Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. It almost goes without saying that all one needs to do is take a look at the provincial nominee program. At one time the program was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000, and now it is well over 100,000. The demand is there. We know that because there are provinces that want to receive more provincial nominees. The provincial nominees have contributed immensely. That is only one aspect. In the provincial nominee program, for example, if a single person later gets married to someone from their home country, their spouse would be able to come in through the spousal program.

Of course there has to be coordination taking place. That coordination has been taking place for decades, in some jurisdictions more than others, depending on the province or territory, what its agenda is in regard to immigration and how it ultimately complements the national targets and agenda.

All in all, immigration has been a gold mine for Canada and will continue to be well into the future, as Canada needs immigrants more than immigrants need Canada, quite frankly.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I just heard the member opposite refer to immigrants as a gold mine. One of the other members also referred to immigrants from “puppy mills”.

The member opposite made a reference earlier to people dying. Under this government, multiple students a month have been sent home in body bags because they are being invited here without a reasonable prospect of success. By the way, each student visa is stamped by the federal government. It is unfair to those students to invite them to a country and then not provide the support they need to succeed.

In fact, it was the Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the third party, who wrote an op-ed that said Harper had broken the immigration system and the temporary foreign worker program. Since he has become the Prime Minister, he has tripled the size of the temporary foreign worker program and blown a hole through the student visa program. That was all under his watch. Now, every single person and every op-ed is saying that there is no longer a consensus on immigration in this country. It has been reckless.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong on several points. I only wish you would grant me the amount of time that would enable me to provide a complete answer. I would be happy to do that if I had unanimous consent.

In terms of international students, there has been great demand. That demand, in good part, has been fuelled by individuals out there courting and getting students to come into Canada, in a very real and tangible way.

The Conservative Party of Canada, along with others, needs to recognize that provinces also have to play a role. At the end of the day, how many international students does the Conservative Party believe we should have? We know what the NDP believe. They believe there should be no limit.

We believe there has to be a sense of responsibility. We are working with provinces. That is the reason there is a cap. They can distribute the students among the post-secondary facilities and others, so that we can have a reasonable and responsible policy to help the provinces, the territories and, in fact, the international students themselves.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to provide information to the members on how the federal government has supported Quebec, and all our provincial, territorial and municipal partners, as we all work together to support newcomers to Canada. Immigration is a shared responsibility that involves the input of provincial, territorial and municipal governments.

We also need to continue to respond to global issues. For example, there are more than 110 million people displaced all around the world. People have been displaced because of wars, coups, and economic and political upheaval. They could also be fleeing oppressive regimes and violations of human rights in other, less progressive countries. We, as Canadians, have an obligation to step up and continue to support individuals.

Our government will continue to be responsive and support individuals today and into the future. Canada remains committed to our humanitarian efforts and to supporting those who arrive at our borders needing a new home. Immigration requires all levels of government to work co-operatively to attract new workers in areas such as construction, homebuilding and health care. We are also mindful of the special relationship established for immigration under the Canada–Québec Accord from 1991, which clearly outlines the work that the federal and provincial governments will undertake separately and together.

Not only have we made sure to respect the decisions the Province of Quebec will make, but we have also been there as a strong partner. When larger numbers of people began crossing into Canada, the federal government was there to support provinces and municipalities with funding, programs and support. Canada established an interim federal health care program to pay for the health care needs of asylum claimants. The federal government set up transportation and paid for temporary housing for the asylum claimants.

As the challenges persisted, we set up a formal program, the interim housing assistance program. That program reimbursed the costs faced by the provinces and municipalities to support newcomers. The first part of the program was launched in 2017, and it ran for five years. A total of $750 million was provided by the federal government to provinces and municipalities to support rehousing asylum claimants. Nearly 60% of that funding went to Quebec. That is $440 million in federal funding to support costs borne by the Province of Quebec. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship recently renewed funding for the interim housing assistance program to reimburse provinces and cities for housing costs related to asylum seekers. The amount of $150 million was specifically set aside for Quebec.

When a province, territory or municipality needs help from the federal government, we are there to respond. When COVID began, the federal government established temporary housing for asylum seekers to quarantine, even if they were asymptomatic, before they could enter Canada and take up interim housing. At the request of the provincial government, the federal hotel spaces continued to provide hotel rooms after the pandemic measures were lifted to ensure the availability of additional living spaces for communities in need, including in the province of Quebec.

Quebec had asked for the federal government to get our agreement with the U.S. government renegotiated so that asylum claimants could no longer cross at Roxham Road. We agreed. In March 2023, President Biden took his first official trip to Canada to announce the renegotiated deal of the safe third country agreement. Under the new agreement, anyone entering a country deemed as safe from persecution had to make a claim to the first country they arrived in. Asylum seekers could no longer take a trip to the U.S. and then travel to Canada to make a claim. Thanks to our continued efforts, the safe third country agreement now applies to the entire land and water border between the United States and Canada. Additionally, the safe third country agreement has significantly reduced asylum claimants at our land entries.

The federal government was also there to be a partner for Quebec when the premier said that Quebec was reaching the limit of its capacity to manage new asylum seekers. The federal government worked in co-operation with the other provinces and municipalities to share the burden, as the premier had asked.

Starting in early 2023, the federal government supported new arrivals' being willingly relocated to other parts of Canada, including locations in most of the Atlantic provinces and numerous cities across Ontario. The program helped relocate over 11,000 asylum seekers from Quebec to places such as Cornwall, Niagara, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and Ottawa.

Under the accord, since 2015, we have provided $4.4 billion in funding to Quebec to support immigration, settlement services and all the other supports. For 2023-24, over $700 million will be provided to support the provincial government of Quebec in welcoming newcomers.

As everyone can see, the federal government has been there as a partner with Quebec and all the other provinces and territories, as well as the municipalities, to support their needs. We have delivered federal support for housing, health care, transportation, relocation, integration and settlement, and also renegotiated a major international agreement with the United States.

Canada has a strong tradition of welcoming newcomers in this country. Canadians are proud of their immigration history, as they should be. It has made our country strong and allowed it to grow. It has strengthened our nation by diversifying our communities and fuelling our economy.

We will continue to work with partners from all levels of government to support newcomers, whether they are refugees, asylum claimants, family or economic immigrants. We are a country built on immigrants.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I rise on a point of order in response to the erroneous comment made by the member for Kings—Hants when, in response to my question, he said, “I noticed that she voted against the fall economic statement and the measures that actually contain the housing that was put to Nunavut just recently.”

I abstained on the ways and means vote because this government has and continues to fail Inuit and indigenous communities. The housing crisis and all the consequential impacts of overcrowding continues among my territory.

For the record, I abstained. I did not vote against as the member indicated. I ask that the member apologize.

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

This is well noted, and I will ask the hon. member to do so at the first opportunity.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the point my colleague for Nunavut made is a very important one. It emphasizes the fact that this Liberal government cannot do two things at once. It has not been able to provide the housing required and handle immigration in this country. I think it is a disgrace that a member from across the aisle today made those comments about my colleague for Nunavut.

However, I want to ask the member specifically about the government's decision to continue to beef up profits for corporate landlords and then to try to blame the housing crisis on immigrants. Will the government take the necessary measures to stop the financialization of housing, such as implementing a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable housing units by financial landlords and creating a non-profit acquisition fund, such as they have in B.C.?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing is an important issue, which we are all facing here in Canada, and immigration is one of Canada's greatest strengths. As we continue to face an aging population and see the decline in birth rates, it is very important to welcome newcomers to Canada. At the same time, we need to make sure that we build appropriate housing so that all those who are coming to Canada have a safe place to call home.

We will continue to invest in housing and in building housing faster. Over the last few months, the Minister of Housing has been working actively with municipalities on the housing accelerator fund to make sure that we increase the stock of housing. However, one thing cannot resolve the housing issue. There are certain factors. We have a national housing strategy, and we will work on all fronts to make sure that we build housing while we continue to make sure we welcome new immigrants to Canada because we are a country that has been built by immigrants, and we will continue to do that.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, an NDP amendment to the motion was put forward today that I want to read a part of. It looks to add the following to the motion:

e) call on the government to table in the House, within 100 days, a plan to ensure adequate resources are provided to Quebec, Provinces and Territories to support the successful resettlement of newcomers.

This exactly reflects what I have heard from settlement agencies in my community. They are calling to ensure that, whether it comes to housing, health care or employment, those resources are there for newcomers, as they require them when they come to Canada. If this is not put in place, then our immigration goals will actually counterproductively feed anti-immigration sentiment. I wonder if the member for Scarborough Centre could comment on the extent to which she supports that part of the amendment to the motion.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we consult the Government of Quebec and all the provinces and territories whenever we implement any new programs and policies. Under the Canada-Québec Accord, Quebec has the exclusive authority to determine its immigration levels in line with its ability to welcome and integrate newcomers. We continue to support Quebec. In the last two years, we have provided over $1 billion under that accord to support—

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

I need to give the opportunity for one more question.

The hon. member for Nepean.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member understands the importance of immigrants for the economic development of Canada, whether it is in the housing sector, the manufacturing sector or the tourism sector. I would like to ask her whether she recognizes the need for more skilled immigrants in the country for Canada to keep up its economic growth and improve the growth of the economy?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, immigration is very much needed. My own riding of Scarborough Centre is home to so many new immigrants. People from different parts of the world have called that place home.

Whenever I talk to the businesses in my riding, they tell me about the shortages of labour. I have been a member of the immigration committee for over eight years, and I have heard hundreds of testimonies regarding the need for making sure we continue to welcome new immigrants.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House in advance that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

The Bloc Québécois has decided to devote today's opposition day to the issue of immigration. I will give a bit of background to explain why, but basically, on November 1, 2023, so last year, the Bloc Québécois decided to devote its opposition day to immigration. We unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to review its immigration targets for 2024, after consulting Quebec, and the provinces and territories, to verify their integration capacities in terms of housing, health, education, francization and transportation infrastructures. The aim was obviously to ensure successful immigration.

Today, we remember this vote because despite the fact that the vote of November 1 was unanimous, less than an hour later, the Minister of Immigration left the House to announce new immigration thresholds of 500,000 new immigrants, without consulting Quebec. It would be hard to believe that he could have held a proper consultation in less than an hour before announcing these new thresholds. In fact, this borders on perjury after voting with everyone in favour of our motion.

We are back at it today because there is currently a fundamental problem in the Quebec nation, but also in Canada: our integration capacity has been exceeded in housing, health care, education and francization structures. At some point, this no longer works.

We are calling on the government to sit down with the different provinces and territories and ask them for their respective integration capacities. Once the government has their integration capacities, it will have to provide a revised plan for its measures within 100 days to have the 2024 immigration plan truly correspond to the integration capacities of each.

The much-touted target of 500,000 immigrants that the minister mentioned is essentially what the century initiative policy is all about. This policy was put forward by Dominic Barton who was, at that time, head of both the consulting firm McKinsey and the Canadian finance minister's advisory council on economic growth. The initiative's goal was for Canada to reach a population of 100 million by 2100. At the rate the Liberals are going, we will reach that goal much sooner.

There is this vision that Canada is going to become a bigger country with a large population. Therefore, we need to bring in as many people as possible to grow the economy, with more people and more demand. They are right about the demand; there is indeed more of it.

When the Bloc Québécois devoted an opposition day to the Century Initiative on May 11, 2023, and said that it did not reflect Quebeckers, the Liberals replied that it was not their policy. However, when you look at their actions, that is exactly their policy and that is exactly the direction they are taking as a government. In fact, it is a bit like someone going to see their doctor and saying, hand on heart, that they no longer smoke, that they have quit and are done with cigarettes, when all the while they are smoking a pack a day in secret. That is more or less it. Basically, the Liberals are saying that it is not their policy, but in reality, that is what they are doing as a policy.

Why do we oppose the Century Initiative, the Liberals' secret policy? It might be interesting for people who may be watching us to understand that it is simply because Quebec's current capacity to integrate immigrants has been exceeded. We are in the middle of a housing and inflation crisis, and our schools, day cares and hospitals are overflowing. The pool is overflowing, but the Liberals want to put more water in it.

Canada is truly delusional in its ideology, which obviously comes from the Liberal Party. Their vision of the world is one of massive, uncontrolled immigration, and there are absolutely no facts or data that could stop them from moving in that direction.

I might try to illustrate this for the people watching our debates. These 100 million people, this direction Canada wants to take and this famous Century Initiative, are they really the cure-all? Will Canada automatically become twice as rich or much richer just because it has a population of 100 million?

What are the famous countries that have at least 100 million people on the planet? Among those that have a population of more than 100 million we have China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Ethiopia, Japan, the Philippines, Egypt, Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Anyone who knows the financial reality or the GDP per capita of these countries will never claim that they will become fabulously rich. In fact, when we look at the GDP per capita of these countries according to the World Bank, we see the following numbers: China, $21,500; India, $8,400; Indonesia, $14,600; Pakistan, $6,400; Brazil, $34,000; Nigeria, $5,800; Bangladesh, $7,400; Russia, $36,600; Mexico, $21,500; Ethiopia, $2,800; Japan, $45,500; the Philippines, $10,000; Egypt, $15,100; Vietnam, $13,400; and the Democratic Republic of Congo, $1,300. We are talking about GDP per capita: in the Democratic Republic of Congo, people live on $1,300.

Almost all of the countries that I named, except the the United States, are poorer than we are in terms of GDP per capita. Is having a population of 100 million really an automatic cure-all? I think that the numbers are clear and that the answer is no. We are not going to become wealthier by bringing in more people. We need to bring them in the right way, in the right circumstances. We need to have the infrastructure to support this population increase.

Like everyone else, immigrants need to eat and so they go to the grocery store. They need a place to live so they look for a house or an apartment. They need care when they get sick and so they go to the hospital. They need schools and day cares for their children. Every time we add a person, we put more pressure on those services.

There comes a time when everything reaches a breaking point, but that is not the villainous immigrant's fault. If everything is reaching a breaking point, that is the fault of the person who let that immigrant in. They knew full well that everything had reached the breaking point. This notorious person—or, in this case, group of people—is the government in power, sitting there on the other side of the House, the Liberal Party.

Bringing in people who will not have a roof over their heads and who are going to have to go to food banks to feed themselves is not having a vision for society, at all. In fact, it is deeply irresponsible.

I will continue by sharing a few numbers. In 2007, there were 47,000 temporary immigrants in Quebec. Today, there are 470,000, an explosive increase. In Canada, there are 2.5 million temporary immigrants. In 2023, the Canadian population grew by more than 1 million people. However, while the population increased by 1 million, barely 150,000 housing units were built. Clearly, 150,000 housing units for 1 million people is not going to work. People do not need a Ph.D. in mathematics to understand that this does not work. In Quebec, there are about 200,000 new people for approximately 40,000 new homes. That does not work either, and, no matter how hard we try, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that it does work.

Yes, we need to increase the number of housing units being constructed, but members will understand that it is impossible to maintain the thresholds that would mean taking in the same number of people that we did last year. The current policy is unsustainable.

That is why Premier Legault, from the Quebec government, wrote to the federal government not long ago to let it know that there is a problem. At the beginning of the school year last year, there was a shortage of 8,500 teachers in Quebec schools. We had to run 1,150 new emergency classes to receive new students, integration classes for people who are new to the country. That is the equivalent of 50 elementary schools. That is a lot of people, and it obviously puts a strain on our system.

When the Bloc Québécois talks about immigration, the Liberals and some of the other parties like to say that we are talking about immigration because we do not like immigrants. That must be true; I dislike immigrants so much that I am having children with one. My wife is an immigrant. My two daughters are actually immigrant girls, because I had two daughters with my wife, who is an immigrant. The truth is that I am always very happy to learn about the stories of people who arrive here after having travelled all over the world to come and meet us and discover our nation. As a member of Parliament, I organize receptions to welcome these newcomers who are settling here. People who come here need to be properly welcomed in French, but unfortunately, that is not what Canada offers them.

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

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat concerning, when listening to the member. I do not believe we should, in any way, try to blame immigration as being an issue, as the Conservatives attempted to with regard to crime or housing. There is a great deal of co-operation between the provinces and Ottawa. I will use the example I used earlier: the provincial nominee program, which is driven by provinces. It continues to increase in numbers as there is demand from provinces and territories that indicates they would like to receive more.

Is the member suggesting we reduce the provincial nominee category? Are there specific categories that the Bloc would advocate to be reduced?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find the question from my colleague across the way to be rather hypocritical. It speaks to his government's vision. Immigration for the Liberals is like oil for the Conservatives. They always want more and there is no limit.

My colleague is asking me whether the provinces that want more immigrants can have more. The answer is of course they can. Our motion does not seek to prevent the other provinces that want more immigrants from having more. Our motion seeks to have the federal government consult its counterparts before setting its targets and ensuring that the targets take into account the integration capacity of each province. That means not improvising targets that do not correspond to the integration capacities of the provinces. We are not intentionally exacerbating the existing problem.

It is simple: What we want is to be respected. We want the people we receive back home to be properly received.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, several times today, Liberal members mentioned consultation. Several times, they gave the impression that there had been consultations about the cap on the number of foreign students before decisions were taken and the Minister of Immigration made his announcements.

From what I gather from the different provinces, universities and colleges, there were no consultations. The federal government simply gave a directive.

I would like my colleague to ponder this question: Before capping the number of foreign students, did the Minister of Immigration hold consultations or did he simply give a directive?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, there were no consultations. Second, it really is a directive. Actually, it is more than a directive. It is interference, because education, schools, universities, CEGEPs and elementary schools all fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and the Quebec nation.

When the federal government starts saying that it is going to limit the number of students Quebec can have in its schools, it is limiting Quebec's decision-making capacity in its own jurisdiction. That is obviously extremely problematic. It is up to the Government of Quebec to set its thresholds for temporary immigrants, temporary workers, asylum seekers, family reunification and economic immigration. It is up to Quebec to make its own decisions, and it is the federal government's job to respect those decisions.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that, after serving newcomers to Canada for over eight years in my previous position, immigrants to Canada are some of the most amazing, hard-working and dedicated future Canadians anyone could see. What concerns me is that, during these times of change, often immigrants are targeted and blamed for challenges we have in our country. I am sadly seeing that happen around the housing crisis.

Does the member agree that the housing crisis will not be solved by pointing blame at immigrants, but rather by stopping corporate profiteering by wealthy landlords?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, the kind of debate we are having today is a good opportunity to clarify a few things and explain the data and the facts, rather than engage in the kind of extreme polarization that pegs people as nice when they want higher targets or as nasty xenophobes when they want lower targets. In reality, it is much more complex. For example, it is important to have a good sense of Quebec's capacity to help people learn French and of how many people it can realistically integrate, given its existing infrastructure.

People who come here must not feel guilty, nor must they be attacked just for coming here. People must feel welcome, and we must do everything we can to set them up for success from the get-go.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to our opposition motion today. I really want to clarify that today's topic is successful immigration. That is what we want. Our motion today is not anti-immigration, far from it. On the contrary, it seeks to bring in newcomers decently and properly, with class and dignity.

I heard a lot of things today, but no one has spoken about one aspect that I would like to remind members of. We are talking about people who are leaving their home country. It is not easy for people to leave the place where they were born. It requires huge sacrifices. The people who leave do so for good reason. They often leave their country to come here under circumstances that make it hard for them to find a job and that leave them with a low income. Often first-generation newcomers make that sacrifice for their children. That is noble and it deserves respect. They deserve to be decently received. A few minutes ago, someone pointed out that immigrants are excellent workers, dedicated people who will give body and soul and who will work hours and hours each week to improve their situation and that of their children and descendants.

That is why I want to say that it is a crime to bring them into the country and not take care of them. I am ashamed to know that there are asylum seekers living on the streets of Montreal. That does not make any sense in a G7 country. That is why we are moving this motion again today and we are asking the government, not to decide everything or to stop immigration, but to sit down with the provinces and Quebec and to respect the provinces' integration capacity.

There is even a Liberal member who had the nerve to say earlier that the provinces and Quebec are in the best position to set their integration capacity. I certainly hope so. That is what we are saying. What is wrong with working together? Why is starting a discussion a problem? We ask questions just about every day during question period. We are told that they are working hand in hand and that they have no business working together with the Bloc Québécois because they are working together with the Quebec government. How is it, then, that the Quebec government is reduced to complaining publicly about the fact that Ottawa is disrespectful and is not listening? I would appreciate it if someone could explain that to me.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to ask me a question about this. I want him to explain it to me as part of his question. They say they are working with the provinces. Why then did Quebec's premier have to write a letter that was published in the newspapers? Are people here laughing at us? Our approach is compassionate. It is about respecting people. It is about respecting integration, our institutions and our capacity as a country. Everything is working fine for the federal government. It sets the threshold at 500,000 newcomers per year and wants to reach a population of 100 million. However, the federal government is not the one taking on this responsibility.

Earlier, someone listed all the hundreds of millions of dollars and the billions of dollars that have been given for so many years under the agreement with Quebec on immigration. I should hope so, since we entered into that agreement because of the work we are doing. As we know, Canada has a revenue problem. The federal government collects half the taxes, but it does not take on half of the responsibilities. In fact, it is not even fulfilling the responsibilities that it does have.

My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères reminded me of a very good example, namely shoreline erosion. Navigation is a federal responsibility. The federal government has been ignoring this file since the 1990s, leaving people to deal with their problems on their own. It is doing this in several sectors.

There is no foresight, no planning. The government decides that this is what it is doing and opens the floodgates. However, it has not looked into how we can integrate these people into our social systems.

I want to talk about community organizations. I see this as subcontracting on the cheap by governments, at both levels. These organizations do critically important work and are often forced to allocate half of their human resources to looking for grant programs and filling out paperwork in order to please the other levels of government. Instead, these people should be providing direct services to the disadvantaged people they serve.

I really admire these people. I admire them so much. I would also like to salute them, on the off chance some of them are listening.

Someone was saying that the Bloc Québécois saw immigration as a problem. No, immigration is not a problem. It is even a solution for a number of things, including labour. It is not the only solution, but it is one of the solutions. I have colleagues who proposed other solutions also, such as tax credits for people 65 and up.

Immigration is not a problem. The problem is the Liberal government's management. That is a seriously big problem. They do not see the costs coming. They do not plan because it is not sexy to say that now is the time to invest to be able to welcome people in five or 10 years. It is not politically expedient, so they just open the gates. What we are asking the government today, is to respect the people who actually do the work of integrating newcomers. We are calling on the government to sit down with them and talk to them.

Earlier, I started talking about the $470 million for asylum seekers. This week, Quebec was told to stop complaining because we are so lucky and they are going to give us $100 million for temporary housing. That is another topic. We do not mind getting $100 million. Still, there is a lot of debate in the House. It may look good for the government to give us $100 million. The Liberals are pros at that kind of thing. They stand up and say that they have always been there, that they have handed over $100 million, and so on. That $100 million will cover about 27.6% of the total amount that has been spent on temporary housing.

The thing is, we take in more than half the asylum seekers. They think we should be happy to get 27%. No, we are not happy. We are saying, fine, we will take it, but we need more. The other $470 million is still up in the air. We are talking federal responsibility. Do not tell me the feds give Quebec money every year for the Quebec-Canada agreement. I explained that a few minutes ago. That is a separate thing.

Why do we need to shout ourselves hoarse here for months just to get the government to give us the bare minium? We are tired of that. Then, some members are surprised that there is group of people, which seems to be growing, who are convinced that Quebec would manage its affairs better on its own because it would control all of its tax revenue. We would not always be required to get down on our knees and beg just to get back a fraction of the half that we sent to Ottawa or to try to make do with 27%, when we should be getting more.

That is the problem. It is policies, it is predictability, it is our systems, including the education system. Quebec recently went through some very arduous strikes in the education sector. I am a teacher. I was a teacher for 25 years. If those people were willing to walk the picket line for more than 20 days, that means things are pretty bad. We have problems. Now they are being told that it is no big deal and they have to take in more people.

It is not that immigration is a problem, but we have to look at how we can take these people in. It is important to respect local authorities, sit down and work together, instead of constantly telling us they are working hand in hand. I am not even sure what they mean by “hand in hand”. If they are working hand in hand, why does the Premier of Quebec have to write letters to the media? It makes no sense.

We are urging the government to be reasonable. The government should sit down with the provinces, the territories and Quebec for a genuine conversation and ask them how best to proceed.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member say that Quebec manages its own affairs better and that immigration in the Canada-Quebec accord has been and continues to be managed by the Province of Quebec.

I would like to know how successful that management has been during the last several years. Do the housing, manufacturing and tourism sectors in Quebec have adequate numbers of skilled immigrants, as required for their needs? What has been the success in those fields?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague asks a very interesting question. We have a lot of success in Quebec. I invite him to observe the situation in Quebec. In a bunch of sectors, we are still ahead of the rest of Canada. I am not saying that to put down the other provinces. Let us think of child care, or of immigrant integration levels.

Quebeckers make up one of the most welcoming societies in the world. It has been one of the most mixed societies since its establishment. Last week, we celebrated Polish heritage. These people arrived during the time of New France. Immigration did not start with the great Canada of the 2000s. People have been coming to Quebec for a long time and we have always been capable of living well with them.

What I was saying is that it is an administrative issue. We always have to fight for resources to manage what should be managed by Quebec. When it comes to federal jurisdictions, it is even worse because we are delegated responsibilities, but we are not given the necessary funding. That is what I was saying.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out the reality of the impacts of leaving one's homeland.

Does the Bloc agree with the NDP that the answer to respecting immigrants is to stop pointing fingers at them and instead address corporate greed and profiteering in Canada's housing sector and beyond?