In Canada, a country whose Constitution recognizes the existence and even the supremacy of God, the federal government can act against the decisions of its Supreme Court in complete legality. This is what has just been illustrated again with the deplorable vote on maintaining prayer in the House of Commons.
If we are to believe Justin Trudeau and several other MPs, both Liberal and Conservative, the Bloc Québécois motion to replace prayer with a moment of reflection was not a real issue. However, the obligation imposed on the Speaker of the House of Commons to recite a prayer, an obligation enshrined in the rules of procedure of the House, is a manifest negation of the religious neutrality of the state to which the Government of Canada claims to subscribe. Therein lies the issue.
If secularism is not an issue, why do all the federal parties, except the Bloc Québécois, constantly attack the Quebec law on the secularism of the state? Why are Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre making it a subject of debate in their leadership race? Why do Justin Trudeau and Jean Charest want the federal government to fight this law in the Supreme Court?
By fighting Bill 21 and voting to maintain prayer, the message is clear: Canada is not a secular state and its representatives do not intend to respect the principle of separation between the state and religions. .
According to another argument invoked to maintain the prayer, the text does not refer to any religious denomination and can therefore be suitable for everyone. To hear them, this prayer would not really be a prayer. This was defended by Minister Steven Guilbeault and constitutional expert Benoit Pelletier, among others. The latter’s position is surprising insofar as he defended Bill 21 as an expert before the Superior Court. He does not seem to understand that secularism primarily concerns the rules of operation of the State and its representatives.
What the Supreme Court says
Such a prayer even violates the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada Quebec secular movement against Saguenay. For the prayer of the House of Commons is of the same kind. Even expurgated of any explicit reference to Christianity or any other faith, “it does not change the nature or the substance of the prayer, declares the Court. It’s about […] of an invocation to God, attributing to him the benefits granted to the City and its citizens, and asking him to influence the deliberations of the council”.
This is exactly the case with the prayer of the House of Commons, which invokes God to grant to the elect “wisdom, knowledge and understanding” which will enable them to “make wise decisions”.
Such an invocation, which gives preference to a deistic vision of life, has the effect of undermining the freedom of conscience of citizens and the religious neutrality of the State, which is “a democratic imperative”, adds the Court.
The country’s highest court even declared that “actual religious neutrality” was not compatible with “benevolent neutrality”. This last conception of neutrality is what is called “open secularism” and which is a contradiction in the very expression.
A little consistency!
The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court cannot apply exclusively to the case of Saguenay. If this city must be neutral, it is because the State must be. The entire argument developed by the Supreme Court is based on that. The principles and logic of this decision should therefore apply not only to all municipalities in Canada, but also to provincial governments and the federal government.
Even if the judgment does not oblige the government to submit to it, nothing prevents it from acting consistently. What an extraordinary contradiction the elected federal representatives offered us! Municipalities must stop reciting prayers in the name of the State’s religious neutrality, while the Canadian State, represented primarily by the Government of Canada, rejects this same neutrality!
It is difficult to understand why the Bloc Québécois did not base its motion on this Supreme Court ruling. If the Bloc had put this decision at the forefront, it would have been more embarrassing for the members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to vote against it and thus place themselves at odds with the Supreme Court. At least, their contradiction would have been exposed and their arguments emptied of their substance.