Irwin Cotler

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Iran, organizations in Iran, and individuals in Iran over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Iranian state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2007]

What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments, agencies and Crown Corporations to the Government of Soudan, organizations in Soudan, and individuals in Soudan over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 24, 2007 inclusive, and in each case, where applicable: (a) what was the program under which the payment was made; (b) which Sudanese state institution was involved in the exchange; (c) what was the monetary value of the payment made; and (d) what was the percentage of program funding covered by the payment received?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2007]

What investments, deposits, purchases and procurements has the government made, through its various departments and agencies over the period of January 24, 2006 to October 23, 2007, in the following firms that are conducting business in Sudan: (a) China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC Hong Kong and PetroChina); (b) Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas); (c) Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd.; (d) China Petrochemical Corporation (SINOPEC Group); (e) Lundin Petrolium AB; (f) AREF Investment Group; (g) Muhibbah Engineering Berhad; (h) Kencana Petroleum Berhad; (i) Kejuruteraan Samudra Timur BHD; (j) Petrofac; (k) PECD Bedhar; (l) Weatherford International Limited; (m) Wartsila OYJ; (n) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.; (o) Harbin Power Equipment Company Limited; (p) Alstom; (q) AVICHINA Industry and Technology Company Ltd.; (r) Dongfeng Automobile Company Limited; (s) Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Company Ltd.; (t) Indian Oil Company Ltd.; (u) SCOMI Group Berhad; (v) Weir Group PLC; (w) La Mancha Resources; and (x) Electricity Generating Public Company Ltd. (EGCO)?

[Jacques Hébert, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to pay tribute to our former colleague and friend, Senator Jacques Hébert.

I first met him as a young student and was immediately touched by him. An architect of Quebec's quiet revolution, he was the tireless voice of and for youth in Canada and around the world, for whom Katimavik was metaphor and message.

A man of words and intellect, he chose to brandish his pen in the fight against injustice.

An example is the wrongful conviction of Wilbert Coffin.

A writer, journalist, intellectual, voyageur du monde, and visionary, Jacques Hébert was the people's conscience, a man who dreamt of a better world and helped build it.

He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

We express our condolences to his family as well as our thanks for his tremendous contribution to our society and to the entire world.

[December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the litany of reasons the government gives for its unreasonable decision are even less reassuring. The notion about Mr. Smith returning to Canada, nobody is speaking about Mr. Smith being repatriated to Canada. Our objection is to the death penalty. This is raised as a red herring.

The notion of protecting the security of Canadians, we are no less concerned about the security of Canadians nor about the victims of crime. This issue is all about the death penalty. Nothing the government does can deflect away from what this is all about. It is about the sanctity of life and the death penalty.

The government representative speaks about the fact that we do not care about victims of crime. In my remarks I brought up the very notion about the dangers of wrongful conviction and that there was no appeal from a wrongful conviction. The death penalty in the case of a wrongful conviction is the worst kind of assault on victims and their profound rights.

What we are speaking about is the sanctity and reverence for human life. A case by case basis is an—

[December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking with respect to the issue regarding the question I posed to the government on the matter of capital punishment.

The Conservative government's decision not to seek clemency for Alberta born Ronald Allen Smith, the only Canadian on death row in the United States, is not only a reversal of longstanding Canadian law and policy, which would be bad enough, but it reflects a mindset where ideology and politics trump principle and policy.

Indeed, an appreciation of the government's decision reveals a government acting in ignorance of or indifference to law and precedent, both domestic and international, and even unaware of what its own departments are otherwise affirming.

For example, the Department of Foreign Affairs had reaffirmed Canada's traditional policy just days before the government's reversal by stating: “there is no death penalty in Canada...It is the policy of the government of Canada to seek clemency, on humanitarian grounds, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries”.

But the unawareness or indifference did not end there. Witness the following: First, Canadian law prohibits the extradition of an American national to a state in the United States where the death penalty is practised. Yet, the Canadian government will not intervene in the case of a Canadian citizen sentenced to death in an American state.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Burns and Rafay case held that capital punishment was a violation of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its protection against “cruel and unusual punishment”.

Accordingly, the court ruled that Canada could not extradite these Canadian citizens back to the United States unless it received an assurance from the requesting state that it would not impose the death penalty.

Is the government aware of this pronouncement, or is it indifferent to the decisions of the Supreme Court and prepared to proceed, notwithstanding the law of the land?

Third, on November 12, 2005, Canada ratified the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, wherein Canada expressed, among other things, that as a state party to the protocol:

[It is] desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty,

Is the government aware that we ratified this protocol, or in this case as well, is it prepared to act in disregard of or indifference to our international as well as domestic commitments?

Fourth, on November 1, Canada was notably absent from the list of co-sponsors of a UN General Assembly resolution seeking an international moratorium on the death penalty.

Fifth, the supreme court of the United States has stayed an execution by lethal injection in the state of Mississippi pending a review of whether this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the American bill of rights.

In the case of a Canadian, Ronald Allen Smith, now sentenced to death by lethal injection in the State of Montana, is the government aware of the judicial review of the constitutionality of this practice now before the American supreme court, or is it yet again indifferent to and prepared to turn a blind eye to what is happening in breach once more of Canadian and international law and practice?

Sixth, a recent study by the American Bar Association demonstrates that homicide rates in non-death penalty states are no higher than in states that oppose the death penalty. As well, the study showed that the death penalty has a disproportionate impact on the poor, on people of colour, on those who have ineffective counsel and the like.

The question again, is the government aware of this data or is it indifferent to it if it does not comport with its ideological bent?

Seventh, is the government not aware that there is no appeal from the death penalty in the case of a wrongful conviction? We had a wrongful conviction in the case of Mr. Truscott. Had clemency not been given in that case, there never would have been any subsequent redress in that regard.

Moreover, the litany of reasons offered by the government for its--

[Hanukkah, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Hanukkah, la Fête de la Liberté, la Fête des lumières, la Fête de l'espoir, is important not only for the Jewish people but has universal resonance.

First, Hanukkah signifies the importance of religious liberty in general and freedom from religious persecution in particular, for the oppressors of the day sought not only to discriminate against Jews but to extinguish the Jewish religion.

Second, Hanukkah, as the festival of lights, is the victory of the forces of light over the forces of darkness, of the rights of minorities everywhere, indeed, peoples everywhere, to live in peace and dignity.

Third, Hanukkah is a holiday of hope, that those who persevere in the struggle for human rights will ultimately prevail over those who seek to repress human rights.

May this festival of lights enlighten us and inspire us, here in the House in our deliberations, and in our lives beyond it.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, under section 42 of the Extradition Act it clearly states:

The Minister may amend a surrender order at any time before its execution.

It otherwise speaks for a period of 90 days after the date of a person's committal to await a surrender order, that the person be surrendered. In other words, there is a provision here for a postponement. One needs to look at the act and read it in the context of what the courts have said is a broad, discretionary, political power by the minister.

For that purpose, we support the public inquiry which has been established. We support the appointment of Dr. Johnston. We say that for the purposes of that public inquiry to proceed, so that truth can be pursued and that the ends of justice be served, the Minister of Justice should exercise that broad, discretionary, political authority, which, as he acknowledged today, he was prepared to see that Mr. Schreiber would testify.

We support that and we should do that which can be done in order to allow that purpose to be served.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak further to the questions I put in the matter of extradition.

The Conservative government, to its credit, has established a full and public inquiry to look into allegations into the financial dealings between Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. It has appointed a distinguished scholar and lawyer, Professor David Johnston, to determine its terms of reference. Mr. Schreiber will be a principal witness for the inquiry. Indeed, the inquiry cannot proceed without him.

Accordingly, if the truth is to be pursued and the ends of justice served, Mr. Schreiber must be present as necessary to testify. For that to happen, the Minister of Justice must exercise his authority pursuant to the Extradition Act and postpone Mr. Schreiber's extradition to Germany.

I agree, as the Minister of Public Safety put it, that there are two public interests here. First, there is a public interest--I would say indeed requirement--for Mr. Schreiber to be present in Canada for the inquiry. Second, there is the interest--and I would say responsibility--to extradite Mr. Schreiber back to Germany pursuant to the extradition treaty.

But these two interests, indeed responsibilities, are not contradictory but rather complementary. Both can be discharged. The issue is one of sequencing rather than one of mutually exclusive options. Simply put, the minister must ensure that Mr. Schreiber is present so that the inquiry can proceed, and for that purpose he will have to postpone, not alter or cancel, the order of surrender. Second, he must ensure that the extradition order will appropriately be executed and Mr. Schreiber surrendered. This could be done through the postponement of the order.

What sometimes gets lost in the politicized atmosphere is the minister's broad superintending authority under the Extradition Act, and in particular as set forth under sections 41 and 42 of the act, to accomplish both these tasks.

Admittedly, the minister could surrender Mr. Schreiber and seek assurances from Germany that Mr. Schreiber could be examined, as some have suggested, via satellite, or that indeed he be returned to Canada to testify at the public inquiry. But we are not speaking here of a cameo appearance or a peripheral witness. We are speaking of the ongoing presence of a central witness whose presence is required not only for his own testimony but for cross-examination and for the attendance at the testimony of others, or, if need be, to reply, or re-examination sought.

Indeed, the minister's discretionary authority is not only one which he has a right to exercise under the Extradition Act but a duty to exercise, for Mr. Schreiber's presence in Canada may be necessary in four different contexts.

First, there is the public inquiry itself, which alone would suffice to require his presence. Second, there is a parliamentary hearing where his presence is required. Third, there is an investigative inquiry where his presence may be desirable. Finally, there is the appellate review process for which his presence is necessary.

I will close by saying that it is sometimes forgotten or not even known that there is a specific supplementary Canada-Germany extradition treaty where in article 20 of the Extradition Act it has been amended to provide for the postponement of surrender where a proceeding is in place here in Canada requiring that person's presence.

Indeed, if the amendment is read in conjunction with the minister's superintending authority under the Extradition Act, and in particular articles 40 to 42 of that act, and if we were to aggregate the multiple proceedings in which Mr. Schreiber's presence is required, the postponement of that surrender should be seen not just as being discretionary but indeed as being obligatory.

I would hope, therefore, that the Minister of Justice will exercise his authority pursuant to the Extradition Act, pursuant to the special supplementary treaty between Canada and Germany and having regard to all the circumstances at issue, and particularly the public inquiry, and that the Minister of Justice will postpone the surrender until such time as Mr. Schreiber's presence as a witness in the public inquiry is no longer required.

We are speaking here about timing--

[United Nations, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again in the annual ritual of UN General Assembly resolutions, one member state, Israel, is being singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment.

There are currently some twenty resolutions condemning Israel, more than all the resolutions adopted against all other states, while the major violators enjoy exculpatory immunity.

Tragically, this is not only prejudicial to one member state, but it undermines the integrity of the UN, under whose protective cover it occurs, and erodes the authority of international law in whose name these resolutions are adopted.

The time has come for the Canadian government to say no to discrimination and the denial of international due process, and yes to a principled and fair-minded UN process that holds all states equally accountable before the law.