44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 12:26:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motion today. I am not going to repeat the text of the motion, since we have been discussing it quite a bit for the last two hours.
I was elected not by God, but by voters. My job is to represent the people in my part of the country. I obviously do not bring up religion when I go knocking on doors. I am no better or worse than any other member. As members of Parliament, our job is also to meet with the people we represent. I have never asked anyone what their religion is. I have too much respect for people's beliefs. Religion is a personal matter and nobody else's business, especially not the government's.
Personally, I try to do a good job of representing the people and representing them to the best of my ability. I have looked up the statistics, but I am not going to talk about numbers or what the beliefs of various individuals are. I will not share with the House all of the comments that I had in mind when I saw the extremely broad range of beliefs.
Let us start with atheists. Atheists do not believe in God. Are they good or bad? I could not care less. The fact is that there are atheists, that is, people who do not believe in God. However, we are praying to God. The atheists must feel that they are not well represented.
Then there are the agnostics, that is, people who question whether God exists or not. These people do not care if God exists. They say to themselves, “Who am I to know?”
There are also people who believe in one god, namely the monotheists. Many religions identify with monotheism. This is the case with the most popular religions, if I may put it that way.
However, there are also religions where there are several gods. The prayer does not say “Gods”, but “God” in the singular. Those who believe in multiple gods must feel that the prayer does not reflect who they are, even if they are citizens of Canada. They must wonder why parliamentarians in a democratic institution are talking about a belief that is not their own. They must feel excluded.
Finally, some people do not have religious beliefs, but other beliefs.
As soon as we incorporate anything religious, we lose representativeness. We like to go on about how we have a duty to represent the people, the community and all of its diversity. It does not matter where someone falls on the spectrum of belief, because that is none of our business.
If we want to have a government that respects religion, that respects beliefs and that is inclusive, which is the operative word here, we need to come up with a solution.
For example, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reads a rotating selection of prayers. One day, they read a prayer to one god. The next day, they read a prayer to another god, and so on. This puts the religions in a hierarchy. Some will say that various religions are included in the rotation, but not their own. That means this does not fulfill the objectives that the government should be pursuing.
Guess what? The best way to respect religion is for the government to stay out of it altogether. I am choosing my words carefully: The government must be secular and not display any religious symbols, at the risk of excluding a whole segment of the population or voters. This is really not what we should be doing.
Personally, that is what I say and what I think. Do people agree or disagree? We are going to vote on this.
Now let me read a few brief quotes along these lines. I want to show that I am not an outlier and that people have thought about this before me.
Sometimes we wish that we had said this or that, or we wish that we were the one who came up with such and such a quote. I do not want to take credit for these quotes, because that would be plagiarism.
In their book Secularism and Freedom of Conscience, Charles Taylor and Jocelyn Maclure provide a conceptual analysis of the principles of secularism. Here is what they have to say:
Although it is generally assumed that the aim of a regime of secularism is still to find the appropriate relationship between the state and religions, its broader and more urgent task at present is to make it possible for democratic states to adapt adequately to the profound moral and spiritual diversity existing within their borders. The state must treat with equal respect all core beliefs and commitments compatible with the requirements of fair social cooperation.
They are therefore calling for state secularism.
Marie-Andrée Chouinard had this to say in Le Devoir, on June 1, 2013:
...state neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever...
Thus, the idea of prayer is inconsistent with religious neutrality.
I was a member of Quebec's National Assembly for six years. As someone mentioned earlier, the National Assembly has a moment of reflection. That is the solution for us.
As of December 15, 1976, prayer was no longer part of the daily routine in the National Assembly. I would like to read an excerpt that will really enlighten us. This is what Clément Richard, Speaker of the National Assembly at the time, said:
Out of respect for the members of this Assembly, who are not all necessarily of the same religious denomination, and out of respect for the Assembly, I have chosen to allow every member to pray as they see fit. During the moment of reflection, each member will have the opportunity to say a prayer to themselves, and it is out of respect for the Assembly that I have made this decision.
We can discuss this at length, but everyone has their own religion. A moment of reflection will give these people a chance to reflect and pray if they so choose. Those who are atheist, agnostic or other will do other things, but I do believe that a moment of reflection will motivate them to do an even better job. We hope so at least.
In 2015, the Supreme Court said:
...the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard, which means that it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief.
I believe that everything is in place for us to achieve that.
When I arrived in the House of Commons in 2019, I was surprised that there was a prayer. I was really astounded. Honestly, I did not expect it. In Quebec, when people learned that this was the subject of our opposition day, they were shocked. They did not know that a prayer was recited in the House of Commons, and they thought it was absurd.
When I am told that no one sees us reciting the prayer, I answer that these are symbols, that we represent Canadian and Quebec democracy and that we must be respectful of these people. Setting aside the symbols, there are the people, and we must have absolute respect for them. The only way to do that is for the state to be neutral.
1273 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:36:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The member from Winnipeg North tells us that people are talking to him about seniors and health. We have been talking about these issues for two and a half years, but he does not listen to us. Now he is lecturing us on how we should be talking about seniors and health. We talk about these things non-stop. We talk about health transfers. All the premiers of the provinces and Quebec have been calling for an unconditional increase in health transfers to 35%. He is not listening. What more will it take? Do I have to get out the puppets and crayons?
He does not get it. Now he is saying that things are terrible for seniors, but the Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors. They gave seniors 75 and over an increase, but they did not increase anything for seniors between 65 and 75. They tell them that if they want money, then they have to work. So much for championing seniors' issues.
The member then goes and lectures others. I would be embarrassed if I were him.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:38:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are several parliamentary tools that can be used, including opposition days. We are using this opposition day because I already tried moving a unanimous consent motion in the House of Commons and it did not work. We did the same thing for the issue of Quebec's nationhood. Now we have been forced to use an opposition day to put forward a motion to vote on so that we can finally get rid of this prayer. That is what we are doing.
If my colleague cannot understand that this subject is not the only thing we are talking about, I wonder why he is even here in Parliament. There is a question period, there is committee work, there are bills, there are consent motions, and there are all kinds of other things we can do. If he wants to start judging what we do on our opposition day, I can tell him that the Conservative Party is in no position to lecture anyone. I would remind him that, on their opposition day, the Conservatives called for the elimination of pandemic restrictions when they do not even have the authority to do that. I will take no lessons from them.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:40:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is not relevant.
6 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a language crisis in Quebec, but the federal government wants to prevent Quebec from enforcing the use of French in all workplaces. With its official languages bill, Bill C-13, Ottawa is creating an exception for federally regulated businesses.
Thanks to Bill C‑13, these businesses will be able to continue to work “bilingually” or, as they say at Air Canada and CN, “in English only”. The Charter of the French Language will become unenforceable at these businesses.
Does the Prime Minister realize that allowing bilingual work at these businesses is not defending French, it is simply speeding up the English takeover of Quebec?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, French should be the language of work for everyone in Quebec, but the Prime Minister's Bill C‑13 makes French optional.
This is not hard to understand. He is telling Air Canada and CN that, if they want to make an effort for French, they can adopt the Charter of the French Language, but, if they do not, they can keep being bilingual, as they have been for the past 30 years. We see what the results are today.
If the government's goal is to anglicize French even faster, that would do it. It seems very hard to admit that bilingualism is not in jeopardy in Quebec but that French is. Why is that?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
