Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 5th, 2013

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for your answers. You've answered at least four of the questions that I had here for you.

Was the situation in Sri Lanka debated at any length at the latest Commonwealth meetings?

[Hugh Segal]

That's a very good question.

Part of what the Canadian government received in some criticism about having our Prime Minister not attend.... We didn't boycott the conference. We sent a very distinguished colleague of yours, a member of Parliament and parliamentary secretary, who did a very good job, but part of the argument was that if you're there, you can raise these issues.

Well, the reality is that the agenda for every Commonwealth conference is set by the president of the host country, or the prime minister, as the case may be, and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. They would have zero interest in having a discussion about human rights, judicial independence, accountability, etc. In fact, that was not discussed.

In fact, when you look at the many thousands of words that came out in the Colombo declaration, you see that references to human rights, rule of law, judicial independence, democracy, and freedom of the press are completely absent. Completely absent, and that is less than a year after the Charter of the Commonwealth, which laid those out as precise Commonwealth values, was signed in the presence of high commissioners from every country, including Sri Lanka, by Her Majesty the Queen, in March.

I have no evidence from any source that at the conference itself this matter was discussed. The Prime Minister of Great Britain went to Jaffna, and various others said things outside the conference, but at the conference itself, not only was it not discussed, but in fact there was no evidence of it being discussed in the press release, the communiqué, that was put out at the end of the meeting.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

One thing I've learned at this committee, especially with human rights, is that if the rule of law does not exist, not only do you have atrocities happening, but you have poverty. Have you seen these two things as a prevalent part of what's going on in Sri Lanka?

[Hugh Segal]

When I was in Sri Lanka I saw that the army has become the dominant economic force in the north.

So for example, our little Canadian delegation flew from Colombo to Jaffna, and the only place you can land is in the middle of an armed forces base. When we got out of the aircraft, despite the agreement that we would then meet with the high command and get a detailed briefing on security, we were informed that the high command wished us to go to a new hotel they had just opened. They wanted photographs taken of the Canadians with the high command in the new hotel to put on their website and to use for whatever promotional purposes. Our security officer from the High Commission said that's not what they had agreed to and that we wouldn't be going there. They replied that was what the high command demanded. The response from our security staff was that we could sit on the tarmac for a very long time, so they should make up their minds. After about 20 minutes they agreed to let us get back to the real schedule and not be props in this economic development theme they were advancing.

Whenever you centralize power in a fashion where there is no right of dissent, where newspapers that have a differing view are shut up and the publishers and staff are beaten up, and where people are white-vanned if they are dissidents, both in the north and in Colombo, things that are going on now—not four years ago, now—then you have no accountability. When there's no accountability, and when you look at a chart that I saw that indicated that direct members of the president's family are in charge of things like the airline, the central bank, some of the mining operations, you begin to get that kind of concentration.

So I would not use the word “corruption”, that would be excessive. But I would say that the normal checks and balances that one has by going to the courts or questioning things do not appear to exist.

Understand that the impeachment of the chief justice came after her court ruled that a law passed in the Colombo Parliament, where the ruling family has two-thirds of the members, removing the taxation powers of what we would call the provinces, was unconstitutional because there had been no consultation about what was a de facto constitutional change to centralize all authority in one place. The response to that ruling was her impeachment, in a fashion that the former chief justice of South Africa in his legal opinion and a distinguished barrister in the U.K. in his legal opinion said was completely unconstitutional and a clear move toward authoritarianism.

When power's that concentrated, when there are no checks and balances, there's no open court process, and there's no due process or real rule of law, I think corruption is inevitable and frankly hard to control. That means there's no distribution to low-income people in terms of their opportunity to build their own lives. That is certainly the truth in the north, and becoming more and more of a problem with respect to the Muslim population. We have testimony from bishops of the church that the Christian community is now facing some of the same constraints and difficulties.

That is not an encouraging message, but I did want to share with you the truth as I understand it to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That uses up our time for that round.

Unfortunately your time is up, Mr. Schellenberger.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We're now going to Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to welcome the witness. I appreciate his testimony.

I want to mention this parenthetically for the record, I think it's not unimportant that it was a Liberal government that appointed the senator. I say that, because when you make principled appointments, those accrue to the benefit of the Senate and Parliament as a whole. I wanted to make the point.

Senator, you mentioned that what happens in Sri Lanka is something for the people of Sri Lanka, but what happens in the Commonwealth is the business of the Commonwealth. We have heard in our witness testimony—and I sense that you have read the witness testimony—that there has been evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been committed particularly in the final phases of the civil war. If that's the case, then it becomes also the business of the international community, whether or not it is a Commonwealth country, and of course if it is a Commonwealth country as you mentioned in this case. This brings me to my question and my concern.

My concern is not only with the international crimes that have been committed—though it is certainly with that—but also with the culture of impunity that has attended those crimes since then as well as with, as has been described in witness testimony to us, the kind of culture of fear and intimidation that continues to exist. In that sense, these are my questions. First, what can be done to counter the culture of impunity?

You made reference to the prospective international commission of inquiry, but that will take another six months if it is to be set up, and there will be this vacuum in the meantime. There is something the Commonwealth can do, but as you said that might not happen for another two years. Is there something that can be done now to counter the culture of impunity? That relates to the second question, which is what distinguishable role can Canada play both as a Commonwealth country and also in terms of what Canadian Parliamentarians can do—if there is anything that we can do—to combat that culture of impunity, that culture of fear while fostering accountability?

[Hugh Segal]

We have a country in which 47 members of the existing presidential family hold positions of authority in judicial, corporate, central banking, transportation, and other critical parts of infrastructure. That contributes to the culture of impunity very directly.

We have a country now in which the independence of the judiciary has been dismissed as essentially a joke. The notion that people have a right to access a balanced assessment in open court is no longer deemed to be a reality. We have a country in which, according to a very recent BBC documentary account, we are seeing rapes and torture taking place this year. In fact family members of some of the translators who helped the BBC with that documentary are being threatened in Sri Lanka as we speak.

You have the official government, the armed forces, and the police, and then you have this “thugocracy”, which is operating in ways to intimidate decent people who are trying to get a measure of justice in the process. I would argue that under the RtoP principle—and sadly the Sri Lankans are not signatories to the treaty on the ICC—what needs to be considered, and I would hope the Commonwealth would be among those that would consider this, is a focused program of sanctions so that there is no impunity. When you say that leaders in Sri Lanka are going to have constraints upon their banking activity and that the 47 members of the family can't travel freely around the world, then you begin to get some attention.

Whether that is best done through the United Nations or in other ways or by a coalition of the willing in the region, I defer to your judgment on that. It will be much more profound than mine and much more experienced. I think without that transpiring, there will be very few ways to deal with the culture of impunity that is now, I think, getting in the way of democratic development and genuine reconciliation in that country.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have a follow-up question based on what you've mentioned, Senator.

You're correct that Sri Lanka is not a party to the treaty for the International Criminal Court, and that of course raises the question of how the ICC could exercise jurisdiction if Sri Lanka is not a state party. There is one way in which it could, and that is if the UN Security Council would refer the Sri Lankan situation to the ICC, as was done in the case of Sudan, even though Sudan was not a state party to the ICC.

Would that possibility exist in the case of Sri Lanka or would there likely be a veto exercised by a country like China in these circumstances. Do you think it's worth a try if for no other reason than to even embarrass those who would veto that kind of reference?

[Hugh Segal]

Canada has been very, very active, as you will know, at the United Nations Human Rights Council in terms of campaigning for various resolutions, usually proposed by the Americans, that have been getting tougher and tougher upon the Sri Lankans. The notion that Canada would continue to campaign in other fora for that to transpire in terms of a reference by the Security Council to the ICC I think is something that should be looked at with immense interest and genuine commitment.

I would want to be frank with you, however; nothing I saw about the Chinese disposition in the region would lead me to believe that they would not deploy their veto. In fact, I think they would use the veto to increase their economic leverage in the country. The country does have some natural riches. The country has some materials that are of great value to the Chinese. The notion that they would stand down on those economic interests simply because of a point of principle on human rights or impunity I think might be a little bit optimistic. But I have no remit with respect to China, so this is completely beyond that remit.

My general view is that the greater the impact of Chinese actions relative to how they are viewed in the world, the greater the possibility that over time they will move to a more responsible deployment of their international capacity in a fashion that is constructive. The British Foreign Office always says about the Chinese, particularly relative to Africa and the Caribbean, that the FCO very much anticipates a fully mature Chinese participation in international diplomacy that respects its standing as a major global power.

That's a euphemistic way of saying that maybe someday they'll step up to the table of those who are trying to find the right way ahead. But any proximate hope is not something I could extend as we speak here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We are out of time for this round.

We go now to Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, before you start my time, if Mr. Jacob is going to take his time, I would gladly turn over whatever time is required to Ms. Sitsabaiesan, if she would like to use it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Jacob is actually giving his time to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Senator Segal, in your opinion, and I am asking for your personal opinion, is the reputation of the Commonwealth going to survive the two years before a new secretary-general takes over?

[Hugh Segal]

It's a very, very serious question, and one to which I do not have the answer. I worry that the combination of a secretary-general who does not seem to want to draw any of these lines in any way, shape, or form, and a chair in office who will not be an enthusiastic supporter of this kind of engagement, could be quite toxic.

I am hopeful that at some point in the next two years some of the larger powers within the Commonwealth—by that I mean South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Malaysia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia—may in fact begin to think about some of the survival issues that the Commonwealth is now facing, and try to shape some strategy going forward. But there is no strategy, in my judgment, that sets aside the core values of the organization. It's not a defence organization, as you know. It's not a trade organization per se. It is about a cluster of values that have shaped a certain approach to civilization over the years, defined differently by different cultures and histories and backgrounds.

If those values are no longer central, somebody will say—we won't be the first, but others will—that the cost is not insignificant, the amount of time required is not insignificant: is it worth the candle? That's the risk we face, in my judgment, in the next two years.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

My follow-up question was going to be whether the membership could bring to bear some influence in that regard. Certainly what's at stake is hundreds and hundreds of years of Westminster tradition, hundreds and hundreds of years of development of democracy, human rights, the rule of law. It's something much more significant than the Sri Lankan issue at hand, and yet it's precipitated because of that.

I have some testimony here from someone from the High Commission in Sri Lanka, who said that in 2012, $2.5 billion in Sri Lankan rupees—I think that's the currency there—was being invested in the rehabilitation of ex-LTTE combatants, over 12,000 of them.

Did you see any evidence of that when you were there?

[Hugh Segal]

We asked to see the rehabilitation camps. We were not given permission to do so. We wanted to see what was going on in the rehabilitation camps. We wanted to understand what rehabilitation meant. In our negotiations with the Sri Lankan administration about where I could go and with whom I could meet that was not an option that was deemed appropriate by them for reasons of national security.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Before you go, I understand Ms. Sitsabaiesan has to go to the House. Given your generous offer earlier, I wonder if we could save the rest of your time, let her do her questions, then come back to you. Would that be all right?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Most certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Ms. Sitsabiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair, and Mr. Sweet, for your kindness.

Senator Segal, thank you for being here.

In your testimony, you had identified that what you saw or what you experienced was kind of an ethnic cleansing of mainly the Tamils. But also thank you for identifying that it was also the other minorities who were being oppressed, whether those are the Christian, the Muslims, the Burghers, or the others. It's not just Tamils. Yes, we Tamils are the largest minority who are being oppressed and cleansed, as you had mentioned yourself, but there are many others on that island who are having to live the reality of what this government is doing.

One question that I'd like to ask is with respect to the land grabs of the lands formerly held by the Tamils. Reports come from many places, and also individuals who I speak to on the ground in the communities, of two things: one is the colonization of military and military families in the previously Tamil-owned lands; and secondly is the development of the extractive industries that are associated with the Sri Lankan government in those same lands that were previous Tamil-owned.

One constituent of mine who went back to Sri Lanka to sell his land eventually came back in a coffin because he was beheaded for trying to claim his land. I know from personal experience that it's true, but I want to know what your experience was on the ground, as the envoy who went down there.

[Hugh Segal]

We saw two things in that respect. We certainly saw the notion of displaced persons being held in camps for long periods of time, not being allowed to go back to what was their family land or farm or their land adjacent to the fishery. Secondly, the Indian government had invested in some public housing to be built in the north, but in order to get access to that the authorities were demanding that the locals sign away any rights they might have to their own land or farm in order to be put on a waiting list for a construction process that was many thousands of units behind what was necessary to meet the need.

We came away from this with the conclusion that this is not serious. Yes, the Sri Lankan government is investing in the central infrastructure—roads, highways, hospitals—but access to them or the ownership of the critical parts of the turf associated with them was not being transferred back to the Tamil population in any way, shape, or form, whatever they wanted to pay for it.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

We spoke of the Commonwealth, and the role of the Commonwealth, and what we think of Sri Lanka's presidency of the Commonwealth moving forward. We spoke of the international community's responsibility in achieving truth or arriving at truth before reconciliation could commence. We didn't speak of the role of another superpower in this world. We didn't speak of the role of the United States.

What do you believe the role of the United States should be? Are you aware of what the United States is doing? I know some of the things that people on the ground are doing. But the government as a whole, what do you think the United States should be doing?

[Hugh Segal]

Let me say this in support of the Americans. In my time there no one was more intensely outspoken than Her Excellency the American ambassador on many of the issue about which we care. There were decisions taken by the Americans to cut back some of their military aid because they were unhappy with the lack of Sri Lankan performance on some of these human rights issues.

My sense is that the Americans are seized with the issue. They are not intimidated by the Chinese—quite the contrary. They are if not our strongest ally, certainly one of our strongest allies wanting to deal with the issue of impunity and address the question of human rights.

In fact, after a few days there, there was a large newspaper article in one of the few independent newspapers left that had a photograph of the American ambassador, a photograph of Ms. Pillay, from the Human Rights Council, a photograph of your present witness, and a photograph of the head of the opposition party in the Colombo Parliament, all making the same points around impunity and around authoritarianism.

So I give the Americans full credit for engaging fully and being far more straightforward, if I may say so, than the Australians or the New Zealanders, who've been in that part of the world for a very long time and understand it perhaps with some measure of profundity.