Foreign Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2009

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming to give us the government's perspective on the engagement of the Government of Canada on this file.

In these hearings we have heard on many occasions, both from the opposition as well as from the witnesses, the need for Canada to be engaging politically at a very high level. I would like to inform the committee that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be going to Sri Lanka this weekend to continue that high-level engagement.

[A voice]

Good.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

With that high-level engagement continuing from here, Canada is heavily involved in this and has outlined a two-point strategy...and the cooperation with others that we are doing. I also want to thank you for meeting and trying to see how quickly we can move forward to address this very strong thing.

Although the fact that another foreign minister was not allowed...I think Canada has enough clout, and the foreign affairs minister will be there this weekend.

I'll now hand it over to my friend here to continue the questions. Thank you.

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

Good. Thank you.

Looking at this, we recognize that there are at least two related issues. One is the one my friend just announced, the immediate action as far as what's going on, on the ground. The second is the immediate humanitarian problem in terms of assistance. One of the calls, understandably and naturally, is to increase our assistance. I would like the CIDA representatives to give us a bit of an update on that, and indeed where we are.

I'm taking a look at some numbers that were provided to me by the department, and under tsunami funding, which of course has nothing to do with this, in 2006-07, the funding was $13.4 million; the next year it was $31.7 million; the next year it was $31.3 million. Those numbers are very substantial, but they obviously skew the humanitarian side.

A country program I have for the same years: $6.8 million, $5.9 million, $4.7 million--that's going down, as it were. Multilateral countries specific: $5.8 million, $2.3 million, and then up to $6.9 million. The totals for those years, by the way, including the $30 million in 2007-08 and 2008-09, were $42.3 million and $45 million.

Money can't solve everything, and we have to make sure that whatever it is we're doing, the resources are achieving what we want them to be achieving. With that table set for you, if you could, I think we would really appreciate understanding (a) how well we know, or whether we know, that the funding has had the effect we were aiming for, and (b) if there were an increase in funding, what level of confidence would we have, or what is in place that will give us a level of confidence, that it could be correctly and astutely used?

[Dr. Syed Rahman]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

With respect to funding, in terms of tracking of results, we track results on a normal basis for bilateral CIDA activities, the humanitarian assistance as a result of the tsunami, and we are glad to report and we can give you facts and figures. We are reasonably certain that the tsunami funding has achieved its objectives, particularly in terms of providing funding for reconstruction activities such as housing. So we have been successful. I do not offhand know the exact number of houses that we've built, but the fact is that we have been successful.

In terms of potential possibility of increases, we have to undertake a significant assessment of the facts on the ground before saying it is possible to increase the budget or not increase the budget. The assessment would need to consider scenarios such as absorption capacity of the country on the ground. We would also have to take a look at the environment for possibly providing more aid on the ground. So unless those assessments are made, it is difficult to say whether we can increase or not increase it.

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

Thank you.

There's so much goodwill on the part of all of the people of Canada, as represented in this multi-party standing committee, that I think it's very important to do everything we can.

I think it's really important to repeat what you said, if I may, to underscore that you have confidence that the funds that have gone up to this point are being wisely used and are accounted for. But in order to simply increase the amount of funding at this point, you would need to have something in place before it would be logical to undertake that.

[Dr. Syed Rahman]

We would have to undertake significant assessment to do that.

In terms of results, for example, I want to give you a glimmer of one of the bilateral projects we're undertaking in Sri Lanka at this time. It's called a program for rehabilitation through education and training. It's a technical vocational training program. It trains 2,000 unemployed or underemployed Sri Lankans every year, and it works with 50 local partner organizations to strengthen their management and deliver vocational programs. This is simply a glimpse of the types of results we've achieved.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

You still have a couple more minutes, and because we have another minute on that question, I want to ask you--and this is more for our report--does the department know how many of the Sri Lankan diaspora we have here in Canada?

[Ken Sunquist]

We use a figure of 250,000, although our colleagues at Canadian immigration use a slightly lower figure. The reason is because immigrants, as opposed to second and third generation...it's a little bit of how you count people. We take the larger figure because we believe the people of Sri Lankan descent would be in the range of 250,000. I believe CIC is using a figure of 160,000 or something like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

And that would be predominantly around 95% Tamil or...? The number would be very high, I would imagine, but do we have any figures?

[Greg Giokas, Acting Director General, South, Southeast Asia and Oceania Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Again, it's hard to know exactly, but it's predominantly Tamil, and we're often talking about 90%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar, please.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our guests. I look forward to the return call next week or whenever. I appreciate that.

I'm actually delighted to hear that the foreign affairs minister, Minister Cannon, will be going, which is something I've certainly advocated. We know that the foreign affairs minister of France and Britain's Mr. Miliband was there. I was going to ask whether or not we had plans to do that, and that question has been answered through the parliamentary secretary.

The question then is about what message we're sending. One of the concerns that's come from Mr. Miliband and his colleague, as well as the UN, is that when they try to get the Sri Lankan government to cooperate on the ground, their words are falling on deaf ears. We are then in that space where we're really turning up the heat and turning up the volume. We have a government that seems to be turning away from international pressure. That's why I think it was really important that we have our foreign affairs minister show up. We do have the largest diaspora in the world, so we do have a special relationship and therefore a special responsibility to do something here. I'm hopeful that Minister Cannon will be able to do what the others have been attempting to do, and that is to get a ceasefire that allows for a humanitarian corridor to be opened.

Not only is it important to have access for the humanitarian aid.... Obviously, if we commit this aid but we can't get it through, as we heard from the Red Cross, it is a moot point. I think that's the critical piece, getting the access. I don't think there is any disagreement about opening up a humanitarian corridor.

The other piece is a political piece, so maybe to you, Mr. Sunquist—and I'm not sure if you can answer this, but you'll determine that. That is about the ability to tell the Sri Lankan government that if they don't stop what they're doing now and allow media and UN observers in, then they're going to be vulnerable to charges of war crimes. I say that with measure, because right now you have a government that is not allowing the humanitarian corridor to be opened and they're not allowing media in. My point would be, what they are hiding? I'm wondering if the Canadian government has been working with our partners to say that if they're going to be responsible members in the world community, then they have to open up to let the international community in to see what's going on. Otherwise, they're vulnerable here for charges under the Geneva Convention.

[Ken Sunquist]

Thank you.

There were seven questions in one there. The first part is that I've expressed Minister Cannon's priorities, which are, number one, a humanitarian pause, which is the same as you have said. You can work on the displaced persons--you can do that--but where people are at risk right now is in what you call the corridor, or the conflict zone, whatever you want to call it. So the first priority is a humanitarian pause, the second is to look after the people who are in that area, and the third one is the IDPs. Then we move to...as Mr. Dorion commented, where do we go from there? What does the future look like? Those are the issues.

In a number of different forums--whether it's at the UN, or, for instance, next week I'm going to be at the Asian Development Bank meetings--we'll be talking about Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and a few others in terms of economic situations. That's not the focus of the meeting, but that's part of the discussion. So there are a number of international forums on how to respond to Sri Lanka and how to make sure they understand the seriousness of what's going on. Coming through that, that's one side of the thing.

The second one is kind of the war crimes, genocide issues. Under international law, there is a very clear and specific definition of what that constitutes. At this time, we don't have sufficient information to determine whether the current conflict meets that definition. However, based on reports from people fleeing the situation, both sides seem to have contravened parts of the government's no-fire zone. The Government of Sri Lanka has not respected its own no-fire zone, and worse, it continues shelling into the zone. They've been asked to stop, but even after this no-fire zone, there was shelling. On the other hand, the LTTE has held civilians captive as human shields, which is prohibited. They have also had suicide bombings. You can't just say, “Well, it's war.” It's a situation that both sides have much to answer for, going into the future.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm glad to hear you say that, because the reports are disturbing. I think some of the testimony that will be taken from people who are victims will determine the next steps. I just hope one of the things our government does—and you don't have to respond to this, it's political—is to say to the government that if it is continuing to do this and the world community is watching, it is going to be susceptible to charges of war crimes.

We know what the other side is doing, but they're not the government. There's a different relationship there with civilians, obviously, and they can be charged as well. But when you're talking about a government you have a relationship with, it's a different equation.

I just want to ask this of CIDA very quickly. We have people on the ground to monitor. I was just curious as to how many people we have on the ground presently. Is that number going to increase?

[Stephen Salewicz]

We have two people on the ground right now. They're both in Vavuniya, in the north. They're participating in the coordination meetings that are going on right now with the humanitarian actors and providing us with daily updates on the situation. We don't anticipate any increase in that number at this point. Our sense is that they're covering off the information rather well and that they're providing us with an adequate assessment of what the situation is and where the needs are going.

[Ken Sunquist]

Mr. Dewar, I might add just a quick comment as well. There are the people from CIDA, from the humanitarian group, who are there. We also have 12 Canada-based staff, and I can assure you there is nothing else they're doing these days but looking at the issue here. That includes the CIDA people who are there on a normal basis; it includes our political officers; it includes everyone. In fact, we have people spread across much of the country, and as the assistant deputy minister responsible, I fear for their safety, because I've got people out there with cellphones and satellite phones trying to report on the situation right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Rahman.

[Dr. Syed Rahman]

We have two permanent CIDA officers stationed in Colombo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One of the questions I would like to ask the department is this. We get all kinds of ideas from a committee like this as to how Canada can respond, how the United Nations can respond, and how different players can respond. Are you monitoring closely what other Commonwealth countries' responses are? What are our numbers compared to Commonwealth countries? Certainly, Great Britain and many of the other countries have a vested interest in this as well.

[Ken Sunquist]

The short answer is yes, but it's not just the Commonwealth. As I mentioned in my remarks, we have regular meetings—and I don't mean once a month, I mean once every one or two days now—with our G-8 partners and with the co-chairs, a regular daily kind of update. We're watching resources for humanitarian aid; we're looking at political pressures. I mentioned that the U.K. foreign minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will be talking to Mr. Cannon hopefully tonight or tomorrow morning, depending—Mr. Miliband is on his way back from Sri Lanka. So they're going to talk about what he saw, what they saw—the French foreign minister as well—so our minister will know as he's going in what kinds of things are happening as well.

This is an age when it's continuous. My colleague, Leslie, is looking at the humanitarian kinds of things we can do there—we can only do these things in partnership with others. There's nothing we can do that just goes by Canada's side, but it is very much an international effort.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Has Sri Lanka itself, the Sinhalese government there, made the request for assistance from the international community?

So there has been no request by the government for any type of assistance?

[Stephen Salewicz]

Yes, they've made repeated requests for assistance. They haven't indicated the type of assistance, necessarily, they're looking for. They've given a blanket statement about humanitarian requirements.

I might add, in terms of responses and where we rank as a nation in responding to the humanitarian crisis, that we rank number six in terms of bilateral donors right now. We have been, I think, doing our share on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Has that just been during the last crisis?