Irwin Cotler

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 27th, 2012]

With regard to the ongoing humanitarian crisis and civil war in Syria: (a) how many Canadian citizens are known to still be in the country, (i) of those, how many are known to be at-risk, (ii) of those at risk, how many have received assistance from Canadian authorities; (b) how many Canadians have returned to Canada from Syria with assistance from the following embassies and via the following countries, (i) Lebanon, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Jordan/Iraq; (c) what measures have the Canadian embassies in (i) Lebanon, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Jordan/Iraq taken with respect to violence and criminal activity across borders; (d) what measures have the Canadian embassies in (i) Lebanon, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Jordan/Iraq taken with respect to aiding Syrian refugees; (e) how many visa requests from Syrian refugees has Canada received since the beginning of the conflict via the embassies of (i) Lebanon, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Jordan/Iraq; (f) which international organizations have government representatives worked with to aid refugees fleeing Syria, and how much funding has been devoted to these since the start of the conflict; (g) what diplomatic steps have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs taken to protect Syrian civilians from massive assaults and to encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict while Parliament was adjourned for the summer of 2012; (h) what diplomatic steps will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs now take in light of the intensified violence; (i) what steps has the government taken to help break the diplomatic impasse at the United Nations; (j) what efforts have the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Ambassador to the United Nations or other diplomatic officials taken to encourage the United Nations Security Council to refer the Syrian conflict to the International Criminal Court; (k) will the government support efforts by UN Security Council members to invoke any aspects of the responsibility to protect doctrine, and if so, (i) which ones, (ii) how will this decision be evaluated, (iii) by whom; and (l) does the government support the invocation of the responsibility to protect doctrine to protect the Syrian people and, if so, (i) what steps will it be taking, (ii) when, (iii), what results are expected?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 27th, 2012]

With regard to the government's proposal to double the victim surcharge and limit judicial discretion in sentencing as is currently provided for by section 730 of the Criminal Code, and to eliminate the “undue hardship” defense: insofar as the victim surcharge is used to fund provincial and territorial victims' services, (a) on what data did the Minister of Justice rely in determining the specific amount by which the government proposes to raise the surcharge, in particular, did the Minister rely on data directly provided by (i) the province of Alberta, (ii) the province of British Columbia, (iii) the province of Manitoba, (iv) the province of New Brunswick, (v) the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) the province of Nova Scotia, (vii) the province of Ontario, (viii) the province of Prince Edward Island, (ix) the province of Saskatchewan, (x) the province of Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; (b) did the Minister rely on data either provided or collected by the provinces or territories, (i) if so, did the Minister rely on data from the provinces and territories, (ii) did the government request this data from the provinces or was it provided to the government voluntarily, (iii) what individual or agency was responsible for the collection and analysis of any data regarding provincial and territorial victim services funds, (iv) has the government engaged in any dialogue with the provinces, territories, or any other private or public sector organizations involved in the provision of victim services in drafting the proposed amendments; (c) has the government reviewed any data indicating that there is a deficit in funding levels of provincial and territorial victim services programs and, (i) if so, on what basis has the government determined the extent of any deficit in the funding of victim services, (ii) if the government has determined there to be a deficit in the funding of victim services, has it been found to be consistent nationwide or to vary by province or territory, (iii) in reliance on what data has the government determined the doubling of the victim surcharge to be the appropriate level of increase, (iv) where the government has not relied directly on data provided by the provinces or territories, on what basis has any data actually relied on been deemed reliable, (v) insofar as the government has determined there to be a deficit in provincial and territorial victim services funds, on what basis has the government determined increasing the victim surcharge to be a sufficient response, (vi) has the government generated, or relied upon, any data indicating future projections of victims' services funding levels and, (vii) if so, will the doubling of the surcharge amount be sufficient to maintain adequate funding levels of victims' services in all provinces and territories; (d) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing victim surcharge will affect the accountability of offenders, (i) has the government found any evidence indicating that the increase of the victim surcharge will deter specific offenders from re-offending, (ii) has the government found any evidence indicating that increasing the victim surcharge will have a deterrence effect on crime in general; (e) on what criteria did the government base its proposal to eliminate the “undue hardship” defense currently provided for by section 737(5) of the Criminal Code, and did the government consult with bar associations in deciding to advance this proposal in (i) Alberta, (ii) British Columbial, (iii) Manitoba, (iv) New Brunswick, (v) Newfoundland and Labrador, (vi) Nova Scotia, (vii) Ontario, (viii) Prince Edward Island, (ix) Saskatchewan, (x) Quebec, (xi) the Yukon, (xii) the Northwest Territories; and (f) on what basis did the government determine that it is appropriate to maintain judicial discretion to increase a victim surcharge, pursuant to section 737(3) of the Criminal Code, but not to implement an exemption based on undue hardship pursuant to section 737(5)?

[Petitions, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents calling for the establishment of a royal commission on the environment and health, mandated to examine and make recommendations respecting the deleterious environmental and health consequences of industrial processes, including the use of cancer-causing chemicals in such industrial activity.

Petitioners call on the government to implement a precautionary principle in its approach to environmental regulations in this regard, to place the burden of proof on those who would take action with respect to impacting on the environment to prove that such actions are indeed safe when there is a suspicion of harm.

[Raoul Wallenberg, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Raoul Wallenberg, Canada's first honorary citizen and a Swedish non-Jew who showed that one person with the compassion to care and the courage to act can transform history.

His life is celebrated in a new exhibit at the Canadian War Museum entitled, “To me there's no other choice”. Canada Post has also unveiled a stamp in his honour as we mark the centennial of his birth.

While Wallenberg rescued so many during the Holocaust, he was not rescued by so many who could. Let this moment of remembrance also be a reminder of the need for action.

While Russia continues to maintain that Raoul Wallenberg died in 1947, the evidence is clear that Wallenberg did not then die, but was alive into the 1960s and 1970s and disappeared into the Soviet gulag. Accordingly, the time has come for Russia to open up its archives and to unlock the secrets of history so that we can finally learn the truth about this disappeared hero of humanity. For us there should be no other choice.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 23rd, 2012]

With regard to government legislation introduced in the 40th and 41st Parliaments in either the House or the Senate and the Department of Justice Act requirement in s. 4.1 that government legislation comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (a) on what date was the legislation submitted for review; (b) which individuals conducted the review; (c) what are the job titles of the persons who performed the review; (d) what are the qualifications of the persons who performed the review; (e) is membership in good standing of a law society a requirement for performing the review; (f) were all those who participated in the review members in good standing of a law society at the time and, if so, which law societies were represented and how many years of practice did each individual involved have; (g) on what dates was the review conducted; (h) what is the process for such a review; (i) what doctrinal and jurisprudential sources were used to conduct the reviews, specifying (i) Canadian doctrinal sources, (ii) international doctrinal sources, (iii) domestic jurisprudential decisions, (iv) international jurisprudential decisions, (v) other legal or academic sources consulted; (j) what databases are accessed to conduct the review; (k) does any external consultation occur for the purposes of conducting such a review and, if so, what kinds of individuals or groups can be consulted; (l) how many drafts exist for each review report; (m) when were the memos in this regard presented to the Minister of Justice or any other member of the cabinet; (n) what was the cost of preparing each of these reports; (o) what is the budget allotted for the preparation of each report; (p) for each year since 2006, how much money has been allotted for undertaking each review; (q) for each year since 2006, how much money has been used to conduct each review; (r) how will the positions involved in the review process be affected by budget cuts at the department; (s) to whom will this work fall if these positions are cut; (t) what measures are in place to ensure the quality of the reviews; (u) what measures are in place to ensure the accuracy of the reviews; (v) are there any circumstances in which the government would make the content of such reviews public and, if so, what are they; and (w) has the government assessed litigation risk with respect to non-compliance with s. 4.1(1) and, if so, when, and who conducted the assessment?

[Remembrance Day, November 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the eve of the 74th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, when, in 1938, Nazi troops stormed Jewish neighbourhoods in Germany, vandalizing Jewish homes and businesses, desecrating synagogues and cemeteries, arresting some 30,000 Jews, murdering others and burning books, as a precursor to burning people and the atrocities to come.

We commemorate Kristallnacht on the eve also of Remembrance Day when we honour the brave men and women who fought for Canada and for freedom, including those instrumental in defeating the Third Reich.

This week is also Holocaust Education Week, wherein the lessons of the Holocaust are transmitted to generations of Canadians will resonate globally with Canada as incoming chair of the International Task Force for Holocaust Remembrance and Education.

The lessons of the Holocaust are universal. We remember the dangers associated with cultures of hate and the importance of speaking out against injustice.

Tonight, I will attend a commemoration of Kristallnacht and, on Sunday, Remembrance Day ceremonies in my riding. As we remember the horrors of the past, let us ensure that the world will never experience such horrors again.

Lest we forget.

[Human Rights, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is the 21st day of the hunger strike of Iranian political prisoner Nasrin Sotoudeh, the face, symbol and embodiment of the human rights struggle in Iran; a leader in the struggle for women's rights amidst the persistent and pervasive assault against women; a leader in the struggle against child executions, while Iran has executed more minors per capita than any other country in the world; and a courageous lawyer for political prisoners, while Iran has imprisoned more than 60 lawyers for their human rights work, until she became a political prisoner herself.

While the international community has focused on the Iranian nuclear threat, the massive state-sanctioned assault on human rights has passed quietly under the international radar screen.

It is our responsibility to stand with the people of Iran, to champion their case and cause, to let them know that the world is watching, that they are not alone, that we stand in solidarity with them, and that their just struggle for human rights and human dignity will prevail.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was not only aware of it, I specifically referenced it in my remarks and I specifically commended the government for it, as well as the new horizons program. My whole point was that, while these were initiatives that were necessary, they simply are not sufficient. I do not want to repeat all that I said. I commend those initiatives but, as I said, those are just modest steps. We need much more along the lines that I and my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard submitted to the House.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I sought to say in my remarks, this legislation is part of a pattern of criminal justice legislation after the fact, but it does not deal with the whole network of prevention approaches.

Indeed, my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard stressed l'importance de la prévention, which I reaffirmed in my remarks as well, but it is the overall comprehensive social justice approach that is required—in other words, to put forward concrete, substantive measures in the realms of health care, research, social justice, rather than find a situation where health care transfers are reduced, where old age security is cut back and where there is an attempt to deal with the problem through the prism of the Criminal Code and not through a comprehensive social justice agenda with an interdisciplinary perspective on the level of the delivery of services and with the proper formation and training that is involved; indeed, an important federalist perspective, where the federal government, the provinces and territories work together in common cause in this regard.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the opening part of my remarks, the bill does achieve a certain modest objective simply in the raising of awareness and sensitization, with regard to this problem, and also by eliciting thereby, through that raising of awareness, from the partners in the system, whether it be governments, health care workers or a non-governmental organization, a greater understanding and awareness on their part.

If a government were to address this in a comprehensive way, it would have to increase the health care transfers for this purpose. It would have to ensure that it does not claw back old age security. It would have to ensure that it would address, as we put it, systemic inadequacies that are at the roots of many of the problems that the elderly endure in the system.

With regard to the legal matters in particular, we would have to address the manner in which law enforcement officers and other legal professionals could play a distinguishable role with respect to the protection from elder abuse, and that would have to address questions of education and training—formation, as my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard put it—and the other matters I referred to in my remarks.