SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 288

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 29, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Feb/29/24 2:25:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Court of Appeal has just handed down its ruling on the state secularism law, Bill 21. There is a fair bit of consensus in Quebec on this legislation. Quebeckers want a clear separation of church and state, which is what the law guarantees. Now that the Quebec Court of Appeal has rendered its decision, it is clear that the next step will be the Supreme Court. We saw it with Bill 101, and we will see it again with Bill 21. What we are asking Ottawa is simple: Can it stay out of it, either directly or indirectly, because Quebec knows what is good for Quebec?
114 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Feb/29/24 2:26:42 p.m.
  • Watch
I will say it again, Mr. Speaker: Quebec knows what is good for Quebec. We know that French is not only our official language, but it is also our common language and we need to protect it. We know that gender equality is non-negotiable, just like we know that the best way to protect religion is for the state not to have any. That is what Bill 21 is all about. There is a general consensus on that in Quebec. Will the Liberals, who say they do not like to bicker, commit to not going against the will of Quebeckers on Bill 21?
106 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Feb/29/24 4:14:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I would like to come back to what my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou said about Quebec's specificity and respect for jurisdictions. She said that, although the bill does not recognize Quebec's specificity, respect its knowledge or require the government to give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, there is a five-year agreement between the two governments. Given that the right to opt out with full compensation is not specifically included in the bill, I do not see that as a permanent thing. To me, that sends the same message that, in five years, the government could decide to start imposing conditions. Does my colleague agree that the government's failure to include in the bill the right to opt out with full compensation basically sends the message that, as soon as the five-year agreement is up, the government will want to interfere in an area that is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction?
174 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24
Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Feb/29/24 4:43:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-35 
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, someone I hold in high regard, for his speech. Like my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I would like him to discuss the issue of opting out with full compensation, but from another angle. Based on what he said at the start of his speech, the key to Quebec's success is that no other government told the province how to set up its early childhood education program. Quebec had enough time to implement it properly. We agree with that. We do not want another government telling us what to do in the future. I would like the member to tell us why the Conservatives voted against the Bloc Québécois amendments presented in committee in order to include in Bill C-35 a right allowing Quebec to opt out with full compensation.
149 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border