Evidence of meeting #17 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuban.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
And that's been sent back?
I would suggest that we have the dates on the China report, but.... I'm just speaking as chair. I have no idea what the others may say. They may want to continue with a look at that report. But if this thing is still before us here, where we're going to drag this out on the Burton report, there is a bearing on the China report. There very well could be a bearing on whether we're going to continue, seeing that the subcommittee is still fighting this fight.
That's why I'm hoping that we can say we're done with it, and we're going to lodge our complaint with the standing committee, but there's our report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
I'm in the hands of the committee. As always, as chairman I'm here to make sure the procedure is fair and followed. If the committee wishes to express itself to the main committee yet again on this matter, that's the committee's decision.
My personal view is that we've been amply clear on this point à plusieurs reprises, and at some point I think we reach a point of diminishing returns on this issue.
As I said, the full committee will be seized of the China report, one related issue of which is the Burton report, obviously. If the full committee wishes to take up this issue, the full committee is obviously free to do so.
Conservative
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Yes, you've reported the report, but as long as this issue is before.... It may not play; we may go right into it. But as long as there's still some dissatisfaction on this Burton thing—because at one point in time, Madame St-Hilaire said that she was not prepared to sign onto that report until she had seen the complete Burton report, unless I've missed something since then.
Bloc
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Let's calm down a little, sir. That is what I said, however the report was adopted and it was sent to the main committee. Let's not take statements out of context. Let's leave this up to the main committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
Last time, I believe we decided
not to let the procedural issue here hold up the substantive advancement of the report.
Is that right, Mr. Cotler?
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
If it's all been signed off, then what are we talking about?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
Madame St-Hilaire is sort of asking the question, what should be done? I'm saying the committee decided.
Conservative
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It seems to me that the full report, our report, has gone forward, with our concern about the procedural matter.
Now the full committee can have both of those aspects before them; they can determine both aspects. They can deal with the main report, or they might even refer the procedural matter back to us, or I don't know what. But both of those issues should now be cleared before the full committee.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
Okay. Then there will be no holdup on May 10, plain and simple.
Conservative
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB
In fact, I'll be honest with you; I wish it was long before May 10, because the whole point of speeding up the reports was so that we could use this as leverage with the Celil deal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
All right. So we have what we have. I hear the frustration from Madame St-Hilaire; it's been expressed by this committee. But we're where we are and we will proceed.
We all have this. Can I suggest that we move now to our last item of business, the motion on Iran?
Okay. Then we'll move to committee business.
Mr. Cotler has given notice of a motion with respect to Iran.
Mr. Cotler.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
This notice of motion is really a more abbreviated version of a longer and more detailed motion that I tabled here on December 12. At the time, it reflected what had been adopted in Berlin, subscribed to by leading scholars on genocide, and so on. Then the committee properly wanted to hear witness testimony before it moved on these issues. It heard from Professor Payam Akhavan and Mr. Jared Genser. Both of them affirmed the evidence with respect to this motion, and they made similar recommendations regarding this motion. Similar resolutions have either been adopted or are before the U.S. Congress and European parliaments.
Let me close by saying that there is no more horrific crime than genocide. That is why this also includes the prevention of the incitement to genocide that's in the Genocide Convention, otherwise referred to as the “never again” treaty.
Our own Criminal Code prohibits the advocacy of genocide, implementing this Genocide Convention.
In effect, Mr. Chair, this is a minimalist resolution. Basically it says that you should not be able to incite to genocide, knowing what the horrific consequences could be. All it asks is that we refer this matter of incitement to the UN. It doesn't exclude any of the other things we may be doing. It's a minimalist responsibility that we have as a state party to the Genocide Convention, just to refer it to the United Nations.
Also, the language of the resolution is straight out of the Genocide Convention. I haven't changed the language.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney
So you've moved the motion.
We have heard Mr. Cotler. Is there further debate?