Irwin Cotler

[Points of Order, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the public record needs to be corrected--

[Points of Order, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The Minister of Public Safety accused me of doing nothing on the RCMP pension file.

As the Minister of Public Safety knows, the responsible minister for the RCMP was the minister of public security at the time, just as he is the responsible minister today. As a result of the actions of the responsible minister of public security at the time, two investigations were initiated: an internal RCMP audit and an external investigation. When I was appointed minister of justice, these investigations were already under way. It would have been a breach of my responsibilities as a minister of justice to interfere in any fashion with respect to the ongoing investigation, something that I would expect the Minister of Public Safety would understand.

Where I had authority and responsibility as a minister of justice and minister of the Crown, I did indeed recommend that two independent judicial commissions of inquiry be set up, both in the case of the Gomery commission and in the case of the Arar commission.

All I am asking of the Minister of Public Safety today is to establish such an independent judicial commission of inquiry.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that he wants to get at the answers right away. How does he get at the answers when he does not set up an independent judicial commission of inquiry? How does he get at the answers when there are no compellable powers? How does he get at the answers when he cannot subpoena witnesses or subpoena evidence?

If he wants to get at the answers then he has to set up an independent commission of inquiry to leave no stones unturned and to get at the truth, as we did when we set up commissions of inquiry both in Arar and with respect to Gomery.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have been witness to shocking testimony from RCMP officials, not just about misuse of pension funds but allegations of corruption and cover-up, intimidation and obstruction of justice, fraud and breach of trust, investigations sidelined and investigators punished.

The Minister of Public Safety was advised of this four months ago. Why did it not set off alarm bells at the time? Why now only a limited investigation? Why no independent judicial commission of inquiry to finally get at the truth in the transparent and accountable fashion that the new government always speaks about?

[Afghanistan, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether or not he supports the mandate of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission?

Is he prepared to provide financial support in order for the commission to continue its important work?

[Afghanistan, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has misinformed the House and has had to apologize on the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Why is he yet again misinforming this House by saying that supporting the Afghan commission's human rights role through necessary financial support will somehow undermine the Afghan commission's objectivity? Is the work of the Afghan human rights commission to go unsupported, and is the work of other countries, like the U.K., the U.S., Denmark and The Netherlands, somehow not to be supported? Is that what the minister is trying to tell us?

[Foreign Affairs, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been shocked to learn that nine-year-old Kevin, a Canadian citizen, is being held with his parents at a detention centre in Texas criticized for its deplorable conditions, abusive behaviour towards detainees, lack of privacy and inadequate health care.

Like Kevin, over 170 children and their parents are currently detained under such deplorable prison-like conditions in what has been described as a draconian system. This is not the way young Kevin, a Canadian citizen, should be treated.

Could the Prime Minister tell us what the government is doing to help this Canadian boy and his parents?

[Status of Women, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, International Women's Day reminds us that women's rights are human rights and that there are no human rights which do not include the rights of women, and that women's rights must be a priority on our agenda as a matter of principle and policy.

Regrettably, the government has dismantled the institutions that promote and protect women's rights, including the court challenges program, the Law Commission of Canada, Status of Women Canada, the early learning and child care program, the Kelowna accord and the protection of aboriginal women.

Moreover, the government has ignored or rejected initiatives that would protect women's rights, including pay equity, income security, a comprehensive and sustainable legal aid plan, and adherence to CEDAW and our international commitments.

The government has turned its back on women's rights.

For the Conservative government, women's rights are not human rights, and human rights do not appear to include the rights of women.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, we were all working towards a common goal, which I would define as the pursuit of justice.

Regarding the relationship between protecting security and protecting human rights, I think the relationship must be based on the principle of protecting human security. There are two approaches to this. The first is to see terrorist attacks—particularly those committed by international terrorists—as attacks on the security of our democracy and on our individual and collective rights to life, security and protection of freedom. However, the application of the Anti-terrorism Act and of anti-terrorism policy must still work with the rule of law, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and with the principles of human rights.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I initially proposed that these provisions be sunsetted and subject to parliamentary review. I will quote from that article, which I did not wish to do in my opening remarks. It states:

It would appear, therefore, that an important oversight mechanism to determine both a justification for, and efficacy of, this novel procedure--

--i.e. preventive arrests and investigative hearings--

--is to subject it to a full sunset clause, thereby allowing for reassessment—and re-enactment where it has proven itself—after some three years time; as well, the federal Attorney General...and their provincial counterparts—are required to report annually on these enforcement mechanisms. The Committee on Justice and Human Rights should exercise its oversight capacity respecting these annual reports and make appropriate recommendations where necessary.

I wrote that close to five years ago. I still maintain that exact same position. The only change is that with the experience of the last five years, I am now prepared to support an extension, pending parliamentary review and pending the safeguards. I am exactly where I was initially. I proposed that they be sunsetted subject to parliamentary review and appropriate safeguards. I say now that I would support them pursuant to parliamentary review and appropriate safeguards.

My position remains the same as it was then. I believe it is a principled expression as set forth in the article and as I have tried to demonstrate today.