Foreign Affairs Committee on June 21st, 2006

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The rationale behind this is that Robert Mugabe has engaged in a pogrom against his people, primarily the black population, both the Shona and the Ndebele tribes in his country, to the extent that he has plunged Zimbabwe into one of the world's worst despotic environments that exist today. Inflation is running at 1,000% per year. He's closed down and limited access to basic services: primary health care, primary education. He has employed children and taken them into something called the Green Bombers. It's a youth group that he uses to go and terrorize and engage in violent acts against the civilian population.

But perhaps his worst act is to use food as a weapon. There are many ways to kill people. But what Mugabe is doing is starving his population to death, basically. He is withholding food aid, and many people on this committee, regardless of political stripe, know that he's withholding food from his people. He is destroying the homes of the poor. He just destroyed 700,000 homes over the last few months, throwing people out to the rural areas where there's absolutely nothing for them--no food, no basic health care--so they're there to die. In a country where 23% of the population is HIV positive, this is a death sentence for these people.

The situation is so bad that the most basic necessities cannot be afforded. Women, for example, needing simple feminine hygiene products can't access them, so they're dying of septic shock as a result of the inaccessibility of basic needs.

It is a catastrophe that again has flown under the radar screen, and somebody needs to speak out against this person. Nelson Mandela has; Desmond Tutu has; the South African Council of Churches has. But there's been an absence of action at the United Nations.

So chapter 7, article 41, essentially calls on the Security Council to use non-military means against this particular individual. Essentially, it's calling for sanctions against Robert Mugabe. That's all it's calling for, sanctions again Robert Mugabe.

So that's the essence, although I could engage in a litany of his abuses. But that's just a summary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you.

Of course I'm aware of the honourable member's concerns about Zimbabwe and about Robert Mugabe. But there are a couple of problems with this motion.

First of all, under international law, it is not possible to commence proceedings in Canada or anywhere else against a sitting head of state. Mr. Mugabe is a sitting head of state and will be until 2008 or possibly later. So under international law, it is not possible for us to do what you're suggesting.

Second, in order for the charges to be laid, the act requires that the accused must be a Canadian. There must be a Canadian victim to do what you're asking us to do--to lay charges--or the accused must be present in Canada.

President Mugabe is not a Canadian, nor do we have any knowledge of any Canadian victims of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Mugabe. Since 2002, Canada has held to the policy that members of the president's government will not be welcome in Canada. And that applies to President Mugabe, who is very unlikely ever to visit Canada.

In addition, it is considered impractical to conduct any investigation. Based on the law, it is not possible to do that. Insofar as the second portion of your motion invokes an article in chapter 7 against President Mugabe, any motion in the Security Council must be brought forward by a member of the Security Council. Canada is not currently a member of the Security Council. So we cannot bring forward a motion in the Security Council.

The Zimbabwe issue has already been placed twice in front of the Security Council. It is not that it does not count; it has come in front of the Security Council. In July 2005, the special envoy on human settlement in Zimbabwe, Ms. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka briefed the council on her report on the operation to restore order for 70,000 Zimbabweans who had lost their homes and who were out doing cleanup of their suburbs. The Secretary General briefed the UN on the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe.

The problem is that this issue has come in front of the Security Council on many occasions. What happened was that the motion received only nine votes, because the African nations are not willing to do that. The problem you have is that the African Union is not saying there is as much of a crisis in Zimbabwe as we are saying there is. Therefore there is severe reluctance on the part of the African leaders and unions to do that. We believe that Canada must work with the African Union to bring this matter out. The African leaders get very upset.

Mr. Martin has given Mr. Mandela's name and Mr. Desmond Tutu's name. However, Mr. Mbeki and Mr. Mkapa of Tanzania do not agree to that fact of life. So there are African leaders who are not agreeing to that fact of life.

Based on these arguments, this motion does not at all carry the legal weight that is required, because it's not possible to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I have a speaking list here.

Mr. Van Loan, please go ahead.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Canada has a very proud history in Africa, in South Africa in particular, where the Mulroney government led the fight against apartheid when many other western countries were reluctant to do so. I very much want to see Canada again play a similar kind of leadership role.

I think it's kind of tragic. There were so many, probably some around this table, who greeted Mugabe's arrival as President of Zimbabwe as a great development when it happened and had great hopes that it was a step forward. History has shown us that those hopes were very badly misplaced, and the atrocities committed against his people of all types are horrendous.

The virtual shutdown of democracy is totally unacceptable, and Canada has to do something. I want to find some way to make a statement that is constructive and strong. It's not necessary for us to work in cooperation. I'm disappointed that Thabo Mbeki and South Africa haven't spoken out more strongly and taken constructive action. I don't think we have to wait for them. I think Canada can show leadership, recognizing that obviously the pressure is more effective if it comes from there.

Mr. Obhrai highlighted some of the legal hurdles, though, and I know that in revising your motion, you have tried to find a way past some of them by trying to tie human rights or the crimes against humanity prosecution under our legislation to something that may work, if you can find victims. I don't know if we have victims of that right now in Canada sufficient to maintain such a prosecution. I'm certainly not going to be comfortable voting for an indictment against him that we don't have a legal basis for yet. If we can get an assurance from the RCMP or from someone coming before us who we think satisfies that test, that might be another issue, but I'm a little reluctant to go that far at this stage.

I think your effort to try to revise it is a good step and I'm glad to see that. I want to see us come to something we can all support enthusiastically, that will accomplish what we want it to do. I'm not sure that even the revisions to the motion are there yet. I'm not sure they overcome those legal hurdles of not being able to prosecute a sitting head of state. And he may be there until 2008. If he keeps on going the way he's been going, he's going to be there a lot longer. It won't be through a fair democratic process that he stays, but he certainly shows no sign of giving up.

I'm troubled. I think we have to do something. Maybe there are things we can work on further to get the motion where it will do that. I know you've addressed some of the problems that I originally had, but I'm not sure we're there yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The technicalities of the motion--

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

And that's the problem. It's really the technicalities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The technicalities of the motion are problematic. We can have a motion--

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Can I address this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes. Is there anyone else?

Madam McDonough, and then.... Rather than go back and forth, I will let you speak to the motion or an amendment once or twice. Obviously, Mr. Martin will always get to sum it up; it's his motion.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Just to clarify, we're looking at the new motion; in other words, the old motion is off the table.

I'm a bit puzzled by some of Deepak's objections, because the motion that's now on the table addresses several of those things. We don't need to be reminded that you can't introduce resolutions to the Security Council unless you're on the Security Council: this doesn't make the mistake of suggesting that's the case, it says “to press for”. In other words, it recognizes some obstacles to progress on some of these things at the African Union, for a variety of reasons, and at the Security Council. But this is about Canada trying to use what broad political space there is to exercise some responsibility to try to press for action. So I think to give us a lecture on Canada not being on the Security Council doesn't have anything to do with the motion before us.

Second, I don't personally know of victims in Canada. I do know there have been horrendous numbers of victims. Also, a number of parliamentarians, I assume several around this table, are actually twinned with Zimbabwean parliamentarians. I know the parliamentarian with whom I am twinned came to Canada as part of a Parliamentary Centre sponsored symposium on Africa in which we participated.

You can't work with victims if they don't exist, but you can work with them if they can be identified. Our first step is to make known that we favour such a process getting under way.

The third point talks about ascertaining the feasibility of using the crimes against humanity legislation. So we're not saying we ourselves have the capacity here and now, or for that matter, any authority to deem whether this could be achieved; we're saying it should be explored.

I think it really is speaking to Peter's interest, which I hope is shared by everybody, for us to at least speak out on this and urge the government get back to us with a more detailed report. If there's a big problem with certain words here, let's roll up our sleeves and those who have problems with it help suggest some small amendments. That means we don't go away for three months having done nothing before we speak out on it again.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

On a point of order, on this side we're being asked to speak to something we can't even see, a motion that's not even in front of us on paper, and that's where my problem is. I might very well be able to vote for this if I have time to sit down, look at it in writing and analyze it, but right now I have something in the air that somebody said that I'm trying to remember.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I guess I go back and try to think what Bernard would do if he were in the chair here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll tell you what, in the spirit of--

[An hon. member]

That is a compliment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, it is.

In the spirit of cooperation, I'm somewhat dismayed that all parties except the governing party see amendments that are brought forward. I think if we can work together, we can sometimes get something up.

Yes.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

With all due respect, I only saw the amendment just now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's a friendly amendment with all parties.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Well, you've seen it, and that puts you further ahead than I am, because I haven't seen it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, because he still hasn't seen one. What I'm saying is that the chair accepts this motion; it does not significantly change the--

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It's a very dramatic change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have another friendly amendment the mover is willing to do. Just one moment.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

We have a problem with this. You can add 50 amendments if you want; you can do any kind of amendment. I've just highlighted technicalities and legalities. This committee cannot be caught without this.... We need time to look at it and understand and analyze it.

What is happening over here is a haphazard thing of writing on something I've highlighted as very technical, that requires us to think and look at it. So I'm not willing to come up with amendments unless we have enough time to look at all these amendments to see their legal ramifications.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's duly noted.