Irwin Cotler

[Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak in favour of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

As has been said in this House during debate, this is the first trade agreement that Canada has signed with an Arab country, and it is only appropriate that Jordan be that country.

First, the Jordanian industry and trade minister, Amer Al-Hadidi, said, after the agreement was signed:

The signing is a testimony to the excellent relations between the two countries. We finished...negotiations...in record time.

Second, as they themselves have affirmed both on the occasion of the signing of the free trade agreement and in discussions that I have had with them when visiting the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, they have made great strides toward economic and trade liberalization, including developing an ambitious agenda which they hope will combat poverty and unemployment while seeking to protect the environment, promote economic growth and ensure an equitable distribution of goods and services consequent upon that economic growth.

Third, the trade agreement between Canada and Jordan will not only contribute to increasing bilateral trade ties, it will create new export opportunities for Jordanian products in foreign markets through the aggregate rules of origin with the countries that have already signed trade agreements with both Canada and Jordan, such as the United States and Israel.

Fourth, as His Majesty King Abdullah himself said on the occasion of the signing of the trade agreement, “It will help increase the volume of commercial exchange and expand economic cooperation between the two countries”, as “under the [trade agreement], Jordanian products will enter the Canadian market tariff and customs free as of the date the agreement goes into effect, expected to be at the end of 2009”.

At the same time, “Canadian products will benefit from a gradual decrease in tariffs and customs over a span of three to four years”.

As well, this free trade agreement will presage further cooperation between Canada and Jordan, and indeed again, His Majesty King Abdullah appreciated and expressed, as he put it, his appreciation for Canada's support for Jordan in implementing Jordan's development program, especially in the field of education, while expressing the hope that the two countries will further cooperate in the fields of alternative energy, water and nuclear progress.

This brings me to yet another perspective and reason for signing this agreement with Jordan, which will be the first Arab country for that purpose. The two countries, and it is important to factor this into the free trade agreement, also signed agreements to protect the environment, investments and labour rights.

I recall the representations made in this debate by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, the cautionary note that he sounded with respect to the human rights issues, and the references he made with respect to the U.S. State Department report on matters relating to human rights. I expect that these will be issues that will be addressed in the testimony and submissions before committee as well.

Finally, as Jordan has signed a peace treaty with Israel, indeed we are speaking in this debate on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of that peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, and as Canada has now signed a free trade treaty with Jordan as it has with Israel, and has close cooperation with Israel as well as an excellent relationship with Jordan, this free trade agreement will, in that regard, help create a peace dividend as well as an economic, environmental and labour rights dividend for the reasons that I mentioned.

The value of this first ever free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan finds expression in the preamble and purposes of the free trade agreement to which I will turn at this point. Although I could reference the preamble, for reasons of time I will excerpt only clause 7 of the bill, which speaks to the purpose of the agreement and which says:

The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement and the related agreements, the objectives of which, as elaborated more specifically through their provisions--

That is why I am dealing now with summary form as is given in clause 7. The purposes of the agreement include:

(a) establish a free trade area in accordance with the Agreement;

(b) promote, through the expansion of reciprocal trade, the harmonious development of the economic relations between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to foster, in both countries, the advancement of economic activity;

(c) contribute, by the removal of barriers to trade, to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade;

(d) enhance and enforce environmental laws and regulations and strengthen cooperation on environmental matters;

(e) protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights, strengthen cooperation on labour matters and build on the respective international commitments of Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on labour matters; and

(f) promote sustainable development.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement can be expected to provide important economic, environmental, labour, geopolitical, bilateral and multilateral benefits. It will of course require the oversight that is appropriate to these kinds of agreements, as will, in particular, the side agreements that relate to matters pertaining to environmental protection, workers' rights, and the issue of human rights as a whole.

Let me now try to identify in summary form the benefits that may arguably accrue from this Canada-Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan free trade agreement in a number of sectors. I will refer sequentially to the economic, environmental, labour, geopolitical, bilateral and multilateral sectors.

On the economic front, the free trade agreement would help promote bilateral economic trade as I referenced earlier. This bilateral economic trade between Canada and Jordan stood at $92 million in 2008, but as a result of this agreement, it can be expected to increase exponentially while enhancing competitiveness and establishing mutually advantageous rules to govern trade and reduce distortions through trade. This should accrue thereby to the benefit of both Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the sectors that have been referenced in the course of this debate and in which some of our provinces, including my own province of Quebec, have a particular interest and concern.

On the environmental front, this agreement has an environmental protection agreement which commits the parties to comprehensive and high-level sustained environmental protection. I might add that in matters of this kind, the environmental assessments will be particularly important as well as the panoply of remedies with respect to--

[Privilege, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add anything to the debate. However, if you do find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privilege, November 19th, 2009]

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said in 2006, at the same time the Conservatives misleadingly excerpted text from his statement, that: “Between a terrorist militia and a democratic state, Canada must always side with Israel”.”

I want to conclude with his remarks, as they bear exactly on the issue before the House. I quote:

...it is beyond reckless for political leaders to try to score points by branding one another as 'anti-Israel'—to try to win votes by claiming a monopoly on supporting Israel. My Party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics—because I don’t want my Party to be alone in the defence of Israel. I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel.

In closing, I want to cite from House of Commons Procedure and Practice in reference to an action you took, Mr. Speaker:

In April 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled that the reputation of [the member for Windsor West] may have been unjustly damaged by Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) who had distributed in the Windsor West riding a bulk mailing containing inaccurate and misleading information about Mr. Masse’s House and committee activities.

There have been bulk mailings not only in my riding but also in ridings across this country with identifiable Jewish communities. Those bulk mailings not only contained false and misleading information, but they also contained information that was slanderous, damaging, and prejudicial to the Liberal Party and to the performance of each of our individual and collective duties. That is a prima facie breach of privilege and I would call on the Conservatives to cease and desist from these pernicious mailings and to publicly apologize for this false and misleading action.

[Privilege, November 19th, 2009]

I do not split hairs with the truth.

The third allegation, lest they say I would overlook the third allegation, is as I quote, that Michael Ignatieff “accused Israel of committing war crimes”. As Voltaire put it, if one takes something out of context, one can hang anybody. Mr. Ignatieff apologized and said the following, and I quote—

[Privilege, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect of a flyer subvented by Parliament and the Canadian public, targeting ridings with identifiable Jewish communities and comparing the positions of the Conservatives and the Liberals in respect of what they call matters of value to the Jewish community.

Let me relate each of the three matters of value that they speak of: fighting anti-Semitism, fighting terrorism, and supporting Israel.

Let me begin with the first.

I will cite directly from the flyer, which I will table accordingly as well. The type of language used in this flyer must be borne in mind. The flyer states that the Liberals:

Willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban I.

For shame. This is a false, misleading, prejudicial and pernicious slander, which itself constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege, associating the Liberal Party with support for anti-Semitism and, I might add, associating me as a member of the Liberal Party and each of us as members of the Liberal Party with supporting anti-Semitism.

This flyer is also false, misleading and prejudicial to me personally and my reputation and standing as an MP, constituting yet another prima facie breach of privilege, and I am referring here to the statements with regard to privilege.

I participated in Durban I as a member of the Canadian delegation. I went to Durban I, as did Canada, with other states in the international community, because we hoped and believed at the time that this was going to be the first world conference against racism in the 21st century, as I wrote at the time. However, a world conference against racism turned into a conference of racism and anti-Semitism against Israel and the Jewish community.

I spoke then, during the conference. I have spoken and written since. At the risk of sounding self-serving, though I think this is a matter of empirical fact, I believe I have spoken out on Durban I perhaps as much as, if not more than, any member of any other parliament in the world.

Yet this flyer purports to identify me and the members of my party as associating with and willingly participating in an anti-Semitic Durban conference.

Not only did the Canadian delegation and I myself speak unequivocally in condemnation of Durban I, but, and this is an important fact as well, the Government of Israel, at the time, publicly commended Canada for its participation and the nature of its participation in the Durban I conference.

The Government of Israel publicly commended Canada for Canada's condemnation of anti-Semitism at Durban I. Does that mean that the Government of Israel, by supporting the Government of Canada, was also identifying with anti-Semitism? What kind of absurdity is that coming out of the members of the Conservative government? This is as absurd as it is false.

Let me go to the second scurrilous allegation.

The flyer claims, on matters of fighting terrorism, that the Liberal Party:

opposed defunding Hamas and asked that Hezbollah be delisted as a terrorist organization.

Let the facts speak for themselves. It was a Liberal government, in 2002, which listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations under Canadian law. I have no problem in commending the Conservatives for doing that which we or any other party would do, whether it be in support of Israel or to condemn anti-Semitism. What I condemn them for is massive political identity theft on the matters of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Conservatives, in this flyer, take credit for listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

If they want to take credit for regarding Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the member saying that we in the Liberal Party supported Hamas and Hezbollah. For shame. The hon. member is trapped by the facts and he cannot escape the facts.

When they take credit for being the first in the world to stop funding for Hamas, it was illegal under Canadian law from 2002 onwards to provide any support for Hamas. How can they take credit that after 2006, they then de-funded Hamas? My god, there has to be some respect for truth and some respect for honesty.

Finally—

[Nelson Mandela International Day, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Nelson Mandela becoming an honorary citizen of Canada in an historic ceremony eight years ago today, I said in the House:

Nelson Mandela is a metaphor and message of the long march toward freedom, of the struggle against racism and hate, and of the struggle for human rights, human dignity, democracy and peace.

This honorary citizenship will have a historic and inspiring resonance for Canadians, for good relations between Canada and Africa, and for...our common humanity.

I am sure all members of this House will join me today in expressing our delight that the United Nations General Assembly has decided to mark July 18, Mandela's birthday, as Nelson Mandela International Day so that on this day, Canada, in concert with the other members of the international community and people of the world, can recognize and reaffirm the enduring contribution of this great humanitarian to the general welfare of humanity.

[Health, November 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the emergency debate on the H1N1 pandemic was necessary, but it was an emergency that should never have been, a debate that should never have been necessary, resulting from the government's own skewed priorities, mismanagement and confusion.

There were five concrete recommendations: one, restore the $400 million pandemic reserve from the 2006 budget to support additional medical staff for vaccinations and patient care; two, reinforce the underfunded and overextended public health system; three, support emergency planning to help local health authorities cope with large lineups, shortage of vaccines and needed health care workers; four, divert the $60 million being spent on partisan political advertising to a public awareness campaign; and five, put an end to diversionary constitutional babble that prevents the responsibility to protect from being implemented.

[Victims of Terror, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the foundational principle that victims of terror deserve a right of civil redress in Canadian courts against their terrorist perpetrators. At present, the exercise of this fundamental right is precluded by the operation of the State Immunity Act which immunizes state sponsors of terror from such suits.

After studying the government's proposed legislation in this regard, I regard it as necessary in terms of justice for victims of terror to have alternative legislation proposed and enacted that properly addresses the evil of transnational terrorism, that properly targets the impunity of those states that perpetrate, sponsor or finance acts of terrorism, that properly allows Canadian victims of terrorism to seek justice, and that removes the immunity that still operates even under the government's bill against state perpetrators of terrorism against Canadian citizens.

Simply put, we have an opportunity to provide redress for Canadian victims of terror anchored in domestic and international law.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's bill regrettably will introduce a standing politicization. The government will be engaged in negotiating which governments should be on the list or should be removed from the list, and the victims of terror will be denied their effective redress. Remove the list, give the victims of terror an effective redress. and deter acts of terrorism at the same time.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. I think that victims of torture deserve a right of civil redress no less than do victims of terror.

My only point was that from a legal point of view we could not commingle the two principles in the same bill without doing a disservice to both. Therefore, I introduced a private member's bill with respect to providing a civil remedy for victims of terror and I will be introducing shortly a private member's bill to provide a civil remedy for victims of torture.

In that way we will have two distinguishable, though related, bills with respect to the matter of principle, but in the matter of process we will be able to go forward effectively to secure the rights of victims of torture and terror respectively.

In the matter of the listing, I regard this as a fundamental issue because, as I said, it goes to the core of the principle of state immunity. The whole purpose of the government introducing its legislation and my introducing my legislation is to remove this operating principle of state immunity, so as to provide victims of terror a civil remedy which they cannot now have because of the State Immunity Act.

Therefore, if we are going to amend the State Immunity Act, we have to amend it in a way that gives an effective right of redress to victims of terror. If we keep the listing system, we not only deprive the victims of terror of an effective right of redress but we do not effectively deter the state perpetrators of terrorism and the state sponsors of terrorism because unless they are somehow arbitrarily put on that list, they themselves retain the immunity from suit.

Putting them on a list, as the government chooses to do, also invokes a kind of arbitrariness in the whole process. Therefore, to retain the principle of effectively amending the State Immunity Act to give victims of terror an effective right of redress, we strongly urge the government to remove the listing approach. Then we can combine to put together a bill that will serve the needs of victims of terror that will effectively deter terrorism, that will properly amend the State Immunity Act, and that will be consonant with both our domestic law, our international law, and the UN Security Council resolutions and the like that I referred to earlier in my preamble as a raison d'être to this legislation.