Foreign Affairs Committee on March 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bush.

Mr. Tepper, please.

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

The member knows that I've done some studies--it's some years ago now--on the role of diaspora in Canada. The question of how to transform all of our peoples of the world into an asset for Canada is a broader question. When it comes to conflict, however, Ken Bush has alluded to the fact that diasporas often play a negative role. They tend to be, as I think the phrase goes, more royal than the Queen. They tend to have outdated images of the homeland. Youths abroad looking for a focus are endlessly recruitable, as they come of age, to causes of their people, even though they're now third generation away. So I believe there may be a role, but “sensitive” is only the beginning of how you would approach that role.

I will give you some anecdotes, because that's all we have. When I was in Jaffna, I made a point of interviewing. This was during the time when the government had an interregnum. They had a hold on it, with known Tigers roaming the streets. I was told there, as well as by people here very recently, when we had an Amnesty International meeting on Sri Lanka, by Tamils, and I was told the same story almost a decade apart, there and here, “You give us a package. You give us what we're asking for. You give us the powers we need. We will get rid of the Tigers.” I heard that where, as I say, it was dangerous to be hearing it, and from a newspaper editor in Jaffna, and recently here in the streets, and in a boardroom in Ottawa.

Again, I'll just emphasize that whatever the diaspora here may be feeling, I think the peoples of Sri Lanka are thoroughly sick and tired of this war, just as you've alluded. The rest of us would like it behind us.

In terms of this equitable redevelopment program, if Canada can play a role, saying to the parties involved...and there are multiple parties involved; we didn't even talk about the Moors and the Burghers. If we can say to them, “Canada does have a way, and we are willing to help”, and then we find a way to do that helping, maybe among this diaspora we'll have an equivalent of a Peace Corps, a development corps. Who knows what the future could bring if we could go from a negative cycle to a positive cycle?

That's where we are right now, and that's the opportunity and challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the next question.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I want to build on that and insert what was mentioned before by Mr. Bush--I think you both agreed on this point--and that's the structure of the economy presently. I hadn't known about that. How do you move to that positive energy when you have an economy structured on remittances from a military? I just don't see it. Perhaps I'm....

On the initial point here, that we provide humanitarian assistance and quarters, fine. The ceasefire absolutely would be helpful. But what you're explaining here and laying out is that until you deal with that wider piece, it's very difficult to get to anything beyond that.

So what do we do?

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

This is what I was alluding to earlier as a package. I think we need to change the equation. People who are young need a career path that has an alternative to being recruited as soldiers, sometimes forcibly.

Is Canada going to act unilaterally and not multilaterally to see to it that the economy of Sri Lanka offers opportunities? What are we doing on tariffs? What are we doing to promote a diaspora relationship that's a positive one? It's called changing the subject. We talk about war, war, war. Let's talk about building an economy. Let's talk about ways youth can spend their time other than in training for and practising war.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Bush.

[Dr. Kenneth Bush]

One of the Canadian NGOs that has been involved in Sri Lanka for almost 20 years now is WUSC, World University Service of Canada. They have very technical training programs right in the east. They have been through thick and thin. One of the really noteworthy things about those types of from-the-ground-up projects is that they offer vocational training that gives alternatives to young people there.

I talked earlier about the need to look at our development programming through a peace and conflict lens. If you teach someone how to use concrete cinder blocks because there is a need to build latrines, that's a very useful thing to do. However, that same skill can also build bunkers.

I can tell you, because I've done evaluations in the east and specifically with WUSC on that project, they know exactly who comes into the program and where they go. They are very careful about losing who they're training, so that training doesn't go to the other side. Electronics skills are similarly very portable skills on one side or the other of that barrier. So at a local level, it is possible to create alternatives, but I think you put your finger right on the dilemma, which is how we deal with the broad macro-level structural issues as well as the micro ones. At the moment, we have a completely militarized approach to conflict resolution. Social, political, and economic problems are all defined through the military lens. If you define a problem as a military problem, then the solution is military. How do you break that? I don't know.

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

If I could make one addendum to that, Ken Bush alluded earlier to the complexities, and we are still only scratching the surface. There was once an uprising by Sinhalese youth. We called that the JVP. They were a Marxist organization of younger siblings when their older siblings couldn't find a job. They were brilliantly organized. They had a revolution-in-one-night philosophy, and they almost took over the government in one night. They are now part of the reactionary forces within the government, siding with the government against any concessions whatsoever to the Tamil minority. So they've evolved considerably.

There were no job opportunities and no alternative career ladders. There was nothing for them. So they stole their daddy's shotguns and almost took over the government one night.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Bush.

[Dr. Kenneth Bush]

Can I follow up on that very quickly? It seems to me, to bring the diaspora into the conversation, that is one place that we might also put our attention. When you look at various conflict zones around the world--and I'm thinking of the Balkans and what happened--once the agreement is signed, you see the return of those who had fled. I think developing those entrepreneurial capacities of the Sinhalese and the Tamils outside is a real resource that we might develop.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's what you need to do.

[Dr. Kenneth Bush]

Let me give you a very concrete example. I work with them in terms of bringing students over from Sri Lanka to study in our program. One of the things we might think through in a very concrete way is developing the same types of programs that we use for Canada World Youth, and focusing them on the second- and third-generation diaspora from all different conflict zones who go back to their home country or to other post-conflict settings. After the signing of the 2002 ceasefire agreement, there was a spontaneous return of young Tamil youth and Sinhalese youth.

The political conditions aren't there yet for that, but it's something we can prepare for in concrete terms. It is an area in which Canada has expertise through Canada World Youth and WUSC and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Bush.

The last question will be for Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thinking on from that discussion on the diaspora, it would seem that the group presenting before the Sri Lankan graduates was more of a Tamil diaspora. By extension, it would sound as though many different factions and groups are the diaspora of Sri Lanka. The difficulty there would be to bring all those diasporas together as one, if that's even possible or feasible to do.

I would like to go back through history a bit to get a little understanding on it. When the British were in charge and were governing the country, what was the percentage breakdown at that time? Has it shifted any? It was mentioned that roughly 12% are Tamil now. What were the percentages back then? What difficulties did the British have? What made their system of governing, for all intents and purposes, not have these extensive difficulties? How inclusive were they of the various subfaction groups? They must have been inclusive in order to have had relative peace, or did they have relative peace?

Perhaps you could comment, Mr. Bush, on what happened previously under the British and what lessons we could learn that perhaps should be reviewed and looked at once again.

[Dr. Kenneth Bush]

It's an excellent question, and it's not as academic as it initially sounds. It's political sociology. What we're talking about there is the way in which certain identity traits, religion versus language versus ethnicity, become politicized over time.

What's interesting is that the tensions in the British colonial period at the turn of the last century were Muslim riots. There were tensions between Christians and Muslims, and less so the Buddhists. It was more of a religiously flavoured tension.

After independence in 1948, as Professor Tepper alluded to, we saw the politicization of ethnicity, because it was useful politically for a party to begin to mobilize votes on the basis of identity, something that is of course completely foreign to Canada. What lessons we should draw from the comparison between the British colonial period and the independence period relate to the role of state policy in politicizing certain identity traits. When public resources come to be allocated on the basis of one's religion, language, colour, or something else, then we see that groups begin to divide themselves along those lines.

What does that mean in terms of conflict resolution, conflict management, and transformation? It means that to call Sri Lanka an “identity conflict” is a bit of a misnomer. There's nothing in particular about Buddhism, and we can discuss this, that makes it inherently conflictual. What's important is that the political lines have been drawn. There are many examples in which we can see that building incentives--economic incentives, common incentives, incentives over the health of their children--in different competing communities can help to bring them together. If we can think about ways of increasing the incentives for cooperation and communication and increasing the disincentives for conflict, then we're thinking the right way, whether it's economic investment or social investment.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

In many other countries with difficulties and social unrest, one common denominator seems to be that a lot of the politics have become ethnically divided. That creates a tremendous number of difficulties in trying to have a reasonable outcome. Looking down the road in the long term, perhaps an influence Canada could have on the situation would be through working on democracy development in regions such as this to help to heal the past and start a new direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Bush, did you want to answer that in 30 seconds?

[Dr. Kenneth Bush]

I'll just say that at independence the political parties were not divided along ethnic lines. Political parties formed along ethnic lines once there were political incentives to do so. It is not what happened in Malaysia, if we want to have a comparison. It's the way in which political parties become ethnicized, and it has to do with the political benefits that come from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bush.

As well, thank you again, Mr. Tepper, for the information you bring forward. We appreciate not only the history of the conflict, but the suggestions on where Canada can be involved and how Canada might be able to play a role.

We're going to suspend for about 30 seconds to allow our guests to leave their seats and then we're going to move to committee business.

You have in front of you a budget that has been proposed and brought forward by our subcommittee on human rights. The subcommittee is asking for this budget in order to bring witnesses here. They are continuing their study on human rights in Iran. The full amount is $34,550.

Do we have a motion to accept the budget as brought forward? Ms. Brown moves the motion and Mr. Patry seconds it.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much, committee.

We are adjourned.