44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, since an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
93 words
All Topics
- 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
- May/10/22 4:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say that the motion before us today is much more specifically about the separation of state and religion than it is about a holiday that people can celebrate as they wish at home, on a statutory holiday that we have all become accustomed to over time and that may affect people differently depending on how they decide to spend that day, which would have a much broader effect. If we were to really explore this, it would have to be done in a much broader sense, because statutory holidays affect a lot more people than just the 338 members of the House.
The separation of state and religion can hardly be more graphically illustrated than by a prayer in the very heart of what represents democracy. This is what our motion today is all about.
139 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 4:33:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I would be quite surprised if it was confirmed that a concept developed during the Enlightenment in Europe was actually a typical American construct.
When the concept of separation of church and state was first introduced 300 years ago, I do not believe that the goal was to protect the church, because it did not really need protection, just as it did not when this work began during the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. The goal was the exact opposite.
Coming back to the many other points that the member raised about the national anthem and Quebec's desire for independence, that is all politics. We are not asking for the separation of state and politics, we are asking for the separation of state and religion. I believe that is what we must focus on when asking questions today.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:34:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am inclined to support the motion before us, although not because I have anything against the idea of prayer. In fact, I have many constituents who pray for me, and I welcome those prayers in the spirit they are intended. I am sure there is always a good intention there.
I do believe in the idea of this place being neutral when it comes matters of religion, and I believe that is very much the thrust of this motion. I come from local government, as many people in this place do. The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 on a case involving prayer at municipal council meetings, so I was somewhat surprised when I arrived here just a few years ago and found a religious prayer at the beginning of our proceedings.
We brought forward an amendment regarding a land acknowledgement at the beginning of our proceedings and the Bloc Québécois did not accept this amendment. I wonder if my colleague could indicate why that amendment was not accepted and whether she supports the concept.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:35:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have too little time left to speak about that.
As I just mentioned, this issue may be much more political than what we are trying to do, which is to separate church and state. I believe that these two issues are different enough to be treated separately. This does not make my colleague's proposal devoid of interest. On the contrary, I believe that it deserves to be debated, so I invite my colleague's party to bring it forward on an opposition day. In short, the concepts are different enough that I believe we are justified in debating them separately.
104 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 4:45:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there are a number of us who are a little confused as to why the Bloc has brought forward this issue.
When I talk to my colleagues from the Quebec Liberal caucus, they talk about issues such as health care, seniors and the aerospace industry in Quebec. There are so many different issues in Quebec, as there are in Canada. However, when I looked at the Order Paper, I saw that Bloc members were using one of the two opportunities they get this session to talk about something I have not heard a constituent in Winnipeg North raise in the last 10 years raise. I am a bit confused.
We just went through a pandemic, and we are not quite through it yet. The mandate is still there for masking in the province of Quebec today. We also have issues with the war in Europe. Is this really the most important issue, from the Bloc's perspective, in Quebec today?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:46:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.
There is just one thing: Could we try to debate the substance? From what I understood, my colleagues' interventions today never dealt with the substance of the issue. They always asked why we had chosen this over something else. The Bloc Québécois talks about respect, democracy and inclusion.
In a speech he gave earlier, a government member talked about breaking down barriers and being inclusive. That is what we are talking about. Why are the people asking the questions not dealing with the substance of the matter, rather than saying that we could have done something else?
Yes, we could have done something else. We only get two days, but I would be in favour of changing the Standing Orders so that there are more opposition days.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, usually the legislation, motions or bills before the House are to benefit Canadians. I am puzzled as to what the motion is going to do to benefit Canadians, other than just wasting this day to discuss it.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
We could have wrapped this up quickly. It could have been resolved back in 1976, when Quebec's National Assembly rectified the problem. It could have been resolved when my colleague from Manicouagan put forward a similar motion and all that was needed was a yes or no. It could have been resolved in just over two minutes, and we could have moved on. However, that is not what happened.
Let me come back to the matter at hand. No, I do not think that a day spent talking about respect and inclusion is a wasted day, at least not for the Bloc Québécois. Let us vote for the motion.
In 2021, in Nova Scotia, all of the parties voted unanimously in support of a similar motion. How interesting. Change is in the air. This is the 21st century.
No, I do not think that this was a waste of time. If everyone votes in favour of the motion, it will be resolved once and for all.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will respond to the substance of the motion. I agree with the principle of the separation of church and state, and I agree that references to religious concepts are also are not appropriate in public sector proceedings, so I will support the motion.
Equally, I know that the climate crisis threatens our planet. The housing crisis means millions of Canadians are right now living with insecurity and worry, and our health care system is under serious strain, if not a crisis. I think it is a fair question to ask the Bloc, with all of these serious, pressing, existential issues facing Québécois, Canadians and our world, why they decided that the opening prayer of Parliament is a more important issue to debate in the House.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:49:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois opted to talk about an issue that relates to respect for people and how we can include everyone, even non-believers. That is what we chose.
I would respond to the member's comment by saying that the Bloc Québécois does not talk about climate change or any other issue on just one day a year. Let us look at last Sunday: 10% of the Bloc Québécois members were in Quebec City at a demonstration for the environment. There are other ways to do things and to work on other issues. For example, petitions about seniors garnered thousands of signatures. I will stop at that, but I could give plenty of other examples.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:50:23 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for Kenora, Housing.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:50:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal.
I will start my speech by prefacing that the rules of the House of Commons provide for a day of debate on the Standing Orders and procedures each Parliament, and we understand this debate will happen in June. I recognize that there have been comments that it is a single day, but it is a day that is devoted to actually debating Standing Orders and how we can improve the way we are to—
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt, but one of the hon. members has a phone near the mike. It is creating a lot of interference, as it is vibrating.
The hon. member for Waterloo.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:51:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the interpreters because I know the important work they do.
We know there is a day devoted to debating Standing Orders in this chamber. We know that debate will take place in June, and it would be the appropriate place to discuss any changes, such as those to the non-denominational prayer at the beginning of each day.
We have heard today, during this session, that there are eight opposition days. These are opportunities for opposition members to come forward and challenge the government to do even better for their constituents and to do even better for Canadians. We know that the Bloc has two days when it is able to bring issues forward. I find it interesting that they are choosing to use their debate time for Standing Order changes, rather than the issues that are actually being addressed by their constituents.
This is the House of Commons, where there are 338 members of Parliament, elected from coast to coast to coast. My priority, since being elected, has always been the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. They are the reason I am here. They are the reason I was elected. They are who I serve every single day.
They may be concerned with the Standing Orders, the rules that govern this chamber, but I know that, more so, they are impacted by the challenges they are facing every single day. There are many other important issues the Bloc could have chosen to debate today. There are those I am sure Quebeckers would have appreciated, and that all MPs would have liked to have debated, including how the COVID-19 pandemic has shed a light on long-standing issues and gaps within our society, how global inflationary pressures are further exacerbated by Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and how climate change continues to be an existential threat for Canada and the world, as well as a woman's right to her body and the fundamental right for a woman to choose.
MPs were elected on behalf of all Canadians to address the most important social, health, financial and economic issues of our time in the House of Commons. Of all the pressing issues facing our country, I find it surprising that the Bloc Québécois has chosen this issue instead of offering constructive ideas about how we address the challenges that Canadians and Quebeckers face.
That is why I will address the pressing issues we could be debating in my speech, such as the Canadian economy. I will address issues that constituents within the riding of Waterloo have brought forward to me. I get to hear a diversity of perspectives and experiences. Some agree with the government. Some challenge the government. Some push the government to do more, and I believe this is an appropriate time to be debating and discussing what constituents would like us to do.
There are more Canadians working now than at any other time in the history of our country, and 19.6 million Canadians currently have a job. This is almost 3.5 million more than at the height of the pandemic and about a half million more than before COVID struck. We have the strongest unemployment rate recovery in the G7, and the national unemployment rate is 5.2%.
The last time it was that low, John Diefenbaker was still a member of the House of Commons. There were also around 265 MPs in this place, and fewer than 10 were women elected to the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois did not even exist as a party then.
The point is that it is an impressive recovery, and we have so much more to do. Canada has come roaring back, thanks in large part to the extraordinary and innovative programs the federal government has put in place to support Canadians, businesses and the economy. That said, we know that challenges remain, such as, for example, the current elevated inflation.
It is a global phenomenon, and it is making things more expensive in Canada as well. Supply chain disruptions continue to hurt everyone, and now Putin's war is making food and gas even more expensive. Inflation in Canada is lower than in many countries around the world, but we know that it still hurts many Canadians. I am hearing about it from my constituents in the riding of Waterloo.
That is why we, as a government, are focused on Canadians. We are focused on proposing measures that will help make life more affordable for Canadians.
The official opposition, the Conservatives, continue to focus on personal attacks and disinformation, and clearly, the Bloc Québécois is focusing on the Standing Orders. I will repeat that, as a government, we are focused on Canadians. We are focused on proposing measures that will help make life more affordable for Canadians.
Let us take housing, for example. It is a basic human need and an economic imperative. However, Canada does not have enough homes. We need more of them. Over the next 10 years, we will put Canada on track to double the number of new homes being built in this country.
Budget 2022, tabled by theMinister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, includes measures to make it easier to build more housing. It also includes measures that would remove barriers that prevent homes from being built. Budget 2022 would also make it easier for young people to get the keys of their first home.
Of course, tackling housing affordability will be a challenge that will require a great national effort and a new spirit of collaboration between the federal government, provinces and territories, regions and municipalities, the private sector, and non-profit groups. Rest assured the federal government will do its part.
In fact, we already are doing our part, because to make life more affordable for Canadians, we need to make the housing market fairer for Canadians. We will ban foreign investment, which has fuelled speculation on pricing and has made housing less affordable for Canadians. We will curb prices on property flipping, which makes housing more expensive for Canadians.
Earlier this year, the government also announced an investment of up to $750 million to help cities deal with operating deficits in public transit. To respect jurisdiction and to increase the impact of this investment, funding will be considered on provincial and territorial governments matching this federal contribution and also on accelerating their effort to improve housing supply in collaboration with municipalities. These are the issues I am hearing about from constituents in my riding.
Our government is focused on Canadians and measures that will provide them with the support they need. The reality is these measures will help those struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live in our cities.
I have been talking about budget 2022, but let me also remind the House of budget 2021. In budget 2021, the government laid out an ambitious plan to provide Canadian parents with, on average, $10-a-day regulated child care spaces for children under the age of six. It was unfortunate the Province of Ontario, my home province, was the last one to join, but in less than a year, we reached agreements with all provinces and territories.
By the end of this year, families will have seen their child care fees reduced by an average of 50%. That is an average of $6,000 per child for families in British Columbia and Ontario. This is not in five years, and it is not in 10 years. I am talking about savings by the end of December. By 2025-26, our plan will have child care fees at an average of $10-a-day for all regulated child care spaces across Canada, which will mean thousands of dollars in savings for families across Canada.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Bardish Chagger: Madam Speaker, I am hearing some comments about whether we are going to talk about the Standing Orders. There will be a day in this House when we will get to talk about the Standing Orders, a day devoted to the Standing Orders that govern the people in this chamber, the House of Commons, the place I was elected to by the good people of the riding of Waterloo.
They elected me to put their needs first. They elected me to represent the diversity of their experiences and needs. My focus in this chamber will be the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, and how I work with the government to deliver better outcomes. Unfortunately, the Bloc's focus is on the Standing Orders. It is unfortunate, because usually the Bloc brings out really important topics. That is why I am surprised with the topic of today.
I know I am running out of time, but I wanted to talk about seniors because we know seniors are vulnerable. I wanted to talk about youth, and I wanted to talk about the environment, but I will extend the floor back to the Speaker so I can get into questions and comments. I am thankful for this opportunity.
1534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would be interested in getting my colleague's perspective in this regard. Obviously, this institution is founded so much on our history and background. What went into the history of this Parliament is quite incredible, and the fingerprints of faith are throughout the institutions on this very Hill. Over the windows of Parliament, we will find engraved scriptures from the past: “Without a vision, the people will perish”. We find, in the Canadian Coat of Arms, no fewer than two scriptural references, including “from sea to sea”, which is part of our national motto, and “they desire a better country”, which is based on the ancient writing of Hebrews.
The vital role that faith has played in the founding of our country, and continues to play for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast from various backgrounds, should not only be respected but recognized. Could the hon. member make some comments in that regard?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that when the rules governing this chamber were made, people like me did not have the right to vote. People like me did not have the right to put their names on the ballot, let alone be elected. This chamber, once upon a time, probably had many men who resembled the member, but I was not reflected.
Our history is important and relevant, but in this chamber debating Standing Orders will happen on a day in June. I would like to actually debate issues that are important to my constituents. I would like to debate how we ensure that more people can enter the economy, how we can create more jobs and the conditions for growth for businesses, how we fight climate change and how we ensure more Canadians can succeed and have better outcomes.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
