Irwin Cotler

[Vaclav Havel, February 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the heroic memory of Vaclav Havel, an inspirational colleague and friend for over 30 years, the architect of charter 77, the human rights manifesto that inspired not only the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, but the march of democracy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and more recently, charter 08 of human rights defenders in China, whose words and writings moved and mobilized the powerless as they exposed and brought down the politburos of the powerful, who chaired a dissidents gathering five years ago that inspired prospective dissidents of the Arab awakening, who wrote movingly and compellingly of the responsibility to protect, not only in terms of the responsibility to prevent, but the responsibility to remember, le devoir de memoir, as he wrote recently in the introduction to a book I co-edited, The Responsibility to Protect.

May his memory serve as a blessing for us all.

[Points of Order, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in respect to what you just said, the remarks made outside the House were in reference to and expanded upon the remarks that he made in the House and were in reference to the alleged apology which the hon. member retracted and, as I said, added to those hateful remarks. They are inextricably bound up, one with the other. One cannot abstractly separate what happened outside the House from that which occurred inside the House and which gave expression to that which occurred outside the House. They are both bound up together. They form one set of odious remarks.

[Points of Order, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order relating to the apology offered by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for two references to Hitler.

While the House heard an apology and, through you, Mr. Speaker, accepted it, the member has since said, “just in order to take the buzz off and what have you, I partially retracted the statement in the house”, adding, “what I said was the truth” and adding also “the similarities between the gun registry and what Adolph Hitler did to perpetrate his crimes are very clear and obvious”.

I realize that points of order are not used for points of debate and, as such, I will confine myself to the merits of the matter in the parliamentary context.

First, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you must find the language unparliamentary, to say the least, in several respects, something which has not yet happened but must be done, lest such references be seen as acceptable conduct in this place. Language is what we are all about and offensive language must be sanctioned.

I draw the attention of all members to a ruling given on December 11, 1991, and found at pages at 6141 and 6142 of the Debates, wherein Mr. Speaker Fraser, as paraphrased by your predecessor. Mr. Speaker Milliken, reminded members that “offensive remark linger and have a suffocating effect on the fair exchange of ideas and points of view. Anything said in this place receives wide and instant dissemination and leaves a lasting impression. Offending words may be withdrawn, denied, explained away, or apologize for, but the impression created is not always as easily erased”.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, while the matter might have been seen as laid to rest, as you yourself put it, the member's subsequent retraction of his apology and, indeed, with even more odious language, reignites the issue and, I submit, warrants sanction.

Indeed, as O'Brien and Bosc clearly note on page 619, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language must be done, and this is the key point, “unequivocally”. It has not only not been withdrawn unequivocally, it has been reaffirmed in all its incendiary language and comparisons. Indeed, the unparliamentary nature of the language is evident in several respects.

First and foremost is the actual language used, in particular, the odious and obscene comparisons to Hitler, the paradigm of radical evil.

I draw to your attention the extensive list in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada wherein terms such as “Nazi” were found to be unparliamentary in this place as early as 1962, and the comparisons here, Mr. Speaker, go beyond that.

I believe all members of the House would be in agreement that references to other persons, such as the former minister of justice or the senator in the other place, as being Hitler, or acting as Hitler might have, or thinking as he might have, are as unacceptable as they are offensive.

Indeed, in 2007, in a point of order regarding comments by the member for Winnipeg Centre comparing a minister to Mussolini, the then chief government whip even said, somewhat prophetically one might say:

Let us just imagine if this is allowed to stand. What will be next? There will be people in this place compared to Adolf Hitler. That is where this is headed. The hon. member knows that.

That is from Hansard.

In ruling on that incident, Mr. Speaker Milliken recalled for the House that, as per Marleau and Montpetit, one of the most basic principles of parliamentary procedures and proceedings in the House be conducted in terms of a free and civil discourse.

It is clear that such references to Hitler thereby trivializing and demeaning the Holocaust and attributing or ascribing what has become a metaphor for radical evil to those who comment on or conduct matters that have no relation or comparison to Hitler's crimes of mass atrocity are as odious as they are ignorant and have no place in the House.

On this point, let there be no mistake about it: Hitler did not take away guns from Jews, Mr. Speaker, Hitler murdered Jews, who had no guns. Any suggestion otherwise is odious and obscene.

Beyond the Hitler references, the member referenced two individuals, the former minister of justice and a former member of the other place. I would note that O'Brien and Bosc clearly states, on page 617:

Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and that Members avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside of the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.

Clearly, the member's implied slur is beyond the pale and neither of the two individuals so maligned have the opportunity to rise in this place and defend themselves.

Moreover, what the member said about the former member of the other place was unparliamentary as per O'Brien and Bosc, at page 615, “it is out of order the question of Senator's integrity, honesty or character”. While that senator is no longer serving, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound referenced actions of that senator while she served and thus I believe the protection hereto must be extended.

Mr. Speaker, you said, during discussion of this point when first raised that “it is the practice of the House that once a member withdraws a comment or apologizes it is left at that”. I believe the practice of the House is also that a member cannot say he or she apologizes in here and then retracts the apology or undermines it and indeed in fact repeats the odious reference outside this place.

In essence, the member did just that by offering an apology that was insincere, by his own admission offered only “to take the buzz off” and, per his own clarification, is only a partial retraction.

The House will recall again that should the Speaker find language to be unparliamentary, as per page 619 of O'Brien and Bosc, the member “will be requested to rise in his or her place and to withdraw the unparliamentary word or phrase unequivocally”. Thus, Mr. Speaker, while you cannot change the member's mind, you can ask that he withdraw the remarks, something which he did not do.

Furthermore, with respect to the retraction of his apology, I believe stronger sanction is warranted and urge you, Mr. Speaker, to, in line with the precedence outlined in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, name the member or inform him that he will not be seen by the Chair until he appears at the bar of the House to apologize for these obscene and odious remarks and comparisons.

Simply put, the member has not sincerely and completely apologized for his remarks. Indeed, he has even reaffirmed them in a more hateful form and they remain as he did not withdraw them. This cannot be an acceptable practice or precedent that we can allow to stand in the House. Redress and sanction are warranted. I implore you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise your necessary authority in this regard so that the integrity of the House and its members be protected so that those who are maligned outside the House would also be protected and, indeed, that the memory and meaning of the Holocaust be protected and preserved.

[Petitions, February 8th, 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.

This is the brainchild of one of my constituents, Marsha Akman, who has been championing this cause for some time. The petition notes that the past several decades have seen a rise in the use of chemicals, many of them cancer-causing, in industrial processes and in the production of consumer goods.

Accordingly, the commission will be mandated to examine and make recommendations to mitigate the deleterious environmental and health consequences of such industrial and commercial activity. Particularly, the petitioners are calling on the government to invoke the precautionary principle in order to protect public health and the environment while regulating these industries.

My constituents have invested a great deal of time, energy and commitment in this cause, and I am pleased to join their call for the establishment of a royal commission on the environment and health, which will surely benefit all Canadians.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to wrongful convictions: (a) how many applications were received by the government under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and thus far in 2011; (b) how many of these applications were reviewed by the Criminal Conviction Review Group in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and thus far in 2011; (c) on what occasions since 2006 has the Minister referred a wrongful conviction matter to a Court under 696.3(3)(i) or 696.3(3)(ii); and (d) what specific measures is the government undertaking regarding each of the recommendations contained in the Department of Justice 2005 Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts: (a) what is the total projected cost of all measures contained in Bill C-10; (b) how long will it take to fully implement all proposed changes to the criminal justice system and its associated institutions, including, but not limited to, penal, policing and judiciary institutions; (c) how will the total funding be divided annually to meet the timeframe offered in response to (b) with regard to changes to the criminal justice system and its associated institutions; (d) what is the projected distribution of the total projected cost of Bill C-10 across each of its nine subsections; (e) what federal or provincial programs currently in effect in relation to the criminal justice system will be discontinued to support Bill C-10, and what federal and provincial programs will lose funding to support Bill C-10; (f) how much funding will be lost by each of the programs identified in (e); (g) how will the total projected cost of Bill C-10, as well as the projected cost of each of the nine individual subsections, be divided between the federal government and each province or territory; (h) what methodologies were used to determine projections and estimates provided in response to (a) through (g); (i) what supporting documentation does the government plan to make public to validate the provided projections and estimates; and (j) will the documentation and methodology used to determine these estimates be made public, and, if not, will they be disclosed to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, entitled “Ahmadinejad’s Iran: A Threat to Peace, Human Rights and International Law” (Sessional Paper No. 8510-403-162), presented to the House of Commons on December 9, 2010 (40th Parliament, Third Session): (a) does the government plan to adopt the 24 recommendations outlined in this report; and (b) in particular, how does the government plan to respond to the recommendations made in the report concerning (i) terrorism, as described in Recommendation 13 of the report, (ii) the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, as described in Recommendation 17 of the report, (iii) the Iranian incitement to genocide, as described in Recommendations 20 and 21 of the report, (iv) human rights violations, as described in Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 of the report?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the case of Sergei Magnitsky: (a) is the government preparing a list containing the names of any individual that it has reasonable grounds to believe (i) is responsible for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky, (ii) has conspired to defraud the Russian Federation of taxes on corporate profits through fraudulent transactions and lawsuits against the foreign investment company known as Hermitage and to misappropriate property owned or controlled by Hermitage, (iii) has participated in efforts to conceal the legal responsibility of those individuals involved in the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky or the existence of the conspiracy referred to in point (ii); (b) if the government is preparing a list as per (a), does the list include the names of the 60 senior Russian officials included by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on its list entitled “Individuals involved in the tax fraud against Hermitage and the torture and death of Sergei Magnitsky”; (c) does the government plan to declare as ineligible for visas any foreign national whose name appears on the list referred to in (a), as well as the members of the foreign national’s immediate family; and (d) does the government plan to revoke the permanent or temporary resident status of any foreign national whose name appears on the list referred to in (a)?

[Human Rights, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil is one of the first political prisoners of the post-Mubarak era, convicted on trumped-up charges of insulting the Egyptian military. He had his conviction upheld yesterday at an oft-postponed hearing, after he earlier rejected an offer of freedom in exchange for a confession for “his alleged criminality”.

Given that Nabil is now in the 115th day of a hunger strike in protest both of the injustice of the Egyptian military tribunal and the injustice of his conviction, what measures are being undertaken by the Canadian government to help secure his immediate release?

[Government Accountability, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government started by refusing to disclose the cost of its crime bill, especially the cost that the provinces will have to cover. Then it refused to disclose the real cost of each fighter plane. Now, it is holding more in camera meetings.

Does the government not believe in transparency?