OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 278 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 8, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 8, 2024 DEBATES No. 278 No. 278 N o 278 Volume 151 278 08 02 2024 2024/02/08 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings

(1000) [ English ] Committees of the House Status of Women

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in relation to Bill S-205 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. I would also like to say congratulations to Senator Boisvenu, who brought forward this bill and who has been a voice for so many victims across Canada. The 11 of us really appreciated working on such an important bill that had such personal intent.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C-53 ,

an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. I also would like to thank all of our witnesses and particularly the representatives from the Métis organizations in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, and the national Métis representative, for their persistence in helping us get through this much-needed legislation at committee stage.

I wish the House all the best in seeing this through to the finish line and on completion through royal assent.

Copyright Act

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Bill C-374. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-374 ,

an act to amend the Copyright Act (Crown copyright). He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my seconder of the bill. This is important for Canada, in particular for businesses, researchers and educators. The act to amend the Copyright Act would actually address a law that was created back in 1911, only adjusted in 1921, where right now, government research, innovation papers and a number of materials are not released to the public. That is counter to most of our other trading partners. In fact, I think Canada is alone on this.

Bill C-374 would actually amend and provide those publications to the public, which is something that businesses would support, that researchers would support, that educators would support and that innovators would support. That is the reason we want this amended right now because it goes back to a law created in 1911. That is unfortunate, but we can correct this today. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) Petitions Cybersecurity

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one is with regard to amending Canada's policies with cybersecurity. Currently right now, Canada is exposed with regard to cyber hacking, and we have no international agreements that significantly protect Canadians and businesses. In fact, cyber-attacks and ransomware, per population in Canada, are the second highest in the world with global cybercrime costing in the trillions of dollars. Not having proper supports in public policy is putting businesses and individuals at risk.

The petitioners are calling for a national security licensing body to govern Canadian cybersecurity. It would be a progressive way to advance and would also increase the number of people who are occupationally involved in cybersecurity. It would bring us in line to be a world leader.

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the next two very important petitions are on the same subject matter. The first calls for a ceasefire in Gaza. There is currently a siege on Gaza, which has caused tens of thousands of injuries, and lives have been lost. Sadly, there is also a blockade. The petitioners are calling for countries to meet their international agreements as a potential genocide is taking place. They call for the lifting of the siege and, more importantly, for a ceasefire. The second petition is on the same subject matter, with regard to Gaza being occupied and attacks increasing.

At the time this petition was started, there were around 2,000 casualties. The number of wounded is now significantly higher. It has also affected hospitals and schools, and it involves mostly women and children in the genocide. The petitioners are calling on Canada to call for a ceasefire and to bring itself in line with the more traditional role that Canada has had with regard to the conflict taking place in the Middle East.

[ Translation ] International Trade

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition from the citizens of Châteauguay—Lacolle in support of Bill C-57 , which has just been passed by the House. [ English ] Citizens in my riding affirm their unwavering commitment to Ukraine and want the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement to be updated.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a petition calling for an increase in the amount of tax credits for volunteer firefighters, in particular, for the great volunteer firefighters from Redvers, Saskatchewan, as well as the search and rescue volunteer service. These first responders provide valuable and essential services to all Canadians, and we deeply appreciate the role they play in keeping us all safe.

Pornography

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The individuals in the first petition are very concerned about the sexually explicit material that is available on the Internet. It is demeaning and sexually violent and, unfortunately, it is extremely easy to be seen by young people. Because it is made for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age verification method, the petitioners are very concerned with what is happening to young people. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to adopt Bill S-210 , the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

They say that online age verification was the primary recommendation made by stakeholders in the 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health.

Employment Insurance

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my second petition is with regard to maternity and parental benefits when couples have a child. However, adoptive and intended parents are at a disadvantage under the current system and they should have equal access as new parents. Bill C-318 would deliver equitable access to parental leave for adoptive and intended parents. I know there is support for this bill across the House, and the petitioners are calling for a royal recommendation on Bill C-318 .

(1010) Criminal Code

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my next petition states it is well established that the risk of violence against women increases when they are pregnant, and justice requires that an attacker who abuses a pregnant woman and the preborn child she is carrying be sentenced accordingly. The sentence should match the crime. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to legislate the abuse of a pregnant woman and/or the infliction of harm on a preborn child as aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.

Firearms

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in my last petition, the petitioners are seeking to support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners, law-abiding citizens of Canada. They acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety devices that are criminally prohibited in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase new sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

Persons with Disabilities

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is on behalf of over 3,200 people from across the country, who note that people with disabilities often face barriers to employment along with higher costs associated with health care and housing. They note that the Canada disability benefit was delayed for over two years, as the first attempt to pass the law known as Bill C-35 was postponed due to the 2021 election. They note that the Canada disability benefit would provide much needed financial support for people with disabilities and that 40% of those living in poverty are those with disabilities.

They note that the minister responsible told Canadians that implementing the Canada disability benefit is expected to take at least 18 months following the passage of Bill C-22 in June 2023. In fact, that has been pushed back further still. They note that insufficient supports in current disability programs, both federally and provincially, present a significant risk of life and health for people with disabilities across the country living in legislative poverty.

They go on to note that the federal government has refused to provide an interim disability emergency response benefit similar to the CERB that was provided in the pandemic. They also note that back payments are provided to eligible recipients for other disability benefits, like the disability tax credit, and they note that the federal government has yet to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit. As a result, they have two calls in their petition to the Government of Canada.

The first is to provide back payments to eligible Canada disability benefit recipients covering the time from when the Canada Disability Benefit Act received royal assent in June 2023. The second is to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit into budget 2023 to show that the government is committed to providing the Canada disability benefit to the disability community as soon as possible.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Madam Speaker, the second petition notes that volunteer firefighters account for 71% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. They note that the tax code in Canada currently allows volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer services were completed in a calendar year. It works out to a mere $450 a year. If they volunteer more than 200 hours, which many of them do, then the tax credit becomes even less. They go on to note various reasons this tax credit is insufficient.

They also go on to call for the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 and to enact amendments to subsection 118.06(2) and 118.07(2) of the Income Tax Act in order to increase the amount of the tax credits for volunteer firefighting and for search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000.

Natural Health Products

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have signatures here from all across the country. Petitioners are asking for natural health products to be more accessible and for the new regulations to exempt natural health products, because many people depend on them to stay healthy so that they do not need to buy prescription drugs.

Children and Families

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today. The first petition calls on the Liberal government to not involve itself in decisions that should be made by parents and by provinces. It identifies the fact that the Liberal government sought to interfere in New Brunswick's policy in this regard and, more recently, in policy decisions in Alberta.

Petitioners note as well the statements of the Conservative leader calling on the government to not interfere in decisions that should be made by provinces and by parents, further noting that parents care about the well-being of their children and love them more than any state-run institution. The role of government is to support families and to respect parents, not to dictate to them how decisions should be made for their children.

(1015) Freedom of Political Expression

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the next petition is in support of an excellent private member's bill I put forward, Bill C-257 . This bill would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Petitioners note that Canadians should be protected from discrimination, including political discrimination, and that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal.

Further, they note our democracy is well served by ensuring people feel the freedom to express themselves politically without worry about employment-related or other reprisal based on their political views. The petition asks the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

International Development

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the next petition relates to International Development Week. I am sure that petitioners join me in wishing a happy International Development Week to all those who are marking the occasion. It is a time for discussion and for advocacy. Petitioners note some of the key failures in the Liberal government's international development policy. They note the Auditor General's report highlighting how the Liberals' so-called feminist international assistance policy has failed to measure results in terms of impacting the lives of women and girls.

They further note how the approach of the government has shown a lack of respect for cultural values and the autonomy of women in developing countries by pushing positions that may violate local laws. Further, petitioners highlight the Muskoka initiative by the previous Conservative government, which involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls, achieved value for money, measured results and actually responded to priorities identified by local women.

Therefore, petitioners call on the government to align international development spending with the wise approach of the Muskoka initiative, focusing on meeting basic needs of vulnerable women rather than pushing ideological agendas.

Medical Assistance in Dying

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the next petition raises concerns about and expresses opposition to proposals for the expansion of euthanasia to include children. It notes a proposal to legalize euthanasia for minors, including even very young children. Petitioners find the proposal deeply disturbing. They believe that killing children is always wrong and they call on the government to block any attempt to legalize euthanasia, killing or facilitated suicide for minors.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would next like to present a petition regarding human rights in Hong Kong, especially as they relate to immigration. Petitioners note that there has been a severe decline in the freedoms in Hong Kong. Further, people charged in Hong Kong for political offences, through a justice system that is clearly now severely broken, people who have done nothing wrong and have advocated for freedom and democracy and nonetheless might have been subject to criminal charges in Hong Kong, have difficulty getting a police certificate, etc.

Petitioners note that these challenges would impact the ability of these people in Hong Kong to immigrate to Canada. Petitioners therefore ask the government to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong and its impact on the legitimacy and validity of criminal convictions, to affirm its commitment to render all national security law charges and convictions irrelevant for the purposes of Canadian immigration.

Further, they ask the government to create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with convictions related to the pro-democracy movement may provide an explanation for such convictions, on the basis of which government officials could grant exceptions to Hong Kong people who would otherwise be deemed inadmissible to Canada on the basis of criminality. Petitioners also ask the government to work with like-minded allies on this.

Falun Gong

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the final petition raises concerns about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the PRC and calls on the government to do more to combat this.

(1020) Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members : Agreed.

[ Translation ] Privilege Alleged Misleading Comments by the Prime Minister Privilege

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised on February 6, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerning the statements the Prime Minister made in the House. [ English ] The member across the aisle has attempted to conflate two separate events. The first event took place in a joint sitting of Parliament for an address by the President of Ukraine. The second was a special event outside Parliament. 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 Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. government House leader seems to be debating the issue. What point of order is he raising? The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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 (Mrs. 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.

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

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.

(1025) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. 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.

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant :

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 (Mrs. 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.

Points of Order Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage Points of Order

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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—

(1030) [ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. 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. [ English ] The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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 (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

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

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Federal Immigration Targets

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Motion 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.

He said: 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”.

(1035) 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.

(1040) 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.

(1045) 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.

(1050) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

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?

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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.

(1055) [ English ]

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :

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?

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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 (Mrs. 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.

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

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?

(1100) [ Translation ]

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet :

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.

Hon. Marc Miller (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.) :

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.

(1105) 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.

(1110) 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.

(1115) [ English ]

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the minister was able to contribute to this debate. It is hard to take him seriously, though, because that immigration plan was tabled November 1. By that time, in his own ministry, there were now over one million international students in Canada. He knew that. He came two to three months later to announce a cutting down of 35% and capping all over the country on a system that he knew, by his own admission and in his own words, was out of control.

He knew this when he tabled the report to Parliament, which included what the temporary resident numbers were going to be for the following year. Then, to add insult to injury to the House, we had the former minister of immigration, now the minister of housing , say that the system was a mess. This gentleman is still moonlighting as a senior minister for immigration. We know that the immigration system is broken and we know that it is not working with what the government is doing. How can we believe the minister now when he says, with all these golden words, that things are going so well?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, the plan that I put forth in the fall deals with permanent residency numbers. We know that the number of temporary foreign workers we have in Canada, under various descriptions, has increased significantly in the last couple of years. This has been good for the economy, but it is also something that has gotten out of control in some sectors, which we acknowledge. As the member saw, I took three measures two weeks ago to make sure that we were addressing the integrity of the system with respect to international students.

I think this is something that all Canadians can support, because the international student visa system was not created for fly-by-night operations in various parts of the country as a backdoor entry into Canada. This is about the integrity of the system and, obviously, the future of Canada. There are some bright students out there, and they do not need to be stigmatized. However, this is something that the government needs to be responsible for reining in.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his speech. When the Bloc Québécois raised the issue of Quebec's intake and integration capacity, we were accused of being armchair quarterbacks. Even if we let that slide, there is still a recent survey that found that most Canadians and Quebeckers believe that Canada is unable to integrate newcomers properly and that its intake capacity is insufficient. I hope that the minister will not call the Canadians and Quebeckers who answered the survey names.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the public calls for Canada to review its process, because right now it is not working. Can he respond to the substance of this question?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, the survey in question shows conclusively that immigrants are good for the economy. There is much left unsaid by the Bloc Québécois. They ask us to revise the targets, but I think what they mean is we should lower them without consulting the government of Quebec. I believe they should make more of an effort if they wish to have a reasoned discussion of the issue.

I ask the members of the Bloc Québécois if they would like to help solve the problem instead of being armchair quarterbacks, and tell me whether the integration capacity covers the labour shortage of some 175,000 workers in Quebec, a shortage that also affects the rest of Canada. They do not seem to consider this factor in their analysis and demands. I ask this question and I await their answer.

[ English ]

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, we all know that the immigrant community contributes to Canada in more ways than I can articulate. We all know that in this House. What is important for provinces, for Quebec and for territories is having the resources that are necessary to help with the resettlement process. The federal government's policy is such that asylum seekers, for example, do not get federal resources. Until more recently, there was huge pressure for the government to come in with some resources. On the whole, the federal government is not there.

I think that is also part of the problem and the tension that is created in the communities. Will the minister actually review the policy to ensure that asylum seekers who come to Canada are fully supported, so they are able to properly resettle in Canada?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question and, obviously, her passion on this issue. This is not just about coming to Canada and treading water. We have asylum seekers and refugees who are members of cabinet and members of Parliament. One even crossed at Roxham Road and is now a great serving member of Parliament in Ontario. Our settlement services are the envy of the world. I just went to Geneva, and this was noted by my counterparts, particularly in a forum dealing with this issue. Clearly, we can do more. We are facing flows of historic proportions in Canada.

This is about coordination with the provinces. This is not the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada. It is shared with the provinces, including the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. We have to work together to make sure people have shelter over their heads. We provide interim health benefits and interim housing. However, this is absolutely not a long-term solution. We need to do more and we need to do better for people who are here, while they get their due process.

They are not necessarily entitled to be here, but if they are so entitled, if they are truly fleeing war or oppression from their source country, they clearly have a home in Canada. That needs to be done quickly and in a way that respects their humanitarian rights.

(1120) [ Translation ]

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, in our country, there are many cases of Quebeckers and Canadians who have married someone abroad and want to bring their spouse to Canada, but they encounter obstacles. It is not a question of housing or money. These people already have all they need to welcome their spouse. Sometimes, there are even children involved. I would like to hear from the minister on this. Is there a way to remove the obstacles so these people can come?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the member for her question about Quebeckers trying to reunite their family. Clearly, the government of Quebec sets family reunification thresholds. At present, I believe these thresholds are kept artificially low. This causes great harm to many Quebeckers when they try to reunify their families. Talks are under way with my government of Quebec colleague to rectify this situation. I am hopeful the situation will be corrected, because the wait times in Quebec are several times longer than elsewhere in Canada, and I find that unacceptable. The federal government is doing its part.

[ English ]

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my question for the minister has to do with the recent announcement about cutting the number of foreign students in Ontario by 50%. Lambton College, in my riding, depends on those foreign students to keep tuition low. It produces nurses, personal support workers and paramedics. With the aging population, we need those workers. However, the minister decided that master's and Ph.D. students could stay, while all the rest of these colleges would be cut. Lambton College built student housing, and it is building more student housing that will be there by the time the caps come into play.

Will the minister either allow exemptions for colleges that are not part of the issue or revisit the decision that was made and maybe focus on eliminating the fake colleges in strip malls that exist?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, the answer is no. We need provinces to step up and actually do their jobs in regulating designated learning institutions that they have authority over. We trusted for far too long, and perhaps we should have verified this. However, this is really something that needs to be brought under control. That is notably in Ontario, but there are other provinces that need to do a better job as well. I do not want to single out any colleges. A lot of trade colleges are doing great work.

Perhaps there is a permanent residency pathway for those people, but that was not the guarantee to them when they came into the country. The guarantee was to get a high-quality international education. Filling up the coffers of colleges and institutions on the backs of international students was not the business plan behind the international student visa model. It needs to get under control. Colleges and universities need to go see their provincial governments and talk to them about sorting out the cap. This is something that needs to be done. It is crucial for the integrity of the system.

We will absolutely work with them. I would encourage anyone who is interested in dealing with the federal government to get with the trusted or recognized institution model. We can talk about that in the fall.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the minister, what he thinks of the fact that Quebec is so fed up that it is thinking of or would like to hold a referendum to repatriate all powers relating to immigration. What is his response to that?

Hon. Marc Miller :

Madam Speaker, I am in politics to work with the Government of Quebec. I am not in show business. There is no question that we can work with the Government of Quebec. Everyone knows the Bloc Québécois does not speak for all Quebeckers. Several members in the House come from Quebec, including the Prime Minister . We are hearing very clearly that the federal government has a role to play in immigration.

[ English ]

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on a Bloc opposition day motion. To summarize it briefly, it would recall a vote in the House that tied immigration targets in Canada to various areas of capacity in social services, French and English-language training, transportation infrastructure, health care, jobs availability and education. This was voted on at the end of last year, typically when the permanent residents plan is tabled in Parliament, but also the temporary residents plan of the government. A three-year rolling plan is put forward.

This motion refers to it and tells the government to do its homework once again, in light of a lot of new announcements that have been made. This debate involves the Minister of Immigration . My experience on the immigration committee is that often invectives are hurled toward members who simply have questions, concerns and comments.

A few members of the Bloc have already said that whenever they expressed a concern about the integration capacity in Quebec, especially on the island of Montreal where there is a lack of capacity, for example, for French-language training, they were quickly called names and insulted by the Minister of Immigration outside of the House quite often. It happened again yesterday at committee and on the minister's Twitter account. The Conservatives have that same experience very often from Liberal members of Parliament. If the Liberals do not have an argument, they move on to insults.

Margaret Thatcher loved to say that quite commonly. Today, I will outline what I think is a common-sense Conservative proposal to what we should take into account when redoing the targets. A lot of it comes directly from government sources. We see it in government talking points and what different ministers have said. We have the bizarre situation today of there being a junior and senior minister of immigration. The new Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control, by his own admission. He has said it several times. He was quoted as saying it in the National Post.

He said it on CTV's Question Period . He also said, “That volume is really disconcerting. It's really a system that has gotten out of control.” In an

article by journalist Ryan Tumilty, the headline was, “'Out of control': Immigration minister says he wants to reduce international student arrivals”. It goes on to say, “The increase is considered one of many factors leading to housing shortages and rent hikes across the country.” That is the tie-in to housing. Then there is the senior minister of immigration, who is now the Minister of Housing , and he has a lot of regrets, because for two and a half years he essentially let the system get out of control. That is what the Minister of Immigration is saying today about his predecessor's work.

It is not Conservatives, Bloc MPs or New Democrats saying it. Over the last three months, two ministers have been fighting it out in public about whose fault it is that the system became out of control. The Minister of Housing now, the senior minister of immigration, went even further. In a different

article by Touria Izri for Global News , the housing minister was quoted as saying, “temporary immigration programs are putting pressure on the housing system and creating a 'serious issue we need to address.'” Why did he not address it when he was the immigration minister? Why has he only discovered this now?

In fact, the journalists refer to a briefing note that was given to the minister, the new Minister of Housing , the senior minister for immigration, that warned him that the targets the Government of Canada was setting, especially on what it was doing with temporary resident permits for international students, foreign work permits for the temporary foreign worker program and the international mobility program, were going to lead to pressures in rental housing. People were going to have a tough time affording housing, either purchasing or renting a home.

The Bank of Canada said that 60% of newcomers would rent, especially for the first 10 years. I know this for a fact as I was a newcomer. When my father came here in 1983, he rented. When the rest of the family came here in 1985, we rented for many years on the south shore of Montreal. I am very well aware of the newcomer experience. When newcomers first come to Canada, they rent, and rents across the country are going up. In the last nine years, rents have doubled. Down payments have more than doubled. The price of homes is out of control, and that is not the fault of immigrants or newcomers.

That is the fault of the government for vastly overspending during the pandemic, $600 billion of pandemic spending, $205 billion of which had nothing to do with the response to the pandemic.

(1125) When a lot of cash is chasing fewer goods, it leads to higher prices. When a briefing note is provided to the minister by his own immigration department that tells the minister about concerns of continuing to allow a lot of newcomers to come to Canada, well over a million last year and I think it will be a million before the same deadline this year, as well as over a million in the next six months, then we have a system that is out of control. I am referencing the junior immigration minister. The system is a mess. I am quoting the senior immigration minister , who is titled as the housing minister .

Of course they have regrets. They are going on different podcasts, complaining about each other's work and drawing attention to whose fault it is. It is the fault of the Liberals. They have been in government for nine years. They bear responsibility for the chaos on our streets today, with crime that is out of control. They are responsible. If we are renewing our leases this year and we see a 20% or 30% increase to them, we have only three people to blame: the Prime Minister , his housing minister and his immigration minister .

Every other minister on the front bench bears cabinet responsibility for the decisions they make. The Conservatives are not making this argument; I am using their own words. They have been in the news. At the end of November, Mia Rabson from the Canadian Press quoted the senior immigration minister, who is now moonlighting as a housing minister. The current minister said of the student visa system, “It’s a bit of a mess...It’s time to rein it in.” He then went on to talk about Uber drivers.

On the international student program, he was making comparisons, saying some of these colleges were behaving like puppy mills. What kind of bizarre commentary is that, to try to insult international students who are here? I was an international student at one point in the United States and I do not remember being insulted in such a way. If, in fact, for the last two and a half years there were these private colleges and others, which the minister is now accusing of being puppy mills, it was the department that was issuing visas for them. Why were they doing that? They were warned.

A briefing note was circulating somewhere. Some journalists have it, but I do not. I was actually asked by a journalist from the Toronto Star whether I had it. It is the one that ties temporary immigration numbers to the potential for housing crisis. That is not me saying it; that is the department. The immigration department was warning the previous minister , the now housing minister , that this might happen. The articles go on and on. We have these two ministers who are having a public debate, an argument. I am sure that it started some time in cabinet.

There is a Yiddish proverb I am reminded of, because I love Yiddish proverbs, as many members know. My grandmother used to say them in Polish, but Yiddish used to be a common language and culture to eastern Europe. The proverb is that when a fool and a wise man are debating, there are only two fools debating. Sometimes it feels that way when I am watching the debate in public, because—

(1130) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

There are a few members who I am sure would want their colleague to be heard as opposed to being interrupted. They may not realize that their voices are loud, so I would ask them to please take their conversation outside and not interrupt their colleague by the background noise.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really appreciate Yiddish proverbs. I am asking if the member could repeat that so we have it on the record, nice and clearly, without the interruptions. If he wanted to just—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I think he was just getting to it. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard has the floor.

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, a Yiddish proverb I love is that if a wise man and a fool are debating, and rabbis love this proverb as well, what we have are two fools debating between each other. Sometimes I feel this is what I am watching. I have listened to the Herle Burly Podcast, and the new Minister of Immigration has appeared on it twice now. He talks a really tough game when he is on the podcast. Then he comes here and sings us a song on how great things are. We have an immigration system with a backlog of 2.2 million in applications.

I have been told everything, including that moving to digital would fix it, that there would be a new system and that there would be more people. This department has more than double the staff and double the money it had in 2015, yet nothing is getting better. It is pretty much static. The backlog was about 2.9 million applications near the end of the pandemic and it is barely any better. A million people are waiting in the queue. We hear about this constantly. Members of Parliament and their constituency offices are inundated, with 80% to 90% of our case file work related to the immigration department.

Families are broken because they cannot be reunited. Small businesses locally are missing that one critical person to fill a gap so they can then start hiring other fellow Canadians to fill the jobs, but they cannot do it. International students, who maybe have changed colleges, or are moving to a different program or are applying for a post-graduate work permit, are being told they cannot do that anymore, or they apply and run out of status and lose the temporary jobs they had. All of this is related to the customer service levels at the immigration department, which have not improved.

I rarely hear the minister saying that this is being addressed. It is a concern for Conservatives, and it continues to be a concern, that service levels are poor and that immigration backlog continues to be very high. Nobody seems to want to take responsibility in the moment when they make the decisions. I believe we are on immigration minister five or six so far after almost nine years, and it still is not getting better. It is still not improving, except for the rhetoric among the cabinet ministers who accuse each other of letting the system get out of control or of making it a mess.

Again, I am not the one saying that. I am quoting two ministers who are having this public fight among each other on whose fault it is, pointing fingers at each other. The most incredible part of it all is that they are blaming each other. (1135) [ Translation ] In our great country, we of course have two official languages, so I will make some comments in French as well. We already had this debate in the House, in October or November when we debated another motion during a Bloc Québécois opposition day. It is actually mentioned in today's motion.

Of course, we know that the government did not react to the motion. It did nothing. Going by what we can see, it made a few minor announcements for foreign students who are here in Canada. We know that more than one million international students are already here, according to a question that was answered in the House in October. We also know that the government reacts very slowly when opposition parties offer it solutions to new challenges for which we need to have an answer.

Today, one of these new challenges is asylum seekers who have the right to come to Canada, particularly those from a country in which there is a huge problem. That is an issue we need to address, because in January, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, had to write a letter almost four pages long that was addressed directly to the government. If there were any consultations, it is obvious that nobody listened to the Premier of Quebec, since he had to write a letter.

His letter says: “Over time, we have welcomed Chilean, Vietnamese, Haitian and Syrian refugees, and more recently Ukrainian nationals, whom we continue to take in”. We know that we now have problems with one country in particular, because in 2016, this government withdrew the requirement for Mexican citizens to apply for a visa to come to Canada. They can go online and just pay seven or eight dollars to get permission to come to Canada. Now, in Montreal, tens of thousands of people are seeking asylum after not informing the government about their reason for travelling to Canada.

In 2016, about 250 asylum seekers came to this country in this way, back when there was a visa requirement. I have a press release that the government published at the time. It is only in English, unfortunately. I will read the relevant section. It comes from the Prime Minister’s website and is dated June 28, 2016. It may have been taken down, but maybe it is still on the site. Here is an excerpt from the press release: [ English ]

Closer collaboration between Canada and Mexico on mobility issues will also help encourage travel between the two countries while preventing any increase in asylum claims or other irregular migration. Officials plan to meet regularly to promote these mutual interests.

[ Translation ] We have gone from 250 asylum claims in 2016 to tens of thousands in 2023. According to the figures I saw online, 11% of the claims were accepted, which means that 89% of them were rejected. We are not the ones rejecting them; the independent panel is rejecting them. The panel says that it has seen the file and that the rules for becoming a refugee in Canada are not being respected. The 2016 press release indicated that systems would be put in place to prevent an increase in asylum claims.

Yesterday, I asked the minister to give us examples of programs implemented and actions taken to ensure that asylum seekers from one country, in this case Mexico, will not make bogus claims. Of course, 11% of the claims were accepted. Yesterday, the minister said it was much higher, 30%. These are figures given during the debates. Perhaps he can give us the figures in committee. Even with those numbers, that means that 70% of the asylum claims were rejected. These people came here because the visa requirement had been lifted. We have to wonder what the government is doing. It has not created any programs.

The only example the Minister of Immigration was able to give me had to do with programs implemented during the pandemic. However, they were public policies and the minister got rid of them in December, a month and a half ago, because they were no longer useful, he said. I reminded him that there was no pandemic in 2016. It began in early 2020. There was clearly no connection between the two. In committee, he had no other examples to demonstrate what he had done to keep this from happening. In his letter, Premier Legault talks about the cost of these decisions.

We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Then there are also costs in terms of human lives. People have come to Canada, thinking they are eligible to apply for asylum for a variety of reasons. Premier Legault says that in the “first 11 months of 2023, no fewer than 59,735 new asylum seekers were registered in Quebec. Projections show that Quebec will receive a record 65,000 applicants this year”. The trends continues. Of course, with this increase in asylum claims, there is also a human cost. Real people will be affected by the Liberal government's negligence.

Two immigration ministers are publicly attacking each other. They are pointing fingers and accusing each other of creating all the problems, damage and mess in the areas of immigration and housing. I am going to talk about two articles by Romain Schué.

In “Immigration Cartels”, he wrote: “ Enquête uncovered human smuggling networks and fake passport makers linked to powerful Mexican organized crime syndicates that are becoming more and more heavily involved in human trafficking at the Canada-U.S. border.” Two Mexican cartels in particular, the Sinaloa cartel and the Jalisco New Generation cartel, have ties to human trafficking. The government could not even talk about a program. I asked the minister to name one program, any program. One would have been enough, but the minister could not even come up with one name.

In the other article, “South American crime network targets Canadian homes”, the journalist starts describing exactly what is happening now because the government made this change in 2016 and did not follow up. I wanted to share that example because basically the same thing happens with reports to Parliament on permanent immigration, as the minister said earlier. They are tabled in the House every November. They also cover temporary immigration. Lots of people come to Canada as temporary immigrants to work or study. Many of them change their temporary status to permanent after they get here.

(1140) According to information provided by the department, about half of temporary immigrants become permanent immigrants through programs such as the provincial nominee program and the immigration program for construction workers. Roughly half of these people are already in Canada and have a home, be it rented or owned. It is simply a matter of changing their status. What matters to us, the Conservatives, is the experience newcomers have when they come to Canada. Today's newcomers are not having the same experience I had when I came to Canada.

I arrived in Quebec, of course, because my father worked at the Sorel shipyard at the time. The leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about the fact that many immigrants who come to Canada are told that Canada is an English-speaking country, but when they arrive in Quebec, they realize that French is spoken there, especially at work. That is what happened to my father. I know because he talked about it often. As we can see, cabinet is unable to decide who is to blame for the mess. The immigration system is out of control, and it is their fault.

Even when the government appoints a new Minister of Immigration, it is his fault. In nine years, the government has destroyed the Canadian consensus on immigration. We need a common-sense government, and that is what we will have when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister in the next election. We will give Canadians hope for the immigration system.

(1145) Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from Calgary Shepard. He delivered a pointed speech, and he clearly has sound knowledge of the issue. He is also pleasant to work with in committee. Once again, I congratulate him on his speech. I completely agree with him that the management of the immigration portfolio is unacceptable. The government has appointed three different ministers of immigration since 2019. That says a lot about the way the Liberals are managing the immigration portfolio. My question is simple.

My colleague spoke a great deal about the Legault government, and more specifically about Minister Fréchette's letter. Am I to understand that, should a Conservative government be elected, my colleague would agree with her about repatriating all immigration powers to Quebec to settle the matter once and for all?

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, what I am prepared to say is that we will have a common-sense immigration system. We will not need a referendum, since we will have a federal government that is able to work with all the provinces fairly. Furthermore, our government will make sure that the provinces are able to tackle the challenges. It will not call them names, compare them to heat pumps or insult them. It will work with them. That is what the Harper government did. It worked with the provinces, not against them.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I was the critic for immigration back when the common-sense Conservative government was in place and denied Canadians the opportunity to sponsor parents and grandparents to come to Canada for permanent residency. It literally killed the program. When we had the common-sense immigration issues, it took years to try to get a loved one, a wife, a husband or a significant other, to immigrate to Canada under permanent residency. Is this the type of common-sense, or should I say nonsense, Conservative policy we are going to see brought back under that type of administration?

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, it is sad that those members have not read the immigration plans pre-2015. It was a Conservative government that created the super visa program for parents and grandparents. It was a Conservative government that made the PGP, the parents and grandparents permanent immigration system, work better. What the Liberal government has done is create a lottery system whereby people have spent years in the lottery not knowing when their loved ones will be allowed to immigrate to Canada.

In fact, in a case that was reported in the CBC, even the CBC is going after the government, nationals from Iran had been waiting five years to be reunified. Therefore, those married couples were apart for five years before seeing their loved ones again. By the way, every single permanent immigration stream to Canada is longer today than it was in 2015. It is the same way for student visas, work visas or tourist visas. It is taking longer.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Not true.

Mr. Tom Kmiec: The member is saying it is not true. I invite him to check the immigration committee's records, because all the numbers have been tabled successively over the last year, which proves the case that all the backlogs are worse than they were in 2015 for almost every single program the government controls today.

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives fancy themselves as friends of the immigrant community, but let us not forget that they brought in cessation, which said to refugees who came to Canada that they could not return to their country of origin for any reason. Even in the case when Saddam Hussein did not exist any more, if a person came from that place, they were not allowed to return to that country of origin to visit a dying family member.

Also, they took away the ability for a second-generation born to pass on their Canadian citizenship to their children, which was being challenged in the court, and the court found it be unconstitutional. Would the Conservatives reduce immigration target numbers? Is that their common-sense policy that they are not telling Canadians?

(1150) Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, the member has a lot of experience, especially on the immigration committee. I usually do not agree with her, but I do respect the fact that she brings a deep level of knowledge to a lot of the immigration issues that she approaches. We are usually on opposite sides of voting. She has basically supported this government for the last three or four years without objection, every single one of these immigration targets and the running of the department, and so she bears responsibility for the backlogged 2.2 million applications. She bears responsibility for the experience of Iranian nationals who are trying to flee the region—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Ms. Jenny Kwan :

Madam Speaker, the member is categorically wrong to suggest that I did not raise any concerns with the government's immigration policies—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Unfortunately, that is a point of debate. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, I did say that she bears responsibility with voting on every single confidence motion and every single confidence measure in the House, and so she does bear responsibility for decisions made by this government. She is supporting the spending, she is supporting the employment, she is supporting the number it is hiring and how it is handling the files. That is what I am saying. The member wants to debate pre-2015 and what our previous Conservative government did. We have nine years of a Liberal government's tenure in office.

We have two immigration ministers fighting it out in public, one saying it is out of control and one saying it is a mess. I rarely hear that member in committee side with the Conservatives who are trying to advocate for people and trying to find a solution to some of these problems. So, I am just calling her out here. I am trying to bear out on the public record what I see happening on the immigration committee and what I see happening in the House of Commons.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

In the last couple of questions that I have allotted, after members have asked their questions, they seem to want to ask other questions. I would just ask them to wait until the appropriate time to do that as opposed to trying to interrupt the member.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his intervention and for his sensitivity on this issue. I think he made a number of important distinctions. He mentioned a few times that the government was not facing up to its responsibilities and was shirking its duty. I would like to ask him a straightforward question, and I hope he can offer some clarity. First, will the Conservative Party support the Bloc Québécois's motion? Second, as a shadow minister in the shadow cabinet of the member for Carleton , will he agree not to abide by McKinsey's goal of reaching a population of 100 million by 2100?

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, concerning the first part of my colleague's question, it depends. I know that this is not the answer he was hoping for. However, it depends. We will see how the debate unfolds. As for the second part of his question, as the member knows, we Conservatives voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's motion on the Century Initiative. At the time, we voted with the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties in the House. I think that answers his question.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I want to focus on the time I was in opposition when we had a Conservative government and on another program where the member says that Conservatives did not have backlogs. I recall the backlog for experienced workers that got so long that Minister Kenney, as opposed to dealing with it, literally hit the delete button, and hundreds of thousands of people who were in the stream were deleted out of the system. I think Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative common-sense approach is to the detriment of the long-term healthy immigration policy. We have seen a number of areas where processing times are far better than what they were in the Conservative era.

(1155) Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. When the Paul Martin government was defeated in 2006 and a new Conservative government took over, it took a few years to realize that, in fact, there was a six million to eight million application backlog created by previous Liberal governments. At that time, the decision was made to reset the system to zero, because there was no way to fix it. Liberal governments, from the 1990s to the early 2000s, had basically broken the immigration system, like they have broken the immigration system today.

The decision was taken to return people's money and their applications, to restart the system at zero. That was their fault. Let us talk numbers. I have the numbers for 2015. In 2015, according to IRCC, study permits took 31 days to process. Work permits took 42 days to process. Temporary resident visas took 13 days to process. In April 2023, study permits took 88 days to process. Work permits took 62 days to process. Temporary resident visas took 72 days to process. Those are bigger numbers than the first ones.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has outlined some of the failures of the Liberal government in terms of huge backlogs in almost every area. I think it is important to point out, as well, the types of people who are being allowed in. We are talking about needing to build homes, but the numbers of construction workers are low. Meanwhile, there is an open door at Pearson airport, where people can just show up and claim refugee status.

Mr. Tom Kmiec :

Madam Speaker, the member for Sarnia—Lambton is correct. I asked the government to tell me how many construction workers were brought in through all immigration streams under the different NOC codes. The minister claimed that he was not the minister responsible for NOC codes. It is about 4,500 per year since 2016. We have a shortage of 100,000 residential construction workers just in Ontario. They are not going to meet their targets, because it has not been their focus area.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Vancouver East . I also want to note that the representative from the Conservative Party did not answer her very good question whatsoever. The Conservative Party seems to want to hide its intentions when it comes to immigration objectives. Other than fine speeches, the official opposition remains vague and is kind of playing secretive games.

I think it is a shame that my colleague from Vancouver East did not get the response she was entitled to when she asked a very simple and very direct question to the representative of the Conservative Party. Today's debate is an important discussion that sometimes gets people, the media and certain columnists worked up. It is an entirely legitimate question on the type of society we want to build, the type of welcoming nation we want to be, the economic development we want to have and the contribution of people who want to come share their life here, with us, in Quebec or in Canada.

There is a joke I have been making for some time. Obviously, Quebec and Canada are lands of immigration. I myself am a 13th-generation immigrant. The first one came in the late 17th century. His name was Jean, and he was a potter, a “turner” to the king. Incidentally, the name Boulerice was not written that way at the time; initially, it was a Breton name spelled as two words. I think we need to continue this tradition of integration and of welcoming people that we have had for centuries. However, it has to be done well and in a positive way.

It must also be done with a positive eye to the contribution of all those who, for various reasons, want to come and settle here in the hope of a better life, to seek protection or to flee persecution, or to hope for better things for their children and families. These are people who work extremely hard and contribute to our development and economic activity in extraordinary and wonderful ways. According to recent statistics, 33% of recent immigrants start their own small businesses when they arrive here, and then hire people who have sometimes been here longer.

These are entrepreneurs and job creators, people who also contribute to various sectors of our society. Twenty percent of immigrants are working in the construction industry. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and these people are coming here to work. Yes, they live in houses and apartments, but they are also going to build houses and apartment buildings. One in five immigrants works in construction. That is a lot, and it is important to point that out. A total of 1.6 million immigrants across the country are working in our health care system.

They are caring for our friends, our parents and our grandparents, for people in Canada who are sick. That is an huge number. When we talk about immigration levels and immigration capacity, we need to look at it from that perspective. Immigration is not only positive, but it is necessary for our economy. Most of the chambers of commerce are saying that there is a labour shortage in Quebec and that we need hands and minds to join our workforce. It is not every day that members will hear a New Democrat quoting chambers of commerce, but the NDP agrees that this is what is needed.

The need for workers is being felt throughout Montreal and the regions of Quebec. Businesses want to do more and take on more contracts. They want to undertake new projects, but they need workers to be able to do so. We therefore need to be able to welcome immigrants and welcome them properly. I will say right off the top that I have no idea if Quebec should welcome 50,000, 70,000 or 35,000 economic migrants. I am not an immigration expert, demographer or economist. It all depends on the context, our needs and whether we can properly welcome and integrate them.

Once again, the notion of integration capacity is very vague.

(1200) Obviously, we are in the middle of the housing crisis right now. Our public services are feeling the pressure. The community groups that work with those immigrants and refugees are feeling the pressure. We need to acknowledge that, but closing the door to immigrants is not necessarily the answer, because that would cause collateral damage to our economic development and to our SMEs and businesses that need those people. We need a tailored response that is smart and, most importantly, based on evidence and reality.

We do not need speeches that can sometimes be quite discriminatory or xenophobic towards the people who come here. This happens on a fairly regular basis with some columnists, and it seems to me a terrible shame that immigrants are being singled out and blamed for things like the housing crisis. It is utterly ridiculous. How dare we blame today's immigrants for our inaction over the past 30 years on building affordable and social housing? How dare we tell immigrants that they stopped us from building social housing over the past 30 years?

They came here and they want to participate, start a family and send their children to school and university. This housing crisis is the outcome of inaction by Liberal and Conservative governments in recent years. The housing crisis existed before these immigrants and temporary migrant workers arrived here to work and make a contribution. For some columnists to point fingers and blame them is irresponsible, discriminatory and misguided. The federal Liberal government stopped investing in social and co-operative housing in 1994, and that is when the problem started. Then the Harper government made it even worse.

That is a fact. The reality on the ground today is that the vacancy rate is 1.5% in Montreal, which gets a lot of newcomers and immigrants, and 0% in Rimouski. The housing shortage is worse in Rimouski than in Montreal, and it is not because Rimouski gets a lot more immigrants per capita than Montreal. It is important to set the record straight. NDP members think it is important to be able to do that. My colleague, the member for Vancouver East , will share some constructive suggestions later on that will enable us to examine every aspect and every nuance of this issue.

Quebec's former immigration minister said that immigrants do not want to integrate, do not want to speak French and do not want to work. Let us stop saying that. It is not true. I live in Montreal. There are a lot of newcomers who work extremely hard. They all work extremely hard. They want to build a new life here in Quebec. They make an absolutely extraordinary contribution. They want to learn French. The problem is that there are not enough teachers. There are not enough French training services. The wait lists for French classes are endless.

Part of the reason is that the Government of Quebec is not using the funding it is given by the federal government to help immigrants learn French. It uses it for other things, but that is another debate. Still, saying that these newcomers, these workers, do not want to integrate, do not want to contribute and do not want to speak French is not only shameful and irresponsible, but it is also completely false when we look at what is actually happening.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of an organization in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie called the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. They made the same observation that we need these people. The debate about the number is a bit of a distortion in itself, but the reality is that these groups that help these people settle and manage the administrative tasks with the schools and hospitals are overwhelmed and do not have the resources they need.

That is where our governments, here in Ottawa and in Quebec City, must do more to support those people on the ground, who are there to ensure good integration and who are able to do so. Our capacity to welcome immigrants relies heavily on these community groups that do not have enough and are overworked at this time. They themselves are telling us that it is not because there are too many immigrants, it is because they do not have the human and financial resources to do a good job. We need to build more housing; that is true. We need to build social and affordable housing.

However, I think we have to look at the next logical step. Immigrants did not cause the housing crisis. Immigrants should be welcomed by us, whether they are asylum seekers, refugees or economic immigrants, who are selected by the Government of Quebec, by the way, with points for knowledge of French. Let us do better. I look forward to questions from my colleagues. I will be pleased to provide answers.

(1205) Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie talked about the community organizations that work very hard to help newcomers integrate. Granby is a welcoming place, and I am very proud of that. I am in regular contact with Solidarité ethnique régionale de la Yamaska, the organization responsible for integrating these folks. Its staff make an incredible contribution to that community back home. I commend them for their work, but they are definitely overwhelmed. I would like to come back to another point on which I wish I could agree with him.

We in the Bloc Québécois, including myself and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, do not want to start a war of numbers. We merely want to talk about the issue and have a discussion that is calm and as respectful as possible. What does my colleague think about the issue of international students and the immigration minister 's idea to lower these thresholds? On the ground, if there is one thing that people in our communities and in the schools are telling us, it is that these students are part of our community. They are the lifeblood of our post-secondary institutions.

Indeed, the immigration minister would be hitting the wrong targets by limiting the number of international students. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I commend the organizations in her riding that work hard to integrate people who arrive there. That is an excellent question. It is a very complex file. Sometimes there is a tendency to mix apples, oranges and bananas. There are different types of immigrants: economic immigrants, refugees, family members and students. There are also temporary foreign workers. We have not talked about them, but there is a large number of them in Quebec and they are very much needed in many sectors.

Of course we think about agriculture, but this can also be in processing, slaughterhouses, and also the health sector. These people are sometimes stuck with closed permits and that creates a host of problems. There is no doubt that foreign students also make an economic contribution: They spend money here, they work here too. Sometimes, they stay here and share their talents with us. Wanting to reduce their numbers at any