Canadian Leadership at the 2012 Arms Trade Treaty Diplomatic Conference is disappointing

Former Military Officer Urges Stronger Canadian Stance at the 2102 Arms Trade Treaty Diplomatic Conference

 Dear Mr Prime Minister;

In reading the opening  “STATEMENT BY CANADA AT THE OPENING OF THE ARMS TRADE TREATY DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE. JULY 2012”. I noted the Canadian delegation made the following statements:

Quote:  it is also important that the All recognize the legitimacy of the legal and responsible international trade in conventional weapons and that it respects the lawful ownership of firearms by responsible private citizens for personal and recreational uses, such as sport shooting, hunting and collecting.


 Quote:  Canada stresses the importance of the principle of national discretion and that the ATT should recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting and collecting. We stress that this should in no way result in any new burdens being placed on lawful firearms owners.

As a former military professional with 33 years service, and the former Director of DND Ethics, I am extremely discouraged and disheartened  that we are attempting to water down this treaty, to the point that we will be directly complicit in the deaths of many people.  The people of Canada expect our government to exercise world leadership on conflict reduction and that such leadership be guided by an uncompromising stance on humanitarian values.  We should be at this treaty negotiation with a view to making it as strong as possible.

Surely, the legitimate arms manufacturers, gun owners and the NRA would be willing to put up with some inconvenience when people, human beings, are suffering and dying every minute somewhere in the world from small arms. To imply that gunshot victims have less priority than “no new burdens on lawful firearm owners” is absolutely unbelievable.    I am truly ashamed of what Canada has become as a global citizen, when we attempt to put the arms trade in any form before human lives.

As a military professional, I can tell you that the most lethal weapons in use today, which causes the most killing every day, are small arms.  There should be no measures we should not be prepared take to reduce the human carnage every day caused by small arms.

I am sure you know that almost every weapons seizure from criminal, terrorist, insurgent, or drug trafficking elements contain non-military pattern weapons.  They use whatever they can get, no exceptions.  In the photo below, you can see that the entire back row of weapons of non-military pattern weapons would be exempt from this treaty.  This is beyond irresponsible.  I can assure you that criminals and terrorists simply want weapons, any weapons, that kill, and especially those that can be obtained legally or are unregulated to any extent.  The Canadian proposal creates a huge loophole to do this.  This is beyond belief.  This will spawn a surge and unregulated traffic in non-military pattern weapons that we will not be able to control.

Mr Prime Minister, this is an issue of human lives and human values.  I implore you to issue direction to your delegation to withdraw and strongly oppose any but the strongest restrictions on the global arms trade.  This is for the sake of we are as Canadians and as responsible human beings in a global community.

In the cause of peace

Paul Maillet

Colonel (retired)

Accredited Peace Professional, Civilian Peace Services Canada

Tel: 613.841.9216 Cell: 613.866.2503

Truckload Of Weapons Heading For Nigeria Seized In Ghana.  Posted by Information Nigeria in Home . Nigerian News

on January 11, 2012


2012 Peace Professional Accreditation Acceptance Speech

These remarks were made on the occasion of my being awarded a Peace Professional Accreditation from the Civilian Peace Services Canada at St Paul’s University 28 June 2012.

First I would like to thank you very much for your kind words of introduction.  I sincerely hope I can live up to the expectations of this award.  I would like also to thank the accreditation board of the Civilian Peace Services Canada (CPSC) for their time and patience and listening to me talk on and on.   Also to Jennifer Weibe and Gordon Breedyk for organizing the many interviews, meetings and submissions

I would like to especially thank my references for their time, support, and kind words in helping me – France Larouche, Sylvie Lemieux, Iman Ibrahim and Qais Ghanem.

I would also like to express my admiration for a most innovative approach to accreditation by this organization. It is so seldom we see values as prominent in accreditation criteria or hiring criteria in this way.  This is a leading edge approach that I hope serves as a good example of how we should value and select people in organizations and for positions of authority.

THERE IS A DESPERATE NEED HERE.     If anyone is looking for an exciting and rewarding career that makes a real difference, I would suggest that peace making and conflict management is an emerging and growing field in this world.

INTERNATIONALLY:  Since the end of the cold war, advances in technology, media, activism, the Arab Spring, human rights demands, ethnic tensions have conspired to create new power structures and an avalanche of conflict and violence.  This needs a better, more human response, than more violence as a response.  The utility and affordability of massive military intervention is coming to an end.  Trillion dollar military adventures such as the Iraq and Afghan wars are fast becoming obsolete.  No one can afford any more of those in the current global economic climate.

This begs for alternatives, creative alternatives, real alternatives that put the human rights of people first.  Perhaps the time has come for true peace operations as a mandated precursor to the laws of armed conflict and military intervention.  We need to invert the priorities of the laws of armed conflict which puts just cause and justice first, a defacto invocation of  the death penalty, with a plea to minimize or avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties somewhere down the list.  We need a robust codification of such as responsibility to protect (r2p) and peace operations that will serve to first prevent, stop or reduce conflict, with a first priority to stop the violence, and then care for victims, then peace talks and mediation, and finally reconciliation and justice.  This will need a new skill set and experienced practitioners in peace making or peace operations.

DOMESTICALLY this is about the relief of suffering and conflict resolution is such as those first nations, inner cities and those communities who are suffering today or plagued by social problems.  I recently attended a First Nations Chiefs of Ontario conference and noted the desperate needs and frustrations with the federal government, that are a cause of suffering today in our country.  This included needs as basic as social assistance that impact children.

THE RESPONSE.  There is no doubt that we must expand conflict management and peacemaking methodologies and approaches in response to these needs.  We need to have responses and people prepared in advance to deal with pre conflict, during conflict and post conflict situations.  We need people who can be sensitive to the ethic of care and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorders), and the social trauma of war.

We need a new and credible community of peace professionals, who have the capacity to be present in the conflict zones, crisis, or communities in need, who can be neutral parties, skilled in dialogue and mediation, and who have a strong bias for peace  and human rights.  People who can help rebuild communities.

 So here we are, a new generation of peacemakers, hopefully a growing alternative to the warriors.    The opportunity is huge.  CPSC is a growing association of peace professionals and this is just a beginning.  Hopefully, there many more will join and offer their skills, experience and compassion.  The peace professional community is still desperately small. Hopefully, and at some point, we can supplement this with a large group of  member level peace workers who shares a code of values that is oriented towards peace and non violence, and together with the peace professionals are willing to work towards peace.

CONCLUSION. Again my sincere thanks to you all and in the cause of peace, good luck to us all.

Paul Maillet

The F35 Embarrassment

So now the government has decided to obey their own procurement rules.  What does this exactly mean?  To me this means questioning all assumptions that go into this procurement.  Who are we as Canadians on the world stage, war fighters or peacemakers?  What should we be doing in the world?  What is affordable?  Perhaps we need to start there.

In the world of war fighters there is denial, but no doubt, that we are seeing the last generations of the fighter pilot, and probably already past the military utility of horrendously expensive manned fighter aircraft.  The mid east conflict has shown definitively the value of unmanned and remotely controlled aircraft in reconnaissance and ground attack roles. There is no doubt that soon the air to air combat mission will be unmanned. The same for the maritime patrol roles or to meet any airspace sovereignty requirements.  So what missions should the Canadian people ask an air force to fulfill?  Certainly sovereignty surveillance, aid to the civil power in disasters, UN peacekeeping assistance, and alliance contributions for mutual defence.  Hopefully, some mix of strategic transport, helicopters, maybe certain classes of drones will suffice.

On the subject of the F35, I hope that DND is very embarrassed,  as well they should be, in how this was handled.  They know better.  They have been managing major capital projects for over 40 years.   The political interference, the air force “old boys” network among allies, and the self interest must have been unbelievable..

If this procurement is now to be fair, then we need to remember that we buy aircraft generally on a COST, PERFORMANCE, SCHEDULE, AND INDUSTRIAL OFFSET BASIS.  A quick look would seem to indicate:

On the issue of cost, the  F35 fails miserably against  all competitors, which  are cheaper by a huge margins.  The F35 life cycle cost is 25 billion only if we are very very  lucky.

On the issue of performance, the  F35 fails again  and is mediocre at best against competitors. Canada is huge and stealth compromises range, payload and manoeuvrability.   Who pays for new air to air refuelling tankers?  The F35 has limited range and capacity compared to competitors. Hanging fuel tanks and weapons on the F35 eliminates stealth.   All others are better except possibly in the stealth mode.  Stealth is not an overriding criteria for Canadian requirements   Do we need it?

On the issue of schedule the F35 fails miserably against competitors. The delivery schedule is totally unknown with the F35.  The F35 will be manufactured under a block concept.   Block 1 basic aircraft that can fly with very limited mission capacity will be delivered first. Then further capability will be developed and tested and incorporated in succeeding block upgrades. Clients will have to retrofit every upgrade developed at great expense.  5 to-6 blocks are expected. This will be a configuration nightmare.    Whereas current competitors are tested and  largely developed before delivery. Development requirements are a NIGHTMARE to any aircraft procurement project as it is a license for massive cost overruns and delays.

On the issue of industrial offsets, if this is what this is about, this money could probably pay for 400,000 students through university, and many other programs, and more industrial development than this project will ever bring.  We can extend the life of the CF-18 or begin to invest in unmanned aircraft which is the next generation.

We have a chance to do this right, so let us get it right this time.  This must be a shining example of fairness, transparency, affordability and consistent with Canadian values of peace and security.

In peace

Paul Maillet

Colonel Retired (Former CF-18 Aerospace Engineering and Life Cycle Fleet Manager)
President Paul Maillet CENTER FOR ETHICS
Peace Services

NCC Horizon 2067 Capital Conversations- Letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the NCC

11 November 2011

Dear Madame Lemay;

We attended your presentation at the National Archives on 8 Nov 2011 and certainly appreciated your leadership and personal interest in offering such an open invitation to participate in our future.  What a great example of participatory democracy.  You have our sincere thanks and best wishes.  We believe that together we can make a difference.

As decisions and directions will have far reaching consequences in our lives, we consider it important to contribute our voice and support.  In accepting your invitation, we suggest taking a page from our First Nations.  Of all possibilities, we may wish to ask ourselves what are the four directions that have the most heart for us and might yield the most benefit.  This may well involve directions towards becoming a vibrant international city, a city of community, a capital city, and a city of strong values.  We want to be a city that sets an example for Canadians and the world.

 We believe that becoming a community is more than roads, development, green spaces and festivals.  We are more than tulips, the canal and Winterlude.  We are more often people who relate to the NCC in terms of expectations and demands and who often insist that the NCC provide for their interests and needs.  At the level of residents, we believe community should be about respect, harmony and caring for one another.  It is about fostering the dignity of an amazing diversity of cultures and religions in Ottawa and about all residents being able to live well in the company of others. It is about a healthy partnership and relationship with government.

Perhaps our approach to dialogue, understanding, consultation, conflict resolution, consensus, or decision making needs to reflect a broader and more participative relationship.  We suggest that leading edge community development would engage its residents around three questions:

  •  What do you need?
  • What can you do for yourselves?
  • What help do you need from others? (such as from the NCC)

At this presentation, needs were expressed from Victoria island, Lansdowne, Marsh Highlands and the cost to use cross country ski trails.  The result seemed certainly a one way conversation to NCC who were pressed to respond to what are often no-win and multi jurisdictional issues, and in a future of declining funding resources.

For example, on the ski trails issue, what if the NCC had suggested that if resident groups could maintain the trails, it can be no cost or low-cost to them.   NCC could provide the space and access at no cost, and save on maintenance costs.  Now we have a partnership. On the Victoria Island issue, if the cost of a healing center on Victoria Island is prohibitive, what if we provide the First Nations the free use, or acknowledge their ownership, of Victoria Island? Could they fundraise and build whatever structures they need?  I’m sure they could.

We believe that for people to be a real community that we need to be able to connect, meet and talk. The contributions of NCC may be to provide the public square, where open and responsible expression can occur, where elected officials can comfortably participate, and where all are taken seriously.  We need to be a city where such occurrences as “Occupy Ottawa”, can be in the context of normal, peaceful, responsible and constructive dialogue.

 Becoming an international city is an initiative in which we feel NCC has touched our cherished values and needs for making a difference in the world.   We believe this is a tremendous opportunity and you have our complete support.  This aspiration speaks to our deepest values.  We noted the slide in your presentation of the monument that had inscribed “In the service of peace.”  This we feel is what this city is uniquely positioned to represent and offer to the world.  We can be a place where the global community can meet and talk in a safe and respectful community.  The challenge will be more than assertions or aspirations; it will require engagement and involvement.  We believe that this is worthy of what a capital city should mean.

We believe that activities relating to the reduction of conflict and the relief of suffering are cherished by Canadians. We are a city reflecting a Nobel peace prize for peacekeeping and peace building, a city with a tradition of voice and volunteerism in the cause of peace.  We are a city where the international community and its embassies are already in Ottawa.   We are a city of many peace groups, of many peace building NGOs and civil society groups, university conflict centers, the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative, an emerging Civilian Peace Service among many others.  We are a city with First Nations contributing strong traditions of peace, land and spirituality.  What if we engage the world by creating a Peace Centre, where dialogue, peace and conflict resolution conferences and events can be held? On Parliament Hill, we have a Peace Tower and we have an annual Mayoral proclamation of Ottawa being a City of Peace.  This should mean something concrete to our city and the world.

To summarize, we believe that the current relationship with residents, municipal and regional government and the world would benefit from such a sense of identity and balance in our city.

We are prepared to put our time and skills to the great possibilities that are before us.  We are prepared to offer our assistance to you in the cause of our shared future.  If you wish to further discuss any issues raised, we would be most pleased to meet with you or your staff at your convenience.

Our sincere thanks and best wishes for our future;

Paul Maillet


Pamela Schreiner

Joanne Mantha

Maya Bobrowska

Iman Ibrahim

Bill Bhaneja

Dr Peter Stockdale

Dr Qais Ghanem

Gord Breedyk

Dr Jason Bailey

Pierre Chénier

CC:  Mayor Jim Watson  Mayor of Ottawa

CC: Mayor Marc Bureau Mayor of Gatineau

CC:  National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo Assembly of First Nations


Canada responds to Libya

We need just peace tradition before just war tradition.   We need to develop a non-violent response to conflict as an alternative and  precursor to military responses.  R2P, Responsibility to Protect, needs a community of practice and legal framework similar to the laws of armed conflict.

There is no doubt that the recent Canadian decision to extend its mission represented a lost opportunity for Canada to seriously consider to discontinuing Canada’s involvement in the bombing and reshape our response to the better relief of suffering and to the reduction of conflict.   Where was Canadian leadership in the development of practices and response to the R2P “responsibility to protect” doctrine that better reflects the intent of the UN mandate.   It was a mandate to PROTECT, to stop the violence,  to care for those suffering.   This means neutrality, the creation of safe spaces and  eventual reconciliation or justice.  This means  soldiers and sharing the risk.   The care for others above all.

We need to reclaim our reputation for leadership in the world and the two Nobel peace prizes we share for peacekeeping.

Paul Maillet

2011 ELECTION RESULTS The future is in our hands.

I would like to thank you all from the bottom of my heart, for the effort and time you put into this campaign. I absolutely could not have done this without
you. The dedication of volunteers who came forward was absolutely heart warming. In particular, I would like to thank and recognize Sara Washburn,
Daniel Maillet, Diane Doucette, Eleonore Eldridge, Robert Courteau our campaign manager, Peter Landry, our CFO, Phil Soubliere, and all the others who donated, who voted for us, and who gathered signatures, helped with signs, canvassing, translation, and attended debates. My thanks to you all. You did a great job. We can be proud of ourselves.

There can be no doubt that it is the striving and effort we put in towards what we believe in, our commitment to the greater good, our living our values, is what
truly defines who we are. We reached out and touched many people for the better. The many really good people I met give me real hope for us all. We have
many successes. We did very well in the debates and ran a much better campaign than last time. The media was fair and receptive to us and provided us with
great coverage. We were included in everything. I believe that we can say that we are now a real part in this community.

It will take some time to reflect on what happened. The green party has made a beginning with a seat for Elizabeth May, but most of us were caught in the NDP surge. We lost half our votes. The party went from 940,000 to less than 600,000 votes. Harper may now cut the per vote subsidy. This will require some tough choices, for us and the Liberals and the Bloc. We will need some critical and innovative thinkers to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Certainly Canadians have spoken for a majority and the future will be very different as a result. Canada took a big step backward from separation. With every vote comes a responsibility for those votes. I am concerned about the drift in values in parliament and our international reputation. Hopefully, Canadians will be more far more critical
and assertive, given the power a majority accrues in parliament under our electoral system.

In the long term, how we win, is how we make a difference in the community and the nation. Democracy should not be reserved for one day every four years. We do not have to be elected to be engaged in our future and to bring our values and voice into the community or into politics. We will do this. This is how riding associations are built, between elections.

We greens do have a future. Canada has a future, but Canadians have to take a more active interest in the government and what we are doing at home and abroad. Secrecy and obstruction must be challenged at every step. Accountability is now more than ever, in the hands of ordinary Canadians.

I am proud to know you all and call you friends. Again my sincere thanks and until I see you again,

you all have my very best and warmest wishes.

Paul Maillet

Your Ottawa Orleans Green Party candidate

An election survey response by Paul Maillet

Name, party and riding:

Paul Maillet – Green Party of Canada – Riding Ottawa Orleans

Your Background: This is the second time I have run as a green party candidate in this riding.  I have lived in Orleans for over 17 years.  I am a retired military
Colonel with 33 years experience as an Air Force aerospace engineer and was the Director of Defence Ethics after the tragic Somalia affair.  Since 2001, I have developed a successful consultancy in ethics and governance relating to controlling wrongdoing and building integrity in Canadian federal government departments, aboriginal communities and international projects.  This election is about contempt for democracy, and I have considerable experience in
controlling corruption in government.

What are your reasons for running? The reason for this election is the ethical misconduct of the government.  I bring over 13 years experience in the field
of government ethics and feel I can be a strong and uncompromising voice on this issue.  If we can get the ethics right then all other issues become easy.

What are your riding’s biggest needs? Orleans is about 35,000 households and the business of Orleans is families.  We generally live in Orleans and work
elsewhere.  The local issues are improving transit, bringing jobs into the community and the quality of life of our residents.  We will be a strong voice for Orleans.

However, the community is concerned with both national and global issues and the place of Canada.  The government fell due to unethical behavior and people want honest government.  If we get the ethics right, all else will be dealt with fairly. I will work every day for accountability and towards a new politics of cooperation, compromise, courtesy and collaboration.

Canada has suffered a massive blow to its  reputation for peace, human rights and the environment.  I will work to rebuild our leadership and international
reputation for peace and human values.
We were one of the last countries to approve the UN declaration of Indigenous rights, and then not take it seriously.  The loss of the Security Council seat is a massive international statement of the lack of trust the global community now has of us. We are criticized for obstructing global environmental initiatives. This is unbelievable and not who we are as Canadians.

Why should voters vote for you?   I have the experience to be a strong voice for the local, national and international concerns we have in Orleans.  I am a long
time resident here and we are blessed with a wonderful community and a great place to raise families and I will work to make it even better.  My background in ethics in government is uniquely situated to deal with the corrosive and disrespectful climate of contempt and obstruction that currently exists in parliament.  My international experience will make Orleans a strong voice and contributor to the relief of suffering and reduction of conflict in the Mideast.

What brought about your reason for running in the upcoming election? My experience in government, my belief in strong values, the care for others above all and my belief that I can make a real difference for the better, led me to run in this election for the second time.  I am deeply concerned that democracy is at risk in Canada.

Tell our readers one thing they would be surprised to know about you: I enjoy the arts, and for over twenty years, am a visual artist, painting in acrylics.  I was a former Chairman of the Board of the Gloucester Arts Council, and former member of Arteast.  I won first prize in acrylics/oils in the Gloucester 10th Juried Art and Photo Exhibition in 1991.