SoVote

May/10/22 12:15:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, looking at what is happening in the United States with respect to women's right to abortion, it would seem that this crisis has crossed the border. Some women in Canada also face limited access to abortion. In many parts of the country, women do not have access to this aspect of health care, which is so important. It is so important, in fact, that we could have spent an entire day debating it in the House of Commons. It would have been an important and vigorous debate. Additionally, as everyone is well aware, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is causing an international crisis, and democratic structures are crumbling in several countries. More and more, dictatorships are taking over. This also has an impact throughout the world, including in Canada and Quebec. Today's debate could have been about the crises that we are experiencing on the international scene. There is also the crisis related to children's health. We know very well that today, on a global scale, we are going to lose 30,000 children. This affects pretty much all children around the world, and could have been part of today's discussion. I am also thinking of the pandemic, which is affecting Canadians. People are still dying. All the issues related to the pandemic and the response to the pandemic are important, and we could have been talking about that all day. An opposition day is a day when we should be talking about the real issues, in other words, things that affect people, that affect our constituents. As I said at the beginning of my speech, in all the years I spent in Quebec, no one ever said to me that the prayer at the opening of each sitting of the House of Commons was important to them. As other speakers have already said, this issue could have been addressed in the debates on the Standing Orders of the House, which are set to begin in a few weeks in any event. I think the motion is acceptable and I see no problem with it, but I just want to point out that all these issues related to the prayer will be addressed in a few weeks anyway. As far as today's motion is concerned, I think that we should talk about indigenous land acknowledgement, which is something we should have had for years. That is why, in closing, I propose an amendment, seconded by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I will read it. That the motion be amended: (a) by adding, after the words “abolished and replaced by”, the words “an indigenous land acknowledgement and”; (b) by deleting the words “(1) A moment of reflection be observed” and substituting the words “(1) An indigenous land acknowledgement and a moment of reflection be observed”.

482 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Drummond if he consents to this amendment being moved. The hon. member for Drummond.

49 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 12:20:37 p.m.
Watch

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

22 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

May/10/22 12:22:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also have a lot of respect for my colleague from Drummond. I find it sad that the Bloc Québécois rejected the amendment to acknowledge indigenous land. This is something that people have been suggesting for years, and it is sad that the Bloc Québécois did not accept this amendment, which just makes sense. As I said earlier, I have no issues with the motion and will probably vote in favour of it. However, I think there are other more pressing issues, and that is what I expressed in my speech.

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/10/22 12:22:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to pick up on the idea of Standing Orders with the member. When I think of changes to the Standing Orders, where there is anything of any real substance, members would want to, at the very least, make an attempt to reach out to other caucuses or other members. When motions are brought forward to the House, we often see that consultations are done in advance. In June, we will be having a discussion on the Standing Orders in general. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to having a dialogue on that day, or perhaps even going to the procedures and House affairs committee, as opposed to arbitrarily trying to change a specific rule?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian

May/10/22 12:23:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree that we should discuss any changes to the Standing Orders together. That is coming. That was one of the points I made in my speech. It is coming either way, so these issues can be raised. However, I think this was a missed opportunity, given the affordable housing crisis in Quebec, which is affecting regions all across Quebec. The Bloc Québécois could have moved a motion on the shortage of affordable housing units in Quebec, which we could have debated. That discussion would have had some teeth, since there is a shortage of affordable housing units all over Quebec.

114 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Peter Julian

May/10/22 12:25:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he is really advocating for an EI system that is accessible to everyone. I commend him and thank him for his work. That is the kind of thing that we could have discussed and debated in the House today.

51 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/10/22 12:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we think about what is happening in Quebec today, in fact in all of Canada, the things that come to my constituents' minds deal with issues such as health care, seniors, the pandemic, what is taking place in Europe, our environment and so much more. This is an issue, as I pointed out earlier, that I have not been approached about in 10 years. No one has even raised the issue with me, yet the Bloc seems to want to make this the issue. Does the member genuinely believe that this issue is more important than all of the other issues that I just listed, and that the people of Quebec would support this particular motion being debated when there are so many other issues that the people of Quebec and Canada are facing today?

138 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

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

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

May/10/22 12:37:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am fairly new to this place, but as I understand it, there are only three opposition days that are accorded to my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois—

53 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/10/22 12:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Two.

1 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

May/10/22 12:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Pardon me, there are two. I appreciate my colleague for Winnipeg North pointing that out. Is this really one of the top two issues we want to debate and discuss? There are issues around the House's support for Ukraine, social issues and housing issues. Is this really one of the top two issues to take up our time today?

60 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

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

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/10/22 12:39:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I used to live in the member's riding. I also volunteered at the La Prairie seniors' club. I would like to speak about seniors to the member, just to ask about the multi-generational home renovation tax credit and the home accessibility tax credit. They require a disability tax credit eligibility. Does the member believe this is fair and equitable?

63 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/10/22 12:40:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not relevant.

6 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/10/22 12:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as legislators, nothing we do can be taken lightly. Every day, we have to make decisions.

18 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 68