Michel Bellehumeur

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, money laundering is indeed a major industry in Canada. According to police officers and experts in the field—and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve can correct me if I am wrong—between $225 and $250 billion are laundered in Canada every year. It should come as no surprise that Canada is known internationally as a haven for money laundering.

As a Quebecker, this does not make me proud. We are working hard to achieve our goal but, for the time being, Quebec is still part of Canada. Every year, between $225 and $250 billion are laundered in our country. This bothers me a bit. We repeatedly asked this government to introduce legislation to make it harder to launder money in Canada, since it is done all too easily right now.

In its electoral platform, the Bloc Quebecois suggested a very simple idea which the government could implement immediately. It could even be implemented before we adjourn for the summer. Canada is about the only country in the world with bank notes of $1,000. No other country has $1,000 bills. Why not stop producing these $1,000 bank notes? Who in this House walks around with ten bills of $1,000 in his pockets?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a sense, I answered that question when I commented on the amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

If the member has been following the Bloc Quebecois' arguments since 1993 regarding the criminal justice system, I will not be telling him anything he does not already know when I say that, when it comes to justice and the application of the Criminal Code, the federal government should simply withdraw. It should negotiate with the provinces so that they can recover full jurisdiction over the criminal justice system and all criminal courts. This should come entirely under provincial jurisdiction.

The present situation makes no sense. The federal government passes laws, but does not apply them. That is left to the provinces, because the administration of justice is a provincial matter. Perhaps back in 1867 the Fathers of Confederation—or is it federation, because the federalists opposite use a different jargon and cannot agree on whether it is a federation or a confederation, but that is not my problem, given the Bloc Quebecois' objective—thought it would work well. But, as it happens, it does not.

As it happens, there is extremely expensive overlap and duplication. The federal government should withdraw and return full jurisdiction to the National Assembly and the other provinces so that they can have full control over the criminal justice system and all related matters. The $193 million not spent by the federal government could thus be transferred to the provinces so that they can have jurisdiction and administer the criminal justice system properly.

I can give another very recent example. In committee, we are studying provisions that would create a kind of victims' assistance bureau, or something of the sort. A number of provinces, including Quebec, already have a law known as the victims of crime act. We have an office to help victims of crime, and compensation is given to these victims.

The federal government wants to legislate in this area and to parallel Quebec, because we already have this. I have heard from representatives of British Columbia the same thing I have heard in Quebec. They do not want the federal government intervening in an area of provincial jurisdiction and investing money in programs paralleling those already existing in the provinces. They want it to give the money to the provinces so they can spend it where it would do the most good.

So what I mean when I say I oppose the appropriations worth $193 million we will be voting on is that the money is badly used and badly spent. If there is one area where the provinces are more competent and closer to the people in order to better respond to their expectations, it is the area of the Criminal Code and related legislation, and the provinces should have full jurisdiction there.

The other question the hon. member raised is that if $193 million is cut, there will be no more money to go after the motorcycle gangs. In this regard, I will speak to you of Quebec. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government—first under Mr. Parizeau, then under Mr. Bouchard, assumed its full responsibilities.

They created some highly competent squads with excellent results. The people across the floor may well laugh. The hon. member for Beauce may well not know his history, or what is going on in the National Assembly, but I think that where the anti-gang legislation is concerned, if the Government of Quebec had not acted on it, if the Government of Quebec had not helped the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. members over there would never have had the political courage to listen to what many Quebeckers were calling for in connection with legislation against motorcycle gangs. The Minister of Justice decided to act because of the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec.

Once again, I understand that the Liberal MPs from Quebec do not want to hear that. They are ignorant of their history, as we have often said, but today we have one more proof of it.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

One can see the ignorance of members opposite. One can see the ignorance of government members who say that it costs more in Quebec to implement the Young Offenders Act. This is not true. Look at the figures.

Even if you take into account the outstanding claim that the federal government is refusing to pay, Quebec gets less money per young offender than any other Canadian province. For a total of 10,000 young offenders, Quebec is getting eight times less than western provinces.

What I do not understand is that the person who made these comments is a member from Quebec. I think he should work harder at protecting the interests of his constituents. The member for Beauce should be ashamed of distorting the facts, as he is now doing, and not adequately protecting his constituents.

He should rise and tell the Liberals that it does not make sense to use public money the way they do, including the $193 million allocated to the Department of Justice.

In conclusion, I wish the Liberals who are listening would be more perceptive. They look concerned. I get the impression that I taught them a few things today. They should take a closer look at the budget before voting on the business of supply tonight. I do hope they will at least check on what the Minister of Justice will do with this $193 million.

I do hope that Quebec members—and many of them are listening—will also keep an eye on the Minister of Justice to stop her from spending Quebeckers' money on things such as references to the Supreme Court of Canada, because Quebeckers have had enough of this.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Liberals to stick around and listen. What I have to say is extremely interesting. I extend that invitation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in particular. It would be worth her while.

To get back to what I was saying before I was interrupted by the quorum call, which incidentally the government, and not the opposition, is responsible for maintaining—if a quorum is called for, it is because there are not enough government MPs in the House, and this needs to be explained because people are not aware of it—

What the government MPs fail to understand is that it is up to them to maintain a presence in this House. They are the ones who have to maintain a quorum, not the Bloc Quebecois, not the Conservatives, not the NDP. They are the ones in power, and they are the ones who have to be here if the House is to keep operating.

That said—they cut me off in the best part and they are annoying me—the Minister of Justice's strategy for juvenile crime may be summarized as follows.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not leave but listen. She sets up an expensive and unsatisfactory new plan; she turns a deaf ear to remarks by Quebec, which properly applies the law; she refuses to reimburse Quebec for applying the law and, in the end, she is making political points in the West. Once again, the Liberal government should be ashamed of the way it manages its priorities.

Instead of spending most of this money on unlawful political forays such as the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and unsuitable programs such as the reform of the Young Offenders Act and all the programs involving young offenders, the federal government should respond to the desperate needs of the people and to the legitimate expectations of Quebeckers.

For example, when will the government agree to make the necessary changes to the Freedom of Information Act, among others? How many reports by the commissioner of information have to be tabled in this House before the Minister of Justice agrees to reform a law which lacks the teeth to ensure access to information in Canada?

I will quote the information commissioner, who says “After 15 years, the Freedom of Information Act must be consolidated and modernized”.

He went on to say “The blame lies neither with fate nor with the law, it lies with the government and officials who prefer to complain of the demands of access to information rather than espouse its noble objectives, who prefer to deny the public the information it paid for with its taxes”.

If the government spent carefully, perhaps we might see an access to information act that would give Canadians and Quebeckers the transparency democracy requires.

What is strange, when one looks at past Debates , is that when the Liberals were the opposition, they made comments, for instance about the Access to Information Act, to the effect that it did not meet their needs, that it did not give access to all documents, that things were being concealed. They said that it was not strict enough, or this or that.

Now they are on the other side. They could amend the Access to Information Act, to reflect their criticisms while in opposition. But when one is on the gravy train, when one is busy concealing all manner of things from the public, and when one is in government, there is no desire to change things. That is where the Liberals are at now. They are hiding behind a law that needs changing, even the access to information commissioner says so.

I could also say a great deal about all the unnecessary expenditures, or more particularly what the department is not doing and ought to be doing, with the $193 million or so that will be voted to it this evening.

Among other things, it could introduce a money laundering bill. Why does the federal government not spend some money on looking at the possibility of legislation to tighten things up so that Canada is no longer the hub of money laundering? Billions pass through Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces for that very purpose, and the federal government sits there with its arms folded.

It says “Isn't it terrible about all that money laundering” but does nothing. The opposition has often asked questions on this and the members of the government do nothing about it.

The Bloc Quebecois did manage, through its efforts, to push the government across the way into introducing anti-gang legislation. I see the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who worked hard with me on this issue in the Standing Committee on Justice, when we were the official opposition. We managed to get the Liberal government to make concessions, although not as many as we would have liked.

If we are going to give a little over $193 million to the Department of Justice, why not add certain provisions to the anti-gang legislation, so we can go after gang leaders? As we know, all those who implement this legislation say that it does not allow them to go after the leaders.

It is time the government used its money for legitimate purposes. It is time it admitted to making some bad choices. It is time it recognized that things are done differently in Quebec and listened to Quebeckers' concerns about, among other things, the Young Offenders Act, which is a very simple piece of legislation.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 1, through which the President of the Treasury Board seeks to grant a vote of over $193 million to the Department of Justice.

I wish to inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois opposes the vote proposed by the President of the Treasury Board for the Department of Justice, for a number of reasons.

Since the opening of the parliamentary session in September, the government's justice policies have often been criticized by opposition parties and by Canadians and Quebeckers, who are tired of seeing their tax dollars being used for objectives that do not meet their needs.

The government has been turning a deaf ear for a long time. It runs the country as it pleases, without listening to what taxpayers have to say.

The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are the only ones to set priorities, and these priorities do not at all serve the interests of those most in need. Because of the government's way of managing, an increasing number of our fellow citizens have difficulty making ends meet.

The Liberal government's priorities are very poorly defined. The measures taken by the Department of Justice are a perfect illustration of the Liberals' bankruptcy.

For example, by going ahead with its reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, in spite of all the opposition to such a measure, the Liberal government showed that it is prepared to blindly spend public money, against the interests of Canadians and particularly of Quebeckers.

Quebeckers unanimously opposed the decision of the federal Minister of Justice because, among other reasons, the issue does not concern the federal government but Quebeckers, who alone must decide on their future.

The reference to the supreme court is a prime example of how public money is wasted. What are we to think of the comments made by the Minister of Justice, to the effect that her government's representations to the supreme court are useless? Indeed, while the lawyer representing the federal government was pleading before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Justice said that, in any case, this exercise was useless. She said the process was unnecessary.

In fact, the minister is quite right in saying that the nine judges appointed to the supreme court will be unable to resolve the problem of Quebec sovereignty, because it is up to Quebec, in all legitimacy, to decide on its own future.

By admitting to the media that the reference is pointless from the constitutional point of view, the Minister of Justice was adding insult to injury. In addition to denying the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination, this reference is a total waste of public funds, and the federal government ought to be ashamed. This is one of the reasons for our opposition to the $193 million-plus the President of Treasury Board has given to the Department of Justice.

In addition, it must not be thought that the funds committed to this political waste are coming solely from the coffers of the Department of Justice. People must be aware that the Privy Council, and the departments of Canadian Heritage and of Finance, are all very actively involved in the reference. We must not, therefore, be surprised to learn that the bill is a lot stiffer than the Minister of Justice suggests in her answers to questions in committee.

Funding of the reference to the supreme court comes not only from Justice, but from other departments as well. It is virtually impossible to know which departments have spent money on the reference to the supreme court, but we do know that millions of dollars have been spent on it. Members will therefore understand that, when we are presented with a bill for $193 million, the Bloc Quebecois is against it, knowing what the money is going for.

The supreme court reference on Quebec's right to be the only one to decide its future proves to us, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Liberal government holds the democratic rights of Quebeckers in complete contempt. Unfortunately, the sombre list of Liberal nonsense does not end there.

The reference is not the only example of the profound malaise on the Liberal benches. In introducing her strategy for the renewal of the youth justice system recently, the Minister of Justice demonstrated again that her government was light years removed from the needs of its people, and especially light years away from what Quebec wants.

The reform of the Young Offenders Act, which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is to calm misinformed public opinion, is another example of poor management of public funds. As the primary stakeholders in the field of juvenile crime pointed out, the Young Offenders Act is sufficient. It needs only be properly applied. The problem is not the act, as I have said, but its application.

Quebec, whose youth crime rate is the lowest in Canada, sets an example for all Canadians in its application of the law. Instead of encouraging the other provinces to follow Quebec's example, the minister embarked on a costly reform that will not serve society's interests.

Instead of following Quebec's lead and intervening in the reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders, the Minister of Justice has opted for stigmatization and easy votes in western Canada. Quite honestly, this is not a judicious use of public funds, of the taxes paid by Quebeckers and Canadians alike.

The minister took the easy way out by ignoring the advice of experts in this area as well as that of her predecessor. The minister's predecessor, another Liberal justice minister, was also involved in this, but he did not share the current minister's opinion.

As evidenced by the following remarks, the current Minister of Health and former justice minister repeatedly spoke in favour of the existing legislation.

For the benefit of the people listening to us, I shall quote him. The minister said “The government continues to believe the youth justice system is a valid one and supports it. The Young Offenders Act as it exists at present is more than sufficient, if properly administered, to deal with juvenile justice in the country.” That is what the then Minister of Justice, now health minister, said at the time about the Young Offenders Act.

Yet, the current minister is nevertheless going to legislate on the basis of an unfounded public perception fostered by the Reform Party. In addition, the minister indulges in unjustified spending, while her government owes the Government of Quebec $77 million for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. The Quebec justice minister repeatedly asked that the costs associated with implementing the act in Quebec be reimbursed to Quebec.

Quebec is home to approximately 25% of all young Canadians, while in terms of funding it receives only 18% of the federal budget for implementing the Young Offenders Act.

I personally questioned the minister on this, given how unfair this is to Quebec, which has been requesting funding for years, and in light of the fact that the predecessor of the current Minister of Justice all but admitted this money was owed to Quebec.

When he is asked to justify this imbalance, his response in committee is that Quebec got less because it had placed the emphasis on rehabilitating young offenders and these measures were less costly than the measures involving incarceration which were used by other provinces.

I find this answer rather fascinating. Since the objective of the Young Offenders Act is reintegration into society, I would have thought the province best applying the act would get more money, but the opposite is true. In Quebec we are penalized because we are implementing an act passed by the federal government; however, the western provinces, which have focussed on structures and on locking people up, will get more money, because that approach is more costly.

There is something illogical about this, and members will understand that, when one sees the Department of Justice spending the $193 million it will be getting via supply, why the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with this, given that these monies are mismanaged and misspent by a minister concerned only with raising her profile and getting easy votes in the west.

The Department of Justice's strategy on youth crime can, therefore, be summarized as follows. It sets up a new, expensive, and inadequate program; it turns a deaf ear to Quebec, which is implementing the legislation properly; it refuses to reimburse Quebec for doing so.

[Commissioner For The Rights Of Victims Of Crime, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, Motion M-386 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should create the position of Commissioner for the Rights of Victims of Crime, with a role similar to that of the Correctional Investigator.

Just reading the motion immediately indicates the seriousness of this matter. In light of what the victims of crime go through, I feel this is a subject that merits our attention, and that we must look at what is done in other Canadian provinces, Quebec among others, since I am a Quebec MP.

As we know, the victims of crime are affected in a number of ways: physically, psychologically, materially and socially. They and their families therefore have specific needs. Victims must be treated fairly and humanely by the criminal justice system. It is important for them to be informed of their rights and of how to ensure they are recognized, of developments in their case, and of their obligations.

Victims do need help in dealing with their situation, but where I am not in agreement with the hon. member tabling this motion, and with the Reform Party, is on the demand for national standards for these matters.

Since the Bloc Quebecois and Quebeckers have been calling for certain things for years, and since we have invested considerably in the social field for the past 25 or 30 years, you will understand that, in a matter such as the one being addressed today, we cannot start at the same point as western Canada or the Maritimes.

This is not because we have any particular pretensions, or feel we are better than anyone else. It is because this matter has already been addressed in Quebec by the National Assembly, and I believe most sincerely that the results indicate that the provinces are better placed to deal with the creation of such bodies or the appointment of such commissioners.

In fact, at this very moment, the matter of victims' rights is being addressed in a parliamentary commission. There, a representative of the government of British Columbia said more or less what Quebec has been saying for years. British Columbia has, perhaps, a little less experience than Quebec in this particular area, but I must say that B.C. impressed me with everything it is doing to help victims. There are no doubt other provinces, too, but I have not heard of them to date. However, British Columbia like Quebec says the provinces are in the best position to deal with this problem.

Quebec has a law on this issue. It is the act respecting assistance for victims of crime. It may be found in c. A-13.2 of Quebec's revised statutes. I will not read it to you because it is fairly long, but I will point out what it concerns.

Naturally it contains a definition of a victim and a criminal act. Dependent persons are also defined. It sets out treatment for victims and their rights. It provides that victims must be informed of their rights, of the application of the law and, where public interest requires and permits it, be informed of the police investigation, and of the charges laid. They are entitled to medical assistance, naturally. They are entitled, and this is mandatory, to co-operation from the authorities.

In addition, Quebec has an office for the assistance of victims of crime. This office is funded in large part from surplus fines and fines the legislator allows to be charged to attackers found guilty.

In Quebec, we have an approach the Conservative member would like to have applied to the country as a whole. As the Reform members were saying earlier as well, national standards must be established to ensure that everyone is treated equally.

We must not get involved in this. I say things must be left alone because this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Constitution establishes the administration of justice as a provincial matter. I do not believe the government should interfere in this area of jurisdiction.

As far as Quebec is concerned, I have never yet heard anyone calling for this sort of intervention there, because we have the act respecting assistance for victims of crime and more importantly the office to assist them.

I am not saying there is not room for improvement. Everything can be improved, including the office for the assistance of victims of crimes. However, any improvement is the province's responsibility. Conversely, if the federal government has money it does not know what to do with, as the member from British Columbia mentioned, and wants to invest in this area of jurisdiction, I see no problem. It would simply be a matter of transferring this money, which comes from the taxes paid by Canadians and Quebeckers, to the provincial legislatures, so that they could invest it where necessary to improve victims' rights. In the case of Quebec, the money could be used to help the Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels.

In conclusion, we oppose the motion as drafted. The Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a motion. In Quebec, we already have the Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, and the province adequately fulfils its responsibilities regarding victims' aid.

If the federal government wants to invest—as seems to be the case—in this area of provincial jurisdiction, it should do so through the Quebec National Assembly and the other provincial legislatures, so that the government of each province, including Quebec, can invest where it wants, to help victims of crime directly.

[Opération Enfant Soleil Telethon, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the organizers, the volunteers, the performers, the sponsors and the generous donors from all over Quebec who together made the Opération Enfant Soleil telethon a success.

This organization raised nearly $7 million just to help give sick children in Quebec better care.

Trying an original approach in order to raise money from the people of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, and more specifically, the city of Berthierville and its environs, I agreed to remove my mustache for donations totalling a minimum of $2,500.

Well, it was with the tidy little sum of $12,000 for the Opération Enfant Soleil that the contributors from home decided to change my appearance. I will do as promised tomorrow morning.

In conclusion, on behalf of the children of Quebec, I thank them for their generosity and, Mr. Speaker, I will see you Monday morning, minus a few hairs, but for a good cause.

[Judges Act, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke to Motion No. 1, which I moved, and I indicated the Bloc Quebecois' position. Subsequently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice asked me the Bloc's position on the bill. I want to make sure we clearly understand each other and am going to take a few minutes to explain it.

As we are giving judges increases I consider unjustified at the moment because of the state of public finances and because billions of dollars are being taken away from people who need it and as the aim of my motion was to prevent this increase of approximately 13% from being given to the judges, it is understandable that, if my amendment is passed, we will support the bill in its entirety, because there are good things in it, things that are in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I want to set things straight. The basis of this bill is good, because the government is responding to a decision by the Supreme Court. However, since it waters down to such an extent the remarks made by the highest court on the remuneration of judges, we will understandably vote against the bill if the motion is not passed.

That said, I wish to tell the Reform Party that the Bloc Quebecois will support Motion No. 2, since it is important. I think it is more responsive to the Supreme Court decision, and that its aim specifically is to clarify the increases that might be given to federal court justices in the future.

The motion calls for three paragraphs to be added to clause 6 of the bill to ensure greater detail or to involve parliamentarians more. I do not want to play teacher, but I think that, to clearly understand the Reform motion, one must look at the context and, in particular, examine the clause where the amendment is desired.

Clause 6 creates the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. It is mandated, at intervals set out in the act, to examine the Judges Act in order to determine adequacy of salaries, whether the act needs to be amended and whether the judges have reported comments to this Commission, and then to report to the Minister of Justice.

Paragraph (1) describes the mandate of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Paragraph (2) states that an inquiry is to be held every fourth year, starting with September 1, 1999. Paragraph (3) states that the Commission must report to the Minister of Justice. Paragraph (4) refers to the possibility of initiating inquiries at the minister's request.

Paragraph (5) refers to extensions, in case the commission wants more time before submitting the report. If the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission does not have enough time to produce the report, it may obtain an extension under the act.

Paragraph (6) states as follows:

(6) The Minister shall table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first ten days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.

The Reform Party amendment follows paragraph (6) of this clause and adds the following:

(6.1) A report that is tabled in each House of Parliament under subsection (6) shall, on the day it is tabled or if the House is not sitting on that day, on the day that House next sits, be referred by that House to a committee of that House that is designated or established by that House for the purpose of considering matters relating to Justice.

As we know, the Committee on Justice and Human Rights is the one that would be mandated, or given jurisdiction, to examine the report tabled in this House.

The next paragraph, (6.2) in the Reform amendment to the bill, states:

(6.2) A committee referred to in subsection (6.1) may conduct inquiries or public hearings in respect of a report referred to it under that subsection, and if it does so, the committee shall, not later than ninety sitting days after the report is referred to it, report its findings to the House that designated or established the committee.

This is the important part. A report is submitted to the minister, the minister tables it in this House and the Senate, and everything stops there. Yet, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is authorized to examine it and is very familiar with everything connected with the Judges Act and other related acts.

If the Reform Party's amendments were passed, members of this committee could hold an inquiry and hearings. Why? For one thing, the committee would have the very specific goal of coming up with amendments that would reflect the public's wishes. All members of parliament are elected to represent the constituents in their respective ridings. We are, I believe, very well placed to know how the public feels about a given issue. Right now, I am sure that a 13.8% increase for judges would not fly, when we know that they are earning, on average, $140,000 a year or thereabouts.

The committee tasked with studying the report could report to this House that it had heard such and such a witness from the general public and that the increase was not warranted, or not large enough, because we do not know what shape the public purse will be in in ten years. Perhaps that would be the time to increase the salaries of judges, public servants and people generally.

Once the poverty problem has been solved and the money currently being stolen by the federal government through brutal cuts has been put back into health, education and social assistance, then and only then might it be the right time to consider giving a raise to judges, public servants, deputy ministers and, why not, members of parliament, the Prime Minister and so on. But now is not the time, and if it had given serious consideration to the report, I think the committee would have told the minister not to raise the salaries of judges right now.

Perhaps the parliamentary committee will have to give some thought to the amendment put forward by the Reform Party, which I think also responds to a rather widespread desire among members. We sit regularly on these committees, give a great deal of our time and take our job there very seriously. I for one at least work very hard at the justice committee and, given the time and energy we put into our committee work, we are not involved enough.

I think that, ultimately, an amendment like this one will enhance the role of MPs, perhaps, allowing them to make more of a contribution on a bill or a very specific aspect like the salaries of judges and all the various benefits they get.

I will conclude by repeating that we will vote in favour of the Reform amendment because it supports the objective of transparency demanded by the public and, above all, the contribution the people of my riding and every riding across Canada and in Quebec want their elected representatives make.

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

And Quebec?

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot tells me it is four times the inflation rate. I think this should be taken into consideration, given his expertise in the matter. I am sure the government did not take it into consideration and, since we now say this is four times inflation, I think this is one more argument in support of my calling it unreasonable.

Since I have only one minute left, I would like to make it clear that, if we are to have quality judges, they must be paid accordingly. But I believe that a salary of $165,00 to $210,000 is plenty to ensure that we get judges of the quality we have at present. I have practiced law and I am the justice critic. I am very attentive to their rulings and I believe that, at the present time, the salary judges get is sufficient to get quality judges.

I am sure that members discuss these appointments within the Liberal Party. We know how appointments work in the judiciary, they are political appointments. If members look at the list of people waiting to be judges, they will agree with me that all of them feel that a salary of $165,000 to $210,000 is sufficient.