Debates of May 11th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure she will be able to add more during the period for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize how much work my colleague has done on the immigration file. Indeed, I congratulate her because I agree with much of what she said in her speech, including the parts about francophone immigration.

Now I would like us all to look at the motion before us. I kind of have a hard time believing the NDP could vote against this motion. My colleague mentioned first nations in her speech. The motion reads, “That...the House reject the Century Initiative objectives and ask the government not to use them as a basis for developing its future immigration levels.” One reason is that first peoples, not to mention Quebec, were never consulted with respect to the Century Initiative targets, which are determined purely on the basis of economics.

Based solely on the motion, I have a hard time seeing how a progressive party could vote against it. Essentially, it is an attack on McKinsey, a right-wing firm that considers only the economic aspects of immigration. No social factors came into play at all. Linguistic and cultural minorities were not taken into account.

I just want to understand why the NDP is going to vote against this motion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, part of the motion says, “tripling Canada’s population has real impacts on the future of the French language, Quebec’s political weight, the place of First Peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure”:

I want to address this issue. I appreciate the member's work at the immigration committee. I have come to know him and respect a lot of the work that he does.

However, I think we are embarking on a very dangerous path, where we could signal that we are going to be vilifying and blaming the immigrant community for the health care crisis we are facing, the housing crisis we are facing and the problems that we have seen as a result of colonization of Canada for indigenous peoples.

It is not the immigrant community that should be carrying that weight, but rather, it is the governments that should be carrying that weight.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned medically trained people who are here in this country and ready to go to work.

Would the member not agree that that is more of a provincial issue to solve, with the individual medical associations and health authorities in each province? That seems to be a bit of a thorn in everybody's side, when the federal government tells the provinces what to do with their hospitals and who gets employed there.

It is an answer to some of our immigration issues. Would the member agree that we should do everything we can to work with the provinces to make it much easier?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the provinces and territories need to step up and address that issue, but the federal government also needs to do the same.

Because the federal government, with its immigration measures, only allows migrant workers to come to work in Canada with the identified employer, they are not able to work elsewhere. Those with the talents to work in other sectors are unable to do so because of immigration restrictions, even though they meet the criteria and have the credentials. The federal government has a role to play to fix that problem.

At the end of the day, I hope we can all recognize the value of those in the immigrant community. Instead of vilifying them, blaming them and turning our guns on them, we should say that we are one community and we welcome immigrant communities. It does not have to be one or the other.

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

Madam Speaker, in my long years of working with the newcomer population, one of the hardest parts was receiving numerous calls where Canadians were often confused and blamed immigrants for taking up too much resources.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about how important it is that we do not create that dialogue and that we, in fact, do all that we can to bring people together to build that sense of community.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I fear with this motion. That is why the NDP is not going to support it, as it ties housing to the immigrant community.

The housing crisis exists because successive Liberal and Conservative governments failed on housing. They cancelled the national affordable housing program, they cut funding, and then they were developing initiatives that do not meet the needs. They are not tackling the core of the issue, which is corporate landlords. Instead, they continue to give them special tax treatment.

The issue here is not the immigrant community. It is the lack of action from successive Liberal and Conservative governments that has caused the housing crisis, and I would argue, also the health challenges that we face today.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I will start by saying this: I am pro-immigration, much to the chagrin of my detractors on social media and probably the member for Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, who pride themselves on knowing my own thoughts better than I do. As I was saying, I am pro-immigration. The organizations I work with are aware of that. Together, we try to ensure the well-being of families in Quebec, including some families who entered the country through Roxham Road but would have deserved a proper welcome with dignity. These people should have entered Quebec through the front door. I repeat: I am pro-immigration.

Quebec is also pro-immigration. Quebeckers want to welcome newcomers with respect and dignity by offering them the resources and tools they need to make their immigration project a success so that they stay in Quebec. With the Century Initiative, it is impossible to do so.

People have heard me say many times what I am about to repeat, but I will do so once more. Newcomers are men, women, children and whole families who are looking for a better life. They are parents who want the best for their children. That is what we all want, in the end: to give the best to our children.

Many have decided to come to study and work in Quebec, charmed by the quality of life, the wide open spaces, the Quebec winter, of course, and Quebec culture. Others are attracted by better career prospects, a higher standard of living or educational opportunities. Their plans for the future contribute to Quebec society as a whole. From the bottom of our hearts, we wish them success. We hope they do well. Under no circumstances should their dreams be shattered by federal interests or lobby groups.

I will say it again: I am pro-immigration and so is Quebec, but not just any how and certainly not at any cost. As a small nation that speaks a minority language within North America, Quebec has a different capacity for integrating immigrants. Quebec's immigration policy has to take this integration capacity into account, as does Canada's. That is why Quebec's National Assembly unanimously condemned the Century Initiative targets. Just yesterday, the Bloc Québécois leader reminded us of a lesson from history when he said that those they intend to harm do not get consulted.

The Bloc Québécois strongly condemns the federal government's failure to consult the Quebec government, or the first peoples, for that matter, before increasing its new immigration level to 500,000 per year. The Bloc Québécois also condemns the thrust of the Liberal government's immigration policy, which includes targets that match those suggested by the Century Initiative lobby group to boost Canada's population to more than 100 million by 2100. The Bloc Québécois considers it imperative for the House to reject these targets and to ask the government not use them as the basis for developing its own future levels.

That is why we are calling on parliamentarians of all parties to firmly reject this irresponsible and unrealistic option. This project would seek to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Oddly enough, the federal government's new immigration targets directly correspond to the objectives of the Century Initiative.

I will say it again: Neither Quebec nor the first peoples were consulted. Still, tripling Canada's population has real repercussions. There are repercussions for the future of the French language in Quebec and in Canada, Quebec's political weight, the place of first peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure. None of these were considered when developing this project.

Moreover, as stated by those who thought of and developed this initiative, social issues and demographic and language considerations were removed in their entirety from the assessment criteria. It is no secret that I enjoy debates. It is normal and healthy in a democracy, especially for important issues that shape the future. This discussion about the future of our nation is a democratic discussion that concerns all citizens of Quebec and Canada.

Unfortunately, because it is a part of Canada, Quebec is all too often faced with choices that are not its own. Too often, federal choices and priorities involve interests that have nothing to do with the interests of the Quebec nation, as it is the case with the Century Initiative. It is generally the case with the Liberal approach to immigration.

Let us talk about Liberal interests. In 2016, Dominic Barton, who still headed McKinsey, was appointed chair of the advisory council on economic growth set up by the Government of Canada, the Liberal government. Dominic Barton and his colleagues recommended substantial increases to immigration thresholds to increase Canada's population to 100 million people by 2100.

By Mr. Barton's own admission, some members of the committee felt that these levels were too high. Judging by the current immigration targets, however, the Government of Canada ended up following Dominic Barton's recommendation.

The former CEO of McKinsey is also the co-founder of Century Initiative, which is recommending gradually increasing immigration to more than one million permanent immigrants a year for a certain number of years, a calculation that is included in the detailed plan.

This lobby group is financially backed by many Toronto banks and corporations. Let us talk about lobbyists. The group is registered as a lobbyist. They are on the list of members of the board of directors. Some are Liberal Party donors and Conservative Party donors. I am not making that up, it is a matter of public record. Not surprisingly, the lobby group also wants Canada to continue oil and gas exploration and development. A lot of deposits are on first nations land. As far as we know, the lobby thinks that Ottawa should find a way forward. This is the lobby the motion is referring to, that we are talking about today. History tells us that we rarely consult those we might harm.

To sum it all up, the Liberal government decided, of its own accord, to exponentially increase immigration targets without any consultation with Quebec or the first nations and without any consideration for the particularities of the Quebec nation or Quebeckers' desire to appropriately welcome newcomers by providing them with access to decent housing, health care and a quality education.

Either I do not understand or the government does not understand anything. Either way, one thing is certain, and that is that we do not agree on the targets. It seems as though we will never agree. However, let us remember one thing. If the federal government does not want to hear what Quebec has to say, then perhaps it is because Quebec no longer has a place in the Canadian federation. The day when we can no longer agree with the federal government on anything at all, we can always become independent.

That would be a really great societal undertaking that I am sure people from all over Quebec would want to participate in because we love Quebec and we want to take care of the people who live there. Taking care of our people cannot be done any which way and especially not at any price. Taking care of our people involves letting them in through the front door, with dignity and respect, knowing that we have room for them and that they will be happy here. That is what the Bloc Québécois is saying.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite keeps referring to the fact that he does not agree with what Canada is trying to do when it comes to immigration levels. I would ask him to either correct me if I am wrong or agree with me that Quebec sets its own immigration levels as a province within this Confederation. Is that still the case today, or is it changing?

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

Madam Speaker, no, that is still the case. People in this party are always telling us the same thing: Quebec and Canada each set their own levels. If Quebec maintains its current levels and Canada increases its levels, Quebec will clearly lose demographic weight, and therefore political weight, within the Canadian federation. I am sure we agree on that. It is simple math.

The federal government voted down the bill brought forward by my colleague from Drummond, which asked that Quebec maintain 25% of the seats in the House. The Liberal government voted against it. We cannot seem to agree on anything.

However, one thing needs to be made clear: Every political party in the Quebec National Assembly voted against Century Initiative's immigration targets, which are now the federal government's targets.

There is a consensus in Quebec, and everyone is against it. We imagine that the Liberal government will vote for this motion since it always says it will work hand in hand with the Quebec government.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my area in rural Ontario, we see a lack of people to fill jobs, whether in the agriculture sector, in restaurants or food services, or in the hospitality and tourism areas. We also have people looking to fill jobs in health care in some of our rural hospitals, whether with doctors or nurses, but there are so many people in this country who do not have the credentials to fill those key positions.

I know the member opposite and his party in Quebec are seeing a shortage of workers as well. When McKinsey or consultants from these cities make decisions in this country, they seem to be leaving out the rural areas. Could the member comment on how he sees this and the shortage of workers in Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

We have to face facts. Right now, greater regional immigration to remote areas would be welcome. My riding has wonderful immigration stories to tell. I was in Saint‑Thomas‑Didyme two weeks ago and took part in a Moroccan night. Saint‑Thomas‑Didyme is a long way from Ottawa. It is a small village with a population of about 600. Temporary foreign workers are currently working at the village sawmill and at another sawmill in the nearby village of Girardville. As I was saying, we had a Moroccan night. I am telling this story to show how welcoming and how open Quebec is to newcomers. We really need them to keep our small villages alive.

Unfortunately, the government is ridiculously dysfunctional when it comes to immigration. All the the opposition parties agree that we have immigration problems everywhere. The issue is a concern for employers, but also for small communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit perplexed by the Bloc motion today. I understand that there is a feeling that the French language and Quebec's weight in Canada are the real concerns. There are two ways, I guess, that such concerns could be approached. One is the defensive and negative way, which I see in this motion. The other is to tap into the great source of immigration abroad in the francophonie. There are more than 450 million French speakers around the world; they have some of the largest and fastest-growing populations and some of the youngest French-speaking populations. They could be a source of those immigrants.

Would an alternative approach not be to try to make sure that we raise those rates of immigration to help replace the aging population here and to help bring the diversity of francophones into Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I would have a lot to say about that. I thank the member for his good question.

We first have to understand one thing. When we talk to certain African ambassadors to Canada, they say we must ensure that we do not drain their countries of all their talented people, because they need nurses, doctors and teachers. I have had discussions with certain groups. We need to be careful that we do not take all those fine people from Africa because that would cause problems for those countries.

I would really like to continue this discussion with my colleague, but I do not have enough time. It is a good question. Let it be known that we are not negative, we are positive. I support immigration.

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

Madam Speaker, Ottawa appears to want a post-national update to Canada 3.0.

The feds have given a multinational firm, a state within a state, the sprawling McKinsey firm, the lucrative mandate to set immigration thresholds, an incredibly important aspect of public policy. The matter is settled and the PR campaign is implacable. The only way to avoid accusations of racism, the only way to continue to shine in Toronto's salons, is to increase Canada's total population by 100 million by 2100.

In cobbling together this announcement, tailor-made for the big bosses, Ottawa combined its ignorance of what is needed and its desire to distinguish itself culturally from Quebec and the first nations with utter scorn for realistic immigration capacities. Ottawa does not even have the decency to provide services to these future newcomers and or even ensure that sufficient housing is built for them.

Let there be no doubt that the Century Initiative is not the idea of the century, despite the empty rhetoric that seems to be second nature to this Prime Minister.

Quebec, as a nation, has had a history marked by periods of survival and moments of affirmation, and its constant concern has been its cultural and linguistic continuity. In 1978, René Lévesque's Parti Québécois government adopted Quebec's policy for cultural development. It was written by two of the greatest thinkers in our history, Guy Rocher and Fernand Dumont, who worked for the brilliant minister, Camille Laurin.

I want to point out in passing that Camille Laurin was the true architect of the integration of newcomers to Quebec, more so than Gérald Godin, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but who is used as argumentative support so frequently that I find it somewhat annoying.

Everything was clear. What could be called traditional French culture must be a focus for cultural convergence. The reason is quite simple. In a democratic state, citizens must be able to agree on a common place of exchange. We will patiently repeat what we have said before. It is not a question of Quebec culture abolishing other cultures on our land, but rather about establishing a concrete and sensitive meeting place necessary for creating a common feeling of belonging, a shared vision of the common good. Quebec can be as much the nation of Gilles Vigneault as that of Dany Laferrière.

In 2023, that was reflected in the unanimous, all-party vote against the Century Initiative by the National Assembly, who, let us not forget, was never consulted about it.

To some extent, Quebec, a welcoming and generous nation, is ready to welcome as many immigrants as possible, but the word “possible” is key here. The numbers are important. If our state has the capacity to set the number of newcomers per year, it is legitimate to discuss, debate and reflect on it. Unfortunately, this debate is too often shut down or restricted through name-calling, such name-calling serving ostensibly to demonize the miscreants who, in reality, are only calling for a more harmonious integration.

We often hear the tap metaphor when talking about immigration. Let us reflect on that. What is a tap? For a sink not to overflow, it needs to be filled mindfully and responsibly. Applying orange and red ideologies to this issue is quite simply wrongheaded, just as the will to exclude dissenting opinions from the debate is repugnant. These opinions are sometimes rigorous demonstrations by experts who point out the enormous danger to the very survival of the Quebec nation in the face of increases that would be too brutal, not harmonious enough and poorly thought out.

Canada, on the other hand, is infected to the core by a utopia, that of multiculturalism, the idea that all newcomers have to do is to huddle in inward-looking communities based on the old ways of belonging. The Canadian regime is oblivious to the existence of a nation with a common core where citizens have equal rights and duties. Instead, it sees a big pile of minority communities that can spend their entire existence without even needing to speak to each other.

This radical utopia became institutionalized in the Canadian Constitution, a Constitution that is impossible to reform, that is set in stone, imposed unilaterally by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and to which Quebec is still not a signatory today. The government of unelected judges is in charge of dismantling Quebec laws such as the Charter of the French Language, which is a shadow of its former self, such as Bill 21 whose future could be no brighter than Bill 101. The powers that be pride themselves in neutralizing Quebec democracy, suppressing its affirmation as a nation and stifling its political institutions.

It is hardly surprising in that perspective that junior now wants to fulfill daddy's dream. It is hardly surprising, not in terms of the drastic increase proposed today nor in terms of the depoliticization of such an important decision, that all of this is to the benefit—in every sense of the word—of the stateless clique at McKinsey, that is wreaking havoc and causing scandals everywhere it goes. Enough is enough.

Dominic Barton led the McKinsey firm, a state within a state, from 2009 to 2018. In 2016, Barton, who was still leading the McKinsey firm, was appointed to head the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, formed by the Canadian government. In addition to being led by this McKinsey executive, the group was supported by McKinsey Canada employees.

Dominic Barton is also a co-founder of the Century Initiative lobby, financially backed by big business in Toronto, which aims to gradually increase immigration to more than one million permanent immigrants per year. It should be noted that the Century Initiative also stands out for its aggressive stance on pushing oil and gas projects, notably in indigenous territory, regardless of indigenous support.

Could it be, in this case, that the wokeism of the great Canadian stateless capitalists—these two qualifiers may seem contradictory but very often go together—is simply artful posturing, self-righteous posturing that applies on a sliding scale? In this case, it presents itself as a lack of respect for the will of indigenous communities, who are shackled by the racist regime of the Indian Act, regardless of the sorrowful speeches we often hear in the House that are meant to make the speakers look good in high society.

When Dominic Barton appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates as part of the study on McKinsey, he admitted, in response to a question from the member for Beauport—Limoilou, that the pressure group never took into account the impact that its proposal to increase immigration could have on the French fact. Forget about that. It was never even considered. There is no report on the group's website that mentions the impact that this massive increase in immigration levels would have. No one in the red and orange troops seems to be upset or concerned about that.

It is important that the Century Initiative's dangerous project be immediately shut down. However, if we want to get away from constantly begging, from forcing the Quebec National Assembly to repeatedly adopt unanimous motions that will not receive even the slightest bit of attention from the House of Commons, and from the trend where Quebec's weight in this House is permanently shrinking, which will only serve to make Quebeckers a minority that will no longer warrant any attention whatsoever from the government, and if we want to make it clear to any individual who wants to settle in Quebec that they will belong to a homeland called Quebec and be one of us, then let us choose freedom.

The choice is clear: freedom or collective powerlessness and mediocrity; independence or folklorization and marginalization until we completely disappear. We will have our free, independent and resolutely French Quebec, and it will be one of the most beautiful countries in the world.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member closed off, close to what I was hearing, I think, and it will probably be in his answer as well.

Is the fear for the member opposite, regarding where the current immigration levels are expected to go, that Quebec would lose its power here in the House because the numbers would increase in other areas of the country, whether it be in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario or the Atlantic provinces? If they saw an island start to grow its populations much higher than they are, it would mean more seats in the House for those places versus what would happen in his home province of Quebec.

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

That is not quite right, Madam Speaker. My aim is simply that full authority be given to the parliament where 100% of the seats belong to us. To my mind, that would settle the matter. Canada could certainly set its own thresholds.

The fear we have is about the French fact in Quebec. We have a capacity for integration, and when we say “capacity”, we mean “capability”. We do not have an unlimited capacity. We cannot do that.

We are talking about a target of one million. If the capacity is so unlimited, then why are we not talking about two, three or four million? Will such numbers be reached at some point? To go back to the tap metaphor, the sink still has to be filled mindfully and responsibly. It has to be done properly. That is all I want to say.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and neighbour from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot on his excellent speech, and at the same time wish him a happy birthday.

There was a lot of passion in his speech, and a lot of facts too. There is one thing that concerns me greatly about the erosion of the political weight of Quebec within Canada. Laws are being passed in Canada to protect certain aspects of culture, including French, culture itself and the people who shape our cultural sector, which is always under threat, always at risk. In fact, it is often in danger, and we often have to come to its rescue.

With the Century Initiative, Quebec risks losing its political weight. What does my colleague think Quebec will have to do to protect itself from this increased risk of Quebec culture withering away?

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

Madam Speaker, since my colleague worked on the broadcasting file, I think he would know how hard it is to get the message across that we need policies that support our cultural community and give them some leverage.

I think that the history of Quebec shows it. Just look at the Charter of the French Language. A very ill-advised former Liberal government minister named Stéphane Dion, whom we hardly miss in the House, once said that Bill 101 was a great Canadian law. What he meant was that it proved that we are perfectly equipped to defend the French fact in the current system. It is true that it has become a great Canadian law: there is nothing left of it. It is just a skeleton and a shadow of its former self. Of course, it has become “Canadianized” to the extreme.

Naturally, the only choice we have is to make all our own decisions without being at the mercy of the Constitution and the government of judges in Ottawa.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that has been raised in the speeches is about the fear of the dwindling impact or representation for Quebeckers. Part of the issue is the immigration targets that the federal government has failed to achieve in ensuring new francophone immigration targets are actually met. The government adopted its targets and it has not met them. The FCFA has recommended the government adopt a new francophone immigration target of 12% in 2024 and gradually increase that to 20% in 2036.

Does the member think this is what the government should do?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleague is talking about francophone immigration targets outside Quebec. Obviously, they have not been met. It is a major problem and I hope that the NDP MPs will bend the ear of their government friends more often.

Nonetheless, today we are talking about targets that dilute the French fact in Quebec. That is what makes them dangerous.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am very pleased to rise today to discuss a topic of deep concern to my community and my constituency of Lac-Saint-Louis.

Canada is confronting demographic issues and a serious labour shortage. Every time I am on the ground meeting with business owners, whether they come from the tourism, restaurant, farming or manufacturing sectors, they all tell me about the daily effects and challenges they face because of the labour shortage. For SMEs, the consequences are painful. They mean excessive workloads for employees and delayed or lost contracts, not to mention the economic losses that result nationwide.

Canada's current unemployment rate stands at an all-time low of 5% nationally, and 4.1% in Quebec. Although Canada's economy regained 129% of the jobs lost during the pandemic, this excellent news comes with its own set of problems.

Fifty years ago, there were seven workers for every retiree. Today, there are three for every retiree, and in less than 15 years there will be two. These figures speak for themselves. Canada's economy is growing faster than the ability of some employers to fill positions, and this has been the case for several years.

As I was saying, whether in the fishery, agriculture, forestry, mining, tourism or processing industry, and in every other industry for that matter, there is a significant labour shortage in our country. It is a problem that our government takes very seriously and is tackling with a multi-pronged approach. One way to address the labour shortage is through immigration, because 100% of the increase in labour currently comes from immigration. That is a direct solution to the labour shortage in addition to being the historical foundation of our beautiful and great country. However, in recent days, misinformation has been circulating, and I believe it is important to clearly point that out.

The Century Initiative is not a government policy. I again want to be clear. The government does not subscribe to the findings of this independent group and does not have as an objective increasing Canada's population to 100 million.

In November 2022, our government announced our immigration targets for the next three years. These targets were set based on Canada's needs, recognizing that immigration is essential to help businesses find the workers they need and to continue to grow our economy. It is important to remember that before we announce our targets every year, we consult with the provinces. Last November's targets were a reflection of current labour shortages, regionalization of immigration and francophone immigration.

I want to reassure the House. Increasing francophone immigration to halt the decline of French is a priority for our government and is even included in Bill C-13, which we will vote on at report stage this afternoon. Last year, we met our target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside Quebec, which is obviously good news.

We will not stop there. More recently, we announced our new action plan for official languages, which is more ambitious than ever. One entire pillar of that plan focuses on francophone immigration with an investment of $137 million. This is a historic first. The plan includes seven new measures to support francophone immigration, including additional support for employers to recruit francophone foreign workers and for newcomers to learn French.

Through Bill C‑13, we are also developing a new francophone immigration policy with clear objectives, targets and indicators to guide our action.

These examples show the importance of pursuing ambitious targets while trying to tackle current challenges too. On this side of the House, we believe in taking responsible action to address these urgent needs, which is exactly what we are doing.

Immigration levels are reviewed and revised every three years based on Canada's needs and capacities.

In conclusion, I would say once again that the Century Initiative is not a government policy and that our immigration targets are not based on its targets. Furthermore, immigration is a tool that will help us address the labour shortage. For a member from a region like mine, immigration is an essential part of regional economic growth.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, which was very interesting.

I myself come from the business world, and I know that when an employee is happy, he becomes actively involved in the business.

I would like the member to explain to me how, if we open the floodgates of immigration, businesses will be able to integrate workers and make them happy. If businesses are unable to integrate workers, if they cannot teach them French or if they cannot make them happy in Quebec because they are overcome by all sorts of variables, the workers will leave. That costs businesses dearly. It must be taken into consideration.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is indeed a challenge, especially for a company's human resources department, which devotes a lot of time to ensuring that the company is welcoming and that the employees are happy with the programs the company has in place for them. This is a challenge for every company, no matter what region they are in.

We need to encourage people to learn French. I think that any newcomer in Quebec who can see the magnificent culture and quality of life that we have to offer will be happy to live here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that today's motion raises another question: Over the next few years, there will be a significant increase in the number of refugees who are displaced by climate change and the resulting crises.

I think we need to change the definition of refugee to reflect this real likelihood of an increased number of people determined to come live in Canada because their islands are being submerged or because they live in regions that have become too arid for agriculture.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that possibility.