Debates of May 11th, 2023

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Criminal Code

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

moved that Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to move this bill, seconded by my hon. colleague, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Ultimately, this bill would save lives, particularly those of women fleeing abuse and life-threatening situations. It would ensure that dangerous abusers of women wear ankle bracelets during important times throughout the criminal justice process. This would ensure that women at risk of abuse or murder by their abusers are immediately alerted if their abusers come near them. This is supported by the provincial governments of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, and it would align the federal government with the good work already accomplished by the Province of Quebec.

I want to give sincere thanks to the creator of this critically important bill, Conservative Senator Boisvenu, who has dedicated his life to protecting women. I am honoured to be on this journey with him for greater justice for women.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Radiocommunication Act

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

moved that Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Senator Patterson for all his hard work in getting this bill passed through the other place, the Senate. I am looking forward to getting it passed through this chamber.

Canadians currently pay the highest cellphone rates in the world and some of the highest Internet rates. As it currently stands, with spectrum auctions, companies pay by spectrum for a “20 years with no conditions” policy. They actually have to use that spectrum to provide service. Many companies buy the spectrum with no current plans or intentions of using it. We have seen this across Canada multiple times, where a spectrum is held for real estate purposes and sold for millions of dollars.

Canadians, especially in rural and remote areas, suffer from poor or non-existent cellphone services because of spectrum speculation. The bill would correct this by introducing a “use it or lose it” provision to all wireless sold at auction. It would require the licence holder to provide service to at least 50% of the geographic area covered by the licence within three years of that licence being issued or lose the licence.

This is a great bill, and I am happy to sponsor it. I want to thank the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa for seconding it.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Lets'emot Regional Aquatic Centre

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, petitioners in my riding are calling on the Government of Canada to provide additional funds to support the construction of the Lets'emot regional aquatic centre in Agassiz, which has seen its projected costs skyrocket because of inflation. The name “Lets'emot” means “one heart, one mind” in the Halq’eméylem language.

Last spring, the provincial and federal governments both announced funding for the project. The provincial government contribution totalled $9.5 million, whereas the federal contribution was just $454,000.

Residents of the District of Kent; Harrison Hot Springs; the Seabird Island, Cheam, Stó:lo, Sts’ailes, Sq’éwlets, Skawahlook, Popkum and Peters first nations; and the Fraser Valley Regional District electoral areas C and D all support this project. It is one of the first infrastructure projects in Canada where all local indigenous communities are collaborating with municipalities.

I humbly ask the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and other members of the government to support this project, which all my constituents, particularly indigenous youth on reserve, are calling for. All they are asking for is a regional aquatic facility, a pool like every other Canadian has in their community.

Corporate Accountability

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the petitioning Canadian citizens and residents, I am presenting a petition asking the House of Commons to pass human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.

The reasons for this are legion, since many Canadian companies contribute to human rights violations abroad, as well as to environmental damage. Furthermore, those who report these abuses often face retaliation, and Canada is not strict enough with companies that are based in Canada and their supply chains.

Therefore, the petitioners demand that the companies at fault stop violating human rights and stop destroying the environment; that the burden of proof rest on the companies in this regard; that the companies at fault face the consequences of their actions; that people who have been affected be able to apply to Canadians courts when harms occur and that a statutory right be established for them.

Opioids

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians concerned about the opioid crisis. The overdose crisis, as it is often referred to, is probably better understood as a poisoning crisis. The petitioners note that it is a public health emergency, as has already been declared by British Columbia's provincial health officer. There is a disproportionate representation of indigenous people who have been impacted by this crisis.

The Canadian Public Health Association, the Global Commission on Drug Policy and the World Health Organization have all recommended drug decriminalization, as supported by these petitioners. It should also be noted that there is an increased need for funding for harm reduction strategies to beat and prevent the risk of hepatitis C cases; hepatitis C is particularly related to unsafe use of drug supply. The petitioners point out that this public health emergency results in thousands of deaths in Canada, and poisoning hospitalizations have been occurring. In fact, there have been over 17,000 opioid-related poisonings since 2016, as well as 14,000 deaths.

The citizens and residents of Canada call on the House of Commons to declare a public health emergency; to reframe this crisis as a health issue rather than a criminal issue; to listen to the recommendations made by social workers, frontline workers, nurses and doctors; and to decriminalize drugs in Canada.

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions here. First of all, the petitioners wish to convey their sorrow for the fellow officers, the friends and the families of those involved in the tragic event earlier this morning.

These petitioners want Bill C-21 stopped in its tracks. It would do nothing to stop the real problem of gun-running and leaves a gaping hole that would remain as long as it is in force. The petitioners therefore call to either end the bill now or revoke the law if it gets that far.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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.

He said: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, there was a company called McKinsey and a scheme known as the Century Initiative. I am deeply averse to speaking English in the course of my official duties, but I believe in calling a thing by its right name. An initiative that will sabotage French in Quebec and Canada over the long term cannot be called by a French name or by a name that can even be translated to French. I feel it is only right to continue to use the name Century Initiative when speaking French, not its amorphous French name, “Initiative du Siècle”.

It outlines a vision of an economy serving capitalism, a vision of people's labour serving the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, thinks it should be the other way around, that the economy should serve the people.

The idea is to increase the population of Canada, should it survive in its present form until then, to 100 million inhabitants by the end of the century. Truth be told, that is rabble-rousing lunacy. It is a delusional vision of the future whose true purpose is more immediate.

They say they want Canada to be a global superpower. What are Canada's greatest resources? They are: brains, institutions and democracy, of course, but also natural resources, such as oil, which some of us are still mulishly dependent on, forestry, ever the poor cousin, mines, which could be Quebec's ticket to leading the transportation electrification charge, a role some would rather see Ontario take on using polluting western Canadian natural gas, and water, which will be on the table sooner or later.

Add to that cheap labour, the labour market imbalance, and the struggle for collective representation that is increasingly coming under fire, the struggle for unions and the labour movement that are so readily demonized. Backed by the NDP, which claims close ties to unions, this pro-scab government rejects the importance of prohibiting strikebreakers, proof positive that it is not a pro-worker government.

I find it hard to understand, moreover, how the labour movement can still identify with a Prime Minister who repeatedly said yesterday that he had spoken to businesses or with an NDP that supports big business against workers. It is like trusting this government to protect jobs in the forestry sector. We have no such trust.

McKinsey has a terrible reputation in human resources. One does not have to get to the end of the book When McKinsey Comes to Town to realize that the same story keeps repeating itself. We see the same manoeuvres: breaking workers, degrading working conditions.

The Century Initiative is a vision that has blindly, or complacently, been adopted by Ottawa with, moreover, an outsourcing of certain immigration services. Ottawa either has a hostile bias or is indifferent to a normal Quebec desire to make, at least in some respects, its own way in Canada, or not.

Mr. Barton acknowledged in committee, in response to a question I put to him, that he had not considered Quebec at all in the development of the Century Initiative. For them, passively or actively, Quebec was simply a community created by earlier immigration and it had to fit in the anglicized mosaic of Canada.

At least Mr. Barton admitted in his testimony that they were making recommendations and that the Prime Minister was the one responsible for deciding on the implementation of a policy whose known effect—which we can assume was at least partly intended—was a direct threat to the continued existence of a Quebec people.

There are many benefits to immigration. Are labour issues part of that? Certainly, subject to how we treat people who choose to come to make their life in Canada or in Quebec. Is it the solution to the labour shortage? It is certainly one of the possible solutions, but it is not the solution. Here again, it falls under the slogan that a former colleague called the kinglets of chambers of commerce.

Immigration comes with humanitarian and intake responsibilities. It comes with the responsibility of an unavoidable fact: With climate change, in which Canada is a central player with its insistence on toxically exploiting hydrocarbons that directly heat the climate, tens of millions of people around the world will need to move. Those are climate migrations. It would be very irresponsible to not welcome at least some of them, but on what terms? That is another part of the debate, but they will have to be welcomed. Accepting responsibility in sharing the weight of the misery inflicted on those who are less fortunate than us is itself fundamental to a sound immigration policy.

There is also the inevitable desire of people to immigrate and make a better life for themselves. That comes with uncertainties. It has been said and repeated. Without protecting a political lever, those who said it were not heard, here in Ottawa.

There will be an enormous impact on the costs of an educational system, which increase much faster than the economic or fiscal contribution of newcomers. The same reasoning applies to a health system that is severely underfunded due to willful ignorance, an ignorance some might argue the Prime Minister cultivates. So there are issues and demands for health transfers.

There will also be pressure on child care services. The housing crisis will not be addressed by welcoming 500,000 people a year in Canada, 110,000 of which would be destined for Quebec. The same is true for income support for these people who are arriving and who are sometimes helpless and, of course, for francization and the development of a sense of belonging to this people, this nation that is welcoming them. There is a risk of different kinds of social problems. There is the issue of the coherence of a cultural body that allows everyone to function within the same society, with a big neighbour trying to ensure its dislocation. There is also the appearance or increase of pockets of poverty for those that the system will be unable to integrate harmoniously and the appearance of cultural-linguistic ghettos of people who will not integrate and for whom it will quickly become too late, because the correct action was not taken or action was not taken at the right time or, in Ottawa's case, action was not taken with the right intention.

There is also the issue of the indigenous peoples. I cannot speak for them, but the numbers speak for themselves. The natural growth of the indigenous populations cannot keep up with the immigration of 500,000 people per year, which, hypothetically, would mean 100 million people in Canada by the end of the year. This great scam requires associating, integrating and amalgamating first nations as if they were immigrant populations. In the eyes of the first nations, I am an immigrant. We are the immigrants. Unlike this potentially infinite influx of people who are welcomed through immigration, no one can immigrate and say they are indigenous. One is indigenous or one is not. A person is born indigenous or is not born indigenous.

There is a threat strictly in terms of demographic weight. Maybe this is an opportunity for the first peoples to realize that Ottawa is not working for them.

There is a risk, as a nation, of losing part of our soul, most of our weight, and of failing to bring forward a different and unique culture in which and to which the contribution of immigrant communities is essential; it transforms who we are. Do we want to say in a very healthy way that we have a common language, that we have common values, that all equalities are eminently valid, that the state, to be progressive, must be secular? These are fundamental elements that define us. Besides that, there will always be a cultural and artistic contribution that enriches us, as long as it is done harmoniously. We must not fail.

We therefore have three choices. The first is to shrug our shoulders, increase immigration levels and lose our language. The second would be to obtain a guaranteed percentage of seats in the House, which we were refused outright. The government knew very well what they were doing. They knew very well that, by refusing a predetermined percentage of seats for Quebec and by implementing an immigration policy involving an extremely large number, they were condemning Quebec to being reduced and diminished within the federation.

However, there is a third way: The appropriation of all attributes of sovereignty for the Quebec people. Sovereignty is not a fictional intellectual concept or a bargain-basement anglophone bogeyman. It is the normal appropriation of all the means we have to choose, even if some are then freely and consensually shared.

Let us not fool ourselves, the NDP and the Conservatives agree with this idea of 100 million Canadians and 500,000 immigrants per year. Maybe the means could be debated? Maybe this issue could be reviewed? Maybe there is an opening, particularly among the Conservatives, that I would welcome with great enthusiasm? However, care must be taken to not create consensus that will isolate Quebec. I will come back to that.

There is a concept that exists in the intelligence community, that of useful idiots. That is the second English term in my speech. When someone, without realizing it, serves the interests of someone else, such as systematically supporting policies that benefit big money and disadvantage Quebec, while imagining that they are doing good, they may be a useful idiot. They are people who do not realize that, if they conducted themselves differently, Canada and Quebec would be better off.

Immigration is not simply good or bad. We need to make sure that integration is effective and that the people who choose us have the tools they need for a new successful life. First, there is language and then adjusting to employment, where language is the primary factor. There is also the recognition of diplomas and full training or supplementary training for a diploma to be recognized. There are many issues.

Is immigration really a numbers issue? I would say that anything is possible. I have always been very resistant to debates about numbers. A number like 110,000 looks high for Quebec, anyway. I would say that if Quebec chose to increase the number of immigrants it receives, the levels should be increased gradually. We would need tools to measure the success of everything put in place to promote sound and successful integration. There needs to be a common melting pot of a changing national culture.

We are told that sovereignty would change nothing. That is also what I heard yesterday on television. In fact, sovereignty would allow for clear integration policies, a clear message about places where people would arrive and full political weight to make decisions on our soil. Above all, sovereignty would end Ottawa's usual practice of undoing what Quebec has done through heavy-handed legislation, gobs of money and court decisions.

Because of the fiscal imbalance, and according to the government’s own figures, in 30 to 40 years the total debt of the federal government would be eliminated, while at the same time, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, most provinces would technically be bankrupt. This is known as the fiscal imbalance. This is essentially Ottawa grabbing fiscal resources that it does not need at the expense of the provinces and Quebec, which do not have what they need. This is how to dismantle the provinces and the Quebec nation.

The naive, high up in their ivory tower in Toronto, believe that the fiscal imbalance, the Supreme Court biases, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—designed against the Quebec nation—and the activism that replaces collective rights with individual privileges will save Canada. God Save The King. Some of these naive people are francophones from Quebec, but I am not looking at anyone. They are wrong. Quebeckers are patient, generous and welcoming, but there are many who realize that the immigration policy advised by McKinsey, which is laughing all the way to the bank, threatens the very existence of the Quebec people. They will want to act.

Sooner or later, this will be known as Quebec’s sovereignty. In the meantime, someone here has to stand up and denounce this vision that is harming Quebec, and that someone is the Bloc Québécois. We will not wait long. We will get ourselves a country.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, immigration is essential to grow the economy and meet the demographic challenge posed by the aging population. I completely agree with the principle that it is important to make the necessary investments to ensure a good quality of life for newcomers. It is up to Quebec to decide how many newcomers will settle in Quebec under the Canada-Quebec accord.

However, if the member thinks that Canada should reduce the number of newcomers for the entire country because Quebec wants to make sure that it is able to integrate newcomers in its province, then that is another story. Does the member think that Canada should reduce the number of newcomers for the entire country?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we talked about reducing that number.

I will jump right to the logical conclusion. In my opinion, Canada will do whatever it wants. If Canada wants to divest itself of an entity that is already weakened by its proximity to a cultural giant that swallows up all its differences, then that is Canada's business. If Canada wants to give up anything else that is Canadian, such as the Crown, the flag, the name of the country and a multiculturalism that dilutes everything, then that is Canada's business. The question has an easy answer. Canada can do its own thing and Quebec will too.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Bloc leader a question about his motion.

He spoke a bit about the workers we need. I would like him to think on the following question. In Quebec and across Canada, we need skilled trades workers. The government's most recent numbers show that in 2019, we had to wait 12 months to bring in a skilled trade worker to work in Canada and Quebec.

In March 2023, the wait time for a worker to come to Canada was 73 months. We have desperate business owners who need these workers to be able to keep their businesses going. I would like the member to address this question about the number of workers we need in Canada. After eight years, the government is still completely incapable of providing our businesses with the skilled workers they need.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a completely different but extremely interesting question.

The Bloc Québécois believes in generous immigration, which is not to be confused with opportunistic immigration. We are not here to provide cheap labour to businesses, but rather quality jobs to people who choose to come live in Quebec or Canada.

In order to have a significant economic impact, this must be done with a certain degree of efficiency. Few governments remember the meaning of the word “efficiency” after seven or eight years in office. Frankly, I think that the people opposite never knew it. The process right now is long and costly, involving a great deal of paperwork, and often has to be started over. We made suggestions for streamlining the process that were completely non-partisan and that the government could have claimed as its own, such as extending the length of permits, eliminating the requirement to renew them, and making it easier for workers to come work here, some of them on a seasonal basis, to ease the path for people who want to come live in Quebec or Canada. The issue is not how many, but how. Our suggestions would have had a huge impact on our economy.

The government says that it is the nicest and most generous government in the world, but in practice, it is the most bureaucratic and least efficient in the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we both agree on, and that is that Quebeckers are generous and welcoming. I know that first-hand, having lived there for two years. We do agree on that.

The NDP is not taking any lessons from the Bloc Québécois when it comes to strikebreakers. Pierre Karl Péladeau is the biggest strikebreaker in Quebec and in Canada, as we well know.

As the Bloc Québécois knows very well, the NDP has forced the government to table anti-scab legislation, which it will do in the coming months. We will see if the Bloc Québécois is willing to accept this legislation.

My colleague talked about risks and ghettos. Sadly, this is an echo of the discourse used by the French far right. However, he did not mention the increase in the global francophone population.

A generation from now, the global francophone population will reach 500 million, or half a billion. We need these people here, too. They are nurses and doctors. They are people from the Senegalese, Cameroonian, Congolese, Algerian and Moroccan communities. These are people we want to welcome here.

The problem is not what the leader of the Bloc Québécois says it is. The problem is that we have a federal government that has failed at meeting the francophone immigration targets. An NDP government will do that. It is important.

Can we at least agree on the fact that the francophone immigration targets should be met?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a wild speech with a lot of hot air, to put it as politely as I can.

Anyone who goes to the trouble of the putting the words “French”, “extreme right”, “Bloc Québécois” and “Pierre Karl Péladeau” in the same sentence deserves nothing short of my contempt.

As for taking lessons from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP did not take them from the Bloc Québécois. It took them from Quebec. There is one lesson left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for that excellent speech.

This week in the House, when we questioned the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship he said that he was not using the Century Initiative targets but was choosing his own targets for Canada, without relying on what was established by that same Century Initiative.

However, from 2023 to 2025, the federal government's targets are directly in line with the targets set by Century Initiative in that detailed 88‑page plan for 2023 to 2025.

My question for my leader is simple: Does he really think that the federal government is not using the targets set by Century Initiative? Is it using its own targets?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the same federal government has outsourced core government responsibilities to that same McKinsey, which is the intellectual soul behind the Century Initiative. The basic idea is to put things off until long after our kids have retired and imagine how wonderful it will be. In the meantime, starting tomorrow, we need to bring in plenty of cheap labour. It is very efficient.

For starters, the subcontracting is questionable. Consider the burden of proof. They say they did not take their numbers from the Century Initiative, but they used the same numbers. What a coincidence. The fact is, it is the same malarkey, and Quebeckers will know how to deal with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that the leader of the Bloc party is manipulating the immigration issue, which has built this country from coast to coast to coast, as a way to advance his cause.

Does the leader of the Bloc party not recognize that we have seen population growth in the province of Manitoba? Without immigration, our population would have decreased.

If we look at the French factor in the province of Quebec and in the country, there are more people speaking the French language today in Manitoba than there ever have been. The French factor in the province of Manitoba has been enhanced through immigration. For example, we see people of Filipino heritage and Punjabi heritage also speaking the French language. I believe that Manitoba is a strong advocate for the French language.

Why is the Bloc trying to use immigration in a mischievous way in order to achieve its own personal political objectives?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always had a soft spot for people who know it all.

Our political agenda is not exactly a secret. All we have to do is explain it, and the rest kind of takes care of itself.

I feel like asking my relatively esteemed colleague this question: Why is he using immigration as a tool to entirely wipe out Quebec's desire to assert itself as a people, as a nation and as a country?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleagues for giving me the opportunity to take part in the important debate we are having here in the House of Commons today.

I would also like to thank my colleagues for their support as I attempt to improve the quality of my French. Members from every party have helped me learn this new language. When I arrived in Ottawa after the 2015 election, I did not speak French. In fact, all I could say was, “bonjour, je m'appelle Sean”. Before, when my colleagues asked how I was doing, I sometimes forgot how to answer that question in French. Thanks to my colleagues' support, I am now able to convey simple ideas in French.

Today, I would like to share an idea that is simple, yet important for Canada's future. It is the idea that we can welcome newcomers to areas across the country and still protect the French language and francophone culture. Not only can we do it, we actually are doing it.

During the debate, I will make several points.

First, immigration is essential for growing our economy and offsetting the demographic decline caused by population aging. It is very important to continue to welcome new immigrants, while protecting the demographic weight of francophone individuals and communities.

Before getting to the crux of my speech, let me be very clear: The Century Initiative does not dictate federal government policy. I am the one who tabled the immigration levels in the House, I am the one who made a commitment to organizations that represent francophone communities, and I am the one who signed the agreements.

I will now address the importance of immigration for Canada's economy.

It is essential that Canada welcome new immigrants, and the current situation in this country is very interesting. To understand why Canada needs to favour people with skills that are useful to the economy, it is essential to understand the current economic context.

Like other countries, after the COVID-19 pandemic, that is, following the reopening of the borders and the economic recovery, Canada entered a major recovery period. There have never been as many workers in Canada as there are now. Many people have good jobs. The GDP is higher today than it was before the pandemic. Despite this success, there are currently more than 700,000 vacant positions in our economy. Employers are seeking workers to help them grow their businesses.

Without immigration, Canada cannot maximize its economic potential. Immigration is extremely important because there are not enough Canadian workers to fill the vacant positions, either today or in the future. It is important not only for the economy, but for society as a whole. It is especially important that Canada offset the demographic decline caused by population aging.

Fifty years ago in Canada, there were seven workers for every retiree. Today, that number is close to three workers, and when I am ready to retire, I think it will be only two.

Immigration is essential for us to welcome people who have the skills we need and face demographic challenges. If we do not change our approach to immigration, it will not be possible to make the investments needed to ensure the delivery of public services.

Immigration is very important, as it allows us to welcome the people who have the skills we need. The people who are currently participating in our economy have skills, and it is essential that we find other people who have the same skills. Given our aging population, we need more employees to ensure the delivery of health care. There are many reasons for welcoming new immigrants. They make an enormous and essential contribution to the vitality of our communities.

I can give an example of a situation that happened in my riding. Right after the 2015 elections, we lost a school because many families were leaving the community.

Mr. Speaker, I think you know what I am talking about, because you are from Nova Scotia. Young people were leaving Nova Scotia to find work in other provinces and countries. I am familiar with the situation. I myself worked in Alberta for five years because I was looking for a good job.

Right after the 2015 elections, my community also lost a mental health professional. My community lost mental health services. It was very difficult for the community to lose the school and health care services. However, the people in my community can find another school and another doctor. It will not be easy, but it is possible.

That said, consider the consequences for francophone communities facing the same problems. When I visited with francophone communities, I saw that finding a doctor who speaks French is not just difficult; it is impossible. When schools close, people cannot simply decide to attend school in a neighbouring community. If the neighbouring community is anglophone, it is impossible for these families to live in French or have access to day cares where people speak French. Students cannot study in French. Customers cannot be served in French at the store. For these communities, this is a matter of identity.

It is extremely important to continue ensuring that people who live in francophone communities can live their lives in French. We know that the French language is in decline in North America. It is very important that we continue to ensure the sustainability of francophone communities and to put in place conditions conducive for these people to speak and live in French.

It is not just a matter of ensuring the sustainability of francophone communities. It is a reality now. I am very proud to be the minister who welcomed the greatest number of newcomers to Canada, in general, but I am also very proud to be the minister who achieved the 4.4% target for the first time in 20 years.

We are working closely with stakeholders to ensure that francophone communities have the capacity to accommodate people who have essential skills and language skills. The fact that we have achieved these targets is not an accident or a coincidence. It is the clear result of the decisions our government made last year. Our government put in place a plan to welcome francophones. We introduced an action plan for official languages with the necessary investments to ensure its success. We also continue to make investments in organizations that provide settlement services. We are making sure that these people not only come to Canada, but also integrate into their communities.

We continue to hold events to recruit and promote Canada as a destination to people who are looking for opportunities in another country.

We continue to propose essential solutions for protecting the demographic weight of francophones across Canada. We are making changes to the express entry program so that francophone and bilingual applicants get more points.

The next changes include new paths in the express entry program exclusively for francophones. This initiative is very important to me because, if we want to increase the number of workers in this country, we absolutely need to support French speakers to protect their demographic weight as well. It is essential for the future of francophone communities in Canada. All this is possible thanks to our government's immigration policies and decisions. We are already seeing the results.

Of course, the situation in Quebec is different. The federal government has an agreement with the province of Quebec. Under this immigration agreement, Quebec is responsible for establishing immigration thresholds and the number of new immigrants arriving in the province each year. It is also up to Quebec to choose the immigrants it welcomes for economic reasons. That decision is not under the federal government's jurisdiction. All this is set out in the agreement with the Quebec government.

The federal government's role is to process applications, verify admissibility and ensure safety, but it is up to the province of Quebec to determine the number of immigrants, assess their language skills and choose which immigrants will be welcomed based on their skills and how they impact the economy. These decisions are made by Quebec.

In order to support the integration and francization of new immigrants to Quebec, the federal government gives Quebec almost $700 million a year. That is a good thing. When I meet with Quebec entrepreneurs, they ask me to continue welcoming workers. It is essential to protect jobs in their companies.

There is currently a labour shortage within and outside of Quebec. One does not have to listen to me or look up what Statistics Canada has to say to understand that there is a labour shortage. One only has to walk down main street in every community in Canada to see the extent of the situation. Employers need workers to help the economy recover after the COVID‑19 pandemic. It is very beneficial for Canada to welcome people into our communities.

I have spoken with my international counterparts. It is not right that Canada is the only country that is having such a hard time processing applications more quickly to meet the needs of communities. It would be a good idea to seize this opportunity and to have the courage to welcome people with essential skills so we can ensure a bright future for Canada's economy and communities.

It is important for me to explain the many reasons why I will be voting against this motion. First, I am being accused of following the Century Initiative. Once again, I want to be very clear. The Century Initiative did not establish the Government of Canada's plan. My plan includes many other policies like the Century Initiative. For example, there is a whole chapter on francophone immigration, which is very important. There is a plan to welcome the most vulnerable people. I also think that it is very important to ensure that the smaller provinces are able to welcome newcomers. Normally, newcomers prefer to settle in Canada's bigger cities.

Whoever looks at the details of my plan, including its immigration thresholds, can see that we are protecting the accommodation capacity of the Atlantic and northern regions, and that we are allowing the francophone community to benefit from immigration while also protecting its accommodation capacity.

It is not right for the Bloc Québécois to hide behind the Century Initiative and say that Canada needs to reduce the number of new immigrants. In my opinion, that is not right. If they think that Canada should reduce the number of immigrants, let them just say so. The House is the best place to hold that debate, but today's debate is a red herring, because the plan is the government's, not the Century Initiative's. The signature on the dotted line is mine.

I began learning French after the 2015 elections. I learned a lot of things. I am not perfectly bilingual, but I can hold a conversation. It turns out that I did not only learn a new language. I also learned the importance of protecting the francophone community's continued ability to exist. I learned the importance of protecting francophones' ability to live their lives in French, to live with their children in their francophone communities.

People who vote in favour of the motion are voting against Canada's ability to welcome the most vulnerable and the people with essential skills for our economy.

I have a message for Acadians, Quebeckers, Franco-Ontarians, people who live in francophone communities in western and northern Canada: I work every day to protect their ability to speak French, to ensure the sustainability of their communities and to protect their ability to live their lives in French. I worked on it today, I will work on it tomorrow, and I will continue to work on it in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague. I will never be able to congratulate him enough on the fact that his French is improving every day. It is a praiseworthy achievement. I think that it is the first time my colleague has spoken in French for 20 minutes, and I congratulate him.

My leader took the floor earlier and explained that there were three options before us. One of them is that they have their thresholds in Canada, we have ours in Quebec, and they are different. Looking at the thresholds as they are now, there is a difference between the demographics of Quebec and the demographics of the rest of Canada.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Drummond tabled Bill C‑246, in which we asked the government to guarantee that Quebec's number of seats in the House never drop below 25%. The bill was rejected, however.

Prince Edward Island, for example, has four members, and apparently the rest of Canada is fine with that. When Quebec asks for 25% of the seats in the House because it believes it deserves them, the government says no.

Would that not have been a solution? We might not be having the same debate today.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something. There is a reason why Prince Edward Island has four seats in the House of Commons. We have an obligation, under the Constitution, to maintain that number of seats in the House, and so does the other place.

Any immigration policy will have more profound implications than that. The policy affects more than just the number of seats in the House of Commons. There are consequences for the people who settle in our communities. In smaller communities, they might have to deal with schools and businesses closing. In that case, people who want go about their lives in a francophone or anglophone community might have to leave that community forever.

The solution, in my view, is to continue to adjust the immigration plan and take the living conditions in our communities into account. I will continue welcoming more immigrants because right now it is a good thing. The plan can be revised if and when conditions change in our communities. For now, this is a good plan for Canada.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating that, as a resident of British Columbia, a province that is under-represented in this federation, it pains me to see the government has removed Terry Fox's image from Canadian passports.

To the motion and the debate today, I would like to point out that in 2019, it took nine months to get a federally skilled worker in Canada. In 2023, that increased threefold to 27 months. Businesses across Canada are wondering when the minister will take concrete steps to lower the number of months it takes to approve a federally skilled worker to come and work for a small business in Canada. Can the minister provide us with a timeline for how he is going to reduce that critical number?