44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 10:48:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do think it is important to note, in response to the member's speech, that the traditions of this place do not emanate from the horrific orgy of violence that was the French Revolution. They emanate from the British tradition of pluralism, of accommodation, and especially here in North America, of the combination of different linguistic, faith and other communities.
I am proud of our pluralistic tradition, instead of violently seeking to eradicate religious belief, as happened in the French Revolution. That is the history of that revolution, which was the attempted violent eradication of religious believers. Instead, we have a tradition of saying, “Can we accommodate difference? Can we listen, and can we accommodate different perspectives?”
Now, the reality of the way the opening program of the House works is that we have a monotheistic prayer, and then we have a period of reflection. Therefore, if one is a non-believer, one can listen respectively during the first part and then engage in one's own reflection. I think that reflects pluralism. There is space for all of those traditions.
Our Canadian model has worked far better than the effort to violently eradicate other perspectives. I hope the member would at least acknowledge that in the context of her discussion of the history.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 11:36:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will say, for my part, that I do not want to diminish in any way the significance of the motion that is before us. I know that Canadians come from all walks of life and different faith traditions. Some are not people of faith at all, but they have their own senses of values and what is important to them. I think that symbols matter here, and the opening prayer has been a symbol.
I think it is appropriate for us to discuss this. However, if the goal is to make a change, I do not think the mechanism of an opposition day motion is wrong, but I would say that none of us came to Ottawa on Sunday knowing that this was something we were going to discuss. It has not been something that we have had an opportunity to discuss within our caucuses. It is not something we have had an opportunity to hear from our constituents on.
It seems to me that this is not a great process. Even if it was to be done by an opposition day, the lack of notice means that we have missed an opportunity to really engage with Canadians about what this symbol, if it is indeed an important symbol to them, means to them to make these changes.
Does the hon. member want to comment a little on the nature of the process that we are undergoing right now?
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand the member's position. In this House, traditions have been maintained for a very long time, and I could put the question in reverse to the member in terms of what they are asking and how they would feel on the opposite side of the House as well.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
