House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crime.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, in order to provide hon. members and the people of Canada with an update on government achievements, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Managing for Results 1999”, along with performance reports from 82 departments and agencies.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers).
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to reintroduce a bill that establishes the criminal liability of corporations, of their executives and officers, for criminal acts or omissions carried out knowingly by them which put the health and safety of their employees at risk.
This is a bill that arises out of a recommendation from the public inquiry into the disastrous Westray tragedy in Nova Scotia that killed 26 miners unnecessarily. It will establish once and for all the public responsibility to protect employees in the country against any such disastrous outcome.
The bill is long overdue. It is specifically a recommendation of the Westray inquiry and Canadians will benefit from such protection in the future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour and a pleasure for me to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents.
They are very concerned about the fact that we have a Senate in our country. They consider it to be undemocratic and composed of unelected members that are unaccountable to the people of Canada. They point out the fact that there is a $50 million price tag attached to this. They say that this is something from another era and should not be taking place as we enter the 21st century.
They also say that we need to modernize our parliamentary institution, Mr. Speaker, which is something I know you feel strongly about. They are calling upon the parliament of Canada to take whatever measures are necessary to abolish the Senate of Canada.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
moved that a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the Nisga'a Final Agreement and the Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement, laid upon the table on Tuesday, October 19, be concurred in.
Ways And MeansGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Ways And MeansGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Ways And MeansGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Ways And MeansGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ways And MeansGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The adoption of this ways and means motion which is the first step in implementing legislation in regard to the Nisga'a agreement is out of order.
Not only is this issue very controversial and will have a precedent setting impact on the entire country, the House should know this agreement is before the courts. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 505 states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial enquiry.
The government should not be allowed to proceed any further with Nisga'a legislation since it affects one of our most fundamental rights of free speech.
Beauchesne's also talks about respecting the sub judice convention in the interest of justice and fair play. Notwithstanding the fact that legislation enabling the Nisga'a agreement was passed by the most unpopular government in the history of British Columbia with a paltry 35% of the vote of the electorate, we in this House must respect the objections and the objectives of the other 62% of British Columbians and many other Canadians, including parties to several litigations on the matter, including the B.C. Liberals.
When considering this point of order, Mr. Speaker, you must understand that we will stand up for the equal rights of all Canadians, including the Nisga'a. We will do our utmost to convince the Liberal government to reconsider its position and to inform Canadians of the very significant mistakes that are being made.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. The hon. member of course has a right to feel very profoundly about any issue, just as I have a right to disagree with him and any of us who similarly feel about an issue. That is not what is before us today. It is whether or not the ways and means motions that was just passed is in order or out of order.
First of all, the speech we just heard is actually a reflection upon a vote in the House and I would say that in itself offends, at least in my view, our standing orders. The standing orders say that the adoption of the ways and means motion—and that ways and means motion has now been adopted—is an order of the House to bring in a bill based thereon. Therefore, this gives the minister the right, and some would say the obligation, to give first reading to the bill.
The hon. member made a reference in his remarks with respect to issues that are before the courts and how we should refrain in debates from taking sides on issues when, at a criminal level, charges have been laid, or at the civil level once an issue reaches trial stage. That is meant to ensure that members in their remarks in the House do not prejudice the outcome. It does not have application to the adoption of a ways and means motion by this House. The entire House, I am sure, knows that. Therefore those points that were raised are not valid. This motion is indeed in order and has in fact been passed in the House. I believe that now is the time to introduce the bill pursuant to the motion that we have now passed by a vote of this House, democratically held.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, in reviewing some of the sections of Beauchesne's one is hit square in the face with the fact that the sub judice convention deals specifically with debate, and that is not the case with the matter that is before the House. There is no bar whatsoever on the House itself considering legislation.
Mr. Speaker, you would be well aware of the fact that if that was the case every time a matter wound up before the courts parliament would be completely impotent and paralysed from considering legislation.
I would suggest that the point of order from the hon. member of the Reform Party is completely out of order.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would want to concur in the opinions offered by the government House leader and by the House leader of the Conservative Party. I find it very odd that a party that is always talking about power seeping away from parliament to the courts is today arguing that parliament cannot deal with an issue as important as the Nisga'a treaty.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, since first being elected to this place in 1993 I have witnessed over and over again that the government is not willing to respond to questions in this House when the matter is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, how can we properly debate this fundamentally important issue to all Canadians and the Nisga'a people when the matter is before the court? This flies in the face of the conventions that I have understood since I came to this place in 1993.
Points Of OrderGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair would like to thank all hon. members who have participated in this for their assistance in dealing with this point of order, which was raised by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
He cited at the opening of his remarks citation 505 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne. I would also draw to his attention and to the attention of all hon. members citation 506, which reads:
The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
I skip on to citation 507, which reads:
No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage.
The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has not brought to the House any indication that there is a criminal proceeding involving this case, nor is it possible to imagine how there could be at this time. Accordingly, I feel that given the past practice of the House and given the fact that the House is master of its own procedure, I do not believe the House is bound by proceedings in the courts until the court has made a ruling that binds the House. Until the court has made a ruling that has bound the House under the constitution of Canada, I feel that the proceedings so far today are entirely in order and I intend to proceed with the bill pursuant to Standing Order 83(4).
Bob Nault LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
moved that Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the first time and printed.
(Motion deemed adopted bill read the first time and printed)
Don Boudria Liberalfor the Minister of Justice
moved that Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.