The Canadian Parliament resumes its work today. Each day, the House of Commons will continue to require the reading of a prayer by the Speaker of the House to the Members and Clerks present, before opening the doors to the public. This practice, which has been criticized many times, undermines the religious neutrality of the state. But there is more.
While freedom of conscience is one of the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter; while the Supreme Court clearly ruled, in 2015, against the recitation of the prayer by representatives of the State within the framework of their functions; while deputies have clearly requested, on several occasions, the replacement of this prayer by a moment of meditation, with full respect for the freedom of conscience of all; Parliament persists and signs: the prayer in the House of Commons seems to be there for good.
It is true that legislatures and Parliament are not bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Parliament therefore legitimately chose to disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling on prayer. It’s a bit like Parliament using a notwithstanding clause to maintain this tradition in the House of Commons, despite the rights and freedoms. Thus, there is no need for him to justify the attack on the freedom of conscience or the religious neutrality of the State, Parliament is sovereign.
ideological stance
Is it to affirm the religious character of Canada, as enshrined in the first article of its Constitution, that Parliament maintains prayer in the House of Commons or is it out of political ideology, to counter the desire for secularism in State of Quebec?
You should know that the Bloc Québécois motion proposing to replace prayer with a moment of reflection was defeated by all but one of the Liberal MPs and by the majority of the Conservative MPs. Both Green MPs and almost all NDP MPs supported it.
This debate is not only causing a lot of ink to flow in Quebec. Canadians also joined in the debate. Indeed, the Humanists Association of British Columbia organized a letter-writing campaign addressed to members of Parliament asking for an end to these prayers. For them, “this openly religious and Christian tradition undermines the State’s duty of neutrality by privileging belief over unbelief”.
This association, which works diligently with the municipal councils of several English-speaking provinces to enforce the Supreme Court’s judgment in this regard, was stunned by the fact that some members of Parliament said they had never heard of voters concerned about this practice. This posture obviously denies the repeated demands of many citizens, associations and political parties.
Thus, a question arises: on what basis did the deputies rely to use their parliamentary privilege in order to counter a decision of the Supreme Court and to refuse the replacement of the prayer by a moment of reflection? Did they do it out of personal conviction, to respond to a religious lobby or to oppose a request from the Bloc Québécois?
Whatever their motivation, the disregard of federal deputies towards respect for freedom of conscience, recognized by the Supreme Court, probably explains their criticisms or their misunderstanding of the Act respecting the secularism of the State (bill of Law 21), which is based, among other things, on the principle of the religious neutrality of the State and on respect for freedom of conscience and religion.