Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes. As a party, it is incumbent upon the Conservatives to correct the flyer, which contains false information, in a way that reaches every single person in my riding who was on the receiving end of the flyer.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So, it would have to communicate with those people in the same manner. Otherwise, an apology could be made in the House of Commons, but that does not mean that everyone who received the flyer will hear the apology. In your view, this has affected your political career and reputation.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes. That is one way. Today, I described a few ways to correct this breach of my parliamentary privilege and, I have to say, the privileges of this institution. One solution available to the Conservative Party would be to send out another flyer containing a clear public apology.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Cotler, a letter was written by John Everson in the National Post. Are you prepared to say that the Conservatives should send a retraction letter to the National Post?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes. As I said before, it is not just necessary to make a public apology in the House of Commons, but also to send out flyers to my riding, as well as all the ridings where the Jewish population was targeted. At the same time, the Conservative Party should send a letter to the National Post.

I think it is up to the committee to decide which methods and remedies should be used to correct this breach of my parliamentary privilege and the privilege of this institution, as well as what the Speaker of the House of Commons, himself, identified as the prejudice resulting from this flyer.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Pardon me, Mr. Cotler, the seven minutes are up.

We are going to begin our second round of questions with Mr. Volpe, for five minutes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I had originally intended to do something else, but what troubles me is the position of the government members, who still insist on repeating false information and perpetuating a perception that spreads false information. The Speaker of the House said this, and I am quoting in English, here:

In his finding he says that “the mailing constitutes interference with his ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility.”

I also receive these in my riding because I have a large Jewish constituency. I can't imagine any other reason for receiving them. None of my neighbours who have no Jewish constituents receive these. That's fine, but I want to point out to everyone here--and I can't share it with anyone because it's not in both official languages--an item sent by me to my constituents and no one else. It really goes to the issue and says, “Canada-Israel relations Reality Check”. Notice it doesn't say Conservative or Liberal.

I could read it into the record, but I'll leave it for everyone. It asks eight questions, and none of them are tainted with any intention to direct anyone anywhere. For example, I'll read you one. It says:

Which Prime Minister said: “Israel's values are Canada's values--shared values--democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights.”

Answer: Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin

There's another question:

Which government abstained or supported eleven UN resolutions censuring Israel at the 2007 and 2008 Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly?

Answer: Harper's Conservative Government

It went on to say that:

As far as Canada-Israel relations are concerned, you can see that Canadian policies towards Israel have been consistent and the main political parties are strongly supportive of Israel. This is a reason for celebration, not senseless partisanship.

On the issue of senseless partisanship, when I say that the Conservative members--and I'm going to ask Mr. Cotler to comment in a moment.... I too read the National Post today.

Rabbi Michael Melchior, deputy minister of foreign affairs--eventually he went on to be a minister himself. He was the real leader of the delegation and directed the delegation from Jerusalem. He says in an item:

...I need to add that even in a heated political debate, there should be a limit to the grotesque methods and accusations one could use against political opponents.

Even to indicate that Irwin Cotler

--and according to the Speaker's decision, any member of the Liberal Party in whose ridings these pamphlets were distributed--

would lend his hand to anti-Semitism is a gross distortion of what happened in Durban.

This comes from the man who directed the Israeli position. He even further requested the Canadian delegation to lead and coordinate the work in Durban to combat dangerous anti-Semitic language in the final resolution. To distort that and insist on that distortion, even in today's meeting, is a gross injustice to members of Parliament and their ability to do work. It is a deliberate effort to tarnish their reputation by slander, by calumny, and by taking events and putting them in a fashion that is inconsistent with good, sound political respect. This attacks the individual integrity of members of Parliament and parties.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Volpe, unfortunately, your five minutes have been exhausted. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I know my colleague was interrupted on a number of occasions during his presentation. I'll cede my time to Mr. Poilievre.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Okay. Mr. Poilievre you have five minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Cotler, we've had occasion to work together in international fora and here at home. I've always enjoyed the spirited exchange of debate in which we have engaged. I've always found you to be very gentlemanly and open to those exchanges.

Today I want to take a look at what I consider to be a legitimate policy disagreement between our two parties. I'm going to quote from Mr. Ivison's piece in which he recounted Israel's request for Canada to leave Durban I. He says as follows:

However, that is not the recollection of Alan Baker, Israel's former ambassador to Canada who was the head of the Israeli delegation in Durban. In an interview from Israel, he said that his government asked Canada, the U.S. and a number of European countries to pull out of Durban but the Canadian delegation was directed by Ottawa to stay.

It all suggests that there is some rewriting of history in Mr. Cotler's assertion that Canada stayed in Durban at the request of the Israelis. The decision to stay seems to have been made before any such request was forthcoming, which validates the claim that the Liberals were “willing participants in Durban”.

I'm also going to quote the Canadian Jewish Congress report, the final report on the Durban conference in October 2001. It says:

Canadian Jewish delegates, led by the CJC's President, in a meeting with the Minister and the officials named above, asked that she walk out of the Conference when she came to the conclusion that there was no possibility for a changed document to be negotiated. The delegations stressed, as well, that a document in any way unchanged had to be rejected by Canada....

When the United States and Israel announced their withdrawal from the Conference, CJC thought it especially important that they not have to go it alone, and reiterated a call for Canada to do the same.

Now, years later, the Conservative government did make that decision, to pull out of the Durban II conference. These are two different approaches. Neither of these approaches is inspired by bad motives, but they are different policy approaches. While there is conflicting evidence as to the reasons why the Liberal government stayed at the Durban conference, it really doesn't matter whether or not the government of that day was asked to stay or asked to leave by a foreign government, because every government makes its own decisions. Here in Canada, under this Conservative government, we left Durban before anyone asked us to. We left the Durban process before Israel, the United States, Great Britain, or any other country left themselves. We led.

Now that is a legitimate policy disagreement. Those are two different approaches to the same issue. I would submit to you that it's perfectly reasonable in the debate about Middle East policy that the distinction would be highlighted. Why do you feel that pointing to a legitimate policy disagreement like this one should be disqualified when your colleague, Mr. Volpe, points to perceived policy disagreements he has identified and sent to his constituents? Is it not fair, if Mr. Volpe is going to send material to the community in his constituency, that other parties would discuss policy distinctions as well?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me reply to you, if I may, as follows. I said earlier that I had no problem with not only policy disagreements. The Conservatives can say and can claim that they are the strongest supporters for Israel. That was not what was in the flyer. That is not what is at issue here. What was in the flyer was a false, misleading, prejudicial, scandalous accusation sent, and targeting the Jewish residents of my riding, to the effect that the Liberal Party willingly participated in an anti-Semitic--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cotler. Your five minutes are up.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think you have to allow me to respond.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

No, I'm sorry. I've been judicious in five minutes for everyone and I want to maintain that, if you don't mind. Maybe when you answer your next question, if you wish—

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You didn't give me a chance. It took up most of the five minutes.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

So did Mr. Volpe. That's the decision of the questioner.

Mr. Guimond, you have five minutes.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Could you finish answering Mr. Poilievre's question? But please do so quickly, as I have other questions for you.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, thank you. I will finish answering the question.

This is not a matter of policy differences, of which there can be about Mideast issues. This has to do with a false accusation that the Speaker found as prejudice, prima facie, and breached the privileges of a member of this House. That's why we are before you. As I say, it also breached the privileges of Parliament as an institution with the character of its defamatory accusation targeting specifically the Jews.

What is in issue is not only that the Liberal Party was falsely accused of willingly participating in an anti-Semitic conference—as I said, it was the exact opposite, and all the testimonials that I've said here were that the Liberals participated in combatting anti-Semitism at Durban I. That is the fundamental, normative, and factual distinction.

With respect to the specifics of Mr. Poilievre, relying as he is on John Ivison's article, all relying on one person, Alan Baker, who claimed—and Mr. Ivison repeated Mr. Baker's words—that he was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban, and he, as the head of the Israeli delegation, called upon the Canadian delegation to leave.... As a statement of fact, Mr. Chair, and I say this for the record, number one, Rabbi Melchior was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban. You can Google it and you'll see who was the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban. It was not Mr. Baker.

Number two, when Mr. Baker seeks to amend his comments to say he took instructions from Rabbi Melchior, Rabbi Melchior says that he never gave him any instruction to ask the Canadians to leave. On the contrary, they were delighted that the Canadians remained.

Mr. Chair, those are the facts, and nothing can change the facts.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Cotler, do you feel that this mailing attacked you in a direct and personal manner? You touched on it in your presentation, but quickly, in 15 seconds, could you tell us how it affected you? How do you think your reputation was affected, how do you think this document damaged your reputation?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The reason is that the constituents in my riding received this flyer and know that their MP is a Liberal who is being accused of supporting anti-Semitism. People are condemning the member from the Liberal Party, which is being identified as a party that supports anti-Semitism, and they are even saying that the MP, himself, supports anti-Semitism.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Have you received phone calls, emails, people coming to your constituency office, or have you met with people in synagogues? I assume you go to synagogues. Have people approached you about this?

Let's pretend I am one of your constituents, that my name is not Michel Guimond but Michel Veinberg, that I live in Mont-Royal and that I get this flyer in the mail. Would I be surprised by my MP's change of opinion? Have people talked to you about that?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes. I could read you emails that I received, for instance. I also received phone calls, and people took the flyer to the synagogue. So when I entered the synagogue, I saw the flyer. You can imagine my reaction when I went to the synagogue and saw this flyer, which says:

“Jewish community of Montreal should turn their back to such bigot and expel him from the community!”

They wanted me not only to step down as MP, but also to be thrown out of the Jewish community. And others are calling for the same. It is the same in the synagogues. Rabbis have even quoted the flyer. I have to say, it caused a major prejudice, which still persists today.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Pardon me, Mr. Guimond, your five minutes are up.

The last question will go to Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You say that a difference in political opinions is normal. But you say that is not the case here, that false statements were made.

As I listen to Mr. Poilievre talk, I get the sense that the Conservative government is refusing to acknowledge that false statements were made. When he was asking his questions, Mr. Poilievre did not seem to be sorry about anything. He still questions the whole thing.

You told us what the false information was. If the government continues to say that it made truthful statements and that it is just a matter of differing political opinions from the two parties, could you give us the names of witnesses we could call upon to testify that the accusations against you are indeed false? You mentioned a few people. Could you give us their names again? There must be witnesses to what transpired at Durban I.