SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Christine Normandin

  • Member of Parliament
  • Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
  • Bloc Québécois
  • Saint-Jean
  • Quebec
  • Voting Attendance: 64%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56

  • Government Page
  • Jun/15/23 10:47:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I think we have seen abuses of process in the past. The case of Justice Michel Girouard was an example. By eliminating some recourse to common law courts, we can avoid not only appeals, but also everything that is incidental to an appeal. There are various dilatory measures that can be taken in the case of an appeal in a common law court. That is what is being minimized. It is not ideal, but the judge does not completely lose his right to a full defence. There seems to be a balance between the two, because there are a number of steps. It's not a case of one person having the final say. There are several panels made up of a number of legal experts. This is a more specialized form of internal appeal, so to speak, than the appeal that could be made to a common law court. It seems to me that the right balance has been struck.
164 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/9/22 12:33:12 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-9 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very specific and interesting question. I reviewed the work that was done in committee, the recommendations that were retained and those that were not. When we look at the proposed structure, we see that there are nevertheless many possible appeal processes. From the very first level of appeal by the review panel, there is the possibility of appealing to the reduced hearing panel. That is the first option. Next an appeal can be lodged with the appeal panel, which is set out in the bill. Thus, there is a second possibility of appeal, and after that, a third, but only by leave of the Supreme Court. The process already provides for three stages of appeal. I think that should be enough to respect procedural guarantees and fairness. There are already three levels of appeal as is the case in regular courts. Would it be appropriate to add another to ensure procedural fairness? I believe that, with the process that has already been put in place, there are sufficient guarantees to ensure respect for the rights of judges under review.
187 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/24/22 4:19:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about increasing the efficiency of the courts and being able to process more cases. The idea of mandatory minimum sentences is an issue that comes up often in the House. Mandatory minimums had become quite common for certain offences, preventing the parties, crown and defence, from reaching agreements in certain cases because the agreed-upon suggestion would be lower than the mandatory minimum sentence. This forces parties to go to trial and increases backlogs in the courts. Does my colleague agree with that reality, that is, that it also contributes in some cases to backlogs?
100 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/24/22 2:00:03 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill S-4 
Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill S‑4, because my colleagues have said so. However, one clause in the bill states that appearances by video conference should not be optional. The Barreau du Québec actually recommends deleting that clause. We should not see this as a solution. There are problems with distance and access to courts, and we cannot tell ourselves that we do not need to deal with the issue of access to courts because we have this band-aid solution, a plan B that lets us do things another way. We have to make sure people always understand that they can choose between in-person attendance in court and appearing by video conference and that they are not indirectly forced to choose one over the other.
144 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border