44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 10:52:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her brilliant speech. I would like to hear her comment on some other points.
First of all, I would like her to comment on the fact that we are always told that this is not a real issue. Every time we have raised the issue of secularism over the last few years, we have been told that there are other, more important issues. However, the rise of the religious right is troubling, especially at a time when, in 2022, the Parliament of Canada refuses to reaffirm something as fundamental as abortion rights, which, as members will recall, is what happened just last week.
I would also like to hear her comments on the fact that the Constitution of Canada contains the words “supremacy of God” in its preamble and that the head of the Canadian state is also the head of the Church of England.
Is my colleague as fed up as I am with being in a theocratic monarchy?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:16:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for the reminder.
There is a very simple strategy: If someone wants to put down their dog, they say it has rabies. The government does not want to debate the Prime Minister's ethical issues because it says now is not the time to be debating them. My Conservative colleagues do not want to debate abortion because they say now is not the time to debate abortion.
I have been involved in Quebec politics for the past 35 years, and one issue that has been omnipresent is the place of religion. The issue was examined by the Bouchard‑Taylor commission. Ultimately, Bill 21 was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly and passed.
Someone who says that Quebeckers take no interest in the issue of secularism is someone who knows absolutely nothing about Quebec's reality. Even today, people say that secularism is a type of racist policy. What we are trying to do is to make our institutions neutral. If that cannot be done with this legislature, we have one hell of a problem.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:33:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think that the neutrality of institutions is likely one of the most determinative issues in politics. An institution must not speak on behalf of any one faith or ethnic minority. If we respect differences, then our institutions should be neutral. That is the first thing.
With regard to the choice of topic, I would simply like to point out to my colleague that, during the first wave of the pandemic, his party moved a motion on one of its opposition days to say that oil is irreplaceable and that Canada should have a national day to celebrate oil. That happened in the midst of the first wave. If we were to ask Quebeckers whether they are interested in knowing that oil is irreplaceable, I am not sure they would say yes. If we were to ask them about secularism, a debate that has been going on in Quebec for the past 25 years, I think they would have something to say.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:50:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc member should know that the Standing Orders were changed in 1972, but prayers were not abolished in the Quebec National Assembly until 1976.
During those moments of reflection, everyone reflects in their own way, as we do here in the House of Commons after the reading of the prayer, which no one has a problem with.
I am surprised that my friends from the Bloc are so passionate about secularism, given how much work awaits the member for Drummond. He moved this motion and claims to support secularism, but this principle should be fully implemented everywhere. In the member's own riding, we find Saint‑Pie‑de‑Guire, Saint‑Bonaventure, Saint‑Guillaume, Saint‑Edmond‑de‑Grantham, Sainte‑Eugénie, Saint‑Germain‑de‑Grantham, Saint‑Majorique‑de‑Grantham, Sainte‑Brigitte‑des‑Saults, Notre‑Dame‑du‑Bon‑Conseil, Saint‑Lucien and Saint‑Félix‑de‑Kingsey. There is also the Saint‑François River and the Sainte‑Croix hospital. There is quite a lot of work to do at the provincial level.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:52:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the first chance I get to speak to the Bloc Québécois's motion today.
I am sorry that the Bloc rejected the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's amendment, because recognizing indigenous land is very important in this day and age.
That said, I do not think that the issue we are discussing today is the most important issue of the day. I will continue to pray because it is essential for me as a religious person. I am not yet sure if I will vote for or against the motion because I have a lot of respect for questions of conscience and of secularism in our Parliament. I simply wished to add these few words to present my position because I will not get the chance to make a speech.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:01:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, towards the end of his speech, my colleague suggested that talking about state neutrality and saying that the House of Commons, which represents the state, should not say a prayer before question period is a divisive issue. I do not know if that is what he meant, but that is what I understood.
I would like him to explain to me how secularism or state neutrality is a divisive issue.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I did not know where to start, so I decided to start by talking about myself, which is not something I often do.
I grew up in a small town of a few thousand people in northern Quebec, north of Abitibi. Religion was a big part of this town, the community and my family. As a child, I had to go to mass every Sunday. It was not all bad. I do have some wonderful memories of the highly constructive conversations we would have when Bishop Drainville, who was the bishop of Amos, came over for dinner.
Of course, there was religion at school. In elementary school, we had religion classes a few times a week. It was part of the curriculum. In May, the month of Mary, some of my teachers would start the day with a dozen or so rosaries.
In high school, we had Catholic religious classes. In a class of 30 or 32 students, there were always three, four or five oddballs who were not of the same religion as the others. They would leave and go to moral education class. We looked at them as if there were aliens.
When I was partway through high school, the Quebec government did away with these classes and took religion out of schools, deciding to leave religious education to families and communities.
What happened when the schools became secular? God, religion and the priest did not leave the village. People continued to worship in private, at church and in their own private spaces. For me, that is exactly what secularism means.
I believe that secularism means respecting every individual's religious observance. For me, secularism means going to Mirabel, passing by the magnificent Saint‑Benoît church, but not being obliged to go to mass there if I do not want to. The same thing goes for the Oka church. It means going for a walk in Outremont and passing by a synagogue but not having to participate in the service, even though I fully respect the Jewish community. It means helping out the Muslim community in Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, which teaches the Quran and gives Arabic lessons, as I do regularly without necessarily inviting myself to participate in their prayers.
That is the kind of openness we should be aiming for. By extension, secularism does not mean transforming a school into a church, or making a court look like a synagogue. It means having the the assurance, in both appearance and substance, that the laws of the secular state are above those of any god. This is a principle that is extremely important to me.
I am going to say something that I truly believe. I became a Catholic without consenting to it. I was baptized without anyone asking my permission. The first few times I went to church, I entered without really consenting to it. One day, for personal reasons, I decided that I would no longer go to church services, but that I would respect those who did. I was at peace with that.
However, the day I walked into the House of Commons in 2021, that feeling that my freedom of thought and freedom of conscience were being violated came flooding back. When I walked in at the beginning of the sitting day and it was explained to me that there was a denominational prayer, I realized that I was not welcome. I experienced that feeling that I had hoped I would never have to experience again in my life.
That is why secularism is important. It is a question of respect for everyone's beliefs. This debate has been held at every judicial level, right up to the Supreme Court, in a case that put an end to the prayer at Saguenay city hall.
The debate is still very relevant and important in Quebec. As Justice LeBel said, “the evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs...It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.”
The final ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, a Canadian court that struck down sections of Bill 101, states that because of the state's duty of religious neutrality, it may not profess, adopt or favour one belief to the exclusion of all others.
Some members will say, as the Liberals did earlier, that we can modernize the prayer, add denominations, make it more neutral and so on. However, the fact remains that it is a prayer.
The problem is the ruling itself. It recognizes atheism as a personal religious belief that must be respected just the same as any other.
The issue is not whether the prayer is appropriate in the House; it is not. The issue is how to replace it. We take that very seriously. We could have joked about it and proposed a prayer that would make the Liberals happy, something like, “Lead us not into the temptation of going to the Aga Khan's island on vacation, but deliver us from the Ethics Commissioner. Amen.” We could have also proposed one for the Conservatives, such as, “Hail Suncor, full of gas. The pipeline is with thee.”
We could have proposed replacing the time for prayer with something more useful, like a training session for ministers on how to answer questions in the House instead of reading the Prime Minister's notes. We could have proposed that the member for Winnipeg North take a course on how to give a speech in the House in under 300 minutes.
We took this seriously. We are saying that we must move forward. It is true that some legislatures still recite the prayer. It is true that not everyone is ready to embrace secularism. Quebec is not perfect either. We know that there is more to be done. However, major advances have been made. In 1976, the Quebec National Assembly made a decision to replace the prayer with one minute of reflection. I am going to read an excerpt from the proceedings of the National Assembly. This is what the Speaker stated on December 15, 1976. I remind the House that Quebec society was predominantly Catholic at the time.
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.
Now the Conservatives are getting up and saying that this is not on the agenda and it is a question of freedom. They were talking about freedom yesterday, the day before yesterday, and they talk about it every day. The member for Carleton spends his time travelling from coast to coast to coast, saying that he is going to make Canada the freest country in the world. Freedom is always important to the member for Carleton. However, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience also apply to the religion of others. They also apply to the conscience of others. It is embarrassing to see the Conservatives invoke the right to say a confessional prayer. When these folks go around talking about freedom, they defend the convoys in the name of freedom and they use their opposition day to talk about the same thing as us. It is shameful.
I am thinking of people like the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent who pointed out today that many of our towns and villages have the word “saint” in their names, such as Saint‑Lin, Saint‑Clin‑Clin and Saint‑Meuh‑Meuh. There is a very clear line between what heritage is and the neutrality of the state.
For example, in Quebec, there are concerns that a police officer who wears a religious symbol might be implying that their religious beliefs change the way they do their job. That is the concern. It is not about whether a police officer who is not wearing a religious symbol hands out more tickets on Saint-Jean Street or Saint-Paul Street than on Park Avenue. These names are our heritage. It is really important to understand that. Anyone who makes that argument to counter the issue of state neutrality is ill-intentioned.
I will conclude by saying that it would be inclusive to turn this prayer into a minute or two of reflection, although some members would do well to take three or four minutes. Hardly anyone comes into the House during that period because so many people feel uncomfortable, yet that is the only non-partisan part of the day. It is the only part of the day when everyone has the opportunity to be together. Everyone has the opportunity to reflect together. Everyone has the opportunity to come together and rise above the partisanship that can sometimes ruin our days, our weeks, our work and our democracy.
We need to take advantage of this time. This motion would allow us to do just that, which is why I will be very happy to vote in favour of it.
1589 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:44:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him two questions.
First, I am curious to know whether the Bloc Québécois is seeking to import the debate on Quebec's Bill 21 into the House to discuss secularism.
Second, I believe that the current method, namely a prayer followed by a moment of silence, is equally appropriate for both people with religious values and those without. Why is my colleague against the current method?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:22:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that when people ask what my impressions were when I came to the House of Commons, I tell them that one of the things that surprised me the most is that there is a prayer every morning. I will not hide the fact that my constituents were surprised. This is not a personal attack on someone because they are religious. This is about the fact that the state and the church are bound together for all to see, and this enduring religious element that is cemented in our primary democratic institution is simply reinforcing that.
I would also say that when I hear my colleagues, particularly those from English Canada, say that people are not interested in this issue, I feel that perhaps they do not truly understand the reality in Quebec. Indeed, the Quiet Revolution demonstrates that our history was significantly marked by this particular desire to ensure that the government and religion are no longer bound together, as they were during Quebec's dark ages. Perhaps that is not a tangible reality for our colleagues. To me, that demonstrates that our reality is somewhat misunderstood.
We were also told earlier that it might not be relevant to debate the substance of our motion. Why devote one of our two opposition days to removing prayer from the House?
What I have surmised from these questions we are being asked is that no one has explained to us why they want to keep or not keep prayer in the House. We are also being lectured by a party that only yesterday used a gag order to force us to quickly discuss a bill that is over 500 pages long. So when we hear about good or poor management of the House's time, I think that, given the circumstances, we should hardly be lectured.
We have also been told that, for our opposition day, we could have talked about seniors, health care or the environment. I just want to point out that we already had an opposition day about seniors. We also had an opposition day on health transfers. As for the environment, we recently inundated the government with questions about Bay du Nord. We introduced a bill to manage climate change and the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, a bill that the government voted against and that the NDP ripped apart in committee.
Basically, they are telling us to talk about important things but that they will ignore us anyway. They are telling us to talk to the hand. The government says we should manage our time wisely even though it does not really matter because it will not listen to us anyway. The message they are sending, and this is such shame, is that they could not care less about 300 years of study of Enlightenment thinking about things like secularism and the separation of church and state. They think none of that is important. Why are we spending an opposition day on this subject? Even though this is an issue that the greatest philosophers debated for years, they are dismissing it as irrelevant and certainly not a priority.
I think it is important to deal with this issue on an opposition day, considering that it is a proposal that we have already tried to have adopted in another way, particularly through a motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan. Her motion, which required unanimous consent, was not adopted. It would indeed have been much simpler to take a different approach, as Nova Scotia did recently with proposals from both the government and the official opposition before unanimous consent was finally obtained. That is obviously something that will not happen here. It is therefore appropriate to have this debate.
Our goal today is to ensure that we finish the job of separating church and state with a view to being inclusive. I commend the work of my colleagues, who have been very positive and very thoughtful in their approach to the motion. They pointed out, for example, that leading the prayer every day can be a hindrance to someone who would like to occupy the position you hold today, Madam Speaker, but who is of a faith other than the Christian faith.
It is worth asking how inclusive it is to have a Christian and Catholic daily prayer, considering we may one day like to have a Sikh, Muslim or Jewish Speaker occupying the chair and leading the prayer.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way for the government to ensure religious neutrality is not to introduce every possible form of belief into these institutions. The best way is to keep each person's religious convictions private and not to broadcast them ostentatiously in public institutions such as the House of Commons.
Those complaining that today was a wasted debate day are likely those who wasted the most time, since they did not debate the substance of the issue. Today, we could have had an intelligent debate and voted, and the matter would have been closed. Instead we were criticized for using an opposition day for this.
The surprising thing is not the topic of the Bloc Québécois motion. It is the fact that the prayer has not yet been replaced with a moment of reflection, which would be much more inclusive. The surprising thing is how reluctant our colleagues are to have this debate at all. The other thing that is surprising is that we are being criticized for having this debate here, when we are the first ones to feel the impact of this prayer. We are being criticized for having this debate when the Supreme Court took time, probably more than one day, to examine this issue with respect to a prayer at a municipal council. If members are accusing the Bloc Québécois of wasting time, then in a way, they are accusing the Supreme Court of wasting time too. I would suggest that those on the opposition benches wasted the most time today.
1025 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:32:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to make a comment that the whole premise of separation of church and state is an American construct, and its purpose is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around, so suggesting that secularism is an outgrowth of this construct of the separation of church and state is actually misinformation. Our charter used to protect citizens from compelled belief from our government, but it is now being used by the government to deny fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and freedom of expression in the public square. Freedom of religion is afforded by the charter itself, so religion and the profession of faith are not a private matter.
I would ask the member, since the Bloc members are very comfortable not coming into the House until after the national anthem, O Canada, is sung, because they openly indicate that their purpose is to separate from Canada and they freely do not pledge allegiance to Canada, could they not find it in their hearts to simply do the same in regard to this prayer, which so many members have indicated today reflects all kinds of faiths within the House of Commons?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:35:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to follow my colleague from Saint-Jean because I found her to be very eloquent.
If, from the age of Saint Augustine to the modern period, the relationship between political and spiritual power was at the forefront, the challenges of the present era are of a different nature. The state must treat with equal respect all core beliefs and commitments compatible with the requirements of fair social cooperation. That is called inclusion. Moral and religious diversity is a structural and—as far as we can tell—permanent characteristic of our democratic societies.
It therefore seems to be consistent with these words to point out that state neutrality is ensured when it neither favours nor disfavours any religious conviction; in other words, when it respects every position with regard to religion, including the position of not having one, while taking into consideration, of course, the competing constitutional rights of the people involved.
Nova Scotia finally abandoned the daily prayer in October 2021, opting instead for a moment of solemn reflection. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. It is good to be inclusive, and all three political parties in the Nova Scotia legislature, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP, were in favour of eliminating the prayer. I hope the same thing happens here at the federal level.
Is daily solemn prayer outside the role of the state? Does reciting a prayer come without any repercussions? Is it unworthy of the attention we are giving it today? Certainly not.
For example, when the Ontario legislature studied the issue of prayer in 2008, some 25,000 petitioners weighed in, and it was sent to an all-party commission for study. Even the Supreme Court of Canada was seized of the issue in 2015, so we are not completely off base in moving such a motion.
Simply put, does the prayer recited in this place reflect the beliefs of the population?
Far from promoting diversity, does this practice reflect a tendency to favour one particular religious tradition and give precedence to religious beliefs over non-religious ones? I think we can all agree that the prayer said here has a very strong Judeo-Christian leaning.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way to ensure state secularism is not to introduce as many different beliefs as possible, especially since there are so many. Instead, we believe that individual religious beliefs should be kept in the private realm and should not be on display within public institutions.
Between 2015 and 2019, my colleague moved a motion that the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against. In response, I gave interviews on the radio, and the Bloc Québécois's news release was widely reported in our local papers. Our constituents are very interested when this topic comes up.
Authors of an article who studied the more than 870 prayers read out in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia between 2003 and 2019 concluded that other legislatures would do well to adopt Quebec's approach to prayers. They said:
The prayers could be replaced with a time for silent reflection, similar to the practice in the Quebec National Assembly.
The most straightforward step would be to abolish the practice of legislative prayer completely.
We are being used as a model.
There is no question for Quebeckers and Canadians that elected officials are not chosen by a divine power but rather by a democratic process in which voters have their say.
The ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate in public life, because that is what democracy is all about.
Furthermore, in the process of recruiting and encouraging participation in active politics, all the parties represented here call upon citizens from all walks of life, and this clearly illustrates the progress made by society as a whole. This is very good.
The times have changed. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous judgment in favour of the Mouvement laïque québécois, that the “state's duty of religious neutrality results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion”. That is what the Supreme Court wrote.
What the Bloc Québécois finds strange is that Parliament, which presents itself as an institution that advocates for the preservation and promotion of multiculturalism in Canadian society, chooses to recite a prayer at the opening of each House sitting, and that it chooses a certain prayer rather than one from another religion. When it makes that choice, it does so at the expense of other religions or atheism. It fails to consider the rights of cultural minority religions and inclusion in Canadian society.
The Parliament of Canada is no place for proselytizing. No religious belief should be promoted in this place. We need this place to be a neutral public space, free of coercion, free of pressure and free of judgment. This is how, in matters of spirituality, we manage to protect everyone's freedom of religion and conscience.
A little further on in the same Supreme Court ruling, it states, and I quote, “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.”
There are believers, but there are also non-believers. Notwithstanding what was just said, I also want to add that spirituality does exist, but it is specific to each individual. It is private. It should be experienced and expressed somewhat privately. That is what the Quebec National Assembly did in 1976. Every session begins with a moment of silent reflection. That is what the Bloc Québécois motion is proposing, nothing more and nothing less. It is a time to listen to one's conscience. It is an opportunity for members to collect their thoughts and harness their energy, to get in touch with their feelings about the challenges they face or to think about loved ones. It is personal.
I will now share a quote from Clément Richard, a former speaker of the Quebec National Assembly. On December 15, 1976, he confirmed the adoption of a new rule.
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.
Our motion is quite simply about respect.
Spirituality is not a synonym for religion or even confession. The growing number of non‑believers in Canada could speak at length about that. The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that cannot be ignored. Secularism is a system for organizing and ensuring equality among the principles of freedom of conscience, the separation of church and state, and equality among citizens. These principles are absolutely essential parts of democracy, and we must not forget that.
1225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:06:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to speak to the motion put forward by my good friend from Drummond.
He texted me this morning, asking for my thoughts on his motion. I told him that I was still thinking about it because it is a grey area for me. It is not black and white. As a non-practising member of a minority religion, I fully understand that the member for Drummond has good intentions, wanting to make this place more pluralistic so that everyone feels more comfortable. However, I also understand that these traditions have been part of the House for 150 years. I think the best way to explain why I see this as a grey area is to explain how I view secularism and religious freedom.
One of the things that I think is fundamental is that we, as a society, have to confront two different themes. In one, section 2 of our Charter guarantees us the right to freedom of religion. This is subject to section 1, which allows the state to place reasonable limits on freedom of religion.
I look for inspiration not to continental Europe, but to the United States. The United States on our continent was one of the first countries to have a Bill of Rights that guaranteed two very different themes. Article 1 of the Bill of Rights says that Congress shall make no law to establish a religion. It also says that Congress shall make no law to abridge freedom of religion. Those two concepts need to go hand in hand.
Canada should have no law that favours one religion over another, or favours religion over atheism or agnosticism or anything else.
To me, it is very clear that crosses do not belong in the House of Commons, because it is a symbol of only one religion. When I was mayor of Côte‑Saint‑Luc in the greater Montreal area, there was a big cross hanging on the wall of Montreal City Hall. I voted in favour of the motion to remove it, because to me, the government obviously cannot favour one religion over another. There may be a way to hang the symbols of 50 different religions on the walls of the House, but that is probably not the best option. That is very obvious to me.
One other thing is very clear to me, and unfortunately, I somewhat disagree with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. In my view, they are confusing freedom of religion with an individual's freedom to practise a religion.
That is why I was so against Bill 21 in Quebec. Bill 21 in Quebec says to individuals that they no longer have the right to work in certain jobs because of their beliefs. I do not agree with that whatsoever.
I am a member from Quebec, so I can speak as a Quebecker. In my riding, Mount Royal, many people wear the kippah, the hijab or other religious symbols. These religiously active individuals do not have the right to remove them, according to their religion.
Let me be clear about that. There are religions where people who are practising wear symbols. Orthodox Jewish men wear a kippah, religious Muslim women who believe in wearing the hijab choose to wear a hijab, and Sikh men wear turbans if they are religious.
They do not have the right to just take those symbols off. When there is a law saying people cannot work in certain jobs if they wear these symbols, that is creating an inequality of religions. It is saying to the people who practise religions that do not force them to wear those symbols that they can work in those jobs, but if they practise a different religion that requires them to wear a symbol, they cannot work in those jobs.
There is actually a violation of the liberty of all religions and the equality of all religions. That, to me, is a clear point.
I should also mention that I am well aware that there is diversity in society, and that many people believe the opposite of what I just said. A philosophy of secularism predominates in France and Belgium. I will choose my words carefully, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a philosophy.
I personally do not believe in that philosophy at all. I think it creates discrimination.
I would hate to have to tell a little girl in my riding who wears the hijab that she can never be a teacher in a public school in Quebec, but that she can be one anywhere else in Canada or the United States. I would also hate to have to tell a little boy wearing the kippah that he cannot be an attorney. I personally have a problem with that. It is not the right way to distinguish between freedom of religion and secularism. Where secularism is important is when we talk about the state.
As a symbol of the state, I will now get to the question of prayer.
In general, I agree that if a person is agnostic and has to be part of a prayer, or is pushed into being part of a prayer that the person may not otherwise want to be part of, it is unfair to the person who is agnostic. It would be obvious to me that, if the prayer we had before us was a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh prayer, it would be totally unacceptable in the House of Commons, because we cannot prefer one religion over the other. However, I am in a grey zone, because while I equally see the problem for a person who does not believe in any religion to have to hear a prayer every single day, I also understand that there are traditions that exist not only here but in the United States.
In the United States Congress, members have a prayer before every session, despite the fact that, constitutionally in the United States, the separation of church and state is much stronger than it is in Canada. I then look at the question of how this is done in other parliaments that are similar to ours. The U.K. Parliament has a prayer before Parliament opens, and in Australia there is a prayer before Parliament opens. In both of those parliaments, the same as in Canada's, non-denominational prayers are followed by a moment of reflection. In New Zealand, they have a prayer. That prayer was a Christian prayer that talked about Jesus Christ until five years ago in 2017. That was in a diverse country like New Zealand.
As well, there is tradition. I respect traditions of prayer, so I am kind of torn. I believe there must be a better way than what we do now. I agree that what we do now definitely is not necessarily fair to some MPs. I also think it is lacking in recognizing the indigenous traditions of this country.
I guess what I am saying is that I feel very strongly about certain things, and I feel very strongly that we have gone too far in many cases in this country by saying that religion has no place in public. I do believe that religion has a place in public. Individual people can be guided by their conscience, and they are allowed to practice their religion in full public view. I had no problem, as mayor, with having a Christmas tree and a menorah on the lawn of our city hall. However, I also understand that when it comes to the state, the state absolutely must be completely neutral. I believe that is a hard balance to find, which is why I say that, although it is easy for politicians to take a stand on a lot of things, this one is harder for me, because I am really torn. I will have to decide before tomorrow.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to talk about the fact that I am still a bit confused about the issue, and I am not sure which way I am going to lean.
1374 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend from Drummond.
I started by explaining why I did this. As I told my friend this morning, I was reflecting because I was a little confused. I used my speech to explain why I am confused about state secularism and freedom of religion, which are two different yet very important concepts. I spoke about some things that are clear in my own thoughts and beliefs, but I am a little more confused about this issue.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
