SoVote

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/10/22 11:36:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say, for my part, that I do not want to diminish in any way the significance of the motion that is before us. I know that Canadians come from all walks of life and different faith traditions. Some are not people of faith at all, but they have their own senses of values and what is important to them. I think that symbols matter here, and the opening prayer has been a symbol. I think it is appropriate for us to discuss this. However, if the goal is to make a change, I do not think the mechanism of an opposition day motion is wrong, but I would say that none of us came to Ottawa on Sunday knowing that this was something we were going to discuss. It has not been something that we have had an opportunity to discuss within our caucuses. It is not something we have had an opportunity to hear from our constituents on. It seems to me that this is not a great process. Even if it was to be done by an opposition day, the lack of notice means that we have missed an opportunity to really engage with Canadians about what this symbol, if it is indeed an important symbol to them, means to them to make these changes. Does the hon. member want to comment a little on the nature of the process that we are undergoing right now?

242 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/10/22 11:52:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recognize the importance of faith and spirituality in Canadians' lives. I also recognize the importance of symbols here in the House of Commons. However, I wonder why we are having a debate on an important symbol. If the goal was to reach consensus to make a change and steer clear of a divide, why did we only get one or two days' notice on a motion to change something that has symbolic importance, and then some? In any event, in a few weeks, we will be having a debate on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/10/22 12:25:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today has to do with the prayer that is read at the start of every sitting of the House of Commons. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie spoke about the problems with the employment insurance system, which, unfortunately, seems to be designed on a hope and a prayer instead of on effective public administration principles. What does my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby think about that?

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/10/22 12:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, another Bloc member earlier referred to Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor to bolster his argument in favour of state secularism. However, I think that Mr. Taylor would be one of the first to say that secularism can come in many forms. The Bloc Québécois has proposed one solution today, but it has not considered the possibility of a real discussion on the different ways that secularism could be incorporated here. Instead, the Bloc has proposed a binary choice on how to incorporate secularism. I would like to better understand the member's thoughts on this process.

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 68 - May/10/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/10/22 3:57:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member for Kingston and the Islands said there were a number of topics that the Bloc Québécois might have brought forward on an opposition day. I would certainly agree with the member for Kingston and the Islands that there are many ways in which the government has failed and is failing Canadians that would rightly be the subject of an opposition day motion. I think of the Liberals' so-called climate plan, which is really based on a prayer. That is where a prayer should not be. We should have a much more concrete action plan with a far better hope of success. I wonder if perhaps the member wants to speak to some of the ways the government has been failing Canada that might have been the proper object of an opposition day motion.

146 words