Bill C-226 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec)

This enactment amends the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to provide that it does not apply in Quebec.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

moved that Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, Quebec is a nation, a francophone nation, an egalitarian nation, a nation that is proud of its history, a nation where there is separation of religion and state. The Quebec nation is different from Canada. All Quebec members in the House, no matter their political affiliation, know this. We are different. We are different for many reasons. We are different because of our language, French, our institutions, our particular attachment to secularism and our values, shaped by a history written in part by the Catholic Church, from which the state steadily freed itself.

We are different from Canada. We are not better, we are different. We are different in how we live and how we live together. Having the government impose a model of integration just does not work, and that is why I am very pleased to be tabling this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and very pleased to resume the necessary debate on multiculturalism and its repercussions for Quebec.

This bill follows up on the supposed recognition of the Quebec nation by this Parliament. I know that the Prime Minister does not believe in it and that he wants to make Canada the first postnational state in the world, which means that Quebec's national identity would disappear. That is completely ridiculous. The Quebec nation is the community to which we belong, the group with which we identify and the one we are discussing in order to decide how our society is to be organized. A nation is a special place where political decisions can be made and, therefore, recognizing a nation means recognizing a political entity with legitimate political rights and aspirations.

By recognizing the Quebec nation, the House of Commons recognized, perhaps unwillingly, the right of Quebeckers to control the social, economic and cultural development of Quebec themselves. By stating that the Quebec nation is composed of all residents of Quebec, regardless of their origin or mother tongue or the region where they live, the federal government recognized that the Quebec nation has a clear geographic base made up of the territory of Quebec. I think it is worth noting that Quebec has never needed Ottawa in order to be a nation and unanimously declare its nationhood. On October 30, 2003, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed the following motion:THAT the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

The motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if Canada remains as it is or that Quebec is a nation if it opts for sovereignty. It says that the people of Quebec form a nation, period. There is a reason the National Assembly specified, repeated and reaffirmed the existence of the nation of Quebec. In fact, this resolution reiterated what all Quebec governments had been saying for decades. In June 1980, René Lévesque said:

Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination. This right to control its own national destiny is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has.

That is why the Quebec nation must have all the tools it needs to thrive and, most importantly, to define itself.

Accordingly, I included the following preamble in this bill:

Whereas Quebecers form a nation and therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, including as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of state and religion, and gender equality...

I sincerely hope that the House will unanimously support this preamble. That being said, Quebec is the only nation of its kind in the world. It is a nation inhabited by eight million francophones on a continent of over 600 million people. Francophones make up a total of 2.3% of the continent's population. It is hard to be more of a minority than that.

Demographically speaking, we should have disappeared over time. However, we are still here, alive and well.

Quebec is a true historic anomaly, a miracle of resilience, and it must have all the tools it needs to carry on, starting with its independence.

The federal government could have been an ally and contributed to the survival of the Quebec nation. Ottawa could have used its authority to contribute to the development of Quebec's distinct identity. It has always refused to do so.

Instead, Ottawa is hindering Quebec and undermining Quebec's efforts to create a unifying culture. One of Ottawa's worst attacks on the Quebec nation, on what we are collectively, is multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism undermines Quebec's distinctiveness and reduces it to one ethnic group among many. It undermines the existence of a common culture. Multiculturalism undermines Quebec's very existence as a nation.

For Canadians, it is a model that can work. In an anglophone country on an anglophone continent, it is natural for newcomers to want to integrate in English. However, Quebec is French. It is a French-speaking minority in an English-speaking country, on an English-speaking continent. Why would newcomers integrate into a minority? Multiculturalism is undermining Quebec.

If we go to the Government of Canada website, under the heading “Canadian identity and society”, it states that multiculturalism ensures “that all citizens keep their identities, take pride in their ancestry”. In other words, integration is pointless.

In Quebec, multiculturalism is not a policy of integration, but rather a policy of disintegration. It is a policy that creates a fragmented society inhabited by people from many different cultures, rather than fostering the development of a society that integrates newcomers to enrich a common culture. Multiculturalism is a juxtaposition of communities.

The reality is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture by encouraging multiple cultures to coexist. Although it is defined as a model for integrating newcomers, in reality it promotes coexistence driven by indifference, or perhaps tolerance, rather than respect for difference. This inevitably leads to ghettoization of cultures.

Concerned that multiculturalism divides society into a multitude of solitudes, Quebec has always rejected the Canadian approach, especially since it trivializes Quebec's position within Canada and refutes the very existence of the Quebec nation.

In 1971, Robert Bourassa, referring to multiculturalism, stated in a letter to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”. That was true 50 years ago and remains true today.

Quebec focuses on integration. Cultural plurality, or cultural diversity, is something to be shared. Getting to know one another better, talking to one another and building our society together, that is the Quebecois approach. To do that, we have to be on the same wavelength.

That is why, in Quebec, we ask immigrants to recognize the French fact, to know the French language, to learn it and to recognize that it is the common language of the public space. That is why Quebec insists on the need to respect the cornerstones of Quebec society, such as the separation of church and state, gender equality, and the existence of an historic cultural heritage. That heritage is multicultural, not multiculturalist.

Before 2003, there was even talk of a civil pact. The Quebec model of integration goes beyond simple citizenship designed to promote the development and peaceful coexistence of cultural minorities in a vacuum by bringing these minorities to enter the symbolic and institutional space occupied by the nation.

In other words, contrary to Canada's approach, which talks about preserving the identity of minorities without integration, Quebec's approach supports integration based on the learning of the French language, the official language and language common to the citizenry, and on the adherence to a set of fundamental principles.

Quebec is a French-speaking, democratic and pluralistic society based on the rule of law, which means that everyone has the same value and dignity, as well as the right to equal protection under the law. Knowledge and respect for the values of Quebec society are necessary for newcomers to adapt to their new environment and fully participate in it. We believe that integration is achieved through full participation, which multiculturalism inhibits. The conflict between the Quebec model and the Canadian one is clear and irreconcilable.

This is confusing to newcomers. They see Quebec as a French-speaking nation that exists within a bilingual country that promotes bilingualism. It prides itself on an approach to welcoming and integrating newcomers that focuses on the importance of certain basic values and upholds French as the language of the people. This conflicts with the definition of a Canada that presents itself as bilingual and multicultural.

In its preliminary submission to the Bouchard-Taylor commission, the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec highlighted this confusion:

...the efforts made by [Quebeckers] to define and promote [their] own model of integration came up against the ideology of multiculturalism, which was sometimes interpreted by certain groups as the possibility of living one's own culture according to the rationale of separate development...the ideological way of thinking that emerged in the 1970s, which presented society as a mosaic of cultures, has since been encouraging certain groups to develop beliefs that clash with Quebec's vision.

People arriving in Quebec receive two contradictory messages. Instead of blaming them, the Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to make the messages clearer. Quebec needs freedom to integrate newcomers. Every year, Quebec welcomes tens of thousands of immigrants, and that does not include refugees. We must have access to all the tools we need to integrate them and help them integrate into Quebec.

The Prime Minister's version of multiculturalism is completely out of touch with the Quebec reality. He does not believe in the Quebec nation and does not think that Quebec should decide how its residents should coexist. He certainly does not want nations around the world seeing who we are, hearing our voice, and relating to our desire to carve out our own place in the world, reach out to all the peoples of the world and contribute to global humanism.

I urge everyone who values global cultural diversity and everyone who values Quebec's interests, culture and identity to support my bill, which will allow Quebec to choose its own integration model.

Quebec is a nation, a small francophone nation on a vast anglophone continent. It must have all the tools it needs to integrate the people who join us, the people who will help us grow, enrich our society, and move confidently into the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I love Quebec and I love the French language. I, as a Canadian, feel very passionate about how important it is that Quebec remain the French capital of North America. There are so many wonderful aspects of the French language and being part of a multicultural society.

In the area I represent, there are children who speak French, English and Tagalog, or French, English and Punjabi. There are many different languages. These types of things make Canada the great country it is.

French continues to grow in other areas, and definitely in Winnipeg North. It seems to me the member, through legislation of this nature, is actually sending a negative message in terms of our diversity, and our ever-growing and changing heritage, which is something we should all be proud of.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to differentiate between our love of diversity and multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a political ideology. In the words of Boucar Diouf, our society is diverse, yet tightly knit. It is plural. However, we want to integrate newcomers based on fundamental factors and principles, based on a common culture.

The message needs to be perfectly clear: Quebec is a French-speaking society, not a bilingual one. Quebec is a society that recognizes gender equality and that separates church and state. My colleague referred to Quebec as the capital; I would have liked him to say that Quebec is a nation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for his speech.

First of all, does he not find it a little ironic that it was a Quebecker who created the Canadian Multiculturalism Act for Canada as a whole, and now it is another Quebecker who wants to abolish it, but only for Quebec?

Second, can the member give us a very clear definition of multiculturalism in the context of our justice system?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau described himself as a Canadian first and foremost. I am a Quebecker, I am not a Canadian. I never have been and never will be. That is the difference between me and Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Quebec already has the exclusive power to select its economic immigrants. It gives a lot of points to those who speak French, in fact. I would like to read three clauses from the Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration:

24. Canada undertakes to withdraw from the services to be provided by Québec for the reception and the linguistic and cultural integration of permanent residents in Québec.

25. Canada undertakes to withdraw from specialized economic integration services to be provided by Québec to permanent residents in Québec.

26. Canada shall provide reasonable compensation for the services referred to in sections 24 and 25 provided by Québec...

How will his bill change any of that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill will ensure that Quebec is able to make its own decisions about integrating newcomers based on a common culture.

Multiculturalism is a political ideology that suffocates Quebec's distinctiveness. There is plenty of interest in recognizing plurality, the distinctiveness of everyone and all nations, but right now, the only distinctiveness that is not recognized in Canada and in Parliament is the distinctiveness of the Quebec nation.

Quebeckers do not want a political ideology. It works for the rest of Canada because, as researchers have explained, multiculturalism only works for majorities. When majorities want to integrate newcomers, they integrate them into their continental majority, but that does not apply to Quebec. This is why it is important that we have our own integration model and that if Parliament recognizes Quebec as a nation, it must also recognize our right to self-determination and our right to decide how we want to integrate our people.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate private member's Bill C-226, introduced by the member for Montcalm, which is asking the House to support an amendment to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act so that it would not be applicable in Quebec. The act in question is part of a set of 10 constitutional and legislative positions, regulations and practices that recognize the contribution of all Canadians to the social fabric and economic well-being of the country.

The multiculturalism policy and its enabling legislation, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, are at the heart of the Government of Canada's efforts to improve quality of life, preserve social cohesion and guarantee all citizens equal participation in the country's social, political, economic and cultural life, regardless of race or ethnic origin.

Canadian multiculturalism is an effective instrument for fostering social cohesion, mutual respect and a shared sense of Canadian identity. Canada is a pioneer in this regard, being the first country in the world to establish a constitutional multiculturalism state, one in which peoples of all races, religions, cultures and languages have come to join our indigenous peoples.

Because of our Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Canada is viewed internationally as a model for promoting social cohesion. Our acceptance of cultural diversity is fundamental to our Canadian values of human rights and respect for differences and has played a role in our continued successful ranking on the United Nations human development index.

Canada’s model of multiculturalism is one of integration, not assimilation. Assimilation can be described as the process whereby new immigrants become indistinguishable within the dominant host society. In contrast, integration involves adding to the existing culture, which in turn enhances society. The majority of immigrants who come to Canada do integrate into society. They go to school, live and work in local communities and contribute to society at large.

Bilingualism and multiculturalism both speak to Canada's unique national identity. They are not in opposition. They are both assets that have enabled the building of a country that is one of the most envied in the world. Enshrined in our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our official bilingualism and our multiculturalism have supported each other in the past and must continue to move forward together.

No single set of policies can encompass the distinct historical legacies and current needs of Canada's diverse communities. It would be regrettable, indeed tragic, if the policy framework of multiculturalism were seen as operating at cross purposes, as if anyone who supports Quebec's national goals must reject multiculturalism or as if supporting multiculturalism means denying Quebec nationalism.

The Multiculturalism Act is compatible with Quebec's special status. The act aims to build relations of inclusive citizenship that embrace all Canadians.

Multiculturalism in Canada is not just for newcomers. Multiculturalism is about, and for, all Canadians. Multiculturalism is about mainstream Canada because mainstream Canada is multicultural.

Our history in Canada shows that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act has helped create a society where diversity is accepted and where integration is successfully taking place. It has helped build a country that takes pride in its multicultural heritage.

The last few decades have shown that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and Quebec's intercultural model have managed to work well alongside each other. One policy has not caused a problem for the other. Without a doubt there are differences in the policies, but each have helped forge a Canada that we can all be proud of.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was created to preserve and enhance our multicultural heritage and to help ensure the equal participation of all Canadians in society. The act provides a framework that is expansive and visionary. There is room within that framework for the voices and perspectives of all Canadians, including those of Quebeckers.

In 1971, the federal government, through its multicultural policy, recognized the diversity found in Canada as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. This policy recognized that Canada was built not only on the contributions of indigenous peoples and the two official language communities, French and English, but also on the contributions of the many diverse communities that have come from all over the world, over the span of decades, to settle here in what is now known as Canada. It was an aspirational statement that would lead the way to the Canada we know today.

In 1988, the Parliament of Canada embedded our multiculturalism policy in legislation through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act, now over 30 years old, provides the framework for federal responsibilities and activities. It brings Canadians closer together and promotes mutual respect among Canadians of all backgrounds.

Since the Canadian Multiculturalism Act has been in place, it has become a core component of Canadian identity. It has helped build a cohesive society by assisting groups and individuals to participate in all spheres of Canadian society. The act has contributed to promoting mutual respect and peaceful relations among Canadians of different backgrounds and assisted in strengthening bonds of mutual trust and responsibility.

As much as multiculturalism has become a core component of our identity, so, too, has our country's linguistic duality become a defining element of Canadian identity. Our Official Languages Act complements the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Both recognize that there is a uniqueness to the diverse population in Canada and that this unique heritage is worth preserving. These two acts are symbols of Canada and its heritage.

After 30 years, I can confidently say that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act has served our nation well. In Canada, diversity is one of our greatest strengths, yet we must never forget that it demands our continuous effort, attention and care, so that it can continue to grow. Today, according to Statistics Canada data, immigration accounts for about two-thirds of overall population growth. Our multicultural heritage should not be divisive, particularly in a democracy that respects individual freedoms as much as Canada. Generations of immigrants have come and successfully settled across this country, and we can see the success of their integration simply by looking around this chamber or walking down the streets of just about any city in Canada.

Multiculturalism is not simply a government policy; it is the lived experience of people across our country, a country in which Canadians of different origins live and work side by side and where these same Canadians, new and not so new, work to learn the languages, customs and history of our country that they, in turn, share with us as equal members of Canadian society. This two-way street has helped shape us as a country.

The work to lay the foundation for the multicultural country Canada is today was done by past generations.

Today, young Canadians are consistently more accepting of immigration and cultural diversity than older generations. On the whole, Canada's multiculturalism policy and the subsequent Canadian Multiculturalism Act have helped create the Canada of today: a Canada that is open and welcoming of cultural diversity, and a Canada that will remain a multicultural society.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud and truly honoured to rise in the House today to speak to the bill introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

I am proud to be a Quebecker. I am proud to be part of this nation, which, against all odds, has always demonstrated not only its fighting spirit, but also a willingness to overcome hardships with honour and dignity. I love the history of Quebec. I love the particularities of Quebec. I love the culture of Quebec. I am a Quebecker, like my 77 other colleagues elected to the House who, along with me, represent Quebec's 78 ridings.

Quebec is not a monolithic block. Quebec draws its strength from its diversity. Whether one is a sovereignist, like my friends in the Bloc Québécois, left-leaning, like the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, a centralizing federalist, like my friends in the Liberal Party, or Conservative, like me and my nine other colleagues, we are all Quebeckers. We can be proud of this nation, which was in fact recognized by a Conservative government.

I studied history, and I am proud of the history of Quebec. We all know that the first nations have existed and still exist on Quebec territory since the dawn of time.

Yesterday I celebrated the 12th anniversary of my first election. I am proud to have spent 12 years and one day representing the Huron-Wendat people in either the National Assembly or the House of Commons. Their territory used to be called the Huron Village. I am very proud to represent this nation because we must always keep in mind that our territory has been occupied by the first nations since the dawn of time.

The first Europeans came here as colonists, as they used to be called. There was Jacques Cartier in 1534, and Samuel de Champlain in 1608. On July 3, Champlain founded Quebec City, ensuring that the permanent foundation of the European presence on North American soil would be part of history under the French regime. We have worn our French identity with honour, pride and dignity for more than 400 years.

A debate is currently taking place about preserving the language, which is the very essence of what we are as Quebeckers. We must never forget that language is part of our history, our heritage, and it is up to us to preserve it so we can show off Quebec in all its glory.

The British arrived in 1759, 1760 and 1763. We must salute the fact that, for more than 260 years, francophones and anglophones have been living on Quebec soil. We are also living alongside other groups who came to Quebec. In the 1840s, Quebec welcomed thousands of people from Ireland fleeing the great famine. Their descendants continue to make Quebec proud. Just because someone is born in a place that has no ties to France does not make them less of a Quebecker. Quite the contrary. Three Quebec premiers had Irish roots. I am thinking of the Johnson brothers.

We have great politicians who also made their mark and had Irish roots. I am thinking of Gilles Duceppe, among others. There is no shame in that, quite the contrary. We are proud of the intermingling that has taken place over the years.

Confederation in 1867 was made possible with the support and assistance of what were then known as French Canadians. George-Étienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald built this country, which allowed Quebec to live and take charge of its destiny within Canada, governed by the laws of Canada. We have always managed to live here in French, and that is something to be protected. That is Quebec's greatest honour.

I mentioned immigration. I must admit that I am fortunate and proud to have a conflict of interest, because I myself am the child of immigrants.

My parents chose and were chosen to move here in 1958, and I was born in 1964. The greatest gift is that my parents, who are now 96 and 97 years old, raised me as a Quebecker. They did not spend their time telling me stories about how things were back in their day in their home country. Instead, they told me how we could live with our pride in our ancestors' legacy here, in Quebec, in Canada. I cannot thank them enough for that.

Even though my father could not stand up on skates for more than four seconds before falling because he had never skated before in his life, he could talk about Maurice Richard, Jean Béliveau and Guy Lafleur with an enthusiasm that would embarrass me today. That is how passionate he was about talking about our national sport. I am hardly exaggerating. I know that members of all parties here in the House have wonderful immigration success stories, and my parents' story is one of them.

Since we are talking about immigration, Quebec's uniqueness emerged in all its glory over the years through the measures that were taken in collaboration with the federal government with regard to immigration. Take, for example, the 1971 Lang-Cloutier agreement, which allowed Quebec to have immigration representatives in the embassies; the 1975 Andras-Bienvenue agreement, which clarified Quebec's role in the selection process; and the well-known 1978 Cullen-Couture agreement, which allowed Quebec to clearly define the selection criteria for its immigrants.

I am getting to the subject at hand today, namely multiculturalism, because, in 1991, there was the Gagnon-Tremblay-McDougall agreement on Quebec's specific role in the selection of immigrants. All of that was done within Canada and in accordance with Canadian laws, including the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which came into effect in 1988. Obviously, policies had been put in place under the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but the act as we know it, the 1988 act, received royal assent under Brian Mulroney, the boy from Baie-Comeau.

I know he is not the only Quebecker to have led the country. We had Wilfrid Laurier; Louis St. Laurent, my riding's namesake; our 15th Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and his son, our current Prime Minister; and Paul Martin, who was also a Quebec MP. However, I do not think anyone would fault me for saying that we can be very proud of Brian Mulroney, that Quebecker who led Canada, the boy from Baie-Comeau. Had he had any concerns whatsoever about the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988, he would not have gone there.

The Conservatives recognize the rights of first nations. The Conservatives recognize that French and English are the founding, national and official languages of this country. That is what enables Quebec to be a distinct, French-speaking society within Canada. We believe all Canadians are equal. They have the same rights and powers and enjoy the same benefits. We embrace shared values like equality, democracy and the rule of law.

Section 2 of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act allows for special agreements between the federal government and the provinces. That is why I can understand why sovereignists are worried when we talk about that with the current government, which is highly centralist and thinks that Ottawa knows what is best for the provinces. We take exactly the opposite approach.

The Conservatives are the ones who recognized Quebec as a nation. The Conservatives are the ones who gave Quebec a seat at UNESCO. The Conservatives are the ones who gave Quebec more powers over immigration. The Conservatives are the ones who are open to the idea of giving Quebec more powers over culture and immigration. We are the ones who are open to the idea of a single tax return. Most importantly, we are the ones who want Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses. The Conservatives are the ones who very seriously respect Bill 21 because, technically, it fell precisely under provincial jurisdiction.

If we want Canada to continue to prosper and assert itself as it has done so well for more than 400 years, then we need a Conservative government that will respect the laws, jurisdiction and distinctiveness of Quebec.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their speeches.

I think tonight's subject and the discussion we are having are interesting, but I am wondering if now is really the right time.

This is early December, and we are in the middle of the second wave of the pandemic. There are 1,500 new cases of COVID-19 per day in Quebec. Hospitals are being forced to cut back because the system cannot take care of everyone. Major surgeries are being postponed.

Talking about philosophical or, some might say, even ideological subjects is all well and good, but we could have devoted this time of debate to current events. We learned yesterday that 10,000 restaurants have already closed their doors over the past few months in Quebec, and according to other restaurant owners, the worst is yet to come over the next few weeks.

As I said at the outset, this is an interesting debate because it is about living together in harmony and how we organize a multicultural society, like the one in which we live. Many societies and countries around the world are having these difficult debates and discussions, because there are several models, which sometimes clash or coexist. I will come back to this, because it is important.

None of these models is perfect, they could all be improved upon, and, sometimes, some are more suited to the historical and social reality of a particular country.

I will start with the case of Norway, which is a bit far from us. Quebec is a francophone society, a very small minority in North America, as my colleague from Montcalm mentioned earlier. However, Quebec can and has the opportunity to attract francophone immigrants, which we are already doing a fair bit. The Government of Quebec has full authority to choose from among those in the economic immigration class. Many points are given to those with knowledge of French in order to have them come and live among us. That is why so many people from the Maghreb have moved to Quebec in recent years. I commend them for it.

Norway does not have this luxury. It has a population of four million people who speak a language not spoken anywhere else in the world. They obviously welcome very few immigrants, as it is a question of survival for them and they have no other options.

I want to talk about three other types of integration models that are more familiar to us. The first one involves severe assimilation or integration, in which newcomers are asked to leave behind their identities, their customs, their cultures, their foods or their songs to blend in with the majority and the nation. This model is similar to the one France has adopted in recent years.

The French model is a very colonialist one. Algeria, for instance, was considered to be an integral part of French territory. In the African colonies, young African students were forced to take tests on the cheeses of Normandy. In this model, people lose everything they had and everything they have in order to assimilate into the dominant paradigm.

Here, we are obviously more familiar with the multiculturalism model. We invite people to come to work in our society and contribute to it and to raise a family here, in order to build a better future for them and their children. They can keep their customs, their traditions and some of their values, provided that they are compatible with our democratic values, of course.

They are given the space they need to continue being who they are. We even promote this because diversity is valued and we seek to put it forward. This perspective advances the rights of minorities while respecting the laws of the host country, of course. The use of a minority lens truly allows the focus to be on the promotion, development and protection of the rights of minorities. That is the model found in English Canada.

Does this model work for Quebec? I think not. In any event, that is not the Quebec consensus. Why? We mentioned it earlier: Quebeckers are not a minority, but a nation. This is not the first time we have heard it in Parliament. The recognition of the Quebec nation was made official by Parliament in 2004 and by the federal government in 2006.

There is a consensus in Quebec on interculturalism, which is closely related to multiculturalism. While some would turn this into a battle and pit one against the other, we are saying that the two can coexist.

Philosopher Gérard Bouchard talks about this in his book entitled L'interculturalisme. He believes that multiculturalism and interculturalism are both part of pluralistic philosophies that emphasize respect for identities and diversity.

Obviously there is a major difference between the two. If not, there would not be two different concepts and we would not be talking about two different approaches.

Interculturalism is about a common culture, as was mentioned earlier. Personally, I like to talk about a common foundation that brings people together. In Quebec, that foundation has been carefully examined and established by several commissions and in a number of reports that talk about the desire to bring people together while respecting their diversity. We are talking about a foundation or a common culture based on democratic rules, equality among people and, obviously, the French language as the common public language in Quebec. I think there is also a consensus on that.

The matter of language and francization of immigrants is extremely important, because it is also the gateway to a common culture in Quebec. Why am I talking about this?

Because interculturalism was an attempt to strike a balance between individual and collective rights. Tension between individual and collective rights exists in all societies. There is no perfect model. In Quebec, the Charter of the French Language is a good example of that. It prioritizes collective rights such as the preservation and survival of the French language in this part of North America. On other issues, individual rights take precedence.

Finding that equilibrium, engaging in that debate is an ongoing process. We find ways to balance what Gérard Bouchard called “respect for universal rights”, which are individual rights, with respect for diversity, identity and every individual's roots. That equilibrium is always fragile, always a give and take. We are constantly fine-tuning it.

We in the NDP are convinced that these two approaches can coexist. I will give a simple example, which I know personally: it coexists within my political party. In fact, these two notions are part of our platform. In our election platform, we talk about “multiculturalism”, while in our statutes and regulations, we talk about “interculturalism”. We are not always bickering. On the contrary, we can have a constructive dialogue and put forward two approaches that can actually exist alongside each other.

One of the issues we have with the bill currently before us is that we are having trouble seeing what problem it seeks to address.

For Quebec, we saw respect for interculturalism in the selection of immigrants, in the application of Bill 101, and in the integration services for newcomers that are part of the Canada–Québec Accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens. I would like to remind members of some of the important articles of this agreement.

Article 24 states the following:

24. Canada undertakes to withdraw from the services to be provided by Québec for the reception and the linguistic and cultural integration of permanent residents in Québec.

Article 25 reads as follows:

25. Canada undertakes to withdraw from specialized economic integration services to be provided by Québec to permanent residents in Québec.

Article 26 states the following:

26. Canada shall provide reasonable compensation for the services referred to in sections 24 and 25 provided by Québec

I am trying to see what problem exactly they are looking to fix. I get the impression that this is more of a philosophical or ideological debate. In fact, I see no real obstacle, barrier or roadblock.

In addition, the program run by Canadian Heritage, which is based on the existing legislation, ensures that Quebec organizations receive funding for integrating immigrants, for respecting diversity and for fighting discrimination. These organizations include Actions interculturelles de développement et d'éducation in Sherbrooke, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Girls Action Foundation of Montreal and the Armenian Apostolic Church diocese. There are many others.

I think we need to have a thoughtful and nuanced debate on these issues.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I worked meticulously on my speech, so I hope that it will address many of the questions my colleagues have raised in their speeches.

I want to recognize my hon. colleague from Montcalm and thank him for his important speech on the bill that he sponsored, Bill C-226, an act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act regarding its non-application in Quebec. This bill is very important for Quebec because it would amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to provide that it does not apply in Quebec.

I remind members that there are different conceptual levels of multiculturalism. We need to distinguish between multiculturalism as a social fact of ethnocultural diversity and multiculturalism as a social construct or state ideology. The construct of multiculturalism is a symbolic representation of a nation's political vision. Diversity is viewed differently by Quebeckers and by Canadians.

The Canadian myth portrays Canada as a fundamentally multicultural country, as though there were no social hierarchy created by the cultural domination of the historical anglophone majority. By contrast, Quebec's national vision interprets diversity as a meeting with a host society. This meeting involves a form of cultural exchange. That means immigrants turned citizens integrate into the host society's culture, which evolves by subsuming aspects of the cultures of Quebec's diverse residents.

Unlike the Canadian representation of multiculturalism, the Quebec model involves cultural convergence, which strengthens the nation's common culture without halting its progress.

The term multiculturalism also refers to another conceptual level, that of public policy, the purpose of which is to promote a national vision related to a particular view of multiculturalism by implementing specific measures and programs designed to bring in diversity one way or another.

As mentioned earlier, Canada's policy dates back to 1970. Obviously, it quickly came under heavy criticism from Quebec because it would relegate Quebeckers to being just one ethnic minority among many. What is more, while multiculturalism is presented as an option that is preferable to assimilation, it is an outdated approach with a trivializing effect. It marginalizes communities and traps them in their culture of origin. This leaves groups more isolated, causing them to turn in on themselves.

It is not just Quebeckers and francophones who criticize multiculturalism for being divisive. The same critique was brought forward by English-speaking Canadian author Neil Bissoondath in his book entitled Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada.

What specifically are we criticizing about multiculturalism? I will go straight to the point that interests me even more deeply, that is, everything that our theorist, sociologist and historian Gérard Bouchard has inscribed in our cultural heritage.

According to him, Quebec's interculturalism is a model of integration, as I said earlier, that is distinct from assimilation or multiculturalism. The main components that Mr. Bouchard outlined are as follows: promoting French as a civic language that is a condition for participation in public life; respecting the rights of all Quebeckers, including those most vulnerable to discrimination because of cultural differences such as language, religion and customs; recognizing the majority-minority relationship underlying Quebec's ethnocultural reality; giving priority to collective integration, as befits a small nation whose cultural future is a source of constant concern; developing a common culture; and emphasizing intercultural connections and exchanges.

Let me quote Mr. Bouchard:

One of the model's primary concerns is avoiding assimilation. Rather, its goal is integration, adherence to our society's fundamental values as defined in our Charter. It also expects newcomers to learn French and participate in civic life. As for the common culture, it develops through free intercultural interaction and feeds off all contributions, from the majority and minorities alike. Nobody is expected to renounce their culture.

Quebec's interculturalism took shape in the late 1990s with the publication of a white paper entitled Let's Build Québec Together: A Policy Statement on Immigration and Integration. It states that Quebec is a society where French is the common language of public life, a democratic society where everyone's participation and contribution is expected and facilitated, a pluralistic society open to everyone's contribution within the limits imposed by respect for basic democratic values.

It is therefore essential that the social and economic integration of immigrants take place in French. Economically, interculturalism must provide immigrants with the resources to get into the job market, and that starts with learning French. The notion of exchange is key to the policy of interculturalism because, politically, interculturalism implies that the state respects intercultural principles, especially citizen participation, intercultural exchange and the fight against discrimination.

The civic route is preferred over the courts for settling cultural disputes. Inclusivity and the importance of the common culture are the strengths that distinguish interculturalism from Canadian multiculturalism.

State secularism is a model for integration and a way of accommodating ethnocultural diversity. This is a principle that establishes the separation of government and religion, the religious neutrality of the state, equality for all citizens, and guaranteed freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

In closing, it is important to know that the two policies are independent. The one does not have to involve the other. Whether it is true or not, the important thing is that, in any case, this is a Quebec discussion that concerns the nation of Quebec, its identity and its future. It does not concern Canada in any way. Interculturalism, like secularism, is a matter for public discussion and debate. There is a clear consensus among all parliamentarians in Quebec that these debates are profoundly national and democratic. They have been held and will be held in our National Assembly, period.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 9, 2020 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the private member's bill, Bill C-226, introduced by the member for Montcalm, whom I have always found to be an intelligent and respectful debater, even if we do not share the same vision for our Canadian federalism. He always makes his interventions about ideas, and that is fundamental to a healthy democracy.

Bill C-226 asks the House to support an amendment to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act that would make the act not applicable in Quebec. It is important to mention that official bilingualism and multiculturalism in this country share the same origins. That is the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which did its work between 1963 and 1969. The commissioners believed, in fact, that official bilingualism and multiculturalism could be mutually reinforcing, and they were so very right.

Through its multicultural policy adopted in 1971, the federal government recognized diversity as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and as a pillar of our value system. However, it was also made clear that the advancement of multiculturalism throughout Canada had to be made in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada. Built not only on the contributions of indigenous peoples and the two official language communities, French and English, the fabric of Canada owes much to the contributions of the many ethnocultural communities and new immigrants who have come to make a life in this country over the span of decades.

By way of background, the Canadian multiculturalism policy was enshrined in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988, and all provincial and territorial governments are subject to its application, including Quebec. The act, which is now 33 years old, provides the framework for federal responsibilities and activities designed to bring Canadians closer together and promote mutual respect and appreciation among Canadians of different backgrounds. The act has been central in creating harmonious relations among Canadians of different backgrounds, and it has helped strengthen the country's social fabric.

Quebec is the only province in Canada that promotes interculturalism as an approach to integration and cross-cultural understanding. Broadly speaking, Quebec's vision and policy of interculturalism propose a model of integration that aims to ensure the continuity of the francophone identity and culture, while still respecting minority cultures, that is, diversity, and the contributions they make to modern Quebec society.

In 1990, a policy statement on immigration and integration entitled “Let's Build Quebec Together” set the parameters of Quebec's policy of interculturalism. Developed by the Ministry of Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion of Quebec, the document reaffirms that interculturalism and adapting institutions to the values of diversity and reasonable accommodation are key parts of Quebec's approach to integration.

As the Prime Minister often says, “we are strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them.” As many scholars and academics have noted, linguistic duality is at the heart of our Canadian values of inclusiveness and diversity. Accommodating two languages has fostered greater openness in Canadian society toward other cultures. The Official Languages Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act go hand in hand in defining the values that Canada represents on the world stage.

In 2021, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Canada's multiculturalism policy, which was introduced in the House of Commons by former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This will be an opportunity to remember who we are and what unites us.

It is important and, indeed, crucial to note that multiculturalism and interculturalism are not incompatible. They are not really opposites. One does not exclude the other. Both attach great importance to integrating and respecting common civic and democratic values, and both have been invaluable to Canada's social fabric since the 1970s.

I would add that Canada's federal multiculturalism policy is flexible enough to allow for the two concepts, multiculturalism and interculturalism, to coexist. It is very important for the Government of Canada that Canadians in all provinces and territories act in accordance with the country's core values, such as openness to diversity, inclusion and respect for others. In that regard, multiculturalism, like our official languages, is often perceived to be a fundamental social pillar that the government is committed to defending and promoting.

Bill C-226 reminds us that Quebeckers form a nation and therefore possess all the tools and power needed to define their identity and protect three common and essential values, namely, the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state and gender equality. For those reasons, the member for Montcalm is suggesting that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act should not apply to Quebec. However, if we analyze the federal legislation carefully, we see that those three principles hold a very important, and even fundamental, place in it.

First, the application of the act does not exclude the protection of the French language. Immigrant heritage languages cannot be enhanced, as suggested in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, without strengthening the status and use of both official languages. What is more, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, like the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, while ensuring those freedoms are not endangered.

Second, because of this interpretation of pluralism, which is based on reasonable accommodation, the federal government has the ability to maintain the neutrality of the state, since it does not favour majority religious beliefs over minority ones.

The Multiculturalism Act repeatedly points to gender equality as a fundamental principle of Canadian society. Exempting Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, as called for in Bill C-226, could have major consequences.

It would reduce access to the multiculturalism funding program by Quebec's ethnocultural and religious communities. Exempting Quebec from the Multiculturalism Act would also compromise the federal government's ability to promote a consistent shared set of national values and support the overall objectives of the act. Passage of this bill will most certainly lead to discussions about competing anti-multiculturalism ideologies across the country, which is hardly desirable.

This bill is also an attempt to undermine the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Quebec, given that section 17 of the charter officially refers to multiculturalism as a Canadian value. The bill is actually trying to do this without invoking the section 33 notwithstanding clause, which requires an official request by the province. I would note that the Government of Quebec has made no such request.

I will conclude by reminding the House that the position put forward by Bill C-226 is not supported by all Quebeckers and all Quebec governments. In 2017, the Quebec government published an official document that outlines its vision of itself within Canada. The document, entitled “Policy on Québec Affirmation and Canadian Relations”, remains current and has been endorsed by two successive governments. It states, “Québec has been able to grow and develop its national identity within the Canadian federal framework.” This clearly implies that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is not impeding Quebec or its development in any way.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act makes Canada a stronger, more united and more inclusive country, and it must be protected.

Whichever way we cut it, we are a country of minorities. This reality, and the awareness of this reality, is what gives us, as Canadians, our wise perspective, a perspective that in my view is the recipe for success in the postmodern world. It is what keeps us from the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there. The time is just over the expiry of the hon. member's time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say how much I appreciate Quebec, its culture and its people.

Quebec makes an enormous contribution to Canadian culture. I understand that some Bloc members doe not really like multiculturalism, but I personally believe that Canadian multiculturalism helps Quebeckers preserve their culture and share it with the rest of the country.

As a result of Canada's openness to different cultures, including French culture, we have French-language schools across the country, including in my riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta.

My riding also has English-language, Christian and other educational institutions, which offer students a diverse range of educational options. Having other schools does not have a negative impact on our local French-language school, because all these schools coexist.

We can say the same thing about the global culture of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. My riding has a diverse population with people of different backgrounds, but we stand united behind our Albertan and Canadian identity while maintaining personal cultural traditions. That is multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is not new to Canada. There are hundreds of indigenous nations in Canada. The French and the British arrived later in this country, followed by other Europeans. We were already a multicultural people before Confederation, and when Canada was founded, people started to share their nationalities with others from different cultures and religions. It goes without saying that this process was not seamless, but we must accept that a multicultural society is not a utopia.

Nothing in this world is perfect, but I believe that the advantages of a multicultural society outweigh the disadvantages. I support the principle of pluralism, which is a political philosophy holding that people of different beliefs, backgrounds and lifestyles can coexist in the same society and participate equally in the political process. I believe that Canada is an example of a successful pluralism, in which people from all cultures, beliefs, faiths, races and sexual orientations are proud to call themselves Canadians.

As some may know, multiculturalism is something I am passionate about. Quite often I feel like we underestimate it both in terms of what it demands of us and the possibilities it represents. Multiculturalism can be challenging when it calls on us to live with and understand things that are unfamiliar to us, but it also provides us an enriching opportunity to have a deeper and intimate understanding of a much broader range of human experiences that we get through different cultures and traditions.

In a society with limited diversity, we would be ignorant without knowing it. In a more diverse society, ignorance can lead to moments of discomfort, but those moments of discomfort can give us the opportunity to learn and grow if they are associated with grace and humility.

When diversity leads to learning and growth we end up with a society where we all know much more about the world around us, one where we can not only savour all sorts of differences, but where our thoughts and conversations can be imbued with the wisdom of teachers and statesmen around the world.

The creation of this type of multicultural society that works has value and presents tremendous opportunities.

Multiculturalism and the knowledge that is gained from it can make us better artists and philosophers, better able to search for individual and collective happiness because we have access to more data, thanks to our personal relationships and conversations. Multiculturalism can help us resolve more problems by applying various problem-solving techniques, allowing us to become unique world leaders who use our cultural understanding to negotiate peace agreements that previously would have been unimaginable. Finally, multiculturalism is an opportunity to create wealth through our ability to engage in respectful trade with countries from all over the globe without being intimidated or manipulated.

There is a lot more we need to know to practise multiculturalism properly, but the knowledge that we gain about other cultures along the way will help us to do much more than simply avoid offence. When we do not understand a culture, it is easy to make erroneous snap judgments and engage in xenophobia. It is important to be open-minded when trying to understand people. If we do not, we will never have a successful, diverse society. That is why diversity of opinion is so critical. It enables members of an ethnically diverse society to co-exist and understand each other.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and explain why it is important that it apply to all of Canada, including Quebec.

The purpose of the act is to preserve and enhance Canada's cultural diversity. It was introduced in 1971 with the hope that it would guarantee the cultural freedom of all Canadians.

Freedom is a Canadian value. I am someone who values freedom, and that is one of the reasons why I am opposing this Bloc Québécois bill today.

I always oppose attacks on freedom. That is why I am also against Bill C-10. The government says that Bill C-10 seeks to advance diversity, but, in my opinion, freedom of expression is essential to do that.

Quite frankly, I am concerned about the repercussions on religious minorities if the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec.

Discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities is a problem in all regions of Canada. Conservatives understand the constitutional jurisdictions of each level of government, but we will always act within the federal jurisdiction to protect minority rights.

I do think it is important to recognize that the discourse on the issue of multiculturalism is a little different in Quebec than in other provinces. Given that Quebec francophones are a minority in Canada, I can understand why they want to protect their culture and especially their language.

Unlike some members, my Conservative Party colleagues and I recognize that the French language in Quebec is in decline, and this issue must be addressed. However, unlike some other members, I do not believe that assimilating minority communities or opposing multiculturalism are effective responses to this problem.

The fact is that many immigrants who settle in Quebec speak French, especially those from Haiti, Africa, Morocco and Algeria and from Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon. All these cultures are proud of their French while maintaining their cultural and religious traditions.

Multiculturalism can be a major asset for Quebec when it comes to attracting new francophone immigrants and strengthening the presence of French in North America.

I would now like to briefly address the issue of religion in this debate because it appears in the preamble to the bill. I understand that when an individual or community has a negative experience with a religious organization, that causes pain and a desire to get as far away as possible from the source of that pain. However, hypothetically, repression in the name of secularism can happen too and can be just as harmful as repression in the name of a given religion.

I believe that the political community should focus on freedom, pluralism and freedom of religion. I do not think the state should impose a particular point of view on religious matters or practices. That is the real idea behind the separation of church and state. The idea is not about actively marginalizing people for practising their faith; it is about giving people the ability to decide what they believe in and how they interpret these beliefs.

Multiculturalism and pluralism are an expression of the universal human desire for freedom of choice and freedom to seek the truth on fundamental issues without interference from the state. Multiculturalism is important and must not be exercised at the expense of Quebec's rich culture. I think it can even improve Quebec culture, especially with respect to the French language and the fact that more immigrants speak French.

Although I am in favour of preserving Quebec's rich culture, I do not support a bill that could wind up leading to cultural assimilation. We need to work on improving multiculturalism—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I gather from my colleagues' speeches that they will not be supporting the bill. Many of them constantly repeat that they recognize Quebec's nationhood. Unfortunately, now that it is time to put their money where their mouth is, it is radio silence.

Before I begin, I would like to review the origins of multiculturalism. The scene is 1960s Quebec, at the dawn of the Quiet Revolution, as Jean Lesage makes an important statement: the Quebec state will be the driving force of our emancipation. By saying this, Lesage creates a specific political context in which Quebec now has not only a unique cultural identity, but a political vision as well.

This frightens the federal government. In 1963, Lester B. Pearson attempts to bring Quebeckers back on side by proposing the concept of two founding peoples. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, also known as the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, is convened with the mandate of recommending what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races.

What happened to biculturalism and bilingualism after that? Biculturalism fell by the wayside, and Canada became a bilingual, multicultural country. Biculturalism disappeared because it offered recognition to Quebec and gave it the leverage to become a genuinely distinct society, a prospect that has always frightened federalists. For a federalist, there is only one identity possible, and that is the collective Canadian identity.

That does not work for us, not because we reject ethnocultural diversity, but because we have a different identity. This has been shown to be the case many times over the years, during two unsuccessful rounds of constitutional negotiations, as well as in the report of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, also known as the Bouchard-Taylor commission.

I do not know what is going on in the federalist camp, but it does not appear to hear us when we bring up such issues. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission was one of the first rebuffs that Quebec suffered, predating those of the constitutional negotiations. It was the first time Quebec was refused distinct status. Remember this, because I will come back to it later.

It is also essential to understand that multiculturalism has two components: an institutional policy, meaning the multiculturalism we see here, and a liberal theory. The Prime Minister once said that Canada is a postnational state, a phrase he borrowed from thinkers like Will Kymlicka and James Tully. I do not know if he understood what they were saying, but, for these thinkers, multiculturalism involves recognizing not only ethnocultural diversity, but national minorities as well.

Not once has Canadian multiculturalism as it is laid out in our legislation even come close to recognizing national minorities, such as the Quebec national minority and the indigenous national minorities. Over time, it has developed a system of integration that means that if every culture ends up being recognized, none of them really are.

Multiculturalism recognizes different cultures, but not to the point of giving them any real political power. Will Kymlicka, the leading theorist of multiculturalism, divides minorities into two types. Cultural minorities demand recognition, which they are entitled to receive, as they do in Quebec. National minorities demand political autonomy.

The federal government will never be willing to consider the issue. It would rather dismiss it out of hand, since it would mean Quebec would have distinct status and indigenous nations would have a separate government. The federal government has never been interested in moving in that direction.

In my opinion, it is simple: Quebeckers reject multiculturalism. That was proven by the Bouchard-Taylor commission. We are not opposed to diversity, but multiculturalism means denying our nationhood. It offers us no recognition or guarantees.

What really bothers me is that federalists do not understand the principle of duality. As Quebeckers and francophones, we exist as a minority in a sea of anglophones. We need policies to protect us in that specific context. The system of ethnocultural minority integration does not do that.

To add insult to injury, today we are being told that, because Quebecers reject multiculturalism, that must mean they are fundamentally against ethnocultural minorities. That is not true.

I mentioned the Laurendeau-Dunton commission earlier. Canada began recognizing diversity in 1963. I recommend that my colleagues in the House read a short book by Hubert Aquin entitled The Cultural Fatigue of French Canada. It was published in 1962, but the author was already writing that Quebec is a polyethnic society with a different culture. That was the foundation for what is still happening today: a pillar of integration in Quebec is that the integration is carried out in French.

Earlier, my colleague said that a secular state is one of the worst violations of individual freedoms. It is important that a state be secular. I do not think that the French are against ethnocultural minorities or that they are hostile to freedom, yet France is a strongly secular state. Secularism is another very important pillar of Quebec's identity.

I was forgetting language, which is essential. Integration in Quebec must be carried out in French. These three pillars can be found in Quebec's policy, which is an interculturalism policy. The House could do something bold and commendable by recognizing that Quebec is a minority nation in Canada, a nation that needs safeguards and protections and that may need its own model of integration.

According to Gérard Bouchard, a co-chair of the Bouchard-Taylor commission and professor emeritus at my alma mater, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, the interculturalist model of integration is probably the most appropriate system for Quebec's circumstances. Why? Because it recognizes duality and the arrival of ethnocultural minorities, but it also recognizes that there is a national minority and that, if this national minority wants to survive and move forward with its own political projects, it must have a form of integration that suits its identity.

Unfortunately, multiculturalism does not do that today. Not only does it not do that, but it is a constant reminder that, at a time when Canada could have recognized us, it rejected us instead. Canada preferred to adopt biculturalism, the idea that there are two founding peoples. It preferred to adopt this idea, only to eventually set it aside and turn to multiculturalism. This integration policy constantly reminds us that we are in some way second-class citizens in the Canadian federation.

I think that the best thing my colleagues could do is to right a historical wrong against us, recognize that multiculturalism should not apply in Quebec and agree that interculturalism is the right policy for Quebecers.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-226, which was introduced by the hon. member for Montcalm.

The bill seeks the support of the House for an amendment to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to provide that it does not apply in Quebec. Bill C-226 states that Quebecers form a nation and therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, including as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of state and religion and gender equality. The bill also implies that observing Canada’s version of multiculturalism would now allow for compliance with these three basic principles, and that therefore this federal law should not apply in Quebec.

Since the Canada’s multiculturalism policy was introduced in 1971, many Quebec political scientists and then several premiers have asserted that the federal multiculturalism policy is unsuited to the majority francophone province and that there could be no dissociation between culture and language in Quebec. The enactment of the Charter of the French Language, or Bill 101, in 1977 crystallized the differences between the Canadian and Quebec models. According to some, Canada’s concept of citizenship, which is multicultural, bilingual and open to other heritage immigrant languages, conflicts with the protection of the French language in Quebec and interculturalism.

Clearly, Quebec’s vision of society involves the protection of the French language and culture. More than that, it recognizes that Quebec society constitutes a unique cultural and linguistic minority, often described as endangered in North America. For many francophones in Quebec, Bill 101 addressed the concern that the absence of a strong language law asserting the primacy of French would lead newcomers to choose to integrate into the more attractive anglophone community because of its demographic weight and to preserve their identity. Quebec nationalism owes much to this fear of decline. For many francophones in Quebec, the promotion of cultural equality proposed in multiculturalism would diminish the importance of French and English contributions to the Canadian Confederation and undermine the development of the francophonie in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

It must be said that Quebec nationalism was greatly strengthened by the statement made in the House by prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1971 when he introduced the policy of multiculturalism, specifically giving immigrants the choice to learn either official language and fully integrate into Canadian society. For a majority of Quebeckers, this free choice was incompatible with the cultural and linguistic specificity of Quebec.

This situation was corrected in 1978 under the Cullen-Couture agreement, when the Government of Canada granted Quebec the responsibility of choosing its economic immigrants, giving the province an additional tool for integrating newcomers and protecting francophone culture. In 1981, with the large influx of immigrants, the Government of Quebec proposed a policy of cultural convergence entitled “Autant de façons d’être Québécois” or “Québécois – Each and Every One”. Its principal objective was to “ensure the maintenance and development of cultural communities and their specificities, make French-speaking Quebecers aware of the contribution of cultural communities to our common heritage and finally promote the integration of cultural communities in Quebec society and especially in sectors where they are particularly underrepresented”.

Several researchers and analysts pointed out that the Government of Quebec's program policies that have been developed since the 1980s to promote the development of the province's ethno-cultural communities are an awful lot like multiculturalism in a francophone context and therefore similar to what the federal government itself had proposed 10 years earlier in 1971.

In 1988, the preamble of the Multiculturalism Act reiterated the primacy of human rights and gender equality and the importance of fighting all forms of racial discrimination.

The act reasserts the country's official bilingualism, which has been governed by the Official Languages Act since 1969, by emphasizing the importance of expanding the use of official languages to ensure their development.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act also reaffirms freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, freedoms that cannot be violated. This interpretation of religious pluralism has led many experts to conclude that this system de facto supported the separation of church and state.

In many ways, Bill C-226 and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act are based on similar parameters, which must be enhanced and promoted. That is also the view of the authors of the Bouchard-Taylor commission's 2007-08 final report on reasonable accommodation in Quebec. They said that this truncated version of multiculturalism was essentially a caricature and it may have led its critics in Quebec to conclude that Canada's multicultural model had not evolved in Canada since its adoption and that it was incompatible with the Quebec model.

The authors of the report state that in Quebec “multiculturalism is presented as though it solely takes into account recognition and affirmation of difference with no regard for integrating elements such as the teaching of national languages and intercultural exchange programs.”

Canadian multiculturalism is obviously not a model that is immutable and fixed in time. Its flexibility allows not only for the integration and enhancement of the common values and founding principles of Canadian society, such as official bilingualism, human rights and the principle of reasonable accommodation, but also for the development of programs and tools adapted to the new realities of Canadian society.

In the most recent Speech from the Throne, the government defined the Canada of today and tomorrow, and in articulated the main Canadian values of reconciliation, the fight against systemic racism, the protection of official languages, the welcoming of immigrants and the strategic positioning of Canada in the world. In that text, the government also recognized the particular situation of French in the country and its intention to protect and promote French, not only outside Quebec, but also in Quebec.

This is a strong commitment by the federal government. These overall values and objectives also find a prominent place in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. A multicultural Canada is not incompatible with the future of a French-speaking Quebec and the flexibility of the laws that govern our country also allow Quebec to flourish.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Seeing none, I will now invite the hon. member for Montcalm for his five-minute right of reply.

The member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this bill in the previous legislature, it elicited contempt. There were 10 Bloc Québécois members in the House at the time, but now there are 32. The contempt has turned into the following question:

Why should multiculturalism not apply in Quebec?

It is because Quebec constitutes a nation; a nation that is still French-speaking on American soil; a nation that I deeply love for its talents, creativity, and resourcefulness; a proud, welcoming, engaging nation; a close-knit and diverse nation. It is a nation open to difference because it is itself in search of recognition and respect for its own difference. It is a nation that has the right to say that it wants to base its way of living together in society and the harmonization of diversity on three fundamental principles: gender equality, the separation of state and religion, and French as the common language in the public space.

The federalist parties like to confuse cultural diversity with multiculturalism. Diversity is a fact of modern societies; Canadian multiculturalism is a political ideology that will slowly but surely lead to the assimilation of francophones. Although many federalist members of Parliament consider multiculturalism an incontestable virtue, it is more of a state dogma, a political ideology imposed on Quebec in the 1970s and enshrined in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, which we never signed. This federal dogma managed only to juxtapose a multitude of cultural solitudes and ghettoize difference. On this, Boucar Diouf writes the following:

It is impossible to live together without truly embodying the word “together”. 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.

I have just heard from the politicians.

The model might work for Canadians. In an anglophone country on an anglophone continent, new immigrants will naturally want to integrate in English. As my colleague from Joliette pointed out in a previous debate on this issue, even great English-Canadian thinkers like Kymlicka and Kallen agree that multiculturalism, while it might be good for English Canada, cannot work in Quebec, because natural integration is done by the majority, dominant society and not by a minority nation. Francophones are a minority in Canada, and represent only 2% of the population of a majority English-speaking continent. Why would newcomers want to integrate into a continental minority?

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 it is important that Quebec have as much leeway as possible to apply its own integration and citizenship policy.

Clearly, only independence will give us enough leeway to put an end to this confusion. After independence, a newcomer who chooses to come to Quebec will no longer be coming to a Canadian province, but to a francophone country. Until then, however, Quebec must be exempted from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Quebec must have all of the tools it needs to integrate newcomers and help them integrate into Quebec.

I invite all those who recognize the Quebec nation on more than a symbolic level, who cherish Quebec culture and the Quebec identity, to support this bill, which will allow Quebec to choose its own integration model. When it comes to interculturalism, cultural convergence or a common cultural core, it is up to Quebec to decide.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to the order adopted on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Suspension of Sitting

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 11:50 a.m., the House is now suspended until noon.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:50 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-226, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-226, under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #134

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.