SoVote

May/10/22 4:04:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you have the latitude regarding whether what I say is appropriate or not. I believe it is. It speaks to particular issues that are relevant here in Canada that we must continue to deal with, and it pertains to the motion at hand. For many, especially Black and indigenous people, this has been their everyday reality for generations. These issues are especially felt by people from racialized, religious minority or indigenous backgrounds, and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Racism and discrimination in our society cause suffering, spread division and contribute to a climate of fear, intolerance and stigmatization that we cannot accept. According to the 2021 Canadian legal problems survey conducted by Justice Canada and Statistics Canada, more than 38% of the respondents in Canada reported having experienced discrimination in the preceding five years, which includes the first year of the pandemic, in almost every context, from school to the bank to restaurants and more. This is a widespread problem that we cannot ignore. During the pandemic, race and ethnicity were the most frequently cited factors for discrimination and the only ones that have increased. We should be strongly concerned, for example, that members of the Chinese population were 10 times more likely to face racial or ethnic discrimination than a person who was non-racialized. Consequently, the number of hate crimes is on the rise. According to Statistics Canada—

236 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/22 4:06:19 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.

19 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/10/22 4:06:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier my colleague rose on a point of order about the fact that the speech of the hon. member opposite did not deal with the motion at hand. I understand that it is important to be open and try to see when the hon. member will get to the motion, but I still do not hear the hon. member opposite talking about the motion. I think it is a matter of respect for people—

78 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/22 4:06:47 p.m.
Watch

There is really no room for censorship of the speeches that members choose to make. I am sure that the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge will get there at some point, but I strongly advise him to move in the direction of the motion. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge may continue.

54 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/10/22 4:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we continue to build a more inclusive Canada, we know that diversity is our strength in this beautiful country we are blessed to live in. As we move to a more inclusive country and as we continue to do the work, it involves breaking down the barriers, systemic or non-systemic, that we need to face every day. To make it a more inclusive country, and continue that great work I just noted, we need to make sure that we identify problems that exist: racism, discrimination, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Any form of racism or discrimination prevents our country and individuals here from reaching our full potential. When I read this motion that I have in front of me, I think that maybe the Bloc was trying to get to a more inclusive society: a more inclusive House of Commons. Then I take a step back and ask if this is the biggest issue that I am facing as a parliamentarian, whether here in Ottawa or in Parliament, as a person who is a Christian, a person of Catholic faith, whose children are attending Catholic school in the province of Ontario. We will be baptizing my youngest daughter of seven and a half months at the end of May. I ask myself what the most important issues are that we are facing as a family and as a society. I see the Bloc, and I have many dear friends, I would say, in that party. I ask myself if this is the most important issue. Is this how we build a more inclusive society? I get to the answer quickly, and the answer is no. We build a more inclusive society by having people of all faiths in this country, and it is a beautiful thing. During the break in April, we had Holy Sunday, Easter, Passover and Ramadan all coinciding for the first time in 33 years. It really reminded me and Canadians from coast to coast to coast just how special a country we have when people of all faiths, including the three major or more prominent world religions, could all celebrate our faiths. I believe it is the Sons of Abraham, going back to my teachings from the Bible and religious studies. We could all participate in those faiths freely, peacefully and respectfully. In my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, I hosted an Eid dinner last week with the City of Vaughan and representatives of Muslim organizations and groups in my riding. It was a gathering of approximately 150 people. I have learned a lot from the Muslim community. I have learned a lot from the Jewish community. I continue to learn a lot about my faith, and how we try to live it in our daily lives. I think about how to make Canada a more inclusive country and how to make it a better place to live. I think it is a pretty great place to live, and all Canadians would agree with that. When I think about that, I would not support this motion. I have already stated that. It would not make us more inclusive. In fact, for a lot of people, it would actually do the opposite. I do not think it reflects the priorities of Canadians. As I have said, I have never had any individual come to me and say that we needed to change the national anthem and get rid of the reference to God, or that we needed to change the items in the House. This House does have some traditions that need changing to make it more inclusive for women and families: absolutely. At the same time, there are things, from what I have come to understand, that I do not think are important. My focus, in being here from the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, is to always produce and advocate for a stronger economy for my three beautiful children and to make sure they have a bright future. I know you, Madam Speaker, have grandchildren, if I am not mistaken. That is why I ran: to make a stronger economy, because I did not like what I saw under the prior Conservative administration headed by Mr. Harper. At the same time, I am here to make Canada a more inclusive country. I know our government has worked hard to do that and has put in many policies on the economic front, such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit. There are also policies to help communities like the wonderful Black community here in Canada, which numbers over a million people. We have put in place certain policies to break down systemic barriers. That is truly creating an inclusive country, not bringing a motion that I think, more than anything, divides rather than making Canada more inclusive, and fundamentally making this place where we work, day in and day out, more inclusive. I will stop there. I respect the Bloc and its members. As I said, I have many friends on that side. I am in disagreement with this motion that they have brought forward.

855 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

May/10/22 4:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today. I would like to commend my colleague from across the way for his thoughtful remarks and comments in regard to this. I share his passion and his concern that we always value and appreciate the role that faith has played in our country's history and in our current context. I think it is so important that the House always take the time for pause and reflection, which is respective and respectful of all backgrounds. People can pray according to their faiths individually. I think what we have seen is an erosion. There is almost an attack going on towards people of faith around the world: internationally, people of various faiths are being persecuted because of it. Even within our own country, there is a growing intolerance towards people of various faiths. I hope the House will continue to maintain that wonderful tradition of honouring people's faiths and taking time to reflect and pray at the beginning of our sessions. Our country needs that.

177 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/10/22 4:13:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say this. Whether they are Uighur Muslims in China who are being persecuted, or Christians in the Middle East, Chaldeans or Assyrians, who have been persecuted now for many years and who I gather with at church in Toronto, I will always be there to protect the rights of minorities and especially religious minorities, such as Baha'is in Iran who continue to face persecution from that government. We must always stand up for minority religious rights and acts of intolerance and hatred against those groups.

90 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/10/22 4:14:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his impassioned speech. Faith is something important, there is no doubt about it. However, we believe that it is something personal. It is important not to confuse the way people like the Uighurs and Rohingyas are treated with what we are proposing here, which is that the prayer no longer be recited in the House because, simply put, it offends non-believers and those who believe in another god or in another religion. Can my colleague across the way even admit that a moment of reflection is sufficient to replace the prayer?

102 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/10/22 4:15:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will say that a moment of prayer is something that I look forward to when I come into the House. If members of Parliament wish to have a moment of reflection, they may choose to do so. I have never had a friend who was an atheist come to me and complain about such an issue here in the House or anywhere, so that is my answer on that front. With reference to the treatment of minorities abroad, I was answering the question from the member from New Brunswick on how we must stand up for all religious rights around the world, for whatever group or entity is being persecuted by whichever totalitarian government that may be.

128 words

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

May/10/22 4:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the way that there are a number of very pressing issues facing Canada. I am not religious. I do not believe in God. I come in and I accept the prayer. I just let it go. On the principle of today's motion, because my colleague was talking about inclusivity, if I had been an MP who was a very strong atheist and overly so, how is it inclusive to people who do not believe in God to stand in this place and hear a reference to an almighty God that they do not believe in? Surely, if we are talking about inclusivity, we should just make it a period of solemn reflection. Each person, in their own way and whatever religion or God they believe in, can make that reference on their own terms. I believe Parliament's role, in terms of protecting religion, is making laws in this place so that people can choose to believe the way they wish to without fear of any persecution or discrimination. On the principle of the point, how is it inclusive to people who do not believe in God to make that reference to an almighty God when they are members of the people's House?

213 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

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

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/10/22 4:17:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion today. What I propose to do is to start by addressing certain arguments that I heard from both sides about the purpose of our motion. I heard more attacks that got rather gratuitous than comments that were really about the subject at hand, but I still would like to respond. I will start with something I heard quite recently from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who wanted to know why we would change something that has always been part of our practices and habits. I want to take a few minutes to talk about certain things that have always been part of our habits, and to show that this does not mean that they are not outdated. I want to refer to the Criminal Code, which contains several peculiarities. I am going to talk specifically about a few sections, including section 365, which prohibits the fraudulent practice of witchcraft. It says: Every one who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or (c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Another example of something that is still in the Criminal Code is the offence of challenging someone to a duel. Section 71 provides as follows: Every one who (a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel, (b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or (c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. A final example is the section that makes the theft of oysters a specific offence. The Criminal Code already has fairly broad offences concerning theft, but it has a specific section that makes it illegal to steal oysters. This goes back to a time when fishers had their gear and shellfish stolen fairly regularly by people trying to steal the pearls, but this is not something that happens anymore. The reason that I bring this up is simply to illustrate that some sections were much more relevant at one time, but that time is past and they no longer appear to be warranted these days. That is the main difference with what we are talking about today. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, prayer is from another era. However, unlike those sections of the Criminal Code that are no longer used, except in very rare cases, the Bloc is calling for an amendment to a section of our internal code of procedure that is used every day. What we want to change today is part of something that is also much broader, namely the central principle of the separation of church and state. We could unanimously agree to drop the sections of the Criminal Code I just mentioned, since they are not problematic and no one is using them. However, what we are trying to do today seems to be causing a lot of friction. We are talking about the articulation of the principle of religious neutrality of the state. One of the arguments we heard was that people do not bring this up to members when they run into them on the street. However, it is important to remember that the prayer is not broadcast on CPAC. No one knows about it, in fact, and it is quite curious that it is not broadcast. When I talk about it with my constituents who ask me how I found my first day in the House of Commons—

662 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/22 4:22:02 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to check what is going on outside, because it is very noisy and I am having a lot of trouble hearing the hon. member.

36 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/10/22 4:22:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was saying that when people ask what my impressions were when I came to the House of Commons, I tell them that one of the things that surprised me the most is that there is a prayer every morning. I will not hide the fact that my constituents were surprised. This is not a personal attack on someone because they are religious. This is about the fact that the state and the church are bound together for all to see, and this enduring religious element that is cemented in our primary democratic institution is simply reinforcing that. I would also say that when I hear my colleagues, particularly those from English Canada, say that people are not interested in this issue, I feel that perhaps they do not truly understand the reality in Quebec. Indeed, the Quiet Revolution demonstrates that our history was significantly marked by this particular desire to ensure that the government and religion are no longer bound together, as they were during Quebec's dark ages. Perhaps that is not a tangible reality for our colleagues. To me, that demonstrates that our reality is somewhat misunderstood. We were also told earlier that it might not be relevant to debate the substance of our motion. Why devote one of our two opposition days to removing prayer from the House? What I have surmised from these questions we are being asked is that no one has explained to us why they want to keep or not keep prayer in the House. We are also being lectured by a party that only yesterday used a gag order to force us to quickly discuss a bill that is over 500 pages long. So when we hear about good or poor management of the House's time, I think that, given the circumstances, we should hardly be lectured. We have also been told that, for our opposition day, we could have talked about seniors, health care or the environment. I just want to point out that we already had an opposition day about seniors. We also had an opposition day on health transfers. As for the environment, we recently inundated the government with questions about Bay du Nord. We introduced a bill to manage climate change and the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, a bill that the government voted against and that the NDP ripped apart in committee. Basically, they are telling us to talk about important things but that they will ignore us anyway. They are telling us to talk to the hand. The government says we should manage our time wisely even though it does not really matter because it will not listen to us anyway. The message they are sending, and this is such shame, is that they could not care less about 300 years of study of Enlightenment thinking about things like secularism and the separation of church and state. They think none of that is important. Why are we spending an opposition day on this subject? Even though this is an issue that the greatest philosophers debated for years, they are dismissing it as irrelevant and certainly not a priority. I think it is important to deal with this issue on an opposition day, considering that it is a proposal that we have already tried to have adopted in another way, particularly through a motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan. Her motion, which required unanimous consent, was not adopted. It would indeed have been much simpler to take a different approach, as Nova Scotia did recently with proposals from both the government and the official opposition before unanimous consent was finally obtained. That is obviously something that will not happen here. It is therefore appropriate to have this debate. Our goal today is to ensure that we finish the job of separating church and state with a view to being inclusive. I commend the work of my colleagues, who have been very positive and very thoughtful in their approach to the motion. They pointed out, for example, that leading the prayer every day can be a hindrance to someone who would like to occupy the position you hold today, Madam Speaker, but who is of a faith other than the Christian faith. It is worth asking how inclusive it is to have a Christian and Catholic daily prayer, considering we may one day like to have a Sikh, Muslim or Jewish Speaker occupying the chair and leading the prayer. The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way for the government to ensure religious neutrality is not to introduce every possible form of belief into these institutions. The best way is to keep each person's religious convictions private and not to broadcast them ostentatiously in public institutions such as the House of Commons. Those complaining that today was a wasted debate day are likely those who wasted the most time, since they did not debate the substance of the issue. Today, we could have had an intelligent debate and voted, and the matter would have been closed. Instead we were criticized for using an opposition day for this. The surprising thing is not the topic of the Bloc Québécois motion. It is the fact that the prayer has not yet been replaced with a moment of reflection, which would be much more inclusive. The surprising thing is how reluctant our colleagues are to have this debate at all. The other thing that is surprising is that we are being criticized for having this debate here, when we are the first ones to feel the impact of this prayer. We are being criticized for having this debate when the Supreme Court took time, probably more than one day, to examine this issue with respect to a prayer at a municipal council. If members are accusing the Bloc Québécois of wasting time, then in a way, they are accusing the Supreme Court of wasting time too. I would suggest that those on the opposition benches wasted the most time today.

1025 words

Hon. Diane Lebouthillier (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

May/10/22 4:29:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, since an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/10/22 4:29:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to what the member said in her intervention, and for me this is an issue we can have a discussion about. I think there is a place for that. I think that is within the procedure and House affairs committee; I do not think it needs to take up an entire day of deliberation in the House of Commons, but let us just say that I am listening and that I have heard her arguments. If I understand correctly, what the Bloc is proposing is that we should be eliminating the prayer in order to be more inclusive, because the prayer is based on faith. Would the member then extend the same logic to saying we should be getting rid of all holidays that are based on faith, such as Christmas or Easter? Should those be eliminated too, and just be observed by those who choose to observe them? Should they no longer be statutory holidays?

160 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/10/22 4:30:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say that the motion before us today is much more specifically about the separation of state and religion than it is about a holiday that people can celebrate as they wish at home, on a statutory holiday that we have all become accustomed to over time and that may affect people differently depending on how they decide to spend that day, which would have a much broader effect. If we were to really explore this, it would have to be done in a much broader sense, because statutory holidays affect a lot more people than just the 338 members of the House. The separation of state and religion can hardly be more graphically illustrated than by a prayer in the very heart of what represents democracy. This is what our motion today is all about.

139 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/10/22 4:32:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a comment that the whole premise of separation of church and state is an American construct, and its purpose is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around, so suggesting that secularism is an outgrowth of this construct of the separation of church and state is actually misinformation. Our charter used to protect citizens from compelled belief from our government, but it is now being used by the government to deny fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and freedom of expression in the public square. Freedom of religion is afforded by the charter itself, so religion and the profession of faith are not a private matter. I would ask the member, since the Bloc members are very comfortable not coming into the House until after the national anthem, O Canada, is sung, because they openly indicate that their purpose is to separate from Canada and they freely do not pledge allegiance to Canada, could they not find it in their hearts to simply do the same in regard to this prayer, which so many members have indicated today reflects all kinds of faiths within the House of Commons?

200 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

May/10/22 4:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, I would be quite surprised if it was confirmed that a concept developed during the Enlightenment in Europe was actually a typical American construct. When the concept of separation of church and state was first introduced 300 years ago, I do not believe that the goal was to protect the church, because it did not really need protection, just as it did not when this work began during the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. The goal was the exact opposite. Coming back to the many other points that the member raised about the national anthem and Quebec's desire for independence, that is all politics. We are not asking for the separation of state and politics, we are asking for the separation of state and religion. I believe that is what we must focus on when asking questions today.

141 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/10/22 4:34:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am inclined to support the motion before us, although not because I have anything against the idea of prayer. In fact, I have many constituents who pray for me, and I welcome those prayers in the spirit they are intended. I am sure there is always a good intention there. I do believe in the idea of this place being neutral when it comes matters of religion, and I believe that is very much the thrust of this motion. I come from local government, as many people in this place do. The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 on a case involving prayer at municipal council meetings, so I was somewhat surprised when I arrived here just a few years ago and found a religious prayer at the beginning of our proceedings. We brought forward an amendment regarding a land acknowledgement at the beginning of our proceedings and the Bloc Québécois did not accept this amendment. I wonder if my colleague could indicate why that amendment was not accepted and whether she supports the concept.

181 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 68