Debates of May 11th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I heard name-calling from both sides of the House. Surely it was in response to something else, but I heard it from both sides.

I remind hon. members to try to be as civil as possible in the House and to please restrain themselves.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not a good look on a party that calls itself progressive.

As I was saying, these are the objective and subjective criteria for a nation to be born. The people of Quebec form a nation.

Unfortunately, this recognition here is only symbolic. Indeed, the rest of Canada has always refused to enshrine that in the Constitution, to give it a legal effect. That is why Bill 101 was necessary and was passed in 1977, although we were told it was a Hitlerian law. The Quebec nation continues to speak French today thanks to this law.

At the end of the 1990s, I was saying that the use of French was declining. I kept saying that there would be an accelerated decline of French in Montreal. I was called a language zealot.

Today, on both sides of the House, they are trying to change the Official Languages Act while still considering the Quebec English-speaking community as a minority. We are now paying the price for what happened in 1982. What happened in 1982? Why has no Quebec premier, whether sovereignist or federalist, ever signed the Canadian Constitution since 1982? That is because, in 1982, we were deprived of our nationhood and minority status, quite simply.

Who forms the minority? According to the anglophones in Quebec, they do. If, indeed, the Canadian Constitution is built on the idea that there are 10 equal territories and that minority rights are protected, where do the rights of francophone Quebeckers fit in? Francophones are the minority in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Maritimes. Although they are a minority on the continent and in Canada, francophones are the majority in Quebec, which means they have no rights. That is how it was presented to the UN.

What did the UN say to Howard Galganov? It said that the so-called English-speaking minority in Quebec was not a minority, but a community that was part of the Canadian and continental majority. These things need to be remembered because I feel that, from one election to the next, historical and sociological references get lost.

I would like to say to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that Quebec is asking to have its differences recognized and respected. As long as it is searching for recognition and respect of those differences, it cannot deny any other the same recognition and respect of its differences.

That is why, when people arrive in Quebec, we want to be able to welcome them in dignity. Dignity is not what multiculturalism has achieved over the years, by ghettoizing differences, turning these people into cheap labour, making them incapable of earning a decent living, even though some of them hold several degrees. Juxtaposing cultures is not what will allow us to live together in harmony.

I would like to highlight what Boucar Diouf, our national Boucar, has to say about this. On the subject of multiculturalism, he said, “It is impossible to live together without truly embodying the word ‘together’.”

Madam Speaker, I think members are talking a bit too loudly across the way.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand that the member for Timmins—James Bay feels the need to socialize, but I think he should do so quietly.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like you to rule on whether we are allowed to walk over to talk with colleagues at any point. I do not mind staying in my seat, but I thought it was common practice that, if we have to speak to a minister about an issue and we do it respectfully, we are able to do that. Would you say that is the rule of the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is the rule. I did not hear any particular noise, but I am not on that side of the House, so I cannot hear what my colleague may have heard. I do expect everybody to respect the rights of each member to speak and be heard.

[An hon. member]

It is like a rat.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to quote Boucar Diouf, a Quebecker who considers himself a part of Quebec society and who says that our society is a close-knit one. He said, “It is impossible to live together without truly embodying the word ‘together’. Multiculturalism”—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I understand people get heated in here and we have issues, but I thought I overheard a colleague from this side call a colleague on that side “a rat”.

If you look at the record and you listen to the Hansard, I hope you observe this and make a decision—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have asked all to be very courteous with another. I will take it under advisement, and we will look at the Hansard.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order. I am reassured that I heard that. I would never believe that my colleague from the Bloc would use such unparliamentary language.

Is the term “rat” unparliamentary? I believe it is. I think it is a very ignorant thing to say, if he did say it. I was not sure that he would say that, and I was so shocked—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have said we will look into it and check the Hansard. The Speaker will come back with a decision.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP members obviously do not want me to read that quote, and yet it is universalist. As I was saying, “Multiculturalism is much more like living side by side and harbouring frustrations with one another, with results that fall far short of the ideal presented by politicians.”

The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture, encouraging the coexistence of multiple cultures side by side. It favours cohabitation based on indifference rather than on recognition and the respect of differences, which invariably leads to the ghettoization of cultures.

That is why what we in Quebec want is an intercultural model based on three fundamental principles that form a common standard that protects Quebec's distinctiveness. Being a Quebecker has nothing to do with looking like a Quebecker. Being a Quebecker is first and foremost a political choice. A person can identify as a Canadian. I respect that. They can also identify as a Quebecker. We hope that everyone who settles in Quebec can get on board with that and identify as Quebeckers. It is up to them how they identify themselves.

We are asking for respect for what defines the soul of the nation, in other words French. We cannot welcome 500,000 people a year and not tell them that Quebec's official language is French.

Secularism is a principle that my colleagues surely agree with. It is important to Quebec, which had its Quiet Revolution and separated church and state. The other principle is equality between men and women. From there, each person, with their diversity, can indeed come build the country with us and that is what we want.

How is any of that xenophobic? How is it racist? These are values born of philosophical liberalism that are meant to be at the very core of the political foundation of every member in the House.

I am out of time. I thank the members from the NDP for sabotaging my speech.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I just want to reassure the member for Montcalm that he was given his full speaking time.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

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

Madam Speaker, after eight years of Justin Trudeau, Canada's immigration system—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, pardon me. I apologize.

After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada's immigration system is broken. With a backlog of over two million and an average processing time of over 20 months, targets simply will not be met. For skilled workers under the federal stream, in 2019, processing an application took 9 months. Today, it has tripled to 27 months.

Why is the Government of Canada so slow at processing workers, whom we need in Quebec, in British Columbia and across Canada?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

Every year, around the same time, we have to deal with the foreign worker issue. Nothing moves any faster, yet these are housekeeping issues.

More concerning here is that the Century Initiative has in no way calculated the impact that these immigration thresholds would have on the reality of Quebec's linguistic demographics and the vitality of the French language in Quebec. At the same time, the federalist parties on both sides of the House boast about how important it is to defend the French fact in Canada. In my opinion, they are improvising. Gérard Bouchard, though a measured person, is outraged. He has vehemently criticized this plan.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his stories and explanation today, but I would also just like to perhaps reassure the House and set the record straight. I lived in Quebec for 28 years and my daughter was born there.

I will go back to the question I asked his colleague. Canada transfers significant amounts of money to Quebec for its francization programs and, unfortunately, more than 75% of last year's funds were not used by the Quebec government. Could my colleague enlighten me and explain why these funds were not used to help francization in Quebec?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the money had to be spent on health care, given this year's paltry health transfer.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the excellent question asked by my Conservative colleague.

Toronto has a very large population from France. They are professionals, and I have spoken with a number of them who work in journalism and television. I have asked them why they come to Canada, and they say they are tired of the culture wars in France, the xenophobia and the growing alienation of outsiders.

They feel inclusive. However, the problem is that we are inviting people into the country, but we do not have housing, so then people cannot afford to live. We are failing at that. We have a real opportunity to invite people who are coming from countries where they are tired of the xenophobia and say we are a welcoming country, but we need to make sure we are able to utilize these incredible talents coming from all over the world so they can build our society.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Spear, up to now, I did not really understand why my colleague talked about xenophobia in his speech. I do not believe that my speech could be deemed xenophobic.

The fact remains that what we want is to be able to welcome people in a satisfactory manner, with dignity, so they can fully participate in building the Quebec nation and ensuring its survival. We must recognize that Quebec has an additional challenge that is not shared by the rest of Canada, as Canada has a huge desire to welcome a large number of people without ensuring that it has the ability to give them a dignified life.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in a Parliament and we want to debate ideas.

Earlier, the member for Jonquière demonstrated how important it is to do so in an appropriate and democratic manner. I listened to the NDP speeches, including the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. These people are going to sit down with immigrants who have just arrived to warn them about us, saying that we are racist, and most importantly, that they should reject the host society that wishes them ill. Is that not one of the most divisive and extreme strategies possible?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, despite Bill 101, despite 40 years of enforcing Bill 101, and despite the fact that French is the language of work, the fact remains that English attracts five times more learners in Quebec than French. That is the reality.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am wondering what the real point of the motion proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleagues today is, if not to sow discord or stir up trouble. What are the real needs of Canada, and what are Quebeckers and Canadians saying about it?

I would like to share a bit of what I am hearing from every community in Quebec and across Canada. Employers in Quebec and Canada need skilled labour in all fields. With the exception of the first nations, we are all descendants of immigrants. Many immigrants come to Canada, and they are an exceptional source of wealth for us Canadians. Canada owes a great deal to its immigrant population, because immigrants work hard and integrate into our communities. Now more than ever, we need them.

The government has the desire and the responsibility to address the needs and concerns of Canadians. We are putting in place a realistic and ambitious plan, based on the number of permanent residents admitted to Canada each year, with targets for overall admissions in each immigration category. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the minister must table this plan each year in Parliament, in this House.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship makes his decisions on federal immigration thresholds independently, on the advice of departmental officials and in consultation with organizations, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, as well as citizens across Canada to determine the best immigration policy. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I was able to take part in several of those consultations.

The minister was very clear earlier today. The opinions and recommendations of the Century Initiative are not the policies of the Government of Canada. Economic and demographic growth on a global scale is compatible with francophone immigration, and so is protecting the French language and culture. It is important to remember that Quebec does not have the monopoly on French language and culture in Canada, nor on defending them.

The federal government is and always will be there to stand up for and promote the French language. I will mention, as an example, my assistant, who is an immigrant of Moroccan origin. He is brilliant and perfectly bilingual, and he decided to settle in Ontario, here in Ottawa, rather than Quebec, because he knew that his proficiency in French would be an important asset in his job search. It is because of our immigration system that I work with such a dynamic person who helps me in my parliamentary debates. I would like to salute him and say thank you.

He is also very proud to be part of the 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside Quebec who arrived in Canada in 2022. We achieved that target one year ahead of the 2023 target set out in the minister's mandate letter.

The example of my staffer is not anecdotal, as some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues pointed out this morning. French across Canada is a reality, and francophone immigration across Canada is not a naive dream. It is a reality. Francophone communities are increasingly present across the country.

On Monday, I had the great pleasure of being in Yukon, where I talked about immigration and the strategic review. I also met with the people in charge of francophone immigration and people who speak French. We are so proud of the territory because the number of francophone immigrants there is growing vigorously.

Over the past few months, my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has afforded me the opportunity to meet various stakeholders who are concerned about the shortage of skilled workers, workers Canada needs to be competitive.

Yesterday evening I was sitting with a group of Quebec business people. They were worried. They raised a question that I consider very important and very germane to today's debate in the House. They asked me if Quebec will be competitive enough to attract highly skilled workers and meet future labour market demands.

I shared that because it is so important and it made me feel sad, in a way. Quebec sets its own immigration targets. Quebec has the exclusive authority to select most of its immigrants. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, the government provides financial compensation to Quebec to help newcomers integrate both culturally and linguistically.

However, and this is what I was trying to clarify with my Bloc colleagues, we have learned that, last year, the Government of Quebec only spent 25% of all that financing. Basically, Canada gives Quebec money, but Quebec does not spend it. Quebec is the only province that receives an annual immigration subsidy from the federal government. The total amount set aside in the Main Estimates, 2023-24 for that Quebec subsidy is $726.7 million.

I want to say that I am very proud of our government's commitment to our immigration targets. The immigration levels plan paves the way to responsible increases in immigration targets to support three elements: economic growth, a solution to the acute labour shortage in Canada and Quebec, and respecting our commitments to vulnerable people.

I know that the Prime Minister answered a question about that a few days ago. Today, someone in the House mentioned Saint-Eustache—I think it was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities—where manufacturers from all sectors in Quebec are in dire need of skilled labour.

I firmly believe that immigration is good for Canada and good for Quebec. However, perhaps it is Quebec that needs to get on board and understand the importance and immense contribution of immigrants to Canada and Quebec, including francophone immigrants. I will stop there, but I thought it was very important to raise these points in the House today.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was saying earlier that the Bloc motion is simply about stirring up trouble.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that brings the interests of the National Assembly to the House, and the National Assembly unanimously denounced the government's immigration targets. I am quoting from this motion, in which Quebec speaks with one voice. In its motion, the National Assembly “...asks the federal government to adopt immigration thresholds based on Quebec's and Canada's integration capacity and levels that are likely to maintain the weight of French and Quebec within Canada”.

That is the reason for our motion. If the parliamentary secretary sees it as a desire to stir up trouble, that is her problem, not mine.