44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2022 10:00AM
- May/10/22 4:45:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there are a number of us who are a little confused as to why the Bloc has brought forward this issue.
When I talk to my colleagues from the Quebec Liberal caucus, they talk about issues such as health care, seniors and the aerospace industry in Quebec. There are so many different issues in Quebec, as there are in Canada. However, when I looked at the Order Paper, I saw that Bloc members were using one of the two opportunities they get this session to talk about something I have not heard a constituent in Winnipeg North raise in the last 10 years raise. I am a bit confused.
We just went through a pandemic, and we are not quite through it yet. The mandate is still there for masking in the province of Quebec today. We also have issues with the war in Europe. Is this really the most important issue, from the Bloc's perspective, in Quebec today?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:46:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for his question.
There is just one thing: Could we try to debate the substance? From what I understood, my colleagues' interventions today never dealt with the substance of the issue. They always asked why we had chosen this over something else. The Bloc Québécois talks about respect, democracy and inclusion.
In a speech he gave earlier, a government member talked about breaking down barriers and being inclusive. That is what we are talking about. Why are the people asking the questions not dealing with the substance of the matter, rather than saying that we could have done something else?
Yes, we could have done something else. We only get two days, but I would be in favour of changing the Standing Orders so that there are more opposition days.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, usually the legislation, motions or bills before the House are to benefit Canadians. I am puzzled as to what the motion is going to do to benefit Canadians, other than just wasting this day to discuss it.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
We could have wrapped this up quickly. It could have been resolved back in 1976, when Quebec's National Assembly rectified the problem. It could have been resolved when my colleague from Manicouagan put forward a similar motion and all that was needed was a yes or no. It could have been resolved in just over two minutes, and we could have moved on. However, that is not what happened.
Let me come back to the matter at hand. No, I do not think that a day spent talking about respect and inclusion is a wasted day, at least not for the Bloc Québécois. Let us vote for the motion.
In 2021, in Nova Scotia, all of the parties voted unanimously in support of a similar motion. How interesting. Change is in the air. This is the 21st century.
No, I do not think that this was a waste of time. If everyone votes in favour of the motion, it will be resolved once and for all.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will respond to the substance of the motion. I agree with the principle of the separation of church and state, and I agree that references to religious concepts are also are not appropriate in public sector proceedings, so I will support the motion.
Equally, I know that the climate crisis threatens our planet. The housing crisis means millions of Canadians are right now living with insecurity and worry, and our health care system is under serious strain, if not a crisis. I think it is a fair question to ask the Bloc, with all of these serious, pressing, existential issues facing Québécois, Canadians and our world, why they decided that the opening prayer of Parliament is a more important issue to debate in the House.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:49:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, the Bloc Québécois opted to talk about an issue that relates to respect for people and how we can include everyone, even non-believers. That is what we chose.
I would respond to the member's comment by saying that the Bloc Québécois does not talk about climate change or any other issue on just one day a year. Let us look at last Sunday: 10% of the Bloc Québécois members were in Quebec City at a demonstration for the environment. There are other ways to do things and to work on other issues. For example, petitions about seniors garnered thousands of signatures. I will stop at that, but I could give plenty of other examples.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:50:23 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for Kenora, Housing.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:50:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal.
I will start my speech by prefacing that the rules of the House of Commons provide for a day of debate on the Standing Orders and procedures each Parliament, and we understand this debate will happen in June. I recognize that there have been comments that it is a single day, but it is a day that is devoted to actually debating Standing Orders and how we can improve the way we are to—
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt, but one of the hon. members has a phone near the mike. It is creating a lot of interference, as it is vibrating.
The hon. member for Waterloo.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:51:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the interpreters because I know the important work they do.
We know there is a day devoted to debating Standing Orders in this chamber. We know that debate will take place in June, and it would be the appropriate place to discuss any changes, such as those to the non-denominational prayer at the beginning of each day.
We have heard today, during this session, that there are eight opposition days. These are opportunities for opposition members to come forward and challenge the government to do even better for their constituents and to do even better for Canadians. We know that the Bloc has two days when it is able to bring issues forward. I find it interesting that they are choosing to use their debate time for Standing Order changes, rather than the issues that are actually being addressed by their constituents.
This is the House of Commons, where there are 338 members of Parliament, elected from coast to coast to coast. My priority, since being elected, has always been the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. They are the reason I am here. They are the reason I was elected. They are who I serve every single day.
They may be concerned with the Standing Orders, the rules that govern this chamber, but I know that, more so, they are impacted by the challenges they are facing every single day. There are many other important issues the Bloc could have chosen to debate today. There are those I am sure Quebeckers would have appreciated, and that all MPs would have liked to have debated, including how the COVID-19 pandemic has shed a light on long-standing issues and gaps within our society, how global inflationary pressures are further exacerbated by Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and how climate change continues to be an existential threat for Canada and the world, as well as a woman's right to her body and the fundamental right for a woman to choose.
MPs were elected on behalf of all Canadians to address the most important social, health, financial and economic issues of our time in the House of Commons. Of all the pressing issues facing our country, I find it surprising that the Bloc Québécois has chosen this issue instead of offering constructive ideas about how we address the challenges that Canadians and Quebeckers face.
That is why I will address the pressing issues we could be debating in my speech, such as the Canadian economy. I will address issues that constituents within the riding of Waterloo have brought forward to me. I get to hear a diversity of perspectives and experiences. Some agree with the government. Some challenge the government. Some push the government to do more, and I believe this is an appropriate time to be debating and discussing what constituents would like us to do.
There are more Canadians working now than at any other time in the history of our country, and 19.6 million Canadians currently have a job. This is almost 3.5 million more than at the height of the pandemic and about a half million more than before COVID struck. We have the strongest unemployment rate recovery in the G7, and the national unemployment rate is 5.2%.
The last time it was that low, John Diefenbaker was still a member of the House of Commons. There were also around 265 MPs in this place, and fewer than 10 were women elected to the House of Commons. The Bloc Québécois did not even exist as a party then.
The point is that it is an impressive recovery, and we have so much more to do. Canada has come roaring back, thanks in large part to the extraordinary and innovative programs the federal government has put in place to support Canadians, businesses and the economy. That said, we know that challenges remain, such as, for example, the current elevated inflation.
It is a global phenomenon, and it is making things more expensive in Canada as well. Supply chain disruptions continue to hurt everyone, and now Putin's war is making food and gas even more expensive. Inflation in Canada is lower than in many countries around the world, but we know that it still hurts many Canadians. I am hearing about it from my constituents in the riding of Waterloo.
That is why we, as a government, are focused on Canadians. We are focused on proposing measures that will help make life more affordable for Canadians.
The official opposition, the Conservatives, continue to focus on personal attacks and disinformation, and clearly, the Bloc Québécois is focusing on the Standing Orders. I will repeat that, as a government, we are focused on Canadians. We are focused on proposing measures that will help make life more affordable for Canadians.
Let us take housing, for example. It is a basic human need and an economic imperative. However, Canada does not have enough homes. We need more of them. Over the next 10 years, we will put Canada on track to double the number of new homes being built in this country.
Budget 2022, tabled by theMinister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, includes measures to make it easier to build more housing. It also includes measures that would remove barriers that prevent homes from being built. Budget 2022 would also make it easier for young people to get the keys of their first home.
Of course, tackling housing affordability will be a challenge that will require a great national effort and a new spirit of collaboration between the federal government, provinces and territories, regions and municipalities, the private sector, and non-profit groups. Rest assured the federal government will do its part.
In fact, we already are doing our part, because to make life more affordable for Canadians, we need to make the housing market fairer for Canadians. We will ban foreign investment, which has fuelled speculation on pricing and has made housing less affordable for Canadians. We will curb prices on property flipping, which makes housing more expensive for Canadians.
Earlier this year, the government also announced an investment of up to $750 million to help cities deal with operating deficits in public transit. To respect jurisdiction and to increase the impact of this investment, funding will be considered on provincial and territorial governments matching this federal contribution and also on accelerating their effort to improve housing supply in collaboration with municipalities. These are the issues I am hearing about from constituents in my riding.
Our government is focused on Canadians and measures that will provide them with the support they need. The reality is these measures will help those struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live in our cities.
I have been talking about budget 2022, but let me also remind the House of budget 2021. In budget 2021, the government laid out an ambitious plan to provide Canadian parents with, on average, $10-a-day regulated child care spaces for children under the age of six. It was unfortunate the Province of Ontario, my home province, was the last one to join, but in less than a year, we reached agreements with all provinces and territories.
By the end of this year, families will have seen their child care fees reduced by an average of 50%. That is an average of $6,000 per child for families in British Columbia and Ontario. This is not in five years, and it is not in 10 years. I am talking about savings by the end of December. By 2025-26, our plan will have child care fees at an average of $10-a-day for all regulated child care spaces across Canada, which will mean thousands of dollars in savings for families across Canada.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Bardish Chagger: Madam Speaker, I am hearing some comments about whether we are going to talk about the Standing Orders. There will be a day in this House when we will get to talk about the Standing Orders, a day devoted to the Standing Orders that govern the people in this chamber, the House of Commons, the place I was elected to by the good people of the riding of Waterloo.
They elected me to put their needs first. They elected me to represent the diversity of their experiences and needs. My focus in this chamber will be the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, and how I work with the government to deliver better outcomes. Unfortunately, the Bloc's focus is on the Standing Orders. It is unfortunate, because usually the Bloc brings out really important topics. That is why I am surprised with the topic of today.
I know I am running out of time, but I wanted to talk about seniors because we know seniors are vulnerable. I wanted to talk about youth, and I wanted to talk about the environment, but I will extend the floor back to the Speaker so I can get into questions and comments. I am thankful for this opportunity.
1534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would be interested in getting my colleague's perspective in this regard. Obviously, this institution is founded so much on our history and background. What went into the history of this Parliament is quite incredible, and the fingerprints of faith are throughout the institutions on this very Hill. Over the windows of Parliament, we will find engraved scriptures from the past: “Without a vision, the people will perish”. We find, in the Canadian Coat of Arms, no fewer than two scriptural references, including “from sea to sea”, which is part of our national motto, and “they desire a better country”, which is based on the ancient writing of Hebrews.
The vital role that faith has played in the founding of our country, and continues to play for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast from various backgrounds, should not only be respected but recognized. Could the hon. member make some comments in that regard?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that when the rules governing this chamber were made, people like me did not have the right to vote. People like me did not have the right to put their names on the ballot, let alone be elected. This chamber, once upon a time, probably had many men who resembled the member, but I was not reflected.
Our history is important and relevant, but in this chamber debating Standing Orders will happen on a day in June. I would like to actually debate issues that are important to my constituents. I would like to debate how we ensure that more people can enter the economy, how we can create more jobs and the conditions for growth for businesses, how we fight climate change and how we ensure more Canadians can succeed and have better outcomes.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:03:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debates since this morning, and we are perpetuating the fact that we discuss form, opportunity and relevance rather than substance.
One thing is clear to me today. When a political institution—Parliament—institutionalizes a denomination, such as prayer in a particular denomination, we should not talk about it. No one here wants to debate it. We introduced a unanimous consent motion. We were told no.
Why were we told no?
No one wants to discuss it. We say we will talk about it another day, perhaps. However, now is the time to discuss it. We understood our colleagues' objections. Do they want to discuss the substance or not?
Why make a discussion on the separation of church and state taboo? How does that contribute to diversity of voices and respect for it?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:04:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that the Bloc can choose what they want to debate today. I just want to share with the House the issues that are important to my constituents in Waterloo. That is what I have done today.
Standing Orders, and this debate, are definitely important, and it will happen on a day in June, but Standing Orders impact the members who are elected in this chamber. I am in this chamber to represent the constituents of the riding of Waterloo, and that is my focus and priority.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:05:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not mean this to sound tongue-in-cheek, but I think sometimes many Canadians believe this place does not have a prayer. I wonder if we really want to move to a place where we do not even have quiet prayers before the House begins.
Honestly, with the war in Ukraine and the galloping climate emergency, I am pretty much in a state of constant prayer. That does not need to be public, but I wonder if we can concentrate on the issues that really matter right now. I know it is a Bloc Québécois opposition day and the member for Waterloo wants to get to June to talk about the Standing Orders, but I think we need, in our own ways, to work miracles so that our kids have a livable world.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:06:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are so many matters at the forefront for Canadians. I am a constituency MP, in the sense that I am in my inbox reading emails about people's hardships. When I receive an email at three o'clock in the morning because someone might not have a place to call home, or someone is concerned about how they are going to feed their children, I think about what we can do to provide better supports. That is why I spoke about the Canada child benefit. That is why I talked about our national housing strategy, and that is why I think it is important that we have discussions that actually impact Canadians—
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
5 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 5:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am delighted. Unfortunately, I missed part of the speech by my colleague from Mount Royal because I was busy doing other, less interesting things.
With my colleague's speech, we finally got a speech about the motion being debated today. We have heard more criticism about the relevance of the motion than about the content of the motion itself, so I very much appreciate the speech by my colleague and friend from Mount Royal.
I also heard that his speech referenced Quebec laws, including Bill 21, which bans or abolishes the wearing of religious symbols in certain professions. It is not at all a ban on wearing religious symbols in public. It is important to make that distinction.
That being said, that has nothing to do with the motion moved today since we are talking, obviously, as he did when he eventually came back to the topic at hand, about the prayer and the symbolism of the prayer before we begin our work here in the House of Commons.
I want to thank my colleague. I hope he will sleep on this and see that this motion is about openness. We want to make this motion, moved by the Bloc Québécois, about inclusion. We want everyone to feel respected in the House and we think that having a moment of reflection during which everyone can choose to pray or meditate would be the best way to satisfy everyone.
That was a comment, but I congratulate—
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 5:17:15 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Mount Royal
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
