44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2023 10:00AM
- May/11/23 4:57:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP members obviously do not want me to read that quote, and yet it is universalist. As I was saying, “Multiculturalism is much more like living side by side and harbouring frustrations with one another, with results that fall far short of the ideal presented by politicians.”
The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture, encouraging the coexistence of multiple cultures side by side. It favours cohabitation based on indifference rather than on recognition and the respect of differences, which invariably leads to the ghettoization of cultures.
That is why what we in Quebec want is an intercultural model based on three fundamental principles that form a common standard that protects Quebec's distinctiveness. Being a Quebecker has nothing to do with looking like a Quebecker. Being a Quebecker is first and foremost a political choice. A person can identify as a Canadian. I respect that. They can also identify as a Quebecker. We hope that everyone who settles in Quebec can get on board with that and identify as Quebeckers. It is up to them how they identify themselves.
We are asking for respect for what defines the soul of the nation, in other words French. We cannot welcome 500,000 people a year and not tell them that Quebec's official language is French.
Secularism is a principle that my colleagues surely agree with. It is important to Quebec, which had its Quiet Revolution and separated church and state. The other principle is equality between men and women. From there, each person, with their diversity, can indeed come build the country with us and that is what we want.
How is any of that xenophobic? How is it racist? These are values born of philosophical liberalism that are meant to be at the very core of the political foundation of every member in the House.
I am out of time. I thank the members from the NDP for sabotaging my speech.
332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:01:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after eight years of Justin Trudeau, Canada's immigration system—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Brad Vis: Madam Speaker, pardon me. I apologize.
After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada's immigration system is broken. With a backlog of over two million and an average processing time of over 20 months, targets simply will not be met. For skilled workers under the federal stream, in 2019, processing an application took 9 months. Today, it has tripled to 27 months.
Why is the Government of Canada so slow at processing workers, whom we need in Quebec, in British Columbia and across Canada?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:01:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
Every year, around the same time, we have to deal with the foreign worker issue. Nothing moves any faster, yet these are housekeeping issues.
More concerning here is that the Century Initiative has in no way calculated the impact that these immigration thresholds would have on the reality of Quebec's linguistic demographics and the vitality of the French language in Quebec. At the same time, the federalist parties on both sides of the House boast about how important it is to defend the French fact in Canada. In my opinion, they are improvising. Gérard Bouchard, though a measured person, is outraged. He has vehemently criticized this plan.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:02:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his stories and explanation today, but I would also just like to perhaps reassure the House and set the record straight. I lived in Quebec for 28 years and my daughter was born there.
I will go back to the question I asked his colleague. Canada transfers significant amounts of money to Quebec for its francization programs and, unfortunately, more than 75% of last year's funds were not used by the Quebec government. Could my colleague enlighten me and explain why these funds were not used to help francization in Quebec?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:04:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Spear, up to now, I did not really understand why my colleague talked about xenophobia in his speech. I do not believe that my speech could be deemed xenophobic.
The fact remains that what we want is to be able to welcome people in a satisfactory manner, with dignity, so they can fully participate in building the Quebec nation and ensuring its survival. We must recognize that Quebec has an additional challenge that is not shared by the rest of Canada, as Canada has a huge desire to welcome a large number of people without ensuring that it has the ability to give them a dignified life.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite Bill 101, despite 40 years of enforcing Bill 101, and despite the fact that French is the language of work, the fact remains that English attracts five times more learners in Quebec than French. That is the reality.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:06:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I am wondering what the real point of the motion proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleagues today is, if not to sow discord or stir up trouble. What are the real needs of Canada, and what are Quebeckers and Canadians saying about it?
I would like to share a bit of what I am hearing from every community in Quebec and across Canada. Employers in Quebec and Canada need skilled labour in all fields. With the exception of the first nations, we are all descendants of immigrants. Many immigrants come to Canada, and they are an exceptional source of wealth for us Canadians. Canada owes a great deal to its immigrant population, because immigrants work hard and integrate into our communities. Now more than ever, we need them.
The government has the desire and the responsibility to address the needs and concerns of Canadians. We are putting in place a realistic and ambitious plan, based on the number of permanent residents admitted to Canada each year, with targets for overall admissions in each immigration category. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the minister must table this plan each year in Parliament, in this House.
The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship makes his decisions on federal immigration thresholds independently, on the advice of departmental officials and in consultation with organizations, stakeholders, the provinces and territories, as well as citizens across Canada to determine the best immigration policy. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I was able to take part in several of those consultations.
The minister was very clear earlier today. The opinions and recommendations of the Century Initiative are not the policies of the Government of Canada. Economic and demographic growth on a global scale is compatible with francophone immigration, and so is protecting the French language and culture. It is important to remember that Quebec does not have the monopoly on French language and culture in Canada, nor on defending them.
The federal government is and always will be there to stand up for and promote the French language. I will mention, as an example, my assistant, who is an immigrant of Moroccan origin. He is brilliant and perfectly bilingual, and he decided to settle in Ontario, here in Ottawa, rather than Quebec, because he knew that his proficiency in French would be an important asset in his job search. It is because of our immigration system that I work with such a dynamic person who helps me in my parliamentary debates. I would like to salute him and say thank you.
He is also very proud to be part of the 4.4% of francophone immigrants outside Quebec who arrived in Canada in 2022. We achieved that target one year ahead of the 2023 target set out in the minister's mandate letter.
The example of my staffer is not anecdotal, as some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues pointed out this morning. French across Canada is a reality, and francophone immigration across Canada is not a naive dream. It is a reality. Francophone communities are increasingly present across the country.
On Monday, I had the great pleasure of being in Yukon, where I talked about immigration and the strategic review. I also met with the people in charge of francophone immigration and people who speak French. We are so proud of the territory because the number of francophone immigrants there is growing vigorously.
Over the past few months, my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has afforded me the opportunity to meet various stakeholders who are concerned about the shortage of skilled workers, workers Canada needs to be competitive.
Yesterday evening I was sitting with a group of Quebec business people. They were worried. They raised a question that I consider very important and very germane to today's debate in the House. They asked me if Quebec will be competitive enough to attract highly skilled workers and meet future labour market demands.
I shared that because it is so important and it made me feel sad, in a way. Quebec sets its own immigration targets. Quebec has the exclusive authority to select most of its immigrants. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, the government provides financial compensation to Quebec to help newcomers integrate both culturally and linguistically.
However, and this is what I was trying to clarify with my Bloc colleagues, we have learned that, last year, the Government of Quebec only spent 25% of all that financing. Basically, Canada gives Quebec money, but Quebec does not spend it. Quebec is the only province that receives an annual immigration subsidy from the federal government. The total amount set aside in the Main Estimates, 2023-24 for that Quebec subsidy is $726.7 million.
I want to say that I am very proud of our government's commitment to our immigration targets. The immigration levels plan paves the way to responsible increases in immigration targets to support three elements: economic growth, a solution to the acute labour shortage in Canada and Quebec, and respecting our commitments to vulnerable people.
I know that the Prime Minister answered a question about that a few days ago. Today, someone in the House mentioned Saint-Eustache—I think it was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities—where manufacturers from all sectors in Quebec are in dire need of skilled labour.
I firmly believe that immigration is good for Canada and good for Quebec. However, perhaps it is Quebec that needs to get on board and understand the importance and immense contribution of immigrants to Canada and Quebec, including francophone immigrants. I will stop there, but I thought it was very important to raise these points in the House today.
996 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:16:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was saying earlier that the Bloc motion is simply about stirring up trouble.
The Bloc Québécois is the only party that brings the interests of the National Assembly to the House, and the National Assembly unanimously denounced the government's immigration targets. I am quoting from this motion, in which Quebec speaks with one voice. In its motion, the National Assembly “...asks the federal government to adopt immigration thresholds based on Quebec's and Canada's integration capacity and levels that are likely to maintain the weight of French and Quebec within Canada”.
That is the reason for our motion. If the parliamentary secretary sees it as a desire to stir up trouble, that is her problem, not mine.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, I have many colleagues who represent the interests of Quebec, including the Prime Minister, who is proud to call himself a Quebecker. I know there are many ministers and members of my caucus who have a strong sense of belonging and are proud to be Quebeckers and Canadians. We will always help the Quebec government achieve its goals.
Today, what matters is that we want our new plan to be realistic, but we have to be ambitious. We really need to support immigration. We know that people are in dire need of people to help them.
When we talk about it here, we always refer to “the employer”, but we should actually be talking about the employees, in hospitality, in restaurants, in hotels. They too want more workers to help them. They need it.
I want to thank them in the House because they worked very hard for all of us during the pandemic.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to reiterate what I was so happy to announce in the House not so long ago. For the first time in history, since we started keeping track, we have met our target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec. That was in 2022, one year ahead of schedule.
I understand very well and I respect my colleague because she supports francophone immigration, and I thank her for asking me this question in my language.
We need to remember two things. On Bill C-13, I know we are all working together to obtain royal assent, and I hope the House will support it. We also have the action plan. I was very proud to see the component relating to our national strategy on francophone immigration, which is supported by $137 million over the next five years to help the province of Alberta and organizations set and achieve even higher francophone immigration targets.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:21:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we certainly do hear those concerns all across Canada and Quebec. I just want to remind my colleague that, for the first time in Canadian history, our government has put a housing strategy in place, and that policy includes affordable housing.
When it comes to speeding up housing construction, the $4‑billion accelerator fund—
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:21:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was wonderful to see you this morning when we greeted the Moldovan president, Maia Sandu, who is quite an impressive individual. We wish her much continued success in her endeavours in Moldova.
I wish to commence by saying that my parents are immigrants. I am the son of immigrants to Canada. In the late 1950s, early 1960s, my mother and her seven siblings came over to Canada by boat via a famous location in this country, Pier 21. They came to build a better life for their family and, eventually, for their children and grandchildren. Canada has given us much to be thankful for. Canada chose us. It chose my parents, and as newcomers to this country, we never forget that. Therefore, I wish to give thanks.
I am pleased to rise today to tell members about the Government of Canada's immigration levels.
Every year, the government tables the annual immigration levels plan for the following year. Canada's immigration levels plan is based on input from employers, communities, provinces and territories, and it is informed by data.
Let me be clear. Canada needs more newcomers to address our demographic challenges and the labour shortage and to ensure our long-term prosperity.
Under the Canada-Quebec accord, Quebec has rights and responsibilities with respect to the number of immigrants Quebec takes in and how they are selected, welcomed and integrated. We therefore work closely with Quebec on everything related to immigration.
Without immigrants, it would have been very difficult for Canada's economy and Quebec's to deal with the challenges of the past two and a half years. In fact, many temporary and permanent residents in this country work in key sectors, such as health care, transportation, agriculture and manufacturing. One of these programs, dubbed the guardian angel policy for health care workers, was created with Quebec's help.
Immigrants played a key role in Canada's post-pandemic economic recovery, which was among the strongest in the world. That includes Quebec, of course. Canada also has historically low unemployment right now. The problem is that the recovery has resulted in a major labour shortage. There are currently over 700,000 vacant jobs in this country. Employers across the country are having a hard time finding and keeping the workers they need, and economic opportunities are being lost as a result.
Permanent immigration is essential to Canada's long-term economic growth. It accounts for nearly 100% of the growth in our workforce and, by 2032, it will account for 100% of our demographic growth.
Fifty years ago, there were seven workers for every retiree in Canada. Today that number is closer to three, and it will likely drop to two by 2035. If we do not change our current trajectory by bringing more newcomers into Canada, we will no longer be having conversations about labour shortages. We will be having conversations about whether we can keep schools and hospitals open.
Immigration helps us alleviate critical labour shortages at all skill levels in key sectors across Canada. Our plan will help us ready Canada's workforce to respond to both current and future challenges.
Canadians know that immigration is one of our greatest assets. It helps us compete. If we want to boost our economic success significantly, we need to boost immigration.
Canada will welcome 465,000 permanent residents in 2023, 485,000 in 2024 and 500,000 in 2025.
It is important to note that these levels are far from the numbers that the Bloc Québécois mentioned.
I would say that these increased immigration levels will help Canada recruit the workers that it needs to address the critical labour shortage and build a strong and resilient economy for the future.
There are many advantages to Canada's global leadership position in immigration and our welcoming immigration policies. Immigration enables us to meet our demographic challenges while supporting the stable and reliable social programs that we take for granted as Canadians. As I said before, we recognize that this needs to be done carefully.
Canadians are now living longer and having fewer children. That reality will impact on our economy now and for years and decades to come.
That is why Canada must increase the number of immigrants that we welcome. In other words, increased immigration means that we will have more people in Canada to participate in our labour force, contribute to our social programs and grow our communities.
As the member knows, the Canada-Quebec accord is clear about the establishment of immigration levels. Canada sets the annual number of immigrants for the country by taking into account the number of immigrants Quebec wants to welcome.
Under this agreement, Quebec is solely responsible for selecting immigrants in the economic and humanitarian streams and for applying the federal selection criteria for family reunification.
If Bloc Québécois members are concerned about the decline in the number of newcomers to Quebec or the immigration thresholds set by the province, they should discuss that directly with the province.
The Bloc Québécois's main concern seems to be the work of a non-partisan, independent group of Canadians who have written their own report on potential targets and suggestions for immigration. We encourage all Canadians to provide suggestions and feedback on our immigration plan and system.
It is essential that all governments commit to meeting the needs of the people we serve, whether in Quebec, Nunavut, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. This is one of the reasons Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has held meetings on the future of immigration. Thousands of groups, citizens and organizations have submitted their views on their visions for immigration in the next 15 to 20 years.
We are not looking to set immigration levels for the coming decades, but we are trying to understand the needs of employers, industries, communities, provinces and territories in order to make sure we have the operational capacity and modernized immigration system to support those needs.
We have heard from and worked with francophone communities and Canadians outside Quebec on the challenges of declining population size in francophone minority communities.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and I have worked closely with the Minister of Official Languages to support the implementation of the official languages action plan, which includes strengthening francophone and bilingual immigration through the francophone immigration strategy. In 2022, we reached the target of 4.4% of francophone immigrants admitted outside Quebec.
I look forward to questions and comments from members.
1099 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:32:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.
Immigration is very important for Canada's economic growth, now and in the long term.
It is very important when newcomers come to Canada, whether temporarily or permanently, that there be lots of housing and social services that are able to meet the demands across this country. Of course, the Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada have entered into agreements on immigration since the early 1990s. That plan has worked over the decades, and it continues to work.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:33:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Ontario, who was born in British Columbia, on the quality of his French. I know that he is of Italian origin and he also speaks English, but it warms my heart to hear him speak French.
Often, when people talk about the Century Initiative, they say that it is a federal government initiative. We know that is a false argument because it is just one initiative out of the 3,000 stakeholders that chose to submit ideas to the federal government. The government does not have any intention of increasing the Canadian population to 100 million people.
Can my colleague make a few comments on this? How can we encourage francophone immigration in Canada and certainly in Quebec?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:47:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean said that we should take immigrants' interests into account. We should not resort to a utilitarian argument to speak on behalf of these people.
I am a Quebecker. If we want to ensure the vitality of the French language in Quebec and if we really want to put ourselves in the immigrants' shoes, we could ask the hundreds of thousands of francophone immigrants from West Africa and the Caribbean who would like to come to Quebec if they are ready to accept the conditions in Quebec and—
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:53:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint‑Jean, whose tone is just as composed as that of the member for Repentigny. That is music to my ears because today we are talking about a very important topic.
This is a subject that we need to be able to talk about calmly. In the last few days, as it happens on a regular basis, there have been slip-ups, particularly when it comes to implications that it is racist to ask for an immigration policy, planning and debate.
With all due respect, I urge my colleagues from all parties to avoid characterizations and all these unnecessary attacks. I am specifically directing this comment at the NDP and the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie who, for days, if not weeks, has been meeting with immigrants and portraying Quebec as a community that does not wish to welcome them and that should not be trusted. That is a fairly extreme attitude.
We have been talking about the Quebec-Canada agreements all day. The government has set a line. We know that the Liberal members have been briefed and that they have a list of talking points. They keep saying that Quebec controls its immigration. One member even told us that Quebec should pull up its socks, meaning that this is our fault.
However, it is true. In the past, there has been meaningful dialogue between Quebec and Ottawa. First, there was the Cullen‑Couture agreement under the Lévesque government. The reason was that the federal government was worried about a referendum. Then, there was the McDougall-Gagnon‑Tremblay agreement in 1991, which was signed in the wake of the Meech Lake accord and implemented just before the referendum. What was the reason? It was not because the federal government was being thoughtful. It was because the federal government was worried about a referendum.
These agreements were established based on power relationships, and Quebec is losing power, both in its demographic weight and in its weight here in the House. That is why these agreements, which were forced by history, have been breached over the years via funding to promote the English language in Quebec and the official languages policies. Today, the federal government is openly violating these agreements with its extremely high targets that go against the initial spirit of the agreements.
I have been listening to the speeches by the Liberal members, including ministers and cabinet members. It seems as though they either do not understand Quebec's situation, they do not want to understand it or they understand it but other Liberals do not want to listen. Let us ask John McCallum about it. He disagreed with the targets and he was shown the door, albeit indirectly. He is a renowned, published economist and academic, and he said that the Century Initiative's targets did not make any sense.
I am willing to accept that some people do not understand. Gullibility is a forgivable fault. Nevertheless, when I hear a minister or the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell say that since Quebec controls all its immigration, it should stop whining, pull up its socks and do its job, it is absolutely unacceptable.
I assume that the vast majority of people in the House passed first-grade math. When there are two targets, like when the Government of Quebec sets the target for economic immigrants at 50,000, say, and Ottawa says the total target will be 110,000, the higher number prevails. If Quebec does not change its targets and Ottawa raises its own, the number of immigrants will increase. The higher number always prevails. This is basic math. That was the basis of the Quebec-Ottawa agreements, which established certain immigration categories and gave Quebec more control and the right to opt out of certain programs with full financial compensation over time. This arrangement was supposed to continue. Originally, in the spirit of these agreements, this safety valve was not supposed to be left to the federal government. At the very least, in the spirit of these agreements, Quebec was supposed to be consulted. What is the point of telling Quebec that it can set its own economic immigration targets when the feds are going to set a total target that is three times higher and therefore pick the final number? That makes no sense.
I do not doubt the intelligence of the Minister of Immigration. I hold him in high esteem. I do wonder if it is not a show of bad faith to say that to us, especially when he tells us that this does not come from McKinsey. Now, it is coming out in today's newspapers. I understand they are not quick thinkers; this has taken months. They tell us that the 100 million population idea is not a McKinsey policy.
We were being told that we were conspiracy theorists, so we thought that perhaps they had asked themselves some questions, that they had gotten answers, and that perhaps their targets made sense. We took their word for it, and so we asked the question.
Considering that the committee that is actually chaired by Dominic Barton set the targets, we asked them if they had done any studies, if they had looked into what impact this will have on the workforce. Analyses have been produced by Pierre Fortin, a renowned economist in the Quebec government. He is not a conspiracy theorist. Did they even consider what effect this will have on public services, child care, education, the capacity for integration?
We asked them about their studies, and we realized that we were asking them questions that they themselves had not even considered. In the answers to our questions on the Order Paper, we realized that there were no studies. This may not be McKinsey policy, but when you take the McKinsey policy, put it on the table, do not ask for studies, do not ask any questions, but then implement it, now I would say I am not a super-smart guy, but that sounds like the McKinsey policy to me. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
When you rely on chambers of commerce, consultants and the business community, who have real complaints about the labour shortage, and you forget about the collective aspect and fail to ask questions about the collective aspect, this does raise some questions, even though they may think differently from us. However, they did not even think of asking any of these questions. We have the proof.
Now we are conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like John McCallum, a minister and economist who was silenced; Pierre Fortin, a renowned, published economist and former president of the Canadian Economics Association; Benoît Pelletier, a former Liberal minister and professor at the University of Ottawa who says that the targets make no sense in a context where Quebec is a national French-speaking minority in North America; and Gérard Bouchard, who said that the federal government has no understanding of Quebec's intercultural model and that it was not considered.
These people sure must be serious conspiracy theorists. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Alain Bélanger, a demographer who says that 90% of immigrants need to adopt French if we want the vitality of the language to endure. We are joining conspiracy theorists like Statistics Canada. Choose whatever indicator you like, Mr. Speaker. We do not mind. Whatever indicator we pick leads to an analysis that tells us that French is in decline.
We are joining conspiracy theorists like the 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec, from all parties, whether they are nationalists, sovereignists or federalists. As for Québec Solidaire, were are not so sure what they are.
We are joining conspiracy theorists like all these people. When everyone, except for the Liberal government, is a conspiracy theorist, I would like to know which of us lives in an alternate universe. I am trying to understand. I am trying to see the logic.
What we are asking for is a structured plan. When we tell them that, they respond that there is a labour shortage. They tell us that these new targets will address the labour shortage over a period of 77 years. If I am told that there is an urgent problem and that we will have the same policy for 77 years, it makes me doubt that the government can fix this problem.
Finally they tell us that they actually have three-year targets. They tell us that we have long-term problems, but then 77 years is changed to three years. Either they do not have a long-term vision for society, but instead are thinking of a series of short-term fixes with a series of minority governments, or they are telling us that they will never fix the problem. I find that very troubling.
I would tell my colleagues from the other parties that I believe that immigration is a great asset, and I see the proof in my daily life. It is so important that it deserves a higher level of debate, where we can discuss numbers, policies and long-term integration without resorting to name-calling or Quebec-bashing, as we saw today and as we see too often.
As members know, the Century Initiative is far from being the idea of the century. It is the idea of centuries past, and it reminds us of how the position of francophones in Canada has been diminished. It is part of our collective memory, and it reminds us that the respectful integration of immigrants takes place when there is respect for Quebec, consultation of Quebec, full authority for immigration, and, ultimately, independence.
1645 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 6:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I would like to thank my colleague. We definitely do not have the same point of view.
In my community, which is not that far from his, there are many francophones and many new immigrants from western Africa and Haiti. The percentage of these immigrants has increased significantly. Why are these people settling in Quebec? It is because they have the right to continue speaking French, living in French, going to school in French and seeing their family grow in French. These people play such a significant role in building the vibrant province and country I call home, and I believe that is a good thing.
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that, because for me it is obvious.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 6:04:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will use this excellent question from the member for Hull—Aylmer to give a shout-out to all the African and Maghrebian students who have come to Quebec and whom I taught and helped with their integration. I can attest to the fact that they need guidance and support to integrate our culture and our society, which is generous and wants to benefit from all their skills while giving them every opportunity that all Quebeckers have.
That being said, I think the member did not listen to my speech. What I can tell him is that we can have different visions, I agree. However, with all due respect, Quebec was never consulted on this file. Forcing a different vision on us does not make anyone democratic.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, since there is no question and comment period at this time under the rules of debate in the House, some of my colleagues push the envelope and sometimes say outrageous things.
Having said that, I would first like to recall the purpose of the bill:
This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
The goal is to prevent this from having an impact on the guaranteed income supplement. Since its arrival in the House in the 1990s, the Bloc Québécois has fought hard for the guaranteed income supplement. We wanted to ensure that more and more Quebec seniors were entitled to it. We realized that people did not know they were entitled to it. We toured Quebec to raise awareness and encourage them to apply.
When we first came to the House, even though we were not a recognized party, we did a review of what was happening with the guaranteed income supplement. Once again, we found that many seniors who were entitled to it were not receiving it.
When we presented our budget expectations in 2016, my colleague from Joliette and the member for Repentigny met with the Minister of Finance at the time, Mr. Morneau. They told him that anyone entitled to the guaranteed income supplement should be automatically registered to receive it. That was the Bloc Québécois's doing. He told us that we were right and that he would implement this system in 2018.
Again, just last year, in my constituency office, I met with seniors who were entitled to it but were not receiving it. There are still people who fall through the cracks.
That said, as recently as April 6, 2023, Michel Girard, a long-time financial columnist who everyone knows, stated that 409,860 people aged 65 and over live on less than a livable income. That is incredible. That is 53% of people living alone who do not have a livable income. Over the years, seniors have become impoverished. We must fix this, especially in light of the post-pandemic inflationary context.
The underlying objective of this bill is the social autonomy of seniors. I have often had the opportunity to speak about the autonomy of seniors, but I want to remind members that seniors' autonomy is not limited to their physical autonomy. Naturally, some people lose their autonomy with the loss of mobility. That does not take away their autonomy.
Autonomy is also not limited to seniors' social autonomy. However, it is society that often impacts the social autonomy of seniors. What is social autonomy? It is the income and the place they are given so they can continue to work in society. Ageism does exist.
People approaching retirement have made an absolutely remarkable and phenomenal contribution to society, and yet the closer they get to retirement, the more they are progressively excluded from decision-making places. In fact, if it were not for advocacy groups like the FADOQ network and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, seniors would be in bad shape. I commend them for their work, and I also commend my colleague from Shefford, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue. She was able to bring all the networks together to finally get the government to listen to reason. At least I hope so.
Senior's autonomy is not limited to their mental autonomy, in other words their cognitive ability. Many prejudices exist about that. It is believed that 20% of seniors may have cognitive impairments. Some studies in the literature say that among these 20%, 10% of the disorders are reversible, if the people are well cared for and if we do not reduce their capacity to act. Isolation necessarily creates long-term cognitive impairments.
Seniors who live at or below the poverty line are the most precious members of our society. The older one gets, the more one acquires that which society cannot do without, which is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy refers to a human being's capacity to make a just and fair decision while making sure that their decision-making capacity, their practical judgment, is accurate. That does not happen at 20 or 30 years of age. It is acquired over a lifetime. Society therefore needs to make room for seniors because they are the ones who can show us the way forward, if we listen to them and we do not push them aside as if they were unnecessary, and if we do not undermine their income and their livelihood.
Everyone knows that seniors living in precarious situations eventually become sick. People living with financial worries eventually become sick. From a purely economic standpoint, if we take care of our seniors, if we let them have more of what they need to live, we will inevitably have a healthier, less sickly society. In the end, that will cost much less. What is more, those people will enjoy living. There is nothing more important than to give life meaning. After all, we are all looking for happiness.
I am appealing to every member's sense of honour, justice and equity to make sure my colleague's bill, on behalf of all seniors across the country, including Quebec's seniors, can give them at least the bare necessities. Seniors are wise. That is something all the seniors' rights groups agree upon. What we are asking for is a decent bare minimum so as to give them a little breathing room.
993 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
