MONTREAL — The Canadian government’s proposed anti-smuggling bill, C-49, is so blatantly unconstitutional that it could only have been tabled as a “PR initiative” to satisfy public sentiment, says Liberal MP Irwin Cotler.
While the Liberals are prepared to co-operate with the government on an anti-smuggling bill that’s consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it won’t support legislation that “singles out” asylum seekers and refugee claimants.
Even the National Post, the “Conservatives’ own newspaper,” pointed this out in an editorial, the human rights advocate said in a Dec. 3 media briefing with journalists.
Cotler lambasted Justice Minister and Attorney General Rob Nicholson for appearing to be a partisan supporter of legislation that would not pass a charter test.
“The attorney general is an independent legal officer, and it is the justice minister’s responsibility to make sure that legislation is charter-proof,” Cotler said.
“When I sat in cabinet [as justice minister], I was there to give independent legal advice. In Nicholson’s case, “that [duty] was not discharged,” Cotler said.
On other issues, Cotler gave an update on the recent Conference to Combat anti-Semitism, noting that in the follow-up to the early November meeting, the Inter-parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (ICCA) is working on increasing the number of governments signing on to the Ottawa Protocol. These include Argentina, Australia, and Spain, and the United States, which are indicating a “favourable” disposition to doing so, Cotler said.
The ICCA also wants Canada and other protocol countries to appoint “special envoys” to monitor and combat antisemitism, such as already exist in the United Kingdom, France, Spain and the United States.
Cotler also was highly supportive of the fact that the protocol arrived at a definition of antisemitism that could be “uniformly” applied by the international community.
In that context, Cotler adamantly rejected a recent Globe and Mail blog post by former Canadian ambassador Norman Spector. He insinuated that Cotler has been disingenuous by citing the protocol’s declaration that “criticism of Israel is not antisemitic and saying so is wrong.”
In the context of Israel’s plans to construct more housing in east Jerusalem, Spector in his blog wanted to ask Cotler, first, whether it was “antisemitic” to criticize those plans, and second, to know Cotler’s own position on them.
Cotler said his answer to Spector’s first question was obviously no, but “Mr. Spector knew the answer to that without having to ask.” As for the second – Cotler’s position on the construction – Cotler said that construction in east Jerusalem “has to be conducted in accordance with the law.
“There are private builders in Jerusalem, and cases before [Israel’s] Supreme Court. I [would] support the findings of fact and collusions of law of that court, which I consider one of the best in the world.
“If they find [the construction] legal, I stand by that. If they find it not to be legal, I will go by that as well.”
