Réal Ménard

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that judges should not choose firefighters and firefighters should not choose judges. That is how it should work.

Two weeks ago, the Minister of Industry called it an act of patronage to require Boeing to provide sufficient spinoffs to Quebec. I do not know what he would call the partisan appointments by his government.

Is it patronage or just chance that Ms. Johanne Desjardins, a graphic artist, was appointed by the government to recommend judges? Is it happenstance or because she was a staff member of a former Conservative minister?

[Judicial Appointments, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a most intriguing example of the Conservative government's partisan appointments to the judiciary advisory committee is that of Mark Bettens, a Nova Scotia firefighter.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us if Mr. Bettens is qualified to select judges because he is a firefighter or because he was a Conservative candidate who was twice defeated in Nova Scotia? How does the Conservative government justify his appointment?

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on his private member's bill. I understand this was his first experience introducing a bill as a new member. I would like to thank him for contributing to the work of the House.

I am among those who believe that we should dedicate more time to private members' business, which gives us all the opportunity to do our work as members even though we may not always agree with what our colleagues propose.

I am disinclined to recommend that my caucus support this bill as it stands. I understand that the member wants to keep people under the influence off public roads. I agree with him that this is a very serious problem. It is our responsibility as legislators to punish those who disobey traffic laws and the Criminal Code. However, I do not think that what the member is proposing is the best way to accomplish that.

I did not have an opportunity to look into it myself, so I asked our Bloc Québécois legal researcher to check with Éduc'alcool, a very credible Quebec organization involved in campaigns to prevent alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Éduc'alcool is financed through liquor taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers. The Société des alcools du Québec, a Crown corporation, contributes to a fund that pays for such initiatives. I did not have a chance to talk to them about this, but Éduc'alcool explained to our researcher that this is not the right way to do it.

The right way is to run prevention campaigns, information campaigns, especially campaigns targeted at at-risk groups. For example, at certain times of the year, students go to parties where lots of alcohol is available, so they tend to drink a lot. It does not always occur to inveterate drinkers to leave the car and give someone else the keys when they are too drunk to drive.

In Quebec, the results were quite encouraging. Éduc'alcool and its—at times shocking—ad campaigns forced Quebeckers and others who saw the ads to be aware of the problem and ask themselves questions. One of Éduc'alcool's themes was that drinking and driving kills. When people are very drunk, their reflexes slow and if they are speeding, there can be a point of no return.

I believe that this bill is not the route we should take as legislators. Of course, there are interesting aspects to it. For example, criminal charges will not be laid. Instead, a ticket will be issued, giving rise to a summary conviction charge. If the individual does not reoffend, there can even be a sort of automatic pardon. If the person is duly identified, after a set period of time, the offence will be wiped off the individual's record.

The member's objectives are commendable, which is noble. But we have to ask ourselves whether this is the right way to go about achieving those objectives.

We have to hope that governments, regardless of their political stripe—whether they are left, right, centrist or not—will fund advertising campaigns by organizations such as Éduc'alcool. These campaigns are expensive. To reach people during prime time can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An analysis of what has been written about the fact that Quebeckers' have adopted much safer behaviour behind the wheel shows that the Criminal Code has very clear provisions whereby blood alcohol content will be measured, violators will be prosecuted, and hardened drinkers and people who commit offences will be punished. Obviously, in cases of criminal negligence causing serious bodily harm or death, sentences can go up to life in prison.

The government is also proposing to harmonize sections 253 and 254, part a and part b, in Bill C-32. We agree with the principle of denunciation in cases where a person causes death or serious bodily harm. The sentences in the Criminal Code reflect denunciation and social disapproval, and this is as it should be.

Do we really think, however, that the segment of the population that would be picked up in going from 0.5 to 0.8 represents the people who are a danger on the public roads? When we want to check whether someone has a blood alcohol level of 0.5 or 0.8 millilitres per 100 milligrams, we find that we are looking at people who have probably had a glass and a half, or two glasses, or two and a half glasses, at a party or a reunion or a family get-together. The people who are going to be affected by this measure are not hardened drinkers or the people whom we want to deter from getting behind the wheel and get to hand over their keys because they have a problem with alcohol dependency.

That is therefore why we have serious reservations, at the same time recognizing that impaired driving is a matter of great concern. I was in the House for the debate in 1997, and I am going to take part very seriously in debate on Bill C-32, which we will be studying when it is referred. For example, we will look at the possibility of having sobriety tests for drugs. Yes, that is a problem. Yes, we are right, as legislators, to be concerned about it.

However, changing the legal limit from 0.5 to 0.8, as the bill proposes, is not the way to fix the situation. Let me repeat: in Quebec, we have had success stories. A few years ago, some of our colleagues in this House thought that the situation could be fixed by making liquor manufacturers put prescribed labels on bottles of wine or beer. Our colleague from Mississauga South proposed that bill. At one time I believed that this might have been a worthwhile approach. When we looked into it more deeply, though, and examined these questions with experts who had done studies on a regular basis, we realized that this was unfortunately not the right approach and that even though it had been adopted in some American states, it had not necessarily produced results.

I congratulate the member for his contribution to the debate. I thank him for drawing the attention of this House to an important problem. I would respectfully submit that this may not be the right approach to take, and I would propose instead that we both work to persuade the government to invest more money in awareness campaigns directed to targeted groups, particularly young people and hardened drinkers.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32, which the Bloc Québécois would like to review in committee. In committee, members can realize their full potential and focus on all the details. The Bloc Québécois would like this bill to be referred.

Before getting into Bill C-32, I want to take a few minutes to say that the government, where justice is concerned, has a rather controversial record. We know that this government has been very active, having introduced nearly a dozen bills. I would add that none of the bills really appeal to us.

There was Bill C-9 to amend section 742 on conditional sentencing. The government wanted to remove judicial discretion from the judiciary. One of the characteristics of the government is not to believe that our judiciary is serious and competent. It always wants to control and restrict the capacity of judges and increase their limitations when they pronounce sentences or make rulings.

The purpose of Bill C-9, which amended section 742, was to remove conditional sentences as an option for the trial judge for all offences punishable by 10 years in prison, even if it was brought down to one or two years in prison.

Unfortunately, we had to fundamentally change this bill in committee. I think we did our work as parliamentarians. Bill C-32 before us is a little more interesting because its purpose is to harmonize section 253 with everything to do with impaired driving. This a significant social problem and there is jurisprudence. I will have a chance to say more on this. They want to harmonize the legislation and use standardized sobriety tests. Our challenge, in committee, will be to look into the sensitivity, performance and operational nature of these tests.

There was also the bill on judges' salaries. This is an important debate because we have all studied Montesquieu and I know we are all motivated by the philosophy of strict separation of the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.

It is important for the three branches to live together with a healthy regard for each other's jurisdictions. That is why, when the question of judges’ salaries arises, Parliament wants to have an independent commission. It is hard for Parliament to decide how much judges’ salaries should be because judges are a major branch of the government involved not only in the administration of justice but ultimately in the interpretation of our laws. As parliamentarians, we make the laws. The government is empowered to implement them, and we hope that judges can interpret them.

For a long time, there was a balance. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was supposed to earn the same salary as the Prime Minister, and everything flowed from that. Then the government decided to upset the balance and proposed remuneration levels that were different from what the independent commission suggested. That was another bill we were unfortunately unable to support.

As I was saying, we want Bill C-32 referred to a committee because impaired driving is an extremely serious matter. People who take the wheel and drive on public roads must not pose a danger to their fellow citizens; that is obvious.

Thus, the government has passed legislation on suspended sentences and on the remuneration of judges.

The government has also introduced a bill on dangerous offenders. The government even hopes to establish a legislative committee. Everyone in the House understands the difference between a legislative committee and a standing committee. A legislative committee exists for the life of a certain bill, for example, the air quality bill leading to Canada’s Clean Air Act, which has been introduced by the government. My hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is one of the Bloc Québécois’ leading lights when it comes to the environment and the Conservative government should also recognize him as a leading light in view of his great expertise and the soundness of his views.

It is the Speaker of the House who appoints the committee chairs for as long as the work of each legislative committee continues. It is not the chair’s peers, the hon. members assigned to the committee, who elect the chair.

The bill on dangerous offenders is a very bad bill. It is animated by a reflexive reaction that would lead to the “three strikes” kind of approach we see in the United States. This is not a bill that the Bloc Québécois intends to support.

The government has introduced a bill on the age of consent, which is called the age of protection, with a clause that creates an exception when the age difference is less than five years. I believe that the leader of the Bloc Québécois said he was in favour of this bill when he was asked. Clearly, we will have to make amendments to reflect the new reality. It is true that sexuality is probably not what it was in your early childhood or early adolescence, Mr. Speaker. Today, adolescents start having sex earlier, when they are younger. In my day, we waited longer. All that has changed, and we have to take stock of those changes.

The government has also introduced a bill containing amendments relating to summary prosecutions. This is a rather technical bill, and I have to say that we are more or less in favour of it.

The government has also introduced Bill C-10 concerning minimum penalties for offences involving firearms.

Hon. members will remember Allan Rock. I am not sure whether his name evokes good or bad memories for the members of this House. When Allan Rock was minister of justice, he introduced a bill. I think that for my colleague, the former leader of the official opposition, this is an excellent memory. I know he was close to Allan Rock, whom the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former Prime Minister, appointed as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations. I have a great deal of respect for Allan Rock. I think he is a brilliant man who served this House well, except when it came to young offenders. The former government went completely off track on that issue.

All of this is to say that the current government has introduced Bill C-10, which seeks to increase the mandatory minimum penalties for offences involving firearms. Unfortunately, we do not have any conclusive studies on the deterrent effect of mandatory minimum penalties.

This morning in committee, we were doing a clause by clause study of Bill C-10. There is a great deal of wisdom gathered when all of the opposition parties are united in asking the government to do certain things. All of the opposition parties—the Liberals, the Bloc and the neo-Bolsheviks—asked the government to undertake a longitudinal study of the impact of mandatory minimum sentencing to find out whether it works as a deterrent or not.

Simply increasing mandatory minimum sentences is not enough. We have to know whether that will really bring peace to our communities. The Bloc Québécois, with its characteristic complete openness and scientific rigour, will see if the government does agree to the request for a longitudinal study of the impact of mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes because we have had mandatory minimum sentences for 10 years now.

Before I get back to Bill C-32, I cannot help but emphasize the government's remarkable inconsistency. On the one hand, the government is demanding that we increase mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, but on the other, it wants to abolish the gun registry. Police officers in Canada and Quebec consult this registry hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day. Before entering a dwelling, officers need to know if there are firearms inside. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government wants to abolish this registry and deprive police officers of a tool they need.

I felt it was my duty to review the government's record. The government also introduced a bill about the national DNA database maintained by the RCMP. The committee will have an opportunity to study this bill.

Historically, the Bloc Québécois has always been concerned about street gangs and organized crime. It is always a pleasure to work with my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic. She and I have agreed on a number of measures and proposals that I will be presenting to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ensure that we have the most effective means of combating street gangs and organized crime.

The Bloc Québécois is more committed to an approach that would enable our police to carry out successful investigations than to increasing mandatory minimum penalties.

Having completed this overview, I feel it my duty to begin discussion of Bill C-32. This bill would enable police officers to require that a person suspected of impaired driving due to alcohol or drugs submit to a sobriety test.

At present, the Criminal Code already contains provisions concerning impaired driving involving alcohol. Now, there would be more specific provisions concerning drugs. A person suspected of impaired driving could be compelled to submit to a test. However, jurisprudence is not clear on that subject. The interpretation that the Minister of Justice makes in this bill is to say that the Criminal Code at present does not give police officers the power to require that a person submit to a sobriety test nor to take a sample of bodily fluids as part of an investigation into infractions related to impaired driving.

If Bill C-32 is adopted, police officers will be able to require that a person suspected of impaired driving involving drugs must undergo tests and consent to the taking of bodily fluids for testing.

There is a need for some fine tuning. The work of the committee will be to ensure that the available detection technology—and I believe this is based on experience in the United States—is not unduly intrusive. We have a Charter and judicial guarantees. We want the police to have the proper tools, but it is a matter of balance.

It is important to talk about the difference between drugs and alcohol. As a member, I drink very little alcohol. I can claim no credit for that; I have never liked alcohol, and I do not use drugs. In short, I could be considered rather straight and my lifestyle reflects that. My greatest pleasures are not derived from alcohol or drugs. However, some of our fellow citizens do use drugs and alcohol.

We do not want people with a licence driving out on public roads to pose a threat to their fellow citizens. We believe that the police are empowered under the common law and the Criminal Code to stop people they see in situations of potential risk.

In 1985, if I am not mistaken—I do not want to mislead the House—in the matter of Dedman v. The Queen, the Supreme Court examined the legality of the R.I.D.E. program in Ontario. Under the program, road blocks are set up. This is done in Quebec too. Checks are done in busy areas. The police, peace officers on duty, stop people to find out whether they have been drinking. Obviously, when this practice began at the end of the 1980s, there were questions about the legality of the operation.

Usually, under the common law and the Criminal Code, a person stopping someone in a car must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual is impaired or contravening the law. Operation R.I.D.E., as run in Ontario and as it is now run in Quebec, was simply a preventive measure. The aim was to see that all who were stopped were sober, even if there were not reasonable grounds. But, I repeat, under the common law and the Criminal Code, the exercise of the power to stop and arrest people must be based on reasonable grounds.

The Supreme Court said that people could be stopped to see if they were sober, but that would be as far as it went. When a person is stopped at a roadblock to check if they have been drinking, their car cannot be searched for heroin. The Supreme Court authorized the practices saying that a public goal of sufficient importance was involved to warrant police intervention.

The bill today wishes to go a bit further. The aim is to be able to determine impairment not only from alcohol but also from drugs. A major distinction, however, must be made. The presence of alcohol in the blood is much more easily detected than the presence of drugs. From what we have been told, if a person has consumed marijuana, traces of such consumption can be detected in the blood of this individual for up to seven, eight, nine or ten days afterwards, but that does not mean that the person was intoxicated at the time of their arrest.

That is why the committee must be very careful to recognize that what is actually important to the public is to make sure that the people who are driving vehicles on public roads are completely sober, that they are not intoxicated by either alcohol or drugs.

Breathalyzers work according to a different premise. Breathalyzers can determine whether the alcohol level in the blood is over 0.08% or 0.8 grams per litre. These facts are verified and charges can be laid. Where drug detection technologies are concerned, however, we have to make sure that they are sophisticated enough so that peace officers do not end up laying charges against people who are not really intoxicated.

Since I still have a minute, I will close by adding that one of the merits of this bill is that it will harmonize things. Since section 253 provides for different penalties, depending on whether charges are laid under paragraph (a), in which an individual is impaired by alcohol or a drug, or under paragraph (b), in which it is proved that an individual has consumed a specific quantity of alcohol or drugs.

The penalties are not the same, which does not make a lot of sense. It is the consequence of the deeds committed, and not just the evidence provided under paragraph (a) or (b), that should determine the sentences.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois hopes that Bill C-32 will be the subject of serious study in committee. I am sure that we can count on all parliamentarians to be thorough and rigorous in their work.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, that the Fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, November 5, be concurred in.

It will be readily understood not only that the debate that begins today goes back a long way for a very honourable family, a family who have spent their lives in the Gaspé region, the Coffin family, but also that it is a debate that reminds us how fallible and implacable our human justice system is.

With the execution of Wilbert Coffin in February 1956, a terrible injustice was committed. That injustice has had to be worn as a stigma by an entire group. As long as it has not been repaired, and the memory of Wilbert Coffin has not been restored, a family will not be able to find the peace to which it is entitled. In my opinion, we must all feel a duty to respond.

The Coffin case reminds us clearly of a way of doing things that, we must hope, will never return.

The manner in which he was detained and evidence was admitted, and the very unfairness of the trial, remind us clearly of how much things have changed and how sad it is that in 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 there were people who were deaf to the appeal voiced by many others, including the former journalist and senator Jacques Hébert.

I want to take this opportunity—and I am sure that my colleagues will join me—to thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He has done his job as a member. He is the kind of member we like to see, someone who stays close to the people, someone who does not shirk his responsibilities.

I repeat: in the Coffin case, there is no statute of limitations, there is no chance that it will be forgotten and there is no possibility that time will erase the injustices.

What is this about? Three Americans who loved to hunt traveled to the Gaspé. The Gaspé played host to an impressive number of tourists at the time. Obviously, we hope that the Gaspé will continue to host large numbers of tourists, because it is one of the most beautiful places in Quebec, with all that nature has to offer, and all of the hospitality that the people who live there show to tourists.

Wilbert Coffin, a mining prospector, was the guide for a party of people who wanted to go on a hunting trip that was to last about ten days. These Americans had come here, to the Gaspé, to go on a hunting trip and to have a holiday that, we might think, they hoped would provide them with tranquility and relaxation. Members must remember that at the time, Americans were regular visitors to the Gaspé and tourism was a major industry in that region.

These hunters, namely an American by the name of Lindsay, his son Richard and a family friend, set up camp and prepared for their hunting expedition. A few days later, they were found dead. This resulted in Wilbert Coffin's arrest in August 1953.

That is when parliamentarians should step in.

That is when the mechanisms provided for in the Criminal Code should be applied to ensure that justice is done. Under section 696, one such mechanism may be set into motion when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, that the process did not take its due course. There is a long list of irregularities, starting with the conditions of detention, with Wilbert Coffin being detained for dozens of days in conditions that were just plain horrible, where he was subjected to physical abuse and intimidation, was kicked around and assaulted.

Of course, the worst irregularity, which in and of itself should justify reconsidering the whole Coffin affair, was the ties between the prosecutor in charge of Mr. Coffin's case and Maurice Duplessis' government. We recall and point out that Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis, the member for Trois-Rivières, was also the attorney general. As we know, in his capacity as attorney general, Maurice Duplessis directed not only that Coffin be found guilty, but also that he be executed because they did not want the tourism industry in the region of Quebec where this affair took place, namely the Gaspé, to be adversely affected.

Not only did Wilbert Coffin's last two counsels—he changed counsel along the way—did not summon any witnesses, but they did not even allow Wilbert Coffin to take the stand to explain his version of the facts. They arranged the entire defence submissions without Wilbert Coffin having a chance to speak.

Such unfair rules, which constitute a denial of the most fundamental principles of natural justice, would immediately result in a stay of proceedings and a new trial, if this happened under today's rules.

Not only was Wilfert Coffin denied a fair trial and the opportunity to take the stand, not only was the crown prosecutor in connivance with Premier Duplessis, but Coffin was not even allowed to give what is now known as proof of his good repute.

Obviously the Coffin family, which had lived in the Gaspé for many years, could have had friends and acquaintances testify for Wilbert Coffin, a mining prospector who had spent his life in the Carleton area of the Gaspé. These witnesses could have testified about how this man was such a law-abiding citizen. No one is saying he did not have any faults—everyone has faults—or that he was not one to party a little bit sometimes, but to make a criminal out of him for it is totally unacceptable. Some of the evidence was withheld and some investigative tools were not used.

The Coffin case is a stigma, a black mark on the administration of justice in Quebec. I can completely understand that Wilbert Coffin's sister, Mary Coffin, and his nieces and nephews and his son, Jimmy, will never rest or be at peace until the memory of Wilbert Coffin has been restored.

On October 25, when I tabled the motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I asked this section of the Department of Justice, which is independent from the minister—I know—and handles judicial review, to use the new evidence, under section 696 of the Criminal Code. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, is going to talk about new facts that have come to light, so that we can engage the process, ask for a new trial, ask the Court of Appeal to intervene and restore the memory of Wilbert Coffin.

That is what this House is entitled to ask the Minister of Justice to do.

The Coffin family is entitled to ask Parliament for this restoration. I believe this has gone on for far too long. As long as justice has not been served, as long as we have not exposed the despicable way things were handled, when the attorney general of Quebec interfered in the administration of justice, we cannot be proud of ourselves. We expect reparation as soon as possible.

[Textile and Apparel Industries, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims that it is not abandoning the textile and apparel industries. Yet, it refuses to take any significant action.

What is the government waiting for to create an assistance program to modernize the apparel and textile sectors, a program that would encourage the development of high value added products?

[Textile and Apparel Industries, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the federal government finally eliminated certain import tariffs on textile products. This measure is disappointing because it is deficient. What the textile and apparel industries need is a comprehensive support plan, as the Bloc Québécois has been proposing since February 2005.

What is the government waiting for to implement a buy local policy, to impose quotas on Chinese imports and to insist that other countries raise their minimum labour standards and environmental standards?

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2006]

I have attracted the attention of the member for Bourassa. I do not know whether he wants to reply.

[Criminal Code, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Senator Lapointe for the battle he has fought, an extremely judicious battle that shows he is a generous man who cares for people. In our work, it is important not to always put institutions first. Sometimes people have to be a priority.

Senator Lapointe is known in Quebec for his brilliant career as an actor. I have watched his performance in the Duplessis series many times—not that I have any admiration for Duplessis, but this show is indeed part of our television anthology.

I also want to commend the hon. member for Bourassa for sponsoring the bill here in this House. The Bloc Québécois very much hopes that the bill will reach second reading, that it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and that we can manage to reconcile two objectives.

The first objective is to give some tools to those who have a gambling addiction. The location of video lottery terminals, VLTs, is part of the problem.

Our second objective involves respecting jurisdictions. No one can deny that an agreement was reached in 1979 and renewed in 1985, under which the provinces pay $50 million. The federal government said it would withdraw from this jurisdiction. The provinces can therefore take care of it and it is clear that the Bloc Québécois will definitely be quite anxious about matters of respecting jurisdictions. We are trying to find a way to reconcile these two objectives and the appearance of witnesses in committee can certainly allow us to achieve these objectives.

Gambling addiction destroys families, creates major problems, makes individuals miserable, breaks up relationships and causes real harm in communities. The Bloc Québécois wants to see Senator Lapointe's bill as a way of helping people resolve their addiction problems. Of course, more needs to be done and a certain number of issues will have to be taken into consideration during the debate.

First of all, Loto-Québec established the Société des loteries vidéo du Québec in 1993. Quebec then was responsible for making a certain number of terminals available in the province. At present, there are just under 14,000 terminals in Quebec bars, pubs and restaurants. There is an entire licensing and permit system for these terminals.

It is interesting to note that our citizens can go to various licensed establishments to play these 13,870 terminals, which require a permit and are authorized. Of these, only 430 are located at racetracks. Senator Lapointe is right to state that in the majority of cases and for the most part, certainly in the case of video lottery terminals, they are available in places other than racet-courses, casinos and betting theatres.

We must also ask the question because what is of concern to us is that there also must be state controls. We do not wish to return to a system like the one that existed before government licensing of video lotteries. At that time there was the problem of underworld control. I have been provided with statistics on this matter. Prior to 1993, the state had lost control of between 30,000 and 40,000 terminals. Therefore, not only had the government lost control of the resources generated by this underground industry, an industry controlled by organized crime, but it was also prevented from intervening on other fronts. I remember that several years ago Loto-Québec developed a program that would help compulsive gamblers. I could provide some examples in this regard.

Moreover, Loto-Québec, through its subsidiary, the Société des loteries vidéo du Québec, has begun to reduce the number of video lottery terminals. The plan calls for a 31% reduction, over four years, in the number of VLTs in Quebec.

Loto-Québec and the Government of Quebec are already taking a number of measures. It is interesting to note that in Quebec's National Assembly, the minister with responsibility for the video lottery system and the support program for compulsive gamblers is not the Minister of Justice, Mr. Marcoux, but the Minister for Youth Protection and Rehabilitation, a member from Quebec City, Margaret Delisle. She is responsible for it. There is a whole program for compulsive gamblers.

Obviously, this should not prevent us from taking action of our own, in line with Senator Lapointe's proposal. But our jurisdictional concerns must be addressed, and we need guarantees that provincial jurisdictions will be respected, because we would not want to set any precedents.

We sympathize with what the senators have done. Of course, we think the Senate should be elected. I do not know whether, in a sovereign Quebec, there will be an upper chamber. That will be debated in due course. But one thing is certain. If, tomorrow morning, for example—

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, religious belief is a wonderful thing. It is the conviction that there is life after death. I think that in the Catholic faith, in the Christian faith, there is an ideal of charity that is certainly hidden behind a more official stance.

When we held hearings in 2002, and more recently on Bill C-38, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against same-sex marriage. It did so very respectfully, explaining that, because Catholicism is a revealed religion that has holy scriptures, it had to interpret those scriptures fairly literally, and it did not recognize same-sex marriage. I repeat, that is not our concern. As parliamentarians, we respect freedom of religion.

But Canada has no state religion. The world view offered by the Catholic faith or any other form of religion can certainly influence individuals' personal convictions, but it can never serve as a basis for public policy.