SoVote

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I find that what this motion does is amplify the irrelevancy of the Bloc today. Since 1993, we have had presence from the Bloc party here in the House of Commons, and today is the day when the Bloc members want to designate, in the last 20 years, a debate on this particular issue. Speaker after speaker outside of the Bloc has gotten up and talked about the importance of issues that Canada is facing today, such as health care, housing, seniors, the economy in general and so much more, yet the Bloc is so focused on this particular issue. Why today? What is the urgency today? Do Bloc members have nothing else that they believe the people of Quebec are concerned about so that they raise this issue? Not one person in 10 years has raised the issue with me.

143 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was talking about "whataboutism”. There is that, but we must not talk about such a thing. Talking about such a thing is what we do every day, and we never get an answer from the government. On health, on the environment, on housing and on everything that is given as an example, we never get an answer. I would like to make one small point. The Bloc Québécois has been in the House since 1990, even though its representatives were first elected in 1993. At that time, it took the best Liberal members. The Liberals have been here since 1867. How is it that they have not dealt with these issues? The member asks why we are doing this today. I say to him, why not do it today? It should have been done a long time ago. If not now, when will it be the right time?

157 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/10/22 5:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for those watching this important debate tonight, it really brings in some of our traditions that I previously spoke to, which started in 1877 in this place and were codified in 1927. It has been around in this place for a long time, and tradition matters to Canadians. I do not know if Canadians out there know that the Bloc does not come into the chamber until after the anthem is sung and after the prayers have been prayed. I think the question that is begging to be answered is, what about the national anthem, which recognizes God? Are Bloc members saying they want that struck from the national anthem? Are they saying they want it struck from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law? I guess the question, which was asked by a member of my party previously, is this: What is next?

156 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:49:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House that Canada's national anthem is a French-Canadian anthem that was stolen from us, much like the name “Canadian”. I want to point that out. That being said, it is important to remember that we also do not sing the national anthem. Canada appropriated it. That is a perfect example of cultural appropriation, so we no longer participate in the singing of the anthem. That makes sense, because we were elected as sovereignists. That is not the case for the other members of the House. I do not have a problem with them singing it. That being said, in answer to the question, for me, the next step would be independence for Quebec, of course. We will continue to fight for that. We still think it is the best solution. I get the feeling that members assume that because we do not participate, it does not bother us. We are here to engage in politics. We are not doing this to indulge our personal whims. We are doing this because we think that prayers have no place in Parliament.

191 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/10/22 5:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a non-religious person, and I have let the daily prayer continue as it is, but on the principle of it, I do have to ask this question: If I am a non-believer, as a duly elected representative of this House, why do I have to accept that I have to endure a reference to an “almighty God” that I do not believe in? I think the principle is a valid one, and I am going to vote for this motion. However, I would ask the member about the reference that we attempted to make to Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, because we have a very long colonial history, and I believe it is a secular acknowledgement of the way the Canadian state has harmed indigenous people. I am just wondering why the Bloc was not prepared to accept our amendment to its motion today.

153 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

May/10/22 5:51:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. At first I thought that his speech was in support of mine, when he said that he, as a non‑believer, should not have to endure this. In fact, we should not even be in a position to know whether he is a believer or a non‑believer in today's Parliament. This should not be at the centre of political debate. He is right about the place of indigenous people. In fact, I am a member of a first nation, the Huron-Wendat nation. I am absolutely on board with having that debate. That said, it should be completely separate from this one. These are two different things, and that is the only reason we rejected the amendment. For the rest, it is legitimate and we will debate it. I have no problem with—

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:52:14 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but time is running out and we still need to hear from a few speakers. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

31 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

May/10/22 5:52:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to discuss this Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. I must admit that I have been pleasantly surprised by the debate today. It has been a meaningful debate of an important issue. I would argue that this might not be the right time and place to debate this matter, but it has nonetheless been an informative debate. One of the great advantages of the parliamentary system is that we can honour our traditions while also adapting and modernizing with the times, but that adaptation and modernization must be done together as a House of Commons and, ideally, with a consensus approach to the House of Commons. Indeed, if we look at examples of our provincial colleagues, British Columbia and Ontario both undertook changes to their daily prayers. In Ontario and British Columbia, it was done with the unanimous consent of both of those provincial legislatures. In Ontario, the very first non-Christian prayer that was delivered was an Ojibwa prayer recognizing the importance of indigenous peoples in Canada and in Ontario's history. When it comes time in June for a review of the Standing Orders, we have an entire day in this House to debate them. It is a day I like to refer to as Christmas morning, which I am sure the member for Winnipeg North would agree with because it is an opportunity to discuss these matters and have them referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to have a meaningful, in-depth conversation about this issue. It includes the opportunity, as the NDP mentioned earlier, to have a land acknowledgement and look at the opportunities and potential to have other non-Christian, even secular, opportunities within this place.

303 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:54:06 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:54 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Drummond.

89 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

May/10/22 5:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:54:55 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

43 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/10/22 5:55:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:10 p.m.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/10/22 5:55:23 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary moving this motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed will please say nay. It being 6:10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

56 words

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

May/10/22 5:56:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it certainly has been an interesting day in the House of Commons, with the Bloc Québécois defending the idea of freedom of religion and conscience. I never thought I would see the day. Members were saying it was an offence that they had to spend 30 seconds listening to something they did not agree with. Imagine all the time I spend in this House hearing things I do not agree with. Nonetheless, we are now on to debating something else, which is Motion No. 44. Just as, rhetorically at least, Bloc members were adopting the idea of freedom of religion or conscience, which is normally something we hear championed by Conservatives, we have a motion from a Liberal member that borrows considerably from the Conservative platform in the last election. On that basis, I am pleased to support it. I would generally like to encourage members of the government, when they have private members' bills, to consider putting forward legislation that fixes the problems that are in place. Motions are a good way for the House to express itself on general issues. Implicit in this motion is an acknowledgement by the member of the government of the failure of the Liberal cabinet to actually move forward on addressing these issues in the seven years the Liberals have had up until now. There are significant problems that persist in our immigration system that have not been resolved. Nonetheless, the ideas behind this motion are good ideas and ones that Conservatives are pleased to support. My understanding is that this motion will have the support of all members in the House, and I hope that it will then light a fire under the government to really confront some of the big and persistent challenges in the immigration system. In particular, this motion calls on the government to put forward a plan that seeks to support a pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers, recognizing, first of all, that people who come as temporary foreign workers often establish attachments here in Canada and develop Canadian connections and experience. Often, those who come here in temporary work positions are filling jobs that are not temporary jobs; they are filling jobs that are permanent. It does not make much sense, even from the perspective of the interest of Canadian employers or the Canadian economy, to have people come here temporarily to fill jobs that are in reality permanent jobs, and then perhaps get the benefit of Canadian connections and training, but then be forced to go back and be replaced in an ongoing way. I mentioned the synergy, so to speak, between this motion and things that Conservatives put forward in the last platform. I want to note that our platform said we would: ...create pathways to permanence for those already living and working in Canada, so long as they are prepared to work hard, contribute to the growth and productivity of Canada, and strengthen our democracy. It does not make sense to attract the best and brightest, provide them training and knowledge, and then force these people—with all their potential—to leave. I am very pleased that we were able to put that forward. I want to add as well that when Conservative parties put forward ideas in a general election, very often those ideas do not just come through the platform development process but come from our member-driven policy declaration, and our Conservative policy declaration calls on the party in government to “examine ways to facilitate the transition of foreign workers from temporary to permanent status”. These are ideas that really came from the membership of the Conservative Party in terms of supporting these pathways to permanence. They were supported in our platform, and now they are in a private member's motion proposed by a Liberal member. Clearly, there is no monopoly on good ideas. More broadly, we need to recognize that there are some significant challenges in our immigration system. The biggest challenges I hear about in my office are the challenges around backlogs and the significant delays that people have to deal with in making applications for things that are so fundamental for themselves, their lives and their families. The delays cause increased hardship, increased cost and all kinds of different challenges. I want to use this opportunity as well today to call on the government to do more and to work with us to address the issue of backlogs in our immigration system. One example is that those seeking to privately sponsor vulnerable refugees must often wait up to three years. I know of community groups, faith groups and others that are looking to sponsor vulnerable refugees and are stuck providing financial support to people who are in another country, perhaps in a refugee camp or in a vulnerable situation. They are providing financial support to them overseas while they are in that vulnerable situation for three years, until they are able to come to Canada and begin the transition to a permanent life here in Canada. It is only because of the backlog. It is only because of bureaucratic delays. If only they could come here right away, begin a life here in Canada and begin that transition, it would actually be less costly for those involved in private sponsorship, and it would be so much more beneficial, from a safety and security perspective, for the family. We have people waiting very long periods of time to be reunited with family members. It is hard for me to imagine needing to be away from my spouse for months and months on end simply because of bureaucratic delays. We also have delays, by the way, in people's access to citizenship. This is important because it impacts people's ability to participate in our democratic life. Someone might have been in Canada for long enough to be eligible for citizenship. One of the Liberals' first acts with respect to immigration was reducing the amount of time that a person has to be in Canada before they apply for citizenship, yet they have extended the amount of time, in the form of this backlog, that it takes for people to actually get that citizenship. We have an election campaign here in Ontario right now, and a motion was put forward on this issue at the immigration committee by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, recognizing that the significant delays in citizenship processing applications are effectively disenfranchising people. These are people who might want to vote in this election and might have applied. They are in a queue waiting for the processing of their application. Given the significant impacts of delays and backlogs, we put forward some ideas in the last election on how to address these. One of them, for instance, was to allow people to pay money for expedited processing, effectively allowing the process to speed up by increasing capacity. We need to see an expansion of capacity in processing, and people who are waiting a long time for a spouse or family member to come might be willing to invest in that system of processing. It is one possible solution that we had put forward. We also proposed other solutions to make the system more efficient, such as doing efficiency reviews of how that process happens. Here is another way we could address the problem of backlogs: Let the people who are on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination choices come back to work. It does not seem that difficult. If the government says it is putting people on unpaid leave because of their personal vaccination status, even if they are working from home, it would be absurd to assume that this does not have some effect on government services. Unless some of these folks were doing absolutely nothing, putting them on leave has an impact on the government services that are available. That will have an impact across the board. It will impact the various services that Canadians receive, and one of them is immigration. We have this huge demand for passports. We also have this huge demand from people who want applications for family sponsorship, refugee sponsorship and other things processed. However, it is so important, for an ideological reason, for the government to put people on unpaid leave, take them out of the workforce when they are working on those issues and force them not to participate in this work even if they are at home. This is another issue of the backlog. We need an immigration system that works well and works efficiently. I know in general that the Liberals have this philosophy of big government. They want government to be doing more and more things and to be involved in more and more areas of our economy. However, even in areas that are core to government responsibility, they do not do very well. Immigration is a core government responsibility. No one is suggesting that anyone but government should do the processing part of immigration applications, yet it is not able to do this well. As we have seen in many cases, such as the situation in Afghanistan and in some of the other aspects of immigration, the government is not able to deliver. One of the other issues that we have taken up at the immigration committee is the situation in Ukraine. The Conservatives have been united with the other opposition parties in calling for the government to have visa-free travel for people coming from Ukraine. We put forward a motion on that and it passed at committee and passed in the House. The government opposed it and has not acted on it. I commend the member for Surrey Centre for having adopted one Conservative idea in this motion. I want to encourage him to adopt more Conservative ideas on immigration. Members of this party have put forward so many good ideas. Motion No. 44 is a great start. I am proud to support it, and I would invite other members of the Liberal caucus to take up more of these great Conservative solutions that we are putting forward.

1701 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 68