Irwin Cotler

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the only issue with respect to my point of order was whether the hon. misrepresented the testimony of the Auditor General. The one word he used, which I stated deliberately misrepresented the testimony of the Auditor General, as can be seen from a reading of the transcript, was when the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville characterized the Auditor General as saying that the Liberals deliberately hid millions of dollars from Parliament.

I put that question personally to the Auditor General. I asked her if she made that statement or if she would make the statement “the Liberals deliberately hid”. Her answer was categorically “no”.

That is what I am asking the hon. member to withdraw. He is misrepresenting the testimony of the Auditor General before the House. I have invited him to withdraw that statement.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yorkton—Melville reported to the House on June 1:

We have heard from the Auditor General and senior bureaucrats that the Liberals deliberately hid millions of dollars from Parliament.

The transcript of testimony by the Auditor General and senior officials before the public safety committee contains no such allegation. On the contrary, the witnesses specifically repudiate that allegation.

The hon. member's statement, as it stands, misrepresents the testimony of witnesses and misleads the House. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member and would invite him to clarify for the record this matter before the House.

[Marriage, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he intends to introduce a motion to revisit the same sex marriage law even though nine jurisdictions and the Supreme Court of Canada have unanimously affirmed its validity, and even though the House has adopted legislation protecting both equality rights and religious freedom.

Since the only way that the law can be changed is to invoke the notwithstanding clause, and since the Prime Minister said he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause, my question is this. Why introduce such a divisive, unconstitutional non-starter while we have so many compelling concerns on the parliamentary and public agenda?

[Firearms Registry, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot appear to distinguish between an amnesty to get people to stop breaking the law and an amnesty which invites people to break the law, which is what the government is doing.

Now, the essential point is that the government may not agree with the law. That is its prerogative, but how can the government announce an amnesty and suspend the rule of law? How can it tell prosecutors not to enforce the law?

In fact, I would ask the minister, has he asked the Canada Firearms Centre or asked federal police not to lay charges and not to enforce the law?

[Firearms Registry, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's plan to eviscerate the gun registry is irresponsible and is not only an affront to the pillars of the rule of law, but an abuse of the parliamentary process.

Two-thirds of Canadians want this registry to be upheld. The police on the front line and the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have already asked the government not to pursue this initiative.

Why would the government want to dismantle a firearm control system that ensures the safety of Canadians and saves lives in Canada?

[Firearms Registry, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting exactly what was said by the chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement authorities.

However, whatever the merits of the gun registry and the government's intention to kill it, the announcement of an amnesty and non-prosecution, while the existing law is still in place, is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of due process.

If the government wants to kill the registry, why not come before Parliament and seek to change the law? Why does the government act by fiat rather than parliamentary vote? Why does it presuppose that Parliament will in fact repeal the law? Why is there this affront to Parliament to due process--

[Firearms Registry, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety should take into account that the majority of Canadians, and a good number of editorial boards, support the gun registry. For example, La Presse believes that the government would be making a terrible mistake by eliminating the registry. Le Devoir states that the shortcomings that remain to be fixed have nothing to do with the relevance of the registry, which has been confirmed by its users, the police.

Does the government intend to listen to the Canadian people?

[Firearms Registry, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, given that the Auditor General determined today that notable progress has been made in the management and operation of the Canada Firearms Centre since it has been established as an independent department, and given that police and law enforcement authorities, public safety groups and victims' groups have otherwise affirmed that the firearms registry works, that it has deterred crime, that it has saved lives, why would the government seek to dismantle the vital component of a law enforcement and gun control regime that in fact protects public security, protects public safety and saves Canadians' lives?

[National Defence, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, given that saving Darfur is the most urgent issue on the international agenda today and that what is at stake is nothing less than stopping the genocide and saving the innocent, why will the government not commit itself to an action plan on Darfur?

Where is the political will? Why will the government not fulfill its own throne speech undertaking for a robust diplomatic role for Canada and take the lead in concert with the international community to stop the killing, to put an end to the mass atrocity and to implement the responsibility to protect doctrine?

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, nothing that I said was intended to diminish or in any way undercut the role and the importance of the African Union which has been valiantly seeking to undertake the peacekeeping mission.

The African Union itself has acknowledged that what is needed at this point is a more robust chapter 7 UN mandated civilian protection mandate, number one, and number two, that what is necessary are increased numbers, resources and capacity for the purposes of actually implementing a chapter 7 civilian protection mandate.

I might add that Canada itself can take the lead. We have a particular leverage that we can exercise. We have no colonialist legacy in Africa. We are respected among a large group of nations. We can take a lead morally, diplomatically, and politically with respect to these objectives. Even with regard to that more robust multinational civilian protection force, we can provide, in my view, as General Dallaire and others have said, a headquarters, brigades of 300 or 400 forces without diminishing anything in Afghanistan. We can provide CF-18 planes without diminishing anything we are doing in Afghanistan. We can make, even on that level, an important symbolic and substantive contribution, along with everything else in the 10 point plan.

With regard to the peace process in Abuja, and this is crucial, while we support that peace process and we have made an important contribution to it, it is now in its seventh round. It has dragged on for more than two years. There does not appear to be a resolution and even if there were, whether it could hold, because some of the Darfurian communities are not represented. Janjaweed is not represented. We could have a situation where that would unravel even if an agreement was reached. It should not detract at all from any of the other things that need to be done in order to save Darfur. That is why we are here this evening, to sound the alarm, to break the silence, to have an action plan to save Darfur.