Debates of May 10th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Change to Standing Order 30 Regarding the Prayer

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

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.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

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.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

Bill C-11—Notice of time allocation motion

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Change to Standing Order 30 Regarding the Prayer

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

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?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

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?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have too little time left to speak about that.

As I just mentioned, this issue may be much more political than what we are trying to do, which is to separate church and state. I believe that these two issues are different enough to be treated separately. This does not make my colleague's proposal devoid of interest. On the contrary, I believe that it deserves to be debated, so I invite my colleague's party to bring it forward on an opposition day. In short, the concepts are different enough that I believe we are justified in debating them separately.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to follow my colleague from Saint-Jean because I found her to be very eloquent.

If, from the age of Saint Augustine to the modern period, the relationship between political and spiritual power was at the forefront, the challenges of the present era are of a different nature. The state must treat with equal respect all core beliefs and commitments compatible with the requirements of fair social cooperation. That is called inclusion. Moral and religious diversity is a structural and—as far as we can tell—permanent characteristic of our democratic societies.

It therefore seems to be consistent with these words to point out that state neutrality is ensured when it neither favours nor disfavours any religious conviction; in other words, when it respects every position with regard to religion, including the position of not having one, while taking into consideration, of course, the competing constitutional rights of the people involved.

Nova Scotia finally abandoned the daily prayer in October 2021, opting instead for a moment of solemn reflection. That is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. It is good to be inclusive, and all three political parties in the Nova Scotia legislature, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP, were in favour of eliminating the prayer. I hope the same thing happens here at the federal level.

Is daily solemn prayer outside the role of the state? Does reciting a prayer come without any repercussions? Is it unworthy of the attention we are giving it today? Certainly not.

For example, when the Ontario legislature studied the issue of prayer in 2008, some 25,000 petitioners weighed in, and it was sent to an all-party commission for study. Even the Supreme Court of Canada was seized of the issue in 2015, so we are not completely off base in moving such a motion.

Simply put, does the prayer recited in this place reflect the beliefs of the population?

Far from promoting diversity, does this practice reflect a tendency to favour one particular religious tradition and give precedence to religious beliefs over non-religious ones? I think we can all agree that the prayer said here has a very strong Judeo-Christian leaning.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way to ensure state secularism is not to introduce as many different beliefs as possible, especially since there are so many. Instead, we believe that individual religious beliefs should be kept in the private realm and should not be on display within public institutions.

Between 2015 and 2019, my colleague moved a motion that the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against. In response, I gave interviews on the radio, and the Bloc Québécois's news release was widely reported in our local papers. Our constituents are very interested when this topic comes up.

Authors of an article who studied the more than 870 prayers read out in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia between 2003 and 2019 concluded that other legislatures would do well to adopt Quebec's approach to prayers. They said:

The prayers could be replaced with a time for silent reflection, similar to the practice in the Quebec National Assembly.

The most straightforward step would be to abolish the practice of legislative prayer completely.

We are being used as a model.

There is no question for Quebeckers and Canadians that elected officials are not chosen by a divine power but rather by a democratic process in which voters have their say.

The ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate in public life, because that is what democracy is all about.

Furthermore, in the process of recruiting and encouraging participation in active politics, all the parties represented here call upon citizens from all walks of life, and this clearly illustrates the progress made by society as a whole. This is very good.

The times have changed. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous judgment in favour of the Mouvement laïque québécois, that the “state's duty of religious neutrality results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion”. That is what the Supreme Court wrote.

What the Bloc Québécois finds strange is that Parliament, which presents itself as an institution that advocates for the preservation and promotion of multiculturalism in Canadian society, chooses to recite a prayer at the opening of each House sitting, and that it chooses a certain prayer rather than one from another religion. When it makes that choice, it does so at the expense of other religions or atheism. It fails to consider the rights of cultural minority religions and inclusion in Canadian society.

The Parliament of Canada is no place for proselytizing. No religious belief should be promoted in this place. We need this place to be a neutral public space, free of coercion, free of pressure and free of judgment. This is how, in matters of spirituality, we manage to protect everyone's freedom of religion and conscience.

A little further on in the same Supreme Court ruling, it states, and I quote, “the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard, which means that it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief.”

There are believers, but there are also non-believers. Notwithstanding what was just said, I also want to add that spirituality does exist, but it is specific to each individual. It is private. It should be experienced and expressed somewhat privately. That is what the Quebec National Assembly did in 1976. Every session begins with a moment of silent reflection. That is what the Bloc Québécois motion is proposing, nothing more and nothing less. It is a time to listen to one's conscience. It is an opportunity for members to collect their thoughts and harness their energy, to get in touch with their feelings about the challenges they face or to think about loved ones. It is personal.

I will now share a quote from Clément Richard, a former speaker of the Quebec National Assembly. On December 15, 1976, he confirmed the adoption of a new rule.

Out of respect for the members of this Assembly, who are not all necessarily of the same religious denomination, and out of respect for the Assembly, I have chosen to allow every member to pray as they see fit. During the moment of reflection, each member will have the opportunity to say a prayer to themselves, and it is out of respect for the Assembly that I have made this decision.

Our motion is quite simply about respect.

Spirituality is not a synonym for religion or even confession. The growing number of non‑believers in Canada could speak at length about that. The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle that cannot be ignored. Secularism is a system for organizing and ensuring equality among the principles of freedom of conscience, the separation of church and state, and equality among citizens. These principles are absolutely essential parts of democracy, and we must not forget that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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.