Paul Devillers

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I had not seen the letter, but someone just handed me a copy of the letter that the hon. member refers to. I understand there are 69 signatures on it.

I cannot speak for my colleagues who signed this letter, but I can point out that the letter asks that the government consider the invocation of the notwithstanding clause.

Not having any more background than that, when it says “consider the use of the notwithstanding clause”, that is not to me a full endorsement of its invocation. It is saying that the government should consider it the way a due diligent government should consider all alternatives.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that it is the role of parliament to make laws and the role of the courts to interpret them. That is exactly what is going on here.

Parliament has made laws prohibiting the use and possession of certain pornographic materials and the courts are in the process of interpreting them. The difficulty is that we are at the trial division level.

From here there is an appeal to the British Columbia court of appeal and then a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We only need go back to the last parliament to see an example where a case was tried and appealed. I refer to the case of the defence of drunkenness.

Parliament was not satisfied with the interpretation. It did not accept that it was proper. Parliament exercised its discretion and passed, under the previous justice minister, a new law to prohibit the defence of drunkenness.

That is how the system should work. The system should be allowed to carry its course through the courts where the courts will interpret the laws. At the end of the day, if parliament is not satisfied with the result of that interpretation, then it is open to parliament to pass a new law.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again, our friends across the way are debating whether our criminal justice system is properly managed.

Once again, they are complaining in veiled terms about a judicial decision, which, in their opinion, undermines the credibility of this justice system. Once again, they are arguing that the courts are exceeding their legitimate role. Once again, they are calling for strong action by Parliament.

It is easy to understand why some of my fellow citizens would have such a knee-jerk and emotionally driven reaction. It is however much more difficult to accept this kind of reaction from experienced parliamentarians. Is it our role to jump every time a judicial decision is made? Should we not be reviewing the facts much more dispassionately and reasonably? Have we not learned that a judgement at first instance can be appealed?

I believe it is important to participate in the debate proposed to us, but the reaction must be measured and must be based on the law and the basic values by which we are governed, not on the rawest emotions. We must rise above primal reaction and consider this issue in its context. However well intentioned the motives may be, it is more damaging than the very decision it decries.

It is obviously not my intention to discuss the judgment rendered in this case. Not only would this be inappropriate but also it is under appeal. The Attorney General of Canada will intervene in support of the validity of the provisions and thus the legitimacy will be tested before the appellate court. This is the procedure that is followed in a constitutional state or a country based on the rule of law.

The main purpose of my statement is to guard against the highly emotional reaction to a decision rendered in the first instance. I believe that matters should be placed in perspective and that we should let Canadians know that their justice system is operating based on sound principles. That is not our parliamentary role.

If recourse was taken under the notwithstanding clause every time a court trial division came to a conclusion which opposed the government of the day either on moral, legal or political grounds, unfortunately it would be almost a daily occurrence. It would also be a politicization of our justice. It would be denying justice, not contributing to it.

The charter of rights and freedoms is a legal instrument we have given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly so. It represents our core values. We have established institutions to deal with and settle conflicts of interpretation, for instance, when a conflict arises with respect to a piece of legislation.

I do not know whether the Sharpe decision is well founded in law. It will be up to the higher courts to decide. I do know, however, that we have a legal system in this country under which decisions can be reviewed. There is no call to push the panic button when a trial division judge hands down a ruling, whatever that ruling may be.

Our criminal justice system has its own checks and balances which assure us, to the extent humanly possible, that the best decisions will be rendered. A court decision that poses a problem can be appealed. Appeals are heard every day in the country. I believe it would be particularly inappropriate of me to suggest that a legislative response is needed every time a court decision is rendered. The system works.

I would also like to indicate that I am sharing my time. There is no need to go on at any length about the despicable nature of child pornography. I am certainly no defender of such material. The immense majority of Canadians fully support our resolve to prohibit objects or materials that can harm the community and individuals. Child pornography is intolerable because it harms what is dearest to us, our children.

However, we do not have the right for demagogic purposes to leave the impression that pornographers now have free rein. For one thing the decision is under appeal. Moreover, some have already lost sight of the fact that possession of such materials for the purpose of distribution is prohibited and that the constitutional validity of this prohibition is not in doubt. However that is not the issue.

Parliament has a vital role to play in determining what should and should not be prohibited. Its role is paramount. No one is saying otherwise. There are limitations in place, however, to ensure the protection of certain fundamental rights and freedoms. The courts can help us by determining how this goal can be achieved with the least disruption to other fundamental freedoms. There must be dialogue between Parliament and the courts.

Some court decisions may sometimes strike us as wrong. The first step is for the superior courts to review these decisions and, if necessary, take corrective action.

An immediate and ill-considered reaction by Parliament along the lines of the motion being proposed is nothing less than counterproductive. Let us remember that invoking section 33 of the charter implies that we think that the action taken is not reasonable in a free and democratic society. Is this really what we wish to do? Is this the message we want to send? Should we not give the appeal courts a chance to do their job and see if the decision will be overturned?

I know that today's debate is the result of outrage in certain sectors at what some see as an unjust decision. I do not believe that we have the right to shamelessly exploit this outrage.

I, for one, believe strongly that the justice system must be allowed to review these rulings in the usual manner. I understand people's outrage, but I do not share it.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. This bill was introduced in the House last June.

I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill as it will apply among others to the Chippewas of Mnjikaning first nation located in the riding of Simcoe North which I have the pleasure of representing.

The bill is the final step in the process to allow 14 first nations the power to opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act and establish their own regime to manage their lands and resources.

The bill will ratify the changes brought on by a framework agreement. It is an excellent initiative based on Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan and will bring real and practical improvements to the lives of aboriginal people including those of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning first nation.

The process began with negotiations leading to the signature on February 12, 1996 of the framework agreement on first nations land management, known as the framework agreement, and 13 first nations. The 14th first nation was later added to the framework agreement.

Several other amendments were made to the framework agreement, including the application of the Atomic Energy Control Act and the clarification regarding the use, occupation, possession and division of interest in first nations land in the case of a marriage breakdown.

The framework agreement will require first nations to develop a land code setting out basic rules for the new land regime. First nations such as the Chippewas of Mnjikaning will also be required to enter into individual agreements with Canada to determine the level of operational funding for land management.

As I previously mentioned, provisions have been included in the bill to address the concerns raised by native women and associations representing them. These provisions should allay their concerns. The bill will require a mandatory community consultation process for the development of rules and procedures applicable on the breakdown of marriage in relation to the use, occupation and possession of the first nations lands and the division of interest in that land.

One specific motion I would like to speak to from Group No. 1 is Motion No. 6. This motion is to amend the bill that would require confirmation in writing that consultations respecting the land code have been completed with neighbouring jurisdictions, thereby changing the whole intention of clauses 45 and 48 of the bill.

The motion is ill defined as it does not set out who falls under the rubric “neighbouring jurisdictions” and seemingly involves consultations not on the land code but rather on cross-jurisdictional issues, an altogether different matter.

I was pleased to note that other first nations had expressed an interest in participating in a land management regime like the one proposed in the bill. This is proof that the model being proposed is a positive one that appeals to many first nations. A provision is in the bill to permit other first nations that may want to adhere to the bill the opportunity to do so subject to certain conditions.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation is very much looking forward to the rapid conclusion of the ratification process. I have had the pleasure of following the issue and providing assistance to the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation regarding this important initiative.

It is an exciting prospect for the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation to have an opportunity as a community to collectively devise and manage a land management system tailored specifically to its needs. It will also allow the Chippewas of Mnjikaning an opportunity to generate additional revenue through economic development activities.

In conclusion, I quote Chief Lorraine McRae of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning when she said:

This initiative is an opportunity for the full and active participation of the members of our First Nations—elders, women and men, both off reserve and on reserve—to collectively develop land management systems appropriate for our communities based upon fairness, equality and accountability. I am confident that through this government to government partnership, we will achieve true community decision making.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we must take into consideration is the fact that the agreements the agency may sign with the provinces or any other government are voluntary agreements. The provinces that do not want to participate do not have to.

Second, I am surprised that members of the Bloc Quebecois, who always say they want to avoid duplication and overlap, do not see this as a perfect opportunity to try to avoid duplication and overlap.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member listened more carefully to what I said, he would have realized that this agency is different from the other agencies he just mentioned. The minister remains responsible for the agency.

We parliamentarians will continue to have the opportunity to ask the minister to intervene, if our constituents, our voters, have a problem with the agency. This is not how it goes with other agencies.

This is why I believe this agency will be more accountable. Every year, the minister must submit a corporate business plan to the President of the Treasury Board, who in turn will table it in the House. The auditor general will be auditing the agency's books. This agency is different from the others in many regards, in my opinion.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

The establishment of the new Canada customs and revenue agency is a major undertaking. Questions have been raised during consultations with the provinces, territories, clients and the public. The question of accountability is one that came up frequently during these consultations. It is an important issue and I will address it in my speech.

Basically, everyone wants the proposed new agency to be responsible for its actions and for the manner in which it operates. I wish to assure members that ministerial accountability for program legislation will be maintained, as will overall control of the agency by the government.

As is now the case, members will be able to ask the Minister of National Revenue to look into the handling of a file.

Bill C-43 establishes a number of accountability mechanisms that will ensure the agency, despite its new structure and potential increased services on behalf of the provinces and territories, will remain accountable to parliament, to its clients and to the public for its actions.

For instance, the minister will remain accountable as provided in clause 6 of the bill. The auditor general continues as the agency's auditor as stipulated in clause 87 of the bill. There is a five year legislative review as specified in clause 89 of the bill.

A corporate business plan is to be submitted to the minister for recommendation to Treasury Board for approval. The minister then tables the summary of the approved plan in parliament as provided for in clause 49 of the bill. An annual report on operations will be tabled by the minister in parliament as stipulated in clause 88 of the bill.

The Public Service Commission can periodically review the compatibility of the principles governing the agency staffing program and those governing staffing under the Public Service Employment Act. It may report its findings in its annual report as outlined in subclause 56(2). There is a mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by a third party after three years as provided for in clause 59 of the bill, and a summary of the results will be included in the agency's annual report to parliament.

The Minister of National Revenue will remain responsible for the administration and enforcement of program legislation such as the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, and the Customs Act. He will also be able to direct officials in the exercise of authorities under this legislation.

The minister is currently named 1,470 times in various pieces of program legislation as the person with the authority to exercise specific actions, such as assessing tax returns.

The minister will continue to be the person named to exercise those authorities. This means that the minister will retain personal accountability for the way tax and customs programs are run. This direct accountability ensures that the minister has the authority to inquire into any matter of program administration. This is important, because the minister can ensure that clients of the agency have been treated fairly and equitably.

The minister will continue to respond to questions in the House and from the public on program and policy matters. He will continue to be able to respond to members of parliament when their constituents seek their help in dealing with tax or customs matters. However, while the minister is accountable for how the programs are carried out, the agency has a considerable amount of autonomy in matters of internal management.

The agency will be directed by a board of management which will be accountable to parliament through the minister responsible for management policies of the agency such as human resource activities like staffing and compensation, mandates for negotiating with its bargaining agents in collective bargaining agreements, services and performance standards, and the appropriate allocation of internal resources.

Some people have expressed concern that the board of management consisting of private sector individuals might ignore the public interest and act in a way that is motivated only by revenue generation. There are sufficient checks and balances in the bill to ensure that the agency will remain within the overall government policy framework.

I quote Mr. Robert Spindler of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24:

We recommended that the existing ministerial oversight of the revenue system exercised by the minister of revenue be maintained.... It is clear that the comments provided on this issue during the consultations were heard and taken into account. We're pleased that under Bill C-43, the minister of revenue will retain responsibility for the agency and it will be structured to allow for close ministerial oversight and, in particular, that the minister's power of inquiry into any activity of the agency will be maintained.

In addition, the commissioner, who is a member of the board of management, would act as a full time chief executive officer of the agency and be responsible for the day to day operations of the organization.

He will be accountable to the minister for the administration and enforcement of program legislation. He will also be accountable to the board of management for the day to day management of the agency.

With regards to accountability for the administration of provincial programs, the commissioner will offer to meet with provincial and territorial finance ministers and to report on such matters as service and revenue levels and to receive feedback from them.

The important and necessary relationship now in place between the Departments of Finance and National Revenue will continue between the Department of Finance and the agency.

In summary, ministerial accountability, overall control by government, and parliamentary oversight will be maintained for the new agency.

And those being served by the agency, especially the provinces and territories, will have new means at their disposal to ensure that the agency is accountable to them for its performance.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, provides for amendments to Part IX of the code, Offences against Rights of Property.

The hon. member who is proposing this amendment suggests a new and indictable offence of using a stolen motor vehicle in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of an offence. Everyone who commits this indictable offence would be liable to imprisonment of a term of one year. The proposal also provides that the sentence imposed for this offence be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed in respect of a different offence.

The proposal does not, as the sponsor of the bill would have us believe, create a minimum jail sentence of one year when a stolen vehicle is used during the commission of a crime. The Criminal Code is very clear in stating that “no punishment is a minimum punishment unless it is declared to be a minimum punishment”. This is subsection 718.3(2). All that the proposal does is create a new indictable offence punishable by a maximum of one year.

The hon. member sponsoring the bill raises the issue of increased car thefts. He pointed out that 80% of the cars stolen are stolen for purposes of joy riding. I would like to point out the following.

There are already common law provisions under the Criminal Code with respect to theft, including theft of a motor vehicle, and to the related sentences.

Under section 334 of the Criminal Code, theft over $5,000 is an indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. Theft not exceeding $5,000 is considered an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of two years, or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

These provisions reflect parliament's recognition that theft of property is a serious offence. In addition, any court which imposes a sentence upon an individual convicted of any criminal offence is already obliged to take into account the circumstances surrounding the offence.

For example, the fact that a stolen vehicle was used in the commission of an offence will invariably be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The conduct of utilizing a stolen vehicle in the commission or attempted commission of the offence will usually result in a harsher sentence.

The government supports the principle that those who use stolen motor vehicles in the commission, attempted commission or flight following commission of an offence ought to be punished. Moreover, in any case where the use of a stolen motor vehicle in a criminal offence endangers the lives or safety of others, the offender should be exposed to harsher penalties.

However our current system, revamped in 1996 through Bill C-41, the sentences reform act, already provides the necessary flexibility in effectively tailored sentences to circumstances such as the foregoing.

It is perplexing to me that the issue of consecutive sentences continues to be raised in the House by certain members including the member responsible for the bill being debated today. The government has already addressed the issue of consecutive sentences in its package of amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code which came into force in September 1996.

Subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code currently provides judicial discretion to impose consecutive sentences, that is sentences served one after another, where appropriate, for example where the offender is already subject to a sentence of imprisonment or where the offender is convicted of more than one offence before the same court and several periods of incarceration are required.

However, this paragraph is subject to paragraph 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, which provides that “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. This is the sentencing principle known as the totality principle.

It has also been held that a second crime committed while in flight from a first crime should be subject to a consecutive sentence.

Further, jurisprudence has stated that where there are a number of different offences committed within a short period of time the offences should be grouped in categories and concurrent sentences imposed in respect of the offence in the same category but consecutive sentences for those imposed in respect of other categories, again bearing in mind that the total term should not be excessive. This is consistent with the sentencing process.

As all levels of courts have recognized, including the Supreme Court of Canada, the sentencing process is an individualized one. The court exercises discretion based on the particular facts of the case before it. The court tailors a sentence appropriate to the individual circumstances of the offences and the offender, after having taken into account such things as the aggravating and mitigating factors, the gravity of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, and what sentences others have received for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

In addition, parliament has enacted provisions which address the purpose, principles and objectives of sentencing which serve to guide and structure the court's exercise of its discretion. In particular, courts are instructed that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that include as their objectives the deterrents and denunciation of unlawful conduct. Courts have all the required tools to address this situation at the present time.

It should also be noted that while the problem of motor vehicle theft is international in scope, the recent international crime victimization survey conducted in 1996 revealed that Canada's rate of vehicle theft ranked as one of the lowest among industrialized countries. In 1995, 18 out of every 1,000 Canadian vehicle owners experienced a motor vehicle theft compared with a rate of 33 per 1,000 owners in England.

In addition, a number of non-statutory measures have been developed to prevent motor vehicle theft in Canada. These have been quoted as examples of reasons for needing more legislation but I think they are more appropriately alternatives to legislation.

Many police departments across the country have set up anti-theft programs involving visible stickers on car windows which signal to the police to stop the car when it is being driven between midnight and 6 a.m. and to check the driver's identification.

In addition, car parts are marked and there are measures against the exporting of stolen vehicles.

These crime prevention programs designed to reduce car theft, together with existing criminal code provisions, provide a comprehensive scheme for addressing the use of stolen motor vehicles to commit crimes.

What is more concerning is the constant occurrence during Private Members' Business of members proposing legislation based on the assumption that the criminal justice system is not working and that it is at a state where Canadians should be tremendously concerned about their public safety. Granted it may be because of demographic reasons, but for whatever reason Canadian society is becoming one that is less and less violent.

It does not serve the public interest well. Not only this member but members from all parties bring forward private members' bills based on the assumption that the criminal justice system is not working. That is a very misleading position for members to bring to the House. More study should be done as to the actual facts and statistics. Inasmuch as that may not be as politically expedient as the contrary, the public interest would be much better served.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, some hon. members in the course of this debate have said that they cannot support this bill unless it includes provisions ensuring that taxpayers are fairly and impartially treated by the agency. In effect they want to entrench the taxpayers bill of rights in the legislation itself.

I would like to remind hon. members that in 1985 Revenue Canada was the first revenue administration to proclaim the rights of taxpayers with its declaration of taxpayer rights. This declaration is entrenched in the day to day operations of the department and is part of the public service's ethos that will carry over to the agency.

Bill C-43 also ensures that the Minister of National Revenue will continue under the agency to be accountable to the public and to parliament for all aspects of the agency's performance, including the way officials exercise program authorities such as assessing and collecting taxes and duties.

Under the agency members of parliament will continue to be able to deal directly with the Minister of National Revenue to resolve their constituents' problems. If there is ever a problem of abuse of power, the minister will have both the authority and the responsibility to correct it.

The Minister of National Revenue launched a fairness initiative in March of this year to solicit feedback on the fairness of Revenue Canada programs. To ensure the entire process would be objective, Revenue Canada partnered with the Conference Board of Canada to analyse the results, hold a national symposium to verify priorities, and produce an independent report. According to this independent report, Revenue Canada is well regarded among Canadians.

I would like to assure hon. members that feedback from consultations show that Canadians are pleased with the current declaration of taxpayer rights. The conference board report specifically states that Revenue Canada has already made significant strides in making fairness an ongoing part of every employee's job and that it is well equipped to provide fairness to Canadians.

Many suggestions have been received to make further improvements to the fairness of Revenue Canada. Department officials are in the process of developing an action plan for the minister's consideration.

In addition to not being necessary, adding a taxpayers bill of rights to the agency legislation would have the effect of amending program legislation such as the Income Tax Act. Provisions such as those proposed should therefore be directed specifically at that act and other similar statutes that the agency would administer.

Some hon. members have also argued that five years is too long to wait for a parliamentary committee to review and assess the new agency. I would like to assure those hon. members that there is nothing to prevent parliament from undertaking an additional review at an earlier date, if considered necessary. Allowing a period of five years to elapse before a formal review is undertaken is a fairly common approach in federal statutes. The reason for this timeframe is to give the agency adequate time to implement and fine tune its policies and to operate for a sufficient length of time for an effective assessment to be made.

I also remind hon. members that parliament will have other opportunities to assess the agency on an ongoing basis. It will review the agency's corporate business plan, just as it now reviews Revenue Canada's plan. It will also review the agency's annual report regarding its performance during the preceding year. Before the agency can spend any money, parliament will have to approve the appropriations just as it does now for Revenue Canada. Finally, the auditor general will be the agency's auditor and will report to parliament just as he does for Revenue Canada.

Some hon. members have proposed that even if passed by parliament, this bill should not be proclaimed in force without the approval of at least one-half of the provinces. There is no reason or rationale why the federal parliament would make coming into force of this federal statute subject to provincial approval.

I can assure hon. members that the agency would provide the means to serve the collective interests of the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as the national interest by setting the right conditions for even greater co-ordination in tax administration.

I would stress that there is no obligation on the part of any province to have the agency administer more programs on its behalf.

The agency is about creating options and opportunities for the provinces. It must earn the business of the provinces and would be well placed to do so once it is established.

All provinces, except Quebec, have left a door open to allow the agency to deliver services to them. Detailed agreements may not be signed until the agency has been established. This is why I invite all members of the House to support the bill so the agency can reach agreements with provinces to eliminate duplication.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to consult Hansard . I certainly did not say what she is imputing to me, that the provinces are not capable of remaining accountable or demonstrating their accountability in the areas of their jurisdiction.

My comments dealt with the entire governmental process and all levels of government. I said that what we need to accomplish in the process of negotiating this social union is accountability at all levels. That is the most important factor.

I invite the member to consult Hansard , but there was certainly nothing in my speech that would suggest or imply that the provinces are not capable of being as accountable as the federal government.