Richard Marceau

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I listened to the remarks of my hon. colleague and friend from Windsor—St. Clair, who said we ought not to focus exclusively on salary as there are other elements to consider and discuss.

Fine, but at the same time, these other elements should not overshadow the judges' salaries issue. We can talk all we want about principles, judicial independence, separation of powers, Montesquieu and what not, but the fact remains that the bill as it stands contains a very important clause on salary.

My hon. colleague and friend from Berthier—Montcalm moved a motion, that is Motion No. 1 now before us, that would amend Bill C-37 by deleting clause 5.

Clearly, clause 5 does not make sense. It makes no sense at all. What difference would it make if there were no clause 5? Judges' salaries have already been raised by 2.08% on April 1, 1997, and by another 2.08% on April 1, 1998. This has already occurred without Bill C-37.

Now the government has decided to give them more, as if 4% and a bit, when the compound rate is taken into account, were not enough. The bill gives them a 4.1% increase retroactive to April 1, 1997—that will fill their wallets—and another 4.1% retroactive to April 1, 1998, for a total salary increase, with the compound rate taken into account—and this will blow your socks off—of over 13%.

While provincial transfer payments are being cut and unemployed workers are facing ruin—with a $19 billion surplus in the EI fund—, while the government plans to cut payments to the provinces by $130 billion between now and 2003, while the health transfer is being cut and the number of hospital beds is dropping throughout Canada, the government wants to give judges a 13% increase.

We are not saying that judges do not deserve it, we are not saying that judges do not do their work well. We think they do. We are not saying that their work is not important; on the contrary, as a lawyer and legal expert myself, I feel that the work that judges do is vital in a society based on the rule of law.

The problem is that, as a society, we cannot afford this increase. We simply cannot afford it. It is a question of choices and priorities. It goes even further; it is a question of the kind of society we want to have.

We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that any government's priority must be to help the most disadvantaged, those who are ill, elderly, unable to look after themselves, or need a salary or a decent minimum income in order to live in our modern society.

The government can always claim that it will not be able to attract quality candidates without an increase, but as far as I know, and I know the legal community well, there are waiting lists for judgeships. The fact that the increase will be only 4% and not 13% will not prevent anyone from applying, far from it. There are waiting lists because the office of judge is prestigious and important. There is more than the salary involved.

Once again, this government is showing poor judgement and deciding to give money to those it will appoint later on—because, let there be no mistake about it, these are political appointments, judges are not elected—rather than giving it to the men, women and children in our society most in need of government assistance.

It is with great enthusiasm that I support the motion moved by my colleague and friend, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, because the Bloc Quebecois is working for those who need it, not for the privileged few.

[Jean Théberge, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of welcoming to the Hill today Jean Théberge, MP for Charlesbourg for a day. He will be here with us for 24 hours.

He won first prize in the MP for a day contest for Charlesbourg riding, winning out over nearly 1,200 other students in Secondaire IV.

During his time in Ottawa, Jean will have an opportunity to gain some familiarity with what MPs do, and will get a chance to see first hand the hectic lives we lead here on Parliament Hill.

He and his brother François will have the honour of meeting with our leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and all of the members of the Bloc Quebecois caucus. Our Speaker will also have the chance to speak with this young man tomorrow morning.

Jean, on behalf of all of my colleagues in this House, welcome to Parliament Hill.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, June 2nd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-416, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole reviews).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, the purpose of which is to prevent high-profile criminals from getting paroled after serving one-sixth of their sentence, even if the crimes for which they have been sentenced were not of a violent nature.

The latest example of this is Mr. Lagana, a notorious drug trafficker specializing in money laundering who, unfortunately, was granted parole after serving one-sixth of his sentence. The purpose of this bill is to prevent such decisions.

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

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

I invite my colleague—I am even ready to give her my pen so she can sign the cheque for the Government of Quebec.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. We will continue to fight to ensure Quebec receives its due.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

—and this government is refusing—

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Quebecois were elected and re-elected in 1997 to promote sovereignty in Quebec and to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

Without the presence of the Bloc in the current debate, the interests of Quebeckers would not be defended. This government, which claims to be just, is treating Quebec unjustly.

Quebec is the only province to really apply the Young Offenders Act as it should be applied. The federal government owes the Government of Quebec $77 million for applying the legislation of this government—

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question put to me by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

As my colleague herself points out, this is a problem that is most often raised in cases of domestic violence, one of the most serious problems in our society, I believe.

When we speak about violence, something we do a lot in the House, these cases arise more often when the aggressor knew the victim than between perfect strangers. That is why, in a case such as this, it is a very complex problem, one that cannot be simplified, and there is no yes or no answer.

It deserves much more extensive study, so that women who are the victims of violence at the hands of their spouse, among others, can feel adequately protected by the system and not feel that they have to take matters into their own hands.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for his question. Although we do not always share the same position, I believe our debates within the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are productive for all of its members and for everyone in this House.

I would like to point out that my hon. colleague referred to what I would call the exemplary treatment the Government of Quebec gives to young offenders. This merits attention, and should even been copied outside Quebec.

The hon. member referred to an editorial in The Gazette . With all due respect to my colleague and to the newspaper, I must say that it does not constitute a reference for myself or a number of my colleagues. That is, to put it mildly, an understatement.

I taught in a number of secondary schools in my riding before being elected to this august Chamber. I believe, once again, that it is important to distinguish between reality and perceived reality. Are teachers and the general public afraid of crime? I believe the answer is yes. Do the facts justify that fear? Not as much, I think, as some would have us believe.

I do not want to minimize the hazards to which teachers are exposed, but the emphasis should not be on punishing young people who beat up a teacher, but rather on raising awareness, prevention, information programs and promoting non-violence. This should replace the threat of the strap if the child misbehaves. We used to think that a smack on the fingers with a ruler worked, but that is no longer done, and our schools are none the worse for it.

In closing, I would like to repeat for the benefit of my colleague that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are against lowering the age in the Young Offenders Act, because we unanimously believe that, as my colleague to the left has said, we will arrive at a fairer and less violent society not by stigmatizing young people but by raising their awareness.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

And others as well who are with me in this august Chamber.

However, in all this debate over victims rights, sight must not be lost of the provinces' role in the administration of justice, because the provinces are in the best position to meet the needs and expectations of the societies they represent.

It must not become another example of useless, costly and unproductive duplication. The federal government must respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially, and I bust my britches with pleasure here—since we are often accused of working ourselves into a state over things—because Quebec's treatment of victims is exemplary.

The government should not be currying public favour, and especially that of the west, as it did with the reform of the Young Offenders Act. The stakes are high and should not be the focus of petty politicking by the other parties.

I invite all the other parties to follow the example of the behaviour and positions taken by the Bloc Quebecois, because its apolitical and impartial behaviour sets the example for all parties in this House.