FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 31, 2000

• 1702

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will begin. We have to really move this.

From the department we have Madam Lortie, David McKinnon, and Gail Tyerman. Just to explain to those of you from the department, we have only 30 to 35 minutes at the most, because there is a vote coming up in the House.

You've seen the proposed resolution, I think—or perhaps not. We have a proposed resolution by Mr. Obhrai. I will ask you to give us a quick overview of where the government is on this issue. I will ask Mr. Obhrai to introduce his resolution, and then we can have a general discussion. We can probably get out of here in half an hour. From canvassing the members, most are in favour of doing something; it's a question of finding the exact wording.

Ms. Lortie, are you the lead-off person?

[Translation]

Ms. Patricia Lortie (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Department): I will try to be quick because I know you have many duties.

The Chair: I'm sorry to have to rush you like this, but this is the only way today's meeting can take place.

Ms. Patricia Lortie: I will try to brief you on the situation which is changing as we speak. It is very fluid. We have very recent information that is slightly conflictual, but we will try to summarize so that you are able to take the necessary decisions.

[English]

As the situation now stands, there are still 30 hostages in the custody of the coup perpetrators. What started as a coup attempt and a hostage-taking situation seems to have evolved into a military takeover of the government. Fiji now finds itself in a constitutional vacuum.

As Minister Axworthy said in the House of Commons this afternoon, Canada is gravely concerned about the situation in Fiji. He reiterated his condemnation of the illegal overthrow of the Fijian prime minister and the constitution, and called for an immediate return of democratic rule.

Mr. Axworthy said that unless there is a substantial improvement in this situation, Canada will advocate at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting next Tuesday in London that Fiji be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Restoration of Fiji's relationship with the Commonwealth will depend on the return of a democratic government, elected on the basis of a constitution that does not discriminate against any ethnic group.

The situation has been very fluid. If it would be helpful, I thought I might report briefly on the background.

Recent Fijian politics have unfortunately been dominated by the question of race. Immigration to Fiji by Indians began after Fiji ceded sovereignty to Britain in 1870, as the British wanted labour for the new sugar plantations on which the indigenous Fijians were disinclined to work.

• 1705

By the 1980s, the Indo-Fijians had become the majority. However, as you will recall, in 1987 the election in Fiji of one of the first governments dominated by Indo-Fijians was followed by two coups led by Colonel Rambuka, who was determined to ensure the dominance of indigenous Fijians. These coups resulted in the emigration of many Indo-Fijians, including some to Canada, reducing their percentage of the population to about 44%, which is where it stands now.

These 1987 coups resulted in a racially based constitution, which caused the Commonwealth heads of government, at their meeting in Vancouver, to decide to allow Fiji's membership in the Commonwealth to lapse. So in 1987 Fiji ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth, as a result of a racially based constitution. However, in a remarkable change of heart, it was Rambuka who, as prime minister, oversaw the introduction of a non-racial constitution some ten years later, partly as a result of Commonwealth criticisms.

There's a little bit of déjà vu all over again in this.

This allowed Fiji to return to the Commonwealth in 1997. In May of last year the Fijians elected a new government using a complex preferential voting system for the first time. The former government of Prime Minister Rambuka was removed from office and replaced by an alliance called the Peoples Coalition, led by Mahendra Chaudhry, an Indo-Fijian and trade union activist who became prime minister. Although Prime Minister Chaudhry was careful to balance his cabinet with indigenous Fijians, extreme nationalist Fijians refused to accept his leadership. That was about a year ago.

This brings us up to what happened beginning ten days ago. On the morning of May 19, the first anniversary of the election of the Chaudhry government, there were large anti-government demonstrations by indigenous Fijians. Members of the government, including the prime minister, were taken hostage by gunmen at the Parliament in Suva. The hostages were led by a certain George Speight, a failed businessman of mixed Fijian and European background, with little known political involvement. His father had been a leader of the opposition, but Speight had not been active himself in politics.

Fijian President Ratu Mara immediately imposed a state of emergency and a curfew to deter looting, which had been widespread during the demonstrations. Some 30 hostages were released, but as I mentioned, there are 30 still being held.

Mr. Speight's demands have fluctuated in the course of the last ten days. That's why it's been a little difficult to determine exactly what they are, but they include the dismissal of the Chaudhry government, the abrogation of the multiracial 1997 constitution, amnesty, and resignation of the president.

As you will have seen in the press, the middle of last week Commonwealth Secretary General McKinnon visited Fiji with Mr. de Mello of the UN. They were there to register Commonwealth concerns. They called for the unconditional release of the hostages and strict adherence to constitutional law. Unfortunately, neither of these calls has been respected.

During further violence on the night of May 28, instigated by an armed mob loyal to Speight, a number of people were injured and the first death occurred when a policeman was shot. In addition, the studios of Fiji TV were damaged and shots were fired, in an apparent effort to intimidate journalists.

The hostage-takers were not recognized as the new government by either leading indigenous Fijians or the security forces. Lack of support for the constitution from the Great Council of the Chiefs, the traditional indigenous Fijian leaders, considerably weakened the president's efforts to end the crisis, as no doubt did the presence of his daughter among the hostages. He is really in a very difficult position, in that his daughter is one of the hostages. He has been trying to find a peaceful solution to the problem, but as we know, he hasn't been able to do it.

President Mara declared himself strongly opposed to the takeover, but in an effort to defuse the situation without bloodshed, he dismissed the government, with the intention of appointing an interim administration. He then promised the coup leader they would receive some sort of amnesty. He appeared to have the support of the Great Council of Chiefs. Nonetheless, Speight has rejected the offer, demanding the resignation of Ratu Mara himself, whom Speight accused of being too willing to accommodate the Indo-Fijians.

• 1710

Last Monday, President Ratu Mara stepped aside. This announcement came a few hours after it was announced that the army, led by Commodore Frank Bainimarama, had assumed control in Fiji and declared martial law.

So we're now up to the current situation. This is the last ten days. Yesterday, May 30, the commander of the armed forces and head of the military government, Commodore Bainimarama, announced the abrogation of the 1997 constitution. His first choice of prime minister, who I was going to describe to you, has since been rejected. The reports we have in from Wellington as of about two hours ago indicate that the commodore—he's a navy person, unlike most coup leaders—is waiting until after the hostage crisis is resolved to appoint an interim government.

So Bainimarama has assumed executive leadership. He is not calling himself president. He has said he intends to honour the offer of amnesty by former president Mara—a source of some concern. He has also said he has imposed martial law only to preserve the country's stability and to prevent civil war. With the imposition of martial law and the markedly tighter army presence, Suva has returned to calm.

Earlier today—that is May 31, Suva time—the commodore announced that a new constitution will be brought in. It may be a mix of the 1990 and the 1997 constitutions. This will bear very close watching, because they seem to us to be contradictory. The 1990 constitution entrenched the supremacy of indigenous Fijians, while the 1997 constitution called for a racially unified system. It's quite unclear how they're going to be able to do that.

He also has said—and this is particularly disturbing—that Fiji could have a military government for up to three years, or at least until a new constitution is in place. He said new elections will not be called until a new constitution is in place. This is particularly troubling, as I say, because the government had originally indicated they would stay in place for only 21 days. Although all Speight's major demands appear to have been met, he is still holding out for broader amnesty for his wider group, more than the eight who are with him in the Parliament with guns.

As you have seen in the papers today, a mob took to the streets of Suva again today, with attacks on Indo-Fijians reported and a skirmish around the parliamentary complex. Although the military apparently took steps to halt the violence, the military commander agreed to change his choice of prime minister. Regrettably, and this is the bottom line, all indications seem to be that the Chaudhry government cannot be restored, especially since the 1997 constitution has been revoked.

So that is the situation as of now. Could I just very briefly—

The Chair: Well, very briefly.

Ms. Patricia Lortie: The Canadian response has been a strong statement from Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Chan last week that our high commission in Wellington, which covers the situation in Fiji, has been following the situation closely. We have been coordinating closely with our Commonwealth partners to determine the situation and have been preoccupied, of course, with the situation of the Canadians in Fiji. There are 160 Canadians in Fiji, whose well-being has been one of our prime concerns. Information on the coup perpetrators is being gathered by CIC for inclusion in our immigration database, should requests be made for visitors to enter Canada.

Importantly, the next step is the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group next Tuesday, when Canada will be advocating the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth on the basis of what has taken place.

I'm sorry to have been a little long, but I thought it was useful to try to describe what has gone on, because it's a rather confusing situation. I would stress, Mr. Chairman, that our view is that the situation is still very fluid.

The Chair: Don't worry, we're proposing a fluid resolution. Well, Mr. Obhrai is proposing it.

Now, could you perhaps briefly introduce your resolution? It's been distributed, and colleagues—and as I say, most people—have indicated pretty broad support of at least doing something. So let's find the right wording.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Can I ask a couple of questions here before you...?

The Chair: Just bear in mind we might get interrupted in about 15 minutes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm just going to ask a five-minute question here.

Madam, thank you for coming on such short notice.

• 1715

Whatever you have said here is already in the papers, so there's nothing really new in what you've said. What disturbs me and what disturbs a lot of Canadians of Fijian origin is the quiet—the non-response by the Government of Canada or your department in any way—for almost five days after the coup took place and a democratically elected government had been thrown out.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Keep the politics to this side—

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm asking the question of why there was no—

Mr. Bob Speller: You don't have a minister there, or....

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The department can say what's going on. I'm just wondering.... These were the questions that were asked. Demonstrations had started taking place by Fijians all over the country asking where the response was. I'm just wondering why it took so long to respond.

The Chair: Without getting into.... If you can describe it from a chronological point of view, it would be helpful, by all means, Madam Lortie.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'm just interested so I can tell them why it took so long, if there's some compelling reason for it.

The Chair: Madam Lortie cannot speak for why the minister did or didn't do certain things at certain times, but she can tell us what the department's been doing and what's been going on.

Ms. Patricia Lortie: David McKinnon, who is with me, is the acting director of the Oceania division. He is going to make an attempt to answer your question, sir.

Mr. David McKinnon (Acting Director, Korea and Oceania Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I think the thing to remember in this is that it was a very unclear situation to begin with. This wasn't a classic coup where you have the military come in and in quite short order take over the government.

Although they declared it as a coup, it began as something much more akin to a putsch, or a hostage-taking, so it took some days for it to be clear what exactly was going on. And we did move quite quickly after that to release a statement.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, let's go through the resolution here. Do you want me to read the resolution?

The Chair: No. It's been distributed and everybody has it.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I think he has one word to change.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Instead of saying “expulsion”, I guess you'd be comfortable with “suspension”.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It should be “suspension”.

The Chair: Yes. Okay, so that's a friendly amendment you're going to put in right away. I think that's very true.

I also recommend two other quick ones for you to have a look at, and you might get around-the-table agreement very quickly.

In your reaffirming clause—“reaffirming the importance of the restoration of the democratically elected...”—might we put in “reaffirming the importance of the unconditional release of the hostages and the restoration of the government”? Could we do that?

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Could we begin with the first?

The Chair: Well, I'm just trying to get.... If we could get Mr. Obhrai to agree to that, if other members agree, that would be helpful.

Then in the last clause, your dispositive clause, you've agreed to change “expulsion” to “suspension”. In terms of the references to economic sanctions, given the legislative framework under which we operate, I would just recommend you might want to look at using “consider”. You're going to have to change your language somewhat, because we can't impose sanctions unilaterally. We're going to have to change that maybe to “consider the advisability of imposing sanctions” or something. You might want to think about that.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): There's a meeting in London next week, also.

The Chair: Yes, but if the Commonwealth does it, we can do it under the Special Economic Measures Act. But if we don't have it, we can't do it, so let's not adopt something and....

Libby.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Chairperson, I realize time is short. I just want to say that the NDP certainly supports the resolution. It's a good resolution.

I would like to ask the committee, though.... I'd like to put forward one additional amendment, a final clause that would say to temporarily lift visa requirements for Fijian nationals wanting to travel to Canada. I know we've had a lot of concern expressed by people that because of the chaos, family members may seek to come to Canada, so I wanted to put that forward as an amendment to lift the visa requirements temporarily, as part of the resolution.

The Chair: Okay, that's that.

Mr. McWhinney, you had a comment.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I think we should stick to our special competence, which is to get a response to the emergency situation. I would suggest to Mr. Obhrai.... I think he and I both have considerable numbers of Fijian-Canadian constituents, and we've been in touch with them. By the way, it's not an attempted coup; it is a coup. So I think you might strike that out.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: At the time I wrote this it was an attempted coup.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes, but I think it's in your fourth paragraph. It is a fact that the minister had communications to him by members of Parliament and initiatives have begun and have been going for some time, so I would suggest you say “continue” rather than “begin” diplomatic initiatives.

I'd also suggest you make your suggestions here more specific. Where you say “in association with Commonwealth members, other like-minded states and the United Nations”, I'd add “Security Council”. We're a member. There are limits to what they can do, but still it would give the range of action that I believe the minister may already be engaged in, and it would give the authority of this committee to it. It would make stronger what you're recommending, “and in the United Nations Security Council”.

• 1720

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I don't have any problem. You do understand that the intent of this resolution is to put—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It's to give our authority to the minister that he has the support of all parties and that's the position.

The Chair: I take it that those two amendments to that paragraph that were made by Mr. McWhinney are friendly amendments and are both acceptable.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'd wonder about getting into these issues unless it is demonstrated that we are in a genuine refugee situation. One person has been killed, but there's no suggestion of a Kosovo-style situation yet. It may be a measure that becomes necessary. But it very much looks that if we apply the procedures that were applied in the two previous coups but apply them with much more vigour, we may be able to get that result very quickly.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The Kosovo situation was that ethnic cleansing was taking place, and we pulled the refugees out of there. When you say the removal of a visa, you're talking of a visitor's visa, allowing them to leave at short notice. One of the problems is that we have no embassy and no presence at all in Fiji. If somebody needs to leave, where will they go?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I have been in touch with the minister for two years recommending that a Canadian consulate be established in Fiji. If you could make this recommend the expediting of it to get rid of this bottleneck in Australia, maybe an officer could be flown over to Fiji, for example, with temporary powers. I think if we covered it that way, it would avoid the confusion, which appeared in one newspaper, that so far we're not dealing with a refugee situation.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: In reference to the amendment Libby has put forward, what you are saying is that instead of lifting this, you want the presence there of a Canadian diplomatic official.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I would say something like this: “We recommend as an interim measure that the Canadian government send a consular official to Fiji with inherent powers and consider”—and I'd be very happy with this—“the establishment of a permanent consulate at some later stage”.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I can understand your permanent consulate situation, which is a long-term solution, but I think what we're addressing with this resolution is the current crisis taking place in Fiji.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Would the first part of what I've suggested satisfy you?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Libby is the one who put the amendment. What do you say?

Ms. Libby Davies: I think it would be helpful to have a Canadian presence there. I know that has been an issue, and, as you say, there has been a bottleneck.

What has been expressed to me—and I know to our critic, Mr. Robinson—is that people are very concerned that if they need to leave quickly, they won't be able to do so, and they'll have to go through the whole visitor requirement aspect. Maybe it's not at that point yet, and hopefully it doesn't get to that point, but there's a concern that will happen. I would certainly accept your first point, but—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: If you had an official there within, for example, a couple of days, would that meet the situation?

The Chair: We're getting a little out of order here, because I have other people on my list.

Denis.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: When one talks of a Canadian presence where there is none presently and as the situation does not seem that clear at the moment, you have to wonder. When we have a presence somewhere and something happens, the people are already there. They have already been accredited by the government and so on. But I wonder about the opportunity of sending a Canadian delegation into such an unstable place.

Secondly, I would like to clarify something. The possibility of imposing economic sanctions on Fiji was mentioned earlier. Has this been ruled out?

[English]

The Chair: Maybe we could ask Madam Lortie whether it's the practice of the department to drop Canadian officials into the middle of coups and say “Do something”. If so, which one of you three is willing to go? If not, Mr. Obhrai is going.

Ms. Patricia Lortie: Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

• 1725

We cover Fiji from Wellington, so our mission in Wellington is monitoring the situation. Immigration is out of our office in Sydney. We do have an honorary consul in Suva, who is taking care of Canadian interests and who has been very helpful to date.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Is the honorary counsul already in place?

Ms. Patricia Lortie: Yes, she is in place. In fact we're quite proud of the fact that she is the first Indo-Fijian so-named in the position of honorary counsul, and she has been extremely helpful in this crisis.

We have not sent in the high commissioner from Wellington, pending confirmation of the situation on the ground. Our plan now is to send in very shortly our high commissioner from Wellington, Valerie Raymond, to ascertain first-hand the situation on the ground.

I would endorse the comments of those members of the committee who have suggested that we are not yet in that kind of crisis situation. Our sense, from our meeting we had this morning with officials from the immigration department, is that there has been no great desire for visas or departure. The people are in a wait-and-see mode. There's great concern, obviously, but we're not yet in a flight situation.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Where would they go? One of the problems is that there is no embassy there and they can't make any representation. I can bet you that they wouldn't even know who the consul is over there and who to contact. The representation I received from this community from talking to their family members is that they seem to be pretty lost at this stage as to what to do.

The Chair: Colleagues, I wonder if I could just make a suggestion, since we may have to end up running for a vote and we don't want to lose this resolution. This issue of visa was kind of introduced at the last minute.

Perhaps we can clear away the first part of the motion and agree on it. I'll go through it very quickly. In the first line the word “attempted” is removed. The second paragraph says “was asked”. It's just past tense. In the third paragraph we add a reference to the unconditional release of the hostages.

The first paragraph of the dispositive would read “Continue diplomatic initiatives, in association with Commonwealth members, other like-minded states and the United Nations, including the Security Council”. Well, we have “other like-minded states and the United Nations”, so we just need to include the Security Council.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It should read “in the United Nations”.

The Chair: It continues “to ensure the restoration of the democratically elected government of Fiji”. Is that correct?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: The penultimate clause is “Take the position, in no uncertain terms, that should Fiji fail to restore democratic rule in accordance with the 1997 Constitution, Canada will advocate its suspension from the Commonwealth, and will consider the imposition of economic sanctions on Fiji”.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's already covered by where we say “recommends that the Government of Canada”. Basically we're saying “The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends that the Government of Canada” do the following.

The Chair: But we can't recommend that we impose, because of this legal problem.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Okay. Fair enough.

The Chair: We could say “recommends that we consider means to impose economic sanctions”, and that means through the Commonwealth, basically. Is that all right?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: That's good language.

The Chair: I think that will deal with your problem and my problem as well.

Now, I wonder if for the last one we could say, so we're now recommending exactly, “take measures to expedite the process of granting visas to Fijians wishing to come to Canada”. We can't say send somebody there or don't send somebody there. It seems to me that we as a committee can't get into the business of determining the specific administrative action of the department, but we can make recommendations as to what would be desirable.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Chairman, the department indicated in its interpretation of what you've just said that it would understand that this might include, assuming it were available, sending—

Mr. Gary Lunn: You could use “consider” again. You could say “the government consider the potential problem of visa requirements should people in that situation...”.

• 1730

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Why don't you say “consider”, as Libby said?

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd be willing to accept that.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Instead of saying that, we would say “consider” that, as Libby has changed it, which would allow—

Mr. Gary Lunn: It gives them the flexibility they need.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: —for the flexibility to do that as the situation gets a little dicey, should it do so, although hopefully it won't.

The Chair: Can you give me your language again, then, please?

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd be willing to accept that if you say, perhaps, “take measures to expedite visas and consider temporarily lifting visa requirements for Fiji nationals wanting to travel to Canada if the situation further” and so on. If it continues and we get to that point, that would be part of the resolution for the Canadian government to look at that.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: And consider if the circumstances should require it.

That would do it, Bill.

Deepak, I think that should do it.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's great.

The Chair: So “consider, if the circumstances should require, the lifting of visa requirements”, etc. Okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues, for your help.

Thank you very much for coming. We know you're rushed, so we appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai, for your resolution.

Colleagues, do I have your authority to table this in the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll table it in the House as a report.

We're adjourned until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.