Irwin Cotler

[Situation in Sri Lanka, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague, the member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, for his moving statement this evening. I do not think any member in this House has the experience and expertise that he has in this matter. His statement reflected his own sustained personal and professional involvement in this matter, and we should both heed and act upon his words.

Today Sri Lanka commemorates its independence day. We are home to the largest number of the Tamil diaspora outside of south Asia. Tamil Canadians are gathering to mourn the loss of innocent civilians who have been killed in hostilities with the Sri Lankan government. Indeed, we grieve with them for the deaths of innocents and the death of innocence, as well as for the ongoing violations of human rights and humanitarian law. As we meet, over a quarter of a million Tamil civilians are trapped within a 300 square kilometre conflict area. They are in need of urgent medical care, humanitarian assistance, media access and independent verification with respect to the conflict situation.

As the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, recently stated:

It is the Government's duty to provide safety to all Sri Lanka's citizens, whatever their ethnic origin or political views. That means not only protecting civilians during military operations in the north, but also ensuring space for journalists and human rights defenders to seek out the truth and expose abuses.

As we meet, candlelight vigils are taking place in Canadian cities this evening, urging the Canadian government to, among other things, take decisive action to end the unfolding humanitarian crisis. They will be lamenting the deaths of innocents and innocence. However, the question for us this evening is not only to lament what is happening, not only to grieve with respect to the death of innocents, but to undertake those necessary initiatives to protect human security, to promote the peace and to put an end to the human suffering.

I appreciate the statements made on behalf of the government this evening, statements that included a commitment with regard to humanitarian assistance and a framework for conflict resolution.

Again I say that we in Canada have a particular nexus to this conflict, for all the reasons mentioned in particular this evening by my learned colleague. The initiatives that can be taken have been referenced this evening, and I do not want to repeat them. I want only to identify them in terms of a sequenced framework.

First is an immediate ceasefire with a framework for a sustained and enduring end to hostilities, for while an immediate ceasefire is necessary, it is not enough. We need an accompanying framework to ensure that the ceasefire will be sustained and will endure.

Second, we need a return to the negotiating table for the mediation of a peaceful resolution to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. That solution will include what a government representative mentioned this evening, an equitable power sharing arrangement within the framework of a federalist orientation, as my colleague has mentioned. Canada can play a particular role with respect both to the federalist framework and to the protection of minority rights within that federalist framework.

Third is that the Sri Lankan government must allow the free flow of humanitarian aid to the conflict zone and allow international aid workers unimpeded access to the affected areas.

The fourth item is that journalists must be given and allowed unfettered access to the conflict area so that they can not only report on the current situation in the north and east but also determine the nature and scope of assaults on press freedom.

Fifth, all parties must be called upon to respect the rights of civilians in armed conflict and to adhere to human rights and humanitarian law norms, including--and here I make this particular appeal to the Sri Lankan government--ceasing and desisting from any targeting of civilians and protected persons and from targeting those in protected zones.

Sixth, we must support the call for the appointment of a United Nations special envoy for Sri Lanka to monitor and guard against abuses and to assist the peace process, as has been recommended by the United Nations itself, by the United States Department of State and by other international actors.

Finally, I have excerpts of letters of the past six U.S. ambassadors to Sri Lanka, which have been echoed in other international comments in that regard. They make the point that in fact, the major threat to democracy and the rule of law in Sri Lanka has not only been that which has come from the actions of the government or that which has come from the actions of the LTTE; we need to appreciate the threats that come from those who wish to undermine constitutionalism, who seek to undermine the rule of law, who seek to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the proper functioning of public institutions.

In conclusion, we need to guard against the abuse of authority to destroy dissent.

The concerns I cited above are the major causes of the serious deterioration of the rule of law, human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka.

In concert with the government and the international community, there is a lot for us as a House to do to put an end to the suffering in Sri Lanka, to protect human security and to promote peace.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague to the effect that we not only have to expand benefits with respect to employment insurance, but we have to expand the pool of eligibility. We have to broaden the access with respect to the employment benefits.

On the matter of those less privileged, particularly those who are so vulnerable internationally, we will join with the government. However, again, this is not a partisan matter. Africa is the forgotten and abandoned continent, where in Zimbabwe alone 80% of the people are in need of food assistance. There is a cholera epidemic. In the Congo thousands are in desperate need of humanitarian protection because of the worst misogynistic mass rape to have ever taken place in the world. In Darfur a genocide by attrition continues.

I could go on, but Africa is tragically a forgotten and abandoned continent. That should be a priority in our foreign policy and it should find expression in our budgetary allocations.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were going to, in accordance with the opening statement in the Speech from the Throne, join together, and that is how I began, in a spirit of solidarity and co-operation while we work together with each other.

I contrasted that with what had happened in the last three years. I said that I welcomed that approach. I talked about some of the good measures in the budget and then I talked about those measures in the budget which I thought were flawed and could be improved.

If the hon. member really cares about the people of Canada, if he really cares about the economic well-being of Canadians, then he would not indulge, again, in partisan, divisive politics and he would call us together to work for the good of Canadians.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

I am very happy to be participating in this debate on behalf of my constituents in Mount Royal, a dynamic, committed, rainbow-like riding.

The Speech from the Throne began as follows:

In these uncertain times, when the world is threatened by a struggling economy, it is imperative that we work together, that we stand beside one another and that we strive for greater solidarity.

This co-operative sentiment, this invitation to work together and stand solidly with each other is a welcomed and changed attitude in marked contrast to the government's stewardship of the last three years.

During those three years, the government ignored the warnings of economists against its tax policies and the admonitions of this party about the largest spending spree in history. It managed to drive a $15 billion budgetary surplus into the ground even before the recession began.

In September, when the recession began and every other G8 country was in fact addressing it, the government continued to insist there was no recession.

In October, when G8 governments began to plan around a necessary budgetary deficit, the government continued to insist that it would never run a deficit.

In November, when the global economic meltdown began, the government's economic update astonishingly promised a surplus in 2009.

When that co-operative leadership, which the government now speaks of was so needed, the government, in its economic update, chose to mock Parliament and the people with a series of divisive and adversarial measures. Those measures were more about partisan politics than they were about the economic well-being of Canadians, such that we lurched from an economic crisis to a political crisis to a national unity crisis. Then there was the proroguing of Parliament, during which period we lost more jobs than in any other comparable period in the last 20 years.

We are pleased not only with the new and necessary co-operative and consultative approach, but that the approach has also included initiatives suggested by, among others, our own party, including the expanding of the working income tax benefit and the child tax benefit, affordable housing initiatives, infrastructure investment, investment in regional development bodies, credit access, investment with respect to the infrastructure for aboriginal peoples and the like.

The budget regrettably remains a flawed document, one in which there is an absence of an overarching vision and strategy, one bereft of the great national projects that not only benefit the economy but help to inspire the nation.

For example, while the budget invests in the physical infrastructure of universities and laboratories, which is clearly welcome and needed, it nonetheless ignores the investment in the sciences, in the research, in the ideas that underpin and inspire the work in those universities and laboratories. At the same time, there is an absence in the budget of any reference to the Genome Canada budget, to the diminution of funding for research granting councils and its lack of support for equitable access to higher education.

What we note in particular is what has been called a manifest disregard for science, as the distinguished science journal, Nature, lamented a year ago. Another distinguished journal, Science, now counsels us, warning about the possible outflow of scientists, researchers and educators from Canada to the United States.

Second, while the budget speaks of a green infrastructure fund, again there is no grand vision of a triple-E initiative of the protection of the economy, of investment in energy technologies and, in particular, with regard to environmental protection. In effect, what we have here, in contrast that of the United States, is a piecemeal approach to environmental protection. What is needed, as we see south of the border, is a grand initiative, yet again another grand project on behalf of our country which reflects the kind of inspiration that Canadians need and wish to engage in.

Third, while the economic meltdown can be expected to adversely affect the most vulnerable among us, especially the poor and children living in poverty, there is no mention at all of poverty and no mention of the plight of the poor in this budget. There is no undertaking in the throne speech, for example, to make poverty history on the international level as best we can. There is no undertaking to address and redress the domestic needs in Canada.

I recall when the leader of the opposition at the time spoke about a national project in which we would have a 50:30 formula, in which we would seek to have one-third of poverty reduced in the next five years and reduced as well by half the number of children living in poverty.

The fourth concerns the health care system. Health care impacts adversely on the population in cases of economic meltdown. Here again we propose, and I recommend again, that there be a massive investment with respect to increasing of the supply of doctors and nurses. If we look at what will happen in an adverse economic situation with regard to primary care, home care, palliative care and emergency care, we will need to enhance the number of health care professionals.

Finally, there is no reference to a justice agenda that speaks to the protection of those most vulnerable in our society. We will recall that the test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable among it. How does it treat its aboriginal people? How does it treat its immigrants and refugees? How does it treat its disabled? How does it treat those who need the government's protection and need it in a kind of access to justice and equal justice?

I mention in this regard the importance of having a national comprehensive and sustainable legal aid plan for both civil and criminal purposes. The absence of such a plan impacts adversely on those who are most vulnerable. I mention the importance of equal justice, of restoring the court challenges program. Again, the absence of such a court challenges program impacts adversely on minorities and equality rights seekers.

I mention in particular the plight of aboriginal people whose situation, as we meet, is before the universal periodic review of the United Nations Council on Human Rights, again, disparities in access, in justice and in particular the plight of disappeared aboriginal women.

I close with one particular reference in the budget. The budget calls on us at a time of economic meltdown to mobilize our energies, and it is correct, but it speaks only about the domestic arena. What about the economic meltdown that has occurred in this same period of which the budget speaks of the last three months, not only domestically but internationally? What about what is happening in Africa, in Zimbabwe, in the Congo, in Darfur and in Somali?

We have to turn our attention as well to those less privileged than we are and ensure that do what we can to combat and redress those kinds of imbalances afar as well as at home.

[Terrorism, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had a volunteers appreciation meeting in my riding, which included among others a large number of constituents of Pakistani and Indian origin. Both these communities, in concert with others, expressed the hope that the tragedy in Mumbai should not pit India against Pakistan or divide the two peoples, but that we must stand together in the struggle against terrorism, in the struggle for democracy and against the anti-Jewish ethos that often accompanies such terrorist attacks.

For over three days, Mumbai, one of the great international cities with the most populous democracy in the world, was under siege. Of the over 170 people murdered were two Montrealers, Dr. Michael Moss and Nurse Elizabeth Russell, two exemplary health care workers who tended the patients in my riding.

Also murdered in the attacks were Rabbi and Rebbetzin Holtzberg of the Chabad Jewish Community Centre in Mumbai, whom I know from personal experience were a source of comfort to many in Mumbai and beyond.

We extend our condolences to the Chabad community in Mumbai and beyond, to the families and friends of Dr. Moss and Elizabeth Russell, and to all of the loved ones who fell victim to this assault on our common humanity.

[Justice, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the responses of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Is the government not concerned, as its own officials in foreign affairs appear to be, with the message being sent to the international community that however unjustly a Canadian citizen is being treated abroad, however illegal the process and however much it violates the rule of law, Canada will acquiesce so long as Mr. Khadr is still awaiting trial, however indefinitely, even though American officials have even said that they may hold him even if he is acquitted?

[Justice, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government said that it was premature to seek Omar Khadr's return from Guantanamo Bay and that it supported Mr. Khadr's legal process.

Why is the government acquiescing in a prosecution that both the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts have deplored, that the U.S. president is committed to ending, that the Canadian Bar Association, in concert with others, has condemned, and where all other western nations have repatriated and protected their nationals?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with both those recommendations by my colleague. We do need a grassroots reconciliation plan and process in Afghanistan. We need as well a regional working group that, in concert with this grassroots movement, can attend to the compelling issues in Afghanistan which are not only of a military character but which are clearly of a compelling developmental and humanitarian character.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree fully that we are dealing with Darfur as a specific, compelling item of concern but in the context of Sudan as a whole, and that is why I mentioned that the two peace processes, both the Darfur peace process and the comprehensive peace process, are now in a coma and in danger of unravelling, and can thereby prejudicially affect the nine neighbouring countries.

This brings me to the second point and the second part of my hon. colleague's question. As I mentioned in my remarks, not only was there no reference to Darfur and Sudan in the Speech from the Throne but there was no reference to Africa as a whole. Africa is an abandoned continent in the Speech from the Throne at a time when it is in desperate need of leadership by the government and the international community.

Reference was made to the Congo, again one of the more compelling human rights and humanitarian concerns in the world today where we should exercise our responsibility to protect, in concert with the international community. There are other places in Africa, which my colleague knows because as he mentioned, we have been comrades in arms in this regard: Zimbabwe, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea, with threatening hunger and poverty as well.

Therefore, I would call on the government to take a lead with respect to the global financial system, to use our experience as a model in that regard, to take the lead with respect to the global unravelling of human rights and humanitarian law, particularly in Africa, and take a lead using the responsibility to protect principle in that regard as well.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 21st, 2008]

Why is the Prime Minister the biggest spender in Canadian history? Federal expenditures have increased by more than 14% in two years and billions of dollars were spent in the six months before the election was called so arbitrarily .

Why did the Conservative Minister of Finance, against the advice of an overwhelming majority of economists, decide to lower the GST, reducing federal revenues by $11 billion per year? Under the previous Liberal government, that money was used to fund programs in the areas of health care, day care, the environment and seniors' care.

Why did the Conservatives eliminate the $3 billion contingency reserve—the buffer in the event of an economic crisis? This money could have been used to help Canadians in trouble, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy, and to ease seniors' retirement worries without incurring a deficit.

The throne speech said:

Canada will use its experience in developing a strong model of financial regulation to help lead the world in the repair and strengthening of the international financial system.

The question is: Why is Canada not using its experience, having been an architect of the “responsibility to protect” model, to help lead the way in the protection and repair of the international human rights and humanitarian system?

For example, I am referring to the genocide by attrition in Darfur, where 400,000 have already died, where four million are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance, where the violence, including the indiscriminate bombing and burning of villages, sexual violence and assaults on humanitarian aid workers continues unabated, where the culture of impunity mocks arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, and where both the Darfur peace process and the comprehensive peace process are in danger of unraveling, threatening not only the stability of Sudan but its nine neighbouring countries.

I am not saying that the government is unaware of the Darfur tragedy, or that the government has done nothing, but it has not yet identified it as a priority. The best evidence of this is that, yet again, and not unlike the last Speech from the Throne, neither the word “Darfur”, nor the word “Africa” are mentioned in the throne speech, let alone addressed in terms of the commitment and action of which the throne speech otherwise speaks.

This is not a partisan problem. To put it simply, while the international community dithers, Darfurians continue to die. I would hope that the government would show the necessary moral, political, juridical and diplomatic leadership within the international community to ensure that the required concrete action is taken. To that end, I have introduced the Sudan accountability act today, a private member’s initiative, that I hope the government will support if not adopt as its own.

The throne speech, as its predecessor, makes eloquent mention of our shared values: democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law, and the need for international leadership to protect these values. It also contains reference to an important initiative: the establishment of a new, non-partisan democracy promotion agency.

However, it ignores the most compelling international concerns of today, as in the case of Darfur, and the corresponding assaults on these very fundamental values, as in the case of Ahmadinejad’s Iran. There is no mention in the throne speech of the state-sanctioned incitement to genocide in Ahmadinejad’s Iran. I say Ahmadinejad’s Iran because I am not referring to the Iranian people, nor to the many publics in Iran, who are themselves the objects of a massive, domestic repression of human rights, and I say this as we mark the 20th anniversary of mass killings and massive domestic repression in Iran.

This flagrant omission remains particularly disconcerting. As I mentioned in a speech last week at McGill University, on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the genocide convention, the enduring lesson of the Holocaust, and the genocides that occurred thereafter in the Balkans, Rwanda, and now Darfur, is that these genocides occurred not only because of the machinery of death but because of a state-sanctioned ideology of hate.

This teaching of contempt, this demonizing of the other, this is where it all begins. As the Supreme Court of Canada recognized, the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers, it began with words. Tragically, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, in violation of the prohibition against the direct and public incitement to genocide, in both the genocide convention and the treaty for an international criminal court, exhibits all the precursors to genocide that have led us down that road in the past.

Accordingly, and I repeat that this is not a partisan issue, the Canadian government should be a world leader in combating the crime of incitement to genocide and the culture of impunity that attends it, and should refer this matter to the United Nations and its agencies in order to ensure that Ahmadinejad’s Iran will be held to account.

Let me move now to identify a number of domestic priorities that reflect not only the concerns of my constituents but Canadians as a whole.

First, is the question of health care, which received passing mention in the throne speech, but is a crosscutting concern in my riding, if not in the country as a whole, and can be expected to accentuate in an economic meltdown. In particular, we need to be concerned about the decline of health care professionals, where one in five Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, where the shrinking supply of doctors and nurses is adversely affecting all forms of health care: primary care, home care, palliative care, emergency care, and the like.

Accordingly, may I recommend that the government invest, as we the opposition suggested, in a one billion dollar doctor and nurses medical resource fund to alleviate not only the shortage of health care professionals but the attending and prejudicial fallout for the health care system as a whole, while protecting our right to health care as a fundamental human right.

Second, the economic meltdown could be expected to adversely affect the most vulnerable amongst us, especially children and the poor, and particularly children living in poverty. Forty years ago we stated that poverty in this country was a national disgrace. Twenty years ago Parliament adopted a resolution to make poverty history in the year 2000, yet there is only perfunctory mention of poverty and the plight of the poor and no undertaking in the throne speech of making poverty history on the international level, or poverty reduction on the domestic level as a government priority.

Accordingly, may I recommend that the government and Parliament adopt, as a matter of principle and priority, the 30-50 policy as proposed by the Liberal Party in the last election, to reduce poverty by a third and the incidence of poverty in children by one-half in the next five years.

Third, on the issue of immigration, while we support the government's intention to streamline the process of foreign accreditation, the immigration system as a whole continues to fail newcomers to this country, including, in particular, those in my riding and elsewhere who seek to form a new life in Canada with their families and loved ones.

Accordingly, I urge the government to repair and reform the immigration system in a systemic way. As the member of Parliament for Mount Royal with, arguably, the best riding office on immigration matters in the country, we would be pleased to share our experience, expertise and recommendations for best practices with the government as it embarks on immigration reform and I have conveyed that to the newly appointed Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Fourth, on the matter of the justice agenda, the only justice priority in the throne speech appears to be that of crime control. The objective of safe streets and communities are the shared aspirations of all Canadians and the common objective of all parliamentarians and parties.

The more important point, however, is that the justice agenda should not only be about combating violent crime, which objective we share, but it should include as a priority the protection of the vulnerable: women, children, aboriginals, minorities and the poor. The test of a just society is how it protects the most vulnerable among us.

There is no reference to the imperative of equal justice and equal access to justice. There is no mention, for example, of women's rights. There is no mention of the need to restore the court challenges program, which was a bulwark in the promotion of equality rights and minority rights. There is no reference to the need for a national and comprehensive sustainable legal aid plan in civil and criminal matters, all the more warranted in a time of economic adversity.

I close by saying that the government's throne speech, which contains some important initiatives, is diminished by the absence of any reference to these priorities, domestic and international, and we trust that the government will incorporate them in this 40th Parliament for the advancement of the public good and for Canadians as a whole.