Richard Marceau

[Appointment of Judges, September 26th, 2003]

I shall be brief, Madam Speaker, because I would not want to repeat the arguments my hon. colleagues or myself made previously as part of this debate.

First, I wish to thank all the hon. members who took the time to prepare and give speeches on such a fundamental issue. I must say that those I heard today were outstanding. I thank those who took the time to work on this issue, as well as those who took the time to discuss with me. I am thinking in particular of my colleague and friend—we set aside our differences of opinion on certain points—the hon. member for Scarborough East, with whom I had the opportunity to exchange ideas about this on many occasions. I thank him for taking part in this debate and for supporting the motion.

This is an important debate because it has to do with the institutional architecture of our legal system and our democracy. I would just like to echo what Quebec's Chief Justice Michel Robert recently told the magazine Lawyers Weekly in an interview, saying that we would be wise to improve the transparency and credibility of the very secretive consultation process leading to the appointment of a Supreme Court judge.

In passing on what Chief Justice Robert said, I ask my colleagues to support this motion proposing that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights study the process by which judges are appointed to Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

If a personality as eminent as Justice Robert feels this should be looked into, I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to make the time to do so.

I am sure that the justice and human rights committee will address this serious issue enthusiastically, of course, but also methodically, diligently, and, most importantly, with the interests of society as a whole in mind.

My message to my colleagues is this: as parliamentarians, elected representatives of the people, let trust us each other enough to allow us to take the time to properly address this issue. I want the motion to be carried on Wednesday. I would like the vote to be unanimous. Let us keep that a secret just between us, Madam Speaker. I think that the exercise is worthwhile.

This motion was introduced in a wholly non-partisan spirit. I believe that not only would all parties represented in this House be very well served by the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but so would the people of Quebec and of Canada.

In closing, I wish a happy new year, Shana Tova, to all our Jewish friends and neighbours.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, four female employees of the RCMP, who reportedly were victims of harassment and sexual assault, are not only suing their former superior, who allegedly committed the offences, but also the RCMP, which, according to them, did everything it could to cover up the affair and thwart an internal investigation.

Despite the fact that this case is before the courts, and beyond these specific cases, does the minister intend to review the RCMP internal investigation service to ensure that the rights of victims and whistle-blowers are not being sacrificed to save their superiors' honour?

[Jewish Community, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Hebrew lunar calendar, Rosh Hashanah, which means new year, begins on the evening of September 27.

In honour of this important celebration, the Bloc Quebecois extends its best wishes for a happy new year to the vibrant and flourishing Jewish community in Quebec and Canada.

The Jewish new year is one of the most important holy days for this community. It also commemorates divine judgment and symbolizes a period of reflection about one's self and the year just ended in order to make the next one even better.

On this occasion, which precedes Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, I and all my colleagues want to wish the entire Jewish community a sincere Shana Tova.

[Foreign Affairs, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a Council of Europe committee report has focused on the apparent risk of abuse and torture being faced by Basques being held prisoner by Spanish authorities. These same fears have been echoed in a number of Amnesty International reports.

How can the Minister of Justice state, relying solely on the word of the Spanish authorities, that the two Basque militants whose extradition he has authorized are not at risk of torture, when there are serious reports to the contrary?

[Same Sex Couples, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows where to stand on the issue of same sex couples. The future Prime Minister, that is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, reiterated today his preference for a civil union.

Does the Minister of Justice plan to amend his draft bill on marriage between persons of the same sex to please his future boss?

[Same Sex Couples, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had yet another example of this government's inconsistency. Right after the Liberal caucus meeting, the Minister of Health said that a future government would not feel bound by the current government's draft bill on same sex couples.

In light of such contradictory positions on the government side, could the Minister of Justice tell us where exactly the Liberal Party of Canada stands on this issue?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, Israel was hit by two terrorist attacks in five hours. Fourteen innocent people were killed, the two suicide bombers lost their lives, and dozens of others were injured.

These despicable, unspeakable acts of violence killed men and women who were simply boarding a bus in Tel Aviv or drinking coffee outside the popular Hillel cafe in Jerusalem.

Among the victims were a father and daughter. Dr. David Applebaum and his daughter Nava were meeting in connection with her wedding the following day. Rather than celebrating a wedding, the family met to bury their dead.

The Bloc Quebecois condemns in the strongest possible terms these acts of murderous madness and solemnly asks the Government of Canada to exert the necessary pressure on the Palestinian Authority so that it cracks down on Hamas, Al Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most insurmountable obstacles for politics and political activity is cynicism. We as parliamentarians often encounter cynicism in the general public.

Roughly fifteen years ago when I started to become involved in politics, I saw a man from another party rise the National Assembly and say, “Rights are rights are rights”. This man, a minister at the time, is now the member for Lac-Saint-Louis in the House of Commons.

What happened to the man who said, “Rights are rights are rights”?

[Marriage, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the future Prime Minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, wants an immediate vote on same sex legislation, without waiting for the Supreme Court's opinion, doubtless to avoid dealing with this thorny issue during the next election campaign.

Does the Prime Minister feel the same way as his potential successor, or will he wait for the opinion of the Supreme Court requested by his own government?

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague from London—Fanshawe.

My first question is: In debate with my hon. colleague from Vancouver East, he spoke of moral law, saying that we must follow moral law. I would like to know what moral law he was referring to? His own? Mine? That of the Catholic Church? Of the United Church? Of the Evangelical Church? Was he alluding to Liberal Judaism? What moral law was he referring to, or is there just one universal one?

My second question is: How can he contend that the five major world religions are in favour of maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, when the United Church, which is the main Protestant denomination in Canada, wants the definition changed? And so do the Unitarian Church and Liberal Judaism.

Yesterday, at a press conference, Rabbi Garter, of the Temple Israel Synagogue of Ottawa, told us how much he would like this definition to be changed and that, in his opinion, this change was essential. On what basis can he make such a statement then? He was there, like me, yesterday at the Standing Committee on Justice, when several religious leaders came and told us they were prepared to see the definition changed. How can he make such a statement?