(Onze heures vingt-six minutes)
M. Tanguay
: Alors, merci
beaucoup. Ce matin, j'ai eu, pour une autre fois, l'occasion de tenter de
savoir ce que pense la ministre de la Justice sur le projet de loi n° 21, le projet de loi n° 21 qui
n'est pas anodin. Le projet de loi n° 21, c'est,
d'abord et avant tout, brimer les droits et libertés de tous les Québécois et
de toutes les Québécoises, c'est faire en sorte qu'il n'y ait plus de demandes
d'accommodement pour motifs religieux, que les signes religieux ne sont pas
définis.
Par ailleurs, on ne sait pas c'est quoi,
un signe religieux. Est-ce que c'est une croix? On est même dans le domaine du
visible et de l'invisible, selon l'aveu même du ministre. Alors, projet de loi
qui vient faire en sorte de brimer les droits et libertés, vient faire en sorte
d'interdire les signes religieux, dont on ne connaît pas la définition, fait en
sorte également, dans un troisième temps, d'éliminer la possibilité que les
gens se parlent, demandent des accommodements, et que l'on veut raisonnables,
après analyse. Ça, ce sera interdit.
Et, par-dessus tout ça, ajoutez deux
choses : la clause dérogatoire, qui fait en sorte que les droits et
libertés, tous les droits et libertés, pas quelques-uns, là, mais l'article 1 à
l'article 38 de notre charte québécoise des droits et libertés, sont mis au
rancart, ça, sous la menace du bâillon. Le premier ministre l'a déjà dit et ma
collègue Hélène David l'a mentionné. Le premier ministre a dit : Le débat,
là, il finit le 15 juin. On ne pourra pas faire l'économie d'un débat en
quelque trois semaines, alors que le projet de loi n'est même pas encore en
article par article.
Alors, ceci dit, à la fin de la journée,
il est important de savoir que notre ministre de la Justice, qui est la
gardienne des droits et libertés de tous les Québécois, Québécoises, il faut
qu'elle parle, il faut qu'elle prenne la parole. Je lui ai posé encore une fois
trois questions ce matin. Et c'est le ministre responsable du projet de loi,
qui n'est pas ministre de la Justice, qui n'est pas, lui, mais qui devrait le
faire, mais qui ne le fait pas dans son projet de loi, le gardien des droits et
libertés... C'est la ministre de la Justice qui doit le faire, et c'est en ce
sens-là où elle ne s'est pas levée. J'ai lancé un avis de recherche : Y
a-tu une ministre de la Justice au Québec présentement? Avis
de recherche.
And, now, if you allow
me, I can have a statement in English as well.
I issued this morning a
search warrant for our Minister of Justice. We need to have her commenting,
reassuring Quebeckers with respect to getting rid of the rights and liberties
of all Quebeckers. The «projet de loi», the bill deposed by the minister responsible
wants to set aside all the civic rights and liberties of Quebeckers by the «nonobstant»
clause, and this is a very, very important issue. We need to have a clear
response and we need to have the confirmation…
And I'll put it this way
in conclusion. We need to have a clear confirmation that the Minister of
Justice is actually defending all Quebeckers' rights and liberties, and that's
not the case because… You know what? I don't know what's happening in that
government, but she wasn't allowed, again this morning, to stand up and to
answer my questions. Every time, I was pointing to her, asking her to answer, but
every time it was the Leader of the Government who took the answers. And again
we are issuing a search warrant. We need to have the Minister of Justice
defending our rights.
Mme Senay
(Cathy) : Why is that so important?
M. Tanguay
:
It's important because this is…
Mme Senay
(Cathy) : Why do you want to hear her?
M. Tanguay
:
I want to hear her because, you know what, I'm 100% sure that she knows very
well what's at stake here. It's the rights and the liberties. I'm 100% sure
that she studied the same jurisprudence. She knows the impact of our charters
of rights, the Québec and the Canadian charters of rights. And we need to have
her to answer those questions because... And I think that she's not... I'm deducing she's really not happy with what's
happening. She needs to defend our rights and to make sure that what's
announced... We already know one thing for sure, you're either in favor or
against that bill. At the end of the day, there's one thing that is common
ground for everyone, we'll have a judicial contest. We'll have, big time, a lot
of judicial contests, contestation. And again she's our Minister of Justice.
One of our main objectives as Minister of Justice is to defend every
Quebecker's rights, and Quebecker's rights are, as we speak, attacked by Bill
21.
Mme Senay
(Cathy) : But the Government has worked that
nothing will happen in court regarding Bill 21 with the notwithstanding clause.
M. Tanguay
:
But it's false. It's false. It's a false statement. It will have… And
yesterday, for instance, we had Mr. Patrick Taillon who was there and he was in
favor of the bill. And he was a very well known constitutionalist, a lawyer, a
teacher, and he recognized that we will have to have a debate, a judicial
debate. And the law cannot, for 100% sure, prevent any judicial debates. And we
have Mr. Bosset who was against this bill, and he confirmed. So, you have two
different positions, one common conclusion: you'll have judicial contests.
Mme Senay
(Cathy) : One last question. Do you have the
impression that Mrs. LeBel is forced to keep silent?
M. Tanguay
:
She has to answer. There's a fact. There's a fact, it's now… It's been a couple
of times that I asked her directly at the National Assembly. She has to…
Mme Senay
(Cathy) : But perhaps she strongly suggested
to…
M. Tanguay
:
But, you know, that's my point, she needs to answer. Why is she not answering?
And answering means why she is not defending every Quebecker's rights. It's
part of her mandate. She is Minister of Justice. She knows the importance of
our charter of rights. She needs to defend our rights. And, when I'm calling
her, when I'm telling her, asking her to answer one of my questions, and it's
systematically refused by the Leader, you know what? I'm presuming that she is
willing to answer your questions. I'm presuming that she is willing. But the
fact, a fact of life, the Leader of the Government didn't allow the Minister of
Justice to defend our rights. Why?
Thank you. Merci.
(Fin à 11 h 33)