House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was victims.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Gatineau (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2015, with 27% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions June 2nd, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about potential amendments to the Criminal Code.

The petitioners request that we introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to include torture committed by non-state actors, private individuals, and organizations as a specific and distinct criminal offence.

Petitions June 2nd, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.

The first is in relation to the need for a legal ombudsman mechanism for Canada's mining industry. The ombudsman would have the power to receive and investigate complaints, make public its findings, recommend remedial actions, and recommend that the Government of Canada impose penalties.

This petition has been signed by dozens of people from every part of Gatineau, as well as people from Ottawa.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to rise as the NDP justice critic to address Bill C-587, introduced by the member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

He seized that opportunity when the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who initially introduced the bill, got promoted and could no longer present it. We congratulate him on his promotion. However, we need to revisit Bill C-587.

I am tempted to reread my improvised speech from the last time, because my view on this bill has not changed. It has some good points. Some might say the NDP should be satisfied, because it always calls for the continued exercise of judicial discretion, and that is in the bill.

Indeed, it is always a good idea to leave it up to the court to decide whether someone should be eligible for parole after 25 years, or only after 40 years. This judicial discretion is definitely an improvement on many other bills introduced by the Conservative government.

That said, one can read a bill and wonder whether it will achieve the goal stated by the member. During oral question period, the parliamentary secretary said that this legislation would greatly reassure victims. When we work on these issues, we always try to put the interests of the victims first.

However, because of the legal context, the laws that we rely on and the charters that we must abide by, we must ensure that our legislation will successfully meet the tough challenges that lie ahead.

The government should have learned some lessons from the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, including the one on the Senate, which it lost by a count of 8-0; the Summers decision on April 11 on pre-sentencing credit, which the government lost by 7-0; and the Khela decision on prisoner transfer, which it lost by a count of 8-0. I do not include the Nadon ruling, because no legal principle is involved in this case. Still, the government suffered a 6-1 defeat. It also lost 8-0 in the Whaling decision on early parole. Again, we ask the government to pay attention to existing laws.

When I rise in the House in my capacity as justice critic for the official opposition, I do not do so to irritate Canadians or my Conservative colleagues who are introducing bills. In fact, I have actually supported an impressive number of their bills. I have recommended that my caucus colleagues support certain government bills and even some private members' bills introduced by Conservative members.

In this case, the government would have victims believe that this bill will solve their problems. However, victims do not really have a problem with the sanctions. Let me make that clear right away: the problem with Bill C-587 does not have anything to do with the sentences per se.

Since we are talking about extremely serious crimes, such as abduction, sexual assault and murder, we are certainly not talking about minor offenders, such as people who rob convenience stores. We are talking about hardened criminals like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. Everyone, including the victims, knows that these offenders are in jail for life. Is that clear enough? When they get a life sentence, that means they are in jail for life.

However, our legal system, our charter and our international conventions allow offenders to appear before the Parole Board of Canada.

The board will not free these people if they pose a risk. The public is not at risk just because an offender has been released. The problem—and the hon. member may be right about this— is that it is painful for families and victims to have to relive the unforgettable horror. Even if offenders cannot appear before the Parole Board for 40 years, victims will still be reliving the horror of their experience as though it happened yesterday. One does not just forget about these things overnight.

That being said, let us think about what would happen if the bill were to pass. The judge would ask the jury if it had any recommendations to make in the case of vicious murder.

I would just like to say, incidentally, that I am also concerned about the fact that these three crimes must all have been committed. A murder can be vicious even though the victim was not sexually assaulted or abducted. I think it is unfortunate that the focus is being placed on one type of offence when many other offences could easily fall into the same category.

Let us take the Bernardo case, for example, where the case was proven. I am talking about proving the case, but I would remind members that in the Bernardo case, they did not have to prove rape, kidnapping, or anything else. The murders themselves were enough to result in a life sentence. Under this bill, all three will have to be proven. I already see the impact that this will have on trials under way and on what the crown will have to prove. In my opinion, in an attempt to make life easier for families in terms of attending parole hearings, the member is unwittingly making things more difficult when they need not be.

None of this may happen because the judge could instead hand down a 25-year sentence. He may not feel comfortable with a longer sentence. We are already waiting for Supreme Court decisions to find out if sentences of more than 25 years—such as three consecutive sentences of 25 years, where the person is sentenced to 75 years in prison—are legal in our Canadian system under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are still some Supreme Court decisions to come. The government may be surprised once again, and that will affect all these cases.

Let us imagine that the jury recommends to the judge that there be no parole for 40 years. That means that there will be an appeal and the parties will go to court. Will that be considered unusual punishment under the charter? There are some concerns about this.

I asked the member the question earlier because, in my opinion, this provision was not included in Bill C-478, which was introduced by our colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. Bill C-32, introduced by the government, does contain provisions to make life easier for victims.

There are ways to make sure that victims do not suffer as they would if they had to go back before the Parole Board. There are some who do not want to go to the hearings, but there are some who need to go, for the sake of their sanity, to say their peace before the board. I fully respect that. However, I believe it would have been better to do that with Bill C-32. Amendments of this magnitude to the Criminal Code should not be made with a private member's bill, but with a government bill, to ensure there is at least the impression of coherence with this country's fundamental laws.

That is not the case with a private member's bill, whether or not the member is a backbencher. There is no requirement in that regard.

I have serious concerns about this bill, which unfortunately will not do what it claims for victims. It really would be preferable to bring this forward with Bill C-32 and to drop Bill C-587.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to tell the member that it is about the government's so-called beloved charter of victims rights.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, and I would like to ask him a brief question. Now that Bill C-587 has been introduced, and now that the government has introduced Bill C-32, has the member discovered specifically how Bill C-32 could affect his bill, Bill C-587?

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting comment from my colleague.

As I said earlier about improving the bill, apart from the implications of the Gladue ruling and perhaps the recognition of the principles of that ruling in relation to section 718 of the Criminal Code, this is a relatively straightforward bill that creates offences and imposes certain penalties. There are some complex aspects to it.

I think my colleague is referring to the idea that we need to add more provisions to complement this bill.

What kinds of approaches and consultation, assistance, services or resources could the government offer first nations that are having issues with tobacco smuggling on their land to complement the implementation of this bill?

Justice May 30th, 2014

It does not sound like the government is going to pick from her list, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice said that he intends to appoint Justice Nadon's replacement before the summer. There are exactly 21 days left before the summer solstice.

Can the government tell us more precisely when Quebec can count on having the full representation it is due on the Supreme Court? Before the House adjourns for the summer, or at the end of the day on a Friday when no one is around?

Justice May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, what would question period be without at least one question on the Supreme Court?

According to the Supreme Court Act, the three Quebec judges have to be selected from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or the Superior Court of Quebec, or among lawyers who are acting members of the Barreau du Québec. Quebec has been underrepresented at the Supreme Court for almost a year now.

Can the government confirm that the replacements for Justices Nadon and LeBel will be selected from among the candidates that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec recommends to the federal government?

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, yes, it did take place. That is exactly the conversation I was having, and I was kind of reproached by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages. The fact that they need more money is a reality.

If we want to address the issue, we have to do it right. One way would be to create an infraction in the Criminal Code. Another way would be to make sure that kids realize that it is not good to smoke.

A concern I have right now is that people say that there was a considerable drop in the number of tobacco users for a time, but that number is on the rise again. I am not sure whether others feel the same way, but when we look at American television right now, there is a lot of smoking on a lot of shows. Maybe it is silly to say so, but there was a time when we did not see smoking on television any more. It was not cool.

Fans of Mad Men may have noticed that practically every character on that show smokes at every turn. The show is set in another time. I watch Law and Order: SVU and other shows and we see people smoking. I guess as a former smoker myself I tend to notice these things. All of these things seem to make it okay again to smoke. In fact, young people are starting to smoke again.

Contraband cigarettes are cheap and easy to get. People have access to a product that we all know is dangerous. Indeed, something must be done about this.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act May 30th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I could answer by telling my story.

My dad died at 55 because of cigarettes. I do know the damage that cigarettes can create, and that is not even the contraband kind of cigarettes that are laced with crap. I think we all share the message that tobacco kills. I mean, if one smokes, one is not doing a good thing for one's health.

However, I am not the one saying we need resources; it is the RCMP.

Border officers told us that they need resources. Organized crime has become very sophisticated.

It is not a bad thing to tell the government to wake up because this work cannot happen on its own. This bill does some good, but at the same time there has to be an overall vision. It is not enough to be fixated on a small piece of the puzzle and to say that it is going to solve all the world's problems. We need the necessary tools to ensure that parents do not see their children in situations like the one my colleague just mentioned. I want to prevent that.

I take to task all the young people I see smoking. I tell them that they do not know the road they are headed down and they have no idea of the hell they will go through when they try to stop, because that time will come. It will be extremely difficult for them to kick the habit, especially with all the junk that is added.