Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to say that we in the Bloc Québécois have asked ourselves the question too. Clearly, depriving an accused of an avenue of defence is worrisome; there is no doubt about that. Mr. Bagnell is right to raise that point. At the same time, we start from the principle that when a brief is presented to cabinet, the minister must sign it. The signature attests to legal opinions stating that the document complies with guaranteed rights, especially legal guarantees, and that it would withstand a legal challenge. Of course, it has happened that a minister has signed cabinet briefs but the government then loses court challenges
That said, I would like to ask two quick questions. To your knowledge, are there common law jurisdictions similar to Canada where this kind of two-beer defence is permitted? I am not thinking of places inside Canada, of course, but other comparable countries—like Australia, New Zealand or places like that—where a defence of that kind is allowed. Basically, the government is claiming that there are people who ought to be convicted but who have not been because of this defence which, in addition, they are calling a loophole. Do we know the approximate extent of this in Canada, without the need for scientific data?
Mr. Chair, I am saying that we will be supporting this clause anyway. The Bloc Québécois has discussed the clause—you know that we discuss things and are a highly democratic party—and we have concluded that we must support this clause.