Mario Simard
Jonquière, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another. For example, in his campaign platform, the phrase “climate change” appeared 28 times, while the word “pipeline” did not appear even once, yet it is his pipeline that takes priority.”
“There is something glaringly obvious when we look at this bill and past legislation in the context of Canadian federalism. I do not need to talk about predatory federalism, which we have often seen and involves an encroachment on areas of jurisdiction, but there is something glaringly obvious in the fact that the federal government has re…”
“It provides a direct transfer to the provinces, as we have been calling for, rather than, as is often the case with the federal government, a proliferation of top-down structures and criteria imposed by Ottawa, without Ottawa necessarily being familiar with the specific challenges faced by the provinces and municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel , the one they call “the MP with the golden voice”, just like little Joselito, and whom the people of Alto call “le député du petit train de l'amour”. It is a pleasure to speak today to express the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-26 .”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a new one. I did not see that coming. Equalization payments must be calculated on a per capita basis, and there are more people in Quebec than in Manitoba.”
“Virtually all of the public services governments are required to provide are delivered by the provinces and Quebec, yet the federal government's tax base allows it to collect 60% of the total tax revenue.”
The complete record
Every one of 523 lines we hold for Mario Simard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my Conservative colleagues since earlier this evening. I know that they are well aware that there is a separation between the legislative and judicial branches, but they seem to be questioning the judges' ability to use discretion with regard to pre-trial custody. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Does he agree that a judge is able to determine whether or not pre-trial custody is appropriate? There are some examples in the bill that are quite troubling. I am thinking in particular of car theft. It seems to me that judges should be responsible for determining whether pre-trial custody is necessary for this type of crime.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague earlier. He was talking about the ideology of the Liberals, who have unleashed fear in our streets. Those are my colleague's words. I think we need to be careful with ideology. If we engage in alarmist rhetoric, we could needlessly elicit fear in people and end up with laws ill-suited to the public's needs. Sometimes I get the impression that my Conservative colleagues' assertions in this regard are a bit far-fetched. I have one fairly simple question for my colleague. The bill contains an item that is problematic for us: the reverse onus. In some cases, the reverse onus would even apply to auto theft under the bill. Does auto theft really require a reverse onus for pre-trial custody or remand? I think not. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Liberals have been had too. Apparently they believed the Prime Minister when he said there would be a deal with the Americans by July and then said there would be one this fall. There is no deal, and it is now clear that the Liberal Party will not be saving anyone. This is a rude awakening. It hurts, but they need to understand that our economy is in urgent need of protection. Our forestry industry is calling for support to cope with countervailing duties. It needs a wage subsidy. When will the Liberals take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, our forestry industry and its workers came to Parliament Hill to demand that Ottawa support them at long last in dealing with the Americans. They are calling on the federal government to advance them 50% of any future countervailing duties that have to be paid. This is a no-cost measure, considering that the U.S. tariffs are illegal and that our producers will eventually be reimbursed. However, it is critical for the survival of our sawmills. Yesterday, the minister showed some openness. It is up to her to act on that openness. Will she respond favourably to the industry's legitimate request?”
“Mr. Speaker, if Donald Trump follows through with his threat to increase tariffs by 10%, Quebec's forestry industry will be hit harder than any other industry in Canada, and yet Ottawa is doing nothing. The financial assistance it promised back in August has yet to be released. Our workers are still not protected through any wage subsidies, and our businesses are still paying billions of dollars in illegal countervailing duties, without any support from the federal government. The lumber industry in Quebec represents 130,000 jobs in 900 municipalities. When will the Liberals understand that urgent action is needed?”
“Mr. Speaker, the forestry industry, forestry workers and municipalities were on Parliament Hill this morning. Representatives from Chantiers Chibougamau, Domtar, Arbec, the Association québécoise des entrepreneurs forestiers, Unifor, the reeve of the Antoine-Labelle RCM, and the mayor of Ferme-Neuve are all here to demand that Ottawa advance them 50% of the countervailing duties that will have to be paid, pending reimbursement at the end of the dispute. They expect the federal government to finally show its support for the industry. When will this government respond?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us that no one could have done better than the Prime Minister in the negotiations with the United States. At the moment, there is absolutely nothing on the table. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he was better than sliced bread and that he would solve all these problems once he took office. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is still talking about elbows up, which means nothing in French. To a francophone, elbows up means drinking to forget. To me, the forestry sector tariffs are a message from the government telling us to drink up and forget because it cannot do a darn thing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to my colleague's comment that every party here agrees with the government and that we are just opposing for the sake of opposing. There is something that my colleague has not considered. Parliament is very poorly consulted on trade agreements. We have no mechanism that would give us a say during the negotiation period or the ratification period of trade agreements. Bill C-228 would change that. I would like my colleague to speak to the House's lack of transparency when it comes to trade agreements.”
“Whenever anyone in the forestry sector asks the federal government for support, they are referred to Global Affairs Canada and nothing ever gets done. When it comes to forestry, they are so afraid of the United States that any government action becomes paralyzed. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this subject.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to listen to my colleague, who has thoughtful and well documented comments to share. It is always a pleasure. I understand what he meant when he spoke about the decrease in exports caused by Canada's lack of competitiveness. However, I do not think this lack of competitiveness is the result of taxes alone. We need only look at our forestry sector, which is going through an unprecedented crisis. The forestry sector does not generate enough added value. We send products and goods to the United States, and that makes us dependent on the American market. In the past 20 years, the federal government has never once shown any desire to support the forestry sector and help the industry to evolve and create increasingly more added value.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a question that has sadly gone unanswered all day by my Liberal colleagues. Canada probably has one of the least democratic legislative assemblies when it comes to trade agreements and international treaties. The House does not have the means to make a sufficiently informed decision when it comes to ratifying these types of treaties, a situation that Bill C‑228 seeks to correct. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any appetite for this on the government side. I would like to ask my colleague if she is comfortable with the fact that the majority of trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors, without the House of Commons being informed of what is happening. I would like to know what she thinks of this.”
“Mr. Speaker, all morning long, I have been hearing about market diversification. We know very well that market diversification is not something that can be hastily cobbled together. It will take several years to replace part of the U.S. market. Right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Including the latest 10% increase threatened by Donald Trump, the forestry sector is facing 55% in countervailing duties and tariffs. No industry can survive with a deficit margin of 55%. Immediate federal government support is needed if we want the forestry sector to have any players left standing at the end of this crisis. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, many Liberal members have been talking about market diversification. I understand that this is essential, but right now, the forestry sector is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Without swift government action, market diversification will simply not exist because there will be no players left in the forestry industry. I would like my colleague to talk about what his government plans to do for the forestry industry in the short term. Is he aware that this sector is going through an unprecedented situation, which could wipe out many forestry companies in the coming months or even weeks?”
“Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague means when he talks about open dialogue to develop new markets, but the big problem is that Canada is one of the countries with the poorest democratic framework for studying this type of treaty, as our Bill C‑228 clearly demonstrates. I have a very simple question for my colleague. Does he think it is appropriate that this legislative body is hardly consulted when trade agreements are being drafted and negotiated?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to come back to Bill C‑228 . I would like my colleague to comment on something that is unique to Canada, which is likely one of the least democratic places when it comes to international treaties. Quebec has set up a mechanism for examining international treaties in its National Assembly. Canada has been slow to do the same. What we are doing today is simply ratifying the agreement. As my former leader used to say, we are like voting fodder. We cannot necessarily take a position on this. I would like to hear my colleagues' thoughts on the undemocratic nature of the Canadian system.”
“Mr. Speaker, voicing concern is one thing, but taking action is another. The forestry industry was already at the breaking point before the new tariffs were announced on Saturday. No other industry has taken a harder hit from Washington than this one. Even so, the financial assistance announced by the Liberals in August is still on hold nearly three months later. There are still no wage subsidies to protect jobs and there is no rescue plan. To top it all off, Ottawa has cut measures to facilitate access to employment insurance. The crisis is not over; it is getting worse. When will the Liberals step up for the forestry industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Donald Trump announced a 10% tariff increase for our forestry industry. That 10% is on top of the 10% we have been subject to since October 14 and the 35% countervailing duties that already exist. That is a 55% tariff in total. One thing is clear: Washington wants to destroy our industry. This situation calls for a rescue package that includes financial support and wage subsidies to protect jobs, and the industry needs it now. How is it that 55% tariffs is not enough for the government to take action for the forestry industry?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech. We know that things are tough right now when it comes to international co-operation because of the current global context. I also know that my colleague is working closely with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean on this issue. I would like to hear his thoughts on an amendment proposed by the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean to ensure that the smaller centres of international co-operation and solidarity in the regions are not overlooked. They may be smaller in scale than the ones in major urban centres, but they are just as essential. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.”
“These are people with expertise who are keeping viable businesses in the regions, thereby generating considerable economic activity. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the observations my colleague raised about the Conservatives' negligence in matters of immigration. I am sorry, I meant to say “Liberals”. I quite agree with him regarding asylum seekers, and Quebec has taken in more than its share of asylum seekers without being able to benefit from the money that should have come back to us from Ottawa. However, I would like my colleague to elaborate on temporary foreign workers. The Leader of the Opposition made some unfortunate comments about temporary foreign workers stealing the jobs of good Canadians. I do not know about my colleague, but in my riding, that was very negatively perceived because many people in the manufacturing sector, for example, need these skilled workers, who are so much more than just cheap labour.”
“Assault weapons have been made illegal, but hunting weapons have not. The duty of a legislator is to provide information to the public, and we have to be careful about what information we are providing.”
“Madam Speaker, I am inclined to offer my colleague a word of advice. It is perfectly acceptable to be critical of a bill, but one still has to keep one foot in reality. When I heard my colleague talking about fentanyl and supervised consumption sites earlier, his comments did not in any way reflect the message that we are getting from the experts who are trying to help people struggling with addictions. During the election campaign, we supported a supervised consumption site that presented us with a lot of scientific evidence to show that these sites are an indispensable public health tool. Furthermore, I do not think that people are taking fentanyl at these sites. It is the same thing with firearms. No one has been able to give me an example of a hunting weapon that has been made illegal.”
“During CUSMA negotiations, this issue could have been resolved quickly if the House had been asked, and perhaps even if Quebec City had been consulted to find out what was important to them in trade negotiations.”
“Madam Speaker, what an intelligent question. I think that is fantastic. The answer is yes. During a recent discussion that my party caucus had with Daniel Johnson, who was premier of Quebec and also a trade agreement negotiator, Mr. Johnson told us how dysfunctional Canada's approach was, since it does not involve the terms of negotiation being validated by its houses of assembly. In the United States, the negotiating mandate comes from politicians. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Canada, which for a long time sidelined the much-debated issue of supply management; not only is it essential to Quebec, but it also serves the interests of other agricultural producers in Canada. It took a lot of painstaking work by the Bloc Québécois to get supply management on the federal government's legislative agenda. We had to fight with senators.”
“If the government was in the habit of consulting elected officials who are aware of the realities and the needs on the ground, this type of problem might not happen.”
“Madam Speaker, we need to focus on treaties that have a slightly broader scope. Why have all the other countries, like the European countries and the United States, decided to have a more democratic treaty-making process? I suppose it is because they believe in the role of elected officials when it comes to international treaties. We have seen some major blunders in the past. I was first elected to the House in 2019, when Canada had just renegotiated CUSMA. One sector that was left out was aluminum. Aluminum was the only sector that was not protected under CUSMA, even though steel was. A Canadian negotiator candidly told us that this situation had come about because the problem was not addressed at the negotiating table.”
“I am sure that my Conservative colleagues will be pleased to hear this. It was in 2008 that the government outlined a new policy requiring all treaties signed by Canada and other states or entities to be tabled in the House before being ratified. (1745) However, the tabling of treaties in the House remains a courtesy, similar to the courtesy shown by the Chair in letting me know that my speaking time is over. I am looking forward to hearing my colleagues' opinions. I believe that this is a bill that calls for greater democracy and transparency. I hope everyone shows such good faith.”
“It is kept informed of the discussions and must approve the text before ratification. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament and a mandate from the member states represented on the European Council. It is clear that, in many countries, parliaments adopt treaties through a far more democratic process. Furthermore, in some European countries, the adoption of treaties is considered important enough to be enshrined in their constitutions. That is the case in France, Germany, Denmark and Italy. Pursuant to its constitution, the U.S. must obtain legislative approval for certain categories of international agreements before they can be ratified. In terms of transparency, Canada made some progress under the Harper government.”
“This mechanism allows the entire assembly, not just the executive branch, to express opinions. My colleagues will see that Bill C‑228 is largely based on the practice in Quebec, which requires that parliamentary approvals be published, and that is what Bill C‑228 seeks to replicate. It is also based on what is done in most European countries. Canada is lagging behind when it comes to transparency, democracy and treaties, and that can be seen simply by looking at what is done in Europe and the United States. Parliamentary approval of treaties is the norm rather than the exception in Europe. Belgium even requires that regions and communities give their approval before it ratifies a treaty that affects their jurisdictions. Obviously, Bill C‑228 does not go that far. In the United States, Congress itself adopts the negotiating mandate.”
“I will see what my colleagues have to say about that. Lastly, civil society would have to be consulted by means of a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties. Quite frankly, when it comes to treaties, Canada is one of the least democratic countries in the industrialized world. The bill we are introducing is somewhat inspired by what is being done in Quebec. In Quebec, there is an obligation to table and publish treaties. This obligation is set out in the Act respecting the Ministère des Relations internationales. This Quebec law also provides that the ratification of an international agreement or the making of an order cannot take place with respect to an important international commitment until the commitment is approved by the National Assembly.”
“Either we approve them, or we face an election. Once again, this gives the executive branch a disproportionate amount of leverage. What Bill C-228 would do is make the treaty-making process a little more democratic in five ways, which I will summarize briefly. First, it would require all treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Second, it would require the government to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying a treaty to give the House an opportunity to consider it. Third, treaties would have to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Fourth, it would add a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying a major treaty, which I defined earlier. The requirement to obtain the opinion of the House is not binding.”
“Public debate is possible only after negotiations have ended and the text of the agreement is signed. That means it cannot be changed, whether by civil society, which can lobby elected officials, or by the elected officials themselves, whose ability to make changes is quite minimal. (1740) In short, Parliament is essentially relegated to the role of a rubber-stamp chamber. It does not get to study the treaty itself. It merely adopts the changes to the laws that allow the treaty to come into force. During the review of the bill, any amendment that would affect the draft treaty is even ruled out of order. Worse still, the government does its job with a knife to our throats, since laws to implement trade treaties generally affect taxation, which means they involve a confidence vote. That makes it impossible to change them.”
“This is the stage where the countries involved declare that their domestic laws are consistent with the requirements of the agreement and that they agree, under international law, to be bound by the obligations set out in the agreement. This stage comes under the exclusive authority of the executive branch. If I can summarize, all these stages show that the process for ratifying international treaties is clearly undemocratic. In Canada, cabinet adopts the mandate unilaterally and keeps it secret. Federal negotiators report exclusively to the executive branch and do not have to report to anyone about the progress of discussions. The government alone brings the negotiations to a close and signs the final text of an agreement before disclosing it to anyone.”
“That is the only step that Parliament is currently involved in. However, it is important to note that Parliament currently does not become seized with the treaty itself and cannot propose changes to any aspect of it. The treaty is unalterable, and parliamentarians only consider amendments to existing laws that will allow it to come into force. In fact, the very minimal impact we can have is through our control, so to speak, over existing legislation. Since trade treaty implementation legislation affects tariffs, which have a financial impact, a confidence vote is usually involved. That is another problem. If we refuse to accept a treaty tabled in the House, Parliament could potentially be dissolved. This gives the government a disproportionate amount of leverage. The fifth and final stage is ratification.”
“Generally speaking, “major treaties” means those that require the enactment of a federal law, confer new powers on the government, impose a significant financial obligation, result in a change to Canada's boundaries, the imposition of sanctions, or a transfer of jurisdiction to international institutions, affect the government's jurisdiction, or concern international trade. As an opposition party, we are clearly able to define what a major treaty is, yet the government is still unable to define what a project in the national interest is. That was just a friendly reminder. The fourth step is implementation. At this stage, countries change their internal operations to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the agreement. We are talking about changes to laws, regulations and government programs.”
“This is when countries wrap up negotiations, say they have agreed on a final text and commit to doing whatever their legislators need to do to ratify it. From that point on, there is a relatively final text that can be looked at. That is where Bill C‑228 comes in. It would require the text of major treaties to be tabled in the House of Commons. Then, after committee scrutiny, the House would have to vote on those treaties. Here is how we would define “major treaty”. Members can probably see where I am going. What we want to see is a treaty approval process comparable to the legislative process.”
“(1735) Cabinet alone makes that decision, even if the proposed treaty deals with matters that are normally within the purview of Parliament and even if the treaty affects matters under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Anyone can see that this is undemocratic. After the mandate comes negotiation. This is when countries try to agree on a text that works for both of them. As we all know, this horse-trading, the entire negotiation process, takes place behind closed doors. Quebec and the provinces are generally not part of the negotiating teams, although they are often consulted and kept informed. Parliament, however, is rarely kept apprised of the status of ongoing negotiations and discussions. The third step is signing the agreement.”
“I would like to explain how international treaties are ratified. There are five main steps, and within those five main steps, there are a number of undemocratic processes that this bill attempts to fix. The first step is to adopt a mandate. That is the starting point. Cabinet decides to start negotiations for a treaty and gives a mandate to the negotiator, setting objectives to be reached and red lines that must not be crossed. This is the mandate. The decision to start negotiations is generally public. We know that when the government wants to renegotiate CUSMA or develop new international treaty agreements, it is generally clear about its intentions. However, the negotiating mandate is not made public. The public remains in the dark about what will be negotiated and how.”
“Furthermore, while any legislation passed in this Parliament could be amended in the next Parliament, the same cannot be said for treaties. Since they are essentially contracts between countries, they cannot be changed without the other country's consent. Meticulous and transparent review of treaties is even more essential given the relative permanence of treaties. Laws are passed after a well-established process that includes detailed study in committee after public hearings. Parliament, on the other hand, is largely excluded from the treaty-making process. That is not necessarily the case in other jurisdictions, and it is not how it works in other countries. In short, let me be clear: If the people's representatives are left out of the process, then the people are also being left out when it comes to ratifying treaties.”
“These are all examples of different kinds of international treaties. Treaties affect all aspects of society, including taxation, investment, exports, environmental protection, human rights, labour law, international trade, government procurement and standards to be applied to marketable products. These treaties clearly have a considerable impact on all aspects of life, both economic and political. I would like to point out that, in many cases, treaties are more important than laws. In today's world, who would deny that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has a greater impact on the people of Canada than the law governing Parliament's official poet? I picked a law at random. The current tariff crisis is demonstrating the consequences that a free trade agreement can have.”
“More specifically, Bill C‑228 provides for the following: systematic tabling of treaties in the House of Commons; a requirement to wait 21 days after tabling before ratifying treaties in order to give the House an opportunity to consider them; and publication of treaties in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will define what we mean by “major treaty” later on, but the bill proposes a requirement to obtain the advice of the House before ratifying major treaties and a requirement to consult civil society through a parliamentary committee before Parliament votes on major treaties, which I will come back to later. Canada is currently bound by 4,400 international treaties. These are treaties in the broad sense and include agreements, protocols, conventions and amendments to existing treaties.”
“Bill C‑228. Second reading moved that Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (prior review of treaties by Parliament) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to my bill, C-228. I will read the summary of the bill: This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to add certain requirements for the tabling in Parliament of documents relating to treaties entered into by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's comments are consistent, at least, as are those of the Conservative Party. As I mentioned earlier, the government has repeatedly criticized the Bloc Québécois for ideological reasons because we had proposals that were aimed at tightening the rules on temporary immigration. Now I see my Liberal friends criticizing the Conservatives for their leaders 's comments on security, once again, on the basis of ideology. The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Would it not be better to debate this calmly, with both sides, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, setting their populist ideas aside?”
“Mr. Speaker, we talked a little bit today about part 8 of the bill, which includes some of the demands that the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly made concerning asylum seekers. However, there is something missing from the bill, and I would like to know where my colleague and the Conservative Party stand on it. Do the Conservatives agree that Quebec has welcomed more than its share of asylum seekers and that there should be a mechanism to ensure a better distribution of asylum seekers across Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member clearly showed that the government has been slow to act, particularly with regard to part 8, which deals with temporary migrants. As my colleague rightly pointed out, during the previous Parliament, when the Bloc Québécois highlighted the issues with foreign students and asylum seekers, the government did terrible damage to our reputation. We were called all sorts of names. When we made sensible proposals on immigration, the Liberal government took such an ideological stance that it could not listen to us, and now it realizes that our proposals were just common sense, to quote another opposition leader. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily want to defend what my Conservative colleague just said, but as the saying goes, the past predicts the future. We have seen the Liberals forcefully and vehemently state on several occasions that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports were unfair and then refuse to act on them. I wonder if they will do the same thing to someone in charge of alerting us to unfortunate situations experienced by first nations. I would like my colleague to talk to us about that. I would like him to perhaps be a little more frank and direct about what the government will do when it receives reports that directly contradict its policies.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very cogent and interesting speech. If the past is any indiction, I would say that we have often seen the government roundly criticize the reports of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was at least able to inform the House of the government's excesses. My concern is that the first nations commissioner will suffer the same fate. I would like my colleague to tell us about the possible impact of this new commissioner's reports to the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have tried many times to get a response from my Conservative colleagues but without success. Maybe I will have a better chance this time. Bill C‑9 continues to include a religious exemption for hate symbols. Does my colleague not find this illogical? Would the Conservative Party be willing to review this situation, perhaps in committee, in which two types of rights are granted? This bill allows the use of hate symbols for religious purposes, but not for political purposes. It makes no sense. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, who was telling us that there should be minimum sentences for vandalizing churches or synagogues. I can understand the principle behind that, but let us take it a step further. I wonder if my colleague would agree that the religious exemption for displaying hate symbols should be repealed. Does he agree with me that the religious exemption should be repealed in this bill?”
“Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, and I am concerned about this situation, specifically that some of the most despicable aspects of American politics can sometimes slide into Canadian politics, particularly among groups that have a narrow interpretation of nationalism and do not always have good intentions. However, there is another issue that cannot be ignored, and that is the rise of religious fundamentalism. This rise of religious fundamentalism exists in Europe and pretty much everywhere. I wonder if my colleague is concerned, as I am, that right now, people can brandish symbols of hatred if it is in the name of religion.”