Debates of May 11th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands is asking a pointed and well-thought-out question. I do not have a clear opinion on the need to change the definition of refugee, but she is not wrong in saying that, in the future, there will be more climate migration, which will cause a whole host of other problems, such as peoples being repressed.

My colleague's question is very interesting, and I am going to give it some more thought. I thank the hon. member.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague for his eloquent speech.

We agree that Quebec is the master of its own destiny when it comes to selecting immigrants. They could all be francophones, for example. Quebec can exercise its right to welcome up to one-quarter of all the immigrants who come to Canada. There are agreements between Canada and Quebec to protect the demographic weight of francophones in Canada.

Can the hon. member tell us more about that?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question.

We need to attract newcomers to Quebec who speak French or who are open to learning it. However, we need a strong economy to attract them. To have a strong economy, we need to address the labour shortage, so it is a bit of a vicious circle.

A weak economy will not help Quebec. If the economy is weak, then people will look for work elsewhere. That happened in the 19th century when there was an exodus from Quebec because there were no jobs there. We therefore need a strong economy. That is essential to having a strong Quebec within a united Canada.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, before addressing the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to extend my most sincere condolences to the family of Sergeant Eric Mueller and the two police officers who, unfortunately, were injured in Bourget, which is in my riding. I want to salute their courage and thank the community, including the police officers and first responders who responded to this tragedy.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, and the distinguished members of the House of Commons for giving me the opportunity to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition motion concerning our government's immigration policy. It is important to point out that many considered efforts have been made by people across the country to support immigration, and that many different groups and think tanks have provided suggestions, comments and advice. The perspectives, including those of the Century Initiative report, are part of a national dialogue on immigration and are accessible by any member or Canadian. The only thing they do not represent is a government policy.

As a Franco-Ontarian, I would like to focus my remarks on one important aspect of the reform of Canada's language regime, specifically francophone immigration. Francophone immigration is one of the cornerstones of the Government of Canada's vision for official languages reform, which was announced in February 2021 in the document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”.

Francophone immigration has been the subject of numerous studies, reports and parliamentary debates, and often makes headlines in the Canadian media. There is no doubt that francophone immigration is one of the factors that will contribute to slowing the decline of French and increasing the demographic weight of official language minority communities.

Overall, our reform of Canada's language regime is based on two complementary components that include important measures on francophone immigration. First, legislative measures on francophone immigration are included in Bill C‑13 to strengthen and modernize the Official Languages Act. Second, seven new or enhanced initiatives for francophone immigration have been included in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, with an investment of more than $137 million over five years.

Now let us talk about Bill C-13, which gives concrete expression to our desire to halt the decline in the demographic weight of francophone minorities, specifically by ensuring that the demographic weight is restored and increased. In addition to adopting a strengthened francophone immigration policy, the bill reiterates the importance of sectors that are essential to the development of official language minority communities, such as culture, education, health, justice, employment and immigration.

In addition, by strengthening part VII of the act and specifying the obligations of federal institutions to take positive measures and to evaluate their effects, federal institutions are encouraged to take positive measures in all of these key areas, for all of their policies, programs and major decisions.

I would now like to speak in more detail about our official languages action plan, entitled “Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028: Protection-Promotion-Collaboration”, which was unveiled to Canadians on April 26 at the Cité collégiale, where I had the pleasure of being a student, once. We are very proud of this plan, which includes a historic investment of more than $4 billion over five years.

Francophone immigration is one of the four pillars that define and guide our five-year official languages strategy. This pillar confirms our government's commitment to fostering the vitality of francophone communities by addressing economic and demographic challenges through francophone immigration. As I mentioned, this pillar represents new investments of more than $137 million over five years, divided among seven initiatives in support of francophone immigration.

The first initiative is the implementation of a new francophone immigration policy, similar to what is provided for in our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act, Bill C‑13. This new policy will include objectives, targets and indicators to guide the development and implementation of policies and programs across the entire continuum of francophone immigration, from promotion to selection and integration of French-speaking newcomers to Canada.

The second initiative focuses on targeted expansion and increased promotion and recruitment support in order to raise potential immigrants' awareness of francophone communities and the services and programs available in French.

The third initiative provides a corridor for the selection and retention of French teachers in Canada through interconnected initiatives that aim to boost foreign recruitment and retention of French and French-speaking teachers.

The fourth initiative involves establishing a strengthened francophone integration pathway to facilitate the settlement and integration of newcomers to Canada and bolster the reception capacity of francophone minority communities.

The fifth initiative focuses on creating a centre for innovation in francophone immigration that will enable francophone communities to take part in activities to promote, identify, support and recruit French-speaking and bilingual candidates.

The sixth initiative relates to developing a francophone lens that is integrated into the economic immigration program so as to improve the selection of francophone and bilingual immigrants.

Finally, the last initiative aims to provide and develop measures to help newcomers learn French or English by increasing grants and contributions therefore expanding the geographic coverage and improving the quality of language training for newcomers.

I would also like to add that, alongside these initiatives, which will be developed and deployed by my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Canadian Heritage backs the initiative to recruit and retain French and French as a second language teachers in Canada, which aims to recruit and retain teachers who are recent immigrants. Canadian Heritage also provides contributions to provincial and territorial governments for minority language services. Our agreements enable these governments to focus on enhancing services in priority sectors, such as francophone immigration.

Lastly, I also want to point out that, in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, our government committed to promoting diversity, inclusion and equity through new initiatives designed to support more vulnerable clienteles. That is what we will do.

In conclusion, immigration is absolutely a pillar of our Canadian language reform agenda. We hope opposition party members in the House can see that we kept our promises with historic investments in excess of $4 billion over five years for official languages. We hope they will support Bill C‑13.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his defence of Bill C-13. We will have ample opportunity to debate it in the House.

I want to remind the House that, in regard to this bill, Quebec once again claimed its full rights with respect to French integration. Only Quebec laws should govern what happens in Quebec. That claim was also denied. The answer is always no when Quebec asks to be treated as nothing short of a French-language Quebec nation.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the motion our party introduced today. Basically, what we are saying is not just about simple mathematics, it is about our accommodation capacity and our capacity to preserve what is most fundamental to us: our common language, which is French.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, it is a matter of mathematics.

Right now, there is an average of 1.7 children per household in Canada and Quebec. What is more, our population is aging. If we do not have a strong francophone immigration policy in Canada, including the Franco-Ontarian community, then we are going to disappear in the near future. Francophone immigration contributes to the francization of our communities across Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his outstanding speech.

To address the labour shortage, we need a responsible, professional, robust and ambitious immigration system.

Without such a system, how can we make Canada a prosperous country with a steadily growing economy to create jobs for Canadians? How can we make this beautiful country one of the great nations of the world?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, with whom I have many discussions. Whether it be in Montreal, Laval or anywhere in Canada, we are all hearing employers say that there is a labour shortage in our economy. Obviously, one of the solutions to that problem is immigration, which can help counter that labour shortage.

For my francophone colleagues, in Bill C-13, we established a threshold of recovery to 1971 levels. We are looking back and we want to ensure that the demographic weight of francophones across Canada returns to what it was when it was first calculated in 1971.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, several studies over the past few months and years have shown that francophones outside Quebec rely heavily on the strength of French in Quebec and on the support for French in Quebec to protect them in their official language minority community.

Why does my colleague think it is a good idea to improve and strengthen French outside Quebec but let it get weaker within Quebec? Does he not think that francophone communities outside Quebec are ultimately at risk of suffering the consequences and getting weaker themselves?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, the Government of Quebec alone determines its immigration policy. It has the power to choose all the immigrants it wants. It is up to the Government of Quebec to pull up its socks and roll up its sleeves to ensure that it has a strong francophone immigration policy in Quebec.

As far as the rest of Canada is concerned, I am working with the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Official Languages on having a strong immigration policy in Canada for francophones, and I am sure that we will meet our targets. We already did last year, and we will do it again year after year.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take it upon myself to deliver to the Government of Quebec the message given by my colleague, who just finished his speech, that it should pull up its socks on the immigration file. I think it might appreciate the message, but I am not sure.

I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Terrebonne.

Our motion today is very simple. I think it has been a few minutes since we repeated it. It states:

That, given that,

(i) the Century Initiative aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100,

(ii) the federal government's new intake targets are consistent with the Century Initiative objectives,

(iii) 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,

(iv) these impacts were not taken into account in the development of the Century Initiative and that Quebec was not considered,

the House reject the Century Initiative objectives and ask the government not to use them as a basis for developing its future immigration levels.

It is not a very complicated request. It only makes sense. It is a question of understanding each other.

This objective of increasing Canada's population to 100 million by the end of the century is something that worries me. I must say that I am finding the ruse to be less and less subtle. It is difficult to believe that the hidden agenda is not basically to put an end once and for all to Quebec's never-ending demands, which certain self-righteous federalist thinkers see as a fly constantly buzzing around their heads.

There are two ways of looking at this. The first is to see bad intentions. The government and its policy-makers know full well what they are doing to Quebec by setting immigration targets that are much too high for the province to absorb. They know that by doing this, they are ensuring that Quebec's francophone culture, the Québécois culture, will be completely snuffed out.

How will that happen? It will be because of the massive influx of newcomers who, even if they speak French, will not be welcomed as Quebec likes to welcome its immigrants. They will not be able to integrate into Quebec society properly because the infrastructure and services are insufficient and ill-equipped to receive such an influx. What happens when a host society is unable to welcome and integrate its newcomers? This leads to ghettoization. Newcomers gather where they feel safe, where they feel a sense of familiarity, and this creates ghettos. This leads to what we have already seen around the world, including in some Canadian cities. This is not what Quebec wants.

Quebec wants large numbers of francophone immigrants so that the common language, the language of work, the language of everyday life, is French. Quebec wants to welcome and integrate its newcomers based on a model that is not one of multiculturalism. Quebec's specificity is precisely that it has a language to protect, a language that is constantly at risk of disappearing in an ocean of some 300 million anglophones in North America.

There is also the issue of Quebec's political weight, which is mentioned in today's Bloc Québécois motion and is fuelling this discussion and debate. If Quebec loses political weight within the Canadian federation, it means that the various laws that protect the specificity of the Quebec nation will be open to more vigorous attacks, and Quebec will be even less able to defend itself. Consequently, Quebec will continue to dwindle gradually, little by little. It is a bit like putting a frog in a pot of cold water and then turning on the heat, letting the frog slowly get used to the heat as the temperature rises until, well, we know the rest of the story. I am not sure that has been scientifically proven, but everyone gets the picture.

In short, Quebec will fade away and accept its fate, telling itself that a known misfortune is probably more comfortable than an uncertain happiness. We will then find ourselves in the ocean of multiculturalism that Trudeau senior dreamed of all those years ago. I will not be fooled into believing that protecting the French language was part of that particular dream.

That widespread lack of sensitivity is disappointing, but it also makes me realize that this is one of multiculturalism's adverse effects on French.

We know that Quebec culture is gradually drowning in the Canadian and North American cultural maelstrom. Those who champion French are increasingly viewed by many in the rest of Canada as old grey-haired reactionaries straight out of what they wish was a bygone era. I have to acknowledge that I myself might be an old grey-haired reactionary not unlike my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. No doubt he approves.

If we allow things to carry on as they are, speaking French will eventually become a mere curiosity. A comparison comes to mind that deeply saddens me. It will be a bit like the first nations we hear about, where the language is still spoken by some elders but has disappeared from everyday use. Young people are trying to resurrect those languages. I recently talked to an Abenaki woman who told me she was trying to relearn her grandparents' language, which is no longer being spoken. Maybe one day my great-grandchildren will ask their grandfather, “Grandpa, say a few words in French.” It will be cute and quaint, but also pathetic and sad.

That is what we are trying to protect. We are not trying to sow division or stir up trouble, as our friends on the other side like to say. We are trying to protect something that is dear to us, namely our culture, our language, our specificity.

We talk about political weight. Sometimes people say that Quebec's political weight boils down to the number of seats it has in the House of Commons. It seems that some people do not appreciate the importance of that. What is the effect of Quebec having less political weight? In future elections, if we do not correctly adjust the number of seats that go to Quebec, if we do not give Quebec a minimum number of seats, as is the case for other Canadian provinces, we will once again lose the influence we can have here in the House of Commons. We will lose the number of seats held by Quebec members of Parliament. I am not even considering the political affiliation, because the Quebec seats lost will not just be the ones held by the Bloc Québécois, but also those of Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament. There will be fewer of them because there will be fewer seats available for Quebec.

Would it have been possible to protect supply management, for example, if there had been fewer members of Parliament from Quebec? The work of my colleague from Berthier-Maskinongé and the Bloc Québécois on this file should be noted.

Bill C‑10 also comes to mind. It was tabled in November 2020 as a modernized Broadcasting Act and was later rebranded as Bill C‑11 in the next Parliament. It contained nothing for Quebec culture. Without a strong Quebec caucus and the Bloc Québécois's unwavering determination to add measures to the bill to protect the French language and content created by our artists, I am not sure if the new Broadcasting Act would have provided any protection for Quebec's francophone culture. Quebec's political weight made all the difference.

The more influence that Quebec loses within the Canadian federation, the more Ottawa can push its centralizing agenda and keep sticking its big fat nose where it does not belong. On February 8, 2022, the House had a great chance to show Quebec that it believes in the need for Quebec to preserve its culture and acquire tools to protect the French language. On February 8, 2022, I had the honour of tabling, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, a bill to amend the Constitution Act. Yes, while awaiting independence, a Bloc member is trying to amend the Constitution Act.

We simply wanted to add a provision that would guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. That would have been a game-changer because, with a threshold of at least 25% of the seats, we would no longer have to worry about the political weight of Quebec being at risk and the consequences that would bring, regardless of any demographic changes that might occur in the coming years.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today to reject the immigration levels proposed by the Century Initiative, which the government seems to be following very closely. This is a good opportunity to debate that, but it is also a good opportunity to understand why the Bloc Québécois wants to reject those objectives.

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

Madam Speaker, the member underestimates the impact of the growth of the French language within the province of Manitoba, my home province, and I do not think this is unique to Manitoba.

Through immigration policies, and I made reference to this earlier, more people than ever are speaking French in the province of Manitoba. I attribute it to communities, whether they be Portuguese, Filipino or Indian communities. We can hear people speak French, Tagalog and English. There is a growing admiration for the French language, and we hear more and more people speaking it.

Would the member not recognize that, as opposed to trying to paint immigration in a negative light, we can see the benefits of the diversity of people from around the world who come to Canada, learn the French language and pass it on?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First, I take issue with one of the premises of his question. We are not painting immigration in a negative light. On the contrary, we are in favour of immigration. We are in favour of immigration policies that will ensure that French is able to thrive and that get people interested in speaking French, as he said about people in his province of Manitoba.

I think it is great news that francophone immigration is on the rise, that francophones are being welcomed, that French is being seen in a positive light and that people in Manitoba and other provinces are interested in learning to speak it.

However, the situation in Quebec is different than in the rest of Canada because French is the common and official language in Quebec. It is in danger in the English-speaking ocean of North America and Canada. The reality is not the same in Quebec. We need to protect French because it is at risk. We are not trying to help a minority grow. It is a majority language in an ocean where it is a minority and at risk. That is the difference.

That being said, we are all in favour of immigration.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Drummond on his excellent speech.

I would like to hear him tell us more about why Quebec should decide for itself how many immigrants it should take in. Yes, we are pro-immigration and want to welcome people from other countries, but we want to welcome them with dignity, to allow them to integrate. From the moment they set foot on our soil, we want them to become full-fledged Quebeckers. To do this, we need resources. I would therefore like my colleague to talk about the resources we currently have to welcome these people and why the government that is in charge of welcoming immigrants should be the one deciding how many it will accept.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question, and it fits in with what I said at the beginning of my speech.

We want to welcome and integrate immigrants. We do not want them to end up in ghettos in the areas where they will settle. In just about every Quebec municipality I know of, there are organizations dedicated to supporting and integrating newcomers. Who generally manages and sponsors these organizations? It is either the municipalities or the Quebec government.

Once again, there is a clear desire on the part of Quebec to make sure that we have the capacity and infrastructure to allow immigrants and newcomers to integrate, to take advantage of services, to send their children to school and to participate in society upon their arrival. Newcomers who integrate into Quebec communities in French are not a burden. They benefit society.

It is important to make sure we have the infrastructure, and for that, we must take into account our capacity to integrate immigrants. Otherwise, we would simply be doing a poor job, and we do not want to do that with immigration.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech. He addressed a number of things.

As previously mentioned, I am a prime example of a successful and integrated immigration. I do not have an accent when I speak French.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on the fact that Quebec is the only province in Canada that has an agreement with the federal government on immigration. Quebec has everything it needs to proceed with integrating francophone immigrants and it has the means, since the money is paid directly to Quebec. What more could the Government of Quebec do to welcome francophone immigration?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Quebec is already doing a lot of good things to manage immigration and to welcome francophone immigrants.

It is true that as far as my colleague from Hochelaga is concerned, other than a slight Hochelaga accent, we can say this is a perfect integration in French. She is a colleague that I hold in high regard.

Quebec often has its hands tied because of Ottawa, which manages immigration for the most part. The fact that Ottawa is looking to set immigration levels at 500,000 people a year is a big problem. The crux of the problem is the fact that this will create a huge imbalance in the demographic weight and in the political weight of Quebec.

I think that we could debate this at length, my colleague and I, but, essentially, we agree on the fact that there are a lot of fine examples of immigrants who were welcomed and integrated successfully.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a concept, one that has changed greatly over time. At first, Canada was the heart of New France. The conquest brutally changed its identity and turned it into a British colony.

Modern Canada arose from another change that took place with the betrayal of the night of the long knives, when the country's DNA was changed in secret, behind closed doors and without Quebec or the first nations.

We are on the eve of another great change. We can rest assured that the very essence of Canada respects the strong tradition of ignoring democracy when it comes to major issues. I am of course referring to the Century Initiative. I am saying this in French in the House, because French was never considered by this initiative, as admitted by one of its authors.

Economists, and I am well positioned to talk about them, do not always think about identity. It is not necessarily the first thing they think of when developing a public policy. French, democracy, political balance, political weight are not necessarily their priorities. They think about GDP, productivity and the cost of labour. It is up to us in the House to reflect on these issues.

However, even in terms of economic issues, the Century Initiative project is poorly designed, poorly thought-out and impossible to implement. I say that the project is poorly designed because this Liberal government sets its economic targets based on false and simplistic economic parameters. If we want to solve the labour shortage, says the government, let us bring people from all over the world to work here.

Although immigration has a role to play in filling specific gaps in the labour market, it is far from being a magic bullet to fix this problem.

As economist Pierre Fortin explained in the report he presented last year to Quebec's ministry of immigration, francization and integration, a sustained increase in immigration creates a bigger workforce, but also increases demand for goods and services. He believes that in taking into consideration the further increase in demand for health services and education, the increase in employment opportunities would be negligible.

Other public policies can be put in place at the same time to address the labour shortage, as the Bloc Québécois has proposed on numerous occasions and in a constructive manner. For instance, tax credits should be granted to people who have reached retirement age but may want to remain in the workforce. Let us think about it. These individuals are trained and want to work. However, ridiculous tax policies prevent them from staying in the workforce. This could be fixed quickly. This is not a long-term solution like immigration.

Rodrigue Tremblay, professor emeritus of economics and a minister in the René Lévesque government, also explained the situation like this:

A rapidly growing population requires additional infrastructure (housing, hospitals, schools, universities and infrastructure of all kinds). Savings and capital are therefore needed to build that infrastructure.

He goes on to say the following:

When a population grows too quickly, this can sometimes lead to a general decline in the standard of living.

Ultimately, the countries that perform the best in terms of standard of living and quality of life are not the most populous countries in the world. They are countries like Norway, Ireland and Switzerland, whose population size is more similar to that of Quebec than Canada.

What makes Quebec unique, in addition to its language and culture, is the quality of its social safety net and its public policy, which are recognized as progressive. I am extremely proud of them. Quebec's low-cost child care system sets the bar. In fact, the federal government is trying to set up something similar, the kind of system we have had for decades. Quebec's affordable education system, its universal health care system and all its other social policies also set the standard.

Here is another example I am very familiar with: Quebec's parental insurance plan, copied by other jurisdictions around the world and head and shoulders above other such programs in Canada. To maintain and even improve that level of service, the Government of Quebec has to make wise economic and demographic decisions that ensure the long-term sustainability of its social services. The National Assembly provides all those social services, so it is up to it to determine Quebec's optimal population level.

It will be up to Quebec to offer and use its own budget to pay for the services and infrastructure that will be specifically offered to the newcomers we welcome with open arms, as everyone knows.

This project is poorly thought-out. Indeed, one has to be extremely out of touch with reality to think that a country like Canada, with such a delicate political balance, could work with this type of immigration policy without even consulting Quebec and the provinces. I really wonder why the Bloc Québécois has to keep reminding the House of this, but Canada is not a unitary country. The onus will be on Quebec and the provinces to deal with this immigration flow. The federal government is not a character in a video game seeking to make Canada an empire. It cannot continue to impose the whims of its preferred consultants on the democratically elected governments throughout Canada.

I have said that the project is poorly crafted and poorly thought-out, and I would like to add that it is impossible to implement. How does the federal government think it can pull off something this big when it is not even able to adequately deliver on any of its missions?

The Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has a chronic inability to process claims in a timely manner. I will give some brief examples. After the pandemic, there were over 2 million files in the department's backlog. We are talking about the labour shortage, and 25,000 applications for skilled workers in Quebec were on hold on the federal government's desk. Skilled workers wanting to work in Quebec had to wait over 24 months—if they were lucky—while the service standard is 11 months, which itself could be considered to be quite long.

As we can see, the Century Initiative is a bad project. It is politically problematic, economically ill-conceived, and administratively impossible to implement. It has only one great advantage: It forces the people of Quebec to choose between turning into quaint folklore and becoming independent. My choice is obviously independence. I do not think that is news to anyone in the House.

I am an immigrant myself. I was born abroad. The language we speak at home is Spanish, and that is the language I use when I speak to my son. My mother came to Quebec at the age of 37 and passed the bar in her third language. We grew up in a house where the first language was not French, and yet we all chose independence. This is our project. We will build this country together, newcomers to Quebec with old stock Quebeckers, as well as with our brothers and sisters from the first peoples—because anyone who wants to be a Quebecker is a Quebecker.

Canada wants to reach a population of 100 million people and invite immigrants to come and contribute to its economic growth. All my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I can do better. What we can offer immigrants, whom we will always welcome with open arms, is an invitation to the founding of a new country. That is the idea that drives us, and it is the idea of the century.

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

Madam Speaker, I was born in Lebanon and I came to this country at the age of 20.

I met many people, including some who came to Canada with me and did not speak a word of French. After a few months and a great deal of work and effort, they learned French. Like me, they graduated from a French-language university. Now they contribute, in every sense of the word, to our Quebec and Canadian society. These people work, for example, in the fields of medicine, engineering and accounting.

Should we not encourage these people to come to Quebec? Are they not an added value for Quebec and Canada? Should we not avoid putting up barriers in their way and allow them to come and contribute to life in Canada?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate all those like him who were born abroad and want to contribute to Quebec society, if that is what they wish to do. I congratulate everyone who is learning French and helping make Quebec a better society.

I will be very clear: We do not want to put up barriers in their way, quite the opposite. We are for immigration. As we have said, this issue cannot simply be boiled down to being either for or against immigration. We are here to talk about “better”, not “more”. That is very different from wanting less immigration, which is not what we want. That is not our line of thinking at all. We are in favour of immigration like the member described, that is, immigration made up of people who want to contribute to Quebec society. That is what we represent.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, historically, Quebec and Canada were built through immigration and with the presence of the first nations, who are too often forgotten.

Historically, people have settled in what is known as the Quebec-Windsor corridor, which accounts for about 60% to 70% of the Canadian population. If Canada reaches 100 million people in 2100, this corridor would be home to between 60 million and 70 million people. One of the largest watersheds in Canada, the one that provides water to all of these people, is located in this corridor. Many cities are already having problems with water supply.

What would be the environmental consequences if the 60 million to 70 million Quebeckers and Canadians settled on this piece of land?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, there will indeed be major environmental consequences. Take, for example, water consumption. Water consumption is one of the environmental concerns, but there is also water pollution. Waste water has to be treated. There is also waste management. Waste has to be handled properly and safely stored. There is also atmospheric pollution, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There are tons of different forms of pollution and repercussions associated with the presence of humans that will be felt if we increase the population more quickly than what nature can handle.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my esteemed colleague from Terrebonne for her excellent speech.

I read an article recently that said that Quebec was caught in the Canadian trap. Canada is increasing its population too rapidly. The article said that Quebec has the choice of increasing its population or of seeing its political weight drop. Meanwhile, members are refusing to support the bill that we introduced to ensure decent political representation here.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois did indeed introduce a bill to try to save Quebec's political weight, and yet those who are now claiming to be the defenders of French in Canada and the defenders of Quebec voted against that bill.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time, if there is any left, with the member for Winnipeg North.

As the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, immigration is so important to me and to the survival of my region that it was out of the question for me to participate in today's debate without discussing the realities of rural regions, and in particular the realities of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.

The newcomers and temporary foreign workers in my riding have helped my region get through various crises. Without the temporary foreign worker program, the fish processing plants in my region would have closed their doors many years ago, as there would be no one to work there. For many years, immigrants and temporary foreign workers have enabled our communities to survive and thrive. Our newcomers learn French. When they arrive in our region, every spring, people are happy to see them.

With respect to renewable energy, in my riding, in the Gaspé, there is the largest wind turbine manufacturing plant in North America. Securing the development of this plant required welcoming a Filipino community. Expansion announcements were made and the plant practically doubled its production. More than 200 new Filipino workers were brought in, because the region does not have enough people for this kind of development. This goes to show how much businesses need immigrants. We need people who have received training, but we also need workers.

During my election campaigns, I went door-knocking. My colleagues from the Bloc may not realize what people in the regions are going through. They need to talk to entrepreneurs in the tourism or hospitality sector, among others. Every entrepreneur we met wanted to grow their business in the region, and they were prepared to invest in expanding their operations.

Some entrepreneurs cried as they were talking to me, because they were unable to develop their business, even though they had the ambition to do it. What was the hold-up? It was the labour shortage. During the election campaigns, they kept telling me that they could not go on for much longer, that they needed people to grow their business and take their place.

I know this scares the Bloc Québécois, but you cannot build on fear. In reality, we are all immigrants. Jacques Cartier arrived in the Gaspé and it was there that he met the indigenous communities.

When I was young, there were six elementary schools in my small village that served 700 children. Only one school remains, and it does not even have 70 students now. Will we ask 70 children to provide for an ageing population? The regions need immigrants.

When I was young, there were seven schools and now there is one. I do not see any reason why we could not build schools if we brought in immigrants.

The people who will come will work and ensure that our communities are vibrant. We will be able to populate and use our land. We talk about old-stock Quebeckers and I am one of them. Newcomers have never prevented us from continuing to speak French. I have never been afraid of that. I have not lost my culture. That is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to make us believe.

When we are proud of our culture, we promote it, we talk about it and we welcome newcomers and immigrants. We share our culture with them because we are strong enough to preserve that culture.

I will cede the remainder of my time to my collegue from Winnipeg North.