Lorne Nystrom

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words in this very important debate and indicate my support for the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party to send an all party delegation to Washington. It is a positive thing and should really happen.

What I want to impress upon the House is that the mad cow crisis has been a real crisis across the country economically and in particular in western Canada. In my riding in the province of Saskatchewan it has been a very serious crisis. It has affected not only cow calf producers and cattle ranchers but also it has affected the truckers and people who work in the industry. There has been a whole economic slowdown that has had an impact of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of the spinoff. It has slowed down the whole economy. We have to deal with this crisis as a country.

The government should have taken a much stronger stand with the Americans. The Americans cut off the borders for many weeks and have now allowed them to open for some classes of cattle. The flow now is not much more than a trickle. It is because of the Americans' hard line that we have suffered greatly.

I think our cattle industry is far too integrated with the United States. We have far too few packing plants in the country. It was a big mistake made over the years, that we did not maintain more packing plants that would supply the need for ranchers and farmers and also provide jobs here in this country.

The Americans have taken a tough line. We have an industry now that is integrated with the United States. The packing plants are in America. The jobs are in America. The economic benefits go to America. When there is a problem, the Americans cut off the border. The mad cow that was found in this country may indeed have eaten feed that came from the United States of America.

It seems that we have been shafted on this. We have been hit over the head with a club by the United States. Our Prime Minister should have taken a much tougher stand with George W. Bush and the American administration.

It is not just this issue. It is also the American farm bill when it comes to grain and other crops with the huge subsidies by the Americans that are hurting Canadian farmers and hurting Canadian producers. We have very efficient producers in this country that cannot compete with the American farm bill and these massive subsidies. It is another example of the problems that we have because the United States is not taking a reasonable attitude toward Canada and Canadian producers.

I will give a couple of examples of how it affects ordinary people. I received a phone call early in July from a farmer in Balcarres in my riding. One of his neighbours had a bull that had been injured and because of the injury the bull had to be destroyed. The problem was there are no slaughterhouses nearby. To ship the bull to a slaughterhouse to be slaughtered would have cost more in terms of the freight for shipping the bull than the farmer would have received in the proceeds from the sale of the meat from the bull.

That is a good example how mad cow disease affects ordinary people, when the freight bill is higher than the proceeds from the sale of a particular product.

There is another example in my riding which shows again how some of the Americans overreacted. In rural Saskatchewan near my hometown of Wynyard is Big Quill Lake. It is about the fourth saltiest body of water in the world. Believe it or not, there is a shrimp fishing business on the lake. There is shrimp fishing in the Prairies, small brine shrimp. They rely on American buyers. They were told by the American buyers in June that they would have to delay buying the product until about August 1 because of mad cow. That mad cow is affecting the shrimp business does not make any sense.

Those are a couple of examples of how this has really affected ordinary people right across the Peace.

The beef industry is extremely important. I was at the demonstration on the Hill last Wednesday. It is extremely important for all Canadians. Farming really is the foundation on which our country is built. When the farmer is better off, we are all better off. When the rancher is better off, then we are all better off in terms of the spinoffs in the economy and the jobs right across the country.

It seems that the federal government does not realize this because it has been very slow to react. In fact since the crisis broke a few months ago, the federal government has only offered to pay 60% of a $400 million program, some $276 million. The provinces have to put up the other $184 million. Since then, in Saskatchewan the provincial government has been adding extra money to the program, as have some of the other provinces as well because of the importance of the beef industry to the country.

The federal government has the money. There is a budgetary surplus. There is a contingency fund. The cattle producers need the money if they are to survive. Investment in the cattle industry at this time would be helpful not just to the industry but to the country in general in terms of stimulating the economy, circulating cash throughout the economy and making sure there are jobs for more Canadians regardless of where people live. These are very important things that should be noted by the federal government.

As I said before, the mistake we have made over the years is that we have far too few packing plants. Most of that industry is now going south of the border to the United States. That has to be changed so that we have more packing plants and more jobs in Canada. If that happened it would be a very positive thing.

The beef industry, the farming industry, is extremely important. We have had an incident of one cow that has caused a great deal of damage to the economy. Then we have a federal government that has been very slow to react in terms of trying to provide some assistance to the farmers of Canada. That is what a government is all about, to provide assistance to those who are in need. This a case where people are in need. This is a case where people need some help.

As I said before, the Americans have been very insensitive to the fact that we are their major trading partner. They have been insensitive to the fact that it is a very integrated industry. They have been insensitive to the fact that there was only one cow, and that cow may have eaten food that came from the United States.

Our government should have taken a much tougher stand with the Americans. It should have been much more aggressive with them on this issue. It should be providing more assistance to the cow calf producers and ranchers right across the country.

[Acadians, September 19th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes on his motion.

The deportation of the Acadian people took place between 1755 and 1763. Acadians refer to this period as the “Grand Dérangement”.

I find this expression far too low-key to describe the ordeal of the Acadian people, and one which reflects their exceptional fortitude. Évangéline , the epic poem by Longfellow, is a reflection of the painful history of the Acadian people and depicts a brutal and cruel deportation. Here is, in a nutshell, what happened.

Before the arrival of the British army, Acadia encompassed the current provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. It was made up of a string of rural and coastal communities, which depended on trade, fishing and agriculture. Acadian families were the first European families to settle in Canada, 400 years ago. These communities lived in perfect harmony with the aboriginal peoples.

Upon landing in Acadia, the British army behaved like an occupying force and demanded that Acadians swear allegiance to the Crown, unconditionally and notwithstanding their cultural and religious distinctiveness. When the Acadians refused, the British army reacted with brutality, burning down homes, taking control of fertile lands, and splitting up families by making men, women and children board different ships to be deported to Louisiana and all over the coast of what is now the eastern United States. Today, the people living in Louisiana are Cajuns, former Acadians. Others ended up in jails in England or were forced to go back to France.

Members can imagine that the hardships and injustice continued long after the journey ended. The hardships and intolerance are akin to what was experienced by the first nations, the Métis and all our aboriginal peoples, something that, in many instances, they continue to live with the consequences of.

Still today, we can see human rights being trampled in many countries. Around the world, religious, linguistic or cultural minorities are being persecuted and see their rights trampled, often very violently.

Canada itself is far from perfect. It seems to be hard for us, in Canada, to make amends for denying the rights of native Canadians, who are still living in deplorable conditions. We often have trouble maintaining a democratic, open and egalitarian society. Nothing can be taken for granted.

However, the good news is that modern Canada, born from this terrible tragedy, was built on a solid foundation of linguistic duality, tolerance and openness to differences. The key to modern Canada, as found in section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, relies on the principle of equal rights and on our refusal to impose our will on a minority, where human rights are concerned. It is on such a positive attitude that modern Canada was built. Refusing to let the might makes right principle prevail has made Canada a showplace of unity with diversity.

This is why we are free to debate this motion which reflects the will not only of the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes but of the Acadian people that still bears deep scars as a result of this cruel attempt to eradicate them and trample over their dignity.

A philosopher once said, “That which does not kill you makes you stronger”. Acadian Canadians are proud to have survived the challenge, the Grand Dérangement. Today they are strong and proud members of the Canadian family. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who could not be here today and whom I have the honour of representing in this debate, is a vibrant example of an Acadian contribution to our country.

As a western Canadian I support this motion. The expulsion of Acadians was a senseless and barbaric act. For those who think that this was the way they used to do business in those days, may I remind them of a more recent event in 1923, the Chinese exclusion act, which also separated families by making it impossible for a wife to join her husband. Parliament rescinded this outrageous Chinese exclusion act and issued a formal apology to the Chinese Canadian community.

It is high time that we requested a formal apology from the Crown for the way we in the past treated one of the minorities that founded this nation. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has already made a formal apology to the Maori people from New Zealand, in 1995, and to the people of Amritsar in India, in 1999. There are plenty of opportunities for a formal apology to the Acadian people as outlined by the Société Nationale de l'Acadie.

Acadia will be celebrating its 400th anniversary in 2004; 400 years of history.

And if not on the 400th anniversary, then why not in 2005 for the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the Grand Dérangement?

The British Crown will therefore have many opportunities to recognize the wrongs done to the Acadian people.

I urge all hon. members to take notice of the motion brought forward by my friend from Verchères—Les-Patriotes and to realize its significance for these people, who have also helped build our country, Canada.

[Canada Post, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.

The government has had a longstanding moratorium on the closure of rural post offices. However the Liberal Party's fine print now opens the door to what it calls amalgamations which really means closures.

There are now over 20 rural post offices in the province of Saskatchewan that are slated to be amalgamated, including Hubbard in my riding.

Since amalgamation really means closure, can the minister give the House a commitment that his government and his party will keep their word: no more closures, no amalgamations?

[Agriculture, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister.

Unfortunately, as many as 650,000 cattle may have to be killed because of restrictions on Canadian beef exports. Those cattle older than 30 months cannot be exported and therefore have a lower market value because of the lack of market in our country. These cattle are an acting time bomb for the industry.

Could the acting prime minister tell the House what the government has planned, to deal with a national cattle cull, and how this cull strategy will be financed?

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

I was here, too.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share that concern. That is why I think we should be trying as hard as we can to make sure this gets into the justice committee right away and goes through the House of Commons before this session ends, probably around the middle of November or the early party of November. I do not think the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former minister of finance, will have this as a very high priority on his list. If there was ever someone who is tied to corporate Canada, it is the person who used to be the minister of finance and who will be the next prime minister of this country, at least until the next election takes place. It is important that this bill goes through the House now, because I do not think we will have a friendly audience when the next prime minister takes the chair.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is like asking me to look into a crystal ball. That is difficult to do, except to say that in almost any industry in this country there could be examples where people are killed because a company is not careful enough in terms of the workplace and workplace safety, and I even think of long distance truck drivers and the long hours they work. Someone has to be responsible for those long hours and make sure they have adequate rest before they take their trucks back out on the road.

There are many industries where people can be hurt or killed on the job because a company is trying to cut corners, because it is trying to improve the bottom line, because the motivation of its shareholders is to improve the bottom line. Unless we have legislation that also says when we improve the bottom line we have to do so with a safe workplace, then often it is the workplace that is sacrificed in order to make a profit or a buck. That is why this legislation is extremely important.

I gather that in the case of Westray, despite all the fanfare about this most modern mine that was supposed to work extremely well, the workers at the time were really concerned about safety in that mine. I know that some of what came forward in the Richard commission pointed out workers who were concerned about safety and concerned about the possibility of methane gas down in the mine. These are things that were raised, but the workers were ignored. That is why we need this legislation that is before the House.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

It would die on the Order Paper for the third time if that were to happen.

Bill C-45 is a step in the right direction and we should work at committee stage to achieve the amendments that would clarify some of the issues I have raised in my comments today.

For instance, the bill should include a clause stating the exact test to be used when assigning liability to a corporation, a director or an officer personally. Those are the kinds of things that have to be done. We have to clarify the role and the responsibility of the parent corporation and its criminal responsibility. If none exist, then we must be mindful that actions taken against a corporation might be successful but may not in fact hold the primary offender to task. These are the things that I believe we have to do. In the end, we have to make sure that we can hold large corporations in our country responsible in a legal way in terms of the civil courts and in terms of the criminal law for any negligence that might have caused an unsafe working place and caused injury or death on the job.

Twenty-six people were killed in May 1992 in Westray. As I said at the beginning of my comments, their families and the people of that community have worked hard to change the law. We have now come a fair way over 11 years, but this bill has died on the Order Paper a couple of times so I appeal to members of all parties in this House to make sure it is a priority.

I do not know what the Prime Minister's plans are, and the member for LaSalle--Émard may not even know what the Prime Minister's plans are, but there is a possibility that come the eleventh of November the House of Commons may adjourn, and it may not come back again until February, with a new prime minister. I hope the government House leader and the other House leaders will make sure that if this is a short session one of the bills that passes in this session will be this bill on corporate responsibility. That is the least we can do as a testimony to those who died in Westray and a testimony to those who have fought so hard to make corporations responsible for any criminality or negligence in the workplace.

[Criminal Code, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-45 today. It is an important piece of legislation regarding corporate accountability and corporate criminal liability.

The bill comes from the disaster in 1992 at Westray mine in Pictou County, Nova Scotia. I looked at the Westray story, the first volume of the Richard commission when the report was tabled back in 1997. On the front page there is a quote from a French sociologist, the inspector general of mines in France back in the 1800s. He said “The most important thing to come out of a mine is the miner”.

Over the years we have seen many tragedies around the world and in this country and many people have died because of unsafe working conditions in mines. Many times the company that owns the mine, the directors and senior management team who make the decisions are not held responsible or liable for what has happened, for the human suffering, for the people who have died and for the people who have been injured.

Regarding the bill before the House today, I want first of all to commend the families who have put a lot of pressure on the federal Parliament and other parliamentarians to make sure we have legislation that addresses the issue of corporate responsibility. I also want to publicly acknowledge the work done by the trade union movement, particularly the steelworkers, in terms of lobbying for the legislation before the House.

I also want to put on the record that two members of my caucus, the member for Halifax and the member for Churchill, both had private members' bills that were discussed in the House. They were very instrumental in promoting the idea of doing something about corporate criminal responsibility for directors and for senior management teams of companies in this country.

Finally, throughout the process, which included a private member's motion by the now leader of the Conservative Party, the justice committee tabled a report in the House of Commons. In November 2002 the government responded and on June 12, 2003 Bill C-45 was tabled in the House.

I want to go over some things which may be a bit technical but which are important in terms of analyzing the bill. I want to say at the outset that we offer support in principle, as does the steelworkers union, to the bill before the House. We will be moving amendments in committee and arguing for changes to make sure we tighten and strengthen the bill at committee stage.

At the outset Bill C-45 attempts to provide a modern sentencing regime for corporations and other organizations. By exposing the decision makers to the consequences of their actions, the legislation represents a step forward in corporate accountability. There is now a body of law that has been extensively developed to assign civil liability for various regulatory offences and torturous acts. Often these means of redress are only available to government, creditors or shareholders, but not for the average worker, the average consumer, the average Canadian. That is where I hope the legislation would be a positive thing in the years that lie ahead.

The proposed legislation brings Criminal Code provisions in line with civil law liability by making corporations, the directors and officers of those corporations, responsible for their activities and for those of the representatives of the management of the company. This translates into greater accountability because decision makers will be obliged to undertake a more rigorous supervision and control over the actions of their employees and their agents, which we hope will prevent disasters such as that which we saw in Westray in Pictou County, Nova Scotia.

These Criminal Code amendments would also create greater accountability for corporations, because judicial action against corporations is not limited to one's financial relationship with the corporation. Instead, the crown would be able to prosecute a corporation on behalf of the public for wrongful conduct which, in its absence, would be absorbed by the public market. We must look carefully into what the legislation does in order to keep the parent companies accountable. That is something new in terms of what is in the legislation.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is a fine line to be walked between accountability and the public interest. For example, sometimes it would not make sense to indict a corporate director or other people in corporate management and impose massive criminal fines if those fines meant having to wind up a company which employs 500 people to meet those liabilities.

It is important to note that in a situation where a corporation is only competitive because of its low operating costs which were achieved only at the expense of worker safety, for example, a sweatshop, it may be in the best interests of the public to completely liquidate the company.

These are decisions that have to be made by the courts. We must not be afraid to wind up a company and that is at the discretion of the judiciary, and it is our job as legislators to message such a situation to the public. It would not make sense to impose a criminal fine for a negligent act that damaged the homes of a community if those fines are not going to be used for rebuilding those homes in that community.

The legislation or the courts should understand that there are broad mitigating circumstances to be considered in sentencing. These circumstances should include things like how widely held securities are, how many employees the company has, how many people depend on the operation of the company for a job, for taxes, and how many institutions or public services the company supports.

What I mean is that we have to pick the proper forums for our legal battles. It does not make sense to assign criminal liability where civil liability offers a better solution. If someone has been harmed by the negligent actions of a corporation, I think most people would want compensation and restitution. This can only be achieved in many cases through civil litigation. In some cases the director may well have to be the person directly responsible for the conditions that led to the negligent activity. In these cases, justice in the court of public opinion would only be served by incarceration.

We must be clear that both options need to be possible in order to achieve the maximum social good. That being said, I must be clear on the fact that public opinion often has a very short memory. Justice must first and foremost be served for the family who has lost a spouse, or a family who has lost a brother or a sister and now has to figure out how to care for the children or the family without the companionship, without the support, and yes, without the salary of the mother, the father or the brother or the sister.

Bill C-45 addresses this concern by adding section 732.1 to the Criminal Code whereby a judge may order the offender to pay restitution to a person for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the offence, or the judge may order the corporation to establish policies to prevent further offences. This section has an added benefit whereby anyone who cannot afford to take civil action against a corporation could be awarded restitution through the criminal prosecution of the offender.

I would be interested to see how this section would operate and we would have to find this out at committee stage. For instance, can a victim petition the court for a restitution order during criminal proceedings or is it solely at the prosecutor's discretion? It is curious to note that the section uses the term “person” as opposed to “persons”. I hope the legislation contemplates that more than one person could be affected by an offence.

There are many questions and concerns about this legislation as well. The legislation makes corporate negligence a criminal offence. However in law, negligence has nothing to do with intent. The civil test for establishing negligence lies on the balance of probabilities, whereas the criminal test in general is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would criminal negligence have to be determined on the balance of probabilities or on the question of reasonable doubt? Again this has to be determined at committee stage.

Corporate gross negligence should usually fall under the jurisdiction of both civil and criminal courts. Determining those tests will be outlined by the court. One can only hope this legislation will establish new avenues that will allow the courts to make the best possible use of the civil and criminal systems to deliver the broadest possible form of justice to the workers of Canada.

Where do civil claims stand in line against criminal fines? If there is a civil claim and a criminal fine, where does the civil claim stand in line against the criminal fine?

For instance, would a court order take priority over the claims of unsecured creditors, such as those of employees, secured creditors such as banks, or victims? For instance, if a civil court orders a corporation to pay a million dollars to a victim for a negligent act, a criminal court has fined the company a million dollars for the same act and the corporation has only enough to meet one order, then who will the court see is going to get paid first, the victim? Or do they share the awarded fine? I would not want to see the victim's damages jeopardized by the criminal court order, especially if the order is against a faceless corporation that cannot physically enter a prison anyway.

One can hope that this law exposing corporations to criminal liability would not deflect attention from the reality of the situation. A corporation is made up of shareholders, officers, employees and the assets of that particular company. The only people it makes sense to punish are the directors and officers, because in the end they are the decision makers. However, a director can hide behind a corporate name if the court is satisfied that it does not need to pierce the corporate veil in order to assign corporate liability to the directors personally.

But the point of the legislation is accountability. It is not enough to hold an office building responsible when the managers are the people who should be responsible.

One can hope that the opportunity to assign criminal liability would not reduce the diligence of regulators and litigants in civil courts, where there is a stronger incentive to make directors personally responsible as opposed to making the corporation responsible.

The legislation should be approved in principle as a positive step forward in terms of corporate responsibility, but the key thing is that this is just one tree of a larger forest. This piece of legislation is not the be-all and end-all. It must be complemented with more practical and responsive forms of redress, be they civil, criminal or regulatory in nature. By developing a more coherent cross-discipline regime, true accountability can be attained, because what we are really dealing with is a stack of issues that make up the whole.

One should keep in mind that the point of punishment is accountability and helping out the people who have been the victims. Criminal liability does not always meet those objectives because imprisoning an officer or making a corporation pay a fine to the Crown does not do anything to ease the hardships faced by the victims. In the end it is the victims who have to be compensated. Where a wrong has been committed, it is the victims who must have the compensation. Civil court, in that case, is really the most appropriate place to get justice for victims.

Certainly the principle of the bill is a good one and it is going in a certain direction: toward improving the law of our country. At second reading we certainly support the bill before us, but I think we have to work closely with our friends in the trade union movement and with other workers to maintain the political momentum for the bill. As it stands now, the justice committee is swamped and may not even give the bill the priority it deserves. Ultimately Bill C-45 could die on the Order Paper if this session of Parliament is not a long one.

[Canadian Television, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the Minister of Finance cut $25 million in annual funding for Canadian television producers, and increased support for American producers by $25 million per year. Yesterday, the government slashed a further $12.5 million from next year's budget.

Instead of making cuts, will this government announce stable and appropriate funding for Canadian television?