John Reynolds

[Pornography, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member for Mississauga South and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Motion No. 69.

Just a few minutes ago members of the House were in the Speaker's office shaking hands with John Glenn, a man who has gone up into space twice, once as a younger man and once as a man in his seventies. That proves that in this world we can do anything we want to do.

This type of legislation is something we should support. With respect to the pornography issue, if we do not get a favourable decision from the supreme court, I agree with the hon. member that it may be the first time this parliament will have to use the notwithstanding clause. It should be used if the supreme court does not make the proper decision.

Motion No. 69 calls for an amendment to section 163 of the criminal code and would broaden the definition of obscenity. The member's motion states, in part:

For the purposes of this act, any matter or thing is obscene where a dominant characteristic of the matter or thing is the undue exploitation of any one or more of the following subjects, namely, sex, violence, crime, horror or cruelty, through degrading representation of a male or female person or in any other manner.

I should say at the outset that I see no problem with this amendment to section 163. In fact, it is more reflective of our times. After all, the definition of obscenity in section 163 of the criminal code was written in 1959. Surely times have changed, particularly the manner of transmission of obscene material.

I believe the impetus for this motion by the member for Mississauga South comes from the leading supreme court case on the issue of obscenity. I am talking about Regina v Butler. In that case the supreme court upheld the ban of obscenity as constitutional. In essence, the court ruled that banning obscenity would be an infringement of the freedom of expression, but is saved by section 1 of the charter as a reasonable limit.

Sex that is degrading or dehumanizing will be considered undue because it is harmful to society, particularly women. However, material which offends against community standards could be saved if it was necessary for the serious treatment of the theme. The stronger the inference of the risk of harm, the lesser the likelihood of community tolerance.

Sex with violence will almost always be undue exploitation. Explicit sex that is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. Explicit sex that is non-violent and non-dehumanizing will almost always be tolerated. That seems to be the manner of law in the interpretation of obscene.

The member for Mississauga South does not appear to be objecting to the supreme court case involving Butler. For background, the Butler case involved an individual, Mr. Butler, who was a purveyor of hard-core video tapes. In the first case the court said that charges of obscene were inappropriate and that the video tapes were acceptable. The court of appeal did not agree. The supreme court used the harm test and agreed that the tapes were obscene.

In Motion No. 69 the member's definition of obscene still contains the word undue, which leads to the community tolerance test.

I believe the member for Mississauga South has picked up the notion of degrading for the genesis of his motion. The effect of this motion is simply to make undue exploitation of violence, crime, horror or cruelty as obscene even if no sex is involved. For example, if I have interpreted the member's rationale correctly, under his proposed definition beating someone to death in a degrading manner, torture without exploiting the person sexually, no rape, would be obscene. If that is the case I have no problem with this step forward in amending subsection 163(8) of the criminal code. In fact, I would welcome this new definition.

Some may say that it goes too far and may unduly restrict the publication of photos by legitimate media sources. I do not believe this could happen. In light of the defence of serving the public good, which is contained in subsection 163(3) of the criminal code, it seems unlikely that any legitimate media would be threatened by Motion No. 69.

I am also pleased to see any reference made to amending section 163 of the code. As I said previously, that section dates back to 1959. I have always believed that the code is an evolutionary document which must reflect the times.

If we take a close look at section 163, which is entitled “Offences tending to corrupt morals”, we will find some archaic and startling sections more reminiscent of the 1950s. Paragraph 163(1)(b) states that it is a criminal offence to make, print, publish, distribute, sell or have in one's possession for the purposes of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic. Yes, Mr. Speaker, a crime comic. Surely this is a bit out of sync with the times and suggests to me that section 163 needs a complete review and a complete overhaul.

Paragraph 163(1)(d) states that anyone who advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article, intended or represented as a method of restoring sexual virility or curing venereal disease of the generative organs, is guilty of a criminal offence. This is another example of the 1950 attitudes existing in our criminal code.

Surely we have moved beyond that thinking. Section 163 is out of touch with our times. That is why I have no objection to Motion No. 69, which seeks to amend subsection 163(8) of the criminal code.

Motion No. 69 reflects the need to deal with the issue of degrading and reflects community standards and norms of today. It is in step with the times, which I support.

I would like to close by once again talking about the notwithstanding clause. It comes up many times in the debates of the House. Sometimes it is said that we should only use it in extraordinary circumstances. The constitution of the country was drafted by people from across the country. There was a very good reason the premiers in certain segments of the country insisted they would not sign the constitution, the bill of rights, unless it contained the notwithstanding clause.

We have never used it in this House and I find that rather strange. It lets the supreme court and any other court in the country know that the elected members of the House form the supreme body of this country. We have gotten away from that.

I had a debate today with a reporter who said “No, you are wrong. The supreme court runs the country”. He was serious. He really believed that the supreme court had the final say. When I brought the notwithstanding clause forward he said “But you have never used it”. He is correct.

Perhaps now is the time. The member for Mississauga South talked about the child pornography case. If a ruling comes down which is not agreeable to the majority of members of the House, I would hope we would have the courage to use the notwithstanding clause to make a law that the majority of members of the House would agree with. We know what the majority feel. We saw it in a letter from a number of members on the Liberal side to the Prime Minister about using the notwithstanding clause in this particular case. Yet they voted the way they had to vote when we put the motion before the House.

I know there will be a public outcry on this issue if the supreme court allows this case to go the way it has been going through the other levels of the courts, even though it was not unanimous in those courts. I read the minority decision of the Chief Justice of British Columbia, Allan McEachern. I have a lot of respect for him as a lawyer and as a judge, not only in this case but in other cases before him in British Columbia. He disagreed with the other two honourable justices in that case.

I hope his view is the one that the supreme court will take. If it does not, we must let the supreme court know that this is the supreme body of Canada, the body that makes the laws which the majority of people in the country want.

We will support the bill. We also look forward to support from the other side when that pornography issue comes down, if it is not the right decision by the supreme court.

[Justice, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Attorney General of British Columbia would like to see some leadership from the Minister of Justice for Canada.

This is a very serious issue. Nothing will bring Jessica Russell back, but the minister should show leadership by speaking to the Attorney General of British Columbia and letting him know that people in the Parliament of Canada are very upset with this terrible crime. We cannot have judges treating criminals as more important than common people in society. This judge messed up and the provincial government—

[Justice, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 20 year old David Trott, described by his stepfather as a dangerous loose cannon, a drug user with a history of violent rampages including guns, stabbings, stealing cars, police chases, assault and uttering threats, was released on probation by Judge Susan Antifaev.

Pratt is now the prime suspect in the slaying of nine year old Jessica Russell just two days after his irresponsible release from jail.

Given the judge was made aware of Trott's psychological and psychiatric background, will the Minister of Justice intercede with the Attorney General of British Columbia and have Judge Antifaev suspended pending an investigation of the judge's irresponsible decision?

[Organized Crime, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Fahlman, former RCMP criminal intelligence officer, said, “The Mounties were disappointed with CSIS stopping sidewinder ”. Robert Proulx, director of RCMP criminal intelligence, wrote the director of CSIS arguing that the original sidewinder report was altered, sometimes incorrectly, and in some cases some information was completely removed.

Is the solicitor general still standing by his story that sidewinder was not shut down, or is he saying that statements of RCMP officers are untrue?

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, May 4th, 2000]

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.

[Organized Crime, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberal government has gone out of its way to court trade and business opportunities with China. In fact, the Prime Minister is planning to lead another trade mission to China later this year.

Is the real reason the government and the Prime Minister are turning a blind eye to the threat of Asian gangs and Chinese spy agencies setting up shop in Canada because they do not want to interfere?

[Organized Crime, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Fahlman, a former RCMP criminal intelligence officer, said “The Mounties were disappointed with CSIS stopping sidewinder”. Robert Proulx, director of RCMP criminal intelligence, wrote the director general of CSIS arguing that the original sidewinder report was altered, sometimes incorrectly, and, in some cases, some information had been completely removed. He said “I want those sections to remain because they are integral to the integrity of the report”.

The minister knows the law with regard to altering and destroying documents. Why was the law broken if not to cover up?

[Organized Crime, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General for his answer in both languages. I understood it in both languages. He did not answer the question.

Let me ask him a simple question. Why did the government shut down the sidewinder investigation when the RCMP wanted it expanded?

[Organized Crime, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the solicitor general's answer last time, this side of the House supports the bill on money laundering. It was this side of the House that brought the bill in on organized crime. It was this side of the House, not that side of the House.

If his government was not behind the destruction of the sidewinder file, why will he not tell the House why the sidewinder file was destroyed?

[Organized Crime, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general and is with regard to operation sidewinder.

We are talking about a massive international criminal organization that is looking to win influence with U.S. and Canadian politicians. It is looking to steal high tech secrets, launder money and to use legitimate Canadian companies as shells for its criminal activities.

Can the solicitor general explain to the House why and what was behind the decision to abolish operation sidewinder?