Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint‑Jean, whose tone is just as composed as that of the member for Repentigny. That is music to my ears because today we are talking about a very important topic.
This is a subject that we need to be able to talk about calmly. In the last few days, as it happens on a regular basis, there have been slip-ups, particularly when it comes to implications that it is racist to ask for an immigration policy, planning and debate.
With all due respect, I urge my colleagues from all parties to avoid characterizations and all these unnecessary attacks. I am specifically directing this comment at the NDP and the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie who, for days, if not weeks, has been meeting with immigrants and portraying Quebec as a community that does not wish to welcome them and that should not be trusted. That is a fairly extreme attitude.
We have been talking about the Quebec-Canada agreements all day. The government has set a line. We know that the Liberal members have been briefed and that they have a list of talking points. They keep saying that Quebec controls its immigration. One member even told us that Quebec should pull up its socks, meaning that this is our fault.
However, it is true. In the past, there has been meaningful dialogue between Quebec and Ottawa. First, there was the Cullen‑Couture agreement under the Lévesque government. The reason was that the federal government was worried about a referendum. Then, there was the McDougall-Gagnon‑Tremblay agreement in 1991, which was signed in the wake of the Meech Lake accord and implemented just before the referendum. What was the reason? It was not because the federal government was being thoughtful. It was because the federal government was worried about a referendum.
These agreements were established based on power relationships, and Quebec is losing power, both in its demographic weight and in its weight here in the House. That is why these agreements, which were forced by history, have been breached over the years via funding to promote the English language in Quebec and the official languages policies. Today, the federal government is openly violating these agreements with its extremely high targets that go against the initial spirit of the agreements.
I have been listening to the speeches by the Liberal members, including ministers and cabinet members. It seems as though they either do not understand Quebec's situation, they do not want to understand it or they understand it but other Liberals do not want to listen. Let us ask John McCallum about it. He disagreed with the targets and he was shown the door, albeit indirectly. He is a renowned, published economist and academic, and he said that the Century Initiative's targets did not make any sense.
I am willing to accept that some people do not understand. Gullibility is a forgivable fault. Nevertheless, when I hear a minister or the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell say that since Quebec controls all its immigration, it should stop whining, pull up its socks and do its job, it is absolutely unacceptable.
I assume that the vast majority of people in the House passed first-grade math. When there are two targets, like when the Government of Quebec sets the target for economic immigrants at 50,000, say, and Ottawa says the total target will be 110,000, the higher number prevails. If Quebec does not change its targets and Ottawa raises its own, the number of immigrants will increase. The higher number always prevails. This is basic math. That was the basis of the Quebec-Ottawa agreements, which established certain immigration categories and gave Quebec more control and the right to opt out of certain programs with full financial compensation over time. This arrangement was supposed to continue. Originally, in the spirit of these agreements, this safety valve was not supposed to be left to the federal government. At the very least, in the spirit of these agreements, Quebec was supposed to be consulted. What is the point of telling Quebec that it can set its own economic immigration targets when the feds are going to set a total target that is three times higher and therefore pick the final number? That makes no sense.
I do not doubt the intelligence of the Minister of Immigration. I hold him in high esteem. I do wonder if it is not a show of bad faith to say that to us, especially when he tells us that this does not come from McKinsey. Now, it is coming out in today's newspapers. I understand they are not quick thinkers; this has taken months. They tell us that the 100 million population idea is not a McKinsey policy.
We were being told that we were conspiracy theorists, so we thought that perhaps they had asked themselves some questions, that they had gotten answers, and that perhaps their targets made sense. We took their word for it, and so we asked the question.
Considering that the committee that is actually chaired by Dominic Barton set the targets, we asked them if they had done any studies, if they had looked into what impact this will have on the workforce. Analyses have been produced by Pierre Fortin, a renowned economist in the Quebec government. He is not a conspiracy theorist. Did they even consider what effect this will have on public services, child care, education, the capacity for integration?
We asked them about their studies, and we realized that we were asking them questions that they themselves had not even considered. In the answers to our questions on the Order Paper, we realized that there were no studies. This may not be McKinsey policy, but when you take the McKinsey policy, put it on the table, do not ask for studies, do not ask any questions, but then implement it, now I would say I am not a super-smart guy, but that sounds like the McKinsey policy to me. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
When you rely on chambers of commerce, consultants and the business community, who have real complaints about the labour shortage, and you forget about the collective aspect and fail to ask questions about the collective aspect, this does raise some questions, even though they may think differently from us. However, they did not even think of asking any of these questions. We have the proof.
Now we are conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like John McCallum, a minister and economist who was silenced; Pierre Fortin, a renowned, published economist and former president of the Canadian Economics Association; Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister and professor at the University of Ottawa who says that the targets make no sense in a context where Quebec is a national French-speaking minority in North America; and Gérard Bouchard, who said that the federal government has no understanding of Quebec's intercultural model and that it was not considered.
These people sure must be serious conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Alain Bélanger, a demographer who says that 90% of immigrants need to adopt French if we want the vitality of the language to endure. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Statistics Canada. Choose whatever indicator you like, Mr. Speaker. We do not mind. Whatever indicator we pick leads to an analysis that tells us that French is in decline.
We are joining conspiracy theorists like the 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec, from all parties, whether they are nationalists, sovereignists or federalists. As for Québec Solidaire, were are not so sure what they are.
We are joining conspiracy theorists like all these people. When everyone, except for the Liberal government, is a conspiracy theorist, I would like to know which of us lives in an alternate universe. I am trying to understand. I am trying to see the logic.
What we are asking for is a structured plan. When we tell them that, they respond that there is a labour shortage. They tell us that these new targets will address the labour shortage over a period of 77 years. If I am told that there is an urgent problem and that we will have the same policy for 77 years, it makes me doubt that the government can fix this problem.
Finally they tell us that they actually have three-year targets. They tell us that we have long-term problems, but then 77 years is changed to three years. Either they do not have a long-term vision for society, but instead are thinking of a series of short-term fixes with a series of minority governments, or they are telling us that they will never fix the problem. I find that very troubling.
I would tell my colleagues from the other parties that I believe that immigration is a great asset, and I see the proof in my daily life. It is so important that it deserves a higher level of debate, where we can discuss numbers, policies and long-term integration without resorting to name-calling or Quebec-bashing, as we saw today and as we see too often.
As members know, the Century Initiative is far from being the idea of the century. It is the idea of centuries past, and it reminds us of how the position of francophones in Canada has been diminished. It is part of our collective memory, and it reminds us that the respectful integration of immigrants takes place when there is respect for Quebec, consultation of Quebec, full authority for immigration, and, ultimately, independence.
