Mr. Speaker, before we talk about multiculturalism, before we even start to talk about immigration, and before we talk about policy, I think we need to talk about one basic point: What is a society that stands up for itself? A society is not just administrative areas. A society is more than an economy and monetary relations. It is also more than just a merging of individuals. A society is a shared history, culture, references and common standards, as well as a collective memory that brings generations together.
Without all those things, there are just borders and territories within which people happen to live. Multiculturalism in Canada did not emerge in a vacuum. It took shape within a country that, at the time, had a clear sense of its own identity. That country was firmly rooted in its institutions, confident in its values, and proud of its history, despite its imperfections. There was a turning point in 1988 when multiculturalism was enacted into law. Multiculturalism was codified in law under the leadership of a great Quebecker, who was proud of his Irish roots and profoundly grateful for the welcome the Quebec nation had extended his family.
Brian Mulroney did not regard support for immigration as a repudiation of Canada, its history, or its values. He saw multiculturalism as an affirmation of what Canada was all about. To Brian Mulroney, Canada held a promise that Canadians from all walks of life would have equal rights and equal opportunities. However, this equality was based on something that was very fundamental, and which continues to be so: a nation that was confident, a nation of two founding peoples and two official languages.
Brian Mulroney embodied Canada. He respected Quebec, its autonomy, its identity, and its culture. He was a Quebecker and a Canadian, and there was no contradiction there. He was open to the world, but also deeply rooted. His vision was not one of erasure but of integration. Newcomers were told they could become Canadian, regardless of where they came from. However, they were also told, albeit implicitly, that they were integrating an existing society with its own set of values and that they were taking part in a grand project. I believe this makes all the difference.
Yes, societies evolve. They change over time. They acquire new understanding. However, there is a key difference between evolving and relinquishing one's own identity. A mature society does not destroy its history. Instead, it builds upon the history, rectifies its shortcomings, and fortifies it. It articulates its history, understands it in its context, and learns from it. Erasing history does not create a more just society. It makes it weaker because a society that does not know where it came from can also not know what it has to share, and quite often, it lacks a clear path forward.
I have a simple analogy. If a business advertises a product as solid, reliable, accessible and affordable, but it delivers a product that is broken, expensive and ineffective, customers will inevitably be disappointed. However, the customers can hardly be blamed for believing in the product and buying it. The customers are not to blame for buying the product. The one to blame is the one who sold the product. That is exactly what has been happening over the past 10 years since the Liberal government came to power. It has been selling Canada as a welcoming, fair and inclusive society capable of integrating newcomers, a society full of promise with a reputation for making the people who live here happy. However, what has this government actually delivered? It has delivered a country that is unsure about its identity, a country that is ashamed of its past, and a citizenship that has been stripped of all meaning and reduced to a mere administrative formality, if that, because it can be completed online.
Canada's intake capacity is overloaded. In a nutshell, this is a country that says that living within its borders is all it takes to be Canadian. I want to be clear: We cannot welcome people if our intake capacity is not respected and if the product we are providing does not deliver in terms of housing, services, integration and social cohesion. Ignoring these realities is neither generous nor welcoming. It is irresponsible.
Everything was working very well under Prime Minister Harper. Why? It is because Canadian identity was part of daily life. It is because national pride was not something to be ashamed about. Citizenship had meaning and a purpose, and it had its limits. Integration was a given. It was also under Stephen Harper that Quebec was recognized as a nation within a united Canada in 2006. This recognition as a nation is fundamental. It does not erase multiculturalism; rather, it gives it a foundation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The one allows the other to thrive.
La Malbaie in Montmorency—Charlevoix is a great example of a place that knows how to welcome and integrate newcomers. From its origins as a French colony, the region experienced substantial development under British governance and opened up to the world, attracting notable figures from American society. La Malbaie is now a global example of integration, history and culture and a source of immense pride for the francophonie. It is known around the world. This kind of success story and high-profile example could have served as an inspiration, but instead, a radical change has taken place over the past 10 years. Canada has been described as a postnational country, a country without a core identity, a country where pride is becoming suspect. The Canadian government has chosen incessant apologies over pride, erasure over explanations.
There is a time and place for everything. There are customs for every period. Of course, the past can be difficult. It has left us divided. The English and the French did not greet one another with hugs and high fives. History is written by the victors. There used to be a clear divide between French Canadians and English Canadians, but those days are behind us. Adversity has given rise to a proud people, an inspiring people, rooted in their history and strengthened by their culture.
I also did some research on the common values shared by Canadians and newcomers. Contrary to what some alarmist rhetoric might suggest, immigrants largely support the foundations of our Canadian institutions, including things like respect for the law, gender equality, democracy, human dignity, hard work and responsibility. Indeed, newcomers are not afraid of hard work.
Immigrants are not asking for a society without rules. They are asking for a coherent society and, more importantly, they want to understand what they are joining. If we cannot provide them with benchmarks, they will find their own. This is not because of a lack of respect, but rather a lack of leadership. Integration does not begin by erasing the person being welcomed, but rather by clarifying the values of the community that individual is joining.
Quebeckers know something fundamental about identity. They know that identity is not kept alive by chance. They know that culture must be passed on or it disappears. They know that adversity builds character. French Canadians fought to exist. They know their history. They know their culture. They know who they are and who they want to continue to be. That is exactly why they have what it takes to inspire Canada, which has lost its identity under the postnational Liberal regime.
Quebec can play an influential role, not to divide but to remind Canada that unity starts with clarity, pride and recognition of the past. To move forward, we must stop always trying to relive the past, reopen old wounds and bring up mistakes of the past. We need to learn, grow and inspire.
In tough times, division sometimes seems like the easy answer, whether because of hopelessness or sheer weariness. However, division weakens, fragments policies, pits identities against one another and reiterates differences. Canada does not need more division. It needs consistency, continuity and unity. We need to be more united than ever because there is strength in unity.
I want to conclude with a universal and very current metaphor: the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games celebrate perseverance, work, failures that lead to victory, collective support and the idea of never giving up. Athletes do often fall, doubt themselves and fail, but they stay focused. They get up again and use their struggles to motivate themselves, to learn, to grow and to become better athletes. No uplifting film has ever been made based on a character who has had an easy life. No story of a person who has changed lives has ever been written based on somebody who has had everything handed to them. A life without hardships is hardly inspiring.
People like Marchessault, Yanni Gourde, Mathieu Olivier, Georges St‑Pierre, Ann‑Renée Desbiens and Joannie Rochette all faced adversity in their lives. Today, they inspire the next generation of athletes with their stories. The same applies to a country. It is a mistake to erase or forget stories. Being welcoming does not mean we need to disappear or step aside. Being open does not require us to erase ourselves.
It is in knowing who we are, taking charge of our history and respecting our ability to welcome others while safeguarding our values that we can transmit our values and welcome newcomers with dignity. I hope that the spirit of the Olympic Games inspires us and reassures us so we can build a united, confident and proud Canada together.
