Svend Robinson

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member on the foreign affairs committee. Would he just affirm very clearly for the people who are watching this debate, who are concerned about this issue, the statement that was made by the official critic for his party, that a Canadian Alliance government would repeal Bill C-19? Is that the official position of his party, yes or no?

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I heard the hon. member when he stood in his place. I have travelled with the hon. member. I have worked on the foreign affairs committee with the hon. member.

I know that the hon. member chose his words carefully. He can rise in his place and correct me if I misunderstood but I believe the hon. member said that a Canadian Alliance government would scrap Bill C-19, that it would repeal Bill C-19. That is exactly what the hon. member stood in his place and said. That is an astonishing statement. He is the official critic for the Canadian Alliance, for the Reform Party.

I see the former critic in the House today. Maybe he has a different position. I hope there will be enough time for the former critic to rise in his place and say, “No, Mr. Speaker, with great respect I disagree with the member for Surrey Central. I would not repeal Bill C-19”. But that is what the member said. The member said that a Canadian Alliance government would throw out Bill C-19, that it would scrap Bill C-19, that it would repeal Bill C-19. He did not say, “We would want to amend Bill C-19. We would want to strengthen Bill C-19. It is a good foundation”. No, in fact he said, “We would repeal Bill C-19”.

I appeal to the member for Red Deer. Perhaps he wants to revise the position of the Canadian Alliance. I see him consulting with the critic now. I appeal to the member for Red Deer to rise in his place and, with great respect to the member for Surrey Central, make it clear that the member is not going to repeal Bill C-19. Have a change of heart. Show some respect for the many NGOs who have spoken with one voice on this issue, those who have worked so long and so hard, the World Federalists of Canada, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, and so many others who are appalled at the possibility that those members would actually repeal, scrap and wipe out this bill.

Those members say they are committed to bringing war criminals to justice. How can they say that when according to their own spokesperson they would get rid of this bill?

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier on her excellent speech on Bill C-19. I am not going to reiterate her criticisms, but I do agree with her suggestions for improving the bill.

This is an important bill. It is an important step forward in the international criminal court file. On behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, I say once again that we support this bill at third reading.

I want to again highlight the important role that was played by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in improving and strengthening this legislation, Bill C-19. I want to signal the contribution of a number of members of that committee who worked in a truly non-partisan spirit, in particular, the member for Mount Royal, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the member for Vancouver Quadra, the member for Mercier and others who made a good bill a better bill.

Certainly as we now debate this legislation at third reading, on behalf of my colleagues in the federal New Democratic Party who have long supported the international criminal court, we welcome the adoption of this bill at third reading.

The member for Mercier appealed to the House to support this bill unanimously, but unfortunately we heard a speech from the Reform Party representative, the member for Surrey Central, that was quite frankly shocking. Basically he said that if his party were ever to form a government, one of its first acts would be to repeal Bill C-19. It would repeal the bill that sets up an international criminal court. It would repeal a bill which says that the community of nations wants to ensure that those who are responsible for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, for genocide must be brought to justice.

I could not believe my ears when I heard that member speaking for the so-called Canadian Alliance, supposedly a new party, with that kind of destructive approach to human rights globally. “Tear up the bill,” he said. “Forget the international court of human rights being ratified by this parliament. We in the Reform Party, we in the Canadian Alliance do not believe in this bill”.

I fervently hope that the people of this country in the next election will send a clear and powerful message to that party, a message that this kind of intolerance, this kind of contempt for fundamental human rights has no place in a decent and civilized society and members of that party will be turfed out of this parliament.

I want to touch on a couple of concerns with respect to the issue of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I want to note first of all how profoundly important it is that the resources be in place to properly investigate these crimes and allegations of these crimes.

Earlier this year I was in East Timor. I had the opportunity while there to meet with United Nations representatives who were investigating the absolutely appalling atrocities that took place particularly in the aftermath of the referendum on a free East Timor. They were pleading with the global community to do far more to bring in forensic experts to ensure that indeed we are in a position to investigate and bring to justice those who were responsible for these crimes.

I am very proud of the fact that there were a number of Canadians, in fact Canadians were leading the investigative effort into these terrible crimes that took place. A number of Canadian doctors and others have played a significant role. Frankly, CIDA should be doing far more to support this kind of forensic investigation.

We note as well the recent decision of the court of appeal in Chile to ensure that former President Pinochet is stripped of his immunity and brought to justice. There again we welcome this development in the international community, the recognition that those like Pinochet who are responsible for such terrible atrocities must be brought to justice. We hope that the supreme court in Chile will uphold that historic and landmark decision.

At the same time we must recognize that in other jurisdictions, including Sierra Leone, Rwanda and elsewhere, justice remains to be done and far more must be done.

I mentioned East Timor. I want to recount the story I heard from a woman who witnessed with her own eyes the brutal murder of three Catholic priests in Suai, a village in the southern part of East Timor.

The woman was present when thugs, paramilitaries supporting the Indonesian government, murdered in cold blood a Catholic priest who many Canadians got to know and love when he spent some time here in Windsor and elsewhere recently.

The woman was able to clearly identify the perpetrator of this crime. The tragedy of this situation is that the perpetrator of the crime is in a camp in West Timor with complete impunity. No steps whatsoever have been taken by the Indonesian government to bring him to justice. When we speak of war crimes and crimes against humanity surely we must recognize that this is not acceptable.

I want to touch on two other areas. First, as I noted in the debate at second reading in the context of the discussion on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, the global community must recognize that the impact of years of sanctions on the people of Iraq has been nothing short of genocidal.

UNICEF has documented the death of over half a million children. The infrastructure in that country has been destroyed. The bombing continues today. Innocent civilians are being killed. The impact of depleted uranium particularly in the south remains devastating. In the context of this debate I want once again to appeal to the Government of Canada.

I want to ask our government to respond positively to the unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade calling for the immediate lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq.

The foreign affairs committee held hearings on this issue. We heard compelling and moving evidence about the impact of the sanctions on the people of Iraq. I visited that country in January of this year along with a delegation from a group called Voices of Conscience. I met with former UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Hans Van Sponeck. I met with Dennis Halliday, his predecessor. All of them are pleading with the community of nations, with the United Nations, with our government, with Canada, to recognize the appalling and inhumane impact of these sanctions on innocent human people. Saddam Hussein is not being touched by these sanctions but innocent lives are being lost.

The standing committee on foreign affairs issued a strong and unanimous report calling for the de-linking of economic and military sanctions. Yet to date we have had no response whatsoever from the foreign minister or from the Government of Canada.

I appeal today to the Government of Canada to respond before the House rises positively to that report, to listen to the voices of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are demanding that our government stand up and be counted in the security council and call for an end to these genocidal and inhumane sanctions. I appeal to our government to respond to that strong, positive and unanimous report of the foreign affairs committee at the earliest possible time.

The final issue I want to touch on in the context of this debate on war crimes and crimes against humanity is the issue of alleged war crimes committed by NATO forces during Operation Allied Force last spring in Kosovo and Serbia, the bombing that took place there. Along with all people who value humanity we strongly condemn the attacks on ethnic Albanians that were taking place there. We urge the community of nations to work together collectively to put a stop to that brutal inhumanity.

I was shocked and appalled to learn recently that our government had decided to extend one of our highest military honours to the United States Supreme Commander in Kosovo, U.S. General Wesley Clark. General Clark was granted by the governor general Canada's meritorious service cross because he “exhibited the highest standard of professional dedication in Operation Allied Force”.

This award should never have been granted. I want to be very clear. This is not in any way a criticism of Her Excellency Governor General Adrienne Clarkson because she has no option. All honours including the Order of Canada and bravery decorations are awarded by the governor general on the advice of duly constituted committees. There is a military advisory committee which recommended to the chief of defence staff that General Clark receive this recognition.

Far from recognizing the military valour of General Clark, we should pay attention to the very eloquent report issued this week by Amnesty International on NATO and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the heading “Collateral Damage or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force”. This is a devastating indictment of the conduct of NATO under Supreme Commander Wesley Clark during the bombing campaign in Kosovo.

I personally walked through the rubble of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, one of the mistakes of those who could not properly read a map and killed innocent human beings in the Chinese embassy.

I walked through the rubble of the Serbian radio-television headquarters building as well. It was not a mistake. That building was deliberately targeted by NATO. Sixteen innocent people, make-up artists, technicians and journalists, were murdered in cold blood in that building.

As Amnesty International points out, NATO has legal obligations under international laws of war to minimize civilian casualties. In the particular instance of this direct attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television, in the view of Amnesty International it did indeed constitute a war crime. I agree that on the face of it that is exactly what it constituted. As well the Amnesty International report went on to document other attacks such as the attack on the Grdelica railroad bridge.

A passenger train was carrying civilians travelling from one place to another. It was not a military target by any stretch of the imagination, but that passenger train was hit by a NATO bomb. NATO said it was a mistake, that it was aiming for the bridge. Surely the question is: If indeed that was a mistake and it hit that passenger train initially by mistake, why did it then turn around and fire a second time? That was deliberate, and the ultimate author, supreme commander of that attack, is being honoured by Canada.

What about the bombing in broad daylight of a bridge in Varvarin? A little girl, nine years old, cycling on her bicycle was murdered in cold blood because of the violation of the rules of war contained in the Geneva convention of 1949, as updated by the protocol of 1977. NATO showed contempt for its obligations to minimize civilian casualties both through negligence and by deliberately attacking. If the bridge in Varvarin was a legitimate military target, why was it bombed in the middle of the day when people were going to the market? There is no acceptable answer to that question.

There are many other examples of the incompetence of this campaign. NATO bragged about how many tanks, armoured personnel carriers, pieces of artillery and so on it had taken out.

It turns out that after the bombing campaign ended and the Yugoslav armed forces withdrew from Kosovo they took out massive quantities of military supplies. Newsweek reported last month that pentagon officials had suppressed a U.S. air force report that found that the number of Serb targets verified destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed by NATO. U.S. air force investigators who spent weeks in Kosovo found that NATO aircraft had destroyed a grand total of 14 tanks, 18 armoured personnel carriers and 20 artillery pieces. That is a pretty incompetent campaign.

There is another example I want to give of this campaign which is being honoured. That is the bombing of army barracks on May 21 at Kosare in western Kosovo, very close to the Albanian border. These army barracks contained KLA fighters. Seven of them were killed and twenty-five were injured. The KLA had captured these army barracks several weeks before NATO attacked them.

We might say that maybe NATO did not know that the Yugoslav army was not there and that it had been captured by the KLA, but in fact the KLA had a very active presence in that area. A number of journalists reported before that facility was bombed that the KLA had captured it. Reporters and television crews had visited the very barracks that were bombed by NATO under KLA escort. They were escorted by the KLA to those barracks. NATO said it did not know.

What an incompetent campaign, and we are honouring those who are responsible not only for this incompetence but for the death through negligence and through deliberate attacks on hundreds of innocent civilians. This is wrong.

I am calling today, as I have called previously, on the government and on the Minister of National Defence to recognize this outrage and to revoke this honour to U.S. General Wesley Clark. Instead, we should be conducting a full inquiry into the NATO campaign including the role that the Canadian armed forces played in it. I was assured by General Hénault that Canadians were not involved in any of the incidents to which I have referred, but Canadians have a right to know precisely what role was played by our armed forces.

As Amnesty International has suggested it is essential that NATO establish a body to investigate these very serious allegations and to ensure that the victims of these violations and their families receive compensation. The victims of those who were murdered at the Chinese embassy have been compensated. The family of that little 9 year old girl who was killed on the bridge at Varvarin and many other civilians have not been compensated to this day. There has been no investigation whatsoever.

In the context of this debate on war crimes, on crimes against humanity and on genocide, I want to say on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we support this bill as an important step forward. Yes, it can be strengthened. Yes, it can be improved. I hope we will have that opportunity. I am pleased that Canada is one of the countries that has led this long campaign to establish the international criminal court.

I want to pay tribute not only to the leadership that was shown by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch but the many NGOs as well that have worked long and hard to make this a reality.

I hope we will work collectively as a community of nations for a planet on which there are no more war crimes, no more crimes against humanity and no more genocide. I hope there will be a rapid reaction force created to head off these things and that collectively we can work for a planet in which there is respect for the human rights of all our citizens; in which there is justice, dignity for all citizens; and in which the crimes of war, genocide and crimes against humanity will never happen again. I hope those who are responsible for those that have occurred will be brought to justice.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of Burnaby and other communities across the land urging the Parliament of Canada to stop two tier American style health care moving into Canada.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the federal Liberals have ignored the top priority of Canadians in the 2000 budget by giving only 2 cents for health care for every dollar spent on tax cuts. They point out that the federal government is paying just 13.5% of health care costs and that the federal Liberals opened the door to two tier American style health care by cutting a secret deal with the province of Alberta, which in turn paved the way for Alberta's bill 11.

Finally, they note that Canadians want immediate action to save public health care in Canada and, therefore, they call upon parliament to stop for profit hospitals and to restore federal funding for health care, to increase the federal government's share of health care funding to 25% immediately, and to implement a national home care program and a national program for prescription drugs.

[National Defence, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can give the minister another chance to say no to the Pentagon hawks.

His colleague the foreign affairs minister said last week, “The U.S. should refrain from unilateral decisions on a national missile defence system that could jeopardize the integrity of the ABM treaty regime and have a negative impact on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation”.

I want to ask the minister, does he agree with the foreign affairs minister? Is he prepared to join with the foreign affairs minister in urging the United States to get off the fence and to say a very clear and emphatic no to the national missile defence system?

[National Defence, May 12th, 2000]

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

Two days ago the minister said in the House that to his knowledge there are no U.S. nuclear weapons in Canadian waters, but that the U.S. refuses to confirm or deny the presence of these weapons.

I want to ask the minister, why is our military now training for a possible U.S. nuclear weapons accident in Canada at Nanoose Bay or possibly in Halifax? Why will the minister not stand up for Canadians as the New Zealand government has done and tell the United States to keep its nuclear weapons out of Canadian waters?

[Pornography, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the hon. member just indicate the number of the motion so that I might follow the debate carefully?

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions today which are signed by several hundred Canadians from coast to coast to coast on the subject of East Timor.

The petitioners note that the Indonesian military occupied East Timor for over 23 years in violation of UN Security Council resolutions resulting in the death of over one-third of East Timor's population.

They go on to note the participation of over 98% of eligible East Timorese in a referendum voting for independence and the ongoing human rights violations by the Indonesian military and their militia.

The petitioners therefore request that parliament call for a formal military embargo which would revoke all outstanding military export permits issued for sales of military goods to Indonesia, ensure that there are no new export permits issued for sale of military goods to Indonesia, ensure that companies which have already negotiated contracts to supply military goods will be withheld, suspend all Canadian co-operation and ties with the armed forces of Indonesia and would require consultation in parliament before being lifted.

Finally, the petitioners request that parliament work for an international military embargo against Indonesia.

[National Defence, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.

Last year when the Nanoose Bay testing range contract was renewed we were assured that there would be no nuclear weapons in Canadian waters. Yet I have a document in which DND is advertising for trainers of DND personnel in the use of nuclear weapons components and construction and nuclear capable vessels at Nanoose and at CFB Halifax. These are nuclear weapons, not nuclear powered vessels.

Why this betrayal of the promise of no U.S. nuclear weapons in Canadian waters?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of both sadness and anger that I rise to participate today in the debate on this important bill, Bill C-11.

In rising to participate in the debate I want to make a couple of preliminary points. First, as my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have noted during this debate, particularly today, it is absolutely shameful that once again on legislation this fundamental, this significant, the government is bringing down the hammer of closure before there has been any significant movement for dialogue with the workers who are affected and the communities that will be devastated by the results of the decision of the government. This is becoming a habit with the government.

As a member of the House for almost 21 years, I vividly recall Liberal MPs standing when they were in opposition and condemning the Conservative Party in the harshest of terms for its recourse to closure, to time allocation. This government, particularly in this parliament, has resorted to closure far more times, and who would have ever imagined over 60 times, than the Conservatives ever did. What we see is blatant hypocrisy and an attempt to more and more marginalize democracy itself.

We know best is the attitude of the government: we know best for the people of Cape Breton; we know best in real terms for the corporate interests that are just waiting to get their hands on the resources that are the vital part of this decision. I want to condemn the process the government has embarked on to shut down this debate.

Second, I pay tribute to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues from Cape Breton, for the tireless campaign they have waged both within the House and across the country in their home constituencies of Sydney—Victoria and Bras d'Or—Cape Breton to make Canadians more aware of just how significant and how important the issue is for all of us.

I represent an urban community on the other side of the country. I have the great privilege and honour of representing Burnaby. I have visited Cape Breton on more than one occasion and have been tremendously impressed by the strength and the resilience of the people of Cape Breton in the face of incredible adversity. That strength, that resilience and that eloquence are certainly reflected in our caucus in the representation from Cape Breton by the member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.

I note as well the extent to which many of us were moved by the writing of another Nova Scotia member, a member of our caucus, the hon. member for Dartmouth, in her powerful play The Glace Bay Miner's Museum . She wrote about some of the impact in intensely human terms of the uncertainty and despair that affected many families as a result of the corporate decision making, the insensitivity and the inhumanity of decisions that were made solely on the basis of the bottom line.

We saw the ultimate obscenity of that approach with the death of the Westray miners, death which was clearly attributed to corporate greed. I hope the House will in the very near future adopt the amendments the leader of the New Democratic Party proposed which would make it very clear that we view it as criminal wrongdoing when corporate interests are put ahead of the lives and the safety of workers in mines and elsewhere.

I speak today with some albeit very limited knowledge of mining myself, having working as an underground miner at a very young age, as a young university student, in northern Ontario at the Dickenson gold mine. I worked underground in Balmertown, Ontario, in a mine which had an appalling safety record. Certainly in a very small way I can relate to the uncertainty faced by miners as every day they put their lives on the line when they go underground. All they are asking for is some sense of being treated with some dignity and some respect. Instead of that we see the government railroading the legislation through the House of Commons.

As opposed to the original legislation tabled in the House, the original Devco Act, we know there is no provision in the bill that would compel the government “before closing to ensure that all reasonable measures have been adopted by the corporation”, that is by Devco, “to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom”.

That is not radical. That is not revolutionary. All it is asking is that there be an assurance that Devco, which has been in existence for over 30 years, shows some respect, consults, and engages in dialogue with the workers and the communities affected by its decision to make sure that the unemployment, the loss of jobs and the economic hardship are minimized. Why is the Liberal government not prepared to even make that commitment to these communities on Cape Breton? It is absolutely shameful.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are attempting to ensure that when the bill goes to committee we put back that basic commitment to the workers, to the people and to the communities of Cape Breton.

We know that there is a great deal of uncertainty in those communities. There is currently an arbitration process under way. Instead of the government respecting that arbitration process and putting the bill on the back burner while the process proceeds to its conclusion, what does it do? It rams through the legislation and says to hell with the arbitrator. The Liberals say they know what is best for the people of Cape Breton and they know what is best for their communities. The reality is that they know what is best for the corporate interests that stand to gain from the dismantling of this corporation.

I find it shocking, as my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and others have made very clear, that there are big corporate interests just waiting to move in and dismantle the corporation, to pick up the pieces and to profit from this misery. We know that foreign ownership of these resources is a very real possibility. More and more, as my colleague from Kamloops pointed out today during question period, we are losing control of our own economic destiny, our own future, our own ability to make decisions about the best interest of the people of Canada. We see that now in the case of Cape Breton as well.

This is not a debate about figures or statistics. It is a debate about flesh and blood people and families who look to the future and feel a tremendous sense of uncertainty. They are asking to be treated with some dignity and respect. Folks who are perhaps in their fifties and sixties know that it will be almost impossible for them to find another job but they at least want a decent pension. They do not want a job at a call centre. They want a decent pension and they want a future for their kids. They do not want their children to have to leave that beautiful part of our country to find a future, and they should not have to do so.

That is why we in the New Democratic Party are appealing to the government even at this late time to reconsider its approach, to pull the bill back, as my colleague for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton suggested in an amendment that she proposed in February 2000, to give the government and Devco an opportunity to enter into that dialogue with the people of the communities affected.

As I said, what those communities face with the closure of all Devco mining operations and the eventual gutting of the corporation is devastating. They face the direct loss of about 1,500 good quality, well paying union jobs. Spin off jobs will be lost as well. Two or three times as many small businesses will be hit particularly hard. They face the loss and the expenditure by Devco of as much as $50 million annually in that region to contractors and suppliers. They face the loss of almost $80 million per year in wages and salaries. In a community that is already economically depressed, imagine the kind of impact this has. Yet the Liberals insist on just ploughing ahead. It is a loss to Ottawa and to taxpayers of some $28 million a year in Canada pension, unemployment insurance and income tax. It is a huge economic loss of over $300 million to that region alone.

Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling me that my time has come to an end. I am quite prepared to continue for another half hour or 45 minutes if the House would give me leave.