44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 12:49:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am trying to wrap my head around how the Bloc Québécois members have determined that this, out of the two opposition days they have to put forward motions, is the motion that they should put forward. Notwithstanding the fact that I respect the importance of this particular subject matter to the Bloc Québécois, I just cannot understand how it takes precedence over some of the things that are happening in our country right now and, indeed, happening in Quebec right now.
Can the member just explain to me why this was considered to be of paramount importance so as to supersede all the other things that are going on in our country and the world right now?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:29:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the only thing more perplexing than the issue being raised today by the Bloc Québécois is the responses to questions about why they raised it. Every time somebody gets up in the House to ask why they raised this and why it is so important, or to get them to explain why this trumps everything else when they have two opposition days, they become extremely defensive and say they have the right to bring forward whatever they want. Indeed, of course they do. I think everybody respects that right, but the question is, why this? Why is this more important than those other pressing issues?
Can the member answer that question, rather than just saying they can do whatever they want? We are aware of that. Why is this issue so important?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is disappointed to hear that I will be speaking for only 10 minutes.
I must say that I was quite perplexed when I saw yesterday the notice go out with the opposition day motion that was scheduled for today. I am in no way trying to suggest that the content is not an important discussion to have: the Bloc members feel very passionately about this particular subject. I just cannot understand how it takes precedence to some of the things that are going on in the world right now, and indeed in our country and in Quebec.
I listen to the Bloc members ask their questions routinely during question period with great passion and bring up very important issues. I have never heard the Bloc ask a question during question period about the prayer, which is 30 seconds long and happens at the beginning of each day in the House.
The prayer, which I might add is very generic in nature, certainly does not support one religion or another. It is about 30 seconds long, and is followed by a moment of silence and personal reflection. If the Bloc had said that the motion was to remove O Canada, I think I would understand where their passion was coming from a little more. Indeed, the fact that the members have chosen to be extremely critical of a 30-second-long prayer without addressing the fact that we sing the National Anthem, of which they do not want to be part, and which they actively stay outside of the chamber for during the time we are singing it every Wednesday, would be more germane, at least from my perspective, in terms of the priorities of the Bloc.
Nonetheless, there are very important issues going on right now. Inflation, housing and the war in Ukraine are issues that should be dealt with. Opposition parties have very limited opportunities to come before the House and present motions for the House to consider. As a matter of fact, the Bloc Québécois only has two opportunities between January and June in this session, yet members have chosen to use one of those opportunities on this motion and I just cannot understand it. Again, I can appreciate the Bloc's interest in this issue. I just do not understand how it supersedes everything else that is going on right now.
Perhaps what is even more confusing for me is that when I have asked the Bloc about this, and a number of us, including Conservatives, have asked over the past couple of hours why this is so important and why it is more important than everything else going on in the world right now, the reaction from the Bloc is to become extremely defensive and upset with us and say, “It is our right. We can bring whatever we want forward.” Of course, the Bloc members can bring whatever they want forward. It is their prerogative to bring forward a motion that they see fit, but they are not answering the question. They refuse to answer the question. The question is why. What is so important about this particular issue that takes precedence and trumps all those other issues that we are dealing with in the House right now?
The member for Winnipeg North said it, and I could not agree with him more. In the almost seven years that I have been around here, I have never once had this topic brought up with me. Not a single constituent has ever called me and said, “I want to talk to you, MP Gerretsen, about the prayer that is being said every morning when the House starts at the beginning of the day.” Not a single constituent has brought that forward to me. However, there are a lot of areas that we know that the Bloc and indeed the Conservatives go off from time to time on what is going on—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
694 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:55:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can really get the passions of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman going from time to time. I think that is where this comes from.
There are issues that come up on a daily basis in the House during question period that Bloc members are extremely passionate about, and I do not understand why they would not use one of their two opposition days to bring forward one of those issues. I actually want to apologize to the Conservatives, because I usually stand here and criticize Conservatives for bringing forward motions that are not of substance. I quite often reference the NDP and the Bloc as parties that do bring forward motions of substance. I stand corrected, because the motion we are seeing from the Bloc today is by far one of the most outlandish attempts at politicizing an issue that I have seen. I do not understand the angle of it. I do not understand what exactly the Bloc is hoping to accomplish here.
If this is so important to the Bloc, which I believe it is because it has used one of its days for it, the proper place to bring this would be to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I sit on that committee, and have sat on that committee for the past three years. A Bloc member has been sitting on that committee since 2019, and never once has a member of the Bloc Québécois brought this issue up at PROC. Never once has a Bloc member said, “We need to study this issue about the prayer that we have at the beginning of the day and make a recommendation to the House.” For it never to come forward, and then for the Bloc to suddenly introduce it in one of its two precious opposition day motions, I find to be very perplexing. I do not understand where it is coming from on this.
The member for La Prairie earlier made reference to the fact that Quebec used to have a prayer and then got rid of it. I thought that was a very interesting comment. I wish he would have provided the text of that prayer so we could compare it with the one that is said in this House at the beginning of the day. I wonder if there was a much more denominational undertone to it, toward a specific religion, or whether it was much more generic, like the one we have. It would have been great had he said that.
My understanding is that although the Quebec National Assembly got rid of the prayer, the cross still exists in the National Assembly. If I understand correctly, and I could be wrong so I hope members in the Bloc would correct me, the cross used to be in the chamber. People would not move it outside of the building: they just moved it outside of the chamber, so the cross still exists. Even within the National Assembly, Quebec continues to have religious symbols.
At the end of the day, in addition to the opportunity to bring this up at the proper committee, the Bloc could also have raised this during the standard procedural debate we are going to have. There is a requirement after every new Parliament is formed that, within a certain number of days, we have a debate on the standing procedures in the House. If my memory serves me correctly, not that I was here, but I heard that it was former prime minister Paul Martin who made sure that happened. It has not happened yet, and it has to happen before we recess in June.
Therefore, there will be a whole day when Bloc members can bring up this particular point about the Standing Orders and how they are concerned about this particular part of the Standing Orders, in which case I would encourage them to do that. They are blowing an entire day today: an entire opportunity to bring forward the very important issues of Quebeckers that the Bloc Québécois, particularly, is passionate about. All they are really giving me is an opportunity to not pick on my Conservative friends across the way for one day. I see a number of them are clapping.
In conclusion, I just cannot see the level of importance. I cannot understand why it was decided that this had to be debated and waste an entire day on it, rather than move forward on some of the very important issues that I know the Bloc Québécois cares about. I hope that later on during this debate, I will get an answer to that question.
793 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 2:07:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome representatives from Queen's University to Parliament Hill today for Queen’s Day on the Hill.
Queen’s is a leading university, with more than 27,000 students from across Canada and from 126 countries around the world.
In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, Queen’s contributes one in every 10 jobs to the community and has helped more than 600 start-up companies grow. Its students, staff and faculty raise more than $1 million annually for local charities like the United Way.
Queen’s produces highly skilled graduates and groundbreaking research. Research like that from Professor Cathleen Crudden, which was supported by a $24-million grant from the new frontiers in research fund, is changing the world by making new coatings that could stop bridges from rusting or be used to fight cancer.
Internationally, the recently announced Times Higher Education impact rankings placed Queen’s University seventh in the world out of 1,500 universities for advancing the United Nations' sustainable development goals.
I encourage all members of the House to join us later this evening for an official reception hosted by Queen's University, starting at 5:30 p.m. at the Metropolitain Brasserie. Once again, I welcome Queen's University to the Hill and offer best wishes for a successful day.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 3:57:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this goes to what I was saying during my speech, which is that not only has the prayer been part of our Standing Orders for a very long time, but it is very generic in nature. It can represent all faiths, depending on how it is interpreted. It is very generic in its terms, and that is good because it represents and respects all faiths.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 3:58:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member and his party were in a much better position to advocate for what he is so passionate about when they entered into the supply and confidence agreement with the government. If he is so passionate about these things in particular, why were they not front and centre in that agreement? Perhaps the member can answer that later on.
The truth is that there are a lot of things the Bloc Québécois could have brought up today to discuss. The Bloc members only have two opposition days between January and June, yet they chose to bring this up, which absolutely baffles me. I do not even see the political wedge part to it, to be completely honest, if that is where the motivation came from.
At the end of the day, I am left perplexed in trying to figure out what exactly the strategy of the Bloc was. Member after member has stood up and asked, “Why this?” The Bloc's default reaction is to become extremely defensive and say that they are allowed to do whatever they want. Of course they can do whatever they want, but they could still try to muster up some kind of answer to the question of why this is more important than all the other issues.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:00:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very good point. The member brings up other options, and I think that is the whole point to having an issue like this go before a committee. This issue should go before PROC so it can determine if indeed there is a better idea or not. I do not know. To be completely honest, this is not one of the issues I have been seized with in the almost seven years that I have been here. I have never felt we needed to invest a huge amount of time into this like the Bloc does.
I will mention that I noticed the Bloc members voted in favour of the last bill. That means they voted in favour of the budget, at least at this reading. It is a signal to me that the Bloc feels as though the budget is a good budget and deserves the support of the House. Maybe the Bloc ended up bringing this forward because it really had nothing else to complain about.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to what the member said in her intervention, and for me this is an issue we can have a discussion about. I think there is a place for that. I think that is within the procedure and House affairs committee; I do not think it needs to take up an entire day of deliberation in the House of Commons, but let us just say that I am listening and that I have heard her arguments. If I understand correctly, what the Bloc is proposing is that we should be eliminating the prayer in order to be more inclusive, because the prayer is based on faith.
Would the member then extend the same logic to saying we should be getting rid of all holidays that are based on faith, such as Christmas or Easter? Should those be eliminated too, and just be observed by those who choose to observe them? Should they no longer be statutory holidays?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
