Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was justice.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Ahuntsic (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2008, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that I do not pull figures out of the air.

In a recent Angus Reid poll, 82% of Canadians supported a system of universal registration of rifles and shotguns. There was 72% per cent approval for that same system in rural communities.

Those members just do not get it. This government was voted in after it adopted that piece of legislation, which had the support of this side of the House but was opposed by the opposition parties.

The hon. member keeps referring to a letter which he says distorts the facts. In fact, he is distorting the facts. The minister herself tabled a letter right here in the House which stated that the facts and figures represented in the first letter were true, but that they were based on a different system of calculation.

The hon. member refused, both in the justice committee and here in the House after it was debated on numerous occasions, to make reference to the second letter which was tabled in this House.

Constant distortion of the facts continues on this issue because the hon. member and his party refuse to accept that Canadians do not want children killing children, as happens elsewhere in the world, but in fact want to know that if somebody has a gun in their house the police know about it.

The RCMP and the Canadian Police Association endorse our policy of gun control.

Would the hon. member like to tell this House why he refuses to make reference to the second letter that was tabled by the hon. minister in this House which in fact says that the statistics are true?

Supply June 9th, 1998

Right, on social conditions. I do approve of his suggestion, though, and I think we should examine the possibility of adding another condition to the Canadian charter.

We recognize as a government that poverty is an important aspect of crime in this country. If people live in poverty, aspects of their lives may lead them into crime. This is why we invested $32 million in crime prevention—in order to help people and prevent crime.

Supply June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, first, we are not discussing school elections here. When a member abuses his privileges here in this House, it is my duty, as a member of this House, to point it out, even when he has repaid the money, because he still committed the act. Political parties do not enter into it.

I have never been involved in school elections. The Bloc gets involved in every one. Every time one is held, there they are. The former member for Rosemont would get involved, the leader of the Bloc has been involved and now the new member for Rosemont. Three times they have got involved. They are involved in school elections. I was not involved, I simply pointed out to all Canadians, including the people of Rosemont who complained to me, that the member for Rosemont sent a letter in support of MEMO, the gang of separatists in Quebec, to everyone.

That said, I will answer the question.

First, in terms of the fight against crime, I think the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is aware that the former Minister of Justice introduced the first bill against biker gangs in the House. I think we are in favour and that we can consider the suggestion by the Bloc justice critic on money laundering.

The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice are aware of the need. We were the ones to first introduce anti-gang legislation here. We are therefore well aware of the problem to be resolved.

Second, on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I want to mention to the hon. member that the Quebec charter contains no provision on economic rights. I may be mistaken—

Supply June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I take offence at the suggestion that we are trying to dodge our responsibilities in the House, be it the minister or be it myself as parliamentary secretary.

As far as the question the member asked, the $32 million put forward by the government was the crime prevention initiative to ensure community involvement in terms of crime prevention.

We as a government, unlike the Reform Party, believe that we have to start early in order to prevent crime. Jail is not the answer for children. Nor is whipping, as one member would like us to believe. Nor is caning, as another members would like us to believe. We should take the $32 million and sit down with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector to come up with effective crime prevention initiatives across the country.

There will be ongoing negotiations with the municipal governments, the provincial governments and all other players, be they private or community based organizations, to ensure that we prevent crime and do not continue to spend as much money as we spend right now in terms of incarcerating people. That is totally different from what the Reform Party would like us to believe.

Supply June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and also the member for Berthier—Montcalm propose to vote down the operating expenditures of the Department of Justice.

If the House approves this motion, it would prevent the Department of Justice from conducting its statutory responsibilities. The $193.8 million in operating expenditures required in 1998-99 will allow the department to carry out its responsibilities for the legal affairs of the government as a whole and to provide legal services to individual departments and agencies.

More specifically, these funds will enable the department to continue to meet its responsibilities under three lines: one, the provision of services to the government; two, policy development and administration of the law; and three, the administration itself. I intend to elaborate on each line or point today.

The Department of Justice serves the government in various ways. It drafts all government legislation. It provides legal advice to all departments and represents the government in court.

To ensure the timely provision of the services they need, most department incorporate legal services in their departmental headquarters. These are the legal services falling under the justice department, in charge of providing legal advice, court representation and legal assistance on all legal matters that concern the various departments.

A network of regional offices provides most court representation services. These offices also provide legal advice to meet the needs of the government and its agencies in terms of regional operations.

There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has lead responsibility: criminal justice policy, family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce; and human rights policy. The department also has the lead role in constitutional law, administrative law, aboriginal justice, access to information and privacy law, official languages law and the government's mandate for courts and judges.

The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for over 40 statutes, many with major policy ramifications. The department must anticipate future legal and societal trends in order to provide timely, strategic and effective responses; to provide leadership both to the government and the public in understanding the changing legal world; and to provide guidance in achieving governmental objectives in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness, equality, accessibility, and effective and efficient legal policy.

To meet this challenge and to ensure Canadians have a fair, efficient, accessible and inclusive national system of justice, the department provides a range of services relating to the planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and implementation of justice related policies.

The Department of Justice 1998-99 report on plans and priorities shows that the department is moving forward with a balanced and focused policy agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have identified as important to them.

Let us examine some of the areas the department is currently working on. One is the crime prevention strategy.

Last week, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General announced a new phase in the national community safety and crime prevention strategy, whose budget has increased from $3 million to $32 million a year. This strategy is designed to help communities address the root causes of crime.

The role of the justice department in this new phase of the program will be to promote the exchange of information between communities on effective crime prevention measures, help federal departments co-ordinate their efforts and establish relationships based on partnership between the governments, NGOs and the private sector. To this end, the justice department will have to call upon the interest, expertise, ideas and contribution of all Canadians.

Let me now turn to youth justice, on which the members of the opposition had much to say today. The Minister of Justice recognizes that Canadians' confidence in the youth justice system has been shaken in recent years. She announced a few weeks ago a youth justice strategy that would lead to the replacement of the Young Offenders Act. The reform would ensure that violent young offenders would face meaningful consequences for their crimes. It would also provide new ways of approaching youth justice that give young people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

The Minister of Justice does not believe, as the Reform Party does, that putting more kids in jail for longer periods is the solution. This is too simplistic an approach, as are most of the Reform Party's approaches on justice.

Violent youth will face custody but jail terms are often counterproductive for the vast majority of youth who are non-violent. The strategy involves looking at alternative approaches, approaches that specifically aim to instil the values of responsibility and accountability in youth.

The treatment accorded victims of crime is another of the Minister of Justice's priorities. The work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should provide the Department of Justice with useful information to find ways to guarantee victims at least two things: access to information and protection under the law.

Last night the Minister of Justice visited a town hall meeting that I held in my riding with the assistance of the hon. member for Mount Royal and other members of the Quebec caucus on the government side. Despite what the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said, most people who were present at this meeting, although the Quebec system is a good one, still found a lack of funding for a lot of the resources that victims need.

One thing we are attempting to do through this type of consultation with Quebeckers and all other Canadians across the country is to ensure that there is collaboration between federal and provincial governments and to ensure there are services available for victims. Certainly last night that was not the portrait presented in Quebec in terms of the system in place in Quebec which lacks funding. We encourage all members of the House of Commons to told town hall meetings.

The department is looking to resolve victims' frustration by trying to improve access to appropriate information, especially as concerns the co-ordination and sharing of information on victims' rights and services.

The Minister of Justice has asked the department to examine the possibility—and, I repeat, possibility, one of the ones on the table, nothing is written yet—of creating a central office to assist victims. However, she never said, and reference was made yesterday at my town hall meeting, that this would duplicate something that already exists in the provinces. There is no question of that. It is only one of the things raised by the agencies working with victims. We are looking at all the options. Everything is on the table.

As for legal protection, counsel with the Department of Justice recently defended the constitutional validity of the new provisions of the Criminal Code aimed at limiting public access to the medical records of plaintiffs in proceedings involving sexual offences.

The department is also looking into the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to respond to their concerns by, among other things, permitting greater use of victims' statements.

Conditional sentencing is another favourite topic of the opposition. The Department of Justice is examining on an ongoing basis areas which are controversial. One of those areas is conditional sentencing. Since September 1996 when judges have been able to grant conditional sentences over 18,000 such sentences have been imposed. The vast majority of these orders were considered appropriate dispositions. However some decisions have caused concern and controversy.

One of the reasons they have caused concern and controversy is that they are constantly being exploited by members of the Reform Party. Sensationalizing the most violent criminals in our society seems to be the game of the day. Fearmongering is also part of Reform's strategy.

The Department of Justice is working closely with the provinces and territories to monitor conditional sentences at the request of the attorneys general of all provinces. This monitoring work is important to ensure that any reform to the law is based on real facts, not on perceptions based on media reporting or fearmongering on the part of the opposition.

Very recently the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in five cases involving persons who received conditional sentences of imprisonment. The appeals are expected to provide clarification and guidance in the use of conditional sentences in cases involving violence resulting in death or injury or other such cases. The department has also been asked by the Minister of Justice to consider the development of common guidelines that would assist prosecutors in deciding when to seek conditional sentences. We have acted despite the opposition saying that we do not act.

There has been a constant debate in the House on firearms control. We must never forget that opposition members oppose any type of gun control system in Canada, even though 80% of Canadians support a universal registration system for shotguns and rifles. The opposition is out of touch with Canadians.

Effective implementation of a firearms control program is among the highest priorities of the Department of Justice. The regulations required to implement the system have been made following the scrutiny of both houses of parliament. The system will be functional by October 1, 1998.

Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of the Firearms Act are aimed at facilitating the continued enjoyment of their sport by responsible owners using safe practices. This will decrease the risk of gratuitous violence and will promote a culture that recognizes safety and responsibility. We do not want children killing children in Canada.

The new firearms legislation is a positive effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by the government to further a safe and secure society. The gun control legislation has the support of a large majority, as high as 80% and as high as 72% in some rural areas, and is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

Concerning administration it is a third business line of the Department of Justice. It encompasses the range of corporate management and administrative services required to support the department's program delivery and internal administration.

To conclude, I believe the department is managing its resources responsibly. The department's policy work will have an impact on the confidence of Canadians in their justice system. In addition the role of the Department of Justice in advising the government on legal issues—and let us not forget it is the legal department for all government departments—and in conducting litigation on behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole. The department should be given the means to conduct its responsibilities.

Member For Rosemont June 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the member of Parliament for Rosemont has abused his parliamentary privileges in a partisan and non-authorized manner in order to promote and solicit support for the local separatist candidate in the upcoming school board elections.

This member sends letters to his constituents on House of Commons stationery asking them to support the MEMO separatist candidate.

This is not the first time that a member of the Bloc Quebecois abuses his parliamentary privileges. His colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie did promotional work for his wife when she ran in a school board election in 1994, again using House of Commons stationery.

The former member for Rosemont had also sent a letter in support of a separatist candidate in a CLSC election.

The abuse of parliamentary privilege has demonstrated once again that the Bloc members in this House have little respect for Canadians, for democracy or for institutions.

Gun Control June 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The government unlike the Reform and the Conservative parties opposite is committed to gun control for public safety. We are committed to ensure that children do not shoot children.

We are also committed at the same time to the respect of law-abiding Canadian gun owners. Therefore the minister, after she met with a user group, put together a special amnesty to respond to the concerns of dealers raised by the executive director of the Canadian Police Association.

There will be an amnesty for law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Judges Act June 3rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to see what jails, penitentiaries and everything else the hon. member has referred to in the debate have to do with the motion before the House.

Judges Act June 3rd, 1998

I am coming to Quebec.

For Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, this increase is retroactive. For the other two it is not.

As for Quebec, if my information is correct, a committee is now looking at judges' salaries. There has been no increase since 1992. The salary of the chief justice of the Court of Quebec is $132,786, and that of the associate chief justice $130,516. As I said, there has been no increase yet because it is before a parliamentary committee. We do not know the percentage increase.

I would once again like to emphasize that the government looked carefully at the recommendations of the Scott commission and that it was guided by them in its recommendations to committee members. If we wish to attract the best candidates to judgeships, and I repeat that we want the judiciary to be independent, I think that these recommendations are very reasonable.

Judges Act June 3rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, since he sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this issue was discussed on a number of occasions when we reviewed the bill.

The government is following up on the recommendation made by an independent commission appointed by Parliament, the Scott commission. Such commissions play an important role, that is to preserve public confidence in the independence of the courts. This is a role to which the Supreme Court of Canada gave constitutional stature in a recent decision.

We took a very close look at the recommendations of the Scott commission, and we decided to follow up on the ones we felt were legitimate, which include raising the salaries of judges.

Judges are not considered public servants, even though they are paid by the Treasury Board. Canadian judges must receive an adequate salary that reflects the importance of their role in our society and the constraints related to their responsibilities.

In determining whether the recommendation was reasonable, the Scott commission—which, again, was an independent commission—took into consideration the specific constitutional role of the judiciary and other factors, such as the need to attract and to keep the best qualified candidates to carry out the responsibilities of a judge.

I want the House to know that there is a procedure in place, but it is not political one, contrary to what the hon. member suggested. Indeed, there is an independent commission which submits to the minister the names of the best qualified people.

Judges also made a contribution to the reduction of the government deficit, since their salaries have been frozen since 1992. The increase provided in Bill C-37 only applies in the future. I repeat. judges should be recruited from various groups, including lawyers in private practice.

Considering the salaries paid to lawyers in private practice, we have to be able to attract the best lawyers. We want our courts to be run by the most qualified people in Canada. The salaries paid to judges simply do not compare with those paid to lawyers.

Still, we will have to offer salaries that will not deter the best candidates from applying. The proposed raise, recommended by the Scott commission, will bring judges' salaries in line with those of senior deputy ministers. For example, on April 1, 1997, a deputy minister at the DM3 equivalent level was paid between $140,000 and $170,000. The lowest salary a judge could earn is $165,500. As of April 1, 1998, public servants received a 5% salary increase. Their salaries are now between $173,000 and $203,000. For judges, it amounts to almost $176,000. This compares reasonably, given their level of responsibility.

We could talk a little about salary increases approved in some provinces. I will give a few examples. For Newfoundland, the rate of increase is 13%. For Saskatchewan, it is 16%; for Nova Scotia, it is 25%. For Newfoundland, as I said, it is 13%. I must add that for Newfoundland—