Irwin Cotler

[Petitions, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents from the town of Hampstead calling upon the government to increase co-operation with and provide financial compensation to Canadian municipalities in order to combat and prevent the devastating economic and environmental effects of the emerald ash borer. The ash borer has proved to be highly destructive. Since its arrival, it has killed millions of ash trees with its significant impact on both the local and national economy and ecology.

I share the concerns of my constituents who understand the ruination that has resulted elsewhere to both urban and major wooded regions of the country and continent. Complete destruction of the affected resources typically results within six years of infestation, making the need for action in this regard of particular urgency to both my constituents and the region.

As such, the petitioners call for both financial compensation from an increased coordination with the federal government to combat this threat.

[Constitution Compliance Review Act, June 17th, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-537, an act to ensure legislative compliance with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the constitution compliance review act, legislation that would require, for the first time, constitutional examination of all bills introduced in Parliament, the tabling of a report of constitutional compliance and an independent non-partisan review and compliance mechanism.

It is imperative that parliamentarians be informed of the constitutionality of bills, given our obligation to uphold the Constitution and to oversee the public purse. This bill would thus seek to improve transparency in the parliamentary process by ensuring that all parliamentarians are given an independent analysis of the constitutionality of all bills, regardless of whether they are introduced by the government or opposition, in the House or in the Senate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Foreign Affairs, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations recently released its horrific report on death, destruction and devastation in Syria: 93,000 dead, 5,000 killed monthly, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed daily, 4.5 million displaced internally and 7,000 new refugees each day.

While the government has increased aid to refugees in Jordan, will it increase aid to internally displaced persons in Syria, facilitate family reunification and resettlement for Syrian refugees, join the Swiss-led initiative to bring war criminals to justice and, finally, affirm and implement the responsibility to protect doctrine?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-54 report stage amendments. In this regard I hope to be brief and I raise the matter, not to secure a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, but rather for the completeness of the record and so you may take the matter under advisement in conjunction with the Clerk for further action as you both deem appropriate.

Briefly, Bill C-54 completed clause-by-clause review at committee Wednesday evening. I began contemplating report stage amendments immediately thereafter and made a request with the Legislative Counsel for the preparation of amendments with the belief that report stage would begin the House on Tuesday. On Friday, it became clear the debate would actually begin at report stage on Monday, today, and thus the amendments were needed by 2 p.m. Friday to comply with the exigencies of Standing Order 54. This was communicated by my office to the clerks preparing the amendments requested.

As I fully appreciate and understand, the amendments I sought were complex from a drafting point of view. Indeed, while I sought that one concept removed from the bill, this alone required the drafting of 32 separate motions to ensure that the statute would be intelligible if the House were to agree with this initiative. Unfortunately, it seems that the revised version of the bill, reflecting committee amendments, was not immediately available to counsel working on my amendments and as a result of the changed deadline, I was not provided with the amendments I requested before the Friday deadline had passed.

Indeed, I only received some of the amendments back this morning. I do not wish to fault anyone for this. Counsel could only work with the correct clause numbers after the bill had been reported since there were amendments. While I am making this point, I want to comment and commend all the hard-working individuals involved in the law clerk's office, in particular, Wendy Gordon, Marie Beauchemin, Anita Eapen and Doug Ward for their excellence and dedication. I know they are often underappreciated, particularly when asked to, as is often the case at report stage, draft amendments only to have them found inadmissible for procedural reasons.

As such, while there is a privilege issue to be advanced here because had my amendments been timely and ruled admissible, I could speak to them this morning, I simply wish to request that the Speaker and Clerk look into ensuring that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel have the staff and resources they require to complete the drafting task within the tight deadlines that I think only arise in exceptional circumstances such as this one.

While you look into this, Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that you investigate whether the e-notice system could be expanded to work with more browsers. While I acknowledge that I do not understand fully the technology terms, I gather that when the motions were received by my staff, they were unable to upload the amendments on my behalf remotely due to compatibility issues with e-notices and Firefox Chrome.

I realize these amendments, which for those curious would have removed the high risk designation and all references to it, may never yet see the notice paper. Indeed, they might have been ruled inadmissible upon introduction. That said, it is unfortunate that this situation occurred given the seriousness, yet complexity of my request and related deadlines involved.

I would therefore ask that you, Mr. Speaker, take the matter under advisement, while again expressing our support, and I believe all parliamentarians would join me in this for the hard work and dedication of the law clerk and parliamentary counsel's office.

Before I conclude, I am told that the only way these amendments could yet be considered, despite delay notice, which as I explained was unavoidable, is through unanimous consent. Therefore, and so that the hard work of the drafters involved is not completely forgotten, and the amendments proposed, I move: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House in relation to the report stage of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (mental disorder), that the notice requirement in relation to the 32 motions submitted to the Table by the member for Mount Royal be waived and that those motions that the Speaker would normally find admissible and selected at report stage be included for consideration at this same stage.

[Congregation Emanu-El, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to participate in the 150th anniversary celebrations for Congregation Emanu-El, Canada's oldest, continuously operating synagogue, serving Victoria, B.C. and home to unprecedented Jewish firsts in Canada. In 1865, Victoria's Lumley Franklin became the first Jewish mayor in North America. In 1871, Henry Nathan became Canada's first Jewish MP when B.C. joined Confederation. The congregation's own vice-president, Samuel Davies, became Canada's first Jewish judge in 1914. Congregation member Samuel Schultz is believed to have pitched the first shutout game in the history of British Columbia baseball.

The history and legacy of Congregation Emanu-El and its partnership and support from Christian, Freemason and other faith and community groups, a model of a plural multicultural mosaic, are a source of pride and inspiration for us all.

To Congregation Emanu-El and the community it calls home:

[Member spoke Hebrew and provided the following translation:]

May you go from strength to strength.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by once again thanking the member for Red Deer for the work he has done to bring the issue of the personation of peace officers to the attention of the House. As he and others have correctly pointed out, there have been a number of offences committed in recent years in which the offender personated an officer in order to facilitate illegal activity, and these instances have the profoundly troubling consequence of undermining public trust in the police and other officials.

I would also like to acknowledge the courageous appearance before the justice committee of Laurie Long and her daughter Jordan, whose 46-hour ordeal at the hands of a man who pretended to be a police officer evokes in all of us the utmost compassion and outrage. Jordan's determination to not only overcome this trauma but to speak openly about it in an effort both to encourage other victims to come forward and to prevent others from being victimized truly merits the term “heroic”.

Accordingly, I will be supporting Bill C-444 as a statement of the seriousness with which Parliament regards the crime of personation. I can support it because the member for Red Deer has wisely not included a mandatory minimum sentencing provision and, as such, this legislation would be unlikely to have the unintended negative consequences of other Conservative justice bills that have come before us.

However, at the same time the bill is unlikely to have the meaningful positive impact that we all desire, indeed, that which the member for Red Deer desires, mainly fewer instances of personation. The bill would establish that for offenders who personate a peace officer in order to facilitate another offence, this intention would be considered an aggravating factor with respect to the sentence for personation, yet, as I outlined at second reading, Canada already allows for longer sentences for personation than many comparable jurisdictions, and there has been no suggestion that Canadian judges have been ignoring material aggravating factors when meting them out.

Furthermore, even if some judges were moved by this legislation to issue longer sentences than they otherwise would have, the offenders would still be unlikely to spend more time in prison because the sentence for personation would generally be served concurrently with a longer sentence for the crime it was intended to facilitate. Indeed, while the member for Red Deer outlined at committee certain exceptional hypothetical scenarios in which his bill could conceivably impact the length of a prison term, these scenarios constitute exceptions that prove the rule, which is that the bill will have less of the impact than the member for Red Deer would himself wish on sentencing and prison terms.

Finally, even if this bill were in rare cases to cause certain offenders to spend more time in prison, it has been well established that longer prison terms do not result in less crime. As such, the goal of reducing the occurrence of personation would not be furthered in any event. As I suggested at second reading, preventive measures, such as restricting the availability of authentic looking police attire and equipment, would do more to protect Canadians than this somewhat less than consequential amendment on the matter of sentencing guidelines might do.

I know that the member for Red Deer explained at committee, and today, that his primary purpose in bringing this bill forward was not to increase the length of prison terms, or even to have a direct impact on the incidence of this offence, but rather to raise awareness about the crime of personation. This is a laudable objective, and in fact I have spent much of my own work seeking to raise awareness on various issues, including crimes committed both in Canada and abroad.

While I am on the topic, I will take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to those members from all parties who have participated in the context of Iran accountability week in efforts to raise awareness about the threat posed by the Iranian regime, both to other countries and particularly to its own people. Raising awareness can undoubtedly be an important first step on the road to tangible change.

However, the Criminal Code is an inappropriate tool with which to engage in an awareness campaign. For one thing, I am somewhat uneasy about the precedent of making additions to it that are primarily of a symbolic nature. The Criminal Code functions best when it is simple, efficient, clear and accessible to ordinary Canadians. Amendments to the Code are appropriate when it is determined that there is a fault or a gap in the law, but if we make a habit or a practice of amending it simply for the purpose of signalling concern, however valid a given concern might be— and, again, I applaud the member for Red Deer in his expression of concern—we risk unnecessarily complicating a document that is already dense and complex, not to mention risking unforeseen and undesired consequences in unforeseeable cases.

More importantly, perhaps, the Criminal Code is simply not an effective means of raising awareness. I appreciate that this bill has brought the matter of personation of peace officers to the attention of Parliament, although that goal could have been achieved just as well by way of a motion. However, surely we must seek not only to alert parliamentarians to this problem, but the Canadian public as well. To that end, adding an aggravating sentencing factor to the Criminal Code, especially one that is unlikely to have any real consequential effect, may achieve little, as very few Canadians are conversant in the sentencing guidelines of section 130.

Indeed, the government itself has acknowledged on several occasions that amending the Codes does not, on its own, raise awareness.

Last fall, for example, Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-36 which, similarly to the bill before us, added an aggravating sentencing factor, this one designed to increase penalties for those who target seniors.

At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice stood in this House and said:

This government recognizes the concern expressed by witnesses...who noted that Bill C-36 could not serve as the only response to the problem of elder abuse.

He went on to explain that the bill was intended to complement an awareness and advertising campaign already in place.

Another example is Bill C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act, which received royal assent on June 28 of last year. At committee, Catherine Kane, who was then director general and senior general counsel of the criminal law policy and amendments section in the Department of Justice, and I congratulate her on her appointment since to the Federal Court, referred to the government's plan for educating the public regarding the bill's provisions saying, “we will also be embarking on some public education materials so we can explain to various audiences what these changes mean”.

I regret that I have yet to see any such educational materials in the 11 months since the bill received royal assent. I might add, parenthetically, that while a backgrounder published by the Department of Justice in conjunction with the coming into force of the legislation on March 11 of this year speaks of two guides on the department's website, “What you need to know about making a citizen's arrest” and “Technical guide to self defence and defence of property reforms”, the links to both are broken.

Nevertheless, my point is that even the government has in word, if not always in deed, recognized that education and raising awareness should be conducted outside the Criminal Code. Regrettably, the bill before us does not do likewise. There has been no mention, for instance, of education programs to inform individuals about their right to ask a police officer for identification. Indeed, there has not even been any suggestion that the very change wrought by the bill will be publicized in any way.

Simply having this provision rest as one of many in the Criminal Code that most Canadians only encounter when they are either charged with a crime or fall victim to one does not constitute effective education or awareness-raising, and neither is it a strategy that will prevent, deter or dissuade anyone from engaging in what we all agree is reprehensible behaviour.

Fundamentally, the 2,074 pages of legal language in the Criminal Code are neither a billboard nor a public service announcement. Any attempt to use them as such, however well intentioned, cannot be expected to succeed.

As I said at the outset, I will support this bill so as to join with the member for Red Deer in seeking to make this statement on an important issue. Again, I commend the member for this initiative. However, if we are to protect Canadians from those who would abuse their trust by disguising themselves as peace officers in order to do harm, we must devise concrete measures that can be more effective at both raising awareness and preventing this intolerable crime.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2013]

With regard to the crisis in Syria: (a) what criteria does the government use to determine (i) whether to intervene, (ii) when to intervene, (iii) the nature and scope of any intervention; (b) who makes the determination in (a) and how; (c) what sources does the government rely upon in determining (a); (d) what legal obligations are considered with respect to (a) and in what ways does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine factor into decision making under (a); (e) in what ways has the government evaluated its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine with respect to Syria; (f) when were such evaluations done, by whom, and with what outcome; (g) have the criteria by which the government determines its official policy towards the crisis in Syria changed since 2012; (h) when the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly expressed his support for an indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012, was this the position of the government and does it remain the position of the government that al-Assad ought to be indicted by the ICC; (j) with respect to Canada’s decision not to sign on to the request of 57 countries made in January, 2013, to ask the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, did Canada support this request; (k) with respect to (j), when, why, how, and by whom were the determinations made in this regard, and when was Canada approached to join in this endeavor and by what means; (l) what criteria were applied in determining whether to support this effort; (m) are there any specific policies or directives within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that guide decision-making with regard to Canadian intervention in situations of humanitarian crisis; (n) was the decision not to sign the Swiss-led letter asking the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (o) were any other officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (p) were any other cabinet officials involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (q) was the government made aware of this specific international initiative in advance of the official lodging of the request with the United Nations on January 14, 2013, and (i) if so, how was the government made aware of this initiative, (ii) when was the government made aware of this initiative; (r) did the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter include (i) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts from any other countries, (ii) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts in any of the 56 countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) consultations with any international or intergovernmental organizations; (s) did the government make submissions promoting a specific policy approach with regard to the Swiss-led initiative to (i) the governments of any other countries, (ii) the governments of any of the 50-plus countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) any international or intergovernmental organizations; (t) what steps is the government taking to bring al-Assad before the ICC; (u) has Canada raised al-Assad’s conduct as an issue before the Security Council; (v) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to addressing the situation in Syria; (w) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to al-Assad in particular; and (x) does the government support an International Criminal Tribunal for Syria?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2013]

With regard to Bill C-10, in the year after it received royal assent: (a) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged for offences created by the bill; (b) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted of offences created by the bill; (c) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people convicted of offences created by the bill; (d) broken down by offence, how many people have been charged under the provisions of the bill; (e) broken down by offence, how many people have been convicted under the provisions of the bill; (f) broken down by offence, how many people have been sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (g) broken down by offence, what sentences have been issued to people sentenced under the provisions of the bill; (h) in how many of the cases in (d) was a constitutional argument raised by the offender (i) at trial, (ii) on appeal; (i) broken down by geographic jurisdiction and instance, how many cases in (d) are pending (i) at the trial level, (ii) on appeal; (j) how much money has the government spent on prosecutions under the provisions of the bill; (k) how much money has the government spent defending the constitutionality of the bill; (l) in what cases, if any, did the bill provide for punishment where none was provided for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (m) broken down by offence and length of sentence, in what cases, if any, did an offender sentenced under the provisions of the bill receive a longer sentence than what was allowed for under previously-existing provisions of the Criminal Code; (n) in what ways has the bill made streets and communities safer; (o) in what ways, if any, has the government reviewed the effectiveness of the bill; (p) what were the results of any such reviews; (q) what reviews of the effectiveness of the bill, if any, are ongoing; (r) when will the results of any such reviews be made available to Parliament; (s) what factors has the government considered when evaluating the effectiveness of the bill; (t) by what standard does the government determine whether repeal of the bill for ineffectiveness is appropriate; (u) what is the prosecution rate for offences created by the bill; (v) what is the prosecution rate for offences with one or more sentencing provisions modified by the bill; (w) what was the prosecution rate for the offences in (v) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (x) what is the prosecution rate for offences otherwise modified by the bill; (y) what was the prosecution rate for offences in (x) prior to the coming-into-force of the bill; (z) what is the prosecution rate for all federal offences in Canada; (aa) what is the projected rate of recidivism for offenders convicted under the provisions of the bill; (bb) in what ways has the government worked with provinces and territories to inform prosecutors and police services of the provisions of the bill; (cc) broken down by province or territory, what funding has the government provided to provinces and territories to assist with the implementation of the bill; (dd) what studies, if any, have been undertaken of the impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (ee) what are the results of any such studies; (ff) what is the projected impact of the bill on the number of inmates in (i) federal custody, (ii) provincial custody; (gg) what evidence exists to suggest that the provisions in the bill have deterred criminal activity; (hh) broken down by province and territory, which specific communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ii) in what ways have the communities in (hh) been made safer; (jj) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (hh) have been made safer; (kk) broken down by province and territory, which specific streets, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (ll) in what ways have the streets in (kk) been made safer; (mm) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the streets in (kk) have been made safer; (nn) which First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, if any, have been made safer by the bill; (oo) in what ways have the communities in (nn) been made safer; (pp) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the communities in (nn) have been made safer; (qq) in what ways have people traditionally marginalized by the criminal justice system, such as women, aboriginal Canadians, and low-income Canadians, been made safer by the bill; and (rr) what evidence exists to demonstrate that the people in (qq) have been made safer?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by over 200 residents throughout Montreal and Laval.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to address the ongoing human rights violations against Rohingya Muslims in Burma, including sending clear signals to the authorities in Burma that repression of the Rohingya and other minorities will not be tolerated, renewing sanctions, and helping in pressing the Burmese government to allow the special rapporteur to conduct an independent investigation into abuses and expand support for UN agencies and NGOs providing humanitarian assistance.

As vice-chair of the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we have heard appalling testimony regarding the situation of the Rohingya in Burma. I am pleased to stand in solidarity with these petitioners and encourage Parliament and appropriate government agencies to implement these actions with all deliberate speed.

[Iran, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday parliamentarians launched Iran Accountability Week with the Iranian political prisoner global advocacy project, pairing parliamentarians with Iranian political prisoners on whose behalf we began our advocacy this week.

Parliamentarians also heard witness testimony, which recommended the importance of sanctions targeting not only the Iranian nuclear program but human violators as well; pursuant to the Special Economic Measures act, sanctioning members of the Iranian revolutionary guard corps for their human rights violations; listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization under the Criminal Code; and exposing the fraudulence of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections wherein two of the candidates have themselves been indicated for terrorist acts.

Together we will stand in solidarity with the people of Iran, let them know that they are not alone and let them know that the repressive dictatorial regime will be held to account.