Natilien Joseph

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois ask my colleague a question. To respond respectfully, I would like to ask my colleague a question that will help broaden the discussion a bit. Does my colleague agree that elected officials have a responsibility to speak out against hate when it comes from people who support their own side?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening in the House, a Conservative member said something extremely serious. He said that the noose was not a hate symbol. I want to take this opportunity to ask all members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party to join us in condemning this member's remarks in the strongest possible terms. The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Does he condemn this member's remarks?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert. There are days in the House that are full of procedure and routine, and then there are days like this, where Parliament is doing exactly what it was created to do. These are the moments that give true meaning to the office we hold. My colleagues have explained the mechanics of Bill C‑9. I will use my speaking time to address the reality that this bill recognizes. Let us start by stating the obvious: Hate is real in Canada. It exists today, in 2026, in our workplaces, our schools, our places of worship, and our neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada data confirms this year after year: Police-reported hate crimes have risen sharply. Synagogues are being targeted, mosques are being targeted, and people are being singled out because of their background, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Black Canadians are consistently among the groups most affected. I am going to talk about these communities that are being targeted. Black communities have been part of the fabric of this country from the beginning. They have helped to build it, defend it, care for it and educate it. The Haitian community has had roots in Quebec for over 60 years. It has given us doctors and nurses who have kept our health care system afloat. It has given us teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and members of the House of Commons and Quebec National Assembly, and yet these very communities face a dual reality that Parliament must have the courage to acknowledge. Black Canadians are overrepresented in our prisons. Reports from the Office of the Correctional Investigator have been documenting this for years. At the same time, they are also overrepresented among victims: victims of hate crimes, victims of intimidation, victims of acts meant to remind them that they will always be seen as different. Bill C‑9 tells this community and all communities targeted by hate that the law sees when they are targeted. The amendment regarding the noose is the clearest expression of all this. This symbol carries a history of terror that all Black families know without needing to be taught. When it appears on a construction site or in a locker room—and yes, that still happens—its message is instantly understood. Until now, a victim who reported such acts would find themselves thrown into a legal maze. However, from now on, Canadian law will clearly state that using this symbol to intimidate or promote hatred is an offence. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it. That is exactly what this amendment does. I would like to highlight the fact that this amendment comes from the Senate. It was the senators who listened to their communities, who scrutinized this bill thoroughly and who saw that it could be improved. I thank them. This is our parliamentary system at its best: two chambers working together to produce better legislation. The stand-alone hate crime offence, the heart of the bill from the outset, completes this work. Hate takes forms that leave no visible mark: repeated threats, violence and intimidation. This offence gives the justice system the tools to prosecute these acts for what they are: criminal offences. For victims, no matter which community they belong to, the equation changes. Reporting will be worth it. No single law can resolve decades of inequality on its own, but this law does what it can. It acknowledges suffering that has long gone unnamed, and it tells Black Canadians and Haitian Canadians, as well as all communities affected by hate, that their government sees what they are going through and takes it seriously. There is no room in Canada for symbols that deliberately promote hate. Voting for this bill will be one of my proudest moments in this House. I urge all of my colleagues from every party to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising question coming from my colleague, a lawyer. Bill C‑9 is meant precisely to better protect Canadians from hate and intimidation, whether they are Black, Muslim, Jewish or members of any other community. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, to live in safety and, above all, to have peace and tranquility. That is the law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would say no. I am committed to freedom, full stop. As for freedom of expression, as the saying goes, when one has nothing left to say, one should stop talking. What is more, it is really surprising that my Bloc Québécois colleague is asking me this question when his party recently proposed taking Quebec out of the multiculturalism framework, unless my colleague is at odds with his party.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Sometimes I see what my Conservative colleagues are doing at committee. It is confusing. They say things that really undermine social cohesion. Sometimes, I feel like I am not even in Canada, because Canada is all about freedom of expression. My colleague from the Bloc Québécois just asked me whether I support freedom of religion. Personally, I support all forms of freedom, provided it respects everyone and does not offend anyone, and provided it does not undermine social cohesion.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, this motion sends a clear message to our artists in the Quebec and Canadian cultural sectors. My question for my colleague is this. Does it seem right that the Conservatives are choosing American web giants over Quebec and Canadian artists and culture?

Mr. Chair, before I begin, I should inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Dieppe. I want to thank the minister for working so tirelessly since taking charge of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as well as for collaborating so constructively with Quebec on the management of asylum seekers. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the integrity and security of Canada's immigration system, as well as the tools that enable us to keep the system fair, orderly and trustworthy. The strength of an immigration system does not depend on the number of people Canada takes in. It depends on clear rules, reliable controls, secure processing and public trust. That is why the main estimates 2026-27 provide funding for the individuals, systems and tools supporting identity verification, program integrity and secure decision making. A fair immigration system must also be secure. Rigorous screening and identity verification are not barriers to immigration. They are safeguards that protect Canadians and legitimate applicants while upholding trust in the systems. The Government of Canada's approach to immigration screening is not based on a single decision point. It involves a continuum supported by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and international partners. It starts before a person travels to Canada and continues when they seek entry at the border. It may continue post-arrival as new information becomes available or as other immigration decisions are made. The goal at each step is to facilitate lawful movement and immigration while identifying risks and protecting the system's integrity. Before someone arrives in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, examines their application for a visa or electronic travel authorization. Officers examine the information provided, assess whether the applicant meets the requirements for entry to Canada, and review the application based on risk factors and other verification criteria. Personal information, including fingerprints and photos, helps confirm the individual's identity and support criminal background checks. This information can be compared against Canadian databases and, as applicable, against information held by trusted international partners. These checks help officers to determine whether there are grounds for deeming someone inadmissible to Canada, including security concerns, criminal activity, false statements or other reasons set out in Canadian law. In some cases, applicants may have to undergo additional screening by security partners. IRCC works with the CBSA, CSIS and international partners to support screening and decision-making. This collaboration is vital. No one tool can protect the system. The system's integrity depends on officer training, clear rules, reliable intelligence, security systems and strong government partnerships. Biometrics is one of these important tools. This data helps to answer one of the most fundamental questions of any immigration system: Is the applicant really who they claim to be? Biometrics make the system more reliable by helping to establish identity, detect identity fraud, conduct background checks and confirm that decisions are based on accurate information. This protects Canadians. It also protects legitimate applicants by ensuring that those who follow the rules are not adversely affected by those who try to use a false identity or fraudulent documents or those who make false statements. That is why the 2026-27 main estimates include $188.1 million under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the cost of biometric data collection. This funding helps maintain the continuity of biometric data collection services through a global network of visa application centres, or VACs. These third-party providers are mandated to provide administrative support to applicants, particularly with regard to the collection of biometric data, and to help deliver services in many parts of the world. Let me be clear. Visa application centres do not make decisions regarding applications. They do not provide advice on visas. Decisions remain in the hands of trained immigration officers who apply Canadian law. IRCC also provides oversight of visa application centres through performance-tracking agreements, inspections and requirements related to security and privacy. VACs help ensure that the process is secure and accessible. They allow applicants to complete important administrative steps, including the collection of biometric data, while officers focus on assessing applications and making decisions. Privacy and security are at the heart of this work. Information collected for immigration purposes must be treated with care and in accordance with Canada's laws, policies and protections. The security continuum continues at the border. A visa or travel document does not guarantee entry into Canada. When an individual arrives at a port of entry, border services officers play an important role in assessing their admissibility and ensuring that they continue to meet the requirements to enter Canada. This means that, even if the screening is done before the trip, the system still has safeguards in place at the port of entry—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. The member said that the government is just giving the impression of helping people. Is he willing to acknowledge at least one measure that has helped Quebeckers, or is his strategy to deny that any progress has been made, for political reasons?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. It was a very fine speech. If I were in his shoes, I too would be angry and asking questions. This morning, I listened to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I know that the Bloc is critical of U.S. tariffs on Quebec's economy, and rightly so, but our government has already gotten to work. I would remind my colleague that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. In this context, does the Bloc Québécois also see the importance of reducing this trade dependency? Do they recognize the needs of Quebec's SMEs to access new international markets?

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's wonderful speech. I can see that he is really upset, that he is angry. Here is the question I would like to ask my colleague. Would he be prepared to sacrifice Quebec's economy in order to hurry up and sign any agreement, without thinking it through?

Madam Speaker, our government is making responsible choices to support the economy. That is a fact, even though the opposition members seem to be the only ones oblivious to it. Can my colleague give me concrete examples of how these measures are strengthening prosperity in Quebec and supporting families, businesses and, above all, our young people?

Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I understand that he feels vulnerable. We know full well that a majority means stability and action for Canadians and Quebeckers, moving beyond partisan deadlocks. Why is the opposition so afraid of a majority when the national interest should take precedence over political calculations? That is the question I am asking myself.

Mr. Speaker, today is the launch of the eighth International Haitian Diaspora Days summit, which runs until April 19 in Montreal. This year's theme is “United in creating a strong, supportive community for a brighter future”, so the summit will highlight vital priorities such as education, hope and economic development. It is a tremendous opportunity for community leaders, business owners and members of the diaspora to rally around shared goals related to international development, co-operation and solidarity. Every day, the Haitian community makes outstanding contributions to the social, cultural and economic vitality of Quebec and Canada. On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank the organizers and wish them every success during the eighth summit.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Do members know who applauded our auto strategy? It was Ontario premier Doug Ford and his Conservatives. Listening to the member for Dufferin—Caledon, it is very clear that he does not know what the government's plan is. Our strategy is to see the world as it is today, not as it was in 1965. Our plan is being applauded in that province. Is my Bloc Québécois colleague aware that the Conservatives are sitting back and continuing to want to drag Canada and Quebec back into the past?

Mr. Speaker, our government has a clear mandate to strengthen the sustainability of the immigration system. I know the minister is working hard to collaborate with Quebec, support Quebec businesses and fulfill our mission to build the strongest economy in the G7. While we are reducing the number of temporary residents by the end of 2027, we also understand the importance of stability in the Quebec workforce. Can the minister tell the House how our government plans to support the transition of workers—

Madam Speaker, we agree that this is not a matter of jurisdiction or an ideological fight. When Quebec families are struggling to put a roof over their heads, our duty is to take action, not to debate about jurisdictions. We just need to house Quebeckers. People want solutions, not jurisdictional bickering. Can my colleague provide more clarity for Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to Scout Week 2026, which was celebrated across the country from February 16 to 22. This year's theme was “Scouting, a source of unifying pride”. For generations, the movement has helped shape committed, responsible and caring young people through outdoor activities, volunteerism and community projects. It develops leadership, resilience and teamwork, qualities that are essential to building the Canada of tomorrow. The end of this week coincides with Founder's Day, which pays tribute to Robert and Olave Baden-Powell, who played a key role in the development of the Girl Guides and in bringing young girls into the movement. I want to thank the volunteers and leaders who support our young people with such dedication. Together, let us continue to build a strong Canada.

Madam Speaker, the government has been clear that anyone who commits a crime must face the consequences under the law, regardless of their immigration status. Why do the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge this reality and why do they continue to conflate issues that undermine social cohesion by tarring all asylum seekers with the same brush? Can my colleague confirm that the Conservatives are deliberately blurring the lines between refugees and offenders?

Mr. Speaker, February 7 marked the end of the mandate of Haiti's transitional presidential council and a new step in the country's political transition with the transfer of power to Prime Minister Fils‑Aimé. As Haitians continue to cope with uncertainty over the future of their country amid a worsening security situation, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us how Canada is going to keep supporting the Haitian people throughout the country's democratic transition and the restoration of security?