House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was citizenship.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport

moved that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read the third time and passed.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely delighted today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act.

We do not want to mislead the population. We talk about grants, but my colleague from Saint-Jean asked last week why we called it grants since they are basically payments of property taxes. As we used to say in law, and my colleagues who have studied in that field have heard it often enough “The King can do no wrong”. That is what is taught to law students on the very first lesson of their very first day in school. Then I could add to that saying that the King does not pay property taxes either.

That is the reason why there is a little subterfuge and the act talks about grants instead of taxes. However, if we look at it more closely, it could very well be real grants. Usually, when we talk about grants, we talk about the discretionary power of a minister. The minister can decide to give or to refuse a grant. In this case, the title Municipal Grants Act is not misleading since the discretionary power of the minister is mentioned in clause 3 of the bill.

There is nothing more scary than the discretionary power of a minister. Seldom do we see a minister having discretionary power who does not end up dirtying his or her hands. We really do not see it often. We have a very good example right now with all the mess at HRDC involving two ministers, one who was there earlier but has left since then and the other one who was not there earlier but is in the middle of things right now. This shows what discretionary power can do.

At the discretion of the Minister of Human Resources Development, $500,000 was given to Wal-Mart. Poor Wal-Mart. It is sad how little money they have. And they are not alone.

The Minister of Human Resources Development and her officials do have discretionary power, and I see the member opposite shaking her head, but it is really a discretionary power even if, under the legislation, the minister has the authority to give grants or to fund programs, there is a highly discretionary component to all these things.

Here is an example. I know I am not a minister and I have no such pretension, but here is an example. Officials at Human Resources Development Canada divided my riding, the beautiful riding of Chambly—and I take this opportunity to say hello to the people of Chambly—into areas, such as area 37 or 38. For these areas to be eligible for the transitional jobs fund, their unemployment rate had to be over 12%.

The county town of Marieville is located in my riding, in the middle of a vast countryside, a largely agricultural area, where of course there is practically no unemployment. You may have a father, a mother and even a son working on a farm, so no one is unemployed.

The unemployed move to the county seat, the city of Marieville, which has high unemployment, in excess of 12%. For a year now, we have been asking the minister to transfer Marieville to the adjacent area, Chambly, so that it could qualify for grants under the transitional jobs fund, thus allowing people living in Marieville to benefit from this program.

This request was made a year ago. It was made not only by myself, but also by the municipal authorities, by Sylvain Lapointe, the mayor of Marieville, whom I take this opportunity to salute and who does an excellent job as a mayor, by the chamber of commerce and by the MNA.

Every stakeholder told the minister that it made no sense to include Marieville in a rural area, while this city which has between 5,000 and 6,000 residents and has high unemployment, but cannot benefit from the transitional jobs fund.

I learned, during oral question period, that the minister have given grants in her riding, where unemployment is clearly lower than 12%. It is not always true that the shoemaker's children are the worst shod, the minister's riding being proof of that. The minister gave transitional jobs fund grants, even though her riding does not seem to qualify for them.

To this she says “Yes, but in my riding, there are some pockets where unemployment is higher than 12%”. The law does not give her that authority. The law says that if in a particular area, which is clearly defined, the unemployment rate is below 12%, that is 11.99%, it does not qualify for transitory job fund grants.

The same applies to the riding of the Prime Minister, who used the same argument during oral question period last week or at the beginning of this week. He says that in his riding there are places—a street, a neighbourhood, a corner—where unemployment is over 12%. But this is not what the law says. It says that in the area as a whole unemployment must be 12% and above.

So members can see what discretionary power is. These people will stop at nothing to meet their ends. Fortunately, once in a while, they get caught, as it happened to the minister.

Do not ask me to show any pity, because what management at the Department of Human Resources Development did is really dishonest. I could give many examples and my friend, the member for Trois-Rivières, has just as many of his own.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

An hon. member

Especially concerning her predecessor.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

The current minister's predecessor is a sorry figure. He is the true culprit in this whole affair, but the minister is trying to cover up for him. As my father used to say “The one who is holding the bag is just as guilty as the one who is filling it up”.

If discretionary powers do not offend these people any more than that, I will give them a few examples.

A young nurse worked night shifts at the hospital, and when she did, she got a 35 or 45 cent an hour premium for an eight hour shift. She became unemployed, but she did not refuse any calls. From time to time, she got a call to come to work, and the young woman, who had just graduated from nursing school and who wanted to gain experience and eventually find a full time job, said yes. Whether it was a day shift, an evening shift or a night shift, she went to work.

When she filled out her employment insurance card, she reported working on that particular day. Her hourly wage at that time was, say, $15 an hour. She wrote on the card that on that particular day she worked an eight hour shift and earned eight times $15, or $120. Human Resources Development Canada realized that it was not true, that she did not earn $120 but $122 because she had a premium for working the night shift.

She received notices and was given fines. She had a public servant after her for six months and had to pay penalties. She was not given any chance even though the mistake was made in good faith and her hourly wage was indeed, say, $15, as it is generally the case for nurses.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

An hon. member

They have quotas to meet.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

These people have quotas to meet, probably like the minister responsible for administering this act. Perhaps he will be more generous with his friends than with his enemies. When the mayor of a nice town is a potential Liberal candidate in the next election, as was the case with some members now sitting in the House, then the minister can be more generous. That is what discretionary powers are all about, and that is what is dangerous in our system.

At second reading, and in committee, I recall that we asked for the discretionary powers given to the minister in this bill to be delineated. My colleague, also on the committee, went to speak to the Chair, no doubt to ask him to intervene, because they do not like to hear people say such things, to hear about abuse of discretionary powers.

I will give another example. In my riding there is a man who has worked on an on-call basis for many years. He is a mover. When a strong pair of arms are needed, they call him up, because he is a pretty strong, pretty sturdy individual. Sometimes he works a day or two, sometimes not at all. Every two weeks he fills out his employment insurance card.

He made a mistake. For one week, he marked that he had not worked Monday and Tuesday, and for the second week that he did work Monday and Tuesday, when he had not worked that week. He simply reversed the two weeks—

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could the hon. member over there please tell us what this story he is telling us has to do with the bill we have before us?

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

He is getting to it. This is his introduction.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the member opposite to decide what I will say in my speeches. I know he did not understand anything.

I am showing you the meaning of the abuse of discretionary powers and where it can lead. For those who are not friends of the government, who are not members of the Liberal Party of Canada, it becomes dangerous.

So, my mover muddles his weeks. He did not intend to do anything wrong and there is no benefit for him in doing so. He says he did not work two days he worked, but he says he worked two days the next week he did not work. It amounts to the same thing. He was fined $800. The cheque was recovered, interest was charged and the man was threatened with a charge of fraud. This is how the management of the Department of Human Resources Development dealt with him.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

To give it to whom? To Wal-Mart.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

To give it to whom? To give it to Wal-Mart, to Bombardier, to Pratt & Whitney, to Vidéotron or other such companies under the transitional jobs fund. Do you not think that is disgusting?

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

It is scandalous.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

A widow came to see me after her husband died. The Department of Revenue had begun to bug him for some paltry amount, a pittance. They went after her husband right to his grave. He was dead, and the letters kept coming.

I am saying that it is not normal when you look into the system, and the Prime Minister wants us to believe there was only about $251 in fraud at the Department of Human Resources Development. It is totally criminal to change and alter truth like that: $251.50. Are we a pack of lunatics here? Tie up parliament for $251.50.

My colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles calculated it on a pro rata basis, the rule of three. The figure involved is $2.8 billion or more exactly $2,750,754—

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to consider this bill having been read a third time so that we can vote it in and the municipalities can get their money.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. parliamentary secretary has requested the unanimous consent of the House to see the bill as read a third time. Is there unanimous consent?

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Agreed.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to point out to hon. members and those now listening that it is not at all because we feel that this bill is not important, but I think that the member for Chambly has some important things to say about it. I would like him to be allowed to continue.

Municipal Grants ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

When the bill next comes before the House the hon. member for Chambly will have 25 minutes and 54 seconds to add to the debate. The time provided for Government Orders has now expired.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac for seconding this very important motion.

Briefly, to recall, importantly of course, that on May 9, 1992 an explosion occurred at the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia, killing 26 men. It was a horrible tragedy and one that was felt throughout the province of Nova Scotia, and indeed across the country.

Many Nova Scotians acted in a very heroic fashion that deadly day in May 1992. To those creative draggermen who were so directly involved in the efforts to locate the 26 miners who lost their lives, we will be forever grateful. Many of those draggermen came from across Nova Scotia, and indeed across the country. They worked, sadly in vain, to rescue the 26 men.

Coal mining and the coal industry in northeastern Nova Scotia has been very important for generations. Pictou County Colliers , by James Mr. Cameron, chronicles the history of coal mining in that part of Canada.

The devastation of the Mother's Day disaster at Westray mine nearly eight years ago has left a very long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners and people generally across the province.

The explosion at the Westray Coal mine sent a very chilling message to people. That message was that haste and financial gain can put individual lives at risk. Many owed their livelihood, gave their lives and lost their lives underground during the past 150 years.

Many in Nova Scotia, in particular, recall the bump at Spring Hill or the cave-ins and explosions in Pictou county and in Cape Breton. Artists, such as Rita MacNeil and the Men of the Deep, have sung poignant songs in remembrance of those lost souls.

The death of the 26 coal miners came as very unexpected and very sad to the peaceful community of Plymouth, that, from the very second that those fathers, brothers and sons were taken away from their families, people were left immediately with having to come to grips with the tragedy, and a tragedy that could have been avoided.

That is why it is so incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that there are safe working environments for all workers engaged in labour activity, whether it is a mine, a fish plant, an automotive factory or any other work environment. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to move toward making those work places safe.

Days after the Westray explosion, on May 15 the Government of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to act as the head of a commission to inquire, under the public inquiries act, into what took place at the Westray mine.

The commission had a very broad mandate, so as to shed light on the explosion and all the related circumstances that led up to that tragic day. In fact, Nova Scotia's premier at the time, Donald Cameron, was very clear about that mandate. He said:

Mr. Justice Richard's inquiry will not be limited to the events of the early morning of May 9th. Nothing and no person with any light to shed on this tragedy will escape the scrutiny of the inquiry.

The commission's work began almost immediately to prepare for the public hearings set to begin in October 1992.

Curragh Resources Inc. and Westray's management challenged the validity of the order in council establishing the commission of inquiry. This, as members can imagine, led to numerous legal proceedings. Because of the delays, the report from Mr. Justice Richard was tabled five years later, in November 1997.

There was an incredible amount of wrangling that went on in the criminal courts and charges laid under the workers' safety act also led to much of the delay and much of the frustration that occurred as a result of the wranglings.

This is a very important matter for all and I would appreciate the attention of members who are in the Chamber.

The Westray story is one that is very complex and a mosaic of actions, omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism and downright stupidity were viewed in context. These seemingly isolated incidents constituted a mindset of operating philosophy that appeared to favour expediency over intelligent planning that trivializes safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety conscious workers as wimps in the organization.

To its discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that safe mining is good business. These words came directly from the report of Mr. Justice Richard, a report that was entitled “The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster”. It contained 74 recommendations and concluded in its final analysis that the tragedy could have been avoided if minimal occupational safety standards had been adhered to.

There are always ways to prevent tragedies. Sometimes they cannot be avoided, but there are ways to eliminate the risk and the environment which costs people's lives or often leaves them injured for the remainder of their lives. There are ways to attach criminal responsibility to those actions that put people's lives at risk. Sometimes corporations and those at the head end and the head office of these corporations should, I suggest, be brought into some degree of culpability and accountability by our legislation, particular in the criminal code.

There are ways that this can be done: through amendments and through legislative initiatives. Some of those were proposed by Justice Richard. One proposal in particular would be to create a new criminal offence that would impose criminal liability on the directors or those responsible for failing to ensure that their corporation maintains an appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the workplace. This is precisely what this motion hopes to achieve.

In Nova Scotia mining is regulated by three pieces of legislation: the mineral resources act, the occupational health and safety act and the coal mines regulation act. Mr. Justice Richard in his report reviewed all of these provincial acts and concluded that the main purpose was to ensure safety.

Unfortunately we have seen in recent years examples of occupational safety in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line, the financial line, which is especially true in the mining industry where the very nature of the work involves a great deal of risk and a great deal of danger just as a course of the type of work that is done underground. It is the duty of company officers to ensure that work is done in the safest of all possible conditions.

We want to ensure that individuals inside and outside corporate Canada will be dealt with equitably and fairly under the law, but we want to ensure that there is that degree of accountability, that executives will not be able to hide behind the corporate veil and the job titles in the commission of their duties.

Corporate Canada understandably has two related functions: to make a profit and to create jobs. Profit is a good thing but the balance has to be struck between the profit and the cost that is sometimes incurred by reckless behaviour. There must be a balance between making a profit and the means by which to get there.

Section 220 of the criminal code currently refers specifically to criminal negligence causing death and there are sections under section 234 of the criminal code pertaining to manslaughter. There may be a need to introduce amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of culpability or perhaps even go so far as to make a specific reference to executives, directors or persons in management positions when pertaining to acts which result in the loss of life.

I brought this motion forward with the hope that the devastation of the Westray disaster will not be forgotten. I can assure the House and Canadians generally that those in Pictou county and in all of Nova Scotia recall with horror that period of time between May 1992 and the current has left in the minds of all.

It is as important today to ensure that the recommendations of the inquiry are not forgotten. Sadly, all Canadians have borne witness to reports that have been completed; the white papers that have been completed by royal commissions that have done their work. These reports wind up on a shelve gathering dust with no action.

Words are not enough when it comes to protecting lives in this instance. It is important that we follow the recommendations of this report, that we actually act with a great deal of strength in responding to the work that has already been done.

The fundamental and basic responsibility of safe operation of an underground coal mine is an industrial undertaking that rests very much with the owners and the managers. Westray management, starting with the chief executive officer, was required by law, by good business practice and good conscience, to design and operate a mine safely. Westray management came under attack in the ensuing days after the explosion for being lax in that responsibility.

The significance of that failure cannot be overstated. Simply because others were abdicating their responsibility is not a satisfactory response. Shared responsibility can be said to be implicit in the recommendations that came from the report.

Not only in the mining industry but also in any business venture, corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety and simply in the pursuit of profit. This is a very dangerous situation. We must be mindful of the situation that can evolve and can result in tragedy. This mindset itself is precisely what set the dangerous tone in the workplace of the mine at Westray.

Businesses must also ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and constantly updated as to safe work practices. In the case of Westray, labour safety standards, particularly minimal safety standards, were not adhered to to the extent that they should have been.

Looking at this issue in the larger context, there must also be a recognition of the role of government to ensure that these proper standards are being met. If they are not being met, the government must intervene through its inspectors and simply see that the workplace is closed until those minimal standards are adhered to.

In the case of Westray, many trades persons were prone to perform unsafe tasks and take shortcuts in their daily routines, never once being told by management of the dangers of such actions given that the mine was very gassy and potentially explosive, as the Foord seam has been known to be throughout its history. In many cases there was no question that the management may have been aware or ought to have been aware that the workers were not performing safe mining practices underground.

As stated in Mr. Justice Richard's report, there was a strong indication that the Westray management was aware of the levels of methane underground, which the coal miners were exposed to, and that these levels of methane were very hazardous and potentially explosive. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, such conditions should have resulted in the workers being withdrawn from affected areas. That, of course, was one method of preventing the tragedy that resulted.

It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves pulled by many factors. They have to meet production deadlines, competition to out-perform bottom lines and, in this case, there were government moneys involved that increased the pressure.

This is where the human element of safety must also enter into the equation. Far too often businesses, and indeed heads of corporations, may be tempted by that financial gain and put the safety of workers second. That type of short term gain for long term pain, as we have seen in the Westray example, is something that we seek to avoid by this motion. Of course, I speak to the injury of death that can result. It is a sad, sad scenario that we should learn from.

Tough economic times that exist in the country put further pressure on workers. This is why this motion, I suggest, is very timely. The economic impact of having to shut down corporations inevitably affects everyone in that region. The employees, the management, the board of directors, anyone associated with that business feels the negative impact of an operational shutdown.

This is the cost of doing business. If we have to shut down these businesses to ensure that lives are protected, that is what has to happen.

Companies must do everything in their power, and I suggest that we as legislators similarly are mandated to do everything in our power to ensure that hazardous workplaces are dealt with in a proactive way as opposed to reactive, as we have seen in Westray. If companies have not acted properly, have not adhered to the legislation, both provincial and federal, there must be consequences.

Ethics and the results of this tragedy dictate that we should go further, that we have to now act, pick up the report and move this matter forward. This is a very serious instance. Business executives find themselves in a position where they are insulated from the consequences of their potential negligence and potential lax control over what is taking place on the ground. Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the effects of what took place in Plymouth at the Westray mine again.

I appreciate the non-partisan tone that has taken place on previous occasions on the debate of this particular motion. I would suggest that there is a great deal of impact that all members can have in this area. We must hold to account individuals who behave recklessly and without conscience that results in lost lives.

We are empowered here with the knowledge, the know-how and the ability to make legislation that can have effect, very real effect on workplace safety. We are empowered as officials to exercise our discretion to ensure that those who are operating businesses and those who have the final say over what takes place in the work world are adhering to safe practice.

I appreciate the support that all members thus far have shown for this motion. I am very concerned that we are only paying lip service to this issue. I very much look forward to the comments and the support of all members of the House to ensure that we move forward and do everything within our power to ensure that workplace safety is a priority in this country. It is something that we in parliament are very concerned about and are prepared to take positive action toward improving.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Erie—Lincoln Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 79.

The motion from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough recommends that this House express its opinion that the criminal code should be amended to address the issue of the criminal liability of corporate executives and directors. I commend the member opposite for again bringing this issue before the House. It is one which requires our serious consideration.

It is evident that this motion has its origins in a tragic explosion in the Westray mine on May 9, 1992 in which 26 miners were killed. The subsequent public inquiry set up by the Nova Scotia government clearly established that mismanagement created an unsafe working environment that was a direct cause of the disaster. Throughout the inquiry and the prosecutions that followed from the investigation into the tragedy the responsibility of Westray officers and the Westray Corporation itself emerged as important and contentious issues.

The inquiry, chaired by Mr. Justice Peter Richard, produced the four volume report “The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster”. Judge Richard's report set out 74 recommendations aimed at improving mine safety so that such incidents never happen again, so that mining operations never again, in his words, go down that path to disaster.

I would like to read into the record recommendation 73 of Mr. Justice Richard's report as it forms the basis of the motion we are debating today:

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are properly accountable for workplace safety.

I agree there is merit in examining the criminal law as it deals with the criminal responsibility of corporations. However, it is much more likely that we will need a combination of preventive, remedial and punitive measures in order to keep us from going down that path of disaster again. The solutions to the problem of corporate responsibility therefore will be found in a mix of criminal law, labour code regulation and the regulation of business activity.

Before I address the role of the criminal law in such a system, I will give an example of how preventive and remedial measures outside the criminal code can advance the objectives of workplace safety.

On October 28 last year the Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-12, a package of amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code designed to improve workplace safety in industries under federal jurisdiction.

This legislation expands the responsibilities of both employers and employees in creating a safe work environment. It establishes three fundamental rights for employees: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in correcting the hazards; and the right to refuse dangerous work.

There is no point in having a right without a remedy. Therefore, Bill C-12 expands the role of workplace health and safety committees in inspecting workplaces and in investigating complaints. Similarly when an employee refuses to perform tasks that are considered dangerous, the legislation will streamline the complaint resolution process.

The Canada Labour Code also makes it an offence to contravene any of these rules and creates sanctions in the form of fines and terms of imprisonment.

We can leave the debate on Bill C-12 to another day but I urge colleagues to keep in mind that initiatives such as Bill C-12 serve many of the same objectives as the criminal law changes suggested by Judge Richard in the Westray report.

The motion before us today does not actually identify a particular amendment to the criminal code. Therefore, I would like to point out some of the factors involved in creating a criminal law sanction for corporate misconduct in the workplace. Any examination of the criminal law in this area must consider both the responsibility of a corporation itself and the liability of the people who are employed by that company.

On the first point, it should be understood that under the current law, it is already possible to charge a corporation with a crime. Section 2 of the criminal code includes companies in the definition of person and there have been instances where corporations have been charged with crimes. In fact in the Westray case, charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death were laid against Curragh, Inc., the owner and operator of the mine, as well as individual employees of the company.

It is also important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada held in a 1985 case that a corporation will generally be liable for a criminal offence if a corporate director or officer commits an offence for the benefit of the corporation in the course of his or her employment.

In 1993 a subcommittee of the House Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, as it was then called, issued a report on the recodification of the general part of the criminal code. This is the part that deals with fundamental components of criminal offences such as culpability and defences.

The subcommittee took the view that express rules on the liability of corporations should be added to the general part in a way that makes a sharper distinction between the company's liability and that of its employees. The subcommittee recommended as follows:

A corporation [should be] liable for conduct committed on its behalf by its directors, officers or employees acting within the scope of their authority and identifiable as persons with authority over the formulation or implementation of corporate policy, notwithstanding that no director, officer or employee may be held individually liable for the same offence.

If we want to change the current law, there are other approaches that deserve consideration.

Australian law makes it possible for a company to be charged with offences requiring intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence. The Australian statute focuses on actions by the company's board of directors and its agents that tacitly or expressly authorize or permit the commission of a criminal offence.

I will turn briefly to the criminal liability of individual employees of a corporation as opposed to the corporation itself. As individuals the employees can be charged with any criminal offence they commit and for which they are morally responsible. Section 23 of the criminal code also creates criminal liability for anyone who is a party to an offence, which means doing or omitting to do anything for the purpose of aiding someone to commit that offence, or abetting that person in committing the offence. Section 23 also makes it an offence to counsel another person to be a party to a crime. Therefore, there is already a way of getting at individual employees whose misconduct in the course of their duties amounts to a crime.

These provisions in the criminal code are important because if the corporation has a general duty to comply with the law, individual directors and officers also have a duty to take into account interests beyond those of shareholders and beyond the balance sheet.

I understand that in the aftermath of the Westray inquiry the attorney general for Nova Scotia requested that the Minister of Justice for Canada address recommendation 73 of the Westray report and that the minister has agreed to do so. This step having been taken, I would suggest that the motion before us today does not advance the process.

Finally, criminal laws created by parliament should also recognize the role of provinces in the area of workplace safety. In this regard I note that the Westray report also recommends that the province of Nova Scotia undertake a review of its occupational health and safety legislation and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that officers and directors of corporations doing business in the province are held properly accountable for the failure of the corporation to secure and maintain a secure workplace.

For these reasons I oppose this motion as it does not further the study of criminal law in this area.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

February 18th, 2000 / 1:55 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Shame, shame.