Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Yes. This committee, above all other committees, recognizes the atrocities in Iran. We have North Korea and we have other countries where you'd almost ask “What's the use?” at times. You just feel, “What can we do as long as that guy is the leader in North Korea?”—very similar types of feelings to what we have with Iran.

So there's an appeal to do something. I think that's what Mr. Cotler is asking us: let's do something.

What can we do?

A call to genocide is absolutely, without doubt, the most horrific call that any leader can propagate. A leader of a country who is calling for the annihilation of another country, a democratic country, certainly has to be met with the greatest response we can make. But what Mr. Cotler is asking for in this thing is something that is unprecedented here in Canada. From what I have been told, it's an unprecedented movement, asking the International Criminal Court to intervene in this way.

What are the foreign policy consequences to this type of motion? I mean, is it just a win-win situation for Canada, that all of a sudden we're going to call on this extraordinary response, although foreign policy considerations have not been adequately studied?

Do we have a chance of winning? It's nice to lodge a complaint. It's a little protest—well, it's a major protest. It shows that we do not accept and are responding in the most powerful way we know how. But do we have a chance of winning? Again, we don't know whether we have a chance of winning this.

Canada has consistently taken Iran to task on its human rights violations, its misbehaviour in international affairs, and we have done a number of things. We have signed on to a policy of controlled engagement. What does that mean? It means there are only certain things that we at this point are going to talk to Iran about. We still have the door open to speak about nuclear disarmament, and we're doing that. We've consistently spoken out against their threat of nuclear weaponry and going down that path. Their violation of human rights? We've heard and we agree, listening to the people who have come here horrified about what they see happening in Iran.

We still have the ability to speak to Iran about human rights. We have the ability, through this controlled engagement, to discuss with them the torture and murder of Canadians by Iranian officials, and we've seen that with Zahra Kazemi in an Iranian prison.

Some of the other things Canada can't do include that we can't sell anything to Iran that's going to have a military involvement, that is going to be used for aggression or for even defending their own interests. We do not permit opening Iranian consulates here in Canada, a very tough, strict stand saying, “No, you can't have a consulate here, because we totally disagree with your record and what you're doing in Iran.” We say, you can't fly into Canadian airspace; you're not to enter Canadian airspace. All these things, certainly, are a response. We're well-known. The Government of Canada for a long time has stood up to Iran, and we're recognized as standing up to Iran.

Mr. Cotler's motion is for Mr. Ahmadinejad to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. The problem is, Israel hasn't signed on, Iran hasn't signed on, India hasn't signed on, the United States hasn't signed on to this agreement, and we're now going to try them in a court under a jurisdiction they have never signed on to. That is problematic. It's their right not to sign the treaty. Are we then going to bind them by the treaty they didn't sign?

Another concern I have is that when we go this route, we're opening the doors right now for every other country, even those that have not signed on to this treaty, to find themselves hauled before this court that they don't recognize and be tried for the human right violations or the crimes that they may be chosen to be charged with.

I agree with the spirit of the motion. We have to do something; we have to do more. But is this the route to go? Is this the route we want to take? At this juncture, I don't think I can vote for this motion, although I'm sitting on this committee, because we recognize that there are major human.... But this isn't the right response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Do you want to respond now? I had Maria on the speaking list.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to correct certain—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Why don't you reserve the rebuttal position until everyone has spoken, and then you can take it all at once?

Is that okay?

Maria, and then Denise.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was simply going to say that I understand that Canada has done everything it can within its powers, in terms of not flying over our airspace, in terms of human rights issues—all of that. Unfortunately, it really doesn't get at the issue. It's good, but it doesn't get at the core.

The world stood by and watched Rwanda—I use it as an example. We knew what was going on. There was all kinds of rhetoric going on in that country about what they intended to do, but radio programs, broadcasting...the world chose not to listen and to call it genocide. Even while it was happening, it didn't happen; we didn't deal with it.

During the Second World War, that was a genocide too; the holocaust is the same thing. You can name it the holocaust or you can name it genocide. The western world knew what was going on there and chose to ignore it.

We're looking at Darfur, but how long has it taken us to deal with Darfur, even? And only now are we beginning. The reality is that when countries start saying things such as “Israel is an illegal state”, or “It's evil and needs to be abolished” or “eradicated from the face of the map”, that incites genocide.

There may not be in the near future the right stars aligned so it actually can happen, or there might be, but the world can't allow for those stars to align and the world needs to deal with them.

The world usually talks through the United Nations as a united body, to say to Iran: “You can't do that. It won't be tolerated. You need to find a different way, if you want to be part of our system, part of the world, or have any respect, or what have you.” But I don't think they care about respect from anyone else at this point, certainly not the current regime.

The other thing is the comment about their not being signatories. I really don't see that as an issue, because Milosevic and his country weren't signatories either but were still prosecuted under the International Criminal Court, when it came to the atrocities in Kosovo and so on. I don't think that being tried under the International Criminal Court is subject to the country's having been a signatory. It's subject to only one rule, and that is, were there human atrocities and/or genocide perpetrated against humanity? That's really the bottom line.

I know that the Americans have not ratified and that there are a number of other countries that have not ratified, but again I go back to the fact that the International Criminal Court is prosecuting people from countries that did not ratify the International Criminal Court's existence.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Prosecuting those—

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

He can take it from there, but my main point is basically that I don't think we can stand by and allow a country to continuously do what they say, because we've seen it in other parts of the world. When we ignore it and the rest of the world doesn't respond, we pay a price.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Madame Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I don't think we can ignore these kinds of threats. I have a question that was raised by Mr. Cotler. I think I'm not wrong in saying that in a resolution, instances of “whereas” often disappear and what we're left with is the “be it resolved”.

I would more comfortable—and I think he agreed—if it was made more specific, in terms of relating to the statements that were made by Iranian officials, in order to be really clear in the “be it resolved” part. He seemed to indicate earlier that he supported this.

I have a second question, if he's going to deal with all the questions.... We're calling on the appropriate body at the United Nations. Now, he uses the word “competent organ”. Is that as opposed to “incompetent”? Or is it, as in legal terms, the right one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Responsible, yes.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

The responsible one, as it is in French.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It's straight out of the language of the Genocide Convention. I'm just using their language.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. It's an ambiguous word in some situations.

Now, you're asking for “investigation and prosecution”. I've always thought that you investigate before determining that you're going to prosecute. I'd just be interested in your response.

Are we basing “investigate and prosecute” on the statement of “annihilation”? Are you in fact saying that we don't need to investigate, because we've got the proof and we just want you to prosecute, but the words are “investigate and prosecute”?

Through you, Mr. Chair, I wonder if you want to clarify.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Sure.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'll try to clarify a number of things.

I agree with Kevin. I would have thought his conclusions might have followed from this premise, his initial premise, that this is the most horrific call that any leader can propagate. I agree with you. In fact, this is the only leader who has consistently.... That's why I gave you background evidence. And since I gave you the background evidence on December 12, regrettably Mr. Ahmadinejad and some of his associates have repeated the call to wipe Israel off the map--with impunity.

Now, you've said that it's an unprecedented move to ask the International Criminal Court to intervene on this. I have to correct you both, if you'll permit me. Number one, Canada supported the reference to the International Criminal Court of atrocities committed by Sudanese officials. Sudan is not a member or state party to the International Criminal Court. So this is not unprecedented, nor is it related to the fact that Iran, for example, may not be a party to the International Criminal Court. Canada supported it. I supported it. I was in the government. I can tell you that was exactly what we did as the government of the time, which I suspect your government would have done as well, namely to call on the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Sorenson mentioned properly formed policy considerations. My answer to that is, what message are we sending if we say that you can advocate genocide with impunity? What kind of human rights, foreign policy, international law implication is that? Mr. Sorenson also spoke to the issue of the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. I'm trying to make the connection here. At the UN we have taken the position--and indeed the UN has taken the position--in fact to pass resolutions calling upon Iran to stop the enrichment of nuclear weapons.... Iran has said it will use these nuclear weapons to “eliminate” Israel, in their words, “in one single storm”. We have to say to the UN that it's not only the enrichment of nuclear weapons, it's the genocidal intent that is linked--by their own words--to the use of nuclear weapons.

Finally, you mentioned speaking about Iran in other contexts and forums. This doesn't preclude our speaking to Iran about anything else. But if we can't speak about enforcing the genocide convention, if we can't, at a very minimum, refer the matter to the UN to consider it.... I mean, this is a minimalist motion that we are speaking to.

I want to get to Denise's comments. She's correct that it's a matter of style. Let's put it this way, I accept her friendly amendment that would state “Therefore, it is recommended that”, in the fourth line.... After the words “for the prevention and suppression of the public and direct incitement to commit to genocide”, I would add the words “by senior Iranian government officials”. It's in the preamble and it was intended to be incorporated in this specific recommendation. I accept the friendly amendment that it would read better by putting, in both number one and line two of number two, the same words, “by senior government officials” after “genocidal incitement”.

As to the matter of investigation of prosecution, she is correct as well. I did not intend to suggest that we should necessarily prosecute or that we don't need to investigate in order to prosecute. I'm saying that we refer the matter to the UN Security Council and they make that determination. In other words, it's a reference where, as with Sudan, they refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution. Those are the words. The International Criminal Court will make that determination.

I'm basically asking for a very minimalist thing. Let's just send this to the UN. Let the appropriate agencies of the UN discuss this. Let the matter be before the UN. Let the matter of incitement to genocide be before the UN. I would not want, in 2007, that we did not at the very least recommend that the incitement to genocide be discussed by the UN. They determine whether it should go to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.

I'm not recommending that Ahmadinejad be prosecuted; I'm recommending that the UN consider it and make that determination. It's so minimalist...you can't get more minimalist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'm not sure that's how....

Mr. Sorenson, you have a point of order.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

On a point of order, that's not what you're asking. I mean, the second point there--

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

This is not actually a point of order; this is a point of debate.

We have a speaking list. I'll go to Ms. Savoie and then to Mr. Sorenson.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I better understand his intent, and that's what I thought his intent was. I'm wondering if it might clarify his intent if he were to say in point number two, blah, blah, to refer the situation of genocidal incitement “for their deliberation” or “their determination” of an investigation and prosecution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

I think that's better. I think point number two does just the opposite. It says:

Canada call upon the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation of the genocidal incitement to the Special Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.

If you were to—

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

For “its” investigation—

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, but if you were to take all of that last part out and just put in that Canada calls upon the United Nations to consider—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Consider referring it?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Whatever, sure.