Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little ironic that the Conservatives are complaining it takes too long, when they cut the public service that we rely on to get wait times down.

It is absolutely essential to make sure the public service has the resources and capacity to ensure that wait times are low and reasonable. At the same time, many constituents rely on good members of Parliament, which I am grateful we have a lot of on this side of the House. Perhaps some well-experienced members on the other side like to cross their arms and say I will be out of a job soon, which is ironic given recent comments by the member.

It is great to hear that Conservatives are on board with immigration and making sure new Canadians get the services they desire.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec experienced a phenomenal 46% increase in non-permanent residents this year. Furthermore, the federal government has allocated only $100 million of the $470 million requested by the Government of Quebec, despite this government's many calls.

What is the government actually doing to prevent Quebec's economic and social collapse? What is it doing to ensure that our plea to improve our immigrants' living conditions is heard?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I had the opportunity to tour Quebec by bicycle. My group and I saw a lot of signs posted by small businesses saying, “We are hiring”.

Quebec is facing a shortage of workers. We have to ensure the vitality of our economy and small businesses. It is important for workers to live and work in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, Northern College in my region has had extraordinary success with relations with international students. So many students have come here, gotten an education and helped build our economy. Now we suddenly have an arbitrary cap that is having a huge impact not just on the college but also on all area businesses that rely on students who come here, get educated and want to stay. As well, of course, it has a huge impact on the students themselves.

Instead of one size fits all, is the Liberal government willing to address the obvious fault in its plan in order to make sure regions like mine and colleges like Northern College are not unfairly impacted by the new cap?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is very important.

Conestoga College, Wilfrid Laurier University and McMaster are in my region. All of them rely on international students, as does our economy. However, some less-reputable colleges and universities are bringing in students by the tens of thousands, in some cases by the hundreds of thousands, and that is what we need to look at. They arrive with the expectation of a really good education. I am certain the college referenced by my colleague from northern Ontario is a reputable one and an excellent school; however, a lot of colleges are in basements of strip malls, and we need to look at that.

I would note that this is a provincial responsibility, and it is unfortunate that the system has been taken advantage of both by the provinces and by some of the smaller colleges of low reputation.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to provide my colleagues with information on how the federal government works with its provincial, territorial and municipal partners to welcome and integrate newcomers.

We all know that immigration is one of the defining characteristics of Canada. We are a very welcoming country, where newcomers can feel like they are an integral part of a community. We live in a country where we understand that immigration contributes to the growth of our economy, our diversity and the building of the communities in which we live.

Although our immigration system is considered world class, we are also aware that with nearly 110 million displaced people around the world, we are facing global migration crises. Canada is not alone in feeling the effects.

We also continue to have a significant demand for newcomers, especially for workers who bring the skills and assets needed to meet our country's evolving economic needs, including in the health, construction and technology sectors.

To maintain our position as a world leader and to continue to attract newcomers, the federal government recognizes that we must plan the future of our system to ensure that it is effective, resilient and innovative. That is why Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada launched “an immigration system for Canada's future”, a strategic review of immigration that took place between February and May of last year.

The purpose of this full-scale consultation initiative was to look at the way Canada's immigration policies and programs can promote a common vision for the future of Canada. The minister worked with partners, stakeholders and Canadians from across the country to answer the following questions. What does the future and an immigration system for Canada's future look like? How can we respond to the rapidly changing needs of employers? How can we ensure that newcomers to Canada are able to integrate quickly into our communities?

IRCC inputs from partners, stakeholders and Canadians have enabled us to prepare measures that will improve Canada's immigration system and be implemented through a whole-of-government approach and whole-of-society collaboration. In addition to soliciting input from all regions of the country, we also organized an in-depth session with experts on key issues such as housing and attracting the skills our economy requires.

The impacts that these results will have on the improvement and evolution of our immigration system are invaluable. The findings have revealed a way forward based on three key themes: improving the reception and integration of newcomers, better aligning our immigration objectives with the needs of the Canadian labour market and, most importantly, developing a comprehensive and coordinated plan that brings together all levels of government and partners to ensure that we have services and supports that newcomers actually need and will use.

To improve how we welcome and integrate newcomers, we are working to make our systems easier to use and more responsive to user needs. Clear and predictable decisions will be made based on our service standards, which will help users make informed choices.

We will also continue to work with communities and our partners to ensure that everyone has access to the support services they need to attract and retain newcomers to these communities.

Our immigration level plans play a crucial role in addressing labour shortages. Immigration remains a key tool to ensure that we have enough nurses in our hospitals, trade workers to build new homes as well as tech workers to support our innovative businesses.

By linking sectoral, federal and provincial worker and employer needs strategies to our immigration priorities, not only are we helping to stimulate economic growth, we are also developing a global competitive advantage.

IRCC has launched a new francophone immigration policy to foster the economic development and vitality of francophone minority communities across Canada, like my own. To bolster the presence of French in Canada, we have also renewed and expanded the welcoming francophone communities initiative and are continuing to implement the action plan for official languages. These measures will help increase the demographic weight of francophone communities across Canada.

Immigration is also helping to address labour shortages in the health care sector. On January 15, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages announced a series of measures to accelerate credential recognition for some 6,600 foreign-trained health care professionals.

We know that optimizing our immigration system is not an easy task, but the federal government is determined to continue to work in harmony with the provinces, territories, municipalities and all other partners, to implement innovative, sustainable solutions that will benefit all Canadians.

The federal government is also committed to continuing to advance Canada's humanitarian leadership on the world stage, and to protecting our competitive advantage in attracting the talent and the skills our economy needs, but above all, to welcoming newcomers in a way that reflects the difficult decisions they made to change their lives when they come here.

Thanks to this strategy review, the federal government is now better equipped not only to meet the needs of newcomers in the communities that welcome them, but also to meet the needs of Canadian society as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about the importance of being able to integrate newcomers. That is precisely the crux of our motion. It is to have consultations that will allow for a bit of predictability. What happens is that Canada sets targets, but then we have to try to meet those targets and we realize that we do not have that capacity.

We are not the only ones saying so. CMHC mentioned the number of housing units that would be needed so that they are not in short supply. Academics have talked about the added pressure. Toronto has sounded the alarm. On the ground, we feel that we are not able to meet these targets because integration capacity was not taken into consideration.

What is it about our motion that my colleague does not agree with? What we want is a comprehensive discussion on integrating immigrants, because it is not just a financial issue. It is a matter of ensuring that we can meet the goals my colleague aims for, namely the proper integration of people who have made the difficult choice to leave their previous lives behind to come and find a welcoming country here.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

In my speech, I talked about plans that we are implementing to continue to offer support. We are working in partnership with every sector, including those that provide services to determine how we can increase our services and make them better. That is what I just said in my speech.

We have brought in systems to address this. The government launched this at the beginning of the year and we will continue to ensure that newcomers arriving in Canada, in our communities and our municipalities, get everything they need to lead a good life.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned in her speech that we need nurses and construction workers, and I agree. We are short 100,000 construction workers in Ontario alone, and many thousands of nurses. The Minister of Immigration just made an arbitrary decision to cut, by 50% in Ontario, colleges, which produce nurses, construction workers and those kinds of things.

Would the member commit to take this back to her caucus to try and get exemptions for colleges that are providing housing and adequate support, and producing the nurses and construction workers we need?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we are working with partners, territories, provinces and municipalities to make sure that we are targeting key sectors when we are receiving newcomers, especially through the different measures we have.

I think the minister said he is trying to figure out a way to proportionately move newcomers across the country, not have them in areas where there is already a high concentration. I mentioned in my speech that we are looking at different sectors, such as nursing and construction, that are really key for Canada. That is something we have already started to do.

We will continue to support the minister's work on having our employment sector, which is changing rapidly, continue to respond to those needs through these conversations we are having across the country. He is not cutting. We are putting a pause for the next two years to make sure we are appropriately bringing newcomers into the parts of Canada where they are most needed, and that will have an impact in our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide me with some insights.

We are seeing right now immigrants being blamed for the overcrowded health care system and our lack of housing, when we know what is to blame is consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that have severely underfunded our housing and health care systems. Our provinces and territories need money to provide health care in our provinces.

As such, I am wondering if the member could please share some insights as to when we will see, in health care specifically, our provinces being provided with the funds necessary to provide the health care required. In particular, there was $4.5 billion promised by the Liberals in mental health transfers. We have yet to see that. Our health care system is overloaded. When will we see the appropriate investments being made?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say in this House that immigrants are not to be blamed for any challenges our country faces. The challenges are already embedded here, and when immigrants come they also face challenges similar to those Canadians are facing, so they are not to be blamed for health care issues or housing issues. I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think she knows that health care is in the province, and the federal government has made the investments that continue to support provinces to do so.

We have Conservative premiers across the country whom I have not seen at the table to be able to respond to those questions. I think the questions the member is asking are really good questions that I think the Conservative premiers across the country can answer as well.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Saint‑Jean.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to an extremely important issue, a sensitive issue if ever there was one, and I would say that the Bloc Québécois was pretty much the first to raise the integration capacity limit when we began talking about immigration thresholds. As we know, it was a sensitive issue back then. People called us xenophobic. They said we did not like immigrants, and they even called us racists. Obviously, at times all Quebeckers were labelled as such.

However, we need to have a respectful debate in the House on such an important matter. I know that having a respectful debate with the Minister of Justice is like trying to catch a fly with chopsticks. We will still try in the future. By that I mean that the minister himself is not behaving in an extremely honourable manner, despite being called honourable. We would like a respectful debate.

They kind of thought we were out to lunch at a time when, in the context of multiculturalism and a postnational Canada, people were praising mass immigration. We said that maybe people should listen to us and think about integration capacity. Since then, National Bank economists Mr. Marion and Mr. Durocher have said that population growth is too high compared to absorption capacity. That sounds a bit like what we were saying, that the demand for housing was much higher than the supply, that there were shortages.

Some people say that a country's production, its GDP, is the most important thing. Obviously, if Canada's population continues to increase, the GDP will increase as well. Are we really richer? What actually reflects the wealth of a country, a people, the individuals who make up that nation, is GDP per capita. In Canada, GDP per capita has stagnated for the past six years. We are not getting richer. Why is that? Because our production capacities are not high enough in terms of fixed capital to enable newcomers to bring high productivity. We are limited. That has to do with integration capacity.

Soon after that, CMHC said that there was a housing shortage. It said that 3.5 million units needed to be built by 2030 because of immigration, which is extremely important. CMHC said that immigration was leading to housing problems for the entire population. When we talk about housing supply and demand, we never talk in terms of the demand arising from one particular thing or another. “Demand” refers to the sum of people who want a place to live, a home. It is not broken down into parts. It hardly takes a Ph.D. in mathematics to see that the more people who come to this country, the more the demand for housing rises. That is a no-brainer. The point is to underscore or identify the upward pressure on demand, which leads to a problem that will eventually exacerbate the housing crisis.

Immediately after that, CIBC said that CMHC is already behind the times and that five million housing units will have to be built by 2030. That is more than double the current supply. The University of Waterloo goes on to say that immigration lowers wealth and the per capita GDP. This information comes not from the Bloc Québécois or our leader, but from the University of Waterloo. Then TD Bank chimes in, saying that immigration is causing a sharp increase in demand which, combined with the central bank's interest rate increases, has caused supply to fall, resulting in a shortage of 500,000 housing units in two years.

It is not the Bloc saying this. We are no puppeteers. We do not have puppets all over the place, with a complex network of strings that we would be pulling. We are not the ones saying this. It is TD Bank, National Bank, CMHC, CIBC. Finally, this government's own public service rang the alarm and warned that the immigration policy was making the housing shortage even worse. What was the government's response to that? The Minister of Immigration said that they were going to bring in immigrants who would build their own housing.

Does he realize Bob the Builder is a cartoon, not real life? Does he understand that Bob's little hard hat is not real? That is not how things work. People cannot show up here with good intentions and say they will build their own house. They need land, for starters, and there is no more land around Montreal because of agricultural zoning. People have to find land, but land is hard to come by. They may have to go further afield. Where I live, some people have land, but they no longer have drinking water. That means infrastructure has to be built.

What is Bob the Builder, with his uniform and his toolkit, supposed to do if there is no drinking water? He cannot build a house. He may have no choice but to build one outside the greater Montreal area, but if he wants to work in Montreal, he has a transportation problem, an infrastructure problem. What is he supposed to do, hop on a dragonfly? He has to get to work.

These are all things that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the federal government do not seem to understand. They are ideologues. That is the problem. They are out of touch with reality. They have absolutely no idea what the integration capacity is.

Housing is part of integration capacity. Yes, we can play around with the supply a little, but the demand for housing has skyrocketed because of the Liberals' immigration policies. They also do not manage health care or education. They are not responsible for educating people or providing them with health care services. They have absolutely no idea what that involves. When it comes to French and teaching immigrants French, their policies are making the situation in Quebec worse. In order for immigrants to integrate, they need to speak French.

Those are the realities that the federal government is unaware of. The Liberals should be consulting the provinces and Quebec about those things, but no, they will not. They cannot consult because they know everything. Ottawa knows best, apparently. Since they know everything, they do not need to talk to anyone. However, when it comes time to pay, they do not do so. They pretend they have a hearing problem and look completely taken aback. They are surprised that they have to pay. They have a $470-million debt because Quebec is welcoming their asylum seekers. I say “their” because those asylum seekers are the federal government's responsibility, but the federal government is not paying back its debt.

I imagine that the immigration minister's accountant gets nervous when he sees him coming, thinking to himself that the minister may not be repaying his debts. I do not know. That is not the way to go about making a name for himself or the Prime Minister. He should be more careful.

I have some impressive figures here. In 2023, Quebec had to create 1,150 French-language training classes just to educate newcomers. That is the equivalent of building 50 elementary schools in one year. Those are the kinds of integration issues we are talking about. These people must be integrated. They deserve to have a happy life, one filled with joy and happiness, one that will allow them to flourish.

The government based its decision on McKinsey. The member for Beauport—Limoilou asked Mr. Barton the following:

[Y]ou said earlier that you were concerned about the French issue.

In the Century Initiative and the growth council reports, which of the recommendations address the protection, development and promotion of French in Quebec and Canada?

Here is what Mr. Barton, from McKinsey, had to say:

I think the focus, again on the growth council, was just on economics. It wasn't thinking about the social context. It was on productivity.

Since then, economists have proven that productivity does not increase with increased immigration.

With that, I want to leave the House with this thought. We have a responsibility. We must be compassionate towards the people who arrive here. We have a duty and a responsibility. We must welcome them intelligently. To do that, we must have the necessary integration capacity.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague's speech, especially since we come from the same area and share the same challenges. I imagine that, like me, he is dealing with a number of cases in his office of Canadians and Quebeckers who have married someone abroad and want to bring their spouse to Canada.

I would like his thoughts on that. What does he think of the barriers we see every day in these people's files?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who is from a neighbouring riding, for that question.

Yes, we often get this kind of request. I would say we need to show respect for the people who are making these requests. We should be able to support these people as a condition for welcoming them, and I think this work is generally done quite well. Sometimes it takes a long time, but my office is often able to solve these kinds of problems and make people happier. That much is certain.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the number of public servants in the immigration department, does the hon. member have any idea how many there currently are and whether what he is proposing would create additional layers of bureaucracy that could contribute to a lack of efficiency in the system?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, Canada operates with two levels of government that often fight over jurisdictional issues. In the case of immigration, both levels of government are involved.

To simplify this situation and cut out some of the public service without cutting services, which would be better, responsibility for immigration needs to be transferred to Quebec.

I would go even further. If we want to have a more effective and more responsible public service, if we want to have the same number of services with fewer public servants and therefore save money, then Quebec's independence is a must.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak in French, but it is hard for me. I am sorry.

In Alberta, more specifically in Edmonton Strathcona, we have a fast-growing francophone community. In fact, Edmonton's French quarter is in my riding and the people there add so much to the city.

Does the member not think that we should focus on the objective of francophone immigration and adequate resources instead of targeting immigration levels?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must commend the hon. member on her efforts and the quality of her French. I humbly salute her. I have never been to Edmonton's French quarter. Maybe one day I will go if I am invited.

I must say that it is important that the francophonie be preserved, especially in cases where it is concentrated in neighbourhoods, cities or regions. When we talk about adding resources so we can take in more people, what I want is for every immigrant who arrives here to be able to reach their full potential.

If we want high integration capacity, we need a lot of resources. As I was saying earlier, resources are scarce. Those resources can only go so far. When we talk about land or infrastructure, for public transit or other purposes, the limitations eventually become fairly obvious.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit intimidating to speak after my leader. I will try not to disappoint him so that I can still come to his office when I want to filch some of his almonds.

I was the first to speak last fall during a similar debate on the issue of immigration thresholds and the capacity of Quebec and the provinces to accept immigrants. As the first speaker, I began by expressing the hope that the speeches to come would present arguments rather than lob cheap attacks and insults. I even suggested a list of epithets I hoped not to hear in the course of the day, namely, the words “racist”, “xenophobic” and “anti-immigration”. Unfortunately, it appears I was a lone voice in the wilderness in expressing that hope. It is clear that, since October, the government, and the Minister of Immigration in particular, have not been open to that approach to debating this very important and sensitive issue. We would have liked to see some real openness.

This morning, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, leader of the Bloc Québécois, used an expression that I have used myself, namely, that insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. I am still trying to figure out the government's reasoning for opposing the content of our motion, which I think is extremely thoughtful, balanced, reasonable and focused on something important: the immigrant as a person. Our motion concerns the ability to properly accommodate, integrate and accept the responsibility we take on automatically as soon as we say “welcome”.

The Bloc Québécois's voice is not the only one that has been heard since October. My colleague, the member for La Prairie, spoke about this a bit and I want to as well. Toronto also sounded the alarm by saying that its integration capacity has been far exceeded, that community organizations are at their wits' end, and that shelters are full and lack the funds needed to properly accommodate people. Suddenly, it seems like the issue is getting a little more of the government's attention. When Quebec speaks out, they turn a deaf ear. Toronto, on the other hand, is a little harder to ignore.

My colleague from La Prairie also mentioned banks. They are generally not the first ones to say that we should perhaps reconsider what we do with immigration and review the thresholds. Economic circles are generally pro-mass immigration. However, they have started to say that too much immigration, without taking integration capacity into account, can have an impact. They have begun to worry about the harmful effects of a massive and uncontrolled influx of immigrants that would put pressure on a number of sectors. They focused on housing, and that is what we are hearing a lot about right now, but the problem also extends to the availability and quality of public services.

Academics have also started talking about immigration and integration capacity. For example, Brahim Boudarbat of the school of industrial relations at the Université de Montréal said that, when the population increases, whether it comes from birth, permanent immigration or temporary immigration, the pressure on services and infrastructure increases accordingly. He said that sharp increases reduce the time we have to adjust and, as a result, lead to problems in terms of housing, child care services and hospitals, as we are now seeing. Furthermore, the speed of the increase does not allow us to adjust in real time and provide adequate and appropriate services to the people we are trying to integrate.

As my colleague also mentioned, the CMHC has begun to say that there is a problem with the number of housing units. By 2030, we will need approximately 3.5 million homes based on the higher thresholds the government is anticipating. I understand that it may actually be even more than that. It is impossible to build 3.5 million homes overnight. That takes time.

I would like to remind the House of something. The Bloc Québécois has never said that the housing crisis is caused by newcomers, and we will never say that. Newcomers are among the many victims of the crisis, but they are not responsible for it, just as they are not responsible for the lack of classes for children or for health care service delays. They are victims of these situations.

If we are not responsible for managing the thresholds, we are ultimately responsible for the results, that is, a decline in the quality of services for the population as a whole and, above all, for the most vulnerable, namely immigrants.

Earlier today or yesterday, more people added their voice on the issues of immigration, thresholds, intake capacity and integration. We are talking about regular people. Through a poll, Canadians and Quebeckers conveyed the message that there are in fact problems related to integration capacity. The Leger poll mentions the failure of integration, but we still have to temper the way this discourse is presented. People sometimes say that this is simply anti-immigration rhetoric. However, one thing that comes out of the polls is that Quebeckers recognize the benefits of immigration much more than the people of Canada, particularly when it comes to the economy, labour and the aging population. This led Jean-Marc Léger to say that the fact that Quebeckers want immigration levels to be reviewed is not because they are anti-immigration. On the contrary, it is because they want better services for these people. They want solutions for the people we are welcoming.

In short, all these fine people—the banks, the mayor of Toronto, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, academics and the general public—started to say something more or less similar to what the Bloc is saying. That is quite a few people for the Minister of Immigration to insult instead of making arguments. I hope that as time goes by, the minister will calm down and come up with real answers.

I was talking about housing, but that is not the only factor related to integration capacity. That is why we need to have a broader discussion to explore what we can do to improve our integration capacity. This includes issues such as language, a crucial factor in Quebec and a key aspect of integration capacity.

We can also talk about infrastructure. It is all well and good to want to build housing, but if the zoning does not allow it, if there is no groundwater or insufficient access to drinking water and sanitation infrastructure, new housing cannot be constructed. Some towns and cities no longer have any land on which to build new housing. We need to think this through with the various stakeholders in the field.

As far as health and education are concerned, even if we were to build hospitals and schools, we need teachers and health care workers. What is more, we need people who are much more specialized in immigration, especially when it comes to asylum seekers. In the case of children, those who arrive in Canada sometimes have more specific needs in terms of special education or social work. Unfortunately, they often arrive with trauma that requires much more individually tailored management. We therefore need to have these kinds of professionals available.

It goes beyond the financial issue. It would be nice if the federal government paid back the $470 million it owes Québec, but that will not solve everything. In fact, showering Quebec with money is not going to make health care professionals, housing and French language training magically appear. We need to discuss it with the various stakeholders, but we have not done that yet. Despite the unanimous support for the Bloc Québécois motion last fall, the next day, the minister announced new thresholds that had obviously not been discussed with the provinces and Quebec, and we did not know where they came from.

That is why we are introducing this motion with a specific request: We are asking that consultations be held with the Quebec and provincial counterparts within 100 days. Also within 100 days, we are asking the government to present a specific plan and provide accurate answers to justify the thresholds it is going to establish, including the discussions that lead it to come up with the numbers. That will provide concrete proof, this time, that government support for our motion, if we do get it, will not simply be, “talk all you want, I will turn a deaf ear no matter how I vote”.

As I said at the outset, the main people targeted in the debate are the most vulnerable, those we want to take in. Although I do not think it will come true, I will repeat the wish I made last time: We must be able to debate this in a healthy, co-operative and comprehensive manner with all stakeholders, rather than get mired in a rash of insults that serve absolutely no purpose and certainly do nothing to help the people this motion targets, namely newcomers.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. I believe it is Montérégie Day today. It is very important to highlight our region and the importance of immigrants in our region. I am going to repeat the question I asked earlier.

My colleague spoke about housing issues. I would like to talk about Quebeckers who are waiting for their spouses, who are abroad. These people do not have housing issues. Often, they even have a job waiting for them here in Canada. I would like my colleague to tell us about this situation. Apparently, Quebec has set a target, and people are stuck. There is a long waiting list because of Quebec's criteria.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to what I was saying, which is that the discussion on levels must be comprehensive and must also take place outside the provinces, because there is something called interprovincial migration. All of that has to be taken into account. The housing problem is critical, regardless of immigration categories. People who have always lived here are also struggling to find housing.

Take, for example, the situation in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, which I mentioned in my last speech. In a newspaper article, it was reported that many asylum seekers who had entered the country through Roxham Road went to Montreal, but then ended up going back to Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu because the city was welcoming, rent was a bit cheaper and it was easier to find work. Sometimes they had developed local ties, but there was still a housing shortage for these people.

It is even more urgent now. This week, it was announced that the vacancy rate in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu is 0.4%. There are currently only 56 housing units available in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, which has a population of 100,000. It does not matter who the people looking for housing are; the problem exists. This needs to be taken into consideration when determining integration capacity as part of a comprehensive discussion with everyone, especially the people on the ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the larger picture of immigration, what we have seen over the last 15 or 20 years is a movement towards more provincial participation. To amplify that fact, one only needs to take a look at the provincial nominee program. Over 100,000 people will be coming, targeted, over the next year under that program alone.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the fact that when we talk about the supports that need to be put into place, provincial jurisdictions also have a role to play, given that they also have an interest in the immigrants who are coming to Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the provinces certainly do have a role to play in immigration, especially Quebec, because of the language issue. The problem is that despite the role Quebec already has, the system is clearly not working, since Quebec's minister of immigration, francization and integration is so fed up that she is threatening to hold a referendum to repatriate all immigration powers. This comes from a party that is not really known for wanting to talk about referendums. On the contrary, it campaigned on the fact that it would never speak of holding a referendum on Quebec's independence.

Now that party has reached the point where it has to talk about having a referendum because this is not working. Even though there are powers for Quebec, Ottawa is clearly turning a deaf ear, and this is the result. Theoretically, the provinces and Quebec have powers, but in reality, if the government decides to do as it pleases, which apparently it is perfectly capable of doing, then we end up in the situation we are in. Everyone is shouting that the threshold has been exceeded, that the government is managing immigration irresponsibly and that newcomers are the ones paying the price.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her speech, which was interesting as always.

I think that 338 parliamentarians can say with one voice that our riding offices are overwhelmed with the backlog of immigration applications. There is a backlog of nearly one million applications. That is the reality after eight years of this Liberal government.

Could the member tell us if she is seeing this situation in her riding? How is she managing the situation?