Vic Toews

[Terrorism, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for years and now she has more rhetoric.

Yesterday, President Bush froze the finances of 27 groups that are connected to bin Laden. Our own security services have warned that some of these dangerous groups are operating here in Canada.

Will the minister take immediate steps to specifically name and legally ban these terrorist organizations from using Canada to organize international murder?

[Terrorism, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that was a watered down motion.

Yesterday's rapid response to bin Laden by President Bush is to be commended. Despite years of rhetoric from this government and this minister, there is still no bill before parliament that ratifies either the convention against the financing of terrorists or the suppression of terrorist bombings. Will the minister immediately introduce comprehensive, anti-terrorist legislation?

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, is it not amazing that she can give us that assurance when she has never been able to act on any of the other thousands of requests?

Will the minister admit that she cannot rid Canada of foreign terrorists and criminals because she has consistently ignored her responsibility to provide Canadians with a secure and effective system to extradite these individuals?

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on September 11 Canadian authorities arrested an individual with three false Yemeni passports on an airliner diverted from a flight to the United States. Charges have been filed against him in Chicago.

Is the minister able to assure us that she is able to move quickly to extradite this foreign national so that he can appear before the American courts to answer these charges?

[Criminal Code, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss the bill, an act to amend the criminal code, offences by corporations, directors and officers, I thank the member for Churchill for bringing the bill forward.

The incident that took place in Westray, Nova Scotia a number of years ago in which 26 miners were killed in an accident resulted from gross negligence on the part of managers, directors and workplace inspectors. It was a tragedy that should never have happened. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that we have this discussion to determine whether that action on the part of the corporation and its directors in fact should result in the criminal penalties being proposed here.

The inquiry released in November 1997 by Mr. Justice Peter Richard made the recommendation for the federal government to institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporations and suggested that the government introduce amendments to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for workplace safety.

As was indicated earlier, I understand that both the leader of the New Democratic Party and the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough brought forth bills and motions in respect of this issue. I also understand that last year the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously passed a motion to examine this subject further and to pass legislation in keeping with the principle of these bills and motions which called for Justice Richard's recommendations to be duly considered by the House.

I fully concur that the issue of negligence on the part of corporations in providing safe working conditions for employees must be addressed in the House. I agree that it is not sufficient that we simply have provincial legislation in this area. However, I would at the same time caution members of the House against passing legislation that may be legally flawed.

While the motivation behind the bill and its predecessors are obviously well intentioned and I think strive to meet an existing need, the implications of these criminal code amendments could be immense. That is why we need to be careful in the context of our constitutional framework to ensure that they do in fact comply with the requirements of our constitution.

In the discussion on the bill, it must be remembered that one of the principal reasons that businesses choose to incorporate in the first place is to protect its shareholders and directors from personal liability arising from the activities of the business. I am not suggesting that simply because individuals have arranged their affairs in such a way as to avoid personal responsibility that should excuse criminal conduct. Not at all. Criminal conduct should be punished whether it is done directly by individuals or indirectly through the mechanism of a corporation. Executives, directors or other officers and employees of the corporation presently do not have the benefit of immunity from criminal liability. Under our current criminal code provisions they are legally accountable for their own personal wrongdoing.

As well, corporations can be held criminally liable in their own right. In cases of offences of absolute or strict liability, a corporation would be subject to penal liability for unlawful acts or omissions of such persons who, because of their position or authority in the corporation, may be said to constitute the directing mind of the corporation.

Those are all matters that need to be considered and weighed. Some of the following matters should also be considered.

The bill would, without a doubt, create concerns among corporations be they large or small, successful or struggling. If criminal code amendments, as outlined in the bill, were applied to all corporations, they would have a negative impact on economic growth and jobs. We need to bear that in mind. However, at the same time, we need to ask the question: Is this the kind of economic growth and jobs that we want, that we jeopardize the health and safety of our workers?

It could also have a major negative impact on investment and considerably add to operating costs and consequently the profits and motivations of businesses to expand. Again, I ask: Is this a reason to put these suggestions aside? I say that is not sufficient to deny liability among those who act criminally. I think we are at a stage in our country's development where profits and motivation of business must be secondary to the security and the well-being of our workers.

If the bill were to become law, many businesses would no doubt have difficulties attracting viable candidates to sit on a board with such severe criminal code penalties. Smaller or struggling companies would be at a particular disadvantage if such standards for accountability were universally applied. I do not make those statements as a matter of conjecture. I think it is clear, given the experience of civil liability that has been attached to directors, that many corporations find it very difficult to attract qualified and competent directors.

We do not want to create the situation where we dissuade competent people from being the directing minds of corporations. We want to encourage competent people who exercise sound skill and judgment to continue working through the vehicle of corporations to ensure that jobs are preserved and created in Canada.

Again, that is an issue we need to bear in mind given the difficulty that many corporations today find in attracting directors to their boards.

Make no mistake about it, the provisions of the bill are harsh and severe. For example, according to subclause 467.4(1), an act or omission committed by an employee or an independent contractor, of which the management was not informed, could make a director, who was included in that management, personally liable for the offence as though the director had committed the act or the omission personally.

The provisions regarding workplace safety provide fines for up to $100,000 per day in which unsafe working conditions are shown to have existed. This provision alone could have the effect of bankrupting businesses which are found to have unsafe working conditions.

I merely state that to show that the penalties proposed here are harsh and severe but given the nature of the problem that we are trying to address and the discretion that rests with judges in imposing the penalties, I think from a constitutional point of view they can be justified. It is not, I would suggest, cruel and unusual punishment if that judicial discretion is maintained.

In summary, the legislation could open up the door to penalties for people who may not have acted with criminal intent and that I think is the major issue the House needs to consider. Our constitution does not support imposing criminal penalties where there is no criminal intent. That is the issue that we need to address. If we pass legislation that is constitutionally flawed, it does not help the families of those workers.

I suggest we look at that issue carefully and look at possible amendments to ensure that we are within constitutional parameters. Once again, the principles are sound and this matter should move forward.

[Privilege, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, your office would have received notice yesterday at 3.20 p.m. that I would be rising on a question of privilege on Bill C-15, the omnibus bill.

I rise on a question of privilege today with respect to the bill, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts. Our ability as parliamentarians to vote on and debate Bill C-15 is impeded because Bill C-15 reflects several unrelated principles, making it impossible for members of the House to cast their votes responsibly and intelligibly on behalf of their constituents.

A member's rights to vote and to be heard properly are well established rights that undisputedly make up the powers enjoyed by members of parliament. In a constitutional democracy, the right of members to vote is fundamental and goes to the heart of our parliamentary system. The 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v Nova Scotia confirmed the constitutional nature of parliamentary privilege on this very basis.

Many of the powers and privileges of members and the House are the result of centuries of practice and convention. The courts have clearly recognized that conventions are part of our constitution. Our legislative procedures, including voting, are part of our historical heritage, our parliamentary traditions and indeed of the privileges collectively of the House and individually of its members.

This matter should be resolved through a question of privilege because the work of members as legislators is being threatened. History will show that omnibus bills bring frustration and dysfunction to the House of Commons and indeed are cause for alarm.

One speaker was prompted to ask on January 26, 1971, which you will find at page 284 of Hansard of that day:

--where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? ...We might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada, which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.

I would argue that the numerous and unrelated principles in Bill C-15 bring us to the point where we have gone beyond what is acceptable. Bill C-15 is seeking our approval, with one debate and one vote, of eight general topics: first, child luring and child pornography over the Internet; second, animal cruelty; third, amendments to the Firearms Act, the act known as Bill C-68; fourth, criminal harassment; fifth, home invasions; sixth, disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer; seventh, a substantial reform of criminal procedure in the country; and last, allegations of miscarriage of justice.

This is unacceptable. I believe this bill could, with some justification, be broken down into five general subject areas: first, provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography; second, provisions dealing with cruelty to animals; third, provisions dealing with amendments to the separate act, the Firearms Act; fourth, provisions dealing with amendments to the criminal code and other acts in respect of criminal harassment, home invasions and disarming a peace officer; and fifth, reforming criminal procedure and procedures to address miscarriages of justice.

On page 619 of Marleau and Montpetit it is suggested that historically disputes over omnibus bills are brought about by political interaction. Page 618 describes one of those interactions. It describes how the opposition paralyzed the House for 14 days in 1982.

Fortunately or unfortunately that type of persuasion is no longer available to the opposition. For the record, the opposition attempted to reason with the government and have Bill C-15 divided, but the government was unwilling to listen. Indeed, the minister has reiterated her position and this summer indicated that she would be bringing more bills of this type.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that you have today in your hands the ability to stop this dangerous trend, which is not simply a trend that is oppressive to the opposition parties in the House but indeed is oppressive to the people of Canada who send us here to vote in accordance with their wishes.

With respect to a procedural solution, I have reviewed the rulings on these types of complaints that have been raised in the past and have concluded that a satisfactory procedural remedy is not apparent.

On May 11, 1977, at page 5522 of Hansard , the Speaker shared some of these views. He said:

This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects.

I think an hon. member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question. Previous rulings have made reference to several devices open to hon. members under our proceedings regarding bills, but it seems to me that each which has been mentioned in the past suffers from at least one weakness.

In the absence of a satisfactory resolution or procedural solution to resolve this matter, in the absence of political will, and given the minister's very clear comments that not only will she refuse to engage in any discussion relating to breaking the bill into separate bills but she in fact intends to pass more of these bills and bring more of these types of bills to the House, I think the powers of the Speaker should be invoked.

I propose that Bill C-15 should not be allowed to proceed any further in its present form on the grounds that it has a tendency to impede the House and its members in the performance of their function and the discharge of their duty.

Parliament is fundamentally about debate. The government's use of this omnibus bill is another attack on our ability to debate. The opposing views of the opposition cannot be properly heard. No matter which way we vote on this bill it will not express our views and the views of our constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. I look forward to your ruling and the comments of others in the House.

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister does not even know what case she is talking about because it is not the Burns case. It is a subsequent case where her lawyers made that compelling argument.

In light of new compelling evidence, the court may reopen legal arguments in the case of Suresh. No more compelling evidence could exist than the events of September 11.

Will the minister make an immediate application to the court in the case of Suresh to protect Canadians or will she continue to risk an open door policy for terrorists?

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's efforts in respect of laws, but last February justice department lawyers expressed their concern to the supreme court that its decisions could create a safe haven for foreign terrorists in Canada.

In light of recent events, will the minister make the appropriate application to reopen arguments before the court and close the door to terrorists?

[Terrorism, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged that terrorists in Canada are legally permitted to raise money for bombings abroad. The Liberal government refuses to implement the tough and comprehensive 1995 Ottawa declaration.

Why will the Liberal government not bring forward the necessary legislation to help our security services protect Canadians here and abroad?

[Terrorism, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is failing to meet its international obligations to fight terrorism. The Liberal government is ignoring two key international obligations: the suppression of terrorist bombings and the suppression of the financing of terrorists.

Why is the minister and the government compromising the safety and security of Canadians and our allies by ignoring these commitments?