Irwin Cotler

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-474, the transparency of payments made by mining, oil and gas corporations to foreign governments act.

I would first like to commend the sponsor, my colleague representing Scarborough—Guildwood, for his persistence and dedication involved in seeing this legislation through Parliament these past several years.

Bill C-474, the sunshine bill, as my colleague has properly characterized it, would compel Canadian-based extractive companies operating abroad to disclose all payments made to foreign governments after having been reviewed by a qualified independent auditor. The disclosures would be made to the Minister of Natural Resources who would then ensure that they are made available online for public viewing. If it is discovered that a company has failed to disclose a payment, it would be deemed guilty of an offence and face a fine upon summary conviction of up to $5 million.

These provisions will not only help to promote greater transparency and accountability in Canada's extractive sector, the sunshine aspect, as my colleague put it, but they will also discourage the kinds of illicit payments to foreign governments, especially those that routinely violate human rights, the disinfectant aspect, that have long been used to gain access to resource reserves.

To be clear, this legislation is not an indictment of all Canadian extractive companies, nor will this legislation stifle business and trade. As Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, stated last year with respect to payment disclosures:

I think by and large it's not only seen as the right thing to do, but it's starting to be seen as actually good business to have these payments to government published.

This legislation is about combatting corruption and ensuring corporate social responsibility and accountability. Admittedly, many Canadian companies already have excellent track records in this regard, but as my colleague pointed out, this is now a question for Canada's reputational integrity and to make these countries even more attractive to investors. There is also precedent for this kind of legislation in other jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the EU, as has been pointed out, as well as broad support from civil society organizations in Canada. I am therefore pleased to support this bill and trust that it may enjoy the full support of the House.

Canada has already established itself as a world leader in the extractive industry. This distinction, however, carries significant responsibility in terms of ensuring that our companies conduct business abroad in an ethical manner and with the utmost respect for human rights. Regrettably, this has not always been the case, as my colleague has pointed out, which is largely why this bill is being brought forward.

As well, throughout this parliamentary session, the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights, of which I am vice-chair, has heard from witnesses as to the activities of Canadian extractive companies in countries around the world. Regrettably, much of the testimony has given us cause for concern.

For example, this past October, the subcommittee had the pleasure of receiving Neri Colmenares, a member of the Philippine House of Representatives and an authentic human rights hero in his country. In his testimony, Mr. Colmenares explained how transnational corporations operating in his country, including Canadian mining company Toronto Ventures Incorporated, TVI, have hired paramilitary groups for security, which he dubbed “a recipe for disaster”. These “unwieldy elements”, as he put it, have reportedly carried out routine violations of human rights dating back many years.

In a recent example, Mr. Colmenares described how local media were detained and held hostage by such a paramilitary group hired by TVI. This is but one example Mr. Colmenares shared with our subcommittee and in several meetings that I had with him. Indeed, his testimony and similar witness statements only underscore the need for the kind of legislation at hand.

In addition to the Philippines case, the subcommittee has also been inquiring into the state of human rights in Eritrea, which, as members will know, is the most closed society in Africa, dubbed the North Korea of Africa, and is one of the world's most egregious violators of human rights.

This past November, the subcommittee heard testimony from Cliff Davis, president and CEO of Nevsun Resources, another Canadian-based mining company with operations in Eritrea. Mr. Davis repeatedly insisted that all who work at the company's mine, which it co-owns with the Eritrean government, are there of their own free will and are provided with good working conditions, food and accommodations, in accordance with international standards. Moreover, Mr. Davis claimed that his company fully addressed allegations of human rights violations, particularly the use of conscripted labour by an Eritrean government subcontractor employed by Nevsun.

However, in witness testimony before our committee, we heard Nevsun does not know whether conscripted labour is being used or that the company has been repeatedly denied the right to investigate by the Eritrean government-owned subcontractor and now “appears to feel it has no power” and has responded with “quiet acceptance”.

This is precisely the impression I was left with after hearing Mr. Davis' testimony.

When I asked him if he was aware of human rights violations in Eritrea, generally speaking, notwithstanding the public record, he said no. When I asked him if he was ever advised about human rights violations in Eritrea by anyone, he said no. When I asked him if he was aware of human rights violations at the mine site, he said no. When I asked him if he was advised by anyone of human rights violations at the mine site, he said no. When I asked him whether he had ever conveyed to the Eritrean government any concern of any kind about any human rights violations, he said, and I am paraphrasing for reasons of time, “ I do not acknowledge the premise of the question. That is a premise asserted by people outside of our mine site, and there are no human rights violations at our mine site”. In the end, it was, in my view, akin to hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

Simply put, it is unacceptable for Canadian companies to profit while funding and enabling those who violate human rights. I believe that Bill C-474 can help end that practice. The legislation would also serve to advance the principles of transparency and accountability that have already taken root among Canadian companies, while reinforcing the notion in the minds of investors that corporate social responsibility is good business.

I trust that the House will adopt the bill.

[Petitions, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today, collected by constituent Mena Khan and signed by residents throughout the Mount Royal riding and beyond, calling on the government to undertake a set of comprehensive measures to address the serious problem of bullying. In particular, the petitioners are calling for a royal commission to study bullying and the victimization of students, including examining how the Criminal Code of Canada and the Youth Criminal Justice Act apply in the context of bullying, while co-operating with provincial, territorial and municipal partners to address this issue.

I share the constituents' concern that bullying is a grave and serious issue that must be addressed by this Parliament with all deliberate speed, and I eagerly await the government's response and detailed plan as to how it will address the scourge of bullying that impacts on so many Canadians.

[Iran, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, next week, we will be holding Iran Accountability Week to sound the alarm on the Iranian threat to international peace and security and, in particular, the massive domestic oppression that is intensifying in the run up to the Iranian presidential elections in June.

Indeed, Iran Accountability Week can not have come at a more propitious time, coinciding with the 5th anniversary of the imprisonment of the Bahá'i leadership; the 25th anniversary of the 1988 massacre of Iranian political dissidents; and the recent report of 2,600 political prisoners in Iran, including imprisoned women, ethnic and religious leaders, journalists, bloggers, artists, students and trade union leaders. Simply put, they are the leaders of Iranian civil society, many under threat of execution.

Accordingly, we will launch Iran Accountability Week on Monday May 27, with the announcement of the Iranian political prisoner global advocacy project. Canadian parliamentarians will be paired with Iranian political prisoners to let them know that they are not alone, we stand in solidarity with them, the whole world is watching and we will be relentless in our advocacy of their case and cause.

I ask all parliamentarians to join us in the pursuit of justice on behalf of the Iranian people.

[Armenia, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a poignant time, a time to remember, to commemorate and to bear witness. I rise today on the anniversary of the Armenian genocide, which reminds us of the dangers of indifference and inaction in the face of incitement and mass atrocity.

This fact of history has been recognized by the House, documented by scholars and confirmed by the anguished testimony of survivors.

I have just come from meeting with the Armenian community here assembled. The present Turkish government and the people are not to blame for Ottoman injustice. We trust that the process of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation will lead to both recognition of truth and healing between peoples.

As we say on occasions such as this, never again.

[Foreign Affairs, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the government has listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and Iranian footprints are reported in yesterday's aborted terror attack, but while the government removed Iran's immunity from civil suit from victims of Iranian terror, allowing Iran to be held civilly accountable, the government is now invoking that very diplomatic immunity to protect Iran against civil suits by victims of Iranian terror.

Why is the government standing up for Iran in Canadian courts? Why is the government undermining the very recently enacted civil remedies for victims of terror act? Why are we defending the rights of Iran against the victims of Iranian terror?

[The Holocaust, April 23rd, 2013]

Holocaust remembrance reminds us, as the survivors know only too well, of horrors too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened. The Holocaust, as Elie Wiesel reminds us again and again, was a war against the Jews in which not all victims were Jews, but all Jews everywhere were targeted victims.

However, Yom Hashoah ve Hagevurah reminds us also, on this 70th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, of the heroic, defiant struggle of a starved, decimated Jewish remnant, the most heroic act of resistance in the whole of the Second World War and now a universal symbol of courage and dignity.

I say to the survivors here today that they are the true heroes of humanity. They witnessed and endured the worst of inhumanity, yet they somehow found in the depths of their own humanity the courage to go on, to rebuild their lives as they rebuilt our communities. Together with them, we pledge to never again be silent or indifferent in the face of evil and to speak and to act always on behalf of our common humanity.

Plus jamais. Never again.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the approach is what I would call the principle of least injustice. In other words, bearing all the facts and circumstances that are known to us, for now these provisions can be helpful, may be necessary and a parliamentary review is mandated. I trust it will take place, and we may have a better appreciation at that time as to how to go forward.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the fact that they had not been used does not mean that they may not yet be needed. In fact, it may demonstrate they were not abused. They may yet still need it.

In terms of the Supreme Court's contextual principle, we must appreciate the contextual environment in which the transnational terrorist threat operates.

I would remind the hon. member, and I suspect he knows, that if one takes a comparative perspective here, we have a situation where, in the United States, simply by designating a suspected terrorist an enemy combatant, he or she can be indefinitely detained. Detention in the United Kingdom has been extended from 6 days to 18 days. We are talking about a requirement to bring a person before judge within 24 hours. As I said, there is an inventory of safeguards at the executive level, at the legislative level, at the judicial level and through other commissioners, such as the Privacy Commissioner and the like.

While this is an imperfect approach, nonetheless it was something that was supported after there was review of these provisions by parliamentary committees in the House and in the Senate. It is not as if we did not have any review or appreciation of these principles as well.

I do agree that we need to do more on these matter. For example, members in the House need to have more information in the matter of intelligence gathering, which my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis recommended. Our government re-established a parliamentary committee to provide oversight with respect to intelligence gathering, and here, too, to invoke more principles of transparency in that regard.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the matter of Bill S-7, legislation that proposes a number of amendments to Canada's anti-terrorism regime, including provisions respecting the re-enactment of preventive arrests and investigative hearings. As members will know, these provisions expired in 2007 and have, on numerous occasions, been the subject of my remarks in the House and in writings of mine over the years, dating back to the tabling of the original Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36 in 2001.

It perhaps goes without saying that this debate began in the period following the horrific events of 9/11, which was characterized at the time as a period when the whole world was changed. Back then the Liberal government of the day introduced provisions for preventive arrests and investigative hearings as components of the larger Anti-terrorism Act. Soon after Bill C-36 in the House in its original form was tabled, I rose in the House and expressed some 10 civil libertarian concerns with respect to that projected draft of the Anti-terrorism Act, including the provisions relating to preventive detention and investigative hearings. I elaborated on these matters in a series of articles and recommended that the provisions be sunsetted after three years, later extended to five years, pending comprehensive parliamentary review, and the government agreed. With that as well as the majority of my other concerns being addressed, some eight out of the ten, I ended up supporting the legislation.

Regrettably, by 2007, when the provisions were scheduled to sunset pending a parliamentary motion to extend them, the House and special Senate committees had not yet completed their studies of the Anti-terrorism Act due to repeated delays including the dissolution of Parliament in 2004 and 2006. Nevertheless, the Conservative government went ahead with proposing the extension of the provisions without taking the views of these parliamentary committees into account, leaving House members with little insight into the experience of the provisions in effect. The result was a highly politicized and partisan debate, rife with what I could only describe at the time as bumper-sticker slogans and smears instead of a debate on the merits of the policy, a policy with which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree. Indeed, I regretted the references made by ministers of the Crown at the time that somehow our party was soft on terrorism for simply wanting to debate these provisions, especially considering that it was a Liberal government that introduced the Anti-terrorism Act in the first place.

With Bill S-7 now stipulating that preventive arrest and investigative hearings be once again subject to a five-year sunset clause, I offer my support today with the expectation that if enacted, parliamentary committees will be given the opportunity and resources necessary to undertake full review of the provisions in question during the next trial period and well in advance of any debate to extend it once again. Indeed, any decision made by Parliament that affects the security and rights of all Canadians must be reasoned, thoughtful, evidence-based and not rushed as a matter of political expediency.

The critical issue here is one of principled balance. We must, on the one hand, seek to combat terrorism and keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats and attacks, while at the same time protecting our individual freedoms as enshrined in the charter. These are not, however, mutually exclusive objectives. Indeed, an appropriate and effective anti-terrorism strategy must view security and rights not as concepts in conflict, not as a zero sum game, but as values that are inextricably linked.

Let me articulate a number of basic principles in this regard. First, terrorism itself must be seen as being, in effect, an assault on the security of a democracy like Canada and an assault on our fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Accordingly, anti-terrorism law and policy may be said to constitute the promotion and protection of the security of democracy and fundamental human rights in the most profound sense. At the same time, however, the implementation and enforcement of such anti-terrorism law must always comport with the rule of law, must always adhere to the principles of the charter. Torture, for example, must never be allowed to be used and must always comport as well with our international legal obligations.

The second and related principle is that we are not simply talking here about a domestic criminal justice model. We are talking about is an international criminal justice model. We are not talking, as the courts and others have said, of the ordinary criminal. We are talking about the transnational terrorist threat.

This brings me to a third principle, which the Supreme Court has itself enunciated, namely the contextual principle; that we cannot view these issues in the abstract but we must view them in terms of the realities as they have unfolded in this regard. Also, we must appreciate that Canadian anti-terrorism law is inextricably bound with the international criminal justice system and the invocation and application of international law treaties, the invocation of general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. For example, section 11(g) of the charter on this point says that retroactivity shall not avail when the crimes are those that run afoul of “the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations”. Therefore, in this regard, it recognizes that the international criminal justice model departs sometimes from the domestic model.

UN Security mandates must also be taken into account, bilateral and multilateral agreements and so forth. In particular, Security Council resolution 1373, enacted following 9/11, mandates that all states take “additional measures to prevent and suppress, in their territories through all lawful means, the financing and preparation of any acts of terrorism”. These standards must be met by our anti-terrorism legislation, if for no other reason than that we cannot have the appropriate or factual understanding of the dynamics involved in our domestic counterterrorism measures if we view them in a vacuum, if we view them as abstracted from the global circumstances and precedents or if we view them, as the Supreme Court has said, out of context without resort to an appreciation of the contextual principle.

However, beyond the abstract in that regard, let us be clear. The threat of transnational terrorism is real and Canada is not unaffected by it, as the recent events, whether they be in Boston or the aborted terrorist attack now in Canada, indicate. Indeed, Canadians have been implicated in terrorist attacks abroad as recently as last month in Algeria, last year in Bulgaria and just two days ago with regard to an arrest in Bulgaria. This is precisely why Bill S-7 also makes it a crime to leave or attempt to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities. Moreover, Canadians have been killed in terrorist attacks, tragically in the case of 9/11 but also thereafter.

Accordingly, our commitment to civil liberties must always be consistent with regard to the protection of human rights as a whole, and we must take the necessary concrete and decisive actions to prevent terrorist attacks. In the words of two former Supreme Court justices, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci and the Hon. Louise Arbour, who also spent several years as the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, the Constitution is not a suicide pact and “[t]he challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is not whether to respond, but rather how to do so”.

Preventive arrests and investigative hearings can be effective, limited and lawful counterterrorism measures. Indeed, the Supreme Court, in the matter of investigative hearings has held them to be constitutional, stating that they do not violate an individual's charter rights against self-incrimination, as evidence derived from such hearings cannot be used against the person except in perjury prosecutions. Moreover, the provisions are not otherwise unknown in Canadian law, and similar provisions already exist in the Coroners Act and the Inquiries Act, and I can go on.

In the matter of preventive arrests, these too are not a new invocation of principle and policy. Preventive arrests are effectively the invocation of a peace bond process set forth in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which has been used to protect against criminal violence such as domestic violence, sexual violence and organized crime, and now extends them to suspected terrorist activities.

In addition, preventive arrests and investigative hearings as set forth in Bill S-7 seek to respect Canadians' individual and collective rights through safeguards and principles of transparency. In this regard, it is important to appreciate that there are three safeguards in the bill, and I was involved with respect to the initiation of these safeguards. Reference has been made to the safeguards, and we must appreciate that there is an executive requirement for the consent of the Attorney General and therefore objective oversight in that regard. With parliamentary oversight and the requirements for annual reports from both federal ministers concerned and with Bill S-7, they must not only detail how often the provisions are used, but also make a case for why they should be extended.

Furthermore, there is judicial oversight with respect to investigative hearings, and in the event of an arrest, the individual must be brought before a judge, typically within 24 hours, contrasting with the situation that is in the United States or with the situation in the United Kingdom and the like.

Notwithstanding these safeguards, I understand why some members, maybe even from all parties, remain uncomfortable with the proposed measures. They are indeed extraordinary provisions, though extraordinary provisions to combat extraordinary threats.

I do not, however, share the view offered by some in the House that because the provisions, and we heard this again in debate, were seldom used, in effect they are somehow unnecessary now. In fact, their lack of use can equally demonstrate that they are not abused, that they are truly measures of last—

[Rwanda, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week I commemorated the 19th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, which targeted the Tutsi population, and the Rwandan diaspora.

This unspeakable horror in which one million Tutsis were murdered in a three-month genocidal onslaught, itself preceded by an orchestrated dehumanization and demonization of the minority Tutsi population.

What makes this Rwandan genocide so unspeakable is that it was preventable. No one can say that we did not know. It was the indifference and inaction of the bystander international community that made this genocide possible. While the United Nations and government leaders in the U.S. and Europe dithered and delayed, Rwandans died.

What makes this genocide so painful today is that it is being forgotten, or worse, being denied. Therefore, may this Rwandan genocide be an occasion not only to remember but to learn the lessons of the crime whose name, genocide, we should even shudder to mention.

Never again.

Never again.