44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 10:37:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague. I have no problem with what he just said.
However, one has to wonder about the Bloc Québécois's priorities. We are in the midst of a climate crisis, international crises, a housing crisis in Quebec that is affecting Drummondville and other Quebec communities, and a pandemic.
One has to wonder why we are going to spend the entire day debating this issue. In any event, the Bloc decided that this is their priority for their spring session opposition day.
I want to ask my colleague a question. Since this motion seeks to change Standing Order 30, which deals with the daily program, would it also not be important to talk about the acknowledgement of indigenous lands? That is an issue that has been raised numerous times in the House over the years and that has never led to a change in the Standing Orders.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 10:54:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure exactly what to think in rising to address this particular debate today. I asked the member from the Bloc whether or not they have even raised the issue at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The response was no, it is an important debate and every member should be able to contribute to the debate. Does the member not realize all the discussions that take place in our standing committees, and all of the different issues that we could apply that very same principle to?
My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount made reference to issues in the province of Quebec today. However, for some reason, with my number of years as a parliamentarian, I do not quite understand the reasoning behind bringing forward a motion of this nature.
There are many other options the Bloc members could have taken. This tells me that they are making themselves absolutely and totally irrelevant to the issues in the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole. In the last six years, let alone the last two years, I have not had one constituent ever approach me to say this is an issue that has to be dealt with.
Canada has just gone through, and we are still at least in part in, a pandemic. In fact, the province of Quebec still has mandatory masks. Can members imagine what is in the minds of the people of Quebec and the members of Parliament for the Bloc? The member even stood in this place and said they only get two opportunities in a session, yet they choose such a topic as this.
It goes far beyond the pandemic. We could talk about what is happening in Europe. People are dying in Ukraine. They are the heroes of Ukraine today, and we in Canada could talk about what is taking place in Europe. However, the Bloc say that they are not interested in the pandemic, what is happening in the province of Quebec or the war that in Europe or Ukraine. What about some of the other issues that I know the people of Quebec are interested in?
The party that claims to represent Quebec and its people's interests is not the Bloc. It is the members who are sitting across the way who are representing the interests of Quebec. Those are the individuals who I see stand in their place and talk about the environment. I can inform and remind my colleagues in the Bloc that the people of Quebec are concerned about our environment. I know that even though I am not from Quebec, but I listen to the Liberal members of the Quebec caucus, and I know the environment matters. Conservative members of Parliament will often raise the issue. We might at times disagree, but that is an issue in the province of Quebec. There is a genuine concern there. Why would the Bloc members not want to talk about the climate crisis, or other environmental issues the province of Quebec is facing today?
We often hear Bloc members ask questions on health care. It is an issue I am very passionate about. In fact, I have brought in petitions that talk about how important it is that we have a national presence in the issue of health care that goes beyond just dollars. The Bloc will just argue to give them money. Their justification for that has never been clarified in the House. Why would they not talk about health care? Canadians from coast to coast to coast in every region of our country are concerned about issues such as mental health and long-term care.
These are issues on which it does not matter where we are from in Canada; there are MPs who are talking about it, unless, of course, they are from the Bloc, because today they are saying that it is not an important issue. It is not important enough, but rather they want to talk about prayer—
677 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:16:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for the reminder.
There is a very simple strategy: If someone wants to put down their dog, they say it has rabies. The government does not want to debate the Prime Minister's ethical issues because it says now is not the time to be debating them. My Conservative colleagues do not want to debate abortion because they say now is not the time to debate abortion.
I have been involved in Quebec politics for the past 35 years, and one issue that has been omnipresent is the place of religion. The issue was examined by the Bouchard‑Taylor commission. Ultimately, Bill 21 was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly and passed.
Someone who says that Quebeckers take no interest in the issue of secularism is someone who knows absolutely nothing about Quebec's reality. Even today, people say that secularism is a type of racist policy. What we are trying to do is to make our institutions neutral. If that cannot be done with this legislature, we have one hell of a problem.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:17:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I am saying is that I believe Quebeckers want to see parliamentarians of all political stripes talk about issues of the day that actually impact them. For example, the member made reference to health care and said that he has brought it up. Good for the Bloc for bringing up health care. I can assure Bloc members that there are many issues facing seniors. The member also made reference to the environment. We could talk about Quebec still having mandatory masking, and many politicians in the House would say that it is not a good idea. That is not coming from our government, because we follow health experts and science.
The point is that there are so many other things on the minds of Quebeckers. However, the member should not worry, as I can assure him that, at least from a Liberal caucus perspective, we will be dealing with those issues.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:23:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. If he wants to have a hug afterward, we can have a hug based on the question.
At the end of the day, I made the suggestion somewhat lightly, but I do think there is some merit to it. If the Bloc did want to change the topic, I could suggest one or two. One that comes to mind is the climate issue and our environment. I say that because I know that many of my Quebec colleagues within our caucus constantly talk about the importance of the environment and the impacts of climate change. With unanimous consent, we could do that. It would probably be the first time since I have been here, but I would be prepared to see that happen.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:25:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a good question. As my New Democratic friend pointed out in his question, that could have been what we are debating today. There is no doubt that a lot of Canadians, particularly people in Quebec, are concerned about Bay du Nord. At the end of the day, if we were to have that kind of debate, we would hear critiques coming from opposition members and explanations coming from the government as to why this is a good thing for Canada.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:25:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to once again rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Barrie—Innisfil. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Today is an opposition day, which means that one of the opposition parties gets to decide the topic of conversation here in the House. This is one of two Bloc opposition days this spring, when we get to discuss some matters that are important to the Bloc and I expect to the people of Quebec. With great respect to my colleagues, and I mean that sincerely, we should be discussing issues that are having a profound impact on Canadians and Quebeckers, such as affordability, the RCMP investigation into the fraud of the Prime Minister and his lucky break with regard to that, the Liberals' conduct on foreign relations and government mismanagement with regard to accountability. We have a passport crisis, a fiasco, that is happening in this country that should be discussed. There is also the increasingly sketchy justification shown by the government for invoking the Emergencies Act. That is just to name a few.
This country has never been more divided than it has been in the last six and a half years, along regional, racial, ethnic and faith lines. The division we have seen in the last six and a half years is a result of the Prime Minister wedging, stigmatizing and dividing Canadians. We have been hearing a lot of disinformation in the House from the government side, and it is, quite frankly, disturbing. It relates to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Talking today about Standing Order 30 will not, I suspect, gather much attention across this country, perhaps with the exception of the House.
I do not know about anyone else, but when I was in my riding this weekend, as I am every weekend, not a single person came up to me and asked what my position was on Standing Order 30. What is Standing Order 30? In short, it directs the Speaker to read a prayer at the start of the day's sitting before the TV cameras are turned on. No one sees this. It is a private moment of reflection for the 338 of us who sit in the House. That is why the Speaker always follows the moment of reflection with “Let the doors be opened”. The doors are opened and the public comes in.
Only on the rarest of occasions has the public ever actually been privy to it. My staff told me, and some staff have been here for more than 40 years, a long time, that the last occasion the prayer was read in public was October 23, 2014. That is the day after the terrorist attack at Centre Block and the National War Memorial. That was the day that Kevin Vickers, the Sergeant-at-Arms who downed the armed gunman in the Hall of Honour, led the Speaker's parade into the House.
Mr. Vickers was rightly greeted with a sustained three-minute standing ovation by a packed chamber that morning. The prayer was read, and I can say that I understand the moment and the incidents of that week really put into perspective the prayer's call to “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.”
After the prayer, the House erupted into a very emotional and heartfelt rendition of O Canada. Mr. Vickers, the true hero he was, did not gloat in arrogance or beam with pride. Rather, he struggled valiantly to keep his tears to a minimum, much as we might expect any genuine Canadian hero to be: modest in demeanour and deeply humbled by displays of gratitude.
All of that was visible to Canadians that day because the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was then the Speaker, made the executive decision to allow Canadians into the galleries and for the TV cameras to be turned on so we could witness it. The House needed it and the nation needed it, especially after a very distressing day in Ottawa, when no one really quite knew what or how much was happening.
The video of that morning of raw emotions when the prayer was open to the public can still send chills down one's spine. That procedure of a prayer normally read in private is rooted, as I mentioned, in Standing Order 30, which traces its origins to 1927, when our rule book went through a significant update driven by a special committee chaired by the Speaker. That amendment was a simple codification of a practice that began in the 1870s after the adoption of a recommendation from another special committee.
The current prayer read daily was developed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 1994 under the chairmanship of Peter Milliken, with a view to having a short prayer reflecting the diversity of religions embraced by Canadians. Do we see a pattern here? It is that committees and consensus drove these decisions.
Canada's Conservatives have long held and long observed the importance and necessity of amending our internal rules and procedures through consensus. It is an important point when we are talking about the rules that regulate the balance between governments and oppositions, especially when we consider the fact that Canadians ask Conservatives and Liberals to swap sides of this chamber every few years. Another switch, I am sure, is coming pretty soon.
The approach is just as relevant when it comes to matters of conscience such as prayer. On top of that, we are required by our own rules to conduct a review of our procedures after every election. The motion would have been a natural suggestion to raise then.
Standing Order 51 requires the House to hold a day-long discussion sometime between the 60th and 90th sitting day of the Parliament. The results of that conversation are then referred to the procedure and House affairs committee to consider.
Today is the 68th day the House has sat since the election. Based on our calendar, the 90th sitting day will be on June 16. Quite literally, we are going to be holding a comprehensive discussion about changes to our procedures sometime within the next five weeks.
A member of the Bloc could have used a few minutes of his or her 10-minute speaking slot to make the suggestion and then seen where the committee goes with that idea. Perhaps a consensus would form around the proposal in today's Bloc motion. Maybe the consensus would back the status quo, or possibly even recommend some third approach we have not thought of yet. That speaks to the power of parliamentary committees and of consensus-based rule-making, and it should be happening in this case, as well.
Therefore, I will be voting against the Bloc motion, because I sincerely believe that permanent changes to our procedural rules, and especially on a subject matter like this, really ought to come from a Standing Order review process, be deliberated upon by a committee and be implemented as the result of a consensus-based recommendation coming from that committee of MPs, as they always have been.
1228 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:33:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think that the neutrality of institutions is likely one of the most determinative issues in politics. An institution must not speak on behalf of any one faith or ethnic minority. If we respect differences, then our institutions should be neutral. That is the first thing.
With regard to the choice of topic, I would simply like to point out to my colleague that, during the first wave of the pandemic, his party moved a motion on one of its opposition days to say that oil is irreplaceable and that Canada should have a national day to celebrate oil. That happened in the midst of the first wave. If we were to ask Quebeckers whether they are interested in knowing that oil is irreplaceable, I am not sure they would say yes. If we were to ask them about secularism, a debate that has been going on in Quebec for the past 25 years, I think they would have something to say.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:49:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I liked the way the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent described most of the Bloc's interventions on the economy, firearms, anglicization and so on. This proves that we speak on a multitude of issues, and I thank him for that.
I do not understand why he is criticizing us for that, as if it is a bad thing. I also think it is a red herring to say that this is not a real issue because there is such and such other issue.
I would like to come back to the René Lévesque government, which decided to abolish this prayer in the 1970s. Did this prevent it from being one of the most proactive governments in the history of Quebec? I think the answer is no.
The member just reminded us that he sat in the Quebec National Assembly for a long time. Every time he stood up for the moment of reflection, did he curse the Lévesque government for having wasted time to get to that point?
I would point out that the purpose of our motion is not to add a moment of reflection, since it already exists, but to eliminate the prayer.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:50:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc member should know that the Standing Orders were changed in 1972, but prayers were not abolished in the Quebec National Assembly until 1976.
During those moments of reflection, everyone reflects in their own way, as we do here in the House of Commons after the reading of the prayer, which no one has a problem with.
I am surprised that my friends from the Bloc are so passionate about secularism, given how much work awaits the member for Drummond. He moved this motion and claims to support secularism, but this principle should be fully implemented everywhere. In the member's own riding, we find Saint‑Pie‑de‑Guire, Saint‑Bonaventure, Saint‑Guillaume, Saint‑Edmond‑de‑Grantham, Sainte‑Eugénie, Saint‑Germain‑de‑Grantham, Saint‑Majorique‑de‑Grantham, Sainte‑Brigitte‑des‑Saults, Notre‑Dame‑du‑Bon‑Conseil, Saint‑Lucien and Saint‑Félix‑de‑Kingsey. There is also the Saint‑François River and the Sainte‑Croix hospital. There is quite a lot of work to do at the provincial level.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:51:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my friend's remarks this morning. I am listening to him read off a number of issues, and there is no doubt we disagree in terms of how the government has actually delivered on many of the points he has raised. Having said that, the essence of what he is saying, from my perspective, is about the opportunity for debate. Through this particular motion, yes, the House will be consumed with a day's debate on this particular issue.
Being from the province of Quebec, if he could have introduced a motion, what single issue would he have brought up today?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:53:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we work under a set of rules that must be agreed upon.
It is entirely legitimate that the issue of prayer be raised in the debate we are having here in the House; I recognize that. However, I am not sure that it is really topical. In addition, when it comes to the Standing Orders, this is not the way to do it. It is done by consensus.
I said it quickly earlier, but I will go into more detail. In 1972, after consulting with all political parties, the Quebec National Assembly concluded that it would withdraw the prayer. However, they did not do so immediately because they knew some individuals were still reluctant about it. So they started with an abbreviated reading and, upon reaching consensus in 1976, they removed the prayer with the support and concurrence of all members.
That is the way to do it, but that is not how the Bloc is suggesting we proceed now. It is disappointing.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:09:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask you to please let me know when I have one minute left because I have an amendment to present later.
I have no problem with the motion, and I will probably vote in favour of it. However, I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, whose speech I really enjoyed and who spoke so well earlier, and with my colleague from Louis-Saint‑Laurent.
A day is set aside for the Bloc Québécois to present motions. The Bloc only gets one day for the entire spring session, during which it can discuss any important topic. This time, it chose to move a motion to amend Standing Order 30, concerning prayer.
As members know, I have lived in Saguenay—Lac-Saint‑Jean, the Eastern Townships, Montreal and, of course, the Outaouais region. In all my years in Quebec, no one ever spoke to me once about prayer at the opening of a sitting of the House of Commons. People talk to me instead about other topics, which are important. That is why I am sad that the Bloc has chosen the motion it is moving today, instead of choosing a topic that really affects Quebeckers.
The housing crisis is affecting all parts of Quebec, including Drummondville. In some cities, the vacancy rate is now less than 1%. There is an affordable housing crisis everywhere in Quebec.
The vacancy rate in Drummondville is 0.3%. In Mirabel and Granby, it is 0.1%. There is currently a housing crisis in cities like Rimouski, Rouyn‑Noranda, Blainville, Vaudreuil, Boucherville, Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield and all across Quebec. However, the Bloc did not choose to talk about that on its only opposition day in the spring session.
Like most Quebeckers, I think the climate crisis is an extremely important issue because we see how that crisis is affecting people across Quebec and around the world.
What happened to the people in the greater Vancouver area last summer is a good example of the effects of the climate crisis. New Westminster and Burnaby were among the areas hit by a heat wave that killed 600 people, including about 60 in New Westminster and about 60 in Burnaby. The heat reached record highs in British Columbia. Some people, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, were stuck in their small apartments with no air conditioning or fan. These people were hit hard by this crisis.
When I see the effects of climate change, I wonder why the Bloc Québécois chose to spend an entire day debating the prayer in the House of Commons on its only supply day in the spring session. There are so many much more important topics that we could have been discussing today.
Madam Speaker, some members are talking very loudly. Could you call them to order, please?
490 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:23:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I agree that we should discuss any changes to the Standing Orders together. That is coming. That was one of the points I made in my speech. It is coming either way, so these issues can be raised.
However, I think this was a missed opportunity, given the affordable housing crisis in Quebec, which is affecting regions all across Quebec. The Bloc Québécois could have moved a motion on the shortage of affordable housing units in Quebec, which we could have debated. That discussion would have had some teeth, since there is a shortage of affordable housing units all over Quebec.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:35:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we think about what is happening in Quebec today, in fact in all of Canada, the things that come to my constituents' minds deal with issues such as health care, seniors, the pandemic, what is taking place in Europe, our environment and so much more. This is an issue, as I pointed out earlier, that I have not been approached about in 10 years. No one has even raised the issue with me, yet the Bloc seems to want to make this the issue.
Does the member genuinely believe that this issue is more important than all of the other issues that I just listed, and that the people of Quebec would support this particular motion being debated when there are so many other issues that the people of Quebec and Canada are facing today?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:36:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The member from Winnipeg North tells us that people are talking to him about seniors and health. We have been talking about these issues for two and a half years, but he does not listen to us. Now he is lecturing us on how we should be talking about seniors and health. We talk about these things non-stop. We talk about health transfers. All the premiers of the provinces and Quebec have been calling for an unconditional increase in health transfers to 35%. He is not listening. What more will it take? Do I have to get out the puppets and crayons?
He does not get it. Now he is saying that things are terrible for seniors, but the Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors. They gave seniors 75 and over an increase, but they did not increase anything for seniors between 65 and 75. They tell them that if they want money, then they have to work. So much for championing seniors' issues.
The member then goes and lectures others. I would be embarrassed if I were him.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:49:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am trying to wrap my head around how the Bloc Québécois members have determined that this, out of the two opposition days they have to put forward motions, is the motion that they should put forward. Notwithstanding the fact that I respect the importance of this particular subject matter to the Bloc Québécois, I just cannot understand how it takes precedence over some of the things that are happening in our country right now and, indeed, happening in Quebec right now.
Can the member just explain to me why this was considered to be of paramount importance so as to supersede all the other things that are going on in our country and the world right now?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 12:53:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.
I rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion to stop the non-denominational prayer that we have at the beginning of each day in this House.
This month, the Angus Reid Institute, in partnership with Cardus, published a report that offers a comprehensive and first-of-its-kind look at the faith journeys of Canadians, not just among majority religious communities, but across the religious spectrum. Nineteen per cent of Canadians, or one in five, are classified as non-believers. However, four in five have some openness to God or spirituality. The cultural mosaic in Canada is ever-shifting. While those born in Canada continue to shift further into areligious identities, being raised in a religious tradition is common in Canada, with 72% saying that they grew up with religious teachings.
As a Hindu Canadian, I concur that Canadians who are raised in the Hindu faith tend more toward the privately faithful. With that said, the prayer that we have, in my view, is more a tradition that is part of the fabric of the society in our Christian majority Canada, and I support that we continue the current practice.
Many Hindu Canadians during Christmastime have lighted a Christmas tree in their homes. It does not mean that Hindus are practising Christianity; it is about embracing the culture and heritage of the society we live in. The prayer that we have every day, while reflective of the different religions embraced by Canadians, also represents the culture and heritage of our country.
Let us look at the practice of the prayer that we have from a historical perspective. Although the practice of reading a prayer at the start of each sitting was not codified in the Standing Orders until 1927, it has been part of the daily proceedings of the House since 1877. Much later, suggestions were made to rewrite or reword the prayer in a non-sectarian form. Until 1994, no major change to the form of the prayer was made, aside from references to royalty. At that time, the House concurred in a report recommending a new form of prayer, more reflective of the different religions embraced by Canadians. This prayer, which we use now, was read for the first time when the House met to open its proceedings on February 21, 1994.
Sir Gary Streeter, a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, on a similar motion in the U.K. House of Commons in 2019, said:
The crux of the argument for abolishing Parliamentary Prayers is that by taking all references to religion and God out of politics and public life, we will then have a truly neutral public square. However, that would just be to replace one worldview and set of beliefs with another. As human beings, we all bring a set of beliefs about the world and the nature of human life to any debates around pursuing the public good. Secularists might argue that their worldview is the best on which to base society, but they cannot do so by claiming neutrality. Rather than striving for a ‘neutral’ public square, we should instead recognise that we are increasingly becoming a pluralistic society, where a multitude of different beliefs and worldviews coexist. In a pluralistic society, freedom of belief is vital, yet this is not achieved by forcing all references to religion and God in public life to be pushed to one side.... For those who do object, for whatever reason, there is no obligation to participate in the prayers.
In an article published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 2009, Martin Lanouette said:
...the form and content of the prayer recited in parliamentary legislatures is part of a debate that seeks to pit the special relationship each legislature has with its religious heritage, against the desire to adapt this heritage to contemporary cultural realities.
He went on to say:
So why does the need for prayer persist despite this secular storm and all the unending controversies? As stated in Marsh v. Chambers, traditions are often seen as “a part of the fabric of the society,” and at a time when contemporary societies are tending to become more diverse, the argument for tradition continues to occupy an important place in the collective imagination. A defensive reaction? Quite likely. A bastion of identity? Most definitely. All of which has not stopped many parliaments from wanting to take matters even further, not to weaken the “old” identity but to breathe new life into it.
He continued:
If it is to be practised, this ritual must be an act of recognition that focuses on uniting rather than dividing people. Simply eliminating the prayer is another option, but it is not a more impartial one, since the adherents, who have the same rights, will feel they are victims of discrimination as well.
There is a growing trend in our society to identify and amplify the things that divide us, rather than the things that unite us. The intolerance that is being propagated today by those on the extreme left of the political spectrum is the same intolerance that was the cornerstone of the extreme right. In the name of political correctness, voices are being shut down, books are being banned, and any view or opinion that deviates even an inch from the far-left ideology is immediately drowned out.
The practice of praying does not mean that the state is in bed with religion. None of the issues we discuss and debate and none of the legislation we pass here in any way or form connect any religion to the state. Let us continue the practice of the prayer we have out of respect to over 80% of Canadians who practise one religious faith or another.
As a politician, I go to temples, mosques, synagogues, churches, etcetera, but it does not mean I associate the state with religion. Since 2019, I have seen the Bloc Québécois opposition day motions, and never once have I seen them propose anything that is of importance to Canadians' economic realities. Today we are facing challenging times; the energy transition is going towards the battery, and Quebec and Canada could become leaders in the world in this technology. We have not seen the Bloc Québécois present any motion on anything that is of economic importance.
1087 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:19:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by everything that I have heard this morning. I am puzzled and perhaps angry as well.
I have heard people question the appropriateness of having this debate today. There are great democrats in the Liberal and Conservative parties who are eager to tell us how we should be using our opposition day, not to talk about an issue that deals with secularism, but to talk about issues that relate to current events.
I would remind my colleagues that we do this all the time and that it is rhetoric that I see in the House. I am thinking, for example, of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If we bring up the French language, if we bring up Quebec's place, or if we bring up immigration, he tells us that the Bloc Québécois is trying to pick a fight. Talking about issues that affect Quebecers in this assembly is tantamount to picking a fight. I have heard that many times.
Our colleague from Winnipeg North asked us why the Bloc members are not talking about health transfers or seniors. I would point out to him that we had two opposition days on these issues, which resulted in motions. However, I have yet to see any action by the government.
I would also like to point out to my Conservative colleagues that, in the middle of the truckers' blockade in February, there was an opposition day about Canadian Pacific in Saskatchewan. That is not my issue, but I have no say in what the Conservatives choose. I participated in an NDP emergency debate on the pandemic in Alberta. The Alberta health care system is none of my business, and it is not the business of the House either. That is what they wanted to discuss, so good for them.
The worst thing I heard today is that the prayer is a wedge issue. That is a convenient way to avoid taking a stand on something. Why would it be a wedge issue? I have a lot of trouble understanding my colleagues' logic when they say that prayer here is a wedge issue. Reciting a prayer before we meet for question period is complete nonsense. It is the opposite of what we see in the modern world, which is a neutral state.
Yesterday, I was talking to a former French academic colleague who could not believe that we still do a prayer in the House of Commons before we begin our sittings. In his opinion, it is totally archaic and completely unthinkable.
A number of people have come to us to ask why we have not considered this issue on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or why we were even asking this question today. We put forward a motion about it in 2019. We never reached unanimous consent in the House. However, this is the kind of debate we need to have, and it has to be in the public eye.
I want to hear what the Liberal Party has to say on how religious differences should be accommodated in this House. How our Parliament, the institution of institutions, can be neutral. I want to hear from the Liberal Party on that. I want to hear from the Conservatives. Their response is quite different. They say that this debate is a point of contention, perhaps because they want to charm certain religious communities in their ridings, for they feel that talking about this picks up on an obvious fact that no one wants to talk about.
I am going to talk about the elephant in the room, namely the debate on secularism. There are people in the House who are having a very hard time with the debate on secularism. I would like to address it head-on. Earlier, the hon. member for Winnipeg North told us that no one in Quebec was interested in this topic. I have been observing Quebec politics for the past 30 years. Over the past 30 years, there has been a lot of talk in Quebec about the issue of religion in the public sphere. There was the Bouchard‑Taylor commission on accommodation. What was the cornerstone of that commission's mandate? The place of religion. How can ethnocultural minorities be accommodated in the Quebec context? What will be the place of the sacred in the Quebec context? These questions were examined by the Bouchard‑Taylor commission in 2008, as I recall. We spent more than 15 years going over this in Quebec. It led to Bill 21, which provides clear guidelines on the place of religion in the public sphere in Quebec.
I suspect that the conflict between secularism and identity is what scares my Liberal, Conservative and NDP colleagues, who do not want to take a stand on this particular issue.
However, there is a great deal to discuss. As I recall, one thing the Bouchard-Taylor commission explored is how to accommodate community identities in relation to their religion.
To define secularism, the commission's report outlined four main principles.
The first principle is the moral equality of persons. Whether one is a believer or thinks that Platonism, Neo-Platonism or Aristotelianism is what gives meaning to life, everyone is equal.
The second principle is freedom of conscience and religion. This is actually an expression of the next principle, the separation of church and state.
The third principle, as I just said, is the separation of church and state.
The fourth principle is state neutrality towards religions and deep-seated secular convictions.
I am trying to understand how saying a prayer at the beginning of one of our sittings meets the four principles outlined in the Bouchard-Taylor report.
Now I would like to talk about something that seems essential to me but that has not yet been brought up.
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean was confronted with the issue of the prayer within its institutions for three years. I am not sure if my colleagues are familiar with the 2015 Supreme Court ruling entitled Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City).
I want to focus on two key aspects of the ruling.
First, the definition of neutrality, found at paragraph 74:
By expressing no preference, the state ensures that it preserves a neutral public space that is free of discrimination and in which true freedom to believe or not to believe is enjoyed by everyone equally, given that everyone is valued equally. I note that a neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of private players in that space. Neutrality is required of institutions and the state, not individuals. On the contrary, a neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person's freedom and dignity.
Is that not what is at issue today, namely protecting every person's freedom and dignity? That is the Supreme Court's answer to what neutrality means.
Another essential aspect is the Supreme Court's definition of discrimination.
Paragraph 64 reads as follows:
Sponsorship of one religious tradition by the state in breach of its duty of neutrality amounts to discrimination against all other such traditions. If the state favours one religion at the expense of others, it imports a disparate impact that is destructive of the religious freedom of the collectivity.
The debate we are trying to have today is about whether our institutions are neutral with respect to religion, is it not? That should be the underlying principle. The easy answer, which everyone fell back on today, is that the prayer happens before the doors are opened and does not inconvenience anyone. This is not about inconveniencing people. It is about sending a clear message that our institutions are neutral.
Personally, what I want to hear in my colleagues' questions over the next few minutes, what I want to know from them, is what secularism means to them.
If they think this debate is old news and unimportant, I have only one thing to tell them. They are out of step with what the people of Quebec think. I look forward to hearing my Conservative colleagues from Quebec comment on this subject.
The last thing I want to say is that when the Prime Minister's ethics are at issue, the Liberals tell us they do not have time to talk about it and this is not the right time to talk about the Prime Minister's ethical irregularities.
Last week, when people talked to the Conservatives about abortion, they said the same thing: now is not the time to talk about abortion; they have other problems to deal with.
I hope they do not play the same card here. That is an outdated argument in politics.
1485 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 1:48:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I never thought about that. I just realized that, for my colleague, this represents only 30 seconds of our time. Well, I believe that every minute of my time is valuable. I work hard, which is something that she does not seem to do.
That said, if my colleague does not like Quebec's ideas or seeing us raise these issues, then she should let us go. I am only too ready to leave.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
