To Remember Is to Work for Peace

 Each year, on November 11, we pause to remember and honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Remembrance Day is a solemn occasion, shared in various forms by nations around the world, to acknowledge the terrible human cost of war.

But I hope our remembrance serves a purpose beyond honouring the fallen. It should also remind us of the horrors of war and strengthen our resolve to prevent future conflicts. Surely, one of the most meaningful ways to honour those who gave their lives is to redouble our efforts to become not only peacekeepers, but also peacemakers.

Since the Second World War, Canada has played a significant role on the world stage in both capacities. Our country has a history of contributing to international peace through diplomacy, institution-building, peacekeeping, and humanitarian initiatives.

In the years immediately following the Second World War, Canada helped shape international institutions intended to prevent another global conflict. Canada was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Indeed, Article 2 of the NATO treaty is sometimes referred to as the "Canadian Article," reflecting the influence of Canadian negotiators in ensuring that the alliance would promote political and economic cooperation, rather than serve solely as a military alliance.

One of Canada's most significant contributions to international peace came during the Suez Crisis of 1956. When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt, Canadian External Affairs Minister Lester B. Pearson proposed the creation of a United Nations Emergency Force to supervise the withdrawal of foreign troops and help stabilize the situation.

His initiative helped defuse a dangerous international confrontation and established a model for armed UN peacekeeping operations that would influence international conflict resolution for decades to come. For his efforts, Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, becoming the first Canadian to receive that distinction.

Over the following four decades and beyond, successive Canadian governments committed military personnel and resources to United Nations peacekeeping missions in the Congo, Cyprus, the Middle East, Cambodia, the Balkans, and elsewhere. In Cyprus alone, more than 25,000 Canadian Armed Forces members served over the decades, helping to maintain ceasefires and prevent renewed hostilities between communities.

These missions were not without sacrifice. Canadian peacekeepers faced danger, endured difficult conditions, and, in some cases, lost their lives in the service of peace. Their contributions remind us that maintaining peace can demand courage and sacrifice no less real than those required in war.

Canada's contributions, however, have extended well beyond military peacekeeping.

In 1996 and 1997, Canada helped lead an international campaign to prohibit anti-personnel landmines, weapons that continued to kill and maim civilians long after conflicts had ended. Under Canadian leadership, this initiative culminated in the signing of the Ottawa Treaty in December 1997, when representatives of 122 countries gathered in Ottawa to sign an agreement prohibiting the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel mines by participating states. The treaty also established obligations for mine clearance and assistance to victims.

That a middle power such as Canada could mobilize such broad international support for a humanitarian initiative remains a significant achievement in Canadian diplomacy.

Another important contribution came in 2000, when the Canadian government established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Its work led to the development of the principle known as the Responsibility to Protect.

At its heart was the conviction that governments have a responsibility to protect their populations from mass atrocities and that the international community also has responsibilities when governments fail to do so. In 2005, United Nations member states endorsed this principle, specifically addressing genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

These examples illustrate that Canada's contributions to peace have not been limited to military service. They have also involved diplomacy, international cooperation, humanitarian leadership, and the conviction that nations have a responsibility to seek peaceful solutions to conflict.

None of this is to suggest that Canada has always succeeded in its efforts, or that our record has been without shortcomings. Nor is it to suggest that peace can always be secured through diplomacy alone. The realities of international conflict are far more complicated. Nevertheless, these initiatives demonstrate what can be accomplished when nations make the pursuit of peace a deliberate priority.

As we gather on November 11 to remember those who gave their lives in war, we should also reflect on the responsibility their sacrifice places upon us.

Remembrance must be more than an annual ceremony. It should be a continuing commitment to the pursuit of peace, to resolving differences without resorting to violence, and to strengthening the international institutions and relationships that make peaceful coexistence possible.

Surely, the greatest tribute we can pay to those who died in war is to work toward a world in which future generations will not be called upon to make the same sacrifice.

To remember is to work for peace.

 

The Real Test of a Municipal Council Is What It Leaves Behind

Municipal elections have concluded, and across British Columbia, newly elected mayors and councillors are preparing to assume responsibility for the governance of their communities. Some have been returned to office; others will be serving for the first time. All face the same fundamental challenge: reconciling the aspirations of their residents with the financial realities of municipal government.

Election campaigns naturally focus on what communities need and what candidates promise to deliver. New recreation centres, aquatic facilities, arenas, parks and other public amenities frequently feature prominently in those discussions. These are legitimate aspirations. Growing communities need infrastructure, and residents reasonably expect their municipal governments to provide it.

But there is an important distinction between identifying a need and determining how, when and at what cost that need can responsibly be met. During its last term, the Township of Langley pursued an aggressive approach to addressing its infrastructure deficit, particularly in recreational facilities. That approach was not without internal opposition, and the divisions became evident last Saturday when the incumbent mayor and a majority of incumbent councillors were defeated at the polls.

The Difference Between Promising and Governing

During an election campaign, candidates are free to advocate for ambitious projects and new services. Once elected, however, they assume responsibility for the entire municipality, not simply the priorities that attracted the greatest attention during the campaign.

Police and fire protection, roads, water and sewer systems, drainage and numerous other essential services must be maintained. Existing infrastructure ages and eventually requires replacement. Population growth creates additional demands, while inflation increases the cost of services residents already receive. These responsibilities seldom attract the same public attention as a new recreation complex, but they are no less important.

A council's responsibility is not simply to determine what its community would like to have. It must also determine what the community can afford, what must take priority, and what financial obligations it is prepared to pass on to future generations.

Borrowing Is Not Free Money

Municipal borrowing is a legitimate and sometimes necessary means of financing major infrastructure. Long-lived assets can reasonably be financed over time, allowing future residents who benefit from those assets to share in their costs.

There is nothing inherently irresponsible about municipal debt. The question is how much a municipality can prudently borrow while preserving its ability to meet other obligations. Borrowing allows construction to proceed sooner, but it does not eliminate the cost. It spreads that cost over many years, with interest. Every dollar committed to debt servicing is a dollar unavailable for other municipal priorities.

Equally important, the cost of a new public facility does not end when construction is completed. Aquatic centres, arenas and recreation complexes require ongoing expenditures for staffing, utilities, maintenance and programming. These costs become permanent obligations within municipal operating budgets, often requiring continuing subsidies from property taxpayers.

Consequently, decisions to construct major facilities create financial commitments that may extend well beyond the terms of the councils that approve them.

The Value of Financial Flexibility

Municipalities differ considerably in their capacity to finance infrastructure. Some have opportunities to expand their industrial and commercial tax bases. Others face geographic, agricultural or environmental constraints that limit future development. Residential growth generates additional tax revenue, but it also creates demand for infrastructure and services. Growth does not automatically pay for itself.

One of the most valuable assets a municipality can possess is financial flexibility. Healthy reserves, manageable debt and prudent long-term planning allow councils to respond to emergencies, address unexpected infrastructure failures and take advantage of funding opportunities. A council that has already committed much of its future revenue to debt servicing has fewer options when unforeseen circumstances arise. Maintaining financial flexibility ensures that today's decisions do not unnecessarily restrict tomorrow's choices.

A Responsibility to Future Generations

Municipal councillors are elected for limited terms, but the consequences of their financial decisions can extend for decades. Residents deserve more than assurances that a project is needed or that financing can be arranged. They deserve to know what it will cost to build, what it will cost to operate, how it will be financed, and what other priorities may be affected.

Good governance requires vision and ambition. Communities cannot prosper if their elected representatives are unwilling to invest in their future. But good governance also requires restraint, sound judgment and the willingness to make difficult decisions.

As newly elected councils begin their work, perhaps the most important question they should ask is not simply, "What do we want to accomplish during our term?" It is also, "What financial condition will we leave our municipality in when our term is over?" The lasting legacy of a council should not be measured only by what it builds, but also by the financial health and opportunities it leaves for those who follow.

 

Experience and Continuity Matter

As I conclude six terms on Abbotsford City Council and prepare to step away from elected office, I have been reflecting on what effective leadership requires. Having served under five different mayors, I have learned that the responsibilities of the mayor’s office are not always apparent from the outside.

A mayor does much more than chair Council meetings or represent the City at public events. The mayor is often Abbotsford's principal advocate with other levels of government and an important voice in building the relationships upon which major municipal initiatives can depend.

That is particularly important at this moment in Abbotsford's history.

Since the devastating flooding of Sumas Prairie, our City has spent years developing relationships with the provincial and federal governments, First Nations and other partners. Those relationships are now producing tangible progress. Discussions that began years ago have matured into partnerships, funding commitments and direct access to senior decision-makers.

Relationships of this kind are built over time. So is an understanding of the complexities of municipal government: its finances, infrastructure, land-use challenges, relationships with senior governments and the limits of what a municipality can accomplish on its own.

I have served with mayors who came to the office with Council experience and with one who did not. From that experience, I have come to place considerable value on having a mayor who understands municipal government before assuming its most demanding elected position.

That does not mean that newcomers to public life have nothing to contribute. They certainly do. New voices and new ideas are important to local democracy. But there are times when experience and continuity deserve particular consideration.

I believe this is one of those times.

Abbotsford has considerable momentum. Important work on flood protection, transportation, infrastructure and our relationships with senior governments is underway. In my view, maintaining that momentum should be an important consideration as residents decide who will lead the next Council.

As someone who has worked alongside Mayor Ross Siemens on Council, I can speak to what I have personally observed: he knows the City, understands the issues before us, and has established working relationships with the people and governments whose cooperation Abbotsford will need in the years ahead.

For those reasons, I support Ross Siemens for another term as Mayor.