Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Beloeil—Chambly, who is the sponsor of this motion, we welcome this request for an amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for her speech. I think that she is not only a person who is easy to work with on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, but one who also knows everything there is to know about Canada's immigration system and all of its programs. She truly has a sound knowledge of the subject, and I wanted to say so today in the House.

That being said, we welcome the amendment tabled in relation to our motion. I get the feeling that the Conservatives will agree with us on this point, and that the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will all vote in favour of our motion on immigration, which leads me to believe that the Liberal government will have no choice but to also vote in favour of the motion.

My question to the member for Vancouver East is simple: When there is a coalition like this between the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, does that not prove that it is the Liberals who are the problem when it comes to immigration?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his collaborative approach. I enjoy working with him at the immigration committee and most certainly in the House as well.

On the question around immigration, there are issues that need to be addressed, and we need to ensure that in addressing these issues, newcomers are not to blamed.

I hope the amended motion is passed in the House. I have no idea where the Liberal government members are going to go. I have no idea where the Conservatives are going to go. They did not indicate in this debate that they would actually support it. I would wait to see, and I do hope that the motion passes.

It is very important to make sure that proper processes are in place, that proper resources are in place and that proper information is in place. The issue around the gap between what is needed for provinces, Quebec and the territories, and what the resources are from the federal government needs to be in place and needs to be put on the table so that newcomers are not being blamed for the problems, the housing crisis and others, that Canadians are faced with.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the member opposite over the last half hour or so. On the issue of immigration, I am very much interested in knowing the NDP's position on overall numbers that they would like to see come to Canada. She indicated, very clearly, that temporary foreign workers who come to Canada should be granted permanent resident status. She also indicated that an unlimited number of international students should be allowed to come to Canada.

I am wondering if she could share with us two things. Should international students also be provided with assurances that they could become permanent residents. If so, when she factors that into the number of permanent residents through the temporary foreign workers program, what is the target goal, the overall number of immigrants in any given year? Does the NDP have one?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The NDP has always stood and supported the principle that if one is good enough to work, one is good enough to stay. If one is good enough to study here, one is good enough to stay. That principle ought to apply.

The truth of the matter is this: between successive Liberal and Conservative governments, they have brought a significant number of people with temporary status, whether they are students or workers, to the tune of over half a million people, over 500,000 people and counting, into the country without permanent status.

Those individuals are subject to exploitation, and we know that. The government knows that. What are they doing about it? Not a heck of a lot. It is time to recognize them and to give them full status so that we can ensure that exploitation is eliminated for these individuals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to get a specific answer, is the member clearly saying that if one comes to Canada to study and one comes to Canada as a foreign worker, one should be granted permanent resident status?

If she is saying that, and that is what I am hearing, then does the NDP have any sort of limits they would put on the numbers that they would allow in every year? A clear answer, I believe, is owed to Canadians on that question.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what is owed to Canadians. The government brings in immigration policies that set people up for exploitation. The government brings in immigration policies that blame newcomers for the problems it has created. Look at what has happened with the international students. Who is the government blaming? It is blaming international students for exploitation. What sort of joke is this?

The government is proceeding accordingly because of what it is. That tells us a whole lot about who the Liberals are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît, who is also my treasured whip. One must always be kind to one's whip.

The federal government needs to revise its immigration targets if it wants to build a successful immigration model and make sure that newcomers find favourable living conditions here. On its opposition day on Tuesday, October 31, 2023, the Bloc Québécois invited elected officials from all parties represented in the House to vote in favour of its motion asking the federal government to revise its immigration targets after consultation, of course, with Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

Today, the Bloc Québécois reiterates this invitation and asks the House to reaffirm its unanimous vote on November 1, 2023, calling on the government “to review its immigration targets starting in 2024, after consultation with Quebec, the provinces and the territories, based on their integration capacity…all with a view to successful immigration.” Also, the Bloc Québécois “call[s] on the Prime Minister to convene a meeting with his counterparts in Quebec, the provinces and the territories in order to consult them on their respective integration capacities”. Finally, it asks that the government “table in the House, within 100 days, a plan for revising federal immigration targets in 2024, based on the integration capacity of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.”

There is no doubt that Quebec and the provinces are in the best position to understand their reality on the ground. Considering their integration capacity for health, education, language and housing services is a necessity to build a successful immigration model and to ensure that newcomers can find good living conditions here, with us. Ottawa must respect our integration capacity.

Quebec is generous and welcoming. What we want is for all newcomers to be received in the right way, with access to housing, health care, child care and education services and, of course, to French-language training so that they can fully integrate with us and become “us” as well. Basically, what we want is to have the means to welcome everyone through the front door and with the dignity and respect they deserve.

What is unfortunate, for lack of a better word, is that the Liberals, at the exact same time that they were supporting the Bloc Québécois motion for successful immigration, unveiled new immigration targets that they set without consulting Quebec. On November 1, 2023, the federal government announced new targets without knowing if new immigrants would have access to housing, health care, child care, education and French-language training services. It is too bad for the federal government, but the Bloc Québécois will not let that slide.

Recently, the Premier of Quebec wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada mainly to address the issue of asylum seekers. Let us be clear: This issue is also linked to Quebec's integration capacity. Support organizations are overwhelmed. Quebec alone welcomed over 55% of all asylum seekers in Canada. That is a major financial burden. By the way, Quebec is still awaiting the reimbursement of the $470 million it had to spend to welcome these asylum seekers, which is a federal jurisdiction. As usual, the federal government cloaked itself in virtue and announced a $100-million payment, thinking that would silence Quebec. I do not think it is the responsible thing to do.

As members know, I love democracy. It is normal and healthy, in a democratic Parliament such as ours, to hold public debates on important subjects that shape our future. It is also essential for the government to consider the requests of the opposition parties, just as we must also respect differences of opinion. Understandably, I am not here today to play politics at the expense of the lives of migrants and asylum seekers. On the contrary, I believe that, as a parliamentarian, it is more than necessary to rise to the occasion and be there for the most vulnerable and those who are seeking a better life.

The migration path is not easy. It is often costly and sometimes perilous. In the face of such a situation, it is our duty to be responsible and worthy of the trust of people who leave their homes and travel a long distance with their families and children in the hope of finding a host community and happier days. The problem is that the federal government is not giving Quebec a chance to keep doing what it is doing. Quebec has far exceeded the capacity it considers essential to welcome immigrants with dignity.

Since the House came back, we have been called every name in the book, but “armchair quarterbacks” has to be the most ridiculous one. Unfortunately, that shows the level of respect this government has for opposition parties, such as the Bloc Québécois, here in the House. They wave us off, call us names and use the typical Canadian insult that Quebeckers are always looking for a fight. Worse still, they turn a deaf ear when we speak. From what I understand, that is also how the federal government treats the Quebec government when it comes to discussing immigration thresholds.

Yesterday, Quebec's immigration, francization and integration minister said that Quebec is at its “breaking point” and that “the situation has become unsustainable”. It has gotten to the point where, as we speak, the people on the other side of the bridge are considering holding a referendum to repatriate immigration powers in full.

Do I really need to explain my position on this? The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of what is good for Quebec and we will always support what is good for Quebec. If Quebec's relationship with the federal government is as good as the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship claims, if things really are that good with Quebec City, which is what he says every time we ask him a question, I think it is time he showed a little more openness. Something tells me that this relationship is in tatters.

Quebec's immigration minister said yesterday that she did not sense any openness on the part of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. That is how the media reported it. Quebec's minister is considering holding a referendum on the issue of whether to repatriate all immigration powers to Quebec. Meanwhile, the minister in Ottawa keeps saying that everything is just hunky-dory, that the relationship is great and that they have had some good discussions. I think I trust the Quebec immigration minister more than the federal immigration minister.

The Bloc Québécois motion that we have brought back again today aims to ensure a better future for all Quebeckers and those who hope to become Quebeckers. It cannot be done haphazardly or at any price. It has to be done in a responsible manner by showing newcomers and their families that we can be trusted in Quebec.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois talked about problems with the current immigration system. Here is my question. What would the Bloc Québécois's plan be if Quebec were responsible for immigration?

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

Mr. Speaker, my plan is for Quebec to have full authority over immigration. It is not complicated. I have never heard a Conservative member tell me whether they agree with Quebec's immigration minister, so the next time a Conservative member rises to ask me a question, I would like them to answer the following question. Do the Conservatives agree that Quebec should have full authority over immigration?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a Leger survey, 70% of Quebeckers believe that the Quebec government should do more to increase the pool of available workers through economic immigration. Does the Bloc Québécois agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer by repeating what the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said. If the Quebec government wants to grow the labour pool or totally control economic immigration, it first has to have all immigration powers.

Let us take the example of temporary foreign worker program. People say that Quebec has complete control of this type of immigration and its labour force, but that is not true. The largest portion of foreign workers in Quebec are here through the international mobility program, which is under the control of the federal government.

As a result, at the economic level, and even when it comes to temporary foreign workers, it is not true that Quebec is in control. I think that that is perfectly normal. This Parliament recognized that Quebec is a nation. A nation should be in control of all immigration powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that through the expansion, in particular with Jean Chrétien back in 1998 and the provincial nominee program, it sent a very clear message that we do need, from an Ottawa perspective, to continue to work with the provincial jurisdictions. I think Quebec was the model province at the time, and it continues to be in many ways in regard to immigration, but there is a need for people to be working together.

Does the member agree with the NDP position that temporary workers should be given permanent residence status? If not, why not?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

We had this debate in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and I do not agree 100% with the NDP's proposal. However, there are things we can look at. Recently, the Union des producteurs agricoles proposed facilitating access to permanent resident status for temporary foreign workers in the agriculture sector.

As people can see, I agree with my NDP colleagues on some things, but not all. Once again, as I said earlier and I will say again, if Quebec had all immigration powers, the question would not have been asked, since there would not be a Bloc Québécois immigration critic. There would be no need for one.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his speech.

He spoke about the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship's very scathing tone towards the Bloc Québécois. He called us armchair quarterbacks. Politicians have a thick skin and are capable of handling such insults, but the problem is that if the minister is busy insulting us, it means he is not dealing with the situation.

Meanwhile, it is the immigrants who suffer the most. There was a report last week of an asylum seeker who said he was afraid for himself and his nine-year-old daughter, because they were on the verge of having to live on the streets.

Does my colleague agree with me that, while the minister is serving up insults, there are real people suffering as a result of his inaction and irresponsible decisions?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

There is a management problem at the immigration department and it starts at the top. It actually starts with the Minister of Immigration, whose scathing, abrasive and disrespectful tone is unbecoming of his position. Consequently, the debate on immigration, which should be sensitive, responsible and impartial, sometimes winds up going downhill.

Things must not be going too well, since this is the third immigration minister since 2019. How is this department going to recover? Let me be clear: The federal immigration department is probably the most dysfunctional department in the Canadian government. That said, replacing the captain every six months because things are not going well is not going to stop the ship from sinking.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Bloc Québécois opposition day on the important topic of successful immigration.

What can I add to what has been said by the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean? Since he has a strong command of this file and detailed knowledge of the problems, I have decided to speak more specifically about successful immigration and what that means, in practical terms, for my riding. In some of the speeches that I heard this morning, members often had a tendency to talk about successful immigration by presenting statistics and numbers, but today I want to talk about people in my riding.

My riding, Salaberry—Suroît, is part urban, part rural. In other words, there are two large industrial towns and several rural municipalities there. When I talk about the rural reality, I am also talking about a lack of transportation options and a lack of access to local services.

I have been an MP since 2019, but I was also an MP from 2006 to 2011. Since returning to politics, I have noticed that, in my riding, the issue of immigration, the large number of newcomers, is relatively new. We did not have that before. We had a few newcomers, mostly temporary workers. Today, we are very happy to see our communities flourishing. People who come to Salaberry—Suroît contribute to the development of the region by settling there, starting a family, getting a job and sharing their culture. We are one big family. This is something relatively new for us, especially in comparison to Montreal or other major cities, such as Toronto or Vancouver.

All these people coming in are shaking things up. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said, there have been no discussions or conversations between the provincial and federal governments with a view to planning immigration. Successful immigration planning means determining how many people we want to welcome and knowing what our capacity is.

I would like to tell my colleagues a little story. My riding includes an industrial or working-class town called Huntingdon, which is home to a huge processing plant that makes sweet potato fries. This company had to hire temporary workers to keep its plant going. Maison Russet and Les Fermes Valens sought out foreign workers but were very mindful of the quality of their integration. They know that if they welcome temporary foreign workers who want to settle in the community and they help them through the immigration process, these individuals will feel like an integral part of the community and will want to stay in Huntingdon.

Because my riding is in a rural area where immigration is a relatively new phenomenon, we had a collective discusssion about the issue of French integration. Huntingdon has one high school and two elementary schools, but not many local services. Because this huge influx had not been planned or discussed, there were no classes to help the many workers employed at the plant integrate into French-speaking society. When a problem arises, my riding's trademark response is to get together and try to find solutions. We held several meetings and, in the end, it was decided that the best thing to do was to set up French integration services close to where the people were working, so they could access them without needing public transit. That is the challenge we faced. The federal government does not think about planning and has little interest in considering integration capacity, so communities are not equipped to deal with the influx.

We sat down at a table and decided that, since classrooms are usually empty in the evenings, if Arthur Pigeon high school started evening classes, temporary foreign workers could go there at the end of the workday to learn French. We figured that it would take some teachers, some rooms and money to fund the whole thing. We realized that our school had not budgeted for developing a large number of French classes. Again, when we talk about successful immigration, we are mainly talking about discussions around planning immigration levels based on integration capacity.

By having discussions and being innovative, we managed to find rooms and teachers and all of that. Once we had succeeded in setting up French classes thanks to our teamwork, we started thinking about what we would do about the other services these workers and their families need. I am talking about the whole issue of service delivery.

Is there an early childhood centre nearby? Do people have access to transportation to get to these services? It is a complex issue because we are reacting to something that we could have planned for and examined if the government had taken this issue seriously and, above all, if the provinces had been considered major players in analyzing the issue of integration capacity. There is clearly a lack of foresight on the part of the federal government. The provinces do not have enough money to welcome immigrants, but immigrants are the primary victims of this lack of planning.

That is why the Bloc Québécois believes that, in order for immigration to be successful, the federal government must stop acting like the big boss and making all the decisions without considering the provinces, without bringing them to the table. The federal government must agree to listen and find solutions. In today's motion, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a solution. The motion was amended with very specific timelines. We are waiting for the government to come up with concrete proposals to measure the quality of each province's integration capacity and therefore measure the integration capacity of Canada as a whole.

I said that the primary victims of the failure to plan for integration quality or integration capacity are the immigrants themselves. I will provide some statistics. I said I would not, but I cannot help myself.

How long does it take to process an application for permanent residency, say, for someone who shows up at our office and is waiting for permanent residency? Right now, it takes 11 months to obtain permanent residency.

How long does it take to complete the family reunification process? It takes 34 months.

How long does a refugee or asylum seeker have to wait for their work permit? When they arrive here, they do not have a work permit and they cannot work without one. The answer is, it takes too long.

As a federal MP who represents a riding that wants the best for immigrants and wants them to immigrate successfully, I urge all my colleagues in the House to support the Bloc Québécois's opposition motion to revise immigration targets from 2024 onward after consulting with Quebec, the provinces and the territories, based on their own integration capacity in terms of housing, health care, education, French-language learning and transportation infrastructure, to ensure a genuinely successful and respectful immigration process for the human beings we want to welcome to Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively quick question.

Given the nature of the matter we are discussing, could the member give a clear indication of whether she or her party actually consulted with the Government of Quebec with respect to what they are proposing?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which strikes me as quite partisan.

The Bloc Québécois has raised an issue that is of concern to all the provinces, and one on which there is consensus this morning. I guess the member did not have a chance to read the Journal de Montréal, which very clearly indicated that both Quebeckers and Canadians think that Quebec and the provinces really need to sit down at the same table because everyone has a say. We often talk about two solitudes, but in this case, everyone is on the same page. Everyone agrees that we need to find the solution to successful immigration together. The people who would benefit most from that kind of democratic exercise would be immigrants themselves.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard someone say today that there is a shortage of services for French language training in Montreal, in the riding of the member who gave her speech. What can the government do to increase services?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her question, because it is a great question.

The federal government owes Quebec $470 million, so paying that back would be a good place to start. Quebec would then have the money and financial flexibility needed to be able to increase services.

We know that integration capacity is a complicated and complex issue. We also know that, although we do not have all the solutions, funding is needed to increase services to give newcomers everything they need to have a successful immigration experience and want to stay.

The people I find the most courageous are those who leave their country and their families behind, who arrive here hoping for a better life, but then face inhumane bureaucracy and endless delays in accessing services or obtaining a work permit or any other documents required to successfully integrate into our communities.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît, our party whip, for her speech, which was very compassionate. She clearly explained the full continuum of services that we need to provide to ensure that these people who enrich our communities are welcomed in a compassionate way. I am experiencing the same thing in my riding.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I would like my whip to talk more about the fact that we cannot reduce the immigration issue to a simple matter of housing. It is much more than that. It is a full continuum of services, including health care services, for which the government needs to increase transfers, and day care services.

We cannot reduce immigration to a matter of housing or say that immigration alone is responsible for the housing crisis. That is not true. It goes beyond that.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford for her question. I know she is very attuned to this issue as well.

When we welcome around 40 students from francophone African countries and we are so happy to have them in Salaberry—Suroît because they speak French and they want to study to become nurses and contribute to our health care system, it breaks my heart to know that they get here but do not have everything they need for a successful immigration experience. Some are forced to rely on donated clothing or food banks, some need help moving house, and some have nowhere to live or are forced to share an overcrowded home.

In all sincerity, I cannot imagine the government not voting for the Bloc Québécois motion. It makes sense, and it is specifically targeted to newcomers, who are human beings who need to be taken care of.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the member for London West.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his interest in the role the federal and Quebec governments play in setting objectives for welcoming new permanent residents to Canada. When we talk about immigration policies, we often forget that these decisions have a real impact on the lives of individuals here, in Canada, but also abroad. These decisions have an impact on lives, today, and for generations to come. It is important that we continue to have these conversations on this very important issue. Anyone who has ever attended a citizenship ceremony certainly knows all the work that permanent residents have to do to become citizens. They have seen the joy on their faces when they swear the oath of citizenship and continue to build their life with their family in Canada.

Over the past few years, Canada has undergone many changes, and immigration has taken on new importance. The 2021 census clearly shows that Canada's population is aging. Immigration is now the main driver of population growth and workforce stability. Many people may not realize that young families, students and workers from other countries who choose to come to Canada play a vital role in our daily lives and in our country's growth. Canadians are living longer, and families are having fewer children. Fifty years ago, the ratio of workers to retirees was 7 to 1. A lot has changed since then. Today, that ratio is almost 3 to 1. The Globe and Mail recently reported that Canada's fertility rate hit its lowest level ever in 2022. Unless we bring in more newcomers, that rate will hover around 2 to 1 in the decades to come. This outcome would put additional pressure on our key infrastructure and programs, such as health care and education, and expose them to undue risk.

When the hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced Canada's latest immigration levels plan, he said that the government was stabilizing future immigration targets to ensure that housing and social services were available to all Canadians and newcomers. These immigration levels will help us take in the skills and talent needed to fill labour shortages and support Canada's economic prosperity, while helping reunite families and enabling us to remain a global leader in refugee resettlement. Immigration levels are part of a long-term strategy focused on economic growth, with the economic category accounting for approximately 60% of permanent resident admissions.

According to Statistics Canada, in the third quarter of 2023, there were nearly 180,000 job vacancies in Quebec. This includes over 44,000 vacancies in the health care sector. In addition, the labour shortage in Quebec's manufacturing sector is costing the economy $7 billion. I had the opportunity to travel around Quebec by bicycle this summer. Everywhere I went, I saw signs that read “we are hiring”. I have to wonder why the Bloc Québécois moved this motion, which essentially calls on the federal government to reduce its immigration targets, when the facts show that Canada and Quebec still face labour shortages that are affecting small businesses across the country. Are they rooting for economic stagnation?

The federal government recognizes the need to align our immigration levels with the needs and capacity of newcomers in communities across the country, including in Quebec. Of course, we did not arrive at our goals by accident. Our government consulted widely on the number of permanent residents that the Government of Canada should intake and on the balance between the different categories of newcomers. We sought the views and priorities of federal partners, regional representatives, provinces and territories, indigenous communities, stakeholders and the general public. These immigration levels will help set the pace of Canada's economic and population growth while mitigating its impact on key systems such as infrastructure and housing.

These levels also maximize the economic and social benefits of immigration that will be felt in all regions of Canada, including in francophone communities outside Quebec. In my riding of Milton, we have a vibrant francophone community. There are wonderful French-language schools and an extraordinary francophone community. I would therefore like to take a moment to applaud our government's commitment to supporting francophone communities outside Quebec by increasing francophone immigration outside Quebec to 6% of total immigration in 2024, 7% in 2025 and 8% in 2026.

The Minister of Immigration also recently announced a new francophone immigration policy that will attract talented francophone workers from around the world, which will contribute to the economic and cultural development of francophone minority communities. For example, thanks to recent changes to the express entry program, we were able to invite more than 1,500 trade workers from abroad, including those who can help build new homes across Canada to relieve the pressure on our housing system.

Under the Canada-Quebec Accord on immigration, Quebec has rights and responsibilities concerning the number of immigrants who come to Quebec and how they are selected, received and integrated. Canada sets the annual number of immigrants for the country based on how many immigrants Quebec wishes to take in. Quebec is solely responsible for selecting its economic and humanitarian immigrants and for applying the federal selection criteria for family reunification. The federal government is responsible for selecting and admitting family class applicants.

This means that in planning for future immigration levels, we will develop a more integrated plan to balance immigration with housing, health care and infrastructure needs across federal departments, as we work with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

The truth is that a newcomer's potential is much greater than the sum of their present circumstances. We must measure the benefits of immigration in terms of generations. A child who arrives in Canada today may become the inventor, the leader, the athlete, the nurse or the entrepreneur of tomorrow, or even a volunteer who supports and inspires future immigrants.

Let us not forget what the government said earlier. We need newcomers as much as they need us, and our current immigration levels reflect that reality. Canada will continue to be a welcoming country that understands the benefits of immigration and provides a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, war and upheaval. We will continue to benefit from the diversity and openness of our communities. These are just some of the reasons why Canada is one of the best destinations in the world for people from all walks of life.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the length of time it takes for every kind of immigration permit, whether it is a permanent resident card or a permanent work visa after someone has been a student. It is literally taking years, and the department has increased in size by 50%.

Can the member tell us what exactly the Liberal government will do to bring down wait times?