Svend Robinson

[Business of the House, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if I may that immediately upon adjournment, as is the practice in the House traditionally, there be an opportunity for the adjournment proceedings and debate.

[Business of the House, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, regarding what we traditionally refer to as the late show, will there be adjournment proceedings at the conclusion of the emergency debate or not?

[Business of the House, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take it there will be adjournment proceedings immediately upon adjournment as is the practice traditionally. Is that the case?

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member specifically whether he supports the motion before the House and in particular the provisions in subparagraph (c) directing the government to table a report setting out the steps that Canada will take to implement an action plan. I ask this question because his colleague, the spokesperson for foreign affairs, indicated that he did not support this provision. He believed that we were exaggerating the extent of racist attacks in Canada. Is that the position of the member who has just spoken?

I also want to raise another issue and perhaps he could comment on it. The member has spoken of the importance of tolerance and respect for fundamental human rights. As one member of the House, and I emphasize I am speaking only for myself, I want to say that I reject the criticisms and the attacks on the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism which were made in the House by a number of members in the context of the comments that were made at a women's conference recently at which the secretary of state was participating.

Surely one of the most precious and fundamental rights in a civilized and democratic society is freedom of speech. I would hope that the member would join in recognizing that it is inappropriate and unfair to attack the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism for not criticizing comments that were made by Sunera Thobani during that conference.

I want to ask the member to comment both on the motion and also with respect to the importance of freedom of speech and respecting freedom of speech.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we have to look at this issue very carefully. I think also we have to place it in an historical context. A number of times the point has been made that we have to deal with some of the broader issues that arise.

One of the tragedies in this instance is the fact that Osama bin Laden in a sense has been a beneficiary of the United States in the past. In fact Osama bin Laden was supported vigorously by the CIA in the CIA's battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It supported Osama bin Laden. It supported him with weapons. It trained him and now tragically he has apparently turned, and the evidence is compelling and powerful, against those who fed him initially.

The same thing happened with Saddam Hussein when he was supported. In the war between Iraq and Iran Saddam Hussein was the CIA's god.

We have to deal with the broader context of these issues as an international community and recognize that we have to stop supporting those who are prepared to resort to violence in circumstances in which we might share their geopolitical agenda.

In terms of the question the hon. member raised specifically, it is essential we understand that no nation can take the law into its own hands. In this instance if there is compelling and powerful evidence pointing in the direction of bin Laden, it should be brought before an ad hoc international tribunal. That tribunal will be in a position to weigh that evidence with care.

Should the evidence be compelling and should it be found that a nation is deliberately harbouring that individual, the international community would be able under the provisions of chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to take the appropriate response. That is the framework within which we must operate.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Palliser.

I rise to speak in strong support of the motion which is now before the House which effectively calls on the House to endorse three fundamental principles.

First, it reiterates in the strongest possible terms our condemnation of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11. It makes it very clear that we view these as crimes against humanity and it calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice in accordance with international law and within the framework of the United Nations.

As well, the motion endorses the objectives of the UN Security Council resolution that was recently adopted with respect to the issue of measures that member states might take to confront terrorism. I want to be clear that in endorsing the objectives and principles of that resolution we are not necessarily endorsing each and every component but certainly the broad objectives we do support.

Most important, the motion calls on the government to table in the House within a short timeframe of 90 days, a report setting out steps that Canada will take to implement an action plan with details to fight the rising tide of intolerance and racism directed against Arab and Muslim Canadians, and indeed against other visible minorities in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

I have listened with interest to the debate thus far and was disappointed that the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his comments in the House did not specifically commit the government to that third important element of the resolution which is a concrete action plan to fight the kind of racist attacks we have witnessed. It was with an even greater sense of concern that I listened to the official spokesperson for the Canadian Alliance, the member for Portage--Lisgar, who said the Canadian Alliance does not support this provision.

The Canadian Alliance does not support a call for an action plan to deal with the rising tide of intolerance and racism. If ever Canadians were wondering why that party is sinking into total and utter irrelevance, all they had to do was listen to the speech by the member for Portage--Lisgar who was not prepared to join in a broad all party consensus in condemning in the strongest possible terms these racist attacks, and very important, not just condemning but calling for strong action. It is a sad day in the House of Commons and a pretty appalling performance on behalf of the Canadian Alliance.

In the few minutes I have to speak to the House I want to focus on a couple of areas of concern at this time, particularly as we hear the call from some, including Prime Minister Tony Blair in the United Kingdom and others, for military strikes now in Afghanistan.

As the resolution points out, it is essential that we deal with the attacks within the framework of international law and that we recognize that these are crimes against humanity and that those who are responsible must be brought to justice in accordance with the principles of international law. Today and yesterday as I understand it, the United States presented compelling evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda in the attacks in New York and Washington and the tragic deaths in Pennsylvania.

Surely it is not just NATO and individual allies who must be briefed on this. It must be the United Nations itself. There were nationals of over 60 countries who were murdered, killed in these terrible attacks. Indeed, as the UN secretary general said yesterday, in response to these attacks we must recognize that it is an assault on the founding principles of the United Nations itself. It is in that light that we call today for the United Nations to be playing the key role, not the United States alone or the United States having put together a coalition within NATO under article 5, but the response to this crime must be within the framework of the United Nations itself. Indeed there are precedents for that.

We urge the Government of Canada to act under the provisions of article 35 of the UN charter to call for the United Nations to establish an ad hoc tribunal to review the evidence that the United States has apparently already presented before NATO, as well as to be responsible for bringing to justice and for trying those who are responsible for these terrible crimes.

There are precedents, as I pointed out in the case of an ad hoc international tribunal, in the case of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Unfortunately the international criminal court is not yet constituted. Even if it were, it would not have retroactive jurisdiction.

Certainly the crimes we are speaking of, the recent attacks in New York and Washington, would qualify as crimes against humanity even under the recently enacted Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which includes murder when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population with knowledge of the attack.That is surely the direction in which we must proceed as a community of nations. We would strongly oppose any suggestion of unilateral military attacks by the United States, or a coalition of states including NATO, that shows contempt for that important principle of international law.

It is also very important that we underscore the principle that this parliament must speak before any Canadian troops are committed to any military action. We strongly support that principle. We supported an earlier motion that called for a vote in the House before any troops are committed.

Article 51 has been relied upon by the government in suggesting that the United States or NATO has the power to unilaterally respond. We reject that suggestion. There is considerable international law to back up our position, going back to the October 1985 attacks by Israeli planes which bombed the headquarters of the PLO in Tunis. They sought the support of the security council to do that. They argued that the bombing was justified by Tunisia having knowingly harboured terrorists who had targeted Israel. At that time the security council rejected the claim unanimously by a vote of 14 to zero with the United States abstaining.

In international law, and certainly according to the precedent of the International Court of Justice case in the Nicaragua decision, the United States and NATO do not have the power to bomb. To bomb, creating even more civilian casualties, would surely be succumbing to the desire for vengeance and revenge which my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre said earlier we must resist.

Certainly there is a real concern about the situation of refugees attempting to flee Afghanistan both in terror of the Taliban regime and fear of the bombing. Canada can and must do far more to respond to that humanitarian crisis which is unfolding.

Because I am sharing my time with my colleague from Palliser, I have very little time left. I want to close by reading a letter sent by the parents of one of the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11. Their son was killed in one of the towers. They wrote a letter to President Bush:

Our son is one of the victims of Tuesday's attack on the World Trade Center. We read about your response in the last few days and about the resolutions from both Houses, giving you undefined power to respond to the terror attacks.

Your response to this attack does not make us feel better about our son's death. It makes us feel worse. It makes us feel that our government is using our son's memory as a justification to cause suffering for other sons and parents in other lands.

It is not the first time that a person in your position has been given unlimited power and came to regret it. This is not the time for empty gestures to make us feel better. It is not the time to act like bullies.

We urge you to think about how our government can develop peaceful, rational solutions to terrorism, solutions that do not sink us to the inhuman level of terrorists.

I echo that call today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mercier, the Bloc Quebecois critic, for supporting our motion.

I know that the member has just returned from sessions of the European Parliament and I would like her, if possible, to share with our parliament the discussions and the resolutions it adopted with respect to this important issue.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was very disappointed to hear the hon. member, the spokesperson for the Canadian Alliance and foreign affairs, suggesting that his party does not support the call for an action plan as outlined in the motion that the leader of the New Democratic Party has put before the House.

The motion specifically calls on the government to table within 90 days a report setting out steps that the Canadian government will take to implement an action plan, including detailed budgets and timetables to fight the rising tide of intolerance and racism directed against Arab and Muslim Canadians in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The official spokesperson for the Alliance has indicated that he does not support the call for an action plan. What part of the action plan does he not support? Does he not recognize that there is a very serious concern in this country with growing incidents of racist attacks, not just on Muslims and Arab Canadians. A Hindu temple was attacked in Toronto and a number of Sikhs have been attacked in Hamilton and elsewhere. Children are being attacked in schools.

This cries out for action, not just from the government but from all parliamentarians to speak with one voice against this. I am deeply troubled by the fact that the Canadian Alliance apparently is not joining in this call.

Will the member reconsider his position upon reflection and join in ensuring that this call for a strong and effective action against these kinds of racist attacks is one which is unanimous from all parties in the House of Commons?

[Sudan, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to speak in support of the motion put before the House today by the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

I commend the hon. member for his ongoing commitment to peace and justice for the people of Sudan. I cannot imagine a situation which cries out more for the world community to act in the name of peace and justice than the terrible tragedy that is occurring in Sudan.

There has been extensive documentation of the horrors being inflicted by the Sudanese government on the people of southern Sudan. In addition to military attacks, people throughout the region must confront the unimaginable horror of widespread famine. I hope the world food program and others will be in a position to respond to the terrible crisis.

I will give members a brief historical background of the situation, as my colleague has done. The extremist national Islamic front regime in Khartoum, which militarily deposed an elected government in 1989, has waged an ongoing savage war and scorched earth policy against the people of southern Sudan and other marginalized areas.

In the most recent phase of the civil war more than two million human beings, overwhelmingly civilians, have died in the south. Another five million or so have been uprooted or internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries as refugees. There are concerns about slavery and about children being forced into military campaigns.

The war conducted by Khartoum is a war of terror. It has involved widespread indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets throughout the south, the denial of food aid to starving people, the abetting of a ghastly trade in human slavery, and scorched earth warfare in the oil regions located primarily in the south.

We must understand clearly that Canada is complicit in these actions to the extent that it allows Talisman Energy Inc. to continue to fund and fuel the terrible assaults on the people of Sudan. John Harker, who conducted an independent inquiry into the situation in Sudan, made it clear that if evidence is made available of a direct link between oil revenues and the war being conducted by the government of Sudan, Canada should take steps to ensure Talisman does not carry on its business in that country.

The evidence is clear, powerful, overwhelming and compelling, yet the government has done nothing at all. The former foreign affairs minister promised to impose tough sanctions if a link were established. That has not happened.

Recently we learned that the Canada pension plan, as my colleague from Saskatoon pointed out, has invested some $57.3 million of Canadians' retirement funds in Talisman Energy Inc. I do not believe the vast majority of Canadians would want one cent of their money invested in a company which is contributing to such bloodshed and violence.

Not only are Talisman's funds contributing to and fuelling the scorched earth policy. We know with certainty that some of Talisman's oil fields at Heglig are being used by the Sudanese military.

A few months ago a Canadian-British team returned from Sudan. The team was made up of Georgette Gagnon, a Canadian human rights lawyer and member of the original Harker assessment mission, and John Ryle, a London based Africa specialist and expert on Sudan. These people were in the oil concession areas of southern Sudan for about three weeks in April of this year. I have a copy of their report, but unfortunately I do not have time to read it in the House.

The key finding of these two respected observers is unambiguous. Talisman's greater Nile concession airstrips are being used for offensive military purposes, not just occasionally but on a regular basis.

This was reinforced by the findings of a Canadian political officer in Khartoum, Nicholas Coghlan, who reported in February of this year:

For the past month there have been two Hind gunships stationed at Unity Field, and interlocutors told me they had been flying sorties almost every day, taking on large amounts of ammunition, and unloading none. Talisman has indicated to the Government of Sudan its unease at this situation and has sought assurances that the Hinds' presence is purely defensive.

The Harker report in January 2000 stated that helicopter gunships and Antonov bombers of the government of Sudan had armed and refuelled at Heglig airstrip and from there had attacked civilians. This is totally incontrovertible.

What more evidence do we need? What more evidence does the government need before it will finally take action? The government says it cannot act under the existing provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act. However it could show moral leadership. It could change the legislation to make it clear to Talisman that Canadians are appalled and ashamed by its conduct in Sudan. It could make it clear that Canadians want Talisman out of that country and do not want it fuelling the war any more.

I would be interested to know the position of the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin with respect to amending the Special Economic Measures Act to facilitate this important step.

In response to my question in the House in May of this year the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that if evidence were brought forward by NGOs that Talisman airfields were being used for offensive purposes by the government of Sudan, the government would take action. How many months ago was that? There has been no action whatsoever.

I will point out something that occurred in the United States in last few days. The Bush administration, tragically, has decided to back away from the Sudan peace act.

The Sudan peace act is an important piece of legislation. It would have required the delisting of shares in Talisman and any other oil corporation operating in Sudan. It was an effective measure. It was adopted by a vote of 422 to 2 or something of that nature. The U.S. senate adopted similar legislation but the Bush administration is now deciding to back off. That is shameful.

Unfortunately we are seeing the one potentially effective tool to put pressure on Talisman being abandoned by the American administration just as it is lifting sanctions against Pakistan to get it on board in the so-called war against terrorism. The price being paid here is too high.

I appeal to the government to abandon its current policy of discussion and constructive engagement with the Sudanese government. It should pursue international measures to hold the government of Sudan accountable for its human rights violations. It should push for strong new legislation and a strengthened Special Economic Measures Act to deal with militarized commerce and hold Canadian companies accountable for contributing to armed conflict. As well, the Canada pension plan investment fund should clearly divest itself of its shares in Talisman.

Having heard the eloquent pleas of colleagues in the House such the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, I hope the House might be persuaded to give unanimous consent to allowing this important motion to go forward to the foreign affairs committee. I seek unanimous consent of the House to allow that to occur.

[Customs Act, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond with care to the comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. In the context of this debate on customs legislation, he made some interesting points about the impact of the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11 and how they might affect this legislation and Canada's response to it.

In looking at that response, I suggest there are two fundamental elements that we have to address. One is the issue of accountability and the other is the issue of prevention. In terms of accountability, it needs to be done within the framework of international co-operation; to hold the perpetrators of these terrorist acts to account, as well as their accomplices and those who harbour them.

In the context of prevention, there are two aspects. One is more effective surveillance combined with other security measures to enhance public safety. Certainly we have to look very seriously at that. The second is attention to the social, political and economic conditions that promote or are conducive to terrorism.

I want to be very clear. I am not speaking in any manner to suggest that this in any way defends acts of terrorism. It is precisely the opposite. If we want to understand and prevent terrorist attacks, as I heard the hon. member say, it is essential to look at what breeds the desperation, hopelessness and despair that ultimately drives people to suicide bombings or to this terrible terrorist act of September 11.

I want to take issue with the hon. member's reading of history. He referred to the question of why it is that the Muslim community, for example, in many cases, hates the United States, its foreign policy and western foreign policy. He said that they should not do that because the west has been supportive of them in a number of respects. I think we must be cautious and accurate in our review of history.

When the member talks about the west's support for the Kurds in northern Iraq, what about the Kurds in Turkey? When he talks about the tragic situation in the Middle East and the Palestinians, surely he has to recognize that the United States has been supporting the Israeli policy of illegal settlements and occupation for far too long.

Does the member not recognize that is the tragic history and not what he has recounted, as well as the impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq?