FAIT Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

0905

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

0910

Ms. Janine Ferretti (Executive Director, North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation)

0915

0920

0925

0930

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

Ms. Janine Ferretti

0935

Mr. Paquette

Ms. Janine Ferretti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Janine Ferretti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

0940

Ms. Janine Ferretti

0945

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Janine Ferretti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Janine Ferretti

0955

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Professor Nelson Michaud (École nationale d'administration publique)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Prof. Nelson Michaud

1000

1005

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Prof. Nelson Michaud

Mr. Paquette

Prof. Nelson Michaud

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Prof. Nelson Michaud

1015

Mr. Paquette

Prof. Nelson Michaud

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

1020

Ms. Marleau

1025

Prof. Nelson Michaud

Mr. Paquette

Prof. Nelson Michaud

1030

Ms. Diane Marleau

Prof. Nelson Michaud

Ms. Diane Marleau

Prof. Nelson Michaud

Mr. Paquette

Prof. Nelson Michaud

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Prof. Nelson Michaud

1035

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1040

Mr. Robert Jasmin (President, Association québécoise pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens)

1045

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Henrichon (Secretary, Association québécoise pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens)

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Henrichon

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Robert Jasmin

1100

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Pierre Henrichon

1110

Mr. Robert Jasmin

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Pierre Henrichon

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Robert Jasmin

1115

Mr. Pierre Henrichon

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Robert Jasmin

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1130

Ms. Francine Néméh (Director, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1135

Ms. Francine Néméh

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Néméh

1140

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Ms. Francine Néméh

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Néméh

Ms. Yolande Geadah (Programme Co-coordinator, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale)

Mr. Paquette

Ms. Yolande Geadah

Ms. Marleau

1200

Ms. Diane Marleau

Ms. Marleau

Ms. Francine Néméh

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Francine Néméh

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1205

Ms. Joan Hadrill (Representative, Raging Grannies of Montreal)

Ms. Barbara Seifred (Representative, Raging Grannies of Montreal)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1335

Mr. Henri Massé (President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ))

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Henri Massé

1340

1345

1350

Mr. Jérôme Turcq (Vice-President of the FTQ and Executive Regional Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Quebec Region)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry

Mr. Paquette

1355

Mr. Henri Massé

Mr. Jérôme Turcq

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Henri Massé

1400

Ms. Dominique Savoie (Director of Research, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec)

1405

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ))

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Diane Marleau

Ms. Marleau

1410

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Dominique Savoie

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Jérôme Turcq

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Jérôme Turcq

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Jérôme Turcq

Ms. Marleau

1415

Mr. Jérôme Turcq

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Henri Massé

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Henri Massé

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1420

Ms. Dominique Savoie

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. Henri Massé

Ms. Marleau

1425

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Henri Massé

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Henri Massé

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Henri Massé

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1435

Mr. Derek MacCuish (Program Coordinator, Social Justice Committee)

1440

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Derek MacCuish

1445

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Derek MacCuish

1450

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Diane Marleau

Mr. Derek MacCuish

Ms. Marleau

1455

Mr. Derek MacCuish

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1500

Mr. Derek MacCuish

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1505

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza (Program Officer, Africa, Alternatives Canada)

1510

1515

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Moussa Tchangari (Director (Niger), Alternatives Canada)

1520

1525

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1530

Mr. Moussa Tchangari

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Moussa Tchangari

1535

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Moussa Tchangari

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Désirée McGraw (Director (Montreal), G8 Research Group)

1540

1545

1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Ms. Désirée McGraw

1600

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Diane Marleau

Ms. Désirée McGraw

Ms. Marleau

Ms. Désirée McGraw

Ms. Diane Marleau

Ms. Désirée McGraw

1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Désirée McGraw

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Gordon Edwards (President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility)

1615

1620

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Gordon Edwards

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Diane Marleau

Mr. Gordon Edwards

Ms. Marleau

1630

Mr. Gordon Edwards

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Gordon Edwards

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Gordon Edwards

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Gordon Edwards

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Gordon Edwards

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1635

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Félicité Tchapda (President, Social Democratic Front (Cameroun))

1640

1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Abbott

1650

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Alain Deugoue

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Alain Deugoue

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

Ms. Félicité Tchapda

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Alain Deugoue

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Alain Deugoue

Ms. Marie-Thérèse Ngachou (Social Democratic Front (Cameroun))

Ms. Marleau

1655

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1700

Ms. Félicité Tchapda

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marie-Thérèse Ngachou

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 062

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): If you don't mind, we are going to begin.

These are the cross-Canada hearings of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee on the G-8 and North American relations. So, welcome to these hearings of the committee on two important aspects of Canada's role in North America and abroad. Committee members are anxious to gather public comments on the Canadian foreign policy challenges within the G-8 and the North American context.

Canada is chairing the G-8 this year. We will be hosting the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June. The summit's main priorities are improving the global economic environment, establishing a new partnership for African development and continuing the struggle against international terrorism. Canada is particularly focused on developing an action plan for Africa.

The committee has to submit its findings and recommendations to the government by the end of April at the latest. Public hearings to find out what Canadians think are central to the process. This week, one group of members is conducting hearings in Quebec and another is currently in Atlantic Canada. In early April, this stage will conclude with hearings in western Canada and Ontario.

Given time and budget constraints, we are taking this opportunity to find out what Canadians think about the future of our North American relations. We will entertain any commentary on Canada-US relations, Canada-Mexico relations and continental or trilateral relations as part of a longer-term study on which we will report later this year.

This is the beginning of a dialogue. Information on both of these studies is available on the committee's website. We invite other Canadians to tell us what they think. Please note that briefs relating to the G-8 study must be submitted by mid-April at the latest; briefs regarding the study of North American relations must be submitted by the end of June at the latest.

With me this morning are the clerk, Mr. Roy, and our researcher, Mr. Blayne Haggart. We also have Ms. Diane Marleau from the Liberal Party and Mr. Pierre Paquette representing the Bloc Québécois.

[English]

We're going to start with Mrs. Janine Ferretti from the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

[Translation]

Ms. Ferreti, you have the floor.

¿ (0910)

Ms. Janine Ferretti (Executive Director, North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation): Thank you. I am pleased to be here this morning.

[English]

I want to take an opportunity to briefly give you an introduction to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. I'm the executive director. It was set up by Canada, Mexico, and the United States under an environmental side agreement to NAFTA. It's entrusted with support of environmental cooperation as the three countries pursue economic prosperity through trade liberalization. Our headquarters are here in Montreal. Canada fought very hard to get the headquarters here, and we're very pleased to be in this beautiful city of Montreal. The political body of the commission is a council made up of the three environment ministers, and they meet once a year.

I'm happy to be here, because I think the issue you're addressing is very important, the future and development of the North American community. What vision should there be, and what should Canada's role and priorities be in that context? I wanted to share with you some of our experiences at the commission to see if that might be of help to you in your deliberations.

There are two important points I'd like to make at the outset. First, the commission is a unique institution, in that it's one of three North American institutions--not very many. Second, it was established as a result of a trade agreement under NAFTA, and so in our work we're very much aware of the economic context of North America. We're aware that NAFTA has defined an economic region, an economic partnership of 400 million people, with $8 trillion worth of goods and services and trade to the value of $700 billion a year.

We're also aware that it's an asymmetrical partnership, in the sense that we have, of course, the world's largest economy, then we've got Canada, the 8th largest economy, then Mexico, which is very much still a country that's battling issues of poverty, sanitation, basic education, issues normally associated with a developing country, but at the same time, a country that has also membership in the OECD and is very much an industrialist country.

Of the three NAFTA institutions the Commission for Environmental Cooperation is the most institutionalized, by design. I'll give you a very brief example of what I mean by that. You have the Free Trade Commission, which doesn't have a body or a secretary in one place; it's made up of sections of the three governments that get together and work together. So it's a virtual organization in that regard. The second institution is the Commission for Labour Cooperation, and it's a little bit of both. It has a secretariat based in Washington, but it also has very much engaged sections of the three labour departments, which meet and actually carry out some of the tasks we would do at the secretariat. So the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has probably the most personality of an international organization among the three. It has its headquarters here, we have a staff of 60 people from three countries, we have a liaison office, and the secretariat executes the work program of the commission. The work program is approved by the three governments.

What I'd like to do now is offer some lessons I think might be of value to you. What are the characteristics that make the CEC a very innovative institution? I would say it's probably a new generation of international organizations.

The first characteristic is that it's an intergovernmental organization plus, plus civil society. From the very beginning--and I have to take my hat off to the three governments for the way they designed this--it was designed so that public participation was built into the process, it wasn't an add-on. There's a joint public advisory committee of 15 individuals. Each government identifies and appoints 5 people, and they provide advice on an ongoing basis to the council. In addition, there's a national advisory committee in each of the three countries that provides advice to the minister. So they're getting advice from the public at the domestic level, as well as at an international level--15 North American citizens at large, as it were. They provide ongoing advice to the parties as to what the priorities should be, how the institution is doing, what some of the issues are that they need to be aware of.

In addition, the work of this commission is very much rooted in reaching out to civil society. A lot of the work we do we do through expert groups, panels, and we reach out to members from industry, non-governmental organizations, academia, universities, to bring that expertise in and to focus it on issues. We also have project advisory groups that work very much in the same way.

Further, we have a fund, called the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation, which provides small grants to community-based organizations. That is to make sure this North American-scale cooperation isn't so far removed from the day-to-day concerns of Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans.

The second characteristic I think is interesting from an organizational perspective is that it also has built-in accountability and transparency measures. The agreement for environmental cooperation sets out in articles 14 and 15 a very innovative process, and I can't think of one like it anywhere else in any international organization. Individuals or citizen groups can make a complaint or petition based on their allegation or concern that a party is not enforcing its environmental law. The reason the three governments really emphasize the importance of enforcing environmental law is the concept that trade will not hurt the environment if every country enforces its environmental law. It's when you have lack of enforcement that you get these distortions where trade can potentially hurt the environment.

¿ (0915)

We've had now 22 complaints or so. They're very interesting, and I would say a little less than half have been accepted for going through the entire process. If you'd like more information on that, I'd be happy to forward it to you, but I just want to flag it for you, because it is an innovative tool and it provides that accountability and transparency.

Also on the accountability and transparency side, the council meets once a year, as I mentioned. The next meeting is in June in Ottawa. The ministers have an opportunity to make portions of their meeting public. That means that members of the public attend the council sessions, and there is a two- or three-hour opportunity for dialogue between the ministers and members of the public. As well, our work program is made public. We publicize what we do, how much we spend on it. Progress reports are made and given, as well as annual reports.

The third interesting characteristic of this institution is--and I'm sure you'll appreciate this, given the tremendous public concern and interest and demonstrations we've seen, for example, in Seattle and, to a certain lesser extent, in Doha--that the link between trade and environment is recognized. It's not debated, it's not questioned, it's recognized, and it's central to our mandate. This means that we, as an environmental institution, facilitate cooperation in the interface of environment, trade, and economy. In fact, our agreement instructs our council to work with the council of the Free Trade Commission.

Your discussion document--and I congratulate your staff, because I thought they did an excellent job putting together the issues--points out that a deepening interdependence economically will continue to generate wider policy implications for other areas. That's certainly been our experience at the commission since the beginning of operations seven years ago. We've been monitoring the impacts of NAFTA on the environment, and we've found two general observations and conclusions. One is that trade and integration processes challenge domestic environmental institutions of the three countries to keep pace with the rate of change. Second, a more integrated economy calls for a greater degree of cooperation to facilitate complementary environmental management systems on a North American scale, including greater compatibility of approaches and policies, and that's to strengthen these domestic institutions as well.

One area I wanted to draw your attention to where this is very clear to us is that of energy. I have one big document on electricity and the environment. We launched an initiative in the year 2000 to look at the evolving North American electricity market, because we've seen an increased trade in electricity on a North American basis, tremendous growth over the last 10 years. We decided to take a closer look at the environmental challenges and opportunities this increased trade in electricity presents. By great coincidence, in April 2001, at the Quebec City summit, we heard that the three leaders of North America wanted to pursue a greater, deeper, more meaningful North American partnership, and energy was going to be one area of particular focus; electricity and natural gas were the two primary issues on the energy agenda there. Of course, what that meant was that our work here had even greater relevance, we felt, in providing a service to the three countries.

We're in the midst of drafting a final report. We held a major symposium in San Diego. We've been guided by an excellent panel, which includes former executives from the utilities, for example, Hydro Quebec. We have Ron Daniels, the dean of the law school at the University of Toronto, who's been very much involved in the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, and it's chaired by Phil Sharp, a 10-term congressman from Indiana who was very much engaged in practically every recent energy bill in the United States. So we have a number of working papers, and I have some here for you. If that's of interest to you, I'd be happy to leave them.

¿ (0920)

We didn't do an analysis of the Bush energy plan, we did an analysis of those plans that are already announced or licensed to operate in North America. We got the information from various sources, and we put it together. What we found is that over 2,000 new facilities are being proposed, and this was a year ago, so things most likely have changed, given the economic slowdown. Nonetheless, it was very illustrative for us. We took a high-boundary and a low-boundary case, and we asked, if all 2,000 went forward, what would the emissions be like for air quality in North America, by province, by state, by region? If we didn't see the whole 2,000 move forward, what would we see on the low-boundary side? In either case, we found that there would be significant increases in air pollution, in particular with mercury and carbon dioxide.

What we also found, based on this analysis, is that the economic objectives, very important and very understandable economic objectives, of expanding the generation, distribution, and trade of electricity most likely would interfere with, or even prevent, countries actually meeting the environmental and health objectives that they've laid out for air pollution, for example, or for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In our view, that showed that there was a need to look at the entire picture, because we now have silos of policy, the energy policy, the environmental policy, and what we did in this effort is remove the silos and look at the picture as an integrated whole.

Our report is being finalized, as I mentioned, based on the input we've received, comments on the working papers and the symposium. We're submitting it to the parties this month, and we anticipate that the ministers will be discussing this in June.

Our objectives in developing this report are twofold. One, as I mentioned, is to provide an overall picture and understanding of the electricity and environment interface in the context of current discussions about developing a North American energy market or markets. Second, we wanted to develop information on the policy implications of that and some of the policy responses that might be undertaken in a coordinated fashion. In other words, the commission is more than just a watchdog on the environmental effects of trade, it's actually there to help the parties with means to improve the well-being of North Americans. What is the green infrastructure, what is the environmental infrastructure, the environmental programs and policies, the three countries need to have on a North American scale in order to support the vision of North American integration? Specifically with energy, we want to address the environmental challenges that might arise from an expanded North American electricity market. In essence, we're seeing some of the threads being spun out in the development of a North American community, albeit in very specific areas.

I wanted to close my remarks by providing you with a very brief reference to some of the challenges we're finding operating in this context. The first is financing, and you identified that as well. As I mentioned, Mexico is a country with a foot in two different worlds, the industrialized world, where hazardous waste and industrial pollution are things it must address. The second relates to sanitation, poverty, the concerns of a developing country.

¿ (0925)

We believe Mexico is going to have a very difficult time being a full and equal partner in NAFTA unless it has its environmental infrastructure in place and it can deal with the vulnerabilities that might occur. It's also very difficult for Mexico to work together as a full partner with Canada and the United States in efforts to address common environmental issues. We find Mexico has a hard time even coming up with the resources to get to meetings, let alone put in place the technologies or the infrastructure to actually address an environmental issue. There are a number of environmental issues that are important to Canada for which Mexico's cooperation is crucial, and one of them is long-range transport of atmospheric pollutants. We find the atmosphere carries pollutants from as far away as Mexico, even Central America, into the Great Lakes, the Arctic, and other regions of Canada.

The second point I'd like to make is that information is absolutely necessary. We put out a report, of which I believe you have a copy, The North American Mosaic, the state of the environment report. It was our first attempt at putting together a picture of the North American environment, and the challenge was to find the information. So it's not as consistent as I'd like it to be in providing a picture with data, but it's a start. I think all three countries need information to better understand what North America is, what the North American priorities are, what the trends are, what the challenges are.

The third and final challenge I'd like to raise for you is the necessity of having mechanisms in place to work in the interface. I'm sure you're all aware from your own experience that some of the more difficult problems to solve are those that are intersectoral in nature, that require cooperation between two or more departments. At least at the domestic level there are mechanisms for this, interdepartmental working groups, committees, and so forth. At the North American level we don't have that yet. So we have a very interesting phenomenon, where there is an energy working group, for example, at the North American level, and at the same time, the North American commission is looking at electricity issues. I would hope there will be an opportunity to develop mechanisms, so that there can be a conversation between these two different efforts.

¿ (0930)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Madam Ferretti.

We're going to start off now with questions from our members. Monsieur Paquette, you have the honour.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Good morning, Ms. Ferretti, and thank you very much for your presentation.

I must confess I am not very familiar with the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. I am more familiar with the Labour Commission, as I was a trade unionist with the CSN for many years. We attended meetings and got an idea of what it was all about.

You say that you have received complaints, that you can receive complaints under that agreement. I would like to know from the commission whether any of those complaints have resulted in any decisions or changes to government practices. That is my first question.

I also saw that there was a fund. You referred to it. How much money is in that fund? Given that we are dealing with three federations—Canada, the United States and Mexico—I would also like to know whether your concerns take into account jurisdictional divisions. I am not aware of the Mexican situation, although I do know that there was the Metalclad case in Mexico, where there was a dispute between the federal government and the State government.

For example, there is currently a debate in Canada and the United States over the Kyoto agreement. Do you take into account the fact that the federal government cannot do everything that has to do with the environment, that some things are within provincial jurisdiction?

You say Mexico lacks resources. I was actually thinking that in connection with this North American fund, it might be appropriate to set up a North American infrastructure fund, whether for economic, social or environmental infrastructure, like the Mexican President, Vicente Fox, was proposing.

So that is a bit of a mishmash of questions, but the idea is to identify all of the issues.

[English]

Ms. Janine Ferretti: All right, and please do jump in if I'm not answering the questions as you'd like. In other words, let me know if I haven't answered the question on point.

With the citizen submissions--and I'm sorry, as I really should have gathered my facts before I came--at least three complaints have gone through the entire process. What I mean by the entire process is that at the end of the day, the secretariat develops a factual record. A factual record doesn't have findings or conclusions, but it attempts to shed light on facts, and it lets the reader decide what did or did not happen. So it doesn't have sanctions and it doesn't have any kind of legal value in that regard, but it does use the power of sunshine, as it were, to try to encourage governments to enforce their laws.

We have not taken an analysis to see how that has affected the operations of governments. Testimonials is, I think, too strong a word, but I have read articles by the organizations that have submitted these complaints that say the process has made some changes in the way things are done back home. For example, a Mexican environmental group that put in its first complaint says now Mexico is actually doing an environmental assessment better as a result of the issues that were raised in the factual record. As well, a B.C.-based group has said that the enforcement of the Fisheries Act, in regard to hydroelectric facilities, is being done better, the planning, the information, the communication, and so forth.

I'd be very happy to provide you with those articles, and if you'd like to, you could call the individuals themselves and ask them what they feel about it. I'd love to put out my own commercial, but I just don't think it would be very fair.

We receive $9 million a year, $3 million from each country, which shows that there is an emphasis on equal partnership. There isn't a cut rate for Mexico because it's got less money. I think the governments are getting a bargain for $9 million. From that $9 million we have a $500,000 North American fund for environmental cooperation.

¿ (0935)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Nine million dollars is therefore earmarked for the commission in its entirety and half a million dollars will go to the fund.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Yes.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): And his third question?

Ms. Janine Ferretti: The third question is, what kind of financing do we need? We need creative financing measures. We put in place a $2 million fund; $1 million we provided over a period of four or five years, and the association of chambers of commerce in Mexico put together $1 million for a revolving pollution prevention fund for the small and medium-sized enterprises. I can tell you it's been a great success. There has been one default. Companies have actually been able to put in place cleaner technologies that have saved them money, as well as saving the environment. But we need to do that on a larger scale.

That goes to your question about what we can do on a larger scale. You have to take this as not official opinion, this is my personal opinion. I think there are opportunities to look at new and interesting mechanisms. I believe, for example, a revolving fund like that, on the micro scale, shows the importance and efficacy, and I think it needs to be given a much broader scale. The North American Development Bank, as you know, has been established by Mexico and the United States. Its focus is on the border. And you've heard, of course, Mr. Fox and others in Mexico promote the idea that it should be broader, beyond the border. One can't argue with the very real fact that if we want to see change and improvement, it costs money.

As for the role of the provinces and the federal government, again I have to say the institution has been blessed with a flexibility. While we are definitely a creature of the three federal governments, we work with sub-national governments. We work with provincial governments. For example, we've worked with Quebec, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces and the north-eastern states in addressing regional smog issues, primarily doing investigations and research. We've worked with the Western Governors Association and the northern states of Mexico. So we're able to work with whoever is central in addressing and solving a problem.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madam Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You talked about being able to check whether countries are following their laws. Is this one of the reasons you think the U.S. does not want to ratify the Kyoto accord? I'm just asking your personal opinion. Obviously, we're going to have a hard time ratifying it, although we do want to. It's going to be quite a challenge.

My next question--I can speak for Ontario, but I can't speak for Quebec--is on the privatization of the distribution and production of hydroelectric power, more for commerce, I think, than for any other reason. Is there some oversight of these kinds of decisions and their impact on the environment? From what I gather, you looked at 2,000 new proposals, and overall, they would have increased emissions and not reduced them. With those proposals, have you been able to pick and choose those that might be advantageous, so that they can be shared with others? It's a very important point, especially as I represent the riding of Sudbury, and as you know, we discovered environmental degradation and re-greening before anybody else ever thought of it. We have some expertise in the area.

I have proposed, with other speakers, a separate fund that we Canadians should have to help Mexico in a lot of areas. Obviously, if they don't have enough money sometimes to attend meetings, how can we expect them to make the kinds of changes they will have to make?

As well, do you find that the bottom line always drives decisions in the short term? I see some of the decisions coming down that it's too costly. You and I both know that in the long term it's an investment, but how do we convince businesses that are looking at the bottom line this year that the decisions we make now may help them in the future? It's not an easy sell. How do you do that?

¿ (0940)

Ms. Janine Ferretti: They are not easy questions.

On the Kyoto side, I can't really offer an opinion. It has been said that when the U.S. actually does agree to do something, especially with the environment, they actually do it. That may be a reason the Kyoto protocol is a question for them. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised to see, if and when the U.S. actually gets serious about climate change, things happen--if and when are the big questions.

I know that has been a concern. The private sector has come to us indicating their interest in looking at things like economic instruments. Getting back to your question about bottom line, I'm happy to say that I think we have got away from that, even though it is sometimes very difficult to convince people that it's either environment or economy: you put the dollar in the environment or you put the dollar in the economy. There have been a number of studies, and our report shows that when you put a dollar in the environment, you end up putting quite a few dollars back into the economy. I can't give the figures off the top of my head as I used to, but there is a reference to what it cost the United States to implement the Clean Air Act and what they got out of it. It generally shows that it was a tremendously expensive program to implement, but the economic benefits were well worth it and significantly exceeded the initial costs.

Economic instruments are an area, I think, all three countries have a great deal of opportunity to explore together. All three countries are committed to a market economy. Certainly, the discussions we have been seeing on energy show that they are looking at how to increase the role of the market in providing electricity on a more efficient scale, as well as the role for government. One of the opportunities people tell us need to be looked at and addressed is the role of looking at economic instruments on a regional basis, for example, emissions trading. I'm not just talking about CO₂ emissions trading or greenhouse gas emissions trading, but NO_x or SO_2. It doesn't make sense to do that on a North American scale, or certainly on a subregional scale, for example, transboundary. That's something we are exploring in this report.

You asked about the actual plant. The big variable for whether or not we have less air pollution or more air pollution with new plants is fuel choice. Is it coal? Is it oil? Is it natural gas? Is it wind? Is it hydro? That, of course, is determined by price, but also by other factors, including technology, regulations, policies, infrastructure.

¿ (0945)

Ms. Diane Marleau: In our area we've had some people come in from, I believe, Germany looking at wind generation, but the cost is so astronomical compared to what we actually have that while it would be extremely environmentally beneficial, I don't think we're going to go that way. It's unfortunate, because if there were a way to subsidize these kinds of projects, we might have more of them and less pollution. At this point I'm very worried about this push we have to privatize. I have a fear that it will be less about the environment and more about profits. It's something I hope your commission will keep an eye on.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Merci beaucoup.

We just have two minutes left, and I want to ask you a small question. You mentioned that we're facing three major challenges, you mentioned financing, but I'd like you to elaborate on the long-range transport.

Ms. Janine Ferretti: We need Mexico at the table, not just to address and put in place important environmental policies and programs and infrastructure to support North American integration, but also to help address some of the environmental problems we face that have nothing to do, for example, with integration, such as long-range transport of pollution. Some pollutants can travel long distances. When there were forest fires in Mexico, we were surprised to find that some of the ash actually ended up in Canada, in the Arctic, with PCBs and DDT.

We have a program to help reduce and phase out certain chemicals of common concern. DDT was one of them. Canada and the United States hadn't used DDT for a long time, but Mexico had, and they actually phased it out. That's where we need Mexico at the table, to address issues that are a concern to Canada.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Ms. Ferretti, for appearing before our committee. Your presentation was very interesting. We will adjourn for two minutes before hearing our next witness.

[English]

Ms. Janine Ferretti: Thank you. It was a pleasure.

¿ (0945)

¿ (0950)

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We now resume with our next witness, Mr. Nelson Michaud from the École nationale d'administration publique. Welcome, Mr. Michaud. The floor is yours.

Professor Nelson Michaud (École nationale d'administration publique): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The objective of my presentation is to cover one small aspect of the numerous questions raised in your documents, and I would like to join the previous witness in congratulating the people who prepared these documents. These documents prompted me to think about several aspects that I tried to incorporate into my presentation. Giving 10 minutes to a professor who is used to talking for 3 hours is an exercise in conciseness. I will try to do this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We can give you 15 minutes.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: That is kind of you. Thank you.

Today I would like to talk specifically on continentalization, security matters and all of that, things that have been discussed at quite some length over the past few weeks, especially since the fall.

The priority that must be given to Canadian-American relations is unequivocal. Your documents demonstrate this clearly. This is a very important component in developing Canada's foreign policy. However, in the wake of September 11, we may wonder what that means exactly.

The main concern that has been raised many times, whether in public fora, editorials or academic circles, pertains in large measure to Canadian sovereignty.

However, we must acknowledge that in the past three weeks or so, there has been quite a significant change in the government's message. There seems to be a desire to tone down the message. The Prime Minister, Mr. Eggleton, Mr. Graham and Mr. Manley have, each in turn, alluded to a Canadian position that is slightly, perhaps fundamentally, different from the American position in certain aspects. Obviously, in a perfect world, we could believe that the intellectuals motivated the government to change its stance somewhat, but I think that, in more practical terms, we can see that the combination of the issue of the prisoners in Guantánamo, President Bush's “axis of evil” declaration and the position of other world leaders has caused the Canadian government to step back somewhat from its initial position which was clearly and openly in support of the American position.

One thing that has clearly come out of this is that the situation at present fluctuates tremendously, and in that regard, I fully agree with my colleague Denis Stairs, who appeared before you in the fall, to say that it is futile and even dangerous to establish long-term policies immediately on the basis of present events. However, we must not go to the other extreme and completely neglect long-term policy, because it is on the basis of long-term policy that we develop responses to given events. We must not, therefore, confuse, if you like, perspective and the scope of actions.

To a large extent, the very basis for the Canadian government's actions resides in policy statements made nearly 10 years ago. At that time, a decision was made to put some distance between Ottawa and Washington in policy development, and even in interpersonal relationships between the various actors. However, Minister Manley, once he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in October, just over a year ago, had decided that closer ties with the United States were one of his four priorities. When one examines the American attitude at present, in the wake of September 11, one can wonder whether or not this policy decision really yielded results, but I do believe that the rapprochement that Mr. Manley was seeking did materialize following September 11, particularly with respect to Secretary of State Powell.

In broad terms, it would be good if these rapprochements could take place at other levels, particularly amongst government leaders, and even at the level of parliamentarians, because we know just what an important role American parliamentarians can play in developing foreign policies. The issue of the border is but one example.

The border with Mexico is not managed in the same way as it is with Canada. For American parliamentarians from the southern United States, there is only one border that counts. That is the border that separates the United States from Mexico. I think that it would be advantageous to have a certain rapprochement as far as border issues are concerned. Rather than undermine Canadian sovereignty, this attitude would enable Canada to have its voice heard more loudly in Washington. It is really about having your voice heard.

I will use an image that the American political scientist Hirschman used with respect to a political statement or anything whatsoever. He said that there were two options: you could either show loyalty or dissent. When you show dissent with respect to a proposal, you're either going to express this dissent or simply withdraw. He called this “exiting”.

Together with my colleague you met yesterday, Louis Bélanger from the Institut québécois des hautes études internationales, I conducted a study on various aspects of Canada's foreign policy. We were able to demonstrate that the Government of Canada has preferred to take the institutional approach whereby it registers its dissent with its voice. This is the approach that has achieved the most results. Therefore we must ask ourselves whether, in the wake of September 11, we have shifted from this approach whereby we express our opinion to one whereby we show loyalty to Washington's proposals. I told them that we should let the events evolve in order to see whether or not we have truly entered an era of loyalty. It is much too soon to say so, but if this were to be the case, this attitude or loyalty could be perceived as being a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

When we talk about sovereignty, we may find ourselves on ground that is at times slippery. Cleats are therefore useful so that you have some grip. I am therefore going to borrow some grips from Steven Krasner, an American colleague who defines sovereignty along four lines. First of all, he talks about domestic sovereignty, which pertains to the State public authority organization; interdependent sovereignty, which is the government's ability to monitor transborder movements; legal international sovereignty, which bestows international recognition on a State and, finally, Westphalian sovereignty, which is the one that we are most familiar with and which means that external actors are excluded from the domestic governing process. In other words, domestic decision- making is not influenced by external actors. When we talk about sovereignty, this is often the type of sovereignty to which we are referring.

If, on the basis of these four parameters, we were to try and determine whether or not Canadian sovereignty had indeed been compromised, we would realize that it is probably our interdependent sovereignty that has probably suffered the most. When we talk about a North American security perimeter, a border that meets the same norms on both sides, north and south, it is tantamount to saying that Canada no longer controls its border. At the very least, it is joint control. Hence as far as this issue is concerned, we can really say that we have a problem if we want to protect Canadian sovereignty.

Domestic sovereignty has been seriously altered, particularly because the responsibilities that have been given... I am thinking, among other things, of the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. If we consider— and your very documents rightly point this out—that Canadian foreign policy must essentially be focused on the United States, this is understandable. Canada is just next door and it is its largest trading partner, etc. Mr. Graham really does not have control over trade. As Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pettigrew has this responsibility. The whole issue of security has essentially remained with Mr. Manley. In this regard, it would appear that the domestic organization of our government is at least being called into question to meet needs expressed elsewhere.

À (1000)

There is also the fact, as has been pointed out, that the bills that were primarily and clearly adopted in order to respond to UN resolution 1373 have been called into question. Obviously, we could debate whether or not, in theory, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should have been taken into account. Let's leave it to the courts to decide, if ever this issue is brought to their attention. One thing is clear, if you have been in an airport since September you will have noticed that there may have been some little changes there. Domestically, sovereignty has, at the very least, been shaken up.

Then, if we think about Westphalian sovereignty, despite all the hue and cry raised in 1993 and 1997 to put some real distance between... For example, look at Mr. Manley's role. We wanted to create a type of super-department but he does not really manage the portfolio that would correspond to these responsibilities that we wanted to give him so that he could be transformed into Mr. Ridge's counterpart and be viewed as a Minister of Public Security... Moreover, during the cabinet shuffle, all of the reporters were saying that Mr. Manley would become the Minister of Public Security. However, we do have a Minister of Public Security in Canada; he is called the “Solicitor General”. Consequently, we can once again ask ourselves whether or not there has been any intrusion.

Legal international sovereignty is probably the one that has been the least affected because Canada remains, in the eyes of the other nations, as an autonomous unit. There is no doubt about this; its authority does not appear to have been called into question. However, with Canada's role being essentially one which is based on multilateral policy, multilateral interventions, we realize that we could very well wind up turning more towards bilateralism. Will Canada still be able to retain this distance from the United States that has enabled it to earn a seat within the Organization of American States? It's a little bit because of that: Latin American countries wanted to have a country that could serve to some extent as a counterweight to the United States.

The same thing applies to the Francophonie: Canada is somewhat of a counterweight to France, to avoid any imperialist or neo-colonial tendencies. But this is neither here nor there. I am not accusing these governments. It is just that the proud governments saw Canada as a credible player. We must therefore bear this in mind in assessing whether or not we will be able to preserve this credibility.

The threat therefore does exist. How should we respond to it? I think that we could study the history of Canadian foreign policy, which is young, with scarcely 60 years under its belt, but from which, nonetheless, many lessons can be drawn. We must bear two aspects in mind: what level of actors are we talking about, and next, what level of intervention do we have in mind?

As regards the level of actors, I alluded to this issue earlier when I said that there really does have to be a much more symbiotic relationship between them. I confess to having an analytical bias, but the role of the actors in developing foreign policies is extremely important. Let's use the most famous event in the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis, as an example. If Kennedy and Khruschchev had known nothing about each other, they would not have been able to anticipate certain actions and it is likely that the crisis would not have had the happy ending that we know and may not have figured in the history books that we read today. The knowledge that the actors have of each other is therefore extremely important.

On what basis should we take action? At what level of intervention should we take action? Clearly, with the economic integration of North America, we have needs that must be met. The new threat, the terrorist threat, obviously does not respect borders and national sovereignties. Symbols are being attacked, but these symbols can be attacked from just about anywhere. It is therefore easy to understand that, in order to meet these needs, we need to take action.

However, it may become very dangerous to make concessions in all matters pertaining to culture, Canada's own identity, its demographic composition, and, I would also say, everything pertaining to its political culture. Unfortunately, we too often have a tendency—I'm not talking about you who are in a good position to know the differences between the Canadian and American political systems—to view the Canadian political system as a tiny American political system. This is not the case whatsoever. There are so many fundamental differences that it is difficult to understand how people can reach such a conclusion. I think that it is very important to consider just the notion of responsible government alone which is, basically, a fundamental value of our political system and one which does not exist in the United States.

À (1005)

In my opinion, it is essential that the government of Canada really want to defend these aspects.

Obviously, in twelve and a half minutes, I cannot go into all of the details that I would have liked to cover; however, I would be pleased to do so in my answers to your questions.

Thank you very much.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Michaud.

Indeed, with the questions that my colleagues will ask you, we will certainly be able to delve into the details of your presentation.

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your presentation. It contains a great deal of information.

I would say that Canada' s situation is clearly not unique either. That is why I would have liked you to expand on your analysis of the European situation. In Europe right now there is a great deal of concern about American unilateralism, especially since for military expenditures alone, Americans currently spend as much as the 11 European countries. Why? That remains a difficult question to answer.

I would like you to put Canada's problems in the context of Europe also feeling marginalized and finding the Americans somewhat arrogant. Those countries want to be able to establish their position with some autonomy, even if they squabble amongst themselves.

Like all of Latin America, couldn't Mexico also be a vehicle through which Canada could rebalance its relations with the Americans, which, of course, will always be strained given the size of the two societies?

Gilles Duceppe recently went to Mexico. He was very well received and the message from the Mexicans was that he was welcomed that way because they felt the Canadian government also did not take them seriously enough. Yet Mexico is still a major player who sees itself as North American and who does not want to be perceived as Latin American.

If you look at Latin America... I recently went to Pôrto Alegre and I met a lot of Argentinean and Brazilian leaders. They would also like Canada to stand out a little more. They don't see it. They just see one big mass that is North America made up of the United States and Canada. So perhaps more effort should be made in that regard.

The last point I would like to raise is the question of security. The Bloc Québécois has taken the position that in light of the events of September 11, 2001, if we want to reap the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, there must be free circulation of goods and people. So we might as well start the debate. However, the impression we had was that the Canadian government is very attached to its image of a sovereign country, and because of that, it did not want an open debate, and we ended up in a situation where we had to adopt certain measures.

We had suggested something based on the Schengen agreements. Here again, I'm referring to Europe knowing full well that our situation is quite different. But would it not be in our best interest to start the discussion on a number of issues that are becoming inevitable in terms of interdependence, and make it a public debate, rather than feign indignation and ultimately end up with the same results, except that we may not have gauged them accurately?

So those are my three questions: Europe, Latin America, Mexico in particular, and the question of the Schengen agreements.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bernard Patry): Go ahead, Mr. Michaud.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: We will get a very international perspective!

Mr. Pierre Paquette: You were wrong earlier when you said that intellectuals do not have any influence on governments.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: We want to play our role, at the very least.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Go ahead, Mr. Michaud.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: Your questions are extremely relevant.

First of all, with regard to Europe, yes, there clearly seems to be a malaise there. The meetings a few days ago attended by Mr. Chrétien proved that it is no longer essential to always be in line with the Americans.

In keeping with its new position, Canada seems to want to play that card as well. Is it necessary? I would say yes, for the reasons I mentioned in my presentation.

As for Mexico, this also ties in to the question of whether Canada is ultimately a branch of the United States. Unfortunately, that is the perception people have and I think Canada must find a way to stand out. That is why everyone knows the following English expression when Canada is mentioned in an international context: “Canada punches over its weight”. In fact, the term “medium power” or “intermediate power” was invented by Canadians to define the role we could play.

There is indeed a role for Canada. The role of honest broker is often mentioned and somewhat tied to Canada's image abroad. Those are roles Canada should play and we must be given the means to do so. There's no doubt about that. I think our partners around the world expect that. They expect Canada to play a role. We are not expected to be a silent partner on the sidelines watching the game unfold, who, when the American quarterback makes a terrific touchdown pass in the last 30 seconds of the game, stands up and cheers. No, that is not quite what is expected of Canada. Canada is expected to play a much more active role and it must do so. It should not be assumed that we have a great influence on all issues; that would be utopian. However, we do have some credible influence in many areas and we must continue exerting it.

As for the question of the security perimeter, it raises the same issue. Must we take the initiative and start the debate? I prefer the other option of an open discussion. The greatest concern, obviously, for political reasons, I would say... The current government wanted to distinguish itself from the previous government by saying it would distance itself from Washington. Yes, that is one way to affirm one's sovereignty, but let me give you an example that you all know on the difference between an acquaintance and a friend. When an acquaintance does something we dislike, we dismiss it. When a friend does something silly, we don't hesitate to tell him; we take action.

Since international relations are often based on the interpersonal ties between the main players, the same dynamics come into play. That is why I said ties must be established between the actors and one must not think that because of a warm welcome at the White House, one is not a good Canadian. The two prime ministers who probably had the greatest influence in Washington were Mackenzie King and Brian Mulroney. It is not because I want to give equal praise to both political parties, but...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: There are two very different periods.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: Yes, they are two very different periods, but we are looking at the role King played. Canada got its international independence with the Halibut Treaty when Ernest Lapointe went to sign the treaty in Washington, thanked the British Ambassador for coming, but said he did not have to sign the document, that we were an independent country. The United States could very well have said to wait a moment, that they wanted to protect their relations with Great Britain and that the Ambassador was going to sign, as was the custom. But because Washington and Ottawa had fairly close ties, this was possible, and it gave a certain amount of power to Canada.

The same thing happened during the Bretton Woods discussions on the IMF, the implementation of the IMF, of the World Bank, not in its current form, but the institutions dedicated to rebuilding Europe after the war. There was a deadlock between Great Britain and the United States on the manner in which to proceed and King, thanks to the relations he had with Roosevelt, managed to exert some influence.

As for the more recent Mulroney government, we all saw what happened then.

À (1015)

Take Arctic sovereignty as an example. Think of the role the United States refused to play in abolishing apartheid and of the influence Canada had.

I could even refer you to an excellent book. I dare say it is. In fact, I co-directed a research project with Kim Richard Nossal, a task involving researchers from various areas from one coast of Canada to the other. We had heard a lot of things, so this research, that dealt with that period, enabled us to see exactly what had happened, how it happened and why it happened. One thing we discovered was that Canada has some influence in certain areas. Again, it is not absolute influence. It would be utopian to think so, but we do nonetheless have some credible influence, especially on some issues.

Among other things, I was referring to Canada's accession to the Organization of American States. This brings me back to the Latin American question. For those countries, the fact that Canada sat at the table and immediately upon its arrival introduced a resolution that led to the resolution of the Haitian crisis, among other things, was... I'm sure you are going to say that the Haitian crisis is not yet resolved; that is true. It is an extremely complex situation. But the crisis is not as critical as it was at the beginning of the 1990s; this is due to the influence we had thanks to the new mandate the Organization of American States had adopted at Canada's prompting.

To summarize, there may be a single answer to all of your three questions. Yes, Canada a role to play. Yes, Canada must play it, and yes, Canada must take the necessary steps to do so.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: What is the title of your book?

Prof. Nelson Michaud: The book's title is Diplomatic Departures.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Michaud.

Ms. Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Thank you.

As you know, we are politicians, so we play two roles: we must provide leadership, but we must also listen to our constituents.

There is an important sentence at the end of your presentation. It mentions a cultural dimension to decision-making, a task we are often called upon to do, and the reasons we sometimes make certain decisions. It is the following sentence:

Indeed, the media, whose mission is to present sometimes very complex issues as simply as possible, may tend to confuse the two political cultures, the Canadian and the American one.

That is a good sentence, but it is not very strong. I do not think it is a question of “may”, but “have” an important role.

I think the media have lost something... I do not want to insult them, but we have reached a point where there are reports on what the Americans have, what they say and how they are doing things. Our constituents see that and push the members of Parliament to do things we should not do so readily. Do you think there is a way to approach the media to tell them they should provide more thorough reports to the public, to democracy?

As you know, in several regions, there is no longer any research or anything being done. You see American news clips on television. You read a story anywhere in the country and it is more or less true. Is there a way to change that? As politicians, it is very difficult because no one listens to us. We are just politicians. But you have lived in that world. Can anything be done? It is very disconcerting to witness the rapid loss of that cultural dimension. Perhaps it is disappearing a little more slowly here, where there are francophone journalists, but even they are prone to doing the same thing. That is my first question.

I will move on to my second question. Whether we like it or not, we did get closer to the United States after the European Union was established. The European countries certainly focused on themselves. We sell goods. We are a trading nation. Our biggest purchaser is the United States. Whether we like it or not, it is an essential ally for our economy.

À (1020)

It is already that way whether we say it publicly or not. So I do not think ties have gotten any closer recently. I think those close ties existed already.

We will be going to Washington, we and the committee members. As you know, I went to the United States when I was minister. The most difficult thing for a Canadian politician is not meeting an American politician, but keeping his interest for more than five seconds to have a discussion with him. The Americans are the best for public relations. So they talk easily and often do not have time to listen to others and participate. Do you have any suggestions for us? I've always found that to be a very important aspect, but we have not yet been successful.

We are due to go to Mexico and I think things will go much better in that country. We will have more productive meetings. We can already predict the outcome.

À (1025)

Prof. Nelson Michaud: Thank you very much.

In fact, you are asking me for two pieces of advice. It is a little difficult giving advice to political professionals. However, with regard to the media you are entirely correct. My presentation did not reflect the content of the notes I handed out perfectly accurately. The study conducted by my colleague from the University of Calgary, David Harris, shows, or rather asks the question very pointedly. Is the famous CNN effect something we have in Canada?

The CNN effect can be defined in 2,000 different ways, but one of them is the instantaneous nature of the event being the sole objective. I saw the issue of a magazine that had been left at the back of the classroom that you have no doubt seen at newsstands. It is a magazine made up of headlines and two-line news articles. It is true that speed is the key. You have all been surrounded by reporters at least once in your life. It happens to us occasionally; you can talk for 15 minutes and the first thing you know, it turns into 7 seconds on television.

Perhaps I do not have the honour of being part of the misquoted club, but in an article in the last issue of L'Actualité, I am presented as a former candidate for l'Action démocratique du Québec. I have never run for public office in my life. So they try to make news quickly. They try to get bits of information that are easy to understand because it has to be easy to understand if it is going to be fast. Who reads newspaper editorials or the opinion columns?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I certainly don't.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: The thing is that not many people take the time to look at the analyses in depth. In the academic community, a publication that sells 300 copies is considered a best-seller. So as you can see, analyses of this sort rank far behind the novels of Marie Laberge, who, by the way, I find very talented. I would just like to say that people are not inclined to consult analytical studies. Consequently, the media, which have to take into account the economic factor, will sell what people want, to some extent.

How can we make the media more aware? The first question we must ask is whether the Canadian media really have the same attitude as the American media. We might think that this is the case, particularly given that 80% of Canadians can easily get an American channel, which is in direct competition with the Canadian channel. When this issue is raised, economic reasons are invoked.

As politicians, you can always take a journalist aside, go out to dinner with him or her, and offer to explain the substance of the issue. This is not something that happens instantaneously. It is really a long-term project. It is an effort to say that one was not really misquoted, but that there are some subtleties that should be introduced, some effects that should be considered, but were forgotten. So it is a long-term project.

The same goes for dealings with American politicians. I spoke earlier about interpersonal relationships among decision-makers.

You get a phone call from someone you see every two years. You're in a hurry. You know that these people's schedules are extremely busy. In Washington there are five or ten times as many lobbyists—which is perhaps a taboo word these days—running after you. That gives you some idea of how things are in Washington.

You are there to sell a particular point of view, just as others are there who want a national park in their State and are trying to sell their point of view. For these individuals, this is one more issue for them to deal with. If there is an interpersonal relationship involved, when the telephone rings, people know that it is Diane Marleau calling, someone they have not spoken to for a long time. They are therefore prepared to spend five minutes more talking to her.

How many Canadian members of Parliament have an American senator or representative one hour's drive away from their riding? A number of them do, do they not? How many Canadian politicians take the time to meet with these individuals when they are in their own riding?

À (1030)

Ms. Diane Marleau: Look, we do have some. No, no. I'm sorry, but we do have some who do.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: Yes, but there are very few.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Very few.

One of the problems we have, of course, is that we cannot travel to the United States without paying the trip out of our own pockets. If we are there for some other reason, there is no problem, but otherwise, we have to foot the bill ourselves.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: You may getting at part of the solution to the problem.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: Perhaps, but we have already talked about this.

As far as the media go, you are right. However, from what I have seen, the media are so focused on profit—they always have been, but it is worse than ever—that there is almost no one left to do any work. They have neither the time nor the resources to check on events. They therefore tend to take the easiest course, because, as you say, they have to make money and sales, because competition demands it.

Prof. Nelson Michaud: And they have to meet a deadline.

Ms. Diane Marleau: But tell me, why do we have to do exactly what the Americans do? I am sorry, but we do not have the same system, you said so yourself. We should therefore be different from them in some way. And if we do not do that, the situation will get more and more difficult. In any case, I raise this issue, because it is something in which I am very interested.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: In conclusion, I would like to take 30 seconds to ask a very specific question. What Ms. Marleau says is true. However, do the media not reflect a sort of chicken-and-egg problem?

Does increasing economic integration not bring about certain types of cultural and political integration?

Prof. Nelson Michaud: That may be true, particularly in English Canada. Francophone audiences may be different. Since they are audiences that do not draw on the American media as often for their information or their entertainment, they may keep some distance with respect to what is being done in the United States.

In the case of English Canada, obviously the integration goes beyond economic considerations. Let us look at the whole cultural industry. How many American films have a political dimension, and show the President? Whether we like it or not, when we come out of a movie on Saturday night, three or four weeks in a row, we tend to think that if American politicians behave in this way, Canadian politicians do as well. It is a simple syllogism. But it is one that is skewed, because the premise is false.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We have two minutes left, Mr. Michaud, and I would like to ask a brief question.

As you know, one of the issues we are studying in these hearings is North American integration. My question is this: should Canada work to strengthen or deepen its relationship with the United States before dealing with North American relationships? Or should it rather try to strengthen the North American community, in light of what is happening?

Prof. Nelson Michaud: I would say that the two necessarily go together. We cannot fail to establish extremely strong relations between Ottawa and Washington, because, otherwise, we will be disregarded. There's no doubt about that. And if we are disregarded, we will no longer be able to work on North American integration.

The trend toward North American integration seems quite strong. We may applaud it or deplore it, but the trend exists. If Canada wants to play a role... There's no doubt that the American power will have the upper hand in this debate. If we want to be listened to and exert the kind of influence we can, we must be respected in Washington. In this regard, we must improve our relations with Washington.

À (1035)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Michaud. We appreciated it very much.

We will take a five-minute break.

À (1030)

À (1039)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We are going to resume our hearings, please. Our next witness is from the Association québécoise pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens[Quebec's Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions in Order to Help Citizens]. Our witnesses are Mr. Robert Jasmin, the President, and Mr. Henrichon, the Secretary. You have the floor, Mr. Jasmin.

À (1040)

Mr. Robert Jasmin (President, Association québécoise pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens): First of all, on behalf of the members of ATTAC and other groups that support our work, we would like to thank you for inviting us to present the concerns of a growing number of citizens on what we see as the failure of the policies of international financial institutions.

We are here to ask you, as representatives of the people, to ensure that at the upcoming G-8 Summit, there is a proposal for an in-depth reform of both the focus and measures taken by the international financial institutions. We are also calling for concrete proposals to provide genuine financial support for development. In addition, none of the other efforts would be valid if we were not to insist on the categorical outlawing of jurisdictions that engage in bank secrecy and promote tax evasion, matters we consider social and financial crimes.

This morning we would like to remind you of the failure of policies surrounding the financing of development and the redistribution of wealth, particularly because of the insistence on privatization and deregulation on the part of these international financial institutions. We need not look hard to find an example within North America, which is guilty to a large extent of what happens in these areas internationally. I am referring to the monumental scandal of Enron, which we see not as a wart, but rather as the symptom of a cancer that has spread throughout the system.

Beyond the failure of these policies, we would like to emphasize the lack of transparency in meetings such as those of the G-8, and particularly the lack of any debate beforehand. Without debate, there is no real democracy, there is only a sham democracy.

Finally, we would like to say that we hope that members of Parliament will recover the power that they have been losing so fast for several years. By way of example, it is extremely important to mention... And this problem can still be corrected, the harm has not yet been done. I am referring to the short-term example that is indirectly linked to the G-8 meeting to be held in Monterrey, Mexico on March 18. It is the next meeting scheduled.

Not only our association but a number of other groups as well will be watching closely to ensure that parliamentarians act as watchdogs. We should expect this of them in a democracy. Let me explain what I mean.

For once, we have a patent example, something that is very rare. We have an international event in which the government cannot claim to enjoy full latitude. What happens all the time at international meetings is that the government relies on the mandate it gets every four years to decide what it wants in circumstances in which transparency leaves something to be desired. Let me give you a more detailed and specific explanation about what is going to happen in Monterrey.

We were informed that the first version of the final declaration to come out of the meeting in Monterrey.... As you know, at international meetings, the final declaration is always drafted before the meeting even starts. Unfortunately, that is the way it is!

À (1045)

We were told that the first version, which Washington put in the garbage, contained two extremely important measures which we have been advocating: a tax on financial transactions and an ecology tax. Washington threw these two measures out and replaced them, as usual, with empty words and motherhood statements.

So what is Canada's specific role in providing financing for international development? We say that the government has its hands tied and that morally, politically and socially it should defend a measure that was passed by the Parliament of Canada.

Stangely, every time we talk about this to journalists or to members of Parliament, no one in Canada seems to be aware of the vote on March 23, 1999 supporting the principle of the Tobin tax. However, if you go on the Internet you see that all the sites that deal with this issue refer to Canada as a model that has been followed since that time. Many parliamentarians worldwide signed a declaration along these lines. We realized this during the two years when I personally went to Pôrto Alegre: there's a consensus throughout the world on this issue, except, of course, in Washington.

We are calling on Canada to respect the vote passed by Parliament at the time of the Monterrey meeting, and not to ask once again what Washington wants.

We wanted to raise this example which is very close to home, but which may, at the same time, pave the way for an opportunity that will occur again at the time of the G-8 Summit.

This is a very brief, extremely succinct summary. I assume that since you have our brief, you have what you need to ask us some questions. We are prepared to answer them.

À (1050)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Jasmin. Would you like to add something, Mr. Henrichon, before we move to the questions?

Mr. Pierre Henrichon (Secretary, Association québécoise pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens): Yes, I would like to add one thing. If you read yesterday's National Post.... You do not read the National Post? Not yesterday's.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I do read it sometimes, but we were in Quebec City yesterday.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We have some clippings. If it appeared in the press review we have, we would have read it, if not, we would not have seen it.

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: If you had read it, you would have discovered something very interesting.

The securities commissions of four Canadian provinces decided on September 10 of this year, the day before September 11, to ask security brokers to declare the number of accounts they held in tax havens. This applies only to the securities brokers of these four provinces. It was found that they have 13,000 accounts in tax havens. I repeat, 13,000. You should ask to have a copy of the newspaper delivered to you.

I was discussing this this morning with my badminton partner, who is a securities broker. I asked whether this concerned them. He told me that the fact that the securities commissions asked them to do that gave them the impression that the objective was mainly to show that the commissions are doing something.

How can we take seriously the efforts that have been made? The OECD established the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering in 1989 at the request of the G-8. The first article of the final declaration of the Conference of the European Union Parliaments on Money Laundering held on February 8, 2002, barely two weeks ago, reads as follows:

1. Laundering the proceeds of crime and financial delinquency have been developing constantly in recent years, using the potential offered by the globalization of financial markets. These practices constitute a direct threat to the global economic stability and to the security of our democratic societies.

The FATF tells us that since 1989, it has been making tremendous efforts. The European Parliaments say that the problem is getting worse all the time. So it is all motherhood statements; there are 40 recommendations, etc. that Canada supports, of course, but that Washington, since Mr. Bush came to power, has rejected, maintaining that the OECD was making a mistake to do this. Washington said that it agreed that there should be tax competition, that exporting companies needed tax havens—something the WTO has just said it cannot have.... So we have a situation in which this financial crime, this generalized tax evasion is continuing and growing without the Canadian government taking any real action to stop it.

In 1981, a report was tabled with the Carter administration. It stated that tax evasion was taking on unbelievable proportions—the report was of course shelved—and it proposed measures as drastic as banning flights to the tax havens.

The FBI, the American Treasury, etc., say that they are undertaking major efforts, because money laundering is most prevalent in the United States. So, they are supposedly making major efforts but the problem continues to worsen. Why? Because financial markets have been liberalized. Because there has been deregulation. Canada has supported and continues to support this movement. So there is a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, we are saying that it is bad, that it threatens democratic societies, and on the other hand, we continue to deregulate and to liberalize financial markets.

It would be a good time for Canada to ask the G-8 to take a clear stand on these issues, so that we can finally outlaw these tax havens. We must put an end to tax evasion. We have to publish the names of Canadian companies, Canadian banks, and stockbrokers that have accounts and for whom tax evasion is common practice, legitimate for them, because it is not a good thing to pay taxes.

À (1055)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you. That is clear.

Mr. Paquette, please.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: You clearly cover a lot of material in your brief. I do not know if we will be able to integrate it all into our report, but we will do our best.

First of all, I would like you to tell us a little bit about ATTAC-Quebec and where it originated, because it is a relatively young organization.

Mr. Robert Jasmin: Yes, it is a young organization, and at the same time, it is probably the organization that has spread the most quickly throughout the world. At present, as we speak, for the past two weeks, ATTAC has set up in 41 countries, since the spark that set things off in an incisive editorial by Ignacio Ramonet in Le Monde diplomatique in December 1997, which was entitled “Désarmer les marchés” and which was perceived as a cue. He said that we needed to fill a huge vacuum at the political and social level, which is the recovery of power by citizens, as citizens, to exert pressure on the authorities. Why? Because the situation has worsened. I think that any honest person, in any political party, will tell you that it is currently increasingly difficult to find people to support parties. I'm talking about true supporters who don't have a personal interest. It is increasingly difficult for one reason. People are starting to see that that is not where the power is, that the power is somewhere else. And if the power is somewhere else, democracy is deficient. That is why ATTAC was born, out of a need to defend three major issues. ATTAC was born in France in June 1998. So it is very recent. And it has spread like wildfire.

The three major areas that we defend, that we spearhead, are obviously the Tobin tax, from the name of the American Nobel Prize winning economist who came up with the idea of making a world that was becoming more and more barbaric more civilized, and he was referring to financial speculators worldwide. The Tobin tax was designed to reduce speculation. ATTAC picked up on the idea, saying that it was more than that, that it was a measure of wealth redistribution, just like income tax, at the national level, is a given in society for the redistribution of wealth. We believe that everyone must pay taxes, at all levels, and that is the reason for the Tobin tax.

After that, we obviously thought that we could not civilize one side and let the other side go. So the second area that we are working on involves simply abolishing tax havens, wherever they are, tax havens that encourage tax evasion and that are a source of crime. At the same time, the sad events of September 11 showed us, if we needed proof, that they were also an instrument for international terrorists.

The third area, which goes hand in hand with the first two in terms of international development, is eliminating Third World debt, debt that these countries are not required to pay, in our opinion, because they paid it off a long time ago.

Á (1100)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I am going to go back over the three areas quickly.

On the Tobin tax, I was not in the House of Commons when it was adopted. The proposal does in fact allude to a tax on financial transactions, without actually mentioning it. At the time, there was a debate on the nature of the transactions to be taxed. I often hear an objection: basically, all kinds of financial transactions are taxed, not just the ones that are speculative. Is that tax not somewhat dangerous for financial transactions involving sustainable investments? Are there not other steps that can be taken to eliminate financial speculation, since the tax covers all transactions?

I agree with the fact that it is a highly effective way of accumulating money for a development fund. To my mind, that would be reason enough to support it, but the objection is often raised that all types of financial transactions would be taxed, including the ones that are not speculative.

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: I will answer that, if I may. The tax rate is very low. It is one tenth of 1 percent to one quarter of 1 percent. In the case of someone investing $100 million somewhere for three or four years, which would be a sustainable investment, it is really ridiculous. When I buy a book, I do not pay the Quebec tax, but I pay a 7 percent federal tax on my book. That does not stop me from buying a book.

The tax targets the very quick movements on the market, especially on the currency markets, but elsewhere too. But let's talk about the currency markets, because the amounts are astronomical. They have dropped slightly since the arrival of the euro. We are talking about transactions worth 1,400 to 1,500 billion on the foreign exchange market. Roughly speaking, if we compare that to international trade, we see that international trade represents a mere 5 percent. So it is clear that the foreign exchange market is somewhat separate from the real economy and that a tax of one tenth of 1 percent won't hurt anyone, except someone who speculates, who makes these transactions every three or fifteen minutes, etc. Those are the people we are targeting. So to my mind, the objection raised is not serious, because in the case of a long term investment, a tenth of 1 percent is not much.

Moreover, I would even say: well, they should pay the tax. They are doing a transaction. When I do a transaction, I charge my clients and I am charged. Why wouldn't there be a tax for them? What is so magical or so special about them that they would not be taxed?

Another objection that is often raised is that the tax will reduce the number of transactions. That is good because that is what it aims to do. Of course that will reduce tax revenues, but it will also stabilize markets. At least we hope it will.

Other proposals have been made with respect to the Tobin tax. I am referring to the Spahn model, from the name of the German economist who worked at the World Bank, who said that the tax must be at a minimum level, a tenth or a quarter of 1%, and that it must be increased when the markets heat up. So it is a two-tier taxation system, which means that when the markets heat up... If that had happened during the South-East Asian crisis, there would have perhaps been fewer problems.

There are other measures designed to control capital that come to mind. Malaysia and Chile have adopted them, and the action has not at all ended their economic development. On the contrary, it has stabilized their currencies, because real investors are afraid that currencies may come into play, that they may go up and down.

By stabilizing currencies, which was the goal of the Bretton Woods institutions, by stabilizing financial markets, we promote investment. So, it is a tax that will, in time, promote investment and not hinder it.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Real investment.

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: Exactly.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: The kind of investment that yields results in terms of collective wealth.

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: Exactly.

Á (1110)

Mr. Robert Jasmin: I would simply like to add to that. Last October, I was one of the first people to take the plane after September 11, and I attended a meeting sponsored by the Halifax Initiative, which is our counterpart in English Canada. We work hand in hand with the Halifax Initiative. The Halifax Initiative had organized an international meeting on the Tobin tax. It was attended by experts from Finland, Britain and France, as well as senior officials from the United Nations.

The studies were far-reaching and very detailed. We even started playing with the idea of a variable tax. A variable tax would favour real long-term investors. The percentage could even be reduced in comparison to transactions done by people who are speculating over 24 or 48 hours. I am just trying to show you how far research has gone in this area. It is not just a passing idea.

I have seen the tables, and I must admit that I was so much in awe that at one point, they lost me in their numbers.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: But a simple tax would be better. Do I have any time left?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. McCallum himself raised the other objection with me when he was an economist or director of research at the Royal Bank. I had participated in a debate on the idea. Some people say that if Canada or even the G-8 implements such a tax, there will be an exodus of speculative capital from these countries that will end up in tax havens. So the effect will be the opposite of what we want. I would like to know if, in your opinion...

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: It's quite simple, you need to take a holistic approach. We are calling for the abolition of tax havens. Once tax havens are abolished, then Mr. McCallum's objections no longer hold. That is the extraordinary thing about these people's economic thought. That is why I mentioned that this has taken place as a consequence of financial liberalization and deregulation. These people cannot see that capital flows can be regulated. For them there must be the greatest possible freedom in the movement of capital. What is the effect? It means that workers are increasingly subject to changing circumstances... This was seen in the case of PACCAR. We also see this in corporations.

Tax competition to attract businesses, the Mirabel tax free zone, the various tax free zones throughout the world, what is their purpose? Once again the idea is to encourage the movement of capital to the detriment of workers, citizens, public services and the government tax base. How many examples are necessary to demonstrate the fact that there is too much movement in capital? Let's start slowing it down. Obviously Mr. McCallum may not agree with this because it goes against the aim he has in common with his colleagues, namely to ensure the greatest possible mobility of capital. They tell us that this is the key to development and to growth. What we see is continuous growth in the gross world product and at the same time, an increase in poverty.

There comes a time when we have to open our eyes and take action. The time for talk and platitudes is over. Let's stop claiming that everything is fine in the best possible world and that growth will ensure development. We can see that things are not working out that way. How many demonstrators will we need in the streets for politicians and governments to finally understand this? That is the message.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Your message is getting through.

Ms. Marleau, please.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I must say that it's refreshing to hear you. I'm glad that you are here because you've said things that I've been interested in for a long time.

You mentioned Enron and a point that I agree with, namely that taxation is one of the achievements of civilization. As you know, for some years now, governments have been pushed to cut back on taxation. That is the trend and people seem to think that things are done best by the private sector. The private sector has become sacred.

Do you think that the collapse of Enron may perhaps signify the beginning of a more realistic view of the business world? They're not quite as sound as they seem to be, in some cases they are not sound at all. That is my first question.

Secondly, you refer to tax havens. I want to talk not only about tax havens but also how corruption is facilitated by such havens and certain developed countries. It makes a lot of money for us, we are happy to have them, we pretend that we are the good guys and we are doing good but we get rich under the table. It's a great challenge for the world system and we're having a lot of difficulty concentrating on the actual populations. We adopt fine legislation, etc., but the old system continues.

As for reducing the debt of poor countries, you are quite right, but in some cases, they've stopped making payments a long time ago because they can't afford to do so. It would be no big deal to tell them that they do not have to pay this debt because of their lack of resources. But if this debt is pardoned, I would like to ensure that a system is put in place to prevent the same rich families from continuing to profit from the money made available to these countries. That is where I see the problem.

Tell me a bit more about your suggestions aside from the Tobin tax, which is a good idea. It would allow for the management of certain things, but corruption... I use the word corruption advisedly. We often try to be tactful and talk about transparency, but it is true corruption.

Mr. Robert Jasmin: You've made several points, all of which are closely connected.

At the beginning you mentioned the trend towards lower taxation. Let's talk about ordinary people, people who are unable to practice tax evasion, at least to any significant extent, the people who are easily criticized while those who really do practice tax evasion are overlooked. We're not just talking about work under the table. We're talking about huge amounts. It is true that the trend you refer to would be a good thing for ordinary people because if people really did pay their proper share... According to an American study, if people earning more than $100,000 a year paid taxes at the same rate as those earning under $100,000 a year, if the same rules were applied to them, then those earning under $100,000 a year would not have to pay any taxes and the government would receive the same amount. This gives you an idea of what the situation is.

Now, unfortunately, we have seen the manufacturing of consent through a single ideology, namely that in favour of decreased State intervention at all levels. It is unfortunate because the State is also one of the achievements of civilization. Regulations are also a way of ensuring normal relations between people so that might is not always right. That is also one of the purposes of taxation.

I would like to have Dr. Wing-Sing, a woman doctor from Costa Rica sitting next to me; she came to Quebec City last year and told us about the devastation brought about by tax competition in a country like Costa Rica. She's over 50 years old and she told us that over the past several years, in spite of official figures indicating a rising GDP, she has observed a worsening of the situation as far as health and education are concerned because her country has had to go along with the diktats of international financial institutions to the effect that lower taxation is necessary if countries wish to have investments. Of course, lower taxes mean less health and education. The same financial institutions also told her country that privatization was necessary. She described to us the terrible results.

Yes, corruption does exist. The great Latin American writer Galeano said that the governments of South America, and the same would be true about many other governments, are the sentinels that let in the thief.

Normally the government is expected to protect the population. These governments, unfortunately, and you referred to corruption, function in a general environment of corruption that is international and also comes from us. There is the flagrant corruption of Enron, with its 800 front companies in various tax havens. That is how they were able to rob ordinary American citizens. The example comes from above and those are the people who engage in corruption. Yes, those people do receive their share of investments. Not only do the profits from our countries return to our countries, rather than staying over there, but the elites of these countries who profit from such investments will immediately send the money to tax havens.

It is a huge vicious circle that maintains misery, poverty and inequalities. You referred to some other points, I'll ask Pierre to complete my answer.

Ms. Diane Marleau:We could talk about this subject for ages.

Á (1115)

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: The present situation in Argentina is a very interesting example. A court handed down a decision relating to the Argentine debt, a large part of which had been negotiated under the military dictatorship. Then, under Menem, there was privatization, but look at what happened. Argentina borrowed money and every month it received from a particular bank, I think it was Citibank, $30 million at rates of 6 to 8 percent or thereabouts. Every month, $20 million left Argentina and was deposited in the same bank. This back and forth movement was continual. So who was lending money? The banks. When you talk about corruption, it profits the legitimate parties as well.

Second, what did the military dictatorship do with this money? It bought weapons. Who are the biggest suppliers of weapons? The Americans, the French. At the time, they didn't buy from the Russians but from the Americans and then the French to wage war against England. It's incredible. You can read the court's decision, it states that this $40 billion debt is an odious one and that there is international jurisprudence that would allow Argentina not to pay.

We hear a lot about the rule of law, Mr. Pettigrew keeps harping on it, and the regulation of commerce, but international jurisprudence would make it possible to declare this an odious debt and do away with the obligation to pay it. That would also be the rule of law. There's also the right to be protected from embezzlement by dictators who, as we know, are often supported by the big international powers, whom I will not name.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We only have two or three minutes left. You know that one of the subjects of our study is the next summit in Kananaskis. It will be an important meeting. That is why you are here this morning. The summit has three themes: promoting a better world economy, combating terrorism as well as implementing a new partnership with Africa for the benefit of Africa.

In your recommendations, you emphasize that you are in favour of the Tobin tax, the abolition of tax havens, as well as writing off third world debt. I think that they are all interrelated. But as you know, the government apparatus is difficult and cumbersome. We are all aware of this.

Do you see the abolition of tax havens as a first step? Do you think that we could really do away with them and then sometime within the near future, implement a type of tax that could be described as a Tobin or Spahn tax, as you mentioned? What would your priority be? They want to help Africa but it'll take money to do so. Where will this money come from? What exactly is your view on this?

Mr. Robert Jasmin: I think we have to realize that the momentum does exist in the world at the present time. Unfortunately, the events in September served to increase this awareness. I think we should take advantage of it. I may not like the term “to take advantage”, but we have to take advantage of this momentum and the fact that the world conscience is starting to wake up to this reality so that the necessary actions can be taken.

I realize that you were asking what is most urgent. Once again, in a way, I could use the same expression you used earlier: the chicken or the egg. Investment and speculation cannot be controlled if tax evasion is possible. Yes, of course, public opinion is more than willing to receive this type of message. You do not see people on the bus up in arms against the elimination of tax havens.

As for the Tobin tax, if you are following the debates in various European Parliaments, you know that just this week, in England, parliamentarians from all political parties have joined a movement in favour of the Tobin tax. So it is in the air, it is everywhere. There is a blockage, and that is where Canada should reclaim its status as a country that was so well regarded throughout the entire world until recently. I think Canada should revert to being a country everyone can respect, provided it does not stick too closely to the government in Washington.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Jasmin and Mr. Henrichon.

I just want to make a short comment. You referred to the European model, the European Union model. We are not aware of any resolutions they may have been adopted. If you have those resolutions, I think the committee members would be very happy to have them.

Mr. Pierre Henrichon: We will send that to you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much.

We will adjourn for a few minutes.

Á (1115)

Á (1125)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) Let's resume. Our next witness is Ms. Francine Néméh from the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale. You have the floor.

Á (1130)

Ms. Francine Néméh (Director, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale): Thank you for this opportunity to express our point of view on the upcoming G-8 summit. First, I would like to introduce my colleague, Yolande Geadah, who works with me at AQOCI and deals specifically with the Quebec Women and Development Committee.

I hope there will be another opportunity to discuss other issues because today, I am basically going to talk about NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. I do not know whether there will be other opportunities, but at some other time, we would also like to raise broader issues of security and growth stimulation. But today, I am just going to deal with NEPAD because we only recently found out about these consultations, and it would have taken a little longer to come up with positions on everything.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You still have until April 15 to submit written briefs through our clerk.

Á (1135)

Ms. Francine Néméh: Fine. We will definitely do that. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Go ahead.

Ms. Francine Néméh: The AQOCI represents 54 Quebec international cooperation and partnership organizations based throughout the province. The organization is 25 years old. It is younger than several of its members, some of whom have over 40 years of experience in international cooperation and partnership behind them.

Our members are involved in approximately one hundred countries and most of them work in either Africa or here at home, in partnership with their African counterparts. They have forged closed ties with a whole range of African organizations and State bodies since they work with small local NGOs and sometimes government departments. These people are right at the heart of community development and locally run initiatives.

Several, but not all of our members have had a chance to look at NEPAD. Consequently, we are still in a process of ongoing discussion on NEPAD. This is, then, the backdrop to my statement to you here today.

Despite the concerns that I'm going to raise in my brief, this new initiative does kick off dialogue on the partnership process and on our partnership ties that we have with Africa. Our organization has always believed that projects and development assistance programs are only meaningful to the extent that there is parallel action on the root causes of underdevelopment. We consider that these two areas of our work are closely linked and that our involvement with the poorest citizens of the world, our knowledge of the hard realities that they have faced, put us in a very good position to talk to you about just that. We intend to talk to you about these issues here today.

We are also convinced that there can be no development without democracy and respect for fundamental human rights. The NEPAD document does indeed cover a much more wide-ranging group of issues than those that I will talk to you about today. Given the time constraints placed upon us and the limited amount of time that I have to analyze the various subjects, I will concentrate on two points which we deem to be crucial. I will of course deal with other more minor points, but, I essentially intend to talk to you about the role of civil society and the role of the State and also the impact of trade rules. However, before I do that, I'd like to make a very general comment.

We are of the opinion that this partnership proposal should be refocused on respect for human rights. The citizens of African nations, like those in any other country in the world, for that matter, must be able to have their fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights both recognized and respected. They must also have the right to a clean environment and to development. Of course, these basic rights cover rights relating to women, food safety and access to drinking water. Water is currently undergoing privatization in Africa. Water is currently being sold to the citizens of the poorest nations in Africa. Consequently, we are also talking here about the right to life.

As a result, the following concept is crucial, in our view. Human rights conventions and international standards must take precedence over policy choices and trade rules.

I would like to move on now to the role of the State and civil society. In our discussions with our African partners, we have found, to our great surprise, that African civil society has no knowledge of this project. Several of our partners became aware of the initiative via our organizations. These partners are just starting to assess NEPAD. They began this assessment process much later than we did.

Reference has been made to NGOs, trade unions, farmers organizations, academia and journalists. Our partners have told us that NEPAD was developed behind closed doors. African civil society has been able to expand but only after nasty struggles against a deep-rooted culture of silence and bloodletting.

Knowledge is also power. If advocates are not given the knowledge they need, there will be neither participation nor democracy. NEPAD is designed to be a springboard for collective action. However, communities are totally unaware of its existence.

The term “good governance” in NEPAD seems only to refer to the good management of initiatives put in place by international financial institutions. In our opinion, good governance means above all, government accountability to their electorate. However, in order for the government to be accountable, ordinary people must be aware of what the government is doing on their behalf and they must be able to discuss and challenge what is being done.

We believe it is crucial to think about the north-south relationship and about the real type of partnership that we want to have. In order to do this, we must provide the necessary tools to civil society in various countries to allow them to adequately address the issue. The same thing is true for Canadian civil society. There must be a public debate on the future of the continent. Genuine input from civil society is crucial for the democratic process that NEPAD is designed to create. In addition, the participation of civil society prevents dictatorships.

Both north and south leaders should not be allowed to decide the future behind closed doors. We have to provide the necessary tools to foster freedom of speech. We must support discussion on the north-south relationship and we must encourage the main stakeholders, ordinary people and their organizations, to come up with alternative solutions themselves.

The fact that we believe that civil society has a very important role does not mean that the State does not have its crucial part to play. The State must be in a position to provide the essential services to its citizens. These include health and education services and clean drinking water, among others. The State must foster and create an appropriate environment for rights to be exercised. Lastly, all stakeholders in the development field must be able to play a role in this initiative, which as a rule of thumb seems to be mainly the concern of investors.

The final point that I wanted to make concerns trade rules and international financial institution directives. This is another major problem that we have noted in this proposal. The proposal fails to consider the structural disparities generated by trade rules. These rules should be reviewed. I think that is a given. I believe that in its earlier brief, ATTAC was proposing a full scale review of the whole structure of international agreements and financial institutions. African leaders themselves, at the WTO meeting in Doha, went much further than that. It is unfortunate that Canada did not adopt the same positions set out by African and southern hemisphere leaders.

In addition, the proposals do not take into account the failure of various structural adjustment programs. Many of us agree that these have been failure. These programs have done nothing to promote development. Quite the opposite, in fact. Consequently, we must undertake a comprehensive review of these programs in order to be able to put forward an all-encompassing proposal for Africa which would really address basic problems.

Some initiatives have been put in place. Others are in progress. These include analyses on the impact of economic policy on men and women. Very often, women are far more greatly penalized by these types of policies, and we believe that it is essential that this type of analysis or discussion be the basis for any partnership project.

We believe that Canada must—at both G-8 and WTO levels as well as in the various forums—promote fairer trade rules which would put various trading partners on an equal footing.

Á (1140)

We agree that trade is essential, but it must not encourage unfairness nor must it lead us to believe that wishful thinking will miraculously redistribute growth.

Official development assistance must be increased. That has been said repeatedly for years and now more than ever, with all the concerns about security, we think one of the top priorities is to earmark the resources required for development. But that assistance could never replace fairer trade rules. The two measures must go hand in hand and official development assistance should be temporary. It should not be permanent. It should be substantial, but lead to a rebalancing of the situation in southern countries and African countries in particular.

Through our meeting with Mr. Fowler, we learned that Canada feels it has done its utmost to forgive debts. We think more must be done. We are still convinced that the debt of poor countries must be written off, especially since it has been paid and repaid over many years and those countries have often not benefited from it.

So we would like to reiterate the need for Canada to meet its commitment of 0.7 percent of GDP some day soon.

Others will also come and speak to you, including the Africa-Canada Forum, the International Missionary Benefit Society, etc., who will broach other topics, but I just wanted to add one other thing that is of great concern to us, namely the entire question of arms, of the military industry. It is a known fact that the major arms exporters are members of the G-8. So steps must also be taken to restrict, reduce and stop militarization. It may be wishful thinking, but it is a fundamental problem.

Thank you.

Á (1145)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will continue with Mr. Paquette, please. Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I fully share the view that civil society plays an extremely important role in the democratic process, but after consulting African unions, they are often more involved in the government than civil society is.

So without being paternalistic, what means do we have to strengthen civil society in Africa? As far as an approach is concerned, should we be more sectorial by having the unions take care of unions, the association...? I would like you to expand on the means available to help Africa develop a civil society that contributes effectively to democracy.

There is also the role of parliamentarians. I admit I do not know how active African Parliaments are. It probably varies from one region to another, from one country to another. However, I did notice at the World Social Forum in Pôrto Alegre that there were two Africans among the parliamentarians: a Moroccan and a South African. So it is a big problem, even for global civil society, when fora such as the World Social Forum with 50,000 participants is incapable of including... As for the parliamentarians, there were over 1,000 of us and just two Africans.

So how can that be changed?

Fairer trade rules: I would have liked an evaluation of the progress made at Doha on drug patents and intellectual property. At Pôrto Alegre, I was surprised when someone from Oxfam said in his presentation that there was much more willingness to cooperate than expected, whereas in meetings held immediately after Doha, some groups implied that the measures did not meet their needs.

I would have also liked you to expand a little—you did mention it—on the revised role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and the entire question of the reform of international financial institutions.

Ms. Francine Néméh: That is quite a list. With respect to your first point about the union movement and the fact that there's often only a single union, I might start by saying that this is not the case everywhere. As we both know, the reality in each country is different. It is very complex.

One of the problems in Africa, when we talk about political parties, is that there are many political parties that, since we are having a discussion here, I will call token parties, that often exist only to give the impression that there is more than one party, when in fact they are linked to the central party. So this problem exists not only with the unions, but one of the problems is a lack of freedom of expression, an inability to organize, repression, in fact, a lack of rights and freedoms. If efforts were made in that area, there is no doubt that civil society would be much more active.

Those countries have experienced and continue to experience a great deal of poverty, a lack of resources for education, for democratic debate, for the creation of democratic organizations. So the need for support has been a focus for a long time, for at least 20 years. NGOs are working to help their counterparts in the South to develop structures, to enable local people to speak out, to express themselves, to use democratic means to develop a national voice. And that is coming along very well.

African society has developed—they existed in any case—traditional structures, women's support networks, networks of farmers. Africa traditionally had what are called tontines, which are borrowing networks. So we are not starting from scratch.

The union movement in some countries is managing to be quite combative. In other countries they are less so, but unions are there and the ones that exist need to be able to appropriate these major issues that are being promoted on their behalf.

I would say that the same is true for parliamentarians. In fact, I imagine that the poverty of these countries must also be a factor in the lack of participation in these international meetings. When I think that, even here, while Quebec was able to send about 100 people because this is a rich country, there were many others who would have liked to go that were unable to. So I think that there is no doubt that parliamentarians in some African countries probably earn less than a volunteer aid worker. I may be exaggerating, but in some cases... This is part of the larger problem and of the need for democracy, which needs to be consolidated at the grassroots level.

On Doha and the patents, and so on, there is no doubt that this is a step in the right direction. The fact that countries like South Africa and India can produce generic drugs to treat their people is already a step forward, but it does not solve the problem of countries that are too poor to be able to manufacture those products. So it is the poorest countries that have to buy at the highest price.

Regarding the role of the IMF, there is a need for a thorough review. I do not think that I can go into detail here and I probably am not prepared to speak on this today, but I must admit that I was very impressed by the brief presented by the ATTAC. I think that that is the direction we need to go in. We need to re-examine these structures. Canada, which has shown leadership and has some degree of respect in the world because it has not been a colonial power, and because it has played a role that, unfortunately, it is playing less and less, but one that is very important in Africa and elsewhere concerning women's rights, the environment, etc., needs to play a much greater role than it is playing right now within the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO and other institutions.

Thank you.

Á (1155)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you.

Ms. Marleau, please.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Do you think that the G-8 should insist on closer cooperation between business and the social side? You work with both local people and the financial system. There is quite a sharp division. We tend to send important men from the financial sector and neglect the rest. So we let that group go there. It would be wonderful to see a mix of the two groups and to insist on that. I do not know if you agree with me on that.

With respect to women, they do not have very much of a voice, of course. That is always a problem. It continues often to be the case, even in developed countries.

As to the amounts of money spent in Africa, should we focus our aid only on countries that seem to be working well?

Moreover, CIDA has often been criticized for its programs—I know the CIDA programs and you know them as well—that are said to be too short-term in nature, that is, that they award contracts for two or three years, and that at the end of that time the project is finished and people move on. People have said that there should be much more of a long-term focus, since as there start to be significant results--

Tell me about that. What do you think that we should recommend first? The G-8 is going to be dealing with Africa. The Prime Minister really wants things to be different; he believes in this. So if we can help in this--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Go ahead.

Ms. Francine Néméh: There is no doubt that cooperation between social networks and the business sector would be desirable, but it would be possible only if both groups were clearly recognized and their roles well established. For the moment, the situation is similar to what was said about the Free Trade Area of the Americas and all these foreign policy issues, even when we look at the reforms being planned at CIDA. The concern is always the same. It would seem that only the views of business people and investors are taken into account and that their vision and recommendations are used as a basis and adapted to form policy. There is no room for civil society. It is not even clear what room there is for the State. It is as if business were the only player. There is always the same underlying theme that if we promote business growth, remove barriers, we will--

Yes, trade is essential, but we need a balance. There needs to be room for civil society to appropriate all that and to debate these issues on an equal footing with the other players concerned.

With respect to women, there is no doubt that trade rules need to take them into account--

Ms. Yolande Geadah (Programme Co-coordinator, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale): We just need the trade rules to be reviewed using a gender analysis, and we need to put resources toward that. I do not know whether there are women included in the G-8; I doubt it.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: There is already one.

Ms. Yolande Geadah: That is not enough.

So the fact that these major economic decisions and important economic policies do not take into account the impact on women at all is certainly very serious. It is increasingly being realized that there are impacts on both men and women and we need to take this into account.

So we need to somehow bring together the expertise to undertake a gender analysis in order to view these economic policies from the women's perspective. It is unavoidable. I think that this is a must and that we have to stop saying that women are being taken into account when in fact, the important political decisions are not taking them into account.

Â (1200)

Ms. Diane Marleau: You are right. I'm even talking about what's happening here, in this country. Women are supposedly being taken into account, but if you look more closely, you see that the impact is much greater on certain groups, among others, women. When taxes are reduced, it is women who suffer most. When costs are imposed, it is women who pay more because they are the poorest. It is always a battle.

Ms. Yolande Geadah: Currently one of the main effects of globalization that hasn't been taken into account is the increase in the sex trade. This has become a scary phenomenon, prostitution and the sex trade. It has an enormous impact. The only thing women have left to sell is their body.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I would like to know if you think programs are being carried out appropriately. Do you think we should be looking at programs in African countries differently?

Ms. Francine Néméh: In terms of concentration, I must admit that we are concerned and worried. We are looking forward to seeing a plan of action in that regard. I imagine that you will keep us up to date; I hope that you will. We are worried because of the rules that we have seen, because of the document itself, that bases its criteria on good governance that would be linked to good management of the IMF and World Bank standards. In light of this, we wonder about concentrating on countries that will simply obey those standards. Is that democracy? Is it because of decisions that were made elsewhere, that were imposed from the outside, that a model student will be supported? We are concerned. We would truly like to know how that is going to be carried out.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I would like to have an answer. You have put the question to us but you are the ones who should be giving us the answer.

In that regard, NEPAD, which is the New Partnership for the Development of Africa, was accepted in full by the African leaders at Lusaka last year, but if you look at Africa, 10 years ago there were only five democracies; there are now 25, and many of them are fragile. The Ivory Coast democracy was a model and they've had problems recently. These problems come back and it is very difficult.

My question is the following. They're at the beginning of a civil society. They don't have a civil society. We have met parliamentarians. The Assemblée parlementaire de la francophoni meets regularly. I have made many trips there. They are all willing, but they truly do not have the means to act. So what should we do?

Next month, the Prime Minister will be visiting five African capitals. He is going to try to meet at least a dozen leaders from those countries. It's important to mention that. We take our role very very seriously. Mr. Fowler is working on this.

Given NEPAD, which is a good document even if civil society was perhaps not consulted—I couldn't tell you, I have no idea—how do you see the G-8's role? Should we only help countries that truly want to help themselves, and leave the others, or should we take a more global approach for all of Africa?

Ms. Francine Néméh: I think we need to take a global approach for all of Africa because it is the hardest-hit countries that are at risk of being left out, the countries where there is a dictatorship. Of course we need to proceed on a case-by-case basis, but we need to have a vision of what we want development to be, what our partnership will be, in the spirit or in the hope that we will all end up with the same instruments in order to be able to speak as equals.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. We have already used a lot of our time. It always goes by very quickly. We thank you for your presentations; they were most interesting.

I will ask my colleagues to stay. Another group has been added for this morning. We will take a short break to allow the witnesses to take their places.

Ms. Francine Néméh: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry):Thank you very much, Ms. Néméh.

Â (1200)

Â (1201)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry:We shall now continue. We have an extra group. This is a plus for our group this morning.

[English]

We have, from the Raging Grannies of Montreal, Mrs. Joan Hadrill and Mrs. Barbara Seifred. The floor is yours.

Â (1205)

Ms. Joan Hadrill (Representative, Raging Grannies of Montreal): I'd like to thank you for allowing us this time this morning. We were very last minute, so we appreciate your squeezing us in. I'm presenting for the Montreal Raging Grannies, recent recipients of the YMCA peace medal, which I'm wearing.

We feel economic activity must be subordinate to the values of the society in which it is taking place, and it must respect fundamental human rights. At the moment journalists are imprisoned for political commentaries, workers dismissed for trying to form unions, children ill from pollution, native communities' rivers polluted from mining effluents. All are suffering violations of their basic human rights. Treaties should not be signed in the absence of a pre-existing framework of respect for basic human rights.

All countries of the Americas suffer from profound social problems closely connected with or caused by unjust distribution of national wealth. New commercial treaties would exacerbate the situation, as evidenced since the signing of NAFTA. The gap between poor and rich has widened in the countries of all the signatories to the agreement, with Mexico suffering an increase in absolute poverty. There is increasing evidence of the damage being done to the environment by many forms of economic activity. There must be a concerted effort to reform the international economic system in such a way that human needs can be met without further destruction of the natural world. All major international commercial treaties must be negotiated within the context of this urgently needed reform.

Ms. Barbara Seifred (Representative, Raging Grannies of Montreal): I would like to just add that we are very concerned about Canada's commitment to an independent foreign policy as we are drawn into this continental approach, and we're worried about increasing militarization, the U.S. abandonment of treaties, and plans to weaponize space. Of course, we're also worried about the criminalization of defence next time we head out to a demonstration, both for ourselves and for our grandchildren.

We have one more little thing we'd like to add. You may hear more from Grannies across the country. There are 45 groups now--just to warn you.

[Singing presentation by Raging Grannies of Montreal ensemble]

We're worried about Free Trade, we'll tell you why.
It ain't Motherhood, it sure ain't apple pie!
It's a global money link
And its consequences stink,
Its power over states would make you cry.

It makes elections irrelevant or worse.
It's anti-democratic, it's a curse!
Local governments can't plan,
Because free trade can ram
Its own agenda through and sue--it's quite perverse!

Environment protection's on the slide
'Cause free trade can simply override.
Some laws they will abort;
Those they can't they'll take to court.
Under free trade our laws can be defied.

The whole damn deal just puts us off our feed!
It's a vehicle for global corporate greed!
We're going to feel the sharp incisors
Of those pirate merchandisers!
More free trade deals are something we don't need.

And here's a little item of note on globalization.

Oh, here's a little Texas tune for Jean Chrétien and DUUBBY A Bush!
Don't like greedy corporations, like to kick 'em in the tush.
We don't like their urban armies, offensive, fences, pepper spray,
Union-busting, human rights abuse. We won't be globalized this way!

Unless we globalize social justice, globalize health care,
Globalize a living wage for workers everywhere,
Put an end to sweatshop labour, maquiladoras, and the like,
And until they get the message, tell trade dealers, take a hike!

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much. It was very pleasant.

[Translation]

The meeting is adjourned. We will continue at 1:30 p.m. with Mr. Henri Massé, President of the FTQ.

Â (1209)

· (1330)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will now continue, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will continue our public hearings on the North American integration and Canada's role in the light of new security challenges and the study of the agenda of the 2002 G-8 Summit. We will now continue our hearings.

Our next witnesses are representatives of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the FTQ, including the President, Mr. Henri Massé. Welcome, Mr. Massé. Could you please introduce the people who are with you today?

I myself am accompanied by Mr. Roy, as well as our researcher, Mr. Haggart, Mr. Paquette whom you surely know, and Ms. Marleau.

· (1335)

Mr. Henri Massé (President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)): Thank you. I would like to introduce Dominique Savoie, from the FTQ's Research Section; Jérôme Turcq, Quebec President of the Public Service Alliance and also Vice-President of the FTQ; and Émile Vallée who is a political advisor for the FTQ.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Good. Thank you for the brief that you sent to us. I don't know if you would like to read it, but you have the floor.

Mr. Henri Massé: No, but we would like to point out the main ideas. However, we would first like to thank you for having us here. We have often loudly complained that we feel we are not listened to within the G-8, and we would like to thank you for the initiative that you have taken.

We are convinced that very important decisions are being made within the G-8 and we feel that they would be even better if the voice of the civil society was listened to more often. Today, I would like to talk to you about the union movement.

You told us that there were essentially three priorities on the G-8's agenda: strengthening economic growth; creating a new partnership for Africa; fighting terrorism. I know that the G-8 will also be considering progress that has been made in three areas linked to world poverty. We would like to discuss one of those areas, that is, the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa.

First, however, let us talk about the ideas on which we will base the rest of our presentation and our answers to your questions. They have to do with economic development or the increase in trade.

It is clear to us that economic development or increased trade are not enough to foster social development. We need to take into account the need of citizens, workers rights, social rights and environmental issues. We cannot only focus on increased trade.

Governments in all countries must also retain their regulatory powers to better guide their social and economic development. We all know that a paradigm shift is happening and as a result we may have to relinquish some of our sovereignty or independence, but we feel that another international organization should step in, be it under the auspices of the UN or the World Trade Organization, for instance. We cannot just devolve power to multinational or transnational corporations simply because governments cannot do it all anymore and because no other entity has come forward to help address social issues.

A third point we would like to emphasize and which we feel is a basic starting point is the fact that, I repeat, civil society must be consulted in a meaningful way. At G-8 meetings or other types of international meetings, there are more and more demonstrations. They are sometimes violent and the police are called in to erect barriers. This happened at the Quebec City Summit and we at the FTQ are convinced that if the various groups representing civil society had been heard and allowed to participate, the violence would not have happened.

In that light,our first recommendation would be that the G-8 meeting which will be held in Canada this year should include a delegation representing organized labour, be it the ICFTU, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, or the UFCW, which is the sister organization of labour organizations within the OECD, which is mainly made up of G-8 member countries. We would like a delegation representing organized labour to meet with the political leaders of the G-8.

Until now, we have only been authorized to meet with the host country and to plead our case to the other G-8 members. At the last such meeting in Italy, Prime Minister Berlusconi came very close to agreeing with our request but changed his mind at the last minute. But this time, the meeting will take place in Canada and I feel that our country should break new ground in allowing an international labour delegation to meet with the leaders.

We are not a rag-tag group; we represent 200 million affiliates throughout the world, our structures are well established and we share the same positions regarding the major issues which will be debated at the G-8 meeting since we have already discussed them. We feel it is important to be heard loud and clear.

As for me, I can assure you that I would be extremely proud, the FTQ would be extremely proud, if Canada led the way by submitting this idea to the other countries. When Canada joined the G-7 many years ago, I seem to recall that people made fun of the fact that our little country had been let in at the indulgence of the bigger countries. The FTQ and myself are proud of the role Canada has played within the G-7—now the G-8—to this day. We feel Canada has held its own. So we would like Canada to insist on this issue. We do not want to be a token presence but, as we said, we feel that the number of demonstrations, even violent ones, will increase because people feel they are being ignored.

If there was a meaningful meeting with a labour delegation representing all those countries, it would take off the pressure and allow us to present positions we feel are pragmatic and conducive to moving things forward.

To come back to the issue of international economic growth, it is our view that we must better control the accumulation of financial capital. We will speak to the matter more in detail a little later. Some people have suggested imposing the Tobin tax, but others say it is not realistic because not every country is willing to go along. Once again, countries which are tax havens will be calling the shots. We find that response fairly simplistic and unsatisfactory.

· (1340)

That can currently be seen, for instance, in the fight against terrorism. Countries are standing up, taking the initiative, playing a leadership role. They have found a way to convince other countries, which may be reluctant, to play along. All kinds of ways have been devised to convince the countries to go along and we feel that in the situation we are discussing, it is high time countries adopt a firmer stance.

I like what I've heard from the Minister of Finance who has addressed this issue several times. But it seems that it's all talk and no action. We can take advantage of the G-8 meeting which will take place in Canada to push the issue along.

Then there is the New Partnership for African Development. We salute Canada's special interest for this matter, but we feel more can be done. We also think that most of the money Canada has earmarked for this initiative still goes to any economic benefits Canada may receive when trading with African countries. We certainly do not want to minimize trade and trading incentives in this area, but we feel that the measures Canada has taken generally do not go far enough.

In our view, Canada's international aid budget should represent 0.7 percent of GDP. This has always been our stated objective, but we haven't heard much about it in the last few years. Unless I'm mistaken, I think the current figure stands at 0.25 percent. We should slowly increase that figure to 0.75 percent and encourage other G-8 countries to set that goal as well.

As a member of the ICFTU, I have seen how some countries, such as the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Finland and Norway, closely involve their labour organizations in discussions involving the government. Some of these countries spend 0.7 percent of their GDP on development aid and even want to exceed that figure. These countries are very generous, much more so than Canada. Attaining that goal is feasible.

We also questioned the role of the World Bank and the IMF. We are pleased to notice that there is a change in attitude happening, but, nevertheless, when the World Bank or the IMF impose their policies on certain countries, there are wide-ranging and serious repercussions.

There is also talk of eliminating the debt of third world countries, of the poorest countries, without imposing any conditions. But this does not mean that we want to forgive all debts one day and revert to our old habits the next by carrying on the old way; we have to look at that issue much more closely.

The last issue to which we would like to draw your attention falls under the subject of poverty, namely AIDS. Perhaps we can come back to this matter a little later on, but we feel that more must be done in the field of prevention. Organized labour has much to contribute in the fight against AIDS in Africa. The FTQ does work in French-speaking Africa. The CLC does so in English-speaking Africa.

The Conférence internationale des services publics et des grands syndicats du secteur public are members of this international secretariat, which also includes the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Union des employés de services, which are pan-Canadian Quebec labour organizations. We have a program in place, but few resources.

We believe we could work with African labour in a much more meaningful way to help fight this disease and to implement prevention programs in Africa. Many existing problems must be solved, but if we focus on prevention, we may slow down the spread of the disease.

Lastly, there is the fight against terrorism. We will re-visit this issue a little later on. We want Canada to be more proactive in ensuring fluidity at the border, but we also want to caution you not to give up Canadian control in this matter. Certain measures have already been implemented. Perhaps we can align them more with measures taken by the Americans, but we do not believe in copying the Americans or adopting their approach at any price because we may be giving up too much of our sovereignty.

The last thing we would like to say on terrorism is that the FTQ is completely behind the implacable fight against terrorism, but we do not want to jump on board the US train. There is an international organization called the UN, the Security Council of the UN, which must play a key role. We don't feel the fight against terrorism can be effective if everyone dances to the American tune. An international effort has to be made to convince the countries where terrorists operate to get rid of them, but this effort must go through the UN and the Security Council.

· (1345)

I don't think we can succeed unless we take that approach.

In that respect, I would like to ask Jérôme to add a few words to the issue of security measures. Jérôme represents public service customs officers who are very concerned with this whole issue.

· (1350)

Mr. Jérôme Turcq (Vice-President of the FTQ and Executive Regional Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Quebec Region): Thank you, Henri.

In fact, it rarely happens that people appearing before a committee have solutions to propose. It is always easy to criticize the authorities and existing procedures. However, after holding consultations with the customs officers whom we represent, we feel that certain issues should be taken into consideration before, basically, following in the steps of the Americans and adopting their procedures.

There are four specific points. It is no secret that Canada has 3,500 customs officers and 1,000 immigration officers. In our view, this is clearly insufficient, especially since the events of September 11, 2001. We have had unpleasant experiences. We have been accused of certain things. In fact, we were sometimes accused of negligence. However, although the public may believe that we have enough officers on duty, there are several border points which are not monitored 24 hours a day. In some places, we really are working with the bare minimum. Some points are not even manned at all. Some crossings between Canada and the United States are only monitored by a single officer at night. We believe this is clearly inadequate. I know that measures have been taken to try to improve the situation. Which brings us to our second point.

We hire students on a regular basis. We have nothing against hiring students. We think it is a good thing to bring in new blood. However, these students need proper training and not just partial training. As you know, security personnel at the border undergo about 10 weeks of training in a specialized college. But when we hire students, they sometimes unfortunately only receive two weeks of training before they start to work. Of course, there are times when they have the opportunity to work with experienced customs officers who can monitor and help them, but during the summer, which is the busiest time at the border, we hire up to a thousand students. So it happens that during some periods it is mostly students who work at customs. To ensure the safety of the Canadian public, we must make sure that the students are properly trained or at least properly supervised.

Third, a report produced by the Auditor General highlighted the fact that over 60 percent of our 3,500 customs officers had not received adequate training to properly supervise their immigration colleagues. This means that the majority of personnel which is in charge of conducting the initial selection of people crossing the border unfortunately were not trained properly to do so. The Auditor General recommended better training and that the issue should be followed closely.

Lastly, I do not want to reopen the debate on whether customs officers should or should not carry weapons. I know that the issue has been repeatedly raised, but we are not convinced that arming customs officers will necessarily solve every problem. Many countries have armed customs officers, but this does not prevent terrorist acts from being carried out. However, we feel that at certain points, it might be a good idea to arm personnel and that they should at the very least be given proper protective equipment, especially if they work in airports or other such places. For instance, they could wear bulletproof vests and carry pepper spray. I'm referring to these types of measures which may help people defend themselves.

These are the major suggestions we wanted to share with the committee to try to find a way of easing the situation at our border.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Turcq.

Are there any other comments before moving on? Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for your presentation. I think you are aware that I share your position on several points.

This morning, the people from AQOCI spoke to us about the role of civil society in Africa, in particular. One must realize that civil society in Africa is quite varied, very uneven from one country to another, and this is true of unions as well.

I would have liked to have heard your comments regarding what the FTQ is doing with unions in Africa, and perhaps their work with civil society in general.

You referred to a lack of funds; what kind of means would the FTQ need to make their work more effective than it presently is, and does the government involve the unions, as they do other groups, in the effort to democratize African societies?

This is the first issue I would like to broach.

The second is the issue of protecting fundamental labour rights that is advanced by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. I have often asked this question. I feel strongly that trade agreements should be subject to this, but there is a lot of resistance, including at the ILO. The Secretary General of the ILO came here and he said—and I don't know if you were here—that there were no consensus on the issue at the ILO.

What could Canada do to move this issue forward, and how do you see the relationship between the ILO and the G-8? This is also true for the WTO, and it could potentially be also for the free trade area. Should the rights be part of trade agreements, for example, when mention is made of the ILO? The ILO would then have more teeth in any sanctions that might be imposed.

Lastly, on the issue of security, you brought up four very specific points. I did not quite understand the solution you are proposing. I don't know what the situation is; here's my question. If a student works eight weeks and is given two weeks of training, there are six left. If he gets four weeks of training, there are four left. This is where I have a problem. If this were the case, would these students not require further supervision? You are talking about peak vacation season, when you are hiring 1,000. I would imagine that it's because the regular customs officers are on vacation. Therefore, this would mean from the union perspective that the vacation period would have to be staggered in order to ensure that there is supervision. Do you think that more would have to be hired on, specifically to supervise the students?

The solution to the problem that you have identified—and I agree with your analysis—is not obvious.

· (1355)

Mr. Henri Massé: Do you want to speak to the end of the question?

Mr. Jérôme Turcq: Thank you.

I think you have grasped the essence of what I was trying to say. When we talk about hiring 1,000 students during the summer season, it's very clear that there is a reason for hiring those summer students: it is to give the customs officers a chance to take their holidays. But I believe that we should have very serious rules and strict supervision in order to not leave these people working alone during the summer season. I'm sure that if we did some research, we would probably find a situation, in rather strategic areas, where there would surely be more students working in the summer, and that's what we hope for as that is the reason why we hire them, but we must make sure that these people are not working alone, even during peak periods of the summer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Massé.

Mr. Henri Massé: As regards our work in Africa, basically we are trying to build a strong union movement with the Africans. We have long believed that if there is no strong union movement in a country, there are no advocacy groups for men, women or communities. They simply do not exist.

Most of the time, it is the union movement that has charted the course. We don't say this in a chauvinistic spirit, but historically this has been the case. We are doing some intense work with African unions on education programs to train union officials at the grassroots level for the affiliated trade unions and local unions. Every year, depending on the year, I believe we have at least 10, 12, or 15 training sessions with different African francophone countries, where we concentrate our initiatives, and we are working with them, with follow-up and a lot of funding. When they have their union meetings, they don't always have the means. We consider ourselves to be poor, but when we compare ourselves to them, we consider ourselves to be rich. They often have nothing. The work has become more and more informal. Union dues do not exist there.

We are working furiously with African unions. We have even had to build a solidarity fund for the union organizations in Senegal and in Algeria.

On the issue of fundamental labour rights, what we are asking for in the end, is that the mechanisms have more force than they have at present.

Within the WTO, we have always maintained that the organization itself should have mechanisms to ensure that fundamental labour rights are respected so that trade sanctions could be enforced against countries at fault. At present, it is the ILO that is responsible for this. On can lodge a complaint with the ILO, but it is more on the level of... I mean to say that there are no true sanctions. No country wants to be condemned. No country wants to be dragged through the mud, but there are no sanctions against truly uncooperative countries and there is nothing for the ILO to enforce.

During the last discussions concerning the WTO, we were ready to accept the compromise whereby the ILO, the International Labour Organization, would be responsible for the direct enforcement of trade sanctions instead of the WTO. That is to say that the ILO would have managed these issues. However, the WTO had to maintain the right to sanction. We know that nothing came of this.

Furthermore, the United States goes farther than Canada on this point. The United States was ready, much more than Canada, to give a more decisive role to the WTO or to the International Labour Organization with this end in view. Was this purely strategic? I do not know. We do know, however, that certain third world countries were against such a role saying that it was covert protectionism. But in order to reassure everyone, once again—and we have often stated this in public— what we want is not to see disguised protectionism. We are not aiming at a standard minimum wage everywhere, which would truly be protectionism in disguise. But we do believe that workers have the right to be respected elsewhere in the world. Forced labour must disappear. Forced child labour must disappear. People have the right to rally together.

I will now ask Dominique Savoie to talk about AIDS, because some unions are establishing a significant program. I believe that this also has to be tied into economic issues, because there is a human tragedy unfolding in Africa. When entire generations disappear, there are enormous consequences for the economic situation and we feel that we will have to move much more quickly on this.

¸ (1400)

Ms. Dominique Savoie (Director of Research, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): I have distributed documents from Public Services International, which is a professional secretariat. There are 10. It takes on the position of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. This union is probably one of the most advanced in terms of its position and the action it wants to take.

So we can see that the ability to raise the awareness of the union movement is enormous. What we do, when we do training in Africa... When I say “we”, I am talking about the unions that are affiliated with us and that provide assistance to some unions there, which is part of union life to some extent. People who go there, on these occasions, realize that unions are losing a lot of members, because people are dying and many are sick and society is unable to--

So, if we want to turn the situation around, these people must clearly be treated and have access to affordable medication, etc. But if we want to break this cycle, we must focus on prevention. Unions feel they have some responsibilities in this area. They feel that they can take action in their respective workplaces. Unions in the north as well as western countries, which are also living with the AIDS epidemic but where often governments take responsibility for prevention, also feel that they can help unions there to raise awareness. That is Public Services International objective.

The last two pages contain a questionnaire that was sent out to all affiliated unions to take stock of the situation from the union perspective.

Similarly, for example, our unions that have humanitarian funds receive money from CIDA for training unions in other countries, including Africa. The Canadian government and the governments of the other G-8 countries and the OECD could support action taken by unions in richer countries to help unions in poor countries develop HIV and AIDS prevention programs.

¸ (1405)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Ms. Savoie.

Mr. Vallée.

Mr. Émile Vallée (Political Advisor, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)): We must not forget that. I think it is important. The bulk of funding for union training in Africa comes from a CIDA envelope. I think that is important. The envelope is being developed with the Canadian Labour Congress. It is very costly, as you know. Union leave, travel, etc. is done with CIDA. Generally speaking, I think that relations are very good in that regard. Obviously, we would always like more.

Mr. Henri Massé: That is why I did not mention it.

Mr. Émile Vallée: Something else we are trying to do is what the FTQ has been using for 25 years and what we call the trainer's formula, where we train people who will train others. So these are the techniquesthat we use when we go to Africa. We try to train people there who will then go on to train their own people. We think that is the winning formula in the long term.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Vallée. Ms. Marleau, as former minister for CIDA, we'll undoubtedly have some questions for you.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I was going to correct that omission. I thank you for having done so. I was minister for CIDA. There is never enough. We could have 0.7 percent and it would still not be enough.

First of all, I want to ask Mr. Turcq a question on borders. Is there any way we could work with the Americans who are already at the border, instead of having Canadians on one side, Americans on the other, and both doing the same thing? People who enter Canada are stopped as are people who leave. Is there any way we could cooperate to make sure it works, and that we do not miss anything, or that we miss less, because it is difficult.

Quite frankly, I also think that people are being stopped for ridiculous reasons. I do not get worked up about someone going to the United States to buy a pair of pants. I think that those are the kinds of issues that we could get rid of. As if it makes a big difference--

I do not agree with arming people at the border. I am sorry, but I have always thought that by arming someone, we solve nothing, and we are inviting more dangerous situations. At any rate, the discussion can go on at great length. I would like to know if there are many incidents at the borders where you would need a weapon. Are there many people who show up armed? I know that weapons are getting across the border, because there are problems: we see them on the streets in Canada. So that is why I am asking these questions.

As for AIDS, it is always important to work as much as possible with the people, and if the unions want to get more involved at that level, CIDA will certainly listen to you and, if it has the means to do so, it will help you. My experience is that we get better results in countries where the governments are dealing with AIDS. In countries where the government refuses to accept that there is a problem, the situation is twice as bad. I have been to African countries, and I mentioned AIDS to ministers who died of the disease themselves shortly thereafter. In response, I was told that there were many more cases of tuberculosis or malaria. Yes, but that kills fewer people. At any rate, it is a major challenge.

It is not simply a matter of having medication, although that may help.

There is also the power of women. Most of the time, women do not have power in Africa. They are abused. They are often the ones who suffer from AIDS and who pass it on to their children.

A lot of work remains to be done, and I hope that you will go forward with all of your proposals, because it is essential for everyone, for the planet. In some countries, generations are gone. They no longer exist. Children are orphans. It is over.

I have a question for you, Mr. Massé. If you were before the G-8, what would you tell them? Would you be saying the same things as you said here, or would you have a special message for them?

¸ (1410)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): There are questions for everyone.

Ms. Savoie.

Ms. Dominique Savoie: I did not see that as a question, but we share her opinion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Turcq.

Mr. Jérôme Turcq: There were several questions. When we talk about joint initiatives with the Americans at the borders, I think that logically, no one can disagree with that. However, we disagree in that we have always been afraid of being overtaken by the Americans, in joint initiatives with them. The day there is only one border crossing and we have a joint initiative, the day Canadians work with Americans, if the Canadians do not show up for work, the Americans will not change their habits and they will impose their laws. As you know, we have different legislation and it is clear that our cousin to the south is a lot bigger than we are. We are afraid of losing our autonomy and afraid of losing the fact that we have our own legislation and that there are areas we want to enforce.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Could the legislation be made simpler? We are told that there are so many laws that have to be enforced at the borders. Are there some things we could do that would simplify your life and ours as well?

Mr. Jérôme Turcq: Definitely. However, in the case of joint initiatives of this type, a committee would probably have to be established to study the legislation on both sides of the border and see where there are similarities and where there are differences. In addition, I do not think we should restrict our action to border crossing points. We found it interesting that there was more customs preclearance done directly in industries, etc. I think this facilitates trade between the two countries and eliminates the problem in Lacolle, for example, where there are some traffic jams. Often, when people go through border crossings, they use only the same locations they usually use and they always refer back to the last time they came back from vacation and were caught in the famous line-up. However, there are a number of other steps that can be taken without necessarily targeting only border crossings. So yes, logically we could undertake some initiatives with the Americans. There is no doubt that we are there to protect Canadian jobs. We would not want it to happen that there would be only one border crossing, the American one, and that there would no longer be any Canadian customs officers. In initiatives of this type, there is always a fear that we might find ourselves in a situation in which the Americans would control everything according to their rules.

To answer your second question about incidents where weapons would be required, I repeat that I'm not necessarily in favour of weapons, but I can tell you that there are locations where people work alone on the night shift at border crossings around Cornwall, for example. There is a big bridge there and some aboriginal reserves, and people cross here regularly because the laws on alcohol are different. So people go to the customs post and there is often one female customs officer working there alone and unarmed. Her only security is the local police authority, if ever something happened. So, you can put yourself into the shoes of that woman or man working alone at a border crossing point of that type when five or six individuals decide to shuttle across the border.

Ms. Diane Marleau: But a gun would not be much help.

Mr. Jérôme Turcq: Perhaps not, and that is why I think that in a case such as that, it would be preferable to have two or three people working there, rather than to have a weapon, because not all problems can be solved with a machine gun. We agree on that. However, I think there is a problem when people ask if there have been incidents or whether these people have been threatened. Yes, there have been locations where groups of four or five people arrived at crossing points and said that they would cross if they wanted to.

We put more emphasis on the fact that there should be--

Ms. Diane Marleau: I agree on that. There should be more people. Having armed officers will not change anything. If five or six individuals say they are going to cross the border, having a gun or not is not of much use.

¸ (1415)

Mr. Jérôme Turcq: Yes, that would cause a diplomatic incident involving dead and wounded. We try to avoid that.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I prefer not to have any such incidents.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do you have any other comments, sir? If not, I would like to ask you a question.

Mr. Henri Massé: We were asked what we would say at the G-8 meeting if we were there. We would have many things to say, but the first point the FTQ would stress, I think, is the issue of transparency. I do not want to be critical, but there are eight heads of State coming to talk about improving the world situation, and they will have to go and hide out in Kananaskis, 80 miles away from Calgary, where there is only one hotel, and virtually no one else will be able to take part in the debate. That aspect bothers me.

It is a question of security. Things have reached a point that we have to take so many security precautions and hold the meeting in an isolated location, and yet the people are there to talk about improving the world. There is something wrong somewhere. That concerns us. That is why we talk about transparency. I listen to what is being said at the moment, and I am beginning to think that there is something....Barely 10 years ago, when we heard about issues surrounding the G-8 or the integration of the economies of the Americas and the WTO, we heard only about economic matters. People said that there would be so much economic growth that economic inequalities would be eliminated.

As we have seen, it has not worked out that way. I am pleased to see that what people say about this is changing, in Canada as well, to a large extent. There is so little transparency that there are thousands of people in the street protesting. We must--

Ms. Diane Marleau: But what exactly do you want by way of transparency? Do you want to know what is going to be said among the participants? That is what you were saying. I use the term “transparency” to talk about corruption sometimes, but I do not think we are talking about the same thing here.

Mr. Henri Massé: No. When I talk about transparency, I am referring to people's ability to be heard, and put forward proposals.

Ms. Diane Marleau: To know what they are saying.

Mr. Henri Massé: That is what is meant by democratizing the process. My colleague Paquette was always more intellectual than me when he was the secretary of the CSN.

The other issue that concerns me is the whole social dimension. We have said over and over again that real steps must be taken on economic issues as well. We see the flows of capital, and the tax havens. What is happening at the moment is that we are often told that money knows no border, that people can do what they want, that we cannot control this. All countries say they are virtually unable to act or react, and we are not establishing a higher world organization to control these activities. We are going to have to establish some procedures to clean these things up.

Once again, I say in all sincerity that the FTQ is not protectionist. We want to support the third world. That is not automatic nor necessarily innate. At our head office, we sometimes have to protect ourselves, but, generally speaking, we want to have an open approach to the world in our policies. We realize that if we do not improve economic and social conditions in poor countries, we will always have the type of world we have at the moment. I am convinced that when we try to improve economic conditions elsewhere, we sometimes have to pay a price as well.

What is happening at the moment is that we are paying a huge price in terms of our employment conditions and our jobs, and we are not really improving the situation elsewhere. That is what is called the social dimension. That means putting in place some more specific rules, and we will continue to call for that. In our view, to date, the various major steps toward globalization are a failure in this regard. We are not opposed to globalization; we are opposed to the current model.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you.

I have a question on AIDS, perhaps because I am a physician. I am very pleased about what you gave us today about international public services.

My question is about unions in Africa. In 1990, as we know, there were only five democracies. That number is now up to twenty-five, and often unions within these “democratic” countries are “affiliated” with the governments as such. How much strength do these unions really have? I think it is important to determine whether we want to work through the union movement in Africa to help all these AIDS patients or whether we want to do some prevention activities with people carrying the HIV-AIDS virus.

I think that is a very important question.

You want to transmit the message to our G-8 leaders. That is excellent, but in that regard, I wear another hat: I am the president of the Canadian section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie. We meet twice a year, and I would be very interested in having our parliamentary group, which represents all countries that use French—particularly on the francophone side—pass some resolutions for our parliamentarians. Then they could help their government. If there is some synergy from all sides, from unions, parliamentarians and our governments, we could try to do a better job than we are doing at the moment.

Second, can you evaluate the training given to a trainer, or has this initiative just been started? Those are my two questions.

¸ (1420)

Ms. Dominique Savoie: First of all, even when these countries were not democracies, African unions did not bear much resemblance to the Mexican model, for example. They were not necessarily unions with close ties to the State. Rather, they were crushed.

The opening up of these 25 new democracies is a ray of hope that these unions will be able to operate more openly, in some cases. We would be making things up if we said that these are strong unions. The reason we want to provide help is that these are not strong unions. But there are some people over there who are strong and there are some people who are representative.

I would say that in the past year, or perhaps the previous year, steps were taken in Rwanda to organize unions, and unions provide virtually the equivalent of public services. For example, they have established some public pharmacies, and our unions have provided assistance. So the reason the ICFTU made this decision is that—to respond somewhat to your comments—there are cultural differences within unions. There are also major problems gaining acceptance that the problem even exists, and major problems regarding the way in which the situation should be changed, and regarding acknowledgment of the fact that women can say no and can demand condoms and so on.

Union movements are somewhat in the avant-garde of a society. So if the Public Services International, which is present in 140 countries, including African countries, and some unions in Africa are capable of having this debate and doing this, I think unions can apply pressure to their own government and ensure that there is a debate about the whole concept of prevention.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): What you are saying here is new to me. That is why I would like to know more.

Are there any other comments about training for trainers?

Mr. Émile Vallée: We do an evaluation at every course we give. There is a follow-up. We stay in some countries for a longer period of time. The idea is not to give a course in a location and then.... We are working more closely these days with people in Mali, in particular. I know that CIDA is organizing a conference for Africans before the G-8 to talk about that. Members of the union movement in Africa will be invited. We have been asked to suggest some names. So we are following these people, who took our training program. There are now some individuals working at the ICFTU or with the African unions group in the area of training. So things are proceeding. They are not proceeding quickly, but they are proceeding.

Mr. Henri Massé: There is a union francophonie, for example. We are working on a project that is close to completion. The Secretariat of the Francophonie is one of the groups supporting our efforts to computerize unions in Africa. Central union bodies in Quebec are involved, as are their French and Belgian counterparts. We have invested our own money in this project, and we are pushing this initiative. Often we meet once or twice a year in Brussels or elsewhere, but it costs a fortune, and in the meantime communications.... We lose track of each other. We want to establish a good information network so that we can share information. In fact, we had already established a small newspaper, but writing a newspaper for all French-speaking countries, including African countries, is hard to do from here.

Ms. Diane Marleau: However, it is important to say that the unions are doing an extraordinary job in Africa. I saw this myself, and this point must be made. It is really refreshing to see what is being done with a little funding from CIDA. CIDA is not rich when it comes to this type of thing, but the money is well spent. I wanted to say that, because I know it to be true.

Mr. Henri Massé: We invest a lot of our own money as well.

¸ (1425)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have a very specific question with reference to the Tobin tax which you mentioned; have the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec or the FTQ done any studies on this?

Mr. Henri Massé: We have not done any extraordinary study on this, but last year, we did have a meeting to think about this issue at the FTQ office. There was a meeting held two years ago as well. We invited specialists on the issue of the Tobin tax to take part in these meetings.

We were told that this could be very, very effective. The results of such an initiative might even make it possible to pay down part or all of the debt of third world countries or poor countries. The problem is that if one, two, three or four countries decide not to go along with the initiative, they will win big and decide how things will be. That is a genuine response, but some say it is a rather simplistic response.

If we were to decide to wage war against these tax havens and put some order into the international financial system and if Canada were to succeed in convincing the United States and several other major countries, we think we could do something about this. Penalties would definitely have to be imposed against countries wishing to disregard this, but we do not feel that.... Of course, if there is no political will, we might as well forget about the Tobin tax, because it becomes a utopian dream.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): This morning, we met with people from the Quebec Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens. They talked about the Tobin tax and something else called Spahn, or something like that. They told us that if governments really wanted to eliminate tax havens, that would really be the first step, because what we do with the Tobin tax is 100 percent relevant. However, if we were to abolish the tax havens, in all countries where there are tax havens, it could be much easier. In the wake of September 11, there may necessarily be some willingness on the part of the G-8 countries to deal with tax evasion, which would mean more revenues for the countries. But we could also move towards a type of taxation to redistribute world wealth as such.

Mr. Henri Massé: That is exactly it. We are very comfortable with eliminating tax havens. I do not know a single FTQ member who has even a cent in the Bahamas.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do you have a final comment before we move on to the next witness?

Mr. Henri Massé: Thank you again for having listened to us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for coming. I also want to thank you for your briefs. We will undoubtedly follow them up. Thank you again.

We will adjourn for a few moments. Thank you.

¸ (1425)

¸ (1430)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We are now going to continue hearing from our witnesses.

[English]

Now we have, from the Social Justice Committee, Mr. Derek MacCuish, who is the program coordinator.

Welcome, Mr. MacCuish. You can start your presentation now.

¸ (1435)

[Translation]

Mr. Derek MacCuish (Program Coordinator, Social Justice Committee): Thank you. I hope that it is not a problem if I speak English.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You can speak French or English.

Mr. Derek MacCuish: Fine.

[English]

Okay, I'll continue in English. Thank you.

My name is Derek MacCuish. I have worked with the Social Justice Committee for 10 years. I'm also a lecturer with Concordia University and teach a course on global governance.

The Social Justice Committee has worked since 1975 against third world poverty and for the protection of human rights. There are two aspects of the three main items on the G-8 agenda that are of special interest to the Social Justice Committee. One is the strengthening of global economic growth, the other is a new partnership for Africa's development.

Economic growth will, of course, continue to be an element in the effort to alleviate poverty, but it is also essential and more important for world leaders to become involved in efforts to ensure that the wealth of the world is enjoyed more equitably. There's general agreement that globalization has an inherent bias toward inequality, and it's our hope that at the G-8 summit coming up government leaders will provide direction on how to respond to this bias more effectively. The Social Justice Committee suggests that areas of particular concern include the continuing third world debt crisis and reform of the international financial institutions.

Perhaps the most glaring example of unequal economic relations has been the third world debt situation, and this has justifiably been a main theme of recent G-8 summits. We welcome the progress that has been made, and have no hesitation in praising the leadership Canada has shown, including the placing of a moratorium on debt service for countries classified as heavily indebted and poor.

The devil is in the details. Many countries are facing delays in moving to the completion point of the HIPC initiative debt program because of the conditions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. These include cutting government spending, public sector layoffs, and the privatization of public services, for example, water, electricity, telecommunications, and transport, and of natural resources, like oil, gas, and mining. In Africa debt relief to Niger, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Mali, Rwanda, Malawi, and Benin, among other countries, is stalled because of the conditions attached by the World Bank and the IMF. This is true also of Nicaragua and Honduras in Central America.

Privatization is an issue in itself. Too often, privatized utilities will end up supporting sectors that are profitable at the expense of others, and this means electricity, water, sewerage, telecommunication services, and other things are provided and expanded in wealthier urban areas, but not in poor rural communities. In some places privatization has led to disaster, or at least contributed to it. South Africa has just been through the worst cholera outbreak in its history, with 150,000 people infected and over 260 dead. The outbreak was sparked in large part when the new private owners of water supplies in KwaZulu, Natal, shut off the taps in poor rural communities and residents began using unsafe sources of water.

As for the debt relief that does arrive once conditions are met, this is inadequate to achieve a real new beginning for impoverished, indebted countries. Tanzania has just completed the HIPC initiative process in November, joining a select group of only four countries that have completed the debt relief program since 1998. After debt relief Tanzania will continue to have debt service obligations of almost $100 million U.S. this year. This will increase steadily to $135 million U.S. five years from now. About one-third of Tanzania's payments will be to the World Bank, which has yet to cancel any debt to any HIPC country out of its own resources, despite profits of over $5 billion over the last three years. Again Canada has shown leadership, by cancelling 100 percent of Tanzanian debt this November, and other countries are also moving to 100 percent cancellation.

Canada has asked other creditor countries to match its policy and provide a moratorium on debt service from the impoverished countries in anticipation of cancellations. The G-8 could provide direction to the bank and fund to do likewise, provide a moratorium on debt service payments with the goal of 100 percent cancellation.

The new focus on Africa through NEPAD is welcome, and the continent needs support in its efforts and increased financial assistance. We also welcome the recognition that country ownership is a necessary component of development assistance. There are a host of issues that need to be tackled if initiatives like NEPAD are to be a success. My few minutes here are focused on the problems impoverished countries still face in trying to gain a level of ownership that might equate to real empowerment of affected people, especially as they relate to policies of the international financial institutions. Any effort to ensure that globalization will bring substantial benefit to the impoverished and excluded will have to involve substantial reform of the financial institutions, especially the IMF and the World Bank.

The Social Justice Committee recognizes the benefits that have arrived through efforts to build a stronger sense of country ownership in development policy and efforts to combat poverty. The poverty reduction strategy paper process that has been launched recently has contributed to a strengthening of civil society participation within countries, and hopefully, this will result in more effective anti-poverty strategies. Unfortunately, the central elements of the Washington consensus approach to structural adjustment, like physical austerity and privatization, remain intact and outside real influence by national governments, let alone civil society.

We would welcome recognition by the G-8 that economic growth in itself is not sufficient, given the challenges, and that the world has to move more aggressively to ensure equitable distribution of wealth and the benefits of production. Part of this effort would include radical reform of the financial institutions, so that their policies better strengthen true country ownership and capacity and the empowerment of the poor.

Finally, we would like to register two comments on aspects of Canadian citizen input on globalization. There's a need for broader ongoing processes of consultation with Canadians on the many complicated issues associated with globalization. It's our hope that the work of this committee will contribute to the beginning of regular formal dialogue and citizen input in this area.

Second, we hope this committee will note our concern with violence that has become, unfortunately, associated with protests at events like G-8 summits. We regret that the police response to protest in Quebec City involved excessive use of force and detention and that police actions were not questioned by the government, but rather applauded.

That's my presentation. Thank you.

¸ (1440)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. MacCuish.

We're now going to start the questioning.

Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for your presentation. First of all, I would like you to tell us what the Social Justice Committee does, because I am not familiar with your organization.

You are the first group today to address privatization. You gave the example of water. We fully understand that when we privatize... I would have liked you to give other examples of privatization, especially in African countries, if you have any, because that will be an important aspect.

More generally, how do you assess the possibility of civil societies, especially from the eight most industrialized countries, bringing about changes in government policies along the lines you have identified? Is there anything now that enables you to be more optimistic about this G-8 meeting than you were last year?

[English]

Mr. Derek MacCuish: The Social Justice Committee began as a human rights and solidarity group with countries in central America in the late 1970s through the 1980s, a period of violence and civil war. We moved from there into involvement in development education. We had a long relationship with CIDA in its efforts to expand development education among Canadians. Through the nineties and up to now we have expanded into the structural context of human rights abuse and poverty. So if poverty is the focus, what is the structural context? We moved then to focusing on reform of the international financial institutions.

We work a lot in partnership with organizations in Canada. We still remain deeply committed in Central America. That's expanded to southern Mexico. In the last three or four years it has expanded more to partnerships in Africa, particularly west Africa, but also in southern Africa. We don't run projects. We work mainly here in Canada on education and policy analysis.

As for privatization examples, there are several. We could also look at Zambia, which two years ago privatized its copper mining company. It's very reliant on copper mining. The big owner was Anglo-American Corporation, and Anglo-American has just announced it's withdrawing from Zambia and closing the mines. The price of copper on world markets has fallen, and so it's no longer profitable for Anglo-American to stay in Zambia and run the mine. It's a problem for communities, because when the mine was run by the government, the government also took on the responsibility to provide the health clinic and the school, recreational facilities for teenagers, and things like that. Privatization meant that those facilities were either closed or privatized themselves. One school I heard of became a private school for the management people in the mine, the more wealthy.

¸ (1445)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: In the same place?

Mr. Derek MacCuish: The same place, yes, but there will be different operations in different areas of Zambia.

There's also a problem for people who lived on mine lands, because the Zambian mines owned a large percentage of the lands in Zambia, and a lot of people lived there without title to the land, nany of them itinerant miners. Their whole position became much more shaky. They had no legal title, but they were also unsure whether they would be able to continue to sell their takings to the mining company. It became a moot point, because now Anglo-American is pulling out and the mines are closing. The World Bank has just stated that its response would be to encourage Zambia to diversify and to accelerate its privatization program in other areas.

It comes into a number of areas. Nigeria has had a lot of problems. Unions in Nigeria have been very concerned with the matching set of deregulation and privatization of oil, not just the extraction, but also delivery and refining.

Ghana has a very active civil society concerned with water. Privatization is a process that's going forward right now. We don't really know where it's going to go.

Senegal has had water privatization, and also electricity. I don't have details on that. I was talking to an organizer who lives in Dakar about the need to do a better assessment of the community impacts of privatization. It's recognized in some of the organizations we work with that the assessment of impact at the community level just isn't there. He just described the electrical privatization as a mess, without going into detail.

It's a range of things. Sometimes it's sewer treatment, sometimes it's water, sometimes it's telecommunications. In Guatemala City, when telecommunications were privatized, the company came in, took out the coin public phones, and replaced them with machines. Sometimes in developing countries you use a card to make your phone call. The cheapest card would cost the equivalent of a day's wages for many working Guatemalans. In poor neighbourhoods in Guatemala City people responded by smashing the phones that had been installed. They were so frustrated. They couldn't keep in touch with their work, they couldn't keep in touch with their families. How many cards would they have to buy for their family to keep in touch with each other? They didn't have phones in their homes, and now the public phones were lifted out of reach. Telecommunication, is this something that affects their lives? Yes, it does.

Can civil society change government policy? Sometimes. In Bolivia there was a struggle against water privatization in Cochabamba, and they won. It became violent, unfortunately. In other areas there's not too much violence. There was a two-day general strike in South Africa against privatization in August. Five million people came off work for two days expressing their concern, largely led by the trade union movement. Will that change policy? I think it will. In a country like Togo there's a different civil society-government relationship. We have a 30-year dictatorship with General Eyadéma, and so we have problems.

There's no set answer. Am I optimistic about this G-8 coming up? I think the very conversation on the new initiative for Africa, on where we are going with global economic growth, is fine. I'm disappointed that third world debt is considered a done deal. It was the central focus in Cologne, it's off the table now. I've attended some of the G-7 meetings over the years, starting with Halifax. It's a different world it seems. It doesn't seem so long ago to me, but it was a different world. Globalization is going fast, and hopefully, we'll include some issues in the conversation as we go up to put on the pressure.

¸ (1450)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you.

Madame Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: You've said many things. I agree that we have to look at the global financial situation, and we have to continue to work at reforming the financial institutions. Sometimes some of the sanctions are harsh. But it isn't a case, I believe, of privatization versus non-privatization. In some of these countries, where there has been corruption for many years, governments have run these utilities, but the vast majority of people don't have access to what they need from them. The utilities themselves are totally inefficient.

In Zambia you're saying the mine was privatized. I don't know what the condition was before. Do you keep a government investing in an area where they shouldn't be investing their scarce resources because you don't believe in privatization, or do you push them in the right direction, so that they will take their resources and invest them in certain areas where the need is great, where the private sector can do mining, for instance? I was born in a mining town, but there's no more mine. It's always difficult, but how long do you keep mining a place when there's no more mineral or when there's no money to be made? It's a balance between the two. I don't believe it's privatization versus other things.

I was part of the debate on the eradication of the debt. I agree we should eradicate the debt, but there are some places where, if we just eradicate the debt holus-bolus, you'll have the same rich families continuing to get richer. There have to be other things in place. If you can use the eradication of the debt to put them in place, I think that's the better way of going. Yes, Canada has basically forgiven most of its debt. Some of it, though, was not an outright forgiveness. With some of it, we insisted that they do social programs instead of paying us, and that's worked to a certain extent. Each country has a different dynamic. You can't just have a wide policy that fits every country.

Mr. Derek MacCuish: I basically agree with almost everything you said. Perhaps I've been misstating it. Privatization, as a concept, is not the problem. The problem is that privatization is a condition for debt relief, and the same conditions apply to every country. So it's a set package. You get the package, and it's electricity and--

Ms. Diane Marleau: But they do it because the governments have been running these inefficient areas, and that's why they've remained so poor. Part of the process is to get them out of some of these initiatives, to get them focusing in the right direction. Because, frankly, they can't afford to be where they are.

¸ (1455)

Mr. Derek MacCuish: I would question your underlying assumption that there are widespread inefficiencies because of ineffective governments throughout these impoverished countries, and that is where the fault is to be found. But I would agree that public sector ownership is not an answer. I'm from Cape Breton, a mining family. I have a lot of experience with public involvement.

If you talk to people who are in these communities, they recognize the situation is bad, the service is bad, the water service is bad. They're not getting clean water, it's irregular. There are a number of problems. There might be a situation where all of the electricity is being used up by the military, and the military is not paying its bills to its own government. And the government, of course, has no capacity to collect on these bills. There's a host of problems. But if we have bad service, is privatization the answer, or do we need to look at the context? Do we need to look at our local context? Can we, as a civil society, have an input into what it means for our communities?

We don't have a long experience with the wholesale privatization we've been talking about. It's been accelerating in the 1990s. So there's not a lot of examination of what's come out of it. It's just starting to emerge now. There is, unfortunately, a trend for services to be provided best in areas that are profitable, and that does mean in the wealthier neighbourhoods, and it doesn't mean an improvement for services for the poor. That's not been the experience. Privatization has been a big component in Latin America, in larger cities privatization of sewerage, privatization of electricity, all these things, and the delivery of service is a concern.

So what we're asking for is that there be a questioning of the assumption that wholesale privatization is, writ large, going to be the answer. We need it questioned, because right now it is a problem.

We also have problems with basic assumptions. We've had it repeated that the Canadian government, while it may regard food as a right, does not regard water as a right, but regards it more as a need. If you accept that as a philosophical construct, you have a whole different range of responses when we talk about things like private ownership.

You mentioned the context of writing off debt. We have agreed with the government in our discussions on writing off debt that there are some places where we just don't need to go. We're not going to talk about Sudan, we're not going to talk about Burma. We hope Somalia will be pulling together an effective government, but it did, for a period of years, have no functioning government. Those are places where we're not pushing for debt cancellation. We recognize that those are off the table. With debt cancellation, there has to be a range of things in respect of best use of resources.

But we also have a problem with the concessional arm of the World Bank; when they collect debt payments, half of those payments are interest alone. So this year all these countries, Mali, Niger, are still paying, and a large percentage of it is interest. A substantial amount of the debt they've built up is arrears payment, not principal.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I have a question for you. It seems that the action plan of the G-8 seems to focus right now mainly on education, health, technology, and information.This is probably in reaction to NEPAD, which was accepted by all the African leaders last July. My question is very simple. What are your conclusions? What do you think about NEPAD itself?

¹ (1500)

Mr. Derek MacCuish: There are two aspects, I guess. One relates to the main document on NEPAD, what it lays out. Much of it is good. There is a terrific amount there. I hope half of it will be accomplished. It would be a step forward. I think there are a number of positive elements. One is that African governments could come together and say, this is our program, it's wide-ranging, comprehensive, there's a tremendous amount there.

What we hear from our partner organizations is that they wish they had been included in drafting it. The distinction between government and civil society in many African countries we've already talked about, and some have problems. There is hesitation in some corners, in large part, I think, because civil society organizations have felt excluded. So we have to look not just at the goals that NEPAD outlines, but also at the process of how we're going to achieve them. CIDA is providing some funding in the short term to assist civil society organizations in Africa to understand what NEPAD is about, and hopefully, this will be followed by some funding for organizations to engage in policy dialogue. But I think we have to look now also at how we're going to move forward, and there is some hesitation. It's a brand new thing.

I can't offer too much analysis on NEPAD beyond that. I've flagged some concerns, but also some optimism.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your presentation.

We're going to adjourn for a couple of minutes.

¸ (1500)

¹ (1503)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Hello. We are going to resume our deliberations. We will now hear from Mr. Charles Mugiraneza, Program Officer, Africa, Alternatives Canada. He is accompanied by Mr. Moussa Tchangari.

Mr. Mugiraneza, you have the floor. Perhaps you can start by explaining the role your organization plays in Africa, if you will.

¹ (1505)

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza (Program Officer, Africa, Alternatives Canada): Thank you very much for giving me the floor. As you said, my name is Charles Mugiraneza, and I am the Program Officer for sub-Saharan Africa at Alternatives Canada here in Montreal.

Alternatives is a Canadian non-governmental organization located here, in Montreal, and that works in the area of international development in cooperation with its partners. What sets Alternatives apart is that we really work with local organizations. We do not have field officers. We work with local organizations. That is why I am appearing today with Moussa Tchangari, who is Director of Alternatives in Niamey.

The main focus of our work is on capacity building with our partners so that they can be behind change in their countries. In the case of Alternatives, the work is mainly in the area of communications, because the organization was created after the National Conference in Nigeria. They try to reproduce Alternatives's information to inform the people. They have a paper called Alternative. With them, we set up an Internet Café for young people to enable them to learn how to use the Internet. For some time now, we have been trying to put together a kind of production to show videocassettes, again to continue providing information. For three years, we have been working together on globalization to try to inform the people about what is at stake.

The previous witness spoke a great deal about privatization, which is an alternative for them, in their country. They have spent a great deal of time working on the issue in order to get people to understand.

We also have a youth component with CIDA and Industry Canada. It was as part of this component that our young people went to support Alternatives to set up the Internet Café, for example. They do practicums.

Here at home, we focus much of our work on awareness and public information on globalization. We work in a network with other Quebec organizations as part of the...[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...and others.

So that is what Alternatives is about. We are supported by the Government of Canada through CIDA. We also receive support from the Quebec government through the ministère des Relations internationales et du Secrétariat à l'aide internationale.

We asked to appear this afternoon as part of the new initiative for Africa commonly called NEPAD. What interests us even more is that Alternatives Canada chairs a working group on combatting desertification. So my comments will focus mainly on the issue of combatting desertification.

I will not be telling you anything new by saying that the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 resulted in three conventions on the environment: the Climate Change Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention to Combat Desertification, a convention which has a rather African connotation to it, because it really was pulled off by the African groups who were in Rio.

This convention was negotiated between 1992 and 1995, accepted in 1995, and signed and ratified by a number of States. Canada was among the first western nations to sign and ratify the convention. Moreover, at the time, Canada even wanted the Secretariat in Montreal, but it did not work out. The Secretariat ended up in Bonn, but that was fortunate. The convention came into force in 1996, I think, and since then, there have been a number of conferences with the parties to implement the convention.

A request was made of countries that are affected by desertification to produce national reports on the state of a situation in their territory and to prepare national action programs so that these programs can be supported by donor countries.

I'm going to give you a bit of an idea of the current phenomena. On the African Continent, desertification is moving at a rate of eight kilometres per year. As you know, the economies of most African countries are heavily dependent on agriculture. As you can easily understand, with desertification advancing at a rate of eight kilometres a year, there's a huge loss of arable land, which causes the economies of African countries to lose $7 billion US per year.

From the human perspective, there is a migration flow of about nine million people due to desertification. You realize the consequences that are linked to this migration flow. I do not want to overwhelm you with the consequences of this phenomena. Whether it be the African communities or their partners, in other words us, we are joining forces to try and work on combating desertification.

¹ (1510)

In the case of Niger, we work closely with organizations such as Aman Iman, which concentrates on water issues. In Senegal, we work with various organizations and women's groups to fight desertification and soil [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Let's come back to the convention, a document which was signed and ratified by donor countries. At the Conference of the Parties in Bonn in 2000, 40 African countries had tabled their national action programs with a view to garnering the support of partner countries.

Last year, in Geneva, as you well know, Canada's representative, Mr. Charles Bassett, CIDA's Vice-President, was elected President of the Conference of the Parties. At that conference, 45 countries—five new countries had come on board—tabled their national action programs. This convention has been recognized as being an effective instrument, not only in the fight against desertification, but also in the fight against poverty. For the time being, people are focusing on the fight against poverty, but, unfortunately, none of the 45 national action programs which were tabled and which were jointly developed by civil society and governments received any support, whereas the two other conventions, the Climate Change Convention and the Convention on Biodiversity, received assistance from what is known as the GEF, the Global Environment Facility. In French, it is called the Fonds pour l'environnement mondial. These two conventions received $3 billion US from the GEF, which is based in Washington.

With the increasing pace of globalization, there is much focus on investment and within the framework of NEPAD, it is obvious that the emphasis is still on investment and infrastructure development, whereas the fight against poverty has become but a catch phrase which no one has truly embraced. We also have an instrument called the Convention to Combat Desertification, an instrument which was ratified by lending countries, but it seems to have been ignored by stakeholders and various lenders.

We are here to remind you of these things today and to ask the Canadian government, which will host the G-8 Summit this year, to try to put the issue on the table again. The Canadian government has never completely ignored the fight against desertification and we are therefore asking it to earmark part of the 5-million dollar Africa fund towards this goal.

Thank you.

¹ (1515)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much.

Mr. Tchangari, would you like to add a few words to what your colleague said?

Mr. Moussa Tchangari (Director (Niger), Alternatives Canada): Thank you.

I would like to add a few words, first regarding the fight against desertification, since my country, Niger, was one of the countries particularly affected by the Summit on Desertification. It is, after all, a Sahel country.

I simply want to mention that desertification has had terrible political repercussions. A few years ago, you may have heard of the Touareg rebellion in Niger.

This rebellion has also affected a country like Mali. It is one of the consequences of desertification. The drought led to the decline of the pastoral type of life, nomadic shepherds found themselves without any resources, with no other options. They took their donkeys and they left. This has had many consequences: for example, Niger now ranks last in the world in terms of human development. Some very alarming numbers have been provided in that regard by the UNDP.

That having been said, I would like to focus my presentation on the situation in Africa over the last two or three decades, ever since the adjustment policies were put into effect.

There have been very disastrous social consequences, especially from a health point of view. The sanitary system has regressed, the State has completely withdrawn and diseases are proliferating at a very alarming rate. Women and children are especially affected.

In terms of education, the educational system has completely deteriorated, and human resources development was essential in achieving development goals.

Within NEPAD, African heads of State, who themselves initiated this project and will soon be defending it at the G-8 Summit, here in Canada, feel that adjustment policies have only partially succeeded. That is the opinion of the heads of State. In terms of the civil society, we feel that these policies have completely failed. The failure of these structural adjustment policies was already noted in the 1990s, especially through the AAF-SAP, the African Alternative Framework to Structural Adjustment Programs.

The African Alternative Framework was developed with the support of the United Nations, by the Economic Commission for Africa. Alternative proposals were made, which have not been taken into account currenly by NEPAD. That is absolutely indecent. Throughout the world, everyone has seen that these adjustment policies failed and meanwhile our heads of State are suggesting that they be renewed, and they feel that today they are reliable partners for the western powers.

We feel that this reaction on the part of the heads of State is a reaction to a position that was still true a few years ago, that was upheld by western countries, that is that development assistance has to go through organizations, including non-governmental organizations, etc. Because the State was no longer reliable or capable of delivering this assistance to the people, they felt that they should be moving towards a more decentralized type of cooperation.

Today, the heads of State are saying that we now have reliable leaders, who are the result of free and democratic elections, and that we can now trust them. They say that essentially they agree with the policies we are proposing and that the international financial institutions are proposing, that is, the strategic framework programs for the fight against poverty, etc. They're asking for money to develop infrastructures and to create the necessary conditions for Africa to develop.

How will Africa develop? There has to be more investment. However, over all these past decades, drastic measures were taken, liberalization, privatization, etc. To encourage foreign investment that never happened. Today one could say that the investors are not interested despite all the guarantees that the African continent gave them.

From a social viewpoint, all the assets have been depleted. There's an enormous debt that the African countries can hardly pay back. In a country such as Niger, that faces enormous health and education problems, desertification, etc., almost 50 percent of the country's resources are being used to pay off the debt service.

¹ (1520)

In these conditions, we feel that it is very difficult to get development under way. So that is really our question.

The question that we are asking today in civil society is whether our partners in the north will continue to consider civil society, for example, as an essential partner in strengthening democracy and promoting development, given that the heads of State are saying that they are the ones that should be the partners from now on.

¹ (1525)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will now go to questions. Mr. Paquette, please.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I have a lot of points to cover. First of all, I would like to understand why, at the 2000 Party Conference in Bonn, there was no progress made regarding the convention. Is it because the donor countries felt that the national action programs were not concrete enough? Is it because it was no longer on the agenda? In order to understand how Canada can get this moving ahead at the G-8 Summit, and I hope that it will do so, we need to know what is actually blocking progress in this area. We have been talking a lot about civil society since the beginning of this meeting. I am pleased to meet someone who works at the grassroots level. Perhaps you could talk to us a little bit about how civil society is faring in various African societies.

With respect to the last question that you have raised, do you feel that the countries in the north should do their work through non-governmental organizations and not invest through State infrastructure, or should they avoid abandoning one for the other?

I support the idea of providing aid through organizations working on the front lines. I was with Oxfam-Quebec for a few years and I know that that is what works effectively. At the same time, in view of the efforts that have been made by African governments, should some aid now start to be provided through those governments?

I would have other questions to ask, among other things, about the causes of desertification. I am not an expert and I would have liked to know more about that. In any case, I feel that the most useful thing for us would be to understand where the blockage lies, and I would also like you to clarify the last part of your remarks.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Regarding the problems in Bonn, Mr. Mugiraneza.

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza: There are two things with respect to the national action programs in Bonn. The first, which I mentioned in my presentation, is that the other conventions benefited from a very clear financing window in the GEF, whereas in the case of the Convention to the Combat Desertification, an international mechanism was established with headquarters at the IFAD offices in Rome. The mandate of that institution is to guide countries and organizations that are looking for funding. They try to find out where to get money and then try to obtain it. So that is one factor.

The other, which I consider more of an ad hoc factor, in what happened in Bonn... I was there at the invitation of the Canadian government, as a non-government organization, since there is that latitude within CIDA. There was much more focus on the Secretariat's budget than on the national action programs. That took a great deal of time. But that was not why the national action program did not receive funding. The problem is that there is no identified, specific location that would allow for the financing of those programs.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: So Canada should promote a location of that kind.

Mr. Charles Mugiraneza: Yes, and to give you a better idea of what is going on, there are currently discussions underway for a spot to be created within the GEF for projects to combat desertification. So Canada, as an important player, has the means necessary to move the discussions forward.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Tchangari, please give a quick answer to the second part of Mr. Paquette's question on the state of civil society.

¹ (1530)

Mr. Moussa Tchangari: Firstly, I'll look at this question from one particular angle. Mr. Paquette asked me whether it should be civil society or the State which should be the partner of northern hemisphere countries.

In my opinion, I think that the State has a crucial role to play in terms of development. It must be at the heart of the matter. This is why we are opposed to privatization and unfettered liberalization which encourages states to completely pull out of social services. Consequently, states must play a crucial role.

We also believe that civil society plays an equally important role, especially in terms of promoting and strengthening democracy in various countries. In this regard, civil societies play a role which no other organizations can play. Civil society is also involved in development, because it is in a position to rally citizens and to encourage them to take control and to participate more fully. This particular role must be developed.

What I'm saying is that in terms of NEPAD, heads of state made no mention of the important role that can be played by civil society in the area of development and democratization. In light of the fact that only a few years ago, investors thought that aid should be channelled through civil society, we believe that the fact that heads of State failed to mention the important role of civil society may overshadow somewhat the role played by development partners and the support they often provide to NGOs on the ground. However, African civil society is growing. This is a new phenomenon because the process of democratization only began in most African countries approximately 10 years ago. We have a whole range of organizations which are being set up throughout the continent. Ordinary Africans are setting up organizations to address and to face difficulties which occur on a daily basis. Civil society in Africa is in its infancy and is only able to survive, mainly, through support provided by western countries, etc.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): A brief question, Ms. Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: It is noteworthy that Canada normally works with groups, and with civil society and not directly with governments. Indeed, Canada does talk on a government-to-government basis, but any financial assistance is not paid directly to these governments themselves. This assistance is always channelled through various groups, both Canadian and foreign, and I am sure that you are already aware of this since you have participated in various programs.

Have you thought about the role of the military in this whole matter? This issue is always a major one in poorer nations, which invest huge sums of money in their armies, often to the detriment of ordinary people.

Are there any organizations, especially in Niger, to address this type of spending?

Mr. Moussa Tchangari: I would not say that there are movements to fight this phenomenon, but we have been looking into this issue in a major way, especially in light of the fact that over the past few years the State, for example, was being pressurized by financial institutions, and as a result, had put an end to all public service hiring. Even in such areas as teaching and health, which are very important sectors, the State has stopped recruiting. Volunteers and community teachers are now being used. The only area where the State continues to take on people is the police and the army. Every year, a whole host of people are hired by the army and by the police.<

The police and the army do not play a role... In Niger, for example, these bodies were at the forefront of two military coups which hampered the democratic process. The police tortured people. Many unsavoury practices continue and the army remains a threat to the stability of elected government bodies. Given this situation, we have been looking into this issue in great depth. We feel that financial institutions are not interested in looking at military spending and security spending.

¹ (1535)

Ms. Diane Marleau: They are interested, let me tell you.

Mr. Moussa Tchangari: That's not the impression that I get, because what I am seeing is that enormous amounts of money are invested in the military to the detriment of social services.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I would like to thank our two witnesses for their presentation, which will be of great use to us in our work. Thank you, Mr. Mugiraneza and Mr. Tchangari.

We will adjourn for two minutes.

¹ (1531)

¹ (1533)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will now continue. We shall now hear from Ms. Désirée McGraw from the G-8 Research Group.

[English]

Mrs. McGraw, it's all yours.

Ms. Désirée McGraw (Director (Montreal), G8 Research Group): Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today. As mentioned, I am here on behalf of the G-8 Research Group, which, as you may know, because it listed in much of the background documentation, is the world's foremost independent source of information on the G-8. I am the Montreal director of that group, which is based at the University of Toronto Munk Centre for International Studies.

I'm wearing two other hats today, however. I also lecture at McGill University on globalization, particularly in a course called “Governing Globalization”. And I work as an independent consultant advising governments and intergovernmental organizations on international negotiations and communications.

My comments will pertain mainly to the G-8 agenda, but I also have, time permitting, some briefer comments on the North American integration issue. The first set of points I have to make pertain to the substance of the G-8 agenda. The second set of points have to do with process or governance issues, civil society involvement, etc. I'll try to be as concrete as possible. Most of these points are contained in a brief I believe you've already received.

Regarding the substance of the G-8 agenda itself, the first recommendation I would like to make is that Canada should make environment and sustainable development central issues at the G-8 leaders meeting in Kananaskis. Canada is uniquely positioned to promote environment and sustainable development issues through our current positions within key international organizations and associations, such as the G-8, with the Prime Minister Chrétien as the dean, the most long-standing member of the G-8, the G-20, with Finance Minister Martin as the founding chair, and the United Nations environment program, with Environment Minister Anderson as the president of the governing council. With these strategic positions, if Canada does not take a leadership role on environment and sustainable development, who will?

Second, at the G-8 environment ministers meeting, which is to be held in Banff in mid-April of this year, Canada should announce that it will be sending a high-level delegation, led by the Prime Minister, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Johannesburg in September. I had the privilege of serving on the Canadian delegation to the Rio summit in 1992, led by another Prime Minister. It was really a great source of honour to be a member of that delegation, and I'm very disappointed to see that our current Prime Minister hasn't made that early commitment. As we know, most of the preparatory negotiations for Johannesburg are taking place now. Canada should take a leadership role, and Chrétien should follow Tony Blair's lead, another prime minister who's very busy and has already committed himself to going, and announce that Canada will go, so that we can strengthen our negotiating position now, as our negotiators go to all the preparatory meetings.

I would see our announcement about going to Johannesburg with a delegation led by the Prime Minister fitting in with the G-8 agenda in several ways. First, the Johannesburg summit in September 2002 will take place one year after the terrorist attacks on the United States. This timing may serve to highlight Canada's concern for economic, environmental, and social dimensions of national, collective, and human security. This would fit in with the G-8 agenda item on international terrorism.

Second, the location in South Africa will reinforce Canada's commitment to sustainable development in Africa. As we know, $500 million was allocated in the most recent federal budget, and it is part of the Prime Minister's personal commitment, as I understand it, to the Kananaskis summit. This would fit in with the agenda item on building a new partnership for sustainable development in Africa.

Third, as I mentioned before, most of the decisions to be adopted in Johannesburg are already being negotiated during a series of preparatory meetings. In order to strengthen our country's stature in these preparations, Canada should immediately commit itself to sending a high-level delegation to the summit comprised of key cabinet ministers, not only those with environmental portfolios, but perhaps more importantly, those with social and economic ones, to highlight the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development. This would include our Ministers of Finance, Industry, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Human Resources, Health, Heritage, etc. And of course, the Prime Minister should follow, as I mentioned, Tony Blair's example by himself undertaking to lead this delegation.

My third point is that both the G-8 meetings and the World Summit on Sustainable Development provide Canada with an ideal opportunity to re-establish its role as an environmental champion. In the ten years since Rio--and I think we all know this--Canada's environmental record, both at home and abroad, has deteriorated considerably. At least, this was the consensus that emerged from a meeting of Canada's top environmental opinion leaders, including Maurice Strong and Elizabeth Dowdswell, who met at McGill University last spring. Canada is widely regarded as having gone from environmental leader to environmental laggard. While we had no problem signing on to general framework agreements on biodiversity and climate change in Rio, we have subsequently stalled on stricter and more substantive subagreements, whether it be the biosafety protocol to the bodiversity convention or the Kyoto protocol to the framework convention on climate change, and I could add to that, following our previous speaker, the convention on desertification, which followed the Rio summit.

¹ (1540)

To answer a question posed by Diane Marleau this morning about Kyoto, regarding the U.S. position, as you may have seen in the National Post today, on the front page there was an article about the billions of dollars of lost Canadian industry if Canada were to sign on. I'm quite sure the first Alliance question in question period will have something to do with the Kyoto protocol. What I'd like to say is that the Kyoto protocol isn't just a test of our environmental commitment, it's a test of whether Canada's a bilateral player or a multilateral player. So the fact that last July we held out against the United States on this key issue and sided with the rest of the world I think is very important. As you may recall, George Bush Sr., in Rio, indicated that the United States would not sign the biodiversity convention, because the U.S. took its commitments “too seriously” to sign on. And that's exactly what they're saying with Kyoto now, with George Bush Jr. Nonetheless, under Mulroney, Canada signed and was the first industrialized country to ratify biodiversity. I hope that under this Prime Minister we do this on climate change with Kyoto.

Despite several debt relief initiatives, Canada has yet to devote 0.7 percent to its GDP to official development assistance. This was a U.N. target originally set by Prime Minister Pearson in the late 1960s. Madame Marleau can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we're somewhere at 0.25 percent of GDP. So despite the recent initiative, it doesn't quite cut it, because we're not even at really one-third of what we really should have been doing for 30 years.

Even those issues Canada does spearhead tend to reinforce the country's reputation as process-oriented rather than action-oriented. For example, our choice to champion “international environmental governance”, which Minister Anderson is leading right now, has led to criticism that Canada is more interested in crafting international institutions and agreements than in actually enforcing and implementing them. These implementation gaps have led to a serious credibility gap for Canada on environment and sustainable development, not only among other countries, but among our own citizens. The environment consistently polls as a core issue among Canadians. Not only is it central to our national economy and identity, but environmental matters, such as water and energy, are fast becoming the major national security issues of this century. Thus, the environment is not a matter this or any government can afford to ignore or trivialize. So I see G-8 as an opportunity for Canada to re-establish its leadership role between now and Johannesburg.

The second part of my comments pertains to process, the whole governance issue. As part of the G-8's role in meeting global governance challenges, which is one of the items listed in the background material, Canada should actively promote fundamental democratic practices and principles, such as greater transparency and accountability, with an international institution, such as the G-8 and the G-20. With globalization, matters that directly affect Canadians' lives are increasingly addressed in international bodies to which officials are generally appointed by governments, rather than democratically elected by citizens.

I step back for a second. One of the things I do in my consulting practice and in my teaching is try to democratize and demystify international decision-making processes for regular students and citizens. One of the things I have found is that students nowadays who are politically engaged are not addressing their efforts to national parliaments, they are addressing them at the international level. Part of this is a reflection of the emaciation of our national parliamentary system. So not only do we need to engage civil society, we need to engage our elected officials, our parliamentarians, in these globalization processes. And I have some concrete recommendations, which I probably won't have time to get into, but I will leave for you.

¹ (1545)

In order to ensure real and meaningful input from civil society in preparing its position at these meetings, the Government of Canada should undertake public consultations across the country well in advance of high-level summits. I realize this is part of what you're trying to do with this committee, and I applaud you for that. However, current consultations regarding the G-8 agenda are being undertaken less than four months prior to the leaders summit, and indeed, after the G-8 finance ministers have already met. We know that many of the issues are already set in stone for the leaders meeting. So this timing does not allow, I would argue, for meaningful input in formulating Canada's position and agenda, thereby reinforcing skepticism about the real effectiveness of such consultations.

I'm not questioning the value of these consultations, I think they're essential. What I would encourage is that the timing be well in advance, so that people can actually influence the agenda, not after the finance ministers, for example, who we know are the key ones, have already met.

Multilateral bodies and decision-making processes involving trade, finance, and investment are widely regarded as both more flexible and expeditious than negotiations on the environment and human rights, largely conducted under that very cumbersome body known as the United Nations. However, if transparency and accountability are counted as criteria, i.e., if democracy is counted as a criterion, the former trade and economic institutions are not necessarily more effective than the latter. Indeed, economic bodies might well benefit from some of the means for engaging civil society employed by their social and environmental counterparts. I don't think the situation needs to be as complicated as it is, or as controversial. They need only look to the UN and other decision-making forums, where they have much more sophisticated means for effectively engaging civil society.

For example, in preparing its national report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, this federal government undertook national public consultations as early as last October, almost one full year prior to the summit itself. This timing allowed Canadians to truly provide input into the national report and inform its position, not only at the summit, but in many of the preparatory meetings, during which most of the key issues are being negotiated.

Global institutions, such as the United Nations, for all of its weaknesses--and we acknowledge them--have a far more sophisticated system for accreditation of media and civil society organizations. For example, whereas the most recent meeting of the G-20, which was held in Ottawa--in which I had an opportunity to participate--only had two categories of delegates, governments and media, UN processes have a wide range of categories, each with its own level of access. Because the media do not have direct access to government delegates at G-8 and G-20 meetings, they must rely on carefully scripted press conferences and communiqués for information. This lack of direct access forces the media to turn outside the official summit process for interviews and visual images, thus reinforcing, and perhaps exaggerating, the role of protestors. This skewed media coverage, carved in part by the very people who organize these economic summits, is counterproductive and diminishes the transparency and accountability of the global decision-making process. In so doing, it reduces the quality of discussion, and ultimately democracy, regarding globalization issues among average citizens. In other words, because the media are not able to effectively cover what goes on inside, they turn to the outside, and the average citizen and reader is done a great disservice, because they don't know what's going on on the inside. So this democratic deficit, as it's called, needs to be addressed.

Those are my substantive points. There's a list of ten specific additional concrete points about improving access and opening things up to civil society in Kananaskis, a paper written by the director of our research group. I will leave this copy; it gets quite specific. But since I've already taken up I think over 15 minutes talking, I'd like to turn it to questions.

Perhaps I'll make one other point. I guess it's in the second part, recommendations regarding the North American relationship. I speak here as a citizen of Canada and the United States, as a dual citizen. Since September 11 in particular the Government of Canada has adopted a number of ad hoc policies that tie our country more closely to American policies. In order to redress this incremental and reactive approach to integration, Canada should engage in a full-scale national debate. I hope your report will serve as a basis, in part, for that. I'm concerned that it may be too late. In an article you have there my former employer Tom Axworthy calls for the convening of a very high-level meeting of key Canadian thinkers, activists, and decision-makers as soon as possible, so that we can take a long-term, comprehensive approach to these issues with the Americans, not this ad hoc, reactive approach. We're going to be committing ourselves. We may be making the right decisions, we may not, but we're tying ourselves to things that we will not be able to reverse.

¹ (1555)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you for your presentation.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Firstly, on the issue of North American integration, I should just like to point out that the debate has been kicked off and that we intend to have everything wrapped up for next fall. Consequently, I think that we will have another opportunity to hear from you again, perhaps within the framework of the full committee.

I would just like to focus on what you said on the G-8. You said two things in fact. I agree with you wholeheartedly at this juncture when you say that the agenda has already been set, and as such promoting sustainable development without taking into account the three points on the agenda could—and this is my concern here—mean that the debate would deal only with Kyoto, and that there would be no mention of Africa which, in any case in my opinion, is perhaps the only new area that will be dealt with at the summit. However, if we are looking at Africa we inevitably have to discuss sustainable development. Consequently, that is the way I see things, but I'd like to know what your opinion would be on all this because, within the next few weeks, we will have to provide a report to the Prime Minister. As a result, we will have to develop a position based on what you propose.

There's also the whole issue of transparency and the participation of civil society. I think that this issue must be given a great deal of thought. I was a member of the CSN for 13 years and as such, I always sought to include civil society—as all politicians should be—in the preparatory initiatives for summits.

However, it was never easy to come up with ways of meeting the needs of all the various groups. For example, in your statement, you said that this committee is undertaking consultations. We are indeed consulting, because we were asked to do so by the minister and the Prime Minister. We will be producing a report on this issue also. However, I feel that the issue at hand is much more fundamental than that. What I mean is that over the past few decades—and this is not specifically a Canadian phenomenon— we have seen a shift of power away from parliaments towards the executive. This has meant that when we table our reports, we will be just as frustrated as you are because we will not know prior to the conference what the Prime Minister intends to do with that report.

You probably know that the House of Commons is not involved in the treaty ratification process in any way. Therefore, don't you think that this issue should be given serious in-depth consideration, both at a civil society and parliamentary level?

As for the rest of what you said, I fully support you.

[English]

Ms. Désirée McGraw: On the first point, I agree. The focus would become Kyoto. You're right about that, I think, strategically. But I think we can use maybe the environment ministers meeting in Banff for the Prime Minister to announce that he is going to Johannesburg. Because development for Africa is already on the G-8 agenda, we can come at the issue that way, so the emphasis is on development, not just environment. I'm talking more about an announcement as soon as possible, and I think the environment ministers meeting is a good opportunity to do that, while the major decisions in Johannesburg are being negotiated.

I'm also going to leave with you a copy of a speech by Kofi Annan, who spoke at my old school, the London School of Economics, on Monday. He talked about from Doha to Johannesburg.

On the second point, of course, it's a major reflection that needs to take place. It isn't just about the marginalization of civil society, it is about parliamentarians. Average parliamentarians are totally out of the whole globalization process and the decision-making process. You're our elected officials, and it seems to me that unless Parliament is able to become more effective in global decision-making, civil society, regular citizens, will feel the need to go directly to these summits. We should be able to go through our members of Parliament. So I agree, and this ten-point plan you will get, outlines pretty concretely, using APEC and the NAFTA as examples, how parliamentarians are involved through different councils. So why not apply that to G-8?

As one final point, the G-8, as it was originally conceived, is not just the world's leading industrialized countries, it's the world's leading democracies. So civil society protesters, G-8 citizens, have every right to ask the summit to take up and solve any problem they or their communities face, because the G-8 or the G-7, as it defined itself originally, established by Henry Kissinger, is for leading democracies. You can't have those countries appropriate that term unless they're prepared to be democratic in their decision-making processes.

º (1600)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madame Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: You raise some wonderful points, but unfortunately, security issues are so much a part of the lives of these leaders that there's an even greater difficulty, and my fear is that you're going to have even less access than you've had before, all because of security.

Your point is well taken about the press. If they have nothing else to show, they will show what's going on outside, but I happen to believe that if it's a pretty strong action outside, they'll go there first, even if they have access to other things, because it's more structured.

I would like us to push the Prime Minister to go to Johannesburg. Has he given an answer?

Ms. Désirée McGraw: Yes. I have a letter from him here.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Is he just considering it? Is he not going? Or is it just his staff saying he's too busy? It's important for us to know. We could push him to go, yes, that's one thing we could do.

Ms. Désirée McGraw: First, I agree, the media will always be drawn to bloodshed and bombs and bullets, which are much easier to cover, because of the visuals. But the organizers of these summits are not very clever, I'm sorry to say, because they make it very easy for the media to do that, by giving them no access. It's all done through communiqués and very carefully controlled press conferences. So they make it that much easier, and it's a real disservice to average citizens, who then have no idea what's going on. It just reinforces the cynicism about the closed, non-transparent nature of these so-called democracies that are meeting. I will be going to Kananaskis as a member of the research group, because our group works on the inside. We're not protesters, we're independent analysts.

On the Chrétien question, through my MP Marlene Jennings, I've prepared a package, and through the Liberal Party, a resolution was adopted, at least in my riding and the Quebec Women's Commission, calling on Chrétien to go. I'll leave you a copy of that resolution, as well as resolutions we've worked on Kyoto and genetically-modified food, the two implementing sub-agreements to Rio. Marlene Jennings wrote a letter based on my resolution to Chrétien In December, and he responded in January, very quickly, saying, yes, it's a very important and I hope to go.

So we hope you go, but I'll be honest, as a Liberal, I'm disappointed to see my leader hasn't taken leadership, at least in principle. It is disappointing for me to have been a member of the Canadian delegation under Mulroney and to have seen much greater leadership there than under this government. Environment is a core value for Canadians. We cannot afford to ignore it, and I can tell you, you cannot afford to ignore it among younger generations.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I've got one small question. You understand, of course, the dynamics between the provincial governments and the federal government. Have you got any suggestions about how to handle this? As you know, we did sign on to the Kyoto protocol, but we now have the challenge of working with other jurisdictions who have some jurisdiction over what we've signed. Some may agree, some may not.

Ms. Désirée McGraw: We could discuss this at length perhaps afterwards. Canada is caught between, on the international level, its bilateral commitments with the U.S., as opposed to multilateral arrangements, and domestic differences among the various provinces, Alberta and Quebec being the main opponents on this. We could create in Canada something such as they have internationally, called the Global Environment Facility, which, as you know, is jointly run by the World Bank and two UN agencies.They compensate developing countries for environmentally sustainable development. So when developing countries forgo a more environmentally polluting way of developing, which is cheaper, they are compensated. Could we not establish some kind of similar fund in Canada, where we compensate provinces that forgo cheaper or more lucrative developments, say coal or fossil fuels in Alberta, for the profits they normally would have had?

I think there are ways around it. We're going to have to be creative. But it does become political, in Alberta with the Alliance, in Quebec with the Bloc Québécois. Obviously, you're far more aware of the complexities than I am. I think we have to be creative about this, because the Canadian government recognizes, as Anderson said in his speeches, that global warming is happening, and we have to deal with it. There are the provinces to consider, but are we going to continue to develop at the expense of our children and our grandchildren? That's really what it boils down to.

º (1605)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Merci.

I just have one question. I take the opportunity to say that all of us on this committee, and my colleagues also who are not here, are all for transparency, there's no doubt about it. Also, we'd like to have the presence of civil society. But look at the previous summit. It's so large now that our government wants to get it much smaller in Kananaskis. You're lucky, you're going to be inside. Even parliamentarians won't attend in this way. Maybe our chair will be invited, because the chair of our committee is usually invited. But how do you handle this? How can civil society be invited? Who is going to be invited, if it's to be civil society?

Also, do you have any access to the sherpa process? Is it possible? I'd like you to just comment briefly about it.

Ms. Désirée McGraw: Thank you for that.

The fourth point in this ten-point program is to include parliamentarians. Honestly, there is a fixation on the summit, because it is a media event, it is a high-level political event. However, we all know that by the time you get to a summit, the decisions are made, essentially. There are intense negotiations between the leaders. That's okay. I think leaders can be leaders and they can negotiate amongst themselves, but the process surrounding these summits well in advance.... For example, I would encourage Canada to set an example at Kananaskis. You've had a consultation process--a little late, admittedly, but you've had one--in the lead up to this. So say, from now on Canada will have, for every year, ongoing consultation processes for the leaders summit, for the environment agenda, for the finance ministers right away, and encourage other countries to join in, so that you're setting that example.

As for involving parliamentarians concretely, again, I will leave you a copy of this, because I think it's important at this point to get into concrete suggestions. There's a part that says:

As the Summit of the Americas and the G-8 system are for Canada and the U.S. the only genuine international institution centred on institutionalized plurilateral summitry, in which all participants are democratically and popularly elected leaders, it is clear that the G-8 should join the Americas in bringing parliamentarians into the process.

There are three very detailed paragraphs on how, within APEC and within NAFTA, parliamentarians are involved on an ongoing basis, through advisory councils, meetings amongst each other on different issue areas. For example, this committee would meet with its counterparts in other G-8 countries, so that it's not just at the ministers level, but regular parliamentarians have an opportunity to represent citizens. Then I think citizens would feel you're doing what you've been elected to do.

As decision-making moves from national parliaments to international decision-making bodies, we're all going to have to become, citizens, media, and parliamentarians, much more sophisticated about not just the substance of these meetings, but the process, the way in which they occur. As much as it's frustrating at times, I think it's a very exciting time for the democratization of global decision-making. There are growing pains, as there were nationally, but hopefully, we're heading in the right direction.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. It was very impressive. Thank you for your presentation.

We'll adjourn for two minutes.

º (1605)

º (1610)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will now resume our meeting.

[English]

As a witness we have Mr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

Welcome, Mr. Edwards. You have the floor.

Mr. Gordon Edwards (President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility): Thank you very much.

I regret that I don't have a good presentation prepared in written form, for circumstances that are too silly to recount.

I'd like to raise a question that may be seen as a little tangential to your immediate concerns, but I think should not be tangential to anybody's concerns, and this is the important question about plutonium in the world. In the light of the terrorist attacks of September, one can only wonder what is next. Of course, one of the things that immediately springs to mind is nuclear weapons of different kinds. It has been known for a long time that plutonium is the key ingredient necessary to make cheap atomic bombs--relatively cheap; we're talking here in the area of under $1 million for an atomic bomb. The accessibility of plutonium has, until fairly recently, been very strictly limited. It is only available to weapon states or near weapon states. Lately, we have had great concerns over the possible leakage of plutonium from, for example, the ex-Soviet Union, because of lack of adequate security measures, etc.

This is a very serious problem. Plutonium, it has to be realized, is a man-made substance, and as such, it's unavailable in nature. If you want to get plutonium, you have to go to some place where it is stored or has been made. Basically, any nuclear reactor in the world has stockpiles of plutonium in the form of spent nuclear fuel; no matter what the purpose of the reactor is, it produces plutonium as an inevitable by-product. Since that plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years, it's going to be available long after the reactor is forgotten, demolished, rubble. Any time in the next several thousand years anybody can, presumably, extract that plutonium from the spent nuclear fuel and use it to fabricate atomic bombs. This is a very serious problem, and it's one I fear the governments of the world have really not been able to deal with well up to the present time. Now that Canada is becoming directly involved in this question, I believe there must be some forum for responsible discussion, some forum for what Canada's policies with regard to this should be.

Unfortunately, successive governments, for whatever reasons, including the present government, have really shut the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada out of discussions about nuclear policies, by and large. By this I mean decisions regarding civilian nuclear power, export of nuclear reactors, promotion and sales of uranium around the world, etc. These things are simply not a matter of political discussion in this country, and never really have been.

Under Bill Graham, who is now, of course, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the previous foreign affairs committee did issue a number of recommendations, and they took it upon themselves to issue a recommendation regarding plutonium, which the government promptly disregarded, basically saying it's outside the mandate of the committee. I think it was good that the committee looked at it, however fleetingly. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which is promoting the use of plutonium in Canada for civilian nuclear reactors, CANDU reactors, have likewise dismissed the work of the previous standing committee, saying, well, they didn't really do a proper inquiry, and of course, they're not going to be given a mandate to do a proper inquiry. I really think this is a lamentable state of affairs, because it is, in fact, one of the most important questions having to do with the sustainability of civilization in the face of future terrorist threats and accessibility of plutonium.

º (1615)

To my knowledge, the only world leader who had any training in nuclear science was President Carter. President Carter was a nuclear engineer who served in the navy, and he knew the basics of nuclear science. He also came to Chalk River to clean up after a disastrous nuclear accident there in 1952. He was one of 400 military personnel. When he came to the presidency, he was perhaps less easily buffaloed by technical advisers. At any rate, he took a strong stand against the civilian use of plutonium, on the ground that to put this stuff into civilian circulation is just asking for a nightmare. Once you get plutonium commercially traded and commercially used as a fuel, not only in one country, but around the world, you really have lost effective control over the plutonium. Any criminal organization or any terrorist group that is worth anything can get their hands on this material. There's nothing that's commercially traded that isn't accessible to criminals.

Unfortunately, Canada, I think, is on the verge of contributing towards creating a green light signal for the commercialization of plutonium, through the wishes of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the stated intentions of the present government, welcoming the idea of sending tons of plutonium to Canada from dismantled warheads in the Soviet Union, or possibly in the Untied States of America, to be used as fuel in CANDU reactors.

The real danger here is, first, bad information. Various ministers of the crown have made statements that are unsupportable in the face of what we know about nuclear materials. For example, it appears that various people in the Canadian government at various levels of responsibility have been informed--or I would rather say misinformed--that some types of plutonium are good for bombs and some types are not. This is a myth, a dangerous myth. It's something that has been promulgated in various countries by promoters of nuclear power and by promoters of the plutonium option, the idea of using plutonium as fuel. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has issued numerous publications since the mid-1970s strenuously debunking this myth and pointing out that you can make a very powerful nuclear weapon from any grade of plutonium whatsoever.

Within the last year I was on a podium with an ex-official from the Atomic Energy Control Board, and he was shocked to learn from me that you could make a very powerful weapon from what's called pure plutonium 240. I don't want to get into the technical details, but the point is that most people in the nuclear industry, and I believe most people in government, have been told and believe you cannot make a bomb from plutonium 240. They also believe that if the plutonium 240 is mixed with plutonium 239, the material eventually becomes useless for bombs. This, to the best of my knowledge and from the best of our research efforts over the last 25 years, is totally false and a very dangerous myth, and if it's at the highest levels of government, it's particularly dangerous.

I have a whole dossier on this that I could make available to the committee, but the most important thing, in my opinion, is to have some kind of open process whereby responsible evidence can be put forward, cross-examined, and the facts can be made known, so that decisions are not being made on the basis of misunderstanding, bad information, or false hopes that something is a solution that may not be a solution.

In short, as you know, there are samples of weapons grade plutonium that been imported from Russia and the United States, which are now at Chalk River, Ontario, and are now being tested in the form of MOX fuel at Chalk River. We now have a period of a couple of years grace in which it may be possible to have a rational debate about various options and policies Canada should have with regard to plutonium. I think, if we miss this opportunity, we will have missed probably the only opportunity we're going to get. If we wait until the tests are finished and it's once again a political football, which it isn't at the moment--it's quiet right now--I think the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada are going to be disenfranchised, and these decisions are going to be made without any real regard to what people in Canada wish.

º (1620)

Once the commitment is made to import tonnes of weapons plutonium to use as CANDU fuel, I think that's a course we're going to be committed to for decades to come, not only decades to come, but millennia to come, because, as I said, that plutonium that is used as fuel in CANDU reactors does not disappear. Up to two-thirds of the plutonium remains in the spent fuel, and it'll become Canada's problem, not Russia's problem, for the next umpteen thousand years. On the generous side, between half and two-thirds of the plutonium that is incorporated into fuel to be burned in CANDU reactors remains in the spent fuel. Only a fraction of it gets burned. We're talking here about thousands of warheads worth of plutonium. So, for example, instead of maybe having 10,000 warheads worth of plutonium, in the spent fuel you only have perhaps 5, 000 or 6,000 or 7,000 warheads worth of plutonium, but that's still an enormous security risk.

The main point here, if I may speak bluntly, is that there is a very powerful international nuclear industry that has its hopes pinned on using plutonium for a fuel for the future. This has always been the avowed interest of the nuclear power industry from the very beginning, from day one. Back in the seventies President Carter upset the apple cart, because he banned plutonium recycling in the United States of America, and he also pushed very hard to have it banned worldwide. We don't have a President Carter today. I'm not saying President Carter was great in all respects, I'm simply saying that he, I think, knew what he was talking about when he talked about plutonium. Unfortunately, in the world today I believe many governments are being given advice by their nuclear advisers, who are from the nuclear industry or getting their advice from people in the nuclear industry in the respective countries. This is an unhealthy situation. It's a very dangerous situation. If we allow widespread use of plutonium in the civilian economy, I very much fear for the sustainability of our future society.

That's it.

º (1625)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: If I understood correctly what you said in your presentation, you are asking the committee to kick off discussions on the use of--

[English]

Mr. Gordon Edwards: Am I asking the committee to initiate the debate? After 25 years of trying to contribute to a rational debate on this subject, I feel it's more or less a plea for somebody somewhere to do something to try to get a rational debate going in this country. I'm afraid there has been such polarization and such attribution of motives that the Government of Canada seems to perceive people, very loyal Canadians, who have a lot of good information to present and a lot of good considerations to raise, almost as enemies of the state for not being pro-nuclear. It's as if it's disloyal to be anti-nuclear. In fact, why is it not disloyal to be pro-nuclear?

The fact of the matter is that we have serious problems and we should listen to all sides. That's what democracy is all about. You don't say, we'll listen to the government's side, but not listen to the opposition, I hope. We need to have an opposition. In this country there has been no opposition officially recognized on the nuclear question, and there should be, because without it, we're going to make some very serious mistakes, in addition to some very serious mistakes we've made in the past, such as letting India develop its first atomic bomb using Canadian technology and turning a blind eye to what was going on very plainly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Madame Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: There has been extensive debate in Canada on the MOX fuel issue.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: Not officially.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Officially, for sure. I and some of my colleagues in northern Ontario had an open meeting, where we invited the public. We also organized a trip to Chalk River to have the population understand the processes, neither for nor against, just to let them know what was going on. So I'm aware of quite a bit of debate in many areas on this issue.

I will say to you that the question is still out there. There is a test going on at Chalk River right now. As to whether it will continue and we will do more, no one knows, that decision has not been taken.

My next point is this. I happen to know there are thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads sitting sometimes at the bottom of the ocean in rotting submarines, stockpiled all over the place, especially in the former USSR, with very little accountability. Knowing the black market in armaments, I would say to you that if it came down to having us find a way of disarming these nuclear devices and using the material in some way to make it less accessible to populations, I don't think I would be averse to it. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, but I do know there is a substantial problem and the world is not discussing it, nor are we doing much about it.

So while your concerns are valid, the question remains whether we burn it as mock fuel. What do we do with the existing stockpile of nuclear warheads? They're there.

º (1630)

Mr. Gordon Edwards: I think that's something that should be debated, and it has not been debated in Canada at all. I would venture to say that with the public meeting you're referring to, the one in Sudbury, there were no transcripts kept, there was no opportunity for cross-examination.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Of course there was. People came, asked questions. I was there.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: Well, you have a different idea of public process than I do. Frankly, those meetings were--

Ms. Diane Marleau: Professor, if an open meeting with questions and answers isn't an open meeting, what is?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Let him answer, please.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: I would characterize them as very low-level public relations exercises designed to smooth the waters after having agitated people by springing it on them as a surprise that this plutonium was going to be coming in, perhaps through their communities. There had to be a certain amount of PR work. But there's the matter of providing people with solid information or giving them a chance to debate the options, the very options you're talking about. What do we do with this plutonium? That's exactly what our group would like to see discussed.

Ms. Diane Marleau: We definitely should have that discussion, but we're not there yet. I'm sure we will.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: This is exactly the kind of thing that happens. Instead of having a rational debate, instead of having a forum where a rational debate is possible, we have basically one side saying this is the way it's got to be, the other side saying this is the way it's got to be. There's no rational debate there. There's no forum in which you can have a rational debate. I'm sorry, but those public meetings do not at all qualify, in my mind, as an opportunity for a rational debate of the options.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Well, that's your opinion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Edwards, I cannot be the referee. We can only thank you. I was part of the committee when we had this study under Mr. Graham, and we're proud of what we did at that time. For sure, it was not all accepted. I could tell you that some other countries use it. Sometimes our Prime Minister or other ministers use it. But I think there's a lot to be done on this, and I fully agree with you. We should have a forum with rational debate about this.

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: I apologize to the committee for bringing this up, if you don't want to discuss it, but I must say--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You don't have to apologize.

Mr. Gordon Edwards: --that I think, despite what Madam Marleau has said, this country's record, the lack of responsible debate about these important issues, which are going to affect Canadians for many generations to come, and not only Canadians, is really deplorable. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll adjourn for two minutes.

º (1629)

º (1633)

º (1635)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We shall now welcome our final witnesses of the day from the Front démocratique social du Cameroun. Ms. Félicité Tchapda is accompanied by Marie-Thérèse Ngachou and Mr. Alain Deugoue.

Could you please introduce yourselves and go ahead with your presentation. Thank you.

Ms. Félicité Tchapda (President, Social Democratic Front (Cameroun)) First of all, we would like to thank you for the invitation because determining what the opinion of the public is with respect to the G-8 agenda is demonstrating a great deal of open-mindedness.

We represent the Social Democratic Front, which is called the Front démocratique social in French. This is the official opposition party in Cameroun. We are a unit in this party and we work in close cooperation with [Editor's Note: Inaudible] in Cameroun. We are appearing before you today quite simply because African development is on the agenda of the G-8 and Cameroun is a country in Africa.

Africa is a continent made up of many countries, each with its own laws, culture and way of living. This diversity is one of the obstacles that the G-8 and its members will have to deal with in order to come up with solutions to the problems undermining this continent, this continent which is and will remain the cradle of humanity. It would be preferable for the G-8, for Canada, to understand the problems that undermine each African country individually before trying to come up with an in-depth solution. It is important that the specific nature of the problems facing each country be understood.

The way that problems have been resolved by large organizations, such as the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, which was limited to donations and loans, did not achieve the results that the people were hoping for. For decades, only the government and a handful of individuals derived any benefit from this aid. Today Africa is entering the third millennium with dictators and economic and social misery. Using AIDS as an example, out of the 33 million people in the world who are HIV positive, 22 million can be found in Africa. Civil wars, genocide and tribalism are also evils that undermine African countries in this day and age.

Out of all these burdens that Africa is dragging behind her as it enters the third millennium, we will focus on the situation in Cameroun, our country of origin. Cameroun, which is located in central Africa, has a population of nearly 15 million people over a territory of 475,000 kilometres. There are nearly 250 ethnic groups.

On the political front, the democratic process has been blocked. The government in power leads by intimidation, torture and arbitrary arrest. Constitutional stalling prevails in Cameroun. There are two constitutions: the one from 1972 and the one from 1996. The 1996 Constitution enabled the president to extend his term in office from five to seven years and to make it renewable. Moreover, he is manipulating these two constitutions as he sees fit and to his advantage. The election and the reports are altered by prefects and sub-prefects; voters can't get their names put on the voter list; we have witnessed a rise in insecurity and crime; and the opposition parties are not allowed to hold demonstrations and meetings.

Everything looks as though all is going well in Cameroun, that the prevailing stability of Cameroun is the work of this great man, Nijohn Frundi, national president of the Social Democratic Front. He said: “When war starts, one never knows when it is going to end”. In the SDF we are striving to achieve democracy, justice and equality of all Cameroonians.

Many civilians have been tried by a military court rather than a civilian court. We obtained this information from a 2001 report produced by the ICFTU, in Geneva. Forced labour and prostitution are extremely widespread amongst the children. The government meddles in union activities and discriminates in deciding which unions are allowed to participate in collective bargaining. This meddling also occurs amongst the NGOs, thereby infringing on the citizens' basic rights.

On the economic front, Cameroonians of which 80 percent are depending on agriculture are staggering under the weight of misery ever since commodity prices for cocoa and coffee dropped. As for the public servants, the 70 percent salary reduction, under the pretext of meeting the requirements of Bretton Woods institutions, was merely a coup de grâce. As a result of the government's actions, the buying power of the people dropped exponentially as the price of market goods and drugs rose.

On the social front, AIDS is growing at an alarming rate. Prevalence of the disease has risen from 1 percent between 1985 and 1990 to 11 percent in 2000 and this is only an estimate made by the AIDS prevention committee. Diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and typhoid, which were once endemic, have now become epidemic.

Much needs to be improved in the area of education and yet education is required to train the future workers of a country.

We are experiencing all these problems, and yet we see no concrete intervention strategy that has been put forward by the government. From 1982 to 1998, Cameroun received more than $7 billion in aid. We know today that our country is poorer now than it was back in 1964, according to the World Bank. Under Mr. Biya's reign, Cameroun has gone from being a middle income country to a poor and extremely indebted country. It should be noted that more than half of the urban population is living below the poverty line. In more concrete terms, Douala, the economic capital of Cameroun has seen its operational budget go from 2 billion to 12 billion CFA francs, but today it has fewer passable roads than it did back in 1960.

º (1640)

Paradoxically, it would therefore appear that indebtedness and an increase in aid have, in the case of Cameroun, led to misery. It is time to acknowledge the parallelism that exists between, on the one hand, dictatorship and poverty, and, on the other hand, democracy and development.

Our analysis has shown that only good governance can resolve the evils besetting Cameroun. We are recommending the establishment of an independent electoral board with legal and legislative powers that will be in force from the time that the voters' list is prepared until the proceedings are drafted; the establishment of a constitutional State; the implementation of a policy in education, training and research that will result in the use of new technologies; the provision of free potable water, as was the case before Mr. Biya came into power; the construction of schools and hospitals in remote regions; an increase in the price of commodities on the world market and the promotion of such goods; stoppage of forced labour, trafficking and prostitution amongst children; the right to strike for workers in both the private and public sectors.

Cameroun must ratify and implement ILO convention numbers 138 and 182. Up until now, it is the dictators who have benefited from aid. Should we continue loaning to a dictatorial and corrupt government? Donor countries must take steps to monitor the situation to ensure that the money is being used for the good of the people.

As a result of the past failures of some large organizations who wanted, in good faith, to resolve our problems, we are suggesting to the G-8 and to Canada that the following strategies be used: create an international G-8 commission that has legal power and that is able to prosecute any individual or group of individuals that divert aid intended for needy people; draft a convention specifying the conditions to be met by each country in order to be entitled to assistance and ensure that each country ratifies it; specify the competency requirements for projects.

An in-depth study of the projects submitted must be assessed by experts. This same group as well as a group not involved with the project must do follow up and monitoring.

Thank you.

º (1645)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Ms. Tchapda. Do your two colleagues have anything that they wish to add or can we now proceed with questions?

I had the privilege of visiting your country. I was not in Douala, but in Yaoundé, and it is true that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in your country. I have some very personal opinions on the matter but today we are hearing from the committee. Consequently, we will now give the floor to Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for your presentation and for appearing today.

You began by saying that Africa comprised many countries, each with its own culture and features, which is true, of course, for such a big continent, and you preferred taking a country by country approach. But at the same time, you suggest that there be a convention which, obviously, should be ratified country by country but which should contain more or less the same basic elements. As far as the G-8 meeting is concerned, perhaps the countries, which are often donor countries, countries that have influence on international organizations, should come to some agreement on a certain number of common points. If I have understood you correctly, you said that regardless of what country we're talking about, there has to be a constitutional state either in place or underway.

As regards the debt, do you think that Canada should be promoting, under certain conditions, elimination of the debt?

There is also the matter of the type of aid. Do you favour aid through NGOs, or, given that the state, Cameroon in particular, appears to be corrupt according to your description--

We may resolve Cameroon's problem today, except that at the G-8, they are going to be talking about Africa. I would have appreciated your identifying in your convention, or in your proposed convention, what elements should be included and which covered more or less all of the African problems.

Mr. Alain Deugoue (Social Democratic Front (Cameroun)): As far as we are concerned, and you saw this very clearly in the presentation, we have tried an approach. We have tried to determine what is going on in black Africa, what is going on in Western and Eastern Africa, but we find that the definition problem remains the same. There is the problem of the constitutional State, a problem of implementation... There is a problem of democracy. We truly need a living democracy, a democracy that we practice and not one on paper.

The biggest problem, and this applies to 80 percent of the African countries, is one of democracy. Every state leader must take steps to at least respect the minimum rules of a democracy. We need a constitutional State, in principle.

º (1650)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Does the Organization of African Unity promote a democratic charter like the Organization of American States which recently, in Lima, adopted a charter? Has a democratic charter been adopted or discussed?

Mr. Alain Deugoue: Yes. There have been some charters that have been... Even the OAU had... But like any sovereign country, if you are at the OAU, 80 percent of the countries act just like each other. So one country cannot criticize the other. You do the same thing as I do, and therefore practically nothing is done. This is what we are talking about. On paper, it does exist. Even in Cameroun, if you meet with Mr. Biya, he will tell you that the national assembly is represented by opposition parties, therefore, everything is just fine, there is a system of democratization, the elections are organized and the results published within the required timelines. But who organizes these elections? He does. Who supervises the elections? He does. What can you really expect from that?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Well, perhaps we can raise the issue of democracy, but the G-8 would promote it.

Mr. Alain Deugoue: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Marleau, please.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Indeed, you talked all about the problems at the same time. You talk about creating an international G-8 commission which would have legal powers and the power to summon before the court any individual or group of people who steals aid intended for people in need. That is a far-fetched concept, because the G-8 does not really have any power to control a sovereign country, not at all. Perhaps you can elaborate. It's an interesting concept, but it would not be easy to achieve.

Ms. Félicité Tchapda: I would like to add a few words. For instance, criminals are brought to justice... Take the example of Mr. Milosevic. If a head of State steals money which is supposed to go to the population—take the example of Cameroun, where people are dying of AIDS—and if the government cannot help this population, it is indirectly responsible for all those deaths. They can be brought to justice for crimes against humanity.

Ms. Diane Marleau: Yes. The idea is still germinating, but we are not quite there yet. This international court is still a very fragile institution. It's a good idea. I would like to congratulate you for having raised it. I'm not sure if we are ready to make the recommendation at this point, but...

Mr. Alain Deugoue: May I suggest another approach, sir...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Alain Deugoue: Yes. A few moments ago, he asked whether we should not adopt a new approach towards NGOs, since, on the government side, the field has been saturated. So, we will look at the issue. It might work with some countries, but in the case of Cameroun, I believe that CIDA can provide you with information. Cameroun's NGOs are all on CIDA's black list. Why? Because the government saw the way things worked and created its own NGOs which infiltrated the genuine ones. So, people really had no idea of which NGO could actually carry out the work. The whole situation became extremely complicated. CIDA is in a better position to tell you about what is happening in Cameroun where NGOs are concerned.

Ms. Marie-Thérèse Ngachou (Social Democratic Front (Cameroun)): That is why we thought it may be a good idea to have a criminal court to try those types of situations... Because if the government has created its own NGOs, which are supposed to be independent from government, it means that the government has a specific reason for doing so, which is that CIDA sends aid directly to the population through NGOs.

Why was that decision taken? Probably because people had begun to notice that the aid donated to the government was not well spent. Donor countries could do almost nothing to control the actions of the government. Therefore, we thought that by implementing a strategy of NGO participation, the aid would get to the people. This was a better way of managing the situation and those in need would receive the aid. But the government, which wants to control everything, imposed its rules on NGOs and created parallel NGOs by controlling them, as it controls the unions. So, irrespective of the type of transaction, you have to go through the government to get to the NGOs, which is a violation of UN principles with respect to development aid.

Further, at one point, NGOs were created because there was money to be had, that is, the government knew that there was money to be had. But these new NGOs were incompetent. The transfer of aid from donating countries to NGOs had not really been studied, which resulted in the situation that, since 1985, there was a lot of funding to fight AIDS, but the rates of the disease were such that... To my view, this points to faulty strategies or methods. Perhaps the strategies did not work because of a lack of expertise or perhaps because the funds to fight the disease were spent elsewhere. That is why we are saying that if donor countries control how their aid is spent, if there were some kind of statute, perhaps the countries on the receiving end would spend the money more wisely on the very real needs of their populations.

We won't eradicate malaria, but we will reduce the number of people infected. We would decrease the rate of HIV infection and many other diseases which affect us.

The way things are going does not augur well for our country. Most of the people infected by HIV/AIDS are young people. What will the population look like a few years from now?

º (1655)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I have read your brief and saw that you made three recommendations. The last two are excellent. I believe that the first one is much more problematic because the G-8 has no secretariat to speak of, but the idea of drafting a convention outlining conditions a country must meet to become eligible for aid is essential, in my view. If you look at the way CIDA has been operating in the last few years, you will see that funding is not directed at political leaders anymore under any condition, because we realize, as you so eloquently said, that it did not end up with the people who need it the most.

In Lusaka last year, the NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, was created and adopted by all heads of government. NEPAD's priorities which will be debated at the G-8, are education, health and communications.

Of course, health and education are important, but they must be premised on whether a country is based on the rule of law and free and fair elections. After being elected, a leader should not have the right to change the rules of the game in order to ease his re-election. I think the rules should not be allowed to change.

However, I personally feel optimistic. As far as I can remember, it is the first time that the G-8, which is basically an economic organization of northern hemisphere countries, will not search for short-term solutions, but rather long-term solutions for the problems Africa is grappling with.

Thank you. As I said, I had the opportunity to visit your country as a member of Parliament of the francophonie and I am convinced... We will study your brief more closely as well as all the other briefs. Thank you very much for having met with us today.

It is essential to understand the situation. We did not want to meet with every country, but only with certain countries and regions to better understand the dynamics of your particular country.

I have a brief question. We set a precedent today by hearing from Mr. Massé, the President of the FTQ. You have told us that NGOs are not effective anymore, but do unions really work hand in hand with government, or are they only a force within civil society which has no connection with government?

But to begin, is there really such a thing as organized labour?

» (1700)

Ms. Félicité Tchapda: No, there is none. We have unions which are [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. In fact, the report produced by the ICFTU, the largest organization, made recommendations with respect to the situation in Cameroun. It was recommended that public and private workers receive the right to organize. The same phenomenon is happening with NGOs as well as with organized labour, because government has created parallel unions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That is the answer.

Madam Ngachou.

Ms. Marie-Thérèse Ngachou: Despite the fact that the government is not involved in the union, it sometimes calls the shots. In fact, it decided to suspend the union president before I left Cameroun, although it was not... It acts like judge and jury, even in matters not under its purview. It's subtle, but it's there.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It's there. It's present.

Thank you very much for appearing before our committee.

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.