Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2019-04-29 11:30:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert\u2014Edmonton, CPC)",
        "fr": "M. Michael Cooper (St. Albert\u2014Edmonton, PCC)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5881868\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>, an act to amend the Federal Courts Act, introduced by the hon. member for <a data-HoCid=\"214264\" href=\"/politicians/peter-julian/\" title=\"Peter Julian\">New Westminster\u2014Burnaby</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881869\" data-originallang=\"en\">The legislation seeks to amend the Federal Courts Act, to provide the Federal Court of Canada with jurisdiction to hear claims brought by foreign claimants with respect to causes of actions that took place outside of the territory of Canada, where the acts or omissions alleged contravened international law or a treaty to which Canada was a party. Without more, there are a number of problems with Bill <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881870\" data-originallang=\"en\">To begin with, the legislation would radically transform the mandate and jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881871\" data-originallang=\"en\"> When the Federal Court of Canada was established, it was established to deal with certain types of matters that fell within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. The legislation would fundamentally change that. The Federal Court of Canada would be transformed into essentially an international court dealing with international claims brought by international claimants with little to no connection to Canada whatsoever.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881872\" data-originallang=\"en\">Aside from the issues and principles such as the presumption against extraterritoriality, comity and the principles respecting the sovereignty of foreign states under customary international law, all of which are implicated by Bill <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>, from a practical standpoint, there is a question about the appropriateness of the Federal Court of Canada becoming such an international forum.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881873\" data-originallang=\"en\"> By virtue of the international actions that would be invited to be brought forward to the Federal Court of Canada, such actions would necessarily implicate the interests of foreign states. As such, the court would be required to consider questions relating to foreign affairs, international human rights law and international commerce. This is far outside the jurisdiction and mandate of the Federal Court and its area of expertise. Moreover, the legislation would completely upend Canadian and international law respecting the assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881874\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The universal test for the assertion of jurisdiction is a bona fide substantial connection between the subject matter and the source of jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in the Hape decision, citing the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Lotus case:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881875\" data-originallang=\"en\"> ... that jurisdiction \u201ccannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention\u201d... According to the decision in the Lotus case, extraterritorial jurisdiction is governed by international law rather than being at the absolute discretion of individual states. While extraterritorial jurisdiction\u2014prescriptive, enforcement or adjudicative \u2014 exists under international law, it is subject to strict limits under international law that are based on sovereign equality, non-intervention and the territoriality principle. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881876\" data-originallang=\"en\">Moreover the Supreme Court in the Terry decision stated:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881877\" data-originallang=\"en\"> This Court has repeatedly affirmed the territorial limitations imposed on Canadian law by the principles of state sovereignty and international comity. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881878\" data-originallang=\"en\">The Supreme Court in the Hape decision did make clear, at paragraph 68, that it was within the jurisdiction of Parliament to pass laws that would have the effect of asserting jurisdiction over non-Canadians outside the sovereign territory of Canada. However, in doing so, the question would become whether it would \u201cviolate international law and offend the comity of nations.\u201d</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881879\" data-originallang=\"en\">Parliament has passed legislation that would have an extraterritorial effect in some very narrow and limited circumstances.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881880\" data-originallang=\"en\"> For example, Parliament has passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Pursuant to section 6 of that legislation, every person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime outside of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence. However, under section 8 of that act, to be prosecuted, the accused person would have to have some substantial connection to Canada. More specifically, section 8 provides that an individual can be prosecuted only if at the time of the offence the person was a Canadian citizen or a citizen of a state engaged in armed conflict against Canada; or the victim was a Canadian citizen or a citizen of a state allied with Canada in an armed conflict; or, if after the time the offence was committed, the person was present in Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881881\" data-originallang=\"en\">Additionally, section 7 of the Criminal Code contains a number of provisions that deem certain acts that occurred outside of Canada to be deemed to have occurred inside of Canada, including attacks on internationally-protected persons and UN personnel. However, to be prosecuted under those sections of the Criminal Code, the act must be deemed to have been committed in Canada only if the accused was a Canadian citizen or normally resided in Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881882\" data-originallang=\"en\">However, the legislation clearly is inconsistent with any basis for a real and substantial connection that is the basis for the lawful assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Indeed, claimants could bring civil suits in the Federal Court of Canada with virtually no connection whatsoever to Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881883\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Additionally, there is some question about the basis of whether it is consistent with international law to permit civil actions against foreign corporations. This issue was considered recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Jesner, which was considering the alien tort statute. In the Jesner decision, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether common law liability under the ATS extended to a foreign corporate defendant. In considering that question, Justice Kennedy, writing for the court, determined that he was not satisfied that it would be consistent with international law or at least that it was not established that it was so. Justice Kennedy stated: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881884\" data-originallang=\"en\"> It does not follow, however, that current principles of international law extend liability\u2014civil or criminal\u2014for human-rights violations to corporations or other artificial entities. This is confirmed by the fact that the charters of respective international criminal tribunals often exclude corporations from their jurisdictional reach. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881885\" data-originallang=\"en\">In so stating that, Justice Kennedy cited the Nuremberg tribunal as well as the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the statute of the international tribunal for Rwanda, as well as the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, all of which are limited to natural persons.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881886\" data-originallang=\"en\">Justice Kennedy concluded:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881887\" data-originallang=\"en\"> In the American legal system, of course, corporations are often subject to liability for the conduct of their human employees, and so it may seem necessary and natural that corporate entities are liable for violations of international law under the ATS.... But the international community has not yet taken that step. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881888\" data-originallang=\"en\">Therefore, for these and other reasons, I cannot support Bill <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5881868\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je prends la parole au sujet du projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les Cours f\u00e9d\u00e9rales, pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"214264\" href=\"/politicians/peter-julian/\" title=\"Peter Julian\">New Westminster\u2014Burnaby</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881869\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le projet de loi vise \u00e0 modifier la Loi sur les Cours f\u00e9d\u00e9rales, afin de conf\u00e9rer comp\u00e9tence \u00e0 la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada dans les actions intent\u00e9es par des \u00e9trangers relativement \u00e0 des actes ou omissions qui auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 commis hors du territoire du Canada en violation du droit international ou de trait\u00e9s auxquels le Canada est partie. Sans plus, le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a> pr\u00e9sente un certain nombre de probl\u00e8mes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881870\" data-originallang=\"en\">D'abord, le projet de loi transformerait radicalement le mandat et la comp\u00e9tence de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881871\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Au d\u00e9part, la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tablie pour traiter certains types d'affaires relevant de la comp\u00e9tence l\u00e9gislative du gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral. Le projet de loi changerait fondamentalement cela en transformant essentiellement la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada en un tribunal international traitant d'actions internationales intent\u00e9es par des \u00e9trangers ayant peu, voire rien \u00e0 voir avec le Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881872\" data-originallang=\"en\">Au-del\u00e0 des probl\u00e8mes et des enjeux li\u00e9s aux principes de pr\u00e9somption contre l'extraterritorialit\u00e9, de la courtoisie et de la souverainet\u00e9 des pays \u00e9trangers selon le droit international coutumier \u2014 qui sont tous touch\u00e9s par le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a> \u2014, d'un point de vue pratique, il y a lieu de se demander si c'est une bonne id\u00e9e que de faire de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada une telle instance internationale. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881873\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En raison de la nature internationale des poursuites qui pourraient \u00eatre d\u00e9pos\u00e9es devant la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada, celles-ci toucheraient n\u00e9cessairement les int\u00e9r\u00eats de pays \u00e9trangers. Ainsi, la Cour serait appel\u00e9e \u00e0 traiter des questions concernant les affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res, le droit international en mati\u00e8re de droits de la personne et le commerce international. Cela d\u00e9passe largement la comp\u00e9tence de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale, son mandat et son domaine d'expertise. En outre, le projet de loi viendrait contredire les lois canadiennes et internationales concernant l'exercice de la comp\u00e9tence extraterritoriale. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881874\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le crit\u00e8re reconnu de tous en mati\u00e8re d'exercice de la comp\u00e9tence extraterritoriale est l'existence d'un lien l\u00e9gitime entre la question soulev\u00e9e et la source de la comp\u00e9tence. Comme l'a affirm\u00e9 la Cour supr\u00eame du Canada dans l'arr\u00eat Hape en citant la d\u00e9cision de la Cour permanente de justice internationale dans l'affaire du Lotus: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881875\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [...] que la comp\u00e9tence \u00ab ne pourrait \u00eatre exerc\u00e9e hors du territoire, sinon en vertu d\u2019une r\u00e8gle permissive d\u00e9coulant du droit international coutumier ou d\u2019une convention \u00bb [...] Cette d\u00e9cision confirme que la comp\u00e9tence extraterritoriale est r\u00e9gie par le droit international et ne rel\u00e8ve donc pas de la seule volont\u00e9 des \u00c9tats individuels. S\u2019il est vrai que le droit international reconna\u00eet la comp\u00e9tence extraterritoriale \u2014 normative, d\u2019ex\u00e9cution ou juridictionnelle \u2014, il lui impose des limites strictes fond\u00e9es sur les principes de l\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 souveraine, de la non-intervention et de la territorialit\u00e9. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881876\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En outre, voici ce qu'a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 la Cour supr\u00eame dans l'arr\u00eat Terry: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881877\" data-originallang=\"en\"> [N]otre Cour a confirm\u00e9 \u00e0 maintes reprises les limites territoriales impos\u00e9es aux lois canadiennes par les principes de la souverainet\u00e9 des \u00c9tats et de la courtoisie internationale. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881878\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Dans l'arr\u00eat Hape, au paragraphe 68, la Cour supr\u00eame a clairement indiqu\u00e9 que l'adoption de lois r\u00e9gissant la conduite de non-Canadiens \u00e0 l'ext\u00e9rieur du territoire souverain du Canada rel\u00e8ve de la comp\u00e9tence du Parlement. Toutefois, si le Parlement adopte de telles lois, la question serait de savoir s'il \u00ab contrevient au droit international et manque \u00e0 la courtoisie entre les nations \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881879\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le Parlement a adopt\u00e9 une mesure l\u00e9gislative qui s'appliquerait \u00e0 l'ext\u00e9rieur du territoire canadien dans des circonstances tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cises et limit\u00e9es. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881880\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Par exemple, le Parlement a adopt\u00e9 la Loi sur les crimes contre l'humanit\u00e9 et les crimes de guerre. Aux termes de l'article 6 de cette loi, quiconque commet, \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, un g\u00e9nocide, un crime contre l'humanit\u00e9 ou un crime de guerre, est coupable d'un acte criminel et peut \u00eatre poursuivi pour cette infraction. Cependant, aux termes de l'article 8 de la m\u00eame loi, quiconque est ainsi accus\u00e9 doit avoir des liens substantiels avec le Canada pour \u00eatre poursuivi. L'article 8 pr\u00e9voit pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment que l'accus\u00e9 peut \u00eatre poursuivi uniquement si, \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque, il \u00e9tait citoyen canadien ou citoyen d'un \u00c9tat participant \u00e0 un conflit arm\u00e9 contre le Canada; ou que la victime \u00e9tait un citoyen canadien ou un ressortissant d'un \u00c9tat alli\u00e9 du Canada dans un conflit arm\u00e9; ou si, apr\u00e8s la commission pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e de l'infraction, l'accus\u00e9 se trouvait au Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881881\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par ailleurs, l'article 7 du Code criminel contient de nombreuses dispositions qui consid\u00e8rent certaines infractions commises \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger comme ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 commises en territoire canadien, notamment les attaques contre des personnes jouissant d'une protection internationale et des employ\u00e9s des Nations unies. Toutefois, pour qu'il y ait des poursuites aux termes de ces articles du Code criminel, on consid\u00e9rera que l'infraction a \u00e9t\u00e9 commise au Canada uniquement si l'accus\u00e9 \u00e9tait citoyen canadien ou r\u00e9sidait normalement au Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881882\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Toutefois, le projet de loi exclut manifestement tout lien r\u00e9el et significatif permettant de faire valoir une juridiction extraterritoriale sur le plan juridique. En fait, en l'absence de tout lien avec le Canada, on pourrait intenter des poursuites au civil devant la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale du Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881883\" data-originallang=\"en\">De plus, on se demande si le fait d'autoriser des poursuites au civil contre des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s \u00e9trang\u00e8res est conforme au droit international. La d\u00e9cision rendue r\u00e9cemment par la Cour supr\u00eame des \u00c9tats-Unis dans l'affaire Jesner portait sur la question de savoir si la responsabilit\u00e9 d\u00e9coulant de la common law aux termes de l'Alien Tort Statute pouvait s'appliquer \u00e0 une entreprise d\u00e9fenderesse \u00e9trang\u00e8re. Apr\u00e8s avoir examin\u00e9 la question, le juge Kennedy a conclu qu'il n'\u00e9tait pas convaincu que cela \u00e9tait conforme au droit international ou, \u00e0 tout le moins, qu'on n'avait pas \u00e9tabli que c'\u00e9tait le cas. Le juge Kennedy a en effet d\u00e9clar\u00e9 ceci:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881884\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Toutefois, il ne s'ensuit pas que les principes actuels du droit international permettent de tenir des entreprises ou d'autres entit\u00e9s artificielles responsables \u2014 au plan civil ou p\u00e9nal \u2014 de violations des droits de la personne. Cela est confirm\u00e9 par le fait que les chartes des tribunaux p\u00e9naux internationaux respectifs excluent souvent les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s de leur champ de comp\u00e9tence. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881885\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pour motiver son point de vue, le juge Kennedy invoque le Tribunal de Nuremberg, de m\u00eame que les statuts respectifs du Tribunal p\u00e9nal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie, du Tribunal international pour le Rwanda et le Statut de Rome de la Cour p\u00e9nale internationale, qui limitent leur comp\u00e9tence aux personnes physiques.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5881886\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le juge Kennedy a conclu en ces termes:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881887\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Certes, dans le syst\u00e8me juridique am\u00e9ricain, les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s peuvent souvent \u00eatre tenues responsables de la conduite de leurs employ\u00e9s. En cons\u00e9quence, il pourrait sembler n\u00e9cessaire et logique que les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s soient tenues responsables de violations du droit international aux termes de l'Alien Tort Statute [\u2026] Or, la communaut\u00e9 internationale n'a pas encore agi en ce sens. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5881888\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est donc pour ces raisons, entre autres, que je ne peux pas appuyer le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"8649250\" href=\"/bills/42-1/C-331/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights)\">C-331</a>.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2019/4/29/michael-cooper-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/michael-cooper/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/4382/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "10578551",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Private Members' Business",
        "fr": "Affaires \u00e9manant des d\u00e9put\u00e9s"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Federal Courts Act",
        "fr": "La Loi sur les Cours f\u00e9d\u00e9rales"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2019/4/29/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2019%2F4%2F29%2F"
    }
}