Foreign Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2009

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

That was going to be my point. If he was travelling with a senior representative from the British High Commission, would that not have set off particular alarm bells in London, and serious concern? Could the direction of this discussion not be taken to the Commonwealth? Sri Lanka is still part of the Commonwealth, I believe. If so, would a discussion like this not be very appropriate to take to the Commonwealth, particularly as we're talking about human rights and democracy? The most basic element of democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of reporting.

What is your theory on that? Your organization should be in a position to be able to make a presentation to the Commonwealth and have them discuss it.

[Robert Dietz]

Can you arrange that?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Well, I think they have in the past entered into these types of discussions with nations. If you're looking for political sway, certainly something coming from the Commonwealth would offer tremendous leverage to try to effect change.

[Robert Dietz]

That's a great idea, and I thank you very much. I'll take it back with me.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Understandably, there have been discussions with the United Nations, and discussions government to government, but I would say that the real political hammer here would be with the Commonwealth.

[Robert Dietz]

I don't know how the Commonwealth organization works. Can Canada raise that with the Commonwealth on some basis, and then ask if we can do this?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

This was going to be my other point. I'd like a little exploration of what your group is, what it represents, maybe what capacity you have, and what resources you have with your organization. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about it--the number of members, the resources you have, and where you get your funding from.

I see you've made presentations in Washington. Do you do similar presentations in other venues, such as the Commonwealth, perhaps, or other organizations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just one last point, and then we'll close.

I should also point out that it's my understanding that your organization refused to take any payment from our committee, even for your expenses coming here, because you don't want to be seen as taking from government.

[Robert Dietz]

Right.

It takes about 35 seconds to explain this. We have it down pat.

We were founded in 1981 by American journalists who were coming out of South America and who saw they were getting all the glory and all the bylines and all the money, and that the South American journalists who were helping them cover the stories were being killed, threatened, and harassed. So there was a response from the industry to that.

We take no government money, either our government or the government in Canada. For us it's the same as an American journalist paying for his own ticket while covering the presidential election, or something like that. We try to keep ourselves above government money. We do take money from donors, the OSI, or Open Society Institute, and some others. So we operate as an NGO, but we very much keep ourselves clear of government money.

We have about 25 to 30 staff members. We have representatives overseas. We are stretched too thin in terms of our budget. We cooperate and try to leverage resources in working with other media rights groups. We try to stay focused on these issues.

Before the CPJ made this trip to Colombo in January, there was a budget discussion first as to whether or not this was going to be cost-effective. We did make the trip, and now we're trying to use the information, the contacts, gathered to keep this story alive. We can do the presentations. We can certainly do the reporting trips.

I've been a journalist since the 1970s, and to me this is just a way of extending my career. I'm not particularly hireable any more in a newsroom, but I now get to do the same things I did for a long time in reporting. We do advocacy; we do pursue it.

I have to say that I'm totally blindsided by the idea of the Commonwealth. It just strikes me as something really....

[An hon. member]

We're in Ottawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Pearson please.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Dietz, thank you for coming. It's sobering. It's difficult for us to hear, and I'm sure it's difficult for you to say, but we all want to commend you for the important work you're doing and the sacrifices you're making.

I have two quick questions.

In other conflict areas of the world where journalists have difficulties, there's often intimidation of families and things like that. The support groups who try to help families there are in difficulty too, and this tends to impinge on freedom of speech as well. That's one issue.

The second question I have is this. I realize there are state-run operations, but how strong is the Internet there? Do journalists use the Internet to try to get to the outside world? Is there a period of time before they're discovered doing that?

[Robert Dietz]

Intimidation of families is part and parcel of the whole problem. I have so many cases that I could discuss with you, but I have to protect their identities. I'm going to fudge it. I'm going to try to do one or two. It might sound...trust me.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Go ahead.

[Robert Dietz]

A senior journalist whom I've gotten to know very well, who is no longer in the country, at first was intimidated in 1999. Some air force officers came in and waved a gun in his family's face. He was afraid to go home.

I'm sorry. I can't do this without revealing too much information.

Yes, families are affected by this--widows, obviously. Families are broken apart, demoralized, and in effect, it's this attack of intimidation. I'm staying away from using the word “terrorism” because that is so loaded, but it is a way of intimidating people and their families. There is tremendous spillover and a tremendous personal price to pay.

In terms of the Internet, it has grabbed hold in Sri Lanka, but not in the same way as it has penetrated China or Thailand. Websites have been shut down. Websites are targeted. People use SMS as a way of sharing information very rapidly.

I find myself in a communications web of Sri Lankans within the country, within Canada, in exile or outside of the country for one reason or another...a diplomatic group of people, and several organizations like mine. So when there is a breaking incident, very often we'll get an e-mail message. We learn to sleep with our phone on pretty much, and if something comes through at two o'clock in the morning--because it's two o'clock in the afternoon in Colombo--that “So-and-so has been abducted, he's missing, he's been grabbed from a funeral. Let's act quickly”, we call our ambassadorial loops. I have said the diplomatic corps in Colombo is up for this. They respond and they do make the calls. So there is that sort of web too.

The Internet is a valuable tool now, and it's a way of distributing media. My favourite is E-lanka News, which was started by a commercial printer. Its offices are now on a factory floor where the printing presses used to be, and it's just a couple of guys with computers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dietz.

I find it very troubling, as I'm sure all of us here do. People who believe in freedom of speech, as we do, would find it very troubling that these things are going on.

I wonder if you can put some of this in context for us, though, from your organization's experience. Do you have any statistics of other conflicts where this number of journalists are targeted? Or is this very specific to Sri Lanka?

[Robert Dietz]

I wish it were. It's not. My responsibility is Asia, so I'll restrict it to countries....

We have seen Pakistan, where this has been a tremendous problem, again very often with the government accused of being the actor or suspected of being the actor.

Let me answer this in another way. Yes, in other countries this problem exists as well, and it seems to rise and fall and is clearly tied to the political situation. What we're seeing in Sri Lanka is something different from what we've seen in Sri Lanka in the past, which makes it look more and more authoritarian, that things are moving in a way that it's going to get worse for journalists. You speak to them and say, “Well, the elections are coming” or “When do you think you can go back to Sri Lanka?”, and people are saying, “It's not going to get better, not for the foreseeable future.” One person put a five- or six-year time limit on it.

But what we see is Sri Lanka beginning to look more and more heavy-handed towards the media, and we're certainly seeing coverage of the war stifled and we're seeing coverage of the defence establishment stifled, but we expect to see that go into other issues as well. There's still criticism in the papers of how the government is handling the economy or negotiating new loans or some of those things, and those are still open and there's the best array of opinion. But we just see this space shrinking more and more and more. We don't see any force strong enough within Sri Lanka to push it back out. I think the strength or whatever power to do that will have to come from the outside.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Could I ask a very quick follow-up question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I know our time is limited, and this is really a follow-up to the question and something Mr. Pearson touched on.

With the availability of the Internet, it may be that some of the journalists are moving outside of Sri Lanka. Is there ongoing threat to those people, who are expats, who are perhaps writing from other places? Are we seeing that happen?

[Robert Dietz]

I have two answers.

As Canada knows, there's a vast Sri Lankan diaspora, largely Tamil, but also Sinhalese as well. And within those communities there's a lot of head-to-head, a lot of disputes. In all honesty, I've tried to keep myself away from that as much as possible, just because it's so entangling and so ensnaring, but I am aware of people intimidating and threatening each other.

I know that within expat communities, not just Sri Lankan, when you're away from home for a protracted period you tend to lose your grounding and small issues become large issues. So within that community I see those problems.

I'll be quick and then I'll end. The other problem is that you can't report on Sri Lanka from Toronto. You can't do it from Bangkok or London. Journalism is going to a place, getting the facts, coming back, and writing them up and querying them. The solution to the pressure on journalists in Sri Lanka is not to have them report from outside; the solution to the pressure on journalism in Sri Lanka is to have it removed.

I'm sorry I've taken so long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much Mr. Dietz. We appreciate your coming. And to your organization, we certainly wish you all the best. I think all of us here understand the importance of the work journalists do. As part of democratic development in countries, it's very important to have freedom of the press.

Thank you for being here.

We will suspend for about 30 seconds to allow you to exit and our other guests to take their places at the table, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We are continuing the committee's hearings on the situation in Sri Lanka.

Our witnesses this hour include representation from the Canadian Tamil Congress. We also have Jonathan Papoulidis, senior policy advisor, peacebuilding and humanitarian affairs, for World Vision Canada.

I know that you all sat here during the last presentation and so you understand a little of how it works. I'm going to ask you to introduce yourselves. There would be a good chance that I'd get your names right, but that would only be your first name, I think. If you wouldn't mind, please introduce yourself if you give a presentation, and then we'll move into our first round of questioning.

I welcome you here. It's good to have you, and we look forward to your comments.

Go ahead, madam.