House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was justice.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Bloc MP for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert (Québec)

Won her last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, all judges of superior courts and courts of appeal in all Canadian provinces and territories are appointed on the recommendation of Cabinet. The Cabinet also designates the judges of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada. The government therefore has the political responsibility for appointments to courts of superior jurisdiction across the country.

Today, there are 951 federally-appointed judges. Of that number, 123, or less than 13 per cent, are women. Statistics obtained from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs reflect the level of egalitarian concern shown by successive governments during the past 30 years. In the Supreme Court of Canada, which rules on issues of national importance, only two of the nine justices are women. In the Federal Court of Canada, which was established to judge cases involving federal legislation and federal responsibility, both in first instance and on appeal, only five out of a grand total of 35 judges are women.

In the Tax Court of Canada, which may be asked, for instance, to rule whether a woman employed by her spouse is eligible for unemployment insurance, only three of the 25 judges are women. In the country's ten appeal courts, out of a total of 126 judges, the government appointed only 23 women.

In the case of the Quebec Superior Court, the Courts of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, the Supreme Courts of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and the trial divisions in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, the figures are even more telling: out of 756 judges, only 90 are women.

There are no women on the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Courts of Appeal. The five judges of the Superior Courts of Yukon and the Northwest Territories are all men. In New Brunswick again, only two out of the 32 judges on the Court of Queen's Bench and the Appeal Court are women.

Even in Ontario, which has more than 25,000 lawyers, Liberal and Conservative governments appointed only 34 women out of a total of 277 judges of both courts.

One could say that judges are lawyers and that far more men than women belong to the provincial bar associations. This was indeed true in the fifties and sixties, but in any case I would say, first of all, that male/female ratios among lawyers are not relevant when appointments are supposed to reflect society as a whole.

I would also say that this particular argument is becoming less and less factual. The Barreau du Québec has 17,000 lawyers, of whom 35 per cent are women, while the Ontario Bar Association has more than 25,000 members, 20 per cent of whom are women, the ratio increasing to more than 45 per cent among lawyers who have practised law for less than 10 years.

In future, we could assume that the government should have no trouble finding 100 women among the 42,000 lawyers in both provinces for the positions that become available.

Mr. Speaker, the present profile of Canada's judiciary reflects the intolerable discrimination suffered by women in the law profession in this country. One wonders whether this discrimination arises from a political will to keep women out of the judiciary or simply from a mistaken conviction in our society that women had no place in the courts.

In any case, the result is the same, and it is high time we corrected this imbalance by systematically appointing women to the positions that become available in the future.

Ontario was the first Canadian province to admit women to the bar, when it passed special legislation for the benefit of Clara Brett Martin on February 2, 1897.

Quebec was the last province to amend its statutes to admit women to the bar in 1941. It is hard to imagine in 1994 that in 1940, it was perfectly normal and natural to exclude women from social life. It was a time when discrimination was institutionalized. Most women themselves felt it was necessary, and the fact that they were excluded from important positions was accepted as a matter of course.

We cannot explain the imbalance in the ratio of men and women in the judiciary on the basis of their actual numbers within the provincial bar associations. This argument is irrelevant, because there are so few positions to fill that the government can easily find suitable women among the thousands of female lawyers.

Who could argue that it would be impossible for the government to find the right persons among the 6,500 female lawyers in Ontario and the 5,000 in Quebec?

The role of higher Canadian courts is to sanction the laws, to interpret the fundamental texts and very often to decide on controversial issues in our society.

It is totally inconceivable and unacceptable that women should be almost systematically excluded. I urge this House and the government to recognize that time has come to correct this historical aberration.

I urge the government to select and appoint at least 80 per cent women to the positions which will become vacant in the magistrature under federal jurisdiction over the next few years. I am asking for a policy and a law that would facilitate access of

women to the bench, in order to correct the imbalance that has existed since Confederation.

I am only repeating a principle of our law: That justice be rendered and that it appear to be rendered in the eyes of both men and women of Canada.

Saint-Hubert Weather Office February 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, on October 25 last, the people of Quebec and Canada thought they had elected a new government. Unfortunately, until proved otherwise, this is not the case. Take for instance this important issue affecting my riding, namely the closure of the weather office in Saint-Hubert.

Weather services experts are slated to be replaced by an automatic meteorological observation system which has not yet been perfected and does not differentiate accurately between types of precipitation.

Following the announcement of this highly questionable decision, officials from the Montérégie region asked to meet with the two ministers concerned to review the decision made by the Tories. Will the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment dare reconsider a decision made by the Tories? Stay tuned!

Unemployment Insurance Act February 17th, 1994

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (excepted employment).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Laurentides for supporting this bill and would also like to give a short explanation about this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to exclude from the excepted employment category those jobs that are characterized by a dependant relationship between the employer and the employee.

At this time, the employment of women collaborators is not insurable unless, as it says in clause 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, these women can prove they would have gotten into a similar work contract had they not been their employers' spouses.

This clause of the Unemployment Insurance Act is discriminatory, because it creates a different burden of the proof, especially for women collaborators.

That is why I hope that my bill will be debated as soon as possible.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Euthanasia February 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that it is pointless to hold yet another debate if it does not result in legislation, especially since the Supreme Court has concluded that Parliament must settle the issue one way or another, not just talk about it?

Euthanasia February 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-261 on euthanasia and cessation of treatment, which was later dropped from the Order Paper. A private member's motion on the subject was debated in March 1993, and the House rejected this motion.

Instead of having a debate of no consequence on the issue, will the government table a bill to decriminalize, under certain circumstances and conditions, the act of assisting the terminally ill to put an end to their suffering?

Reproductive Technologies February 9th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, there are many recommendations in the report, some 300 in fact, but all 300 do not concern the Minister of Justice.

Does the minister agree that it is urgent to table during this session a comprehensive piece of legislation on new reproductive technologies, taking into account of course the scope of the federal jurisdiction?

Reproductive Technologies February 9th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in its report the Baird Commission recommended prohibiting research on altering human embryos. The public wants research, as well as the application of new reproductive technologies, to be subject to very strict controls.

Will the Minister of Justice and his government propose amendments to our criminal laws in order to prohibit research on altering human embryos?

Speech From The Throne January 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my colleague certainly has a well-developed sense of humour, but I would like to tell you about the famous 28-day waiting period.

In Quebec now, applications are mostly processed on time. Since the hon. member is from Saskatchewan, I think he should put pressure in that area. In my province, anyway, it is going very well.

As for the firearms handling certificate, in Quebec, we have a hunter's certificate. To go hunting, you need that certificate, which is good for two years. So that is a difference between Saskatchewan and our province, because it seems to me that they do not need a hunting certificate, since as he said, people have gone hunting for years without ever taking a course on handling firearms. In our province, you must take a course on handling firearms to obtain the certificate.

In closing, I wanted to say that there may be big differences between his province and ours in the way the laws are applied, unfortunately.

Speech From The Throne January 27th, 1994

At the beginning of his speech, the hon. member said no new taxes were to be expected. I was not talking about taxes. I was talking about permits, the purchase of permits and the fact that we always seem to be in favour of user fees. Currently, we simply allow people to buy guns. Right now, all you have to do is get a $50 firearm certificate valid for five years and you can buy an unlimited number of firearms. It is a little much to ask of those who eventually have to pay for the people who want to buy firearms.

All those permits, the permits to carry a gun or to own a gun, all of those firearm permits are free, except for the restricted firearm certificate. All the others are free.

Why could firearm owners not pay for those permits, and I mean pay a fair price for them, not just a token amount of $50 for five years? That is totally ridiculous.

The hon. member voiced another reservation concerning the fact that more people die of injuries caused by knives or cutting and stabbing weapons that by guns and firearms. I would like to see the statistics on that, because that is not what we heard in committee.

Speech From The Throne January 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I think that you yourself were on the firearms committee when we discussed firearms registration. The gun lobby kept coming and saying that we could not register all firearms because it would cost too much. However, I have firearms at home, so I can tell you how I bought them. With my firearms acquisition certificate, of course, I went to a gun dealer to buy the weapon I wanted. He immediately entered my firearms acquisition certificate number in a register, as well as a description of the weapon. Why could he not then simply record it on an electronic network connecting all of Canada, or just a provincial system, because it could also be done provincially, or, if you prefer, a duplicate could be made and sent to a central firearms registry. It is not expensive. The argument that an electronic system would cost too much does not stand up; it is completely wrong to begin with.