Svend Robinson

[International Criminal Court, April 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and a great honour to take part in this debate highlighting the historic importance of the creation, at last, of the international criminal court.

It is an honour for me to participate on this historic day as the 60th country has now officially ratified the statute that would bring the international criminal court into force.

I want to pay tribute today to those many individuals and groups who have made this possible. I think it was an outstanding partnership between civil society and many NGOs, both here in Canada and internationally, including the dedicated officials in Canada's foreign affairs department who worked long and hard to make this statute a reality.

I would also like to particularly underline the contribution of ambassador Philippe Kirsch who did such an outstanding job, particularly in Rome in 1998 at the key conference at which the statute was adopted.

Finally, I would like to commend parliamentarians as well.

My colleague, the member for Mercier, mentioned the contribution of parliamentarians from all parties. I share her thoughts on the contributions of Daniel Turp, who is no longer here, of our colleague from the riding of Mount Royal, who has worked very hard on this, and of his predecessor, Sheila Finestone, who also did so much to ensure that this court would become a reality.

I also want to commend the work of the former minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and the current minister in his capacity as chair of the foreign affairs committee who worked very hard to make this day possible.

We are sending out a very important message as a community of nations that there will be no impunity and no safe hiding place for those who are accused of war crimes, of genocide or crimes against humanity. They must now know that they can no longer hide behind the concept of state sovereignty. We saw an early signal that the world is changing with respect to Augusto Pinochet's responsibility. If I have any regrets about this, it is that this court will not have jurisdiction over the war crimes committed by Augusto Pinochet. That is a tragedy which we cannot deal with at this point but I hope the Chilean courts will deal with that.

In conclusion, I want to voice my sadness and regret that the United States has not yet signed this landmark treaty and is threatening to withdraw its signature to the treaty. Even worse than that, the republican administration, under president George Bush, is supporting legislation that would threaten to cut off American aid to those countries which have not yet ratified the international criminal court if they ratify. I would hope that members in this House would vigorously and strongly reject this kind of blackmail.

The fact that this court will be in place will give us an opportunity to provide for an alternative to war. I had deeply hoped this court would have been in effect to ensure that instead of going to war in Afghanistan, we would have been able to try as crimes against humanity the perpetrators of those terrible crimes that took place on September 11.

Other crimes are unfolding before our eyes, war crimes in the occupied territories and elsewhere, but certainly today is a day that we celebrate this historic accomplishment. We encourage all other countries to join in signing and ratifying this important and much needed statute for an international criminal court.

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair.

First, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mercier for giving every member the opportunity to take part in this very important debate.

I returned yesterday from the Middle East, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the occupied territories. In the very few minutes that I have to speak in the House and through the House to Canadians I want to share both what I witnessed and some observations with respect to the future of this tragic part of the world.

There is a humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes in the occupied territories. I fear for the future of the people of the occupied territories, the Palestinians and indeed the future of Israel itself.

My colleague from Mount Royal has spoken of security, insecurity and self defence. It is very important that we look at the context of what is taking place today. The squalor, despair and hopelessness of an entire generation that has grown up in refugee camps without any hope for the future, the despair and anguish that those people are feeling today and the fear in cities throughout the occupied territories are a result of the brutality, violence and contempt for international law which the government of Israel is demonstrating in its current military assault on the occupied territories.

All innocent human life must be protected. My colleagues and I have condemned in the strongest possible terms the suicide bombers terrifying Israelis who are out for an evening in the town or celebrating a holy day. That is terror and we condemn it. However the terror of suicide bombers must not be responded to by the terror of Ariel Sharon's tanks, helicopter gunships and soldiers. That is what we are witnessing, the terrorism of the state in all its brutal, raw and violent reality.

I spoke in the Qalandiya refugee camp with those who were victims of this terror. There were young teachers watching television in their home in Ramallah who heard noise downstairs and gunshots ringing out. As they opened the door they saw two of their colleagues, fellow teachers, young Palestinians, innocent, with hopes for the future, who had been shot dead in cold blood by Israeli soldiers. As they looked down and cried out the soldiers kicked their bodies off the stairs and onto the floor below. They then proceeded upstairs, handcuffed these teachers, blindfolded them, beat them repeatedly and over the course of the next week engaged in what can only be described as torture before finally dumping them back at the checkpoint, because of course they were entirely innocent.

In a civilized society, a society which respects its obligations under international law, and my colleague from Mount Royal is well aware of the obligations under the fourth Geneva convention, this is an outrage and the international community cannot stand by and watch this happen.

We know all too well of what is happening in Jenin and throughout the occupied territories with this brutal and violent military assault, cutting off of food, water and electricity, stopping oxygen and medical supplies from entering, and stopping ambulances from rescuing the sick and the injured. This is inhumanity and the world cannot stand by and watch it happen.

The reality is that people are speaking out. I want to pay tribute tonight to those who in Israel and in the occupied territories have given me hope. I speak here of Canadians like Kevin Neish who is there in solidarity in a refugee camp in Bethlehem, volunteers from Oxfam Quebec, or those that I met with in Tel Aviv, 15,000 Israeli people, mainly Jews, rallying on Saturday night against Sharon's war.

The war widows, who for the first time have spoken out, said “No more”. They said “In these days of blood, violence and destruction, when women from both sides are widowed and children are orphaned, we call for an end to the cycle of bereavement. The control over another people is leading to unnecessary casualties on both sides and endangering our lives and the moral fabric of Israeli society”. They talked of the control.

We must recognize that the illegal occupation must end. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories. The illegal settlements must be dismantled. Imagine what a young Palestinian must think as they see these settlements doubling since Oslo and at the same time homes being demolished.

What can this lead to? Only to despair and hopelessness.

I want to pay tribute as well to those brave soldiers and reservists who as well have said “No more”. I speak here of the group Ometz Lesarev. I speak of Yesh Gvul, Ometz Lesarev, the courage to refuse. Those reservists and a growing number have said they are not prepared to participate in the violence in the occupied territories, soldiers like Staff Sergeant Gil Nemesh who said:

Those terrible things happening in the territories have little to do with the security of Israel and stopping terror. It is all about the settlements. Choking and starving and humiliating millions of people, to provide safety to the settlements.

This must stop. Canada must speak out. I was ashamed and appalled that at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva our government almost alone among all members, only with Guatemala, opposed the sending of a human rights mission to that area. Shame on the Government of Canada.

What should Canada be doing? Canada should be calling, as the leader of my party has urged eloquently, for an international protection force. This would be an area in which Canada could show real leadership, not waiting but calling now for that protection force.

We would not be alone. Indeed, members of the Knesset, Yossi Sarid, the leader of the opposition from Meretz and others have called for that, as have the Jordanians and the Swedes. Where is Canada's voice in speaking out for an international protection force?

As I said, there must be a protection force. Israel must immediately withdraw. There must be emergency humanitarian relief. We have to consider, if the situation deteriorates, the possibility of re-evaluating our relations, both economic and diplomatic, with Israel.

I know my time is limited. I want to conclude by saying that certainly we in Canada condemn any acts of racism, of violence, the attack on a synagogue in Saskatoon for example.

I have been accused of taking sides in this tragic dispute. I want to say yes, I plead guilty. I have taken sides. I take the side of life over death. I take the side of peace over war. I take the side of the oppressed over the oppressor. I take the side of justice over dehumanization and tyranny.

There must be justice and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli people . The occupation and the violence must end. The world must not continue to turn a blind eye to this tragedy.

[Softwood Lumber, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as a British Columbia member of parliament, I can tell the Minister for International Trade that the breakdown in softwood lumber talks is having a devastating impact on British Columbia, on coastal communities and on forest workers. Just today we learned that layoff notices are being issued by Doman Industries. Today it is going to close at least two of its sawmills.

Will the minister make it very clear that the government is prepared to assist with a major aid package for the workers who are being devastated by the breakdown in talks? If we can come up with an aid package for Bombardier, surely we can come up with an aid package for the workers of British Columbia and the Canadians that are affected.

[Petitions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a second petition on the subject of nuclear weapons, a very important issue, signed by residents of Calgary, in particular through Project Ploughshares and Kerry Duncan McCartney who is dedicated to this work.

The petitioners note that some 93% of Canadians polled in February 1998 agreed that Canada should support the negotiation of an agreement to abolish nuclear weapons. They point out as well that leaders of 19 Canadian Church denominations are in agreement, including the Church in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, in which Lucy Lu recently took refuge.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his outstanding leadership in the freedom of Lucy Lu.

The petitioners note that the International Court of Justice has determined that the use of nuclear weapons for all practical purposes is illegal. The petitioners pray and request that parliament support the government in urgently making an unequivocal commitment to nuclear weapons negotiations and in calling for immediate and practical steps to de-alert and de-activate nuclear weapons worldwide.

[Petitions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition is on the subject of the proposed free trade area of the Americas and contains hundreds of signatures, including those of constituents Mehri Najar and Nahid Peyghambarzadeh as well as the International Association of Bridge Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local 97 who are very concerned that the proposed FTAA would effectively extend the NAFTA to the hemisphere, vastly broadening the reach of its investment provisions and give corporations unprecedented rights to sue, intimidate and override democratic legislation of governments.

The petitioners have other concerns as well, including the fact that the proposed FTAA would block the ability of governments to create or maintain laws, standards and regulations to provide universal public education and health care to protect the safety and well-being of their citizens and the environment.

The petitioners have a number of requests with respect to the FTAA, including a rejection of any trade deals that would preserve NAFTA style provisions that put the rights of corporations and investors ahead of the rights of citizens and governments and they call for a new approach to globalization that puts social, economic and ecological justice above the profits of multinational corporations.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Today, hundreds of people from around the world, including Canadians like Margaret Atwood, David Suzuki and Anton Kuerti, got together to call for the immediate lifting of the economic sanctions against Iraq and to denounce the so-called smart sanctions.

When is this government going to listen to the increasingly insistent voices of people from around the world who, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, are calling for the lifting of the genocidal sanctions which, so far, have killed over 500,000 innocent children? When is the government going to act?

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am intervening in support of the matter of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from Mercier.

I too was in committee this morning, and as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, this affects more than what goes on in committees. The chair is indeed the guardian of the privileges of all members of parliament.

Standing Order 111(2) of the House states:

The committee...shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

In calling Alfonso Gagliano before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade today an essential element of the responsibility to examine qualifications and competence was to examine the standards in place for heads of missions representing Canada.

The standards are set out in the conflict of interest and post employment code for the public service. Mr. Gagliano signed a document certifying he had read and understood the code. According to the code every employee shall conform to the following principles:

Employees shall perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

It is clear that in his capacity as the head of mission the ambassador to Denmark is in a position to make decisions with respect to the hiring of locally engaged staff. He is also in a position to let contracts. Clearly the ambassador designate has had experience in precisely those roles. The letting of contracts and the hiring of personnel are within his qualifications and competence and should have been permitted in the context of the examination.

It was denied. As members of the committee we were muzzled, shut down and prevented from doing our job on behalf of the people of Canada. For that reason this is a serious question of privilege.

The chair of the committee is here today. I have great respect for the chair but she made it clear she would not permit any questions that related to the conduct of the minister prior to his appointment as ambassador to Denmark. How on earth can we examine the qualifications and competence of the minister if we are not in a position to ask questions that relate directly to his role as ambassador about the time that he served as minister?

The Speaker knows there was a serious cloud with respect to the conduct of the minister. There are suggestions he hired and recommended the hiring of friends and political cronies. There are suggestions he helped his son in law's firm get a contract. All this is directly relevant to the qualifications and competence of the ambassador designate but we were not permitted to ask questions about any of it.

Mr. Speaker, we are in your hands.

For this reason, it is very clear that I very strongly support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Mercier.

If the ambassador were in Denmark at this time, he would be having to make very important decisions concerning embassy employees and contracts. If there is already an odour of corruption surrounding this former minister as a result of his actions while minister, it is totally unacceptable and repugnant for the committee members not to have been able to ask questions on his behaviour while a minister.

For this reason, I support the question of privilege of the hon. member for Mercier.

[Grants and Contributions, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is very good news indeed. The auditor general is investigating whether there was fraud in the Groupaction contracts and the RCMP may be investigating whether there is corruption in the awarding of those two contracts.

In view of the fact that the potential fraud and corruption occurred on the watch of Alfonso Gagliano when he was minister of public works, I want to ask the Prime Minister just what action he is prepared to take.

The Prime Minister said that if something is proven one acts. Will the Prime Minister clearly act to fire Alfonso Gagliano as ambassador if these allegations are proven accurate?

[Petitions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of genetically modified foods and is signed by hundreds of residents of British Columbia, including a number of residents of the Gustav Wasa Place apartments in Burnaby.

The petitioners note that Canadians rely on the government to protect their health by ensuring that the food they eat and the drugs upon which they depend are safe. They point out among other things that over 35 countries have enacted legislation requiring that food products which contain genetically modified ingredients be labelled. They call upon parliament to implement a mandatory labelling process that will make consumers aware of all genetically modified produce and components in processed foods. They require that food safety include the capacity to evaluate genetically modified foods and that the evaluation be independent of the food production industry and government food marketing and promotion initiatives.

[Petitions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first petition is on the subject of the framework convention on climate change and the convention on biological diversity.

The petitioners, including Joan Russow of the Global Compliance Research Project, note that these two documents were signed in 1992. They point out that in September 2002 there is a 10 year review of the discharging of obligations under these conventions signed at the UNCED and the acting of commitments made through agenda 21 at the UNCED. They point out that the B.C. government was consulted during the negotiations on these documents and that the B.C. cabinet endorsed both conventions.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to comply with the framework convention on climate change to prohibit all offshore drilling and increased exploration and consumption of fossil fuels and to invest in promoting safe environmentally sound energy.