Irwin Cotler

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2001, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Liberal government at the time introduced Bill C-36. The then minister of justice and attorney general, Anne McLellan spoke in support of that legislation, including the two provisions that were not then but are now the subject of sunsetting clauses.

I rose in the House at the time and expressed the view that I had 10 civil libertarian areas of concern with the proposed legislation and which included the two provisions at issue, on which I elaborated subsequently in speeches and in an article thereafter in the 14 National Journal of Constitutional Law entitled, “Terrorism, Security and Rights: the Dilemma of Democracy”.

In discussions with the minister and government at the time, I made certain recommendations regarding these areas of concern. While I remain still concerned about certain provisions of the bill, such as the definition of terrorism itself, an aspect of which was recently invalidated by the courts, citing, as it happens, my article at the time, I ended up supporting the bill because the government amended the proposed legislation in many of these area of concern, though I still maintained certain reservations about it as set forth in the article.

Among the amendments I proposed and which the government accepted was that these two provisions at issue be sunsetted after three years, which has now stretched into five, and pending parliamentary review of these provisions.

I am of the view today that these provisions do have provision for executive oversight, as in the requirement for consent of the attorney general, for parliamentary oversight, as in the requirement for annual reports from both the federal and provincial ministers concerned at Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and a judicial oversight to judicial review. The Supreme Court, as has been mentioned before in the House in the matter of investigative hearings, has held these provisions to be constitutional.

Indeed, the sunset provisions may be said to comply with the charter and are not otherwise unknown in Canadian law. For example, preventive arrest is effectively the invocation of a peace bond process set forth in section 810 of the Criminal Code, which has been used to protect against criminal violence, such as domestic violence, sexual violence and organized crime, and extends it now to suspected terrorist activities.

Similarly, the investigative hearings are not unknown in Canadian law. We can find it under the Coroners Act, the Inquiries Act, in section 545 of the Criminal Code and I can go on. All that is also set forth at length in my article respecting those two provisions at the time.

It is not surprising then that five years later reasonable people can and do reasonably agree on the import and impact of these provisions. We can take the view to agree or disagree. We can take the view, as many in my party do, that since the provisions were not used, they are therefore not needed. Or, we can take the position, as I have, that since they have not been used this demonstrates that they have not been abused and that they in fact may be needed.

That is why, while I initially proposed that these clauses be sunsetted subject to parliamentary review, following the experience of the last five years, as I have just summarized, and my own experience as minister of justice and attorney general, I now favour their extension. However, as I have said, this is a position on which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree.

I regret, therefore, that the government is proposing the extension without taking the views of these parliamentary committees into account in the House and the Senate. I regret that reference was made to a prospective investigative hearing impugning thereby the reputation of a member of the House and undermining thereby the integrity and the independence of that very inquiry itself, and seeking to link it to a debate on the sunsetting of these provisions.

Indeed, even if we support the extension of these provisions, as I do with certain safeguards and after parliamentary review, this prejudicial invocation was inappropriate, irrelevant to this debate and wrong. I regret the references made by ministers of the crown that our party is “soft on terrorism”. That is to politicize the debate, which should be addressed on the merits, and convert a debate on which reasonable people can and do reasonably disagree into one of bumper sticker slogans and smears.

Accordingly, for those reasons I cannot support the government's motion. It has been proposed without the benefit of parliamentary review on appropriate safeguards and it has been advanced in a politicized and prejudicial fashion.

At the same time, I would support the extension of these provisions with appropriate safeguards after parliamentary review at the appropriate time. My position for now and for those who will now follow is that of a principled abstention.

Since the court's decisions regarding the definition of the Anti-terrorism Act need to be revisited; since the Security of Information Act has also had provisions quashed; since the Supreme Court of Canada has now unanimously invalidated the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that deny the named person on a security certificate the right to due process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to know the information against him or her and be able to answer and rebut the charges; since the Supreme Court has suspended the impugned provisions for a year; since the question of deportation to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture is otherwise before the court; since, elsewhere and during the period that I was minister of justice, the whole question of the security certificate regime puts us in a Hobson's choice of having to either deport to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture on the one hand, which I said as minister that I would never support, or prolong detention on the other, aspects of which have now been invalidated by the court; and since the security certificate regime scheme needs to be revisited because of this Hobson's choice; therefore, given the need for a comprehensive look at the entirety of our anti-terrorism law and policy, which includes not only Bill C-36 but the Security of Information Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the provisions in the Canada Evidence Act and a whole holistic approach to anti-terrorism law and policy review, I cannot support the government's motion at this time.

However, I trust that we can have a principled discussion and debate with respect to the whole question of anti-terrorism law and policy that does not end up being a politicized and prejudicial debate, but one in which we can arrive at an all party agreement, both as a matter of principle and as a matter of policy.

[Judicial Appointments, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, evasion and false countercharges are unbecoming of the Minister of Justice and unbecoming of the government.

The minister of justice in any government has a duty to protect the Constitution, a duty to protect the independence of the judiciary, and a duty to protect the rights of all Canadians.

Will the government perform this duty or demean its responsibilities?

[Judicial Appointments, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the independence of the judiciary is not only a foundational, constitutional principle, it is a fundamental constitutional right of all Canadians.

Why is the government ignoring and disregarding the Constitution and the rights of all Canadians? Why is it ignoring the very process put in place by a former Conservative government in 1988 to protect these rights? Why is it ignoring the respected voices of the bench, bar, academe and the like?

I am asking the question, why is the government undermining not only the independence of the judiciary but the rights of all Canadians? I repeat, all Canadians.

[Genocide Convention, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking almost beyond words that we face two genocidal threats in our day.

The first is Ahmadinejad's Iran, which denies the Nazi Holocaust as it incites to a new one in its public call for the annihilation of Israel.

The second is the accelerated genocide in Darfur, where over 400,000 have died, where four million are on a desperate life support system and where mass atrocity, rape, the bombing and burning of villages and forced expulsion are regular rituals.

Words and resolutions are important, but what is so necessary now is action and the political will to enforce the genocide convention and the responsibility to protect obligation. Canada, in concert with the international community, must act and act now.

[Human Trafficking, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for her initiative on this compelling issue.

I am pleased to support the motion and the common cause that underpins it. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the trafficking of women and children across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be condemned, and that the House call on the government to immediately adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.

I am pleased to join with her and with all Canadians in, as she put it, one voice in this regard.

I propose to organize my remarks around two themes: first, an appreciation of the nature, scope and pernicious effects of the evil that we are seeking to combat; and second, to reaffirm a proposal for a comprehensive strategy to combat trafficking, anchored in the one that I developed as justice minister.

However, this is not a matter of partisanship but of common cause and, therefore, such improvements and refinements that can be made in this strategy that I proposed but which remain not fully implemented, would be welcomed by the government.

I will begin with an understanding and awareness of the nature, scope and pernicious consequences of the evil we are seeking to combat, this scourge of human trafficking, this pernicious, persistent and pervasive assault on human rights, this commodification in human beings where human beings are regarded as cattle to be bonded and bartered.

It is only appropriate that this motion be put forward on the eve of International Human Rights Day and only appropriate that we are dealing with it in the aftermath of the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. What we are dealing with is the enslavement of human beings, what I first called in the House, when I presented legislation in that regard, as a global slave trade; treating human beings as goods to be bought, sold and forced to work usually in the sex trade but also as agricultural labour or in sweat shops for little or no money.

Through the dedicated efforts of people like Dean Harold Koh of Yale law school, formerly the assistant secretary of state for Human Rights, Democracy and Labor in the U.S. state department, and Radhika Coomataswamy, the former United States special rapporteur with regard to violence against women, we now have a comprehensive understanding of the scope of this global sex trade. We know that this grotesque trade in human life generates upwards to $12 billion a year. We know that trafficking is so profitable that it is the world's fastest growing international crime. We know that the majority of victims being trafficked are girls and women under the age of 25 and that many trafficking victims are young people, including children. We know that the victims of trafficking are desperate to secure the necessities of life and, as a result of that, their lives are mired in exploitation and rooted in the greed of those who prey upon them.

We know that UNICEF estimated that 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year and that the International Labour Organization estimates that 2.5 million children are currently in situations of forced labour as a result of being trafficked. We know that no matter for what purpose they are trafficked, all trafficked persons suffer deprivation of liberty and physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence and actual harm to themselves or to their family members.

If we are to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking, we need to stop thinking in terms of abstract silos, of thinking of human trafficking as an abstract or faceless problem, of thinking of it as a criminal law problem, a law enforcement problem, an economic problem, an immigration problem or a public health problem. It is each and all of these and more.

Trans-border trafficking is a multi-billion dollar criminal industry that challenges law enforcement officials, flouts all immigration laws, threatens to spread global disease and constitutes an assault on each of our fundamental rights. More important, behind each and all of these problems is a human face, a human being who is being trafficked, and that trafficking constitutes an assault on our common humanity.

Accordingly, it must be seen, first and foremost, as a generic human rights assault with a human face as its victim and as being the very antithesis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Professor Harold Koh put it, “By their acts, traffickers deny that all persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They deny their victims freedom of movement, freedom of association and, the most basic freedom, to have a childhood”.

What then can we do? I will briefly outline a comprehensive strategy, speaking telegraphically, of which the first component must be a strategy of prevention: to prevent the trafficking to begin with; to raise awareness of this new global slave trade and of the urgency to take immediate action against trafficking; to raise awareness of the urgent need to raise our voices in domestic and international fora, making it clear that this is a priority for all of us; and to raise awareness that trafficking can be prevented if we mobilize a constituency of conscience, both domestically and internationally.

This motion today can serve as a call to action and ensure that Canadians across the country realize that this modern slavery is not something out there that does not touch us here at home. It is something that exists here in Canada but it not only touches us but it is part of an international connecting link, an assault for which we will need a comprehensive strategy of cross-commitment.

This leads me to the second element in that strategy, which is the protection strategy, respecting the victims of trafficking. This involves a number of elements, including the residency protection, by protecting against ill-considered detention and deportation such that the victims of trafficking are re-victimized if not also re-traumatized, where they sometimes are detained as illegal immigrants facing criminal charges rather than trafficking victims deserving of protection.

There is also the need for support services. We find that a whole series of support services, be it shelter, health or counselling and the like, are matters sometimes that are within provincial jurisdiction and that coordinated effort that is needed for that purpose may be lacking in that regard and that the services end up being delivered by NGOs or private agencies that may not have the resources for that purpose and which need to have the government supported protective framework for these services.

These victims also need protective support in a form of witness protection and otherwise with respect to those who may wish to testify against those who have in fact assaulted them.

This brings me to the third component, the comprehensive legislative component. We have an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Last year we enacted the first ever criminal law legislation in this regard. We also have an international law framework that we have domesticated. What we need to do is to invoke, apply and enforce this comprehensive legislative framework in that regard.

Fourth, we also need a focal point for our work. This is where, as a result of international recommendations, we established, during my period as minister, as a focal point for that comprehensive strategy, a federal interdepartmental working group co-chaired by justice and foreign affairs which has an express mandate, in fact, to develop and implement this comprehensive strategy.

Fifth, we need to intensify the work of the RCMP, both domestically and internationally, including its international human trafficking investigative unit.

Sixth, we need to engage our federal, provincial and territorial counterparts. This should be a standing item of federal, provincial and territorial conferences of ministers of justice because of that coordinative aspect that I mentioned earlier.

Seventh, we need to work with our international counterparts to enhance existing legislative tools to combat human trafficking across national borders.

I will conclude by saying that addressing and redressing this most profound of human rights assaults, assaults on human dignity, requires this comprehensive approach, an approach that will allow us to prevent the problems to begin with, to protect the victims of trafficking, to pursue the traffickers themselves, to be involved in partnerships, which I call the four Ps in that regard, and to address the issue from an international and domestic perspective. We have common cause but by working together we can create a critical mass of advocacy on behalf of this most compelling of common causes.

[Foreign Affairs, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Muslim Bangladesh journalist and editor of a daily Bangladesh publication, is standing trial on charges of treason, sedition and blasphemy for promoting Muslim, Christian and Jewish dialogue, peace with Israel and seeking to attend a conference in Israel for the promotion of peace.

Mr. Choudhury has also been personally beaten, his life threatened and his office vandalized while none of the perpetrators have been brought to justice and a former Bangladesh home minister has indicated that there is no basis for the charges.

As counsel for Mr. Choudhury and as one who, while as minister of justice, was engaged in a joint Canada-Bangladesh rule of law project, I call upon the Bangladesh authorities to respect the rule of law, to review and, as appears just and appropriate, to drop the charges while working to apprehend those who have violated Mr. Choudhury's rights.

[RCMP Commissioner, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, am I and this House to understand that due process will in fact ensue because one presupposes that the resignation of Commissioner Zaccardelli will be asked for?

[RCMP Commissioner, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the government wishes to consider due process with respect to Commissioner Zaccardelli. Does this mean that the government has decided to ask for the resignation of Commissioner Zaccardelli and is now proceeding in accordance with appropriate procedures in that regard?

[Pierre Gemayel, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I returned recently from Beirut where, together with the member for Calgary Southwest, we represented the government at the funeral of the assassinated Lebanese minister, Pierre Gemayel. It was a most moving event where Christian, Muslim and Druze leaders came together in an extraordinary expression of solidarity, not only for a grieving Gemayel family but in solidarity with the bereaved Lebanese people, and which continued with a mass demonstration of 800,000 Lebanese in Beirut's Martyrs Square.

It is important for Canada, therefore, to support: a democratic, plural and independent Lebanon free from foreign interference or domination; the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; establishment of an international criminal tribunal to bring the murderers to justice; and economic assistance for the reconstruction of Lebanon.

This would be our most important legacy for Pierre Gemayel, Rafik Hariri, the Cedar Revolution and the Lebanese people.

[Maher Arar, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the House has unanimously expressed its apologies to Maher Arar. Commissioner Zaccardelli has apologized to Maher Arar for the terrible injustice done to him. The government has acknowledged that a grave injustice was done to Maher Arar.

Maher Arar has wanted the government to apologize. Yesterday the hon. Minister of Public Safety said that the government wants to do what Maher Arar wants.

My question is, will the Minister of Public Safety, a decent and honourable man, do the decent and honourable thing and finally apologize on behalf of the government to Maher Arar?