(Vingt-deux heures quarante minutes)
Mme David : Alors, c'est une
journée, une soirée très triste pour le Québec. Demain matin, des Québécoises
et des Québécois vont se réveiller avec moins de droits qu'ils en avaient aujourd'hui.
Le gouvernement de la CAQ a choisi l'exclusion plutôt que l'inclusion.
M. Tanguay
: Ce soir, à
minuit moins une d'une procédure de bâillon, nous avons appris à la toute
dernière minute que le gouvernement a décidé d'imposer ni plus ni moins qu'une
police de la laïcité visant à faire en sorte d'envoyer des inspecteurs au sein
des organismes afin que les gens se soumettent aux impératifs de la loi, entre
autres l'interdit de porter des signes religieux.
Autre élément que nous avons appris,
réellement, à minuit moins une d'une procédure de bâillon, il y aura des
mesures disciplinaires pouvant aller, qui sait, jusqu'au congédiement. Ça, ça
n'avait pas fait partie du débat. Ça n'avait pas été annoncé et ça nous a été
enfoncé ni plus ni moins dans la gorge à minuit moins une, sans aucune
discussion. Ça, c'est déplorable. Ça, ce n'est pas démocratique. C'est non
seulement bafouer l'institution qu'est l'Assemblée nationale, c'est nous
prendre par surprise, et ça, c'est condamnable.
Mme David : Nous avons enlevé
des droits aux citoyens du Québec aujourd'hui, ce soir. Nous avons enlevé tout
recours juridique possible. Et, en plus, nous l'avons fait dans le contexte
d'un bâillon, avec des amendements imprévus. Je le répète, c'est une très triste
journée pour le Québec.
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : Yes. I'm going to ask questions in
English.
M. Tanguay
: Sure!
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : So, a secularism police or police
officer, I guess… Can you explain in English why you said that that's
deplorable, this amendment?
M. Tanguay
: Yes. It's because, first of all, it wasn't announced at all. It
wasn't part of the debate so far. As you know, there was a debate with respect
to this law for not more than six days, five or six days. And then, at the very
last minute of this «bâillon», they decided to depose this very, very important
and strong amendment by which each and every Minister in charge of applying
that legislation will have the power to send persons, to empower persons to go
within the organization, making sure that people will
be submitted to the requirement of this law.
So, again, it wasn't part
of the debate at all. At the very last minute, it was deposed as an amendment.
And the Government, without any discussion with respect to the impact of it,
will be able to, at the end, in conclusion, send people to enforce the application of that bill. And we can say
literally that this a police force of secularization.
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : And what was the response to the
Minister when you asked him about this, when you called him out on this, making
this...
Mme David : When I asked at the very, very first minute... In the very first
minutes of the last, last period of five hours, the first minute of this last
debate, I asked him: Can you please give us the amendments you have, you know, and you prepared, because we did
that when we were at the Government, and it was just for collaboration? And he said: No way, if we go
to the article, we will give
the amendment at that time, which was not very, very, very nice of him.
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : Do you think he was hiding this
amendment?
Mme David : He cannot have... You know, it's not in the first minute that he can write all those
amendments. They were prepared. He knew where he was going on and he didn't
accept to give it to us. And so we didn't have any opportunity to discuss that.
M. Tanguay
: This potential to have this police, this type of police, wasn't
part of the debate at all from day one. And we asked again if he had any
substantial amendments this very afternoon, within the process of the
«bâillon», and he says: You know what, you'll have the amendment when I will be
ready to give it to you, saying by that that when we will be discussing this article. But, in the «bâillon», you're
limited in the period of time. So, he decided to table these very, very
substantial and strong amendments, the police for secularization, at the very
last minute. And the only thing that we had to do with this was to mention it
in our last speech first and to vote against it, end of the... I shouldn't say
end of the debate. There wasn't any debate at all.
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : What are your concerns for
Quebeckers, you know, if there
is a secularism police? And you also mentioned disciplinary measures, which is
kind of broad. What is your concern? What will this mean for Quebeckers?
M. Tanguay
: First of all, we are dealing with what? We are dealing with a very lack
of precision, definition of what is a religious sign, first of all. People
don't know. Even the Prime Minister, last week, wasn't able to say very
precisely what was a religious sign. He deposed also, which is important to
mention, a new attempt to define a religious sign. And we were discussing this
within our last session with respect to the bill, but again we haven't had time
to amend, to understand.
So, now you're sending
out people in charge of making sure that the organization will be enforcing that,
the interdiction of a religious sign, when it's not clear, in nobody's mind,
what it is. But you know what? At the end of the day, our concerns are that
people will have to say potentially no to a new job opportunity or no to a new
opportunity elsewhere within the system, for instance, education system. So,
we're talking about making into the balance your religious beliefs if you want
to progress within an organization, and that is wrong.
Mme David : And because the definitions of the religious signs are so, so
imprecise, the people in charge, who will have the responsibility to apply and
to say : Do you wear a religious sign, is it a religious sign, after that,
they will have to impose some sanctions, which we never discussed, you know, in
our different hours. We had only 32 hours of, you
know, discussion with the Minister. So, it's very, very
difficult for the person responsible and for the people wearing this religious
sign because their definition is really unclear.
Mme
Fletcher (Raquel) : One last question. Mme Gaudreault,
at the end, after the vote, chided the MNAs for not being solemn enough. What
do you make of that reproach?
M. Tanguay
: Mme Gaudreault… With respect to the flags, the Québec flags, I
think that the president was right asking for… We call it in French «le
décorum». And, when you are voting, it's a very solemn process by which you are
expressing… and this is every MNA's right to express either yes, no or
abstention. And, at that time, you know, it's pretty clear in our code, internal… in our rules that it is a
solemn vote, and you have to do it with all the solemnity that it requires. So,
she was just… I think, rightfully mentioned that it wasn't appropriate.
Mme Fletcher
(Raquel) : Thank you very much.
Mme David : Thank you.
M. Tanguay
: Thanks.
(Fin à 22 h 48)