Debates of May 4th, 2000

The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Crimes Against Humanity Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief government whip the vote on this motion will be deferred until tomorrow.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be asking that the vote be further deferred until Monday at the end of Government Orders.

However, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to the bill being debated at second reading stage, Bill C-19, to recognize the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who would take the floor for 10 minutes. That would conclude the debate on Bill C-19, if the House would give its consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to revert to the second reading motion on Bill C-19?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we would be willing to give that consent provided that our member who wanted to speak would also have the opportunity.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be negotiating across the floor and taking up the time of the House, but following the intervention of the member for Elk Island the government side would be agreeable to allowing the House leader of the Canadian Alliance Party a 10 minute intervention after the 10 minute intervention by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

Following further discussions we have an even more generous offer to put to the House. If the House would give its consent, we would go back to the second reading of Bill C-19 to allow other members to contribute to this debate. Then we will deal with the matter after the debate has been concluded.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is no longer before the House, but we will pretend that never happened and go back to second reading of Bill C-19. Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This is a bill of vital importance, not just for this House, but also for the international community as a whole. The purpose of this bill is to implement the Rome statute of the international criminal court, adopted on July 17, 1998 in Rome, after decades of debate and deliberation on the appropriateness of creating an international criminal jurisdiction with the authority to bring to justice those who have committed international crime.

The efforts of the international community finally came together in Rome in the summer of 1998, after repeated attempts had been made to agree upon an instrument to fight international crime, be it war crimes, crimes against humanity or the crime of crimes, genocide.

I would like to draw particular attention to the contribution made by Canada and some of its officials. I am thinking, among others, of a friend, a distinguished jurist, Philippe Kirsch, who chaired the plenipotentiary conference that led to the Rome statute, and of a number of individuals whose services were drawn on and whose hard work during preparatory conferences and the Rome conference helped bring this statute to life.

I am thinking specifically of John Holmes, Alan Kessel, Darryl Robinson, Dominic McAlea, Kimberley Prost and Don Piragoff, public servants I have met, at least some of them, who certainly played a key role in having the Rome statute adopted for the creation of an international criminal court.

I must, moreover, mention in this House, as I have in the case of other debates pertaining to bills implementing international treaties, that it is not entirely satisfactory to have a treaty as important as this one, which we are asked to debate through an enabling act, the ICC statute, not formally approved by this House and not the subject a significant debate before Canada signed.

It is true that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade spent one sitting reviewing the draft bill, as it was worded at the time, and I was able to take part in that exercise, since I was then a member of the committee. However, hon. members probably did not have enough time to look at the content of the statute, to express their opinions and to state their views on it before it was adopted by the conference and signed by Canada, before its ratification.

Again, it would be very desirable for the House of Commons and its parliamentary committees to review international treaties and proposed treaties during negotiations, so that in future members of parliament can have some influence on negotiators, on the content of these treaties and proposed treaties, before Canada makes a commitment or expresses, through its signature, its intention to comply in good faith with the international treaties that it ratifies.

There is currently before the House a private member's bill, Bill C-214, which I introduced last year. Its purpose is to give a more extensive role to parliament, to the House of Commons, when it comes to international treaties, so that such treaties are approved and then better promoted, introduced and published by government authorities after their ratification, that is after Canada has agreed to be bound by them.

There will be a third hour of debate on Bill C-214. I hope that members of this House will allow the bill to be referred to a committee and that they will support it at third reading stage.

As for Bill C-19, which I have examined closely, the short title is the Crimes Against Humanity Act, a title which could be made much more rigorous by including a reference to war crimes. This bill focuses on prosecuting war crimes, which are not included in the definition of crimes against humanity, unlike the crime of genocide, which these crimes can be considered to include. If I could make a suggestion, a more appropriate short title would be the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the international criminal court statute provisions requiring implementation in Canadian domestic law. It seems that this bill is viewed, internationally, as adequate implementation of the Rome statute. It is sometimes cited as a model of effective implementation of the international criminal court statute. At the present time, a number of parliaments worldwide must pass enacting legislation before states can agree to be bound by it and the statute can be implemented. It cannot take effect until 60 states have tabled their instruments of ratification.

The bill has to do with offences committed in Canada. The provisions in clause 4 are intended to correct, to a certain extent, the situation in Canadian domestic law, which right now does not permit prosecution of individuals for the crime of genocide per se.

This bill repeals some provisions of the Criminal Code, namely sections 3.71 and following, which allowed individuals having committed the crime of genocide, as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes, to be prosecuted for murder under international law. However, clause 4 addresses a shortcoming of Canadian law by bringing it in line with international obligations and allowing prosecution under domestic law for international crimes as defined under international law.

Besides, clause 4(3) refers to definitions provided in the Rome statute, which are implemented under international treaty law and which are inspired by customary international law.

Clause 6 of the bill, which is a very important provision, gives Canada, through its courts, extraterritorial jurisdiction that will allow judge people alleged to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to be prosecuted in Canada.

All this is in line with the Rome statute and customary international law, which allows Canada and any other country, to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute people for such serious crimes, so that they do not go unpunished.

Clause 6, which is both prospective and retroactive, contrary to clause 4, which only applies to crimes committed after the bill becomes law, will allow Canada to prosecute people for serious crimes in its own courts of justice, which is absolutely in line with the spirit and the letter of the Rome statute.

Besides, those provisions will be protected, despite their retroactive nature, by section 11( g ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, pursuant to which people may be prosecuted for crimes recognized under international law, even if the prosecution is of a retroactive nature.

I would like to draw the House's attention to something that would allow for a review of the contents of this bill. It is the provision that clearly gives Canadian tribunals jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the country. Clause 8( a ) recognizes that Canada has jurisdiction when crimes have been committed by Canadian citizens or when the victims are Canadian citizens. Clause 8( b ) also provides that Canada may prosecute a person if, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, Canada could, under international law, exercise jurisdiction over the person with respect to the offence on the basis of that person's presence in Canada and, after that time, if the person is present in Canada.

This is an example of the kind of universal jurisdiction that may be exercised by the various states under international law, but it could be broader. This ought to be debated and discussed since, in this case, universal jurisdiction could only be exercised over a person who is present in Canada.

For example, this would prevent Canada from prosecuting someone who is not present in Canada. It would prevent it from prosecuting a person who is alleged to have committed international crimes—whether it be General Pinochet, who returned to Chile without having been brought to justice for crimes of this type he allegedly committed. It would prevent Canada from prosecuting other war criminals or persons who have committed crimes against humanity or genocide, for example soldiers from Rwanda not present in Canada.

It would be interesting, in examining the bill, to broaden the scope of this particular provision so it is not limited to persons who are present in Canada. Canada—like other jurisdictions such as France, Spain and Belgium, I think—should claim jurisdiction over persons even though they are not present in Canada.

Extradition proceedings could help in this regard and allow Canada, as we asked in this House in the case of General Pinochet, to request the extradition of a person alleged to have committed serious war crimes and perhaps to prosecute that person.

Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois could, in due time, present an amendment extending the scope of clause 8( b ) so that Bill C-19 would allow a broader, universal jurisdiction. Canada could then have jurisdiction over serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, thus ensuring that these crimes will not go unpunished.

It is also interesting to note that the bill deals with a number of defences that may be used by those accused of international crimes covered in the bill. Clause 14 provides that obeying orders of a superior is not a defence. This seems to be consistent with existing international law and compatible with the letter as well as the spirit of the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court. Criminal Court

The purpose of many of the bill's provisions is to ensure that certain obligations under the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court be given effect in Canadian domestic law.

There is, for example, the part concerning the proceeds of crime, clauses 27 to 29 of the bill. There is also the part concerning the Crimes Against Humanity Fund. This fund, if my memory serves me right, was established under the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court. It is designed to help the victims of crimes against humanity. It would give the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in particular a chance to pay into this fund the net proceeds from the disposition of any property and fines collected in relation to proceedings for an offence under the Criminal Code.

By and large, this bill is a clear reflection of the obligations that will flow from Canada's agreement to be bound to the Rome Statute and the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In addition, the Bloc Quebecois reserves the right to examine fully the provisions of this bill and to propose, if required, amendments to ensure full conformity of the Canadian internal law with the international criminal law, as modified by the hopefully soon to come Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The bill contains a number of consequential amendments to many federal acts. For example, the Citizenship Act is greatly affected by this bill. The Extradition Act is also greatly modified. In the light of the Finta decision, a number of amendments contained in this bill in relation to the Extradition Act will clarify the situation arising from a controversial decision that, according to some people, was enough to justify corrections and amendments to the Extradition Act.

This bill also contains a part on conditional amendments. These are amendments to the Citizenship Act. This act is currently before this House since Bill C-16 is a rewrite of the Citizenship Act.

This overhaul of the act and the introduction of this new proposed legislation would require additional conditional amendments, in light of Bill C-19 on immigration, which at the same time is under consideration in the House.

No doubt consideration should also be given to bringing forth conditional amendments to another act also under consideration in the House, an act that should be amended not in accordance with provisions contained in other parts of Bill C-19, which are in relation to the old act, that is Chapter I-30 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, but in accordance with Bill C-31, which is the proposed new Immigration Act presently before the House and which we have examined earlier this week.

The international community is in the process of giving itself a tool absolutely essential to ensure justice and the supremacy of international law, especially international criminal law. The action that Parliament will take by passing an act to implement the Rome Statute will allow for the ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bloc Quebecois hopes for speedy ratification. It will help ensure justice, peace and international security.

This is an important bill for the entire international community.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-19. This legislation has been precipitated by Canada's obligations under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

The bill deals strictly with three clearly defined offences: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As well, Bill C-19 makes consequential changes to Canada's extradition and mutual legal assistance legislation to enable Canada to comply with its obligations to the International Criminal Court.

Bill C-19 will equip Canada with domestic legislation to facilitate the prosecution by Canadian courts of the three above mentioned crimes whether committed outside Canada or within our borders. It also gives Canada the right to have the first crack at the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of such cases at home. We may also waive the right and extradite an accused to the International Criminal Court.

The bill also affirms that any immunities otherwise existing under Canadian law will not bar prosecution in Canada or extradition to the International Criminal Court or to any other international criminal tribunal established by resolution of the security council of the United Nations. In other words, if an individual is suspected of war crimes and is living in Canada, then that individual will stand trial either in Canada if we choose or before the International Criminal Court. If Canada undertakes an extensive investigation and the individual is found innocent of any charges, then that will satisfy the requirements of the International Criminal Court.

Let me turn to the history and evolution of this initiative. Since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, the international community has been working toward the creation of a permanent international criminal court. There is a lot of momentum worldwide for such an undertaking. After years of preparatory negotiations and an intensive five week diplomatic conference, the basis for the ICC was adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998.

The International Criminal Court will be a permanent international institution mandated to prosecute persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national judicial systems fail to investigate or prosecute such individuals.

The International Criminal Court statute will enter into force when 60 states have ratified it.

The ICC will be located in The Hague, Netherlands. The 18 judges of the ICC and the prosecutor will be selected on qualifications similar to supreme court level appointments and must be ratified by two-thirds of state parties. Their terms will be for nine years. Judges may be removed by a similar two-thirds vote.

The rules of procedure and evidence are currently being negotiated through a series of meetings of a preparatory commission which includes delegations from signatory states and other interested states. An assembly of states parties will ratify these rules of procedure and evidence.

Turning to the costs of this new court, at present we do not know what this initiative will cost Canada. All member states of the ICC will pay a fee for the creation, operation and management of the ICC. The United Nations will contribute half of the initial startup costs and will contribute financially when specific cases are mandated by the security council. The remaining costs will be shared equally by all states parties.

Some have projected that Canada's initial contribution could be anywhere between $300,000 to $500,000. Once the ICC is up and running, Canada could be asked to contribute $1 million to $2 million per year. In comparison, Canada's contribution to the Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals for 1998-99 was $6.3 million.

I would like to raise some concerns and questions regarding this new court. A permanent international body may become unaccountable and may override the sovereignty of a nation's legal and governance system. Although the ICC is to be complementary to national courts, it will investigate and prosecute a crime when the states with the jurisdiction are unwilling to do so. This is clearly one way in which the ICC could overrule the sovereignty of a nation.

The ICC has been structured so the sovereignty of nations will remain primordial. It does so by requiring the enactment of domestic legislation in each ratifying state which gives that sovereign state both judicial equipment and the right to prosecute suspected cases of a said crime domestically. Bill C-19 is Canada's version of that legislation. We can also choose to waive the sovereign right to prosecute in our own court system and send the case and the accused to the ICC.

It is my understanding that this right cannot be circumvented unless we are unable or unwilling to use it, that is, there is a deliberate fraudulent attempt to shield a suspect from prosecution or that our rule of law has completely collapsed and we have no government. That this assessment could ever be made in the case of Canada is agreed among Canada's negotiating team and justice officials to be simply unthinkable.

We also hope that this court does not lead to any proliferation of judicial activism. Again we have been given assurances that the mandate of the judges and the court is clear and the terms of operation cannot be expanded. We trust this is correct.

One critical issue that stands out with this new court is that the United States has not yet signed the Rome statute. We are told the current mood in the United States Senate is to remain in this position. There is an argument that without the United States as signatory, the court will be very ineffective.

We must also be vigilant not to allow international law to supersede Canadian law. Again we have assurances this cannot happen.

The negotiations of the preparatory commission on rules of procedure and evidence address critical and fundamental issues of the ICC. They are not discussed or ratified in parliament. Issues such as the definition of aggression and other terms, the conditions of imprisonment, and judicial protocol are controversial issues in the implementation of the Rome statute. All of the negotiations should be subject to the input and ratification of this parliament; otherwise our requirement that the values of Canadians are adequately enshrined in law, structure and procedure of the ICC may be in jeopardy.

There are two ways we can approach these concerns. We could delay ratification until the negotiations are concluded and can be ratified by parliament, or we could amend Bill C-19 to ensure Canada's final accession to the ICC is subject to the ratification of parliament regarding the rules and procedures of evidence.

Some conclude that individual tribunals would be superior to a permanent existing ICC. A tribunal would examine a specific case, render a verdict and then disband. However, these tribunals have proven to be ineffective in tracking down criminals and having the legal authority to prosecute criminals. On that front the ICC is attractive.

The Canadian Alliance favours the prosecution of individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the same time we are very conscious of the need to protect our own sovereignty and want assurances that this will be built into Bill C-19.

As this bill proceeds, I suspect analysis of it particularly in committee will look at such areas as what some interested parties have called vague and imprecise definitions of offences. As well there has been concern expressed about the specifics of crimes committed in Canada as opposed to those committed outside Canada.

Bill C-19 requires a lot of study and review. I am confident this debate and the following assessments made on the bill will fashion a document that we can all accept.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.