Last month marked the 75th anniversary of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s deportation of Crimean Tatars. This tragedy is known as the Sürgünlik, which means exile in the Crimean Tatar language.
Starting on May 18, 1944, 200,000 Crimean Tatars were dragged from their homes by NKVD special forces in the dead of night, packed into cattle cars, and shipped thousands of miles away. They were left without food, water or shelter, and close to 30,000 died of hunger, suffocation and thirst. Approximately half subsequently died in the Central Asian steppes due to hunger and disease.
Three countries have now officially recognized this as an act of genocide: Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. After kicking this issue around like a political football for two and a half years, Canada finally appears set to become the fourth. But it has taken a twisted road through the labyrinth of parliamentary procedure to get to this stage.
First, in December 2016, MP Kerry Diotte of the opposition Conservatives tried to pass a Private Member’s Bill establishing May 18 as a Memorial Day for the Sürgünlik and recognizing it as a genocide. This was voted down 160-137 by the ruling Liberals because then-Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion did not consider the deportation as a genocide and the order came down from the top to oppose that bill. (Canada has the most restrictive rules regarding party discipline of all the major countries that follow the Westminster parliamentary system – much more so than Australia, New Zealand or even Westminster [United Kingdom] itself). Five Liberals, including Etobicoke-Center MP Wrzesnewskyj, broke ranks and supported it. Current Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland who, as a member of Cabinet (and as minister of international trade, Minister Dion’s immediate subordinate) could not vote for it and expect to stay in the Cabinet, conveniently chose to be absent from Parliament on the day of the vote.
But once she took over the foreign affairs portfolio from Mr. Dion, who subsequently retired from politics, the obstacle to Liberal recognition of the Sürgünlik as genocide was removed. As a result, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj decided to introduce a motion calling for the same things Mr. Diotte’s bill had called for. In order to ease passage, he needed unanimous consent. He got it from the Liberals, the smaller opposition parties and independents. But when push came to shove last month, it was the Conservatives who denied it.
Their rationale was that a motion does not have the same clout as a bill, that there wasn’t enough consultation, and that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s motivation was “more to do with a desire to draw attention to himself and not to the importance of the Sürgünlik commemoration.”
This was far-fetched to say the least. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj went out of his way to consult with all parties. As for his motivation, the fact that in 2008 he withdrew his own Holodomor bill in favor of one authored by Conservative MP James Bezan, speaks for itself. And the claim that a motion does not have the same clout as a legislated bill is nitpicking at its worst. Motions – especially when they pass by unanimous consent in the House of Commons – are a clear expression of the will of Parliament. Such passage would be an unequivocal affirmation of an historical fact.
Furthermore, while Canada’s Parliament has officially recognized seven crimes against humanity as genocide, only the Holocaust and the Holodomor have been recognized as such through legislation. The other five (Armenia, 1915; Rwanda, 1994; Bosnia, 1995; and the ongoing slaughter of Yazidis by ISIS and the Rohingya in Myanmar) have been recognized through motions or resolutions. What’s more, the three other countries that have recognized the Sürgünlik as genocide, have done so through resolutions.
But Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had a few more rabbits to pull out of his hat. The best opportunity came on June 10, when Russian pro-democracy opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee about the worsening human rights situation in Russia and increasing numbers of political prisoners incarcerated by the regime of Vladimir Putin. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj used the opportunity to put a question to Mr. Kara-Murza about the plight of the Crimean Tatars and whether he would support a finding of genocide regarding the Sürgünlik. “I think it would be very important to make such a recognition,” answered Mr. Kara-Murza.
This provided Mr. Wrzesnewskyj with another opportunity, this one to give “notice of motion” on the matter. After the 48-hour wait period, this motion was moved, debated and passed on June 13, getting unanimous support from all members, including the Conservatives, who at first tried to drag this matter out in committee hoping it would go away, but finally relented.
On June 19, the day before Parliament recessed for the summer, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee tabled its report in the House. What that means is that this expresses the will of the legislature and normally requires the executive (meaning the minister responsible for foreign affairs) to respond within 120 days. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, however, stuck the word “immediately” into the motion, which demands a much quicker response. As an added measure it was passed unanimously, unlike most reports that contain a majority and minority position.
Ms. Freeland, as foreign affairs minister, has not made any official pronouncements as of yet, but her media spokesperson, Adam Austen, on June 24 responded to my persistent e-mails with the following statement: “In 1944, hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatar children, women and men were forcibly deported from the Crimean peninsula by Soviet authorities. Canada honors the memory of those who lost their lives and those others who suffered so greatly, including by supporting this important motion.”
So, it looks like Canada’s recognition may finally be forthcoming. However, the tortuous route it has taken does not reflect well upon the performance of Canada’s major parties. On the other hand, it does stand out as a shining example of the tenacity of MP Wrzesnewskyj, who better than anyone understands how to maneuver through the maze of parliamentary procedure rules.