Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 3rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I bring this meeting to order.

We are the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today is May 3, 2012, and this is our 35th meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), our witness today is Tin Maung Htoo, Executive Director of Canadian Friends of Burma.

Tin Maung Htoo, the executive director of the Canadian Friends of Burma, is with us today to provide testimony to our ongoing hearings on the human rights situation in Burma.

We normally allow ten minutes for witness testimony, followed by questions and answers.

Without further ado, I would invite our witness to begin. Thank you.

[Tin Maung Htoo, Executive Director, Canadian Friends of Burma]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, it is a great honour to be here to talk about Burma and to answer your questions related to the current political situation in Burma.

I represent the Canadian Friends of Burma, a federally incorporated non-governmental organization working for democracy and human rights in Burma. Early this year, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the organization, marking a milestone of Canadian supports for the Burmese democratic movement. We thank the Government of Canada and members of Parliament for their unwavering support for the inspiration of Burmese people.

We all know that Burma is now at the crossroads. We have seen some encouraging signs. We should all celebrate the fact that Canada has played an important role in this positive political transformation. However, we must be realistic about the rate and extent of change. Democracy in Burma has a long way to go.

Just before last month's byelections, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was asked about the progress to democracy. She was asked to rank Burma's progress between one and ten, with ten being complete democracy. Her answer? “We are on the way to one.”

We understand that the Government of Canada means to encourage more political reforms by suspending its economic sanctions. It would have been much better if Minister John Baird had waited a bit to see the most likely outcome of Canada's toughest economic sanctions.

For example, if Minister Baird had made an announcement yesterday to modify some of the sanctions, it would have been perfect timing, because Burmese democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her elected colleagues finally decided to enter the Burmese parliament after a period of dispute over the wording for taking an oath to the constitution.

It is, of course, a significant step, but what we have to keep in mind is that there are many challenges ahead. One of the reasons for her decision to contest in the by-elections was to try to amend the current constitution that was written in favour of military rule in Burma.

Mr. Chair, you may be aware that 25% of parliamentary seats are reserved for the army. Key cabinet portfolios such as defence, home, and border affairs are also reserved for the army. Moreover, the commander-in-chief has the power to declare martial law and can even abolish the parliament, rendering the military above and beyond both government and the constitution.

In Burma now, international competition for natural resources is intensifying. Therefore, for business people in Canada and elsewhere, the immediate suspension of Canadian economic sanctions is welcome. As the Burmese ambassador to Canada, U Kyaw Tin, said in his interview with Postmedia:

A number of Canadian firms, particularly in the energy sector, have expressed an interest in joining the rush of international companies that are now in the capital Yangon, looking for potential contracts and opportunities. They see that there are a lot of oil and gas pipeline opportunities over there. Some gold mining companies are also looking for the opportunities.

As a human rights campaigner, I have some reservations about that move. It is, of course, a bit early to suspend economic sanctions. An opportunity to use Canada's leverage for a genuine political reform has been lost. I feel that we are dropping arms and ammunition that we could not bring back, if needed, because of technical difficulties under the legal framework of Canadian legislation. We campaigned for the strongest economic sanctions for more than a decade, and we remain cautious about the fragile political situation in Burma.

In that regard, we have some questions on the nature of the suspension of economic sanctions. For example, the EU suspension of economic sanctions on Burma has a six-month review process and a one-year extension period. The United States has a similar mechanism in place. But we haven't seen such a mechanism in Canada. Therefore, we ask the Government of Canada for further clarification on the issue. We are also aware of the difficulty in invoking the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, to impose economic sanctions against a country. In fact, there are certain conditions to be met to invoke SEMA.

In the past, we were told that Burma did not qualify; the conditions could not be met for Canada to impose economic sanctions. However, Canada imposed the strongest economic sanctions in the world in late 2007. This was because of the strong will of the Canadian government, the parliament, and the public, which even overcame some legislative barriers. Canada's sanctions in Burma were unique, and I would like to thank some former and current cabinet ministers, including members of Parliament, who made these strong economic sanctions possible.

Last week, April 27, the Canadian Friends of Burma held a policy consultation at the University of Ottawa with representatives of Canadian civil society organizations and key members of the Friends of Burma. We are now in the final process of developing a set of policy recommendations to the Government of Canada and we will be able to submit the paper to Hon. John Baird in the coming weeks.

In the consultation, we welcomed the positive advances that have occurred in Burma, including the release of some political prisoners and the April 1 by-elections in which the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, won 43 out of 45 seats contested, representing approximately 6% of total seats.

In our opinion, these advances remain in effect tentative, and therefore we maintain our six-point policy recommendations to the Government of Canada.

First, Canada should call for the abolishment of repressive laws and the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in Burma. There are at least 493 confirmed political prisoners still behind bars in Burma. The actual number is believed to be much higher.

Second, Canada should call for a nationwide ceasefire and troop withdrawal from conflict zones. The Government of Burma has signed several new ceasefire agreements since 2011. However, these agreements are unstable and in some instances subject to violations. Instead of withdrawing troops, the Burmese army is using ceasefires to reinforce and resupply troops in ceasefire areas, including sending in heavy weapons.

More importantly, the violent conflict in Kachin state is of immediate concern, and it remains unabated to the present day. Peace talks must include agreements on political reform for ceasefires to be sustainable, but thus far the Government of Burma has not agreed to such talks.

Three, Canada must call for an inclusive dialogue. Ethnic and religious minorities and women must not be excluded from further dialogues seeking reform, peace, and democracy.

Four, Canada must maintain calls for justice. Impunity for past and present human rights violations remains unchecked, and justice for some victims remains unmet. More generally, effective rule of law in Burma remains absent. For example, no military officers or soldiers have been tried or convicted for human rights abuses and crimes under Burmese law, including sexual assault, murder, and forced labour, and former military officers suspected of human rights violations hold government positions or office.

Five, support our local civil society organizations. The foreign support for decades-long partnerships with civil society and humanitarian organizations accessing Burma from across borders and assisting refugees in neighbouring countries is undergoing a dramatic and deliberate withdrawal by some donor states. Therefore, we ask Canada to maintain its cross-border civil society and humanitarian commitments.

Six is related to sanctions. Canadian Friends of Burma strongly advocates that all remaining sanctions that have not been suspended be maintained, such as those targeting individuals within the Burmese regime suspected of human rights violations and all military-related trades. We also need to see clarification on the details of the suspension and specific benchmarks set that, if unmet, would cause the revoking of the suspension.

We urge the Government of Canada to continue to push for the benchmarks of progress towards democracy. Perhaps most pressingly, we urge the government to strongly voice concern on the ongoing conflict in Kachin state and to contribute humanitarian relief to refugees and internally displaced people.

I thank you again for this invitation to appear before the committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

We'll now turn, for our first round of questions, to Mr. Hiebert.

Given the amount of time we have—it's much more than we normally have when we begin our questioning—we can afford to make this round seven minutes for both questions and answers.

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for attending today. I appreciate your presence and your thoughtful testimony.

Your statement in part answered some of my questions, especially the six-point policy recommendations that you just outlined. Clearly you're suggesting that the government maintain existing sanctions, or at least what's left.

I'll start with this question. We've seen some clear signs of change with respect to democratic freedom, we know, with Aung San Suu Kyi being in parliament yesterday, and the elections. I'm wondering if you could give us some insight into the status of other rights issues in Burma, specifically as they relate to freedom of the press, freedom of religious practice, freedom of movement.

Also, could you tell us more about the 493 or more political prisoners, what they're being held for?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Overall, the situation on the surface seems to be very encouraging, but if you look deeply, the situation is different.

When it comes to freedom of expression or free media, there is some freedom of the press, but today, for example, there is more international press today. According to many media advocacy organizations, Burma is still at a very low level in terms of freedoms, in terms of access to the Internet, in terms of publishing some articles critical of the government.

The press law still remains in Burma. You have to go to the censorship board; you have to submit your articles or opinions. In that sense of the media, of course, we have to wait and see how far the current government can provide freedom of expression for Burmese people. Of course, we are not totally satisfied with those situations. Hopefully, there will be more coming.

In terms of the political prisoners, we have received much information about the remaining political prisoners. As I mentioned, it's close to 500 people, but another 400 people are still being verified. Why is it difficult to know the exact number of political prisoners? According to Burmese law, you are not regarded as a political prisoner if you break a law. There are no political prisoners in Burma, according to the current government. It has never said there are political prisoners in Burma. That makes things very, very difficult. But we have many prominent organizations working to verify those numbers. It is also important that we should continue to ask the Burmese government to release all political prisoners, because the international community especially is getting ready to embrace so-called political reforms in Burma.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

In your opening remarks you also commented on the conflict that's happening in Kachin state. It came to my attention that there was a 17-year ceasefire in that region, but that it was broken last fall.

I'm still trying to get a handle on this. With democracy developing throughout the country, why is there the increase in conflict, particularly in that state? Do you have any explanation of why that's happening?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

The Kachin organization has been taking a political stand. They used an old document called the Panglong agreement, which is the document that formed Burma. With that, Burma gained independence from the British. With the agreement, it meant that with all ethnic leaders at that time, Burma would have a kind of federalist country, but that dream never happened.

Even though Kachin armed groups had a ceasefire, as you mentioned, for 17 years, clashes broke out last year. Those clashes happened in a very strategic area. It's called the Irrawaddy River. Around the river, there is a mega-dam project being built by Chinese companies, blocking the two rivers. In that area, Kachin fighters are also quite active, and they want to keep the authorities under control. On the other hand, the Burmese army is trying to push them back. That is how they started the fighting last year.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

You think it's related to the dam and the development of this Chinese resource?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

There are two issues. One is related to the dam. The other one is a political issue. Politicians are constantly asking for political solutions to create a peaceful country and to coexist together, but successive Burmese military governments never agreed to that kind of political solution.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Is Kachin state the only state that's asking for that kind of recognition? I would have thought that other states would also have made the same request.

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Many other ethnic people and organizations are also asking for the same autonomy and self-determination in Burma, but Kachin, as far as I know, is one of the strongest groups in Burma.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Can you tell me much about the forced labour situation in certain industries, and the current status of that? We've heard it's a problem. I don't know how the forced labour system works. Perhaps you could help us at the committee understand what that's all about.

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Forced labour in Burma was quite bad in the past. When the ILO, the International Labour Organization, got involved, the previous Burmese government decided on some kinds of standards, and even changed some laws preventing the use of forced labour in Burma, but still there is forced labour taking place in some parts of the country. Forced labour usually takes place if you are in a village where there is a development, such as a project to build a road, for example. All the people living in that village are supposed to contribute labour or money. If they cannot contribute, then there is some kind of repercussion. That is the way forced labour has been done in Burma.

Another important thing is that the Burmese government usually justifies forced labour as the traditional way; everybody is supposed to get involved in community development, and this has been the way of the Burmese for a long time. But that is not the case. In the international power investment areas, for example, we even have some forced labour issues reported in oil companies building pipelines in southern Burma, or even in northern Burma, which has a huge pipeline crossing the upper part of Burma from the Andaman Sea to China.

I think the Canadian government should have the ILO and other labour unions look at the situation and how far it's moving towards the way we want to see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right. We'll go now to Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to welcome our guests here today.

Many Canadians are very concerned about the corporate and social responsibility of Canadian companies as they function in other areas of the world. Mining investment provides Burma's military regime with, I guess you'd have to say, the largest source of legitimate income. Of course, Canadian mining companies are a part of that source. Ivanhoe Mines, for instance, has a 50-50 joint venture with the ruling junta, and operates what many would say was the biggest foreign mining operation in the country. There are four or five junior companies that we understand are operating there as well. Of course, they are also contributing to the finances of the regime. Can you name those companies?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

There were a few mining companies. Some companies got involved in the exploration of some precious stones in northern Burma. Some companies no longer exist there, as far as I know—for example, Jet Gold. That was a company based on the west coast. I don't think they are still in operation. Because of a business war, as you know, they marched out, one after another, and all names disappeared within a few years.

In this particular Ivanhoe case, we should be very careful. We are not opposed to investment in Burma, of course, if it is good for the people, especially people who live in rural areas. But in the Ivanhoe case, we received lots of information about some kind of complicity in corrections, for example. There are also many environmental degradations happening in that area.

I have one example I want to share with you. Recently, hundreds of villagers came out to protest the damming of mine tailings and some chemicals and other materials around their village. They came out and protested against this. These things are being done by Chinese companies.

One thing I wanted to let you know is that the Chinese companies acquired the Canadian Ivanhoe mine's assets. The Chinese companies are doing the work that Ivanhoe did before.

In terms of corporate social responsibility, who is responsible for those environmental degradations in that area? This is the question for us. Ivanhoe consistently denied their involvement, and they always said they were not responsible for that. One very important thing is that Burma doesn't have social responsibility or environmental standards, so companies coming from different countries take advantage of that loophole and then take advantage of everything.

If a Canadian mining company is to get involved in Burma in the near future, we recommend to the government to make sure that they stay away from those kinds of situations, and not repeat what happened in the Ivanhoe mine's operation. We are developing a paper. In that paper we make a specific recommendation with regard to this corporate social responsibility.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You say you're developing a paper. How close to completing that are you? Would it be something you could provide to us in the near future?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Yes, we are in the process of finalizing the paper. I was hoping to present it to this committee, but we are still talking and working on that. Maybe in a week or two we will be able to present it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm sure that would be something we would receive through the clerk of the committee. Thank you.

Is the Monywa mine the mine you were referring to, the copper mine?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Yes.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

So that was the Ivanhoe one.

Speaking in general now of the overall operation of all Canadian mining companies within Burma, how would you describe their record? You were quite specific with Ivanhoe, but there are some others there.

[Tin Maung Htoo]

I don't know the details about other mining companies, but I know a few details about the Ivanhoe mines corporation.

Some mining companies in Burma in the past didn't have that kind of bad reputation, as far as I can see. They were just there to explore the possibility of investing or exploring to see if any mining resources were there. Some companies left the country after they saw the investment would not be profitable for them.

Ivanhoe is the only company that had a bit of a headache. Ivanhoe is not free from some kind of irregularities in Burma too. Ivanhoe also faced lots of difficulties in terms of the way the Burmese government handled things. Ivanhoe faced many difficulties as well.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

One of the things reported to us from different countries where mining companies, and not just Canadian companies, operate is that they have hired paramilitary-type organizations as their security force. Sometimes those organizations interfere with the comings and goings of the citizens in the areas in which the companies are seeking to mine or operate.

Have you seen any evidence of that, particularly in the case of Ivanhoe, since you seem more aware of Ivanhoe?

[Tin Maung Htoo]

Could you repeat that, please?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Sure.

Mining companies have been hiring paramilitary groups as their security in some countries. These groups have very terrible records of how they treat people. Have you seen any evidence that has happened in your country?