Svend Robinson

[Foreign Affairs, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

U.S. senator Jesse Helms, the ranking Republican on the foreign affairs committee, said yesterday that the United States is very close to a military attack on Iraq, whose people are already suffering of course from sanctions and from bombing. I want to ask whether Canada will speak out strongly against any such attack. Will this minister assure the House that before any Canadian troops are committed to a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks there will be not just a debate but a vote in this House of Commons?

[Foreign Affairs, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation.

As the minister knows, millions of Afghani citizens are fleeing both from the terror of the Taliban regime and in fear of a possible United States bombing. The United Nations has appealed for a humanitarian coalition to help these desperate people.

I want to ask the minister what action our government is taking to urge neighbouring countries not to seal their borders to these desperate people, and will we be committing significantly increased resources beyond the $1 million that was committed last week to these people?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, George Bush's new war is in fact in contempt of international law and will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghani civilians, just as we have seen over half a million Iraqi children die innocently.

George Bush has said that he will use all necessary weapons in this war. Will the Prime Minister make it very clear to President George Bush that Canada utterly rejects any suggestion of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in any war at all?

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

While Canadians strongly condemn the terrorist attacks on September 11, many Canadians are also deeply concerned and reject George Bush's dangerous new war that ignores the United Nations and international law.

Will the Prime Minister tell George Bush on Monday that there are not only two choices, the choice between the United States and terrorism, but that there is a third choice, the choice of respect for international law and the United Nations? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that we reject George Bush's war?

[Canada-U.S. Meeting, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is with a profound sense of sadness and deep concern for the future that I rise to participate in the debate this evening having just listened with a sense of foreboding and almost of despair to the speech of the president of the United States to the American congress.

We are asked tonight what is our advice to the Prime Minister as he journeys to Washington next week to meet with the president of the United States. What message should he bring on behalf of the people of Canada to the president at this incredibly important time, not just for the United States and for Canada, but indeed for the world?

The first message of course must be a message of deep condolence for the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives, and the death toll tragically mounts ever higher day by day; support for those who were injured; a tribute and thanks to those who, in the face of such tremendous odds, continue the desperate search for survivors; a tribute to the firefighters, the police officers, the rescue workers; and a tribute to the amazing people of New York who have suffered such a terrible wound.

We also owe it to our friends in the United States to speak the truth about the implications of the course upon which they are now embarking. I believe from the bottom of my heart that the United States is embarking upon a course which is profoundly dangerous, which will cause the loss of many more innocent lives and which will take this planet into territory that is dangerous and destructive.

They have rejected the path of multilateralism, of working in solidarity with other nations through the umbrella of the United Nations and in respect of international law. No one in the House believes anything other than we must do everything we possibly can to bring the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice, these crimes against humanity.

The global community must resolve to do whatever we can within the framework of international law to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. Yes, these are crimes against humanity and they must be responded to as crimes within the framework of global law enforcement, not in the context of war and retaliation.

The compelling evidence that apparently exists linking bin Laden, al-Qaeda and others must be brought before an international tribunal. It is quite true that the international criminal court does not yet exist, but surely it is not beyond the powers of the global community to create a respected international tribunal to weigh that evidence with care, just as we have created tribunals in the case of other terrible crimes.

President Bush said tonight to the people of America and the people of the world “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

I say no to the president of the United States. We are not with him as he embarks upon this path of unilateral massive military assaults. We are certainly not with the terrorists. There is a third way which calls for respect for international law as we bring these perpetrators to justice.

President Bush went on to say that any nation which continues to harbour or support terrorism is a hostile regime. We all share the concern about those nations that harbour terrorists. The most recent state department list includes Cuba among the seven nations that the United States state department believes harbour terrorists.

What does this declaration by the president of the United States mean with respect to Cuba? What does it mean with respect to Iraq, another country on that list? How many more innocent lives will be taken? Half a million Iraqis including tens of thousands of innocent children have died as a direct result of the inhumane and genocidal sanctions on that country. Innocent civilians and the lives of Iraqi children are just as precious and as valuable as the lives of those office workers who perished in that terrible terrorist attack in New York.

The chair of the standing committee on foreign affairs is in the House tonight. I commend him for the comments that he made earlier this week during the course of this debate. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to heed his wisdom.

It is easy to strike out in retaliation. The United States has all the weapons it needs and these weapons are already on their way. However we must be very cautious that in doing so we are not creating more innocent victims. By what perverted logic can it be suggested that killing thousands of Afghanis who are fleeing from the terror of the Taliban will save any lives anywhere else in the world? How can anyone argue that? How can anyone not recognize that we will create more martyrs and more people who are absolutely determined to avenge these deaths? That is a threat to all of us.

I say to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, please plead with the president of the United States not to take us down this destructive, disastrous course to war and the death of many innocent civilians. We can only begin to imagine the consequences domestically as well in terms of civil liberties and the most fundamental human rights. It was Benjamin Franklin, a great American, who said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

The course upon which the president is embarking would not only strip away liberty but would exacerbate the contempt for multilateralism in international law that we have already seen too much of from our neighbour. We cannot allow this to happen. I hope the Prime Minister will be listened to if he takes that message.

The president did not even mention Canada tonight. He mentioned many other countries but he was silent on Canada. It was quite shocking. We were a country that poured out our hearts, opened our homes and provided many rescuers.

I appeal to the Prime Minister to make it clear to the president of the United States that the solution he is now urging on the world is one that is doomed to kill many innocent people and it would take us on a path toward grave destruction and further away from peace. The choice is not the United States or terrorism. The choice is peace and respect for international law.

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I want to ask the minister whether the Prime Minister in his conversation with President Bush next week will not only reiterate the profound concern of Canadians that those who are responsible for terrorist acts will be brought to justice, but also that it be done fully in accordance with international law. Specifically, will the Prime Minister urge the President that the evaluation and assessment of the evidence of responsibility for these appalling acts be made by an international tribunal and not solely by the United States or NATO?

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this motion and to take a very brief opportunity to raise some serious substantive concerns as well about the proposal made by the Alliance in its motion today.

That party suggests that we should adopt legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000. When we look at some of the provisions of that draconian legislation, deep concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse of that legislation.

One of the prominent and respected labour backbenchers, the chair of the select committee on foreign affairs Donald Anderson, said that the legislation was trying to restore the divine right of kings. He pointed out that the legislation would in effect deny the right of British citizens or people who had fled from tyrannical regimes the opportunity to speak out against those regimes under this legislation. It is an extraordinary piece of legislation. Whether it is members of the Kurdish community speaking out against repression in Turkey or elsewhere, or whether it was those of us who spoke out against apartheid in South Africa or against the atrocities of the Indonesian government in East Timor, under the provisions of this legislation that the Alliance is so eager to embrace, we could be locked up. There are serious substantive concerns here.

I would remind the Speaker that one of the Canadian Alliance members of parliament from Calgary defined Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Under this legislation that provision could be used to deport Nelson Mandela or another person fighting for liberation and human rights and freedom to their death in another country.

It is an assault on refugees. It is an assault on human rights. Certainly it should not guide this parliament in its work in attempting to respond to the very serious concerns that my colleague has addressed on the issue of terrorism.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. Perhaps the best response to his comments is to quote from the statement made by Project Ploughshares, which said:

Crimes against humanity cannot be redressed through actions which themselves circumvent the law and due process; nor is it possible for states or communities to individually build fortified islands of safety based on their own power or unilateral actions.

I think we have to be particularly vigilant in the coming days to speak to our friends and allies in the United States with respect to their response. I was troubled and alarmed when George Bush suggested that “We will rid the world of evil doers” as part of this mission of response, because when we look at those who have been defined as the evil doers historically by the United States, whether it was in Chile, where the tragic irony is that September 11 is also the anniversary date of the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government there, whether it is the devastation and the genocidal impact of sanctions on the people of Iraq, whether it is the targeting of Cuba as a terrorist state by the United States, I think all of us have to be particularly vigilant to ensure that what guides us in our response is the quest for justice and not the quest for retribution and revenge.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to take part on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and to express first our deepest sympathies to the families of those who died and those who disappeared and whose whereabouts are unknown.

We acknowledge the profound sense of tragedy and numbness that all of us felt as we witnessed the horror of what took place on September 11. I know many of us have personal stories.

I listened with sadness to the comments of the member for Mercier, who spoke of her son.

We all have our personal stories of close friends and family members whose whereabouts we did not know and the fear, the anguish and the uncertainty that all of us faced. In some cases we know that they died in that terrible tragedy.

I want to pay particular tribute to the firefighters and the police officers who put their lives on the line for the rescue and the attempted rescue of the victims of this terrible tragedy. As a Canadian, I was very proud of the response of Canadians in this time of anguish and pain.

Canadians opened their hearts and their homes from coast to coast to coast to receive those who had been stranded in aircraft. They made a huge difference by donating blood and contributing funds through many different organizations.

The Vancouver emergency measures team was ready to contribute, and I thank the federal government for its support of that very important team.

We owe it as well to recognize that among those who died, those who assisted in the rescue, those who supported the ongoing struggle to recover bodies, were many Muslims and Arab Canadians.

As my leader and my colleagues on all sides of the House have said, it is incredibly important that we recognize that their community was affected just as profoundly and that the terrorists in this instance were not in any way representative or reflective of a particular faith community or religion. Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, spoke very eloquently of this when he said:

The reality is that Canadian Muslims are grieving as deeply as everyone else. In fact, we grieve a double tragedy. For even as we mourn the loss of lives on Tuesday--including people of all faiths--we are also forced to look over our shoulders. After Tuesday's terrorist attacks, we live in fear of being found guilty by association because of North America's prevailing ignorance about our faith.

I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister and the leaders of all parties in the House making a very powerful plea for an understanding that no faith group in any way should be targeted, least of all the Muslim and Arab Canadian group.

It is incumbent upon us after we grieve, and of course we continue to grieve, to decide how to respond effectively to this profound tragedy as a nation that is a close friend of the United States, as a neighbour that also lost citizens ourselves and as a member of the community of nations.

At the domestic level I agree with the leader of the Conservative Party, or whatever it is called these days, the progressive conservative democratic representative caucus. I agree completely that parliament must be fully engaged and examine a number of key issues that have come up in the wake of this tragedy that include border screening and the whole question of airport security.

My colleague from Sackville has pointed out the importance of restoring a strong federal government role through Transport Canada in airport security. We New Democrats say that is long overdue and it must happen now.

Unfortunately we are seeing the results of an era of privatization and deregulation not only in Canada but in the United States as well with respect to airport security.

We must not yield to the call of some that we harmonize our policies with the United States with respect to immigration and refugees or least of all our foreign policy.

Our grief and anger must not in any way lead us to a diminution of the most fundamental and most important civil liberties and human rights. Those who flee from terror themselves tragically must not be victimized now by the call from some, including those in the official opposition, to implement draconian new measures on immigration or refugee policy. As Tom Berger has said “our freedoms are fragile indeed”.

It is precisely at times such as this, when we respond in anguish and deep grief, when we must be most careful. We have heard the parallel of Pearl Harbor. Let us never forget what followed Pearl Harbour: the internment of Canadians and Americans of Japanese origin and the use of the ultimate outrage, the atomic bomb.

In 1970, in response to terrorist groups, the War Measures Act was used, which represented a powerful threat to civil liberties with over 300 Quebecers arrested and imprisoned.

We must be particularly vigilant at this time not to allow in any way our most basic and fundamental rights and freedoms to be trampled on in the name of the fight for security or against terrorism.

However, the most important issue I want to address in the few minutes that remain to me is the question of Canada's response, the government's response, to a possible request by the United States or NATO for military action. We have heard what I think are deeply troubling words from the solicitor general and the foreign affairs minister today during question period. I was pleased with the tone that the Prime Minister set in his comments today, but disturbed by the suggestions of some of his colleagues that we are indeed prepared to walk every step of the way with the United States. I believe that is what the solicitor general said. I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to give our government that kind of carte blanche.

I have been disturbed by the talk of war. I would appeal to our government to resist that talk. As the Belgian foreign minister and the Norwegian foreign minister have both said clearly, this is not war, with all of the horrible consequences it brings. So too must our government take that position. Retaliation is the call, but it must not lead to the death of innocent civilians. There must be full respect for international law. The Prime Minister was not yet prepared to commit to that.

Any response that Canada makes must be in the context of a multilateral response respecting international law and not simply within the framework of NATO. Part of that international response involves the whole issue of extradition. We must attempt to strengthen the International Criminal Court as well. We must also recognize that we have to deal with the root causes that lead desperate people. As Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, said “Why do they hate us so much?”

We must recognize that the causes of hopelessness and despair, for example, must be addressed, particularly in the Middle East. We must not allow this to lead to Canada supporting national missile defence, which would have had absolutely no impact whatsoever in this context. We must appeal to the government of Israel in particular at this time not to in any way exacerbate the situation there, to return to peace dialogue, to respect international law, to stop the attacks on Ramallah and in the occupied west bank and to end the settlements and respect international law.

Finally I suggest that we listen to our children. In closing I want to quote from a letter which I received from a young constituent. I am going to just take a minute here, with the indulgence of the House. She sent me a copy of a letter she wrote to the Prime Minister. Kimberly Peabody, a high school student, said she was very worried about the future of the world right now, and she wrote:

President Bush said “We will hunt down the people who did this and make them pay.” That is completely the wrong way to react to this. He shouldn't be reacting in this “we'll get them back” way. He should be thinking about what he did to make them so mad... Besides if he keeps thinking about “getting them back”, you know more innocent people are going to die. We were always taught in elementary school not to fight back right away but to take a few minutes to calm down and that way you will act more rationally.

In closing I appeal to our government to respect international law, not to add to the toll of human suffering and martyrdom. Let us do whatever we can to bring the perpetrators of this outrage to justice, but in a way that respects and reflects the Canadian values that are so precious and so dear to all of us.

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we share the goal of destroying terrorism, but we do not want to destroy international law and innocent civilian lives in the process.

I would once again ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. Will the Prime Minister assure the House and assure Canadians, who are deeply concerned that he may be giving carte blanche to the United States in this incident, that any response Canada supports will fully respect international law and will avoid the loss of innocent civilian lives?