Anne McLelland speech Speech 1 13Nov97 Criminal prosecutions were impractical

Anne McLellan Speech 1 13-Nov-1997 Criminal prosecutions were impractical

"Between 1987 and 1992, Canada attempted to convict four individuals of war crimes, but none of the prosecutions were successful. When Imre Finta was finally acquitted before the Supreme Court in 1994, it became clear that further criminal prosecutions were impractical. I do not describe these events without a deep sense of frustration. Yet the plain fact remains that after 40 years of doing very little to deal with war criminals in Canada, efforts during the 1980s to devise a strategy for successful criminal prosecution failed." � Anne McLellan

NOTES FOR A SPEECH
BY
THE HONOURABLE ANNE McLELLAN
MINISTER OF JUSTICE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
AND MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR EDMONTON WEST
TO THE
HADASSAH WIZO ORGANIZATION OF EDMONTON
EDMONTON, ALBERTA
NOVEMBER 13, 1997

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Introduction

Thank you for that kind introduction.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and the government of Canada, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to comment on efforts to bring to justice those living in Canada who have committed war crimes, both during and since the Second World War.

Action on war crimes is obviously of special concern to the Jewish community. But it is also important for anyone concerned with the integrity of our justice system.

Integrity, and the price we pay for it, are among the themes of Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. This seminal work reminds us yet again that the principal tragedy of the Second World War � the deliberate effort to eliminate an entire people � must never be forgotten.

Groups like Hadassah WIZO, the largest Jewish women's organization in Canada, help ensure that this great tragedy will not be forgotten in our country. Groups like yours help ensure that the Jewish community continues to enrich and strengthen Canadian society.

I want to acknowledge at the outset the work of Debby, Stephanie and their colleagues in holding these Public Affairs Seminars, as well as your other activities. This is an important contribution to the well-being of our community.

And speaking of activities in the community, although I was obliged by my duties to miss last week's "Holocaust: Art, Law and Politics" conference at the University of Alberta, I heard that it was an inspiring and resounding success, and I send my congratulations to the people responsible for it.

How Canada responds to crimes against humanity involves more than refusing to condone violence of any kind, past or present. It reflects the integrity of our national life and, the values we hold, and it relates directly to the integrity of Canada's justice system and the confidence Canadians have in it � a theme I have raised many times since being appointed Minister of Justice this summer.

History of War Criminal Prosecution

But it is difficult, if not hypocritical, to speak about increasing faith in our judicial system if, at the same time, we allow war criminals to remain unchallenged, in our midst. Yet, for roughly forty years, in Canada and many other countries, this has happened.

Immediately following World War II, Canada joined its allies in a number of public trials concerning war crimes and the Holocaust. By 1948, however, these trials came to an end, and nothing was done until the 1980s to prosecute war criminals suspected of living here.

The Desch�nes Report of 1986 marked a turning point. The government of Canada enacted amendments to the Criminal Code, and to the Citizenship and Immigration Acts, and turned its efforts to prosecuting war criminals living in Canada.

This was an important step. Other than the Nuremberg and related trials of the 1940s, extra-territorial criminal prosecutions for World War II crimes have rarely been attempted anywhere in the world, and only a handful have succeeded.

Unfortunately, complex legal difficulties were encountered with the courts' interpretation of the amendments made to the Criminal Code. Between 1987 and 1992, Canada attempted to convict four individuals of war crimes, but none of the prosecutions were successful. When Imre Finta was finally acquitted before the Supreme Court in 1994, it became clear that further criminal prosecutions were impractical.

I do not describe these events without a deep sense of frustration. Yet the plain fact remains that after 40 years of doing very little to deal with war criminals in Canada, efforts during the 1980s to devise a strategy for successful criminal prosecution failed.

As one Justice of the Supreme Court [La Forest] ironically described the difficulties: "War crimes and crimes against humanity were viewed as so heinous [in Canada] as to require a procedure so unmanageable as to make successful prosecution unlikely."

Current Efforts

That is why my colleague, the Honourable Allan Rock, took action after the Finta decision. In 1995, he and Sergio Marchi, then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, announced that from then onward we would not emphasize criminal prosecution, which was impracticable, but what we could realistically accomplish � the revocation of citizenship and the deportation of suspected war criminals.

Rock and Marchi gave practical application to Canada's policy that this country will not be a safe haven for war criminals, whether from World War II or more recent conflicts.

Consistent with this policy, the two ministers announced that 12 cases of revocation and deportation would begin by this year � 1997. This past September, the 13th and 14th cases were initiated, exceeding our commitment. Other cases are being prepared and we will maintain the pace that has been kept since 1995.

We are also making progress on cases now under way. Tomorrow, in a Toronto courtroom, the closing arguments in the Bogutin case � the seventh case � will begin, and the trial in the Katriuk case � the eighth � will begin on December 1st. In all, between five and seven of these cases will be heard in court over the next few months.

That is where we are today. It is a story of recent, determined activity after too many years of inactivity.

Additional Measures

But our commitment to Canada's war crimes strategy is not limited to preparing new cases. Several new steps, devised to enhance our efforts, are proceeding or under consideration.

My colleague Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I met recently with the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B'Nai Brith. Part of our discussions included our work to coordinate our approach to dealing with World War II cases with work on cases from more recent conflicts.

We want to set up a formal coordination process � a comprehensive plan to make sure that all partners involved in dealing with war crimes, from intelligence gathering to prosecution to deportations, are all working more closely together than has been possible in the past.

I should note, too, that our modern war crimes record is impressive. To date, more than 70 persons have been removed from Canada for their involvement in present-day crimes against humanity, and about 270 individuals have been excluded from obtaining refugee status in Canada owing to their war crimes activity.

Canada was the first country to order a Rwandan war criminal deported. In doing so, we established new landmarks in international jurisprudence. This case clarified that incitement to commit war crimes was as serious an offence as personal participation in atrocities. In the Salvadorean case, Ramirez, Canadian courts defined for the international community for the first time the notion of "individual complicity."

We have become a world leader in the detection and deportation of present-day war criminals. It is now arguable that Canada has removed more of them than any other nation in the world. Though more can, should and will be done, our modern war crimes successes are undeniable.

Second, there is continuing effort in the matter of improvements to Canada's legislation. Amendments to the Extradition Act, to allow for the deportation of suspected war criminals straight to the international tribunal in the Hague, or to a permanent international criminal court, are currently being considered by a federal Legislative Review Advisory Group that will be reporting in the near future. I hope that the Jewish community, and others, will play a prominent role as we move forward on this issue.

Third, Lucienne Robillard and I agreed recently that our departments would produce annual reports on the progress of Canada's efforts to bring war criminals to justice. The first of these reports will be released in the spring of 1998, and they will be published annually in subsequent years.

These reports will make us more accountable, by providing basic information about the activities of Canada's war crimes effort so that Canadians can know what we are doing and why. They will likely be modelled on the reports produced by the American Office of Special Investigations.

Fourth, Canada's recent record in the prosecution of war criminals has given us a voice heard with respect in international fora, such as the recent Commonwealth Conference at which our Prime Minister lobbied effectively for the creation of a permanent international criminal court. Within the United Nations, Canada has long been a leading advocate for the creation of this court.

Finally, mindful of the difficulties raised by the Supreme Court decision over Finta, we are working on possible Criminal Code amendments. I must tell you, however, that considerable difficulty still remains in establishing, on a criminal level of proof, that the suspects in our inventory of cases from the Second World War are guilty of specific crimes. Given that hard fact, I believe we should continue with our current strategy of working to deport these individuals. The additional amendments to the Criminal Code will likely be of more practical application in the context of more recent atrocities.

Conclusion

The noted historian of the Holocaust, Martin Gilbert, wrote: "Failure to bring help to the Jews, a failure shared by all the allies, was a failure of the imagination, of response, of intelligence, of initiative and [...] of sympathy." We compound this failure when we fail to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice.

In the last few years, we have seen a major improvement in the way those who have committed reprehensible acts during wartime are dealt with in this country. Canada's improved performance does not excuse its previous inaction and failures. It is, however, my job to focus on the present and to ensure that the pace of recent activity continues and increases in the future.

Working to ensure that within our society war criminals do not go unpunished is key to upholding our values and to any strategy seeking to strengthen the confidence of Canadians in their justice system. I'm not here to apologize for years of inaction. Apologies are inadequate. I'm here to gain your support for the future and to reiterate my commitment and that of my department to prosecuting war crimes because to not do so says a tremendous amount about now we view ourselves and our values. I do believe that, since 1993, Minister Rock made a commitment to no longer sit back. We have to move forward.

I look forward to working with you and other groups as we pursue these goals. Thank you.

I now welcome any questions you may have.

December 3, 1997

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE CRIMES