Irwin Cotler

[Canada Labour Code, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement on a matter of compelling concern. We do share the concerns with respect to child pornography and closing any loopholes in that regard.

The test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable amongst us, and the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are our children. Therefore, we introduced Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons act, on October 8, 2004, as the very first legislative initiative of this session and of our government.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of six criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's ability to protect our children and other vulnerable persons. I am referring here to those provisions that deal with the protection of victims from domestic violence, voyeurism, and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable class between 14 and 18 years of age. Central to this package of reforms, as the hon. member has rightly identified, are those reforms that relate to child pornography.

Our existing laws, with regard to child pornography, are already comprehensive in the manner in which they enact prohibitions on the possession, printing, sale, access, exportation et cetera of child pornography.

Importantly, these prohibitions apply to depictions involving real children under the age of 18 as well as those involving imaginary children such as a computer generated depiction or composite of a child. This is because both are to be condemned. The former because it involves the sexual abuse of a real child, and the latter because it portrays children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation, and thereby poses a real harm to children and society.

It is against this background that our bill proposed a number of reforms to broaden the definition of child pornography: to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children where that description is provided for a sexual purpose; prohibiting the advertising of child pornography; increasing the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months; making the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes; of particular importance to the member's remarks and within the context of the whole bill, replacing the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-pronged, harm-based legitimate purpose defence that would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art, and even with that legitimate purpose would not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The harm-based test is often ignored when questions and comments are put to it.

Simply put, the proposed child pornography defence, even with artistic merit in the context I mentioned, provides a narrower and clearer test and incorporates the harm-based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

There are no loopholes in the bill. It proposes reforms that clearly underscore the serious nature of all child pornography offences by broadening our existing definition of child pornography to encompass new formats; by creating a new prohibition against new forms of criminal conduct; increasing the maximum sentences for these offences; and significantly narrowing the availability of a defence to ensure that--

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Ukrainian democracy itself, if not the future shape of Europe, as well as the results of an unfair and unfree election, are on the line. For what we are witnessing is an attempt not only to deny the democratic will of the people but to impose, even if by force, the undemocratic control by undemocratic government elements.

This massive electoral fraud did not begin with or take place only in the course of the election. Rather it was already present in the electoral campaign itself.

Indeed, the international Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, a distinguished NGO which had been monitoring the electoral campaign, was warning as early as August 3 that international standards for the holding of free and fair elections were already being denied. Reliable evidence indicated then that Ukrainian government officials were illegally abusing the public trust to manipulate the outcome of the elections. Citizens were being intimidated by authorities if they demonstrated their support for the opposition candidate. Factory workers were being pressure into supporting Mr. Victor Yanukovych with threats to their jobs if they did not cooperate. Heads of regional administrative bodies were threatened with dismissal if election results did not meet prescribed goals. University students were being threatened by university deans to support Mr. Yanukovych and to avoid attending electoral rallies of opposition candidates. Telephone communications of opposition supporters were monitored and eavesdropped upon. State controlled TV consistently misinformed the public on the views of the candidates promoting a positive view of Mr. Yanukovych and a largely negative coverage of Mr. Yushchenko.

There was indeed massive discrimination against the opposition in the period from May to August, with the government candidate receiving eight times more air time on national TV than his opponent.

Moreover, the opposition was accused of harbouring extremist views or being allied with extremist organizations even to the point of being presented as “terrorists” and “criminals”, thereby delegitimizing the opposition even before the election was to take place. Most disturbingly, the IHF appealed to the Ukrainian authorities to remedy these widespread violations in the electoral campaign long before the election itself was summarily dismissed.

In particular, the International Helsinki Federation for human rights had appealed to the Ukrainian authorities to ensure equal access to all candidates of the state controlled media; to ensure full freedom for all candidates to address voters and to present their platform; to prohibit the use of state resources to support the campaign of the incumbent and to obstruct that of any opposition candidate; and to permit access by independent Ukrainian observers to monitor the elections at all stages.

Not only were all these pre-electoral appeals rejected, but these violations then found expression in the actual conduct and on the days of the elections themselves.

Indeed an analysis of the witness testimony and the documentary evidence, the combined evidence of independent observers, which included the observer mission from the OSCE office for democracy and human rights, the OSCE parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary assembly, all disclosed a widespread pattern of electoral fraud, intimidation and abuse in clear breach of OSCE standards and commitments.

What must be realized is that these massive electoral violations of OSCE undertakings and commitments constitute a violation of undertakings and commitments made to Canada as a country member of the OSCE and a co-signatory to the Helsinki process.

These massive violations by Ukrainian authorities and the corresponding breach of Ukrainian obligations to Canada and Canadians include, and I will cite some of them. The flagrant abuse of state resources in favour of the government candidate thereby demonstrating an utter disregard for the fundamental and necessary distinction between state authorities and partisan political forces. The denial to citizens of their right to their electoral franchise by obtaining, under duress, their absentee voting certificate. The use and abuse of these absentee voting certificates so as to facilitate multiple voting and thereby undermine the integrity of the electoral process. The patterns of electoral intimidation that were directed not only toward voters but also to polling commission members themselves. The presence in almost 40% of the polling stations of unauthorized persons including police and government officials, while authorized persons were excluded or rejected including a significant number of polling station commission members.

Accordingly, having regard to this massive electoral fraud and assault on democracy, may I conclude with a set of recommended guidelines and initiatives for Canada and the international community.

First, Canada cannot countenance the massive electoral fraud and denial of the democratic will of the Ukrainian people. We call for a full, transparent and democratic review of the election process with a view to having this electoral fraud redressed and remedied.

Second, if these fraudulent election results are not remedied, then we will have no choice but to re-examine our relations with the Ukrainian government with whatever adverse consequences may ensue for our bilateral relationship.

Third, we call on the OSCE, where we are a founding member, to take the lead in securing recognition and respect for OSCE undertakings and commitments, including the right to free and fair elections and the protection of a democratic Ukraine.

Fourth, we call upon the Russian authorities to help restore and protect the democratic will and not indulge or acquiesce in any process that will subvert that democratic will.

Fifth, we call upon the various bodies and institutions from whom the international election observer missions were drawn, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the NATO's Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, to join together with Canada, which also supplied an electoral mission, and bring our voice and vision together to secure the democratic process in Ukraine, and to realize the democratic will of the Ukrainian people.

Sixth, we call upon these bodies to put the perpetrators of electoral fraud on notice that they will be held accountable for their actions.

We say to the Ukrainian people that we will stand with them, that we will raise our voice together with them, that they are not alone and that in the end those who struggle for human rights will ultimately prevail over those who seek to repress human rights.

[Justice, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It had the support of animal industry groups, animal welfare groups and all stakeholders when it died on the order paper. It is a priority for the government. We intend to reintroduce the bill as soon as reasonably possible without substantial changes, except for those that relate to hunting and other practices of the aboriginal people.

[Justice, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on any particular case. I will just say that our whole approach with respect to protection of children and other vulnerable persons has been set forth. The first piece of legislation introduced by this government was to protect children and other vulnerable persons against sexual exploitation.

[Justice, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, our whole approach with respect to drug strategy is to ensure that we have prevention, that we have appropriate treatment and that we have proper education.

[Justice, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, restorative justice represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of crime and criminal justice. Crime is seen not only as a wrongful act by the offender, but in terms of an assault on relationships and community peace. Justice is seen in terms of not only accountability, but in terms of greater healing relationships. Our justice programs have shown lowered recidivism, validation of the victim, and restitution compliance. We will continue to promote and enhance these projects.

[Justice, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the American ambassador is aware of the position of the former attorney general of the United States. He is aware of that country's position and has not contradicted it, nor has he contradicted our position.

[Justice, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the American policy, as expressed by the American attorney general, was an understanding that this is not an irritant in Canada-U.S. relations. There is full cooperation in cross border matters. We hosted the American attorney general and the secretary of homeland security. Our policy is understood and indeed, American states have the same policy in even more decriminalizing terms than does Canada.

[Justice, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, such legislation already exists. A person who is drugged is not capable of consenting. Therefore, any sexual activity with such a person is already a sexual assault under Canadian law.

[Justice, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the marijuana law is intended to protect public safety, particularly in combating cultivation and grow ops.