44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful for that very insightful speech from the NDP member, and here is why. NDP members are more excited to talk about our new Conservative leader than they are about anything else, including their relationship with the Liberal government. I think I know why. We are back from a summer around the riding, and I think folks in Elmwood—Transcona, people in Timmins and people on Vancouver Island sent NDP members a little message this summer to say they do not like the relationship they have with the Liberal government. Their policies are driving inflation, and what we are continuing to see is the same thing. If the member wants to talk about the new Conservative leader, I am happy to do so as well.
The question for the member, then, to put it on the record, is about our clear message this week. Payroll taxes are going to be going up, taking more off people's paycheques January 1. The carbon tax is going up April 1, and it is scheduled to triple. If the member wants to control inflation and wants to help people with their financial budgets, does he agree with us and with no new tax increases?
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am excited to talk about the new Conservative leader because I think that as people get to know him, they will come to feel about him as I do.
A clue was in the member's question, actually, when he talked about payroll taxes. What Canadians should know is that when the member says “payroll tax” what he means is their pension. When we are talking about increases to the Canada pension plan so that Canadians can have a decent retirement, the Conservatives call it a “payroll tax”.
People should know that somebody who thinks their pension is a payroll tax instead of what people actually work for and expect to bank on in their retirement is someone who is not in their corner and cannot be trusted to manage the affairs of the country. That is what people should know, and that is why I will keep talking about the new leader of the Conservative Party until everybody in Canada knows it.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I would also like to hear his thoughts on the government's bad habit of implementing a policy and then systematically forgetting to coordinate with Quebec. In particular, I would like to hear his thoughts on how a government can claim to govern for all Canadians while forgetting 23% of the population.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
One other great example of this is the whole issue of the increase to old age security.
Seniors really need an increase to their fixed pension benefits, especially these days. The government thinks that the rising costs putting serious pressure on the budgets of Canadians and seniors in Canada affect only seniors 75 and over. The members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP know that this is not true. All seniors across the country are under a lot of pressure, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, so the government needs to increase old age security for all seniors.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a very good moment for New Democrats when we can finally talk about the issues that most Canadians are already experiencing at the pumps or in the grocery stores, and that is corporate greed.
I heard the member speak a bit about that, which I would like him to elaborate on, but I will give some facts. Pasta has increased 30%, coffee 20%, oranges 16% and bread 16%, and there has been $3.5 billion in profits by big grocery stores. The NDP is the only party talking about the real cost of inflation, which is corporate greed.
Would the member please elaborate on how this cost of corporate greed is affecting Canadians in his riding?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the $3.5 billion is money that comes out of the pockets of Canadians, just as any tax paid to the government comes out of the pockets of Canadians. When we see that kind of extraordinary increase in profit that goes hand in hand with price increases, then we have to know that a significant amount of that price increase is not just to make up for increased supply costs, but in fact is companies taking advantage of a difficult situation in order to charge more for their products, and they are able to walk away with more of that profit because since the year 2000, the corporate income tax in Canada has dropped from 28% to 15%.
Another way that the Harper government, among others, has contributed to the real estate culture that is driving housing prices through the roof was by not doing anything about the capital gains exemption. It stands at 50% and it allows people to sell not just their stocks but also real estate beyond their primary residences and get a steep tax discount for doing their business through stocks and real estate instead of income, which is what most Canadians receive when they go to work. They get a salary or an hourly wage. However, if people are fortunate enough to be dealing in real estate or stocks, they actually get to pay 50% less tax, period, just by virtue of the way they do their own business. All of that has reduced government revenue, not just absolutely but as a share of GDP, between 2000 and now, and that is why we do not have the money we need in order to fund proper public services.
285 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's focus on the excess profits of the oil and gas sector.
I do not like using the term “excess profit” and I do not like using “windfall profit”. Let us be clear about what we are talking about: We are talking about immoral war profiteering. That is what we are seeing right now. If hon. members across the way want to laugh, let me refer to the business columnist in The Globe and Mail, Eric Reguly, who called this out in his August 8 column. He pointed out that the profits of oil and gas right now have nothing to do with business acumen and everything to do with war.
I would ask my hon. colleague if he agrees with the Parliamentary Budget Officer that by doubling from 15% to 30%, the additional $8 billion coming into the Canadian economy and the government coffers could help us take care of the poorest of the poor.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I absolutely believe that the additional profit those companies are making, as the member said, not because of their business acumen but by taking advantage of global circumstances in order to have a fig leaf as an excuse for why they are raising prices, should be taken back and invested in the things that we need in order to succeed as a society. We need housing. We need better health care. We need to tackle the climate crisis. We can create good jobs for people by doing that. We need money to pay for this. The money is out there. The government collects a lot less, in relative terms, than it used to, even 20 years ago, and it is time we start going back after that.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, which, from what I am hearing, all members in the House will be supporting, or at least that seems pretty clear from the NDP and the Conservatives. I think people realize that this is something important. It is something that is critical and it is something that people need right now.
What are we talking about? We are talking about a six-month increase of the GST rebates that are given to individuals. This would have a real, meaningful impact for people, in particular those who are struggling the most and those who really need it. For single individuals who have no children, the total GST rebate would be $467. Married or common-law partnerships would see $612, and then there would be $161 for each child under the age of 19.
This is about trying to help individuals, particularly right now, when we know we are experiencing this inflationary problem that has developed over time as a result of a number of different things that have been going on in the world, a number of things outside of the control of any individual country, and we have landed where we are.
We know that we need to take care of each other, and that is what this really comes down to. It comes down to taking care of each other and supporting each other through programs. That is what government is all about. The government is here to establish programs and policies that can have an impact throughout society.
If we took the approach of “every person for themselves”, which, unfortunately, it appears in retrospect that the Conservatives wish we had taken when it came to the beginning of the pandemic, we really would not need much in terms of government. We would not need government to be there to support Canadians and to support each other.
We have heard a lot, and I want to reflect on a comment that the member for Elmwood—Transcona made a few moments ago in answering a question from our friend from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and he phrased it perfectly. We hear the Conservatives talking about EI and CPP as payroll taxes. They are not payroll taxes.
CPP is a pension plan. It is a plan that is paid into by the employee and the employer. It is a pension plan that many people rely on when they get to the age of retirement. When politicians, in my opinion, start toying with the idea of playing around with that fund or not properly ensuring that it has the resources or funds within it, it means that we are going to have problems, from a societal perspective, later on when we find out that it is underfunded.
Likewise, EI is employment insurance. This is an insurance policy. It is funding a policy that allows people to be able to withdraw when they need it the most, if they become unemployed or other circumstances put them in the position of needing it. I do not agree with the assessment of calling it a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. Neither of those programs is, yet we hear that.
I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the neighbouring riding to mine, pine back to the days of the UCCB, the universal child care benefit that Stephen Harper introduced. They pine about that program as though it is the gold standard for social programs of helping Canadians. The universal child care benefit was a program that literally gave every child, through their parents or guardians, a specific amount of money. It did not matter how much one made. It was not tested based on someone's need whatsoever. How can that be regarded as a social program?
Instead, this government has been focused squarely on putting money into the hands of those who genuinely need it the most. When we look at it, it is not just about supporting individuals. It is smart economic policy. What happens if we give a $100 or $150 payment to a millionaire, somebody who does not need it, quite frankly, through the UCCB? What happens? They will likely put it in a TFSA or they will put it in their bank account and collect interest off of it and it just sits there, because they do not need it.
What happens if we give it to somebody who genuinely needs it? They are going to go out and they are going to spend it. What does that do? That helps, creates and stimulates the economy.
When we pine back to the days of the universal child care benefit, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes did, that is not smart policy. It is not smart policy from the societal perspective of supporting each other, and it is not smart policy from an economic perspective. When we invest in people and we take care of each other, we will all be better off. We will see our economy grow in a way that is sustainable and that supports one another.
To that end, one of the arguments that I have heard come up a few times, and I heard it from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, are the concerns over the inflationary impacts of a program like this. I think it is a valid question to be asked, because we know that, when we inject more money into the economy, we run the risk of inflation being attached to that. I think it is a valid question.
However, I would encourage them to go out and talk to some of the individuals, economists, who understand and know this. I will read two quotes from two economists. The first is from Armine Yalnizyan, an economist and Atkinson fellow, and this is what this economist said:
In truth the measures are so modest...that they amount to just over 0.1 per cent of nominal GDP and less than one per cent of current growth, hardly a tail that could wag a dog.
She also said:
Along with the childcare fee rebate, financed by the feds and promised by the Ontario government to start in April (money that has yet to arrive in mailboxes), there’s a lot of talk but not a lot of cash flowing to households. There’s no chance current federal measures will spur inflationary over-spending anytime soon.
Here is another one from David Macdonald, the senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
These transfers are unlikely to have much impact on inflation as inflation is being driven by external factors like the price of gasoline, supply chain issues and the like. These measures are quite targeted and to get the full value of all three, you'd have to be a family making under C$35,000.
In the best case scenario, you could receive about C$2,300 for that family which only amounts to 6.5 percent of income when inflation is running at 7.0 percent....
These measures aren't boosting incomes well above inflation, they are just helping lower income families afford the price increases that have already happened.
These are two economists who are putting to rest, at least in their professional opinions, the notions about inflation and what this could do to inflation, although I think it is a very valid and genuine question to ask, especially in the current climate. However, I hope that those two members, in particular, take comfort in knowing that these two economists do not agree that it would necessarily have a impact.
I do not want to take up much more time than I absolutely have to. I do not want to speak long enough that I have to come back and speak the next time that this comes up for debate. I want people and I want members to have the genuine opportunity to speak to this. I really hope that this is one of those bills that we can see pass quickly, because it really will have an impact on the lives of those who genuinely need it the most.
We need to assist those who need it the most, and I really hope that the House will not play politics with this issue. I hope we will let people have the opportunity to speak to it, but then, within a reasonable amount of time, get to a point where we can send it to committee, have it studied there and then come back, because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting the individuals who need it the most.
I really hope we can work together, because it appears as though we already all support it anyway.
1506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his comments, but I do want to point out one thing about his comment on sending cheques to millionaires. The Auditor General herself pointed out that the Liberal government actually changed the tax code when it was giving away the child benefit bump of $500. It actually changed the tax code so that families making up to $308,000 per year were able to receive that benefit. When the member talked about sending money to people, to those in need, he overlooked that. I think it was $88 million of taxpayers' money that was sent to those über-wealthy.
However, my question actually goes back to the member's comment about helping those truly in need. I want to give an example. The member talked about the GST credit. My two children, whom I love, receive the GST credit. One works relatively part-time and one works relatively part-time and is in school. Their income is low enough, so they will receive a bump.
As much as I love my children, I do not believe that children of someone in our income bracket who are living at home should be receiving that bump. Did the government perhaps consider looking at an income means test based on family income so that we could give more to a single mom or those of low income living by themselves, or would the member consider that in the future, so that we are getting that money to those really in need, as opposed those living at home? We saw $5 billion in CERB going to children living in the homes of wealthy parents. Could we enact something to move that away and truly focus on those in need?
300 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to hear Conservative members talking about programs that are tested based on need. That is a great step in the right direction, and certainly a move away from the model of the universal child care benefit.
Perhaps I did not quite understand the member clearly when he referred to families that are making $308,000. My wife and I combined are making that, and we do not get the money back that he is talking about. I do not know where he is getting that number. Maybe he could help me with that.
Quite frankly, I do not believe that people who are in my position need to get that money. I am not looking for it. I also believe that most people who are in my position would agree that when we get to a certain level of financial stability, there is not the need to rely on these payments. Instead, we could better direct them to those who genuinely need them and provide more to those who genuinely need them, and that is exactly what the Canada child benefit did. It looked at how much individuals made and gave money to individuals to help with their children, based on how much they made. Once they hit a certain threshold, they no longer got it.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.
The government has introduced three measures to combat inflation. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the GST/HST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. Bill C‑31 contains two more measures: dental insurance for children 11 and under and housing assistance.
With respect to housing, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the people of Quebec will not get their fair share, because this is a Canada housing benefit top-up. Quebec has had its own program for the past 25 years, and it has the right to opt out with compensation, but Bill C‑31 is silent on coordinating benefits. The same goes for dental insurance, which covers children 11 and under. Quebec's dental insurance covers children nine and under. The bill is silent on coordinating benefits.
On behalf of the government, will the parliamentary secretary promise to amend the bill to make sure it harmonizes with Quebec's programs so that my constituents will not be adversely affected?
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit to amending the bill. I am not on the committee. I certainly do not have a veto power over the committee or how it works.
If the member is bringing up a very important point about the circumstances in Quebec and how the measures might apply differently, and it sounds like he is, I would suggest that there would be an opportunity at committee for the Bloc Québécois and those who are representing Quebec to bring this issue forward and to talk about it so that individuals could be properly taken care of. If what the member is suggesting is valid, then I do not see why the committee would not properly study it in order to bring forward solutions to address it.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is right to give credit to the NDP for having pushed, prodded and pulled the government to put into place a series of measures that help Canadians. The GST credit, that rebate, is on average about $500 that will go to about 12 million Canadians. As well, there is dental care, which is reflected in the other NDP bill and would be put in place to help thousands of Canadian families. Of course, the rental supplement will help nearly two million Canadians.
These are all measures the NDP and the member for Burnaby South fought for, and it is to the credit of the government that it allowed itself to be pushed, prodded and pulled in the right direction to do things that will actually benefit Canadians.
My question is about other measures the NDP has talked about. For example, “greedflation”, which is the intense profiteering we have seen as inflation has risen, means we are of course seeing the cost of food go up, but profits for companies like Loblaws and Sobeys have increased far beyond the increase in the cost of food. Will the government take measures to cut back on this profiteering, which is hurting so many Canadians at this dire time?
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I do not care whose idea it was. I do not care if it was the NDP's idea to increase the GST, or if it was done through negotiations or whatever. We are helping Canadians. It does not really matter at the end of the day. I doubt the individual who is receiving the cheque in time to help buy more groceries really cares that it was the NDP that pushed for this, nor do they care that the Leader of the Opposition fought for various different parts of this. All they care about is what supports their government is giving them in their time of need. If the NDP members want to take credit for it, they can fill their boots, because I am perfectly fine with that. My position on this is that we help Canadians to the best of our ability.
To his question about corporate greed, which the NDP continually brings up, I am not shying away from the topic. I hear the NDP bring it up a lot. I would love to hear more about it. If the member for Burnaby South wants to sit down with me and explain his positions on it more and talk about what he thinks some of the solutions should be, I am more than willing to listen.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that I am literally in the market for a deck. If one asks for quotes for a deck, one will get price x and then price y for cash. What it speaks to is the number of people who do not file income tax returns and therefore will not benefit from the CPP, EI, the HST increase, the rent supplement, and all that sort of stuff.
I am interested in the hon. member's thoughts with respect to the need for Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians, to file their income taxes so they may benefit from all of these things.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the member for Scarborough—Guildwood is looking for help building a deck, I am sure the member for St. Catharines and I can go over and help him. Maybe the Speaker can come too. I do not know about the quality of the deck or how it will turn out, but I am more than willing to do my part.
The member raises an excellent point, and that is why it is our job to encourage and ensure that people are aware of why it is so important to file taxes. Filing taxes is not just about paying money and making sure one has paid their fair share, or trying to avoid taxes here or there. It is also being able to tap into these very important programs that are designed and dedicated for individuals who need them in a time of need. By filing their taxes, people will be able to demonstrate that when it is time.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 6:18:59 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 6:19:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to resume the remarks I was making previously on this bill to create Hindu heritage month, a bill recognizing the immense contributions of the Hindu community to Canada's national life in so many different areas.
The last time this motion came up, I was also speaking about the way we have moved from using heritage months to recognize ethnocultural communities to now increasingly recognizing religious communities as well. I think these acts of recognition for faith communities are of some particular importance. For many people faith is more fundamental than ethnocultural identity. It also has a different kind of substance and depth.
It is relatively easy for us to go through the process of experiencing the food, dress and language of another ethnocultural group, but it is much harder to try to really understand the internal logic and view of the good life advanced by another religion on its own terms, but in a pluralistic society that understanding is very important. Of course, understanding does not mean agreeing. Understanding and respect can be very consistent with also firmly asserting the truth of one's own convictions, but living out a healthy pluralism is about still seeking to draw from the insights of particular religious traditions other than one's own, recognizing that our understanding of the human condition and of the world around us is well served by a willingness to draw ideas and insights from different religious traditions.
I believe that pluralism is not just a feature of a political system, but it is a virtue to be developed by individuals. To develop the virtue of pluralism is to seek to understand other ideas on their own terms and to be able to think about the internal logic of the other without losing one's own grounding in one's own tradition. It is to cultivate the ability to step into the intellectual space offered by another religious tradition, while still being fully able to see its potential flaws and step out of it. In this sense, I am defining pluralism as an intellectual virtue, a quality of the mind that citizens and leaders should seek to develop.
Virtues are defined by Alasdair MacIntyre as qualities of character that allow an individual to achieve good internal practices and sustain us in the relevant quest for the good. The good practice of pluralism requires intellectual curiosity and substantive open-mindedness on the part of individuals to the insights of religion and of different religions. This goes beyond mere acts of recognition and seeks to understand and learn from the ideas of others.
One can and should develop this virtue while still retaining a sense of one's own grounding. Pluralism is different from relativism. Relativism denies that things can be true and false. However, pluralism is to emphasize that I can retain the sense that there are objective points of true and false, while still being able to mentally put on the thinking of another tradition long enough to really understand it and to take it seriously, and that I can learn from insights of that tradition or way of thinking.
I have tried to develop this kind of understanding of Hinduism. For those of us from Abrahamic religious traditions, Hinduism as a religion can be particularly difficult to understand. This is because the typically Abrahamic way of thinking about religion is very different from the Hindu tradition. The different communities really mean something substantively different even when they use the term “religion”.
The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are rooted in the concept of a single all-powerful God who provides direct and decisive revelation, who outlines the moral framework for us to live by through that revelation and who expects to alone be the object of worship. These faith systems do build on past revelations, with Christianity seeing itself as building on Judaism and Islam seeing itself as building on both, but they are also senses in which these are revolutionary ideas, in that they call for a decisive separation from other religious practices. All the Abrahamic traditions emphasize some concept of one God, one truth, leading to one right path.
For the practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths, religious doctrines that are absolute in nature can coexist with political doctrines that are pluralistic; that is, we do believe in the existence of one right path and we also believe in the freedom of individuals to find it on their own. Religious freedom in the Christian tradition emphasizes that human free choice and freedom to pursue God without state interference is a consequence of the absolute belief in created human dignity.
Hinduism is different from the Abrahamic faiths in that it has the concept of plurality directly within it theologically. An expansive open-ended pluralism is not just defended as a valuable feature for political communities. It actually exists right within the religious community of Hindu believers. We can find monotheists and polytheists and people with very different ideas about moral questions and aspects of religious practice who all identify as Hindus.
Hinduism is not defined by a belief in a particular god or gods and it is not defined by a creed. Hinduism is a kind of family of spiritual practices and religious ways of life. As it has developed into its modern form, it has continued to grow and adapt as an organic thing, preserving the past while adding to it. This is most notable in how the early Vedic traditions of Hinduism evolved with the development of the Upanishads, introducing monotheism into Hinduism as a kind of superstructure over top of but also including the older polytheism.
Hinduism finds ways of preserving aspects of the old while developing the new. Hinduism has also developed a unique kind of pluralism within itself that willingly incorporates ideas from other religions. The best summary of a religious dialogue between Hindus and members of Abrahamic faiths is this apparent exchange between the founders of India and Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi, a Jew.” To this, Jinnah replied, “Only a Hindu could say that.”
In conclusion, we are all blessed to live in a country where we can practise our faith, share our traditions and learn from each other. Our Canadian pluralism ought not be taken for granted, as we are seeing threats to religious freedom on multiple fronts. From violent extremists who vandalize temples, mosques, churches and synagogues to make people feel unsafe in their religious practice, to governments that deny people's ability to practise their faith openly in the name of so-called secularism and governments that fail to respect conscience and the charitable status of faith-based organizations, we see that threats to religious freedom are growing in Canada. I am committed to fighting in this place to defend pluralism and religious freedom for as long as I am here.
Once again, I thank the Hindu community for its significant contributions to this great nation.
1188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 6:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to talk about this motion to recognize, create, rename and symbolically designate a Hindu heritage month. I have to say that it is the word “heritage” that makes me receptive to this motion because, of course, all of us here support secularism. I personally am a great supporter of secularism and freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, the concept of secularism is sometimes a bit foreign to this Parliament and this country. There is no direct equivalent for the French word “laïcité” in the language of Canada, which is English. The word does not exist.
“Laïcité”—or, loosely, secularism—relegates the matter of religion to the private sphere. Basically, it means that the matter of God or gods, or the absence of a god, cannot be settled through public debate. It cannot be settled through argumentation or reason. The previous debate on inflation and budget proposals can be settled using fact-based arguments, but the matter of belief or non-belief cannot.
As a federal elected official, I will never answer questions about my faith. As an individual, of course, I am free to believe or not believe, like everyone else. I am free to be passionate about a particular religious culture, but it does not interfere with my job. I represent people of all faiths or people who simply have no faith. Everyone is free to make their own choice.
Secularism puts beliefs and lack of beliefs on a level playing field. Of course, it also comes with the right to dislike, or even hate, a religion, some religions, several religions or all religions. It also comes with the right to ridicule them, if we so wish, or to ridicule just one. Those who have wanted to thwart this fundamental right have unfortunately sometimes taken it to the extreme, as was the case in the tragic Charlie Hebdo massacre.
I also personally refuse to label people based on their religious community. For me, a nation is not a group of communities that belong to one religion or another. It is a group of citizens who are each equal in rights and duties, and whose beliefs, or lack thereof, are no one's business but their own. That is what makes up a nation.
The state is aware of every religion, of course, but should not recognize any of them. That is the foundation of this secularism. It is certainly not for me, an elected federal member, to comment on dogmas, rites, religions or the tenets of one religion or another, whether we are talking about Hinduism, Catholicism, Islam or any other.
What is more, let us also clarify that where these citizens come from, when we talk about cultural diversity, is not synonymous with religion. Someone who follows a religion is not someone who, according to the religion itself, necessarily comes from one country or another. There may be people with deep roots who convert to one religion or another.
However, it is clear, and I have no problem saying this, that there is no religious heritage either, but rather religious heritages. That is why we tend to support this proposal. Just because we are ardent supporters of secularism does not mean we do not recognize the importance of Catholic congregations in Quebec's history, for example. Just because we are ardent supporters of secularism does not mean it is impossible to say that churches and places of worship are tremendous architectural gems. I have no problem saying that. Personally, I think religious buildings are the most beautiful buildings on earth.
The same goes for Hinduism and Hindu heritage, which is significant in Quebec. Quebec certainly does have a Hindu heritage, and a well-established one at that. The Hindu religious community, despite any reservations I may have expressed previously, has its own unique history. Adapting traditional rituals to Quebec winters was pretty difficult. It has not always been easy, unlike in places like India, Sri Lanka or the Caribbean, where it is much easier. Most celebrations take place outside. Some festivals have even been rescheduled. Generally speaking, the community has adapted to Quebec's weather and climate constraints.
I was talking about architecture. Let us talk about the majestic Hindu temple in Dollard‑des‑Ormeaux, an architectural jewel that contributes to the richness of Quebec's heritage and the beauty of its architectural landscape. We fully support this motion.
I should note that the arrival of the first Hindus in Canada dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. That is quite some time ago. Immigration fell off around 2015, when a law was passed prohibiting Asians from immigrating to Canada. The law was repealed in 1965. Since then, the influx of Hindu immigrants has continued, mainly from India, but also from elsewhere, such as Sri Lanka and even the Caribbean.
According to Statistics Canada, there were nearly 7,000 members of the Hindu faith in Quebec in 1981. There were 14,000 in 1991 and 25,000 in 2001. Hindu heritage has arguably been prominent in Montreal since the 1980s, following the construction of Canada's first Hindu temple, the Hindu Mission Temple, located on Bellechasse Street in La Petite-Patrie. The community is made up of two main groups. The first is people from north India, and the second is people from south India and Tamils.
There are, of course, two main spaces used for liturgical celebrations: home and temple. I want to emphasize that I am not here to comment on the validity of any of this.
Home is an important place of religious heritage, but in Quebec, Hindu heritage is mainly celebrated in temples, the second space. The unique architecture of some temples, such as the Thiru Murugan Temple built by Montreal's Tamil community, reflects this heritage.
There is also the Hindu Mission Temple, which was designed in the traditional Hindu architectural style but also has some more practical features. The Thiru Murugan Temple emulates traditional Indian architecture that dates back to around 5,000 B.C. Twelve workers came over from India to help build the Thiru Murugan Temple. The Tamil community saved $3.5 million over 20 years to build it. I tip my hat to them.
Some of the rituals practised at the temple in Dollard‑des‑Ormeaux are thousands of years old. The Thiru Murugan Temple is one of the largest Hindu temples in Canada and is the main place of worship for Quebec's Tamil community.
They are magnificent buildings. The Hindu temple in Dollard‑des‑Ormeaux is a vast 6,000-square-foot space. Whoever goes there, whether tourist or faithful, passes under a tower in the shape of a pyramid that is about thirty metres high. I have never gone, but I have to admit that my research on this subject has piqued my interest into going to have a look. I am going to make a point of going there very soon. The second tower sits imposingly above the main altar of the temple and is dedicated to the god Murugan, who is considered by Hindu Tamils to be their national divinity.
The exterior of the sanctuary transports the visitor to other spaces inspired by India. It is a very impressive place both inside and out. The temple is open to everyone every day of the year. This project was carried out mainly by Sri Lankan immigrants who began arriving in Montreal in the 1980s.
Interest in building this temple, a temple for this particular faith, dates back to 1983. I was saying that it was a long wait and that they had to organize fundraisers. We are pleased because this truly honours the community and its contributions. It is part of the city and is in the industrial sector. For many years, the organization collected private donations.
In closing, it will be a pleasure to support this motion for the reasons stated earlier.
1347 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
