Bill C-245

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

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

moved that Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to start debate on Bill C‑245, which I tabled on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

The purpose of our bill is to exclude Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism so that Quebec can apply its own model for integrating immigrants. It is simple, just a bill with a single section, stating that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec. This bill was largely inspired by the work of my colleague from Montcalm who tabled Bill C‑393 during the 42nd Parliament and Bill C‑226 during the 43rd Parliament, that is, in 2018 and 2020.

Why are we raising this issue again today? It is because the context has changed again. The bill has become even more important with the new situation in Quebec. My colleagues in the House may not be aware of this, but on May 28, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 84, the Act respecting integration into the Québec nation, which gives Quebec its own integration model. It is therefore clearer than ever that Quebec has its own integration model that is not the same as Canada's multiculturalism model. What is more, on the day of the vote, the Quebec National Assembly also adopted the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly recall that, as a distinct host society, the Québec nation has its own national integration model;

THAT it declare that the Québec national integration model fosters social cohesion and counters isolation and communitarianism;

THAT it affirm that the national integration model is distinct from Canadian multiculturalism.

I would like to begin by explaining where Canadian multiculturalism comes from. To do that, we need to go back to 1867, to the early days of Confederation. In French Canada, Confederation was sold to the public as a pact between two founding peoples, the English and the French, with no mention of the first nations. Many people wanted to believe in this tale of two equal founding peoples walking joyfully along hand in hand, to the point where many French Canadians considered settling in Ontario and western Canada. Some even went so far as to do so. They wanted to live the dream of the two founding peoples being friends and equals.

Louis Riel's hanging was a brutal indication that Canada would never accept a significant francophone presence in the rest of Canada. This also applied to first nations, as Louis Riel worked and lived among the Métis and first nations. The only place where French would be tolerated was in the bilingual province of Lower Canada, and that is where it had to stay. That is the message that was sent at the time and that is the message that was received. From that moment on, my ancestors began to understand that Quebec was the only national home for French Canadians, the only place where they could truly feel at home and safe. This has been confirmed over time by the ban on French in almost all Canadian provinces, especially in school education when French-language schools were closed.

Rather than defining themselves as French Canadians, French Canadians living in Quebec gradually began identifying as Quebeckers and wanting to develop their own quasi-state. Corporations like Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were created, along with Hydro-Québec, which nationalized the hydro sector. All these efforts served as a means to affirm Quebec as a nation, an expression of our transition from a French Canadian to Québécois identity. Some folks even began calling for Quebec, which was de facto bilingual, to become francophone with Bill 22, followed by Bill 101. They even dreamed of making Quebec its own country. That bothered a lot of people in English Canada because, to them, French Canadians and Quebeckers were the proverbial drawers of water, and there was no question of that ever changing.

The outcome of all this was the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which came close to achieving recognition for linguistic and cultural duality, known at the time as biculturalism. Then along came someone who would make that impossible: Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He supported linguistic bilingualism, but staunchly opposed the recognition of French-Canadian and Quebec culture—something new in Quebec. Quebec's affirmation had to be defeated. This is when the focus shifted to multiculturalism. As Quebeckers, we collectively transitioned from an imagined position as a founding people to denying our very existence as Quebeckers. That is what was shocking about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's multicultural policy.

That is also why Quebec rejected the 1982 Constitution. It was rejected not only by the premier at the time, René Lévesque, but by every premier since then as well. It is also why the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed. Quebeckers have never gotten over this betrayal. It should also be noted that the Canadian model does not even recognize the existence of Quebeckers or indigenous peoples. In fact, according to multiculturalism philosophy, there is no such thing as founding peoples, and there is no such thing as a host society. It is as though newcomers have settled on a virgin land called Canada, where there is no history, no culture, no values. It is a veritable tower of Babel.

Canada misuses and trivializes other cultures by freezing them in time and inviting people who come here to define themselves by their country of origin rather than their host country. Whether they have been here for one generation or 10, they are immigrants and they will remain immigrants. They are exiles for eternity.

How can we build social cohesion, social solidarity and a society with shared values and a common vision for the future, when some people glorify the isolation of communities? I do not know. Canadian multiculturalism is a slippery slope that allowed Justin Trudeau to go so far as to claim, in 2015, that Canada was the first postnational state, as though Quebeckers do not form a nation. If Canada wants to be a postnational state, that is its business. We, in Quebec, are a nation in our own right, and we have no intention of getting engulfed in that. The Quebec nation does not exist anywhere else in the world, and our provincial status leaves us in a dangerously weak position vis-à-vis a central government controlled by the Canadian majority. Multiculturalism is a slippery slope that is becoming even slipperier in our time, given that, for example, supposedly progressive Canadians are going so far as to challenge bilingualism on the pretext that it could hinder the emancipation of many people who speak several languages but not French.

The most compelling and most recent example is the decline in the appointment of francophones to certain positions requiring at least some knowledge of both English and French. We only need to think of the appointment of Mary Simon as Governor General of Canada, although this is not an isolated case.

In today's multiculturalist Canada, French is being transformed into a barrier to diversity, as if French is not part of that diversity, particularly in the context of primarily English-speaking North America. Not only is multiculturalism a model that does not work for Quebec, but it is in direct conflict with what Quebec wants, as I mentioned earlier. It conflicts with Quebec's Act respecting integration into the Québec nation. Multiculturalism is a policy that we must break free from if we want to continue having successful immigration to Quebec. That is the subtext of Bill 101, Bill 96 and even Bill 21. The goal of these laws is to embrace immigrants and let them know that we want them to become part of the Quebec nation.

Just because someone opposes Canadian multiculturalism does not mean they oppose ethnic and cultural diversity. That is often how our opponents try to portray us. They will attempt to conflate the concepts of cultural and ethnic diversity and Canada's multiculturalism policy, which is toxic for Quebec. The Quebec nation is made up of people from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures. However, as Quebeckers, we share a common culture, which is enriched by the contributions made by people from around the world who choose to join our Quebec culture. This has been going on for 400 years and will continue well into the future.

Let me be clear, Quebec is not frozen in time. It is 2025. Today's Quebec is not the Quebec of New France. That proves that we are shaped by our geography, our climate, our history, but also by the people who come from other parts of the world and join the Quebec nation.

We are not asking people who come here to ignore their roots. We are not asking them to relinquish their identity when they get here. On the contrary, we want to maximize interactions between immigrants and the host society, so that newcomers gradually develop a sense of belonging and feel more and more like Quebeckers. This is not a one-way process. It goes both ways. It is inevitable that newcomers will also influence those who are already here, and that is a good thing. Basically, we give and we receive at the same time.

However, we do not want people to be perpetual immigrants, either. This is fundamental to the concept of Quebec's integration policy. We do not want the children and grandchildren of newcomers to still be considered immigrants. We want them to be full-fledged Quebeckers, fully integrated people who add to who we are as Quebeckers.

I will give an example that says it all: Mary Travers. Who is Mary Travers? She is the daughter of an Irish immigrant whom we all know as “La Bolduc”. Is there anyone who is more of a Quebecker than La Bolduc? When we talk about traditional Quebec music, she is the first person who comes to mind. She is the gold standard. However, her music was influenced by her Irish roots. Obviously, she was also influenced by the Quebec culture that was all around her. At the time, it could be referred to as French-Canadian culture. She blended the two traditions and went on to influence all of Quebec society. Her sound continues to influence our traditional music to this day. It is magnificent.

Mary Travers is not an isolated example. The same is true of a wide range of fields today. Consider the films of Ricardo Trogi, who is of Italian heritage; the music of Loco Locass' Chafiik, who is of Lebanese heritage; or the writings of Boucar Diouf, who is of Senegalese heritage. These examples are not all. There are plenty more examples of successful people who are an integral part of the Quebec nation and who changed and influenced who we are as Quebeckers. They helped shape our culture and our collective imagination. I love that. In short, that is Quebec's model for living together in harmony, and it works.

Canadian multiculturalism, on the other hand, means living side by side, nothing more. Most importantly, it means making Quebeckers invisible and negating our status as a nation. That is not okay.

Considering that Quebec recently passed its own law on national integration, our law on national integration should obviously take precedence over the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Nothing else will work. The two models are contradictory.

The easiest way to make that happen would be to pass Bill C‑245. This would allow Quebec to define itself, to decide for ourselves who we are and what is best for us. From a broader perspective, that may also be what is best for Canada. Canada might decide to look at what is being done in a thriving and prosperous Quebec and draw some inspiration. That could happen. It could also encourage Canada to adopt its own model, which might not be the Quebec model or multiculturalism, but one that it defines for itself.

The good thing about this bill is that we are not attacking Canada and we are not attacking Canadians. We are not even trying to prevent Canadians from maintaining their multiculturalism policy. All it does is allow Quebec to adopt its own integration model. Ottawa needs to let us be ourselves.

Our bill is particularly interesting because it proposes a model for living together in way that is joyful and fulfilling, which can only be positive. As I see it, a bill like this would normally just be a formality. All parties should be voting in favour of it. It will also better equip all newcomers to Quebec who will no longer necessarily have to cope with the notorious duality or dual legitimacy of Quebec versus Canada, which is always harmful.

I urge the parties in the House to vote in favour of our bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as an Acadian, I am proud to support the objectives of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Our policies supporting multiculturalism and others promoting our two official languages can be mutually reinforcing. Consider all the work our government has done to promote francophone immigration. In fact, the first week of next month will be National Francophone Immigration Week, which brings together thousands of francophones from across the country in a celebration of cultural wealth and diversity.

I want to ask my colleague this: How do the principles championed by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, like reciprocity, dialogue and respect for pluralism, stand in the way of Quebec's ability to keep protecting its culture?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian multiculturalism policy rejects any notion of a majority host society. What it says is that all peoples are of equal value. That is correct. Indeed, all peoples in the world are of value. It is important that they exist.

Nevertheless, the Quebec people exist in only one place in the world: in Quebec. Considering the Quebec people as just one of many peoples within Quebec diminishes the appeal of the Quebec nation to people arriving in Quebec. What we want is to encourage people arriving in Quebec to become part of the Quebec nation, and not to isolate themselves from it.

We want to work with them to pass on our culture to them and build a society that will be different tomorrow, one that they contribute to and are proud to participate in.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Franco-Ontarian, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

With all due respect, I would like to mention that we, as French Canadians, live and survive in the French language. We have just celebrated the 50th anniversary of our flag. We have schools and our community health care centres. We live our lives in French. It is much the same across Canada.

My daughter just moved to Thunder Bay. My grandson immediately started attending a French-language school. That is the reality, whether in Maillardville, British Columbia or St. Boniface.

My question is this: How does my colleague's bill protect the French language outside Quebec?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about two different battles.

Our bill specifically targets Quebec only. There really is no direct effect on other provinces.

Of course, Quebec's integration model includes the concept of passing on the French language to Quebeckers. If a French-speaking Quebec becomes stronger and thrives, it can only be a positive thing for francophone communities outside Quebec.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are increasingly seeing around the world is that models based on multiculturalism are being rejected. Multiculturalism involves interacting with people on the basis of their ethnic origin, which encourages people to remain within their ethnic group.

In contrast, the Quebec model, which we call an intercultural model and which many people today refer to as cultural convergence, aims to further promote integration into the workplace and integration into the culture of the host society. This could apply to the rest of Canada if people were interested in such an approach. It would further encourage the integration of newcomers into the francophone culture all over Canada.

This bill has been introduced several times in the House over the years. There are people who believe that the Quebec model does not exist, that there is no other model for integrating newcomers than multiculturalism.

How does my colleague explain this lack of knowledge—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the reason lies in the history behind the Canadian multicultural policy, which, at the time, was put in place in a way that failed to recognize Canadian biculturalism, or the difference between English Canada and French Canada. Quebec's desire for emancipation and affirmation was drowned out by the rest of Canada, which is made up of people arriving from around the world.

Our goal is to reaffirm that Quebec is nation, that we have the right to exist and that we have the right to be different from Canada.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C‑245, which seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

I want to begin by saying that I have the deepest respect for my Bloc Québécois colleagues and that I personally share our profound attachment, as Quebeckers, to our language, our culture and our identity. That being said, I consider this bill a mistake, both for Quebec and for Canada.

Today's debate concerns more than a mere legal issue. It concerns how we choose to live together in this country—with respect, openness and solidarity. It concerns whether our differences should keep us apart or bring us closer together.

We can start by clearly reminding everyone that Quebec is a nation. The House recognized this fact almost 20 years ago, and it was not mere token recognition. Quebec's distinct identity, French language, history, secularism and civic values are an integral part of Canada's character.

Furthermore, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act already recognizes that reality. Section 3 states that implementation of multiculturalism must be consistent with Canada's official languages and must enhance the development of French-speaking and English-speaking communities. In other words, multiculturalism does not ignore Quebec's distinctiveness; it includes it.

Multiculturalism and bilingualism are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. Bilingualism protects our two official languages and multiculturalism guarantees that whatever their background, Canadians can fully contribute to the shared society we are building together.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was never meant to erase or replace one culture. Its purpose has always been to ensure that no individual has to renounce who they are to feel at home in Canada.

Multiculturalism is not a threat in a country that has welcomed immigrants, refugees and newcomers for generations, a country founded on indigenous lands and enriched through people from all over the world. It is what brings us together. It is not an ideology that divides us, but a principle that brings people together.

Multiculturalism affirms that it is possible to be proudly Quebecker and proudly Muslim, Haitian, Japanese, Jewish or Sikh and that identity is not a zero-sum game. The goal was never to create a patchwork of solitudes, but rather, a community that is based on equality and respect.

It is true that my native province of Quebec has developed its own model of integration that it calls interculturalism. The model emphasizes the French language as the civic language and encourages participation in a shared public culture.

The model is credible, commendable and fully aligned with Canadian multiculturalism. There is nothing in the federal bill that would prevent that. In fact, the Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens already gives Quebec expanded powers over the selection and integration of newcomers.

The real question today then is not whether Quebec should promote French or determine its own course with regard to integration—it is already doing that. The question is whether Quebeckers should be denied federal recognition of diversity, the very principle that allows Quebec to thrive within Canada.

This bill would do just that. It would tell the whole world that diversity is a Canadian value, except for those of us who live in Quebec. This message does not do anyone any good. It weakens the voice of Quebec and tarnishes Canada's image as an inclusive and democratic society.

The Bloc Québécois is framing this debate as a choice: multiculturalism or Quebec's survival. I completely reject this false dichotomy. Yes, the French language in Quebec is fragile and must be protected. However, its future does not depend on whether or not the Canadian Multiculturalism Act applies in Quebec. It depends on demographic vitality, economic choices, linguistic habits, and the strength of our francophone institutions.

Exempting Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act will not result in French being spoken more widely. It will not strengthen language laws, will not improve education in French, will not support the promotion of Quebec culture, and will not guarantee greater francophone immigration.

What it will do is send a signal that Quebec stands apart, that it rejects a principle that has helped make Canada one of the most respected countries in the world. Cultural confidence is not built by putting up legislative walls. It is built through pride, education, and the active promotion of the language and culture that unite us.

We must remember that Canadian multiculturalism arose out of a very specific challenge: reconciling diversity in a vast country comprising two official languages, indigenous peoples, and successive waves of immigration.

The 1988 act is the continuation of a policy put in place in 1971 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It recognized that Canada was not a cultural monolith, but rather a common home for many peoples. Far from erasing French, it made it one of the pillars of our national identity.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed under Brian Mulroney, a prime minister from Quebec. Mr. Mulroney was a Conservative from Baie‑Comeau who, like me, understood full well the importance of Quebec's role within Canada.

This is a good reminder for us that this question goes beyond partisan divisions. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. Canadian multiculturalism has enabled us to fight against racism, exclusion and discrimination. It has opened the doors to generations of Canadians who would otherwise have felt marginalized. It has also inspired other countries to follow our example of inclusion. Nothing is ever perfect, but this model remains one of our greatest collective strengths. We must defend it and apply it to ensure the successful integration of newcomers and a good quality of life for all Canadians who have forged our multiculturalism.

If this bill were to pass, it would cause confusion and fragmentation. Citizens of the same federation would be subject to two different recognition frameworks: one where diversity is protected by laws and the other where it is not. In practical terms, this would create two classes of citizenship: multicultural citizenship for the rest of the country and citizenship without that recognition for Quebec.

What would be the result? Quebec already has all the tools it needs to manage immigration and promote French. It has its own ministry, its own integration programs and its own charter of values. This bill would not make any real difference aside from creating more division and misunderstandings.

I stand here as a proud Quebecker. I am also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. The Bloc Québécois says that it wants to protect Quebec's identity, and I am also here to do that. However, I also want to protect something just as precious: our shared Canadian identity, which is based on respect, openness and solidarity.

Multiculturalism is not some abstract political ideology. It reflects Canadian reality. My colleague gave some wonderful examples, such as La Bolduc and Boucar Diouf. Simply walk down Saint-Laurent Boulevard in Montreal, or make your way through Toronto's Portuguese neighbourhood, Chinatown in Vancouver and the Filipino communities in Winnipeg, or visit the Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia in Halifax. These places are not separate worlds. They are threads woven together, creating the fabric that is Canada.

Quebec's francophone culture is not just another frayed thread that is part of this fabric. It is a building block. It roots us in our history, our creativity and our beautiful language. Excluding Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would be tantamount to saying that recognizing diversity is incompatible with its identity. I certainly do not believe that. I know some amazing artists, teachers and community leaders in Quebec that prove exactly the opposite every day. They show that we can be proudly francophone and deeply rooted in that Quebec pride while remaining open to the world.

Our country has always progressed through dialogue, compromise, and respect. We have rightly recognized Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. We have recognized the rights of indigenous peoples and the contributions of newcomers. We have proven that our two official languages and our diverse cultures can coexist not despite their differences, but because of them.

Bill C‑245 would set us back. It would replace co-operation with confrontation, pride with resentment, and openness with isolation. If we truly believe that Quebec is a nation within Canada, then we must also believe that Quebeckers are entitled to the same principles of equality, inclusion, and diversity as all Canadians. Let us oppose this bill, not out of disrespect for Quebec, but out of respect for what we have built together. Let us reaffirm that Quebec's culture, language, and identity flourish best not by distancing themselves from Canada, but by participating fully in it. It is a distinct and essential voice in a country that celebrates all voices.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest Quebeckers, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, the little guy from Baie-Comeau, who was very proud of his Irish heritage and the exceptional welcome the Quebec nation gave his family, helped define this nation. It was under his leadership, as prime minister, that Canada passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988.

Essentially, the spirit of Mr. Mulroney's law is to send a message around the world that, regardless of where you came from or when you arrived in Canada, you are Canadian and you contribute to the wealth of this country. No matter where you come from, the opportunities are there and everyone is equal among equals. That is multiculturalism as conceived in Mr. Mulroney's mind.

He said in 1988 that multiculturalism is an affirmation of our commitment that Canadians of all origins have equal rights and equal opportunities in this country. That is the Conservative vision of Brian Mulroney, a great Quebecker who assumed the role of prime minister with honour and dignity after receiving the support of a majority of Canadians, not once, but twice. That is the spirit of multiculturalism, and it is win-win for all Canadians.

It cannot be overstated that Mr. Mulroney truly embodied what Canada is all about. His roots may have been Irish, but the little guy from Baie‑Comeau was just as comfortable on the main street of Baie‑Comeau as he was in downtown Toronto. That was Mr. Mulroney's strength and power. His experiences and his laws made him the poster boy for multiculturalism.

We are also very proud of the approach that another great Canadian, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, took on the topic of multiculturalism. This is what he had to say about this topic:

[Multiculturalism means] celebrat[ing] our nation's rich multicultural heritage.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. For more than 400 years...[t]hey have added immeasurably to every community in which they have settled. And they have laid the foundation for the Canada we know and love today ‑ a nation that is strong, united, independent....

In the 21st century...[a]nd every year, our country benefits from the arrival of thousands of men and women drawn by the equality of opportunity that exists here.

That is multiculturalism with net benefits. It is inclusive multiculturalism. It is multiculturalism that ensures that everyone is welcome. It is true that it applies right across Canada, in particular in Quebec, with all its national pride. That is why, under the leadership of prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. This is very important. While some people believe that Quebec is rightfully a nation, this does not in any way erase Canada's multicultural reality. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would remind the House that there was some friction when this motion was debated and passed in this House in November 2006. That is normal; it is a feature of public debate. Initially, some parties supported the motion while others were against it. We heard a future prime minister say that he opposed it, but in the end he did not really know which way to vote. That is part of debate. However, the recognition of the Quebec nation within a united Canada clearly defines the pride we all have as Canadians, but also the pride we all feel as Quebeckers. The two are not mutually exclusive. One allows the other to thrive and take charge of its destiny, as recognized by the motion on the Quebec nation.

All I want to say is that everything was going well until 10 years ago. Ten years ago, Canadians decided to put the Liberal Party in power. For 10 years, we have seen an erosion of the multiculturalism that united Canadians, recognized the Quebec nation, and affirmed that all Canadians were equal, no more, no less, and that they contributed to this country. However, for more than 10 years, we had a prime minister who unfortunately had a completely different approach.

Let us not forget that this government shamelessly stated that Canada was the first postnational country. The prime minister said he was the leader of a postnational government. One would be hard pressed to find a more embarrassing statement. For 10 years, this was the prevailing approach in the Liberal government.

Let us also not forget that, throughout it all, we had a prime minister and a government that was more prone to issuing apologies than to celebrating our successes. It got to be embarrassing. This does not in any way absolve us of the responsibility we all bear for the errors made during our history. This is what led Prime Minister Harper to extend a full and sincere apology to the first nations for what happened at the residential schools. It is also what led Prime Minister Mulroney to recognize the wrongs that had been committed against the Japanese and Chinese communities in earlier times.

It became embarrassing after a while to hear the Liberal prime minister making formal apologies nearly every month. Can we not also celebrate our successes? This went on for 10 years, not to mention that history was also being erased and our heroes were being maligned. We cannot escape our history by disparaging and erasing it. On the contrary, we have to explain it, understand it and learn from it. We will certainly not learn anything by disparaging our ancestors or other figures and pretending that the past never happened.

In my opinion, what offended Canadians the most over the past 10 years of this Liberal government was the flagrant attack on our heritage and our history when symbols of our history and our Canadian unity were erased from the passport. Nothing is more precious to Canadians than our passport. When I look at mine, I think of everything that was erased from it: Samuel de Champlain; the Fathers of Confederation; the great railway; Captain Bernier, who explored Canada's north; the richness of the Prairies; Pier 21 in Nova Scotia; the Canadian Parliament; Niagara Falls; Vimy, one of the greatest Canadian military achievements of all time; Quebec City, which hits pretty close to home; the RCMP; and the two cups that we all rally around, the Stanley Cup and the Grey Cup. If there had been an image of Major League Baseball, they might have removed that too, even though we are going to win the World Series. Worst of all, this Liberal government erased that great and extraordinary Canadian, Terry Fox, from the passport. That is 10 years of Liberal wokeism in a nutshell.

Then the Liberals act surprised when people have doubts about multiculturalism. That is the legacy of 10 years of Liberal rule. The Liberals tried to erase Canada's identity. That was not the intent of the great Quebecker and Canadian Brian Mulroney in 1998, but that is what happened. For years and decades, under the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, we recognized Quebec as a nation and Quebec was able to assert that position without any issue, but unfortunately, we also saw that the Liberals were trying to drown out this Canadian pride in some very delicate situations.

I am the son of immigrants. I am very proud of my roots. Like hundreds of thousands of Canadians, I am proud of my origins, which are not part of the deep roots of this country. My parents chose Canada, and Canada chose them. However, what have we seen in recent years? Unfortunately, we have seen a reckless approach to immigration, leading to concerns that have nothing to do with multiculturalism but that have had very real impacts. I cannot emphasize enough that immigrants themselves are the primary victims of this sad and unfortunate approach to immigration, the primary victims of the Liberals' mismanagement over the past 10 years.

Let us celebrate our country, the Quebec nation and who we are as Quebeckers and Canadians. Let us celebrate this great heritage and, most importantly, let us celebrate the fact that we live in a country that is full of opportunity. For that, we have to stand up proudly for our identity—as a Quebecker who is proud of the Quebec nation, in my case—so that all Canadians can achieve their full potential with the Conservative approach that we had for years and that was in keeping with the spirit of the great Brian Mulroney's law.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for tabling this bill, which shows once again that the Bloc Québécois really listens to what Quebeckers want.

What do Quebeckers want? What the current Government of Quebec and the vast majority of the Quebec National Assembly want is for Quebec to be able to choose its own integration model. Even though, like my colleague, I am calling on the other parties to support our bill, I must admit that I have some doubts about whether our efforts will pan out.

I have had the honour of representing the people of Drummond for six years, but I have never seen a speech change the position of a federal party in the House of Commons, no matter how eloquent, relevant, articulate, well argued and reasonable the speech was and no matter how good the arguments in it were.

We proposed that prayer be replaced by a moment of reflection and that parliamentarians be allowed to say a silent prayer of their choice, but no, we were not allowed to touch that, just as we were not allowed to touch the monarchy, the position of Governor General, multiculturalism, or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with the exception of section 33. We do want to touch section 33, the notwithstanding clause. Canada has its sacred cows.

Quebec has always said that multiculturalism does not work for it. Ottawa sees that as an attack on the federal government and on Canada's identity, even though multiculturalism is just one option among many, one possible way to live together in a society. Social mores can change over time if people take time to think and reflect. People have the right to question concepts.

In Quebec, the simple truth is that multiculturalism has never worked. Quebec is the only nation of its kind in the world. It is inhabited by eight million francophones on a continent of almost 400 million anglophones. Demographically speaking, we should have disappeared over time. It is true that Quebec is a historical anomaly, and this has been said before.

Nevertheless, Quebec needs all possible tools to survive, starting with independence. The federal government could have been an ally to the phenomenon of Quebec, or what I would even go as far as to call the miracle of Quebec. Ottawa could also have used its powers to allow Quebec's distinct identity to develop. Members will recall the “Meech Lake-Charlottetown” fiasco. Instead, Ottawa is hindering Quebec and undermining Quebec's efforts to create a unifying Quebec culture.

One of Ottawa's worst attacks on the Quebec nation, on what we are collectively, is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism flies in the face of the Quebec phenomenon and the existence of a common culture. That is the reality.

On the Government of Canada website, in the “Canadian Identity and Society” section, there is a page that says that multiculturalism “ensures that all citizens maintain their identities [and] take pride in their ancestry”. In other words, there is no point in integrating.

In Quebec, multiculturalism is not a policy of integration, it is a policy of disintegration. It is a policy that creates a fragmented society where people who come from diverse cultures merely exist side by side, instead of allowing for the development of a society that integrates newcomers in order to enrich a common culture—the key word being “enrich”.

The truth is that multiculturalism rejects the idea of a common culture by fostering the coexistence of multiple cultures. Although it is defined as a model of integration, it actually promotes cohabitation based on indifference or even tolerance, rather than respect for differences, and this invariably leads to ghettoization.

Out of fear that multiculturalism could cause society to fracture into separate solitudes, Quebec has always rejected the Canadian approach, especially because it trivializes Quebec's place within Canada, contrary to what many of my colleagues here claim. It denies the very existence of the Quebec nation, contrary once again to what has been said in the House on several occasions.

As far back as 1971, Robert Bourassa wrote in a letter to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”. It was true 50 years ago, and it is just as true today. As we can see from the Quebec government's rejection of multiculturalism, Quebec's focus is on integration.

Cultural pluralism, cultural diversity, provides riches to be shared. Quebec's approach is that we should get to know one another better, talk to one another and build a society together. To do that, we have to get along.

That is why Quebec asks immigrants to recognize the French fact, to learn the French language and to acknowledge that it is the language of our shared spaces. That is why Quebec also insists on the need to respect the key foundations of Quebec society, such as the separation of church and state, gender equality, and the existence of a historical cultural heritage. That heritage is multicultural, but not multiculturalist. There is a difference.

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.

According to the Quebec department of immigration and cultural communities:

An intercultural society's challenge is a collective one: to ensure harmony by maintaining and adopting the values and principles of action that unite all citizens. This challenge is met with respect for individual, cultural and religious differences.

There is no better example to illustrate the difference between Canada's approach and Quebec's approach.

Quebec is a French-speaking, democratic and pluralist society based on the rule of law, which means that everyone has the same value and dignity as well as the same right to protection under the law. Knowledge and respect for the values of Quebec society are necessary for adapting to Quebec's environment and fully participating in it. Integration is achieved through full participation, which multiculturalism inhibits.

In a February 2008 article in Le Monde diplomatique, Louise Beaudoin explained why the Quebec integration model and the Canadian one are incompatible:

For nearly 30 years, Canada and Quebec have had two [completely] different approaches to integration. The federal multiculturalism policy, which is modelled on the British approach, promotes cultural diversity based on ethnicity and encourages people to seek out their own community of origin. In contrast, Quebec opted for a model based on interculturalism, a cultural exchange within the framework of the common values of a pluralistic nation with a francophone majority. These two clearly conflicting visions are 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:

However, the efforts made by the Government of Quebec to define and promote its 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 laying blame, as some are wont to do, the Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to make the messages clearer. In their February 8, 2007, manifesto entitled “En finir avec le multiculturalisme”, Quebec intellectuals Charles Courtois, Dominic Courtois, Robert Laplante, Danic Parenteau and Guillaume Rousseau stated the following:

We think that Quebeckers want to see the principles of equality and public secularism affirmed, putting the emphasis on a common culture and providing inspiration for the principles of integration and the methods of dispute resolution. The Charter of the French Language already does this in part, but in order to do so fully, Quebec needs to have its own citizenship.... For now, new Quebeckers are sworn in as new Canadian citizens without being encouraged to integrate into the Quebec nation. This is not what inclusion means to Quebec.

This is why it is important for Quebec to have maximum flexibility in enforcing its own citizenship and integration policy. We believe that Quebec will not truly be free until it becomes independent. This will put an end to the mixed messages. Immigrants who choose 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.

That is why I am very proud to support Bill C-245, which my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères introduced in the House this morning.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the issue of multiculturalism. Many years ago I was appointed the responsibility of tourism in the province of Manitoba. One of the challenges I was provided was to attend all the pavilions Winnipeg offers in the summertime during Folklorama. It was like visiting 40-some nations in a two-week period.

The reason I say that is that it showcased what I believe, and what I suspect we will find a majority of members believe, which is that the diversity Canada has to offer the world is one of the greatest assets and strongest strengths we have as a nation. I look at what is being proposed by the Bloc Party in two ways: One is the motivation for bringing forward the legislation, and the other is the whole issue of diversity.

I reflect on Canada as a nation. I have made reference in the past to the fact that generations ago, my family originated from the province of Quebec. Today I have siblings who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I have a sister who has in the past lived in the province of Quebec. I have a sister who has lived in the province of Newfoundland. No matter where one goes in Canada, I believe it is its diversity that defines how great our nation is today and the potential it can have into tomorrow. I will give some specific examples of that.

When I think of multiculturalism, I think of tolerance. A week ago I posted something on Facebook, and the response I received was actually quite upsetting. A group of gentlemen from our Indo-Canadian community was playing a game of Seep, and I was there. I posted about it because I thought it was a wonderful thing to see a group of people aged 55-plus playing this wonderful game.

The racial comments on the post, the hatred in what was said in words, many of which I would not dare repeat inside the chamber, were very upsetting. When I looked into the backgrounds of most of the people who were making the negative comments, I saw that they came from a sector of society in Canada that is very much close-minded with respect to what I believe our Canadian values are, one of which is that we should be very proud of our diversity.

I think of multiculturalism as one of the things that highlights Canada and gives it an identity we can share around the world. Our values are ultimately one of the reasons Canada is a desired country to immigrate to. That is something we should all, collectively, be very supportive of.

The Bloc makes reference to Quebec as a province or as a nation. I, too, understand its distinctness and nationhood, and I do support the French language. In my home province today, as diverse as it is, the fastest-growing communities are probably our Indo-Canadian community, our Filipino heritage community and, to a certain degree, our Ukrainian heritage community. Those are the fastest-growing communities today in the province of Quebec.

The French language in Manitoba is a success story. Never have we had as many people speaking French in Manitoba as we do today. I would encourage members, in particular Bloc members, to visit Winnipeg, check out St. Boniface and visit some of the rural communities, like St-Pierre-Jolys, where I have family members who were born in Quebec and came to St-Pierre-Jolys.

The French language is part of our Canadian identity. What the Bloc tries to seat as fear is, I would suggest, the opposite. If someone goes to a school in the north end, they will find that there are not many people of French descent, but there are many of Filipino heritage, and they are learning to speak French at school.

When we hear members of other ethnic origins speaking the French language, I see that as a strong positive, because they are recognizing what Canada is: a bilingual country. Canadians do not have to live in Quebec to appreciate and value the arts and heritage in Quebec. We see in Manitoba a respect and passion for Quebec.

At the end of the day, I truly believe that with the values Canadian have, they are very supportive of multiculturalism, because they see multiculturalism as an issue of diversity and something we should be celebrating. I can speak about the city of Winnipeg, which I have had the opportunity to live in and call home for a vast majority of the years I have lived. Not only is it a community that values the French language, but a growing number of people are speaking French there.

When I go to a citizenship court and witness people of all backgrounds and diversities singing the national anthem for the first time as Canadian citizens, I see the multicultural fabric that makes up our society, which each and every one us should be proud of, like those who have just been sworn in. That is not just one occasion. Those who attend the citizenship ceremonies will see that. They will see the respect for indigenous people and the respect for the distinct nature that all regions of our country bring together, along with the value of the English language and French language.

We should celebrate our nation, recognizing what people outside of Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member will have a minute and four seconds the next time the House considers this matter.

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

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this particular piece of legislation, I think it is important to emphasize the difference between the Bloc and the government of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada. We will find that every Liberal member of Parliament recognizes that one of the greatest assets that Canada has, when we talk about building Canada strong, is the diversity of Canada. It is the people of Canada who make our nation as great as it is.

When the Bloc talks about getting rid of multiculturalism in the province of Quebec, I believe that what they are really doing is taking away a valuable asset or suggesting that we not recognize the sense of equality, the opportunities and the advantage that Canada has, more than most other countries, which is our diversity. We should embrace our diversity, as it is a great strength for Canada, in order to continue to build Canada strong.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. I grew up in Fort McMurray, a community I am proud to call home and a community that has drawn people from everywhere in Canada and right across the globe.

My parents, who are anglophone, made the wise decision to enrol me in French immersion in Fort McMurray, a decision that opened many doors for me. I consider myself to be a francophone by choice, not by chance. I am part of the growing francophone community outside Quebec. French was the first European language spoken in Alberta and today continues to be the language that is most spoken in the province after English.

When I was growing up, Canada was a place where anybody from anywhere could become anything if they were willing to work hard, a country where we could seek opportunity to grow, learn and unite with our neighbours under one common identity, a country where we embraced our differences while uniting around a common belief in freedom, hard work and, of course, family. If we worked hard, we could afford a nice home on a safe street and start a family. That was the Canadian dream.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney introduced the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in 1988 to reflect the idea that we are stronger as a country when we are united, not divided. Prime Minister Mulroney himself grew up in an Irish Catholic family in a working-class community in Baie‑Comeau, Quebec. He was proud to be a Quebecker, proud of his Irish heritage and also proud to be Canadian. As Conservatives, we have long believed that multiculturalism works best when we are united, not divided.

Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, Canadian multiculturalism continued to thrive. It was a period in which the government continued to lead with a belief of pride in our country and a time when we could find strength in our unity. Canada was a place where we could celebrate our differences and unite under a shared national identity, another example of how Conservatives have long understood that we are stronger united.

It is in that spirit that Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized Quebec as a distinct society within a Canadian federal system. In doing so, he recognized Quebec's unique history, language and culture, promoted Quebec and its importance for Canada, and acknowledged that Quebeckers are part of Canada's history and that they can be proud to be both Quebeckers and Canadians.

After a decade of divisive Liberal policies, the Canadian dream is fading. The government has done everything it can to divide us into boxes, into categories and into subcategories, by using identity politics. It has made life so unaffordable that our youth are worried they will never be able to afford a home or start a family. Liberals told our youth, through their postnational state philosophy, that we should not be proud to be Canadian, slowly letting the Canadian promise fade away. We were told by Liberals that we must focus on what makes us different rather than celebrating what we have in common. The truth is that we are stronger as communities and as a nation when we are united.

Every Canadian child remembers honouring Terry Fox and participating in a Terry Fox run throughout elementary school and high school, learning about the Canadian soldiers who valiantly fought at Vimy Ridge, a moment when Canadians did what the Allies believed to be impossible, and of course learning about the Famous Five, who fought to have women legally considered persons, not just here in Canada but right across the Commonwealth. That is what the fathers of Confederation wanted for the country, a place where hard work and dedication meant we could achieve anything, yet Liberals have removed these proud and important moments from our passports, the most important document for any Canadian.

The actions and decisions of the Liberal government shaped our future. We could once again be a great nation. We need to reject these divisive Liberal politics of multiculturalism, which have become so deeply political that Canadians no longer feel united. Liberal immigration policy has been used to deepen regional and cultural divides across our country. Liberals made Canadians feel that they could not be proud of who they were and who they are. I can tell us today that I am proud to be here. I am proud to be Canadian.

The Canadian promise is fading from our youth. They work hard and they do everything right. They do everything we have asked them to do, but they cannot buy a home. They cannot start a family, all because they cannot afford to live, all while they are told that they do not have an identity and that they cannot be proud of who they are. For my colleagues and me, and for every Canadian watching at home, I am here today to tell us that we do have a national identity and that we are Canadian. No matter where they were born, no matter where they grew up, from coast to coast to coast, every Canadian deserves the right to unite under a common flag.

Regardless of one's race, religion, gender or background, we will unite under shared values, hard work and the belief in freedom. It is then, and only then, that the Canadian promise can be restored. Divided, we will fall. United, we will stand tall.

We are the true north, strong and free. We will fight for our country. We will defend the country. We will unite the country. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We must never lose sight of that sentiment. This is what it means to be Canadian. Conservatives will always support unity, freedom and opportunity in Canada because we believe that these are the very foundations of a strong, multicultural Canada. We are proud to be Canadian, and we will fight to restore the promise of Canada. We will fight to make sure that our youth can have the Canadian dream and for a life where our youth can work hard, afford a home on a safe street and start a family. We will bring unity. We will celebrate our Canadian heritage together. We are Canadian.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unusual for me to be rising this morning to speak to Bill C-245, which was introduced by my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and which seeks to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act so that it does not apply in Quebec. This is something that the Bloc Québécois has taken a strong stance on, something that we are calling for.

In a way, multiculturalism undermines the rights of the founding peoples. I would even go so far as to say that the Canadian political regime's official policy of denial of the Quebec nation is the fundamental reason for the existence of the Bloc Québécois as a political party operating at the federal level. Obviously, this is rather symbolic for me because I represent the riding of Shefford, which was once represented by one of the three founding members of the Bloc Québécois, Jean Lapierre. That is one of the ideas that sparked the formation of the Bloc Québécois.

First, it is important to clarify what this debate is about. Quebec is a diverse society. Ethnocultural diversity is an inescapable reality in our society, a part of everyday life. I want to say that today's debate is not about inclusion, but rather about the political model chosen to organize community life. It is essential to make a clear distinction: Diversity is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a government ideology set out in a federal act. For us, in the Bloc Québécois, this is a matter of nationhood, because Quebec is a distinct nation with its language, culture, collective choices and history, which I will talk more about later if I have time at the end of my speech.

As we can see, Canadian multiculturalism is a denial of Canada's plurinational character and gives Quebec the status of one ethnic minority among others. A nation must be able to define itself and choose its own approach to integration. As I said, Canadian multiculturalism is a state ideology. Canada's multiculturalism policy has been in place since 1971 and is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. It is based on the myth that Canada is fundamentally multicultural, without a clearly defined host society. It is a vision that values the coexistence of cultures, but without any real common ground. This essentially sows a form of identity confusion, particularly among new Quebeckers, by claiming that there is only one nation in Canada. The aim is to weaken Quebec's national identity and replace it with a single Canadian identity. We can see that at work. That is what Canadian multiculturalism is achieving.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act recognizes groups based on their ethnic origin, finances their distinct development, and promotes the development of parallel communities. The result is social fragmentation, moral relativism, and a weakening of common values. A society is not built simply by populations living side by side. Quebec is a minority nation that must protect itself. Francophones represent approximately 22% of the Canadian population and less than 2% of the North American population. As we know, French is in decline in Quebec and remains a minority language in Canada and an ultra-minority language in North America. Quebec's choices cannot therefore be those of a dominant majority. Quebec's weight in this federal system is also at play. We can come back to that as well. What is important, ultimately, is that French is there as a language of cohesion.

In Montreal, only 51.3% of people use French as their primary language at home. Across Quebec as a whole, that figure rises to 80.6%. People can live in Montreal without speaking French, but then they cannot fully engage in Quebec society. That much is obvious. In the Bloc's opinion, French is not a tool for exclusion, it is a tool for integration and community engagement. However, there are limits to French-language training. Quebec has been focusing on that for more than 20 years now. Quebec's auditor general has concluded that French-language training policies have a limited impact, especially in the short and medium term.

Experts believe that immigration is the main lever for influencing the future of French. Economic immigrants account for 60.9% of immigration to Quebec. Unlike other countries, in Quebec, the language of the majority does not impose itself naturally. Quebec's solution is interculturalism.

Quebec has developed its own model, known as interculturalism. With this model, we want to recognize diversity, but we also want to emphasize integration into a common culture. Interculturalism is based on French as the civic language, shared democratic values and genuine connection among citizens.

In the Bloc Québécois's view, interculturalism is consistent with the reality of a minority nation. That is why we think that Bill C‑245 is necessary. Quebec takes in immigrants, funds their integration and develops its own policies. It is only logical, then, that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act not apply in Quebec.

Bill C‑245 does not eliminate or impose multiculturalism in Canada. It simply allows an extremely important exemption provision for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois sees this as a question of consistency, autonomy and respect.

In closing, Canada is free to choose multiculturalism. Quebec chooses interculturalism. The Bloc Québécois is not asking Canada to changes its model; it is asking that Quebec be permitted to make its own choices. Living together involves more than cohabitation alone. It involves building together based on a common language and shared values. Bill C‑245 is reasonable, legitimate and consistent with the recognition of Quebec as a nation.

I would like to end my speech by calling attention to the presence of organizations in the riding of Shefford that spare no effort when it comes to spreading knowledge of our history and of who we Quebeckers are as a people.

Obviously, we cannot ignore the Prime Minister's speech on the Plains of Abraham, which showed his lack of knowledge about Quebec's history and culture. That is sad because it was a denial of history, and not just Quebec history, including everything that happened with the Durham report and the patriots. History matters.

Of course, we want to look to the future, but to know where we are going, we need to know where we came from. Quebec is not the only one that has had historical problems with the British. There was also the hanging of Métis leader Louis Riel and the deportation of the Acadians. In short, history and culture are extremely important.

To come back to the organizations in Shefford, I want to acknowledge the work of Solidarité Ethnique Régionale de la Yamaska, or SERY, whose motto is “our home is your home”.

Of course, the organization is involved in French-language training, but beyond that, SERY organizes key events, because Granby is a welcoming place. It has been identified as a city in Quebec where people from other places are invited to settle. It is interesting because SERY works very hard, and not only on French-language training. I have taken part in discussion forums with people to share information about our political system, our history and our culture. As a member of Parliament, it is extremely rewarding to speak with these new Quebeckers who are coming to Granby.

I cannot forget Valcourt 2030, an organization that hosts summer skills competitions, among other things. These events bring together athletes from around the world who have settled in the Valcourt area. At Christmastime, people gather to share their cultures and traditions from here and other places.

These organizations do important work. That is why Quebeckers no longer want to be subject to this law on multiculturalism. We would sooner follow our own model based on who we are.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-245, an act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is a bill that seeks to exempt the province of Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The debate is not merely legislative; it is a fundamental question about who we are as Canadians, how we live together and how we respect the rich tapestry of cultures that make up this great country.

Moreover, it is a question about Quebec's place within Canada's shared commitment to diversity, inclusion and unity. As Canadians, we take pride in our nation's diversity and our long-standing commitment to multiculturalism. Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as official policy, in 1971. Canada then became the first country in the world to turn the policy into law, when the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988.

The act is more than a legislative framework; it is a statement of our shared values and who we are as Canadians. Multiculturalism affirms the idea that all Canadians, no matter their background, are equal. Multiculturalism also affirms that every person should have the opportunity to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage. The act not only promotes diversity but also fosters understanding and respect between different cultural communities. The act encourages Canadians to learn from one another, to work through differences and to participate in civil life.

By recognizing and celebrating the contributions of various cultural heritages, multiculturalism builds trust and solidarity. It reinforces our commitment to democratic values and equal rights. It strengthens our resolve to hold together in an increasingly complicated world that threatens to divide us. Multiculturalism does not erase a province's cultural identity; on the contrary, multiculturalism enriches it.

Therefore, let me be clear: The Canadian Multiculturalism Act is indispensable to Quebec's social fabric, its linguistic and cultural vitality, and its future prosperity. It is a legal and moral cornerstone that protects the rights, dignity and contributions of all Quebeckers, whether they are indigenous peoples, long-established francophone communities or the many immigrants who call Quebec home.

Quebec's diverse population contributes greatly to the economy, civic engagement and cultural vitality of the province and indeed the country. Multiculturalism proudly recognizes Quebec's language and culture while embracing the contributions of the many generations of people from all over the world who have made Quebec their home. To exempt Quebec from the act would be to deny the fundamental truth that Quebec's distinct society is enhanced not diminished by the diversity of its people.

According to the 2021 census, nearly 94% of Quebec's population speaks French. Among newcomers to Quebec, French remains a strong and growing language. In fact, recent statistics show that the majority of newcomers to Quebec had French as their first official language spoken. These numbers demonstrate that multiculturalism and the French language can coexist. Society can be open and diverse while remaining deeply connected to its linguistic and cultural roots.

Multiculturalism represents a commitment to fairness, respect and a shared sense of belonging to this country. For it to keep working, Canadians count on all provinces and territories, including Quebec, to fulfill this commitment. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act plays a vital role in promoting a shared identity within Canada by upholding Canada's inclusive and democratic values. The act affirms that all Canadians have the right to preserve their heritage while participating fully in Canadian civic life. Allowing a province or territory to reject multiculturalism would weaken our national unity and send the message that our country's values of inclusion are regionally negotiable or optional.

Passing the bill would have adverse consequences for minorities in Canada. Communities with a long-standing presence in Quebec would be affected by the bill, and this includes people of diverse backgrounds who strongly identify with Quebec as their home. Without the Multiculturalism Act, these groups may feel pressured to reject the unifying values of multiculturalism. They might question their place in Canadian society and whether they belong. Communities that already face barriers to inclusion could feel even more marginalized.

Without multiculturalism, we lose a key tool for maintaining the trust and sense of interconnection that helps us hold our country together, especially during challenging times. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not erase a province's cultural identity; it strengthens our cultural fabric. In the case of languages, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act reinforces the belief that our official languages and multiculturalism can coexist.

There are some people who argue that the Multiculturalism Act conflicts with Quebec's language policies. This is a false dichotomy. The act supports the vitality of minority languages and cultures across Canada, including of francophone communities outside Quebec. By upholding the Multiculturalism Act, Quebec ensures the respect of its own language and culture while promoting reciprocal respect for minority languages within its borders.

In fact, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and the Official Languages Act of 1969 both came out of the recommendations from the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Through these two pieces of legislation, the Government of Canada continues to recognize Quebec's distinct cultural and linguistic heritage just as strongly as it supports the French language as an integral part of Canada's cultural and linguistic identity.

This commitment is not just symbolic; the Government of Canada has made significant efforts to promote and protect the use of French across the country. Over the years, the government has updated and strengthened the Official Languages Act to ensure that the act continues to serve Canadians. Most recently, in 2023, Bill C-13, an act to amend the Official Languages Act, received royal assent. That bill introduced key changes to strengthen the French language in Canada and in Quebec.

These changes go to greater lengths to protect French in federally regulated spaces and services, ensuring that every Canadian has access to government services in French. These changes strengthened francophone immigration with the adoption of a francophone immigration policy to ensure that new Canadians who speak French can integrate into francophone communities across the country. Finally, these changes strengthened bilingual operations in the federal public service with a stronger requirement for senior leadership in the public service to be bilingual.

The adoption of the act to amend the Official Languages Act reflects the Government of Canada's unwavering commitment to the equal status of English and French. Going forward, the Official Languages Act will be reviewed every 10 years. This will ensure that the regulations and the application of the Official Languages Act align with Canadian society as it evolves.

Multiculturalism is not only a reflection of who we are but also a commitment to who we aspire to be as a nation. We must continue to embrace the full range of heritages and linguistic and cultural traditions that have shaped our society. The unity that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act fosters within Canada is especially needed in today's global political landscape. Around the world, we are witnessing rising instability, division and economic uncertainty.

Now is the time to reaffirm our common humanity; to stand together across regions, cultures and languages; and to ensure that no one is left behind, because when we are united, we are resilient in the face of challenges ahead. Multiculturalism is not simply a policy; it is assurance for every Canadian in every province and territory that they are valued and they belong. Now is the time for us to pull together as a country. In the face of global uncertainty, economic challenges and shifting political landscapes, our strength lies in our ability to find our common humanity. By standing together, we can protect what matters most: our values, our people and our future.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before we talk about multiculturalism, before we even start to talk about immigration, and before we talk about policy, I think we need to talk about one basic point: What is a society that stands up for itself? A society is not just administrative areas. A society is more than an economy and monetary relations. It is also more than just a merging of individuals. A society is a shared history, culture, references and common standards, as well as a collective memory that brings generations together.

Without all those things, there are just borders and territories within which people happen to live. Multiculturalism in Canada did not emerge in a vacuum. It took shape within a country that, at the time, had a clear sense of its own identity. That country was firmly rooted in its institutions, confident in its values, and proud of its history, despite its imperfections. There was a turning point in 1988 when multiculturalism was enacted into law. Multiculturalism was codified in law under the leadership of a great Quebecker, who was proud of his Irish roots and profoundly grateful for the welcome the Quebec nation had extended his family.

Brian Mulroney did not regard support for immigration as a repudiation of Canada, its history, or its values. He saw multiculturalism as an affirmation of what Canada was all about. To Brian Mulroney, Canada held a promise that Canadians from all walks of life would have equal rights and equal opportunities. However, this equality was based on something that was very fundamental, and which continues to be so: a nation that was confident, a nation of two founding peoples and two official languages.

Brian Mulroney embodied Canada. He respected Quebec, its autonomy, its identity, and its culture. He was a Quebecker and a Canadian, and there was no contradiction there. He was open to the world, but also deeply rooted. His vision was not one of erasure but of integration. Newcomers were told they could become Canadian, regardless of where they came from. However, they were also told, albeit implicitly, that they were integrating an existing society with its own set of values and that they were taking part in a grand project. I believe this makes all the difference.

Yes, societies evolve. They change over time. They acquire new understanding. However, there is a key difference between evolving and relinquishing one's own identity. A mature society does not destroy its history. Instead, it builds upon the history, rectifies its shortcomings, and fortifies it. It articulates its history, understands it in its context, and learns from it. Erasing history does not create a more just society. It makes it weaker because a society that does not know where it came from can also not know what it has to share, and quite often, it lacks a clear path forward.

I have a simple analogy. If a business advertises a product as solid, reliable, accessible and affordable, but it delivers a product that is broken, expensive and ineffective, customers will inevitably be disappointed. However, the customers can hardly be blamed for believing in the product and buying it. The customers are not to blame for buying the product. The one to blame is the one who sold the product. That is exactly what has been happening over the past 10 years since the Liberal government came to power. It has been selling Canada as a welcoming, fair and inclusive society capable of integrating newcomers, a society full of promise with a reputation for making the people who live here happy. However, what has this government actually delivered? It has delivered a country that is unsure about its identity, a country that is ashamed of its past, and a citizenship that has been stripped of all meaning and reduced to a mere administrative formality, if that, because it can be completed online.

Canada's intake capacity is overloaded. In a nutshell, this is a country that says that living within its borders is all it takes to be Canadian. I want to be clear: We cannot welcome people if our intake capacity is not respected and if the product we are providing does not deliver in terms of housing, services, integration and social cohesion. Ignoring these realities is neither generous nor welcoming. It is irresponsible.

Everything was working very well under Prime Minister Harper. Why? It is because Canadian identity was part of daily life. It is because national pride was not something to be ashamed about. Citizenship had meaning and a purpose, and it had its limits. Integration was a given. It was also under Stephen Harper that Quebec was recognized as a nation within a united Canada in 2006. This recognition as a nation is fundamental. It does not erase multiculturalism; rather, it gives it a foundation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The one allows the other to thrive.

La Malbaie in Montmorency—Charlevoix is a great example of a place that knows how to welcome and integrate newcomers. From its origins as a French colony, the region experienced substantial development under British governance and opened up to the world, attracting notable figures from American society. La Malbaie is now a global example of integration, history and culture and a source of immense pride for the francophonie. It is known around the world. This kind of success story and high-profile example could have served as an inspiration, but instead, a radical change has taken place over the past 10 years. Canada has been described as a postnational country, a country without a core identity, a country where pride is becoming suspect. The Canadian government has chosen incessant apologies over pride, erasure over explanations.

There is a time and place for everything. There are customs for every period. Of course, the past can be difficult. It has left us divided. The English and the French did not greet one another with hugs and high fives. History is written by the victors. There used to be a clear divide between French Canadians and English Canadians, but those days are behind us. Adversity has given rise to a proud people, an inspiring people, rooted in their history and strengthened by their culture.

I also did some research on the common values shared by Canadians and newcomers. Contrary to what some alarmist rhetoric might suggest, immigrants largely support the foundations of our Canadian institutions, including things like respect for the law, gender equality, democracy, human dignity, hard work and responsibility. Indeed, newcomers are not afraid of hard work.

Immigrants are not asking for a society without rules. They are asking for a coherent society and, more importantly, they want to understand what they are joining. If we cannot provide them with benchmarks, they will find their own. This is not because of a lack of respect, but rather a lack of leadership. Integration does not begin by erasing the person being welcomed, but rather by clarifying the values of the community that individual is joining.

Quebeckers know something fundamental about identity. They know that identity is not kept alive by chance. They know that culture must be passed on or it disappears. They know that adversity builds character. French Canadians fought to exist. They know their history. They know their culture. They know who they are and who they want to continue to be. That is exactly why they have what it takes to inspire Canada, which has lost its identity under the postnational Liberal regime.

Quebec can play an influential role, not to divide but to remind Canada that unity starts with clarity, pride and recognition of the past. To move forward, we must stop always trying to relive the past, reopen old wounds and bring up mistakes of the past. We need to learn, grow and inspire.

In tough times, division sometimes seems like the easy answer, whether because of hopelessness or sheer weariness. However, division weakens, fragments policies, pits identities against one another and reiterates differences. Canada does not need more division. It needs consistency, continuity and unity. We need to be more united than ever because there is strength in unity.

I want to conclude with a universal and very current metaphor: the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games celebrate perseverance, work, failures that lead to victory, collective support and the idea of never giving up. Athletes do often fall, doubt themselves and fail, but they stay focused. They get up again and use their struggles to motivate themselves, to learn, to grow and to become better athletes. No uplifting film has ever been made based on a character who has had an easy life. No story of a person who has changed lives has ever been written based on somebody who has had everything handed to them. A life without hardships is hardly inspiring.

People like Marchessault, Yanni Gourde, Mathieu Olivier, Georges St‑Pierre, Ann‑Renée Desbiens and Joannie Rochette all faced adversity in their lives. Today, they inspire the next generation of athletes with their stories. The same applies to a country. It is a mistake to erase or forget stories. Being welcoming does not mean we need to disappear or step aside. Being open does not require us to erase ourselves.

It is in knowing who we are, taking charge of our history and respecting our ability to welcome others while safeguarding our values that we can transmit our values and welcome newcomers with dignity. I hope that the spirit of the Olympic Games inspires us and reassures us so we can build a united, confident and proud Canada together.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our debate today centres on a fundamental disagreement between Quebec and Canada, a pivotal disagreement, a deep fracture that reveals what Quebec is and, most importantly, what Quebec refuses to be. This debate is not about openness, diversity or immigration. It is about Quebec's vision of itself as a nation and its right to make its own collective choices.

Bill C‑245 is simple. It seeks to ensure that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec. The reason is that this act is based on a vision of Canada that denies the existence of Quebec as a nation and that directly contradicts the integration model that was democratically chosen by Quebec.

Ethnocultural diversity is a fact. It exists in Quebec. It is an asset. No one here is challenging it. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is a political choice, a government policy, a state doctrine. This doctrine puts all identities on an abstract equal footing, without recognizing the existence of nations, whether it be the Quebec nation or indigenous nations. Conversely, a multinational federation recognizes the possibility of different peoples, different nations, each capable of making its own legitimate collective choices. Canada made one choice. Quebec made another. That is not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate political choice made decades ago.

It is important to remember one key point. Quebec has never signed the 1982 Constitution, which enshrined Canadian multiculturalism in constitutional law and imposed this model without Quebec's consent. Multiculturalism is therefore not simply an administrative policy. It is a state doctrine that defines the Canadian national identity and that refuses to fully recognize a multinational state. This doctrine is not neutral. It is based on standards that originate primarily in English Canada and that are presented as universal but that are actually being imposed. It is therefore paradoxical, to say the least, that Quebec continues to be subjected to an identity policy that it has rejected, both politically and constitutionally.

This contradiction is not theoretical. It is experienced on the ground every day, particularly by newcomers. On the one hand, Quebec clearly states one thing: French is the common language, the language of integration, the language of work, the language of public life. On the other hand, Ottawa sends a different message, based on maintaining parallel identities, without a clearly affirmed common culture. The result is quite clear. There are contradictory expectations, it is more difficult to integrate and immigrants are caught in a political tug-of-war between Quebec and Ottawa.

Immigrants have the right to hear a clear, honest and consistent message. Quebec has made its decision. On May 28, 2025, Quebec passed a law based on clear principles: French as the language of integration, a common culture, shared democratic values, state secularism, the rule of law, and full participation in Quebec society. This model does not exclude anyone, but instead proposes a common approach. As such, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act has become redundant, and even harmful, in Quebec. These two opposing integration models cannot be applied at the same time in the same territory because it causes confusion.

Multiculturalism does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a set of federal tools used to impose a single national vision, which sometimes directly contradicts Quebec's vision. The solution proposed today in Bill C-245 is simple: We need to stop applying this law in Quebec. Let us be very clear. Bill C-245 does not amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not take away any rights and it does not exclude anyone. It simply allows Quebec to apply its own law on its own territory.

In 2006, the House of Commons recognized that Quebeckers form a nation. That recognition has since remained largely symbolic. Recognition without any meaningful impact is not a recognition at all. It is just words. Bill C-245 provides an opportunity to give real meaning to this recognition.

Let us be clear: Canadian multiculturalism not only denies the existence of the Quebec nation, it also refuses to fully recognize the multinational nature of the state to the detriment of first nations, which are too often reduced to mere cultural diversity. We must look at this objectively: Quebec's independence did not arise from a rejection of Canada. It emerged as a political consequence of a repeated refusal—emphasis on “repeated”—to give meaningful recognition to Quebec's collective choices.

When a nation has a vision imposed on it that is not its own, and when recognition of that nation remains purely symbolic, the question of real autonomy will eventually arise. Bill C‑245 is not an act of defiance, it is a gesture of respect. This is precisely why the Bloc Québécois exists in the House of Commons: to express this fundamental disagreement. Many democracies choose an integration model based on a common culture without denying diversity. The Canadian choice is not the only option, nor is it the only legitimate one. Respecting a different choice does not weaken a federation. It is the opposite. Refusing to recognize that choice is what erodes it.

I will say it again: Bill C-245 does not take away anyone's rights. Its singular aim is to ensure there is a single framework for integration in Quebec, namely the one democratically chosen by the National Assembly of Quebec. MPs who vote for this bill will be choosing consistency and respect. MPs who vote against the bill will be confirming that recognition of the Quebec nation is nothing more than empty words and symbolism. For the Bloc Québécois, the choice is clear: We must continue to oppose this state doctrine, which is toxic to the Quebec nation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I believe the member for Drummond has a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent among the parties for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the member for Drummond be permitted to give the five-minute right of reply to close the debate on Bill C-245 on behalf of the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The hon. member for Drummond has five minutes for his right of reply.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-245, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, seeks to exclude Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism so that it can implement its own model for integrating immigrants. It is simple. The bill has just one provision, but the other parties are having a hard time understanding it.

First, what is multiculturalism? We are hearing all sorts of things in the House, including a lot of misinformation. Multiculturalism is not about having a diverse, multicultural society, as is the case for Canada and for Quebec. It is also not about being open to immigration, which is a characteristic of Canada and of Quebec too. It has nothing to do with the fight against racism that is being waged in Canada, as well as in Quebec. Multiculturalism is simply the model for integrating newcomers that Canada chose for Canada.

Why do we want Quebec to be excluded from that? The reason is that, as a nation, Quebec has the right to choose the model for integrating newcomers that works best for Quebec. As my colleague said earlier, last May, the Quebec National Assembly passed a law to implement its own model, which the current government refers to as the national integration model.

There are therefore two models in Quebec, two opposing models, primarily because multinationalism rejects the very existence of Quebeckers as a nation and as a founding people of Canada. Multiculturalism denies the existence of any common core whatsoever. It does not provide for upholding common values such as gender equality or the rule of law, nor does it provide for drawing inspiration from a common culture, such as the discovery of our national history.

Multiculturalism completely rejects the fact that the official and common language of Quebec is French and that French must also be the language of integration. In the name of a supposed openness to others, multiculturalism promotes a postnational Canada, without history, values, or culture; a Canada without dialogue, but rather a proliferation of monologues; a Canada that is increasingly fragmented by communitarianism, when an integration policy is supposed to be unifying, as the name suggests.

This Trudeauvian dream does not work in Quebec. Quebeckers know that being open to others does not mean denying ourselves. Rather, it means engaging in a dialogue. It takes two to come together. It takes two to have a dialogue. Quebeckers want to have a relationship with those who honour us by coming to live in our province. We want these individuals to participate fully in the workplace, in the culture and in political life. We want these new Quebeckers to continue to enrich our common culture with their experiences and traditions.

We want Quebec to be a place where there is equality of opportunity, but that is only possible when everyone has the tools, knowledge and networks they need to flourish. We do not want to live side-by-side with no connection, like unhappy neighbours, or with no relationship, like an unhappy couple. We cannot just be content to live with that, because the future of our nation is at stake. The future of more than four centuries of resistance from our people depends on our ability to build a shared life with newcomers in Quebec. We have no choice but to succeed, yet Canadian multiculturalism is standing in our way. Anyone who is in favour of imposing multiculturalism on Quebeckers is, in fact, supporting the assimilation of our people in the near future.

I call on the House to let these words sink in. Supporting the imposition of multiculturalism on Quebeckers is tantamount to supporting the assimilation of Quebeckers as a people and as a nation. On the pretext of openness, the other parties are pushing for a Canada that would be less diverse, less culturally rich and, to be honest, less interesting, because our people would be marginalized within some nebulous, postnational, English Canadian blob.

It seems ironic that we should be debating all this just a few days after the Prime Minister's controversial Plains of Abraham speech at the Quebec Citadel. To refresh my colleagues' memories, he said the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was actually the start of a grand partnership between the French, the English and indigenous peoples. All the Liberals stood behind this speech, even though it took pains to highlight the existence of Canada's founding peoples. Today, those same Liberals support forcing Quebec to submit to a form of multiculturalism that fails to acknowledge the founding peoples, our history, our values and our French language as the glue that holds Quebec society together. Once again, this is by no means a partnership. In fact, this is exactly the opposite of a partnership. My colleagues in Ottawa are imposing an integration policy on Quebec that directly contradicts the policy of our National Assembly.

Just as it is time for Quebec to make a choice, my colleagues must also make a choice. They can choose to partner with Quebec, or they can choose to remain confrontational, with serious consequences for the future of our fate in the Americas. I urge them to choose wisely.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I love when you speak French and when you say the word “multiculturalism” in French. I know it is hard to say, and I commend you for it, which is why we are requesting a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 11:55 a.m., the House will now suspend to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:55 a.m.)

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-245, 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, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-245.

The question is on the motion.

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

Vote #65

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 38 minutes.