SHUR 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]

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I think in the interests of time—we have a vote coming at 5.15—we will proceed as though we have a quorum. There are probably many members on their way, so I call to order the subcommittee on human rights and international development.

It's with a great deal of pleasure that we welcome you here today. In the last session of Parliament we heard from Shell and from many defenders of the regime in Nigeria, but subsequently the committee passed a resolution to ask the minister to attempt to implement an oil embargo on Nigeria. He took the lead and took it to the Commonwealth countries but was unsuccessful in getting support. We welcome you here today, and we venture on, because tomorrow is another day for the fight.

We have with us today Melanie Gruer, from the North-South Institute; and Dapo Olorunyomi. I'm sorry. You know, they really aren't difficult names to pronounce if you just say all of the letters.

We're delighted to have you here today. I don't know if you're aware of how the committee works, but you will make a presentation and then each of the members have an opportunity to ask you questions.

Ms Melanie Gruer (North-South Institute): Perhaps I'll just give a little introduction.

The North-South Institute has invited Mr. Olorunyomi here. Over the past weekend he appeared at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Journalists on a panel to speak about press freedom in Africa in countries in conflict like his own. He's in Ottawa for the next two days to meet with officials from various departments and with this committee.

I'll just give you a bit of background about what's happened to the media in Nigeria in the past few years. As you know, in 1993 the Nigerian military annulled a free and fair election and seized control of the government. Since then, General Sani Abacha, the regime's leader, has received international notoriety for a number of actions. Some of these include providing military support and security for Shell Oil's environmentally destructive operations, executing anti-Shell activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others, and imprisoning more than 7,000 Nigerians, many of whom have been journalists.

In Africa, Nigeria has had one of the freest and most diverse presses. But since Abacha's rise to power, independent journalists have been arrested, beaten, forced into exile and even assassinated. Nigeria has experienced the most extreme deterioration of conditions for the press in Africa. At the end of 1997 there were more journalists in jail in Nigeria than any other African country.

Under Abacha, more than 40 newspapers have been shut down. Leading editors are serving long prison sentences on trumped-up charges or have been detained without trial, and new press laws require licensing fees. As one journalist recently told the New York Times, “If you walk through newsrooms in Nigeria they're mostly empty, because to stay at your desk is to face arrest”.

One journalist who was forced to flee after he was sentenced to 15 year for treason is Dapo Olorunyomi. He was the editor-in-chief of The News and Tempo, which are two of Nigeria's most prominent opposition papers, and two that Abacha has gone after in particular. They were two papers that were closed down just last week by the regime.

Mr. Olorunyomi in 1995 won the International Editor of the Year Award, and the following year he won the PEN Freedom to Write Award. He currently lives in Washington, D.C., where he's a fellow at the Panos Institute.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi (Individual Presentation): Thank you so much. Of course I'd like to express profound gratitude for this opportunity to be able to speak to you. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank your committee and the Canadian Parliament and through you the Canadian people for the wonderful support you have given the democracy movement in Nigeria.

As you are aware, the Canadian government took the lead in the Harare declaration in the 1980s to pass a resolution to terminate military rule in the Commonwealth. In a way, we are here today as products of that resolution, because it gave a lot of meaning, it gave a lot of feeling to our spirit to be able to do some of the things we were able to do.

• 1545

We would also like to thank the Canadian initiative after the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa, which led the Commonwealth, at least, to take the modest sanctions that are now in place. We hope we will also be able to use this committee to call on the Canadian government and the Parliament not to give up in spite of the little setbacks we've had in terminating military rule in Nigeria, and to continue to show leadership in trying to help us resolve the problem of military dictatorship in Nigeria.

My understanding is that I'll be speaking more specifically about press freedom. I've worked as a journalist in Nigeria. I will just try to narrate a little bit of my own story, but most importantly, the story of the press as an institution, and why the regime always needed to do the kinds of atrocities they've had to commit against the independent press.

Let me benchmark these remarks by just taking 1993 as a watershed, not to bore you with a very long story. After the annulment of the June 12 presidential elections—and the annulment was on June 23—the independent press took the decision not to seek to agree, but in terms of their practice, the types of writings, and the editorial direction they took, to say that for once we ought to see an end to military rule. They wrote; they exposed a lot.

The philosophical thrust of all the editorial events of those days centred on the fact that the military created all this chaos. We cannot hope or trust that they will also be the architects of any renewal in Nigeria.

So we went after and exposed the corruption. As much as was possible, we wrote stories. Naturally, this angered the military, and the press suffered a lot for this. Many journalists went into detention. Many newspaper houses were closed down.

Also, for the first time in the history of Nigeria, because television and radio used to be a monopoly until two years ago, they even shut down some radio stations in the regions that were actually broadcasting, since they were considered not to be palatable.

This had been the pattern. In statistical terms, the press has suffered more under the current regime than any time in Nigeria's history.

Some of the reasons for this, again, are very straightforward, very understandable. The convergence of political power in the hands of the military and the coincidence that all revenue emerged at a time when the military was in power created a very, very tantalizing scenario for them. It was very difficult to ask the military to leave after they had seen the kind of money they could make. Today, as I speak to you, you probably know better than I that the military makes $ 10 billion annually from oil sales.

This has not translated in any sense to development in the country. Today we still import oil from Venezuela. The four refineries in the country have not been working for a while. There's so much chaos. Cars will line up for three days in a long queue just to get a gallon or two of petrol.

This is the kind of disorder that has come from having a military dictatorship. The independent press, in the absence of a parliament, in the absence of organized opposition, had, so to say, elected itself as a spokes-medium for the society. This is why it has been an ongoing battle between us and the military.

What kinds of patterns do these people use? Sometimes they arrest you. They just arrest you without detention and keep you. As I said to you today, we have 21 journalists in Nigeria who are in detention without trial. In the past two or three days, they've released three people, but they have also, in just one week, put another 14 in detention. It's just some PR measure to tell you all that they're doing this—release three, take 14—but the pattern continues.

• 1550

Beyond detention, some people have been jailed. In 1996 they jailed four of our colleagues for being accessories to what they call a coup. We found out it is nothing like that after all. The trials were very flawed. They had no rights to attorneys. Some of the kinds of questions they were even being asked in trial were so ridiculous. They were being asked their attitude to certain policies of government. This was supposed to be the charge. They're all serving 15 years' imprisonment today just for being journalists in the country.

But again, it's just the desire of the government to make an example, because the press becomes the only institution that's still remaining to offer this kind of resistance, and it's always important for them to crack them to show an example. Clearly what they did in 1996 was to show this for editors as an example for other people to take from. I don't think that example is being taken clearly, because the press continues to work very actively.

Other times they've had to fake editions, and this is very funny. If they know that the editorial direction of this newspaper is anti-military, they fake the editions. They go to their own printers and make copies just to discredit the newspaper. These are all things they have done in the past.

Then of course, they drum very serious libel suits against newspapers, so much that it will drown you out of the market.

Then, for the first time in the history of African media, last year they constituted what they call a press court, a court specifically directed at newspapers. We've never really seen anything like this. They set up registration boards. This registration is to vet who can be editors. Even in private newspapers, they set out age and educational criteria, things that have no relevance. But if you understand what they are doing, it is all part of the structures of fettering the independence of the press. That's why they've been putting all these....

I left Nigeria in April 1996, and the reason was that we had published a story discrediting the claim of the military when it said they were rounding up 40 officers and they were going to put these people on trial. We found from our own investigation that there was no coup after all and that the military panel itself had suggested there was a mistake somehow along the line.

They thought we had crossed the line too far, and they started a manhunt for me. When they couldn't reach me, one of my colleagues.... He had been in hospital for three months for kidney trouble, and he came to the office for the first time just trying to tell the folks in the office, “Well, I think I'm a bit better. Now I can come back to work.” They ran into him and asked, “Where is this guy, Dapo Olorunyomi?” He said, “Well, I'm just coming to the office for the first time in three months. How would I know?” They said, “Okay, could you come with us to the security office and do some paperwork saying this guy has escaped so that he can go back home?”

Well, since then, we've not seen him. He's serving 15 years' imprisonment today. This is the kind of thing the press really goes through. The cost has been very enormous. They make sure that if you are anti-military, no institution can give you advertisements. They make sure you have no access to newsprint. They just lay the fetters in this regard.

So the independent press, which is so critical, which remains, if you like, a kind of surrogate Parliament today in Nigeria, is under very, very intensive attack.

Melanie mentioned briefly in her introductory remarks my newspaper. We publish about three newspapers in my group: one evening paper, which we call P.M. News, and two weeklies. One, which we issue every Monday, we call The News; it's a magazine. One we issue every Thursday and call Tempo.

These newspapers have given them a lot of problems. They've proscribed us in the past. They found that failed. They've jailed so many of our colleagues.

• 1555

Last week they took the decision just to seal the whole place up. They came on Monday, and took five people away. On Tuesday they returned and took three people away and packed all the computers—ten computers—away. But they weren't content. On Wednesday they came back—and we're just talking of last week—and then sealed the whole place. Soldiers are still guarding the offices of the newspaper as I talk to you today.

This is the kind of situation we go through. We can ask the question, what do we do now? I think that General Abacha needs to do these kinds of things because it's clear that his plans for succession are not so apparent. These are the kinds of newspapers that will give him problems, and he needs to stop it somehow. I think they just want the final solution, so to say.

But there's still room for manoeuvre. Until last Friday they still continue to publish underground. This is the direction I think most people in the independent press feel—that we're not going to accept military rule or whatever. Even if it is very costly, we'll just find the way to get the words out.

One must express gratitude to some Canadian NGOs here. They've helped tremendously, not only giving this kind of opportunity, but they've assisted through giving a laptop here, and helping to connect e-mail services. Through that, we were able to link up to the world, get the news out—you know, try to evade censorship somehow.

In a very summative sense, this is the story of the press in the past few years. Although the future looks really bleak, I think the spirit is still very high, and one sure hopes that they will continue in this tradition.

I'd better leave it for now, hoping that you have more specific questions. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Beaumier.

Thank you very much, Mr. Olorunyomi, for coming to see us from so far, and for shedding light on the problems that are taking place in your country. And thank you, Ms. Gruer.

Shell came to us some time ago and mentioned what they were doing. I'll just ask the specific questions, if I may. Shell said that they were taking an active role in Ogoniland, and that they were trying to deal with two issues—one, the environmental degradation that they played a large role in; and two, the human rights issues. I'd like to know if you can tell us what Shell is or is not doing.

Second, can you tell us what we can do specifically as a nation to shed light on the situation, either in a unilateral fashion or in a multilateral role through the UN, the IMF, whatever would be most appropriate?

Also, could you give us a little brief on the status of Chief Abiola, and also whether or not you're liaising actively with compatriots in your profession around the world to continually apply pressure and shed light on what is going on in Nigeria?

Thank you.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Thank you very much, sir.

Shell is able to do a lot of propaganda, and they have the resources to do this. I know after their resolution last year on ethical practices, a resolution enforced by shareholders, what they've been doing obviously in Nigeria is trying to do more of community relations. We have no evidence that they are doing anything to improve human rights.

They still have stuck to their story that they do not have direct relationship with the government, which is obviously false. There had been documented evidence in the past of their direct relationship even with the military. So that's a little bit out of it.

Environmentally we have yet to see.... It's true that some of the oil spillage that we witnessed of late had not been from Shell. It had been from other companies like Agip, like ELF. The environmental situation in the Niger delta remains abysmal, part of which had been the whole carry-over from Shell. Gas flaring is still on.

Mr. Keith Martin: They promised two years ago that they were going to deal with that quickly. They've done nothing?

• 1600

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Well, we haven't seen anything to suggest that. One of the things they could do in an immediate sense would be to start a gas re-injection scheme, which they haven't done as far as we know. Only Agip has done that.

As to Moshood Abiola, from what we hear, nobody's been able to visit him in the past three years. The American delegation that came were the last people who saw him, and the report they gave was that he seemed to be in good health—well, good health to the extent that he's alive at least; we know that for sure.

But besides, the way the Nigerian government took them to see him, they were there to see him just for about five minutes or so, and they went very late at night, so they couldn't really say much about his state of mind.

Newspaper reports keep putting the story out in Nigeria that he is rejecting any sense of accommodation with Abacha, but we can only hold that as the latest, because the government has refused to say anything about him. And I'll be surprised if they are willing to release him any time soon.

As you know, when the Pope went, it was one of the major demands that people put before the Pope. The general asserted that in a week or two they would look into the situation. It must be past six or eight weeks now and nothing has happened.

Mr. Keith Martin: And what do you think we can do as a nation, either unilaterally or—?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Well, as I said in my preliminary remarks, Canada can play a lot of roles. The Commonwealth has been wavering whilst they give Nigeria the benefit of this transition program. General Abacha has resolved the moral direction of this transition by his latest position, so now is the time to take him at his word. There's no more transition. He's clearly going to become the next president of the country.

So Canada should try to help straighten the direction of the Commonwealth and try to push the direction of sanctioning that regime. Oil sanction continues to be the most effective if you're going to deal with the military. As I said, these guys are making $ 10 million a year, and it's not filtering back to the society in any way. That's the only thing that's going to really set them straight.

Mr. Keith Martin: If you could provide us with any proof at any time, that would be really helpful. When we get confronted by Shell, it would be very nice to have that kind of proof in our hands. Then we can say, “Okay, here.”

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Okay.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Very well, sir.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Good afternoon, Mrs. Gruer and Mr. Olorunyomi.

My colleague asked you a very specific question about Canada's role in Nigeria. We know that Canada has been very active within the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. A number of steps were taken and diplomatic relations have been cut off.

Various multilateral bodies have tabled resolutions condemning Nigeria and a number of countries have cut off their trade relations to Nigeria. However, I know that a number of Commonwealth countries continue to maintain relations with Nigeria.

I do think that Canada has done quite a bit. What more could it do now? Economic sanctions have been introduced and trade relations have been cut off. You congratulated Canada for its work within the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, but apparently all those efforts were in vain.

What more should be done? I'm thinking of Canada's involvement in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, for example. As I mentioned before, some Commonwealth countries still have diplomatic and commercial relations with Nigeria.

• 1605

Does that mean that it is no longer Canada's role to intervene directly in Nigeria, because that produces absolutely no results?

In addition, we are well aware that our Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that Mr. Axworthy told us that he had received a flat refusal. Consequently, I don't think there is much to be gained in this area. Would it not be Canada's role at the moment to get involved with Commonwealth member countries, not to ask for explanations, but rather to apply pressure to get the other Commonwealth countries to increase their support for Canada? Might that be the solution? If you think there are others, please tell us about them.

My second question is about the living conditions of Nigerians. I would like you to tell us a little about that. I'm thinking particularly of the various ethnic groups, of which there are a number. We have some knowledge of the Ogoni and the Yoruba. Could you please tell us to which ethnic group Mr. Abacha belongs.

I ask this question completely without prejudice. After what happened in Rwanda, there are good reasons to be afraid. Is there not a latent rivalry between the various ethnic groups in Nigeria? Apparently it was Mr. Abacha's ethnic majority group which... Well, you see what I mean.

[English]

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Thank you so much. You have quite a number of questions there.

First, I think we've always said to ourselves in private that it would be difficult to go to Canada and ask them to do more, because Canada has shown a lot of leadership in this direction, and we appreciate it. But the point around this is that while Canada is showing moral leadership, we hope it can be steadfast. It did this in South Africa, and it bore fruit.

I'm sure we're all happy about the landmines deal, where Canada also showed such wonderful leadership that even the United States was unable to come out and oppose it. It was clear that it was just a matter of time before they would join in the landmines progress.

But besides that, it's true that even after the little Commonwealth sanctions, those modest sanctions, there was still some kind of trade. I know CanOxy, or Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd., is into a new alliance with Elf, and they also are trying to go into Nigeria.

This just gives the Nigerian government the type of sanction where they feel they can continue. It's true that the ban is there in a modest sense, but it's not that effective. Even Canadian companies are already looking into Nigeria to do some business. But if Canada is able to move countries like South Africa and Britain, we think they can do a lot more in getting some meaning out of what we have done there.

I think I should offer you a little information at this point. The Nigerian opposition itself believes there should be an initiative from Africa. We're already talking with Archbishop Tutu, who has agreed to set up a coalition of churches, trade unions and all that to see how they can pressure the South African government to also take some action.

So one can only hope that Canada's example will act as a torch-bearer others can follow.

• 1610

We also think Canada can support NGOs in the country that today are helping to rebuild evidence of the civic society the military has tried to destroy. I would certainly appeal to Canada to assist the independent press in the country as much as it can.

The average standard of living in Nigeria, just because of misrule, has gone down considerably over the years. The economy, as you know, is on a downward slope today. Inflation is a little bit on the rise.

There's one other thing. You raised the ethnic issue slightly. Some of the evidence of misrule that we witness in Africa had always been that you have these corrupt leaders who steal money from the central purse. They take this money back home, so to speak, and try to create evidence of growth. So even when you are rejecting their money on a national scale, some people will be arguing for them in their local surroundings.

This has not happened under the present situation. When I met with people in government this morning, I gave evidence of desert encroachment in Nigeria to show one aspect of how dictatorship and misrule can be so horrendous. In the past five years the deserts in the north have encroached 35,000 square miles. It's ironic that the area that is so affected by this is in fact General Abacha's area in the country.

This will lead eventually to a very terrible case of rural-urban migration. These guys who come from the rural areas are not quite prepared for the shock and the tension that always confront them when they get to the urban areas. They have no jobs. The only thing they bring is religion, just to cling to something.

Between 1978 and 1983 in the country I witnessed three very violent religious riots after incidences of this kind of migration. It happens every time there is a drought and people have to leave their lands to go and seek jobs. So our religious fundamentalism is also one of the results of this type of thing.

So there's general frustration in the country. The economy is bad. Kids can't go to school because universities are shut down for a very long time. People can't find jobs. The constituency of frustration is so broad and so wide—and I'm sure you've been reading this in the press—that there have been bombing campaigns in Nigeria, which could be coming from any of these constituencies. This is the greatest recipe for the kind of decline and crisis that nobody really hopes will occur in that country.

As a matter of fact, General Abacha is from the Kano, in the northeastern part of Nigeria. It doesn't form a majority in terms of the ethnic structure of the country, but you don't really need that once you have a gun in Nigeria and once you can capture the army and build a niche for yourself, as he has done, through the ranks of the drill sergeants. His constituents are what we call the “E commission” in the army—the guys who never went to school and so on but who are fiercely loyal.

Once you pay these people, and can keep them, they can help garrison the society, and that's what I think he is doing.

I'm not sure if I've answered all your questions.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I think the issue of who makes up the army and how there is control is one that's of vital importance, because you have a military made up of the same people they're persecuting. I think that always is quite a phenomenon for many of us to understand.

• 1615

I have some constituents who believe my attitude toward Nigeria is incorrect, and they tell me they have family members living in the cities and doing quite well.

We know reporters are in danger there. We know anyone who is prepared to point out the inadequacies of Abacha is in danger. The Ogonies are losing their land and there is environmental pollution there, but is it an ethnic battle or is it a battle of corruption? Although many of us recognize it's a very bad situation, we don't really understand what is the cause of it. Is it just as simple as corruption?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: No. It's true that the situation in Nigeria complex.

First we have to recognize that it is a military dictatorship. But it's also true that the military is not amorphous. The structure, in terms of its ethnic orientation, suggests you have more people from the north in the army. Historically, people in the south tended to shy away from going into institutions like that because they served just a colonial interest, and people thought that only those who had no career prospects would end up in the army. Now, everybody has seen how wrong that assessment was.

The point is you can really degenerate into an ethnic issue. It's not very much an ethnic issue yet. The mishandling of the Ogoni issue is just what the whole Nigerian structure has always done to minority peoples. Just because they are small, you ignore their rights. You think they should just fit into what the majority considers to be the direction.

The coincidence between their own minority problem and the fact it's also the oil-producing area is what gives you that kind of currency. So first and foremost, it was an environmental kind of genocide that was being perpetrated, but you also had to deal with the fact that the people who were also suffering were a minority and the Ogoni people, of all the minorities in the river area, had been the most vocal. They were the first to really stand out and say no to this kind of mess. So in attacking them it also took the character of some kind of ethnic genocide against the Ogoni people.

The Chair: I'd like you to indulge me on this. This is going to sound maybe a little silly to some, but I'm wondering how you determine a minority. What are the differences? Are we talking religious differences, or merely geographical differences? I know what a minority is here in Canada. You can see minorities, you can hear them. Minority is a fairly easy concept to understand here. But what kind of minority are we talking about?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: We are talking of ethno-national minority.

The Chair: Like tribal minorities.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Yes. They are actually ethnic, in the sense that we're talking about less than one million people. Taking all that into account, it's just a coincidence that the majority are probably Christians too, but first and foremost is to recognize that minority in Nigeria refers mainly to ethnic identities. You have 250—

The Chair: Is this based on religion or geography?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: It's geographically located, but the minority is not geographical in that sense because you have so many minority peoples in Nigeria. Nigeria has 250 ethnic groups, and it's the policy on national radio and television to only give accord to seven of them. They used to call it the seven Nigerian languages groups. But even within these seven, they tend to focus attention only on the three major ones, with about 20 million and above, like Yoruba, which is where I come from.

The Chair: So we're talking about language differences as well.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Language groups.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1620

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Coming in line with my colleagues on ways we, the government, might be more effective, I have a couple of questions.

First, do you have in your possession or can you provide us with a list of Canadian companies conducting business in Nigeria presently?

Second, has a parliamentary committee or task force visited Nigeria lately? By lately I'll say in the last few years. Compared to other Commonwealth and G-7, or G-8 now, countries, how aggressive have Canada's industrial counterparts in the world been in assisting and demanding they follow through on their commitments?

There may be a supplementary if I have time.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: The list is something I could easily forward to you, but it's not in my possession here.

I do not know if any parliamentary committee visited after the visit of Ms. Flora MacDonald, and I think that was in 1994. That was the last official delegation to Nigeria. I believe she turned out a very wonderful report that really offended the Nigerian government before the final....

As to others, let me take it randomly that one to one, the Scandinavian countries are doing a lot to support the democracy movement in Nigeria—they're doing as much as Canada. But in terms of major blocks, the U.S. has been shaky, and I think the Nigerian government realizes this. On the authority of the New York Times, we understand the Nigerian government spent heavily last year just to keep the lobbying going and distract from sanctions and things like that.

Then, of course, you know they've been playing the African-American community against it because of the sensitivity of the race card, so they can get unscrupulous people in that community to oppose any attempts to do things against Nigeria.

But again, I think that's changing. We have a new policy group within the African-American community and it is really pushing for more effective action on Nigeria.

I think it's also clear that the assistant secretary for Africa in the State Department in Washington has spoken very clearly on these that a budget transition will not be acceptable and the conditions for any dialogue with Nigeria will be to release political detainees to open all the newspaper houses and a transparent transition program, which clearly has not happened to date.

I think they also commented on the last election, which Abacha wanted to be the final chapter of his transition to the presidency. I think they've also rejected that.

But the EU on its own keeps the resolution going. It's true it can't do more than it is able to do yet.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Okay. The reason I asked about the businesses is because the committee can obviously have discussions as to whether or not it would want to write to more significant stakeholders conducting business in Nigeria asking them to convey their displeasure with the lack of commitment from the Nigerian government. Sometimes we can be more effective with dollars and cents than with communications.

• 1625

Second, with the parliamentary committee, as you spend more and more time here, you see that there's more of a sharing of information between parliamentarians and parliamentarian associations. Therefore, say the committee or the parliamentary association decided to once again to visit Nigeria and witness some of these things you're speaking of and see them firsthand. As Mr. Martin said, we would have some physical proof, not that I'm doubting your words, and the opportunity to come back and convey that message not only to our government, but perhaps.... Mr. Martin and Madame Debien are on the U.S. parliamentary association or there's the Italian or the German ones. It gives them an opportunity to share, along with my colleagues here as well, these travesties that are taking place and raise the level of awareness in other governments. So I'm thinking more along the lines on strategy on how you can make best use of us to right this wrong. That's maybe some food for thought.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: The United Nations report was based on a delegation. This was released, I think, about three weeks ago. It would also be useful, but I would be surprised if the Nigerian government would be willing to accept a Canadian parliamentary delegation. I will be really surprised if they would accept that.

The Chair: Madam Bradshaw.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): You never know. Maybe they would because we're Canadians. I just got back from Bangladesh, Thailand, and China, and I was quite surprised at all the respect we're shown. I wasn't surprised; I was pleasantly happy.

I'm listening to you. Having just come back from a trip with CIDA, can you tell me what it's like in Nigeria for the children in terms of food, education, and health? Do all children have access? What is it like? When we speak like this, it's children who are normally affected here.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: First, let me give you the indicators that have just been released by the United Nations, which will give you a sense of what we are talking about.

First, in 1994 we had a cholera outbreak in Nigeria. This was also in the northern region of the country. The government could not respond. It took the World Health Organization to raise $ 2.8 million to buy vaccines to come and solve this problem. The hospitals still remain in total ruin today.

Schools are not open, partly because the government is afraid of agitation from youths. But again, this has led even opposition elements to think that perhaps we should now constitute civic associations around mothers, who are likely to be more concerned about the education of their young people. But the government has made it constantly difficult for kids to be back in school because students are the most volatile. When we are in a very difficult time like this, they've always tried to push ahead through demonstrations and things like that.

I have kid brothers who have been out of school for nine months for no reason other than the government just wants the schools shut down. So it's a very horrible thing. I think AAUS, Academic Association of University Staff, also came out recently—this is unprecedented—to apologize to the Nigerian people that they were unable to give our kids quality education for no other reason than that.

The government is making all this very difficult.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I just wanted to give people an exact idea of the Nigerian leaders' decision to accept no one, whoever it might be. At the 53rd United Nations Human Rights Commission last year, Canada sponsored a resolution asking that a special rapporteur be sent to that country. After an exchange of correspondence, that individual was not even able to get an answer to his letters. Clearly, the request came from the United Nations. So you can imagine what type of reception a group of parliamentarians would get.

• 1630

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely. Canada is putting $ 2 million into democratic development in Nigeria. Has this been effective at all?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Yes, I think so. I know Canada is supporting the opposition radio. That's doing a lot. They sponsor I think eight hours of these radio broadcasts. Like Oliver Twist, we always say we hope they can more more.

Because of the monopoly of the airwaves by the government, that's so crucial. Nigerians are staying up very late at night just to tune into this radio station. As for the alliance of democratic forces that called for the May 1 boycott, I know Canada is also supporting these efforts. So I would believe that it's really meaningful.

The Chair: The other thing that I think is quite important is that there's going to be an election in October. Now all of the potential candidates have withdrawn. I assume that's under some pressure of sorts. How cohesive are the different factions of the democratic opposition? How cohesive are they to the military?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Well, they've come together under one umbrella now. That's internal. It's called the UAJ, which is a united action front.

Externally, we have two bodies that have always prosecuted with the pro-democracy effort. Both of them came together about three weeks ago under one body called JACOM.

So one can talk of cohesiveness increasing. In any case, I think everybody is facing the inescapable fact that if you don't work together, then you know—

The Chair: Do you anticipate that there will be any opposition to Abacha, or are we going to have a yes or no referendum?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Well, I believe there will be—

The Chair: Do you think someone will actually be able to—

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: You know, the problem has always been how to deal with the question of Abiola. It doesn't make sense to put someone ahead and say that this guy is going to challenge General Abacha. So the lack of a physical reference for the opposition had never really been because you couldn't get someone. It's just that you had to deal with the dilemma that someone—

The Chair: Like keeping them alive.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: —who won the election would still be in jail, so you have to respond to that.

The Chair: Say there's someone who runs against Abacha. If they should win the election, is there any chance that the present government will honour its promise to return to civilian rule if it loses?

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Well, no. Clearly, developments indicate that nobody is going to run against Abacha in the five parties he created anyway.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: The five parties have put him up as the only candidate. Nobody is going to run against him.

Actually, there was only one guy who was going to run against him, but I think they committed a tactical blunder by sidelining him. That would have given some kind of credibility to the race. But now, they're keeping him out, so there are no contestants. Abacha is the only candidate. It's no election, actually. One of his ministers said that there was no need to waste money on elections and all that since we have—

The Chair: Yes. That makes sense.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Olorunyomi, as Mrs. Bradshaw and Mr. Bonwick mentioned earlier, we're very prepared as a country to do what we can to help you. We've demonstrated that in the past. You're a man who knows your country. You're a man who knows what's going on on the ground. How can we be specifically more effective in trying to come to a conclusion that's going to achieve some democratic changes within your country?

• 1635

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Specifically, I believe that two forces will need to be assisted in terms of their programs. There's the opposition outside, of which one is based in London, and the other in Washington, D.C. Because they've been able to come together to speak with one voice, I think it will be necessary to talk to this group and support them. Also, there's the effort or the alliance at home that's prosecuting.

I think something was demonstrated in the last Saturday's election, when they asked people not to come out to vote. Even government ministers admitted that last Saturday's election to the house, the so-called parliament, was a terrible fiasco. It was a disaster for the regime. This shows that people are already working in the direction of this change. These are forces that really requires our assistance.

Mr. Keith Martin: May I ask you, if you can, to ask these two groups to provide us, as a committee, with any specific suggestions that we can take to the table, either directly to General Abacha, or internationally with the multilateral groups we're members of? If you can get the suggestions from those who are in the know, it would help us to do our job better.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Very well. I will.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: With that, I think we'll conclude the questions. We thank you very much for appearing before us. We anticipate hearing from you as a follow-up.

Mr. Dapo Olorunyomi: Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Okay, we have a little business here. Could we get a motion to reduce the quorum just for hearing witnesses?

It is moved that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members of the subcommittee are present, including a member of the opposition. Would somebody like to move that?

An hon. member: So moved.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we have a couple of requests we should be dealing with. The Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights would like to appear to discuss conflict in the western Sahara region.

Mr. Keith Martin: I think it's a little larger when we stand back, Madam Chair. Should we as a group not decide on some kind of a framework as to who we're going to have coming to our committee? We could spend until the twelfth of never going and meeting with a lot of groups. Are we going to be generalists and take in everybody, or are we going to focus on specific areas and deal with a few situations?

The Chair: Well, we've just completed the report on international child abduction. Yes, we would like to have a specific project. But I do think that many of these human rights groups would like to be heard, and this is probably the proper channel to have them heard and putting them on record.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm just wondering whether—of course we will collectively decide—we are going to hear from all the groups that apply. Are we going to take it on a case-by-case basis?

The Chair: Not necessarily.

Mr. Keith Martin: Are we going to take it on the urgent or emergent human right situations that are occurring? That may be something we should really decide as a group.

The Chair: You know what? We can decide right now whether we want to hear from the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights and the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America for a discussion of human rights in Mexico with the recurring problems in Chiapas.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm just saying that, in the larger thing, are we going to hear from people from the Sudan? Are we going to hear from people from north Africa, Morocco and Algeria, and on it goes, or are we going to focus on a few and allocate a certain time for these people?

• 1640

The Chair: We will have to discuss it. I think we should have a meeting specifically designed for future business so we can sit and discuss exactly what we, as a committee, would like to take on.

Mr. Keith Martin: So we can focus on what we want to do.

The Chair: Yes. I think we're all agreed we would like a specific project.

Mr. Keith Martin: Can I present a motion to accept those two groups, but at the same meeting allot time to have a debate between us as to how we want to go as a group? Does that sound reasonable?

The Chair: Is that agreed?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I would just like to add something to what Dr. Martin said. Until now, since the Subcommittee on Human Rights has been meeting, we have devoted most of our time to a very specific topic. Last year, we dealt with child labour; this year, we have been studying the kidnapping of children at the international level. In my view, I think we must continue to have major themes, such as those we have been discussing in the last year and a half.

However, that should not prevent us from reacting to emergencies such as the situation in Chiapas or in the Western Sahara, where a census is going on at the moment for the December 1998 elections. The procedure is very controversial.

I addition, I don't think we should deprive ourselves of the opportunity to meet with people who want to raise issues on which Canada is going to have to take a stand in any case. The subject should not be eliminated. However, when we have certain requests, Ms. Beaumier always submits them to us for approval. Personally, I think this is quite a flexible procedure, which does not prevent us from a more in-depth discussion at a meeting of the type requested by Dr. Martin. I think we must now find the next subject to be studied by the subcommittee, and if we don't find one, look at the groups that would like to meet with us to talk about these two topics and others.

I think this approach is quite flexible. I don't know what Dr. Martin thinks, because he is the person who asked that this matter be discussed at an upcoming meeting.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm just saying we can spend an awful lot of time—and I understand what Madam Debien is saying very clearly—but we as a group have to decide how we're going to really operate. Are we going to focus on one thing, or are we going to take a scattered approach and listen to a lot of different people who could come here and use up all of our time, so at the end of the day we would not be left with a whole lot of—

The Chair: There's no question about it.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm just proposing we say yes to these two people and collectively decide after that to allot some time so we can have this debate when more people are here from all sides. I think that would be valuable. There are only three of us—

The Chair: Perhaps we can even have an informal meeting among ourselves to come to some kind of consensus on what we'd like to see the committee take on as a larger-scale project.

Madam Bradshaw.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I agree. The report we just completed is excellent. However, Dr. Martin, I think it is important that we take a breather. Later on, we will hear from groups that want to appear before us because we are often their spokesperson. I agree to take some time next week, Madam Chair, when more committee members will be present, to decide what our next subject will be.

• 1645

We must also keep our door open to groups that want to come and make presentations. I think it is very important to listen to them and to ask questions. I will certain do my best to be free. We may be able to organize a dinner or something like that, because usually, we only meet at the table in this committee. We don't often get together elsewhere. It might be a good idea to do that when we are talking about our next theme.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: We could have some good Acadian food. That would be wonderful.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I could bring lobster if the chair wants to pay.

The Chair: I think we're all agreed on that.

Mr. Keith Martin: As long as we can focus. As I said before, there are a lot of groups we could be spending our time on.

The Chair: Absolutely. I think we all feel the same way; we just tend to express it differently. I think we'd like something to focus on, but we also have to be flexible here.

Mr. Keith Martin: Of course.

The Chair: Okay?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I wouldn't want to put that on tape, but I'm willing to bring lobster.

The Chair: If I'll pay? Perfect.

The meeting is adjourned.