Bill C-331 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)

This enactment amends the Federal Courts Act to provide for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court over civil claims brought by non-Canadians in respect of alleged violations outside Canada of international law or a treaty to which Canada is party.

Federal Courts Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved that Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-331, which is an act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international protection and promotion of human rights).

For any members who might question the need for a bill like this to be brought forward to the House of Commons, I would like to reference a number of the cases that are directly referenced by this bill. As members know, there are Canadian corporations involved abroad. There is no doubt that we live in a global economy. When it comes to mining operations in particular, many Canadian mining companies operate in a very effective and thoughtful manner, respecting human rights.

However, there are a number of cases of bad apples: Canadian mining companies that have not operated in public interest or in respecting basic human rights. That is why this bill is vitally needed. As well, we have had over 50 national organizations, representing over one million Canadians, that have stepped forward and asked members of Parliament to vote for and support this bill. Those are national organizations, including notable human rights organizations and major labour organizations across the country. They feel that it is in the public interest for Parliament to adopt this legislation. They see the need for it.

Debate starts today and continues over the course of the next few weeks. Now it is up to members of Parliament to make the vital decision on whether Canada is going to stand up for human rights and become a best practice model globally. Sadly, it has not been the case. I only have to cite a few of the many examples, some of which have come before Canadian courts, that were not able to work their way through the justice system because Bill C-331 was not in place. Of the many dozens of cases that have been brought forward, I would like to reference a few important ones that show the extent of the problem.

Average Canadians believe fundamentally in human rights. As a people, Canadians believe and understand the importance of having human rights at home and globally. When we look at these tragic cases, there is no doubt that Canadians would say it is vitally important that members of Parliament adopt Bill C-331.

There is the case of Nevsun Resources. Nevsun is a mining company that is currently being sued for its alleged complicity in forced labour, slavery and torture of workers at the Bisha gold, zinc and copper mine in Eritrea. In this case in Eritrea, these workers were enslaved. They were beaten if they did not comply. They were tortured. These are all activities taking place at a mine that has connections to Canada. Canadians would understand the importance of adopting this legislation so that these victims have a clear path of compensation.

There is the case of Hudbay Minerals. On the grounds of those mining operations in Guatemala, security personnel employed by the local subsidiary of the company shot and killed school teacher and anti-mining activist, Adolfo Ich Chaman. They shot and paralyzed a local youth activist, German Chub Choc, who was speaking out against the mining operations. They also perpetrated the most egregious sexual violence against 11 women in the community. If asked whether that is acceptable behaviour, no Canadian would agree. All Canadians would say that the perpetrators need to be brought to justice and the victims compensated for these most egregious human rights violations.

In 2017, Everlyn Guape and Joycelyn Mandi came to Canada to speak about the appalling levels of sexual violence, and violence generally, that has been perpetrated on the grounds of the Barrick Gold co-owned mining operations in Papua New Guinea.

They cited the village of Porgera. In Porgera, the security guards from the mining operations came to that village. The villagers had spoken out about the mining operations, and particularly the appalling level of environmental destruction that was taking place. Eighteen homes were burnt to the ground and there were appalling levels of sexual violence and beating of the villagers. In fact, those two witnesses who came to Canada spoke of 80% of the women in the communities surrounding the mine having been the victims of appalling levels of sexual violence. No Canadian would say that is acceptable. All Canadians would say that parliamentarians should take action.

In El Salvador, just a few years ago, an environmental activist who had spoken out against Canadian mining operations was found killed at the bottom of a well; his fingernails had been pulled out. In dozens of cases, we have heard of activists who have spoken up against mining operations disappearing or being killed through extrajudicial means. No Canadian would say that is acceptable behaviour. That is why it is vitally important to adopt Bill C-331. Bill C-331 would provide grounds and the means by which those victims could go to the Federal Court of Canada and seek compensation for these appalling human rights violations.

In the bill, there are 17 sections of grounds for actions that could be undertaken in the Federal Court of Canada. They include systemic sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, torture, slavery and wanton environmental destruction. All of those are part of what we consider in Canada to be grounds for a solid judicial framework. We believe that Canadians who violate human rights and who exhibit wanton environmental destruction should be brought to justice. We need to have that same clarity of vision when it comes to what we do internationally.

Most Canadian companies work within the framework of what are acceptable standards in Canada, but some companies do not. It is for that reason that we need to bring forward this legislation, so we can assure that all people around the world, when they are touched by the operations of Canadian companies, are subject to a process that allows them to seek compensation. It would be a best standard. It would, as well, allow Canadian companies around the world to say that Canadians hold their companies and their corporations to a higher standard than other countries. It would, in a very real, meaningful way, enhance Canadians' reputations abroad as well as serve as a deterrent for anyone who attempts to besmirch Canada's reputation by engaging in the most reprehensible human rights violations.

I would like to give credit to the co-authors of this important landmark legislation: Nick Milanovic, who is an adjunct professor at Carleton University in law; and Mark Rowlandson, who is a noted labour lawyer, the assistant to the national director of the steelworkers union in Canada. Mr. Rowlandson is watching us today from the galleries, and I believe he deserves the thanks of Canadians for the work that he has done.

This is an important bill. Bill C-331 will put an end to the current era in which Canadian companies can act with no regard for the impact on human rights.

It truly responds to all of the issues surrounding systemic sexual violence, killings, slavery and torture.

All these issues were raised when we looked at the operations of Canadian companies outside Canada. This bill truly responds to all of those issues. The bill enables victims of human rights violations outside Canada to take these Canadian companies before the Federal Court of Canada and get the compensation they deserve. That gives judges the opportunity to judge. Why are some of these victims not able to take legal action in their own country? The answer is very clear: it is because the justice systems of some countries are not well developed or are corrupt. In some countries, the police are getting money directly from the companies. Consequently, they are not impartial, and they are not able to uphold the human rights we enjoy in Canada.

If this bill is passed, these victims will finally be able to seek justice here in Canada. That is why it is so important that the House pass it. Over 50 major national organizations that advocate for human rights and workers' rights want members of the House, here, to vote on and pass this bill.

This bill will really create a framework for the best example of human rights policy in the world. Canada can be a leader. Canada can be the first country in the world to implement something that other nations will probably look to. I should mention that Canada is not the only country considering this kind of legislation. Other countries are doing it too. Europe is doing it as well. The origins of this bill actually lie in a bill introduced in the United States. Canada could be the first, and it could lead the way on the international stage.

Today, there are more than 50 national organizations, representing more than a million Canadians, that are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt this important legislation. The number of organizations is growing: It is 56 as of today, and we expect that within a few days' time it will pass 60 or 70. The question would be how we could possibly vote against this legislation. People who are opponents of this kind of legislation say that it is not in the constitutional framework of the federal government. We went out and got constitutional opinions that actually show that it is constitutional and very clearly within the framework of the federal government.

Some might say that the announcement a few weeks ago of a special adviser on these issues that the Liberal government announced means that this issue has been dealt with. I could not but disagree with that. The ombudsperson, the special adviser who has been appointed, has been criticized by a number of important organizations, such as the steelworkers and the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability. All of them have said that there are not the powers that need to be put in place for this ombudsperson's office. The reality is that in any event, even if we have a robust ombudsperson, and we in the NDP certainly believe that this should take place, all that would do is complement the important provisions in Bill C-331.

This is landmark legislation. Other countries are looking for the judgment of this Parliament to move forward on progressive human rights legislation that would put Canada on the forefront of human rights, and I hope members of Parliament will vote yes for this important legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on speaking without notes. In the mother Parliament, the tradition was that members were not allowed to have notes or read speeches, so I would like to compliment him on staying with that precedent.

The member mentioned that other countries were planning, or have, legislation like this. I wonder if he could elaborate on that. That is part one of the question. The member said there was a law similar to his proposed law in the United States. Part two is, could the member mention a couple of the results of that law or cases, and how that law has been used?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the origin of this particular legislation is based on the Alien Tort Claims Act that existed in the United States. It was a piece of legislation dating back decades and decades.

As I am sure members are aware, what happened was that activists who were concerned about human rights violations and environmental despoiling started to use the Alien Tort Claims Act in American courts. As a result of that, because of the use of this legislation, a number of times they were able to obtain out-of-court settlements for people who had seen their human rights profoundly violated, in the same way as in the cases that I have just mentioned. There are so many other cases we could bring forward, but unfortunately I have only 15 minutes. In the same way, the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States has been used to that extent.

As for other countries looking at this, there are many European countries that are looking to have in place a framework that allows for a more active dealing with human rights issues, regardless of whether they take place in the country itself or around the world. That is why so many countries and so many parliamentarians in other countries are taking an active look, with some interest, at how parliamentarians decide, in the end, on Bill C-331.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his work. This is certainly not the first version of this bill. I believe he has gone through the 40th Parliament, the 41st Parliament and now the 42nd Parliament.

I know there may be some members who have qualms about this bill, but what is important to underline is that through this important amendment to the Federal Courts Act, we are not making the determination whether a case has merit; we are simply allowing an additional forum for plaintiffs to access the justice system. Ultimately, it is the justice system that will determine whether a case has merit and whether the plaintiffs are to be awarded funds.

In past parliaments, we have seen the Liberals support bills like Bill C-300. We know there are good intentions on the other side of the House to support these kinds of initiatives. I would like the member to just underline the important fact of his bill, for anyone who might have qualms about this, that this is simply enabling an avenue and it will still ultimately be up to the justice system to determine the merit of a case.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his great work in the House of Commons and his standing up for human rights. He does an exceptional job on behalf of his constituents.

The member is absolutely right to point out that currently there are no provisions. Currently, with the appalling levels of sexual violence in Papua New Guinea that I spoke of earlier, those victims have no recourse. There is a judicial system that is corrupt and local police that have been paid off, and there is no way for those victims to have their voices heard, to seek justice and to seek compensation.

In the Federal Court, the merits of their case would be evaluated in the same way the merits of any other case would be evaluated in Canadian courts. It provides an impartial and effective means of addressing those victims' concerns. If the case has no merit, of course it will not proceed.

That is why it is so important and essential for members of Parliament to adopt Bill C-331.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address what I believe is a very important issue, one which members on the government benches had talked about in opposition. It is an idea that I believe this government has addressed in a very tangible way, which the member across the way, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, somewhat pushed to the side, and that is the creation of the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

Let me make it very clear that Canadians have an expectation regarding corporate or company responsibility, not only within the boundaries of Canada, but even outside of our country. There is an expectation that our companies and corporations would behave in a manner that would reflect the kind of values we have here in Canadian society.

I know that, in a previous session, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood brought forward legislation, Bill C-300, that attempted to ensure there was more of a social conscience or accountability for mining corporations. It was my local high school, Sisler, that brought it to my attention and asked that I get behind my colleague and friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, someone who I believe has been a very strong advocate, not only in the last couple of years but for many years, for this critically important issue of the social responsibility of corporations and companies that go abroad. This government has taken that issue seriously.

As coincidence would have it, we just had the appointment of a Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, Ms. Sheri Meyerhoffer. The Minister of International Trade Diversification appointed her on April 8, 2019. The ombudsperson will review allegations of human rights abuses arising from activities of Canadian companies abroad. For companies found to be involved in wrongdoing abroad, the ombudsperson can recommend measures, which could include the withdrawal of certain government services, such as trade advocacy. The ombudsperson can also make specific recommendations to companies, including in relation to compensation, apology or corporate policy changes. I think that clearly demonstrates a government that is really in tune with the type of values Canadians have.

We can take a look at the fine work that members, and I have cited my colleague, have done over the years, reflecting what I believe his constituents and the constituents of many of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber have been able to express, which is the expectation and value system we have, that it is not good to violate basic human rights outside of our boundaries and we need to be able to support that in whatever way we can. In a relatively short span, we had a very aggressive agenda on a wide variety of things that have had a real impact on Canada's middle class. I can tell members that this critically important issue has become a top priority and we have seen specific action taken by this government. When I look at the issue, I feel very comfortable knowing that, with this ombudsperson, we will have a positive impact.

I come from the city of Winnipeg, where we have the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. I drive by it every other week, when I am in Winnipeg and not in Ottawa. It is a beautiful symbol that constantly reminds Winnipeggers who drive by it or see it in Google searches just how important the issue of human rights really is for the constituents I represent and indeed anyone who is associated with Winnipeg and far beyond.

However, it is fair to say that Canadians recognize the importance of that issue. It is one of the reasons why this government has seen such an aggressive approach to provide some sort of action that would see tangible results. That will happen with the appointment of the Canadian ombudsperson, who will be responsible for enterprise. That is a good thing.

The proposed bill will amend the Federal Courts Act to provide that the Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to certain claims involving violations of international law outside of Canada. Under existing law, the superior courts of the provinces and territories can hear lawsuits involving events that occur outside of Canada if there is enough of a connection to Canada. Lawsuits alleging that Canadian companies have been involved in violations of international human rights abroad, which involve claims for negligence or other violations of Canadian or foreign law, are based on existing bodies of law.

The question of whether the common law also allows a person to claim damages in a superior court, specifically for a violation of customary international law, is at issue in the case of Nevsun v. Araya, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in January.

Unlike the superior courts, the Federal Court generally does not handle cases against companies or individuals for actions taken outside of Canada. The Federal Court's jurisdiction is limited both by the Federal Courts Act and by the Constitution. The Federal Court mostly hears cases involving judicial review of the decisions of federal boards and tribunals, lawsuits against the federal government and cases involving patents or maritime law. Civil claims between private parties do not usually end up in Federal Court except in those areas.

The bill would amend the Federal Courts Act to provide that the court may exercise jurisdiction over certain cases involving violations of international law outside of Canada. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said, the bill was modelled on the U.S. Alien Tort Statute, or ATS. It provides “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The ATS has been controversial in the United States and there has been a lot of litigation about its scope. This has included disagreements about what kinds of claims are covered and the application of the statute to foreign defendants and corporations. Bill C-331's main provision is more complicated than the ATS, but the idea is very similar.

I would like to make some observations about the kinds of cases in which the federal court would have jurisdiction.

First, Bill C-331 appears to give Federal Court jurisdiction over existing types of legal things rather than creating new ones. It provides that the Federal Court will have jurisdiction to hear cases involving claims respecting conduct that arises from violation of international law. Jurisdiction delineates the scope of the court's authority, either territorially or by subject matter. Jurisdiction is not the same as the right of legal remedy.

For example, the Federal Courts Act gives the Federal Court jurisdiction in all case in which relief is a claim against the Crown. However, that does not mean the Federal Court can address any complaint a Canadian might have about the federal government. The act gives the court jurisdiction, but the court can only give a remedy if one is provided by Canadian law, for example, by a law governing contracts if the claim is one of breach of contract.

Second, the bill would grant jurisdiction to the Federal Court rather than the provincial superior courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the Federal Court can only hear certain kinds of cases. It needs permission from Parliament in the form of a statutory grant of jurisdiction. In addition, the case must also be governed by an existing body of federal law.

I want to emphasize why it is important for us to recognize what this government has been able to accomplish on the trade file. We recognize the importance of international trade. We have also recognized the very critical importance of ensuring that companies and corporations behave in such a way that reflects what Canadian values truly are all about.

That is why, on April 8, we put in place the first Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. It is all a part of corporate responsibility. It is about international trade. It is about protecting Canadians, not only in Canada but also to protect people and human rights abroad.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-331, an act to amend the Federal Courts Act, introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

The legislation seeks to amend the Federal Courts Act, to provide the Federal Court of Canada with jurisdiction to hear claims brought by foreign claimants with respect to causes of actions that took place outside of the territory of Canada, where the acts or omissions alleged contravened international law or a treaty to which Canada was a party. Without more, there are a number of problems with Bill C-331.

To begin with, the legislation would radically transform the mandate and jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada.

When the Federal Court of Canada was established, it was established to deal with certain types of matters that fell within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. The legislation would fundamentally change that. The Federal Court of Canada would be transformed into essentially an international court dealing with international claims brought by international claimants with little to no connection to Canada whatsoever.

Aside from the issues and principles such as the presumption against extraterritoriality, comity and the principles respecting the sovereignty of foreign states under customary international law, all of which are implicated by Bill C-331, from a practical standpoint, there is a question about the appropriateness of the Federal Court of Canada becoming such an international forum.

By virtue of the international actions that would be invited to be brought forward to the Federal Court of Canada, such actions would necessarily implicate the interests of foreign states. As such, the court would be required to consider questions relating to foreign affairs, international human rights law and international commerce. This is far outside the jurisdiction and mandate of the Federal Court and its area of expertise. Moreover, the legislation would completely upend Canadian and international law respecting the assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

The universal test for the assertion of jurisdiction is a bona fide substantial connection between the subject matter and the source of jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in the Hape decision, citing the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus case:

...that jurisdiction “cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention”...According to the decision in the Lotus case, extraterritorial jurisdiction is governed by international law rather than being at the absolute discretion of individual states. While extraterritorial jurisdiction — prescriptive, enforcement or adjudicative — exists under international law, it is subject to strict limits under international law that are based on sovereign equality, non-intervention and the territoriality principle.

Moreover the Supreme Court in the Terry decision stated:

This Court has repeatedly affirmed the territorial limitations imposed on Canadian law by the principles of state sovereignty and international comity.

The Supreme Court in the Hape decision did make clear, at paragraph 68, that it was within the jurisdiction of Parliament to pass laws that would have the effect of asserting jurisdiction over non-Canadians outside the sovereign territory of Canada. However, in doing so, the question would become whether it would “violate international law and offend the comity of nations.”

Parliament has passed legislation that would have an extraterritorial effect in some very narrow and limited circumstances.

For example, Parliament has passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Pursuant to section 6 of that legislation, every person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime outside of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence. However, under section 8 of that act, to be prosecuted, the accused person would have to have some substantial connection to Canada. More specifically, section 8 provides that an individual can be prosecuted only if at the time of the offence the person was a Canadian citizen or a citizen of a state engaged in armed conflict against Canada; or the victim was a Canadian citizen or a citizen of a state allied with Canada in an armed conflict; or, if after the time the offence was committed, the person was present in Canada.

Additionally, section 7 of the Criminal Code contains a number of provisions that deem certain acts that occurred outside of Canada to be deemed to have occurred inside of Canada, including attacks on internationally-protected persons and UN personnel. However, to be prosecuted under those sections of the Criminal Code, the act must be deemed to have been committed in Canada only if the accused was a Canadian citizen or normally resided in Canada.

However, the legislation clearly is inconsistent with any basis for a real and substantial connection that is the basis for the lawful assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Indeed, claimants could bring civil suits in the Federal Court of Canada with virtually no connection whatsoever to Canada.

Additionally, there is some question about the basis of whether it is consistent with international law to permit civil actions against foreign corporations. This issue was considered recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Jesner, which was considering the alien tort statute. In the Jesner decision, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether common law liability under the ATS extended to a foreign corporate defendant. In considering that question, Justice Kennedy, writing for the court, determined that he was not satisfied that it would be consistent with international law or at least that it was not established that it was so. Justice Kennedy stated that:

It does not follow, however, that current principles of international law extend liability—civil or criminal—for human-rights violations to corporations or other artificial entities. This is confirmed by the fact that the charters of respective international criminal tribunals often exclude corporations from their jurisdictional reach.

In so stating that, Justice Kennedy cited the Nuremberg tribunal as well as the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the statute of the international tribunal for Rwanda, as well as the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, all of which are limited to natural persons.

Justice Kennedy concluded:

In the American legal system, of course, corporations are often subject to liability for the conduct of their human employees, and so it may seem necessary and natural that corporate entities are liable for violations of international law under the ATS...But the international community has not yet taken that step.

Therefore, for these and other reasons, I cannot support Bill C-331.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this very important bill introduced by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. It is important to the New Democratic Party, because we have introduced it ourselves in several different forms in the past. I think this is really interesting. I am going to come at this subject from a different angle, by focusing on the Canadian aspect and the international aspect. I will also respond to the member for Winnipeg North's intervention.

First off, I want to point out that Canada already offers many advantages to mining companies. That goes a long way to explaining why over 50% of the world's mining and mineral exploration companies are headquartered in Canada. It is because we have a very permissive tax system and regulatory system, making Canada highly appealing to these corporations. On that note, I urge my colleagues to check out the work of Alain Deneault. He has written two fascinating books on this subject, Imperial Canada Inc. and Canada: A New Tax Haven. These books clearly demonstrate that the Canadian tax system was designed to minimize mining companies' tax obligations and corporate responsibility.

My colleague spoke of human rights violations in a number of countries. Over half of the world's mining companies are headquartered in Canada, which is why we need a way to hold them to account. We need to give the Federal Court the power to make these companies take responsibility for their actions and those of their executives and employees. We see that as crucial to ensuring true accountability, not just lip service.

Governments used to say that these companies were out of reach because they operate internationally. My colleague shared some examples of the many excuses that have been used, but none of them hold water. The excuses we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons do not hold water either. He said we do not necessarily need to give the Federal Court that power or have the Canadian justice system handle these issues because the government created the office of the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

The Liberals announced the creation of this office during their election campaign in 2015. Fifteen months ago, the government announced that the position was finally being created. The ombudsperson was appointed just this month, in April, but we still have not been given a breakdown of the duties of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. Organizations that monitor this file very closely, such as MiningWatch and the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, are not terribly impressed with the government's efforts. It makes no sense that the creation of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was announced 15 months ago, and we still have no idea what her job description entails.

This is crucial, because right now, the government, especially the minister of international trade, is under heavy lobbying from mining companies that are basically against increased powers for this office. They are opposed to the office being able to compel documents when it is investigating cases of mining company abuse in the world. They are opposed to the fact that this body could compel testimony from executives in mining companies. They have been heavily lobbied, as can be demonstrated through the lobby registry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claims that we do not need this legislation and its ramifications because the government has created something, but that simply does not cut it.

I find it interesting that he also referred to the efforts of one of his Liberal MP colleagues, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. He tabled Bill C-300, which was a step in the right direction. He said that it was a demonstration of the goodwill of the federal government on this file.

What he neglected to say is that at report stage for Bill C-300, back in October 2010, it failed by six votes. The bill was defeated by six votes. Fourteen Liberal MPs were missing during that vote, including the party leader, Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison and John McCallum. Most of the front bench did not show up for the vote on that bill. If there had been seven or eight more MPs, that bill would have passed. That shows that the Liberals had no intention of letting the bill through.

A bill like this is necessary because of the countless examples of abuse we have seen in the past, especially in the mining sector. The environment has been destroyed by these companies, and entire communities have suffered as a result.

People in these countries have been abused and even murdered, particularly those who were concerned with the workers' situation and tried to advocate on their behalf. Unspeakable atrocities have been committed, and the mining industry does not want to take responsibility for its actions.

The acting president of the Mining Association of Canada said that his organization does not support the investigative powers that human rights advocates and groups like MiningWatch want the office of the ombudsman for responsible enterprise to have.

I doubt they agree with my colleague's bill.

Mining companies will say that they have improved their practices and that they are better than they were at the end of the 2000s and early 2010s, but that is no excuse. I hope they have improved their practices because many of them were indefensible. It goes without saying that we are pleased that this is happening.

Does that mean we do not have to have a stronger framework and better tools, given that these practices may well re-emerge? Is this an excuse to get Canada out of requiring a minimum level of accountability and responsibility in exchange for the extremely good benefits it gives to mining companies?

The bill introduced by my colleague is indeed necessary. I sincerely hope that the government will take note and do what it should have done when it was in this position in 2010, namely stand up and vote in favour.

The bill is currently at second reading stage. We want the bill to at least be studied in committee, which would allow us to debate it and call witnesses from around the world. We want the countries that are currently being exploited by some of these mining companies to inform us of what has happened and why Canada should introduce measures to protect ourselves. The courts, police, and the systems of law and order in many countries where mining companies do business are not as developed and robust as ours.

We have the means to ensure that this accountability is not just lip service. Words are often forgotten and fade away. Accountability must be written into the law and the judicial process so that mining companies operating abroad start conducting themselves as they would here and be subject to the same monitoring and oversight they would have in Canada.

For all these reasons I will be voting for my colleague's bill and strongly urging all members of the House, whether in government or the opposition, to vote in favour of it. This will ensure that the bill is sent to committee and that we can start working on it to advance objectives and ideas that should have materialized a long time ago.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-331. The international promotion and protection of human rights is something I take great interest in as a representative of a very engaged community of global citizens in Parkdale—High Park and as someone who was a former war crimes prosecutor on a Rwandan genocide tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania. I thank the NDP member opposite for moving this bill and prompting this very important discussion this morning.

Under existing law, the superior courts of the provinces and territories can hear lawsuits involving events that occur outside of Canada if there is enough of a connection to Canada. This was raised by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. Lawsuits alleging that Canadian companies have been involved in violations of international human rights abroad that involve claims for negligence or other violations of Canadian or foreign law are based on existing bodies of law.

The question of whether the common law also allows a person to claim damages in a superior court specifically for a violation of customary international law is the issue in the case of Nevsun v. Araya, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in January. That decision is under reserve, and it is important that we hear from the court on this particular issue.

Unlike the superior courts, the Federal Court generally does not handle cases against companies or individuals for actions taken outside of Canada. The Federal Court's jurisdiction is limited both by the Federal Courts Act and by the Constitution.

The Federal Court mostly hears cases involving judicial review of decisions of federal boards and tribunals, lawsuits against the federal government, and cases involving patents or maritime law. Civil claims between private parties don't usually end up in Federal Court, except in those areas.

The bill would amend the Federal Courts Act to provide that the court may exercise jurisdiction over certain cases involving violations of international law outside of Canada. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has said, this bill was modelled on the U.S. Alien Tort Statute, or ATS. It provides, in full, that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

The ATS has been controversial in the United States, and there has been a great deal of litigation about its scope. This has included disagreements about what kinds of claims are covered and about the application of the statute to foreign defendants and corporations, again something that has already been mentioned in the course of this morning's debate.

Bill C-331's main provision is a little more complicated than the ATS, but the idea and the targets are similar. I want to make three observations about the kinds of cases in which the Federal Court would have jurisdiction.

First, Bill C-331 appears to give the Federal Court jurisdiction over existing types of legal claims and would not create new ones. It would provide that the Federal Court would have jurisdiction to hear cases involving claims respecting conduct that “arises from a violation of international law”.

Jurisdiction delineates the scope of the court's authority, either in terms of territory or in terms of subject matter. Jurisdiction is not the same thing as the right to a legal remedy, and that is an important distinction. For example, the Federal Courts Act gives the Federal Court “jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.” However, that does not mean that the Federal Court can address any complaint a Canadian might have about the federal government. The act gives the court jurisdiction, but the court can only give a remedy if one is provided for by Canadian law, such as the law governing Crown contracts if the claim is one of breach of contract.

Second, the bill grants jurisdiction to the Federal Court rather than to the provincial Superior Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the Federal Court can only hear certain kinds of cases. It needs permission from Parliament, in the form of a statutory grant of jurisdiction. In addition, the case must also be governed by an existing body of federal law.

Accordingly, Bill C-331 will allow the Federal Court to hear cases based on federal law, rather than on provincial law or foreign law. This could include cases where there is a violation of both international law and a federal statute, such as the Carriage by Air Act.

The third point I want to make is that lawsuits under Bill C-331 would appear to involve only defendants who are subject to the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. According to the State Immunity Act, as well as international law, foreign governments and their officials generally cannot be sued in Canadian courts. Because Bill C-331 would not amend the State Immunity Act, these rules would remain in place. Similarly, Bill C-331 would not modify the principle that Canadian courts only hear cases that have a sufficient connection to Canada. That nexus was elaborated on again by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

In summary, Bill C-331 could allow the Federal Court to hear some new cases involving violations of international law abroad. However, it appears that those cases would need to fit within existing legal remedies or pre-existing causes of action. They would need to be based on federal law, and they would need to have a sufficient connection to Canada.

I would also like to speak briefly to two procedural aspects of the bill. Bill C-331 would provide that the cases to which it applies would not be subject to limitation periods provided in federal law. This would allow people to bring certain old claims even if they missed the deadlines that ordinarily apply. For example, claims against the Crown in respect of matters outside of a province are ordinarily subject to a six-year limitation period. This limitation period would no longer apply under the bill.

Bill C-331 would also specify when the Federal Court could stay proceedings to allow a case to go forward in a different court. This would roughly echo the principle of forum non conveniens, which Canadian courts use to decide when to stay a lawsuit because it would be more appropriate for it to proceed in a different court.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill for bringing this important issue before the House, and I look forward to hearing more of the second reading debate on this bill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the recent appointment of the first Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, Ms. Sheri Meyerhoffer. The Minister of International Trade Diversification appointed her on April 8, 2019. The ombudsperson will review allegations of human rights abuses arising from the activities of Canadian companies abroad.

This is a role that I have heard extensively about, and not just from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park but from people around the country who share the concern of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby about ensuring that international human rights are protected not just in Canada but abroad, including when Canadian corporations are involved.

For companies found to be involved in wrongdoing abroad, the ombudsperson can recommend measures, which could include the withdrawal of certain government services, such as trade advocacy. The ombudsperson can also make specific recommendations to companies, including in relation to compensation, an apology or corporate policy changes.

Giving the ombudsman's role some enforceable powers and some teeth is a critical aspect of this mechanism.

The appointment of this ombudsperson underscores Canada's commitment to advancing responsible business conduct by Canadian companies abroad and respect for the fundamental rights of people around the world.

That is exactly the type of reform that we need more of in this country. It is the type of reform that I am sure the member for New Westminster—Burnaby would share with us, as all parliamentarians should, in terms of promoting the understanding and enforcement of international human rights obligations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-331, which was brought forward by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I will talk about the bill and what it purports to do, and then I want to talk about the state of the nation in terms of the Federal Court system, because this bill proposes to make changes there.

The bill's intent is “[to amend] the Federal Courts Act to provide for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court over civil claims brought by non-Canadians in respect of alleged violations outside Canada of international law or a treaty to which Canada is party.”

The intent of the member who brought forward this private member's business was to address instances where, for example, Canadian companies operating in other jurisdictions are not being good corporate citizens and are violating in some way the human rights of individuals there.

In the member's speech, which I reviewed, he had a number of examples of companies. A lot of them were mining companies, such a Nevsun Resources, which had a gold, zinc and copper mine in Eritrea, where there were allegations of forced labour, slavery and torture of workers. Another case was the one of Hudbay Minerals in Guatemala, where people were shot and killed. The intent of this bill is to allow people who may not be Canadians and who have had things happen to them outside of Canada to come and use the Canadian Federal Court system to pursue civil actions.

The issue I have with that, first of all, is that the Federal Court system, as it is today, under the current Liberal government, is in tatters. The former justice minister did not appoint a sufficient number of judges, so court cases were backed up and there was a huge logjam. As a result of that, many murder cases and rape cases were being tossed out of court because they had been in the queue for more than two years, and according to Jordan's principle, these people, guilty of heinous crimes, have gone free.

The government has continually eroded the execution of justice in Canada with a weakening of the rules. The government introduced legislation such as C-75, which took some very serious crimes, such as the forcible confinement of a minor, and reduced them to summary convictions, which means a penalty of less than two years or a fine. There was a whole list of charges in that bill that took serious crimes and brought them back to something that was minor in nature. I would argue that a fine for the forcible confinement of a minor is like a slap on the wrist for something that I think all Canadians would agree is heinous.

We also saw the situation with Tori Stafford's killer, Terri-Lynne McClintic, who, even though she viciously participated in the murder of a child, was allowed to go to a healing lodge, where there was no security and she was in the presence of parents who had their children with them when they came to work.

I am concerned that we need to strengthen our Federal Court system as it stands today, not weaken it, and the Liberal government has not done that. I am concerned that if we open it up to non-Canadians in other countries, they would come and bring an extra caseload of court cases to a court system that is arguably already under stress and not delivering. There are Canadian crimes that we are not able to adequately prosecute on time. That is a real difficulty.

Within the bill, there are 17 different types of cases that could be brought forward. I will go through a few of these and talk about incidents that have occurred during the 42nd Parliament, to give members an idea of the volume of these cases that could come before the Federal Court.

First on the list is “genocide”, which everyone knows is a very serious crime. If we think about some of the genocides that have happened during this Parliament, the Yazidis come to mind. Yazidi women were brought to Canada after the genocide where those people were exterminated by ISIS terrorists. That is one. There are still outstanding actions to be taken on Rwanda. That is another genocide that could come our way.

Another item on the list is “slavery or slave trading”. Human trafficking of someone under 18 is also on the list. Human trafficking is a huge issue in Canada. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, which is a border city, we see a huge amount of human trafficking happening. There is an actual network between Sarnia and Toronto that couriers people, and not just people from out of the country. Young Canadian boys and girls are lured into this and trapped in that lifestyle for years. There is no doubt that it is a heinous crime, but when I think about the number of these cases in Canada today and the fact that we do not have the resources to adequately prosecute our own, I am concerned about opening that up to the rest of the world.

Any “extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of a person” is on the list. Let us think about the Saudi Arabian journalist who was exterminated. Let us think about the two Canadian men who were killed in the Philippines.

Also on the list is “systemic discrimination”. This opens it way up. When I was the chair of the status of women committee, we had visits of people from countries all over the world where women were being systematically discriminated against. They came to see what we were doing here in Canada. Some would argue that we are still seeing systemic discrimination within our own country. LGBTQ is another group that sees a lot of systemic discrimination across the world. If all of those cases came and flooded our courts, we would be very busy indeed.

The human rights violations that we are seeing right now in Hong Kong come to mind. There are 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, and the Chinese government is trying to bring in extradition rules that would allow it to take anyone from Hong Kong and bring him or her to China. I am very concerned that if this bill came into force, there might be a lot of non-Canadians who would want to take advantage of the Canadian court system to pursue some civil charges there as well.

Child soldiers are another item on the list. We know that in every battle we are seeing from ISIS, child soldiers are being raised up. We see that in a bunch of the wars that are happening in Africa and similar places. That would open it up to a huge number of people, as well, who may want to take action and get some civil reward from the Canadian court.

“Rape” is also on the list. Rape is rampant in Canada. The data says that one in three Canadian women will experience sexual violence during her life. When we think about how many cases we have, and how many of those are being kicked out of court, we really do not have the capacity to take others on.

“Forced abortion” and “forced sterilization” are on the list. We heard testimony today at the health committee about forced sterilization and the thousands of women in Canada who are undergoing this. It is horrible, but, once again, there are lots of cases of our own to take care of.

Issues like pollution have been put on the list. Let us think about plastics pollution by non-Canadians. We know that 95% of ocean pollution is happening from eight rivers in Asia and two in Africa. Again, that is a huge volume of complaints that could be brought forward.

“Environmental emergency” has been added. That could be like the climate emergency that the Liberals brought in debate. The debate was never brought back, so it must have been a non-urgent emergency. Climate emergencies and environmental emergencies like that could also make the list.

I know the member was well-intentioned in bringing the bill forward and wanting to address those Canadian corporations, for example, but the bill needs to be narrower in scope, and I do not think we have the capacity in the Federal Court system. I would encourage the government of the day, or, on October 21, the Conservative government, to restore the federal justice system.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to stand in this House to speak to Bill C-331, brought in by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I know this particular issue has been very dear to him over many Parliaments. It is really great to see that we are in the second hour of debate on Bill C-331, which means it is probably going to come to a vote next week. We will finally see where members of this House actually stand on this issue, because it does matter to a lot of people.

The long title of Bill C-331 is An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights). The reason this is so important is that, at present, human labour and environmental rights are subject to few concrete, effective enforcement mechanisms. This bill fills this need for the victims of international rights violations when there is no forum available to them in the country where the violations are taking place.

By way of addressing my Conservative colleagues' concerns, this is not going to result in a flood of people coming to Canada. It is really just providing a forum in Canada when no such legal option is available to the person in the place where the violation happened.

Specifically, Bill C-331 is going to allow non-citizens to bring a civil suit against anyone for gross violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, and for basic labour, environmental and human rights violations when they are committed outside the country. Furthermore, judges on the Federal Court would have to satisfy themselves that their court is an appropriate forum to hear these cases.

This legislation, if enacted, is not going to force the court to hear every single case. It still specifies within the bill that Federal Court judges will have the ability to judge the merits of each case before them, and whether in fact there is enough evidence to proceed with trial.

When we look at Bill C-331 in detail, it is an amendment to the Federal Courts Act. The bill would add a specific section 25.1 after the existing section 25. Some of the claims listed within the bill are genocide; a war crime or a crime against humanity; slavery or slave trading; extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of a person; torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment; prolonged arbitrary detention, and so on. These are crimes that really speak to some very horrible actions that take place around the world.

We are so very lucky to live in Canada under the rule of law. We have a judicial system that we place a lot of trust in. Generally, when people see police on the streets, we know they are doing their job. We have a lot of trust in those institutions, not only to keep us safe but also to hold people to account. In many places in the world, this is a luxury or simply does not exist.

Canadians, by and large, are fairly detached from some of the horrors that go on internationally. The unfortunate fact is that a lot of Canadian-based companies have actually been responsible for some of the worst behaviour around the world. We know some Canadian mining companies have been implicated in brutal crackdowns on local populations, because they were daring to protest a mining operation. They have employed paramilitary guards who have used sexual violence as a weapon. They have violated environmental rights by dumping mining tailings into a local drinking supply. These are companies that are based in Canada.

The issue here is to basically hold those companies accountable. We want to ensure that we are not engaging in a race to the bottom for economic reasons, while neglecting those very important rights.

We have corporations based here in Canada that generate a tremendous amount of wealth. That wealth is not equally distributed. Often, the wealth that is being generated is coming directly from the so-called global south and from countries that are rich in natural resources that are being exploited by companies, but the wealth is being unevenly distributed.

Therefore, corporate social responsibility should not be a voluntary thing. This is something we need to have firm legislation around and firm accountability. I believe that Bill C-331 is a step in the right direction.

If we look at Global Affairs Canada, we see, as I mentioned earlier, that 50% of the world's publicly listed exploration and mining companies are headquartered in Canada. If we look at the TSX, it is quite evident.

The federal government, just recently, in April, appointed Sheri Meyerhoffer as the first Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. Before I receive any applause from my Liberal colleagues, they may want to listen to the next part of my speech.

This is what the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability stated when that office was announced:

The government announced that it would create an independent office with the power to investigate. Instead, it unveiled a powerless advisory post, little different from what has already existed for years.

United Steelworkers Canada national director, Ken Neumann, said:

With today’s announcement...of the appointment of a special advisor, without the powers of an effective ombudsperson, this government has again disappointed thousands of Canadians who were expecting serious action on human rights.

Again, we cannot just create the office and then walk away without giving it the necessary powers, the legislative framework and the resources necessary to actually act on these particularly egregious crimes against humanity. As listed in Bill C-331, these are some of the worst crimes imaginable.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has long demonstrated a keen interest in this particular issue. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby, as I said in the introduction of my speech, has been pursuing this through multiple parliaments. Our former colleagues, Paul Dewar and Alexa McDonough, and the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood also saw this as an important thing. Several parliaments ago, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood presented Bill C-300, which unfortunately ran aground because not enough Liberals showed up at a key vote.

It is important that we act on this. It is a signal to citizens of countries where these rights do not exist. This is a signal to the world that Canada actually means what it says when talking about human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. Furthermore, we are actually going to provide a forum for the affected party to come here and use our Federal Court system to pursue justice. I can think of no better signal to the world than Canada actually standing by what it says and showing, through this proposed legislation, that it is going to follow through with it.

We have some great endorsements for this proposed legislation, and the endorsements have kept on coming from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. We have the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the National Union of Public and General Employees and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It is great to see Canadian civil society, and indeed international actors as well, come behind this legislation to recognize its importance.

To conclude, I am particularly and personally attached to this bill, because it is following in the same vein of what I am trying to do with my own private member's bill, Bill C-431, which would amend the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to make sure that our public pension monies are no longer invested in entities that are guilty of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights transgressions. It is particularly shameful, when we ask the Library of Parliament to do research, that we find the Canada pension plan still invested in companies that are committing these kinds of rights transgressions around the world.

I am happy to see that we are going to put force behind our words, as New Democrats always do. I congratulate the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on this important bill, and I look forward so very much to next week, when I can stand in the House and vote on it on behalf of my constituents.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-331, an act to amend the Federal Courts Act with regard to the international promotion and protection of human rights.

This bill would amend the Federal Courts Act to provide for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in civil matters involving claims for relief in respect of certain violations of international law.

The bill's sponsor, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, believes this bill is necessary to hold Canadian companies accountable when they are involved in violations of international law abroad and to compensate the victims of these violations, especially in countries where there is no rule of law and there are no remedies to be had.

I agree that these are valid and important concerns, but Bill C-311—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. He is speaking very eloquently, but there is a bit of a rumble in the background. When members are close to the member speaking, it echoes into the microphone, so I would remind them to have respect for the person speaking.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.