Irwin Cotler

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I believe we need to have a proactive policy, as my colleague has put it, and that we need to look not only to the question of sanctioning of smugglers, which this bill in itself would not do effectively, but how we can work to improve the whole refugee and immigration system from a foreign policy point of view.

Second, we should work to stop the human rights abuses abroad that feed and, indeed, generate the refugee flows to begin with. We should at the same time work with transit states to ensure that asylum seekers can obtain meaningful protection abroad, which is now so sorely lacking.

Third, we should create avenues through which refugees in need of immediate protection can get to Canada without resorting to human smugglers.

I might add in that regard that the legislation presupposes that Canada lacks enforcement powers to prevent human smuggling, which is not the case.

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, November 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in the matter of Bill C-49, whose formal title is “An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act”. Indeed the stated intent of the legislation can perhaps best be found in the short title of the act, “Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act”.

In particular, the bill reflects the government's response to two ships full of Tamil migrants who landed on Canada's shores in the past year. It reflects also the larger public concern over illegal immigration and false refugee claims and indeed the need, as the government and our colleagues on the opposite side have put it, to maintain public faith in the immigration and refugee system.

Accordingly, the bill includes harsh penalties for smugglers, which have garnered a good deal of media attention, and not surprisingly, because who can object to legislation that purports to get tough with human smuggling and to deal with such smuggling in the manner required for that purpose? However what is being ignored here is that the government, with co-operative consultation with and indeed the support of the opposition, just five months ago enacted a comprehensive reform of our immigration and refugee law precisely for the purposes of, among other things, combating illegal immigration, false refugee claims and declining, as it put it even then, public faith in the immigration and refugee law system.

This bill, however, while purporting to be the same in its purpose and effect, ends up undermining the very integrity and effectiveness of the legislation that the government itself enacted some five months ago, while inviting, on closer appreciation of the legislation, the very loss of credibility and public faith in our system that Bill C-49 purports to decry, but which Bill C-49 will in fact invite.

Indeed an appreciation of the pith and substance of this legislation, its essential character and effect, invites the characterization of the bill, as a group of refugee scholars has put it, as “the punishing refugees and evading our constitutional and international obligations act”. In a word, the bill does not so much punish smugglers as indeed it punishes asylum claimers.

What follows is a summary of concerns respecting this bill, concerns that, for example, are reflected in the commentaries of experts in refugee law, such as Peter Showler, a former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, who last week characterized the bill as “littered with charter violations”. Immigration and refugee law and human rights experts have decried the lack of balance between the sanctions against the smugglers and, in particular, the manner in which the asylum-seekers end up being targeted. The critique of a group of law professors from different law schools across this country characterized it as not only being in breach of our charter rights but also in breach of our standing obligations under international law, such as under the international refugee convention.

In effect, this bill amounts to gratuitous punishment of those seeking our protection, in effect a double victimization of those who have been initially victimized by smugglers exploiting them and then end up being victimized when they seek protection on our shores.

As well, the legislation reflects a lack of understanding of what it means to be a refugee escaping civil strife. The legislation says detention is necessary until the identity of the refugee can be confirmed, but for people who understand what it means to be refugees fleeing civil strife, with all that attends it, it ends up being a legislation that punishes people who are illegal arrivals. As one editorial put it, Albert Einstein would have been punished under this legislation.

This brings me now to a summary of the specific concerns and I will do so in an abbreviated fashion for reasons of time.

First, the bill would authorize detention with no independent review for a minimum of 12 months, in clear breach of both charter rights and related Supreme Court jurisprudence that such detention without review is patently illegal. Moreover, the government has the power to detain persons until their identity is established, as I mentioned, or, irrespective of time, under present legislation, be it legislation with respect to the protection of public security or legislation with respect to enforcement of our anti-terrorist laws and, as such, this particular and prospectively illegal provision is as well a gratuitous and unnecessary given our present laws.

Second, those who are granted refugee status are nonetheless denied the right to bring their family members to Canada for a period of five years. Again, arguably that is in breach of our international human rights and humanitarian obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child or international provisions respecting family unification.

Third, there is no right of appeal from the initial rejecting refugee decision, which would not only immunize error in our refugee system, but prejudice the rights of prospective asylum seekers.

Fourth, it would reduce medical benefits. Refugee claims already receive only the most basic of medical coverage, but this type of legislation would reduce that even further in respect of matters pertaining to the use of wheelchairs, canes, walkers and the like.

Fifth, the bill mandates that those coming to Canada as part of a smuggling event, as it is called, will not be permitted to apply for permanent residence for five years. This provides for different rules and standards for migrants smuggled on a ship compared to those who arrive illegally with forged documents by way of an airplane.

Finally, with respect to the overall purpose and effect of the bill, it might in this regard create two classes of refugees based on the means of arrival in Canada. The distinction and its drastic consequences offend foundational principles of international law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as common sense and decency.

The majority of refugees and those involved in refugee law know only too well. As Peter Showler himself wrote just a short time ago:

The majority of refugees must resort to smuggling networks to escape the country of persecution and cross borders. Canadian and international laws have recognized this necessity and prohibit the prosecution of refugees for the violation of immigration regulations. Boat arrival, as opposed to individual arrival by land or air, does not mean that the refugee claims are more or less valid or that the passengers are a greater security threat: If anything, it is the opposite, since arrival by boat entails far closer scrutiny by the authorities. Boat arrival simply means that it was the only practical avenue of escape for refugees with no good options.

In summary, he says:

Government ministers have justified the punitive aspects of the bill by accusing boat refugees of “jumping the refugee queue” as opposed to “law abiding refugees” who wait their turn for resettlement. There is no refugee queue. There are approximately 13 million refugees scattered throughout the world, over half of them in godforsaken camps with few resources and less hope. Their average time of camp residence is 17 years;...

We should not be enacting legislation that ends up punishing the asylum seekers while not effectively sanctioning the smugglers themselves who exploit them.

[Sergei Magnitsky, November 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory and in tribute to the heroic Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who uncovered the largest tax fraud in Russian history and paid for it with his life. While his story is one of great moral courage, his saga shines a spotlight on the pervasive culture of corruption and impunity implicating senior government officials in Russia today. Tragically, Magnitsky is but the latest in a list of Russian heroes who lost their lives standing up for principle, truth and the rule of law.

Although the world was outraged at the case of Sergei, who was tortured and who died in prison, corrupt Russian officials were never brought to justice and were even rewarded.

Accordingly, we must call upon Russia to bring the perpetrators to justice; stand in solidarity with Russian human rights defenders; deny entry to Russian officials implicated in this criminality; and remember and honour the heroic sacrifice of Sergei Magnitsky. We can do no less.

[National Holocaust Monument Act, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of private member's Bill C-442, which has been tabled by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, respecting the establishment of a national Holocaust monument in the national capital region. It is a bill in remembrance of Holocaust victims, in remembrance of survivors, in tribute to those who fought so that our values may endure and in order to ensure, as the preamble to the bill puts it, our collective resolve never to forget, so that never again will not just be a matter of rhetoric but a matter of resolve and commitment to act.

May I cite from the bill's preamble which underpinned my support for the bill last year and the support of all parties at that time. I am pleased to see the support of all parties this evening. I quote, “to ensure that the Holocaust continues to have a permanent place in our nation's consciousness and memory...to forever remind Canadians of one of the darkest chapters in human history” to which the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord spoke so eloquently earlier this evening, “ and of the dangers of state-sanctioned hatred and anti-Semitism...and to ensure that future generations learn about the root causes of the Holocaust and its consequences in order to help prevent future acts of genocide”.

This is how the preamble speaks and this framed my support last year. I regret that a series of amendments were subsequently proposed by the government which undermined the bill, its objects and application and which I would not have supported then and would not support now.

I am pleased, therefore, that the Speaker ruled on the point of order raised by my colleague, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, to the effect that these amendments were indeed out of order, that they were at variance with the objects, purposes and intended effects of the legislation which were indeed supported by all members and by their constituents. I had discussed the bill as it was originally framed with my constituents and that is that to which they tendered their support and which I now continue to support.

At this point I will turn to the bill itself. As I said last year, but this bears reaffirmation, there are things in Jewish history, in human history that are too terrible to be believed but they are not too terrible to have happened; that Oswiecim, Majdanek, Dachau, Treblinka, these are beyond vocabulary. Words may somehow somewhat ease the pain, but they do not dwarf the tragedy. For the Holocaust, as colleagues from all parties have put it in this debate this evening, was uniquely evil in its genocidal singularity, where biology was inescapably destiny, a war against the Jews in which as Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Laureate, Elie Wiesel, put it so well, “not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims”.

As it happens, we meet this evening at an important moment of remembrance and reminder, of witness and warning, a moment that is appropriate to the significance of establishing such a national Holocaust monument. We meet in the aftermath of the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg race laws which institutionalized anti-Semitism in law in Germany at the time. We meet in effect of the double entendre of Nuremberg, the Nuremberg of hate, the Nuremberg of jackboots, as well as the Nuremberg of judgments.

On the eve of its 62nd anniversary, the Genocide Convention, which sometimes is spoken of as the “never again convention”, has tragically been violated again and again. In the aftermath of the 70th anniversary of the second world war, in fact, it is sometimes forgotten there were two wars at the time. There was the Nazi war against the allies and there was the Nazi war against the Jews. The Nazi war against the Jews sometimes overtook the Nazi war against the allies where the Germans diverted necessary supplies from the Nazi war against the allies to the war against the Jews.

We meet in the aftermath, and reference has been made to this, of the 70th anniversary of the doomed voyage of the St. Louis known as the voyage of the damned, where those who sought to enter our country Canada and those who sought to enter the United States were turned away, so that those seeking a safe haven were forced back into the inferno that was engulfing Europe.

This came a year after the infamous Evian Conference when nations of the world met to ask themselves what to do about the plight of the Jewish refugees at the time, those still living and wishing to leave.

It ended up that the world was tragically divided into two parts, those countries from which the Jews could not leave or indeed could not live in and those they could not enter, which took us down the road to the Holocaust.

[Petitions, October 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by a large number of Canadian citizens who identify themselves as “grandmothers for Gilad Shalit”. This petition is grounded in a profound commitment to international law and human rights.

The petitioners protest his abduction from Israel during a ceasefire arrangement with Hamas-ruled Gaza, where he has been held in complete isolation for more than four years and, as the petitioners note, has been denied any and all rights afforded to him under international humanitarian law.

Accordingly, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to insist that the Red Cross, the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies uphold the applicable standards of international humanitarian law, including proof of life, visitation rights and communication between him and his family as a bare minimum. They also call upon the Government of Canada to condition Canadian aid transferred to Gaza on adherence to these basic principles: that the Palestinian Authority commit itself to his repatriation and that Canada use its good offices to put an end to these violations of international humanitarian law to secure his release and return him to his family as a matter of fundamental decency and justice.

[Iran, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the recent sentencing of seven members of the Baha'i leadership in Iran to a decade in prison is a looking glass into the plight of human rights in Iran in general and the targeting of Iran's largest religious minority in particular. While the world is necessarily focused on Iran's nuclear pursuits, the massive domestic repression in Iran should be an equally compelling concern as well as a call for action.

This persecution and the accusations against the leaders of the Bahá'i community constitute a classic case of the denial of justice in Iran.

This includes arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detention, false charges, coerced confessions, denial of the right to counsel and a show trial devoid of any due process before a politicized judiciary.

Most alarmingly, the last several years have been witness to a resurgence of more extreme forms of persecution and assaults targeting the Baha'i community and the repression has only escalated in the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian elections of June 2009.

In sum, the sentencing of the Baha'i leadership and the attendant violations must serve as a wake-up call for the international community to sanction and hold Iran accountable for its ongoing violence and assault.

[Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies, October 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies recently adopted a manifesto on democracy, appropriately enough on the International Day of Democracy. The forum is a coalition of democratically elected parliamentarians who work together to strengthen democracy where it is weak and promote it where it does not exist.

The manifesto, while acknowledging a “democracy recession”, emphasizes the universal values that underpin democracy, including human rights, rule of law, freedom of expression, independent media, accountability, transparency and access to education.

The declaration appeals to all democratic governments and parliaments to include the democracy dimension as a permanent component of their foreign policy.

In particular, it urges governments and parliaments to support democratic opposition movements and human rights activists in countries under totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

It was my privilege to represent Canadian parliamentarians at this founding meeting.

[Iran, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, on the one-year anniversary of the fraudulent Iranian election, this House expresses its solidarity with the people of Iran; condemns the loss of life, beatings, and unjust imprisonment of those who peacefully protested; supports the democratic movement in Iran; welcomes the new UN sanctions against the Iranian regime; calls upon the regime to cease and desist from the illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions and international law; and expresses its hope that the Iranian people will soon live in peace, security, and freedom.

[Protecting Canadians Abroad Act, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-554, An Act to Protect Canadian Citizens Abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act to protect Canadian citizens abroad in support of the foundational principle that all Canadian citizens, without discrimination, deserve the protection of the Government of Canada while detained, stranded, captured or disappeared abroad.

There are a number of high profile cases, including those of Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and Abousfian Abdelrazik, and the related jurisprudence that have underscored the need for legislation setting forth both the rights of Canadian citizens, as well as the threshold obligations of the Government of Canada and its consular services.

Accordingly, this legislation, the first ever of its kind, would affirm these rights and obligations, including rights to consular access, consular visits and repatriation; reporting requirements for Canadian officials when they suspect a Canadian detained or captured abroad has been or may be tortured; and requiring that the government request the repatriation of a Canadian detained abroad in situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Canadian has been or may be tortured, is being subjected to conditions constituting cruel or unusual punishment, or is being arbitrarily detained.

I trust that this bill will enjoy the support of all members of the House.

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

[Petitions, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on the occasion of the one-year anniversary of the fraudulent Iranian election and the ensuing massive domestic repression and alarming march toward nuclear weapons capability, calling upon the government to act against the Iranian regime's clear and present danger to international peace and security, to regional and Middle East stability and, increasingly and alarmingly, to its own people.

In particular, the petitioners urge the government to combat the critical mass of Iranian threat, including the nuclear threat, the threat of state-sanctioned incitement, state-sponsored terrorism and the threat of massive domestic repression.

The petitioners urge the government to enact the Iran accountability act , to hold President Ahmadinejad and Iranian leaders to account for violating the prohibition against incitement to genocide in the genocide convention and international law, and to support Interpol arrest warrants against Iranian leaders implicated in terrorist acts against the AMIA in Argentina.

The petitioners reaffirm the feeling of Canadian friendship with the Iranian people, regret developments that have created impediments to that friendship, and hold the Iranian people, their culture and their ancient and rich history in the highest esteem.