quebec is one of the most diverse societies in the world. This not said often enough in the House. It has incredible richness, built on the contributions of people who have arrived over generations. We also have to think about the people who were there before the first Europeans arrived, and I am talking here about first nations. Fortunately, we have begun to catch up on this, although when it comes to reconciliation, we have a lot of work to do.

We must tap into and preserve Quebec's richness by working with immigrants. We can think of the waves of Irish immigration, of the British and others, all those people who came here. Over the generations, we have mixed, blended and shared our cultural heritage.

This is what we want in Quebec. That is basically the big difference between Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism. We want to accept individuals with their own rich heritage, but we want to live with them, not next to them, each in their own ghetto. It is amazing how different our perception can be.

I would like to tell you about something I felt today. I was hurt a few times today when I heard some government members remind Bloc Québécois members that Canada needs immigration. Of course we need immigration. We never said we did not need immigration. We have been saying all day that we need immigration. We want to take care of immigrants and we want to treat them as equals.

It is there throughout today's entire debate. We want to do things properly, in fact. That is something that the Liberal government has a very hard time doing. We have a government that makes fine announcements, for good optics, but does not meet expectations two times out of three.

They will say that Canada is a great welcoming country and then invite everyone to come. When people arrive, they will have nowhere to stay and they will end up in the street. However, there will be no talk of that in the next announcement. What they say is that we are wonderfully welcoming and generous.

We truly want to be wonderfully welcoming and generous, but for that we need to do things properly. First, we need to work as a team, which is hard for the Liberal government. They need to consult the provinces and Quebec and think about the different levels of government who will have to take care of these people.

We talked about all sorts of things today, such as housing and infrastructure. There are even some political parties here who like blaming the municipalities, who are in no way accountable to this Parliament. Most of the time, they do not have money because the entire tax system should be reviewed. That is not our Parliament's jurisdiction.

Quebec is asking that this be reviewed and is asking to be consulted. Quebec is not saying that it no longer wants immigration. Quebec does want it, but it wants a better system. We want these individuals to be productive. In order for them to be productive, we have to start by recognizing their skills and giving them the opportunity to integrate into the society in which they arrive. What do we do if an immigrant arrives in Quebec and does not have access to French language training?

In my riding, Berthier—Maskinongé, which is 99% francophone, if I were to welcome an immigrant to Louiseville and did not teach him French, I would be a hypocrite. I would only be pretending to welcome him, likely only to make him work in a low-wage job in my company and exploit him. That is not what we want. Of course, we want him to work, but we want him to have a decent standard of living.

How many immigrants should we take in? Earlier, my colleague from Montarville talked about different thresholds that different political parties in Quebec came up with. I thought it was interesting that he did so, because perhaps it should be the Quebec National Assembly that decides on the number of immigrants.

That would require the federal government to take note. I have a hard time accepting a federal government that talks a big game about the number of immigrants to be taken in, and then turns around and tells the provinces that it is going to withhold money for social housing because it wants to impose such and such a condition, only to end up giving a tenth of what was requested.

The same can be said for health care. The government says that it is doing a lot for health care, and it makes speeches about health care, but it does not make the darn transfers to fund health care. Failing to address the requests of the provincial and Quebec governments is what I call contempt. It is contempt, pure and simple. These people know nothing about health care, but they are going to tell the provinces that they will not make the transfers. The provinces had unanimous demands, which we have reiterated here for months, but the government has not responded properly. This is unacceptable.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is calling for responsible action and foresight. We have to ask ourselves whether we have the housing. If we do not, or if we think that we will need more, then can we try to start building housing before taking in 100,000 people?

I am not saying to turn refugees away. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is quantified targets. Can we roll out housing? Doing so will require showing a bit more respect for the various levels of government and funding them properly. They need to stop being know-it-alls who do nothing. That is basically what I have been seeing here for the past four years: The government thinks that it knows everything, sees everything and has a hold on the truth, but it is not responsible for anything. That is what is happening here.

What we are asking the federal government to do is to talk with Quebec and the provinces, be reasonable, figure this out together and put the necessary resources into this integration.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest. I would like to ask him a question about the other provinces.

I was very pleased to see that we reached our target for francophone immigration to the other provinces, notably New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario. I remember that this work was really done in partnership, which was not at all the case eight years ago.

I would like my colleague to comment. Does he think we should continue in the same direction of encouraging francophone immigration throughout Canada?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, of course it is not a bad thing that there is francophone immigration. However, that is not what we are talking about today. Whether immigration is francophone or anglophone, here is what we are putting on the table: Is the government prepared to consider reviewing its thresholds after consulting with Quebec and the provinces, to support integration?

Of course we always support francophone immigration. We will not engage in segregation. We welcome everyone. I think that if we welcome people to Quebec who do not speak French, then we have an obligation to provide them with the resources to learn the common and official language.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member, in the last question, talked about language training. I have some contact with that through my daughter, who once taught language lessons to immigrants. This was during the big increase in refugees from Syria.

It seemed that, the more immigrants who came in, the less funding her organization got to do that work. She went from full time to three-quarters time, to half time, to one-third time. Eventually, she had to leave that job because the federal government funding got to be less and less, even as it was increasing immigration.

I think I have a great understanding of that period of time, and I am wondering if the member can comment on that and on if we are seeing things going in the wrong direction many times.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my seatmate very much for the assist. That is exactly what I was trying to say. We are not saying that we should not take in immigrants, but rather that we should take them in properly, with the necessary resources.

How can someone from British Columbia give the same example as I did about Quebec? That is because the resources are not there.

We must ensure that the resources are there. What we are saying today is that things need to be done properly. Earlier, a Liberal member quoted figures about the labour shortage, saying there used to be seven workers for every pensioner, but now there are three and soon there will be two. I know these figures well. I was teaching them to my high school students in the 1990s.

Since then, governments have done nothing. Here we are in 2023 saying that there is a labour shortage, and that is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Can we look at what structures are in place to welcome people?

Afterward we will welcome them with open arms. We need them. Immigration is a great asset.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. There seems to be a rather cavalier attitude here when we talk about being responsible.

The government does not not talk about the decline of French in Quebec. A number of Liberals gave speeches, but we did not hear a word from them about that, even though it is a reality. The federal government's official languages program is essentially funding English. Federal institutions in Quebec basically operate in English and do not respect French.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this quick.

In my speech earlier, I spoke about contempt, and I think that is what this is. The member can call it a cavalier attitude if he wants to be nice, but I think that we can call it contempt. The government does whatever it wants and acts however it wants. It launches programs and makes promises to people and then, a month later, it tells them that there is no money for the program and that their request will not be considered. It is always the same story. That is what I wanted to point out in my speech.

Can we sit down with the provinces and Quebec, look at the situation, evaluate the available resources and do things right so that we have successful immigration?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on immigration.

At the outset, I want to make one thing clear. It makes me very emotional and happy to say that I am in a conflict of interest, because I am the son of immigrants. That just goes to show that when immigration is successful, this is what comes of it. I am joking around, but I would say that my parents were successful immigrants. They arrived here at 4 a.m. on August 22, 1958. They disembarked from the Arosa Star, which had crossed the Atlantic, and met the first Canadians who allowed them to settle here and live in harmony for more than 60 years in this beautiful country, which welcomed them and which they chose. Let us never forget that immigration is a choice. We choose a country and the country chooses us. Three children, five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren later, we can say that the family has had a successful immigration and we are very happy.

This is what we are talking about today: successful immigration. Immigration is one of Canada's great strengths and assets, but it must be successful. My parents succeeded, but not everyone does, unfortunately. That is why the government must be flexible and wise, not dogmatic, when it comes to immigration, to ensure that it is successful.

There are currently more than 2.2 million cases sitting at immigration, not being properly processed. That is a lot of people living with major worries and concerns, always wondering whether they will be able to stay or will have to leave. That is the reality of unsuccessful immigration. These people have to wait for years. It is a three-year wait for a refugee to find out whether they can stay here. That is not a good situation. That is not what we want for people who want to live in our country and make it grow, as all immigrants do.

That is why we need to get tough and, above all, act wisely when it comes to welcoming these people. Integration capacities must be appropriate and consistent with our commitment. That is why it goes without saying that Canada must consult the provinces and assess integration capacity in terms of housing, health care, education, French language learning and the infrastructure needed to welcome these people. It is 100% the federal government's responsibility to work hand in hand with the provinces to assess integration capacity. Otherwise, the result is these unfortunate situations. The first victims of poorly planned, dogmatic immigration policies are the immigrants themselves.

This morning, when I asked a colleague a question, I said that I am very proud to be able to count on Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest, who manages the immigration files in my riding office. I sincerely thank her. I am sure that all of the other 337 members know people who manage immigration files in their riding offices. We get new immigration files by the dozens in our riding offices. Not a weekend goes by without someone thanking me because of the work that my colleague Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest does in carefully managing the immigration files.

Honestly, if we want a immigration system that is good for immigrants and for the country, then we need to set dogmatism aside and find a responsible solution, a responsible approach. We have heard many different opinions in this debate, of course. The member for Calgary Shepard, who is our shadow minister for immigration, said that he agreed with the motion. During question period, we also heard the Prime Minister say that he and his team will vote in favour of this motion, and that is good. Despite all that, the Bloc Québécois continues to forcefully question the Prime Minister. That makes sense. After eight years of this government, unfortunately, we are not seeing results in terms of immigration and an integration capacity that works for everyone. I would not call an immigration system with 2.2 million people waiting on overdue files a system that works.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my allotted time is up, so I will stop there.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

It being 5:44 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be 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.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will accept your generous offer and request a recorded division.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:59 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Is it agreed?

Opposition Motion—Immigration Thresholds and Integration CapacityBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Health of Animals ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

Health of Animals ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

moved that the bill be concurred in.

Health of Animals ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

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.

Health of Animals ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)