Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Yes, but we are getting away from my point, with all due respect.

I'm concerned about other countries and/or regional countries having an impact on them. Are they aiding and abetting? You said they're totally isolated. It's very difficult to believe they can survive in total isolation. How effective are we in dealing with people who are contributing to this problem?

[Randolph Mank]

Exactly. If they weren't isolated at all, you wouldn't have those statistics I just gave you. That's a country that's very rich in natural resources. In the 1960s it was meant to be one of the tigers of the future. It isn't that.

So it's isolated to a large extent. However, it's not isolated completely. The countries that are neighbouring on Burma and doing trade with it--the countries of ASEAN, India, China, and Russia, principally--are doing business with Burma. That's public knowledge. There's nothing secret about that, and that's why we have the conversations with those countries to see the extent to which we can convince them to bring pressure to bear.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

They obviously haven't moved with the same severity of condemnation as Canada. To what extent would you consider their movement?

[Randolph Mank]

That's true. They have not moved to the same extent that we have. We're trying to demonstrate leadership to them, in particular, as well as to others. It's one thing to be demonstrating leadership to close allies like the EU and the United States and countries that are like-minded. It's another thing to convince countries that have perhaps different interests and different perceptions of a problem, and we have been explaining our position and trying to persuade, but they do take a different approach.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Madame Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you for being here today; it is very interesting.

I am not usually on this committee, but I would like to know what else Canada can do to support democracy and ensure respect for the law in Burma and likewise ensure respect for human rights. Since I am a neophyte in this area, I would very much like to understand what more Canada can do in future.

[Randolph Mank]

The challenge is to find other means of pressure. We have made a lot of efforts to organize a collective international response, in order to increase pressure on the regime in Burma. We are trying to figure out what else we can do. This is the challenge awaiting us in future.

Maybe, as I didn't get to answer Mr. Bagnell, whose question relates directly to what you just asked.... These ideas that have been put forward, in the ten points you referred to, have lots of interesting elements, and as I've just said, we're always looking for new things to do. We will continue on Burma to see what we can do next to increase the pressure, and I'm sure the government will be considering other options in the future. There will be decisions that will be taken at the political level, but we haven't cornered the market on ideas, so we're always interested in inputs from other people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Dion.

[Adèle Dion, Director General, Human Security and Human Rights Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you.

I'd like to add to what Mr. Mank has said. We are going to continue pressing at the United Nations as well, in both New York and in Geneva. There was a special session on Burma at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in October, and there will be a report presented at the upcoming session in March at the Human Rights Council, as a result of the visit of the special rapporteur on Burma. We do hope there will be recommendations in his report that we can be very active in pursuing, to put more pressure at the international level on the regime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Dion, and thank you, Madame Boucher, again.

Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee. I have the highest regard for the department. DFAIT has been working very hard on this file. You mentioned earlier it's been 20 years since we tried to sanction Burma. If you look at the volume we're doing with them, I'm sure anything we do now is going to have very marginal effects.

Following the line of questioning of my colleagues, Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Kramp, I would like to understand a bit more about the other countries that might have more leverage in the situation, like India, China, and ASEAN. Can you explain to the committee the size of their relationship with China, with India, and all the ASEANs, and what it means to Burma? Also, what does it mean to China to not be hard on Burma? Why are they behaving that way? Might we be able to find some leverage from those nations that we might exercise in the international arena?

Also, to Madame Dion, what tool does the UN have with that kind of information? It's very nice to have the human rights report, but if the UN cannot be effective on this matter, it won't be any use. I'll leave my questions at that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Chan.

Mr. Mank.

[Randolph Mank]

I don't want to be put in the position of trying to explain why Chinese foreign policy is what it is, or Indian or anybody else's besides Canadian.

But look again at the data. The total exports of that country, Burma, were $3.6 billion in the most recently recorded year; imports were $2 billion. It does not have a burgeoning trading partnership with anybody.

It is a country that's not completely isolated, but isolated to the point where it has abysmal conditions for its people. So there isn't a whole lot of interest for anybody, as far as we can see, except that it's a country rich in natural resources. It's also a country of significant population. It's a country importantly situated in Southeast Asia. Those are perspectives that obviously are brought to bear.

In terms of the UN, I'll let Ms. Dion answer that, but I would note that it is progress that Mr. Gambari was allowed to go in and it is progress that he was able to, first of all, meet Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been completely isolated from outside contact for a long time. Third, he was able to broker a dialogue, so the Government of Burma identified a minister of their cabinet, whose name is Major General Aung Kyi, to be the dialogue partner with Aung San Suu Kyi, and they have been having a dialogue. They have allowed Aung San Suu Kyi to have meetings with her own party as well.

So there's a bit of progress there; it's not nearly enough. But I think that's a credit to the UN and to all this collective pressure we've joined in bringing in behind the UN bilaterally, multilaterally, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Dion, did you want to add to what your colleague said?

[Adèle Dion]

Yes, to continue on the UN theme, because Burma is isolated.... It is a member of the United Nations. It very much values that the UN provides it with a forum to have a bit of respectability at the international level. The regime's desire to continue to be a participant there is actually a very useful lever.

As Mr. Mank said, we're very fortunate with Mr. Gambari, who is a very skilled Nigerian diplomat and actually has been able to make some considerable progress. Equally, the special rapporteur, Mr. Pinheiro, who is a Brazilian, has been in the international system for a very long time. He is very skilled at using the leverage that the UN and the Human Rights Council have given him.

Two opportunities will be coming up. The first opportunity is when Mr. Pinheiro presents his report in Geneva in March. It will provide the occasion for a dialogue. Canada and others will be able to take the floor and ask him very specific questions to highlight how bad the situation is in Burma and specific instances of human rights abuses that he was able to gather information on.

Also, the Human Rights Council has a new tool that's called “universal periodic review”. This tool will require that all members of the UN submit to an extensive review of their human rights records every four or five years. Burma will be coming up for a review in 2011, which is not immediately, but it certainly will provide an opportunity for a very comprehensive review of the situation and a dialogue with representatives of the regime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Dion.

We'll go to Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I know that we cannot expect very fast results, in view of the sanctions that have been taken. My concern is the civil population.

What are the effects on the population and what is the situation like on the ground?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

[John F. G. Hannaford]

Perhaps I could address that question. The way the sanctions have been framed is intended, at least in part, to reflect humanitarian concerns. For instance, although the export ban is comprehensive, the one exception is with respect to goods necessary for humanitarian purposes.

Similarly, although the financial services ban is quite broad, there's an exemption for remittances of a non-commercial nature under $1,000, which is intended to make sure the most vulnerable folks in the society are not captured by a general prohibition on financial services.

There is an effort to try to reflect the needs of people who are most vulnerable in Burmese society and not to address the sanctions specifically to them.

Furthermore, the asset ban, which again is quite broad, addresses only people who are listed at the back end of the regulation. Those are intended to be the most senior members of Burmese society and not those members of civil society who are particularly vulnerable.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Of course, that is the purpose, but we know that, in a country already in a difficult position, people cannot always take advantage of their civil rights. When there are sanctions, it is the most vulnerable who become even more vulnerable. Certain measures are being taken, but can you tell me more specifically whether the situation has deteriorated? We might think there will be changes in the near future. Are there any signs of improvement, or are the people having a harder time?

[Randolph Mank]

I will be frank; the situation has not improved at all. The Government of Canada is still worried about the safety of individuals, and to a large extent the protesters are in prisons in Rangoon. This situation is not at all acceptable for Canada. The approach, attitude and interactions with the democratic movement, etc. have to be changed. The situation is still unacceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Mr. Dewar, did you have a quick question?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Absolutely, but I was just thinking of the word “quick”.

I understand the difference between exports and imports, but I really want to focus on investment. Would it surprise you that people have calculated that at present there is about $1.2 billion in Canadian indirect investment in Burma through our CPP? Is that something that would surprise anyone who is looking at that, the fact that it's not the exports or imports, but investments in Burma of $1.2 billion through our CPP?

Have you heard that number? Is that a surprise to you? Do you find that to be a little exaggerated?

[Peter McGovern]

I really can't comment. I think it would have to be up to the people who deal with our financial institutions, and that's not the trade side of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It is a startling number.