SoVote

Feb/8/24 4:00:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on International Trade for his kind words. I am surprised he is in the House because we are supposed to be meeting right now. I will be going there right after this, and I imagine we will see each other over there in a few minutes. His question is about the immigration that is needed in Quebec. Quebec is the only province that knows what kind of immigration it would need. It is not up to Ottawa to tell Quebec that it is sending immigrants and then let Quebec deal with the cost. It is not up to Ottawa to do that, and it should not be the way it works. Not only did Ottawa not consult Quebec, but Ottawa did not even inform Quebec of its targets, and that is a real problem. We are therefore asking for consultation to occur quickly and, ideally, we would like all immigration powers to be transferred to Quebec. In fact, we would like all powers to be transferred to Quebec.

178 words

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

Feb/8/24 4:01:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can well understand the Bloc wanting to have a day to talk about why the Liberals are not balancing the number of people coming into Canada with our resources. Quebec is receiving a larger share compared with the other provinces, and this could impact its culture. However, why did the Bloc choose to have this motion instead of the one on the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River? I was so looking forward to talking about the clean electricity generated through nuclear power and clarifying the misinformation about it being a low-level, completely encased place for booties, gloves and not a deep geological repository—

110 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/8/24 4:02:35 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

19 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Feb/8/24 4:02:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, I would like to remind her that it is up to us to choose the subject of the motion we want to debate during our opposition days. Yes, Chalk River is a huge problem. However, the fact remains that immigration is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The Quebec national government has been calling for action in this area. That said, I agree with the member on Chalk River. I invite my colleague to convince her own party to stop talking about the carbon tax for one of the next fifteen opposition days. Chalk River would be an excellent topic.

112 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/8/24 4:03:13 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I do not normally like to ask questions with respect to other parties. However, I feel compelled to do so in this case. The previous member misstated a fact about the way I voted instead of answering my question on the need for increased investments so that all provinces and territories, including Quebec, could do better to make sure immigrants get the help they deserve. For example, Nunavut wants to welcome more immigrants, but it is unable to do so because of the overcrowded housing situation that exists in all the communities. What does the member think about this kind of response and what the Liberals always attempt to do, which is to underinvest in any major social issues?

120 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Feb/8/24 4:04:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, she is talking about Liberal talking points. Personally, I am under the impression that we do not usually get answers from the Liberals. My colleague told us that she asked a Liberal member a question, but he did not answer. I am stunned. It is a good thing I am not sitting down, because I would have fallen off my chair in shock when I heard that. Seriously, we are used to not getting answers. Regarding the substance of our discussion, it is obviously all about the integration capacity. We must not be ideological about this. If we do not have the means, we must also be able to adjust the levels. I see the Chair signalling that my time is up. I was going to give a long explanation, but that will be for another time.

147 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/8/24 4:05:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Canadian dream is often presented as an El Dorado for people who are looking to build a better life. They think about wide open spaces, safety and democracy. They think about how nice of a home they will have in Canada. However, for years, this government has been turning the promise of a better life that it sells abroad into a real trap by failing to enforce its own laws. The government often presents immigration issues as a battle between open-minded people and close-minded people, between progressive thinkers and racists, between people who are kind and those who are mean. That is convenient because it eliminates the need for nuanced thinking. Nuance is so tiresome and exhausting. No, it is much better to vilify one's enemy, to pander to voters and to virtue-signal or fake indignation. Quebeckers deserve better than that and so do the immigrants who come here to build a new life with us. My mother, who came here from Peru when she was 37 years old and built a great law career in her third language through hard work and sacrifice, would have deserved better had she arrived today. I, too, would have deserved better, newly arrived at the age of six, had there not been any space in the local public school for me. My younger sister would have deserved better had there not been enough room for her in day care. Rest assured, the Prime Minister's Canadian dream upholds at least one great Canadian tradition: It disregards democracy when it comes to the big issues. Of course, I am talking about irresponsible immigration targets. I say this in French in the House, precisely because French was never taken into consideration when this policy was being developed. Some of its authors even admitted as much. There was also never any consideration of housing, health care, education or infrastructure. If none of those factors was considered, that means that it is probably an election ploy. Earlier, I heard a Liberal MP make virtually her entire speech about the economic importance of immigration. I can talk economics. In fact, I would like to say a few words about that. Quite simply put, the Liberal government is basing its immigration targets on economic parameters that are just plain false and simplistic. In order to solve the labour shortage, we supposedly just need to bring people from all over the world to work here. No. Although immigration has a role to play in filling specific gaps in the labour market, it is far from being a magic bullet to fix this problem. As Professor Pierre Fortin explained in the report he presented last year to Quebec's ministry of immigration, francization and integration, a sustained increase in immigration creates a bigger workforce, but also increases demand for goods and services. He believes that in taking into consideration the further increase in demand for additional health services and education, the increase in employment opportunities would be negligible. Other public policies can be put in place at the same time to address the labour shortage, as the Bloc Québécois has proposed on numerous occasions and in a constructive manner. For instance, tax credits should be granted to people who have reached retirement age but who may want to to extend their careers. Let us think about it. These individuals are trained and want to work longer. Instead of pushing them into retirement because of ill-suited tax measures, why not review what specific improvements can be made, and why not do that right away? Rodrigue Tremblay, professor emeritus of economics and a minister in the Lévesque government, explained that a rapidly growing population requires additional infrastructure, such as housing, hospitals and schools, to name a few examples, and that savings and capital are needed to build that infrastructure. There also needs to be an appropriate economic context that is conducive to construction, which we do not have right now. Mr. Tremblay also says, “When a population grows too quickly, this can sometimes lead to a general decline in the standard of living”. Armen Sarkissian, former president of Armenia, recently said in his book that small states can navigate the complex challenges of the twenty-first century in smarter ways than greater powers—such as countries with 100 million inhabitants by 2100—for smallness, often regarded as a weakness, can be a strength. Large states are ponderous; small states can be agile and adaptive. Ultimately, the countries with the best standard of living and quality of life are not the most populous countries in the world. They are countries like Norway, Ireland and Switzerland, whose population size is more similar to that of Quebec than Canada. If we want to talk about economics, then we should talk to economists. Just this morning, we read in the papers that the CIBC has published its new figures. It is not 3.5 million, but five million housing units that we need to build by 2030, simply to meet demand and restore affordability to the market. That is huge. That means that there should be cranes everywhere. That is not the case. What are we going to do by 2030? In addition to language and culture, what distinguishes Quebec is the quality of its social safety net and the public policies it has adopted over the past 60 years. Quebec is a model for its low-cost child care system, its affordable education system, its parental insurance plan and all its other social policies. In order to maintain, if not improve, the quality of the services that the Government of Quebec provides to its citizens, it must make sound economic and demographic decisions to ensure the long-term viability of its social services. It is up to the National Assembly of Quebec to determine Quebec's optimal population, because it is ultimately responsible for providing social services to Quebeckers. I am really sick of hearing the Liberals virtue signalling or invoking economic principles that they simply do not understand. They accuse us of undermining social peace and creating tensions between newcomers and those who are already settled, simply because we are asking the government to take integration capacity into account. Is it not true that the people who are really undermining social peace are the one who are ignoring the housing crisis when setting immigration targets, the ones who are unable to provide health care and spaces in schools and day cares for newcomers? It is irresponsible to say that the number of landed immigrants is more important than the quality of the services provided to help them integrate. Our motion is very clear. We are asking this government to walk the talk. What good is it to tell people around the world that they are welcome in Canada if we cannot even assure them of the basic minimum that any self-respecting society should be able to provide? The Prime Minister's “Canadian” dream is so wonderful. The government needs to take action, for newcomers and for us. It needs to commit to change course in the next 100 days. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand what we are asking for. Perhaps some do not even understand that expression. First, the government needs to call a meeting with its Quebec and provincial and territorial counterparts. Second, the government needs to review the immigration targets with them based on their respective integration capacities. If Quebec needs to get the federal government to respect its integration capacity by holding a referendum to take back control of immigration powers or even all powers, then I would be more than happy to work on that. My mother, my sisters and I chose Quebec. It is our country. We will build that country with our indigenous brothers and sisters whom we must absolutely not leave behind, as well as with the newcomers whom we want to welcome properly with open arms. I am asking the Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister to take action because immigrants deserve it. We owe it to them. We do not owe it to them because of elections, votes or for other purely electoral reasons. We owe it to them out of compassion.

1395 words

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

Feb/8/24 4:13:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a question I asked one of the member's colleagues. Bloc members talk about the importance of consultation in regard to the immigration file, and they have done so a lot in the last couple of months. When we factor in things like the provincial nominee program, international students, temporary workers in agricultural communities, and so forth, there is no doubt there is a need to have ongoing conversations, which have taken place in a wide spectrum of ways. Has the Bloc had any official discussion with the Government of Quebec with respect to the motion it is proposing today?

108 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Feb/8/24 4:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, if the Bloc Québécois has discussions with the Quebec government, that is really none of his business. That is between the Bloc Québécois and the Quebec government. Second, I have indeed mentioned the importance of consultations several times. How is it that Quebec's premier, François Legault, is talking about a breaking point? To my mind, that means that if there have been consultations with Quebec, the government is incompetent. If there have not been any, perhaps it is time there were.

97 words

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

Feb/8/24 4:14:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I particularly enjoyed the end of my colleague's speech, the part about compassion. This is because of not her comments or because of the motion the Bloc is presenting, but in some Quebec media, some columnists are using a sort of intellectual shortcut and conflating higher immigration with the housing crisis we are experiencing, as if immigrants arriving today were responsible for the shortcomings of the past 30 years in terms of investment in social and co-operative housing. We see the vacancy rates in Montreal and Rimouski. If there is 0% housing available in Rimouski, it is not because of immigration. I would like my colleague to comment on this shell game that is being played to try to blame immigrants for a crisis that the federal Liberal government caused in 1994 when it stopped investing in social housing.

143 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Feb/8/24 4:15:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is right about one thing. The housing crisis cannot be blamed solely on immigration. No one here is doing that. Perhaps some media outlets are, but I completely disagree with them. The housing crisis is not just due to immigration. It is due to a lot of other things, as I mentioned in my speech. The current economic climate is not conducive to building housing. In recent years, housing was not built at times when there was less immigration. During the pandemic, we were unable to build housing. Even before that, housing was not built. For nearly a decade, we have been behind on our housing construction targets. However, it is important to note that immigration does have an impact on demand. It may not be solely due to immigration, but immigration does affect the demand for housing. Thus, there may be a mild to moderate impact that is related to immigration and that must be considered in our capacity to integrate newcomers.

173 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/8/24 4:16:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question as a follow-up to the question from my NDP colleague. In fact, the misleading information about how immigrants are partly responsible for Canada's housing problem came from the Liberal Minister of Housing. He said it, not me. For the past two months, we have witnessed two ministers publicly pass the buck by saying that the other is to blame. There is chaos in immigration, and both are accusing each other of bungling their policies. I would like to know the member's opinion on that.

96 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Feb/8/24 4:16:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current federal Liberal government's bickering is nothing new. Ministers passing the buck and playing ping-pong with very important issues is nothing new either. As I mentioned in my previous answer, although immigration may be having a mild to moderate impact on the housing crisis, it is not, I repeat, not the cause of the housing crisis. Many other causes are at play. I encourage the current ministers, both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Immigration, to reflect and perhaps start listening to the people on the ground, because they are clearly out of touch with what is happening.

105 words

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

Feb/8/24 4:17:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been following the issue of immigration since the early 1990s. I have been very passionate about and have understood many different aspects of immigration over the years, whether at the provincial level or the national level, both when I was in opposition and now while we are in government. I am very passionate about it because I understand and appreciate the true value of immigration and how Canada is what it is today because of sound immigration policy. It would take quite a bit to fool me on some of the things I have been hearing on the immigration file, and I want to quickly make reference to that. One of the concerns I had was about a comment made by the member for Calgary Shepard. He was talking about immigration, and I actually wrote down the quote. Before I continue, I will say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre. We were debating immigration target numbers and so forth, and the member for Calgary Shepard said, “They bear responsibility for the chaos on our streets today with crime that is out of control.” I do not like whatsoever that the member opposite was trying to imply in any way that immigrants are a problem when it comes to crime and chaos on our streets. That is surely what could be interpreted, based on the manner in which he presented himself. I then take a look at my New Democratic friends. I want to be kind, but it is hard when one gets statements saying something like if someone is an international student, they should become a permanent resident, and, at the same time, saying we should have no cap on international students. To me, that is irresponsible public policy. Just so the member is aware, I can guarantee that, virtually overnight with that sort of policy, we would exceed, and I will be conservative with my number, well over a million international students applying every year. Further, the member from the New Democratic Party said that she would like to see temporary residents in the form of workers also automatically becoming permanent residents. That is the reason I posed the question to the NDP. Does it have any cap whatsoever? If one follows the advice or the comments that were provided, we would probably be taking in at least 1.5 million to 2.5 million residents a year. I do not think that would be a practical number. It is important that we be serious. I will now move to the Bloc. The Bloc brought forward a motion. I will talk about immigration any day of the week, and I asked whether they have done consultation. I know the importance of consultation on this file; as I said, I have been working on the file since the early 1990s. I understand the role and the impact on the Manitoba economy. That is one of the reasons I was a very strong advocate for Jean Chrétien and the provincial nominee program. History will show us that no province in Canada did better than the province of Manitoba in taking advantage of the provincial nominee program. Our immigration numbers grew rapidly as a direct result of a progressive program, at that point instituted by and signed off on by Jean Chrétien and, in my home province, Gary Filmon. Manitoba has benefited; the program has been gold to the province of Manitoba. When one thinks of the provincial nominee program, when one takes a look at the unique nature of immigration into the province of Quebec and when one factors in temporary visas, obviously there is a great deal of discussion that takes place at many different levels, whether it is with ministers, deputy ministers, civil servants and so forth. It takes place all of the time and in different ways. I posed the question to members of the Bloc, and I am of the opinion that they did not do any consultation with the Province of Quebec, in terms of the resolution they are proposing today. Many would ultimately argue that there is a bit of a hidden agenda with the Bloc whenever immigration matters are raised, but that is for another day. When we talk about immigration as a whole, let us take a look at the targets and understand and appreciate the actual numbers. When we think about provinces, they are involved in a direct way. I mentioned the provincial nominee program. Let us take a look at the targets that were provided to the House. In 2024, the targeted number is 110,000; in 2025 it is 120,000, and it is followed again, in 2026, by 120,000. That is a very high percentage that is going toward supporting provinces, and that does not take into consideration the number, which I believe is around 35,000 a year, going into Quebec under the skilled worker type of programming. Let us look at the numbers and at the freedoms the provinces have in terms of recruitment. There is a wonderful opportunity to deal with things such as health care workers and the trades, whether it is the plumbers, electricians or so forth. That program is designed to support them. Members opposite point the finger and say that Ottawa is to blame for this or that. They talk about the issue of housing, but do they not believe that provincial jurisdictions have the capability to understand what is happening in their local economies? If they really want to get more electricians, plumbers and so forth approved, they have an excellent window through the provincial nominee program, because they are the ones that issue the certificates. They should not just try to say that it is immigrants who are to blame, because that is not true. What we find is that through the skilled worker program and the nominee program, it is provinces and territories that are identifying what they believe are the priorities in terms of their economic development. We can look at other numbers. The federal government actually gets fewer than the combined provinces do in terms of skilled workers, but we do process just over 100,000 a year. Then we also have the spouses. There is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75,000 to 85,000 spouses and partners on an annual basis. Are we going to start saying no? That is a really important aspect of our immigration policy, which the federal government has complete jurisdiction over. We can look at how we have actually managed that file. When I was critic, people were waiting for years and years. We are talking three, four or five years to get a spouse to come over. I used to apply under dual intent, to try to get someone a temporary visa while they were waiting. Do members know how many times I applied and the number that were actually approved when Stephen Harper was the prime minister? It was a big goose egg. Nothing. Since we have been in government, I have been successful. I have talked with immigration officials; I have talked with ministers of immigration; I have explained the situation to caucus, and we have seen significant movement, not only in terms of processing times but also in terms of providing temporary visas for those who are trying to get a spouse here from abroad. I could talk about parents and grandparents. When I was critic, Jason Kenney cancelled the program. He said people could not sponsor their mom and dad. The response I get when I pose that question to the Conservative critic is that they came up with the super visa. Yes, the super visa is a good thing, but they also cancelled the program. They also say, “Well, we wanted to deal with processing times, and we improved processing times.” Sure, they did, because it was so bad under Stephen Harper in terms of sponsoring parents and grandparents that people were dying or actually dead by the time they finally got to them. We do not need a lecture from the Conservative Party on immigration policy. All we have to do is reflect on just how bad the Conservatives were, and that does not include the many different programs in terms of refugees, whether they were from Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine, or from what is taking place today in the Middle East. We understand, appreciate and value the role that immigration plays in public policy, and we will continue to work every day on that particular file.

1444 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Feb/8/24 4:27:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the member for Winnipeg North. He said that he is an immigration expert. He has been working in that area for years. He said that he even participated in the process with the Chrétien government at the time, so I would like him to explain something to me. In 2015, the federal government's immigration target was 285,000 people a year. Ten years later, in 2025, it is 500,000. That is a 75% increase. I would like my colleague to tell me whether the government consulted the provinces, particularly Quebec, to determine what impact an 75% increase over 10 years would have on Quebec's ability to integrate these people and help them to learn French. Second, this will have an impact on infrastructure, the education system and the health care system. Was that taken into account? It is not good enough to pick a number out of a hat, thinking it is good ideologically. We need to consider the consequences. What we are saying today is that the government needs to respect the integration capacity. In order for immigration to be successful, we need to be able to properly receive people in suitable, decent conditions.

212 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/24 4:29:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. It almost goes without saying that all one needs to do is take a look at the provincial nominee program. At one time the program was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40,000, and now it is well over 100,000. The demand is there. We know that because there are provinces that want to receive more provincial nominees. The provincial nominees have contributed immensely. That is only one aspect. In the provincial nominee program, for example, if a single person later gets married to someone from their home country, their spouse would be able to come in through the spousal program. Of course there has to be coordination taking place. That coordination has been taking place for decades, in some jurisdictions more than others, depending on the province or territory, what its agenda is in regard to immigration and how it ultimately complements the national targets and agenda. All in all, immigration has been a gold mine for Canada and will continue to be well into the future, as Canada needs immigrants more than immigrants need Canada, quite frankly.

183 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Feb/8/24 4:30:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I just heard the member opposite refer to immigrants as a gold mine. One of the other members also referred to immigrants from “puppy mills”. The member opposite made a reference earlier to people dying. Under this government, multiple students a month have been sent home in body bags because they are being invited here without a reasonable prospect of success. By the way, each student visa is stamped by the federal government. It is unfair to those students to invite them to a country and then not provide the support they need to succeed. In fact, it was the Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the third party, who wrote an op-ed that said Harper had broken the immigration system and the temporary foreign worker program. Since he has become the Prime Minister, he has tripled the size of the temporary foreign worker program and blown a hole through the student visa program. That was all under his watch. Now, every single person and every op-ed is saying that there is no longer a consensus on immigration in this country. It has been reckless.

198 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/24 4:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong on several points. I only wish you would grant me the amount of time that would enable me to provide a complete answer. I would be happy to do that if I had unanimous consent. In terms of international students, there has been great demand. That demand, in good part, has been fuelled by individuals out there courting and getting students to come into Canada, in a very real and tangible way. The Conservative Party of Canada, along with others, needs to recognize that provinces also have to play a role. At the end of the day, how many international students does the Conservative Party believe we should have? We know what the NDP believe. They believe there should be no limit. We believe there has to be a sense of responsibility. We are working with provinces. That is the reason there is a cap. They can distribute the students among the post-secondary facilities and others, so that we can have a reasonable and responsible policy to help the provinces, the territories and, in fact, the international students themselves.

186 words

Students

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/8/24 4:32:46 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Public Safety; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry.

58 words

Adjournment

Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)

Feb/8/24 4:33:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to provide information to the members on how the federal government has supported Quebec, and all our provincial, territorial and municipal partners, as we all work together to support newcomers to Canada. Immigration is a shared responsibility that involves the input of provincial, territorial and municipal governments. We also need to continue to respond to global issues. For example, there are more than 110 million people displaced all around the world. People have been displaced because of wars, coups, and economic and political upheaval. They could also be fleeing oppressive regimes and violations of human rights in other, less progressive countries. We, as Canadians, have an obligation to step up and continue to support individuals. Our government will continue to be responsive and support individuals today and into the future. Canada remains committed to our humanitarian efforts and to supporting those who arrive at our borders needing a new home. Immigration requires all levels of government to work co-operatively to attract new workers in areas such as construction, homebuilding and health care. We are also mindful of the special relationship established for immigration under the Canada–Québec Accord from 1991, which clearly outlines the work that the federal and provincial governments will undertake separately and together. Not only have we made sure to respect the decisions the Province of Quebec will make, but we have also been there as a strong partner. When larger numbers of people began crossing into Canada, the federal government was there to support provinces and municipalities with funding, programs and support. Canada established an interim federal health care program to pay for the health care needs of asylum claimants. The federal government set up transportation and paid for temporary housing for the asylum claimants. As the challenges persisted, we set up a formal program, the interim housing assistance program. That program reimbursed the costs faced by the provinces and municipalities to support newcomers. The first part of the program was launched in 2017, and it ran for five years. A total of $750 million was provided by the federal government to provinces and municipalities to support rehousing asylum claimants. Nearly 60% of that funding went to Quebec. That is $440 million in federal funding to support costs borne by the Province of Quebec. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship recently renewed funding for the interim housing assistance program to reimburse provinces and cities for housing costs related to asylum seekers. The amount of $150 million was specifically set aside for Quebec. When a province, territory or municipality needs help from the federal government, we are there to respond. When COVID began, the federal government established temporary housing for asylum seekers to quarantine, even if they were asymptomatic, before they could enter Canada and take up interim housing. At the request of the provincial government, the federal hotel spaces continued to provide hotel rooms after the pandemic measures were lifted to ensure the availability of additional living spaces for communities in need, including in the province of Quebec. Quebec had asked for the federal government to get our agreement with the U.S. government renegotiated so that asylum claimants could no longer cross at Roxham Road. We agreed. In March 2023, President Biden took his first official trip to Canada to announce the renegotiated deal of the safe third country agreement. Under the new agreement, anyone entering a country deemed as safe from persecution had to make a claim to the first country they arrived in. Asylum seekers could no longer take a trip to the U.S. and then travel to Canada to make a claim. Thanks to our continued efforts, the safe third country agreement now applies to the entire land and water border between the United States and Canada. Additionally, the safe third country agreement has significantly reduced asylum claimants at our land entries. The federal government was also there to be a partner for Quebec when the premier said that Quebec was reaching the limit of its capacity to manage new asylum seekers. The federal government worked in co-operation with the other provinces and municipalities to share the burden, as the premier had asked. Starting in early 2023, the federal government supported new arrivals' being willingly relocated to other parts of Canada, including locations in most of the Atlantic provinces and numerous cities across Ontario. The program helped relocate over 11,000 asylum seekers from Quebec to places such as Cornwall, Niagara, Saint John, St. John's, Halifax and Ottawa. Under the accord, since 2015, we have provided $4.4 billion in funding to Quebec to support immigration, settlement services and all the other supports. For 2023-24, over $700 million will be provided to support the provincial government of Quebec in welcoming newcomers. As everyone can see, the federal government has been there as a partner with Quebec and all the other provinces and territories, as well as the municipalities, to support their needs. We have delivered federal support for housing, health care, transportation, relocation, integration and settlement, and also renegotiated a major international agreement with the United States. Canada has a strong tradition of welcoming newcomers in this country. Canadians are proud of their immigration history, as they should be. It has made our country strong and allowed it to grow. It has strengthened our nation by diversifying our communities and fuelling our economy. We will continue to work with partners from all levels of government to support newcomers, whether they are refugees, asylum claimants, family or economic immigrants. We are a country built on immigrants.

942 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 278