Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, I have not done an in-depth analysis of how citizenship is granted around the world, but I know that there are several different approaches and several possible ideologies. In my view, what we proposed is reasonable. I believe my Conservative Party colleagues agree with us, since we voted together on these amendments. I urge the government to listen to what was said in committee and, above all, to reflect carefully on this. The government is about to grant citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 150,000 people who do not live here. They will not even be required to know French or English, nor will they be required to have even a basic knowledge of the country, since the government does not want to incorporate a citizenship test. This measure does not even require a security check.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would say that there is a big difference between when Bill 101 was passed and the bill that is before us, which we wanted to amend. The same applies to the issue of secularism, a subject we could no doubt discuss. The main difference is that Quebec does not have a majority in this House. We do not have a majority, so the rest of Canada will decide for us and determine the criteria for obtaining citizenship. In an independent country, we will decide for ourselves the criteria for granting citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I already gave an explanation in my speech. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice's decision will apply by default unless we pass the bill before us today. What I said, and what my colleague needs to remember, is that the amendments we proposed were reasonable. Requiring knowledge of French is not too much to ask, nor is it too much to ask someone to spend three out of five years in the country over their lifetime. They could attend CEGEP or university or work on contract for a few years to obtain their citizenship. It boggles my mind that every time we moved a perfectly reasonable amendment, it was voted down. Members simply voted against every amendment at every opportunity. To me, this points to the government's intransigence, and that is completely unreasonable.”
“It seems logical to me that citizenship should not be given to someone who does not speak the language of the country. We agree with the 1,095 days, but for immigrants, it is 1,095 days over a period of five years. Why not apply the same requirement in this case, since the government took inspiration from this criterion for its bill? Also, why should there not be an assessment to check whether the person poses a threat to national security? Why should there not be an annual report tabled in Parliament about how many people obtained citizenship under this law? All of these are proposals that we wanted to put forward. Unfortunately, the government teamed up with the NDP and dismissed them out of hand. It was so insulting of the government to act that way.”
“On that subject, we might ask ourselves this: In which riding would these people be allowed to vote? No one knows. However, we do know that there are a number of ridings where the results are often very close. We saw that in the last election. Some ridings are won by a whisker. The government would like us to meekly agree and let this bill go through as easily as a letter goes through the mail, as the saying goes in Quebec, although these days, it is no secret that the mail does not go through all the time, especially during an election. For the Bloc Québécois, this simply did not work. We believe that citizenship is not a prize to be given out in a box of cereal or handed out like candy on Halloween. We believe it should be taken seriously, so we proposed some amendments. Knowledge of French or English should be a basic requirement.”
“We were being asked to vote on a bill without knowing what the repercussions of the bill would be. That basically sums it up. We asked the question again. The Parliamentary Budget Officer seemed to have done a bit of work on the topic, because he estimated that the bill could affect 150,000 people. That is not an insignificant number. It is not a handful of individuals or even a few hundred. It is a lot of people. Let me also be clear that in the event of an international conflict, those 150,000 people who do not live here would need us to charter planes to go and get them. As Canadian citizens, those people would have to be defended and looked after. That also means 150,000 people who could potentially obtain a passport, as well as the right to vote.”
“A descendant of a Canadian citizen would therefore have to have resided in Canada for 1,095 days, the equivalent of three years. The government itself admitted that it looked to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when it established this criterion. We thought that sounded a bit lenient, but we decided we would do our homework by studying the bill, asking questions and sending the bill to committee. At committee, we heard from witnesses, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We asked questions, such as how many people would be affected by Bill C-3 , how many more citizens the bill would create, and how many more people would be entitled to vote. The government side told us that they did not know, but that there would not be very many, a hundred, perhaps a thousand. The government had no figures to give us.”
“What we are examining now is basically an ultimatum from the government and, indirectly, from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This is partly because an election was called, but it is also because if we choose not to define the conditions under which a citizen born outside Canada qualifies for citizenship, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling will apply by default. The onus is on us, and the government is asking that we support the bill before us. (1100) When we examined this bill, the first question that came to mind for the Bloc Québécois was this: What criterion does the government wish to impose? The criterion it wishes to impose is based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that a person must have resided in Canada for 1,095 days.”
“Thus, the current rule setting out the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent would no longer exist. There would no longer be any limits on citizenship by descent. This means that it would be unlimited until the end of time, even 100 years, 1,000 years or as much as 10,000 years from now, and even if it involves the descendants of the descendants of people who no longer live here. They would still get citizenship. That appears to be the Ontario Superior Court of Justice's view, unless the government intervenes to counter it. Today, we are debating Bill C-3 , which is actually the very same as Bill C-71 . It is a carbon copy of the former bill. Although a bill was introduced prior to the election, an election was called before we could resolve the matter.”
“In the court's view, the first-generation limit on citizenship is unconstitutional. The Liberals had a choice: They could challenge the ruling, or they could accept it and amend the law. The Liberals chose not to challenge that ruling. What they said, indirectly, is that they were in agreement with the court's ruling. The court also decided to give Parliament six months to define what constitutes a substantial connection with Canada. Everyone knows what happened over the past few months. There was an election, and it took longer because of that. The new deadline is November 20, just a few weeks from now. What will happen if Parliament does not comply? Since the judge ruled it is unconstitutional, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling would become the law if there is no challenge to the ruling.”
“If a person has citizenship and goes to live somewhere else, unless they no longer want it and give it up, they do not lose their citizenship because they went to live somewhere else. This has always been the case. Secondly, the law as it now stands allows citizenship to be passed on to the first generation born and living outside the country. If I leave the country to go and live abroad and I have children, I can pass my citizenship down to my children. That is the law as it currently stands. Today, we are discussing the possibility of expanding that right so that not only the first generation of persons born abroad, but also the second and subsequent generations, may obtain Canadian citizenship. We are having this debate because the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the current law is too restrictive.”
“I would like to clarify this, as it is creating some confusion, given that what we are discussing is citizenship. Immigrants are people coming into the country, and emigrants are those leaving the country. This bill does not apply to immigrants, it applies to emigrants. That is the difference. An emigrant leaves the country and will no longer be living here. The purpose of this bill is to define the criteria that should be applied for granting citizenship to the descendants of people who have left the country. This applies to everyone, regardless of religion, skin colour or any other personal characteristics, with no distinction as to race, ancestry or anything else. It is equal for everyone, without exception. As for the current state of the law, it already allows two things. Firstly, people who leave the country keep their citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his very appropriate intervention. I wanted to share my time with the member for Shefford , who will certainly have a lot to say about the bill as well. As I was saying, Bill C‑3 applies equally to everyone. It applies to anyone who has obtained citizenship by birth or naturalization, whether or not they are an immigrant or, like me, someone who was born here and whose family has been citizens for several generations. The bill will also apply to me. If I decide to leave Canada to live elsewhere and my descendants do not return to live here, this bill will apply to them just as it would apply to any other immigrant. The notion that these proposals are anti-immigrant is simply wrong. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion we are having today.”
“After all, they have simply discredited that person. We refused to let that intimidate us. We asked questions and even proposed amendments, even though this upset the Liberals on the other side. What is even more interesting in these circumstances is that the bill is not even an immigration bill; it is an emigration bill. The bill would apply equally to everyone, to any descendant of a person who has citizenship and decides to go live abroad—”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C‑3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I will focus on the all-important issue of citizenship, because that is the crux of today's debate. First and foremost, I would like to debunk some myths. Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑3, the Liberals and the NDP have repeatedly attempted to demonize the intentions of the opposition, whether Bloc Québécois or Conservative. They have accused the Bloc and the Conservatives of being a bunch of racists and xenophobes, of fuelling anti-immigration rhetoric and so on. Now, I have to say that the Bloc Québécois is used to hearing such accusations. This is nothing new. We know that others often use such accusations to shut down criticism by discrediting the speaker. They can then avoid having to debate the other person or justify their position.”
“Mr. Speaker, to sum up, what my colleague is telling us is that we should adopt anything and everything on the pretext that the deadline set by the superior court is looming. I beg to differ with his view of things, especially since work was done in committee and proposals were put forward. The committee did some serious work. One aspect had to do with citizenship applicants' knowledge of French or English. Why is that a problem for my colleague?”
“Madam Speaker, let us be clear, if not for the Bloc Québécois, nothing would ever have happened. We presented 10 solutions to resolve the Driver Inc. issue. The Liberals are implementing one of them and acting as though everything is fixed. There are nine left to go. There is still no federal inquiry. Temporary immigrants are still getting permission to incorporate. Dating sharing between governments is still not happening. So much the better if the Liberals are cracking down on tax cheats, but the core of the problem concerns dangerous drivers ignoring the rules of the road on our streets. When will Ottawa finally get serious?”
“Madam Speaker, after years of wilful blindness, Ottawa is finally taking action on the Driver Inc. scam, but it is not doing nearly enough. We were told that 100,000 inspections had been done in the trucking industry, but in the end, the government was forced to admit that it did only 1,000, not 100,000. That is one hundred times less. When we pressed the government further, it finally admitted that it had not done 1,000 inspections, but rather 650. The rest were more like outreach. As for any fines issued, they were never paid. It is a good thing that ridicule never killed anyone, but Driver Inc. drivers do. When will the government get serious about tackling this problem?”
“I would like to congratulate the director, Marie-Claude Malo, who was once my day camp counsellor, Carole Chamberland, chair of the board of directors, and everyone who has made La Piaule a place for young people to meet, share, listen, support, and, above all, get involved over the years. I wish the MDJ a happy 50th anniversary.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to mark the 50th anniversary of the Maison des jeunes de Boucherville, or MDJ. It all started in 1973 when a group of young people dreamed of a opening a youth centre in Boucherville. The community granted their wish, and it was such a success that the facilities have expanded and modernized several times. Today, more than 1,200 young people from Boucherville regularly visit the MDJ, not to mention all those who participate in its many activities. I myself was a big fan of Pendragon's live action role playing games when I was a teenager.”
“Mr. Speaker, during question period on October 6, I asked the Minister of Jobs a question about the Driver Inc. scam. In her response, the minister stated that her department had "created a specialized inspection team that has already conducted more than 100,000 inspections and awareness-raising activities in the [trucking] sector." Today, in the news, we learned that her office has issued a correction and that her department conducted 1,000 inspections, not 100,000. I would like to know whether the Hansard can be corrected, because that represents a difference of 99,000 inspections.”
“Perhaps no one considered that this would require housing. Perhaps no one considered that it would require additional resources. In the meantime, young people are suffering. Newcomers are unable to find housing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that rents have increased by 26% solely because of the Liberal government's lax immigration policy. It is crazy, but that is the reality. I am not the one saying it, the Liberal government is. I will conclude by saying that before lecturing others, perhaps they should take a hard look at themselves.”
“The federal government needs to calm down a little, listen to what the cities are saying, listen to what Quebec is saying and, most importantly, send us the money instead of coming up with new strategies and talking non-stop. In the end, nothing is being done on the ground. I am really disappointed to see that the Liberal government is not disbursing the money it should be. On top of this, we could mention that one of the causes of the housing crisis is also linked to population growth. This is worth mentioning. In Canada, the population has increased by 1.2 million in the last 12 months. That is quite a lot of people. At the same time, Ottawa has very lax immigration policies. The goal of reaching a population of 100 million by 2100 has ultimately changed the situation on the ground.”
“While the money is sitting in Ottawa and not flowing to the cities, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back because they announced funding for housing. Meanwhile, what is happening? There is inflation. Cities are going under because everything costs more. Everything costs more, and yet, the money is sitting in Ottawa. Ultimately, we are getting less and less bang for our buck because Ottawa is blackmailing us with our own money, pure and simple. It is blackmailing us because it wants to impose its conditions, its urban planning rules and its density standards, even though everyone is already committed to those things. That is not enough for the federal government. It wants to decide everything that happens everywhere, as if there were no other governments and no other elected officials.”
“Right in the middle of Old Montreal, a historic neighbourhood that is bustling with tourists, they were going to build a multi-storey building without anyone knowing what it was going to look like. Héritage Montréal warned us that the federal government was going to do whatever it wanted without consulting anyone. That is what it looks like when this government works hand in hand with the cities and provinces. Every time the Liberals meddle in a project that is not under their jurisdiction—the municipalities are primarily responsible for urban planning and housing—it only leads to more trouble and more problems. The same thing is happening right now. What is going on with all the money I mentioned that is sitting in Ottawa? What is happening during all that time?”
“The government is working so closely with others that the mayor of Longueuil had to learn through the media about a project about to break ground in her municipality. That is how this government operates. I can give another example of working hand in hand to help Canada's municipalities and cities. Not long ago, the federal government was planning to build a new courthouse in Montreal, Quebec. They wanted to renovate an old courthouse to make upgrades to it. So far, so good. What we ended up learning was that the federal government wanted to build it without providing the city with any plans, without a clear intent to harmonize the architecture, without anyone knowing what it was going to look like or how many storeys it would have.”
“More specifically, while we are on the topic of the Build Canada Homes program, we were told that federal lands would be used to accommodate prefabricated homes, all under federal management, that some great announcements were on the way, and that we should be pleased that more houses are getting built. To add insult to injury, the government is still telling us that it is going to work with the provinces, that it is going to work hand in hand with the municipalities and that everything will be all hunky-dory and just fine. It keeps repeating that like a broken record. In the end, in the case of a project planned in Longueuil that we found out about, the mayor of Longueuil learned of it through the media.”
“Perhaps my colleague across the floor could have introduced a bill to force Ottawa to release the money that cities need to build housing. The Canada housing infrastructure fund alone is worth $1.3 billion. That would be enough to build a few sewers and a few water mains. I think that would go a long way to improving the situation. (1805) I can give another example of a federal problem that we are currently facing. There is this thing that we now call the Build Canada Homes program. To start with, let me point out that no one in Ottawa could even get its translation into French right; that should give members an idea of how competent the staff here is. Everyone in the media made a big joke out of it.”
“Despite any merit the bill may have, nothing will come of it. That is the sad part. The fact is we could very well do this work without monopolizing the entire House of Commons. We could adopt policies. I would like to make a suggestion to my Liberal colleague and his government. It is a very important suggestion. Not long ago, I met with the Union des municipalités du Québec. Its representatives told me that there is still no agreement between the federal and provincial governments about the $8.5 billion to deal with municipal responsibilities. This is money owed to Quebec that is sitting in Ottawa's coffers. There is a whole stack of envelopes. Who manages most of the housing? Who is primarily responsible for housing? It is the municipalities, and there has been $8.5 billion sitting in Ottawa's coffers all this time.”
“That is exactly what we are being presented with right now. This is a bill that will change nothing and do nothing to address the housing crisis. It is sad because, in the meantime, the average age at which people become homeowners has risen from 26 to 36. A Liberal member will be happy to say that he has passed a bill that may one day lead to a strategy to address the housing crisis among young people. However, he is not the one who will create the strategy, and no concrete measures are included in the bill. In the meantime, this is monopolizing the resources of the House of Commons. All the members here are going to debate this. The bill will be referred to committee and people will come testify. That is good, because we will be able to talk about the issue, and I think it is important to do so.”
“However, do we really need a law to do that? Does it take a law to address the housing crisis? Does it take a law to develop a strategy to solve the housing crisis? The answer is no. We do not need a law to do that. The reality is this. On the other side of the House, backbenchers, particularly those in government, are told to keep quiet, ask as few questions as possible, and make as little noise as possible. Everything they say must be in line with the government's position. They cannot make announcements because it is the ministers who make the announcements, and everything is written in advance. As a result, instead of introducing real bills in the House that would really change things, Liberal members often introduce insignificant bills that do not change anything in people's daily lives.”
“People sometimes choose to rent, but other times they have no choice. This can mean postponing the decision to have children because it has been too hard to put money aside. If people have not been able to save money by 36 and their biological clock is ticking, well, that is a problem. I think that my colleague from across the way has put his finger on an important issue. That is indeed a serious problem. However, the devil is in the details of this bill. What does my Liberal colleague's bill actually do? It does nothing. The only thing it does is say that the minister would now have a mandate to work on this file, consult people and develop a strategy. That is great. I am all for the minister consulting people and developing a strategy. I do believe that it is a problem that needs to be addressed.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑227 , an act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians. After reading the bill, it appears that this strategy would specifically target young people between the ages of 18 and 34 who are having difficulty accessing housing. I cannot dispute the fact that young people between the ages of 18 and 34 have difficulty accessing housing or becoming homeowners. This week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Canadian real estate brokers association. They told me that 20 or 30 years ago, people became homeowners, on average, at the age of 26. Now, in 2025, people are becoming homeowners at the age of 36, on average. I am 36. At 36, people usually hope to be able to start a family and have children. I am fortunate to have three children.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière introduced in the House Bill C-228 to ensure that all treaties are systematically tabled before the House of Commons, so that they can be debated and amended. This bill also includes a provision requiring a 21-day waiting period after a treaty is tabled before any action can be taken toward its ratification. In relation to what we are discussing right now, the government has not complied with the 21-day deadline. The Liberals said that we do not need legislation because their policy already covers that. If we do not need legislation, then why are the Liberals not complying with their policy?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton focused a lot on transparency in the process and on the fact that we need to have access to the text that we are voting on. We know that, most of the time, we end up debating texts that we do not even have yet. We cannot consult or amend them. I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it is right that we have to take a stand and accept things when we are not fully aware of the implications.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague was quite right to point out the factor of the unknown. As the minister said, we have no idea how many new citizens this law will create. In this context, it appears that the committee was wise to ask for a report to be tabled in the House or, at the very least, in committee, to indicate how many people would be affected every year by this new law. I would like to know whether my colleague sees this as important and whether he heard the government say that it would honour that request.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean , who represents the Bloc Québécois, asked the minister about this issue. He asked how many more people would be granted citizenship as a result of this legislation. The minister was utterly unable to answer or provide a figure. My question for my Conservative colleague is this: How can this government implement policies whose impact it knows absolutely nothing about?”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague mentioned in his speech that the amendments made as a result of serious work in committee by my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean , are falling apart because of collusion between the Liberals and the NDP. One of the amendments in question had to do with the tabling of an annual report in Parliament on the bill's impact. What does my colleague think about the fact that the government, with the NDP's support, is refusing to take accountability for the impact of this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to my Conservative colleague's question, which has still not been answered. It was a very good question. My colleague asked why the government did not include official languages in the bill's criteria. The purpose of this bill is to define what constitutes a sufficient connection to Canada. This seems like a perfectly normal condition, given that we operate in both English and French. How is it that this much-talked-about connection with Canada does not require knowledge of French or English, which is how that connection would be formed? Is the minister comfortable with the idea of granting citizenship to people who speak neither French nor English but who claim to have strong ties to the country?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, approximately 150,000 new people would get citizenship, which means that they would also get the right to vote. A Conservative member raised an interesting point last week in this regard: We still do not know how it will be determined in which riding these people will be registered and vote. That could become an issue if there is a close race in certain ridings. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the reason lies in the history behind the Canadian multicultural policy, which, at the time, was put in place in a way that failed to recognize Canadian biculturalism, or the difference between English Canada and French Canada. Quebec's desire for emancipation and affirmation was drowned out by the rest of Canada, which is made up of people arriving from around the world. Our goal is to reaffirm that Quebec is nation, that we have the right to exist and that we have the right to be different from Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about two different battles. Our bill specifically targets Quebec only. There really is no direct effect on other provinces. Of course, Quebec's integration model includes the concept of passing on the French language to Quebeckers. If a French-speaking Quebec becomes stronger and thrives, it can only be a positive thing for francophone communities outside Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Canadian multiculturalism policy rejects any notion of a majority host society. What it says is that all peoples are of equal value. That is correct. Indeed, all peoples in the world are of value. It is important that they exist. Nevertheless, the Quebec people exist in only one place in the world: in Quebec. Considering the Quebec people as just one of many peoples within Quebec diminishes the appeal of the Quebec nation to people arriving in Quebec. What we want is to encourage people arriving in Quebec to become part of the Quebec nation, and not to isolate themselves from it. We want to work with them to pass on our culture to them and build a society that will be different tomorrow, one that they contribute to and are proud to participate in.”
“The good thing about this bill is that we are not attacking Canada and we are not attacking Canadians. We are not even trying to prevent Canadians from maintaining their multiculturalism policy. All it does is allow Quebec to adopt its own integration model. Ottawa needs to let us be ourselves. Our bill is particularly interesting because it proposes a model for living together in way that is joyful and fulfilling, which can only be positive. As I see it, a bill like this would normally just be a formality. All parties should be voting in favour of it. It will also better equip all newcomers to Quebec who will no longer necessarily have to cope with the notorious duality or dual legitimacy of Quebec versus Canada, which is always harmful. (1115) I urge the parties in the House to vote in favour of our bill—”
“Considering that Quebec recently passed its own law on national integration, our law on national integration should obviously take precedence over the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Nothing else will work. The two models are contradictory. The easiest way to make that happen would be to pass Bill C‑245. This would allow Quebec to define itself, to decide for ourselves who we are and what is best for us. From a broader perspective, that may also be what is best for Canada. Canada might decide to look at what is being done in a thriving and prosperous Quebec and draw some inspiration. That could happen. It could also encourage Canada to adopt its own model, which might not be the Quebec model or multiculturalism, but one that it defines for itself.”
“Consider the films of Ricardo Trogi, who is of Italian heritage; the music of Loco Locass' Chafiik, who is of Lebanese heritage; or the writings of Boucar Diouf, who is of Senegalese heritage. These examples are not all. There are plenty more examples of successful people who are an integral part of the Quebec nation and who changed and influenced who we are as Quebeckers. They helped shape our culture and our collective imagination. I love that. In short, that is Quebec's model for living together in harmony, and it works. Canadian multiculturalism, on the other hand, means living side by side, nothing more. Most importantly, it means making Quebeckers invisible and negating our status as a nation. That is not okay.”
“She is the daughter of an Irish immigrant whom we all know as “La Bolduc”. Is there anyone who is more of a Quebecker than La Bolduc? When we talk about traditional Quebec music, she is the first person who comes to mind. She is the gold standard. However, her music was influenced by her Irish roots. Obviously, she was also influenced by the Quebec culture that was all around her. At the time, it could be referred to as French-Canadian culture. She blended the two traditions and went on to influence all of Quebec society. Her sound continues to influence our traditional music to this day. It is magnificent. Mary Travers is not an isolated example. The same is true of a wide range of fields today.”
“On the contrary, we want to maximize interactions between immigrants and the host society, so that newcomers gradually develop a sense of belonging and feel more and more like Quebeckers. This is not a one-way process. It goes both ways. It is inevitable that newcomers will also influence those who are already here, and that is a good thing. Basically, we give and we receive at the same time. However, we do not want people to be perpetual immigrants, either. This is fundamental to the concept of Quebec's integration policy. We do not want the children and grandchildren of newcomers to still be considered immigrants. We want them to be full-fledged Quebeckers, fully integrated people who add to who we are as Quebeckers. I will give an example that says it all: Mary Travers. Who is Mary Travers?”
“The Quebec nation is made up of people from all kinds of backgrounds and cultures. However, as Quebeckers, we share a common culture, which is enriched by the contributions made by people from around the world who choose to join our Quebec culture. This has been going on for 400 years and will continue well into the future. (1110) Let me be clear, Quebec is not frozen in time. It is 2025. Today's Quebec is not the Quebec of New France. That proves that we are shaped by our geography, our climate, our history, but also by the people who come from other parts of the world and join the Quebec nation. We are not asking people who come here to ignore their roots. We are not asking them to relinquish their identity when they get here.”
“Not only is multiculturalism a model that does not work for Quebec, but it is in direct conflict with what Quebec wants, as I mentioned earlier. It conflicts with Quebec's Act respecting integration into the Québec nation. Multiculturalism is a policy that we must break free from if we want to continue having successful immigration to Quebec. That is the subtext of Bill 101, Bill 96 and even Bill 21. The goal of these laws is to embrace immigrants and let them know that we want them to become part of the Quebec nation. Just because someone opposes Canadian multiculturalism does not mean they oppose ethnic and cultural diversity. That is often how our opponents try to portray us. They will attempt to conflate the concepts of cultural and ethnic diversity and Canada's multiculturalism policy, which is toxic for Quebec.”