So V ote

May/10/22 10:34:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond by telling my colleague that there are indeed issues in the world that deserve our full attention, as they are more worrisome and more serious than prayer in the House of Commons. However, the very purpose of an opposition day is to hold debates on topics that may not be as urgent as those we normally discuss in the House of Commons. In 2019, the Bloc Québécois sought unanimous consent to adopt a motion with the same objective as the one we have today, but that motion was rejected. That is why I think that opposition days—and the Bloc only has two in each parliamentary session—are a good occasion to introduce such a motion and to have healthy, honest and respectful discussions with my colleagues in the House of Commons.

145 words

May/10/22 10:36:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my first point is that we are in a place that represents Canadians and the people. We are in a place where state decisions are made and, in my opinion, there should be a clear separation of church and state. My second point is that I do not feel attacked or concerned at the prospect of hearing prayer. I could turn my colleague's question back to him by asking how his expressing his religion in the House is worth more than my expressing my non-belief or my need to have a different personal reflection. How would this moment of reflection preclude my colleague from saying his prayer in silence? I do not see how this can be called disrespectful or a violation of his conscience rights in a context like the one proposed.

138 words

May/10/22 10:38:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion that we are moving here deals only with the reciting of the prayer. I will give my NDP colleague the same answer that I gave my colleague opposite earlier. There is no good or bad time to propose this kind of motion and hold this kind of discussion. The issue of whether to have the House include a statement regarding indigenous peoples is a whole other debate. What we are proposing today is a moment of personal reflection based on each member's beliefs, or lack thereof, to replace the current prayer, nothing more, nothing less.

100 words

May/10/22 12:04:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech. Our opposition day is clearly not useless since it has allowed the NDP to reel off its accomplishments. At least that is something. Several thoughts came to mind during his speech. First, in 2019, we sought the unanimous consent of the House to adopt a motion with similar objectives, but it was defeated. An opposition day is purposely designed for proposing subjects that are not necessarily front-page news but that are nevertheless important to various parliamentarians. It is well within the Bloc's right, and it is our choice. I take some exception to the fact that some parties are now questioning our “editorial” choice for opposition day. In the end, it is our choice. I have also noted that the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP do not seem to want to discuss the issue itself but are more likely to simply criticize our choice of topic. The NDP is saying that we do not want to debate important issues, yet it is going to support a gag order on a bill that is over 500 pages long, that contains some 60 measures and that will amend 37 laws. It feels we do not need to debate that bill, unlike the motion we are discussing today. I do not really have any other questions. I simply wanted to comment and invite my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to respond.

251 words

May/10/22 12:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I do not consent to the amendment.

13 words

All Topics

May/10/22 12:20:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to explain why I believe the NDP amendment proposed by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby is out of order. I do want to mention that I really enjoy working with him on heritage files, among others. Today, certain members stated in their speeches that our motion is not important and that there are more important matters to address. All of a sudden, though, it is considered important enough to try to slip in something that perhaps reflects the priorities of his party more. I believe that if my NDP colleagues wish to move such a motion, they will definitely have the opportunity to do so on their next opposition day. That said, I would like to take a few seconds to ask my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby if he agrees that replacing the prayer with a moment of reflection does not offend people of faith. On the contrary, the point of having a moment of reflection is to include people of all faiths and those who have no religious beliefs or are atheists. It is inclusive. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

196 words

May/10/22 1:14:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a number of points I want to address in the speech by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, but first I want to congratulate him because he is just about the only member of the Liberal caucus who took the time today to discuss the substance of the motion, and I appreciate that. In fact, I believe he received the same memo from his party as his colleagues, warning that the Liberals were going to steamroll over the Bloc by saying that it was not the time to talk about this issue because there were so many other pressing issues. I would like to come back to the matter of the lesson the Liberals want to give us on the relevance of the issues we debate in the House of Commons. If my colleague's government would take the time to answer the questions we have been asking for months on these pressing issues, such as the war in Ukraine, perhaps we could take a lesson from them. For the time being, however, that is not going to happen. I am going to give a little lesson of my own. The role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is to make recommendations, so it could very well take up this matter and make recommendations to the House. However, it is up to the House to discuss it and amend the Standing Orders. Therefore, the motion we put forward today is very relevant and has its place. If my colleagues took the time to read the motion and said to themselves that the House has a great opportunity to discuss a sensitive and interesting issue, we would perhaps have more constructive debates today.

290 words

All Topics

May/10/22 5:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am delighted. Unfortunately, I missed part of the speech by my colleague from Mount Royal because I was busy doing other, less interesting things. With my colleague's speech, we finally got a speech about the motion being debated today. We have heard more criticism about the relevance of the motion than about the content of the motion itself, so I very much appreciate the speech by my colleague and friend from Mount Royal. I also heard that his speech referenced Quebec laws, including Bill 21, which bans or abolishes the wearing of religious symbols in certain professions. It is not at all a ban on wearing religious symbols in public. It is important to make that distinction. That being said, that has nothing to do with the motion moved today since we are talking, obviously, as he did when he eventually came back to the topic at hand, about the prayer and the symbolism of the prayer before we begin our work here in the House of Commons. I want to thank my colleague. I hope he will sleep on this and see that this motion is about openness. We want to make this motion, moved by the Bloc Québécois, about inclusion. We want everyone to feel respected in the House and we think that having a moment of reflection during which everyone can choose to pray or meditate would be the best way to satisfy everyone. That was a comment, but I congratulate—

253 words