Debates of Feb. 8th, 2024

Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime Minister

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government House leader is responding to a question of privilege raised by the official opposition. I think he should be provided the amount of time and discretion needed in order to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry the hon. the member's mic was cut off, but I understand what he is saying.

I will allow the hon. government House leader to continue.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked questions in the House about the events during the joint sitting of Parliament for the address. The Prime Minister said that neither he nor his office was involved with the invitation to the individual in question for the parliamentary event. The former Speaker admitted to the House that the decision to invite the individual was his, and his alone.

The Prime Minister stated, with respect to the parliamentary event, “The Leader of the Opposition knows that not one parliamentarian was aware” and “no parliamentarian knew the name or the identity of the person he welcomed to this House and recognized.” The member acknowledges the fact that it was the Speaker who invited the individual to the parliamentary event, when he said, “it is understood that this individual's son approached the then Speaker's constituency office about securing an invitation to the Ottawa address.” The Speaker then, according to his statement in the House, invited the individual to the parliamentary event, and he stated that it was his decision to do so, apologized to the House for doing so, and, as a result of this action, resigned as Speaker.

The member alleges, or, I would say, speculates, that the Speaker invited the individual only because that individual was invited to another event by the Prime Minister. There are no facts to support this claim, and it should therefore be treated as a speculative assumption. However, the Prime Minister has been clear that neither he nor his office was involved in the invitation of the individual in question to the parliamentary event. The former Speaker stated this fact in the House, which clearly corroborates the statements made by the Prime Minister and other ministers in this place. There is a long tradition in the House that members should be taken at their word, especially when there are no facts that would bring the remarks into question.

By conflating the two events into one, the member is trying to leave the impression that these events were coordinated as one. That claim is not supported by the facts and is not supported by statements made by the Prime Minister or his ministers in the House. I would point to the statement the Prime Minister made, which was referenced by the member across the way, on September 27, 2023. He stated, “we apologized today on behalf of all parliamentarians. For the past few days, we have been saying how sorry we are about the mistake made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

The matter of the invitation of the individual by the former Speaker is currently before the procedure and House affairs committee for consideration. Let us let the committee do its work. The referral of the matter to the committee was founded on the former Speaker's acknowledgement of his sole responsibility for inviting the individual to the parliamentary event. The member referenced page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it states that cases of privilege involve “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House or one of its committees by a Minister or by a Member.”

There are no facts that support either that the Prime Minister misled the House concerning the invitation of the individual to the parliamentary event, or that any minister or member deliberately provided information that misled the House. The facts speak otherwise. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Speaker has been clear. There are no facts to dispute those claims. By trying to conflate two separate events, the member is twisting the narrative into a situation that bears no resemblance to what the House was debating in the fall.

The question is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. government House leader's providing additional information. It will certainly be taken into consideration as the matter continues to be looked into.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the House leader's point of order, I request that he table for the House all of the documentation to back up every statement he made, including the invitation that the former Speaker sent to this individual. All MPs know that it is a matter of record and practice for the Speaker of the House to send a formal invitation for any event they have.

We look forward to being provided with that information and all other supporting documents for every statement he made.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will take the hon. member's comments, in addition to the point of order, under advisement.

We are now going to another point of order, from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the committee consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

Now that the bill has been reported from committee and is now in the possession of the House, I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker to amendments made at committee that should be ruled inadmissible.

During the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of the bill, amendments were made to clauses 1, 8, 14 and 17 that exceed the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Moreover, the amendments infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Without commenting on the merits of the amendments, I will say that each of the four amendments seeks to add a new concept to the bill and therefore exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading.

I would also add that, in addition to exceeding the scope of the bill, the amendments would seek to authorize new and distinct spending for purposes not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.

During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the chair ruled as follows in relation to the amendment to clause 1. He stated:

The current amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a claimant different from the child's parents, following different processes from the provincial adoption process as stated in the bill, and the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, one that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

The member for Winnipeg Centre moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair, and the clause was adopted as amended.

Since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments and the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

A member has risen on a point of order.

I know that many members ask for respect in the House. However, when someone from an opposing party has the floor, those same members speak at the same time even though it is not the time to have discussions. This applies to both sides of the House and I hope MPs will show more respect to the person who has the floor.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments, and the chair's ruling was overturned. The committee then proceeded to adopt the amendment in question to clauses 8, 14 and 17.

Since the amendments were deemed inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill and give rise to the need for a royal recommendation, I therefore submit that the amendments be struck from the bill and a new version of the bill, without the offending amendments, be reprinted for consideration at report stage of the said bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will certainly consider that and come back to the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on the previous point of order. We just want to block a space to come back to give further information.

Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House:

(a) recall its unanimous vote of November 1, 2023, calling on the government “to review its immigration targets starting in 2024, after consultation with Quebec, the provinces and territories, based on their integration capacity, particularly in terms of housing, health care, education, French language training and transportation infrastructure, all with a view to successful immigration”;

(b) call on the Prime Minister to convene a meeting with his counterparts of Quebec, the provinces and the territories in order to consult them on their respective integration capacities; and

(c) call on the government to 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.

Madam Speaker, I was afraid that I would never get a chance to speak because my esteemed colleague read about four cereal boxes. It was quite interesting. As La Fontaine would have said, it is the fable of the Liberal who was afraid to let the Bloc speak. My colleague thought that he would speak for as long as possible, to take up time on opposition day.

Like everyone who reads francophone newspapers, he saw a Leger poll this morning showing that Quebeckers and Canadians basically strongly disagree with the immigration policies of what is left of this government. However, this gives me the opportunity to repeat in the House what I had the chance to say in other places. Anyone who lives in Quebec and who wants to be a Quebecker is a Quebecker. No matter where they come from, how many generations or how many days they have been in Quebec, they are as much Quebeckers as anyone in the House.

The world is going to get smaller and smaller, not necessarily geographically—although the surface area of the continents will shrink marginally as the oceans rise—but because there are more and more of us on the planet and resources are going to become less and less abundant, it is going to force more and more people to seek a better life elsewhere. The “elsewhere” refers primarily to the northern hemisphere, America and Quebec. We will have to manage this responsibility toward the people who choose to settle in Quebec with generosity, but also responsibly. I am tempted to say that this must be done in accordance with the rules and the rule of law, which is also a variable that the government does not really understand.

This is something that Quebec society, an extremely generous host society, must carefully consider, bound by duty and tradition. Some people come to this continent on the basis of misrepresentation, to some extent. They arrive in Quebec, but their dream was to come to America. When people think of America, they tend to think of the United States, as opposed to Canada or Quebec. In many cases, they are told that Canada is an English-speaking country, but they arrive in Quebec, where French is the language that is spoken. They wonder what this crazy place they have come to is. They are told that it is a French-speaking place in an English-speaking country. They arrive at Dorval, where everything is in English. They are told that they can speak the language of their choice, because everyone will adapt. However, it is suggested that they choose English if they are on the Island of Montreal, because they will be understood wherever they go. They wonder, “What kind of crazy place have I landed in?” It is a little frustrating. They are given mixed messages, which ultimately misrepresent the situation.

When these people get informed and consult the media, it is a shock for them to see that there is a whole debate surrounding language: They hear about Quebec and Canada, about French and English. They realize that anglicization is persistently being funded. The message being sent to them is completely ambiguous at best.

The systemic part of this debate are the accusations against Quebeckers who want to preserve their language while offering a generous welcome. The primary responsibility of a society is to teach the language. If you settle in Italy, you are encouraged to learn Italian. If you settle in Sweden, you are encouraged to learn Swedish, even though a lot of people there speak English. In Quebec, we are mean if we tell people that it would not be a bad idea to learn French. Speaking French can be useful at work or when buying a litre of milk at the corner store. This is not an anomaly. The anomaly is making people feel guilty when they make that request. It is a very clever, but frankly vicious, strategy.

That said, the issues related to asylum seekers are of concern to all Quebeckers and, I imagine, all Canadians. When I say “all”, I am including Quebeckers who are more or less recent immigrants. People of all backgrounds must participate in this discussion because they are part of the “us”.

I sometimes wonder whether recent immigrants are all that keen to take in refugees who are not truly refugees.

Currently, the numbers being what they are, people from all over the world, including certain hot spots, are arriving in Quebec and in Canada—especially in Quebec, despite the childish arguing going on over numbers—under just about any pretext and with just about any type of visa, primarily a visitor's visa. They plan to claim refugee status because they know that, even though they are not actually refugees, at worst, they will get a few good years living in peace. What a boon.

Soon, as part of a quick tour of Quebec, we will be speaking with Quebeckers who are immigrants. I wonder whether those Quebeckers think that this is right. I wonder whether they are asking themselves the same questions we are. We know full well that there are people who slip through the Canadian sieve, people who engage in criminal behaviour here, primarily human smugglers, but also car thieves, whom we have been talking about lately, gun smugglers and drug smugglers. Immigrants must be wondering the same things. That is not to say this applies to everyone. I think it is a very small minority.

The people who choose to move to Quebec and Canada seeking a better life are just as honourable as those who already live here and more honourable than quite a lot of them, naming no names.

I wonder if the immigrant Muslim community is happy that we are foolishly letting in radical extremists who promote violence with the blessing of the government, which refuses to take action and hides behind the fig leaf of religion. I wonder if these people have opinions similar to just about anyone else. I think they do, and I think that our duty is to promote successful immigration.

I want to debunk the myth that immigration is monolithic, that all immigrants were the same. That is not at all true, and I am going to show that there are different categories of immigrants, although my classification system is not absolute.

Of course, there are international students. There are a lot of them. Not only are they an important source of funding for Quebec's universities and post-secondary institutions, but they are also a source and a vector of knowledge and culture. In fact, that is their primary purpose. This is a category that Quebec welcomes and wants to continue to welcome generously.

There are temporary foreign workers. There are some major economic sectors in Quebec where those workers are desperately needed. There are abuses happening, where work permits that were supposed to be temporary are being automatically renewed for years. These people are completely integrated into our society, but rarely in the regions and rarely in French, so that system needs improvement. The immigration of temporary foreign workers is extremely important. As I mentioned before, of course, there is the temporary immigration of asylum seekers.

The arguments over numbers aside, we can see that Quebec is doing a lot more than its share. It is almost certain that over half of those immigrants are settling in Quebec, which has resulted in about $470 million in spending. The federal government told Quebec to pay for that and said that it would pay Quebec back. However, when it came time for the federal government to pay up, the Minister of Immigration made comments that were crude at best, and I am still waiting for him to apologize for saying that I was comparing immigrants to heat pumps. That is vulgar, irresponsible and untrue, and he should apologize. I am sure the Speaker will agree with me.

What is more, when it came time to pay the debt, the Liberals said that they would not pay it but that they would give us $100 million for temporary housing. We do not know where they came up with that dollar amount for temporary housing for the future. Quebec is taking in half the people, but it is not getting half the money. Meanwhile, Toronto is doing fine as usual. That funding does not cover the past debt, but the government is trying to sell people on that solution.

In short, Canada is a deadbeat when it comes to Quebec, but we already knew that.

Taking in asylum seekers temporarily is not economic immigration. We welcome asylum seekers not for economic reasons, but for humanitarian reasons. That makes the abuse of the system even more heinous. Some people really need help, but others swoop in and take the help those people need. They try to claim it for themselves under false pretenses.

It is a humanitarian contribution, and every resident pays for the spending it requires, regardless of where they come from or how long they have lived here. We are talking about spending on education, health care, child care and basic income. This is just looking at the number of people. There is inflationary pressure. Demand goes up but supply does not follow suit when there is inflationary pressure. No one is being singled out. This is just about the number of people.

There is also pressure on the housing crisis. Again, no one in particular is to blame. My kids in university who want a place to live put just as much pressure on the rental market as someone arriving from Mexico. The pressure comes from the total number of people looking. No one can deny that.

We have an obligation to do well, or at least to do better, but we are not doing it. The result is that we get weaker. In Quebec, of course, there is the linguistic variable. The Quebec nation is getting culturally and economically weaker. We are slowing that process down by being here. If we were not here to defend Quebec or to speak out what is being done in Ottawa, I do not want to imagine the tsunami that would swamp us. Thank goodness we are here.

In recent days, Quebec's minister of immigration, francization and integration has not denied the possibility of a referendum, which had already been mentioned by the Government of Quebec, to ask Quebeckers whether all immigration powers should be repatriated.

I thought that was funny, because we have been fed nonsense about “working hand in hand” so many times. Every time we rise to ask a question about immigration, we are told that the two governments are working hand in hand. The federal government pulled the same trick with health care, talking about how they are working hand in hand. They work hand in hand so much, they must be getting calluses on their palms.

The reality is that, if Quebec is considering a referendum to withdraw all immigration powers from Ottawa and repatriate them to Quebec City, it is certainly not because it is happy. It is a disavowal of the federal government's immigration policies. It is a disavowal of the government's failed immigration policies, and it is a disavowal of this government's immigration minister.

I think it is a great idea, especially because it is normal for a government to consult its population through a referendum. What is more, it helps stop the demonization of the very word “referendum”.

Last fall, this House unanimously adopted our motion calling on the government to consult with Quebec and the provinces when setting immigration thresholds. It was a unanimous motion of Parliament, which is the sovereign voice of the Canadian state, if such a thing exists. The government could not have cared less, however. There was no consultation. It is pushing ahead with its policies, like a steamroller that is going to roll right over the Quebec government and the Quebec nation.

The Prime Minister is above the law. In fact, the Prime Minister is a bit above everyone else. It is cultural and perhaps a little genetic. In this Parliament, almost everyone is ready to put their ideology ahead of statecraft or popular wisdom. However, today, we are back at it. We will have to vote on it again.

This used to be a Quebec thing. People used to say that Quebeckers were against immigration because they were racists. Now, people in Toronto are saying that they are having problems managing the volume of immigrants. If they were put in Montreal's shoes for two minutes, they would really understand.

Other major Canadian cities are facing similar challenges, so the problem is no longer that Quebeckers are xenophobic. Now, it is a Canada-wide issue worthy of the most serious consideration.

Everyone is being crushed by health care costs, education costs and other costs, as well as by this government's failed immigration policies. Even Quebeckers and Canadians who immigrated here are footing the bill for the immigration minister, who is kind enough to grace us with his presence from time to time, though he does not pay his debts. I suggest that he pay his debts like any other person with the slightest sense of honour. He needs to pay up, especially since he is the one who told us to pick up the tab. I do not want to hear him repeat that stupid and offensive joke about me comparing immigrants to heat pumps. I hope that he will honour us with an apology for insulting people in such a crude manner.

The motion calls on the Prime Minister to convene a meeting with everyone to discuss immigration. Since it would be an invitation from all of Parliament, the premiers and the provincial immigration ministers could then sit down to discuss immigration levels that take into account the capacity of the provinces and Quebec to manage and take in newcomers.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, with characteristic perspicacity, that countries have responsibilities. If being a country is the only way for Quebec to fulfill its responsibilities, then I am all for it. The best way to welcome immigrants to the Quebec nation is to have a Quebec nation, with a generous and caring tradition and culture. A Quebec nation will not need to constantly fight and oppose Canadian policies that conflict with its wishes, interests, language and survival on a continent where it plays a key role. Yes, certain things are a country's responsibility, so let us make Quebec a country.

In the meantime, I want and urge the government to show a modicum of decency and responsibility and to convene all premiers and immigration ministers to jointly set immigration levels that take into account the ability of Quebec and the provinces to accommodate and pay for immigrants.

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

Madam Speaker, I am and always will be a very strong advocate for sound immigration policy. I recognize the benefits of immigration in all the forms it takes.

At the end of the day, the uniqueness of the province of Quebec and the role that it plays cannot be underestimated. I have a very strong passion for the French language. It is one of the reasons I take a great sense of pride when I see someone of Filipino heritage in the area I represent able to dialogue in English and French. We promote French whenever we get the opportunity.

However, consultation is very important. I acknowledge that. I wonder if the leader of the Bloc can express to the chamber to what degree he has done his consultation, particularly with the Government of Quebec, before bringing in this resolution. What did it have to say to him about it?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have just heard my esteemed colleague tell us about his great passion for the French language. That is not what we heard, though, because I believe it was in English. I, too, can express my passion for English; it is easy.

That said, we are in fairly constant contact with people at the National Assembly of Quebec, with whom we have a fairly long‑standing relationship in some cases. It is easy, not only over the telephone, but simply by reading the newspapers, to see that, in general and even in a great deal of detail, the Bloc Québécois is expressing positions that are completely compatible with those of the National Assembly of Quebec, but that the Liberal Party of Canada is expressing positions that are completely incompatible with those of the National Assembly of Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Bloc for his fine speech. It is clear that the Liberal government has broken the immigration system. We absolutely need a plan for health care and affordable housing, but I have not seen a plan from the government.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages studied immigration. We need many immigrants who speak French. However, once again, this government has no plan.

What does the leader of the Bloc want to see in the plan for Quebec?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an intriguing question. It raises the issue of numbers wars.

We can opt for the ideological extreme of the Century Initiative proposed by the McKinsey firm, which has been paid to take de facto control of Canada's immigration department. The people in that department are so eager and are moving so fast right now that the figure of 100 million Canadians by the end of the century will be completely blown out of the water. This raises the issue of numbers.

Right now, numbers wars are being waged because it is easier to talk about a figure in the media. In reality, we need tools to measure—after one, two, three or four years—the quality of integration and overall quality of life of people who decided to come and live in Quebec. It is a set of variables. For these people, it is not enough just to know how to speak French. Is their degree recognized? Do they have a decent job? Do they have reasonably priced housing?

Here we have the other extreme. We are so focused on numbers and so keen to open everything up that people who came here as asylum seekers are sleeping in the streets of Montreal, without housing. This is the most obvious example of the government's heartless failure.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my French is not up to par, so je m'excuse. My first language is Chinese, and I had to learn English as a second language, so I have many languages to learn, to be sure.

On the issue of the motion, what I am hearing, and what I understand through reading the motion, is that the key point, aside from consulting, which is absolutely critical, is ensuring that the federal government also provides the necessary resources to Quebec, other provinces and territories to help them have the capacity to resettle newcomers. What we are seeing, of course, is that the federal government has fallen short in this regard.

The member mentioned in his speech the issue of debt, so my question is this: Would he also agree that the federal government needs to provide the necessary resources to support Quebec, along with other provinces and territories, in successfully helping newcomers resettle?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really like that question. This government does two thing.

When it wants to take action in an area under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, it keeps the money because of the fiscal imbalance. It says that, if we want the money—for example, in health—we will have to relinquish some of our powers. It says it is going to write us a cheque and tell us what to do. It is going to let us do it, as that is what costs money.

In this case, it is basically a federal jurisdiction. What is the government thinking? It is thinking that, since it cannot take away or buy more powers from us, it is just not going to pay us. It will let us do its job, it will not pay us to do its job, and it will continue to accumulate money because of the fiscal imbalance.

The government should at least keep its word. If the past is any indication, having to do the government's job because it is not paying its bills is problematic.

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

Madam Speaker, my leader will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that when it comes to immigration, the substance is almost as important as the form. Let me explain. The tone we take when we discuss this sensitive issue of immigration is almost as important as when we talk about things in depth.

Recently, the Minister of Immigration talked to us about heat pumps, but he also told us, when we asked him to make it so that asylum seekers are settled in different areas of the country, that people should not be treated like cattle. His last line was that we in the Bloc Québécois are just armchair quarterbacks, even though we are an opposition party in a British parliamentary system. I think that shows a lack of respect.

My question is simple. Is the immigration minister's tone acceptable when we are debating this sensitive issue?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time being objective because, last week, in my absence, the Minister of Immigration blatantly lied in the House when he said that I had compared immigrants to heat pumps—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to give the honourable member a reminder. He knows very well that he cannot say that someone lied in the House. He can choose a slightly different word.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has the floor.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, my point still stands. Supposing that the member said something that was devoid of common sense, and that he did not mean it, that is still not a sign of competence. We will take it that way, but there is an accumulation. Insult is the argument of those who have none, and that defines the minister very well.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, my first language is neither English nor French. It is Kannada. Due to the requirement to study English, I lost touch with my culture and heritage due to the lack of my language.

Coming to this debate, while I am interested in the century initiative, which is focused on Canada having a population of 100 million, I too am focused on the next three to four years and the immigration that is required for the next three to four years from an economic development point of view.

I would like to ask the member whether he has consulted business owners in Montreal, Quebec City and Gatineau about the problems they are facing. Has he consulted them about the need for skilled workers and immigrants to help them do their business and contribute to the economic development of Canada?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, in recent days and weeks, we have seen a significant number of highly credible economic and banking institutions point out that current immigration policies go beyond our capacity for economic integration, and compromise issues of an economic nature. This did not come from the bad, leftist Bloc separatists. So I have no problem asserting that.

We have always recognized the economic importance of immigration. I mentioned it clearly when we talked about temporary foreign workers. There is something I find extraordinary in this morning's survey. People were asked a number of questions, including whether they thought there was additional pressure on housing and inflation. Some people, without malice, answered in the affirmative, but Quebeckers, and even Canadians, overwhelmingly said that yes, it does contribute to the economy.

However, there is one thing the Liberals do not understand, and I am going to explain it to them simply: Let them do this properly and it will work.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

I am pleased to rise today to discuss this motion and provide members with information on the immigration targets set by the Government of Canada.

In the area of immigration, we remain committed to working with our partners in the provinces, territories and municipalities to respond to their evolving situations and needs. Of course, that includes the work we are doing with the Government of Quebec.

I want to make it clear that Canada is committed to its core value of taking care of those who come to this country in search of a better life. I think that is a fundamental value that all Canadians support, and I would hope that parliamentarians from all parties would agree with me on that.

In recent years, Canada has accepted a substantial number of permanent residents. The main reason is that we need newcomers as much as they need us. Immigration is crucial to expand our labour force, to ensure our economy prospers and to guarantee the quality of the social services Canadians depend on. Faced with an aging population, we need qualified and talented newcomers to ensure our future economic prosperity. This is true for all of Canada, including my home province, Quebec.

Today, Quebec is experiencing some of the country's most dire labour shortages. In the third quarter of 2023, the number of vacant positions was estimated at 175,000, primarily in health care. Without immigration, Canadian and Quebec businesses would not have the workers they need, and Canadians would not receive the social services they rely on.

In recent years, Canada has indeed accepted many permanent residents. As I said, this is because we need them. Immigration will continue to play a major role in supporting the nation's priorities in the years to come.

While we tend to measure immigration from one year to the next and to see people as asylum seekers, refugees or economic immigrants, we should remember that the potential of newcomers greatly exceeds the sum of these circumstances. The benefits of immigration span many generations. A child who arrives in Canada today could be the inventor, athlete, nurse or entrepreneur of tomorrow, or a volunteer who supports and inspires immigrants who come after them. We cannot look only at how newcomers can contribute to today's economy. We must also consider the broader and longer-term benefits that immigration brings to our communities and to society as a whole.

Similarly, we must consider current immigration pressure points in a broader context. Today's immigration context is very different from that of a decade or even three years ago. Settlement and integration are also evolving. Canada is welcoming growing numbers of people from different places who have been forcibly displaced and have highly complex needs. Canada is not sheltered from the consequences of these forced displacements caused by the rise in conflicts and climate-related catastrophes. We have a moral and legal duty to act, and to maintain a fair, effective and humane immigration system.

To keep pace with our country's changing demographics and needs, my department is working hard to be at the forefront of all these transformations. As I am sure the member knows, our immigration targets are tabled in the House on November 1 of each year, as required by law. I can assure the House that the department conducted extensive consultations on the immigration targets for 2024 to 2026, as we do each year, in fact.

Canada's immigration plan is data-driven, being based on comments and feedback from employers, communities, provinces and territories. Our immigration objectives are based on these comments, the feedback that we received on our most recent action plan regarding immigration targets. They are based on this information and on the comments from stakeholders. The work continues throughout the year as we gather input and information from governments, communities, stakeholders and partners.

We are constantly working to improve the plan every year, conducting ongoing assessments and incorporating the changes, comments and data we receive. The federal government consults its provincial and territorial ministerial counterparts to establish immigration targets and determine the appropriate number of admissions. For example, the Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration meets several times a year. Quebec is invited to these meetings and participates as an observer.

We ask partner organizations, such as the hundreds of settlement organizations from all over the country, to tell us about the challenges they face, both on a global and local level. We learn about the rural and urban communities they serve and support, where newcomers enter the job market and try to have their foreign credentials recognized, learn French and English and seek services in both official languages across the country. This dialogue happens among public servants at various levels at events and conferences as part of official consultations.

We meet with representatives from many municipalities throughout the year, whether to seek their advice or to respond to their challenges and concerns. They tell us how the new immigrants are integrating and which of our programs and services are best suited to their community. These discussions are not a one-time event, but an ongoing dialogue. Last year, we had even more extensive consultations, as the levels and mix of categories of immigrants that we will admit were also an essential factor in our strategic review of immigration and its future in Canada.

We held consultations on the future of immigration to determine which systems, programs and services will be needed to support our provinces, territories and municipalities. The consultations also sought suggestions for how we can support employers in every sector, especially those flagged as priority sectors by the provinces, territories and municipalities, such as housing, health care and technology, as seen in my beautiful riding in downtown Montreal.

In addition to asking the entire country for input, we organized more in-depth sessions, including one in Montreal. We met with experts on key issues such as housing, rural immigration, talent recruitment and social cohesion. We also conducted an online survey of Canadians across the country and newcomers who have used our services. We received responses from close to 18,000 people, more than 2,000 organizations and more than 2,100 former clients on how immigration can help meet their needs for the future.

We met with indigenous leaders, business leaders, remote rural communities, youth councils, provincial and territorial leaders, and educational institutions and groups that offer newcomer support services in order to gather a wide range of comments and understand the different points of view.

The federal government gathers comments about its programs and services across the country. Quebec has its own immigration controls and systems. It is important to point out that the Province of Quebec sets its own levels, which the federal government respects. Under the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord, Canada sets the annual number of immigrants for the country, factoring in the number of immigrants Quebec wishes to take in. This takes into account Quebec's capacity to integrate new immigrants and its ability to resolve labour shortages in key sectors such as agriculture and health care.

Quebec has rights and responsibilities when it comes to the number of immigrants destined for Quebec and to their reception and integration. In recent years, the immigration levels announced by Quebec have been lower per capita than the federal level. We admit that.

On November 1, 2023, just after I announced Canada's 2024-26 immigration levels plan, the Government of Canada maintained its level at 500,000 new immigrants per year for 2024 and 2025.

Under the Canada-Quebec accord, the federal government provides Quebec with an annual grant to help process newcomers and fund the services and assistance it provides, including French integration. Since 2015, the federal government has transferred more than $4.4 billion to the province. This year alone, we gave Quebec more than $700 million to meet its needs with respect to reception and settlement services. That is a significant amount.

Under the accord, Quebec alone is responsible for selecting its economic and humanitarian immigrants and for applying the federal selection criteria for family reunification, while the federal government is responsible for selecting and processing family class applications. As a result, we work within the framework of Quebec's levels plan and process only those applications that have been approved by the province.

If the hon. member or any of his colleagues are concerned about the number of newcomers settling in Quebec or about the immigration levels set by their province, they should speak directly with the Quebec government. We know that they did not consult Quebec about the motion.

The federal government is working on a comprehensive and coordinated growth plan with other governments and partners to make sure that we have the infrastructure, services and support that newcomers need in order to succeed. That means that we need to strengthen our capacity in areas like housing, health care, education and language training.

We are already working on developing a more integrated immigration plan that reflects the roles of our other partners and provides more comprehensive assistance to meet the needs of all newcomers. That will help us better understand where we should invest more, from housing and health care to transportation infrastructure for newcomers so that all Canadians can succeed.

We will also continue to work with the provinces, territories and municipalities to make sure that asylum seekers have a roof over their heads. For Quebec and all of Canada, I recently announced an additional $362 million for the interim housing assistance program to continue supporting this extremely important work. Among other things, we gave Quebec $150 million this year, and almost 50% of all funding for this program since 2017 has gone to Quebec. Quebec's immigration minister even said that the measure was a step in the right direction.

There is more. We will continue to be there for Quebec in this and other areas to support newcomers. The Government of Canada is working with all of its partners to strike a balance between supporting employers and our economy, respecting our long-standing humanitarian commitments and making sure that our immigration plans line up with each community's needs and priorities.

A plan that stabilizes Canada's future immigration levels will also make it easier to take into account capacity issues and unforeseen changes in the different provinces. The immigration levels for 2024 already reflect the needs of Canadians in every region of the country and support demographic growth in Canada, while mitigating its impact on essential national systems, such as housing, infrastructure and newcomers, which are vital to our communities. Many temporary and permanent residents in Canada work in key sectors such as health care, transportation, agriculture and manufacturing. Newcomers are part of the solution for Canada's future and are essential to our future growth.

The core objective of Canada's 2024-26 immigration levels plan is to attract skilled workers who will contribute to our economy. We are more confident than ever that we can preserve our top-notch immigration system, which is the envy of the world. We will reduce waiting times; we are doing so now. We will foster family reunification and continue to support the most vulnerable populations of the world with one of the best refugee resettlement programs on the planet.

Canada has a long-standing tradition of welcoming immigrants. Canadians are rightfully proud of their past when it comes to immigration. Immigration is what made Canada a strong country and helped it keep growing, and immigration is what made it possible to connect people by diversifying our communities and driving the economy.