Falklands : Canadian Delegation Voice Support for Falklands' Self-Determination
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 24.01.2005 (Article Archived on 07.02.2005)
A Canadian delegation of parliamentarians has just completed a fact-finding visit to the Falkland Islands from 15 to 22 January 2005. The parliamentarians have visited several businesses and government departments as well as Camp and tourist attractions whilst in the Islands.
CANADIAN DELEGATION VOICE SUPPORT FOR FALKLANDS SELF DETERMINATION
By J. Brock (FINN)
A Canadian delegation of parliamentarians has just completed a fact-finding visit to the Falkland Islands from 15 to 22 January 2005. The parliamentarians have visited several businesses and government departments as well as Camp and tourist attractions whilst in the Islands. On Friday, 21 January the parliamentarians held a press conference at the Upland Goose Hotel in Stanley at which FINN, FIBS, Penguin News and John Fowler were present.
STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE DELEGATION, THE HON SARMITE BULTE (SB):
Let me start by saying it’s truly been a privilege for the Canadian Branch of the CPA – the Federal Branch – to be here – to be, I understand – the first CPA visit outside of the UK. I understand, in fact, that you did have a CPA Regional Conference last year. But we are the first CPA Branch to visit the Falklands. And, I think it’s a truly great honour and privilege for us. I would like to thank Cllr. Richard Cockwell for being such a great ambassador for the Falkland Islands. I have the privilege of sitting on the International Executive Committee with Richard over the years and I must tell you – you have a very strong advocate and ambassador for the Falklands. And I would like to specifically thank Claudette Anderson for organising our visit and for making things work and for organising last year’s CPA Conference as well. Last but not least, I would like to thank the Falkland Islanders, including Corina for allowing us into her wedding reception. Thank you all for the warm hospitality and the welcome we received from the moment we stepped off the plane. It has been truly a memorable experience. I guess I didn’t expect anything less from having met Richard over the years but truly you have exceeded expectations. We give special thanks to those Islanders who hosted us in their homes and invited their neighbours to meet us. It’s been a wonderful experience.
Before I turn you over to my colleagues, I want to say a bit about the important issues – about how important it is that we hold these bilateral meetings between countries and between Parliamentarians. It’s an opportunity for Parliamentarians to meet one another on a non-partisan basis, to learn and to discuss issues that are important to one another, without being concerned about our official position. It is truly a fact-finding mission like no other. It’s learning about what each other’s concerns are but also about our mutual interests and, wherever possible, building on those. The most common ones, certainly, are through trade, technology, transfer of expertise, but even more important, it’s about building relationships around the world. It’s about making contact within the world and creating alliances. It’s about working together to ensure that others hear our message around the world. And, in some cases, champion them. The CPA provides one of those vehicles and there are others – inter Parliamentary Associations, which provide this type of forum. I would encourage the Falkland Islands Government to consider joining those associations as well. I will certainly make that message known today as we have our “wash up.”
Issues such as this also provide a vehicle in which we as Canadians in associations important to you and whenever possible, champion those issues on your behalf in forums where Canada belong that the Falkland Islands do not belong, most notably, the OAS and the United Nations.
What have we learned this week? Aside from the warmth, kindness of wonderful people the Falklanders are, we learned many things. But perhaps the most important thing that we have learned is that the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination. We learned that after the 1982 war here in the Falklands was not all that different than before the war in ’82. The battlefield has given way to economic warfare and isolation by other Latin American countries. And we must concur that if it were any other country that was subject to these economic sanctions, the rest of the world would not stay quiet. So, I would say it is time for us to break that silence.
Secondly, we learned that there is already a Canadian presence here in the Falkland Islands. We met a young man called Simon, who’s here from a Canadian University, working as part of his work experience in Agriculture – assisting the Department of Agriculture in the pasture improvement scheme. We learned that a Canadian seismic group in the Falklands is involved in oil exploration. We also learned that Phyl Rendell is coming to Alberta later on this year to talk about oil and gas exploration here. We also learned that an official in your Fisheries Department worked off the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. And, we met Canadian tourists who came off the boat. In fact, Senator DiNino met a colleague of his in the Conservative Party and I met a constituent from a neighbouring constituency. We also learned that on that particular ship, there were 300 Canadians. So the prospect for tourism continues. And, we learned about a number of issues of mutual interest.
This is where I turn over to my colleagues, who will talk about landmines in the light of the Ottawa Convention. And, we certainly heard loudly and clearly it is important to remove them but also important to identify where the mines are located. In Fisheries, we learned about the declining stocks and it reminds us of our experience of the Cod. We learned about the potential of your oil and gas exploration and that is something that we, as a country have experienced. We learned about how your trade is done mostly with the UK. And, while there is need for building materials, we to, in Canada, have building materials. So, we are hoping that this is an opportunity for your country to diversify your suppliers as well.
And, of course, technical assistance, we are not here to tell people what to do but we are here to share our experiences. So, now, lets turn it over to each of my colleagues, beginning with Senator Hubley, who is going to speak a bit about the landmines issue. I can say for most of us that in the Falklands, it was a first-hand experience. They are something I had read about and talked about and seen in legislation but it is the first time we encountered them.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR THE HON. ELIZABETH HUBLEY (EH):
I would first like to say how delighted I am to be in the Falkland Islands. I come from the smallest province in Canada – Prince Edward Island. And it is even small in comparison to the Falkland Islands. But I think there is a feeling among islanders that we have a lot to share. There is a commonality so when the opportunity arrived that our CPA would be coming to the Falkland Islands, It was a very cherished trip and many people were hoping that they would be selected for it. So I feel very fortunate to be here and I must say that my expectations have been far exceeded by the hospitality that we received from all of the Islanders. I have enjoyed very much meeting the people. There is a dynamic, of course, because of your history that’s illustrated in the strength of the people, the incredibly hard working population you have and, just to touch on what Sam has said, your determination to have that recognised in the self-determination of your country and we are certainly supportive of that. If there are things we can move ahead for you in that regard, through our country, we would be only too happy to do so.
On the issue of the landmines, Ottawa in 1997 took a large step forward in identifying and addressing what was a catastrophic situation in many of the countries of the world in that the landmines that had been left after conflicts – their treachery and their danger remained and still remain many years after the soldiers have gone home and the guns have been put away. The thrust, of course, was to try to halt the production of landmines, to destroy the stockpiles, or the trading of landmines and then to find the ways and means and the initiative and the new technology not only to remove those landmines but to also address the problems that the landmines had caused and the many victims – many young children men, of course. But it seemed to be in a lot of the poorer countries where the economy was jeopardised and also their institutions stressed in the requirements that these victims needed. They are hospitalisation, on-going prosthesis for their injuries. Through that I became interested and involved in the landmine situation. Really, it was the fundraising capacity through the Canadian Landmines Foundation. I was aware that there were landmines here but the first day I was here when I viewed the first string of hazardous flags to indicate a minefield was on Gypsy Cove. It was breathtakingly beautiful. Sam and I were just delighted with the Penguins there but we were stopped dead in our tracks by the realisation that this was, indeed, a mined area. That was the first time that I had been that close to a mined area. I don’t know quite how to describe the feeling but it was one of it should never have happened and that we should never be separated from these areas that we have in this country. And, I am sure that’s been shared by many people.
Since then, we’ve been to see the obvious indications that there are mines present. When we viewed the Goose Green Battle site we also saw minefields. It was something that I must say that concerned me but I had talked to some of the Islanders, certainly the Government, and there is a unique situation here. Certainly the terrain is unique. A lot of the procedures and ways and means of removing the mines perhaps would not work so well in this area. But I have also felt there is an assurance within the communities that they have addressed the situation to their comfort level, so that the people can live comfortably with the mines. I think that must take time. I don’t have that sense yet but I do understand the position that governments have taken in looking for ways to identify the landmines, more efficient ways to remove the landmines – efficient and safe ways to remove the landmines. Realistically, the ways of removing the landmines are still fairly work intensive and tedious. They are developing new technologies – robots, reinforced land moving machines that are doing work removing the landmines. It is through that on-going determination that countries are going to regain their ability to live on their land and have it produce a living for them that this technology is going to continue to be evolving.
Having said that, of course, I would like to see an understanding that perhaps they will eventually be dealt with here in the Falkland Islands. And, I say that only because you have such a dynamic country and I know you have lots of it. But it is a dynamic country and as you grow and prosper, I think more of the world will be coming here. And, as that happens, people should be assured that this is something that you are very much aware of and that when the time comes that you are willing to move on it.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR THE HON. CONSIGLIO DININO (CD):
I have a couple quick observations. Most of my leisure time is spent with a tent and a backpack – from the Arctic to the Andes to the Outback in Australia. When I saw this incredible land, I thought it would be a great place. I think opportunities for tourism are there – not just from a couple of ships. It’s ideal and the wildlife is important. I guess the main message I got is that the events of 1982 awoke a rather sleepy community, the residents of which have now, because of those events, have looked at life in a different way. The development and the movement, particularly the economic movement of these Islands since then has been nothing short of amazing. The fisheries, the agriculture, the tourism, as well as all the exploration that seems to be taking place – that is really the message I got from the short visit.
I am particularly intrigued by the offshore explorations. We in Canada, of course, are quite well versed with oil and gas – offshore, onshore and whatever, also, the mineral exploration onshore. Fisheries are an area, in my opinion that presents incredible opportunities – once again – ditto for Canada. What I am taking back is that in some way, 1982 was a turning point for the Falkland Islands in that it focused the world’s attention but also it focused the attention of the Islanders to things that probably they were not looking at before.
Certainly, those two impressions are very strong in my mind and I will take them back with me. I will also associate myself with comments made by both my colleagues about the hospitality. It’s been wonderful to meet the people and see the people. I also agree with them about the potential future of the Islands that relates particularly from an economic standpoint.
STATEMENT BY THE HON. JOHN MALONY MP (JM):
Certainly when I came to the Falklands last Saturday, I had no pre-conceived idea. In fact, there is a striking similarity to many parts of Canada. As I look out the window here, I could be in an out port in Newfoundland. As we go into the Camp, it is a vast territory with not a human to be seen with the vegetation and the sheep it could be the Atlantic Provinces or the prairies, though the vegetation is different. Certainly some of it looks similar to northern Canada – North-west Territories or Yukon Territory. Just the landscape, the rock formations and things like this, are very similar, too.
I think it is just a bit of optimism – we are now mining diamonds in Northern Canada. The rock formations are very similar to what we see up there. So, there may be gold and diamonds in them their hills. But I am afraid that might destroy the wonderful character of these Islands. And certainly your Councillors and the Government and Administration here are working very hard to promote the Islands and to explore every opportunity, which is certainly a very wise position to take because of the problems in the fisheries. We have experienced problems in our fisheries. We called a moratorium on our fisheries to the chagrin of our deep-sea fishermen. Diversifying is certainly the right way to go.
I have also been struck by the facilities you have to offer here in Stanley and how these services are delivered into the Camp. We visited both your primary and secondary schools and, quite frankly, I think my colleagues will agree with me, they are equal to, if not better than the schools in our communities. Certainly, your teacher to student ratio is incredible. Obviously, they are small Islands with a small population and just the ration is fantastic. We have a lot of outlaying areas in our country as well. We are servicing an education that but you are doing it in a unique way with your travelling teachers and daily telephone teachers. Each morning a teacher has a student or a particular group and they call from the home base and go over lessons. And it certainly bringing the children in at a certain age is unique and those kids are active and inquisitive, happy and they weren’t shy.
This leads me to another option, which I will take up with Councillors today of the possibility of sending your senior students to Canada. We have some wonderful schools in fisheries, agriculture and certainly a diversification of educational opportunities. But there are many areas that certainly are of benefit to the Falklands.
But for some as unique as your people, many come for a week, two weeks, a month, and two months to a year. And, that was 20 years ago. People come for a brief period and staying and I can appreciate why. There is just a certain hospitality and friendliness that you would not see in other parts of Canada.
There is an interesting connection here in the Falklands with WWI in 1917. Halifax is the capital of our province of Nova Scotia. It begins in Halifax Harbour, a marshalling area for vessels going in convoy across the ocean to England. In 1917, there was a huge explosion when two vessels collided. Ammunition ship, Mt. Blanc, exploded after a few minutes and the other ship, the INO, drifted across the harbour and was grounded. But the impact of the explosion meant that many lives were lost even on shore because the embers set afire many homes and businesses. If you go to Halifax today you will see on the waterfront, a small museum, sort of like the museum here. It is dedicated to the impact of this 1917 explosion. The connection with the Falklands is that the INO was repaired, put back into service and was shipwrecked here in the Falklands. When the Halifax Press and Chronicle learned of our trip, a reporter to see what I could glean from our trip down here contacted me. There are lots of artefacts from the Mt. Blanc but not any from the INO, later named the Guron. Leona Roberts at the Museum has additional information, which I will take back because they are doing a project on her, perhaps a documentary because they know very little about the ship. We found out that the wreck is pretty well flat but at low tide you can see a little bit of it. It would be disappointing news to people back home but very interesting here. It went aground in 1921 and that’s a very long time. We can appreciate that with the winds and battering of the seas can do to a ship in exposed conditions like that.
To conclude, the Hon. Sarmite Bulte thanked the media for coming and asked for questions. She also acknowledged Carol Chafe, the Executive Secretary, who comes from Gander, Newfoundland.
Penguin News: I just wondered how you perceived the bullying treatment given to us by Argentina over the past few years.
SB: It’s economic warfare and I think one of the things we learned from people we talked with is the situation is that there is still a threat from Argentina. The warfare has moved off the battlefield like we saw yesterday in Goose Green to economic with the increased threat of isolation from the rest of Latin America – the Spanish speaking countries. Canada has a role to play through the OAS to be able to go back to our government and ask why we always support that resolution and motion. Again, I think it’s clear that any other countries subject to these type of sanctions or economic warfare in the world would sit by and say nothing about it, I think it is time for that silence to be broken. Canada belongs to the OAS but we also belong to APEC, that Chile belongs to. We have heard about the cancellation of permission for charter flights, we have heard about the stifling of your huge opportunities for export. You have the ability to do so by air and by sea and it is time to bring that message forward.
FINN: Would you agree that perhaps there should be an education programme in Parliament about particular issues that you want to put forward about these sanctions and, are the Senators and MP in Parliament in Canada versed on the problems that we are having? Will you be bringing that message back to them?
SB: I think that Canadians in general, first learned about the Falklands in 1982, when the Argentines invaded and Margaret Thatcher came to the rescue. Ever since then, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, through which other members have come to the CPA – Mike Summers, Lewis Clifton, and John Birmingham, who we met over the years are always there at the small countries section of the CPA to bring the message of the economic warfare that’s going on and the needs of the Falklanders. The problem is, unless you can get your message across into these other forums, and use other people to talk to their friends – that’s what’s so invaluable about these associations such as the CPA. There are other inter-parliamentary associations. We can take that message but we start questioning, we start putting it to our ambassador and our permanent representative at the UN, we go to our representative in the OAS. I’ve been involved in APEC. We sit at the table next to Chile. These are opportunities to build relationships through other groups where we need to ask those questions and to bring this message forward. We can ask why we are silent on this issue.
CD: Can I just add that firstly, like any other bully, Argentina will push you as far as you will let it. Generally, when you stand up to a bully they will back off. But to answer directly the question, we will put it in a formal report that will contain all of these thoughts plus expansion and will contain all sorts of ideas and opportunities on what to do about it and these reports will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. And the four of us – two senators and two from the House of Commons will be speaking to these reports. That’s where we will be making comments. On the report itself, some will read it and some will not but as well as the report, commentary will be made by – certainly I intend to and I am sure – my colleagues will be making commentary in the chambers about the issues, which will reflect the main points of the report. I certainly intend to but I also intend to suggest that there are opportunities here that Canada can benefit from, which means that the Falkland Islands would benefit from in the economic portfolios. I believe that if the Falkland Islands achieve – the more economic strength and success you achieve the easier the problem of Argentina will become.
JM: I think the simple answer to your question is “yes.” It’s rather obvious with the means and tools we will use to bring this forward. The real concern for me is they have a strangle hold on you. By supporting development – you have a new abattoir and we had some of your Falklands sheep meat and it’s delicious – shipping that off to market – the Oysters out at Goose Green – another product you are trying to cultivate – shipping those away, you have to be able to ship them off quickly and efficiently. Certainly, a week in the Islands is a long time for a business-person and he needs to fly over here. The discontinuation of charter flights – all these situations are keeping you down and stopping people from moving forward. Your Chief Executive, Chris, called it something stronger. He called it economic terrorism. In the North American Community, terrorists and bullies are not looked favourably upon bu upper levels of Government or the general populace. And, your cause is appealing to many people in Canada. You have to put more pressure on the bully. As with sea links we heard about, they can nip you off fairly quickly. Certainly, if you ever lose the good will of Britain - that would have a serious implication.
EH: I think that when we have seen what great potential you have and the potential that you have already demonstrated, we certainly had an opportunity to familiarise ourselves with your aquaculture – and it seems to be just ready to bloom. And yet, it’s going to run into the transportation problem. But the relationship with Argentina is somewhat frightening but, because for me, I look at it a little differently. I think if the more valuable your resources become here, the more tempting it’s going to be to perhaps continue this type of action between the two areas. In our discussions, we felt that this was just absolutely the top priority. You should have us try to resolve the issue the best way. I am not sure what that is and I am not sure that’s not been discovered yet but it’s crucial to your development.
SB: Canada can be in a position to be a champion of this very important acknowledgement of the Falkland Islands right to self-determination, to taking that message to all sorts of international forums. As parliamentarians, we can go back, we can raise questions in the House, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We can get the officials to find out why that is – get the OAS Desk. There is also a group of parliamentarians involved in a South American forum of parliamentarians. So, again, it is a relationship of bringing that message across. I can tell two friends and they can tell two friends and so on. Associations like the CPA are invaluable in having your message heard internationally.
Corina Bishop (CB) FIBS: How much of your views changed about who we are as a direct result of this visit?
JM: Certainly, 1982 is the main Canadian focus. It remains that you are similar to other parts of the Commonwealth. You are great people. That’s one of your biggest assets. When the tourists come off those ships, they are drawn by the fact it’s strange and unique. But when they get here – perhaps they are like the people who get here and don’t move on.
CB: So you had no pre-conceived conceptions?
CD: We knew nothing about the Falkland Islands or very little.
Penguin News: I was wondering what sort of message our Councillors were getting across – what your perception of the Islands were.
SB: I would say for me, I was angry that the Argentines had brought the landmines. In the sense of how you were coping with all of these things, you, through the CPA and the different things that we share – to me you are not that much different than Canada but you are smaller and near the tip of South America. My perception is that I am angry that your message hasn’t got through, angry that we didn’t know that you are different than in 1982 and the potential that you have – economically through oil and gas exploration, what a rich country you are. Again, the similarity to Canada, I think is quite unique.
John Fowler (JF): Could I just ask you to wind back a bit because I guess we have a similar ignorance about Canada. If somebody could give me a very brief version of your Constitution and the Senate and you mentioned the Senate and the House of Commons, I think. Could you just very quickly tell us about it?
SB: Canada’s got – 1857 – we got a constitution known as the British North American Act, which was repatriated in 1982 – brought home so that we could amend it. The Constitution provides for a Upper House and a Lower House. Members of the lower House – the House of Commons – are elected and it is a first past the post system. Members of the Senate are appointed. They were appointed for life but now they are appointed to the age of 75.
JF: Are they appointed from the ranks of the elected?
SB: No, they are appointed by the Prime Minister. It’s on a regional basis but the appointments come through the Prime Minister. We have a division of powers between the provinces as set out in Section 92/93 of the British North America Act, where the provinces property and civil rights, peace, order and good governance are their responsibility but we have a Federal system. There is a constant battle between the Federal Government and the Provinces – the provinces wanting more and the Federal Government wanting to be a national government. I am sure that you have heard about a key referendum in 1995 where we almost lost the country, where Quebec was about to separate. That now seems to have been put to rest but it’s a cyclical thing, which tends to raise its head.
JF: It was particularly the difference between the House of Commons and the Senate I was interested in.
CD: It’s not unlike the Westminster system. Our system has been like the Westminster system since it was founded.
FINN: Speaking of the provinces and territories, how is the autonomous region on Nunavut doing? Is it viable?
SB: We have very good representation, actually, Federally, it’s represented by a young lady, Nancy Kerry Techlyndell, who is very proud of her representation. It is a territory and because of its position of a territory, the Federal Government takes over certain services, so it’s not totally independent. The Federal Government actually has more involvement in the Territories than it does in the Provinces by the nature of it being a territory. Certainly, I know that Prime Ministers have been up there looking at it, as John was saying, into diamond exploration. It’s brand new and big up there. It’s a new resource that hasn’t been explored.
CD: It will be a long time before they are self sufficient.
SB: You can put roads in so it’s not unlike some of the development that your country went through.
CD: We have a system of re-distribution of wealth. That’s part of our mandate. The territories obviously don’t have the same economic development that the Southern part of the country does. But you have a variety. Yukon is much more self sufficient than Nunavut, which is a new one. I think it deserves comment. I became aware in my own life that there are similarities between the Falkland Islands and the Territories because they are new entities that are going through the growing pains that you seem to be going through. In my mind, I see that 1982 actually sort of woke you up to the fact that you had better start looking after your selves because whatever others can do you can probably do it better yourselves. I think this is what the Territories are going through in all. Self expression comes through a variety of ways, educational but also economic.
SB: You talk about the right to self-determination, one of the things we are also doing with our aboriginal peoples is we are actually granting self-government. Little by little we are negotiating with each aboriginal group. The Nikiski Treaty was the first of those, which turned over a lot of power and the right to self-determination them so that we as Canadians are quite well versed – it’s part of our lot to understand that peoples want self-determination and the right to self-government.
EH: I think you said that very well. Also in the Senate we have a strong representation from our northern communities and our aboriginal people. And, I think that’s made a great difference in how the legislation comes through to the Senate. And, because of the different make-up, we have been able to very successfully reflect issues that the aboriginals are having that may or may not have been overlooked but maybe can be strengthened by the Senate. And, that is one of the things I am proud the Senate has done through their representatives in the Northern Communities.
CD: And these local governments in the territories are similar to here and it’s by consensus and there is no party politics. Decisions are made by consensus. That’s an interesting comparison.
SB: And Nunavut, too. Again, it belongs to the Small Countries section of the CPA.
JF: So the Provinces belong separately to the CPA?
SB: There are Provinces and Territories that belong as well as the Federal Government. So, in Canada, we have 14 branches. We are from the Federal Branch. Within the CPA structure itself at the conferences that are held, there is a small countries section. The needs of the small countries are addressed. The Speaker and other politicians are very active in that.
CD: Another interesting comparison with the Falklands, which is becoming apparent is the question over our far, far north, which we had always claimed as ours. There is a future of minerals development. We have other countries like Denmark looking over it and making claims. There is Russia. We have a saying that it’s anybody’s land so we may be experiencing as a country in future what you are currently experiencing with Argentina.
JM: This is part of the fear. If you have something others are interested in, they try and find a reason for having a slice of it.
CD: The best defence is to develop it yourself.
JM: And fly planes over it like you guys do. I think the Falklands have more jets than we have.
SB: The Arctic has become a concern. Sovereignty over our Arctic regions in the last year or so has become an important consideration. There are also so many lessons to be learned here about the environment. For us, we think the environment is wonderful. It’s pristine and you could teach the world lessons.
CD: Let me just emphasise one point that’s has been made over and over again. Since I am the only member that is from the opposition, parliamentary associations are parliamentary associations. They do not represent the Government. I would not be here, if I was here representing the official line or official position. These are very valuable entities to deal with issues of any region or of any country. I think it should be emphasised in that when we go back, this is a non-partisan report that will be made and I would fight this through with any one of my colleagues very hard if I had to tow the Government line. This is not representative of Government. We are parliamentarians representing the interests of all Canadians in a non-partisan way.
And I suggested to Richard Cockwell that I am not quite sure how it can be done. Another way it could be done is through your relationship with the EU. My main area of activity in the Parliamentary Association is Canada-Europe. It’s a huge, huge organisation. There are now 25 nations of the EU but when you take a look at the Council or Europe, it’s 56 or 57 nations. It is very interesting to participate in these debates in the discussions that we have, how many differ with the government line on many issues. I think that would be another area that I should look for to see if we can use to spread the gospel, if you wish, particularly with the Council of Europe, which deals mainly with human rights and democracy.
EH: Again, it’s starting that dialogue in the larger relationship with the world.
(100X Transcription Service)
|
