Foreign Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2009

[Dr. Alexandre Sevigny]

In these cases, communication and international or bilateral partnership can do a lot of things. The fact that a country like Canada supports this kind of project, even though it's very limited at the outset, would give the project a lot of credibility.

Furthermore, if the project is carried out as a result of government relations between the two countries and is accepted by the Sri Lankan government at a certain level, even in the case of a pilot project or certain modules of limited scope, it would be a start from which something else could be built.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Ratnamalala, I believe I understood that you feel that the solution to the problem of the war in Sri Lanka is for the Sri Lankan government to crush the Tamil Tigers. You say this: “Today, for the first time in the world, Sri Lankan security forces have shown the world that terrorism can be defeated by force.” Then you say that this will ultimately be better for everyone.

[Hasaka Ratnamalala]

There are two steps to peace in Sri Lanka. First there should be an end to military violence, and the only way to end military violence is by force. That is my understanding. I have an article from Dr. Michael Radu where he says:

Ultimately, Western views and policies vis-à-vis Sri Lanka prove that humanitarian feelings and “human rights” are no policy alternative to common sense, and that even small countries, if desperate enough, could solve their secessionist/terrorist problems even despite the powerful human right NGOs pressures to commit national suicide. Second, and most important and with wider implications, short term, obsessive preoccupation with “civilian casualties” is often a death sentence to civilians in a civil war. The longer the war, especially when the victor is obvious, the more civilian casualties. Hence a military solution is, in some circumstances, the best way to save civilian lives. In general, pacifism, disguised as “human rights” or not, always leads to more death, especially in remote, third world, small countries vulnerable to the influence of AI or HRW. Ending a war—by force if need be—protects more civilians than prolonging it under any pretexts.

That fits very well with my idea. That is why I handed it to you. Somebody is trying to tell you that because of human rights we have to stop this war. But in the Sri Lankan context, if we have a ceasefire or talks, that will never end because the LTTE does not want to compromise their stand on a separate state. There are so many reasons why Sri Lanka cannot be separated. Therefore if you come to the table to have a separate state, there's no point in having peace talks or any kind of talk. You have to compromise your stand.

The Sri Lankan government has compromised their stand in several ways. At the beginning they didn't like to devolve power. Now they are going to a provincial level and they are going to devolve furthermore. If the LTTE cannot agree or compromise their stand, there's no point in having a ceasefire. The only way is to finish with a military solution and then continue with a political solution--those who understand the value of a political solution and the devolution of power, and those who understand to what limits Sri Lanka could go to solve this conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dorion.

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

What do you think of the argument that crushing them will result in hatred that cannot be extinguished in the Tamil community and that ultimately the war in Sri Lanka will continue for a number of generations?

[Hasaka Ratnamalala]

You need to follow the news coming from Sri Lanka, not from the angle of those who want to portray it, but the real news from those who are coming out. There are videos of people just coming out of the area where LTTE is holding these civilians. If you listen to those interviews, you will hear what they want. They want peace in the country. The majority want to live with the Sinhalese in the Sinhalese areas. They want to come to government areas to live peacefully. That is not hatred, according to my understanding. They would be happy to end this war militarily and control the LTTE.

So I don't see any hatred on the part of Tamil people. We saw earlier that in the eastern province Tamils were displaced in the same way. Then the Government of Sri Lanka put them back in their households, and today they are living very happily. A former LTTE leader came out of the LTTE and is now running the eastern province.

So that is not true in the Sri Lankan context. But if you can tell from here...you can see it is ahead. That is not true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll move to the government. Go ahead, Mr. Abbott, please.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Nizam, I thank you for your presentation, but I found some of it to be less than accurate.

I believe you said that you were looking for CIDA to get involved and take part. Perhaps you weren't aware that last year alone CIDA contributed $7.5 million to Sri Lanka. Specifically, you can take a look at the $1.5 million in support to the International Committee of the Red Cross; the $750,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is expected to be able to positively impact a quarter of a million people; Canada's contribution of $3 million through the international community of the Red Cross, Canadian NGOs, and on and on.

If what you're looking for is money directly from the people of Canada through CIDA, the granting agency, to organizations other than the Red Cross, other than World Vision, or other than recognized NGOs, it's not going to happen. Do you have any comment on that?

[Noor Nizam]

Yes, I have.

First and foremost, I have to thank Canada for all that it has done, in terms of how you explained it.

The issue for me here today is not the past. The issue for me here is the present, and the issue for me is the future. Presently, we need Canadian engagement to help the people in Sri Lanka, to help whoever is engaged in humanitarian work to carry on that work with support from Canadian authorities.

CIDA is the arm of the foreign ministry that executes this aid. It is very clearly pointed out that CIDA gave $3 million on February 26. I was only pinpointing that figure. As well, $500,000 was given to CARE Canada. It has not gone.

People are suffering in Sri Lanka. It is not only the people in the Vanni region and those coming out of the enclave who are suffering; others also are suffering, and there are organizations, small organizations, that can do a lot. I just proved how HPIC is able to give us donations of medicine, but we find if difficult to carry because of our capacity to raise funds. For every shipment of five or six packages, we have to spend about $4,000 to $5,000. This is my issue.

It's the same issue when it comes to the Muslim community. For 23 years we have been sidelined. We are a Tamil-speaking minority community. For 23 long years we have been sidelined. Now there is a silver lining on the horizon--the lining of peace, the lining of hope.

How is Canada not thinking about us? Why is Canada still adamant to forget the 1.7 million people who live 40% in the northeast and not help them with medical care, with hospitals?

Look at the tsunami programs. I don't have time to present, but I can show you enough evidence that the whole development program of the Muslim community has been completely buried.

The government has been generous. The problem with the Muslims in Sri Lanka is that they always believe in democracy, democratic institutions, and peace, and we value any government that comes to power. Whether it is a Tamil government, a Sinhalese government, or a Burgher government, we work with them.

We have never in history been violent. Where I come from is the only country in the world, I'm proud to say--and I am a Canadian today, in the same manner--that has never touched arms and ammunition, but we have been destroyed by this war. We have been robbed of our homes, our children, our health care, our medicines, and our clinics.

Please, sir, come to Sri Lanka. Go to Sri Lanka one day and tour the eastern points. Twenty-seven students from McMaster went to a little village called Kinniya, and they were crying when they came back. They were so determined. They're building homes there, with not a cent from CIDA. We don't want CIDA aid. We don't want it.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Then I don't understand what you're saying. You don't want CIDA aid, yet you seem to be condemning the Canadian people and CIDA for not ponying up. I don't understand your point.

[Noor Nizam]

I'm not condemning. When I say “we don't want”, I'm talking of the civil society, the NGOs, the small NGOs that are doing their little jobs. I am saying that Canada and CIDA have to streamline their systems so that in the future they can accommodate small groups, small organizations, individuals, who, like me, are trying to do a small job, so that they can, for example, deliver more physician kits, more medicine, more food, and join hands with....

We are working with the Government Medical Officers' Association, an arm that has 7,000 doctors willing to work. You can't label them as the Sri Lankan government. They are in the government service, they are working in the health ministry, but they are humans. They are volunteering to go and work, and we have to support them. They don't have a pipeline to the resources. There are certain regulations that are laid down, and those preconditions always sideline us and help only big organizations. So this is the issue that I took up here.

In plain language, can CIDA allocate some money to help Partners International, to help us to get more of these physician kits sent to Sri Lanka, so that they can reach the people in Navaly, people in Batticaloa, Pulmoddai, Trincomalee, Kattankudi, Nintavur, and Akkaraipattu. There is so much need in these places. And how much can a government do under the circumstances?

This was my issue. I wasn't complaining or pointing fingers at the Canadian people, of whom I am one. I'm asking us to look into it and streamline the methodology so that at least there is a small reserve fund that can be created under CIDA, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or even under the Glyn Berry program. We need funds for the programs we are doing. What can five boxes of medicine do for IDPs? There are 58,000 IDPs. The health ministry and the WHO are trying their best to do what they can. So we need help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to our guests.

Here at committee, in the media, and in reports coming from Sri Lanka, we've been hearing that this is a war of attrition: wipe out the Tigers and then we'll carry on from there. Some concerns have been put forward about the Tigers. There's also profound concern within the international community and Canada that people are sitting back and waiting for this to be over, and that all we can do is wait till the government, through its army, has wiped out the other side. This is not exactly a rosy picture. It's a picture that has been painted time and again for us at committee.

There have been a couple of ideas—and I'll start with Mr. Sévigny—about Canada's role. One is that Canada should state it's unequivocal concern about they army's use of violence, notwithstanding its right to deal with the insurgency, as it sees it. The concern is that the tactics being used are creating an IDP problem, and we just don't know what's going on. Some 23,000 people left the northeast region in March, and we're hearing 33,000 for the month of February.

Should Canada send one of its government representatives, say, a minister, to Sri Lanka, to clarify our concerns? With respect to aid, we've sent some money, and I'm sure it's welcome, to the extent that you can get it through. But what other forms of aid should we be sending, and how much?

Mr. Sévigny.

[Dr. Alexandre Sévigny]

Whether or not Canada should send an official representative to express an opinion is a matter of government policy. I think once Canada forms an opinion—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We're trying to help them here, so please go ahead and help us.

[Dr. Alexandre Sévigny]

Once we form an opinion, and once we have an opinion that actually makes sense to the diaspora...because if you think about the round table idea or the communications idea, one of the ideas that are going to affect Canadian citizens is that we want harmony among the people of Sri Lankan descent who live in Canada, whether they emigrated directly from that country or were born here, and we want harmony between them and their former country. So if a large consultative process like this results in an opinion, whatever that opinion is, yes, it should be communicated very directly.

Your second question is a good one. While transferring money for products is a very important thing, it's a process that takes time and a process that, to put it bluntly, can be hijacked. And it can have a lot of intermediate steps in which the effectiveness of the resources, whether material or economic, is diluted. What Canadians have in communications, engineering, and in all sorts of different areas is extraordinary expertise.

I'll speak to my own area. Canadians are amongst the most effective communicators in the world. If you look at our country, it has very far-flung communities, small communities scattered over gigantic spaces. Yet we've managed to create system after system that enable extremely diverse groups to maintain their identities while also maintaining a cohesive national identity through the use of technology and effective socio-scientific tools. Transferring that kind of expertise from the private sector, government, and academe to a place where there is very limited freedom of the press, where journalists are regularly challenged and repressed, and setting an example from Canada through the transfer of that expertise can achieve extraordinary things.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to ask this of the others too. I don't know how much time I have left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have about a minute.

[Noor Nizam]

Yes, sir, to directly address the area of communications, I would say it's a protocol of international relations and bilateral government-to-government dealings. But India made a special stage during the IPKF issue, and Canada should do things the same way. And I would ask the Canadian high commissioner, Mrs. Bogdan, in Colombo to become a little friendlier and try to break through.

Number two, as for sending funds and money, yes, we need to do that, but try to bring in the private sector too. I'm looking at the future, not the past and what's happening now. In the future, the Canadian private sector can play a big role in developing the north, the northeast, and the eastern province. I've been involved in certain areas.

I can definitely tell you that my city of Hamilton could have big markets there, because there is going to be a $45 billion market in Sri Lanka very soon if the war finishes, because you can't allow the Tamils to live the way they've lived for the last 23 years. You have to give them a better way of life, via infrastructure, development, fisheries, etc. Yes, you don't need to give them aid, for example, but you can support them with Canadian investment. In the time of decision, that would be an advantage.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Nizam.

We'll move to Ms. Brown.

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

Thank you.

I think I'm sharing my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, with Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you very much.

I think I need to express a little concern here about what I'm hearing. We've heard three people with professional designations in communications say that communication is what is needed in Sri Lanka. Yet your professional abilities have not been able to help there. I guess I would question, why is that?

I don't speak the language, so I obviously have a problem with communication, and that's to my detriment. But you speak the language, and so I guess I would challenge you to take up that cause. That would be my first comment, but it's not a question.

I do have a question for Mr. Chandrakumaran. In your remarks, you talked about extortion and the demand for money, which we've heard about over and over again in Canada. Why do the people who are being extorted not come forward? We need these people to come to the police. We would take the extortionists before the full extent of the law, but we need the witnesses to show up in court, and that doesn't happen. How do we make that happen in order to make the extortion stop?

[Muttukumaru Chandrakumaran]

The problem is--I openly said that I was remanded, and I should say that I'm the first person to say this publicly--people know and people are scared to talk because they are worried about their relatives back at home going missing and their houses being targeted and vandalized.

I also sit on the Durham police advisory committee. I was speaking to one of the officers, and the law in Canada's system is there. It's not that easy to charge somebody. Even if somebody comes and gives witness, it's not that possible to charge them. Unless the committee or somebody sits down with the RCMP or CSIS, I don't know what improvement can be done in the law that gives them more access to these types of charges. I spoke to the officers, and they told me the politicians don't listen to them; they decide themselves. That shows there is bad communication between the security officials and the politicians, because the last time a person came to Canada, everybody knew that he had come the previous year and some blunders were made. He was kept at the airport for six hours and he was questioned. He came here and he targeted the youth. When he went back to Malaysia, to what he called a third world country, he was immediately put on the next plane and sent out. When he returned to his own country, he was questioned by the home security.

So where are we going wrong? Even the border security allows somebody to come. The intelligence service or RCMP should have the power. If they feel this man is a danger to this country, he should be deported, but there are no provisions. When they heard that this man was in this country, they asked, “What can we do? We don't deal with the border security.” There is no communication or link between the border security and the RCMP. That has to be broken. I don't know how the politicians can help. You have to work with the security and get a good link. Only then can we achieve something.

For example, today, tomorrow, they are fundraising to help the people. Where is the money going? They are having events. Do they have an account where the money is collected, where the money is going? Every day they are doing fundraising. Where is the money going? Proper receipts are given. Nobody knows.

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

My comment to that is we do have significant enforcement in Canada. If extortion is taking place in Canada, we need the people to come forward to act as witnesses so that we can prosecute.