Foreign Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2009

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

May I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, you're out of time. Thank you.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. Of course, we have read a lot about your past work there.

First of all, Mr. Matthews, you mentioned engaging the local LTTE groups in Canada at this time. The problem with that is the LTTE in Canada is listed as a terrorist organization, and any involvement over there could have political repercussions within the country itself. However, the last time I did tell the Tamil community, as you've said, to find means and ways to be outside.

There's no question, in all the evidence we have heard here, that the LTTE is in its last stages. There's a vacuum in the Tamil community. The Sri Lankan government has taken hard steps. That is very clear from every witness who has come here. And of course, as you have alluded to, if the LTTE is defeated, this war will carry on. It's not going to die unless there's reconciliation.

The war is eventually boiling down to reconciliation. At this given time, nothing seems to be going in that direction...the vacuum, the government, the Sinhalese national movement. Despite the fact that Canada cannot do anything substantial, I think it ultimately leaves room for the international community to fill that vacuum, for the time being, until with the new leadership in the Tamil community reconciliation comes, moderate figures come out of the state. I'm sure, as in any other country in the world, moderate figures eventually will come out of this whole mayhem that is taking place right now.

The involvement of the regional parties, the regional players--India, Pakistan, and all these guys, and ourselves--in all these things here would be the key element at this stage to fill that. So my question to you is, do you agree that this would be the most appropriate approach to take now, and if so, what is your thinking on how to approach this idea?

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

From the point of view of the Government of Canada?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes.

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

It is to indicate that we are very interested and earnest in our urging of the Sri Lankan government to attend to the humanitarian crisis in the northern province and to keep pressing for this humanitarian pause that I mentioned to you a few minutes ago, rather than use the word “ceasefire”, which of course suggests that the LTTE may be able to regroup if there's just a ceasefire. Nobody wants to see them regroup, except of course for the hard-line LTTE. Surely we have a responsibility to say publicly and internationally that Canada very much supports any humanitarian initiative in the matter of getting innocent civilians out of the combat zone.

After that, if there's any chance that Canada, through its aid programs, through its international clout, can persuade Sri Lanka to take more seriously bringing to birth a viable, honourable government in the northern province, which allows for Ceylon Tamil identity and legacy to be continued and given some dignity.... Right now I rather doubt that's going to happen. I wonder if there even are Tamil leaders who can come forward and perform those functions.

But that being said, I still think we need to indicate that this is what we would like to see and to remind the Sri Lankan government that we have possibly as many as 300,000 Tamils living in Canada and this is an important issue for us, too, because we want to make sure they have a place in Canadian society and that they are not totally aggrieved over what has come to pass in their homeland. That may be a roundabout way of saying that I still think the Canadian government should be able to voice a strong humanitarian position and also press for a credible autonomy for the northern, and for that matter, the eastern province as things settle down.

The eastern province now is technically in line with the government, but it's a cold peace. I was in the eastern province just a few months ago, and when I say a “cold peace”, the police blocks are everywhere. People are still very fearful of talking, of speaking. Technically speaking, it's not under the control of the LTTE, of course, but still, you wouldn't want to live there--not yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Goldring, did you want to...?

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned in your speaking notes, Dr. Matthews, the lack of mature democratization. On the other hand, there's discussion of autonomy and self-determination. If we turn the clock back to the British rule before independence, obviously the British had to face this aspect of possible self-determination and autonomy at that time too, and yet they failed to approach it, for whatever reasons. Now we bring it forward to today, and I would think it would be equally as problematic to try to approach, because self-determination and autonomy is in itself divisive and might be of concern to the government.

My question is whether this would be a role that perhaps the British Commonwealth could approach and have some input into, because they obviously have past experience with it and they may be able to lend some kind of thought on what could and could not be accomplished by taking that direction. It's certainly not the first country in the world that has found it very, very difficult to deal with self-determination for smaller terrorist groups and organizations, and there may be a real resistance to doing it.

Given that the situation has been exasperated by a lot of terrorism and a minority population, could the Commonwealth play a role in trying to help determine feasibility or no feasibility, as the case may be, for the government?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Mr. Matthews.

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

Well, very quickly I would say no, because the Sri Lankan government right now would not be interested in hearing from the Commonwealth. They don't want to hear from anybody.

Secondly, you did raise a very interesting point when you used the word “terrorism”, and I think that's been part of the problem right from the beginning. The Sri Lankan government has only defined the crisis in Sri Lanka as a terrorist one. Of course, if you're a Tamil, it's a liberation one; it's not a terrorist one. That has been problematic for me too, as I look at this from the perspective of what outsiders can do. Because the LTTE has been so branded by the terrorist label, there doesn't seem to be any room to understand that they actually come from a wellspring of liberation seekers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests for their presentations today.

I find it disheartening yet again, and you're not the only bearers of bad analysis and reporting, so don't take it personally--

[A voice]

It's good analysis.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's good analysis. It's just that we as a committee are trying to navigate through the waters of the present-day situation on the ground. We've heard from the international community, the Red Cross, in its reporting, which was absolutely horrific. I note that last night, finally, on a national network, we saw a report. There was some on CBC--I don't know if you saw that--but we haven't seen much reporting. We have heard from journalists about the horrific situation on the ground, for them to actually report on the situation. And of course what's been happening is that some of them have been losing their lives for reporting. So what to make of it. You have provided us with some suggestions.

Maybe, Mr. Cameron, I'll start with you. I am someone who believes strongly in the notion of a federal system being the model for other countries around the world, but it's been described here as the “f” word that shall not be spoken--in terms of the government, certainly.

If we're looking at a situation where we've got a government that's just saying they're going to wipe the opposition out--that's their goal--can Canada only do something when that is over? Is that it? Certainly the report on the news last night was very clear that they're buoyed by their military progress. So we can't do much else, just wait it out until that military exercise.... I hate to use those words because they kind of sound aesthetic, but is that basically it?

[Prof. David R. Cameron]

I think so, yes. There's a policy question, because I take the implication of what you're asking as whether there is something that could be done to prop up or sustain or keep the LTTE as a going concern.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Right.

[Prof. David R. Cameron]

Well, the basis on which you would want to do that, frankly, is a policy issue, given the character of the organization and its conduct. Certainly, when I was involved in the peace discussions, as I said in my talk, there was no palpable or serious sign of a willingness on their part to engage in pluralistic democratic politics, to respect the opinions of others, or to talk the issues through. The barrel of the gun to them was the resolution of the pressures they were under.

Unless there were some amazing transformation in the character of the LTTE, there's a real question whether that would be desirable. But even if it were, I just can't believe that Canada or anybody has the capacity or an iota of influence to say anything to the Government of Sri Lanka at this moment, after 25 years of civil war and when it finally has the LTTE cornered, to get it to back off.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Matthews, we have heard from other witnesses about possible actions that can be taken. You have noted, and others have, that countries in Europe, particularly Norway, have been involved and have some experience. And the Commonwealth was mentioned by Mr. Goldring.

I put forward a question to another witness last week about the idea of forming a contact group with parties who are honestly interested—obviously, Canada being one—in starting to forge a consensus as to what can be done collectively, and to send a message directly to the government about our concerns, but also as a follow-up, hopefully, when the smoke clears, to what can be done, because it's not going to be the end of opposition to the government.

I just wonder what your thoughts are about the formulation of a contact group.

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

Well, there would be no harm in that. I don't know how practical it is.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, that's what I hear, yes.

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

Yes, but certainly there'd be no harm in it.

There have been so many recent initiatives. I read the other day that there were 10 former American ambassadors who have written to Mahinda Rajapaksa and said to him, do you realize that your country is becoming an authoritarian, almost fascist, state? I don't know if they used those exact words, but it was a quiet warning from those former American ambassadors that he was heading down the wrong path.

So I'm sure the Government of Sri Lanka has heard a lot of this. The potential group you are just describing would probably be seen by the Government of Sri Lanka as another attempt to interfere with its affairs. But still, it's better than nothing. It's better than nothing for us to at least be able to say, this is what we think is an honest and credible position for Sri Lanka to have going forward.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm going to ask a question that I've asked of others. Would it be of benefit to have one of our ministers go directly to Sri Lanka and state unequivocally, on the ground there, our position to the government?

[Prof. Bruce Matthews]

Frankly, sir, I doubt it. I don't think that would wear well with them, under the present circumstances, where there's a fair amount of chauvinism in the air and victory is perceived to be quite near. It would look like interference and I don't think it would gain Canada any honourable prestige in this matter.

I don't know what you think, though, David.

[Prof. David R. Cameron]

I think Canada does need to be part of a continuing drumbeat of concern and an insistence on the standards that any country should be held to. That should be expressed and communicated by Canada, along with the rest of the world, to Sri Lanka. I don't think it's going to have much impact in the short term.

One of the concerns I would have is that, frankly, Sri Lanka is a very small country, a little island in the Indian Ocean. It's not the cockpit of conflict that the Middle East is, for example, so it's easy for it to recede from consciousness. So one of the tricks I think would be for this issue of Sri Lanka and the just treatment of the minorities there to remain in the consciousness of the international community.

That's going to be a challenge, but I think it's very important that those words be spoken and that pressure be imposed on them, even if, in the short run, it doesn't have a great deal of impact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron.

I'll go to Ms. Brown for a very quick question.