Canadian Parliament debates the Sri Lankan situation

Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in December 2002 I was in Oslo when both parties agreed that they would use federalism as the basis for future discussion. Can we return to that? I personally hope that we can in some way. Let us not forget that the basis of federalism is self-government and shared government. That is the decision we made as a country, historically, in the years leading up 1867: self-government and shared government. That is one of the ways in which one could look at finding a solution that would allow the island to remain as one, which is a very important objective of the majority, and at the same time provide for some self-government for the Tamil community.

Extracts from the Hansard – Part Three

Link -Part two

Link - Part One

(February 06, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) Mr Paul Dewar (NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Toronto Centre and a former leader of mine. He does understand, probably more than any of us, the intricacies of this issue. I want to get straight to it. I do not want to descend into a debate that will take us to other places tonight. I think what we are here to do tonight is to discuss what Canada's role should be, what we can do productively, and how we can seek peace in a place where right now there does not seem to be a lot of hope.

The member referred to Mr. Miliband and others in the world community. I am wondering if he can give us some of his ideas of other international forums where we could advance the voice of peace and be constructive. We are not at the United Nations Security Council. I know we want to have a chair there, but is it plausible for Canada to raise in the UN General Assembly the issue of ceasefire to the Security Council? How realistic is that idea, and what can we do to advance it? That is my first question to him.

Second, lately the Commonwealth has been a fairly dormant institution, but if it is not for this cause, then for what cause can it be? Does the member see any possibility in working with that institution as well?

Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is a fair comment to say that the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Sir John Holmes, has spoken out about this. The Secretary-General has spoken out about it. It is very difficult. The Government of Sri Lanka very strongly resists any notion that the United Nations has jurisdiction over something they regard as an area of their national sovereignty.

I know my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, is one of the experts on this question of the doctrine of our responsibility to protect. At what point does the condition of a civilian population give the United Nations the right and the ability to intervene?

Mr.Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister, now the president of the International Crisis Group, has talked extensively about this question, as has our leader, who was involved in drafting the protocol on the question of responsibility to protect. I think the UN is going to be engaged administratively. Whether we can get the Security Council engaged is another question. Many powers on the Security Council may not be interested in seeing that happen. I also agree with him that the Commonwealth is one mechanism.

I want to make one point and I do not want to engage in a debate with the minister or with others. The group that has to make a decision now, as much as any group, as to how it is going to proceed is the LTTE. It is up to the diaspora community in this country and around the world to ask this question of their friends, cousins, relatives and others: what do we think we are going to achieve by perpetuating a military conflict in the way it has been conducted over the last while?

I think we have to recognize that this was what the Tokyo group was saying yesterday, and I think it is something Canada should support.

Hon. John McKay: Mr.Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on a very knowledgeable speech on this area. I know he has been there many times. I would suggest that in his capacity as a participant in the Forum of Federations, there was a significant opportunity a few years ago to talk at a meaningful level to the various actors in the piece about the issue of whether a devolved federation could in fact be achieved. Since this war is unwinnable and there is no military solution to it, is that still the starting point once hostilities cease, as they inevitably will? Is that a starting point for the participants?

Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in December 2002 I was in Oslo when both parties agreed that they would use federalism as the basis for future discussion. Can we return to that? I personally hope that we can in some way. Let us not forget that the basis of federalism is self-government and shared government. That is the decision we made as a country, historically, in the years leading up 1867: self-government and shared government. That is one of the ways in which one could look at finding a solution that would allow the island to remain as one, which is a very important objective of the majority, and at the same time provide for some self-government for the Tamil community.

Hom. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague, the member of Parliament for Toronto Centre, for his moving statement this evening. I do not think any member in this House has the experience and expertise that he has in this matter. His statement reflected his own sustained personal and professional involvement in this matter, and we should both heed and act upon his words.

Today Sri Lanka commemorates its independence day. We are home to the largest number of the Tamil Diaspora outside of south Asia. Tamil Canadians are gathering to mourn the loss of innocent civilians who have been killed in hostilities with the Sri Lankan government. Indeed, we grieve with them for the deaths of innocents and the death of innocence, as well as for the ongoing violations of human rights and humanitarian law. As we meet, over a quarter of a million Tamil civilians are trapped within a 300 square kilometre conflict area. They are in need of urgent medical care, humanitarian assistance, media access and independent verification with respect to the conflict situation. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay recently stated it is the Government’s duty to provide safety to all Sri Lankan’s citizens whatever their ethnic origin or political views. That means not only protecting

civilians during military operations in the north, but also ensuring space for journalists and human rights defenders to seek out the truth and expose abuses.

As we meet, candlelight vigils are taking place in Canadian cities this evening, urging the Canadian government to, among other things, take decisive action to end the unfolding humanitarian crisis. They will be lamenting the deaths of innocents and innocence. However, the question for us this evening is not only to lament what is happening, not only to grieve with respect to the death of innocents, but to undertake those necessary initiatives to protect human security, to promote the peace and to put an end to the human suffering. I appreciate the statements made on behalf of the government this evening, statements that included a commitment with regard to humanitarian assistance and a framework for conflict resolution.

Again I say that we in Canada have a particular nexus to this conflict, for all the reasons mentioned in particular this evening by my learned colleague. The initiatives that can be taken have been referenced this evening, and I do not want to repeat them. I want only to identify them in terms of a sequenced framework.

First is an immediate ceasefire with a framework for a sustained and enduring end to hostilities, for while an immediate ceasefire is necessary, it is not enough. We need an accompanying framework to ensure that the ceasefire will be sustained and will endure.

Second, we need a return to the negotiating table for the mediation of a peaceful resolution to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. That solution will include what a government representative mentioned this evening, an equitable power sharing arrangement within the framework of a federalist orientation, as my colleague has mentioned. Canada can play a particular role with respect both to the federalist framework and to the protection of minority rights within that federalist framework.

Third is that the Sri Lankan government must allow the free flow of humanitarian aid to the conflict zone and allow international aid workers unimpeded access to the affected areas.

The fourth item is that journalists must be given and allowed unfettered access to the conflict area so that they can not only report on the current situation in the north and east but also determine the nature and scope of assaults on press freedom.

Fifth, all parties must be called upon to respect the rights of civilians in armed conflict and to adhere to human rights and humanitarian law norms, including--and here I make this particular appeal to the Sri Lankan government--ceasing and desisting from any targeting of civilians and protected persons and from targeting those in protected zones.

Sixth, we must support the call for the appointment of a United Nations special envoy for Sri Lanka to monitor and guard against abuses and to assist the peace process, as has been recommended by the United Nations itself, by the United States Department of State and by other international actors.

Finally, I have excerpts of letters of the past six U.S. ambassadors to Sri Lanka, which have been echoed in other international comments in that regard. They make the point that in fact, the major threat to democracy and the rule of law in Sri Lanka has not only been that which has come from the actions of the government or that which has come from the actions of the LTTE; we need to appreciate the threats that come from those who wish to undermine constitutionalism, who seek to undermine the rule of law, who seek to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the proper functioning of public institutions.

In conclusion, we need to guard against the abuse of authority to destroy dissent. The concerns I cited above are the major causes of the serious deterioration of the rule of law, human rights and democracy in Sri Lanka. In concert with the government and the international community, there is a lot for us as a House to do to put an end to the suffering in Sri Lanka, to protect human security and to promote peace.

Hon. Judy Sgro (Liberal): Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Hon. member. He has spent his life fighting on human rights issues and knows this issue very well. We talk about intervention from the UN. For quite a long time now the UN has been recommending that someone with an observer status should be there. I seem to have little faith in seeing that the UN really accomplishes something at the end of the day.

Your recommendations on the things that need to be done are clear examples, and I would hope that the government would respond to them very actively to try to help resolve this terrible conflict. What other suggestions would you have vis-à-vis the United Nations? What other things could we possibly be doing? We could certainly ride the government, which has finally wakened up in recognizing the issue after my asking questions for at least two or three years. I know my colleagues have done the same. From your experience, what else should we be trying to do?

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I want to share my colleague's skepticism, if I may put it that way and I hope I am not unduly attributing an attitude to her, with respect to the United Nations. If we look at the role of the United Nations with regard to Sri Lanka, regrettably the United Nations has not been sufficiently engaged.

If we look at the work of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which succeeded the somewhat discredited predecessor, the United Nations human rights commission, it has yet to even take up the question of the conflict in Sri Lanka. In all the emergency sessions that have taken place, and there have been 10 emergency sessions, not one session has been devoted to Sri Lanka. In the 25 resolutions that have been passed since the advent of the UN Human Rights Council itself in 2006, not one resolution has been passed with respect to Sri Lanka.

Therefore, I understand the skepticism and that is why I began by limiting my remarks to the appointment of a UN special envoy for Sri Lanka, with an appropriate authority with respect to the investigation, monitoring and protecting against human rights abuses in the conflict area, that would report back not only to the United Nations General Assembly and the like but hopefully will spearhead a further engagement by the United Nations at the General Assembly level, and in particular at the level of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Mr Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his interventions and his background in the area of international law. I have a fairly quick question about Canada's role and next steps, as he provided a couple of ideas for us.

One of the dilemmas he has had, and I know he has studied the R2P, is that if we do not have a body like the United Nations to be able to be engaged with it, when we call on Canada and other countries such as the U.K. and Norway to provide a ceasefire, how do we do that without having an institution like the UN and the Security Council involved? If not the UN, then how? If not another country, then how can Canada do that and how can Canada provide a support for a ceasefire?

Hon. Irwin Cotlker: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. member appreciates, the responsibility to protect, a doctrine which Canada had a singular involvement in developing and articulating, invites intervention only if the state is unwilling or unable to do anything about human rights violations in its midst, or in fact is the author of such human rights violations. Of course, for that responsibility to protect intervention to be authorized, it requires a United Nations Security Council resolution and that has been difficult to obtain.

It would appear at this moment that what is needed would be an emergency United Nations Security Council resolution to put an end to the hostilities, to call for a ceasefire. We were able to do that with United Nations Security Council resolution 1680 with respect to the hostilities in Gaza. There is no reason that we should not be able to have the United Nations Security Council convene and put an end to the hostilities here.

-Sri Lanka Guardian