Vic Toews

[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?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have suggested certain approaches. I have indicated specifically from my portfolio's responsibility as a critic for justice that there are consistent failures by the government to deal firmly and effectively by putting a legislative framework in place. The government has failed to do that. Indeed the government, its members and its ministers continue to support the fundraising activities of terrorists.

If we had an appropriate legislative framework in place ministers could not go to fundraising activities for terrorists in search of delegates for a leadership. When I talk about firm and effective responses, the member has made certain assumptions. He has made certain statements that are simplistic. He obviously did not listen to what I was saying about a legislative response.

We can sit around and psychoanalyze all we want but our allies need us today. We have to be there for them.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I for one will not stand here, ring my hands and say that if we pass legislation and provide the resources something might slip through. I understand that we do not live in a perfect world. I understand that as long as we are human there will always be problems like that.

I find it amazing that we are talking about people who have the moral values of an Adolf Hitler. We could talk about trying to understand the root causes of why Nazi aggression occurred then deal with it. Mr. Chamberlain tried to do exactly that and failed. We are dealing with exactly the same kind of people.

The form of war and the enemy may change, but evil does not change and the response of democratic nations to that evil can never change. It must be firm, it must be resolute, and we need to stand with our allies.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the record speak for itself.

On behalf of the people of Provencher, I want to offer our condolences and prayers to the victims and their families and to the thousands of ordinary people who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, including the many thousands upon thousands of frontline workers and volunteers.

I am very encouraged that the Prime Minister has affirmed that Canada will stand together with the United States, our neighbour, our friend and our ally at this time of crisis, and that we will support and assist the American people in every possible way.

Let us be firm in our resolve to deal effectively with these outlaws and criminals. Let not the suggestion come from this House that the Americans are somehow to blame for the terrible tragedy of September 11.

There will in the days, weeks and months to come be heightened security and talk of war. There will also be questions asking what can be done to prevent it from happening again, as we are starting to ask today.

I want to state at the onset that the concerns I raise are in fact raised in a spirit of co-operation and with a view to resolving this grave crisis so that we too can say at some date in the future that our efforts here were not in vain.

CSIS has been clear in respect of the threat of terrorism. In June 2000 its report said that terrorism in the years ahead was expected to become more violent, indiscriminant and unpredictable than in recent years.

In 1998 CSIS reports indicated that there may have been as many as 50 international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. Although the United States and the United Kingdom now have strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity, Canada has failed to respond with appropriate legislation.

Through that lack of action, Canada has encouraged conditions that facilitate international terrorism. If we want to find root causes of terrorism, inaction on the part of democratic nations to respond to terrorism breeds more terrorism. The federal government must be firm and take steps to introduce specific and effective legislation as our British and American allies have done, legislation that would suppress Canadian terrorist networks that raise money to finance political violence around the world.

It is a thin excuse to say that the Americans had the legislation but it did not stop the attack. There may well be issues of resources or implementation, but at least the Americans have the framework to defend their nation. Canadians to date do not have the benefit of that legislation and even if we had the benefit of the legislation we do not have the resources and manpower committed to enforcing such a framework.

Many today have talked about the United Kingdom terrorism act of 2000 that came into force about half a year ago. The comprehensive measures included in the act, includes an extensive definition of terrorism. It includes new powers to seize suspected terrorist cash at borders, a new offence of inciting terrorist acts abroad from within the United Kingdom, specific offences related to training for terrorist activities and a number of other provisions.

As well, the Americans have taken firm legislative steps to deal with terrorism. They have the framework in place. We need to do exactly the same thing. The Americans and the British have recognized the serious problem the international community is facing and they are initiating their own solutions while unfortunately Canada sits on the sidelines.

Although Canada participated in the development of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel signed in 1994, the International convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings signed in 1997 and the International convention on the suppression of terrorist financing signed in 1999, Canada has yet to develop new legislation to permit it to give effect to these conventions and to ratify them. It is a failure that offers hope to international terrorism. The reason they have not been ratified is that Canada simply lacks the necessary legislation to implement these conventions.

Canada is obliged, pursuant to the suppression of terrorist financing convention, to make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. Bill C-16, the charities registration act, introduced last spring was the government's attempt to address this issue. However, does anyone believe that this response will do anything to stop terrorist groups from fundraising? Does the revocation of one's charitable status deter terrorists who are prepared to fly a modern jet into the side of a skyscraper? Is the revocation of their charitable number going to stop them? That is the legislative response of the government to date.

Extradition laws have also become a major security concern for Canadians since the decision of the supreme court on February 15, 2001. We all know the facts of that case involving a brutal triple murder by two Canadians of three Americans in Washington State. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the these murderers could not be returned to the United States unless the justice minister sought assurances that the death penalty could not apply to them.

The justice minister's own lawyers two days after arguing a refugee case, referred to the Burns and Rafay supreme court decision and said “strike down that law and you will create a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals”. Yet the Minister of Justice stood up on two occasions and indicated that I had misrepresented a judgment. Her own lawyers said one thing to the supreme court, the Minister of Justice said another to the House.

The Department of Justice has not said what it will do to stop potential murderers and of course international terrorists from coming to Canada.

If the criminals involved in the New York City and Washington attack on the U.S. made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution, the supreme court decision would prohibit the Canadian government from extraditing them on the grounds that according to the charter of the supreme court it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. What effect does this have on the legal system? What effect does this have on military concerns and what does it have on diplomatic issues?

These are the issues that we need to grapple with and resolve.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre-East.

I am a little surprised at the comment I heard coming from the member that somehow the Americans are to blame for the horrible attack on the World Trade Center because their security was not secure enough.

It concerns me that we are shifting the blame onto our ally at a time when we should be standing strong with them and saying that their country and people have been the strongest defenders of democracy and freedom in the world. To suggest that our allies are responsible for the attack is disgusting.

On behalf of the people of Provencher--