Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House and have the opportunity to respond to the opposition motion concerning our shared responsibility in welcoming newcomers.

I would first like to share a little reflection with the House. When I read the text of the Bloc Québécois motion, I wondered why the Bloc Québécois would move such a motion. After researching the various programs and agreements currently in place, I concluded that using an opposition day to move this motion was unnecessary, because the mechanisms and tools for collaboration between the Quebec government and the Government of Canada have already been put in place to address the Bloc's concerns. I will explain.

First, it is important to note that since 2015, the Government of Quebec has received more than $4.4 billion in federal funding through the Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens to support its immigration needs. It is also important to note that the federal government has allocated more than $700 million this year alone.

As a Nova Scotia MP, I understand the importance of Quebec's place in the federation. That is a very impressive number. We can see that the federal government is co-operating with Quebec. In Nova Scotia, it is different. I believe that this initiative could also be a good idea in the other regions of Canada in order to meet their specific needs.

The governments of Canada and Quebec have a long history of working together to advance shared immigration priorities. Quebec's immigration powers are enshrined in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord. I would like to get into the details of the Canada-Quebec accord.

Quebec is the only province that receives an annual grant from the federal government to compensate for the delivery of settlement services to newcomers. In all other provinces and territories, the federal government provides annual funding directly to settlement service providers in local communities, who provide services directly or indirectly to newcomers in those regions. Funding is therefore available directly to the Government of Quebec. I think that is important to say in the circumstances.

Quebec receives an annual adjustment to regularly update the amount of federal funding. The funding formula takes into account net federal spending on immigration, as well as the number of non-francophone newcomers who have arrived and settled in Quebec, compared to the previous year.

The accord ensures Quebec's integration capacity by guaranteeing that the federal grant cannot decrease from one year to the next, regardless of the proportion of permanent immigrants requested by the province. The grant must either remain constant or increase. The amount granted in a given year becomes the basis for calculating the following year.

I would like to note that the value of Canada's grant to Quebec continues to increase. This is very important in order to continue offering programs, subsidies and resources for integrating newcomers in Quebec. In fact, it has more than doubled from $387 million in 2016 to over $724 million this year.

Quebec is not required to tell the federal government how it spends the funds it receives. However, under the Canada-Quebec accord, the province is required to provide settlement and integration services comparable to those in the rest of the country.

It is very important that a strong relationship between governments, with public servants and with the elected ministers responsible for this portfolio be sustained. The agreement defines the bilateral relationship between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Quebec. Its main objectives are to preserve Quebec's demographic weight within Canada and support the integration of immigrants in the province while respecting Quebec as a distinct society. I mentioned the principle that recognizes Quebec's distinct character within our federation.

The accord aims to ensure co-operation between the governments of Canada and Quebec throughout the immigration process in all immigration categories. The federal government is responsible for setting national immigration standards and objectives, including national levels of permanent immigration, admission criteria, and conditions for granting citizenship. It must also ensure that Canada's international humanitarian obligations are respected.

The Government of Quebec has the right to decide the number of permanent immigrants it wants to welcome every year. I will say it again: The Government of Quebec is allowed to figure out the number of newcomers it wants to welcome to the province based on federal thresholds. It retains the right to exceed this figure by 5% of the Canadian total for demographic reasons, in order to protect the Quebec identity, but also the French language, of course. We understand the importance of protecting the French language in this context as well. However, recently, Quebec asked to meet only 10% of Canada's target for permanent immigrants, even though its population represents 22.5% of the country's population. The Legault government decided that Quebec's desire was to maintain a low level in relation to the federal total. That is Quebec's right and it is a decision based on capacity. At the same time, it was the Government of Quebec's decision.

I am a little confused. Why is the Bloc Québécois moving an opposition motion today in relation to the decisions made by the Legault government? Is the Bloc Québécois opposed to the Legault government's measures and decisions to accept a relatively low number of newcomers in relation to Quebec's percentage of the Canadian population?

I understand that Quebec and Canada have a special relationship given its place in Confederation. I am a Nova Scotia MP. The accord contains different tools and mechanisms to ensure that a certain relationship exists, in addition to certain mechanisms and tools for managing the newcomer arrival process in Quebec and in the federation. I see no need for this motion. Both governments are following the proper procedures.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is confused because someone else wrote his speech for him and he has not read the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord. He is talking about amounts that Quebec receives without explaining that Quebec has immigration responsibilities that the other provinces do not. This is compensation for work performed by Quebec.

He is practically claiming that Quebec is getting gifts, while ignoring the fact that the Couture-Cullen and McDougall-Tremblay agreements, entered after the 1991 accord, make no provision for refugees.

The $470 million requested by Quebec is meant to pay for refugee integration. Refugees come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the Legault government.

Now that my colleague has received an explanation about agreements he has not read, is he willing to go see the Minister of Immigration and tell him to get out his cheque book and pay up the $470 million that Ottawa owes Quebec for matters under Ottawa's jurisdiction, but currently being paid for by Quebec?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the thing is that Nova Scotia and all of the provinces and territories in the federation are responsible for managing certain services. My speech was very direct. Federal funding is available for the Government of Quebec.

When it comes to refugees, of course, Quebec is having more issues as a result of Roxham Road and other crossings. However, the Minister of Immigration recently announced several million dollars in funding, not just $1 million. I think he announced close to $4 million to improve resources for refugees.

I expect that some of that funding will go to Quebec. I am sure that my colleague will contact the Minister of Immigration about that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke very well in French.

I hope that, at some point, I will be able to deliver a speech as the member did, in our nation's second language.

I want to ask the member about the temporary foreign worker program. There was an op-ed written in 2014, entitled “How to fix the broken temporary worker program”. It stated:

It cuts to the heart of who we are as a country. I believe it is wrong for Canada to follow the path of countries who exploit large numbers of guest workers, who have no realistic prospect of citizenship. It is bad for our economy in that it depresses wages for all Canadians, but it’s even worse for our country. It puts pressure on our commitment to diversity, and creates more opportunities for division and rancour.

That was written by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the official opposition.

Since that time, the government has tripled the size of the temporary foreign worker program. I wonder if the member—

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

I need to allow time for the hon. member for Kings—Hants to answer.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will talk very confidently about the programs we have for temporary foreign workers in this country. They are extremely important.

The member for Simcoe North's communities, I would presume, would also rely on such programs. Kings—Hants welcomes over 2,000 international workers a year, particularly in the agriculture sector. The seasonal agriculture worker program, in my opinion, is one of the best programs we have to provide direct aid to other individuals in host countries, such as Jamaica and Mexico. The money goes directly to families.

I have heard personal stories of how their contribution to Canadian agriculture has allowed them to put their sons and daughters in school or buy vehicles. I am extremely supportive of the program. Do we need to have proper mechanisms to protect workers and ensure proper housing? Yes, absolutely.

This is an extremely important program. I will always stand in the House and defend it. I am proud of the work the government has done, particularly around the trusted employer program. That is going to help ensure the program is run properly and there are good mechanisms in place to reward good employers that are taking care of workers, who are helping to contribute to Canadian society.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the NDP believes that immigration makes Canada stronger, so we support this motion.

I will read a quote by the premier of Nunavut on immigration. He said, “We do want to welcome new workers to Nunavut, but our immense housing shortage is the biggest obstacle we face today.”

In an effort to have Nunavut welcome immigrants, will the member support increasing investments in housing so it can do the same as other provinces and territories?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that housing and health care are important elements in ensuring that new arrivals to Canada are confident that we have proper systems in place.

The Minister of Housing was actually just in that hon. member's riding to announce housing for Nunavut. I noticed that she voted against the fall economic statement and the measures that actually contain the housing for Nunavut that was announced just recently.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne, who is going to give us a hard-hitting speech. She said so herself.

Quebec or McKinsey? For our part, we choose the first option. Clearly, Ottawa is choosing the second. By meekly accepting the targets set by a sprawling firm, a state within a state, Ottawa is the real armchair quarterback here, to use the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's term. He claps and hurls insults at dissenting voices, accusing them of xenophobia and so on.

The faucet metaphor is generally used to describe the phenomenon of immigration. People talk about valves, but they also sometimes talk about faucets. The purpose of a faucet is to adjust the rate at which water flows, depending on how full we want the glass to be. It we do not want it to overflow, we slow down the flow a little. We adjust it. It pays to be careful, and this needs to be handled with care. Before the Minister of Immigration accuses me of comparing immigrants to drops of water, let me make it clear that this is not the case. I am using the faucet metaphor, which has been used before.

Delegating something as important as immigration thresholds to big business is as irresponsible as wanting to ban all public debate on the issue. Ottawa is obviously acting in bad faith. Ottawa not only refused to confer with Quebec, it did not even bother to warn Quebec of its plans to increase its immigration threshold. A major crisis could be looming, and pointing that out is in no way xenophobic.

The number of temporary immigrants has skyrocketed in Canada in the past year. Statistics Canada puts the figure at 2.5 million, which is a 46% increase in one year, the largest ever recorded. In Quebec, the non-permanent resident population has also increased by nearly 46% to 470,000. Last fall, the Legault government's immigration minister, Christine Fréchette, asked Ottawa to review its immigration thresholds accordingly, since Ottawa wants to take in 500,000 permanent immigrants per year starting in 2025.

Quebec and the provinces are best placed to know the reality on the ground. To me, accounting for integration capacity in terms of health services, education, language and housing seems to be the foundation for successful immigration. It is the foundation for guaranteeing that every newcomer can have halfway decent living conditions. When I say that a crisis is looming, I mean there are consequences in terms of housing. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is very knowledgeable about this and could talk about it much better than I could.

We are already experiencing a serious crisis. In the major city in my riding, Saint‑Hyacinthe, we often engage with cities that are not far off from holding the dubious honour of having the lowest vacancy rates in Quebec. Some villages are so full that they are are even worrying about the use of potable water. Space is more than limited.

In a report from September 2023, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, says that Canada as a whole needs 3.5 million additional housing units by 2030 according to the baseline scenario, and that is contingent on “the current immigration policy ending by 2025”.

Another CMHC report, this one from 2024, explains the rising costs as follows:

Strong demand for rental housing in Greater Montréal is largely attributed to population growth. Net migration to Québec more than doubled in 2023...with the arrival of a record number of non-permanent residents (net of nearly 150,000 new residents).

CMHC goes on to explain:

The metropolitan area attracts the largest share of non-permanent residents in the province—namely international students, temporary workers and asylum seekers—most of whom rent. Migration's solid post-pandemic recovery therefore contributed to the strong rebound in rental demand in the area.

In 2023, 872,000 Quebeckers had to resort to food banks. One in 10 Quebeckers cannot afford to eat. With the price of rent and mortgage payments rising and more and more people living in precarious situations, it is clear that now is not the time to increase immigration levels so drastically.

That also means that there will be an impact on public services. Immigration entails engaging various services, for example, French training, education, legal aid, child care, welfare, social services, health care services, temporary housing and help finding housing. Every newcomer must be able to access these services, with dignity. However, in order for them to do so, these services must be able to meet the demand.

Ottawa sees immigrants as symbols. One could even say that Ottawa takes them hostage and throws them into the jungle without a compass because newcomers are the main victims of the increased immigration thresholds. Then, after sending newcomers out into the jungle, Ottawa has the nerve to paint a romantic picture of immigration to ensure that the public sees its decisions in a good light.

Increased immigration thresholds also have economic and cultural impacts. I would like to quote something that was said by the late Milan Kundera. He said, and I quote:

What distinguishes the small nations from the large is not the quantitative criterion of the number of their inhabitants; it is something deeper: for them their existence is not a self-evident certainty but always a question, a wager, a risk; they are on the defensive against History, that force that is bigger than they, that does not take them into consideration, that does not even notice them.

His description fits Quebec perfectly: a small nation whose survival has never been a permanent guarantee. Quebec is already struggling with integrating newcomers into French-speaking society. According to demographer Alain Bélanger:

In order for immigration not to anglicize Quebec, 90% of new arrivals would have to choose French. At present, the figure is between 50% and 60%, and that's not about to change.

At this rate, our language could very well die out. That threat will drastically increase if these new targets come into force.

Needless to say, Ottawa has not conducted any studies on the impact of its targets on linguistic dynamics in Quebec. Anglicization looms. We are at risk of becoming another Louisiana, even as Montreal wants to create a “French quarter” like the one in New Orleans. The result would be a French quarter in a city that is officially French, but is becoming increasingly anglicized, in a francophone province, in a country that is officially bilingual, but is in fact English. I do not know if everyone gets what I am saying, but that is what would happen. I hear one of my colleagues suggest that it is like Elvis Gratton.

Let us refuse to be just another community. We are a proud nation. We must have full and complete freedom to control our immigration levels and what diversity should be within our borders. The best way to avoid xenophobia is precisely to ensure harmonious integration into the host nation. For that to happen, we need a realistic and achievable vision.

The problem is that there are two nations with two separate visions for managing diversity. One is tainted by the ideology of multiculturalism, and the other wants inclusion and a shared national culture. We have two nations and two visions. The solution is to have two countries.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech. I have the pleasure of working with him in the international trade committee, where I have seen him working very proactively for the economic development of Quebec and raising important topics at the committee for the interests of Quebec.

What is the member's opinion on the number of immigrants needed by the business sectors in Quebec, whether the housing sector, the electrical industry sector or various manufacturing sectors, which are all facing a shortage of skilled workers? What approaches has the Quebec government taken to increase skilled manpower through immigration?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on International Trade for his kind words. I am surprised he is in the House because we are supposed to be meeting right now. I will be going there right after this, and I imagine we will see each other over there in a few minutes.

His question is about the immigration that is needed in Quebec. Quebec is the only province that knows what kind of immigration it would need. It is not up to Ottawa to tell Quebec that it is sending immigrants and then let Quebec deal with the cost. It is not up to Ottawa to do that, and it should not be the way it works.

Not only did Ottawa not consult Quebec, but Ottawa did not even inform Quebec of its targets, and that is a real problem. We are therefore asking for consultation to occur quickly and, ideally, we would like all immigration powers to be transferred to Quebec. In fact, we would like all powers to be transferred to Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I can well understand the Bloc wanting to have a day to talk about why the Liberals are not balancing the number of people coming into Canada with our resources. Quebec is receiving a larger share compared with the other provinces, and this could impact its culture.

However, why did the Bloc choose to have this motion instead of the one on the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River? I was so looking forward to talking about the clean electricity generated through nuclear power and clarifying the misinformation about it being a low-level, completely encased place for booties, gloves and not a deep geological repository—

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

I have to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, I would like to remind her that it is up to us to choose the subject of the motion we want to debate during our opposition days.

Yes, Chalk River is a huge problem. However, the fact remains that immigration is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The Quebec national government has been calling for action in this area. That said, I agree with the member on Chalk River. I invite my colleague to convince her own party to stop talking about the carbon tax for one of the next fifteen opposition days. Chalk River would be an excellent topic.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do not normally like to ask questions with respect to other parties. However, I feel compelled to do so in this case. The previous member misstated a fact about the way I voted instead of answering my question on the need for increased investments so that all provinces and territories, including Quebec, could do better to make sure immigrants get the help they deserve. For example, Nunavut wants to welcome more immigrants, but it is unable to do so because of the overcrowded housing situation that exists in all the communities.

What does the member think about this kind of response and what the Liberals always attempt to do, which is to underinvest in any major social issues?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, she is talking about Liberal talking points. Personally, I am under the impression that we do not usually get answers from the Liberals. My colleague told us that she asked a Liberal member a question, but he did not answer. I am stunned. It is a good thing I am not sitting down, because I would have fallen off my chair in shock when I heard that. Seriously, we are used to not getting answers.

Regarding the substance of our discussion, it is obviously all about the integration capacity. We must not be ideological about this. If we do not have the means, we must also be able to adjust the levels.

I see the Chair signalling that my time is up. I was going to give a long explanation, but that will be for another time.

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

Madam Speaker, the Canadian dream is often presented as an El Dorado for people who are looking to build a better life. They think about wide open spaces, safety and democracy. They think about how nice of a home they will have in Canada. However, for years, this government has been turning the promise of a better life that it sells abroad into a real trap by failing to enforce its own laws.

The government often presents immigration issues as a battle between open-minded people and close-minded people, between progressive thinkers and racists, between people who are kind and those who are mean. That is convenient because it eliminates the need for nuanced thinking. Nuance is so tiresome and exhausting. No, it is much better to vilify one's enemy, to pander to voters and to virtue-signal or fake indignation. Quebeckers deserve better than that and so do the immigrants who come here to build a new life with us.

My mother, who came here from Peru when she was 37 years old and built a great law career in her third language through hard work and sacrifice, would have deserved better had she arrived today. I, too, would have deserved better, newly arrived at the age of six, had there not been any space in the local public school for me. My younger sister would have deserved better had there not been enough room for her in day care.

Rest assured, the Prime Minister's Canadian dream upholds at least one great Canadian tradition: It disregards democracy when it comes to the big issues. Of course, I am talking about irresponsible immigration targets. I say this in French in the House, precisely because French was never taken into consideration when this policy was being developed. Some of its authors even admitted as much.

There was also never any consideration of housing, health care, education or infrastructure. If none of those factors was considered, that means that it is probably an election ploy.

Earlier, I heard a Liberal MP make virtually her entire speech about the economic importance of immigration. I can talk economics. In fact, I would like to say a few words about that. Quite simply put, the Liberal government is basing its immigration targets on economic parameters that are just plain false and simplistic. In order to solve the labour shortage, we supposedly just need to bring people from all over the world to work here. No.

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 Professor 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 additional 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 who may want to to extend their careers. Let us think about it. These individuals are trained and want to work longer. Instead of pushing them into retirement because of ill-suited tax measures, why not review what specific improvements can be made, and why not do that right away?

Rodrigue Tremblay, professor emeritus of economics and a minister in the Lévesque government, explained that a rapidly growing population requires additional infrastructure, such as housing, hospitals and schools, to name a few examples, and that savings and capital are needed to build that infrastructure.

There also needs to be an appropriate economic context that is conducive to construction, which we do not have right now. Mr. Tremblay also says, “When a population grows too quickly, this can sometimes lead to a general decline in the standard of living”.

Armen Sarkissian, former president of Armenia, recently said in his book that small states can navigate the complex challenges of the twenty-first century in smarter ways than greater powers—such as countries with 100 million inhabitants by 2100—for smallness, often regarded as a weakness, can be a strength. Large states are ponderous; small states can be agile and adaptive.

Ultimately, the countries with the best 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. If we want to talk about economics, then we should talk to economists.

Just this morning, we read in the papers that the CIBC has published its new figures. It is not 3.5 million, but five million housing units that we need to build by 2030, simply to meet demand and restore affordability to the market. That is huge. That means that there should be cranes everywhere. That is not the case. What are we going to do by 2030?

In addition to language and culture, what distinguishes Quebec is the quality of its social safety net and the public policies it has adopted over the past 60 years. Quebec is a model for its low-cost child care system, its affordable education system, its parental insurance plan and all its other social policies. In order to maintain, if not improve, the quality of the services that the Government of Quebec provides to its citizens, it must make sound economic and demographic decisions to ensure the long-term viability of its social services. It is up to the National Assembly of Quebec to determine Quebec's optimal population, because it is ultimately responsible for providing social services to Quebeckers.

I am really sick of hearing the Liberals virtue signalling or invoking economic principles that they simply do not understand. They accuse us of undermining social peace and creating tensions between newcomers and those who are already settled, simply because we are asking the government to take integration capacity into account. Is it not true that the people who are really undermining social peace are the one who are ignoring the housing crisis when setting immigration targets, the ones who are unable to provide health care and spaces in schools and day cares for newcomers? It is irresponsible to say that the number of landed immigrants is more important than the quality of the services provided to help them integrate.

Our motion is very clear. We are asking this government to walk the talk. What good is it to tell people around the world that they are welcome in Canada if we cannot even assure them of the basic minimum that any self-respecting society should be able to provide? The Prime Minister's “Canadian” dream is so wonderful.

The government needs to take action, for newcomers and for us. It needs to commit to change course in the next 100 days. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand what we are asking for. Perhaps some do not even understand that expression. First, the government needs to call a meeting with its Quebec and provincial and territorial counterparts. Second, the government needs to review the immigration targets with them based on their respective integration capacities.

If Quebec needs to get the federal government to respect its integration capacity by holding a referendum to take back control of immigration powers or even all powers, then I would be more than happy to work on that. My mother, my sisters and I chose Quebec. It is our country. We will build that country with our indigenous brothers and sisters whom we must absolutely not leave behind, as well as with the newcomers whom we want to welcome properly with open arms.

I am asking the Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister to take action because immigrants deserve it. We owe it to them. We do not owe it to them because of elections, votes or for other purely electoral reasons. We owe it to them out of compassion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked one of the member's colleagues. Bloc members talk about the importance of consultation in regard to the immigration file, and they have done so a lot in the last couple of months. When we factor in things like the provincial nominee program, international students, temporary workers in agricultural communities, and so forth, there is no doubt there is a need to have ongoing conversations, which have taken place in a wide spectrum of ways.

Has the Bloc had any official discussion with the Government of Quebec with respect to the motion it is proposing today?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, if the Bloc Québécois has discussions with the Quebec government, that is really none of his business. That is between the Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government.

Second, I have indeed mentioned the importance of consultations several times. How is it that Quebec's premier, François Legault, is talking about a breaking point?

To my mind, that means that if there have been consultations with Quebec, the government is incompetent. If there have not been any, perhaps it is time there were.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I particularly enjoyed the end of my colleague's speech, the part about compassion.

This is because of not her comments or because of the motion the Bloc is presenting, but in some Quebec media, some columnists are using a sort of intellectual shortcut and conflating higher immigration with the housing crisis we are experiencing, as if immigrants arriving today were responsible for the shortcomings of the past 30 years in terms of investment in social and co-operative housing.

We see the vacancy rates in Montreal and Rimouski. If there is 0% housing available in Rimouski, it is not because of immigration.

I would like my colleague to comment on this shell game that is being played to try to blame immigrants for a crisis that the federal Liberal government caused in 1994 when it stopped investing in social housing.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is right about one thing. The housing crisis cannot be blamed solely on immigration. No one here is doing that. Perhaps some media outlets are, but I completely disagree with them.

The housing crisis is not just due to immigration. It is due to a lot of other things, as I mentioned in my speech. The current economic climate is not conducive to building housing. In recent years, housing was not built at times when there was less immigration. During the pandemic, we were unable to build housing. Even before that, housing was not built. For nearly a decade, we have been behind on our housing construction targets.

However, it is important to note that immigration does have an impact on demand. It may not be solely due to immigration, but immigration does affect the demand for housing. Thus, there may be a mild to moderate impact that is related to immigration and that must be considered in our capacity to integrate newcomers.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question as a follow-up to the question from my NDP colleague.

In fact, the misleading information about how immigrants are partly responsible for Canada's housing problem came from the Liberal Minister of Housing. He said it, not me.

For the past two months, we have witnessed two ministers publicly pass the buck by saying that the other is to blame. There is chaos in immigration, and both are accusing each other of bungling their policies.

I would like to know the member's opinion on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the current federal Liberal government's bickering is nothing new. Ministers passing the buck and playing ping-pong with very important issues is nothing new either.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, although immigration may be having a mild to moderate impact on the housing crisis, it is not, I repeat, not the cause of the housing crisis. Many other causes are at play.

I encourage the current ministers, both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Immigration, to reflect and perhaps start listening to the people on the ground, because they are clearly out of touch with what is happening.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been following the issue of immigration since the early 1990s. I have been very passionate about and have understood many different aspects of immigration over the years, whether at the provincial level or the national level, both when I was in opposition and now while we are in government. I am very passionate about it because I understand and appreciate the true value of immigration and how Canada is what it is today because of sound immigration policy. It would take quite a bit to fool me on some of the things I have been hearing on the immigration file, and I want to quickly make reference to that.

One of the concerns I had was about a comment made by the member for Calgary Shepard. He was talking about immigration, and I actually wrote down the quote.

Before I continue, I will say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

We were debating immigration target numbers and so forth, and the member for Calgary Shepard said, “They bear responsibility for the chaos on our streets today with crime that is out of control.” I do not like whatsoever that the member opposite was trying to imply in any way that immigrants are a problem when it comes to crime and chaos on our streets. That is surely what could be interpreted, based on the manner in which he presented himself.

I then take a look at my New Democratic friends. I want to be kind, but it is hard when one gets statements saying something like if someone is an international student, they should become a permanent resident, and, at the same time, saying we should have no cap on international students. To me, that is irresponsible public policy. Just so the member is aware, I can guarantee that, virtually overnight with that sort of policy, we would exceed, and I will be conservative with my number, well over a million international students applying every year.

Further, the member from the New Democratic Party said that she would like to see temporary residents in the form of workers also automatically becoming permanent residents. That is the reason I posed the question to the NDP. Does it have any cap whatsoever? If one follows the advice or the comments that were provided, we would probably be taking in at least 1.5 million to 2.5 million residents a year. I do not think that would be a practical number. It is important that we be serious.

I will now move to the Bloc. The Bloc brought forward a motion. I will talk about immigration any day of the week, and I asked whether they have done consultation. I know the importance of consultation on this file; as I said, I have been working on the file since the early 1990s. I understand the role and the impact on the Manitoba economy. That is one of the reasons I was a very strong advocate for Jean Chrétien and the provincial nominee program.

History will show us that no province in Canada did better than the province of Manitoba in taking advantage of the provincial nominee program. Our immigration numbers grew rapidly as a direct result of a progressive program, at that point instituted by and signed off on by Jean Chrétien and, in my home province, Gary Filmon. Manitoba has benefited; the program has been gold to the province of Manitoba.

When one thinks of the provincial nominee program, when one takes a look at the unique nature of immigration into the province of Quebec and when one factors in temporary visas, obviously there is a great deal of discussion that takes place at many different levels, whether it is with ministers, deputy ministers, civil servants and so forth. It takes place all of the time and in different ways.

I posed the question to members of the Bloc, and I am of the opinion that they did not do any consultation with the Province of Quebec, in terms of the resolution they are proposing today.

Many would ultimately argue that there is a bit of a hidden agenda with the Bloc whenever immigration matters are raised, but that is for another day.

When we talk about immigration as a whole, let us take a look at the targets and understand and appreciate the actual numbers. When we think about provinces, they are involved in a direct way. I mentioned the provincial nominee program. Let us take a look at the targets that were provided to the House. In 2024, the targeted number is 110,000; in 2025 it is 120,000, and it is followed again, in 2026, by 120,000. That is a very high percentage that is going toward supporting provinces, and that does not take into consideration the number, which I believe is around 35,000 a year, going into Quebec under the skilled worker type of programming.

Let us look at the numbers and at the freedoms the provinces have in terms of recruitment. There is a wonderful opportunity to deal with things such as health care workers and the trades, whether it is the plumbers, electricians or so forth. That program is designed to support them.

Members opposite point the finger and say that Ottawa is to blame for this or that. They talk about the issue of housing, but do they not believe that provincial jurisdictions have the capability to understand what is happening in their local economies? If they really want to get more electricians, plumbers and so forth approved, they have an excellent window through the provincial nominee program, because they are the ones that issue the certificates.

They should not just try to say that it is immigrants who are to blame, because that is not true. What we find is that through the skilled worker program and the nominee program, it is provinces and territories that are identifying what they believe are the priorities in terms of their economic development.

We can look at other numbers. The federal government actually gets fewer than the combined provinces do in terms of skilled workers, but we do process just over 100,000 a year.

Then we also have the spouses. There is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75,000 to 85,000 spouses and partners on an annual basis. Are we going to start saying no? That is a really important aspect of our immigration policy, which the federal government has complete jurisdiction over.

We can look at how we have actually managed that file. When I was critic, people were waiting for years and years. We are talking three, four or five years to get a spouse to come over. I used to apply under dual intent, to try to get someone a temporary visa while they were waiting. Do members know how many times I applied and the number that were actually approved when Stephen Harper was the prime minister? It was a big goose egg. Nothing.

Since we have been in government, I have been successful. I have talked with immigration officials; I have talked with ministers of immigration; I have explained the situation to caucus, and we have seen significant movement, not only in terms of processing times but also in terms of providing temporary visas for those who are trying to get a spouse here from abroad.

I could talk about parents and grandparents. When I was critic, Jason Kenney cancelled the program. He said people could not sponsor their mom and dad. The response I get when I pose that question to the Conservative critic is that they came up with the super visa. Yes, the super visa is a good thing, but they also cancelled the program.

They also say, “Well, we wanted to deal with processing times, and we improved processing times.” Sure, they did, because it was so bad under Stephen Harper in terms of sponsoring parents and grandparents that people were dying or actually dead by the time they finally got to them.

We do not need a lecture from the Conservative Party on immigration policy. All we have to do is reflect on just how bad the Conservatives were, and that does not include the many different programs in terms of refugees, whether they were from Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine, or from what is taking place today in the Middle East.

We understand, appreciate and value the role that immigration plays in public policy, and we will continue to work every day on that particular file.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the member for Winnipeg North. He said that he is an immigration expert. He has been working in that area for years. He said that he even participated in the process with the Chrétien government at the time, so I would like him to explain something to me.

In 2015, the federal government's immigration target was 285,000 people a year. Ten years later, in 2025, it is 500,000. That is a 75% increase. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the government consulted the provinces, particularly Quebec, to determine what impact an 75% increase over 10 years would have on Quebec's ability to integrate these people and help them to learn French. Second, this will have an impact on infrastructure, the education system and the health care system. Was that taken into account?

It is not good enough to pick a number out of a hat, thinking it is good ideologically. We need to consider the consequences. What we are saying today is that the government needs to respect the integration capacity. In order for immigration to be successful, we need to be able to properly receive people in suitable, decent conditions.