Quick Link

for your convenience!

Merci, Irwin, de m’inviter à prendre la parole. Votre ordre du jour est très chargé, je serai donc bref. Je commencerai, si vous me le permettez, par parler d’une tendance inquiétante qui concerne tous les parlementaires, pour ensuite me concentrer sur trois questions précises : la Birmanie, le Zimbabwe et le Sri Lanka. 

Like you, I have been troubled to read the countless headlines, magazine covers and book titles asserting that Canada has lost its place in the world - that we are a fading country with diminishing influence.  Last week, Andrew Cohen, author of While Canada Slept: How we Lost our Place in the World, came to talk about his book to a general meeting at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.  The auditorium in which he spoke was not only filled to capacity, but TV screens had to be set up outside to accommodate the overflow audience and a video of the presentation was re-played yesterday for those who couldn’t make it.  This speaks volumes to the fact that these ideas have not only captured the attention of Canadians at large, but echo the concerns and frustrations by many within government and the most relevant ministry as well. 

Parmi les propositions très générales présentées par de nombreux commentateurs sur cette question, trop peu d’entre elles font directement référence à un aspect auquel nous attachons tous beaucoup de prix : l’importance que les parlementaires participent au débat et qu’ils possèdent les moyens d’agir.

Each of us is aware of the developments described in the Globe and Mail's ongoing feature about 'The New Canada', which began on Saturday.  The young generation of Canadians - many of whom were born of immigrants or who are immigrants themselves - are linked by origin to some of the world's most biggest hotspots - the Middle East, India & Pakistan, the Koreas, the Congo, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and many more.  Sur le plan politique, ce sont les décisions prises à New Delhi et à Beijing, et dans plusieurs autres pays d’où viennent les néo-Canadiens, qui influeront, dans une très large mesure, sur l’avenir du monde au cours des 50 prochaines années.

The Globe study asserts that the new generation has created uniquely Canadian values and attitudes.  They're not only contributing to making Canada the best place in the world in which to live; many have contextualized conflicts and changes in their countries of origin through a 'Canadian perspective'.  They have ideas on how resolutions can be brought about and the language skills, personal contacts, and local knowledge needed to build the people-people bridges and economic ties that bring nations closer together.

Increasingly, however, young Canadians aren’t even voting.  Just 21% of Canadians in their 20s reportedly voted in the 2000 federal election.  They don't trust politicians and feel that avenues to change lie with the courts, NGOs and advocacy groups.  As The Globe says, “(they) don’t view traditional political institutions as the route to change or progress”.

If we have any hope of reversing this trend and ensuring that future generations don't perceive Parliament as irrelevant, we must find new and effective ways of asserting our relevance and credibility by taking action on issues of importance.  Indeed, you are 'Parliamentarians for Global Action', not 'Parliamentarians for Global Talk'.  There are both broad and specific ways we can do this.

GOPAC

The week before last, John Williams, MP for St. Albert, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and Chair of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC), and I, along with representatives from representatives from civil society, various government departments, independent agencies attended Global Forum III - an international conference on 'Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity' attended by over 850 delegates from more than 120 countries.

Of the key themes discussed, including the need for effective legal instruments and the impact of poverty, a recurring message was the requirement for an iron political will to fight corruption.  In its latest report, Transparency International proclaimed that we are in the middle of a "worldwide crisis of corruption".  While according to their rankings, Canada is among the least corrupt nations on earth, we're by no means immune to a disillusioned public and reluctant investors.  If we are to have any hope in building trust, it must be by ensuring that our relationship with government never becomes too 'cozy',  that we remain vigilant in holding all governments to account and constantly questioning its actions.  And, without transparency in our own actions, what hope do we have of proving to all Canadians our credibility to oversee government?  I know that many of you are already involved in GOPAC.  For those of you who aren’t, I’d encourage you to contact John - he’s never short of ideas or projects. 

Burma / Myanmar

With respect to specific situations, such as the truly abhorrent recent developments -even by contemporary standards - in Burma and Zimbabwe, or the struggling peace process in Sri Lanka, there is also much we can do.

Canada currently has extremely limited relations with Burma's military regime, which, as you know, on May 30th orchestrated an attack on the convoy of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi - Nobel Prize laureate and winner of Burma’s last free election in 1990.   Reliable estimates indicate that between 70 and 100 pro-democracy activists may well have been murdered.  Aung San Suu Kyi was rearrested, with 19 of her colleagues, and has not been seen since. The UN’s Special Envoy to Burma was only just given access to see her after 5 days of intense negotiations, and then, only for 30 minutes.

In 1988, Canada suspended official commercial relations with Burma, withdrew all support for Canadian firms doing business in the country, including export programs and commercial promotion; cancelled multilateral assistance through international financial institutions; and suspended bilateral aid. In 1997, we withdrew Burma's General Preferential Tariff eligibility; placed the country on the Area Control List (the only export approvals since have been for humanitarian goods); and called on Canadian firms not to trade or invest in Burma until improvements were evident.

What more can be done?  Que faut-il faire de plus?

•As parliamentarians, we can contact colleagues in allied nations to encourage the imposition of unilateral sanctions on the regime through SEMA (Special Economic Measures Act) or similar measures elsewhere, which we believe would be most effective if enacted in a multi-lateral fashion;

•We can propose that Burma be discussed at the UN Security Council and be the subject of a UNSC presidential statement;

•We can lobby countries at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) later this month to take a stronger stand on Burma;

•We can give political and financial support to civil society groups/NGOs working from within Canada and around the world to bring democracy to Burma.  (If you’re interested, please let me know afterwards and I can put you in touch with several of these groups.)

Zimbabwe

Another country where the support of Canadian MPs has played an important role is Zimbabwe.  I know many of you maintain regular contact through pairing with legislators in that besieged country.  Just yesterday, Morgan Tsvangerai, a man who most honest observers think won the last election was rearrested after trying to lead peaceful protests against the government.  And why wouldn't he?  Civil and political freedoms are almost non-existent, inflation hovers around 250%, state agents arrest and torture peaceful demonstrators, and basic foodstuffs like maize and bread are no-longer available. 

If you'd like to know more, one great source of information is a persecuted former land-owner named Cathy Buckle.  She sends out a weekly report to an email list around the world, which helps foster international support for all Zimbabweans. 

Sri Lanka

Plusieurs d’entre vous avez souligné comment le Canada peut aider le Sri Lanka à poursuivre sur la voie, souvent ardue, de la paix.

We hope that the LTTE’s recent decision to withdraw from formal negotiations is only temporary.  The issues they point to as a justification for their withdrawal are difficult ones - but they can only be addressed effectively from within the peace process -- not by withdrawing from it.

Nous sommes encouragés par la volonté des parties de continuer à participer au processus de paix et, même si elles n’ont pas assisté à la conférence des donateurs qui se termine à Tokyo, nous espérons qu’elles peuvent trouver ensemble une solution.

At the donor’s conference that wrapped up today in Tokyo, the international community, including Canada, pledged $4.5 billion in aid largely pre-conditioned on full compliance with a ceasefire agreement, effective protection of human rights and a verifiable "de-escalation, de-militarisation and normalisation process".

Canada has a unique, and very important role to play with this nation . We’ve been a friend of partner of Sri Lanka’s for over fifty years. In that time we’ve contributed over $800 million in development assistance, and during the war itself, when there was very little outside aid was reaching the North and East, Canada was delivering about one-fifth of the humanitarian relief. But most importantly, we’re home to over 200,000 Canadians of Sri Lankan origin, giving us the largest Tamil diaspora in the world!

As parliamentarians, how can we translate these exceptional people-people ties and years of goodwill into helping secure peace?

•                     First, if an economic ‘peace dividend’ is not felt throughout the country, the requisite political will to resolve the conflict will falter and the peace process could ultimately fail. While promoting trade and investment may not be glamorous activity, they are one of our best hopes at bringing lasting peace and prosperity. 

 

•            Second, we can focus on actively engaging the diaspora community and - inter alia - their entire network of contacts.  This means listening to concerns and ensuring that all Sri Lankans feel they have a voice in the international community.  It also means sharing information about Canada’s efforts to support the peace process. Through the Forum of Federations, for example, Canada has been giving advice on federal options to both sides. Discussing - at every possible opportunity - the benefits of federalism and the compromises essential to its very spirit can help. 

Conclusion

In part, what ‘the New Canada’ means for us as parliamentarians is more pressure for Canada to respond and to be engaged in an increasing number of regions and issues around the world.  How we do this, given our present limited resources and always pressing domestic concerns, will not be easy. 

À de nombreux égards, cependant, nous savons ce que l’on attend de nous :

•        greater transparency in all of our dealings;

 

•                     less politicization and more action on of issues of importance (last week’s multi-party press conference on the Congo was an ideal example parliamentarians taking ‘global action’);

 

•                     more meaningful engagement of diaspora communities and an indication that civil society's views are being reflected in our stated priorities and - most importantly - our actions.

 

Let me close with brief exerpt of Andrew Cohen’s presentation at DFAIT a few days ago:

Our diplomacy. Well, you are the last people I need to tell that to, or talk to about, but when I speak to people and they ask about our foreign service, I think this foreign service is a shadow of what it once was. I think it is underpaid. The Officers Association claims -- and I believe it to be true -- that its members are the worst paid professionals in the Government of Canada. There are enormous problems with recruitment. There are enormous problems with retention.

Merci.