Debates of Dec. 9th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tremendous insight and thoughts on this topic. One of the things he mentioned was some of the challenges and vulnerabilities facing indigenous communities. As a member representing a northern Ontario riding with 42 first nations, three distinct treaty territories and the Métis homelands, it is something I and our region understand quite closely.

I wonder if the member can speak to some of the opinions he has heard from indigenous communities as they pertain to this legislation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. The largest ethnic population, surprisingly, in this area is indigenous people and Métis. What I am hearing, at least from my perspective, is very pervasive right across as far as dealing with mental health and these challenges. The representative of the disability organization for indigenous people stated well his perspective of indigenous people with disabilities.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague opposite and for his views even if we disagree.

As a point of clarification, I would like to ask if the member disagrees with the very idea of medically assisted dying or with this bill. The bill we have put forward is to respond the Quebec Superior Court's decision. It is in order to improve the legislation based on the experience of patients.

We are not talking about the very principle of medical assistance in dying; we are talking about improving the existing law. I wonder if he could just clarify. Is he against medical assistance in dying all together?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, my concern is that we are not putting the emphasis on palliative care. We have put MAID, which is legislated through the Supreme Court, into the Canada Health Act and so it is required to be accessible and funded right across Canada. We do not have that for the general population for palliative care. Only about one-third of Canadians have access to that.

I previously mentioned a lady with whom I had a conversation. She was in hospice dying of cancer. She has now passed. I asked her how much pain she was going through and she said that she was going through no pain whatsoever. Pain can be totally controlled under palliative care as well as mental anguish.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has raised many important issues on how we defend the rights of people with disabilities. I wonder if he can pick up on the issue of giving people alternatives. I was quite struck by the comment from one of his colleagues from B.C., another member of our caucus, who said that people had a right to hope

We have to give people access to that right, that ability to hope, to see they have alternatives in front of them. Members who talk about the importance of choice should consider the range of options people have, such as wanting to really have that option of choosing to live and how we can make that option real and meaningful for people who want that available to them.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is really important that people who are facing end of life be given those options. Counselling and supports are really important. One of the amendments we requested, which was defeated, was to increase from 90 days to 120 days for people going through mental challenges. We do not have that support. We need to increase the supports for people in the situations of end of life.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us deal with the elephant in the chamber here. There are reasons to support euthanasia despite 21st-century medical advancements, but to protect the vulnerable in our society from mistreatment or abuse, we must provide the service ethically and monitor its delivery scrupulously. However, what we are debating here today is exactly the opposite of that.

Bill C-7 seeks to amend the medical assistance in dying legislation by eliminating various safeguards on how and when the service gets delivered, with apparent disregard of any scrupulous requirement. Some of the offensive changes to end-of-life decision-making would include removing the 10-day waiting period between a MAID request and its administration, allowing for no reflection or opportunity for consultation on alternatives during this critical period, and proceeding without immediate consent, thus removing the final opportunity for someone to change their mind.

The bill would also create a two-tracked approach. The first track is someone whose death is deemed reasonably foreseeable, a term which is subjective and lacks effective meaning as the Truchon case in Quebec revealed. The second track would allow individuals who do not meet the reasonably foreseeable death criteria to receive MAID. At least these individuals are granted the opportunity to reflect for 90 days.

I voted against the second reading of Bill C-7 because it would not adequately protect Canadians from harm, and the gap presented is way too wide to be bridged. Unfortunately, as I predicted, the government refused to accept any reasonable amendments submitted by concerned stakeholder groups. I will, therefore, be voting against Bill C-7 during third reading as well.

As has been said many times, the bill would create pathways to end of life that would significantly impact the disabled, without sufficiently supporting the alternatives. Also, it does not include enough consideration for the rights of medical professionals to refuse to provide death as a service. Doctors know their patients' most intimate details. They have the professional experience to make suggestions on treatment and to know how to refer to other experts when necessary. However, because of MAID, medical professionals, such as Dr. Mai, who is a stroke neurologist, have expressed concerns that doctors are not being encouraged to suggest the best treatment. They are being obligated to suggest and provide a treatment that they may not believe is the right one for any patient. They are being told to kick their conscience to the curb.

In this regard, I will quote someone who, according to the CBC, has two law degrees and a master's degree in health policy, and has helped develop health law and policy for the WHO and several governments. He has practised medicine in Canada, Africa and the South Pacific. The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River shares our mutual concerns of how the bill addresses the issues faced by those who are transient or undecided in their end-of-life decision-making.

In a CBC article, he stated, “My biggest concern, as someone who has spent my whole life trying to avoid accidentally killing people, is that we don't end up using MAID for people who don't really want to die”. As someone with a medical background, he says he feels that it is morally incumbent upon him “to stand up when it comes to issues of health and life and death”.

Perhaps this concern is something that should be addressed through a review. It has recently been said in this chamber that any legislation that is introduced in Parliament requires a thorough review, and that is especially true for bills that are literally matters of life or death. Bill C-7, which seeks to expand medical assistance in dying, is one of those bills.

Members of the justice committee have heard first-hand from disability advocates vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and its rapid expansion of MAID. They argue that it amounts to a “deadly form of discrimination”, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die rather than live.

It is shameful that in the Liberal government's rush to pass the bill before December 18, it continues to neglect to address the legitimate concerns being raised by persons with disabilities and medical professionals.

The Conservatives are focused on ensuring this type of legislation includes safeguards for the most vulnerable in our society, and for the conscience rights of physicians and health professionals. I have previously outlined these reasonable amendments we have introduced to reinstate such balances the government has removed, so I will not re-list them here. However, I shall repeat that it is essential the government begin a separate and comprehensive parliamentary review of the original 2016 MAID legislation and the state of palliative care in Canada. It is critical that this review analyze how the government's MAID legislation negatively impacts persons with disabilities.

I might add, such a review could have taken place over the summer. Instead, the Liberal government shut down Parliament to hide from its ethical scandals, only to return and introduce this legislation from scratch again. What larger lapse of moral fibre and ethical decision-making could there be?

Furthermore, it pains me to find this bill comes at a time when vulnerable Canadians, such as those in palliative care, are more isolated than ever. Because of the pandemic, they could be left alone in their room for days. These measures that are aimed at saving lives have left them looking for options, as in the case of Ms. Nancy Russell, a 90-year-old long-term care resident in Toronto, who received MAID simply because she did not want to go into another lockdown, according to a media report.

Fleeing from the Communist regime in Shanghai, my father struggled to provide for himself and his family by mastering the art of directorship in the early film industry in Hong Kong. He later worked in Nigeria when I was a teenager and only returned home after suffering from a major stroke. I witnessed his struggle first-hand to live and attempt to regain independence with little familial resources or societal help. My father was a fighter. He also overcame cancer and other major medical problems before dying in his sleep in Saskatoon one early Sunday morning in the nineties. If the Bill C-7 MAID legislation had existed back then, he would have been under inhumane pressure to lessen the burden he was imposing on his family, even though his death was not reasonably foreseeable. I for one am grateful for his strength and determination to stay alive so that I could reciprocate the care he provided me when I was young. He was able to live long enough to hold my brother's firstborn, his very first granddaughter, only months prior to his natural death.

Medical assistance in dying is a very complex issue and evokes strong emotions. Recognizing we need more time to review the bill, my Conservative colleagues and I repeatedly proposed increasing the number of meetings dedicated to reviewing the bill and hearing from witnesses. Unfortunately, each time the Liberals refused.

Canada's Conservatives will continue to highlight the flaws in this bill, which threaten the lives, rights and dignity of people with disabilities long past this unfortunate legislation. We will continue working to protect vulnerable Canadians, especially persons with disabilities, when the next assault on their dignity arrives. Canadians deserve as much.

Like many of us here, my constituents have approached me in earnest to express their opposition to Bill C-7 and MAID. They ask for their MPs to stand in defence of the rights of people with disabilities, highlighting that it is a discriminatory policy and that Canada should not stand for such discrimination and must not extend euthanasia to people who are not dying. They asked me to stand in defence of the conscience rights of doctors, hundreds of whom are protesting Bill C-7 as being against their oath to protect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a false argument to talk about process being the reason why this legislation is not set to ultimately pass.

I do believe this bill reflects the many years of debate, discussions and consultations that came from the Supreme Court of Canada to the Superior Court of Quebec's most recent decision to literally tens of thousands of Canadians in all regions of our country.

Does the member believe that the Superior Court of Quebec does not have the confidence of the Conservative Party to support this legislation, or at least to allow the legislation to come to a vote so that it could be dealt with before we break?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my Zoom session has exhibited some problems, and I did not fully hear the member for Winnipeg North. I recognized his voice, and I kind of get what he was asking. I will try my best to answer.

I am so privileged and honoured to live in a country that respects the rule of law. Our judicial system is structured in such a way that there is a hierarchy. That is why governments and individuals could appeal to a higher level of court. The Quebec court decision could have been appealed to the Court of Appeal, as well as to the Supreme Court of Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will have one other member ask a question before we have to interrupt. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the importance of conscience protections for physicians, which is why we brought forward amendments to this bill to provide for conscience protections.

The members across the way say, “Nothing to see here. No need for such protections.” They point to a recognition of conscience protections being in the preamble of Bill C-14. Could the member speak to that?

Second, I would note that the Carter decision, paragraph 132 states:

Nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying.

Yet that is happening in Ontario, violating the charter rights of physicians.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my speech I alluded to my father's experience escaping from Communist China. It is a country that does not provide freedom of conscience for its members.

In Canada we do, and that is why we treasure our freedom so much. We must not force people to act under duress and against their conscience.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will still have a minute and a half left for questions and answers the next time this matter is before the House.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, I included the following preamble in this bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

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

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

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

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

How will his bill change any of that?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 24 states the following:

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

Article 25 reads as follows:

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

Article 26 states the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me quote Mr. Bouchard:

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

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

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

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

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

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