FINA Committee Report

CHAPTER ONE — WHO WE ARE

The Aging Population

[B]y 2030, almost one in four Canadians will be 65 years or older. This revolutionary — and I can’t emphasize that word too much, because society, in recorded history, has never had this kind of balance, with so many people over the age of 65 — and new reality must be seriously addressed now. It will have a myriad of social, economic and political impacts on our nation in a variety of areas, ranging from health care to housing, employment to pensions. (Canada’s Association for the Fifty-Plus, 21 May 2002)

According to the 2001 Census and as revealed in Figure 1,² the median age of Canada’s population reached a record high of 37.6 years in 2001, an increase of 2.3 years from 1996 and the biggest Census-to-Census increase in a century. Statistics Canada has reported that seniors aged 65 or over accounted for 13% of the nation’s population in 2001 and will reach 15% by 2011, while 26% of the population was aged 19 or younger in 2001, a proportion that is likely to fall to less than 23% by 2011.

Figure 1: Median Age, Canada, 1901-2011

Source: Statistics Canada.

The aging of the Canadian population is consistent with a trend in the rest of the industrialized world. According to Statistics Canada, and as shown in Figure 2, “Canada’s median age is higher than that of the United States and Russia but lower than that of Germany, Japan or Italy. It is about the same as that of France and the United Kingdom. … Because of the impact of Canada’s baby boom, and the speed of the decline in fertility at the end of the 1960s, the population of core working ages is older in Canada than in all other G-8 countries, except Germany and Japan.” Data also reveal that fertility rates continue to decline, reaching a record low of 1.52 children per woman in 1999, the most recent year for which these data are available.³

Figure 2: Median Age, Countries of the G-8 and Australia, 2000 or 2001

Source: Statistics Canada.

An aging population, falling rates of fertility and a decline in the proportion of working-age individuals will put pressure on Canada’s social programs. While part of this pressure will be relieved by seniors’ redemption of their Registered Retirement Savings Plans — which will be subject to income and consumption taxes — some pressure will still be placed on the relatively smaller workforce, particularly for benefits from the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement programs, and probably for health care. Consequently, immigration and productivity improvements are likely to play an important role in sustaining Canadians’ standard of living and quality of life in the future. Dr. Mario Seccareccia suggested to the Committee that:

[T]here’s no question that a high standard of living vis-à-vis that of other countries can only be maintained over time if we are sufficiently productive as a society in achieving high rates of measured productivity growth.

While immigration can help address future labour shortages, the Committee has long argued that productivity improvements are the foundation for Canada’s continued economic prosperity.⁴ Productivity increases allow firms to lower costs and thereby prices charged to consumers, as well as to achieve a competitive advantage. Lower prices enable consumers to purchase more goods and services for the same amount of money. As the proportion of retired individuals rises — and greater government expenditures are needed to support the aging population — productivity improvements will become an increasingly important source of economic growth.

High productivity growth in the United States and relatively sluggish Canadian productivity growth have led to concerns that Canadians’ standard of living has been falling behind that of Americans. Economists also worry that Canada’s lagging productivity growth will have long-term adverse effects on the economy. According to revised U.S. data and recent Canadian data, however, the gap — while still in existence — is smaller than previously thought.

Statistics Canada has reported that “[b]efore these [recent data] revisions, the U.S. advantage in labour productivity growth varied between 0.1% and 1.9% per year over the period since 1998. It now varies between -0.3% and 0.9%.”⁵ In other words, in some years Canadian productivity growth actually outpaced that of the United States. This is not an argument, however, for complacency. Actions must be taken in order to ensure the highest possible levels of productivity growth in Canada, since such growth is a key to future prosperity for our nation and our future standard of living.

Population Growth Through Immigration

In ten years, one hundred per cent of the growth in the Canadian labour force will come through immigration. … An aggressive immigration policy that targets individuals with specific skills sets must be at the heart of any Canadian innovation strategy. (Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 23 April 2002)

Canada has always been, and remains, a nation of immigrants. The latest Statistics Canada Census data reveal that, for Canada as a whole, immigration was the main source of population growth between 1996 and 2001.⁶ According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada accepted a near-record 250,346 immigrants in 2001.⁷ Immigrants overwhelmingly settle in Canada’s larger cities, specifically Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, which creates a greater need for immigrant services in these cities.

According to groups such as the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, as baby boomers begin to retire, skilled labour shortages will develop, and immigration — particularly immigration of individuals who are skilled workers — will help alleviate these shortages. At the same time, while immigration continues to account for an increasing share of Canada’s population growth, the Committee heard that immigrants seem to be finding it harder to succeed in Canada. The Canadian Council on Social Development told us that “[m]any recent immigrants to Canada, those people who came predominantly to Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, are facing extremely significant difficulties in finding a secure footing in the labour market, as well as adequate employment.”

Moreover, while the poverty rate for immigrants has traditionally been in line with the overall Canadian average, the Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL Classes informed the Committee that those who immigrated between 1991 and 1996 face a poverty rate of 52%, well above that of immigrants in previous periods.

Changing Families and the Needs of Canada’s Children

Whether or not parents are in the work force, and regardless of their socio-economic status, providing their children with the opportunity to participate in an early childhood education and care setting should be an option. Some think it should be a right. (Campaign 2000, 4 November 2002)

The structure of families continues to change. As reported by Statistics Canada and shown in Figure 3,⁸ the proportion of married or common-law families with children at home continues to decline, accounting for 44% of all families in Canada in 2001, down from 49% in 1991 and 55% in 1981. Lone-parent families represented 16% of all families in 2001, and the number of families with no children living at home continued to rise, reaching 41% of all families in 2001 as a result of lower fertility rates in recent decades and the greater prevalence of “empty nest” families as seniors live for longer periods. Almost 12% of all Canadian couples with children in 2001 were step-families, and the proportion of common-law families grew from 5.6% to 14% between 1981 and 2001.

Figure 3: Proportion of Couples with Children at Home, Canada, Selected Years

Source: Statistics Canada.

In 2001, 1.07 million children, or about 19%, did not live with both parents. Most of these children lived with a lone parent, the majority of whom were lone mothers. For the first time, Statistics Canada also counted the number of same-sex couples in Canada. In 2001, they represented 0.5% of all couples.

Statistics Canada has reported that the proportion of dual-income families continues to increase,⁹ which places pressure on families who must care for children and/or elderly parents. As Beverley Smith informed the Committee, “[t]he Canadian Policy Research Network estimated in 2001 that absenteeism due to work-life conflict costs $3 billion Canadian per year. This problem is not going to disappear. It may be that with a declining birth rate there will be less child-rearing absenteeism proportionally, but with an aging population, there will be more elder care.”

Regardless of whether children live in two-parent or lone-parent families, their needs, especially in the early years, remain the same. They require nutritious food, adequate shelter, a stimulating environment, access to early childhood education, and love, among other needs. In its brief to the Committee, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care argued that “the early years are absolutely critical to the development of healthy, secure, productive Canadian citizens.”

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has commented that the early years are the first formative step in lifelong learning and are a key to successful education, social and family policy. It has identified key elements for a successful Early Childhood Education and Care policy:¹⁰

One of the main problems affecting Canadian children is poverty. The National Council of Welfare told the Committee that “the age group that is most likely to experience long duration of poverty is children from birth to six years of age.” According to data collected by the Council, in 1999 the rate of child poverty was 18.7% (or 1,313,000 children), down from 20.6% (or 1,459,000 children) in 1997. Over the same period, the average depth of poverty (i.e., how far a family is below the poverty line) for two-parent families with children fell 7%, to $8,691 from $9,387; for single-mother households, it fell 9%, to $8,459 from $9,325 (all figures in constant 1999 dollars). Despite these improvements, however, the gains in both the rate and depth of poverty are actually weaker than might have been expected considering the strong economic and employment growth of recent years.¹¹

In its submission to the Committee, Citizens for Public Justice pointed out that:

[W]hile many European countries have invested significant public funds in supporting families with children throughout the life cycle, Canada, the U.S. and other English-speaking countries have tended to view child development as the private affair of families. Apart from funding for primary and secondary education and public health insurance, Canada’s systems of support for families are weak, particularly in the early years.

The Committee notes that the federal government has already recognized the importance of Canada’s children and their role in ensuring the country’s future prosperity through a variety of initiatives, including the creation, with the provinces and territories, of the National Children’s Agenda and, specifically, the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), which is part of the National Child Benefit (NCB) Initiative. The CCTB replaced and enriched the Child Tax Benefit in July 1998. By 2004, the amount of family net income at which the CCTB phase-out begins will be at least $35,000, and the phase-out rate of the base benefit of the CCTB will be reduced from 5% to 4% for families with more than one child, and from 2.5% to 2% for families with one child.

The NCB Supplement was also introduced in 1998, and was increased by $300 in July 2001 to an annual maximum amount of almost $2,400. Additional increases to the National Child Benefit should occur in the future as a consequence of the commitment made in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne. At that time, a commitment was also made regarding the development of a long-term investment plan to allow poor families to break out of the welfare trap in order that children born into poverty do not carry the consequences of that poverty throughout their lives.

Moreover, in 2000, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to the Early Childhood Development initiative, which expands and improves access to services for all families and children in four key areas: health, pregnancy, birth and infancy; parenting and family supports; early childhood development, learning and care; and community-level supports. The federal government has committed to investing $2.2 billion over a five-year period, beginning in 2001-02.

Nevertheless, the lack of adequate, affordable, high-quality child care continues to be a problem for many families. According to data provided to the Committee, 82% of children under the age of six did not have access to a regulated Early Childhood Education and Care space in 2001, and most of the cost of these spaces are financed by families. In the area of child care, as with child poverty, much remains to be done.

Ensuring equality of opportunity for all of Canada’s children makes sense from a moral, as well as an economic, perspective. Providing all Canadians with the best possible life — and the best possible start in life — is a sound investment in the future, not only for the benefit of Canada’s children, but also for Canada itself.

Poverty and Income Inequality Among Canadians

The rising tide of homelessness, the high level of student debt for post-secondary education, the growing demands on food banks, user fees for health services, cuts in services previously provided by some provinces [such as home care], long waiting lists for low-cost housing and nursing homes and some medical procedures — all these take place as the very rich continue at an extremely high level of consumption while the poor are left to struggle with higher costs of living and doing without life essentials. (Canadian Pensioners Concerned Incorporated (National and Ontario Division), 5 November 2002)

Poverty among Canada’s children must be eradicated, which is also the case for poverty among other Canadians. Statistics Canada has reported that in 2000, the latest year for which data are available, “[a]n estimated 666,000 families of two or more people had low income in 2000, down from 714,000 in 1999. The low-income rate also declined, from 10.7% in 1996 to 7.9% in 2000, the lowest rate since 1989 when it was 7.5%.”¹² While the declines are welcome, a continued focus on measures to reduce the rate of poverty must occur.

During the last half of the 1990s, the percentage of low-income Canadians, when assessed on an after-tax basis, fell to 11.8% in 1999 from 13.2% in 1995.¹³ Studies have repeatedly found that the persons most susceptible to low income tend to have little education, to be students and to live as unattached individuals or in lone-parent families. Immigrants and disabled Canadians also are more likely to find themselves in low-income situations. Actions must be taken, particularly for those most vulnerable, to ensure that the proportion of low-income Canadians continues to decline.

There remains a concern that not all Canadians have benefited from the strong economic growth of the last several years. In his presentation to the Committee, John McConnell voiced his concern that Canada is experiencing a declining middle class, with increases in poverty and income inequality. According to the Vanier Institute of the Family, “[b]etween 1990 and 1995, the richest 20% of families had incomes that were, on average, about 4.8 times larger than those of the poorest 20% of families. This ratio jumped to 5.4 times by 1998 and was still at 5.2 times in 1999. The economic recovery seems to have benefited all income groups but has been of most benefit to the rich.”¹⁴

Low-incomes rates (defined by Statistics Canada as spending more than 64% of after-transfers/after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing) for all families as a group and for all unattached individuals as a group improved during each of 1997, 1998 and 1999. However, the Vanier Institute has reported that:

[t]he share of the total ‘family income pie after taxes’ that went to the poorest 20% of families shrank from 7.6% to 7.4% between 1990 and 1999, while the share that went to the richest 20% of families increased from 36.7% in 1990 to 38.3% over the same period. While the economic recovery has benefited all five major income groups, it has been of most benefit to the rich.¹⁵

Governments play a significant role in reducing income inequality through transfer payments to individuals and through the progressive income tax system. Statistics Canada figures indicate that, in 2001, government transfers reduced the income gap between the richest 20% of Canadian families and the poorest 20% from 11.7 to 1 to 5.3 to 1. In other words, before taxes and transfers are taken into account, the richest 20% held $11.70 in market income for every $1 held by the lowest 20%; after taxes, this figure falls to $5.30 for every $1 held by the lowest 20%.¹⁶

The Reality for Aboriginal Canadians

[The Assembly of First Nations] believe[s] that you recognize the impact of poverty on First Nations communities and citizens, and the social and economic costs to the provincial and federal government. First Nation poverty is costing all governments an additional $3.5 billion a year. … If First Nation poverty is allowed to continue at this level, all governments in Canada will have to spend an additional $60 billion over the next 15 years. … Investing in our peoples and communities is an investment in the force that will be driving Canada’s economy for the coming decades. (Assembly of First Nations, 8 November 2002)

While Canada is generally considered to be one of the best places to live in terms of quality of life, these benefits are not shared equally. First Nations peoples, as well as Métis and Inuit, fare worse than non-Aboriginal Canadians on almost every social and economic indicator. Unemployment and prison incarceration rates are higher for Aboriginal Canadians than non-Aboriginal Canadians, while employment rates, labour force participation and median income are lower. On-reserve housing conditions are among the worst in Canada, and relatively fewer Aboriginal Canadians go on to post-secondary education.¹⁷

As shown in Figure 4, the federal government currently spends about $7.5 billion annually on Aboriginal issues, mainly through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada. Other departments and agencies also provide funding, including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Human Resources Development Canada, Heritage Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada.

Each year, Parliament approves appropriations to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for funding arrangements that support a variety of programs and services in Aboriginal communities, including capital facilities, elementary and secondary education, social assistance, housing, health services and economic development initiatives. The majority of the department’s program budget is managed by First Nations directly, while another portion is transferred to the provinces for the delivery of services to Aboriginal Canadians.

Moreover, the December 2001 budget allocated $185 million over the next two years to Aboriginal child development, and $5 million over two years to Health Canada to produce health data on Aboriginal Canadians who live on reserves. The Aboriginal child development funding will be used to:

In a number of cities, poverty is disproportionately concentrated among Aboriginal people. The federal government is committed to resolving this situation and, in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, has indicated that it will work with interested provinces to expand existing pilot programs to meet the needs of Aboriginal people living in cities.

Helping Aboriginal Canadians to realize the same quality of life as other Canadians remains one of the greatest challenges facing Canada. In its report on the Canadian healthcare system, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology remarked that:

[t]here is a disproportionately, and completely unacceptable, large gap in health indicators between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal peoples experience much higher incidence of many health problems, including: significantly higher rates of cancer, diabetes and arthritis; heart disease among men; suicide among young men; HIV/AIDS; and morbidity and mortality related to injuries. Infant mortality rates are twice to three times the national average, with high rates of fœtal alcohol syndrome and fœtal alcohol effects (FAS/FAE), and poor nutrition. Approximately 12% of Aboriginal children have asthma, in comparison with 5% of all Canadian children. This last trend is attributable, at least in part, to environmental health issues, such as the presence of moulds in houses.¹⁸

Homeless Canadians

In Ottawa, the current average for shelter users on any given night is 961 people. Approximately 30% of these are children. … All of these children suffer the impacts of homelessness: emotional stress, obstacles to good, consistent parenting and very often the effects of poverty: lack of basic nutrition and other material supports. (Alliance to End Homelessness, 1 September 2002)

According to the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — to which Canada is a signatory — access to adequate housing is a basic human right. As the National Housing and Homeless Network reminded the Committee, “[t]he Trudeau government announced plans for an ambitious new federal housing program in 1973 with these words: ‘Good housing at a reasonable cost is a social right of every citizen of this country. … This must be our objective, our obligation and our goal.’”

Adequate and affordable housing is essential for Canadians to realize economic stability and prosperity, and a high quality of life. Most groups and witnesses who commented on this issue in their presentations to the Committee agreed that much remains to be done in this area, noting that in 1996 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation found 1.7 million Canadian households to be in ‘core need’ of housing (households that cannot afford shelter that meets adequacy, suitability, and affordability norms, where affordability is recognized as a maximum of 30% of the household income spent on shelter).

Housing is not only a social issue. It also affects productivity. As the Canada Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America told the Committee, “[t]he stress of unstable accommodations diminishes the ability of individuals to remain productive or even to maintain employment, instigating a vicious cycle of social upheaval.” It also noted that “in Calgary, 40% of people using emergency shelters have employment.”

Despite last year’s economic slowdown, rental markets continue to be very tight across the country, a situation which often has the greatest impact on the least well off because they cannot afford rising rental and real estate prices. For some, rent represents a disproportionate share of their income, a particular burden for the working poor, those on social assistance and recent immigrants.

In the rental market, some analysts have estimated that an additional 42,000 new rental spaces (there are currently an estimated 2.5 million rental spaces in the country) would be needed to raise the vacancy rate from 1.1% to a more sustainable 3%. At the same time, there are reports of insufficient supplies of skilled trades labour — including carpenters, electricians and plumbers — to help increase the housing stock.

Canadians with Disabilities

Research over the past decade has repeatedly shown that Canadians with disabilities and their families face poverty, unemployment and unmet needs for supports. (Canadian Association for Community Living, 6 November 2002)

Disabilities present challenges to both disabled individuals and their families. As the Canadian National Institute for the Blind noted in its submission to the Committee, “[v]isually impaired persons have traditionally faced rates of high unemployment.” Moreover, according to data provided to the Committee, 26% of adults with disabilities live below the poverty line, compared with 11% of adult Canadians without disabilities; as well, 48% of adults with disabilities are employed, compared with 73% of adult Canadians without disabilities.

Federal government programs to address the needs of disabled Canadians include the Disability Tax Credit, a non-refundable tax credit that reduces federal income tax by up to $960 in 2001 for taxpayers with a severe and prolonged physical or mental disability, as well as monthly disability benefits available through the Canada Pension Plan for qualifying contributors who have a severe and prolonged disability that prevents regular employment at any job. The maximum Canada Pension Plan disability benefit as of January 2002 is $956.05.

The federal government also provides the Infirm Dependant Credit, the Caregiver Credit, the Medical Expense Tax Credit, the Attendant Care Deduction, the Child Care Expense Deduction, and Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax relief. Disabled Canadians also benefit from the research supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Volunteers

The voluntary sector touches very specifically on the social agenda through inclusion and supporting good governance and investing in people. On the economic side, the voluntary sector … creates employment, provides jobs, increases training opportunities and makes a significant contribution to the economy. (National Aboriginal Voluntary Organization, 9 September 2002)

Charitable and voluntary organizations are important contributors to Canadian society. They encompass an estimated 180,000 non-profit organizations, including minor hockey leagues, meals on wheels programs, humane societies and United Way programs, among a vast array of others. Together, they provide valuable and needed services, and contribute to maintaining Canadians’ quality of life.¹⁹

According to Statistics Canada’s most recent survey of volunteerism, although the number of individuals aged 15 years and older performing some kind of volunteer work fell to 26.7% (6.5 million Canadians) in 2000, down from 31.4% (7.5 million Canadians) in 1997, those that did volunteer contributed a greater number of hours.

In addition to formal volunteerism, in 2000, 77% of Canadians reported helping others on their own (i.e., not through an organization), up from 73% in 1997. Of these, 79% reported helping people other than relatives, up from 71% in 1997. The most common types of assistance were providing rides to stores or appointments, housework, unpaid babysitting, yard and maintenance work, visiting the elderly and providing care for the sick or elderly.

Statistics Canada has also reported that a “civic core” of 28% of Canadian adults accounted for 83% of total hours volunteered in 2000, 77% of total charitable dollars donated and 69% of civic participation. In general, they are:

Canadians are also generous with their money. According to Statistics Canada, 78% of the population made charitable gifts to organizations in 2000, the same proportion as in 1997. Furthermore, the average amount donated rose to $259, up $20 from 1997. While high-income individuals tend to make the largest donations, low-income individuals give a larger percentage of their income to charities.

The federal government supports charitable organizations through a variety of fiscal mechanisms, including tax credits for donations to charitable organizations. The credit is 16% of the first $200 donated and 29% on donations exceeding this amount. As well, last year the government permanently reduced the capital gains inclusion rate applied to certain donations of publicly traded securities to public charities to one-half of the amount applied to other capital gains.

In 2000, the federal government and the voluntary sector launched the Voluntary Sector Initiative to strengthen the voluntary sector’s ability to meet future challenges and to enhance the relationship in the service of Canadians. In light of pressures to deliver a greater number of services, raise larger amounts of money to support their activities, adapt to the information age, recruit volunteers from a time-constrained population, and ensure the resources and expertise to continue to work effectively, the Initiative is designed to develop:

Finally, in October 2002, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced the appointment of Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Copps as being responsible for leading the federal government’s efforts to strengthen its relationship with the voluntary sector. The Minister will work to ensure that the federal government fully implements the Accord signed with the voluntary sector in December 2001, as set out in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne.

Canada in the Global Context

We are heartened by the fact that the Prime Minister has stated publicly that the Government plans to increase Canadian development assistance significantly and is committed to a timetable to rebuild Canadian Official Development Assistance. The upcoming budget must reflect this promise. (Action Canada for Population and Development, 9 September 2002)

The terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 reminded us that the world is growing ever smaller, and events taking place a world away can have repercussions in our own country. In the past year, Canadian soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan and other locations, Canadian naval forces remain in the Persian Gulf and there are concerns about a future war with Iraq. These events have focussed Canadians’ concerns and, according to some commentators, the concerns of some of our allies about the state of readiness of Canada’s Armed Forces.

Defence and security were major themes in last year’s pre-budget consultations and in the December 2001 budget. The budget provided $7.7 billion in security expenditures, including $6.5 billion for security (encompassing air security and Canada’s military) and more than $1.2 billion for border initiatives aimed at strengthening border security, facilitating the flow of goods and people, and improving border infrastructure.

Canadians are also viewed as a people with a great concern for the well-being of those who live in developing countries. In the 1960s, a United Nations committee chaired by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson provided countries with the goal of dedicating 0.7% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to foreign aid. Canada’s Official Development Assistance (ODA), currently equal to 0.26% of GDP, is far below this target. Furthermore, the North-South Institute informed the Committee that “[f]ifteen years ago, Canada used to count itself among the six most generous rich countries, as measured by the proportion of national income allocated to foreign aid. Today we are sixteenth among 22 donor countries.”

In the 2001 budget, the federal government announced a $500 million “Canada Fund for Africa” to support new African sustainable development initiatives. This is part of $6 billion in new and existing resources committed by the government over five years to support African development.

The Committee notes that, in the September 2002 Speech from the Throne, the federal government made a commitment to increasing its aid budget by 8% annually, with a view to doubling Canada’s ODA by 2010. As indicated to us by the Centre canadien d’étude et de coopération internationale, however, “[e]ven if we succeed in doubling our development assistance budget by 2010, we estimate that this will still only represent 0.4% of our GDP.”

In addition to aid, there is a need to focus on barriers to trade — especially in sectors like textiles and agriculture where developing countries have traditionally had strong absolute and comparative advantages over developed countries — and on the chronic lack of investment flows into lesser-developed countries. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), adopted by the G-7 nations at this year’s Kananaskis Summit, is a prescription that grew out of these realizations. The federal government, for example, promised that Canada would eliminate tariffs and quotas on imports from 48 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), of which 34 are in Africa, effective 1 January 2003.