Irwin Cotler

[Proposal to Divide Bill C-10, October 26th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I support the member for St. John's East in his particular recommendation with regard to protection against sexual predators, particularly with regard to that piece of the omnibus bill.

However, I also want to refer to his generic concern that he also expressed, that the real problem here is that we have nine pieces of legislation bundled together in one omnibus bill, each of which deserves its own differentiated and separate treatment.

Indeed, we not only have an abbreviated time limitation debate in this chamber but we will necessarily have abbreviated debate in committee. The result will be that parliamentarians, particularly those who have been elected for the first time, will not have had an opportunity to debate these measures, some of which were in the previous sessions and previous parliaments and some of which were not, and even those that were, were never addressed by the new parliamentarians, nor did they have a chance to discuss it with their constituents. This raises a basic concern with regard to the parliamentary and democratic process, as a whole.

I want to recommend to the member for St. John's East that we unbundle the entire omnibus package and address each of those bills one by one, some of which I would also support, but the majority of which I cannot.

[Responsibility to Protect Principle, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the 10th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect Principle, which authorizes international action “to protect a state's population from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity” if that state is unable or unwilling to protect its own citizens--or worse, is the author of its criminality, as in the recent case of Libya--is not only a landmark normative principle but has been characterized as the most significant development in the defence of human rights since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

Yet, given that there have been millions of preventable deaths over the past 10 years, what ultimately matters is translating this principle into practice, organized around the four pillars of the responsibility to prevent to begin with, the responsibility to respond and protect, the responsibility to bring war criminals to justice, and the responsibility to rebuild.

In a word, this principle is about saving lives, about protecting international peace and security, and about protecting human security. We ignore it at our peril.

[Human Rights, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I recently participated in the first-ever Global Summit Against Persecution and Discrimination, which brought together former political prisoners, dissidents and victims of torture and discrimination, some of whom I represent. They unanimously adopted the landmark Declaration of Dissidents for Universal Human Rights. It is a clarion call by these heroes of human rights to hold their perpetrators to account, and includes the following initiatives: an action plan for Canada and the international community to combat the culture of impunity at the United Nations; adoption of resolutions holding country violators to account, such as the one presented yesterday by United Nations Watch and a coalition of dissidents condemning Syria's mass killings and calling also for the release of political prisoners, including Chinese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo; and the formation of an interparliamentary group for human rights in Iran to promote and protect the cause of Iranian human rights as a priority on both the national and international agendas.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, first, Canada should use all of the diplomatic resources at our disposal to communicate both publicly and privately to Ukraine our displeasure about the regressive developments that have been cited during the course of this debate this evening, and to put the Ukrainian government on notice that there will be adverse potential consequences for this anti-democratic conduct.

Second, we should help foster NGO sector development, particularly groups that are working there in human rights, education and law reform. Civil society in Ukraine is still a powerful resource and we should stand in solidarity with it.

Third, government to government dialogue is necessary. We should send a Canadian parliamentary delegation to visit Ukraine to meet with our counterparts there and deliver the message of our standing with them in common cause as we deliver the message to the government that it will be held accountable for its actions.

We should engage in appropriate diplomatic interventions with respect to upcoming hearing, such as the Lusenko trial.

We should include human rights protection in free trade talks with Ukraine.

We also should engage in robust election monitoring, particularly in the upcoming October 2012 parliamentary elections, and support the independent media in Ukraine where there are significant threats to media treatment. We should perhaps consider reinstating Radio-Canada international Ukraine programming to ensure that our Canadian values are shared and broadcast in Ukraine.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I agree. We can work together for the common cause of democracy in Ukraine, as we support this struggle for democracy. For my part, it is inspiring to see the members of every party in this House taking part in the struggle for democracy.

[Democracy in Ukraine, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to participate in this take note debate, that the House take note of the general state of democracy in Ukraine, particularly the apparent political bias and arbitrary prosecution and conviction of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko by Ukrainian authorities.

Twenty-five years ago, Ukraine voted to leave the Soviet Union and became an independent country. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, establishing diplomatic relations on January 27, 1992, and the march to political and economic reform, independence, culture and identity began.

Seven years ago, the 2004 Orange Revolution gave Canada and the world great hope for the prospects of democracy and freedom in Ukraine. Seven years ago, Yulia Tymoshenko, the populist democrat dressed in orange, climbed on to a stage in a snow-covered Kiev. I still recall that scene when she electrified a crowd, galvanized some 150,000 protesters at the time against the then rigged election victory of Viktor Yanukovych in the 2004 presidential election.

Who could forget the compelling scenes, and I can still see it in my mind's eye? I am sure many in Canada at that time were engaged in what was happening in Ukraine. Who could forget the compelling scenes of Yulia Tymoshenko emerging, energizing, captivating the people for days, ushering Viktor Yushchenko to victory, proclaiming in her words at the time, “Glory to Ukraine” and the crowd responding, “Yulia, Yulia”.

The Liberal government at the time stood shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people in Ukraine in our shared struggle to realize their democratic aspirations.

The Canadian government at the time, of which I was a member, sent 1,000 election observers to Ukraine during the election and expressed support for the emergent government and democratic cause.

Democracy was on the march. Civil society was beginning to flower. Freedom of the press was a democratic expression of this march of freedom at the time.

The Orange Revolution gave the world hope for the prospect of real democracy taking root in the Ukraine with the clear and unequivocal support of the Ukrainian people. As well, the years that followed, and indeed we saw this, the emergence of a democracy, while somewhat chaotic, emerged and anchored in the people.

To fast forward, despite his history, Viktor Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election, ironically, through open processes that resulted from the Orange Revolution itself. Canada and the western countries congratulated him and expressed interest in working with his government in its goal of joining the European Union and the western community of democratic nations.

Then, regrettably, the erosion of democracy, of which this debate is taking note, began and in that erosion of democracy there were a litany of events that I will briefly summarize. Much of this has been addressed this evening, so I will deal with it by abbreviation only.

First, we had a series of unconstitutional amendments, where the previous restrictions to the power of the president were repealed, accelerating the concentration of power in the president. Distinctions and separation of power between president, prime minister and government were effectively nullified and the government and the Parliament came under the direct control of the president, so that whatever prior checks and balances occurred were no longer effective.

Second, we saw a process of politically motivated selected justice and repression of opposition politicians. This has been manifested in the ongoing prosecution and recent conviction of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, as has been described this evening and is part of our take note debate theme. However, it includes as well the arrest and imprisonment of former interior minister, Yuriy Lutsenko and flight into asylum in the Czech Republic of former economic minister, Bohdan Danylyshyn, among others. The appointment of media magnate, Valeriy Khoroshkovsky, as head of the security service of Ukraine, is part of a pattern as it has been described as turning the power of the state over to business oligarchy.

Third, the European parliament adopted, on June 7, 2011, a resolution on Ukraine, wherein it stressed the importance of and its concern with the absence of transparency in investigations, prosecutions, trials and accountability and warned against any use of the criminal law as a tool to achieve political end. It further expressed concern about the increase in the selective prosecution of the political opposition in Ukraine. As I said, this is not limited to, though of course the case study this evening is that of Yulia Tymoshenko.

The European resolution goes on to stress that the ongoing investigations of prominent Ukrainian political leaders should not preclude them, as it has, from actively participating in the political life of the country and calls on Ukrainian authorities to lift the travel ban, both domestically and internationally, on Yulia Tymoshenko and other key political figures.

As well, there were threats to media freedoms, for one of the great achievements of the 2004 Orange Revolution was the establishment of a truly independent media. Again, since February 2010, a growing number of disturbing incidents has occurred that conveyed the impression that media freedoms are increasingly being jeopardized. During its fact finding mission to Ukraine in July 2010, the international media watch dog, Reporters Without Borders, documented cases of physical attacks on journalists, direct obstruction of their work and acts of censorship of various kinds. This trend has continued. At least 10 radio, television and newspaper journalists across the country have reported being physically attacked in 2010 in cities throughout Ukraine, a pattern continuing in 2011. Broadcast licences of independent television channels have been suspended by government regulators, and I can go on.

With regard to local elections, according to the U.S. State Department 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ukraine, the October 31 local elections at the time did not meet standards for openness and fairness set by the presidential elections earlier in the year. Two American NGOs threatened to withdraw from a working group to develop a new electoral law, charging that the group had no input because decisions were being made and controlled by the president.

In addition, there is growing and serious concern with the upcoming parliamentary elections. How can they be declared free and fair if the leaders of two opposition parties, including the leader of the official opposition, are not able to participate?

Finally, I would mention the fact that the government of President Viktor Yanukovych has targeted independent universities and research institutions for harassment and intimidation, especially those who are working on restoring Ukraine's historic memory.

This brings me, at this point, to the trial of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. In this trial, we see a case study of that which is concerning us with respect to the erosion of democracy in Ukraine as a whole. In fact, the images contrasted with that which I mentioned of the Orange Revolution in 2004.

I will close with this from an article which states:

This time the former prime minister, wearing grey, sat in court to hear a...judge reading out a sentence of seven years' jail, a three-year ban on public office and a fine of $190 m as purported compensation for damage allegedly caused when she struck a gas deal with Russia in 2009.

This was during the normal course of her work. The article continues to state:

The term was symbolic: a year in jail for every one that has passed since the orange revolution.

A case study in selective prosecution, in all the arbitrariness that attended it, in the denial of a right to fair trial before an impartial and independent judiciary, in the denial of the right to know the nature of the charges against her, denial of the right to counsel, we have gone from the excitement of the 2004 Orange Revolution to the nadir that we are now witnessing in Ukraine.

[Holocaust Remembrance Day, October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, in one of the worst and horrific atrocities of the Holocaust, 33,731 Jews were murdered in just two days at Babi Yar, an unspeakable horror too terrible to be believed, but not too terrible to have happened.

For 50 years, the fact that the murdered men, women and children were Jews was not even acknowledged, their identities simply erased, effectively killing the victims yet again.

It is with and because of the remnant of survivors in my constituency, as in the Ukraine and elsewhere, that we remember that each murdered person had an identity, that each was a universe and that we promise that never again will we be indifferent to racism and hate. Never again will we be silent in the face of evil. Never again will we be indulgent to anti-Semitism and mass atrocity anywhere.

May Babi Yar not be just an act of remembrance, which it is, but let it be a remembrance to act, which it must be.

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have particular data with regard to the issue of murder-suicide, though the phenomenon of course, as my colleague mentioned, does exist.

I do want to say something that has underpinned all my remarks today, and perhaps I am somewhat influenced by the fact that for me, being on the occasion of the Jewish high holy days, the overarching theme during this period is a question of reverence for life; indeed, the sanctity of human life.

This is what the entire debate is all about. This is what the proposal for a national strategy of suicide prevention is all about, the reverence for life, the sanctity of human life, and to prevent these tragedies, as best we can, from occurring.

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, initiatives such as the Mental Health Commission are welcome initiatives, but the whole burden of what we have been speaking to today is the need for a national vision and a national strategy to implement it, of which the Mental Health Commission initiative can play an important part.

That is why I sought to identify and, in an abbreviated way, recommend a series of such initiatives that have been recommended by the Canadian Association of Suicide Preventions, which referenced also the issue of mental health, as I did in my remarks.

However, that is but one component, and indeed, in respect of Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, that too needs to factor in those issues that may have fallout for suicide prevention in the context of its crime and punishment approach.

[Business of Supply, October 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

It is a shocking fact which almost defies belief that, as the United Nations pointed out in 2009, every year worldwide more human beings kill themselves than are killed in all wars, terrorist attacks and homicides combined. While the motion before us focuses on Canada, it is important to realize that suicide occurs in every country, on every continent, and exists in every religious and age group. It claims almost a million lives annually; yet, despite its existence from the dawn of human history, this global tragedy has yet to receive the attention, and even more important, the action it warrants.

Today as we meet, 10 Canadians will take their own lives. This is a per capita rate three times that of the United States itself, largely due to the staggering number of deaths among aboriginal Canadians.

As well, the member for Toronto Centre pointed this out earlier today.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for men aged 25 to 29 and 40 to 44, and for women aged 30 to 34. Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth between the ages of 10 and 24.

Indeed, the suicide rate for youth in Canada is the third highest in the industrialized world. As well, the suicide rate for first nations is shockingly five to seven times higher than non-first nations populations. This is horrific and painful data.

Moreover, suicide is not only the leading cause of death for aboriginal men aged 10 to 19, but the suicide rate for Inuit youth is among the highest in the world, 11 times the national average. Among the most disturbing and painful data available, according to a 2008 study done in Nunavut, nearly 43% of respondents had thoughts of suicide in the previous seven days.

As if these statistics are not troubling enough, let us appreciate that behind each statistic is a human being. I sometimes worry that the abstraction of statistics takes us away from appreciating the full depth of the tragedy in individual and collective terms. The reality is that death by suicide can be prevented.

As for the suicide of adolescents, what goes through a young person's mind before making such a terrible choice is not something one can fully appreciate. Studies indicate that issues of social integration, feelings of alienation, changes in family situations, problems with self-image as well as rage and self-control issues may all contribute to adolescent suicide.

A government report on teen suicide concluded the following.

While the reasons for suicide are complex and difficult to define, the experience of adolescence brings unique problems to this high-risk age group.

Indeed, no part of Canadian society is immune, though certain segments, as I mentioned, particularly the aboriginal peoples are specifically at risk, as well as youth, seniors, Canadians with disabilities, those who identify as a sexual minority, and members of the armed forces.

While the causes of suicide are complex, often involving biological, psychological, social, environmental and spiritual factors, in various forms of combinations, 90% of suicides have a diagnosable psychiatric illness. Tragically, these conditions often go undiagnosed. This is a problem that must be addressed, not only nationally, but internationally, as well.

Again, we are speaking of something that can be prevented. Indeed, a government report from 1990 concluded the following.

The complexity of the issue must not discourage community or government agency efforts to deal with [this] problem...

In short, I support this motion as a step in the right direction for combating suicide and hope it enjoys the full support of the House when it comes to a vote later today. There is no question here in Canada that what is needed is a national suicide prevention strategy.

Regrettably, in Canada, suicide prevention is fragmented, disconnected, often incoherent, and lacking in a national vision and strategy. The difficult question that arises, therefore, is, what should this vision be? What should this strategy entail?

The government need not reinvent the wheel here. Blueprints for a national strategy from organizations such as the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention exist and can be used in planning the government's course of action. Indeed, this plan in particular serves as a model for suicide prevention strategies in several provinces and was recommended to the government in a 2006 Senate committee report.

Some of the many recommendations and goals of the CASP strategy included, and I am extrapolating for reasons of time and abbreviating, as well, with respect to the examples: developing a co-ordinated public awareness campaign; developing national forums on suicide, generally, as well as on specific target populations and specific issues. For example, just as when I was minister of justice, we had federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers of justice on specific issues. So, in order to highlight a particular issue, there could surely be a federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of health focused on suicide, in particular.

The recommendations and goals of the CASP strategy also included: supporting and also enhancing the number of public and private institutions and volunteer organizations active in suicide prevention. Here the government could initiate a grant program for suicide awareness and prevention campaigns.

They also included: increasing the proportion of the public that values mental, physical, social, spiritual and holistic health. Here the government could create some sort of participaction program focused on mental health.

They also included: supporting the development of specific strategies by and for Inuit, first nations, Métis and all aboriginal peoples; encouraging the development of specific strategies for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. Indeed, we have been witness to a troubling wave of teen suicides of gay and lesbian youth in the United States recently, reminding us that we need to work on diversity and acceptance initiatives, as well as anti-bullying strategies.

They also included: supporting the development and use of technology to reduce the lethality of a means for suicide. For example, firearm locks, carbon monoxide shut-off controls, bridge barriers, subway stop barriers, and strengthened medication containers.

Finally, they also concluded: developing a national crisis line network to connect existing crisis lines and websites to provide services, particularly where none exist; and developing and implementing support structures for families living with suicidal people, acknowledging their roles as caregivers and as contributing members of the care team.

In short, there is much that can be done. It is up to the government to act, so that it can be done.

Indeed, the 2006 Senate committee report I mentioned earlier made some 118 recommendations, from legislative changes, such Criminal Code amendments, to broader recommendations about the delivery of health care services.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that its recommendation “That governments take immediate steps to address the shortage of mental health professionals who specialize in treating children and youth” has not, regrettably, been heeded, and child and youth mental health services continue to be significantly less resourced than physical health services, and service delivery remains fragmented at all levels.

Before closing, I would also like to mention, and this was not entirely the focus of the debate here today, the particular issue of suicide among the elderly. Let us not forget that there is a high rate of suicide among the very old, be it after the loss of a spouse or loved one, or when used as a means to end suffering from illness. This, too, must be addressed as part of a national strategy and vision.

Today is, in effect, a call to action, to fight the stigmas surrounding suicide and mental health, and to come together in common cause to address this issue. We know the statistics and we have plenty of tools at our disposal to act. What we must do, in fact, is to act, and act now, to prevent the preventable tragedies that may yet, and will, occur.