SoVote

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

May/10/22 5:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find that what this motion does is amplify the irrelevancy of the Bloc today. Since 1993, we have had presence from the Bloc party here in the House of Commons, and today is the day when the Bloc members want to designate, in the last 20 years, a debate on this particular issue. Speaker after speaker outside of the Bloc has gotten up and talked about the importance of issues that Canada is facing today, such as health care, housing, seniors, the economy in general and so much more, yet the Bloc is so focused on this particular issue. Why today? What is the urgency today? Do Bloc members have nothing else that they believe the people of Quebec are concerned about so that they raise this issue? Not one person in 10 years has raised the issue with me.

143 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was talking about "whataboutism”. There is that, but we must not talk about such a thing. Talking about such a thing is what we do every day, and we never get an answer from the government. On health, on the environment, on housing and on everything that is given as an example, we never get an answer. I would like to make one small point. The Bloc Québécois has been in the House since 1990, even though its representatives were first elected in 1993. At that time, it took the best Liberal members. The Liberals have been here since 1867. How is it that they have not dealt with these issues? The member asks why we are doing this today. I say to him, why not do it today? It should have been done a long time ago. If not now, when will it be the right time?

157 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/10/22 5:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for those watching this important debate tonight, it really brings in some of our traditions that I previously spoke to, which started in 1877 in this place and were codified in 1927. It has been around in this place for a long time, and tradition matters to Canadians. I do not know if Canadians out there know that the Bloc does not come into the chamber until after the anthem is sung and after the prayers have been prayed. I think the question that is begging to be answered is, what about the national anthem, which recognizes God? Are Bloc members saying they want that struck from the national anthem? Are they saying they want it struck from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law? I guess the question, which was asked by a member of my party previously, is this: What is next?

156 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:49:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that Canada's national anthem is a French-Canadian anthem that was stolen from us, much like the name “Canadian”. I want to point that out. That being said, it is important to remember that we also do not sing the national anthem. Canada appropriated it. That is a perfect example of cultural appropriation, so we no longer participate in the singing of the anthem. That makes sense, because we were elected as sovereignists. That is not the case for the other members of the House. I do not have a problem with them singing it. That being said, in answer to the question, for me, the next step would be independence for Quebec, of course. We will continue to fight for that. We still think it is the best solution. I get the feeling that members assume that because we do not participate, it does not bother us. We are here to engage in politics. We are not doing this to indulge our personal whims. We are doing this because we think that prayers have no place in Parliament.

191 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/10/22 5:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a non-religious person, and I have let the daily prayer continue as it is, but on the principle of it, I do have to ask this question: If I am a non-believer, as a duly elected representative of this House, why do I have to accept that I have to endure a reference to an “almighty God” that I do not believe in? I think the principle is a valid one, and I am going to vote for this motion. However, I would ask the member about the reference that we attempted to make to Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, because we have a very long colonial history, and I believe it is a secular acknowledgement of the way the Canadian state has harmed indigenous people. I am just wondering why the Bloc was not prepared to accept our amendment to its motion today.

153 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:51:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. At first I thought that his speech was in support of mine, when he said that he, as a non‑believer, should not have to endure this. In fact, we should not even be in a position to know whether he is a believer or a non‑believer in today's Parliament. This should not be at the centre of political debate. He is right about the place of indigenous people. In fact, I am a member of a first nation, the Huron-Wendat nation. I am absolutely on board with having that debate. That said, it should be completely separate from this one. These are two different things, and that is the only reason we rejected the amendment. For the rest, it is legitimate and we will debate it. I have no problem with—

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:52:14 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but time is running out and we still need to hear from a few speakers. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

31 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

May/10/22 5:52:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to discuss this Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. I must admit that I have been pleasantly surprised by the debate today. It has been a meaningful debate of an important issue. I would argue that this might not be the right time and place to debate this matter, but it has nonetheless been an informative debate. One of the great advantages of the parliamentary system is that we can honour our traditions while also adapting and modernizing with the times, but that adaptation and modernization must be done together as a House of Commons and, ideally, with a consensus approach to the House of Commons. Indeed, if we look at examples of our provincial colleagues, British Columbia and Ontario both undertook changes to their daily prayers. In Ontario and British Columbia, it was done with the unanimous consent of both of those provincial legislatures. In Ontario, the very first non-Christian prayer that was delivered was an Ojibwa prayer recognizing the importance of indigenous peoples in Canada and in Ontario's history. When it comes time in June for a review of the Standing Orders, we have an entire day in this House to debate them. It is a day I like to refer to as Christmas morning, which I am sure the member for Winnipeg North would agree with because it is an opportunity to discuss these matters and have them referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to have a meaningful, in-depth conversation about this issue. It includes the opportunity, as the NDP mentioned earlier, to have a land acknowledgement and look at the opportunities and potential to have other non-Christian, even secular, opportunities within this place.

303 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:54:06 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:54 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Drummond.

89 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

May/10/22 5:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:54:55 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

43 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/10/22 5:55:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:10 p.m.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:55:23 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary moving this motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed will please say nay. It being 6:10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

56 words

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

May/10/22 5:56:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it certainly has been an interesting day in the House of Commons, with the Bloc Québécois defending the idea of freedom of religion and conscience. I never thought I would see the day. Members were saying it was an offence that they had to spend 30 seconds listening to something they did not agree with. Imagine all the time I spend in this House hearing things I do not agree with. Nonetheless, we are now on to debating something else, which is Motion No. 44. Just as, rhetorically at least, Bloc members were adopting the idea of freedom of religion or conscience, which is normally something we hear championed by Conservatives, we have a motion from a Liberal member that borrows considerably from the Conservative platform in the last election. On that basis, I am pleased to support it. I would generally like to encourage members of the government, when they have private members' bills, to consider putting forward legislation that fixes the problems that are in place. Motions are a good way for the House to express itself on general issues. Implicit in this motion is an acknowledgement by the member of the government of the failure of the Liberal cabinet to actually move forward on addressing these issues in the seven years the Liberals have had up until now. There are significant problems that persist in our immigration system that have not been resolved. Nonetheless, the ideas behind this motion are good ideas and ones that Conservatives are pleased to support. My understanding is that this motion will have the support of all members in the House, and I hope that it will then light a fire under the government to really confront some of the big and persistent challenges in the immigration system. In particular, this motion calls on the government to put forward a plan that seeks to support a pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, recognizing, first of all, that people who come as temporary foreign workers often establish attachments here in Canada and develop Canadian connections and experience. Often, those who come here in temporary work positions are filling jobs that are not temporary jobs; they are filling jobs that are permanent. It does not make much sense, even from the perspective of the interest of Canadian employers or the Canadian economy, to have people come here temporarily to fill jobs that are in reality permanent jobs, and then perhaps get the benefit of Canadian connections and training, but then be forced to go back and be replaced in an ongoing way. I mentioned the synergy, so to speak, between this motion and things that Conservatives put forward in the last platform. I want to note that our platform said we would: ...create pathways to permanence for those already living and working in Canada, so long as they are prepared to work hard, contribute to the growth and productivity of Canada, and strengthen our democracy. It does not make sense to attract the best and brightest, provide them training and knowledge, and then force these people—with all their potential—to leave. I am very pleased that we were able to put that forward. I want to add as well that when Conservative parties put forward ideas in a general election, very often those ideas do not just come through the platform development process but come from our member-driven policy declaration, and our Conservative policy declaration calls on the party in government to “examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status”. These are ideas that really came from the membership of the Conservative Party in terms of supporting these pathways to permanence. They were supported in our platform, and now they are in a private member's motion proposed by a Liberal member. Clearly, there is no monopoly on good ideas. More broadly, we need to recognize that there are some significant challenges in our immigration system. The biggest challenges I hear about in my office are the challenges around backlogs and the significant delays that people have to deal with in making applications for things that are so fundamental for themselves, their lives and their families. The delays cause increased hardship, increased cost and all kinds of different challenges. I want to use this opportunity as well today to call on the government to do more and to work with us to address the issue of backlogs in our immigration system. One example is that those seeking to privately sponsor vulnerable refugees must often wait up to three years. I know of community groups, faith groups and others that are looking to sponsor vulnerable refugees and are stuck providing financial support to people who are in another country, perhaps in a refugee camp or in a vulnerable situation. They are providing financial support to them overseas while they are in that vulnerable situation for three years, until they are able to come to Canada and begin the transition to a permanent life here in Canada. It is only because of the backlog. It is only because of bureaucratic delays. If only they could come here right away, begin a life here in Canada and begin that transition, it would actually be less costly for those involved in private sponsorship, and it would be so much more beneficial, from a safety and security perspective, for the family. We have people waiting very long periods of time to be reunited with family members. It is hard for me to imagine needing to be away from my spouse for months and months on end simply because of bureaucratic delays. We also have delays, by the way, in people's access to citizenship. This is important because it impacts people's ability to participate in our democratic life. Someone might have been in Canada for long enough to be eligible for citizenship. One of the Liberals' first acts with respect to immigration was reducing the amount of time that a person has to be in Canada before they apply for citizenship, yet they have extended the amount of time, in the form of this backlog, that it takes for people to actually get that citizenship. We have an election campaign here in Ontario right now, and a motion was put forward on this issue at the immigration committee by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, recognizing that the significant delays in citizenship processing applications are effectively disenfranchising people. These are people who might want to vote in this election and might have applied. They are in a queue waiting for the processing of their application. Given the significant impacts of delays and backlogs, we put forward some ideas in the last election on how to address these. One of them, for instance, was to allow people to pay money for expedited processing, effectively allowing the process to speed up by increasing capacity. We need to see an expansion of capacity in processing, and people who are waiting a long time for a spouse or family member to come might be willing to invest in that system of processing. It is one possible solution that we had put forward. We also proposed other solutions to make the system more efficient, such as doing efficiency reviews of how that process happens. Here is another way we could address the problem of backlogs: Let the people who are on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination choices come back to work. It does not seem that difficult. If the government says it is putting people on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination status, even if they are working from home, it would be absurd to assume that this does not have some effect on government services. Unless some of these folks were doing absolutely nothing, putting them on leave has an impact on the government services that are available. That will have an impact across the board. It will impact the various services that Canadians receive, and one of them is immigration. We have this huge demand for passports. We also have this huge demand from people who want applications for family sponsorship, refugee sponsorship and other things processed. However, it is so important, for an ideological reason, for the government to put people on unpaid leave, take them out of the workforce when they are working on those issues and force them not to participate in this work even if they are at home. This is another issue of the backlog. We need an immigration system that works well and works efficiently. I know in general that the Liberals have this philosophy of big government. They want government to be doing more and more things and to be involved in more and more areas of our economy. However, even in areas that are core to government responsibility, they do not do very well. Immigration is a core government responsibility. No one is suggesting that anyone but government should do the processing part of immigration applications, yet it is not able to do this well. As we have seen in many cases, such as the situation in Afghanistan and in some of the other aspects of immigration, the government is not able to deliver. One of the other issues that we have taken up at the immigration committee is the situation in Ukraine. The Conservatives have been united with the other opposition parties in calling for the government to have visa-free travel for people coming from Ukraine. We put forward a motion on that and it passed at committee and passed in the House. The government opposed it and has not acted on it. I commend the member for Surrey Centre for having adopted one Conservative idea in this motion. I want to encourage him to adopt more Conservative ideas on immigration. Members of this party have put forward so many good ideas. Motion No. 44 is a great start. I am proud to support it, and I would invite other members of the Liberal caucus to take up more of these great Conservative solutions that we are putting forward.

1701 words

All Topics

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

May/10/22 6:06:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, my colleagues were nodding off because we were discussing Bill C-8 so late at night, so this week, I want to keep things a little lighter. There is no need for my colleagues to worry. I will not upset them too much this evening. In fact, I am even going to be optimistic. Motion No. 44, which was moved by my hon. colleague from Surrey Centre, is very timely. The good weather is returning and Quebeckers are already dreaming of summer and starting to plan their vacations. Lac-Saint-Jean is preparing for a wonderful, sunny season, or so we hope, when it will welcome visitors from all over Quebec, Canada and the world. Do members know what makes us famous the world over? Other than our many kilometres of gorgeous beaches, our breathtaking scenery and our wide-open spaces, Lac-Saint-Jean's claim to fame is most definitely our blueberries, haskap berries and strawberries. If members ever get their hands on a quart of these berries, they will understand why Quebeckers are so proud of their regional products. Many like to pick them themselves, but most wait patiently only to make a mad dash for the fruit stands or grocery stores around the world that sell them. All these things, and many others, are possible because of temporary foreign workers. As everyone knows, the labour shortage is causing problems for our farmers. Year after year, the complexity and cost of bringing new workers into the regions is an endless challenge for our agri-food business owners. Of course, the lack of employees is not specific to the agricultural sector. No sector seems to be spared, but immigration is part of the solution. That is why I understand the motivations of the member for Surrey Centre in moving his motion, since I share his eagerness to facilitate access to permanent residency for foreign workers. Companies in the vast agriculture and agri‑food sector are having serious problems and are constantly grappling with the complicated and costly process of bringing in temporary foreign workers. Under the circumstances, giving weight to in-Canada work experience is not a crazy idea. Making it easier for these workers to obtain permanent resident status could even help keep these workers in the regions. Motion No. 44 gives some hope to businesses in the rest of Canada that are impatiently waiting for an easy way to bring in workers to fill the labour shortage affecting their operations. In my opinion, it is certainly not a bad idea to amend the criteria for switching from a temporary visa to a permanent visa given the needs and realities of Quebec and Canada. This must be done if we want the sector to recover from COVID-19, among other things. That said, at the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc will oppose any decision that tramples on Quebec's jurisdictions. That is why I want to remind my colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will agree to the motion on one simple condition: The motion must respect the Canada-Quebec accord. It is as simple as that. I realize that the wording is, on the whole, quite general. The motion calls on the government to examine the evidence, incorporate data on labour shortages, identify mechanisms and consider certain occupations in economic immigration programs. That is no big deal. In terms of the more binding elements, we just need some reassurance. Point (a) of the motion calls for “amending eligibility criteria under economic immigration programs”. It is vital to remember that Quebec is solely responsible for selecting economic immigrants and, therefore, for the various criteria and programs that determine whether a temporary foreign worker is eligible to obtain permanent status in Quebec. In other words, it is not up to the federal government to determine the eligibility criteria for permanent status in Quebec. Assuming that the division of immigration responsibilities between the federal government and Quebec will be respected, my interpretation is that the motion would not apply to Quebec. As I mentioned a minute ago, immigration is, and I want to stress this, one part of the solution. The two major challenges facing the Quebec and Canadian labour markets are labour shortages and skills shortages. That makes immigration attractive, of course. Temporary immigration often enables employers to fill positions that Canadians are typically not interested in anymore, whereas permanent immigration enables employers to fill these positions and recruit talent internationally. This is not the miracle cure either, though. It will come as no surprise to anyone that immigrants are human beings, not production line inputs. They are exactly like the people who elected us and who want us to ensure decent working conditions. Often we fall into the trap of taking the easy way out. That is only natural. It is human. Having a real discussion about the working conditions for less valued jobs is much more long and difficult than turning to immigration. Reviewing all of our business assistance policies and modernizing the funding criteria is also a long process. Promoting training and environmental protection is not always simple. We have a long way to go in terms of fast-tracking the digital shift and business automation when we ourselves are still using fax machines. In short, immigration is necessary because we need a quick, easy solution, but that does not change the fact that it is a band-aid solution. I would encourage all my colleagues to elevate the discussion in the long term. Speaking of the long term, I want to come back to the Canada-Quebec accord for a moment. If the motion before us today simply seeks to facilitate access to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers and will not impact immigration levels, then I would like to talk for minute about the implications of the immigration levels. The increase in immigration levels announced in early February 2022 by the Minister of Immigration is worrisome for the future of Quebec, particularly its cultural and linguistic future. Facilitating access to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers should not result in an increase in Canadian immigration levels, which are already too high. We agree that the process should be faster and easier, but we do not agree with higher levels. The plan to further increase immigration volumes from 184,606 in 2020 to 431,000 new permanent residents in 2022 and 451,000 in 2024 means admitting 1.33 million permanent immigrants in just three years. This is an 80% increase from the immigration thresholds that existed before the Liberal Party of Canada took power in 2015. On a per capita basis, Canada is already one of the western countries with the highest number of immigrants. These figures apply only to permanent immigrants, in other words, those who obtain permanent residence. Section 2 of the Canada-Quebec accord establishes an important objective for Quebec: preserving Quebec's demographic weight within Canada and ensuring that the integration of immigrants into the province is respectful of its distinct identity. This accord requires Ottawa to take into consideration Quebec's advice on the number of immigrants that it wishes to receive, when setting immigration thresholds for the country as a whole. Was Quebec consulted before these targets were set? It would be surprising. The federal government is not fulfilling the terms of the Canada‑Quebec accord with respect to increasing its threshold. The influx of such a large number of immigrants in such a short amount of time has several consequences for Quebec. First, it is one of the causes of the accelerated decline of French, which we have been seeing for 15 years. What is more, exceeding our capacity to accommodate people contributes to the housing crisis and the rising price of real estate. The first victims of the housing crisis are the poor, who often include newcomers. That may not bother the Liberals, but it bothers me. Ottawa also discriminates against francophone immigrants who want to live or study in French in Quebec. As Frédéric Lacroix said, wilfully or not, Canada is actively sabotaging Quebec's efforts to attract francophones. As a result, Quebec's relative weight in Canada declined for the 11th census in a row from 28.9% in 1966 to 23% in 2021. That decline will pick up speed. I expect we will be told to accept X number of immigrants as though, once again, they were just numbers, not human beings. The decline of French throughout the greater Montreal area, the housing crisis and harmonious integration will take a back seat.

1450 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/10/22 6:14:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion and its proposal to strengthen support for a pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers and international students. I want to thank the member for Surrey Centre for bringing this motion forward and for helping to shine more light on such important issues in my home province of British Columbia as well as across Canada. I will start my speech with a quote from Alex, a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith who came to Canada from Zimbabwe. Alex recently wrote to me, seeking support for his application for permanent residency. He said, “It has been six months since IRCC received my application and I'm still waiting. I would love to get back to work as soon as possible, mostly so I can provide for my family but also because I see how desperate employers are getting to find people and I want to do my part.” He continues, “I'm unsure if you have ever been in a position like this, but as a parent yourself I'm sure you can understand the stress I feel being unable to provide.” This is heartbreaking, and Alex is not alone in this experience. New Democrats have recognized for years that individuals who are qualified to work or study in Canada should have an opportunity to stay here. We know that workers who are identified by the government to have what it determines to be low or medium skills are still making real and meaningful contributions to Canada. The value of the important roles being taken on by those entering Canada as temporary foreign workers became very evident to us all during the pandemic. From their roles in agriculture to their work in the care economy, it is clear that the skills temporary foreign workers bring with them to Canada are not only valuable, but essential to each of us. When we talk about the temporary foreign worker program, we often ignore the human stories of these workers. When speaking to this motion, I think of Vrenalyn: a constituent who recently wrote to my office looking for assistance with her permanent residency application. Vrenalyn has been in Canada for 10 years. She first arrived in Canada as a temporary foreign worker. She is currently working three jobs in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith to support her family that she had to leave behind. Her daughter was 14 when she first applied for permanent residency. Her daughter is now 21. When Vrenalyn wrote to my office, she had just finished her 13th day in a row of working almost 16-hour days. To ensure that she could continue her path toward permanent residency, she has only been able to return home once in the past 10 years to visit her sick husband. Tragically, she was not even able to get home when he passed away. Vrenalyn is someone who has worked tirelessly since she arrived in Canada. She has done everything right to create a life here, but instead of supporting that dream and recognizing her years of hard work, she has faced every delay and setback imaginable. We need to fundamentally rethink our approach to supporting hard-working individuals such as Vrenalyn who are committed to contributing to Canada and making Canada their home. There are important reasons why all individuals who come to Canada to work should have access to a clear and timely pathway to permanent residency. For years, we have seen systemic abuses of the temporary foreign worker program. We have denied temporary foreign workers basic rights that should be afforded to anyone working and living in Canada. This has allowed predatory employers to exploit and abuse workers, with little fear of recourse. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have created a vacuum in the Canadian economy. It is one where jobs filled by the temporary foreign worker program are often filled by those most desperate and vulnerable to exploitation. Unsurprisingly, once these highly exploitable jobs are created, there is a vicious cycle that continues over and over. This is shameful in a country as wealthy as Canada. Canadians expect better, and the temporary foreign worker program needs to be designed to ensure that those working in Canada are treated with dignity and respect. I think back to the Auditor General's report in 2021 on health and safety of agricultural temporary foreign workers in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report highlighted that Canada's inspections under the program provided little assurance of protection for workers during the pandemic. This was despite the current Liberal government's promise to address the blatant violations of workers' rights we saw during the beginning of the pandemic. Instead of ensuring that temporary workers were protected the next year, the government taxed the system even more without improving the inspection system. This under-resourced inspection system got even worse, and vulnerable foreign workers were the ones who suffered because of it. The agriculture sector is not the only area where we have routinely seen abuses in Canada's foreign worker system. That is why I fully support my colleague from Vancouver East's amendment to this motion to include caregivers in this plan. Ensuring that individuals working in domestic spaces have access to the same level of protection from harassment and violence is vital. I am happy to hear that the mover of this motion supports this important addition. Canada's system to facilitate the transition from temporary to permanent status is also broken, unfortunately, for companies trying to do right by their workers. I think about Maria, the owner of Pro Stitch Alterations in my constituency of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who recently reached out to my office to get assistance for one of her staff members. Maria has a qualified seamstress working with her, but because the seamstress is still working on her language skills, she cannot secure permanent residency. Moreover, because this profession is not considered a priority of the government, the path to permanent residency is lengthy and unclear. Maria's only solution to keep her valuable employee is to apply through the temporary foreign worker program over and over again. One of the great ironies of Maria's situation is that she herself is a proud immigrant, having moved from Romania to Canada many years ago. It speaks volumes that someone who was able to move to Canada and start a successful small business is unable to pass along those opportunities to others because of Canada's broken immigration system. I also want to give a special mention to the Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society, also known as CVIMS, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, which does incredible work to support new Canadians and temporary foreign workers. Last year, CVIMS provided services to over 300 temporary foreign workers and international students, helping to make Nanaimo—Ladysmith a more welcoming and supportive place for newcomers to Canada. Every day, CVIMS is working to help individuals, but its work is made so much harder because of the systemic challenges built into our temporary foreign worker program. Individuals it is working with struggle to meet language goals for permanent residency because they are being forced to work impossibly long hours. CVIMS also struggles to help report abuse, because temporary foreign workers are often too fearful to come forward with stories of mistreatment. These workers understand that any misstep could mean no longer having an opportunity to stay and work in Canada. I have seen first-hand the incredible work that CVIMS is doing, and I truly believe that we need to create a system in which groups like CVIMS can focus on the work of welcoming and supporting individuals who are new to Canada with less concern that the people they are trying to help are being exploited. Canada is facing a labour shortage. Welcoming people to Canada to help meet the full range of our labour needs is vital. As we move forward, it is also important that we have a compassionate approach that takes into consideration the unique stories of people like Alex, Vrenalyn and Maria. We need to make sure that jobs filled by temporary foreign workers are not excuses for abuse and exploitation. As we move forward, we need to make sure that people are excited to work in Canada and that they have a clear pathway set out for them. We all benefit when Canada is welcoming and supportive.

1428 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 6:23:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-219

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: S-219, an act respecting a national ribbon skirt day. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)

May/10/22 6:24:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know I speak for hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers, students, families, employers, communities and hard-working industrious community-minded people who long to be a part of our magnificent country of Canada. My friend and colleague, the hard-working member for Surrey Centre, with Motion No. 44, is the hope that all of these great people need, that our economy needs and that our country needs. We have an economy that is leading the G7. With a strong plan to continue that growth, budget 2022 is all about economic growth, jobs, community and country building. That is why Motion No. 44 is vital at this time. Every week at my office in Mississauga East—Cooksville, I have employers coming to let me know how much they are growing, how they are scaling up and how they need more workers. These employers are from all sectors: manufacturing, transportation, logistics, hospitality, health care, construction and trades. I could go on. Statistics Canada shows us that our unemployment rate is the lowest we have seen ever. Since we started measuring unemployment in 1976, our unemployment is the lowest today, at 5.2%. Canada has always been a beacon of hope for people fleeing from wars, persecution, fascism, dictatorships and totalitarian states. Waves of immigrants have come to Canada for its democracy, peace and freedom. I have a Ukrainian intern, Olha Louise Boleyn, who just arrived here in Canada a couple of weeks ago. She is working in my office. She is a courageous young woman of 22 years old. On February 24, when Putin started the illegal, illegitimate war against Ukraine, a sovereign state, this woman's world changed. All of a sudden her family had to flee. Her home and her building were hit by a missile and they lost power. She knew she had to move her family. Her mother and three siblings have gone to Poland to find refuge, her father is still in Ukraine and she has come here to Canada, having helped her family find safe haven. This young woman speaks English, French and Ukrainian. I thank our Minister of Immigration, our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister and all parliamentarians here, because I know we all stand together strong for Ukraine. We are here to help Ukrainians find safety, find help and build a better life. There is a legacy of Ukrainians coming to Canada, and they have farms right across our Prairies. My wife Christina Yaremczuk's family is from Ukraine. Her parents had to flee World War II. They went to a displaced persons camp and then were brought here to Canada. Her grandfather worked at a factory and her mother worked in health care, helping to build our country. Her father went to school here and became a citizen and dentist. Let us consider stories like the story of my wife's parents. I could tell colleagues a bit about my story and my parents. This is about Portuguese people, Italians, Filipinos, Polish people, Ukrainians, Asians, South Asians and the entire world, because outside of our indigenous people, Canada has been built on immigration. We have brought people here from all over the world and given hard-working industrious people an opportunity to succeed. This is all true for our temporary foreign workers and our foreign students. Many of them have come to my office, as I am sure they have visited many of my colleagues' offices. They love their adopted community and country, and want to stay here. Their employers want them to stay, but they have barriers in front of them. They are looking for, and need, a pathway to permanent residency. That is what Motion No. 44, brought forward by my colleague from Surrey Centre, is about. Permanent residency for temporary foreign workers is a comprehensive plan to address many of our labour shortages. It would continue to build our country, to build Canada. Motion No. 44 builds on the success of our Atlantic immigration program, our temporary resident to permanent resident pathway program, rural and northern immigration programs, agri-food immigration pilot and provincial nominee programs. We have learned a lot from all of these programs, including what works and what does not and how to best address our labour shortages, all while working with our partners, provinces, employers, businesses, stakeholders and communities. Temporary foreign workers know our culture, our work environment, our standards, and our health and safety standards. They have enough language proficiency to do their job, whether driving a truck, understanding our rules of the road or being able to get the licences they require. They also have to be proficient when working at construction sites, in terms of health and safety, or working in food processing or agriculture, and understanding how to work on a farm. They have settled, and they have already contributed. They pay taxes. They want an opportunity to grow deep roots, to raise their families and become a part of the Canadian family, not just temporarily for the season, and not just for a couple of years, or four or six years, while having to renew their temporary foreign status year over year. They want to stay here permanently, and we want them to be here. Motion No. 44 is the road map to that. I have spoken to so many temporary foreign workers. Tears come to their eyes because they want to be here to be a part of Canada and to grow their families here. However, there are barriers when it comes to language proficiency and formal education, be it high school or higher education. Some may say that those are low-skilled jobs. I would suggest that those with Ph.D.s, and there may be some in the chamber, to try to frame a home, put a brick wall together through masonry, or put up a piece of Sheetrock or drywall. These are skilled professions. they take a lot of work and a lot of skill. All of these workers are able to do these jobs so well, and we need them. We talk about what we are achieving here in Canada. As we continue to grow with our population, people need a place to live, a place to call home. It takes these construction workers and those transporting all of those construction materials to make that happen. As we build, over these next three or four years, 100,000 more new homes, we will do it through our many temporary foreign workers. Why would we not want to keep them here permanently? This is what Motion No. 44 is all about. It is about continuing to grow our country the way it has from its inception, through waves of immigration, and with people who roll up their sleeves, who are here to work hard and who have the spirit of Canada, of building our country. I thank my parents, Maria Fonseca and Joaquim Fonseca for coming here. Mom worked in health care while Dad worked in a factory after they had left a fascist dictatorship in Portugal. I am so proud that they worked hard. Unless Motion No. 44 gets done, people like my parents would not be able to come to Canada. Let us all support Motion No. 44 and make sure we help our great country and those who want to be part of it.

1236 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

May/10/22 6:34:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Motion No. 44, which seeks to force the government to: ...develop and publicly release within 120 days following the adoption of this motion a comprehensive plan to expand pathways to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, including international students, with significant Canadian work experience in sectors with persistent labour shortages... Furthermore, we are debating the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, with whom I sit on the immigration committee. It seeks to strengthen this motion. Let me start by saying that this is my first opportunity in this Parliament to speak during Private Members' Business. I have had the chance to speak to multiple government bills and budgets since my re-election by the good folks of Saskatoon West, but it is always a pleasure to discuss ideas that originated from MPs outside of the Prime Minister's inner circle. I would remind my Liberal colleagues across the way that they have the actual power to implement these things right now. I am glad to hear them talking positively about the motion, and I encourage them to actually implement it. In Saskatoon West, as in all parts of Canada, our economy is driven through job growth. As our population ages and the boomers retire, we need people to fill those jobs and continue to grow our economy. Like many western nations, Canada's demographics play against our economic survival. Birth rates in Canada are at a historic low of 1.47 children for every woman. An economy needs a replacement of 2.1 births just to keep the population stable, and that assumes that all people want a job and want to work. Unfortunately, as we now know, some people, for one reason or another, would rather take a government cheque than work. Members should not kid themselves: I get emails from constituents demanding that what they and the NDP term as a “universal basic income” get implemented. This social experiment replaces working with a government paycheque, allowing people to stay home and watch Netflix all day. Not only are we short citizens, but not all able-bodied citizens want to work. How do we fix this problem? Well, for the past 20 years or so, the answer has been immigration: bringing in people to do the work the so-called old-stock Canadians no longer want to do. They pick our vegetables, drive our taxis, serve our coffee, drill our oil, mine our lithium for electric cars, drive our big-rig trucks, take care of our children and elders, perform our surgeries, fly our planes, become our members of Parliament and so on. There is actually no limit to the skills that immigrants bring to our country. Many of my constituents in Saskatoon West know that I support immigration. Conservatives are proponents of immigration. I sit on the immigration committee, and I believe in the value and hard work of our immigrants. I take the opportunity when I am back in the riding to meet with Canadians of all backgrounds. Two of the main complaints I hear about are the issue of backlogs and the pathways to permanent residency. Both of these systems are broken. Let me start with backlogs. On Sunday, the latest figures reported by the government put the immigration backlog at two million people. These are Afghans and Ukrainians who are waiting. They are fearing for their lives. These are wives, husbands, children, brothers, sisters and parents who are waiting patiently to join their families already in Canada. They are waiting for IRCC to shuffle through paperwork. Our citizenship backlog sits at almost half a million people. These are people who are now in Canada: They have gone through the immigration backlog, and have successfully applied and been accepted for Canadian citizenship. They are waiting for the day to give that simple oath that will give them the rights and privileges of being a Canadian citizen. Can members believe that? There are two and a half million people waiting for the nod of approval from the Liberal minister. Clearly, there are major problems in the systems we use to manage immigration in our country. We have highlighted some ideas, such as having the entire process online, complete with notes and reasons for decisions to allow for complete transparency. Our system badly needs to be modernized and updated, and Conservatives will continue pushing for that. It is the folks on temporary visas who are the most vulnerable to the whims of the minister and his backlogs. Immigrants come to Canada on a wide variety of temporary visas, such as study and work visas. Imagine that we have just spent four years educating someone as a doctor, engineer, accountant or something else, or a company invests months to train and provide experience to a worker, and then we send them home. Now, sometimes these folks want to return home, and that is just fine, but very often these people want to stay in Canada. When we send them home, Canada loses out on their talent and skills just when they are blossoming into productive workers. In our last Conservative election platform, we promised to: create pathways to permanence for those already living and working in Canada, so long as they are prepared to work hard, contribute to the growth and productivity of Canada, and strengthen our democracy. It does not make sense to attract the best and brightest, provide them training and knowledge, and then force these people—with all their potential—to leave. Permanent residency is the best way to achieve this. Yes, the Liberals have played around the margins of many immigration programs, such as the temporary resident to permanent resident pathway, the Atlantic immigration program, etc., but what have they accomplished? I do not know. Hopefully, this motion will pass and force the government to report back and tell us, but here is an easier answer: permanent residency. The question is, which classes of immigrants will it be for? Let us tackle that one. Many immigrants come to Canada with credentials in their country of origin that allow them to practice medicine, be a nurse or a lawyer, drive a big truck, fly a plane, engineer a road or be a plumber, electrician or a boilermaker. When they come to Canada, either the federal or provincial regulatory body that controls their licensing says that they do not meet the standards. Sometimes that is fair, as when someone is a lawyer coming from India who speaks English. If the person expects to move to the Gaspé to practice law in French, he or she needs to meet certain requirements specific to that province's law association. In other areas, training is training. An easy example to understand is aviation. If people are qualified to fly a Boeing 737 in Indonesia, they are equally qualified to fly that same plane in Canada. It is substantially the same. Therefore, a pilot coming from Indonesia should be able to pick up roots, move to Saskatoon and start flying for WestJet or Air Canada with very minimal training requirements. In cases when there is some Canadian-specific training required, we need to simplify the process to achieve that education. Indeed, in our election platform, we promised to launch a credential recognition task force to develop new, timely and appropriate credential recognition strategies. I will be introducing in the House my own private member's legislation soon enough to accomplish this very task, so I encourage all members to look out for that. Let me touch on the amendment from my colleague for Vancouver East. Her amendment would add the caregiver program to the list of programs that needs to be examined. In the past two studies we have done in the committee, I have asked multiple witnesses about this very program and about caregivers. Many of these folks come from the Philippines and settle in Saskatoon West. What I hear is unsettling. There was no pun intended. MD Shorifuzzaman, who is an immigration consultant from my riding of Saskatoon West, appeared at our committee and said, “Let me focus a little bit about the caregiver program, which can be an example of mistreatment of those foreign workers who work hard to protect the vulnerable in our communities. This program was offered in 2018, but unfortunately, what happened was the priority of the IRCC shifted to the other programs.” Mr. Gurpratap Kalas, another Immigration Consultant from Saskatoon West, also commented on the caregiver program and said, “The processing time has been an extensive amount and, because of the lengthy processing, the majority of the applicants' relationship stresses are often causing breakdowns in their relationships, with marriages falling apart, children reaching the age of majority and other areas. In some cases, employers have either already passed away, or the person to be cared for has already reached the age of majority, as is the case with child care providers.” These immigration consultants are on the ground dealing with the failed caregiver program. I point this out, because I had asked the associate deputy minister of Immigration Canada, when she was at committee, about her thoughts on the caregiver program. She told me that “the caregiver program is one that is a priority for the department.” If a program that is a priority for her as deputy minister is such an abysmal failure, I hate to imagine what a non-priority program would be doing. I want to conclude my remarks by reflecting on the need for compassionate immigration: our refugee program. The wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine have driven home the fact to many Canadians that we can and should be there to welcome people displaced by war. This is a role our country has taken on time and again. Many immigrants came to Canada in the wake of the First and Second World Wars. We know that Hungarians fled here in 1956, and Eastern Europeans did throughout the Cold War. Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese people all fled conflicts. People from Hong Kong, Chinese citizens and practitioners of Falun Gong escaped China's basic dictatorship. Stephen Harper brought boatloads of Lebanese people over during their war with Israel, and the Syrians were after that. Canada must continue to be open for refugees, but for that to happen, we must fix our immigration system, eliminate backlogs, implement new technologies and modernize our bureaucracy. Let us get this motion passed and see what the government says in response. Hopefully, we can get on our way.

1776 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/10/22 6:44:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion, which outlines ways to increase avenues for temporary foreign workers to obtain permanent residence. This motion focuses on occupations in key sectors that are under-represented in existing economic immigration programs. I am sure many members in the House are wondering if there is a way to compel a department like Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to provide timely and predictable services to small- and medium-sized businesses. I am also convinced that the immigration process needs to be streamlined to help mitigate the devastating effects of this labour shortage. There are steps the government can take to make immigration to Canada attractive for employment in sectors that are vital to our economy. I want to give the credit to Richard Kurland, a lawyer and policy analyst with Lexbase, who appeared last week before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. As a first step, he stated that the issuance of work permits should be subject to the Service Fees Act, and IRCC should be responsible not only for delivering work permits within the set processing times but also for refunding applicants if it misses the deadline. The second item is something called the labour market impact assessment, or LMIA. There is no need for this in the province of Quebec, as Quebec is already doing it. We have an ecosystem that is doing it. This is a classic example of government duplication and waste. Where Quebec is already providing the service, why do it again? Quebec has paved the road once, so why do it twice? The LMIAs are a useless duplication. With today's technologies, we have the means to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses do not duplicate their time and effort by sending the same information to two levels of government, and that governments do not simultaneously share information common to both levels of government. The IRCC has always been reluctant to relinquish power and control over its processing times. It is therefore time it was held responsible for upholding service standards that meet businesses' needs, particularly in the context of a labour shortage. There is no reason why the processing times for applications from Quebec should be different than those coming from other places in Canada. The federal government needs to modernize the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to reflect the labour needs, objectives and strategies established by the provinces, such as the regionalization of immigration in Quebec. There is no reason why we cannot think outside the box and take risks, particularly when it comes to immigration. There is so much global competition for the same people, so I do not understand why we need to make it so difficult for the candidates selected by Quebec to come to the country. Qualified young workers will want to immigrate to countries that require less paperwork. It is time to be effective because many communities in the various regions of Quebec depend on these workers coming here. The motion moved by the member for Surrey Centre is perfectly legitimate and humane. It proposes a pathway to permanent residency for these workers and supports their integration in the communities where they came to work. The temporary foreign worker program is a very costly and complex solution to the labour shortage at this point, but small and medium-sized businesses have no choice but to go with this time-consuming immigration program. We need a better solution fast. I would like to share part of an April 29 article by Romain Schué on Radio-Canada: Right now, a skilled worker selected by the Government of Quebec has to wait an average of 31 months for permanent residence. That wait time used to be six months in the branch serving other Canadian provinces, but it recently rose to 27 months according to data on immigration Canada's website. That is a huge disparity. Do you know the difference between my riding and yours, Madam Speaker? A worker in my riding has to wait 25 to 30 months, but a worker in yours, which is just a few kilometres away from mine, might get through the process in a year. That disparity is unacceptable. Also, there is a backlog of more than 29,000 files. In a brief submitted to the Federal Court on April 19 and obtained by Radio-Canada, IRCC discloses that there are currently more than 29,000 permanent resident applications from skilled workers in Quebec waiting to be processed. Nearly 10,000 of these files were sent to Ottawa before 2020. Some of these workers have been waiting for a federal decision for more than 10 years. The department says that the delays could be due to a security or criminal risk or a lack of co-operation. This is unacceptable. The real cause is the lack of consistency from the federal government and perhaps a lack of resources. This may be a result of the labour shortage that is hitting Service Canada so hard. Another way that our regions have shown creativity in attracting workers and addressing the labour shortage by hiring foreign workers is through universities and colleges. An article by Lisa‑Marie Gervais published in the February 18, 2022, edition of Le Devoir indicated that the regions are most affected by the rejection of international students, and the data are rather shocking. For example, the rejection rate at the Université du Québec à Trois‑Rivières is 79%. At the college level, international students are being rejected because they come from Africa, because they are francophone students, or for other reasons. It may simply be because they want to settle here in the long term and that goes against the current mandate of the international student program. That has to change. There is also the Chinook system, which Minister Fraser already talked about. The rejection rate is 73% at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, 71% at the Université du Québec à Rimouski and 68% at the École nationale de l'administration publique. That is not working. It is the same thing for CEGEPs, such as the Cégep de l'Abitibi—Témiscamingue, which has a rejection rate of 75%. These are all educational institutions that want to take matters into their own hands and that are spending large amounts of money to attract students from all over the world, only for those students to be systematically turned down. This is a problem, because part of our strategy for combatting the labour shortage in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is to attract people with the promise of good living conditions and training programs that meet the needs of our business owners and businesses. Motion No. 44 can go much further. It would be interesting to consider, but Ottawa must act quickly.

1161 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 68