Irwin Cotler

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, we meet this evening at an important moment of remembrance and reminder of witness and of the imperative for action, for we meet in the immediate aftermath of Holocaust Remembrance Day, whose enduring lesson is that the genocide of European Jewry succeeded not only because of the industry of death and the technology of terror, but because of crimes of indifference, because of conspiracies of silence.

We have witnessed an appalling indifference and silence in our own day to the unthinkable genocide in the Balkans and to the unspeakable genocide in Rwanda, unspeakable because the genocide in Rwanda was preventable. No one can say that we did not know. We knew and we did not act. In the same way that with respect to Darfur we knew and we know and we did not act, and we have not been acting sufficiently to arrest the killing fields. And so the moral injunction of never again has become tragically yet again, and again and again. The time has come, indeed it has past, to break down these walls of indifference, to shatter these conspiracies of silence, to sound the alarm, to scream as the students put it, to scream for Darfur.

I want to commend the students for taking the lead. As one of them put it yesterday, “The time for complacency, for gradualism, for foot dragging, for anything but overwhelming and immediate action is over”.

What follows is a 10 point agenda for action where Canada, in concert with the international community, can exercise the necessary moral, diplomatic and political leadership.

One, there must be a transformation of the African Union mission, which has fought valiantly to carry out its peacekeeping mission, into a multinational peacekeeping and protection force, pursuant to the UN chapter 7 responsibility to protect mandate, to put an end to the crimes against humanity and in a word to save Darfur. Two, we must ensure that the prospective multinational protection force has the necessary numbers, resources and capacity to fulfill and implement a robust civilian protection mandate. Three, we need to support and enforce UN Security Council resolutions to bring the war criminals to justice as a matter of priority and principle. Four, we need to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions banning offensive military flights which are responsible for killing fields as we meet. Five, the Government of Sudan itself is in standing violation of UN Security Council resolutions calling for the cessation of acts of violence, the banning of the offensive military flights, the enforcement of arms embargoes, the disarming of the Janjaweed, such that additional sanctioning measures under article 41 of the United Nations charter are necessary to hold the Sudanese authorities to account.

Six, there is now a desperate humanitarian crisis unfolding in Darfur, what I would call death by starvation, as a result of the announcement of cutbacks to rations by half, and this after the UN already 18 months ago characterized Darfur as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The Government of Canada must take the lead to ensure that donor nations fulfill their pledges and that humanitarian assistance reach the victims. Seven, we cannot ignore the recent ominous regionalization and internationalization of the conflict including the dangerous Iranian-Sudanese nuclear collaboration axis, the role of China as paymaster and collaborator in the killing fields and the Chad connection. Canada in concert with like-minded nations must address and combat the growing regionalization and internationalization of the conflict. Eight, we need to support the peace process in Abuja, but not allow it to become a diversionary tactic or to allow it to pre-empt what otherwise needs to be done to fulfill our civilian protection mandate. Nine, we need to ensure the protection of the refugees and internally displaced persons is intensified, permitting them to return safely to their homes. Finally, we need to convene an urgent meeting of world leaders from the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union and NATO to draft and implement a save Darfur action plan.

In conclusion, let us resolve that never again will we be indifferent to genocide. Never again will we be silent in the face of evil. Never again will we acquiesce in the killing fields, not on our watch. We will speak, we will act, and we will make never again a moral imperative and a reality.

[Air-India, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party shares the sentiments of the Prime Minister. The bombing of Air India flight 182 was the worst terrorist incident in our history and a Canadian tragedy. For the friends and families of those who perished, the loss of their loved ones was catastrophic.

The 329 passengers and crew members, including the 80 children, who perished are not just a tragic statistic. Each person had a name, each had an identity, each had a family, each person was a universe, and so, 329 universes perished that day, the enormity of which, as I mentioned, is difficult to comprehend, let alone feel.

Accordingly, besides creating permanent memorials to honour the Air-India victims, the Liberal government also designated June 23 as a national day of remembrance for victims of terrorism. We did this not only to recognize the victims of the Air-India bombing, but also to ensure that June 23, 1985, would be forever etched in our Canadian history as a day that thrust Canada into the terrible reality of international terrorism.

It is for this reason also that the Liberal government appointed Mr. Bob Rae to provide independent advice and whose report “Lessons to be Learned”, and recommendation for an inquiry was welcomed by the families and commentators at the time.

We are pleased to see the government is honouring the decision the Liberal government made last November to set up a public inquiry.

The government has, however, preferred to establish it as a judicial commission of inquiry, under former Supreme Court Justice John Major, and the families have also welcomed this initiative.

Clearly the families, given their ongoing pain, are seeking answers and deserve closure. Canadians want to ensure, as the Prime Minister has stated, that such a tragedy never happens again, that the lessons that need to be learned are in fact learned and that the appropriate action is taken to protect Canadians from acts of terror.

While the Prime Minister has underlined, rightly so, the raison d'être for such an inquiry, he has not identified the subject matter of the inquiry, nor the questions that need to be addressed and the lessons to be learned.

Accordingly, I would hope that Mr. Justice Major's inquiry, and I have the highest respect and regard for Mr. Justice Major, will in fact examine the four key areas that concern the families.

These were identified by the former government.

Mr. Rae's report, “Lessons to be Learned”, addressed the concerns. These included: first, whether the government's assessment of the threats of terrorism in the mid-1980s was adequate; second, how communications breakdowns and schisms between the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service might have caused mistakes and omissions; third, how does one approach the requisite use of intelligence evidence at a criminal trial and what one might learn from this about what we might do in terms of the prevention and prosecution of acts of terrorism; and finally, what shortcomings existed in airline security at the time, have those been rectified and what can we learn from those unresolved questions?

In conclusion, may I express our understanding for the ongoing ordeal that the families continue to endure, our commitment to ensure that such a terrorist tragedy will never again happen and our hope that under Justice Major's inquiry the appropriate lessons will be learned so the necessary action can be taken.

[Holocaust Remembrance Day, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the survivors of the Holocaust who are here on Parliament Hill today, who alone understand the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, of things that are too terrible to be believed, but not too terrible to have happened and where genocidal echoes resonate again today as in the killing fields of Darfur.

I say to the survivors and those whom they represent here today that they are the true heroes of humanity. They have not only witnessed and endured the worst of inhumanity to man, but they have somehow found in the wellsprings of their own humanity the courage to go on, to rebuild their lives as they help to build their communities here in Canada. They taught us the evils of racism and bigotry, of the dangers of silence and indifference in the face of evil, of the reminder that every human being is a universe, and whoever saves a single person, it is as if they have saved an entire universe.

I ask all members to join me in tribute to these heroes of humanity, to remember at times such as these, “qui s'excuse, s'accuse” and to act upon the injunction of never again.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. I supported it then in 2002 when I spoke and I support it this evening, as I have mentioned: the application of international humanitarian law for the purpose of protecting persons in armed conflict, including detainees and prisoners of war.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be able to respond. I did not introduce any “but”. The hon. member may have heard a “but”. There was no “but” in my remarks. I supported the human security protection mandate with regard to Afghanistan as early as January 28, 2002, in this House. I mentioned it at that time then, have summarized some of it now and I continue and reaffirm that human security protection mandate with respect to Afghanistan this evening.

I want to say that I do not think this is a matter of these two being mutually exclusive. I share the intention of the Speech from the Throne for a robust diplomatic role for Canada. I believe that Canada, in addition to Afghanistan, can play and exercise a robust diplomatic role and can exercise moral and political leadership. I sought to share with the members of the House a 10 point proposal whereby Canada can take the lead in helping to bring about one or more or all 10 of those 10 initiatives. I believe that a robust diplomatic initiative can do that without in any way impugning or undermining our involvement in Afghanistan.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for West Nova.

I am pleased to participate in this take note debate on Afghanistan, as I did in a similar debate in the House on January 28, 2002. At that time, I shared with the House 10 principles that should underpin our reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, organized around the centrality of human security and rights protection and which included: the establishment of a viable justice system, support for the fundamental role of women in that reconstruction effort, the clearing of land mines, accountability for past abuses, an application of international humanitarian law, and the treatment and protection of persons in armed conflict, including the protection of detainees and prisoners of war.

As we gather together for this take note debate in support of the human security mandate, mass atrocity and impunity, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide by attrition, continue unabated in Darfur. That is why we formed last Thursday an all party parliamentary coalition to save Darfur, first, to sound the alarm, pour briser le silence. As Andrei Sakharov once put it, the surest way to ensure that human rights will be abandoned is the continuation of silence. Second, we formed the coalition to issue a call to action, a 10 point agenda for action inspired by and anchored in that fundamental doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

I propose now to summarize the 10 points of that action plan, which include the following points.

First is supporting the rapid transition from the current AU force to a robust chapter VII, UN-mandated civilian protection force. Second is the enhancement of troop support so as to allow for the civilian protection mandate to be achieved. Third is the enforcement of the UN Security Council ban on offensive military flights over Darfur, including the no-fly zone. Fourth is the support of UN Security Council resolutions to bring the perpetrators of these international atrocities to justice before the International Criminal Court.

Fifth is the disarming of the militia groups collectively referred to as Janjaweed. Sixth is enabling internally displaced persons and refugees to return safely to their homes. Seventh is monitoring and enforcing the arms embargo mandated under UN Security Council resolution 1591. Eighth is the supporting of targeted sanctions as recommended by the UN expert committee on sanctions. Ninth is the supporting of the Darfur peace process, which should include representation from all parties to the conflict. Finally, there is the supporting of responsible disbursement of development assistance funding, which itself will only be made possible through the protection of human security.

The Speech from the Throne envisaged a robust diplomatic role for Canada and I share this. This is a test case for that robust diplomatic role and a test case for the responsibility to protect obligations. As Edmund Burke put it, and I will paraphrase it, the surest way to ensure that evil will triumph in the world is for enough good people and good countries to do nothing.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It was highly regrettable that it was not included in the Speech from the Throne. I regard it as a cornerstone of any approach to accountability. I regard freedom of information as a cornerstone of democratic governance and, indeed, as a cornerstone of democracy as a whole.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem that the government mentioned anti-terrorism law and policy in its throne speech. I only said that it was unclear to me whether the government wanted to initiate a review de novo or whether it would incorporate, by reference, the reviews that had already taken place. Those would be two different approaches by way of a process, but the principal approach concerning anti-terrorism law and policy, as I indicated, should nonetheless be followed.

On that principal approach, I want to mention to the hon. member that I was then a member and not yet a minister. The then minister of justice, Anne McLellan, tabled the anti-terrorism law and policy on October 15. I got up, if I am not mistaken, the next day, October 16, and among my critiques, I elaborated a 10 point critique of the bill. One of them was the absence of sunset clauses.

I concur with the member opposite that there should be sunset clauses. One of my suggestions at the time, which was accepted, was that there were sunset clauses on two sets of provision in the bill, preventive detentions and investigative hearings. I would have been prepared to have recommended even sunset provisions with respect to the bill as a whole.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

If I may, I will begin by expressing my appreciation to the electors of my riding of Mount Royal for their renewed trust and also by congratulating the Prime Minister and his government on their election and their commitment, as set forth in the Speech from the Throne, to work together in a minority Parliament.

That is where the government will look for shared goals and common ideas that will help Canadians build a stronger Canada.

The throne speech affirms a series of principles that reflect these shared goals such as safe streets and safe communities.

These goals also include supporting Canada’s core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The throne speech contains a set of policies at a level of generality that one would not oppose, but where some of whose particulars lack definition and destination. Admittedly, this is not uncommon in throne speeches, and so what I propose to do is address the principles and policies that are conspicuous by their absence, as well as the importance of their absence, while pouring recommended content into principles and policies that are enumerated, the whole in the pursuit of the common interest and the public good.

First, the throne speech contains no reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms though we are on the eve of the 25th anniversary of this most transformative constitutional instrument, which has transformed not only our laws but our lives. Moreover, for a government where law and order is one of its five priorities and where the Minister of Justice is otherwise obliged to certify that any prospective law and policy comports with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the absence of any reference to the charter evinces a disturbing mindset about rights, protection and priorities.

Second, and not unrelated, there is only passing reference to aboriginal justice even though the charter and the Constitution entrench aboriginal rights for the first time, while the throne speech's silence on the historic agreement in principle respecting redress for the shameful legacy of residential schools is profoundly disturbing.

Third, the throne speech says that MPs will be asked to conduct a comprehensive review of the Anti-terrorism Act, seemingly ignoring that both houses of Parliament have concluded comprehensive reviews of the Anti-terrorism Act and were at report stage when Parliament was dissolved. Indeed, as Minister of Justice, I appeared twice before each of these respective committees in the House and Senate.

If the government is recommending that reconstituted parliamentary committees will tender a report to government incorporating by reference the review that Parliament has already completed, that is one thing, but if the government intends to conduct a review de novo,, that may be an exercise in reinventing the wheel and may not be the most efficacious use of parliamentary time in a minority Parliament.

I would hope, however, that whatever be the process for review, the government will anchor itself in the two-pronged, principled approach to anti-terrorism law and policy that the previous government had initiated, the first being that terrorism does constitute an assault on the security of a democracy and the rights of its inhabitants and our individual and collective rights to life, liberty and security of the person. In that context, anti-terrorism law and policy is the promotion and protection of human security in the most profound sense.

But the second principle must not be ignored, that is, the enforcement and application of anti-terrorism law and policy must always comport with the rule of law. Individuals and groups must never be singled out for discriminatory treatment. Torture must everywhere and always be condemned. In a word, we cannot, in the pursuit and protection of human security, undermine human rights, which is a basic component of that human security.

Fourth, we share with the government as a matter of principle the commitment to safe streets and safe communities. Indeed, it was this very principle which underpinned, for example, our own policy when in government, respecting guns, gangs and drugs, and we share as a matter of policy as well as principle the government's commitment to tougher laws, particularly respecting weapons-related crimes, more effective law enforcement, including improved border security, and a crime prevention strategy addressing the root causes of crime by providing hope and opportunity for youth.

But what is disconcerting are principles and policies announced elsewhere but absent from the throne speech, such as five year and ten year mandatory minimums for a host of offences that are both wrong-headed as a matter of policy and suspect as a matter of law, and that would result in more prisoners and more prisons with no appreciable effect in combating crime.

As well, there is no reference in the throne speech to the need to combat racism, hate speech and hate crimes--including the explosion of hate on the Internet--which are increasingly targeting the most vulnerable among us: our young, our religious and racial minorities, and women and the like. I would recommend that the government reaffirm the national action plan against racism, however it may wish to refine it, as well as the national justice initiative against racism and hate.

Fifth, it would be prejudicial to the very principles and purposes of this government in cracking down on crime to dismantle the gun registry, which, as the law enforcement community itself has testified, not only prevents crime but saves lives.

Finally, if the government wishes to act on its stated commitment to supporting Canada's core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights around the world, and to support a more robust diplomatic role for Canada, which I welcome, it must address two of the most existential threats and clear and present dangers of our time. I am referring first to the continuing mass atrocity and genocide by attrition in Darfur, which requires a robust diplomatic initiative on the part of Canada and the international community, such as we set forth earlier today in our Save Darfur Parliamentary Coalitions's 10 point “Call to Action” on Darfur.

A second clear and present danger is the toxic convergence in the publicly declared Iranian government policy both to advocate the destruction of a state and the genocide of a people, in its publicly avowed intent to wipe Israel off the map and to acquire nuclear weapons for that purpose. The parading of a Shehab III missile in the streets of Tehran, draped in the emblem of “wipe Israel off the map”, underpinned by a virulent anti-Semitism that calls for a new Holocaust, as it denies the old one, and threatens to burn Muslims who evince any support for Israel, constitutes a standing assault on international peace and security, and a clear and present danger to us all.

These two existential threats, Darfur and Iran, constitute test cases of the government's commitment and resolve to defend our core values in support of a more robust diplomatic role for Canada.

[Justice, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I will not do is exploit victims of crime. What I did was respond to the unanimous recommendation from the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice meeting in November. I said that I would move with all deliberate speed to table legislation, and that is exactly what I did.