Evidence of meeting #30 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was flyer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Certainly.
In a word, every member's action carries a consequence, and the consequence of using your taxpayer-funded parliamentary resources to violate the privileges of another member should be repayment of these expenses. It's an invalid expenditure. The taxpayer should not bear this burden.
Fourth, the flyer was in the format of an electoral option. Constituents were asked to mark their electoral choice in respect of the parties. I want to suggest to you that the sending of such a flyer in the format of an electoral solicitation outside the framework of the dropping of an electoral writ is, in my view, an inappropriate use of the flyers.
Fifth, there must be accountability. All those involved in the production and distribution of these flyers should be held personally accountable.
Finally, this false, misleading, and prejudicial ten percenter is not only a breach of the privileges of a member; it is also a breach of the privileges of Parliament as an institution. Such ugly allegations, accusing a party and its members of willingly supporting an anti-Semitic festival of hate, are beyond the pale. They demean Parliament as an institution and they demean the discourse of this Parliament. They must be unreservedly condemned by this committee so as to protect the privileges of Parliament as an institution as well as my own privilege as a member, which, as the Speaker determined, these allegations prejudiced and damaged.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Thank you very much, Mr. Cotler.
There are just a couple of points before we start our question round.
You mentioned a couple of articles that you have submitted. We have to get them translated, and then they'll be distributed to the members.
I will remind you that we are going to be very rigorous with the distribution of the time. We will try to keep the comments civil and keep to the facts wherever possible, and I am going to try to preside in such a manner.
Let's begin our first seven-minute round with Madame Jennings.
December 8th, 2009 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cotler.
I do have a couple of questions. My first question is in regard to an article written by John Ivison, in which the Honourable Alan Baker claimed he was the head of the Israeli delegation and that as such either he or the delegation had specifically asked the Canadian delegation to leave Durban I.
Could you respond to that?
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, I can respond, and I will table as well the letter of Rabbi Melchior in today's National Post.
As I conveyed to John Ivison when he called me at the time and said, “Alan Baker, the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban told me--and I'm telling you--that he asked the Canadian delegation to leave”, I said, “Mr. Ivison, I have to tell you that Alan Baker was not the head of the Israeli delegation at Durban, it was Rabbi Melchior.” I said, “You don't have to believe me. You can go and check with Rabbi Melchior.”
Mr. Ivison called me back—you can check this with him. He said, in his first response, “I checked with Mr. Baker, and Mr. Baker said yes, he was not the head, he was the deputy head, but he took his instructions from Rabbi Melchior, and Rabbi Melchior instructed Mr. Baker to tell the Canadians to leave Durban.”
I said, “Why don't you call Rabbi Melchior?” And Rabbi Melchior told Mr. Ivison--it's in today's letter to the editor--that, number one, he was the head of the delegation at all times; and number two, the deputy head and the person on the ground was not even Mr. Baker; it was Mordecai Yedid.
Rabbi Melchior, as the head of the Israeli delegation, never asked of Mr. Baker nor did anyone on Rabbi Melchior's behalf ask the Canadian delegation to leave. On the contrary, Rabbi Melchior writes that they commended the Canadian delegation for remaining. In his letter, he describes the work of the delegation, saying:
...after the Israeli delegation had left, I requested from the Canadian delegation that they lead and coordinate the work at Durban to combat the dangerous anti-Semitic language in the final resolution. The Canadian delegation, with its fine record on issues of human rights and combating anti-Semitism and xenophobia, made a remarkable contribution in rallying an unprecedented majority--in UN terms--to remove the hate language from the final official resolution.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you.
Subsequently, what have you experienced directly from the content of Mr. Ivison's letter? Has anything happened outside the House or inside the House following the publication of that letter, which now, according to Rabbi Melchior's letter in today's National Post, was completely erroneous?
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Well, I can tell you, and you can look at the talkbacks on the National Post after Mr. Ivison published his article, and as I told him, there are two kinds of responses. One says, “Ah, since Mr. Cotler lied about what took place in Durban and said that the Canadian delegation was there to combat anti-Semitism in Durban and was commended by the Israelis for it, since he lied, we can't believe him on anything else he said about Durban.” So my entire record wherein I combatted the anti-Semitism in Durban has been taken by some to say, “Well, we can't believe Cotler because now we're told that it was wrong what happened; his story was wrong.”
Mr. Ivison said my memory might have played tricks on me as to who said what to whom. I don't think my memory played tricks on me. It might have played tricks on Mr. Baker, but certainly not on me, since every single interlocutor who has been involved has come out publicly and corroborated my remarks.
The other part of what has happened is people who say, “Oh well, Mr. Cotler is just a self-hating Jew and therefore he participated in an anti-Semitic hatefest.” Either way, I got injured by it, and not only injured by the flyer but, as I said, the fallout since the flyer and the continuing prejudice in that regard.
That's why this committee's meeting is so important, because it is this committee that can finally and unequivocally rectify the prejudice, the breach of privilege, the breach to Parliament as an institution, and do something about this kind of debasing language that is conveyed and targets members of an identifiable minority.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
You've also stated right now the fallout as a result of the flyer and then the subsequent article by John Ivison. In the House itself, what has been the repercussion?
In your statement you talked about how, rather than simply rising and apologizing and admitting that the flyer was wrong, and apologizing unreservedly, members have actually stood in the House and vilified you subsequent to the flyers, subsequent to your point of privilege, subsequent to the Speaker's ruling that there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege, and subsequent to the reference by the House, after debate and vote, to this committee. Could you give us an example?
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I can give you an example of several, but for reasons of time, I'll give you an example of one. The member for Portage--Lisgar in Manitoba--
Liberal
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Okay. If I can use the member's name, it was Candice Hoeppner who got up and said in effect--I was holding up Ivison's article and the like--that the Liberal Party and the member for Mount Royal have been caught red-handed. In other words, we had been caught red-handed in a lie. In other words, not only did the member willingly participate in an overtly anti-Semitic Durban I, but he lied about the facts when he said Canadians remained to combat anti-Semitism and that the Israelis had commended them for it. There were statements that we have Alan Baker's words, and Alan Baker was the head of the Israeli delegation, and Alan Baker said that he asked the Canadian delegation to leave. That is all false.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Thank you very much. With all due respect, Mr. Cotler, I have to interrupt. There will be further discussion, but I'm going to be very rigorous in adhering to seven minutes for all parties.
We'll go to our second questioner, Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I am going to read from Andrew Coyne on this matter. He says “we”, referring to the media, and “they”, being politicians:
We are as invested as they in the pretense that, when the Member for Diddly-squat
--he is not referring to you or your riding in particular--
is observed to be “shaking with rage” or “visibly distraught,” he is actually experiencing something like the named emotion.
He goes on to say:
...there is nothing a politician lives for more than to be unjustly accused of something--even if he has to levy the charge himself. The opportunities to play the victim are too tempting.
That puts some of this into its proper context.
Mr. Cotler, can you start by indicating whether or not you are named in the ten percenter in question?
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, I asked a very particular question. You've had plenty of time to speak.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I wasn't even allowed. I opened up my mouth and he already stopped me.
Conservative
Liberal
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've known you for a long time, and maybe we're going to have fun in the coming week, but I'll tell you something: when a question is asked, the witness should have the right to answer the question in the way he wants, and not be told by the chair or the person who raised the question. He should have that time, and there should be that respect for the member. That member has gone through pain already, and we should be here to listen to what he has to say. We'll make our decision afterward.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
I am going to ask the witness to answer the question directly, please.
