Irwin Cotler

[May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has said, and I would agree with him, that the government has made it abundantly clear in stating its position. I would say even further it has been clear in voting for the motion, “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world”, that it has no intention of changing the law on capital punishment, and I acknowledge that may be its position, and in other matters that he said.

However, the main point, which has been avoided in the response, is that the government states these things as a matter of principle in the House, and yet acts differently outside the House. What emerges is a pattern of a contradiction between statements of principle and actions as a matter of policy. The case study is the government's refusal to seek clemency for the only Canadian on death row in the United States. When it seeks clemency for Mr. Smith, we can then say that the government's actions as a matter of policy comport with its statements as a matter of principle.

[May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak further to the issue of the death penalty and the question I posed in this House on April 4.

On March 12, this House adopted a motion that said:

--the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world.

The motion passed with a significant majority, with 255 members standing in this place to express their support, including many members of the government.

Given that this motion passed with government support, it is surprising that the government has yet to seek clemency for Ronald Allen Smith, the only Canadian citizen on death row in the U.S.

Indeed, it exemplifies the contradiction underpinning the question I posed on April 4:

How can the government affirm it is against the death penalty around the world and yet not seek clemency for Mr. Smith's death sentence?

In other words, how can the government affirm one principle in the House and oppose that very principle outside the House? This is a matter of matching words with action in a literal life-or-death situation.

The parliamentary secretary is fond of responding with a citation of how many times I have risen on this question, or conflating the issue of abolition of capital punishment with concern for victims of crime--and we all share concern for victims of crime--or, as that party does frequently, characterizing the debate as a waste of time.

In reality, Canadians, including Mr. Smith, have a right to know where the Conservative government stands on an issue as fundamental as the death penalty.

The problem is that the government's position is as unclear as it is inconsistent. For example, as I speak, the justice ministry's website still states:

In Canada, the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice.

And Canada has been at the forefront of international commitments to abolish the death penalty.

Clearly a government committed to abolition would have sought clemency for Mr. Smith.

A rather dramatic example of both the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the government's position took place during the actual debate on March 12 on the death penalty motion, during which the Minister of Public Safety said “we are opposing the motion” at approximately 4:30 p.m. One hour later, at 5:30 p.m. when the vote was taken, not only did the Minister of Public Safety, to his credit, vote for the motion, but the vast majority of his party did as well.

The mere fact that the government contradicted itself on its position within an hour is worrisome enough, though its actual voting position was to be commended. However, I remain concerned that even when it seems united on a position and does the right thing in the House, it still does not match what it votes inside the House with its actions outside the House.

Accordingly, while I am pleased that both the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice voted in favour of the motion that “the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world”, in the over two months since the vote, neither they nor the government have made a statement that clemency was being sought.

On the contrary, they have made statements to the effect that they will not seek clemency.

I would certainly never accuse any hon. member, and certainly not these two hon. members, of something as unparliamentary as hypocrisy, but I would certainly query how one can, in good conscience, affirm one position as a matter of principle, yet then contradict it as a matter of policy.

I would like to close on one point, and that is with regard to the parliamentary secretary's position that he cannot speak on this matter as it is before the courts.

But the government has repeatedly affirmed that it is seeking clemency for Quebecker Mohamed Kohail, sentenced to death in a matter before the courts in Saudi Arabia.

Why does it hide behind an otherwise untenable position in the Smith case but not when it comes to the Kohail case? We support the request for clemency in that case.

Indeed, the government's very contradictory positions on principle and policy not only undermine the principles and policies themselves, but put both Ronald Smith and Mohamed Kohail at risk of execution.

To conclude, I repose the question, how can the government affirm it is against the death penalty around the world and yet not seek clemency for Mr. Smith's death sentence? Why does it affirm one principle in the House and oppose that very principle outside the House?

[National Philanthropy Day Act, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I note that there has been overwhelming, if not unanimous support, for the motion.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there have been good faith negotiations among all parties and I believe that if you were to seek it you may find unanimous consent for a motion: that the House recognize the historic significance of the 60th anniversary of the reconstitution of the sovereign and independent state of Israel; recognize the cultural, economic and scientific achievements of a free, democratic and blossoming society in the face of hostilities; recognize the close relationship between the Governments of Canada and Israel; reaffirm the unwavering support of Canadians to the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from any threat or act of force; reaffirm our commitment to the pursuit of a two-state solution and the creation of a democratic Palestinian state living in peace and security with its Israeli neighbour; reaffirm its acknowledgement and support of the efforts toward peace made by the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and commit to assisting in the peace process.

[Israel, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the state of Israel on its 60th anniversary and draw attention to the vitality essential for the building of a democratic, pluralistic state amidst relentless assaults and calls for its destruction and to an enduring legacy of scientific, academic, cultural and economic achievements.

Israel is not simply a homeland for the Jewish people—a place of refuge and protection. It is the homeland of the Jewish people. It is a vehicle for Jewish survival and self-determination, of the reconstitution of an ancient people in its ancestral homeland.

May I conclude with the age old prayer for peace: Oseh Shalom Bimromov, Who Yaaseh Shalom, Alenu V'al Kol Israel, V'imeru, Amen. May God who establishes peace on high, grant peace for us all, Amen.

May this 60th anniversary herald the end of terror and violence and a real, just, and lasting peace for all peoples in the Middle East.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table petitions from my riding collected by student volunteer, Marissa Caucci, from Villa Maria High School.

The petitioners call upon the government to redouble its efforts to protect women's rights, including in particular: to enact pay equity legislation; to initiate gender budgeting policy; to reinstate the court challenges program; to combat the disturbing incidence of poverty among women, and combat violence against women, particularly trafficking; to initiate a comprehensive child care and affordable housing strategy; and to address gender disparities in matters of social and economic rights while protecting aboriginal women.

In conclusion, the petitioners remind the government to heed the clarion call of the Vienna convention that, “Women's rights are human rights and there are no human rights which do not include the rights of women”.

[Afghanistan, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. The head of the Kandahar provincial council, Ahmed Wali Karzai, yesterday confirmed the Canadian government's decision to talk with the Taliban. He said, “I support the Canadian decision. I believe it is a good approach.”

The ministers of Canada's government are saying that there are no talks, but the Afghans confirm that there are. What is the truth?

[Afghanistan, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there are reports that Canadian military personnel are engaged in talks with the Taliban. The government, however, denies this. Yet, Afghan government officials, including the head of the Kandahar provincial council, contradict Canadian ministers. They praise this initiative, even characterizing it as a Canadian decision.

Will the government, in the interests of transparency and principle, account for its denial in the face of Afghan confirmation, not just media reports, of the Canadian military having discussion with the Taliban?

[World Press Freedom Day, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is World Press Freedom Day, reminding us of the profound importance of freedom of expression, the lifeblood of a democracy and consecrated as a core freedom in constitutional and international human rights law.

Regrettably, the rights and safety of those who espouse it are increasingly at risk in many parts of the globe where journalists are harassed, kidnapped and even murdered with impugnity. Some 95 have been killed in the last year alone.

Moreover, human rights defenders are having their free speech “criminalized”, as in the case of Bangladeshi journalist Shoaib Choudhury, who faces trumped up criminal charges carrying a death penalty for exercising this fundamental freedom.

Let us join together in marking World Press Freedom Day with the hope that freedom of expression will be a protected freedom and those who assault it will be held duly accountable.

On this day we recall the inspiring work of Spencer Moore, founder of the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom, who, regrettably, passed away yesterday. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I offer our condolences to his family.

[Holocaust Memorial Day, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to underscore Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom Ha' Shoah.

It reminds us of the Holocaust's unique evil, a genocidal singularity in which biology determined destiny.

It was a war against the Jews. Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims.

This unprecedented horror will always have universal resonance and the terrible truths must be affirmed against those who would deny or distort them.

Accordingly, we must pledge and act so that never again will we indifferent to incitement and hate; never again will we be silent in the face of evil; never again will we indulge racism and anti-Semitism; never again will we ignore the plight of the vulnerable; and never again will we be indifferent in the face of mass atrocity and impunity.

We will remember always the victims who perished and the survivors still with us. We will commit ourselves to plant the seeds of a better future amidst the soil of a horrific past and reaffirm our common aspiration for international peace and justice.