Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, committee members and ladies and gentlemen. This is meeting number 10 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, on Thursday, January 31, 2008.

I want to begin by welcoming new and returning colleagues. This is the first committee meeting since the Christmas break. I certainly wish you had a good holiday, and I wish everyone the best in 2008.

You will note that the agenda for today is written as going in camera for committee business. My intent is to go into committee business without being in camera and then passing the part of the steering committee meeting that deals with the Burma study. We will come back to our steering committee and ask for a motion to accept what the steering committee planned last Tuesday. There's no need to go in camera for this.

Are there any objections? All right.

Your subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to consider the business of the committee, and it agreed to make recommendations. We'll deal with the first one now, which is that “pursuant to the motion agreed to on November 20, 2007, the committee hold a briefing session on Thursday, January 31, 2008 on Burma with officials from Foreign Affairs”.

Are we in favour of accepting that portion of the steering committee's report?

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I just wondered if we could have an amendment to that, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, this is what the steering committee brought forward--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

And I'm asking if it can be amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

To do what?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

To invite other guests who may be present today--if I have the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

This motion has already passed the steering committee. This only allows us to continue with the department today. It does not prevent us from bringing witnesses on Burma in the future. I can say that very clearly.

This talks about a briefing session on Thursday, January 31, 2008, on Burma with officials from Foreign Affairs. We still have a motion on that, and if we want to entertain other witnesses at a later date, that would be all right.

I don't think that particular point has to be dealt with now. This is to allow us to proceed to hear from the department.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm fully aware of that. I was simply wanting to know if you could entertain an amendment. What I'm hearing you say is that you could, but you don't want to.

I want to move things along here, because we have guests, but I simply want it to be stated for the public record that I'd like to invite to the committee other guests from civil society, some of whom are present here today, to tell us from their perspective what is going on in Burma vis-à-vis the government's response and also any concerns they might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, while in principle we don't have any difficulty with the gist of the argument the NDP has put forward, we did discuss this in the steering committee. So if we're talking about the steering committee, once this thing is over with he is welcome to bring forward a further motion to say that he would like that to continue as part of this thing here.

So in order to do that, I suggest we move forward.

Thank you.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's fine, Chair. I just hope the committee will entertain other witnesses on this issue.

I won't get into amending the motion, which is my right, but I'll leave it for us to work cooperatively to make sure we are going to have other witnesses come forward on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

So we're all in favour of proceeding today as...?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, carried.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on November 20, 2007, we will proceed with a briefing on the violent reaction of the Burmese regime to the democratic movements in Burma.

We have appearing before us today the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

First of all, we have Randolph Mank, director general of the Asia south and Pacific bureau; Peter McGovern, director general, bilateral commercial relations, Asia and Americas; Adèle Dion, director general, human security and human rights bureau; and John F. G. Hannaford, the director general and deputy legal adviser.

We welcome you here. Certainly we have anticipated your coming. All parties have been taken with the concerns that we have seen in Burma. Even in the midst of a fairly comprehensive study on Afghanistan, this motion came forward.

We're pleased that you are able to be with us. If you could give us a presentation, we would then move into our first round of questioning. At the close of the next hour or so, we will then move into committee business.

Welcome.

[Randolph Mank, Director General, Asia South and Pacific Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Merci, Mr. Chairman, honourable members, mesdames et monsieurs.

Burma has been ruled by successive military-led governments since the early 1960s. The current Burmese regime consistently violates the human rights of its people. Forced relocation, rape by the military, extrajudicial killings, forced labour, the use of child soldiers, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the persecution of ethnic minorities commonly occur. Reports of torture continue to be received.

The Burmese regime also imposes significant restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms by the people of Burma, including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Last fall’s round of protests was sparked by a substantial and unexpected rise in fuel prices. However, the small-scale and quickly repressed protests of late August by activists were soon eclipsed by the widespread peaceful protests in September led by Buddhist monks across Burma. The protests subsided following a violent crackdown by the Burmese regime. The crackdown involved violence against monks and protesters, followed by the arrest of thousands of monks and the sealing of key monasteries, depriving the protests of their leaders.

Canada's policy on Burma was and is a direct reflection of the severe problems that the military government has created for its own people. It also reflects the security concerns that the policies of its leadership and actions of its armed forces pose for the international community.

Prior to the events of September 2007, Canada had already imposed a number of exclusionary bilateral measures on Burma, including the following: export controls on all but humanitarian goods; the withdrawal of preferential import tariffs; a visa ban on visits by high-level members of the government and armed forces; the suspension of bilateral aid and commercial support; exclusion from a market access initiative to eliminate most import duties and quotas; an in-Canada travel notification requirement imposed on Ottawa-based Burmese diplomats; and official announcements discouraging Canadian tourism to Burma and urging our business community not to invest in or enter into commercial ventures in Burma.

After the latest crackdown, the government decided to impose economic sanctions. On December 13, 2007, the “Special Economic Measures (Burma) Regulations” came into force in order to respond to the gravity of the situation in Burma. In the government's opinion, this situation constitutes a grave breach of international peace and security that has or is likely to result in a serious international crisis. The abhorrent human rights and humanitarian situation in Burma is particularly dangerous as the government's actions not only oppress its own people but also bring substantial transnational destabilizing effects. These destabilizing effects threaten peace and security in the entire region and undermine freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Subject to certain exceptions, the measures implemented by the regulations include: a ban on all goods exported from Canada to Burma, excepting only the export of humanitarian goods; a ban on all goods imported from Burma into Canada; a freeze on assets in Canada of any designated Burmese nationals connected with the Burmese state; a ban on new investment in Burma by Canadian persons and companies; a prohibition on the provision of Canadian financial services to and from Burma; a prohibition on the export of any technical data to Burma; a prohibition on Canadian-registered ships or aircraft from docking or landing in Burma; and a prohibition on Burmese-registered ships or aircraft from docking or landing in Canada and passing through Canada.

We've chosen these sanctions because they will impact on the Burmese regime and clearly indicate Canada's condemnation of its complete disregard for human rights and its repression of the democratic movement. Imposing the toughest sanctions in the world against the Burmese regime is the right thing to do. Our sanctions set an example. Canada is urging others to impose the strongest possible measures against Burma until the Burmese authorities demonstrate their commitment to undertaking genuine reform.

The Government has also pursued a number of non-sanctions measures to demonstrate our support for reform in Burma and for Burma’s democratic movement.

In the months following the protests, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made numerous statements on Burma on behalf of Canada. He strongly reiterated Canada’s condemnation of the war of deadly force by the military and police against monks and other protesters in Burma who were exercising their right to peaceful dissent. At the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting in New York on September 26, 2007, the Minister joined his counterparts in unanimously condemning the violence in Burma and calling for a resumption of dialogue. He also sent a Canadian diplomat to Rangoon to assess the situation and to show Canada’s support for the democratic movement.

On October 17, 2007, following the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister tabled a motion in the House of Commons to confer honorary citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi. This was done in recognition of her struggle to promote freedom and democracy in Burma, and was adopted by all party agreement.

Canada has long had economic controls on trade with Burma. Burma was placed on Canada's area control list in 1997, thus controlling the export of all goods to Burma. The stated government policy is that all permit applications are generally denied, except for exports of humanitarian goods.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada has consistently called upon the Canadian business community to not do business with or invest in Burma. Canadian exports to Burma decreased by 62% in 2006 to $140,000. Canadian imports from Burma were valued at $8.4 million in 2006, a 24% decrease over 2005 levels. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is working closely with various government departments to ensure proper enforcement of the sanctions.

Canada continues to be very active within UN fora, voicing our serious concerns with the human rights situation in Burma. We are working with the international community to continue to put pressure on the Burmese regime to refrain from violence.

Canada strongly supports the work of the United Nations Secretary General's special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari. The UN Secretary General has twice sent his special envoy to Burma for meetings with senior members of the Burmese regime, as well as with Aung San Suu Kyi. The special envoy travelled to Burma in September and November 2007, and hopes to return to Burma in the coming months.

At the UN Human Rights Council, 18 member states, including Canada, called for a special session on Burma to address the deteriorating human rights situation. The special session held on October 2 resulted in the adoption by consensus of a resolution, co-sponsored by Canada and 50 other countries, strongly deploring the continued repression of peaceful demonstrations in Burma. The council further requested that the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, Mr. Sérgio Pinheiro, seek an urgent visit to the country and report back to the council. The special rapporteur's visit took place in November 2007, and his report will be presented at the upcoming session of the council from March 3 to 28, 2008.

In conclusion, Canada believes that the Government of Burma must undertake concrete and measurable action to demonstrate its commitment to genuine democratic reform. Despite repeated calls by the international community to exercise restraint and respect human rights, the Burmese regime has been completely unwilling to undertake genuine reform. Canada continues to call upon the Burmese government to respect human rights, engage in a genuine dialogue with members of the democratic opposition, and release all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Until it does so, we will continue to work with our partners in the international community to exert pressure against the military junta.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll proceed to the opening round. For the first portion we will have Mr. Wilfert, and these are seven-minute rounds.

We should also welcome Mr. Bagnell, who I know has been involved on the Canada-Burmese committee. So he is sitting in on this. Mr. Bagnell, thanks for coming.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming. I'd especially like to welcome Mr. Mank, who of course has a distinguished career, particularly as our former ambassador in Indonesia.

First of all, I would indicate, through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Mank that the policy the government is pursuing is certainly in line with what previous governments have done. My question to you is twofold.

One, what are we doing diplomatically with China and India, which have significant investments—particularly China—in support not only of the business community in Burma, but obviously significant military hardware that they have been selling to the Burmese regime?

Secondly, in terms of organizations such as ASEAN, APEC, etc., what concrete steps have we been taking to work with those partners to try to move this forward?

Finally, I wrote the Chief Justice of Burma—who I know quite well—U Aung Toe, back in October, asking, since he's in charge of the constitutional reform process in Burma.... Basically, although I can't divulge the contents of the response, I can tell you that there seems to be a situation there where there's a lot of what I would call shadowboxing, where they are trying to make moves for the media, but the reality is that behind the scenes not much seems to have changed regardless of sanctions, etc. I guess he was as candid as he could be with me.

So I'll leave it at that.

Would you like us to put all our questions and then...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Sure, and, Mr. Bagnell, perhaps you'd like to give your questions too.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I'm the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Burma. There are about 40 MPs and senators from all the parties. We certainly appreciate what Canada has done in the last decade.

I just came back from six solid days of meetings on the border, the first MP probably in a decade in the area I went to. I met with student groups, rebels, National League for Democracy people, prisoners, etc., and ambassadors of China and India. As you said, the rapes, the killings, the displacements, the extrajudicial killings are still going on, and it's awful.

So we appreciate what's been done so far, but they told us other things that could be done, some of which we've asked of the government. We'd just like to ask if you're willing to do some of the following things.

First, there has been a group of 14 countries, which we're hoping Canada will join, recently established to fight against this awful situation.

Secondly, our group, members of all parties, put forward a 10-point plan a couple of months ago to the minister, on some of which actions have been taken, which is great, but there are other actions in there.

They would like help with their constitutional development. It was great that you stopped any new Canadian investment, but they would like to get rid of existing Canadian investment. As you know, one of the companies was, at one time, the fourth largest producer of income to the dictatorship.

They'd like a UN political presence in Burma.

They'd like more aid. Last night, the minister mentioned $300 million for Palestine, which is great, but only $2 million to Burma, in this awful situation.

So I wonder if you would be willing to look at any of those things that the Burmese people are asking for and that the Parliamentary Friends of Burma hopefully will be asking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Bagnell, for those questions.

Mr. Mank.

[Randolph Mank]

Thank you very much. They're both very pertinent questions and are much appreciated.

I'll start with Mr. Wilfert's questions. First, regarding what we're doing diplomatically with other countries, and you have named three very key players in mentioning China and India and ASEAN, we're very conscious of the role these neighbours have in bringing influence to bear on Burma. In fact, we've been doing a number of things.

First, in the context of our work down at the UN, these are the kinds of counterpart diplomats we seek out to share information with on what we're doing. We give the Canadian point of view on what should be done by us, by the international community, and by neighbours, and so on and so forth. So those conversations, which happen at the diplomatic level, and for that reason are privileged, I can assure you, are going on.

At the same time, at Foreign Affairs and International Trade here in Ottawa, in keeping with regular diplomatic practice, we bring in diplomatic representatives, normally at the ambassadorial level, for conversations of a similar ilk. We use the opportunity to explain what we're doing and to encourage others, if not to follow suit, which is our preference, to do as much as they possibly can to bring collective pressure to bear on the regime in Burma.

With regard to ASEAN, of course, we're a dialogue partner with ASEAN, so we have the right to have that conversation annually in the councils of ASEAN. Frankly, it's a conversation we've been having for a long time. Canada has actually been in the forefront in bringing pressure to bear on Burma for quite a number of years. What the government has done in deciding to move to sanctions is to ensure that Canada remains at the forefront in exerting that pressure. ASEAN partners know that. We have those conversations in the context of the normal meetings with ASEAN. But frankly, the minister certainly likes to ensure that there's more than that. He has deployed me, personally, to some capitals in ASEAN countries to carry that brief forward to ensure that it's well understood and to ensure that it's understood in the context of our expectations and hopes for Burma's neighbours in terms of taking action. Certainly, with Burma being a member of ASEAN, one does have expectations that ASEAN will take a firm line.

We were very pleased that in New York, during the UN General Assembly, the ASEAN leaders issued a very firm statement condemning the crackdown on the monks in Burma. So that was a very good development that was a positive sign. We've seen that all these countries have joined in a kind of consensus on what the end game should be: the Burmese regime should have a dialogue with the opposition, should move on the path of democracy, and should get its house in order, essentially. There are differences of view, of course, in the approach, but essentially, there's very little disagreement on what we all think collectively should be the way forward in Burma.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mank.

We'll go to the next questioner, who is Madame Barbot.

Ms. Barbot, you have seven minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for helping us understand the situation.

I am very pleased that the Government of Canada has implemented certain sections of the report that the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee adopted on December 1, 2004.

Furthermore, I salute the sanctions taken by Canada against the military regime, even though these sanctions are not retroactive. We wish they were, but we are still pleased with what has been done up to now.

My question is more specific. We are concerned about the fact that the money deducted weekly from the pay cheques of millions of Canadians for the Canada Pension Plan is invested in Canadian companies, which unfortunately are often socially and ecologically irresponsible. For example, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board invests over $60 million in the largest Canadian business operating in Burma, Ivanhoe Mines, and this money benefits the military junta. But the Investment Board is still investing money in Ivanhoe, which is still present in Burma.

I wonder why the Canadian government does not require the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to have ethics and transparency rules, follow-up and monitoring mechanisms, to make sure it does not invest in Canadian companies that are socially and ecologically irresponsible. It seems to us that this would ensure some consistency with the Canadian sanctions that have been adopted against Burma. On the one hand, we impose sanctions while, on the other, we allow certain companies to go on investing. And, since it involves taxpayers’ money, it leaves sort of a bitter taste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Mr. Hannaford.

[John F. G. Hannaford, Director General and Deputy Legal Adviser, , Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps I can say a few words about financial sanctions.

It's important. We're not in a position to discuss specific instances, and frankly, that falls outside our bailiwick. We're not responsible for the CPP or for the conduct of its investments.

What I can say, as a general matter, is that the sanctions that have been introduced under SEMA do deal with investments in a couple of ways. There is a prohibition on direct investment into Burma, and as a matter of indirect investments, there is prohibition with respect to investments that would amount to a controlling interest in an operation within Burma. So those are the two ways in which the existing measures that have been passed as a regulation to the Special Economic Measures Act have addressed the question of financial transactions of this sort.