Evidence of meeting #2 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
As soon as we're done this motion, I'm going to entertain a motion for Mr. WIlfert to move to the....
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
In the context of the sanctions announced by Mr. Bernier, I do not really understand why we would carry out such a study now. What is the connection? Why is this study coming up now? It seems to me that the sanctions clearly show what has happened, and they will obviously have a certain effect.
Is it really the time to undertake this study? Should we not in fact wait for the sanctions to be implemented and to see what will happen?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This motion does not say that we will immediately proceed to a study on Burma. It says that we plan to do a study on Burma and the response by the Burmese regime to the democratic movement in Burma. I think it comes out of our report tabled in June on Canada's role in democratic development around the world. Certainly in a place like Burma we made a prompt response to what was going on there.
This committee is expected to study, or have subcommittees study, issues as they come onto the world stage. I commend Mr. Goldring for bringing this motion forward because it is very pertinent right now. At least we can say we have adopted a motion to study Burma. Right now our studies are taken up well into February.
Madame Barbot.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I would agree with you if that is what the motion said, but that is not the case. The motion says that we are going to study the violent response of the government. We would have to agree on a change in that respect. If the motion is to study what is happening overall in Burma, that is fine with me, but if it is limited to the government's violent response, that would be different.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Goldring may want to speak to that. I think it's a study of how they are responding to democracy promotion in Burma. It's not Canada's democracy promotion; it's when we see the monks and everyone else in Burma who are asking for more freedom. So it is a violent response of the Burmese regime.
Speaking from the chair--and maybe this is out of order--I think it is a positive thing to say that our committee is aware of what's going on there and we have passed a motion. This does not say that tomorrow, or before December 14, we'll be moving to a major study; but it does say that we will look at what's going on there.
Mr. Wilfert.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
That was the clarification I wanted, and I wondered then at some point when we move forward, what specific parameters we might be looking at. Is there going to be a particular emphasis that we are going to look at with regard to the response? Are we going to look at our sanctions? Are we going to look at the response of the government of Burma specifically? We need to know what the focus will be. Are we going to look at the role of the international community? Are we going to look at everything? If that is the case, that will dictate how long we are going to look at it.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
--unless, Mr. Chan, you wanted Mr. Goldring to fill you in and you could respond to his perspective.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I believe the comment I made when I opened was that there has been an ongoing response of violence since 1988. Now, of course there has been an escalation of this violence and more so. Certainly we might consider waiting to see how the sanctions are working, but I think we have an international responsibility here, in light of our study on democracy and other initiatives, to indicate to the world that we want to be proactive on this and not simply wait for the response to the sanctions. Because what we're really talking about here is responding to the violence, and this violence has been historical as well as very recent.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
First of all, I applaud Mr. Goldring for bringing this issue up, and I would support the motion. The only issue I have, though, is that I don't know whether Burma or Myanmar is a good example for us to study what Canada's impact is or could be to push for democratic development, as an example, to highlight what we can do around the world, because our influence on Burma is very limited. The bilateral trade last year between Canada and Burma was only $8 million, and in terms of diplomats, we pretty well don't have any offices in Burma. Also, we had some types of sanctions against Burma for a long time--I think way back in 1995-1996. The types of exports that people can make to Burma are under scrutiny. There can be only humanitarian exports. Exports that are associated with humanitarian support were allowed into Burma before the government declared this type of sanction, and the impact is pretty well nil.
So I support the motion to send a message that we care--I think that's important--but at the same time, I wouldn't highlight it too much to the rest of the world because this situation was so frustrating for us--
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
The government of Canada has been paying attention to this issue since 1988, with different governments, different parties in government, and yet the impact is nil. So I would not play up Canada's role in the world by using Burma as an example of our interfering. That's the only warning that I would raise.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No. I think, Mr. Chan, you're right. That's why I'm with you. I think that this motion is worded well. I applaud the government for not coming forward and saying that in light of all the wonderful things that our government has done in Burma.... It's very specific to say “let's know what's going on in Burma”. It's not a politicized type of motion.
Madame Barbot.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I understand what Mr. Goldring said earlier and the general purpose of the motion. I would move a few amendments in terms of formulation, so as to specify the government and the group we are referring to.
In French, “conduct a study of the violent response” is translated as “se penche sur la réaction violente”. I would suggest keeping the same terms as in English, that is “procède à une étude sur la réaction violente” and replace “du gouvernement de la Birmanie” with “du régime militaire birman au récent soulèvement populaire pour la démocratie”. I repeat, the French version would read as follows:
Le développement international procède à étude sur la réaction violente du régime militarie birman au récent soulèvement populaire pour la démocratie.
In that way, we really clarify the various components and we specify...
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Goldring, these are more clarification types of amendments--to put in the Burmese military regime and make those translation changes in the French translation--which I think are in order according to the table.
Could you say the last part again, Madame Barbot?
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I'm not sure if it makes a huge difference, but if it provides more clarity and makes it more understandable, then absolutely.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Because we have so many studies going on, we're not going to get into this in a timely fashion, I would suggest, because of all the other commitments that our committee is making, and rightly so. Would it not be better if Madame Barbot were to put forth a strongly worded statement that would come from this committee being critical of the Burmese government or requesting the Canadian government to do a few things? That way we could get a strongly worded statement on the issue of Burma now when it is timely, rather than waiting sometime into the next spring or summer, because that's realistically when we'll get to this.
