***************************************************************************
Will Zuzak; DESCHENE.006 = 87-08-09/Mulroney/Turner/Broadbent; 1993-10-05
***************************************************************************
Dear Subcribers:
The following letter was sent to the leaders of the three major
political parties in Canada:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 9, 1987
The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
The Honourable John Turner
Leader of the Liberal Party
The Honourable Ed Broadbent
Leader of the New Democratic Party
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the "Sunday Morning" CBC radio broadcast,
August 9, 1987, during which Robert Kaplan announced his
intention to once again press for the speedy passage of Bill C-71
through the House of Commons. I strongly object to Mr. Kaplan's
persistent efforts to circumvent the democratic process and have
Bill C-71 rammed through Parliament without allowing for proper
study by committee and for free parliamentary debate.
The Deschenes Commission Report was presented to the government
on December 30, 1986. An expurgated version was released to the
public in March, 1987. Upon reading the 966 page document, I was
appalled by its contents and implications. In my opinion, the
whole Report is an apologia for the Office of Special
Investigations in the United States and an attempt to have a
similar type of institution created in Canada. Many of my
concerns are detailed in the 31-page CRITIQUE of the Deschenes
Commission Report which I am enclosing for your consideration.
The original pronouncements made by Justice Minister Hnatyshyn
that the government would opt for a made-in Canada solution and
present legislation of universal scope to include all
extraterritorial crimes committed by Canadian citizens or
residents of Canada (in contra-distinction to the blatantly
narrow terms of reference of the Deschenes Commission) were
encouraging. I naturally assumed that there would be full
consultation with the Canadian people and that there would be
opportunity for a full debate in Parliament on the issue in
general and the legislation in particular.
I was therefore shocked to learn that Justice Minister Hnatyshyn
was attempting to sneak Bill C-71 through Parliament without
debate or amendment by arranging a three-party agreement to pass
the legislation by unanimous consent just before adjournment of
Parliament. [The 1978 Holtzman Amendment which resulted in the
creation of the OSI was sneaked through Congress in a similar
manner.]
I was even more shocked when I obtained a copy of Bill C-71 and
realized that it was even more narrow and discriminatory than the
recommendations of the Deschenes Commission.The contents do not
correspond to the public pronouncements of the government. One
can only conclude that the lawyers in the Justice Department were
acting in bad faith and/or perhaps had developed a too-cosy
relationship with their counterparts in the OSI.
Whereas I expected that Bill C-71 would apply to all
extraterritorial crimes (past, present or future) committed by
Canadian citizens or residents of Canada, Clause (191)(a) of Bill
C-71 in reality restricts its application to:
(i) born-in-Canada Canadian citizens,
(ii) so-called "Nazi war criminals" of World War II vintage
as defined in the Deschenes Report,
(iii)immigrants from countries now behind the Iron Curtain
who fought against Communist tyranny during World War
II.
It does not apply to terrorists of any persuasion.
It does not apply to war criminals functioning in the ongoing
Middle East conflicts.
It does not apply to Soviet war crimes and crimes against
humanity perpetrated since 1917.
It does not apply to the many tyrannical dictatorships
flourishing throughout the world.
Indeed, by restricting application of Bill C-71 specifically to
armed conflicts in which Canada has participated, it can be
argued that the legislation actually encourages criminals of the
above categories to emigrate to Canada and/or seek refuge in
Canada.
The second major danger to our democratic society presented by
Bill C-71 is its attempt to incorporate retroactively so-called
"international law" into the Canadian Criminal Code. Such vague
and misleading terminology as "customary international law",
"conventional international law", "general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations" abounds throughout the
document. The Criminal Code should be as logical and precise as
possible and not made incomprehensible by legal gobbledegook such
as this.
There has never been any consensus among the nations of the world
or within Canada itself of the validity or applicability of
"international law" in the general sense, and certainly not in
the area of war crimes or human rights. No free nation on this
planet would unilaterally accept foreign laws into its Criminal
Code. Neither should Canada. As with all other parts of the
Criminal Code, those pertaining to international obligation must
be made in Canada, discussed and debated in parliament, and made
explicit in their applicability and enforcement upon Canadians.
The responsibility of Canadian citizens in this area must be made
explicitly clear.
The third major area of concern to me is the bureaucratization of
the judicial process that Bill C-71 implies. For example,
consider proposed subsection 6"(9) A certificate issued by..[some
bureaucrat]..stating
(a) that at a certain time any state was engaged in an
armed conflict against Canada or was allied with Canada in
an armed conflict,
(b) that at a certain time any convention, treaty or other
international agreement was or was not in force and that
Canada was or was not a party thereto, or
(c) that Canada agreed or did not agree to accept and apply
the provisions of any convention, treaty or other
international agreement in an armed conflict in which Canada
was involved,
is admissible in evidence in any proceedings under this Act
without proof of the signature or authority of the person
appearing to have issued it, and is proof of facts so stated."
Such definition of historical events by bureaucratic decree
without legal recourse is absolutely unacceptable in a free
democratic society. One cannot legislate historical truth!
There are a great many other such sections which appear to be
written in bad faith and which should be carefully examined as to
there implications.
In view of the fundamental deficiencies of Bill C-71 it is
recommended that it be replaced by completely new legislation of
universal applicability and relevance to Canadian society. It
should be drafted by people external to the Department of Justice
who have no direct vested interest in the legislation. Such
legislation should clearly indicate (without any legal double
talk) that all immigrants, refugees, temporary workers, visitors,
etc. to Canada, as well as Canadian citizens, should expect to be
judged by Canadian laws of jurisprudence for any criminal acts
which they have perpetrated outside of Canada.
Mr. Mulroney, I also urge you to implement the recommendations
listed in the CRITIQUE, especially:
Recommendation 5: that the government broaden the mandate
of the Deschenes Commission to include all extraterritorial
crimes committed by Canadian citizens or residents of
Canada, and
Recommendation 19: that the government instruct the
Deschenes Commission to inform all people whose names have
been submitted to the Commission, in particular, those whose
names have been submitted to hostile organizations and/or
governments by the Commission and by Robert P. Kaplan.
Mr. Turner, pursuant to Recommendation 10 of the CRITIQUE, "The
actions of Robert P. Kaplan, both as a member of parliament and
as Solicitor General of Canada, in actively seeking the
extradition of Canadian citizens, is reprehensible in the
extreme." I would urge you to remove Mr. Kaplan as spokesperson
for the Liberal Party of Canada on this issue and to disassociate
yourself and the Liberal Party from his reprehensible actions.
Mr. Broadbent, I would urge you to instruct your spokesperson,
Mr. Svend Robinson, to educate himself more fully on this issue
and to refrain from making ill-conceived and inflammatory
statements.
Finally, I expect all three of you gentlemen to insist that any
legislation in this area be fully discussed in committee and
throughout Canada, and that it be freely debated in parliament
before being passed into law.
Yours sincerely,
William W. Zuzak, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Encl.
***************************************************************************
Will Zuzak; DESCHENE.006 = 87-08-09/Mulroney/Turner/Broadbent; 1993-10-05
***************************************************************************