SRID Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 1, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We have just a couple of housekeeping things before we begin, if you don't mind.

We have some additional Foreign Affairs documents from last week, and they will be passed around today.

The other one is we've confirmed a meeting with Minister Minna next Wednesday. And I'd like to remind you that she will be addressing the NGO “Reality of Aid” seminar next Tuesday afternoon at the Château Laurier, so if anyone here can participate in that seminar, it would be good preparation for our meeting the next day. We'll be in room 308 West Block next week.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Madam Chair,

[English]

when the clerk receives documents at his office, I wonder if he could stamp them with the date he received them. This would do away with any confusion. On occasion, we receive piles of documents the minute we begin a meeting. It would be nice to know when actually these documents came in.

• 1540

We have now two documents. They're not stamped, obviously, because that's not the practice, but I wonder if we could try that as a practice.

The Chair: Well, the documents are often just given to the clerk the day of the meeting.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Sure, and he could stamp it that day.

The Chair: Well, he doesn't carry a stamp with him.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'll buy him one.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Which documents are you referring to, Eugène?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Any document given to us by witnesses.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Oh, from the witnesses. You're not referring to the motions?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No, no.

The Chair: We usually get our documents the day of committee meetings.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My point, Madam—

The Chair: They just brought them in.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay. If that is the case, I have no problem with that, but I want to know. When we do get a stack of reports as we're sitting down, we're expected to speed-read them impolitely in front of a witness while a witness is trying to make a presentation, and often I suspect these documents may have been in the clerk's office for days.

The Chair: No. Usually if they're received ahead of time, we get them in our offices prior to the meeting as well as having a new copy handed out at committee.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I sense a little resistance to this stamping.

The Chair: Well, I...

The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have a stamp.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could we maybe have a motion to provide him with a $2 stamp? I would be willing to take up a collection or even pay it out of my own budget and supply him with a stamp.

The Chair: Well, if you would like to buy him a stamp, he will stamp the documents.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Agreed. Can you buy one and put it on my account?

[English]

The Chair: Okay?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes. It is rather unusual that a member provide funding for the clerk to buy something, but I would be glad to do it.

Do you need any pens or pencils?

The Chair: I've never had stamped documents in any other committees I've sat on. Have you?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I don't intend to begin—

The Chair: I'll tell you what. I'll buy him a stamp, okay? Great.

In terms of today's meeting, the witnesses will know the subcommittee has decided to look at the subject of human security in Africa. We met last week with representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, from CIDA, as well as from IDRC. This round table will be the second, to help us tighten our focus.

We have two organizations here today. We invited four, and the other two had conflicts of interest. So the good news is you have more time.

One of the things we asked of the witnesses last week at the end of the meeting was for them to give us a wish list, you could say, to point out areas where they thought it would be best for us to focus. Perhaps we will ask you to do the same. We can't do all of Africa of course, and we can't cover all issues, so what this committee would like to do is produce a report that, after all is said and done, can be a worthwhile document to help improve the situation in Africa, not just another report.

Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses. From the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development we have Iris Almeida, the director of programs, and from the North-South Institute we have John Serieux, senior researcher.

Who are we going to start with? Ladies first? Chivalry is sometimes alive in some places.

Thank you.

Ms. Iris Almeida (Director of Programs, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Thank you.

• 1545

[Translation]

First, I would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity of coming here before it and most especially for allowing us to talk about a subject as important as Africa.

[English]

I have a presentation, hopefully of ten minutes. I have a text that I've distributed to you. The text, if you go through it, will speak first of all, within the broad human security agenda, to what we know most as a centre—that is, human rights and democracy in Africa. The International Centre has been working on this question in Africa since its inception ten years ago. So the first elements of my presentation will cover

[Translation]

what the Centre is and what it does in Africa. The second part of my presentation will present the main lines of what is happening in Africa based on our experience. The third will deal with the few recommendations we are making to you and to Canada so that the Centre's actions can be more coherent and its strategy more efficient.

I suggest that you follow on your text because I will go through it fairly quickly.

The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development is an independent Canadian institution with an international mandate that was created by the Parliament of Canada in 1988, almost ten years ago already. It works with citizens and governments, both Canadian and foreign, to promote human rights and democratic rights as defined in the Universal Charter of Human Rights.

The International Centre provides financial and political support, as well as technical assistance, to defenders of human rights, associations of native peoples and democratic movements the world over. It militates for reforms and new orientations within national and international organizations and provides resources to reinforce the abilities of its partners. It makes access to multilateral institutions easier for its NGO partners, especially the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and seeks ways to integrate women's rights into the mechanisms designed to protect human rights. It brings together members of the public and government representatives from different countries to discuss issues related to human rights and democratic development. It seeks to make the Canadian and foreign public aware of the violation of these human rights. It sponsors research, publications, public education and enquiry commissions.

Before I start, I would like to suggest that after this meeting I show you some of our researches and publications based on experience in the field.

For example, there is a campaign against impunity in Africa. We had a colloquium with about thirty African countries at Ouagadougou, in Burkina Faso, three years ago. Afterwards, we developed an action plan to work with these countries and the democratic societies to fight against impunity. That is one of the examples.

A second deals with women and peace consolidation. It is based on our experiences, in Rwanda especially, where we work. I will come back to that a little later.

The most recent example is a conference held here, in Montréal, on the Democratic Republic of Congo. As you know, this is a country in turmoil.

If you are interested, I could send you copies of these documents.

[English]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could I just ask a question of the witness? I'm sorry. I hesitate to interrupt, but I'm just wondering whether the witness is going to be highlighting the key elements of the brief. It's an eleven-page brief.

Ms. Iris Almeida: I'll be very quick. I'll highlight.

Mr. Svend Robinson: She's not going to be reading the whole brief?

Ms. Iris Almeida: No, not at all.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay. I just wanted to get clarification. Thank you.

Ms. Iris Almeida: That's why I left it with you.

Because our resources are quite limited, the International Centre, in its work in Africa, emphasizes four areas of work.

• 1550

In Africa we focus primarily on the development of democracy and justice, and secondly on women's human rights. I've given you a couple of cases. For example, in Nigeria we work on the transition monitoring group, a group that does civic education and was very involved in the election monitoring process. We supported Radio Kudirat, an independent radio station providing information on democracy. Particularly during the military regime, this was very effective, because they were in fact broadcasting from Norway in different languages into Nigeria. And the Civil Liberties Organization, a human rights monitoring group that has been in existence for twenty-odd years, is there.

In Kenya our work is in three projects related to gender and governance. We're working with parliamentarians on the whole issue of lawmaking and putting into Parliament laws that are pro-democratic in a context where the government is very, very powerful. As you know, President Moi has been in power for years now, and there's very little space for democratic or loyal opposition in that country, particularly on the issues of constitutional reform.

We work, as I said earlier, at four different levels. First of all, we choose a few countries, and therefore we do not claim to have expertise on all countries in Africa. We work in five countries: Togo, Congo, Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

At the regional level, for the whole of Africa... As you know, Africa has fifty-odd countries, and it's very difficult to just work nationally, because many of the problems in that continent are trans-frontier, transborder. So what we do is work with three important networks of civil society in Africa. One is the Inter-African Human Rights Union. The second is GERDDES Afrique, a research group based in Benin. And the third group is the African Commission on Human and People's Rights.

In Canada we work with several Canadian organizations that do work in terms of educating the Canadian public or undertaking advocacy to put Africa on the agenda. We believe in the last couple of years Africa has slipped out of the Canadian agenda, and the international agenda, for that matter. What we have been seeing are pieces of activity rather than a coherent strategy, and I'll come to that in a minute.

At the international level the work of the centre is related to a major initiative we have. We coordinate an international coalition of women's rights organizations, which has prepared amicus curiae briefs to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has worked with the prosecutor to change the indictments so that sexual violence and rape can be recognized as war crimes. It is because of some of this work that in fact in the prosecution of the Akayesu case, there was a decision on this question; not only was the indictment changed.

Relating to that, as I said earlier, we have this work on women and peace. We have been doing work on women in conflict zones, and we thought it was very important to make the link between conflict and the search for peace.

Lastly, I will now address a couple of the key challenges I see in terms of human rights and democracy in Africa.

The first important thing to remember is that the process of building the state, or nation-building, has been very fragmented in Africa historically, because of the very artificial divisions in the first place that were brought on this continent.

Secondly, a central issue is the question of civilians who are casualties of major armed conflicts. Since 1970 we have seen thirty wars on the continent. These wars have resulted in massive destruction, not just of property, but what is most despicable is that human lives are being lost, and rape and torture and disappearance and maiming continue.

The third area we would like to highlight is the traffic, sale, and indiscriminate use of arms. If something is not done on the issue of control of weapons, it seems to me very little of our efforts in development and democracy-building will actually be sustainable, because in most of the continent, it's easier to buy a Kalashnikov or a little hand grenade than even to buy food. So I think this whole issue of the traffic and sale of arms all across the continent—I can give you numerous examples of how that actually takes place—is a very important factor to understand what we as Canadians can do in relation to that.

• 1555

Another area, and of course a very vital area, is the problem of poverty, increasing poverty. We are not just talking about normal levels of poverty; it's not an old story. My colleague here will address the proportions of that, therefore I have not dwelt on it in this paper, but I believe it's a very significant problem in Africa because there will be increased poverty and marginalization and insecurity basically related to the context of war.

On Africa in the globalized world, some of you who have been following the Seattle deliberations will also know that very little of Africa is... When we talk about globalization and the global economy, we still believe the global economy does not necessarily fit and is not necessarily of benefit to Africans at this time.

I want to say here that structural adjustment measures have been introduced in many African countries. The impacts of them have not necessarily been dealt with seriously. So you have pockets of a great amount of wealth but a lot of poverty.

[Translation]

Let's talk about the derailing of the democratic process.

[English]

On many occasions, at least in the past couple of years, we have said a very important benchmark for democracy is elections. Because aid dollars have been pumped into the continent by the millions in the last ten years and many elections have taken place, some of them well planned and some of them less well planned, often we have associated elections with democracy. What the African experience shows us is, in fact, it's only a starting point and not an end in itself. On the whole issue of political alternatives and transition from one government to the next, these are not sustained in the continent.

It is a very important problem, because you have an election and there's a lot of fraud. There are no independent electoral commissions in some countries. The timing of the elections is very short for people to have educational campaigns to know what the issues of the elections are. So as far as elections are concerned, we who put our resources into elections must appreciate that they are only one aspect. First of all, there are many conditions that need to be united before we can say the elections are free and fair. Secondly, and importantly, I would say, make sure there are spaces for the opposition to be able to speak out and address the public and develop their platforms so there can be some alternatives in the political system.

But what we see in many countries is that the winners take everything. The quickest way to become rich is to accede to political power. Because very little help or support or attention is given to creating an economic environment, a lot of the money is pushed into arms traffic. It just happens that people understand that in order to become rich, you have to be in power. Therefore because the state is the primary employer, the state is omnipresent, it actually becomes very difficult to have a democratic system whereby there is tolerance, dialogue, and respect for democratic opposition. Every means is used to accede to this power because it's a quick way to make wealth in many societies.

I'd like to look at the international community a bit. I think the international community is trying to grapple with what exactly can fit and could be some of the interesting or sustainable solutions in Africa.

Somalia was one of the few missions of the international community in which it had to pull out before it actually completed its mission. The Somalia experience was so negative to many international agencies, particularly the UN, that it kind of soured support for international intervention and conflict mediation and resolution globally. This kind of fatigue was one of the reasons the UN had intervened in the case of Rwanda in a very inept, inappropriate, and untimely manner.

• 1600

I remember the days when I myself was involved in Rwanda, just before the genocide. We had gone there with an international mission of inquiry to look at the human rights situation. The report of the mission actually spoke about the coming of genocide, and very little attention was paid to that. So it seems to me a lot of the talk about early warning and conflict prevention is still at the level of rhetoric when it comes to being actually employed in the African context. Very little happens.

With that, I'd like to point out very briefly that there are a lot of very positive things happening in the continent. One of them is the issue of national human rights commissions. Many countries—I would say 15 countries—have set up these commissions in the recent past. But what happens is that many of these countries set up the commissions with the idea of getting the aid dollars. They appoint their own people, so it's very highly politically motivated in many countries, and the people who are put there often lack expertise in international human rights and humanitarian law and practice.

So what happens is they are set up—and I would say the office of Mary Robinson, our High Commissioner for Human Rights, has done incredible work in some of those 15 countries to assist in the technical set-up and advisory services to those new and fledgling national human rights commissions. But the problem is, in large measure, very little attention is given to their long-term sustainability. They're set up with pomp, with lots of people politically appointed to demonstrate that the governments are doing something. A lot of the commissions are not very independent and basically suffer from problems of resources. So while donors come in and help launch the commission, very little is done in terms of long-term sustainable institution-building.

I would like to highlight to you three recommendations. First, we believe Canada should be sharing our expertise and using our diplomatic leverage to the full. We say “to the full” because I think they're doing a lot and we have to appreciate that, but there is a whole lot more that can be done, given Canada's position in the Francophonie, the Commonwealth, and even in the UN itself, and particularly at the Security Council.

I will highlight here a little bit the experience we've had in Nigeria and South Africa, which in fact could serve us as models in our work in the rest of Africa, because those models demonstrate that we have sustained commitment, that the commitment has brought forces in Canada and in that country in a kind of solidarity.

Basically, I won't take much time, but maybe in the question period we would go into that more. If Nigeria is democratic today, we have to recognize that its democracy is extremely fragile, and we must continue to support them now, not just in fighting for human right and fighting for elections, which is very important and which is what we did, but it's very important to set up the strong institutions of democracy in that country. I believe Canadian civil society, which has played an important role in the pre-election period during the military regime, can play an even better role in the post phase.

The second point I'd like to highlight is the question of influencing in a multilateral framework. Here I'd particularly like to bring to your attention the situation in the République Democratique de Congo, ex-Zaire. As I said earlier in my paper, in the 1950s and 1960s, in the Cold War period, Zaire was bucked up by many of the North Atlantic countries in this east-west confrontation, and we basically kept in power and boosted this military dictatorship for many years, over three or four decades. The problem now is that once again the country, which is bordered by numerous countries in Africa and is in terms of resources one of the richest countries in Africa, is being robbed of its mines, of its diamonds, of most of its natural resources, in a very quick manner. At the top there is political chaos, which helps to plunder the country's wealth.

• 1605

More importantly, in the last three or four years there have been massive and systematic violations of human rights in this country. The United Nations, under Kofi Annan, had in 1987 put forward a report on the situation. The special rapporteur, Mr. Roberto Garreton, was not allowed into the country. Only recently, because of international pressure, has he got in.

The situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo warrants that Canada bring up the issue very seriously at the Security Council, and not only bring up the issue—because it has been brought up—but look at the possibility of sending an international peacekeeping mission in order that basic conditions for peace can work in the field and people can get on with their lives, because the problems of impurity and the massive violations will continue and create instability, not only in that country but in the rest of the continent.

My last point, of course, is asking for a review of Canadian foreign policy, because I believe that the policy right now, although very good in certain areas, like in Sierra Leone and now in Sudan with new initiatives, is too country- and project-focused. What we need to do is basically listen to the voices of Canadians who have a tremendous expertise in Africa and on Africa, and we need to be working closely with parliamentarians to have a more coherent and strategic approach rather than project-based or country-focused solutions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Serieux.

Mr. John Serieux (Senior Researcher, North-South Institute): Thank you.

I will preface my presentation by indicating that in regard to the broadest possible definition of human security, the North-South Institute takes it to imply freedom from hunger, access to shelter, and freedom from harm as well as freedom from war. I hope you take my presentation in that context.

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, the North-South Institute welcomes this opportunity to participate in this round table on African issues and to present on the issue of poverty and debt in Africa.

During the remainder of this presentation, particular reference will be made to sub-Saharan Africa, because I believe this region is where the issues of poverty and debt present us with the greatest immediate challenges. However, I urge this subcommittee to remember that although poverty and debt are of less immediate concern in North Africa, human rights in particular and human security in general remain of tremendous concern in that region.

Let me start by pointing out some sobering facts about sub-Saharan Africa. These facts are not meant to elicit your sympathy but rather to point out how far and for how long this region has been allowed to slide out of the world's peripheral vision.

In 1995 the per capita income of south Asians in terms of purchasing powers surpassed that of sub-Saharan Africans, making sub-Saharan Africa the poorest region in the world. That statistic may seem relatively meaningless until we consider that in 1980, measured in the same terms, per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa was twice that of south Asia.

Average per capita income in Africa in 1997 was only 75% of what it had been in 1980, representing an average negative growth of 1.6% a year over that period. Income distribution was also worsening during that period. The ratio of the wealthiest 10% of the continent's population to that of the poorest 10% increased from approximately 37 in 1980 to 62 in 1995, implying that the wealth of the richest relative to that of the poorest had almost doubled.

The poor thus bore a disproportionate share of the burden of negative growth. The average rate of annual per capita growth for the poorest 20% of sub-Saharan Africa's population was -2% between 1990 and 1995. For the richest 10% it was also negative, but only -1.2%.

• 1610

The dual realities of falling incomes and worsening income distribution in that region have meant that poverty in Africa has been increasing faster than in any other region of the world. The approximate proportion of the continent's population living on less than a dollar a day increased from approximately 18% in 1980 to 24% in 1995. Africa was the only continent that recorded an increase in the number of the people living at such desperate levels of deprivation. The numbers living on less than a $1,000 a year increased from 55% to 70%.

As poverty has increased, so has debt. Of the 41 countries that are currently classified as heavily indebted poor countries, 33 are from sub-Saharan Africa. The region's ratio of total debt to total income was 71.3% in 1997, nearly twice as much as the region with the second highest debt-to-income ratio—Latin America and the Caribbean—at only 38.4%.

In the meantime, aid to Africa as a proportion of GNP continues to be the highest for all regions. It rose throughout the 1980s, peaking at 10.7% of GNP in 1992, but has since been falling. It was only 5% in 1997.

Canada's bilateral aid to Africa has followed a similar pattern. It increased through most of the 1980s, but the current level of aid in the 1997-98 fiscal year was less than it was in the 1985-86 fiscal year, both in absolute terms and in real terms: $449.6 million versus $424.9 million—or $319.4 million in 1986 dollars.

The news is not all bad for sub-Saharan Africa, however. Whereas in 1980 only Senegal could boast an elected multi-party government in the region, today elected multi-party democracies are the rule rather than the exception. Also, the enhanced HIPC initiative approved at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund meetings in September of this year holds the hope that a significant proportion of the region's debt will be forgiven. Both of these factors bode well in terms of the region's ability to address its formidable problems in terms of governance structures and the availability of domestic resources.

However, those factors present only the beginning in terms of creating the framework for the solutions to the region's problems, not the solutions themselves. They are merely small parts of a puzzle that must be pieced together.

In continuing to develop that framework, it is important that the African tragedy is not seen as a crisis brought on purely by the corrupt and undemocratic African governments or the misdemeanours of multinational corporations or the misguided policy prescriptions of multilateral institutions, or the interference of foreign governments. There is sufficient blame to go around, and all of these constituencies must be willing to carry their share of the blame, but we must focus on one group that is blameless: the marginal, uneducated, landless, and powerless African poor.

All initiatives must concentrate on addressing the plight of that group and must aim ultimately at providing that group with the tools for addressing their own problems. Improving human security in this context means providing these people with access to the means to avoid hunger, war, and harm.

This can only be done by addressing the structures that are maintaining the status quo: poor education, poor health, lack of access to land and markets—domestic and international—limited employment opportunities, and the absence of a voice in their future. Making a direct connection between debt relief and poverty reduction is one such step, but this is a workable approach only if debt relief is sufficient to release some of the domestic resources required for addressing poverty issues and if the policies are domestically determined, that is, owned by the domestic population.

The continued decline in the region, during periods of both increasing and decreasing aid flows, suggests that the quantity of aid is not the only issue we must address. Improving the effectiveness of aid is vital if Canada and other wealthy nations are to make a difference. Therefore, while the North-South Institute continues to urge this government to restore its ODA—official development assistance—to at least the levels of the 1980s, it is equally important that the form that aid takes is subject to review and reform.

• 1615

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm sure you've raised a lot of questions with your suggestions here.

Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I have a lot of questions, but I will start with the one that is going through my head more and more. We have heard about the African dilemma on many occasions. I believe we all know about the weaknesses or negative situations in Africa well enough. We are also well informed about the causes. However, I sometimes tell myself that there are certainly positive aspects that would allow Africa to be an integral part of the world community, that we should encourage, or on which we should bank.

I would like to hear you talk about these positive forces sometimes, of the parts of African life that would allow that continent to be an integral part of the world community.

Speaking of the insertion of Africa into the rest of the world, some analysts tell us that more and more it is not so much civil liberties but political stability and economic growth that will help Africa come out of it. I would like your comments on that.

I know that it is difficult to determine such categories. I see it as all linked together. Nevertheless, there remains the fact that currently certain analysts tell us that until there is stability, good government and performance in terms of economic growth, civil liberties cannot be an issue.

Those are my two questions at this time. I would like you to answer them and I may have more a little later.

[English]

Mr. John Serieux: I think the integration of Africa in the larger global economy is ultimately the aim, and I think that in a large part, when we talk about the African problem, that is precisely what we speak of: the inability of Africa to be fully or even significantly integrated into the global economy because there are so many structural impediments.

To give a simple example, integration requires an ability to communicate. The level of infrastructure in terms of communications and infrastructure in terms of a populace that is educated and able to engage in commerce at a significant level... neither of these factors are at present in most African countries to any significant degree, and that is part of the reason why Africa remains and continues to be marginalized within a larger global structure. The structures that are required to allow it to take advantage of improvements and the growth in the global economy are not present.

These factors also relate to the issues of political stability and performance. I believe that one of the factors that continues to impede the true development of democracy in Africa is the low level of education of the African populace as well as the lack of access to the means to make their voices heard. It is only when we start to address some of these fundamental inequities that we can begin to give the larger population a voice in their government—and ultimately a voice in the larger global economy.

The Chair: Iris.

Ms. Iris Almeida: Just to add to that, I would say that the first thing we need to recognize is that economic development, political development, and the family of human rights go hand in hand. I would challenge Canadian businesses to try to do business when half their money has to go to bribery and corrupt officials or is just stolen and used to buy arms.

• 1620

In order for economic growth to actually sustain, one needs an environment that is conducive to it. What we are saying is create the conditions for an environment that's sane in order to work. The environment around the continent, politically speaking, is one of war, victimization, and casualties, and in there are pockets of growth and development. But these are very fragile. We are not dealing with the overall context. If we don't deal with the overall context of the terms of trade, as long as Africa still has to export basic commodities and those prices are very low in international markets, as long as we have not dealt with, as he said, schools and pumped money into education, we will only...

It seems to me that in the last 10 years the international community has been dealing with the problems peripherally and very consciously dealing with Africa as a region of the world where you will dump humanitarian aid after the fact. So we are basically waiting for crises, which are all burning there, to actually erupt and for a certain number of lives to actually be lost before we act.

I think everybody would agree with you that in the long term what is being attempted here is sound economic development, but all I'm saying is that in order for sound economic development to take root, one needs to deal with very existential issues of life and death. Human security is not a vague concept. It's a concept that concerns people's lives from today to tomorrow, whether it is the right to food that is being jeopardized or the right to physical integrity of their bodies and minds.

In the next 10 years, in my view, and I've worked in Africa for the last 20 years, if we don't deal with these issues structurally and with a real political coherence and if we keep dealing with it piecemeal, here in Canada we are going to be confronted with hundreds of refugees. Of the 13 million refugees, 8 million are in Africa. The problem is such that the types of wars we are seeing on the continent will make it become a very serious problem for us, because they are not going to be far away. They are going to be at our door. That itself should be challenging us.

I'm just throwing that out as one example. We say that the problems are interconnected and that we have expertise and are sharing some of that already. All I'm saying is that we have to go beyond humanitarianism and look at the structural issues, whether it's why there is poverty or why there is impunity, and deal with it.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: You did not answer one of the questions I asked. What you said corresponds somewhat to what I said in the preamble to my question regarding the fact that we are well aware of the problems and of the life Africans live. But I also asked you what Africa's main strengths were.

I will give you a perhaps more concrete example of what I mean. Let's take the example of Quebec. You know that in Quebec, when there are crises or problems, there is a social cohesion, and an extraordinary network of solidarity. It is one of Quebec's strengths. When there is a problem, whatever it is, the network of solidarity in Quebec and its social cohesiveness are one of its great strengths.

I am asking you what would be the strengths in Africa, given the problems we know about, where there are more problems than solutions. That continent must have a reservoir of internal strengths that could become the driving force behind development and on which we could bank.

• 1625

[English]

Ms. Iris Almeida: I think I understand your question. Basically what I would say is that for some of us who work on that continent, the only thing that gives us a lot of courage and a lot of hope is the people we work with. Most of these people are what we understand as civil society, that is, the churches, the unions, and youth organizations. There is a tremendous movement inside the continent. Today they call them civil society. Many of them are human rights organizations and women's rights organizations. They are doing a lot of work in the area of educating people about their rights and about lobbying their governments to change.

What we are saying is that these people do not have enough spaces. The spaces for those who believe in democracy, tolerance, and dialogue are closing in. What we are saying is that our solidarity should assist in giving these groups a voice and in strengthening their capabilities. For example, in this age of computer technology, very few groups have access to information and knowledge.

All I'd like to say here is that there are a lot of success stories. If we could perhaps go to our annual report, for example, I think we would be able to see some of these success stories, and there are lots of them on the continent. But the overwhelming environment makes the situation look quite dismal, because they don't have much space to function.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Serieux.

Mr. John Serieux: We forgot to mention the strengths Africa has. I think it is well understood that Africa is probably the most resource-rich continent in the world. That is part of the reason we see its current demise as such a tragedy, because it has the potential to be up there with any one of the other regions of the world.

But I think in terms of its people, African people have shown themselves to be very resolute. They have survived more wars than any other group. At the community level, they have shown a tremendous ability for collective action and to be innovative in dealing with their own problems.

What restrains development and progress—and this is the point we keep coming back to—is the presence of structures that do not allow that innovation and energy to show itself in the form of economic growth and improvement in their lives. This is why we stress so much that we must address the structures that tend to keep these people from achieving their full potential.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too want to thank our witnesses for excellent presentations.

Ms. Almeida said that it's the most fundamental and, I think, existential issues of life and death that really we have to confront in looking at Africa, and I want to raise just a couple of questions in those areas.

Today is World AIDS Day. The impact of AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is absolutely devastating, as you know. Something like 70% of the global total of HIV-positive people live in sub-Saharan Africa. Every day in Kenya 500 people die of AIDS. In 1998, for example, 4 million out the roughly 5.8 million newly infected HIV people were in sub-Saharan Africa. In the context of the crisis that faces the people of Africa, I just wanted to ask whether you had any particular recommendations to deal with this devastating crisis. It has taken a huge swath out of many of these societies. So I wonder if you might want to comment on the role Canada might be able to play. I welcome the announcement today by Minister Minna of $50 million to help fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. But obviously there's lots to be done, and I'd like to hear from you on that.

I have just a couple of other questions. I'll put them and then ask the witnesses to respond.

One of the human rights issues—I guess you could call it an emerging human rights issue, although certainly it has been around for decades—is equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

• 1630

In a number of African countries the situation is very harsh, and some recent statements have been made. For example, in the context of Uganda, the President of Uganda, Museveni, has ordered the arrest of all homosexuals, and Mugabe has talked about homosexuals as being like animals, like dogs.

I must say, I was a little disappointed, Ms. Almeida, in your presentation with respect to human rights when you talked about equality for all groups without discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or ideology. There's a rather glaring omission there, and that is sexual orientation, particularly given what's happening in many of these countries.

I wonder whether perhaps you want to comment on specifically what the International Centre is doing to respond to some of the concerns in this area.

I regret that our government has been silent on the situation in Uganda. The U.S. State Department has issued a very strong statement on what's been happening there, as have Scandinavian countries and a number of others, but our government has been silent. So I'd like to hear you on that.

The final question could probably be directed more towards you, Mr. Serieux. In terms of debt and debt relief, Canada and a number of other G-7 nations pledged $50 billion in debt relief to help stabilize these 33 countries you talked about, and yet, as I understand it, this is in the context of Africa every year sending out something like $35 billion in debt servicing repayments.

I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the impact of this announcement by the G-7 countries, including Canada, and what more we could and should be doing on the issue of debt. If there is to be any opportunity for people to emerge from this devastation of poverty, you can't have this millstone of debt hanging around your neck.

Those would be my questions.

The Chair: Mr. Serieux, do you want to begin?

Mr. John Serieux: Yes. Perhaps I'll respond backwards by responding to the first question and then the others.

With regard to debt relief, the current initiative offers debt relief to the tune of roughly 54% of the current debt stock. To put that in perspective, these countries as a group—and I include the non-African countries, because I do not have data around specifically the African countries, and they are no different from the rest—pay on average only 40% of their debt.

This suggests that, on average, the amount of debt being forgiven is less than what is actually being serviced. The implication is that we will not in actual fact be releasing resources into the domestic economy through debt relief at the current levels, because we essentially will be forgiving largely non-performing debt, or debt that is not being repaid. It's therefore important that we go beyond that level and increase the proportion of debt forgiveness so that we can actually release resources into the domestic economy by giving those governments breathing space to spend more money on education and health and on those areas that are far more important to ensure long-term economic development.

We should not be lulled into the belief that the current level of debt forgiveness will solve the problem. There is no indication that it will. It's a good start, but I think we need to go further. There are several ways in which we can do so while directly impacting on poverty reduction policies, but I think this will take a bit more time, so I won't go into it.

On the issue of HIV, one aspect of the crisis that is not given much publicity but I think is critical in the long run is that a very large proportion of those dying of HIV are the human wealth of the country, the human capital. Those who are university educated and technically skilled make up a very large proportion of those who are dying. It's the young, the energetic, the educated.

This has an impact not only today; it also will have an impact in the long run, because the country will not have the ability to respond to what is happening in the world economically. It will not have the ability to maintain its level of growth, unless that group is replaced very rapidly. That means the education of those who are communists becomes even more important.

• 1635

Beyond that, we need to address the crisis as it is today. I think efforts to get cures, or at least means to delay deaths from HIV, are critical. Perhaps even more critical is education to reduce the level of infection, because that remains a problem in Africa. I've lived in several African countries, and I know for a fact that a very large proportion of the population has very little idea of the means of transmission and the means of prevention. I think education remains a critical area, and resources put in that area will be resources well spent.

With regard to equality for gays, lesbians, and transgender people, this is much more her area. But what we see happening now is, in large part, a result of the structure of governance in these countries. When you have centralization of power, where those at the top can impose their personal preferences on the whole country, you have a problem.

We have to continue efforts to encourage the progress of democracy, because the democracy that exists right now is paper democracy. There is no decentralization of power, which is a crucial element of democracy. Power is too centralized, which means those in parliament, and more importantly, presidents and others around them, still have firm control over the reins of power. As long as this is so, they will always, as Museveni and Mugabe have done, be able to impose their personal preferences on the rest of the country.

Ms. Iris Almeida: I have just a few points. On sexual orientation, it's our position that it's an error not to have put it in there.

[Translation]

That was not deliberate. That's clear.

Secondly, on the reality of AIDS. We have had many contacts with groups in Africa that wanted the Centre to work in this area, in many countries as a matter of fact. Up to now, we have not had the means to react effectively to this problem area. We cannot just skim over the problem and raise false hopes. We have therefore suggested to other groups... We had some sort of networking to ensure that these groups linked up to other international organizations, especially in Europe, since the European Community has freed up many resources to this end.

It is a serious problem. My colleague just said that entire layers of future leaders are being decimated by this disease. That applies to all social layers, men, women and children.

[English]

I think it's a problem of gender and a question of health. What can we do to increase the standard of living of people? Many of the basic facilities, drugs and other medical treatments we have do not exist and are far out of the reach of ordinary people. The rich can go flying off to big capital cities internationally and get treatment. So it's a very serious human rights issue. So far we have not had adequate resources to deal with this question on the continent.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to say how pleased I am to have heard your presentations here today.

I was in Africa fairly recently, and I have been to the continent a few times. When I am there I see people with creative ability; I see the beauty of the land; I see resilient individuals and creative people just making whatever with their hands and with material in their environs. I see young people with a thirst for learning and whatever.

• 1640

On the other hand, I see all the conditions you mention. Oftentimes we have to go back to the colonial past to see where the lines were drawn, how peoples were put together, how peoples were separated, and see the conflicts throughout the entire continent in an historical perspective. At the same time, it's important to recognize what we must do in 1999, as we approach this globalized world.

I want to pose a question to both of you. If you had to construct a policy on Africa, what would be some of the themes and elements of that policy? In a country like Nigeria, 90% of the parliamentarians in this new parliament are first-time parliamentarians. They're looking around. It's a very fragile democracy.

If we as Canadians are to help, apart from what we're doing right now and the patchwork fashion in which some things are happening across the continent... Construct for us a policy on Africa that might be helpful, with whatever themes or elements you want to include.

Ms. Iris Almeida: Very briefly—I'm not going to be very prescriptive in my solutions—from my experience, I would highlight three areas that are very important and could make a dent. One is to focus on children and education. You have to start there. It seems long and simplistic, but I think the emphasis should be on education—formal education, informal education, and technical education. When a car breaks down, there's nobody around to repair it. Why is that? A very practical type of education is needed that can be useful to people. For that you obviously need computers and basic technology, because you're not talking about outmoded forms of education.

The second area I would say is to work with the women. While many of the men today... I'm not going to over-generalize, but any international organization that has done significant work on the continent will tell you, as one of their lessons learned, to work with women's organizations, strengthen their capacities, and focus on seeing society through the lens of the women. Work with them as creative actors to look for solutions.

Their perspectives on war, peace, and feeding their children and families in times of drought—and droughts there are—are very important. Also, within this women's question, there's the question particularly of gender and governance. I believe it's important to prepare—to give women a voice and a chance to capacitate themselves to lead to positions of power. In Kenya, we've done a lot of work on that question and have seen it's very successful, across party lines, to have that.

The third area—I could say a lot more on the economic front, but I'll stick to this one—that Canada has not done much about, and could do, is the question of political party formation. I worked with the Stiftung foundation in Germany and did a program in Tanzania not long ago. Our high commissioner at that time hosted the meeting. We had all these parties, moving from single party to multi-parties. We had 40 of them parading around, and they didn't know how to start a party, what is a manifesto, what is a platform, what is education of your public, how do you raise funds—the whole question of party financing. We did a workshop on what political party formation was and what democratic loyal opposition was: Not all of you are going to get into power, but all of you are going to have a voice at the table.

• 1645

I just think that maybe Canada can be working closely with some others, particularly the Germans, I would say, because they have a lot of expertise in this that goes beyond party lines. That would be very interesting, because then they'd see the Canadian models of democracy at work too.

Those are three areas I would like to put forward, because I think they are areas that we talk about in which more can be done and can be done better.

The Chair: Would you like to respond?

Mr. John Serieux: Yes, I would. I would stress three areas in particular.

The first—partly because I have a bias in that area, because I'm currently doing some work here—is that Canada should address the debt issue that these countries face. It's important that the debt is brought down to manageable levels, because its presence endangers any attempt at economic growth. More importantly, what we've found is that the private sector in those countries will not respond to any kind of economic incentive in the presence of a heavy debt load. So it is critical that this issue is addressed beyond the current initiative.

The second issue I would want Canada to address is the development of civil society in these countries. I think that having gone the first step of creating multi-party democracies, the second step, perhaps an even more crucial step, has not been taken by most of these countries, and that is the devolution of power from the centre.

As long as you have decision-making at only one point, and that is the central government, and very often by one person or a very small group of people, you cannot have true democracy. People do not have a say in what happens to them, what happens in their lives, and the policies that will affect them. I think addressing issues of poverty, etc., cannot be effective unless those people are involved in the decision-making process. So we must put some resources toward encouraging those countries and governments to go the next step to devolve power.

To give you an example, in Malawi they have had a multi-party democracy since 1994. They were supposed to have had local government elections by 1996. We are now in 1999 and they still haven't had them, because the central government does not want to devolve power to local government.

The third area I would want Canada to stress is that of addressing structural issues. People remain poor because they have structural impediments. One can alleviate poverty in the short term by giving them money or food, but you cannot alleviate poverty in the long run unless you address the structural issues. Those structural issues involve distribution of land and the provision of basic health. A child who grows up malnourished cannot possibly become a productive adult. Clean water is another one. All of those basic issues must be addressed and resources should be put in that direction.

Basic education is crucial. Human wealth is the means through which material wealth is created, and a large part of that human wealth is education, or human capital, as we call it in economics. We can do that only through education, by encouraging basic education for all members of society, especially girls. One will find that in most of these countries, girls are the least privileged when it comes to access to education.

I would add to this two issues that are related but that I want to point out separately.

Many of these countries have suffered recently, and are suffering, through wars. Post-war repair is an important part of getting those countries on their feet. So it's important to put some resources toward helping those countries get back on their feet in the aftermath of war.

The last issue is that of AIDS, which was addressed earlier. AIDS is not merely a health crisis. It is a potential economic crisis. In fact it already is an economic crisis, and it will be a bigger economic crisis in the long run. It has to be addressed as such, and it has to be addressed from all fronts, from the point of view of reducing the mortality, reducing the incidence, and making sure that what is lost now through AIDS is replaced as soon as possible.

• 1650

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Iris Almeida: Excuse me, there is one area I want to mention, because it touches on the question. The rule of law is really very important. Unless there is a legal structure in the country that is clear and useful, businesses will never come. We can dream in colour, but people will not invest in countries that do not offer a congenial legal framework.

I think that under the rule of the law in the recent years, too much has been put in that basket. For example, many of the international aid initiatives in Rwanda are toward rule of law. It's a very sexy subject in many countries. But what is happening is that many of the programs on rule of law are quite elitist—not where the people are.

In fact in certain cases, like in Rwanda, they perhaps contribute to the further ethnization, because the people being taught in those law schools today are of one ethnic group. I think you have to be very careful, because we don't want rule by law and then have everybody be nobody. I think providing expertise... and here in Canada we have quite a lot of expertise on lawmaking.

We, for example, are working with many African governments on making the domestic laws compatible with international standards in order that they ratify the International Criminal Court, and as you know, Senegal and Ghana have already ratified.

I'll just leave you with that, but I think that creating a legal environment, a legal framework, in order that business and all the rest can work effectively is a useful thing.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Aileen Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): No. It's okay, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Madam Debien, did you have another question?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Yes.

Ms. Almeida, in your document, on the very last page, in recommendation 3, you say that we must ask citizens, Canadians and Parliamentarians that there be a substantive review of Canadian policy regarding cooperation and different programs set up for Africa. I would like you to explain what you mean by this review of foreign policy and the various programs for Africa.

There is a second question that parallels the first one. You say in your document that aid or foreign policy to be developed should not deal only with emergency humanitarian help issues but also a certain number of other topics.

When we speak of aid, whether it is emergency issues or bilateral aid... So we know that in Africa, even where there is a democratization process underway in a country because there are elections, or when a country is deemed to be democratic, some of those democracies are quite authoritarian. Do you believe that in a foreign policy review about Africa bilateral aid to such authoritarian governments should be maintained or encouraged?

Ms. Iris Almeida: I will answer you partly in English because it will be faster that way.

Ms. Maud Debien: OK.

[English]

Ms. Iris Almeida: The first thing is that in terms of Canadian foreign policy, I think there are very good points with regard to Africa. Just seeing you on the television screens in Senegal and elsewhere is part of the connection we have with the African continent.

I'm telling you I've been meeting with several people who have returned from Africa, our Canadian ambassadors from the last 10 years, who are retired now in the Montreal-Hull area, and Senators Lois Wilson and Madam Andreychuk. Many of them have lived in Africa or worked in Africa-related issues. Many of them agree that basically our present foreign policy with regard to Africa is disparate, disconnected, and country-focused or project-focused.

• 1655

We can do much better by having a coherent and strategic approach. And primarily it's not because what we are doing is not good enough, but what we are doing needs to correspond with the changing, complex reality on the continent. That is why, really.

So having explained why, I would say that it will give an occasion to a great many people who are very interested to be part of this exchange with Africa.

Over ten years ago, I used to be director of an organization called Partnership Africa Canada here in Ottawa, and the Canadian government had given us $75 million to facilitate exchanges between Canada and Africa so that there would be people-to-people exchanges. In the last many years—and our colleague here has highlighted this—the resources to Africa have been relatively sliding, and of these sliding resources or these diminished resources a lot has to go into humanitarian assistance, which is a reality because of the urgency of the crises. But then how much and where will the work of the long-term institution-building of democracy go on? For how long are we ready to keep pouring money in year by year, when there are crises or when the situation hits our TV screens?

So if we take a minute to reflect and we engage Canadians, I believe our policy can be not only more coherent, but it can be more strategic and it can really make linkages and strengthen the linkages between us and people working on the continent.

[Translation]

Did I answer your first question?

Ms. Maud Debien: On bilateral aid?

Ms. Iris Almeida: Bilateral aid.

[English]

I think one of the reasons I believe there's a need to have a review of Canadian policy is that our aid is divided into different facets. I would question whether all of the bilateral aid is actually going to the right people, particularly given the countries and the types of regimes, so-called multi-party but in fact quite dictatorial regimes, which are in large measure corrupt.

The latest statistics show that $67 million was going into human rights and democratic development globally, and 26% of this was going into Africa. I'm not sure we are doing business always with the right people. I can give you many examples of how bilateral aid is not very helpful; and second, aid to civil society, either directly or through Canadian civil society, needs to be strengthened. Very little of the resources actually goes to strengthening civil society. In figure terms, they come in the 2% range, and we have to address who are the makers and shakers of the future of a possible democratic society.

So I understand that we have to do business with those who are in power through our diplomacy, but I think we have to be very careful about where our bucks are going. I do not believe Canadians want our resources to be playing safe with some of these regimes.

Lastly, about multilateral aid, a lot of the new packages of resources announced go through multilateral channels, and I'm not sure there's much Canadian input in all these. In the program I had talked about earlier, $75 million was given to Canadians and $75 million was given to UNDP. UNDP finished the resources almost immediately.

I'm not saying UNDP is not good, I think they're doing very good work, but I think we don't get necessarily enough for our bucks by working through, first of all, multilateral channels and bilateral channels, very little in many cases, particularly in those repressive regimes. We worked on a bilateral level with Mobutu, with Mr. Habyarimana, the President of Rwanda, and what did we get? We set up schools and we set up universities, and what did we get? Those same people in those universities facilitated the genocide.

To make it simple, I'm saying that a review of policy comes from a position of strength. It's not because we are doing badly that we want to review. We want to review because we want to do better. We want to get more for our bucks. We want to be able to be more effective. We want to be able to support the right actors, the democrats on that continent, and those democrats presently do not have a voice. They are that so-called amorphous mass of civil society who are struggling to have access—and that's what they are talking about.

Thank you.

• 1700

The Chair: Iris, I certainly hope the energy you have and the enthusiasm comes from something out of Africa, like the water or the air, and that if we get to go we will come home with that same sort of infectious energy you have.

One of the things that happened last week in the hearings... and today I can see there's a common theme seeming to develop, and that is the theme of strengthening civil society. Some of the suggestions last week were around the problem of children in armed conflict, although we can't decide if that's a chicken or an egg, which came first in this situation. But the one that seems to be coming out is looking at case studies of successful post-conflict peace-building and strengthening civil society.

Both of you have much experience in Africa. You've seen countries that have come out of war situations and have, as tenuous as it might be, seemed to be successful. Can you give us a little idea of what you think has made them successful in their peace-building efforts? Is it the strengthening of civil society? Do you see a connection there? Can you have one without the other?

Mr. John Serieux: I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but I'll try to answer it—

The Chair: I'm never ever very clear. That's why I'm not a teacher.

Mr. John Serieux: But I think the presence of a strong civil society is a crucial part in the ability of countries to progress from periods of war to periods of prosperity. I think the example of Uganda has been brought up several times. And it is very prominent for good reason. Although perhaps sometimes the net effect is exaggerated, I think it's a good example of a country that has demonstrated the strong presence and development of civil society, and for that reason particularly its progress on addressing issues of poverty has been exemplary. The civil society has encouraged the government to be innovative, they have encouraged them to be more open, more transparent, and they have—

Ms. Jean Augustine: They have a woman as a deputy.

Mr. John Serieux: And they have made sure that aid moneys and debt relief have been directed very well towards the issues that concern them. So I think it gives us a good example of what happens when you have a strong civil society.

I think another country that is beginning to demonstrate similar results is Tanzania, which is similarly developing a strong civil society and also has taken very strong moves towards owning its own policies and directing development assistance and debt relief towards issues surrounding poverty.

So I think these are examples of countries where the development of civil society gives us an idea of how this would occur. You juxtapose this against countries that are much better off in terms of the governing structures, civil service, etc., such as Kenya, but have not shown much initiative simply because civil society has not developed, or at least has not been able to gain the ear of the ruling clique, as they have in other other two countries that I mentioned. So I think this gives us a very strong case for the proposition that strengthening civil society is crucial.

• 1705

Ms. Iris Almeida: On the question of peace-building, I think we have to be very careful about what they are talking about, because often peace-building is the new jargon used to put everything in that basket. There are very few important peace-building initiatives in the continent of Africa. If our support can help to systemize that experience as viewed for the actors themselves, and not to develop things for the books and research here in Canada about peace-building back there, I think it will be useful. Giving forums for and spaces to the actors themselves to mediate is important.

I would be very wary of putting too many resources into the OAU, which has a big peace-building unit and conflict resolution unit, but which in fact has not had much impact on the ground. I would be wary also of the Canadian-based research. For example, if we are involved in peace-building over the next ten years in a set of countries or in a region, then I would say that's well worth it. Often, for example, over here in Canada, when we involve ourselves in a peace-building initiative, it is a one-shot deal for a short period of time, when it in fact needs to be considered in a longer-term perspective.

The Chair: But what about civil society in peace-building? You talked about Uganda being successful, and Tanzania. Is this because civil society has been strengthened and involved in the peace-building?

Ms. Iris Almeida: Yes.

Mr. John Serieux: In fact, in the case of Tanzania, since they were not involved in a major war, I used it merely as an example of what happens when civil society is developed. It is only Uganda that has been involved recently in a major war.

However, I think I would place the development of civil society as important both before and after war. When one has a case of conflict, one has no choice but to put resources towards ending that conflict and rebuilding after that conflict. But I think there's a role in preventing conflict.

I do not take the view, which many hold, that most of Africa's conflict is due to ethnic differences. I think ethnicity simply is a means for justifying war; it is not the cause of war. The major cause of war is resource distribution. It is the absence of strong civil society that allows a country to dissolve into civil war, because they cannot agree on how to distribute resources. I think it is important that we stress the development of civil society and the devolution of power from the centre in countries before war becomes the means through which they attempt to redistribute resources.

Ms. Iris Almeida: I would say one more word on civil society. I think it cannot be overemphasized that it is the key to strengthening democracy, rights, and human security in Africa. It has not been given the attention it deserves. We have restricted our relations at bilateral and multilateral levels too much. While those may have to continue in some form or shape, the resources have to go down where the people are, where civilians are suffering life and death struggles.

It is not with the intention, at any time, to destroy the state. I think we need to strengthen the state too. We cannot be simplistic. But when civil society inputs into policy development, it also assists in creating structures that will in fact in the long term help build the states, but it will be building from below.

The other thing is that they are right, these groups exist in the continent. Just to take a case, I would like you to really reflect a little more on the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo or, as I would say, the DRC.

[Translation]

There is a very active civil society there that has no power in terms of war. War is an internal matter between Mr. Kabila and his people and the seven or eight neighboring countries. Civil society, in this context, is completely taken over by theses forces and cannot make itself heard regarding the war. All its efforts to get support... I believe that many sponsors are waiting for the Lusaka agreements to come to something, but in the mean time, in the short and medium term, it is very difficult for them.

• 1710

[English]

I would like you to take the case of the ex-Zaire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, if you can, because it is a ripe situation in which they are urging Canada to support civil society in the inter-Congolese dialogue process. I can give you all the documents you want so that you can have a direct dialogue with them. If you can, check it out with Canadian NGOs also about what they believe about this initiative. At this juncture, I believe they would say one of the highest priorities for Canada should be the Democratic Republic of Congo, and that we should use our clout in the Security Council to bring this issue further in March. We should be supporting and putting more resources into that civil society, which is the only option for peace in this war context.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there other questions? I think you will probably be called back once we have decided what our focus is, but it certainly looks like it's narrowing in on civil society. The emphasis has really been there.

Mr. Martin, did you have a question?

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): No, Madame, I have hundreds, so we could be here all night.

The Chair: I know. You know what? I think this is the problem we all have.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You have to join us while we're all here.

Mr. Keith Martin: Being in two committees at the same time is difficult.

The Chair: We all have hundreds of questions for you, and it's difficult to pare them down. We do have some other business to attend to, so I will thank you very much for your presentations today, for answering the questions, and certainly for your enthusiasm and your insight. You'll be hearing from us again.

Ms. Iris Almeida: Did you actually want a copy of this.? I can pass it to you. Would you like that?

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

We have a couple of motions on notice. The first one was Mr. Svend Robinson's, but he is not here. The mover is not here, so we can't deal with the motion today.

Yes, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair, Mr. Robinson is not here; however, Mr. Robinson three weeks ago notified us that he would have a motion.

The Chair: However, he's not here to move it today.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: He's not here to move it. Mr. Robinson comes to these meetings, and then leaves when it's time to have a vote. If we're going to be—

The Chair: You're out of order, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In what sense?

The Chair: You cannot comment on the presence of another member.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Okay, then I will take that back.

If a member does present a motion, should there not be some sort of a timeline by which we meet—

The Chair: The timeline says there is 48 hours' notice, and that certainly has been met.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But are we going to have this motion forever and a day?

The Chair: No, Mr. Robinson is not here to move the motion. The motion has not been moved, so we are unable to debate a motion that has not been moved. It will stay on notice until it is moved.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'd like to move my motion, if I could, Madame la Présidente. I move that this committee advise the government to explore how we can look at food aid through CIDA's food aid program to ensure that our foodstuffs such as grain can get directly to the people of Angola, who are suffering from a famine that is going to get increasingly worse and will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of Angolan people.

• 1715

I think this is a great opportunity for the government to explore the CIDA food aid program. It will be beneficial to the farmers, beneficial to CIDA, beneficial to Canadians, and most importantly, it will enable Canada to get some desperately needed foodstuffs to people in Angola, who right now are on the cusp of a devastating famine that will, as I said before, kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

The Chair: Do you have a copy of your motion there? Would you like to read that into the record, or shall I do that for you?

Mr. Keith Martin: I'll read it into the record.

The Chair: Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Keith Martin: I move the following:

That in the opinion of this committee, the Government of Canada should immediately explore ways to get grain and other Canadian food products to the Angolan people via CIDA food aid program.

And it is en français aussi.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is there discussion?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to address the motion.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Martin on his good intentions and his suggestion that we look into what we do in food aid, especially vis-à-vis Angola. I think, though, his motion should be more of a question as to what we do now, so that we could inform the committee as to what we're doing. If I'm permitted, I would like to explain that the motion is, in my mind, redundant because of what is happening.

May I explain what we're doing?

The Chair: Yes. What is happening?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: As everyone is aware, Canada is concerned about the deteriorating situation in Angola, and we're monitoring it carefully. We've responded at CIDA to the crisis so far by contributing $1 million this fiscal year to the World Food Programme for emergency food aid in Angola. That is the agency we deal with. In addition, CIDA expects to spend a total of $3.5 million in non-food aid this fiscal year alone for Angola.

CIDA guidelines, by the way, in response to his comments and questions after presenting his motion, ensure that 90% of food aid is sourced right here in Canada. I totally agree with Mr. Martin that we should encourage the purchase of food in our area here in Canada. In the case of when we have grain in the west and that is what is required, this is what we should be providing, spending the money here. CIDA does have that policy; 90% is sourced right here.

However, the specific type of food sent is based on the needs of the recipient, and they set up a list of items they require, and because of the emergency we reacted very quickly.

To date, Angola needed, and still needs, peas, beans, oil—we interpret that as canola—white corn, and sugar. In the case of white corn and sugar, it's not grown in Canada. We could provide peas, beans, oil, and canola. That can be supplied by Canada. As far as wheat is concerned, that was not on the list of items they needed.

Because of the urgency, CIDA, through the World Food Programme, provided funds so they could buy in the general area of that country, in the adjoining areas, so that food could be provided immediately. Otherwise, in getting the food supplies—peas, beans, and oil—the logistics of purchasing alone is quite an article in itself, and then packaging and sending it away by boat or plane... The logistics would have been to detain a lot of that foodstuff until, you know, whenever it got there. The emergency was so demanding that we had to respond immediately, hence purchasing through the World Food Programme.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So I think, Madam Chair—

Ms. Jean Augustine: The motion is moot.

• 1720

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The motion is moved, but I wonder if we should be voting in favour of it, because it's so specific—

The Chair: Madam Augustine said that the motion is moot.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's moot. Oh, I see.

The Chair: Is there any more discussion, then? Did you have a comment, Madame Debien?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Yes. It is a question of information to which Mr. Bellemare may have responded.

I find the motion much too specific in terms of the product to be sent, grain. Why grain? You have given us a list of products that Angola needs. As far as I am concerned, I would be ready to support this motion if it did not mention a specific food in particular and it referred only to food products that should be sent to the people of Angola.

I believe that the motion starts from a good intention and, in principle, I would be ready to support it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: I thank my colleagues for what they've mentioned, and Mr. Bellemare for his comments. I appreciate what the government has done to date. However, when one looks at the scope of this problem, it is truly massive, as I think Ambassador Fowler would tell Minister Axworthy in no uncertain terms.

The problem, in terms of the temporal nature of it, is that it's taking place now and it's going to be exacerbated over the coming months. We have the foodstuffs; we have them onshore. The CIDA food aid program is a mechanism to get that foodstuff to them. So we have an existing program. The payment of this can come from other sources, such as the IMF and the World Bank. In other words, we have two parts of a three-part puzzle. We have the food and we have the internal mechanism. The funding, though, can come from outsourcing outside of Canada.

All this motion is asking is that the government put this on the table internationally as an option to get the foods to the people. And while I respect what Mr. Bellemare said, and I'm happy that the government is getting the immediate foodstuffs from the surrounding area of Angola to the people there, it will simply, by all the information I have, pale in comparison to the need.

All I'm saying is that I think there's an opportunity here if we get a much larger amount of foodstuffs on an ongoing basis. It'll strengthen the food aid program; it'll help the farmers by enabling them to sell foods that they have that they're unable to sell; and again, it will enable us to save many people's lives. So it's not going to commit, compromise, or box the government into any corner, but it will give them an opportunity to perhaps strengthen their exploration of this in an international manner.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That is exactly what CIDA is doing right now. We are purchasing foodstuffs from Canadian suppliers, except in the case of extreme emergencies. As I said, the government will be spending a total of $3.5 million this year. We cannot just say, look, we've got a lot of apples, here are the apples. By the time they get there, they're going to be mushy. We cannot send them ice cream if that's not what they need. They have to set up a list, and they do that through a world organization like the Red Cross, for example, and as I mentioned in this case, the World Food Programme. They put the list of food needs, and then countries that are in that program provide the food that they can supply. If the timeline is extremely urgent, then we supply the funds to the World Food Programme so that they can purchase in the immediate environment.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare—I guess I should ask Dr. Martin—I don't see that this motion commits the Canadian government to spending any additional funds.

Mr. Keith Martin: One of the reasons to do that is actually to seek funds from sources outside of Canada to buy our foodstuffs—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That doesn't say that.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm sorry?

The Chair: Yes, it does.

Mr. Keith Martin: By the CIDA food aid program, it'll enable... it just gives the government ways to explore it.

• 1725

What I'm hoping Minister Axworthy will do is take it and say, okay, we have all these foodstuffs here; you defined four that we can actually produce, that we have. And he'll ask the World Bank to buy this stuff from us, and we can get it over to those people in Angola. We have the food. A lot of countries don't have the food.

It does not ask the Canadian government to put one penny into this. It only asks them to explore ways by which we can get the food that we have to the people who need it. That food is simply not going to be used onshore, nor is it going to be exported, as it currently stands, because there's no market for it.

It's a shame to see the canola and the peas—particularly the canola and the oil—not used and rotting. So we may not have to deal with all four of their needs; it may be even one or two. But these people have nothing. If they can find a piece of grass on the ground, they'll eat that. It's that desperate.

It will not commit the government, Mr. Bellemare, in any way, shape, or form to put any resources or money into this at all—not a penny. And I'd be happy to take out, for Madam Debien, the “grain and other” words in there, which will be consistent with what Madame Debien said.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: May I intervene again, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes, Ms. Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien: Mr. Bellemare, if you look at the wording of the resolution, you will see that it is not much of a commitment. It only says that “The Government of Canada should immediately explore ways to...”

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's as though that did not exist. I will vote against the motion because it assumes that we are not doing so already. We are doing it and we are working through the IMF, as it suggests. We are doing all those things. If I were a little paranoid, I would say that the motion is almost accusatory, because those are things we are doing.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: Perhaps as a compromise to assuage that concern, Mr. Bellemare, we can add a word so it reads: “explore further ways”. By putting in the word “further” it certainly pays homage to what the government is currently doing.

I will introduce two motions to introduce the word “further”, and to remove “grain and other” from the English translation to account for Monsieur Bellemare and Madame Debien's concerns.

The Chair: You've amended your own motion.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm amending the motion—

The Chair: Would you like to read your amended motion into the record?

Mr. Keith Martin: The amended motion reads as follows:

That in the opinion of this committee, the Government of Canada should immediately explore further ways to get Canadian food products to the Angolan people via CIDA food aid program.

The Chair: Thank you. Is that clear?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.