SoVote

May/10/22 5:04:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the Bloc can choose what they want to debate today. I just want to share with the House the issues that are important to my constituents in Waterloo. That is what I have done today. Standing Orders, and this debate, are definitely important, and it will happen on a day in June, but Standing Orders impact the members who are elected in this chamber. I am in this chamber to represent the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, and that is my focus and priority.

91 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/10/22 5:05:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not mean this to sound tongue-in-cheek, but I think sometimes many Canadians believe this place does not have a prayer. I wonder if we really want to move to a place where we do not even have quiet prayers before the House begins. Honestly, with the war in Ukraine and the galloping climate emergency, I am pretty much in a state of constant prayer. That does not need to be public, but I wonder if we can concentrate on the issues that really matter right now. I know it is a Bloc Québécois opposition day and the member for Waterloo wants to get to June to talk about the Standing Orders, but I think we need, in our own ways, to work miracles so that our kids have a livable world.

141 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/10/22 5:06:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are so many matters at the forefront for Canadians. I am a constituency MP, in the sense that I am in my inbox reading emails about people's hardships. When I receive an email at three o'clock in the morning because someone might not have a place to call home, or someone is concerned about how they are going to feed their children, I think about what we can do to provide better supports. That is why I spoke about the Canada child benefit. That is why I talked about our national housing strategy, and that is why I think it is important that we have discussions that actually impact Canadians—

116 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/22 5:06:50 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate.

5 words

Resume

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

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

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/10/22 5:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am delighted. Unfortunately, I missed part of the speech by my colleague from Mount Royal because I was busy doing other, less interesting things. With my colleague's speech, we finally got a speech about the motion being debated today. We have heard more criticism about the relevance of the motion than about the content of the motion itself, so I very much appreciate the speech by my colleague and friend from Mount Royal. I also heard that his speech referenced Quebec laws, including Bill 21, which bans or abolishes the wearing of religious symbols in certain professions. It is not at all a ban on wearing religious symbols in public. It is important to make that distinction. That being said, that has nothing to do with the motion moved today since we are talking, obviously, as he did when he eventually came back to the topic at hand, about the prayer and the symbolism of the prayer before we begin our work here in the House of Commons. I want to thank my colleague. I hope he will sleep on this and see that this motion is about openness. We want to make this motion, moved by the Bloc Québécois, about inclusion. We want everyone to feel respected in the House and we think that having a moment of reflection during which everyone can choose to pray or meditate would be the best way to satisfy everyone. That was a comment, but I congratulate—

253 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/22 5:17:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mount Royal

6 words

Royal
Mount

Mr. Anthony Housefather

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

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

May/10/22 5:17:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like how the member clearly stated that he is right on the fence and not prepared to make a decision. I am very appreciative. He talked about how people are going to be offended one way or the other on various issues in his speech. If people are going to question whether they will find an offensive nature in whatever they say or do, they will never do anything because they are always going to offend somebody in some form or another. Would the member agree that no matter what people decide, they would always find offence in somebody else's opinion?

105 words

Mr. Anthony Housefather

May/10/22 5:18:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think I used the word “offensive” or referred to people finding offence at all in my speech. I was trying to explain that sometimes in our society there are two intertwining concepts. One is freedom of religion, and I entirely agree with some of the things that some Conservative members have said today. There is an attempt to bury religion in our society that I do not agree with. I think individuals in our society have every right to bring their faith into public view, but I also believe that the state itself has to be neutral and secular. Therefore, there is confusion. I could not care less in this case if we offend or do not offend somebody. I want to do what I think is the right thing, and I have to be honest and admit that because of those two interwoven themes, I am not 100% sure what the right thing to do here is.

165 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/10/22 5:19:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made a thoughtful speech. He is clearly thinking about how he should proceed here. With that being said, he raised the issue around tradition versus what should be done to ensure inclusive approaches in the House of Commons. This is a really important issue here from my perspective. I think inclusivity should absolutely be the way to go forward. I was dismayed that the Bloc rejected the NDP amendment to ensure that we include indigenous people and we recognize them, recognize that this is their land that we do our work in. All of us who are non-indigenous people are settlers in this country. We should, in fact, recognize that. It is not about politics. In fact, this is our history and we must own it. To that end, I would like to ask the member if he would agree that the proceedings should be changed to ensure that indigenous peoples are recognized in this very chamber.

162 words

Mr. Anthony Housefather

May/10/22 5:20:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, yes, I believe that we should find a way to include the recognition of indigenous title within the way we open the House of Commons. I do believe in respecting traditions. I do not believe in throwing out traditions, but I believe we have to find a more inclusive way of continuing with traditions and modifying them to be respectful, which is, again, why I am not 100% sure how I am going to vote.

83 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/10/22 5:21:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I often do, I will start by making the topic accessible to those watching. In Lac‑Saint‑Jean, I have a youth council, and we have a small Messenger group. We sometimes send each other stuff. Whenever I have a speech to make, I ask them if they have anything to say, and they really like that. I asked these young people in my riding, who are of different faiths, by the way, to read the following text. I assure the House that I will never repeat it again after I finish reading it: Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen. I know that the Chair reads this prayer better than I do, but I tried anyway. The House will not be surprised to learn that these young people were surprised. In fact, their reaction was fairly unanimous on one point: Parliament belongs to everyone, but to no particular religion. They all even insisted, and I share their opinion, that they respected everyone's faith. After all, the freedom to believe or not to believe is a foundation of our democracy. It is something that is agreed upon. To paraphrase two well-known authors in Quebec who explain this in more detail than I can, moral and religious diversity is a structuring and permanent characteristic of democratic societies. Today's debate is not about anyone's personal beliefs. On the contrary, it is about our institution showing a preference for religion, and even for one religion in particular. Our motion is not emotionally charged, it is not disrespectful of anyone and it is certainly not dogmatic. Our motion is directed at the growing cultural diversity that has become part of the fabric of our society and is expressed directly in this Parliament. As anyone can see, regardless of the parties represented here, the cultural and spiritual diversity among the members of this House is evident and significant. Setting aside the beliefs of the members, there is also an evident and significant spiritual diversity among the people we represent, whether in Quebec or in the rest of Canada. Given all this spiritual diversity, it is worth questioning the neutrality of the state in light of the various religions and the growing number of people who do not believe in a god. Societies change, and so has ours. We need to make changes to our institutions from time to time, which is fine and even necessary, since things are no longer the way they were in 1877. For almost 150 years, the Speaker and his predecessors—most of them men, everyone will agree—have said a prayer in the House before each sitting, the one that I just read or a similar version. Some say that this is tradition, and that is fine. However, if we were to rely solely on this argument, the Speaker would still be wearing a two cornered hat, such as the one worn by Napoleon, with a wig underneath. I must admit that I would be willing to revive this tradition if only so I could take a selfie with you, Madam Speaker. All kidding aside, the fact remains that other than the attire, a lot has changed in Canada since then. This is obvious to me, as it is to the young people to whom I read the prayer and told about its existence. The time has come to do something about it, quite simply, by adopting this motion that will give us the opportunity to pray, meditate, take a moment or recharge, as we see fit, in the way that best suits our values. That is why we propose two minutes of silence. We believe that the best way to ensure the religious neutrality of the state is to keep the expression of one's religious beliefs a private matter, not an ostentatious display in public institutions. I use the word “ostentatious” because I can already see people wanting to introduce all possible forms of belief into our institutions. This is a small aside, but I think that this would necessarily end up crowding out certain cultures and spiritualities, including indigenous ones, and I would find it dangerous to start judging practices one by one. If we want to give real value to prayer or any religious demonstration of gratitude or reflection, it must be done in silence, peacefully, between the members and what they individually find meaningful. Basically, what we are saying, and what half the world is thinking, is that the best approach to state spirituality is “one size fits all”, if I may say so. This would mean two minutes of silence, for everyone. That ends my aside. Quite frankly, I believe that we are all equal here in Parliament. This way, each person can do as they wish in silence, without being ostentatious. It seems to me that elected officials are not chosen by or at the service of a supreme being. They are chosen by Quebeckers, or by Canadians, for my friends who live in other provinces. I believe in the people who chose us to represent them. Every morning I get up and perform my little ritual. I look at the Post-it note on which I have written, “Who do you work for?” Today, in this debate, I will answer the same way I always do: I work for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebeckers in all the splendour of their diversity. I believe that our role as MPs begins with representing the entire population and its diversity, with respect for everyone's beliefs. My ritual, if that is what it is, helps me do a better job, and it is my own. The Bloc Québécois and I find it rather odd that Parliament calls itself an institution that promotes the preservation and promotion of multiculturalism in Canadian society, yet it chooses to recite one prayer rather than another at the beginning of its sittings. It is a bit of a paradox, and I believe it comes at the expense of other religions or belief systems. That is not a gesture of inclusion. We feel that it affects the participation of certain believers and non-believers in public life, to the detriment of others. Maintaining such traditions locks us into a way of thought that excludes certain communities. By stripping this moment of reflection of its one-dimensional religious character, we will be showing all believers and non-believers the basic respect that we owe them. I do not mean to muddle the debates, as this is not the purpose of the motion, but I must point out that we pray for the Queen, the head of the Anglican church, completely ignoring all other spiritual leaders. The young people I showed the prayer to noticed it. We have a society that wants neutral institutions and more inclusive practices, but we continue to focus on the representative of one particular religion every day. We have to take a good look in the mirror. Fortunately, there are examples we can draw on. Since December 15, 1976, the Quebec National Assembly no longer says a prayer, but instead meditates at the opening of each sitting. Its Speaker made this decision unilaterally at the time, saying he had made the change “[o]ut of respect for the members of this Assembly, who are not all necessarily of the same religious denomination”. The idea may have been revolutionary at the time. I was not born yet. Today, it is a given, and it is not questioned anymore. In Nova Scotia, members observe a moment of silence and reflection before the Speaker opens the sitting. The government and the opposition even came to an agreement in Canada's oldest legislature, where the prayer had been said since 1758, back when New France still existed. That is no small thing. In Saguenay, close to where I live, the practice of reciting a prayer in a place of power was scrutinized by our highest court. In 2015, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision stating that reciting the prayer impaired the plaintiff's freedom of conscience and religion. The Supreme Court said that the recitation of the prayer at city council was “a use by the council of public powers to manifest and profess one religion to the exclusion of all others”. Of course, the decision does not apply to the House because of parliamentary privilege. Nevertheless, it does have a significant impact on our debate about this practice in a place of power like this one. I know the clock is ticking. I will conclude my speech with the following observations, many of them inspired by the ruling I quoted. First, I believe that, in light of everything I said and of the law, the state must be neutral on religion. Canadian and Québec society have evolved to view that neutrality as meaning that the state should not interfere in matters of religion and belief. That means neither favouring nor hindering any particular belief or unbelief. The pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the government to encourage the free participation of everyone in public life, regardless of their beliefs. By saying that we must maintain the prayer in Parliament because we think it is important and we believe in it, we are admitting that it is not neutral and is charged with a specific spirituality. Alternatively, if we say that the prayer is not so bad because it is just a tradition that does not mean much of anything, we are admitting that the words are not really important and everyone would be more than fine if we prayed in silence for what we want to pray for. The prayer traps us in something we no longer are as a society, in other words, a colony under the yoke of religion and a city governed by a group of men, not so pious themselves, who concealed their actions in the shadow of God and a Queen, who actually have no role in our democratic responsibilities.

1784 words

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

May/10/22 5:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce something I said earlier today. At the end of the day, there are other opportunities to do this, whether it is through the Standing Orders changes that will be coming up in June or bringing up the issue before the procedure and House affairs committee, which I understand the Bloc has not done. As I pointed out, when I think of Quebec members of Parliament in the Liberal caucus, I often hear about issues in the province of Quebec that have been raised. I have never heard this issue raised. In fact, in my 20-plus years as a parliamentarian, I have never heard of this issue being raised. With everything going on in our communities, in Quebec or Manitoba or wherever it might be, why would the Bloc members see this as the most important issue? We have a pandemic, a war and so many other issues that could have been discussed.

160 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/10/22 5:32:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to make something clear: They will not have me believe that an opposition day is important to them. The proof is that, in January 2020, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion to increase EI sickness benefits for serious illnesses from 16 weeks to 50 weeks. There was a vote on this motion. The motion was adopted. Only the Liberals voted against it. Because there was a minority government, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc passed the motion. Two years later, this government still has not honoured that vote. They cannot make me believe that they think an opposition day is important. The only reason they do not want to debate this today is because they are too chicken to do so.

131 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

May/10/22 5:33:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is simple: What will it be the next time? Today, we are discussing removing a custom that has taken place within this chamber for over 100 years. It has been here from the time of our founding. What is next? Is it our national anthem because it says “God keep our land”? What is next? Is it the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which talks about the “supremacy of God”? What is next? There has been an absolute rise in secular fundamentalism to the point of excluding people of faith from public discourse. Let us be respectful of one another, and in that time of reflection, those who choose not to participate need not, or they can sit in silence. Those who choose to express their faith through prayer during that moment of silence should be able to do so freely and be embraced.

152 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/10/22 5:34:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is next? What is next? In light of what I have heard, what is next is an independent Quebec.

22 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/10/22 5:34:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know why the member would object to praying for the Queen. He might want to use the prayer from Fiddler on the Roof: “May God bless and keep the czar far away from us.” That might be the kind of prayer the member would prefer. In seriousness, he made a general argument against tradition, saying that some things have changed and other things can change too. Of course things can change and some changes have been good changes. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to critically evaluate the reasons that a tradition might have been in place previously and if there are downsides to removing that tradition. In this case, we have a brief prayer followed by an opportunity for reflection, and that seems to be an inclusive formula. People have an opportunity to engage in secular reflection as they may wish, and there is also a very open-ended monotheistic prayer that really anybody from a monotheistic religious tradition can buy into. Does the member at least accept that making this dramatic change to tradition in one opposition day is not the best way to proceed?

197 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/10/22 5:35:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about traditions. If no one ever updated anything, we would be stuck in the past. The speaker used to wear a bicorn with a wig, and that was changed because society changed. You will not see anyone walking down the street today wearing a bicorn, except maybe if it is Halloween. Logically, we need to be as inclusive as possible, and my colleague spoke about that. Right now, the prayer that is read before each sitting is not inclusive. I am not baptized, but that is not my fault, since I was raised by a communist. He changed, turned to democracy and even sat here in the House. What I am saying is that I do not feel included during the prayer read before the sitting.

131 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/10/22 5:36:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it falls to me to be the Bloc Québécois's final speaker on our opposition day. I will savour the irony because this is also the last time I am addressing the House at the same age as Christ; tomorrow is my birthday. An hon. member: Happy birthday! Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I thank the member, but he should save it for tomorrow. Let me point out that the Bloc Québécois motion would abolish the prayer that opens each sitting of the federal Parliament in favour of a moment of reflection. Let me also point out that the prayer includes a blatantly monarchist passage glorifying Queen Elizabeth and the Governor General. That comes as a surprise to many Quebeckers. Many of my compatriots got in touch with me after this morning's announcement about the subject of our opposition day, and they told me how surprised they were. Let me reassure them that I, personally, never participate in the prayer. I wait until it is over, and then I take my seat. There are two reasons for this. First, faith is personal. Second, I represent thousands of citizens of all faiths and non-beliefs. When I am here, I am not here to promote my personal identity and my personal beliefs. Of course, I am here to defend my political beliefs, because I am an elected official, and I have been given a mandate associated with those beliefs. However, I am not here to defend my personal religious beliefs, because I hold an office. Moreover, I do not have the right to designate myself or any of my colleagues by anything other than the position, the title. For the same reason, I will never answer the question when asked if I believe in God. I may answer it in private. My friends and family may ask me privately, but publicly, as a member of Parliament, I will never answer that question. Throughout the day, there seems to have been a consensus among the other parties to criticize our choice to bring this motion forward today on one of our opposition days. We are being told that we could have spent our day on real issues such as the economy, housing, health, the environment or the decline of the French language. These are examples we have heard today. I can understand hearing that criticism at 10:30 a.m. when the debate first began, but we have to wonder at the fact that it is now after 5 p.m. and that is the only compelling argument we have heard. We call this type of argument a “whataboutism”, which is the practice of deflecting criticism by raising other real or alleged grievances. We are talking about a problem, but members are responding by saying that some other problem also exists and we are not talking about that. Obviously, members are trying to avoid commenting on the substance of the issue. Let us be clear. We will not take any lessons on what we decide to do with our opposition days. I want to make that clear from the start. We will also not take any lessons with regard to our political and parliamentary action. We have a good track record in that regard. We speak regularly on every issue, whether it be social, economic or environmental. Whether an issue is being discussed in committee, in the House or in the media, we are there. The René Lévesque government did away with the prayer in the National Assembly in 1976. Even though the decision to stop that practice was made prior to that, it was implemented in 1976. I think we can all agree that the Lévesque government was proactive to say the least. Doing away with the prayer did not prevent the Lévesque government from being what was likely one of the most proactive governments in the history of Quebec. This secular moment of reflection is the best way to respect freedom of conscience. Seven members of Parliament are former members of the National Assembly: four from the Bloc, two Conservatives and one Liberal. I am not interested in what they were thinking about or what inspired them when they stood up for the moment of reflection in the National Assembly. I do not want to know. I do not want to know their faith or lack thereof. Now let me dig into the substance. What is secularism? There are many seminal texts about secularism, but I am feeling a bit mischievous, so I would like to start by quoting the Bible: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” In other words, separate the two. We have to get back to the basics of secularism to understand it properly. Decision-makers like us can gather to discuss the best future for their community, but there is one subject we will never agree on because no rational argument can be put forward, and that subject is religion. Since a consensus cannot be reached, and since we cannot prove anything about religion by saying that one plus one equals two, the issue is taken out of the public discourse and off the decision-making table. The matter is set aside. This is the very basis of secularism. If a question such as which God to honour cannot be decided by reason, there is only one solution: Removing the question from the political debate and returning it to the private domain, where everyone has the inalienable right to believe what they want and to express it. However, no religion can be imposed on the political system. To put it in contemporary terms, this means that elected officials, like all citizens, are free to worship whatever God they want, be it Allah, Buddha or Yahweh. Conversely, they are also free to dislike a particular religion, certain religions or all religions. This is also freedom of conscience. Everyone is free to pray as many times a day as they want and to read the holy books they want. However, a Parliament is not the place to express it or discuss it. Faith does not have to be expressed ostentatiously or publicly by policy-makers, who, by definition, represent people of all faiths. If we follow this logic, we need to dismiss the idea that secularism is a thing of the past. It may have worked back then, but we are now a multi-faith society. I would say that secularism is even more relevant in such a society, since it is the only way for people from all religious backgrounds to coexist within the same state. The idea behind the Enlightenment was that political decisions must only be arrived at through reason. Voltaire said that discord is the greatest ill of mankind and that tolerance is the only remedy for it. Many important people from my riding in Quebec have been at the forefront of the secularization of our society. Take, for example, Louis-Antoine Dessaulles, the seigneur of Saint-Hyacinthe in the 19th century, or mayor and minister Télesphore‑Damien Bouchard in the 20th century, who fought against the excesses of clericalism. Another 20th-century example is Yves Michaud, who, as editor of the Clairon, a newspaper in Saint‑Hyacinthe, was one of the hardest-hitting opposition voices during the Duplessis era. Quebec recognizes that religion is a big part of its history and that it will always, in some way, be a defining part of its culture. We do, however, know where religion has no place. In 1960, the Quiet Revolution marked the beginning of a major process of secularization of services, including schools. Secularization is a constant and ongoing process. More recently, there has been debate over the issue of visible religious symbols worn by certain government representatives, those in positions of authority—basically any government representative. Opinions differ, which is fine, because it is a healthy debate. The crucifix that used to hang over the Speaker's chair in Quebec's National Assembly was not removed until 2018. It was hung there in 1936, by Maurice Duplessis's government, with the specific and explicit intention of formalizing the connection between church and state. I want to be clear: Crosses and crucifixes are not an issue when they are used in private spaces, or in a public space as a heritage piece. The same is true for the numerous “saints” who appear in the names of many institutions, such as the name of my riding. The names of 19 of the 25 municipalities I represent begin with “Saint” and this should simply be seen as a tribute to what we once were. The problem with the crucifix in the blue room was its location. It was set above the members who vote on legislation, in the house of democracy. That is why the prayer was no longer recited starting in the 1970s. In Canada, it is more complex. God's supremacy is in the preamble to the Constitution and the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. We therefore have a longer way to go, but we could take an important step by adopting the Bloc Québécois motion. I invite the House one last time to decide in favour of a little more secularism and ensure that the House stop this proselytization practice. In closing, I will paraphrase the great French orator Jean Jaurès by saying that secularism and social progress are two indivisible processes and that we will fight for both.

1638 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 68