Volpe challenged as minister of Immigration: Toronto MP pressured by pro-Israeli lobby to change traditional Canadian approach to Middle East

Catholic New Times, Feb 13, 2005

Dear Prime Minister Martin,

We are law students completing our final year at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. We currently reside in the riding of Mr. Joe Volpe, who was recently sworn in as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We are writing to you today to express deep reservations regarding his appointment.

As you undoubtedly know, Canada welcomes well over 200,000 immigrants and refugees a year, from dozens of different countries. In addition, Canada grants hundreds of thousands visitor and work visas. These newcomers whether in Canada permanently or temporarily enrich Canadian society with their differing cultures, religions and traditions. This administrative framework operates through tribunals and adjudicative officers who apply international law and policy in their decision-making. Hence, any Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requires a balanced and nuanced understanding of, and respect for, international legal instruments and institutions.

It is our opinion that Mr. Volpe lacks both of these qualities. In this regard, we would like to bring your attention to a proposal paper entitled, "Canada and the Middle East" (June 6, 2003), to which Mr. Volpe and other members of your cabinet are signatories. This document can be found online through MP Carolyn Bennett's official website, www.carolynbennett.com. In our opinion, this paper exudes the signatories' deep contempt for, and misunderstanding of, accepted principles of international law.

While the Canadian government has regularly condemned the loss of civilian life in the Middle East conflict, whether Palestinian or Israeli, this proposal paper suggests that Canada should redefine its position of proportionate response, to permit Israel greater discretion in its military operations. In particular, the paper states that "the attacked party must establish the proportionality of its own response," suggesting that the legality of a particular armed action is to be determined not through international legal standards but through the eyes of the perpetrator. The Fourth Geneva Convention is clear that attacks directed against civilian objects are never justified under the doctrine of proportionality. The definition of "proportionate response" put forward in this paper would have justified Israel's August 2002 bombing of a crowded apartment complex in Gaza City, the result of which was the death of 14 persons of whom nine were children; it would also have justified the razing of Jenin in April 2002 for the purpose of rooting out militants. Such a perverse interpretation of the doctrine Of proportionality should never become the role in Canada's international policy.

A better view is that the killing of a civilian, whatever the nationality, is and must always be condemnable. It is clear that this is beyond the comprehension of those who support this paper.

Furthermore, the paper suggests that Canada should abstain from criticizing the actions of Israel, such as its widely condemned settlement policy, merely because Palestinian aggression is not sufficiently condemned. It also asserts that UN General Assembly resolutions against Israel are "one-sided" for they do not provide "the other side of the story." Mr. Volpe and the other signatories should be reminded that no atrocity can justify an atrocity in response. The tu quoque principle that underlies this part of the paper has been rejected repeatedly by numerous international bodies. It is our opinion that such an uninformed understanding of international law has no place in a Ministry which is called upon time and time again to interpret and apply international legal instruments.

Finally, the authors of the paper fundamentally misunderstand the nature and role of our international institutions. The UN and its related bodies are democratic institutions in which resolutions are arrived at through majority vote. Unwillingness to accept the UN as a functioning democratic body based on a conspiracy theory that it has been hijacked by "pro-Arab" forces, demonstrates a grave disdain for the United Nations and its role in the international arena.

We are merely challenging the propriety of this appointment.

It is hard to dismiss the fact that Mr. Volpe's support of it may give rise to an apprehension of bias which could potentially undermine the integrity of the entire Ministry. We do not believe that the Liberal caucus is so starved of capable persons that Mr. Volpe must be appointed to this very important portfolio.

Respectfully yours, Lucas Lung and Gleb Bazov