Debates of April 10th, 2008

Motions in amendment

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely correct. That is why, in our areas, we are trying to pull the various interests together to not only look at both the benefits and the opportunities but also the impacts. Some of them are very negative.

We are taking ourselves--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to engage in this debate because we are beginning to give some scrutiny to an emerging industry. I say “emerging industry” because it has developed over the course of the last decade in a fashion that seems to be changing the world literally overnight.

We have been dealing with legislation such as this for quite some time. I can say that in principle we need to support a bill such as this, although I do not know that we would be as supportive of the amendment.

In the debate today, we have seen that people are looking at the dynamics of this industry. The dynamics, as my colleague from Malpeque has said, go through agriculture, industry, energy and the environment.

I know my colleague from Malpeque can speak for himself, as he always does and does so forcefully, but I know what he means when he talks about cheap food prices, et cetera. He is talking about the prices paid at the farm gate. He is not talking about, at least in the way I interpret it, in terms of the amount of money that a consumer must pay for products at the point of purchase. He is looking at a situation that sees equitable return on an investment made and contribution given.

I know there are agricultural groups around the country that are calling for the government to get its hands off and to allow market forces to drive the new economy. Everyone in this place is in favour of rewarding initiative and rewarding enterprise but we need to keep in mind the impact this kind of development will have on the structure around the world, the usual economic dynamics.

For example, my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake said earlier that this would only have an impact on 2% of the land mass of Canada. It is nice to throw out a figure like that, but 48% of the land mass in Canada is covered by forest and about another 46% is covered by ice. When we are talking about the rest that is arable, if we are looking at a 2% mass, are we not talking about the overall mass and, in which case, it would be an enormous amount of land dedicated to biomass and biofuel production, or are we talking only about 2% of the arable land already available in Canada?

I think that is significant because we are talking about food policies and their impact worldwide. I will reflect for a moment in a moment on energy and biomass and biofuel.

If we think for a moment about what has been happening around the world where, as I said in the previous question, South Africa is already being considered the Middle East of the biofuel production business, it has in excess of one billion acres already dedicated toward the production of biomass for biofuel. In a part of the world that is constantly looking for food aid, we can imagine what is happening to the food sources.

In fact, in countries around the world where the agricultural production is dependent upon rainfall for its water sources, production costs and food costs have now gone up by 50% over last year, and that rise is escalating. It is escalating at such a rate that UN agencies are already concerned, not only about the quantum of demand for food aid, but also the cost. Over the last year, costs have increased by 20%. One can just imagine the demand on all the countries that are engaged in attempting to provide food aid to the most needy when the land closest by is being dedicated to biomass and biofuel production.

We are going down that same road. In North America, for example, Nebraska has decided that it will use as its economic strategy an increase in the land utilized for corn or biomass and biofuel. Nebraska is dedicating an additional one million acres this year alone. It is already producing a billion gallons of ethanol per annum in order to feed the growing American demand, the American demand that has seen production plants increase from 100 to 150 last year and is expected to reach 450 plants in this coming year.

There will be a huge and constant demand as we cross over into environmental concerns and greenhouse gas emissions, especially in North America and in Europe where we see that 80% of personal energy consumption through vehicles takes place.

Of the 800 million vehicles on the road today, 70% of them are on roads in Europe or North American. As I said earlier on, when China and India begin to produce vehicles to meet a demand for an emerging middle class, it will equal North America and Europe.

Every time 10% of the population in India and in China buy a car, 200 million more vehicles will be on the road. Clearly, the demand on traditional energy sources, those greenhouse gas emitting sources, will be huge. It will be equally impressive on those new technologies that are emerging in the ethanol production and other biomass products.

I mentioned Brazil earlier on. My colleague on the opposite side made reference to Brazil as well. Brazil has 300 million acres dedicated to the production of biomass for the purpose of ethanol production. India already has 35 million acres dedicated to the same type of industry. Indonesia has 16 million acres. These are not places that we have traditionally associated with land utilization for the production of anything other than food.

My colleague from the NDP said a moment ago that they were doing it at the expense of the rain forest and the consequent result on multi-environment and on other issues associated with the depletion of rain forests, not only in the Amazon but everywhere else around the world.

We must deal with those pressures because they are closer to us today than we imagine. It is great to talk about the competitiveness and productivity of our own agricultural sector. We want our farmers to make more money but we want them to do it in terms of producing for the demand that is there in the world. For what? The first goal should be to provide, with all due respect to my colleague from Malpeque, cheap food or low cost, high quality food but not at the expense of the farmer. How many people would be in business if they could not get their money? We want them to do that but we also want them to be wary about the kinds of policies that may have implications for virtually everything else.

One area that I do not think has not been explored sufficiently is the true cost of the production of ethanol. Some of these factors, which we used to rain upon all the industrial enterprises not that long ago to include all the true inputs in industrial production, need to be applied to any kind of alternative energy sources.

However, we must develop the new technology for those energy sources. We need to build a green economy. We need to invest in innovation. We need to invest in the technologies that will make us not only competitive but environmentally friendly and conscious of the impact for greenhouse gas emissions.

However, we can never forget those who are less fortunate than us. As I said earlier on, over 40 million Americans who live below the poverty line will experience this year a 40% increase in the cost of their food.

In an environment where the economy is submitting to all the vagaries that we normally see in the cyclical economic environment, the last thing people need is to see the vulnerable, not only in North America, but everywhere else around the world, submit to the high pressures of excessive food costs at the expense of environmental issues, technological issues and international relations.

We owe it to ourselves in this kind of debate to ensure that our governments keeps their feet firmly to the ground and understand that the implications of amendments like this to a bill like this go well beyond the stated purpose of the debate in the House.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the issues the member is raising because he is talking about the need for food in countries that cannot afford it. If we look at the developing world, we realize that they are agrarian-based societies. The best way to start generating wealth in an agrarian-based society is allow it to start getting paid for what it produces.

Here is an opportunity with biofuels where it can actually see an opportunity for increased revenue through the biofuel industry as well as have the incentive to grow more. The problem we have in today's world is that the commodity prices have been so low up until this year that there was no incentive, especially manually in developing countries, to go out and plant a crop.

It is important that we provide these countries with an incentive, and that incentive comes from the marketplace which we all can support, to plant more crops and with that generate more food for their people as well.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that concept. There is no reason why anyone would plant anything in the ground if they are not going to get a return not only on their investment but also their labour and effort.

I fear that on occasion we tend to romanticize a career or a job decision that has long gone beyond the moment that we fixed it in time. While this absolutely true about family farms, many of those family farms are such in name only.

I do not think that any part of this debate is designed to in any way undermine the viability of any agricultural enterprise. I do not think anyone has that in mind and if they do, they are in the wrong place.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's comments with regard to the impact that this will have on the food supply and food security, particularly when we look at the whole world.

Many of us who paid attention to what happened in some of the third world jurisdictions, particularly Central and South America, will understand what happened when North America decided it was going to respond to its craving for coffee. Whole tracts of land were taken over to grow a crop that was a cash crop, the product that came to North America, but really did not provide for the local folks who used to have that land to grow their own food, vegetables, fruit and so on. We saw the impact that has had on the world and some of our poorer countries.

That could actually happen here in Canada in our backyard if we are not careful. That is why we are asking for greater scrutiny on this brand new initiative, one that is taking us places we have never been before. The member might want to comment further on that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observation and it is quite fine to think in terms of oversight and scrutiny. My understanding of the bill and the bill that preceded this is that we already have the oversight capacity in this House. Whether we utilize that oversight capacity is another matter. Maybe the member is right to be concerned that people in governments do not always implement the kinds of things that they say they have already approved.

In general, it would be equally a mistake to think that people who actually consume an end product are culpable because the redistribution of the wealth that is generated as a result does not flow in its appropriate proportions to those who are at the origin of that production cycle.

The hon. member mentions coffee. Some of the wealth that has been created around coffee is just absolutely mind-boggling. I can cite an example because I happened to have studied this a little while ago. For example, in Italy alone there is the consumption of three espressos per day, per person, at a retail value of about $180 million a day, every day of the year. That is only for that product. So there is a production cycle that should be producing wealth for the original farmers of the coffee beans and those who work the lands to generate that.

I cannot have an influence on the countries of origin. I can only have an impact on how we might view our responsibilities internationally. If the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. We are resuming debate, and the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh has the floor.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33 that has been brought forward by my colleague.

In spite of the comments made by the last speaker, it is crucial that oversight by parliamentarians be an integral part of this bill and of this process within the department. The prior speaker raised a number of issues that emphasize the need for that oversight. The NDP is going to support this bill. Should it go ahead and become law of the land, it will impose that additional responsibility on us as parliamentarians.

My experience on these reviews has been less than positive because we do not follow the law and we do not fulfill our responsibility as regularly as we should.

There are other ways of doing it. If the committee that is ultimately responsible for this review is not entirely capable of doing it, the responsibility can be assigned to a subcommittee made up of members of Parliament who are particularly interested and knowledgeable with regard to the use of ethanol and its progress, and the use of it in our economy. Even a smaller committee can be put into place as a subcommittee of the standing committee.

We need to do that because of a number of points that have already been made, and let me just reiterate some of those.

Just in the last year there have been increasing riots, and I use that term advisedly, around the world with regard to the cost of food. As the former speaker suggested, this is not just happening in the undeveloped world. There were riots in Italy earlier this year over the cost of pasta, which of course comes from various grains, and the cost of those grains had escalated dramatically, by more than 100% in some cases. That ultimately is reflected in the end product.

I can tell members about my experience in my riding in the county of Essex. The cost of corn has more than doubled in a little over 12 months. It is true that is great for corn producers. Farmers in my community who are producing corn by and large are very happy with the increase in price because for too many years it has been too low to cover their input costs and allow them to make a living from the farm.

This doubling of cost is now significantly impacting dairy farmers as well as several hog farms and a significant number of poultry farms in the county of Essex. These farmers need the same corn that is now being used for ethanol because of the plant over in Chatham. That ethanol is taking the cost of their inputs up dramatically.

They have to compete with that new market that values that corn much higher than they are able to meet, and I have to say that quite bluntly. The cost of their feed grain has gone up by more than 100% in less than a year. A small farming operation faces great difficulty when it is faced with such a significant increase in the cost of a key ingredient for their operation over a short period of time.

There have also been food riots in Asia and Africa. Some NGOs are coming back and asking for hundreds of millions of dollars more to meet the demand in refugee camps and other areas where there is drought or famine. That is a direct result of the very dramatic escalating costs in grains.

In terms of Asia, for instance, I am hearing reports that there are a number of countries where again the cost of grain, rice in particular, has more than doubled in less than a year's time. There does not seem to be an end. For some countries, the estimate is that it has more than tripled in the past year or year and a half. A good deal of this is being driven by the demands that we are putting on the supply of grain for the use of ethanol.

I will use another example. Shortly after the second world war, Brazil made the conscious decision not to run its vehicles on carbon-based products but on ethanol. It has a requirement that 50% of all the fuel used in vehicles comes from sugar. Last year, Brazil, for the first time, was forced to curtail the amount of production of sugar that would go into the sugar market because of the demand it had for ethanol.

There was a very strong reaction and I do not think using the word “riot” is too strong a term. There were a number of large demonstrations over the fact that the population of Brazil could not access as much sugar as it had historically. The reason for that was that it needed the sugar for the purpose of producing ethanol.

At the end of the day, when we look at this amendment, and although we have overall some reservations on the bill we are generally supportive of it, it begs the attention of the House on an ongoing basis, in a parliamentary committee, to continue to review the use of food products, grains in particular.

One of the other points I want to make is that the review would also allow us the opportunity to continue to bring forward alternatives in the use of ethanol. Instead of actually using the food product, we could use the stock and waste, including garbage, in a number of ways, but there is a need to develop the technology.

There is a company right here in Ottawa, Iogen, that has done some great work in this area. It is using a product that is not food. It is using straw and stalks from other grain such as corn, et cetera. There are other experiments going on and plants operating around the globe that are using, for instance, waste products from forestry and they are able to produce ethanol.

The other thing we have to be monitoring on an ongoing basis is the efficiency of this. If we are using food products and not achieving an efficiency ratio that is substantially better than carbon-based technology, then we have to look for those alternatives and develop those technologies.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully while my friend from the NDP was speaking. I can remember vividly, shortly before and after I was elected to this place, meeting with some members of my farming community, particularly the grains and oilseeds part of the farming community. I listened to some third and fourth generation farmers who said they were at the brink of losing their multi-generational farms. Now when we meet, they say they are beginning to have some pluses, some black ink on their ledgers.

I hear now from the NDP that food is too expensive and we have to shut down ethanol production because people cannot afford their food. In other words, it wants really cheap food and for farmers to go out of business. That is what I am hearing.

I also had a chance to speak to my friend from northern Canada and he talked about his community heating with wood pellets. I lived in northern Ontario and Shell Oil Company, BioShell Ltd., had two wood pellet plants when I moved there. When I moved back to southern Ontario less than four and a half years later, those two plants were closed. Why were they closed? They were closed because the price of oil, natural gas and propane went down, and it no longer became economically viable for the wood pellet plants to stay in business. I suspect that because oil and gas prices are going up, some of those alternate fuel plants will come in.

I am at a loss. I am at a complete loss as to why we should wish our farmers not to get a reasonable price for their products,because now they have multi-markets and some value added. My farmers in my riding are very happy with the situation with regard ethanol and food prices.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is the end of the day and I am probably being a little facetious here, but I was going to suggest that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West have his ears checked.

I grew up on a farm and my sister and brother-in-law still run that farm. I have nephews who operate farms in the Essex county area. I did not for one minute, nor did anybody from the NDP, suggest for one minute shutting down ethanol production. We are not talking about that.

What we are talking about is that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to recognize the impact it could have. It does not just mean positive things. Poultry producers in my riding are having serious trouble meeting their feed bills. I am worried about them, as should everybody who is looking at this sensibly and with any degree of wisdom.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West went on quite an attack against the member opposite saying that the NDP were basically in favour of a cheap food policy. I do not believe that.

However, I will say that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, by supporting his leader's position on the Wheat Board, is certainly supporting the disempowerment of farmers in western Canada who are challenged by the corporate sector.

Yes, there are concerns about food supply, but is not the biggest problem we have with regard to food supply in the world some of the trade agreements and the dominant position that the multinational grain trade and others are in, in not only exploiting farmers but exploiting people around the world? That government over there seems to support that multinational sector against farmers in this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the analysis by the member for Malpeque. I see it in my riding. I see it in that plant in Chatham. Most of the corn is coming from large corporate farms. They are agribusinesses that are supplying the market on our side and there is no regulation of it. I am not suggesting protectionism here in the extreme, but there is no level playing field here.

The member for Malpeque is absolutely right. The problem we are confronting here is one of a Conservative government that has blinkers on when it comes to protecting our farmers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent five years of my career, prior to becoming a member of Parliament, with an organization called United Co-operatives of Ontario which has over 100 retail outlets across the province of Ontario. Ethanol was one of our big new areas of endeavour, and now most Canadians will recognize that ethanol as a biofuel is very popular and highly used in some countries but not in Canada yet because of the production and the distribution.

I have a constituent who bought a very expensive vehicle, E85 to operate on ethanol. The nearest place for him to get ethanol fuel for his vehicle is in Guelph or Ottawa. It gives one a sense of where we are on this.

I know we are talking about the amendment but, generally, with respect to the bill, as the members have noted, we also have some changing circumstances with regard to the supply of crops that provide what is necessary to produce ethanol. All of a sudden, the demand around the world for crops, such as wheat and corn, etcetera, are in greater demand in terms of the supply. A strategy is going on with regard to food and biofuel uses, demands and priorities.

I intend to continue my speech when we resume debate and I want to address specifically the amendment. I know the member for Eglinton—Lawrence had a few words. This is quite an important bill and, from time to time, although we do not realize it, there are people in this place who bring to Parliament some expertise and insight into some of the realities that face the agricultural community, particularly farmers, regardless of whether it be in the feed and crops area or in the dairy side as well.

It is a very important sector. Seventy per cent of the people involved in agriculture are employed outside of the farm. It is referred to as off-farm gate. It is a very important sector. It requires the attention of Parliament and I hope we will continue this debate at the next sitting of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:39, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-33, the hon. member for Mississauga South will have seven minutes left.

Bill C-531--Currency Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It seems that there is an administrative error in the text of Bill C-531. The Chair has therefore requested that the bill be reprinted and that the new version be posted on the parliamentary website.

I am tabling, for the information of all members, a copy of the letter received by the Speaker from the law clerk, outlining the required changes.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved that Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am very pleased to introduce Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) today. Before explaining the implications of this bill, I would like to read the amendment that this bill seeks to make to the preamble of the act. This amendment is in the text of Bill C-505.

AND WHEREAS Quebeckers form a nation and must therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, particularly as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state, and gender equality;

We believe that this preamble must be used to interpret the following amendment:

Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.

This is what is being brought forward in this House by the Bloc Québécois. As I have mentioned a few times, this bill is part of a series of proposals made by the Bloc Québécois. During last Tuesday's opposition day, we urged the government to take concrete action to give effect to the recognition of the Quebec nation. In addition, my colleague from Drummond tabled Bill C-482 to make French the language of work for employees of firms under federal jurisdiction.

Our caucus is working on other bills to provide some substance with respect to recognition of the Quebec nation, as the member for Jonquière—Alma was saying. More specifically, the bill we are presently debating would require the federal government to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

As I was saying, this bill recommends that action be taken because everyone now recognizes, at least in theory, the national character of Quebec. Now that we have recognized the nation of Quebec, we must take concrete action accordingly. Bill C-505 does just that by allowing Quebec to apply, in its territory, within its nation, its own model of integration for new arrivals and to be exempted from the Canadian model, or Canadian multiculturalism, which is derived from British multiculturalism.

I would like to point out that the Quebec nation is a reality that has been recognized in Quebec for a very long time, by the federalists as well as the Quebec sovereigntists. It is a reality for which there is consensus. We did not have to wait for it to be recognized by this House of Commons for it to be a reality that was felt, lived and recognized by Quebeckers. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that the motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if the rest of Canada remains as is. We are not subject to the constitutional forms that the Canadian nation might decide to adopt. Nor does the motion say that Quebec is a nation if it opts for sovereignty. This motion says that Quebeckers form a nation. Period.

Under the terms of the motion that was adopted by this House, the same attitude should guide parliamentarians here. It is no coincidence that the National Assembly of Quebec specified, in the motion I read earlier, that is was reaffirming that the people of Quebec form a nation. For at least 40 years now, if not 50, the premiers of Quebec, regardless of political stripe, have reaffirmed that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I will go ahead and quote Jean Lesage, who said in November 1963:

Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people [and a nation].

That was in 1963.

I could also talk about Daniel Johnson Sr., who also said a number of times that Quebeckers form a nation. According to him, if Quebec were unable to find equality within Canada, then it had the choice of opting for national independence.

René Lévesque said in June 1980, that “Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination... [This right to control its own national destiny] is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has”. That was in June 1980.

I could also talk about Jacques Parizeau and Robert Bourassa, but I want to close on one last quote from October 1999, by Lucien Bouchard, who sat in this House, as hon. members know. He said, “The Quebec people adhere to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration—”. We have here undeniable proof that Quebeckers form a nation and that this has been a consensus in Quebec for an extremely long time.

As mentioned in the last quote from Lucien Bouchard, taken from the time when he was at the helm in Quebec, the Quebec nation is open to international immigration but not to the kind of integration practised in Canada, which is to say, multiculturalism. This point arises among all those who criticize Canadian multiculturalism and commend the Quebec model, because there really is a Quebec model.

There is nothing new, therefore, in Bill C-505 regarding Quebec. The model already exists. It is slowly taking hold, despite the confusion sown by the existence of this other multicultural model. The Government of Quebec just announced last week some more investments to further its method of integrating immigrants. It is a model that could be called interculturalism. This method of integrating newcomers requires everyone, whether already in Quebec or just arriving, to respect the shared values of Quebec society as a whole. These include secular public institutions and the equality of men and women. The Quebec model also requires all citizens to have a knowledge of French, which is the common public language.

This is a very important point because if we do not have a common public language, it is impossible to have a democratic debate and the kind of public discussions that enable a society to progress. It only creates cacophony. This is done with the utmost respect for the anglophone national minority in Quebec, whose institutions have been protected for a great many years.

People will say, of course, that there are two official languages in Canada. But that is the problem. In Quebec, there is only one official language and that is French. In actual fact, of course, we know that there is really only one public language in Canada too and that is English. This problem sows confusion in Quebec, though, and hinders the francization of immigrants.

The requirement that all Quebeckers respect our common values and learn the common language of French, at least to some extent, in order to take part in the public debate is offset by our recognition of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism refers to the contributions made by everyone all over Quebec to help enrich our common culture. This Quebec model can be found in other countries as well and has become a source of inspiration for them.

The idea of Canadian multiculturalism is the exact opposite. It rejects all notions of common values and culture. In fact, the idea of multiculturalism promotes a society of multiple solitudes. Each newcomer, each immigrant keeps his or her language, culture and customs and is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Quebec, I would remind you, we have the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Instead of using Quebec's model and promoting one culture, one language and certain common values in public life, it promotes the coexistence of multiple cultures. This idea of multiculturalism has always been rejected by Quebec. I will come back to that.

To demonstrate that multiculturalism is as I have just said, allow me to quote a document from Citizenship and Immigration Canada titled “A Newcomer’s Introduction to Canada”. It is a general reference for newcomers that is available on the department's website. I am reading from page 31:

Canada is populated by people who have come from every part of the world. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the government encourages Canadians to take pride in their language, religion and heritage and to keep their customs and traditions, as long as they don’t break Canadian laws.

This quotation from Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the best illustration of multiculturalism and of what is rejected by Quebec.

I would also like to say there is some uneasiness within the Canadian nation concerning multiculturalism. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a letter written by Carol Dunn, published in today's National Post on page A17, in which she says that her 16-year-old son, who attends a Toronto high school, is often asked where he is from. He has learned to answer, “Scotland and England”, because when he says he is “Canadian”, he is told there is no such thing. I draw the House's attention to this letter because it is an excellent illustration of the problem that exists even for the Canadian nation in its chosen model of integration for newcomers.

As I said, in Quebec's case, this model of multiculturalism has been rejected, especially since that model trivializes Quebec's position within Canada and refutes the existence of the Quebec nation because we would all be additional ethnic groups—French-Canadian ethnic groups or Quebeckers of French origin, depending on the definitions that people, or federalists, wish to give the notion, being one ethnic group among the others. Federalists, like sovereignists in Quebec, have long rejected multiculturalism as a model for integration.

Already in 1971, Robert Bourassa, a Liberal premier and federalist, wrote to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion [of multiculturalism] hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”.

Quebec's model of interculturalism, on the other hand, overcomes immigrants' feeling of isolation. The notions of multiculturalism tend to isolate newcomers in their culture and customs. These two conflicting models exist in the same place. And even though sovereignty is the only way to clear up this confusion, it seems to me that Bill C-505 would recognize, not only the level of integration in Quebec, but also the fact that the Quebec nation is capable of drafting its own laws on applying an integration model for newcomers.

The confusion caused by the conflict between Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism sends a message that is very difficult for immigrants to understand. Unfortunately, I will not have time to quote an excerpt from the brief the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec presented to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which clearly shows that these two integration models confuse newcomers and make it very hard for them to understand the message of the Quebec nation.

Canadian multiculturalism promotes Canada's two official languages, French and English, while Quebec interculturalism promotes French as the common public language and the language of communication. Quebec has already developed tools to protect and promote French in Quebec. Although nothing is perfect and there is still a great deal of work to be done, the application of interculturalism in Quebec has enabled French to make progress, while multiculturalism is a constant barrier that sets French back. French is and must remain the common language of the Quebec nation, with all due respect for Quebec's aboriginal peoples and anglophone minority.

Even though only full sovereignty for Quebec can promote and protect the French language, Bill C-505 will lessen the influence of multiculturalism in Quebec and the negative effects I mentioned that are leading to the anglicization of many newcomers to Quebec.

In conclusion, if we recognize Quebec as a nation, we must walk the talk and take real steps to give effect to that recognition. The bill that I am introducing today and that I would like to see adopted by this House is one more step in that direction.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very insulting that the member for Joliette is claiming that outside Quebec, the only real language is English. What about the other francophones across Canada who fight for their language day in and day out? We are talking about multiculturalism. How great that the Bloc itself does not even recognize its own language outside of Quebec.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments just go to show the confusion surrounding multiculturalism. I did not say that French is not important in the rest of Canada and throughout the world. What I said was that the real official language of the Canadian nation is English.

That nation has a linguistic minority, a francophone minority, which the Bloc Québécois supports much more than the Conservatives do, by consistently demanding respect for the Official Languages Act, which is not the case with the Conservative government, and was not the case with the Liberals.

That is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that Quebec needs the tools to ensure that French is the common public language. This is not possible through multiculturalism. This was proven long ago, even by friends of the Conservatives. If they ask their ADQ friends what they think about multiculturalism, or ask Quebec Liberals what they think about multiculturalism, all of these parties, including the Parti Québécois have said so. The National Assembly has said so many times. Multiculturalism is an obstacle to the integration of new immigrants under the Quebec model, and an obstacle to the francization of new immigrants.

We are not talking about the same thing. I think the member is a beautiful example of the confusion surrounding multiculturalism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his very eloquent speech. My question is, in concrete terms, what does he mean by “multiculturalism”? Does the concept not defy definition? Are there federal or provincial programs in Quebec—concrete, reality-based programs—that the member feels are obstacles to integration? What does he mean when he says that multiculturalism is an obstacle to the integration of newcomers in Quebec and elsewhere?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to quote the excerpt that I know by heart but did not have time to quote earlier, from the submission that the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec presented to the Bouchard-Taylor commission. It said:

Today, the programs and practices of the secretariat of multiculturalism and Canadian identity do not encourage separate development and activities based on single-ethnicity groups.

That was the case under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But once again, as we all know, people in Canada are starting to ask questions about developing common ground to achieve the social cohesion that any society requires. The board's submission goes on to say:

However, 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.

We must be very clear about this. I mentioned it earlier. The Quebec model is in place, interculturalism is in place, but the federal government's ideological vision of multiculturalism is an obstacle to integration and we have to put an end to the confusion. I suggest we do so by adopting Bill C-505.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Hochelaga may ask a very brief question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could our colleague remind this House of the main components of interculturalism: taking part in democratic institutions, having French as a common public language and believing in the equality of men and women?

Can our colleague remind this House that even though multiculturalism has no real substance, this Parliament adopted a multiculturalism act in 1988? If multiculturalism is not concrete, it is difficult to imagine why there is still a Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Can he remind the House of this on my behalf?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga took all the available time. However, I will allow the hon. member for Joliette 20 seconds to answer.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The member for Hochelaga gave a good summary of what interculturalism means: a common language, common values, a common culture for a society, a nation that is enriched by the contributions of newcomers from all over the world. That is what we want in Quebec.