Debates of May 11th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a clear answer because, today, a new applicant coming through the federal express entry system is expected to take six months. The posted timelines reflect applications that may have been approved recently but that may have been in the system for a significant period of time.

There is presently an anomaly because we have gotten through the majority of the cases that have been in our inventory, having now processed the cases for people who were seeking to come to Canada when the borders were closed. There is, if not quite a false statistic on the website, a statistic that does not necessarily do a good job of explaining the anomaly. We are going to be moving toward projecting forward-looking processing times so people will better understand how long it will take for an applicant to get here.

I am pleased to share that our family reunification system, our family economic streams, our study permits and work permits are more or less all back to the standard of service that we enjoyed before the pandemic. I would be pleased to continue this conversation, should the member wish to understand the timelines under different immigration streams, after we finish the debate today.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many people may not know this, but prior to doing this job, I spent over eight years working with newcomers to Canada in the region I represent. I remember being very overwhelmed by their generosity, kindness and gratitude, and what it meant to be Canadian. I went to a lot of citizenship ceremonies, and I have to say that those were some of the most amazing parts of my life. They also really made me appreciate in a new way how important it is to be a Canadian.

I am sad that we are having this discussion today. I think immigration brings a richness and a profound deepness to our communities. I do not believe we have to lose our identities while we welcome other identities. They create a much more diverse and dynamic community. I am wondering if the minister could talk about why it is important to bring more French-speaking immigrants to Canada and how that would add to the beauty of our country.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her service before politics to support newcomers in the community that she calls home.

There are a number of different reasons why I think we need to embrace immigration if we are going to benefit from what diversity can offer our communities. In particular, there is a reason we need to continue to bring more French-speaking newcomers to communities across Canada.

In general terms, I reflect on the experience of my own community. Thankfully, though things have changed since 2015, we still have not seen the schools return, and we still have not seen mental health services return, but we have seen more people move into communities, including newcomers, as a lot more people have moved home. We are not talking about more schools closing. We are talking about building houses to welcome all the people who would like to come join our communities.

For francophone communities, supporting people who speak French is critically important. Without immigration, when businesses shut down, when schools are closed, it will be impossible for francophones to continue living their lives in French. They will be forced to leave the community to seek employment in other communities.

It is extremely important that we take into account the impact on different communities, including linguistic minority communities. If we continue to support the ability for francophone communities to attract newcomers, it will allow them to raise their families in French, in the language of their choice, in their community. This is the kind of thing that will keep people on board with our immigration policy if they see a future for themselves in it. By living in a community that embraces newcomers and diversity, I can say from personal experience that it has made my community a more vibrant and dynamic place to call home.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my questions are about the economic benefits of welcoming immigrants.

At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food we discussed the closing of the Olymel plant in Vallée‑Jonction, Quebec. One reason for the closure is the shortage of workers. I think that is also a big problem for Quebec.

Could the minister explain the importance of immigrants to Quebec's economy?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.

This is a challenge not just for Quebec businesses, but also for francophone communities across the country, where it is a big problem. When touring the community of Saint‑Quentin in northern New Brunswick, we introduced a new pilot program for essential workers. When I visited the plants that were using this immigration program, I saw with my own eyes how much the arrival of these newcomers benefited both the businesses and the community.

That is just as true in Quebec. When people arrive in a community, especially in a rural area, the community can continue to have positive experiences, to live in French and to give children the opportunity to do so as well.

It is very hard when a plant closes for good, because families leave the community. Often, immigrants are then forced to go to an anglophone community and thus lose the possibility of having the next generation continue speaking French.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and, especially, very grateful for having been born here in Canada. It is a major victory to be born here in Canada, because it is a country full of opportunity. I was born to a single mother and adopted by two teachers who always taught me that here in Canada, no matter where you come from, you can achieve whatever you want as long as you work hard. This is the same country where my wife arrived as a refugee and it is the country we want for our children.

Unfortunately, it is not the country we are seeing today. Everything is broken in Canada, after eight years under this Prime Minister. He does not like it when I say that, so I will say it again: everything is broken after eight years under this Prime Minister. This includes the immigration system. Our country had a reputation for its immigration system, which is one of the best in the world. It was based on common sense. People were invited to come work here, people like the Italians who built our infrastructure. Workers from around the world have come here to build hospitals, houses and our economy, and to enrich everyone's lives.

What do people see when they come here now? They see no houses. Nine out of 10 young Canadians are convinced they will never be able to buy a house. We lack health care services. Why? It is because our immigrants are being blocked from working as doctors and nurses. Over a million immigrants who are interested in coming here, to Canada, have had to wait longer than the government's prescribed waiting period.

Even when they do manage to get here, immigrants have a hard time getting work permits. People want to work, but this Prime Minister and his utterly incompetent government stand in their way. Not only that, but the strike that the Prime Minister caused led to even longer wait times for families living apart, potential workers who cannot start their jobs, and refugees seeking safety and security here in Canada. The Prime Minister's utter incompetence is the cause of these problems.

Instead of focusing on the job, which can be boring, and repairing the damage he has done, the Prime Minister and his multinational executive friends, like Dominic Barton, want to create grand utopias for us. Instead of building our country on the basis of common sense, which has worked for over 100 years, the Prime Minister wants to create a great revolution and paint a utopia that will never exist. He should focus on the backbone of our system, in other words, reduce the time it takes for a small or medium-sized business or a farmer to hire a foreign worker when no Canadian is available to do the job. He should unite families, especially in the case of grandparents, so that they can take care of their grandchildren when the parents are at work. Finally, he should allow more non-profit organizations to sponsor refugees and provide them with care, opportunities to learn English or French, and access to a job and housing.

He should do the common-sense work. Instead, the Prime Minister wants to focus on the priorities of large multinationals, such as McKinsey, and its former CEO, Dominic Barton. That company has received over $100 million in contracts from this government and dreams of turning the country into a utopia.

I will never listen to those people. I am going to listen to the common sense of ordinary Canadians, the people who do the work. That is how the common-sense Conservative government I will be leading will repair the damage.

That is why I will be voting for this motion. Because I want to reject Dominic Barton and the Century Initiative and to base our immigration system once again on the common sense of ordinary Canadians.

Speaking of common sense, I will be splitting my time with the common-sense Conservative member of Parliament for Calgary Shepard, Mr. Speaker.

I am so proud and grateful that I won the lottery of life to be born here in Canada. I was born of a teenage unwed mother, who put me up for adoption to two school teachers. They taught me that it did not matter where I came from; it mattered where I was going. It did not matter who I knew; it mattered what I could do.

That is the country my wife came to as a refugee. That is the country that a lot of her family, her brother to be a soldier, her other brother to be a carpenter, her sister to be a nurse and for her family to work hard and achieve great things. That is the country I want all our kids to inherit, but that is not the country we see today.

Canada, after eight years of the Prime Minister, the out-of-touch Prime Minister, is broken. What is especially broken is the immigration system that leaves a million immigrants waiting longer than the acceptable wait time to get into Canada.

We see international students abused and exploited by human traffickers, shady consultants, some of them losing their lives and being sent back to places like India in body bags because the Prime Minister and his government have failed to protect them from the predators and the scam artists who are destroying their lives.

We see 20,000 brilliant immigrant doctors blocked from working in their professions by government gatekeepers. We see 32,000 immigrant nurses blocked from their jobs. It boils my blood to sit in a hospital waiting room for five hours with my daughter who has a migraine headache because there are not enough doctors and nurses, while gatekeepers block brilliant immigrant doctors and nurses from doing their jobs.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister gleefully tells us about all the wonderful meetings he is having with mayors about housing and infrastructure. I do not really care about their meetings, because the gatekeepers at municipal governments, the governments that the Prime Minister is funding with billions of dollars, are blocking housing construction, so our immigrants, working class and youth cannot get homes.

After eight years of the Prime Minister everything is broken. However, instead of fixing the basics, he is focused on another grand utopian project, that of his friend, Dominic Barton, the multinational CEO, former ambassador to Communist China, who helped bring about the opioid crisis that is savaging our working-class families. He has come up with a bright, new idea that he is going to triple our national population to 100 million. We do not need anymore utopian schemes from globe-trotting millionaires and multinational insiders. We need common sense for a change.

Here is our common-sense plan to get back to the basics. The first is to clear the backlog so immigrant families can be reunited, so our farmers and small businesses can fill jobs for which there is no Canadian available; allow our churches, mosques, synagogues and other non-profit organizations to sponsor more legitimate refugees; get them language training so they can learn how to speak French or English, get a job, get working and get contributing; speed up work permits for those people who already here waiting for their cases to be heard. They might as well be out earning a wage, contributing to the economy. They want to work. Let them work. It is common sense, for God's sake.

Speaking of work, let us bring in a blue seal national standard for all our professions. We have a Red Seal standard that allows tradespeople to take a test, prove they are qualified, get to work and move across the country to fill needed vacancies in the job market. Why do we not have a blue seal standard that would allow foreign-trained nurses, doctors, engineers and other professionals to prove they are qualified and within 60 days of applying to work in their field, get a yes or no based on their tested ability, not based on where they come from? We would have more doctors, more nurses, more common sense.

What I am saying is let us get back to the basics. Our immigration system was the best in the world eight years ago, but now we have immigrants who come here and then say they want to go back because this is not what was promised.

I have said that everything is broken, but what is broken most of all is the promise, the promise of Canada; the promise that we will reinstill a promise that in Canada it does not matter where people come from, but where they go. It does not matter if their name is Martin or Mohamed, or Singh or Smith, or Chong or Charles, or Patel or Poilievre, if they work hard, they can achieve anything they want in the greatest and freest country in the world. This is the common sense of the common people united for our common home. It is their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Conservative Party leader. He always makes me laugh. Actually, I want to congratulate him. Not only will he vote in favour of the motion, but, by doing so, he will be taking a stand against the position adopted by the former Conservative Party leader, Brian Mulroney, who supports the Century Initiative. I congratulate him on taking a stand against Brian Mulroney. I have to say that takes courage.

Throughout his speech, he talked a lot about common sense. I get it. He talked to us about approaches that should be different. I think the government is making the immigration department the most dysfunctional of all departments in the machinery of Canadian government.

He did not answer one of my questions though. What does common sense mean to him when it comes to yearly immigration targets for 2023 to 2025? Is it 500,000 people? Is it 400,000 people? Is it 300,000 people? Has the Conservative Party, which has lots of researchers and plenty of resources, come up with an appropriate number for immigration targets? What are the Conservative Party's numbers?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what interests me are the figures for small- and medium-sized businesses in the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region that are looking for workers but facing a labour shortage. During a labour shortage, immigration numbers will be higher than average. When jobs are more scarce, the numbers drop.

Immigration numbers should be based first and foremost on Canada's needs. When companies and farmers need more workers because there are no Canadians to fill the vacancies, the process has to be fast-tracked to allow them to sponsor the workers they need. When the economy slows, there will obviously be fewer.

We have to base our numbers on common sense, not on the hopes and dreams of the CEOs of multinationals, like Dominic Barton. That is what common sense is all about.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I used to work in a non-profit organization that served newcomers to Canada. In that role, and in this role, one of the saddest yet most meaningful work I have done is to help members of the LGBT community leave their country of origin, where they are unsafe or their lives are at risk, and bring them home to Canada where they can be safe and experience all the freedoms they deserve.

I wonder what the member's thoughts are on ensuring that those targeted communities are safer and how we as a country can welcome and fast-track them to our country so they can be safe.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do support allowing people from the gay and lesbian community who are being persecuted around the world to come and seek refuge in Canada. In fact, I think our previous Conservative government was the first one to allow that as a grounds for seeking asylum from countries where dictators, like in Iran, persecute people based on their sexuality, on who they are and who they love. They should be allowed to come here and enjoy the wonderful freedom and blessings of this land.

Our freedom is what brings people here; it is not our warm weather. Why do they come here? Because we are a free country. They want to enjoy freedom. Therefore, not only should we welcome people like the ones the member just mentioned; we should remember why they came here in the first place. They came here for the freedom that our forebearers defended on battle fields around the world. That is why we must work every day, in every way, to make Canada the freest nation on Earth.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his speech.

I can say that the worst thing that could happen to Canadians is a Conservative government. I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who attacked this government, why he and his party vote against every bill that is good for Canadians.

Take help for seniors, for example, or reducing the retirement age from 67 to 65. Then there was the Canada child benefit and supports for the middle class. We have lifted 300,000 children out of poverty. We have helped build a good reputation for all Canadians so they can be proud abroad. The United Nations considers Canada's refugee system to be one of the best in the world.

What can the Leader of the Opposition tell us? What can he tell Canadians about these issues?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has again demonstrated just how out of touch this Prime Minister's Liberals are. Two‑thirds of Canadians believe that Canada is broken after eight years of this Prime Minister. Housing costs have doubled. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because they cannot afford groceries, and 1.5 million Canadians have to use a food bank if they want to eat. Violent crime has increased by 32%. Nearly 30,000 Canadians have died of an opioid overdose since this Prime Minister, who is now legalizing heroine, cocaine, crack and all sorts of other drugs, took office.

Everything is broken after eight years of this Prime Minister. However, the good thing is that we will replace the pain he has caused with the hope that Canadians need. We are going to use good old common sense. We are going to bring back common sense.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the hardest parts of being in politics is having to speak right after the leader of the Conservative Party. He just delivered a powerful speech that was full of compassion for newcomers who choose to settle in Canada.

As many members know, I was myself a newcomer several years ago. I immigrated to Canada from Communist Poland. That country is no longer communist. That era is behind us. It is now a democratic country, and I am proud of my ethnic background.

My leader was right. Everything in Canada is broken. All federal government programs are broken, but immigration programs are even more broken.

As the immigration critic for the Conservative Party, I follow this file closely. I would also like to point out that one can become francophone as an immigrant. As I have often mentioned in the House, I am a child of Bill 101. It really is possible to learn how to be a francophone as an immigrant.

I know that the leader of the Bloc Québécois often mentions, with a hint of despair in his voice, that protecting Quebec culture is impossible. From my personal experience, I think culture can be preserved.

I am a Calgary MP, as my family is in Calgary now, and I am a proud Albertan. I still follow the day-to-day happenings in Quebec, but I also follow the work of great comedians. I want to mention one in particular who, to me, is one of the best in Quebec: Sugar Sammy. He is a great comedian. Many allophones and immigrants who have lived in Quebec, or who are still living there, follow Sugar Sammy.

I was in Quebec a few weeks ago, and I saw several announcements about an upcoming Sugar Sammy tour in Quebec. I know he may not be the comedian the Bloc would have preferred me to name, but I want to mention him, because I think he is a great Quebecker. He makes me laugh.

I want to come back to the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. There are backlogs in nearly every program. There are over 2,000 immigration applications from newcomers to Canada that are behind schedule. These people are waiting to come to Canada or to be allowed to stay in Canada.

I want to mention a few programs because I do like numbers. Let us talk about the government-assisted refugees program. I know that many Liberal members are going to talk about this program. One Liberal member already has. In 2019, it took 15 months to process applications. Today, it takes 33 months. That is a three-year wait.

There are also privately sponsored refugees. I am talking here about charities, churches, mosques or temples that decide they want to sponsor a refugee, usually from their community, and bring them to Canada. These refugees are desperate people who need help, and Canada gives them that opportunity. Private community groups cover all of the costs associated with that refugee coming to Canada. In 2019, it took 23 months for the federal government to process that type of application while today it takes 38 months. That is nearly a four-year wait.

Let us now talk about the federal skilled trades program. As another member mentioned, in 2019, it took 12 months to process applications under that program. Now it takes 20 months. For skilled workers in Quebec it used to take 22 months to process their applications and now it takes 73 months. As for business people in Quebec, it used to take 54 months to process applications, and now it takes 67 months.

I am not pulling these numbers out of thin air. These numbers can be found on the government's website. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship came to the House to tell us that these numbers were not up to date and that this would take only six months from now on. If it is a six-month wait time for people applying today, then that is great. However, those who submitted their application one, two, three or four years ago are waiting their turn and will continue to wait. They will wait four, five, six or seven years. Sometimes no one knows how long it will take.

What is more, 90 to 95% of the files that are sent to Conservative MPs at their riding offices have to do with immigration. An error was made, the wait times are too long, the questions are not clear, etc. No one answers the phone. No one answers the email. The responses provided by the employees at immigration are sometimes confusing and contradictory and no one knows where we are headed.

We should be focusing on what could be done to help newcomers and people in our communities in the next 75 days, not the next 75 years. The Liberals have caused the challenges people are facing today.

In 2015, there were no backlogs in processing applications. The Canadian immigration system was the best in the world, and countries everywhere were trying to copy it. It was based on a points system, which gave everyone the chance to come to Canada. I want to be clear that it was a neutral system. If the person was young and well educated, they had a better chance of coming to Canada as an economic immigrant. Our immigration system treated everyone equally. Other countries wanted to copy it, but no one wants to copy our current system, which was created by the Liberals eight years ago. The backlog in the current system is over two million applications. After the pandemic, the backlog reached 2.9 million.

The Liberals claim that the backlog was caused by the pandemic, but that is not true: it was caused by them. The backlog had reached two million files before the pandemic. The pandemic made matters worse.

As my leader said, the things that newcomers go through and the services they receive from the federal government do not meet our expectations.

I myself am an immigrant, and I know that the people in our communities have a hard time finding a job, a place to live or people who share their mother tongue. In Canada, we can learn French and English. I, for one, learned French from Passe-Partout; I know all Quebeckers are familiar with that show. English is my third language, and I learned it by watching Sesame Street.

This is a good opportunity for me to switch to English. There are a lot of opportunities for immigrants who come to this country, including those like me. I grew up in Montreal and am a child of the Bill 101 education system. It does work; I am proof, I think. There are many of us who are proof that it does work, that they can take up the language.

However, we have unrealistic plans. The false utopias that are being proposed by the Century Initiative are completely ridiculous. We have McKinsey executives, big business executives, including one from BlackRock and others, who do not spend the time visiting communities, smaller towns and rural regions, which are desperate for workers. Newcomers are coming to Canada, and there have been so many waves of immigration to Canada that have vitalized entire regions and communities. I know that, for example, in northern Alberta, there is a huge Ukrainian community, of Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox people, which is now accepting another wave of people fleeing the war in Ukraine. They are finding an opportunity to speak their mother tongue while also brushing up on their English or their French.

There are also communities in northern Alberta that are French communities and that have a historic French connection. I remember that, my first time in Alberta, when I first moved out there, I went into a rural area for, I think, a birthday party. There were two nuns there. They spoke to me in French. I could not believe it; it was immaculate, perfect French. They came from a French convent. We had a long discussion in that language, because that was their experience of being in Alberta: They had been brought up with both languages.

My leader was right. The Liberals have had eight years and have completely broken the immigration system. What we should be looking at is services. The newcomer experience to Canada is awful. That is why so many of them are talking about returning to their country of origin; it is because they cannot find the opportunities that they were promised here.

There is so much we can do to make sure foreign credentials are recognized. My father was not able to practise here as an engineer because he could not pass a language exam. He passed all of the technical exams. That is the experience of so many immigrants who come here and are discriminated against just because they have credentials from overseas. We have heard the numbers: 32,000 nurses and over 20,000 doctors. There are engineers in my riding who cannot practise here easily, because they are being discriminated against because of where they got their years of experience or where they got their credentials and education.

The provincial colleges need to be told to stop gatekeeping and allow people to practise their professions, to do the thing that they love here in Canada, to add to our communities, build a family and provide for themselves. That is the Canadian dream. That is what we have to restore.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is the leader of the Conservative Party or the member who just spoke. They seem to be in some sort of a dream world. They are trying to give the impression that the Conservatives did a good job on immigration. They need to get serious.

If we look at the sponsoring of parents and grandparents, the backlog was over seven years long. It was so bad, the Conservatives actually cancelled the program. They would not allow someone to sponsor a parent or grandparent. In one area, the program got so bad, in terms of sponsoring immigrants, that they actually deleted hundreds of thousands of people who were already in the process and had been waiting years. It was an absolute disaster, including the backlogs to sponsor a loved one. I do not know where they are coming from. They obviously are in some other form of reality.

When can we anticipate the Conservative Party to enter into the reality zone when it comes to immigration?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk numbers. I remember it was a previous Liberal government that left behind a backlog of six to eight million applications for the Conservative government.

They did not shut down the program. They returned money to everybody and restarted the program from zero because they botched it so badly. There was no choice but to do that, and they are doing that again. The people who are going to suffer are newcomers and immigrants to Canada who are being given false hopes and dreams while they are processing these applications.

Let us talk numbers because the member raised them. I see here for the family class that every single one of the lines is longer than it used to be. Every single one now takes longer than they did in 2019. I am not even going back all the way to 2015, I am just talking 2019.

Every single one, parents or grandparents, spouses, partners and children, family relations, humanitarian and compassionate consideration, or H&C as we call it, is longer today than they used to be. The Liberals have a backlog that is two million applications, not the Conservatives. They created this problem.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciate the quality of his French, which he uses regularly.

Today, we are hearing many speeches that say it is easy and it is important. Yes, French is spoken in some parts of Alberta. We are hearing stories about how French is found here and there, but the reality is that the Government of Quebec is having a hard time welcoming the immigrants it is already receiving. Why? It is because we lack the resources for our social and health services and for services to newcomers, and, in the meantime, the federal government hangs onto the money. Not only does it hang onto the money and prevent us from properly welcoming these people, but it tells us that even more people will be coming to Quebec. That is what does not make sense. We are being reasonable in the arguments we are making today.

Does the member not believe that the Government of Quebec should set its own thresholds without the federal government dictating them?

Furthermore, could we please get our money back so we can take care of our people?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which I think is very reasonable. Quebec has an agreement with Canada regarding the establishment of criteria for immigrants who want to settle in Quebec. My family settled in Quebec. In the 1980s, my father worked at the shipyard in Sorel, which no longer exists.

It is not the government that welcomes immigrants. It is the communities in the cities and regions. Cultural communities and groups are the ones that welcome them. I think that there is tremendous potential if we ask for help from existing community groups that can get money from the private sector and from various religious communities that would be willing to help newcomers settle in Quebec and Canada.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who is an immigrant to Canada myself, having come here 50 years ago, and as an MP who has attended citizenship ceremonies where I have seen the pride when newcomers become part of the fabric of Canada, and I have seen the many contributions they make in my riding, I am a bit confused by the Conservatives' speeches today.

I have seen the Bloc members congratulating the Conservative leader, I guess, in supporting this motion. What we have before us is a motion that styles immigrants as a threat to some Canadians and blames immigrants for housing shortages and for delays in the health care system.

I am really unclear, having heard the speeches that sound like they support immigration, about what the Conservatives are doing with the motion before us today.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the member's characterization.

I read the motion, both in French and then in English, and it sounds exactly the same to me. This motion basically rejects the Century Initiative, which is big business executives with these pie-in-the-sky dreams, these utopias that were talking about 75 years from now.

I want to talk about the immigrant experience today, right now. What they are experiencing on the ground is long wait times, families broken up and people divorcing. Spousal sponsorships for Iran are completely blocked at the visa processing offices during a revolution led by women in Iran. Spousal sponsorships are not being processed. There are people who have waited years, sometimes up to five years. There are people getting divorced because they cannot even bring in their partner from a place like Iran, where there is an autocratic regime. They are persecuting women and men on the streets right now.

We should be doing so much more. I do not see any of that in this motion right here. This is simply rejecting a ridiculous pie-in-the-sky utopian dream that these big business executives put together for McKinsey.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I have the honour and pleasure of sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Vancouver East.

Today we are seized with a motion that opens up a debate, which is clearly necessary and could very well be done for any public policy. A discussion of immigration, immigration levels, integration capacity, language, living together and living in harmony is always welcome, just as we would talk about public policies on health, the environment, international trade, and so on.

However, as La Presse columnist Rima Elkouri says, approach is everything. That is the point I want to make. Beyond the specific language it contains, this opposition motion is part of a wider political context where the issues of immigration and integration are being used as political tools.

Before I go into those details, however, I would like to read my colleagues a poem. I do not do this sort of thing every day, but I would like to read a short poem by Gérald Godin, one of Quebec's great poets. I really enjoy his work. This poem was transformed into urban art near the Mont‑Royal metro station, not far from my riding and my home. I would like everyone to keep these words in mind:

at 7:30 a.m. the Montreal Metro
is full of immigrants
those people
are up early
are they the reason
the city's aging heart
still beats?
the city's worn and aging heart
spasmodic
occluded
murmuring
flawed
it has every reason in the world
to stop
to give up

I see this tribute to immigrants, who get up early to go to work, every day and every week in the Montreal Metro in my riding, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Last weekend, I had the honour of participating in a graduation ceremony for a social integration enterprise called PROPRET. The graduates, 90% of them immigrants, most of them women, went through housekeeping training and follow-up. Many of the people in the program also get French training. Diplomas were awarded to 67 people who have been through tough times but who work very, very hard and often struggle. However, they were proud of what they accomplished and of their successful integration into the labour market in French. It was wonderful to see.

I think we need to highlight these successes and this reality on the ground. This is what is really happening. The disaster that had been predicted by some news media has not happened. They like to light fires to get attention and clicks and thus make a profit.

It also reminds me of a documentary called Essentiels, by Sonia Djelidi and journalist Sarah Champagne, about temporary foreign workers. There are several beautiful stories in that documentary, but also some painful ones, because we really need these temporary foreign workers, which the Premier of Quebec seems to have just realized.

Edyn, a Latin American man, said that he worked 10 hours a day, had to take care of his two children who were going to school and cook for them, and that his wife had remained in their country of origin, with children as well. He said he did not know when he would have time to take French classes. He had tried to fit them into his schedule, but it had been difficult and he had failed several times.

Edyn eventually graduated, but the reality on the ground is that people have two or three jobs and work 60 or 70 hours a week to be able to make ends meet. They are told they just have to learn French, but it is not that easy. It makes for a good slogan on a leaflet or a button but, in the real world, these people are just trying to survive.

I also want to talk about Mamadou. People called him a guardian angel while he worked in long-term care facilities during the pandemic. He caught COVID‑19. Despite all his work and his knowledge of French, he is now threatened with deportation. That is the kind of case we see in our offices. That is the reality on the ground.

That is why the debate on immigration levels to Quebec has become a bit toxic and unhealthy, because there is a lot of vocabulary being used to divide people, namely, us, the old-stock Quebeckers, the historical majority, versus them, the newcomers who are being singled out. That is really unfortunate. There is not a lot of that kind of rhetoric in today's motion, but that is why I am saying that we need to pay attention to the context, which has been ongoing for many years.

We have had reasonable accommodation, the charter of values, very closed-off and discriminatory secularism, and negative language that has led to all kinds of problems. These are not just empty words.

In the most recent Quebec election campaign, candidate and minister Jean Boulet claimed that 80% of immigrants do not work and do not speak French. He said that during the election campaign, when he was minister. However, it is completely false. According to statistics from the Institut de la statistique du Québec, in 2021, close to 75% of immigrants spoke French.

I have said it before in the House, but we need to stop talking about how a mother tongue is such an important indicator of the health of French in Quebec. The purpose of Bill 101 was and still is to ensure that the mother tongue indicator no longer makes any difference. The idea behind Bill 101 is to ensure that, even if first-generation immigrants do not speak French and are unable to learn it, their children will learn it and integrate into our Quebec society. That has been a success. There are a lot of children of Bill 101 in my circle, and one of them lives with me.

We also have to be serious when we talk about whether Quebec is receiving the funds it needs to integrate immigrants into French-speaking society. Once again, the reality in the field contradicts what some, like Coalition Avenir Québec, are saying. In an article published last year in La Presse, journalist Joël‑Denis Bellavance wrote that, of the $697 million that the federal government sends to Quebec for teaching immigrants French, 75% was used for purposes other than French courses.

Instead of complaining and saying that its integration capacity is stretched to the limit and that the federal government is not doing its fair share, maybe the Quebec government should do some soul-searching and consider spending this $700 million on French courses for immigrants who want to learn French but are being forced to wait a long time.

Minister Boulet was not the only one to speak this way. Premier Legault calls immigration an existential threat. He warns that Quebec will become the Louisiana of the north and says that recklessly raising the number of immigrants would be suicidal. Those are weighty words. They taint the whole debate around integration capacity, immigration rates and Quebec's levels. I would point specifically to the front page of last Saturday's Journal de Montréal, with a headline that translates to “Quebec is caught in a trap”, followed by subheadings such as “French forced into decline”, “They want to assimilate us” and “Two worst-case scenarios”. One columnist, Mathieu Bock-Côté, talks about “demographic drowning”, echoing certain satirical cartoons that show a massive wave of immigration. That is tantamount to saying that we are being invaded.

I do not know the semantic difference between demographic drowning and replacement theory, but we hear about a lot it from figures on France's far right, including Marine Le Pen and Éric Zemmour. They evoke the spectre of the disappearance of the Quebec people under the threat of immigration, when we should be using more positive language to refer to newcomers, in the spirit of dialogue and openness. Instead, they play on insecurities and fear, including the fear of the other. Fear of the other leads to insular attitudes and close‑mindedness, division in our society between the original population, a concept that leaves out indigenous peoples, and our capacity for integration.

I do think we need to be vigilant. French is a minority in North America and always will be. We need to make an effort to protect and promote French. We need to pay attention to social cohesion and our capacity for integration. However, social cohesion comes with open arms, openness, support, not demeaning attitudes, finger-pointing and viewing immigrants as a threat to the Quebec people or the French language.

I am rather dismayed that, after all these years, we are having a debate that is extremely toxic and negative. Quebec is fully capable of working with the municipalities and the federal government to welcome people properly, make them future Quebeckers and stop seeing them as threats to Quebec culture and identity that need to be rejected out of hand. It is an extremely dangerous slippery slope. With this type of motion, at this time, in the current political context, I think we need to cross our t's and dot our i's.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie began by reciting a poem by Gérald Godin. I am not convinced that Gérald Godin would have agreed entirely with what my colleague said after that, though.

I can respond by quoting Gaston Miron. In Compagnon des Amériques, Gaston Miron said:

…reach out to everyone, country
you who appear...

It is about reaching out to others, but Gaston Miron also has this to say in Compagnon des Amériques:

...before all the compromises cloaked in mink pelts
before the champions of conscience soothing
the scrawny emancipated
the well-mannered insects
before all the commanders that exploit you
and your cobblestone flesh...

When Gaston Miron talks about “well-mannered insects", he is referring to those who accuse us of being intolerant when we claim our identity.

I have to say this, because it is a known fact: Quebec's future as a nation is in peril. Acknowledging this does not mean that we are closed to immigration. Anyone who says the opposite are the ones who are themselves closed, in my opinion.

I have a rather simple question for my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. The Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion to reject the Century Initiative. There is even a motion adopted unanimously by his colleagues from Québec Solidaire.

Does my colleague realize that the future of the Quebec nation is in peril? Is he prepared to admit today that the future of the Quebec nation is in jeopardy?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his incisive question. I, too, can provide a quote.

I really enjoy Gilles Vigneault's music, and a line from one of his songs goes, “and these people are of my people”. I think this is important in the debate we are currently having. We are dealing with real people and we have to treat them as such. This is not about good Quebeckers versus evil immigrants.

It is appropriate to have a discussion about how many people we can accept and the integration rate, but members should know that the Quebec government selects 100% of its economic immigrants. Even Mr. Legault acknowledged that 80% of these economic immigrants speak French.

Do we need to do more for the immigrants who arrive under the family reunification stream, or as temporary foreign workers or refugees? Perhaps we do.

With respect to refugees, it is a little more complicated because their circumstances are different, but I believe we should have a rational debate about that. I have to say that at this time, I believe some columnists are using this topic to make political hay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how Canada's rich diversity has actually seen expansion in many ways. I have used the example of Manitoba, where more French is being spoken than there ever has been in its history. With respect to the diversity, I have reflected upon people of Filipino and Indian heritage, in particular from the Punjab. I often meet with youngsters and they are actually speaking French or learning to speak French. I believe this is healthy in the long term for the French language.

Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to the way many immigrants see learning and understanding French as a wonderful thing?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not an expert on Manitoban history, but we do need to be somewhat careful. I think there was a time when the majority of people in Manitoba spoke French, before French was banned from being taught in schools. We have to put things in perspective, from a historical point of view.

Today, it is true that there is an interest in French and immersion classes. It has even reached the point where, in many parts of the country, there is not enough capacity in French or immersion schools to offer spots to newcomers and children.

That being said, is French under threat? Yes. Will it always be threatened? Yes. Do we need to do more in Quebec and on the federal government side? Yes, absolutely.

I think that significant steps will be taken this afternoon when we pass Bill C-13. The same can be said of the agreement that was reached between Ottawa and the Government of Quebec regarding this bill and the place of French in federally regulated companies.

Yes, we applaud diversity, but we have to give ourselves the means to properly integrate people into Quebec's culture and history and into the beautiful French language. I think we all need to work towards that, but without pointing fingers at immigrants, without portraying them as a threat.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I am heartened to hear my colleague's words, to say that, when we engage in this debate, it is about the importance of it and what it means for all of us, but at the same time not to take an approach that vilifies and points fingers at others.

I look around this chamber and there are very few of us, truth be told, who are not immigrants, either ourselves or our ancestors. For those of us who are not indigenous, we came to this land as newcomers. Over the years, we have seen changes made. As always, when newcomers come to a country, to a new place, there are feelings of threat and fear, I guess, because of the unfamiliarity of these individuals.

For indigenous peoples and their history, and we already know Canada's colonial history, it is sad to say that those fears are very real and have done tremendous harm to indigenous peoples, to which Canada is still trying to reconcile, to reconcile in a real effort, in a meaningful way, and we have a long way to go. There is no question about that.

Now, with respect to other communities that are newcomers, there are those of us who came to Canada as immigrants. In my case, back in the seventies, when my family immigrated here, we were new in this country as well, but over the years we have worked hard to integrate into Canadian society. We learned the language, learned the Canadian culture and Canadian values, and actively participated in our communities. Some of us achieved different things, and I would say without hesitation that the immigrant community has contributed to Canada in every aspect and is engaged in Canadian society in every way. The contributions are significant economically, socially, culturally and environmentally, to be sure.

On the situation of what we are talking about here, we are now saying we have too many immigrants and we fear that, with more immigrants coming, it would take away from what we have. I think we need to think about what some of the concerns are that have been brought up.

First is the issue around ensuring that Quebec and the French language and culture are protected. I absolutely agree that Quebec is a very unique province and that it has a distinction with its language and culture, which we need to do everything we can to protect. Part of that work rests with the federal government, with its immigration measures, particularly as it pertains to ensuring that the immigration target for francophonie immigrants is achieved. Sadly, that is not the reality.

The Liberal government has failed to meet the target year after year after year. In fact, the FCFA made a recommendation at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration calling on the government to adopt a new francophone immigration target of 12% in 2024 and to gradually increase it to 20% in 2036. I think that should be done. I think it needs to be done. We need to be aggressively pursuing those targets to realize that. We also need to do a lot of work to ensure that francophonie targets outside of Quebec are also met. In addition to that, the work we need to do across the country is to ensure that languages, French classes, are made available to students.

I can say from personal experience that I desperately wanted my two children to have access to French immersion. What did I do? After they were born, I enrolled them in the lottery. That is the system that we have. I had to enrol them in a lottery to see if they would get picked to get into French immersion. Sadly, for my family, neither one of them won that lottery. That is the reality.

To fix and address the question of preserving the French language, we need to make sure those kinds of programs are not done through a lottery, but rather, are made available for people. That is not the reality, and that is what we need to fix. That is not an immigrant problem. It is a Canadian problem that we need to face up to and ensure resources are provided and those programs are in place.

When I think about the contributions of the immigrant community, especially now in this period of dire need for health care workers, during the pandemic it became very clear that the immigrant community helped Canada in significant ways, sometimes by taking on jobs that put them in danger. We saw that in the aquaculture industry. Some migrant workers actually died while working to put food on our tables. That is the reality, and that continues to be a challenge for migrant workers who are taken advantage of because they do not have full status. They should be given full status and be regularized, by the way.

On the health care piece, let me put some important information on the table. Immigrants account for 36% of physicians, 33% of business owners with paid staff and 41% of engineers. What that tells me is that immigrants are engaged in all walks of life, in every profession in our communities, and they contribute significantly to our communities.

More specifically in the health care sector, 23% of registered nurses are immigrants; 35% of nursing aides and related occupations are immigrants; and 37% of pharmacists, 36% of physicians, 39% of dentists and 54% of dental technologists and related occupations are immigrants. At a time when we have a major need for health care workers, the immigrant community has shown, and I believe they will continue to show, their important contributions to the caring economy and the service economy, which we all depend upon to keep us healthy in our communities.

Part of the problem for the immigrant community in getting into these professions, which we have all talked about and needs to be addressed, would be for the government to ensure that credential recognition is made easier. Some provinces have embarked on that, which I am glad to see, and the numbers are astounding. The interest that has been shown is astounding. In Nova Scotia, as an example, almost 1,500 people showed interest in a new program that was put in place to start May 1. British Columbia is embarking in this process as well.

That is what we need to do. We need to eliminate the barriers for the immigrant community so they can fully participate in Canadian society. This will also ensure that the talents they bring are recognized so they can practise their professions. This will help all of Canada and most certainly help Quebec as well. In fact, Quebec specifically, during the pandemic period, wanted an immigration measure for health care workers to regularize those in Quebec in the health care profession. There is no question that the value of the immigrant community is significant. We need to make sure we also facilitate the process to support them in their contributions and successes here in Canada.

There are many aspects, when we are looked at as individuals, as human beings, that we have—