So V ote

Oct/31/23 12:08:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government recently removed the goods and services tax to encourage housing construction. The Liberals told us that this measure would help build housing, some of which will be started in 2030 and delivered in 2035. They recognize that it takes time to plan for housing, even in their policies. At the same time, tomorrow morning, they will announce their immigration targets for 2026. They will stand up and tell the provinces how many people they are going to get, while acknowledging in their own bill that it can take three, five, seven, eight or 10 years to plan housing. Is it just me here who finds this deeply inconsistent and deeply disrespectful of the newcomers who come here? Is it everyone in the House who sees the Liberal government's inconsistency when it comes to planning housing construction and understanding the role of the provinces and Quebec in this matter?

155 words

Oct/31/23 11:58:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel that my colleague has clearly grasped the spirit of today's motion, which is that, in Quebec, we want to look after each and every fellow Quebecker. She spoke about housing. I do not find that she is demonizing the private sector. My colleague is talking about building housing that the private sector does not want to build and about building co-op housing. This is housing that people live in, manage and own as co-operatives. In Quebec, we have programs. Quebec is the only province with permanent programs to build co-op social housing. Because Ottawa is refusing to understand this model, it is taking time for the money to flow in. In the end, that is keeping us from housing people. I believe that other provinces should learn from the Quebec model. To this end, Ottawa should make a special effort to understand Quebec's specificities so that we can move forward with housing construction more quickly, rather than stalling, insisting that there be a maple leaf in the corner of every cheque and preventing Quebec from building more housing right away. Does my colleague agree?

194 words

Oct/31/23 10:45:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, only the Quebec government can answer that question. However, let us consider the facts. Quebec has never invested as much in French language training as it is investing now. It is important to weigh the supply of services against the demand for services. A balance exists between the two. We need to consider both sides of the equation responsibly. Part of the equation comes under the responsibility of the federal government, considering the huge flow of interprovincial migration, including people who start out living in other provinces and then move to Quebec. That part is federal. Here, I think we should look at federal issues. If the other parties are unwilling to live in a federation that respects jurisdictions, the solution is quite simple: national independence for Quebec.

130 words

Oct/31/23 10:44:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not trust either the Liberals or the Conservatives. Economic immigration in Canada, not just in Quebec, has risen from 24% to 50% over time. Quebec controls economic immigration. That proves the importance of having more consultation. This is not new: sustained increases to the immigration targets, whether the economy was doing well or not, started under Mulroney. It was a new system started by the Mulroney government, and it continued under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Lack of consultation is a federal disease that infects the government regardless of its political stripe. I think that my colleague should think about that a bit as well.

110 words

Oct/31/23 10:42:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member for Winnipeg North is talking about his frustrations; he has quite a few. He talks about them a lot here during the day. He mentioned Quebec's jurisdiction. Interestingly enough, we might actually agree for once. We are saying that Ottawa should consult Quebec. We are in a bubble here. The federal government is not a government; it is a bureaucracy. It is government made up of paperwork. It is a government that gives orders, that sets targets. It is a government that has hardly anything to do with integration, which is why it is important to consult Quebec. I think it is perfectly possible to recognize the expertise that immigrants and all citizens bring to the table. There is nothing personal about it. The government has 2.3 million files that it cannot handle, yet it is turning to the provinces and meddling with professional associations. It ought to do some soul-searching.

163 words

Oct/31/23 10:30:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, let me applaud my colleague for her excellent speech, which set the tone for what is sure to be a most peaceful opposition day. We are here today to debate federal immigration targets because we are in never-before-seen circumstances in our history—certainly of our recent history. We have to talk about numbers, but we can do it calmly. If the 2024 federal targets are reached, immigration will account for 1.21% of the Canadian population by 2024. If the 2025 targets are reached, the percentage will increase to 1.24%. The last time rates that high were observed was in 1928-29. Back then, Montreal had a population of 819,000. Toronto was a cornfield with 631,000 residents. We can all agree that our arguments about resources and integration capacity do not come out of left field. In January 2023, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had nearly 522,000 people waiting for permanent residence. Another 239,500 people were waiting for express entry economic immigration. If we look at historical data and include family members, we arrive at the equivalent of 2.3 million people—yes, I said “people”, and not “cases”—who are waiting. This means that we run the risk of exceeding these historic targets by even more. Quebec was not consulted in all this. No one ever called on Quebec. Quebec stated its wish to be consulted, and today, a consultation process is under way in Quebec City. There can be no denying that immigration has to serve the interests of newcomers and the host society. I would like to add a personal note. The woman I married was born in Algerian; she is Kabyle. She came here with her family in 2001. They are people who made a good living in their country of origin. They made many sacrifices before arriving here. They left behind family, property, home and friends. They started over at the bottom of the ladder. They managed to find a small place to live. It was not very nice, incidentally, because newcomers rarely have access to the nicest homes. Over the years, they met with success in their immigration and integration journeys. One day, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law decided that they wanted to own their own home, which was impossible in Montreal, even back then. It was expensive. They managed to move to a suburb a little ways away. They had a house built. They got on the property ladder to secure the future of their family and children. I recently asked my father-in-law what would have happened if they had arrived here in 2023. His response was a long silence. Then he told me that their dream would have been shattered. These are the people we are thinking about. In 2011, a scientific study co-authored by Fuller showed that the health of immigrants had deteriorated since they arrived in Canada. In 2010, Houle and Schellenberg published a study showing that a large proportion of immigrants said that, if they had to do it all again, they would not choose to come to Canada. McKinsey and the Century Initiative will not tell you that. They are more concerned about the number of people needed to fill the short-term labour demand than they are about the actual people. Immigrants are people. They are people we care about, people who become our friends and family. We marry them. We live with them. They are here for the long term. They will be here until they are 80 or 90 years old. They will have children and be part of our society. The answer that we get when we talk about immigration targets is that we need workers in the short term. There is an incredible disconnect here. Today, if we talk to the government or read what reporters are saying, we see that they are telling us that immigrants will just have to build their own homes and work in the construction industry. They are basically telling us that we are going to give immigrants a kit from Ikea so that they can build their own home. It is difficult to describe. Housing is the elephant in the room. The government is always talking about the housing supply as if it can wave a magic wand and build 50 million housing units a year and offer these people the same quality of life as we have. When we speak to bankers or to people in finance or housing, we are told that if all the bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and roofers in Quebec worked full-time, 40 hours a week, winter and summer, we could build 75,000 homes. We recently reached a record in 2021 by building 68,000. This year, in Quebec, we will build approximately 30,000 to 40,000 homes. Before the thresholds were increased, the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation said we needed a minimum of 100,000 homes. That means people will be left living on the street. That means homelessness. Before, whenever we said things like that, people would say that we were anti-immigration, that we did not like immigrants and that we were racist. Now, all of a sudden, Toronto says there is a homelessness problem, a housing problem, an affordability problem and a problem with resources, especially in the area of health care. All of a sudden, this has become a national crisis and is no longer seen as xenophobia. How come the government can increase targets overnight without notifying Quebec, yet Fatima, a newcomer from Morocco, cannot get a spot in day care for her children the way a Ms. Tremblay whose family has been here for generations can? Where is the gender equality in that situation? This is a major problem with the government's perspective. Now reporters and the government are telling us that the concept of integration capacity is just smoke and mirrors, that it does not exist, that there is no scientific definition for it. Funnily enough, in July, economists from the University of Waterloo wrote a paper on immigration, the conclusions of which I will quote: “Absorptive capacity can be thought of as how quickly the economy can expand private and public capital investments...Quickly expanding the level of immigration may place excessive stress on highly regulated sectors such as healthcare, education, and housing”. I am prepared to table the scientific article by these growth economists from the University of Waterloo. Immigrants are not cases, numbers or figures. When we talk about immigration thresholds and integration capacity, we are talking about success, French language training, the availability of health care and education. We cannot live under the false premise of “us” versus “them”. The immigrants who are here are best placed to say what it takes to live here, to realize their dream and to integrate into employment. People who have been here for many generations have never had to leave their family, friends, home and job behind. They have never had to do this. When I talk to groups in Mirabel that welcome immigrants, and when I talk to friends, family and foreign students at UQAM, where I taught until recently—foreign students who are being stonewalled by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada—these are the people best placed to understand what we want to do, which is to welcome them properly. We want immigration to succeed. We want every person who arrives here to succeed. We want the best for everyone, regardless of where they were born or how many generations they have been here. We plan immigration for us and for them, because they are also part of “us”. This is a collective effort. It is not just a figure or a number. Right now, it is mainly the federal government and the chambers of commerce that are treating them like numbers, because they want short-term unskilled labour. Personally, I want each of these people to succeed, to become richer and to reach their full potential as a person. Immigrants are not votes. They are human beings, neighbours, people we live side by side with every day, full-fledged members of Quebec society. It is in this context, where immigration is part of our vision of society, that Quebec society must be heard. Quebec is not being heard, and it wants to be heard more. This is why we are holding this opposition day. I would like to say to each person who has had the courage to come here, to make Quebec their home, that they are welcome, that we love them, that they are our neighbours and that what we want for them is full equality with those who have been here much longer.

1488 words

All Topics

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

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

May/11/23 5:05:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are in a Parliament and we want to debate ideas. Earlier, the member for Jonquière demonstrated how important it is to do so in an appropriate and democratic manner. I listened to the NDP speeches, including the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. These people are going to sit down with immigrants who have just arrived to warn them about us, saying that we are racist, and most importantly, that they should reject the host society that wishes them ill. Is that not one of the most divisive and extreme strategies possible?

101 words

May/11/23 4:54:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the member for Timmins—James Bay feels the need to socialize, but I think he should do so quietly.

32 words

Context: House Hansard - 152 - Feb/2/23

May/11/23 4:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recognize that the subject can be sensitive for some, but the “racist” epithet used by the member for Timmins—James Bay who is attacking us on the basis of our deepest values—

39 words