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

Thursday, February 28, 2002

0905

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

0910

Mr. Raymond Leroux (Chair of the Board of Directors, Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa)

0915

Ms. Michèle Clément (Executive Director, Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa)

Mr. Raymond Leroux

0920

0925

0930

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Raymond Leroux

0935

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Raymond Leroux

Ms. Michèle Clément

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Raymond Leroux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Paquette

Ms. Marleau

Mr. Raymond Leroux

0945

Mme Marleau

M. Raymond Leroux

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

M. Raymond Leroux

Ms. Michèle Clément

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Bernard Patry

Mr. Robert Letendre

1000

1005

Mr. Gilio Brunelli (Director, Development Programs Department, Development and Peace)

1010

Mr. Bernard Patry

1015

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Robert Letendre

1020

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Robert Letendre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Marleau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1025

Mr. Gilio Brunelli

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Gilio Brunelli

Mr. Bernard Patry

1030

M. Robert Letendre

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Daniel Schwanen (Senior Economist, Institute for Research on Public Policy)

1050

1055

1100

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Paquette

1110

Mr. Daniel Schwanen

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Daniel Schwanen

1115

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Daniel Schwanen

1125

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Daniel Schwanen

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Daniel Schwanen

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Serge Blais

1135

1140

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Serge Blais

Mr. Bernard Patry

1200

Mr. Serge Blais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Serge Blais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Serge Blais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Serge Blais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1335

Ms. Judith Berlyn (Representative, Westmount Initiative for Peace)

1340

1345

1350

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Ms. Judith Berlyn

1355

M. Pierre Paquette

Ms Judith Berlyn

M. Paquette

Ms. Judith Berlyn

1400

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

1405

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Judith Berlyn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paul Klopstock (President, Les artistes pour la paix)

1420

1425

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Paul Klopstock

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Paul Klopstock

1430

M. Paquette

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paul Klopstock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

1440

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa (Representative, World March of Women)

1445

1450

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1455

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

1500

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa

1505

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa

Ms. Lorraine Guy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

1510

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Ms. Lorraine Guy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Marc Laviolette (President, Confederation of National Trade Unions)

1555

1600

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Vincent Dagenais (Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confederation of National trade Unions)

1605

1610

M. Paquette

Mr. Vincent Dagenais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Marc Laviolette

1615

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Marc Laviolette

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Marc Laviolette

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Vincent Dagenais

1620

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Vincent Dagenais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Marc Laviolette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Vincent Dagenais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Vincent Dagenais

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Denis Tougas (Coordinator, Table de concertation sur les droits humains au Congo-Kinshasa, Member of the International Missionary Benefit Society)

1630

1635

1640

1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Denis Tougas

1650

Mr. Paquette

Mr. Denis Tougas

Mr. Paquette

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Denis Tougas

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Denis Tougas

1655

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Abbott

1700

1705

1710

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Eric Squire

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Eric Squire

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez (Vice-President, Canadian Citizens Movement)

1720

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Peter Vunic (Founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Citizens Movement)

1725

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez

1730

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

1735

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 064

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds--Dollard, Lib.)): Welcome to the cross-Canada hearing of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee on the G-8 and North American relations. Welcome to these hearings of the committee on its study of two very important aspects of Canada's role in the world and in North America.

Committee members are eager to hear from citizens across the country on key foreign policy challenges in the G-8 in the North American context. Canada is chairing the G-8 this year. We will be hosting the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, in June.

The major priorities for the summit have been identified as improving the world economic situation, building a new partnership for Africa's development, and pursuing the international fight against terrorism. Canada is putting particular emphasis on advancing an action plan for Africa.

The committee has been asked to report its findings and recommendations to the government by the end of April. Seeking input from Canadians is 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 also using this as an opportunity to hear the views of Canadians on how they would like to see our North American relationships evolve. All aspects of Canada-U.S., Canada-Mexico, continental and trilateral ties are on the table for discussion as part of a longer-term study reporting later this year.

This is the beginning of the dialogue. More information with regard to both studies can be found on the committee's website. We invite additional input from Canadians. Please note that submissions on the G-8 study should reach us by mid-April, and submissions dealing with the North American study should be submitted by the end of June.

This is our second day of hearings in Montreal, and our first witnesses are from the Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa. We have with us Mr. Raymond Leroux, Chair of the Board of Directors, and Ms. Michèle Clément, Executive Director. Welcome to the committee.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Roy, our clerk; Mr. Haggart, our researcher; the Hon. Diane Marleau, Member for Sudbury; and Mr. Paquette, Member for Joliette.

The floor is yours.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Raymond Leroux (Chair of the Board of Directors, Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa): Thank you very much, Ms. Marleau, Mr. Patry, Mr. Paquette, and thank you to the clerk and the researcher. It is a great honour for the Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa to present a brief on the creation of the Canadian Council for Africa.

Why? This council will bring people together and mobilize them. It includes the Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa, African diplomats in Canada, African associations in Canada, as well as the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada.

In fact, the Club is behind the initiative to establish this Canadian Council. Why? To broaden the Club, which was initially founded here in Quebec. I point out in passing that the word “club” was not very popular with our friends in English Canada. The word did not clearly indicate what the organization represented and seemed a bit restrictive. That is why we want to replace the title “Club of Ambassadors” with “Canadian Council for Africa”.

We also opened up our membership mainly to the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada.

The creation of the Canadian Council for Africa is an outgrowth of the thought and consensus-building processes engaged in by Canadian stakeholders. In our opinion, the Canadian Council for Africa must become a special place for Canadian discussion on matters of policy and strategy for the promotion and development of commerce and investment in African countries. We also believe that such a national body would have increased credibility if it were created through an act of political will; this would also ensure its operating budget and longevity.

As stated in our presentation, the creation of the Council represents an important aspect in terms of the role that we can play with the Canadian government and the role we want to play with Canadian corporations and other major corporations in bringing them together and mobilizing them. The major corporations, however, are in a better position to organize their own activities and to promote themselves than are SMEs, which are perhaps somewhat more disadvantaged in this regard. Small businesses do not have all of the expertise, experience and staff to do this. The Council will therefore undoubtedly have an important role to play in bringing small businesses together in their undertakings on the African continent.

Ms. Clément, the Executive Director of the Club, will now say a few words about the Council's raison d'être and its organization. I will then deal with the three themes that your committee is studying.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Clément.

¿ (0915)

Ms. Michèle Clément (Executive Director, Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa): Good morning. It is a pleasure for me to be with you this morning and to tell you about a project that the Club has been working on for more than a year following careful consideration of the matter by its strategic development committee. This thought process continued with public hearings and consultations with representatives at the various organizations in charge of economic and trade development with Africa. We have finally put together a succinct presentation of the project which I believe has been distributed to you.

The raison d'être of the Canadian Council for Africa is to encourage dialogue and discussion on economic and trade-related issues involving Canada and the countries of Africa. Its second raison d'être is to promote an increase in and a diversification of investments and economic and commercial trade between Canada and the countries of Africa. The Club of Ambassadors and Entrepreneurs for Africa, supported by organizations and institutions that held discussions throughout the winter of 2001, proposes the establishment of the Canadian Council for Africa.

The organization's main clientele is primarily made up of businesses, more specifically SMEs, which have been asking for a vehicle to explore African markets with a view to deriving mutual benefits.

You are aware that businesses, especially traditional businesses, peaked in Canada several years ago, whereas a clientele in Africa for the same type of business still exists, and probably will for another 40 or 50 years. So this opportunity was explored by some of our members and yielded very significant results in terms of connecting traditional Canadian businesses with African economies.

So it is for the most part this aspect of our know how, of our expertise that we think will be very useful in Africa for the next generation and the one after that. We also feel that it can result in mutual benefit. To date, our presence in African as often been seen as having to benefit the Africans. And we could not really see how Canada could also benefit from this presence or cooperation. However, economic and trade-related development necessarily requires mutual benefit; otherwise, there would not be an economic and trade relationship. We feel that the time has come for Canada to equip itself with a tool that will enable it to consider, discuss and debate the way in which it can make a positive contribution to African development while developing a relationship based on mutual benefit that will undoubtedly guarantee long-term relations based on security, peace and prosperity.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Party): Mr. Leroux.

Mr. Raymond Leroux: If I may, I will now cover the three themes: improving the world economic situation; building a new partnership for Africa's development; and combating terrorism. My remarks will deal mainly with the second theme, but I will also provide you with a brief summary of our point of view on the other two themes, mainly as regards Africa.

I will start with the world economy. There is a lot of talk about poverty—this is not specific to Canada—but not much talk about prosperity. As regards the African continent, we should talk more about developing the prosperity of African countries than about development assistance. A distinction should also be made between aid and development, because aid is interpreted as being a gift, as donations.

The topic of the meeting in June that will be presided over by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is what the African countries prepared together and which is currently being distributed. In NEPAD, we talk a little bit about the will of African countries to develop.

We also say that debt reduction will help reduce the gap between rich and poor countries. Direct foreign investment is undoubtedly an aspect that will contribute to improving prosperity. In general, Canada must promote this type of investment to Canadian businesses by putting in place appropriate measures for funding infrastructure projects and setting up partnerships.

I will come back to the setting up of partnerships, which includes the relationship that can exist between Canadian SMEs and the development of SMEs on the African continent.

Canada should, for example, create an investment fund similar to the investment funds that exist in all G-8 countries. Canada should have that kind of fund, but it does not, as the Minister is undoubtedly aware.

There is one aspect that favours private enterprise: industrial cooperation. It is a wonderful mechanism that does help private enterprise, but that is still not a real investment fund and a real development fund. It is an important part of the future of Canadian policy on the African continent.

That summarizes our overall view on the economy.

I will now move on to the new partnership for African development by going back to some of the comments I've already made. We talk about improving prosperity. How can we do that? In all countries, the creation of wealth leads to prosperity. As we know, it has also been proven that the private sector plays an extremely important role in creating this wealth.

There is proof of that here in Canada. Last Sunday, in La Presse, an article mentioned that there were over two million small and medium-sized businesses here. When you compare that to a population of about 27 million or 28 million people, you can see that small businesses, and not medium-sized businesses, play an extremely important role in the development of a country. I will come back to that later. I think this is the only country where there are so many SMEs.

¿ (0920)

Shouldn't Canada play a major role specifically in the area of developing the private sector and SMEs on the African continent, where our SMEs could play an important role?

Now I am not saying that education and health are not important; that is not what we are saying. We do think, however, that there are a number of international organizations, more specifically all of the international financial institutions, that are devoting huge budgets to education and health. Canada is also making a major contribution to that through its multilateral assistance. In fact, Canada is funding a major part of health and education; it is a major financial backer for the African Development Bank. So it is already contributing to the development of health and education, which is essential for the development of private enterprise. But I think that it is important to create this partnership for developing the private sector on the African continent, and that is why we talk about prosperity instead of poverty.

In this regard, Canada must use its support to promote countries that are well-managed. I think that one of the questions you are asking in this area is as follows: Should we continue to share our assistance among the 53 African countries or should we target it to certain countries? When we are talking solely about assistance for health and education, I think that a little bit must be given to each country, and especially to the poorest nations, where the needs are the most pressing. But as for economic development, we should focus more on the countries that are a little bit more advanced and considered to be better managed.

Moreover, we should also choose the country based on the region. We know that Africa is made up of north Africa, western Africa, central Africa, eastern Africa and southern Africa; so there are five major regions. We should designate one or two countries per region, the leaders in those regions. Why not also involve the financial institutions in those regions like the ECOWAS in western Africa, or various organizations in the regions, that should support the development of those countries? In my opinion, these organizations are not really playing their roles, especially with respect to developing the private sector.

That more or less covers our perception or vision of the situation in terms of development. Should Canada target specific countries? As regards economic development, we say yes. In fact, we think that our effort should be concentrated on the countries that are the best prepared.

I have another point. As I said earlier, thanks to CIDA, Canada has already done its part, and we encourage Canada to devote an increasingly large part of its aid to developing the private sector. In one of your other questions, you ask if aid should be reduced given the fact that aid funds have decreased over the years. Has the reduction in aid led to more poverty in these countries? I don't think so. I think that the aid Canada provides through CIDA is quite significant. Any additional funds should be used for developing the private sector and for economic development in those countries.

Otherwise, if people cannot take charge of the situation, we will still be talking about the state of poverty and the need for development in 50 years. It is not the governments that will take charge of the situation. This must be done by the people and the private sector.

We also know that in Africa, the African people are merchants by nature. Ms. Marleau is undoubtedly well-aware of that. Women especially are very involved in business. So there is already a basis for private sector activity. What they lack is knowing how to make a distinction between their business and personal assets. Everything goes into the same pot. That is often a problem for our businesses that set up partnerships with African firms or with Africans; they realize all of a sudden that the business's bank account is empty and they wonder what has happened. Simply put, it is because the local business or the family had personal needs and used the company's funds to satisfy them.

¿ (0925)

Here is the role we see Canadian businesses, SMEs, playing: they should help develop an organization of SMEs and equip them with a structure that will guarantee longevity and instill a culture that is more similar to ours that could create a better partnership between small businesses in Canada and Africa.

If it is true—and we hope it is —that the $500 million the Canadian government proposes... In fact, a major part of the $500 million should be used to organize and create an investment fund or an implementation fund to help Canadian businesses set up and develop infrastructure projects in African countries.

One of the last questions you ask is as follows: Should the Canadian public be involved in all of this? We say yes, but some work should be done in order to help Canadians understand the real issue surrounding development. This is perhaps one area that we have not emphasized enough in the steps we have taken to inform Canadians.

I will say a few brief words on security. We must obviously be in favour of good. Fighting organized terrorism is undoubtedly a priority that all countries must adopt. However, Canada must advocate seriously studying the root causes. I do not think it is the right time to mix the root causes and the debate against terrorism. Issues must be resolved, but in the medium or long-term, we must look at the root causes. Poverty, if not misery, undoubtedly plays a major role in the causes of terrorism. We should examine and carefully consider the issue.

Canada is renown for its balanced policies as regards social and economic issues, freedom and the rule of law. I think Canada must continue to pursue this balanced approach and not be overzealous in the fight against terrorism everywhere. I trust that the Canadian government will establish that balance.

Thank you very much. We are now ready to answer your questions.

¿ (0930)

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

Mr. Paquette, please.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): First of all, thank you for your presentation. I think your proposal is very concrete and very constructive. I have a few short questions. While you were making your presentation, I had a chance to follow the aspect in...

You talk about a Canadian Council for Africa. I understand that the Club is turning into a Canadian Council, but you would like political support or recognition, as you mentioned a little farther on, and you have taken an economic and trade-related perspective. I wonder if, in the context of Africa, we can talk about economics without delving into problems with respect to democracy and governance. The priorities for the economic council are obviously economic development and developing investments and trade. That also comes to mind when you talk about clientele. I wonder if you shouldn't broaden the mandate of the Canadian Council for Africa or perhaps identify the fact that it is a Canadian economic council for Africa.

While I agree that you have chosen an area that is perhaps not generally an area of interest to NGOs, I wonder if we can really talk about Africa without dealing with governance and the rule of law. If we talk about investments, for example, one of the major problems is precisely that, if there is no rule of law, we can have all kinds of wonderful agreements, but there are no guarantees that investments will be protected.

You talk about two funds. On page 7, you talk about an investment fund for developers and private investors and a little bit farther down, in section 4 of the part entitled “Strategic Goals Statement”, you talk about funds.

I would have liked to hear you talk about that.

I think that pretty well covers my questions. You seem very knowledgeable about Africa. As for me, I have never set foot on African soil, but the way I see it is that large corporations are state-owned and the other businesses are private micro-businesses. Generally speaking, our exporting small and medium-sized businesses are medium size. They are not micro-businesses. How will they develop these links with the private or public African business community? So I would like you to tell us a little bit about our clientele in Africa.

Mr. Raymond Leroux: Those are good questions. I am going to start by talking about democracy. Ms. Clément is perhaps better versed than I am in... For starters, she was a professor and professors are very inclined to... Moreover, you are a professor too, aren't you?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That is true. You are off to a good start.

Mr. Raymond Leroux: Democracy is of course essential. The rule of law is clearly part of a context that will promote the development of private enterprise, but private enterprise also has an important role to play in democracy, because it generates values, wealth, and it has a little bit more of a say because it is somewhat independent. I also believe that we should no longer think that governments are omnipresent in Africa, that in an African country, all there is the government and nothing else. I think that as long as that is the case, democracy will be very difficult to establish. There will be elections and the opposition party will be elected at some point in time, but it will not be a real democracy, because it will do more or less the same things as its predecessor, except that the team will be different.

I think that if the private sector is well organized, it will be a force to be reckoned with. The African will be forced to have transparency in order to protect their investments. So, by developing the private sector, we will automatically be developing the sector... That is perhaps more positive than talking solely about democracy.

Please continue.

Ms. Michèle Clément: You're referring to the name here. You're saying that our presentation suggested that this should be more of an economic council type body. One of the reasons why we have systematically refused to use the term economic council, business council or some other name of that type, which highlights the business or trade aspect of the body, is precisely because in Canada, our approach to business and the way society is organized takes into consideration the whole range of realities that you referred to earlier.

As Mr. Leroux pointed out, no transactions, partnerships or economic development can be undertaken with a Canadian company when there is not an environment which is conducive to mutual benefit. For this type of environment to exist, there are a certain number of requirements, including democracy, harmonized regulations and legislation and a banking system providing for exchange and transactions, etc.

Consequently, all those initiatives which, in theory, are being encouraged, will become binding. When ties are created, which have an impact on job creation for example, this promotes saving, because when people have jobs they will be able to save and this will provide revenue for the government. There will be taxes and fees which will enable the government to manage the country. Currently, governments have a multifaceted role. They are companies and they provide jobs. They are not the ones who run the country.

Consequently, if we focus more on economic development, on beefing up the private sector, on promoting prosperity and creating wealth, then, we are automatically creating an economic fabric which will be a solid base for society, which in turn will be strengthened and sustained.

Currently, NGOs involved in developing social fabric have found that, at the end of their particular project, the whole process dies. What they have tried to create do not take root. There is no one to continue and to develop what they have started, because the economic communities just does not exist. However, there do exist smaller economic communities, micro communities if you like, which are very inward looking.

We talked earlier about attitudes. Mr. Leroux explained in some detail the issue of the human mix. This is an area where we believe that our small and medium businesses could provide a great deal of assistance, because the majority of our traditional small businesses, which are in a position to develop partnerships over there, are also family-run companies. We are well-aware of the fact that the concerns facing family-run companies are not the same as those facing a company with shareholders. Consequently, it's much easier for small businesses to develop ties and understanding, which could give us leverage. Even with the very modest means available to Canada, we could create opportunities in a certain number of countries, which meet the criteria that we referred to earlier.

¿ (0940)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I would ask you to be brief because I would like to allow Ms. Marleau to ask her questions also.

Mr. Raymond Leroux: I would just like to comment on the issue of the two investment funds. When we talk of an investment fund, we are talking primarily of an infrastructure investment fund. These could be quite major funds. The second fund that we referred to is a fund to help companies set up and develop. This is where the needs of small and medium businesses lie.

Michel Dubé from Asbestos—who had a few problems and was unable to come today—set up a small business employing four or five people in the province of Quebec. The company now employs approximately 50 people and has increased its turnover 10-fold since it moved into Africa. The company set up over there and developed partnerships. However, the company had to do this with its own funds. Often, banks asked for so many guarantees that... However, if a setup or venture capital fund existed, many small and medium companies could move into and develop in the African private sector.

On the issue of democracy, I would just like to say that the rule of law is very important for companies. In Africa, there is an organization which is called the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, OHADA. To date, approximately 20 countries have signed on to this organization. Canada should attempt to encourage all African countries to join.

So something already does exist, but it needs to be strengthened and supported. This would undoubtedly do a lot to promote democracy and security for our investors.

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

Ms. Marleau, the floor is yours.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Have you received investment already? Have you already begun to raise funds? Are you and your members ready to put your own money into this? The government could perhaps provide you with some assistance. Have you thought about this type of arrangement? It is not a bad idea, but there are only some countries which are ready for the type of investment that you have talked about.

There is a ray of hope for these countries. That is great. Do you have any other advice for us that we could bring up at the G-8 Summit? Your advice is well taken, and we should indeed look at the possibility of helping you to get that going. This would of course be in addition to what is already being done in the area of industrial cooperation.

There is one other huge problem facing the majority of African countries. Several African countries spend a great deal of money on military-oriented items, on weapons. Do you think that we should suggest that the G-8 decide to halt the sale of weapons to these countries and, indeed, to stop encouraging the sale of arms to these countries? I think that that would be a huge step forward because major arms dealers...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: ...our members of the G-8.

Ms. Diane Marleau: You know as well as I do that there is always money available to provide beer for soldiers, but there is not much left over for other items. Do you think that we should include that in our report?

Mr. Raymond Leroux: Yes.

In answer to your first question, I would say that currently, no funds exist. Private companies try to help us as best they can. There is only one person on salary in our organization, but we still owe her a lot. She is not paid on a day-to-day basis. She is the only person working on a contract basis in our organization. The others work, as I do, on a volunteer basis within their own companies, because they believe that this can help. It also helps us. We don't always get into this area out of the goodness of our heart. You have to be realistic also. There are spinoffs.

Indeed, we don't have investment and that is what we want. At the outset, we said that we believed that the government could even develop legislation which would be linked to a fund. Part of this fund could be used for economic development. We want to see that too.

On the issue of armament sales, there are without a doubt members of the G-8... However, the G-8 covers a whole host of organizations. There is the United Nations, for example. Earlier, we were discussing terrorism and why the United Nations was not involved in the fight...

¿ (0945)

Ms. Diane Marleau: However, Mr. Leroux, you have to start somewhere. All the nations of the world are represented at the United Nations.

M. Raymond Leroux: I agree with you wholeheartedly on that, but that fact will not help Africa to develop. That will not provide additional money for Africa. Neither will it enable African countries to create a structure and organized society. However, I do agree with you entirely when you say that something should be done to prohibit G-8 countries from...

Indeed, the same thing goes for loans. On the issue of the consensus prohibiting loans, this resolution was developed within the G-8. The G-8 should also prohibit the sale of arms and all developed countries should comply with this decision.

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

I would like to ask one question. On the issue of your mandate, you referred to boosting and diversifying investment. That is excellent. I think that we have all understood where you're coming from and what you expect our committee to do. However, we have not yet talked about education or health. Don't you think that NEPAD, The New Partnership for Africa's Development, and indeed, your mandate, could include education for small and medium companies? I think that you have a very important role to play in this issue and I believe that that should be included in your mandate.

You have said that you want to do business in Africa, and you also want to improve infrastructure in Africa. However, you are undoubtedly not a not-for-profit NGO. In my view, it should be possible to channel some investment in Africa into education to allow Africans to take over where you leave off.

What is your opinion on that issue?

M. Raymond Leroux: Your point is well taken. I must say, however, that the industrial cooperation process includes knowledge transfer for a project development, both large and small. There is a small organization—the name of which escapes me for the moment—which provides support for companies not only in terms of basic education, but also environmental education. There are projects which have an environmental aspect to them which does not come under World Bank or other financial institution funding, but which does, nevertheless, require on-the-job staff training. It goes without saying that we do not intend to set up a school, but there will be an education component.

One of the groups, with which I am currently working, and of which I was a former chair, is the International Centre for Project Management. This organization works very closely with the Canada Council on developing the training or, to be more precise, the knowledge transfer side of things.

We are very well-aware of this issue. You are quite right when you say that we did not explain this issue sufficiently in our brief, but education is most definitely a part of the puzzle.

Ms. Michèle Clément: I would just like to add one legal aspect to this issue. The Canada Council for Africa has not yet been set up. The Club could very well change its status and change its name to the Canada Council. However, we believe that a more significant move would be for the Canadian government to develop legislation to award patent letters to this organization. That move would make the organization more high profile and would allow it to undertake much more tangible action. This legislation should, as was done for the Asia-Pacific Foundation, provide the new organization with a revolving budget. This would allow the organize to have a much more long-term vision, to develop a strategy for understanding Africa. It would allow the organization to evolve with Africa and to adjust to the developmental process in Africa.

When organizations run on a project-by-project basis, continually seeking new funding and having to spend three days a week looking for that funding, they cannot develop and strengthen their policy. It is impossible to attempt to develop improved understanding and cooperation because the organization has to focus all its efforts on surviving from one funding arrangement to another.

This is why we are advocating, if at all possible, that this vehicle be established by government legislation that would ensure its continuity.

¿ (0950)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your testimony. It is very much appreciated and will be taken into account.

I will now suspend the meeting for a few minutes. Thank you.

(0950

(0955)

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

We have, as our second group of witnesses, representatives from Development and Peace: Mr. Robert Letendre, who is the Executive Director, as well as Mr. Gilio Brunelli, who is the Director of Development Programs. Have I got that right? Great.

Welcome to this meeting. The floor is yours, Mr. Letendre.

Mr. Robert Letendre (Executive Director, Development and Peace): We will go straight to the heart of the matter. First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to convey our views, as a Catholic organization involved in development and peace, on the preparatory work for the G-8.

I would also like to say a few words about who we are. Development and Peace is the official agency for international solidarity of the Catholic church in Canada. We were established by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in the 1960s, in the wake of Vatican II, when there was this concern for international solidarity.

Development and Peace belongs, of course, to several major Canadians development networks, including the CCIC, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation; the AQOCI, the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale; the Coalition of Churches, where churches work together. We are also a member of large international networks, which may be less known. I would like to point out that Development and Peace is a member of Caritas Canada, and therefore part of the large Caritas network of Catholic charitable organizations and another network, called CIDSE, International Cooperation for Development and Solidarity, the network of international development organizations that arose from Vatican II. I would say that these organizations have less of a charitable approach and focus more on social change.

I would like to provide you with some figures that you may not be aware of. In subsaharian Africa, the Catholic church runs and is responsible for 30% of the education and health infrastructure. This fact, which is not widely known, indicates the important role played by this church. I would imagine that if you were to combine the activities of all the churches, this figure would easily reach 80% to 85%. This is a staggering figure and I think that this voice, in the debate on Africa, must be heard.

I will now focus on the three issues which are the subject of these consultations. We are naturally most interested in aid to Africa although, as far as the security issue is concerned, we at Development and Peace have said that we feel the government's approach to security matters was, in our view, focused too much on the material aspect. Clearly, international development does involve to security, and we feel that the government has not recognized this aspect enough.

When you have generations of people who have lived in despair, millions of young people who have no future in the developing countries, you have a breeding ground for terrorism. As long as the development issue is not resolved in a satisfactory manner, the terrorist approach will attract people who have nothing to lose. I know that you are perfectly aware of this. If there is any way to get the government to change its thinking on this issue, it would be greatly appreciated.

I will now talk about the three points that we would like to cover on Africa. I will reverse the order of the presentation somewhat and cover the first and third points and then I will ask Mr. Brunelli to take care of the second point, namely debt and reducing poverty.

Our first point, of course, pertains to Africa and the other developing countries. We feel that the Canadian government and the industrialized countries have cut back on international aid too much.

As you know, in real terms, Canada has reduced its aid by nearly 37% since 1990. I am not here to talk about the United States, but it is clear that the level of American aid is completely unacceptable. I do not know what the leaders of the governments of industrialized countries can do to influence the United States on this matter, but, at present, American aid is less than 0.1%.

The three episcopal conferences of America organized a large conference, held in Washington at the end of January, where we had an opportunity to hear from some high-level witnesses or resource persons, notably Mr. Wolfensohn and Mr. Kohler, the President of the International Monetary Fund. Both acknowledged that, at present, levels of aid were too low.

It is very easy to say that international aid is not effective, but if you do not provide enough aid, if you do not have a modicum of critical mass for taking action, obviously you will not be effective. Nobody would be under those circumstances.

Once again, we are hoping that Canada will again increase international aid. Moreover, we would remind you that this commitment was made by the Prime Minister. He ratified the Heads of State United Nations Millennium Declaration, thereby making a commitment to be not only the prime minister of Canadians but also a head of state concerned about the future of all the peoples of the world.

In this regard, I would just like to remind you that another witness from our organization, Mr. Serge Blais, will be appearing before you, but he will be wearing another hat. He will be addressing the Canada-Africa partnership.

In the Congo, 2.5 million people have died since 1998. Barely anybody talks about this. The plight of these people is completely unacceptable and it seems to me that this type of problem will, in the end, catch up to us. I am, of course, referring to Congo-Kinshasa, formerly known as Zaire. This is not an acceptable situation. The fact that this situation has not been resolved by the major industrialized countries is, ultimately, a blight on all humanity.

I will now focus on what I would call the third point: aid to destabilized countries. Naturally, this matter has come up in conversations that we have had with CIDA and in the G-8 documents. During a discussion, this week... You are no doubt aware that Mr. Robert Fowler was in Montreal on Monday to provide a briefing on the G-8. He was very explicit about the fact that countries are trying to make their aid effective. Obviously, this is a legitimate concern. However, right now everything is being influenced by a major economic study carried out by David Dollar of the World Bank. His study on effective aid shows, beyond all doubt, that aid is more effective in countries that are well-governed. I do not think that I need to tell parliamentarians that this seems fairly self-evident. Your work is important. The work done by governments is important and yes, a well-governed country is more effective. Mr. Fowler confirmed that, in his opinion, the $500 million investment announced by the Canadian government is earmarked for countries that have been recognized as effective countries.

Does that mean that we are really going to abandon these so-called destablized countries that we refer to as destructured countries to their own fate? At Development and Peace, our commitment is based on what we call a preferential option for the poor, which means that we try to analyze problems from the point of view of the poorest nations. Should the Canadian government do that, it is clear that thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands of people would die. We do not agree with that.

À (1000)

This is not just about making an economic choice; there is a moral choice that needs to be made for the poor.

This leads me to say—I do not know what Ms. Marleau will think about this—that over the past year or so, ever since Mr. Axworthy left, it seems to me that we hear less about the human security agenda. Naturally, there was a push for this when Canada was part of the Security Council, but we feel that this remains a fundamental issue. It seems to me, however, that this aspect is less prominent in Canada's foreign policy program and that really concerns us. We must not let people die like that.

In my opinion, Great Britain's intervention in Sierra Leone is an example of what needs to be done. Here is a country that decided to resolved the problem. They went into the country and resolve the problem, not in its entirety, but there has been a big improvement over the way things used to be.

In Congo-Kinshasa, if I could use this example again, people are dying because the regions are not getting any food right now. We were there with a delegation from the Conference of Bishops in early January and we saw representatives who had come back from the regions and were going to the inter-Congo dialogue. Goods are not getting to the people, nor is medicine or food. People are dying of hunger. Obviously, the Congo River needs to be reopened. The Security Council is waiting for reports and does nothing. This is scandalous.

If ever, as a parliamentary committee, you have a bit of money to invest, have the wife of Canada's ambassador to the Congo come to Canada. The wives of diplomats are joining the charitable organization network. Consequently, Ms. Goulet is spending her days in the city of Kinshasa, picking up children out of the gutter.

I do not want to start talking like World Vision, but that is the reality. This is not what we have come here to talk about, but this is the stark reality.

Finally, I would like to ask Gilio Brunelli to talk to you about this whole issue of debt forgiveness, an area in which Development and Peace has been very active, and about ways to reduce poverty, for which we have brought a document.

À (1005)

Mr. Gilio Brunelli (Director, Development Programs Department, Development and Peace): Good morning and thank you very much.

I would like to take a few minutes to cover that aspect, but from a perspective that is not so technical. Development and Peace has already had conversations with the Department of Finance and other representatives from the government and we are trying to get everybody to understand this responsibility incumbent on wealthy countries, to understand that the poor countries have already paid their debt, not once, but many times over. We want this to be acknowledged and resolved once and for all. You undoubtedly know that Development and Peace, along with other allies, tabled 600,000 signatures two years ago in support of this request. We are continuing to work on this issue. Things are changing. We are making good progress, but much remains to be done.

We want to talk to you about the possibility of having Canada speak on behalf of the new initiatives for Africa and the issue of the debt from a viewpoint that is essentially ours. Indeed, who are the people we are trying to reach with these sweeping financial and political initiatives? We are hoping—and I think that we agree on this—to give just about everybody better living conditions. It follows, in our opinion, that just about everybody has to be involved in this initiative.

In the various initiatives included in NEPAD, we are somewhat concerned by the fact that few of the African organizations which we refer to as civil society have had an opportunity to just sit down and discuss matters with their government, to work with their representatives, to build along the way some consensus with in Africa as to what is needed to develop an overall economic recovery plan for Africa that reflects its objectives. We feel that this is unfortunate.

As my colleague Mr. Letendre was saying, we have been working in Africa for 35 years. We have done some wonderful things. Some of our initiatives have been very positive and others have taught us some lessons. One lesson that we have learned is that, after 35 years of working in the development sector, an idea, as wonderful as it may be, will not go very far if it is not appropriate and shared by the people who are supposedly going to be the beneficiaries, as we say in our jargon.

We are therefore inviting Canada to support NEPAD—as already mentioned—and to use its diplomatic and government channels to say that we are going to do something about this. We are in a better position to get involved in this great undertaking than the African governments. We can get women's groups, workers' associations, representatives from small and medium businesses on board, as you heard beforehand. In many places, we need to build an entire society.

Nearly 600 million people live in subsaharian Africa. How can we conceive of taking all of these people, who live in such difficult conditions, as Mr. Letendre has just described, and engage them in a significant process to improve their living conditions without their feeling involved and responsible for moving the process ahead?

As I said earlier, after 35 years of working in Africa, this is one lesson we have learned. And we are not the only ones to have learned this lesson. As Robert was saying, we belong to several cooperation networks, here in Canada and internationally. After 40 years of what we now refer to as international cooperation, a movement which got underway in the 1960s, we all now realize that if people do not get on board and feel that it is their project, their initiative, their future that they are in the process of building, the best intentions, funding and technology in the world will not lead to very much. That is one thing.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this will also be an opportunity to show the Canadian way of working as we develop, alongside African citizens in groups and associations, initiatives designed primarily to improve the economic situation. We understand that this is both a school of participation and one of democracy.

You know as well as I do how fragile democracy is everywhere, but especially in Africa. Even those countries that are often singed out as having achieved very significant democratic progress are not, when you look closely, all that strong. It seems to me that there is a two-fold purpose in trying to link NEPAD, which we support... Let's be clear about this. We think that it is absolutely essential that we do something and we feel that this should have been done yesterday rather than tomorrow. We need to allocate the necessary means to this. But we find it strange to conceive of telling 600 million people that we are going to do all of this without them first of all being involved, consulted and given an opportunity to say what direction we should be heading in and how we should be spending all of this money. During the course of this undertaking, they will realize that it is possible to build different countries, that it is possible to have governments, states in which people are capable of talking to one another and resolving their problems and differences without necessarily having to resort to killing each other or building walls of silence and misunderstanding.

We have been doing that for years. For example, next April, we will be holding a very large seminar in Lagos, Nigeria, where we will be bringing together African partners with whom we have been working for a long time. By the end of the seminar, we will have asked the question as to how we, as a Canadian organization, can help them.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your testimony. We will now have an exchange. Mr. Paquette, please.

À (1015)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you very much for coming. I am somewhat familiar with Development and Peace. You forgot to mention in your presentation that there was a Canada-wide CSN union. This is pretty well a first, but...

An hon. members: A model.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to ask you a question. I think that we all agree that the levels of aid, particularly in Canada, are unacceptable. When you have to do some government financial housekeeping, this is obviously one way to do it because the public views the situation in a fatalistic way. Efforts this year were therefore inadequate. I think that the figure is approximately 0.25% whereas we were at 0.44% a few years ago.

You said that Development and Peace is focusing on social change rather than on charity and you also told us that we have to take care of the worst situations, those where we are not able to really effect a social change because of emergency situations which, naturally, require a humanitarian response. How do we strike a balance? What type of balance should we have between dealing with emergencies, in regions that are truly destabilized, and implementing social change, which can only be done providing certain minimum conditions already exist?

There is another aspect that has often been talked about in witnesses' presentations. In determining how to use aid, in the New Partnership for the Development of Africa, there is no mention of civil society; reference is made to the state. However, many are concerned about the fact that some African countries will want to have aid go through the state rather than the NGOs, as has been the case for several years now.

I do not know how you determine that, in some of the 25 countries identified, the state should perhaps be involved whereas, in others, the state is not strong enough and democracy needs to be consolidated.

Finally, it seems to me that we also need to achieve success. Obviously, we cannot hide our head in the sand; some situations have deteriorated tremendously. But if we do not achieve any success in the eyes of the public, we will wind up creating fatalism which will hurt official development aid. How do you manage that? I am asking you this question because if we really want to be able to, in political terms, push for a larger official development aid budget, we have to be able to answer these questions to the satisfaction of Quebecers and Canadians.

Mr. Robert Letendre: I understand what you are saying and we do not disagree with you. Of course it is very important that we be able to achieve some success in international development. People are indeed disenchanted, particularly in the United States. I am aware of the survey results because the Episcopal Conference of the United States conducted some surveys on American public opinion. This is an interesting thing to know.

When you ask an American what he thinks about US foreign aid, he says that aid is not working very well, that there is too much corruption in foreign countries, et cetera, but he views the United States as being extremely generous. When you delve a little bit deeper, you can see that, basically, Americans think that their country is just about the most generous one in the world, that the U.S. does 20 times more than it actually does.

There is, therefore, a real misperception in American public opinion and I can tell you that the Episcopal Conference of the United States is beginning to work on this issue. These people intend to try to disseminate the information, to make Americans understand that it is not true that the United States is generous. The United States is not at all generous. We are not judging them in moral terms, but they are not doing what they should be doing as an economic super power.

That being said, there have been some successes in the area of international development, particularly in Asia. We have to talk about it. To some extent, it is the responsibility of governments and development agencies to get the word out.

I was involved at the government level under another government. To be more precise, I was Ms. Vézina's executive assistant when she was Minister of International Development. In the 1980s it was thought that structural reforms, free trade and all of that would have a trickle-down effect on the economy and that development would take place. People really believed in that but it didn't turn out to be true. We were mistaken. We tried it and we saw that it didn't work and this is becoming increasingly obvious.

At the conference I mentioned in Washington, Jeffrey Sachs, a leading development economist in the United States, gave testimony to this effect. He was a director of the International Development Centre of Harvard University. If you ever have a chance to hear him as a witness, take advantage of it. He is outstanding. He also believes in this but this has not proven to be true. Globalization has not done away with inequalities. A political decision will be needed to rectify the situation to prevent the world's poorest from dying.

Of course, the approach taken by Development and Peace does not involve emergency aid but we cannot tolerate letting people die. The bishops have begged us to do something. That is why we have collected $2 million for Afghanistan and we are attempting to draw the Congo to public attention. I'm sure that the Government of Canada is in the same situation but we can't just let things continue.

I don't know whether I have answered your question.

À (1020)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: For the NGOs and the state?

Mr. Robert Letendre: In the case of the NGOs, in destructured countries, the large charity networks are able to do an excellent job. In some countries, church organizations are the only ones remaining. They are the only thing left. So the government should not be afraid of working through them.

As a matter of fact, I might mention in passing that is actually the approach taken by Bill Gates. He decided he would devote $550 million to health in developing countries. He has been engaged in extensive discussions with church organizations. In Africa, community clinics... In the Congo, the only health infrastructure remaining belongs to church organizations.

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

Ms. Marleau.

Ms. Diane Marleau: I know you very well and I am quite familiar with your work. You are doing an excellent job. You are right when you say that we are not devoting enough money to development and that we should continue to work with the poorest countries through organizations such as yours.

Aside from the failures we have observed for a number of years in Africa, there are two or three very important things that are rarely mentioned. First of all, the fact that the major northern countries often facilitate a system that encourages corruption, and they are often the outright beneficiaries of it. The Congo, the former Zaire, is a flagrant example of this and it is something that must be said. Countries like the Congo are unable to export piles of money, there is someone helping them to get this money out of the country.

Are there other recommendations that we could make to the G-8 concerning military expenditures—I mentioned this to the previous witness Mr. Leroux—and also about trying to close down secret accounts, to go against the sort of things that facilitate corruption or our part of it? The G-8 Summit will be discussing Africa. It's time for us to spell things out and to speak frankly, these things have got to stop. We talk about all the good things we do, there is some truth to this, but there are also deplorable things happening that undo the good you are attempting to do. You have had some small success stories but I think their number could be increased if we were able to do something about this with globalization. I think it can be done more easily today than 10 or 15 years ago. It's time for us to talk about this and to bring pressure on the G-8, the G-20 and the northern countries in particular.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Letendre or Mr. Brunelli.

À (1025)

Mr. Gilio Brunelli: Yes, we agree with you.

You talked about the selling of weapons. We arrived a bit early and we heard your exchange with the previous witness, Mr. Leroux. I spent two years in southern Sudan, the region that was liberated and entered into agreements with Khartoum. There is one thing that impressed me. People work and go about their normal business. When evening comes, like in other countries, boys go out with girls, et cetera. Life runs its normal course. The striking thing is to see the 15 and 16-year-old boys go out in the evening carrying a Kalashnikov. Here people go out with a walkman or some other kind of gadget. There it is normal to see people going out in the evening, not to engage in war but for a stroll with a girlfriend, armed with a Kalashnikov.

So we are certainly very much aware of this and I think that something must be done.

I suppose that you must support the work that is now being done to control small firearms. When it comes to weapons, the most difficult ones to control are light firearms. Large nuclear warheads and powerful bombs are relatively well-controlled but pistols, rifles, Kalashnikovs and AK-47s are being sold by the boatload. Once they have reached their destination, there is no way of controlling them.

Here in Canada we support a project that is certainly familiar to you, known as Project Ploughshares. There is a group at the University of Waterloo working on this issue of control and certain international regulations.

I agree with you, Ms. Marleau, that if the northern countries do not do their job, try as we might to impose rules on Africa or elsewhere, we cannot be successful if this trade continues in such a way.

If I may, I would like to pursue a matter raised by Mr. Paquette and to which Robert already replied.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We are among friends. You may continue.

Mr. Gilio Brunelli: Our achievements have to be made known. I don't know whether you agree, Robert, but I feel like telling you that every year we publish 100 pages listing our accomplishments. We publish an annual report on the work done by Development and Peace and its partners. We set out all sorts of considerations but basically, we attempt to demonstrate that even with limited means put to proper use, we can accomplish a great deal.

Let me give you an example of something that was done in Africa. You probably know that under the tradition in Rwanda, women did not own anything at all except their body, and even then not always. One of the things we did, we were not the only ones involved but we took the lead, was a project with widows after the genocide. They organized themselves into communities and cooperatives. Over time they acquired enough assurance to call into question their customs and their traditional laws.

Some important measures were taken by the Rwandan Parliament. Can a woman be allowed to own a house? When the woman's husband died, the house normally became the property of the husband's brother who, technically, was able to kick out the woman and her children without any accountability. We worked with Rwandan women and today, a woman may own a house, regardless of whether she may have a husband. That is an interesting development.

But because they are faced with big problems, they must have a strong civil society. Within Rwanda, there must be groups of women, of widows who are able to tell their representatives that the system makes no sense, that it must be changed, and who are able to demonstrate that they themselves can change.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you. Before concluding, I'd like to put a question similar to that of my colleagues. The public often assumes that writing off the debt means that there will be more money available for certain countries to buy weapons. This is a perception often found here in Canada.

At the meeting of the Commonwealth countries, to which Canada and many African countries belong, it was decided to write-off the debt of these countries, but not necessarily the amount owed to international financial institutions. Have you been able to observe on the spot whether this can make a certain difference? That is my first question.

Our committee may make recommendations. There's no certainty that the governments and particularly the members of the G-8 will do so but what recommendations could we make to the heads of state relating to tax evasion, secret accounts and that sort of thing. What is happening now is very important. In Africa, our ambassadors tell us that it is an open secret, that there are secret accounts all over the place and that members of the G-8 are involved in the sale of weapons, which is another big problem.

We may assume that if they have more money, they will buy more weapons. As Ms. Marleau said yesterday and in other presentations, there is a great deal of talk in the media about the issue of weapons. It is the CNN phenomenon. This week, in L'Express, there were pictures of one-legged football players in Sierra Leone and that sort of thing.

How could we go about attempting to sensitize our governments to the importance of making recommendations on such matters?

À (1030)

M. Robert Letendre: First of all, I think that it is useful for you to remind public opinion that when, as the government or parliamentarians, you pass a law, you know that the results will not be immediate. So in the case of writing off the debt, the Monetary Fund has started to do some work on this and with the negotiation of the framework for the reduction of poverty, countries are in fact writing off the debt.

At the present time, I do not think we are able to measure the effect of this measure because it is just beginning. We have to be patient. But it will certainly mean a great difference. A country where the debt amounts to several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, if this money is devoted to reducing poverty, there will surely be an important effect.

I was happy when we had a long conversation with the Minister of Health in the Congo. They increased their vaccination rate from 20% to 60%. That is a significant amount. In fact, it is very important.

With respect to tax evasion and the sale of weapons, we can only encourage you to try to do something. From our view, anything that Canada or industrialized countries can do to put an end to this type of corruption would be greatly appreciated. Of course, it is unacceptable when money spent abroad is diverted. That is one of the big problems. The same is true for the sale of light firearms. We have taken a great interest in the issue of diamond sales. As you know, there is a process known as the Kimberley process. We hope that it will come to fruition. We shall continue to work on the illegal sale of diamonds. It is very important for us to contain this phenomenon.

Fortunately, I think that the companies now realize that they have a great deal to lose if they are unable to control the problem and there is an international boycott or international campaigns against them. So we hope that the process will be successful and that the illegal sale of diamonds to fund this scandalous trafficking in arms can be stopped.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Letendre and Mr. Brunelli, for your testimony. We shall adjourn for a few minutes.

À (1032)

À (1045)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): The committee shall resume. We will now hear from Mr. Daniel Schwanen, Senior Economist with the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Welcome, Mr. Schwanen. You have the floor. We are like a family here.

Mr. Daniel Schwanen (Senior Economist, Institute for Research on Public Policy): Thank you.

First of all I'd like to tell you about the IRPP, the Institute for Research on Public Policy. It is an independent think-tank that is celebrating its 30^th anniversary this year. The purpose of the organization is to improve the quality of public debate on the main issues of concern to Canadians, whether it be economic development, social progress or the quality of our democracy.

We have three research projects underway relating to North American integration: one dealing with matters of military cooperation, another concerning issues related to immigration and the other, under my responsibility, which examines the phenomenon of economic integration and its consequences, not always obvious, for the decisions that Canadians will be taking not only in matters of economic policy but in a whole range of other areas.

These studies have been underway for several months now but have just begun to take concrete form as publications. We are not yet in a position to give you a final report and there may perhaps never be a final report on Canada-U.S. relations.

In response to one of the many questions raised in the summary of key issues prepared for the committee, I would say that in my view Canada requires a global strategy relating to the future of North American relations. We cannot simply limit ourselves to a day-by-day approach and an ad hoc response to whatever crisis may arise. I have every reason to believe that we will have to invent our own integration model, a model that is peculiar to Canada and the United States, and perhaps Mexico as well, as we have already done in the case of trade relations, rather than importing a European model or rallying around concepts such as monetary or customs union, for want of a better solution.

In the short amount of time available to me, I would like to present to you the results of a preliminary reflection on North American integration, part of which was published in English in the IRPP review Policy Options, which you have before you, and it also reflects in part a recent presentation I made to the Conseil du patronat du Québec relating to the future of the Canadian dollar. My comments will be largely in English since I wrote the article in English.

I was a bit surprised myself, in writing this article and making the presentation, to realize that when we talk about Canada-U.S. integration, we have to be quite careful about what we mean.

I'll now continue in English.

[English]

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that to integrate is “to form, coordinate or blend into a functioning or unified whole”. Canada's policy towards North America should be built squarely on the “functioning” whole of this definition, and not on the “unified” whole.

À (1050)

[Translation]

The two can very well function together and be well -integrated on the basis of the concept of interoperability rather than the convergence of standards.

[English]

The fact is that the countries of North America need each other in order to pursue many of their economic, social, environmental, and security objectives. These objectives may themselves diverge for some time to come, including as they do, between Canada and the United States, a number of areas with potential cross-border implications, such as immigration, firearms restrictions, and prescription drug pricing. Even if Canadians' views became much closer to those of Americans on these and other matters, being part of a North American policy determination process dominated by the United States Congress would likely not work to Canadians' advantage.

To refer for a moment to prosaic trade matters, consider recent U.S. moves against Canadian potatoes and lumber, or continuing restrictions on a number of activities by Canadians in the United States as part of the free trade agreement, such as maritime cabotage or state-level procurements. It is hard to imagine--for me it's impossible, in fact--that more integrated policies across North America, determined by a body that included no elected representatives from Canada, would be able to protect Canadian interests in a variety of matters.

In short, we should be skeptical about talk of greater integration that simply envisions Canada converging towards “made for U.S.” rules and policies.

Why couldn't we adopt the EU model? I think the answer is simple, perhaps simplistic. A common intergovernmental decision-making structure, such as an EU-style council, which is sometimes talked about, or even the simpler North American community envisaged by Robert Pastor in his recent book for the Institute for International Economics in Washington, could not function in North America, both because of the size and balance between our countries and because, as is well known, Congress holds fast jealously to its powers. Another important driver of European integration, a court of justice, is likewise unthinkable on this continent.

In short, a move towards integration that would involve either common political institutions or a supranational court sensitive to Canadian or Mexican interests is not likely to work, even--and especially, perhaps--for the United States.

It is true that a North American citizenship of sorts may well be developing within large corporations, the environmental movement, or even in the cultural sphere. This no doubt has long-term implications for a possible political union between the three countries--very long-term implications--but for now the attraction of smoother access to the United States is not a reason for Canada to abandon its own policies and standards, certainly not when they can be shown to work well. And that should be the only criteria for adopting or maintaining or jettisoning standards.

There is value in differences, as well as in harmonization, especially when needs are different across jurisdictions. But none of this means Canada cannot or should not make major headway in facilitating and reducing the cost of the enormous movement of trade and people across North American borders, or in adopting measures necessary to minimize security risks to itself and to others. But in trying to do this we should not be swept away by a sense of inevitable assimilation, a sense of an inevitable convergence of standards.

On security, for example, the question is how can we secure our partner's flank, bolster U.S. confidence that threats--whatever threats--to them will not materialize from Canada? But does this mean we should all adopt the same policy, should converge, should have a common perimeter? Well, not necessarily. The answer to the question of how we can secure the U.S. flank does not lie in all countries adopting the same security model, just as it does not lie in their adopting the same criminal laws, which indeed differ even between U.S. states.

Appallingly lax security procedures, poor ongoing information sharing between various agencies and between their private firms and public agencies, and the lack of public preparedness have been identified not as Canadian problems, but by U.S. experts as U.S. problems, and they are elements that country is focusing on in order to successfully thwart terrorist attacks and other threats.

It is clear, therefore--and this is my main point on the security front as well as on the economic front--that for everyone to converge toward the same but flawed system is not a solution. The United States and Canada have the right to expect that when they do set up their domestic security measures they will do so in a way that secures their partner's flank as well. But that does not necessarily mean convergence.

In the article I refer further to, for example, the Schengen Agreement in Europe, where you have even a much easier crossing of borders than here. Countries still have different visa requirements, at least where long-term visas are concerned, and they have different policies on drug laws, different immigration policies, etc. But they manage through this agreement to maintain these differences in the context of much higher integration than here, without relinquishing necessarily their differences when they want to be different, but acknowledging that each country should look after, in the context of close economic cooperation and open borders, the key interests of their partners. And they are able to reassure the other country that's what they're doing. This is the approach we should be taking on security.

Speaking of open borders, we need open borders. We need an easier flow of trade in goods and services, not only for the economic benefits it provides, but also--and more saliently, in light of recent events--because the more effort we devote to blocking, inspecting, taxing, or turning back legitimate trade and people flows at the border, the less effort we can devote to thwarting serious security threats.

If we inspect everything, we end up inspecting nothing. We have to do some intelligent inspection at the border, and that means, really, trying to identify as much as possible what is a threat and what is not.

Here, some people have suggested we could have a more open border with a customs union. I'm not so sure. Look at the very tough way in which the Americans have negotiated the trade agreement. It turns out, when you look back on ten years of NAFTA and of Canada-U.S. free trade, there are a lot of impediments still to trade between the two countries.

A customs union, yes, would mean we would have harmonized tariffs, and you wouldn't have to prove, if you wanted to export your product, that your product was of North American origin. Yes, there would be some advantages to a customs union, but the real hard questions would still be whether we would be exempt from U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty, whether we would be able to access procurement opportunities in the States, and so on--all these issues that have been left behind by the free trade agreement.

I believe the U.S. would be uncomfortable negotiating a customs union as well, because I don't think it would be prepared to let go of all these barriers that remain between the two countries. What we could rely on instead of a hard customs union is a softer concept, one of mutual recognition--a different type of mutual recognition from the one prevalent in Europe.

What mutual recognition means is each party recognizes its partners subscribe to certain minimal standards; it is therefore less likely to view a product or individual originating in another party as unsafe, unqualified, or constituting unfair competition. In a sense, to ensure mutual recognition between the two countries a much more ambitious and substantive agenda than simply the theoretically attractive proposition of trying to go immediately toward a customs union.

What we could do is create independent bodies, perhaps modelled on the existing Commission for Environmental Cooperation, whose role would be to provide common fact-finding--common to Canada and the U.S.--and common reporting on issues such as subsidies, environmental practices, qualifications, or product standards across North America.

À (1055)

Domestic agencies, such as the International Trade Commission in the U.S. and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in Ottawa, would continue to be responsible for the administration of domestic laws and the protection of public interests in their respective jurisdictions. But they would be required to base any decision that created explicit obstacles to trade within their region, such as countervailing duties, on the fact-finding reports issued by these independent and multinational bodies, which, like the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, could embed processes for significant public as well as experts' inputs. Among other advantages, the procedure could reduce the risk of capture of regulatory agencies by private interests at the expense of the public.

The whole idea is that we remain sovereign countries and each country will not jettison its trade laws and even the ability to impose, for example, countervailing or anti-dumping duties. But if we could manage to create a mechanism that would ensure that such decisions were created more on the basis of common fact-finding, including fact-finding based on public input, we would have made some progress toward mutual recognition. What comes from Canada is not necessarily a threat to the United States. It's not necessarily unfair trade. Maybe we just operate differently. That is something that would improve interoperability and the flow of trade without necessarily resulting in countries abandoning their own domestic policies.

[Translation]

Another area where integration is discussed a great deal is the integration of monetary policy through a common currency. Once again, I think that this indicates the attraction of familiar models, the model of adopting a currency other than our own, namely the American dollar, without necessarily reflecting on the fact that Canada and the United States are becoming more and more integrated but not necessarily integrated in that kind of way.

It is a fact that Canada and the United States are becoming increasingly integrated economically. They are integrated because they are increasingly interdependent. But does that mean that Canada and the United States play the same role in this area of economic integration? Not at all.

In Canada, we play a very different role. The Canadian economy is still very different even though it is more dependent on and more integrated with the American economy. We still play a very different role. It is true that we are slightly less dependent on natural resources than we once were but if you look at the sizable Canadian trade surplus, you will note that it can be almost entirely ascribed to natural resources such a lumber, natural gas, pulp and paper. If we add up these various categories, the total is almost the equivalent of Canada's sizeable trade surplus.

Today the figures for Canada's trade balance for the fourth quarter were published by Statistics Canada. There was a drop in our trade surplus. Why is this so? Because the price of our exports dropped. It is not untrue to say that the Canadian currency is still based on our natural resources and that the Canadian economy is still based to a much larger extent than the American economy on natural resources. It may be less than it once was but it is still the case and that means that we must have monetary flexibility for the simple reason that the price of our natural resources, the price of our exports may decrease. In such a case, we need a cushion that allows us to export something else, that allows us to export manufactured products. This particular cushion is the Canadian dollar.

It is a somewhat standard response but still a very valid one and it is the answer to the question about whether we should adopt a common currency. The answer is that now is not yet the time. The Canadian economy may very well be integrated with the American economy but it is not the same as the American economy, there are still important differences. I am thinking of natural resources but also the manufacturing sector.

Unfortunately, Canada is increasingly positioning itself as a producer and a manufacturer rather than a generator of research and development and a generator of jobs such as those that are to be found in head offices, administrations and so forth.

This means that we are placing ourselves in a competitive position in relation to Mexico and Brazil for the future rather than attempting to become like the United States. It is a bad position for us to choose, but the fact that we are keeping our independent national currency would enable us to cope with these differences we have with the United States, not only in terms of commodities and natural resource proceeds and manufactured products, but within the manufacturing sector itself.

Á (1100)

In fact, we are becoming more of a producer of manufactured goods than the United States. Manufacturing in the United States is shrinking. They are increasingly becoming a producer of services and they charge a very high price for their services. The structure of the Canadian economy depends on the United States but it is certainly not the same structure as that of the United States. In order to reflect these differences, we need a different currency that is able to fluctuate according to whether the prices of our goods are going up or down on world markets.

When we talk about integration, we have to know what we are talking about. We can talk about integration in terms of greater interdependence, which is something that must be given greater consideration and that may create problems, but to claim that the Canadian economy and policies should be more aligned with American policies does not necessarily flow from this as a logical conclusion. We have to be careful before we make this step.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you, Mr. Schwanen. It was very interesting and straightforward.

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for your presentation. It's a good thing there aren't too many members present, we can have a good exchange.

I liked your presentation because it was well-balanced. You say that we cannot import the European model. I think that everyone agrees on that point for the reasons you mentioned. I'm also glad to note that among the four pillars you identified in your text, there are two that refer to European examples, such as the Schengen Agreement or the matter of harmonization and various cases of mutual recognition. In that regard, I think you have given us a balanced approach because there is a need to take our inspiration from practices in other parts of the world, not only in Europe, but all over.

Regarding the monetary union, I share your opinion for the short and even the medium term. But do you agree that this is an issue that requires a more in-depth examination? As a matter of fact, the Conseil du patronat du Québec organized a debate last week in which you participated. Admittedly, the fact that the Canadian economy still exports huge quantities of raw materials calls for flexibility with respect to exchange rates, but the ratio between raw materials and the rest of what we produce has been declining from year-to-year. This decline will continue for the very simply reason that a good part of the economy is being dematerialized. That means that sooner or later we are heading towards a decline in the Canadian dollar to approximately 50¢, perhaps even more, I don't know.

All of this will have impacts that we must measure. To a certain extent, what you are going along with for the medium term is the failure to correct the structural problem. A point that is often made is that our exchange rates discourage research, development and the importing of new American technologies in particular, which are extremely expensive and affect our competitiveness.

The thing that worries me is not so much the debate on this issue but the fact that we are seeing a de facto dollarization of our economy without any debate. As you know, the operations of large corporations are already completely dollarized.

I don't think you are closed to the idea of such a debate. I'd like to ask you how you see a debate on this particular issue. It is something that significantly divides the political parties in the House of Commons. On the government's side they are even refusing to have the debate. As for the Bank of Canada, the governor has shown himself to be open by saying that in his opinion, which he reiterated in an answer to a question I put to him, there will be de facto dollarization of the economy.

I have two other small questions.

For us to be able to negotiate in the way you are suggesting, the Americans will have to recognize us as a full-fledged partner. I was in the union movement for several years. There must be a certain leverage with the Americans. However, since September 11, 2001, there has been a certain unilateralism on the American side much to the annoyance of the Europeans as well as to the Government of Canada, I think. They have imposed a whole series of measures on us. I still maintain that the Anti-Terrorist Act was first and foremost a response to the American desire to see us adopt such legislation. We already had in place nearly all the necessary tools.

How can we create this leverage with the Americans at a time when the American administration seems increasingly determined to take decisions and impose them on its partners, including its European partners? This is not a problem that is specific to Canada but since we are closer, we are more...

My final question is about Mexico's role. You refer to this at the beginning of your remarks. I am one of those who thinks that Canada should work very hard on its ties to Mexico, because this would perhaps allow us to establish a certain power relationship with the Americans on subjects of common interest.

The presentations we heard from officials from various departments at the beginning of our study revealed that the Mexican issue was not a consideration at all in the day-to-day workings of the Canadian government. I would like to hear what you think our relationship with Mexico should be and what role Mexico could play in establishing this interoperability.

Á (1110)

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: In my view, this debate on dollarization has been very poorly framed. The IRPP is doing research to try to show the advantages of this policy, rather than trying to show its disadvantages, because, to my mind, for the time being, there is a better empirical demonstration of its disadvantages than its advantages. I think that to date, people who advocate dollarization simply do up a list of what is not working in the current system, without necessarily demonstrating how it could work differently.

So there is a lot of talk. For example, it is said that Canadian firms are sold to the Americans at fire-sale prices, because the dollar is low. First of all, if we look at the figures for the past 10 years, when the dollar was in constant decline, we see that Canadian firms invested a great deal more abroad than foreigners invested here. We are buying more companies abroad, we are just making more direct investments abroad than foreigners are making here. So I do not see any fire sale. There are quite simply a lot of international investments going on, and we are part of this. We purchase foreign companies at roughly the same rate as we sell them here. So there is no fire sale of Canadian companies.

And even if there were a fire sale, how would the dollar change that? If we had had the American dollar, there would have been a fire sale in any case. Why? Because rather than being able to export, companies would have made less profit, their price on the stock exchange would have been lower, they would have had to pay less in salaries, the cost of houses in Canada would have dropped and the TSE 300 index would have dropped. There is a monetary illusion to the effect that if we had a strong currency, our economy would be strong. That is not true. If we have a strong currency, but our economy remains weak, we are going to be taken to the cleaners one way or another. We are going to be...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I agree with you. You make some very good arguments. But how can we have a debate based on the correct premises? After all, there is a problem with the Canadian dollar. It is going to continue to fall precisely because of the economic structure...

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: Yes. However, the fundamental problem then, if we want to focus on the fundamental problem... I'm sure you've been told, like many others, that the solution was to deal with the problem of the Canadian economy, to make it more productive. Once again, some will say that in order to make the economy productive, we must import machinery and equipment and that a weaker Canadian dollar causes the price of machinery and equipment to increase. It would serve no purchases to pay less for machinery and equipment if you had no profit that you could use to make purposes and investments. Thus, it is very clear that one of the factors with the greatest impact on the purchase of machinery and equipment is the cost of the machinery, which may be lower in weaker Canadian dollars, compared to American dollars, because we import so much of it, but there is also the issue of profits. It is immediately clear that when the profits of Canadian companies started to rise dramatically beginning in the mid-90s, our investments rose dramatically as well. It is not our dollar that is preventing us from investing in machinery and equipment so as to increase our productivity.

However, there are other more fundamental factors in our economy that we cannot escape, because our economy is dependent on natural resources. We cannot escape from this whether we have the American dollar or not. All we can do is to try to encourage the economy to grow in sectors with higher value-added. Canada has had this problem for 30 or 40 years, and we need economic policies that take this factor into account. We have to encourage the establishment of head offices. For example, what interests me more than whether or not we are going to adopt the American dollar is the following question.

In this integration process that is underway, why is it that when Canadian firms purchase American firms, the former start to become American? We transfer staff to the United States. Since we want to be part of the big U.S. market, we need staff. We do all the head office activities in the United States. There is pressure from the American government for us to invest in the United States rather than abroad, particularly in difficult economic times. So there is a dynamic whereby some Canadian firms transfer some of their important activities south of the border. We keep the manufacturing activities in Canada. Obviously, we keep the natural resources in Canada, because we have no choice, but there are some important activities that are moved to the United States.

One of the studies in the series we will be publishing is examining this dynamic. Can we turn things around and have more high value-added activities in Canada? The example of Argentina may not apply to Canada...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Yes, because there are other problems.

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: ...but there are other examples. For instance, at the end of the 80s, Ms. Thatcher said that her country now had a stronger economy thanks to the reforms she had introduced, and that it should become part of the European monetary system. At the time, a sort of rigidity was already beginning, with percentages being allocated to France, German, and so on. There were other currencies joining the system, and England said that it would become part of the European monetary system.

Another question is what the level of the Canadian dollar should be. If we choose to peg the dollar very low compared to the American dollar, we will experience what happened in Great Britain at the end of the 1980s. There, a fairly ambitions set of reforms was almost overturned because Great Britain had tried to join the European monetary system at much too high a rate, its currency much too strong compared to the German mark. This caused a recession in England, which thought it had a more flexible economy, but which, ultimately, was not so flexible at all. Neither prices nor salaries were flexible downwards, and England went into a recession much before the other OECD countries, at the end of the 1980s. The situation had to be turned around completely, and the pound, which was thought to be so strong, fell in comparison to the German mark. The English are still hesitating about joining the European Monetary Union. They had a very bad experience. If we do not deal with the fundamental problem, we will not have a strong economy.

You ask what type of power relationship we have with the United States. It is in the interest of the U.S. to have strong partners, and we must make them understand that when they do not. They understand it with respect to Mexico. They should certainly understand it with respect to Canada. They must also understand—this is an intellectual issue and the message must be repeated—that a strong Canada is not necessarily one that adopts American policies. The situation here is not the same. The economy is not the same. The political situation is not the same. In addition, as I mentioned, the situation is not the same with respect to security policies. If you speak to an American expert such as Stephen Flynn, for example, who is with the Council on Foreign Relations, I believe—in any case, I could get the correct title—he will tell you categorically that the problem as seen by the United States is that our security policy is very lax. We have a bad system. We let people in. The problem is not Canada as such. He would say that if the Americans solve their problems, they would like Canada to solve its problems so that they feel safe on that front. And I imagine they say the same thing to Mexico.

This is an intellectual question. The only lever we have at the moment is an intellectual one, failing a significant military lever, and so on. We have to make them understand that a strong Canada is in their interest and that a strong Canada is not necessarily one that adopts American policies. However, it is a Canada that protects American interests as well as its own, because it is in its interest to do so.

Á (1115)

You talked about Mexico. I am in full agreement with you that it is very important to talk about Mexico, as we saw in the case of NAFTA. In some ways, the Mexicans are facing similar pressures regarding security and the risk they may represent for the United States. I imagine that the mere fact of having them as partners and involving them would be a good thing. We could ask the Mexicans how their relationship with the United States has evolved since September 11, what we can do together, what we can get the Americans to understand. I think the Mexicans have fewer problems than we do in saying that it is not simply a question of moving toward the norms and standards of American policy. The Mexicans maintain that they have other interests, but that their interests are not necessarily opposed to American interests. Rather, their interests are such that Americans will feel more comfortable if Mexico is stronger and if Canada is stronger. It is in the interest of both Canada and Mexico to be stronger, but the adoption of American norms and standards and the American currency is not the answer. It is certainly not an automatic answer.

Á (1120)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I would like to ask a final question, Mr. Schwanen. First of all, I am a fan of the IRPP. In fact, I even attended the IRPP's first conference to mark its 30th anniversary, together with Ms. Monique Bégin. It was excellent. Even La Presse published long excerpts from the meeting this morning. I find all your research work of very high quality. I congratulate you on that.

I come now to my question. To what extent is it important to strengthen the continental political architecture by establishing supra national institutions? Is this utopian? Would it be to Canada's advantage or disadvantage or, given the size of the United States and its importance in all areas, would it be utopian to do that?

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: It would be utopian to do this according to the European model, but there are some institutions we could strengthen to try to achieve somewhat the same results as in Europe without necessarily using the same model, for obvious political reasons. However, we can strengthen some models.

I was referring to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the CEC. We could have it play a very useful role in the area of integration. In fact, people in the three countries are starting to be informed jointly about what is going on with respect to the environment. We could certainly have this body play a role when there are disputes between Canada and the United States. Should the U.S. International Trade Commission judge Canadian policy solely on the strength of its own analysis? When there are disputes to be settled, could a decision not be made on the basis of binational or trinational analyses conducted with Mexico on certain fundamental problems, for example? Does Canada really have weak environmental laws which the U.S. could claim to be an illegal subsidy, and so on? Who should be making these decisions? Should it be the Americans only—who after all are subject to American political pressure—or could there be a body that is more independent from the American or Canadian decision-making authority? Such a group would be made up of Canadians, Americans and Mexicans, who would review these problems and report. We could simply have a sort of framework agreement which would state that when national bodies have a problem beyond their borders, they must automatically take into account reports made by this agency and they would not be allowed to ignore them.

In this way, the countries would retain their sovereignty, but we would automatically include a broader range of more independent analyses of the situation in the three countries. That alone would be a step forward. In other areas, we could move in this way toward a type of mutual recognition.

Things that come from a different system, such as the Canadian system, are not necessarily bad. They may simply be different. Who is to judge that? It would not necessarily be an American agency; in any case, we would use the findings of a multinational agency.

I am sorry, I cannot think of the French acronym for NORAD.

Á (1125)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It is NORAD.

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: NORAD, right. Yet it seems to me there must be a French acronym.

At some point, in the long term, if we have agreements whereby a Canadian can be the second commander in chief of NORAD, for example, why would a Canadian not be second in command at the International Trade Commission, or an American at our CITT? That is just an idea that came to mind, but it might be a way of achieving better cooperation between the agencies.

Clearly, we cannot have a political model based on the European example. That would not work and we know why. However, why not have better cooperation among the agencies responsible for implementing national policy in each country?

In the article, I also talk about other possible models for convergence, about standards, taking into account the need to be able to keep our own standards in case we need them. Why not encourage certain federal, provincial or municipal jurisdictions to look at what is done elsewhere? They could examine whether it is useful to have different standards on vehicle emissions in California and Ontario, for example, and decide that it is not very useful at all. At that point, consideration could be given to harmonization, and to the possibility of retaining only the right to have different standards when there are objective reasons for doing so.

I am getting into another area here, but I do speak about this a little in the article. We do not need to do that on a grandiose political scale, but we could try to have some new mechanisms to promote better mutual understanding, while retaining the option of having different policies when we need them.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to make one brief closing comment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): A 30-second comment.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: We proposed exactly the same idea at the Forum for Federations. It might be interesting to explore it further.

Mr. Daniel Schwanen: We are exploring it at the IRPP. It will take a few more weeks until...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Schwanen. That was very interesting. We will break for a few minutes.

Á (1127)

Á (1130)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I will now call the meeting to order.

We are pleased to have with us now Mr. Serge Blais, the Co-President of the Africa Canada Forum.

You have the floor.

Mr. Serge Blais (Co-President, Africa Canada Forum): Thank you.

Let me start by giving you a brief description of Africa Canada Forum. It is a task force representing about 40 Canadian organizations, that has direct ties to African partners, including development NGOs, church groups and union organizations. The objective of the Africa Canada Forum, its mission, is to discuss and reflect on Canadian policy on Africa and on the work of NGOs in Africa.

At the end of the summer, when we found out that Africa would be an important role agenda item at the G-8 Summit, which will be held in Canada, the Africa Canada Forum got involved in dialogue with its African partners. I was told that one document would be central to the work of the G-8 in Kananaskis. Its title is The New Partnership for Africa's Development.

We wanted to hear the opinions, comments and positions of our African partners. We realize that the document was virtually unknown in Africa. We therefore started by making people familiar with it. We distributed the document ourselves to hundreds of African partners and invited them to take part in a dialogue by having groups meet to discuss the document and present their main positions.

The same procedure was going on within Canadian organizations that are members of the Africa Canada Forum. We met on Monday and Tuesday of this week to put together the positions we received from the Africans. We invited Africans to attend this meeting. So, for two days, there were 80 people discussing their different views in an effort to come up with a joint position. That is what I will presenting to you today.

The meeting ended the day before yesterday. Yesterday, we met with Mr. Fowler and his team to present the results of our work. We will be submitting to the committee in the next few days or weeks a written brief reporting on all of our discussions and our conclusions.

To start with, we would like to say that we applaud the fact that Canada decided to play a leadership role, since the G-8 was meeting in Canada, in mobilizing the G-8 countries to discuss African recovery. We support this initiative on the part of the government, and we encourage its efforts along these lines. We are among those who think that, as a result of September 11, 2001, we must take steps to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We think that we must not merely build fences around ourselves and spend all our resources on security measures, but rather design and implement policies that could have an impact on the causes of this ever-growing gap.

It is not necessary to go through the list of all the indicators. Africa is poorer now, in all respects, than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Living conditions in Africa have been dropping steadily in the area of income, health, and education in the past 20 or so years.

Thus, globalization, which has created wealth in some parts of the world, has not had the same effect at all in Africa. Africa's share of international trade is less than 1%. Things are going extremely badly on that continent. When we talk about the gap between the rich and the poor, Africa is a prime illustration. Thus we can only salute the effort to find ways of bringing about a recovery in Africa.

However, we would like to stress the need for broader participation by what may be called civil society in Africa in any recovery project. In addition, we would like to stress the need for involve Canadian civil society and even Canadian institutions, starting with Parliament, in recovery projects in Africa.

We have all heard about a $500 million fund that was established for Africa. To date, I think almost no one can say who will use this money how and for what. We think an effort should be made to broaden the debate and to allow the churches, unions, citizens and even Parliament to discuss various options for African recovery. The debate should not be entirely left up to technocrats, in international financial institutions, who are generally accountable to no one. Nor should we rely solely on a G-8 initiative, which might lack public oversight.

In September, there was a commission studying the effectiveness and reform of overseas development assistance. What we hear now, at least as regards Africa, is that new directions at CIDA will be decided upon after the G-8 meeting, in fact after the G-8 decision-makers have adopted an action plan for African recovery. In other words, the opinions expressed by Canadians to this commission are really secondary to a decision-making authority such as the G-8, which sets the major trends for the future. We would recommend that we be able to take part in this debate, that a draft be tabled before the G-8 meeting on the Canadian contribution to a G-8 action plan. We want to be able to discuss this.

More generally, I think that the Africa Canada Forum agrees with a number of points, for example, the reference to promoting peace and security and the proposal to return to former objectives for increasing ODA. For 10 years now, there have been cuts to official development assistance, and the 0.7% objective that was proposed is not only far from being achieved, but the level has actually gone from 0.5% to 0.25%. In our view, this is unacceptable in the current context.

On the ODA issue , Canada should have a more consistent set of policies dealing with Africa, or having an impact on the development of Africa. There is a whole range of policies: the Export Development Corporation, for example, provides tax exemptions to Canadian mining companies to implement projects in Africa that cause social or environmental problems, which we then try to fix through development assistance programs.

Á (1135)

Regarding Canada's position during the WTO negotiations at the last round in Doha, the Government of Canada was one of those who rejected the demands of governments—in this case, African governments—who had the support of their populations. Within the G-8, therefore, Canada's work towards a revitalization of Africa should be part of a larger framework , so that more consistency in Canadian policy overall is achieved.

Let us look specifically at the results of discussions regarding NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Democracy and good governance are key issues in the NEPAD plan. In our view, what is being put forward here is an extremely reductive view of democracy, something that focuses solely on administrative efficiency, coming closer to the prescriptions of the international financial institutions than to the promotion of genuine democracy within African countries. In our view this will undermine the very objectives of NEPAD; in other words, top-down democracy will not provide a good foundation for the profound changes needed so that Africans can manage their development themselves.

The NEPAD document also seems weak on historical analysis. Politically, I think almost everyone would agree that, to date, Africa has been run by outside interests. This was obvious during the colonial period, but leaders of countries which gained independence during the Cold War were generally pushed into adopting policies that favoured the interests of one side or the other of the Iron Curtain, depending on which camp they were in. In the same way, policies tended to benefit outside interests much more than the interests of Africans themselves.

In our view, NEPAD does not change that significantly. Because of its restrictive vision of democracy, it takes no account of the need to consolidate democratic entities locally, nationally and at the pan-African level. African leaders will always be obligated to outsiders, accountable to foreign donors and to international financial institutions rather than to their own people. This has created a culture of corruption, which means that any outsiders who want profitable businesses or contracts have to use bribery. And people in positions of power accept the bribes because ordinary people do not know it is going on. These dealings are between foreigners and African leaders.

Another fundamental aspect of NEPAD announced in the document is the reduction of poverty. This mobilization of foreign and domestic resource is intended to lower poverty levels. It takes into account the terrible situation in Africa. As I said, the seriousness of the problem is shown very clearly by a whole series of indicators.

From an economic standpoint, the policies underlying NEPAD are not different from those that have been applied in the past 20 years. Basically, the plan sets out structural adjustment programs to be implemented in an environment where African countries are increasingly disadvantaged.

Á (1140)

The measures put forward in NEPAD are the same as those which such institutions as the World Bank and the IMF have been imposing on Africa over the past 20 years, and which result in this extreme poverty and drain resources. Old wine in new bottles is still sour wine. These same policies cannot possibly have fresh results.

The last point that emerged at our latest meeting with Canadian members of the Africa Canada Forum was on the very foundation of development in Africa. We emphasized the fact that development should be based on rights and focus on the individual. The contribution Canadians are prepared to make to the process, with a view to promoting rights and making it possible for people to improve their lot, is probably far less for ensuring the profitability of private investment and finding new markets. Canadian tax dollars would be used to establish infrastructure and help stabilize the political environment. This would give investors access to resources that could not be obtained if there were no roads, ports, airports or political stability, or if there was any risk of the government's being overthrown. Our ultimate goal should be to promote rights and to focus on the person, not to make private investment profitable.

I was saying that we were concerned about the G-8's potential action plan. We have heard that they want to focus funding on countries that are governing well, in other words, countries that apply the measures prescribed by the international financial institutions. But in terms of value for Canadians, we find that approach questionable. It would granting funding to four or five countries in a continent of some 50-odd countries. It would mean sending the money to countries that apply the prescriptions of the international financial institutions, often without looking too closely at what goes on within the country. For example, for a number of years donors in the North have come together to support Uganda, more particularly its educational system, because it is considered to be acting properly—it is implementing the prescriptions of the international financial institutions, which promote exports and balanced domestic budgets. But a considerable portion of Uganda's revenue is derived from products pillaged from neighbouring Congo by the Ugandan army. World Bank officials know this is going on, but turn a blind eye to it because Uganda is considered well governed since it applies the prescriptions of the international financial institutions. In this case, good governance may go so far as promoting war in a neighbouring country.

My friend Jeannine, who is here today, is from Goma. She can tell you something about the situation in Congo, where over 3 million people have been killed. They have been killed in a war which, in some cases, is supported and supplied by Uganda's pillaging.

I will stop there.

Á (1145)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will now move on to questions.

Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you.

First of all, you are not the first people to say that NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, is not known in Africa. I believe the AQOCI said the same thing. Already, we can see there is a problem right at the outset.

You talk about democracy. You talk about the fact that, as things currently stand, we are maintaining a system in which African leaders will be accountable to international institutions or foreign governments, in this case the G-8, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, rather than being accountable first and foremost to their own people. Yet, we know that at present many of those countries lack the institutions and organizations—be it unions, political parties or women's groups—which could impose the kind of debate you are demanding on their leaders, the kind of debate that is of course essential to democracy.

So how can we get beyond this? We are putting pressure on our governments to do what they can to force a number of leaders either to step down or to implement at least a basic rule of law, without simultaneously generating dependence and a paternalistic system. I would like you to tell us what we can do to achieve this.

On the issue of human rights and profitable private investments, I would like to quote you the views of the personal representative of the Prime Minister, a view that is widely shared by many in the government:

However, no amount of ODA can replace the essential requirement of strong and sustainable economic growth underpinned by good governance. African leaders understand that, to grow, Africa needs more than official development assistance. Africa needs private-sector investment.

So what gets excluded? Does your approach—in terms of rights and in terms of meeting human needs—require that we exclude a more traditional economic development approach, which is growth, followed by distribution of the benefits of that growth? With that approach, private investors will clearly want guarantees of good governance. So how can we achieve some kind of balance? That is my question.

As far as Uganda is concerned, I get the feeling that they have read Marx and learned about the primitive accumulation of capital through piracy.

Á (1150)

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

Mr. Serge Blais: Civil society in Africa is not well established. It is probably relatively young, though independent newspapers have emerged in most African countries. Independent radio stations are also becoming established in many countries. Churches can often reach the people in most of the country and, so there are organizations that promote rights and a more equitable environment, and that come together to demand a more active role and more democracy.

Africa's economic environment has deteriorated completely. Any existing or remaining union have no power. There are some unions in Africa, teachers' unions, for example, which over the past 10 years have become much more militant, breaking their allegiance to the single ruling party found in most African countries.

There are women's organizations. Women ensure the survival of Africa's people. In a spontaneous and organized fashion, women are coming together to set up market gardening operations, set up a credit system among themselves, and ensure their own survival. These women are also increasingly present on the political scene.

In most African countries there are also students' associations.

So there is something there. Dictators are not going to change. In most African countries, there are indeed people's organizations which are getting together and demanding greater openness and more accountability from their governments. Depending on the country, they are frequently treated unfairly and their protests repressed, but Canadian organizations working in Africa are making considerable efforts to change this.

We try to support women's organizations, potato producers' associations, rice producers' associations and fishers' associations. These groups are playing a role in demanding the right to speak, and demanding a role in the discussions that will decide how the continent is to develop and become revitalized.

One option would be to set aside some resources to strengthen those organizations and enable them to achieve a wider profile, help them gain ground in areas where they are repressed, so that they can play the role that similar organizations play throughout the world.

In response to your second question, we are not against private investment. However, one thing that has to change is the process whereby things are done behind closed doors, whereby investors and the technocracy of international financial institutions arrange things amongst themselves without giving ordinary people an opportunity to...

For example, a country like Senegal is required to sign fishing agreements with fleets that come there. This is a form of investment, because the agreements bring in foreign currency that help the government repay its debt. However, tens of thousands of people living off traditional fishing are excluded from the debate, and cannot express their views on the repercussions these agreements have on resource protection and on the sustainability required to ensure that fishing can continue.

So public assistance should not be excluded from investment. Americans said that Africa should get trade, not aid. But we believe that the two should be complementary, thereby generating results as soon as there is some political openness. My view that political openness is achieved by strengthening an independent press, organizations, and local producers who can demand their rights from their governments. However, with the current system...

Take oil investment in Angola. All dealings are between a few individuals in the government and major corporations. Angolans have no idea what is going on, and this breeds corruption.

Shell, Elf and Mobil have been pumping oil in Nigeria for years. They do pay some royalties, but the royalties are not very high and all arrangements are made behind closed doors without debate. This is what leads to the corrupt regimes we are familiar with.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Blais, you have met Robert Fowler, the personal representative of the Prime Minister, and you know that we are making sure that there is continuity within the action plan. This continuity has already been applied by the G-8 in education, health and information technology. I understand that the government is investing $500 million, but we are not sure whether other G-8 members will follow suit. Since Canada is hosting, it was agreed at the outset that Canada's contribution was intended to generate momentum.

In your view, what sort of implementation measures should be established when the action plan is formulated? Should these be left to the Government of Canada, working in conjunction with churches? What is your view?

Â (1200)

Mr. Serge Blais: The fact of taking these funds out of CIDA... At one point, there was talk of the foundation that could be managed... We do not agree with that position. We believe integration is preferable. If there is additional money for Africa, that money should be incorporated into an overall Canadian policy on Africa. We would have to require accountability regarding to the options selected and the way in which those options would be implemented, and Canadian members of Parliament and citizens would have to have the opportunity to ask questions and hold their government accountable for its actions. If that is our goal, and if we choose specific measures to achieve it, we must have our say and the government must make a decision and be responsible for that decision.

We should certainly not leave that decision to specialists who are not...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): To the technocrats, as you were saying earlier.

Mr. Serge Blais: That's right, to organizations that are accountable to no one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You also mentioned CIDA. Are you concerned that the $500 million comes at least in part from potential CIDA funding? Are you concerned about that?

Mr. Serge Blais: Yes, I am, given the way in which the supplementary funding was announced. We are happy about the funding, which will to some extent counteract the downward trend in the past 10 years... But with respect to reform measures leading to more effective Canadian assistance, should that reform be dictated by the decisions of some high-ranking officials who decide at the G-8 that funds must be used multi-laterally, with no accountability? We don't think so.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Did the meeting with Mr. Fowler go well?

Mr. Serge Blais: Yes, it went well. He said that this was an opportunity to mobilize resources for Africa. That is what he is so enthusiastic about. We fully agree with him on this. He says that he is not very interested in details, though we asked him what the actual commitments would look like. For now, that is the question which... There is a process underway. These are taxpayer dollars, so we feel there should be greater openness. High-ranking officials in eight countries should not be solely responsible for making these decisions and just coming up with a proposal in Kananaskis, when it will be too late to...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That is the purpose of these questions, and of our work here. This is one of the first times we are called upon to meet with Canadian citizens. I think we are very proud of this moment, which will lead to the report we will publish at the end of April. We will certainly see Mr. Fowler to share our recommendations with him personally. I think that is very important, and that is why we are here.

We are very happy to have met with you this morning. Our conversation with you concludes this morning's work. Hearings will resume around 1:30 p.m. Once again, Mr. Blais, thank you for having come here today and sharing your comments with us.

Â (1203)

· (1330)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry) We are going to start back with the afternoon session.

It is a privilege to have with us Ms. Judith Berlyn, from the Westmount Initiative for Peace.

Welcome, Ms. Berlyn. You have the floor.

· (1335)

Ms. Judith Berlyn (Representative, Westmount Initiative for Peace): Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here.

I always put at the beginning what I have to not forget, so I'm saying good afternoon, and my name is Judith Berlyn. I'm here on behalf of the Westmount Initiative for Peace, which is Initiative de Westmount pour la paix. It was founded in 1985, and we are a small community-based non-profit volunteer group of concerned citizens. We're grateful for the opportunity to address you.

I would like to begin by noting some of the implications of three generally accepted truths about the state of the world at the time we are living in it. I think these things are really accepted by most people as being facts.

The first fact is that we live in a world where 20% of the population is actually using about 80% of the resources. This would be both the natural resources and the resources we create, like energy and so forth. We feel that this is obviously very unequal distribution. This distribution of the wealth of the planet can only be maintained, and is maintained, by using force. It seems that 20% of any group cannot keep for themselves the resources of the entire group without using force, and we see many examples when this happens.

We also know that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Again, people acknowledge that. The rich are getting richer, for sure, and the poor are getting poorer, and more numerous. That too gets maintained by force.

The third disturbing thing, and all these things disturb us greatly, is that the net flow of money in the world goes from the poorest countries to the richest countries. Something seems to be very wrong.

We feel that the guiding principle of all G-8 deliberations, actions, and policies should be to put the long-term well-being of people and the planet ahead of short-term financial and trade interests. We don't think that's the way the priorities are set at the moment.

As an aside, I'm just back from spending three days in Ottawa attending the DFAIT consultations with NGOs about human rights. You see the truth of this all over the world, the horrors that are happening, when Canadian companies and other companies—but of course our concern is our own government and our own companies, because that's what we have some responsibility for—go into a country such as Sudan. We know the story about Talisman and the oil fields and the horrors that are being perpetrated there. There is definitely a connection between these kinds of things. Then there is the diamond trade, and Talisman is about to go into Colombia.

There are some very bad situations in the world. The extraction of resources and the desire on the part of the developed world to control the use of and access to all these resources are really creating a great deal of misery. As I say, it's accompanied by militarism. In other words, you can't get that kind of globalization without a big increase in militarization, and we're seeing it.

We feel that the focus of the developed world, the rich world, the G-8, however you want to call it, should be on narrowing this gap between rich and poor. We list here a bunch of means. One of the first things we could do is increase the overseas official development assistance. The UN standard is, as you know, 0.7% of GDP. I think the highest we ever reached was about 0.4%, and now we're down to 0.2%. We're now roughly one-third of the United Nations' standard. I think that's disgraceful.

We would like to see military spending in the world as a whole directed toward human development. The clerk has a copy of the document entitled What the World Wants, which I believe has been distributed. Perhaps we could look at that for one short minute. This comes from a group of economists in the United States. They did it the first time, I think, for the big earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. They have updated it a couple of times since then. I don't know if there is a more recent update. This is the latest I have, and it's from 1999.

Each one of the squares represents $1 billion of government spending worldwide. So the total military spending in the world in a year is the whole page. Then they have costed out what it would take in billions of dollars to really meet all the basic needs of human beings, such as clean water, nothing fancy, and also deal with the most serious environmental problems. What we can see from this is that 30% of the money actually spent on the military could solve a lot of the problems that may in fact be creating the troubles in the world.

Naturally, the people who are in such terrible poverty will not take it forever, so of course they're going to react. I'm not saying there's a direct connection with the horrors of September 11, but we have to take these things into consideration when we're worried about what may happen in the world.

· (1340)

So the redirecting of military spending and adopting a Tobin tax... And I have no economic background—I've only heard about it and read a couple of articles on it—but it simply makes sense to me to have some measure like that. Otherwise, we have money that's moving around the world and people sit at their computers and they move it so it sloshes around the world like a great tidal wave and it upsets many economies. At least if we could have one tiny fraction of that to put to good use, that would be a good idea.

Again, I don't come from the development NGOs, but I'm told by my friends who do that Canada has placed a moratorium on collecting some third world debt rather than cancelling it. I know we've cancelled some debts of the poorest countries, but I believe the situation now is there's a moratorium on collecting the debt, which I'm told they prefer. They're very happy that the Government of Canada has done this moratorium, so we would persuade you to encourage the other countries to follow our good example on that collecting of debt from the poorest countries.

At the meetings I was at in the department the last three days we were told by department officials that corporate social responsibility is now on the agenda. However, it's all a voluntary kind of thing, and we feel there ought to be some legislation to give it weight. In other words, if Canadian law at the moment cannot control the behaviour of Canadian corporations abroad where the impact of their activity is having these devastating effects in some instances, let's look at how we can amend our law, please, because it's not a good situation.

Obviously, there is the initiative in Africa and the Prime Minister is expressing support for it, as I hope all the other parties will. We need some kind of Marshall Plan—I'll call it that because I'm old enough to remember it. I don't know what the right term would be, but let's please address the concerns of the African continent, because they're grave. I found one small article, and they mentioned the Multi-Fibre Agreement and a couple of other things called TRIM and TRIPS. Anyway, I don't know enough about it to elaborate, so I just left it at that.

That's what we think the G-8 should be trying to do—and we should be leading by example. We also think that a long-term socio-economic approach should be taken in dealing with the problem of international terrorism.

I want to mention something that puzzles me very much, and maybe you can help me. When I look at the situation of what happened on September 11, it was absolutely terrible and of course whoever is responsible must be brought to justice if we can and all that. But it happened in the country that has the greatest military power the world has ever known, and all that military capability did not prevent it and all that military capability could not have prevented it. Because if you have a determined suicide terrorist—we can look at Israel every week, or the Middle East, or wherever—they will find a way. So I don't understand why the response has been that we have to put more into military budgets.

I think in this country we didn't do so much. We had enhanced security, yes, at the airports, and the airplanes, and all that kind of thing, but in some places the suggestion is that we need more military capability to deal with it, and I don't see that. I precisely see the reverse, that it doesn't help.

Also, we're very concerned about the international weapons trade, which is very related to all these problems, and particularly about Canada's involvement in the international weapons trade, which is a great deal more than most Canadians realize. As a matter of fact I have, I hope, with me the latest report the government issues—this came out earlier this month—about Canada's export of military goods and technologies. That report is fine, and it's very detailed as far as it goes, but it only covers about 20% or 25% of our exports, or 40% at the most, because most of our exports of those kinds of goods go to the United States, and we don't require export permits.

· (1345)

One of the next things on my agenda is to have a little discussion with Pierre Paquette on that subject, because we really feel there should be export permits required for all military goods that leave Canada. It's interesting to note that now, I believe, small firearms do require them because of something...maybe part of the reaction to September 11. It has been a new regulation that came in, I think, but only for the small stuff. We would like to see it for everything, partly because we don't then track where it goes, and the goods can be re-exported from the United States.

The United States is the only exception. We do require export permits for the other NATO allies. Great Britain, France, and so on, all of them, we know what we have sold them. With the United States, it's not a matter of public record. So we find that disturbing, and we have recommendations on this one for what we'd like to see. That's our feeling about the weapons trade.

Of course, we should be banning nuclear weapons. You may not...well, I suppose you realize. I didn't realize for a long time that the Government of Canada had never stated and still refuses to state that it supports a total ban on nuclear weapons. It will not say so. I would love to know why.

Every time I go to the Department of Foreign Affairs building, in the hall behind the main entrance is the library door. On the right-hand side of the library door is a huge plaque on the wall that says “A Global Ban on Landmines”. Of course, we're very proud of our role in the banning of land mines. The wall on the other side is a blank wall. I'm waiting and hope I live long enough to see the plaque that will say “A Global Ban on Nuclear Weapons” and that Canada was leading that effort too. We know that 92% of Canadians want that. There was an Angus Reid poll done in 1998 precisely on these issues. In fact, this committee's report on nuclear weapons--I'm sure you're aware of it--is excellent, and we agree with all its recommendations.

Am I finished? Have I done my ten minutes?

· (1350)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Close. We'll give you an extra minute if you'll conclude.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: Thank you. I'm not looking.

Just to sum up briefly, it's our feeling that human security and well-being depend on access to clean water, adequate food, shelter, all the basic needs. As we say, we can do it if we have the political will to redirect the money. That's the main thing. You'll read the rest.

Thank you very much.

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

We'll start now with the questions. I will recognize my colleague, Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for your presentation.

You listed an impressive number of measures to reduce the gap between rich and poor. Which of those measures would you consider a priority? We have a report to prepare and we have to make choices, because we know that M. Chrétien will probably limit his message to the G-8.

My second question is more general. In the early 1990s, ODA stood at some 0.5 per cent of GDP. At present, it stands at 0.25 per cent of GDP. In your view, what prompted the government to reduce official government assistance? I would like to hear your comments on this. That said, I should tell you that the House of Commons recently passed a Bloc Québécois motion asking the government to establish 0.7 per cent of GDP—the figure you just mentioned—as its ODA objective to meet the UN standard. At the same time, we must concede that before we can achieve that standard we have to understand why the federal government reduced ODA in the first place.

I would like to know how you see this. In a nutshell, I have two questions: Which measure,in the list you presented, do you consider a priority, and how would you explain Canada's withdrawal from its ODA responsibility.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: Thank you. I will begin with your second question.

I cannot explain why the government reduced ODA. I don't know whether this was a general trend in other developed countries, but I imagine it was. I believe this may be related to the kind of globalization we are seeing today—a system that requires rich countries, developing countries, to control the earth's resources. That is the priority. We can give away minor things here and there to improve someone's lot, but there is no serious commitment to achieve social and economic justice in the world. There is a lack of political will to do that. I suppose there are not enough people like me to put pressure on government, but I cannot speak for them or say what the priority is.

· (1355)

M. Pierre Paquette: But we cannot have two.

Ms Judith Berlyn: Africa is in dire straits, and we have to be careful. In my view, we cannot go on the way we are. We may simply not survive.

I began this volunteer work when my eldest son was 19. We were discussing his future and the CEGEP courses he would take , as well as his career plans. We chatted for a few minutes, then suddenly he said: “Mom, I don't think I'll be alive when I'm your age.” I was 47 years old then, and I asked him why he said that. He answered: “Look at the state of the world. Look at what your generation and my grandparents' generation have done to the world, look at the state of the planet your generation is bequeathing to mine. Is it fair to have created so many problems for your children and grandchildren?” A 19-year-old child asked me that, and I took it seriously. Then he asked: “What are you doing to make things better?”

So this is an enormous task, but not an impossible one if we genuinely look at the impact of our actions and our policies. That is the priority. The Prime Minister has already made Africa a priority, and it is very important that we use the resources currently...

Let me look at this in terms of Canada's federal budget. I believe that the Department of National Defence is allocated $11.3 billion, but says that is not enough. It's quite true that that is not enough. The department would like to prepare for war on the seas, in the air and on the ground, but is that really what we want to achieve? Why do the Canadian Armed Forces really need tanks and submarines?

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That is to stop the Americans from wandering around in the north.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: That is another story. Sovereignty in the North is a very serious issue, but I wonder if submarines can indeed ensure it. Are we going to have a fight with battle ships against the Americans? I don't think so. Therefore, we must find other means of ensuring our sovereignty. Thank you.

¸ (1400)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Berlyn, in what you have provided to us in your brief today, you say “War is not the answer” and “We call on the Government of Canada to provide leadership in promoting peace by cooperating with other countries in prosecuting alleged terrorists under international law and withdrawing Canada's armed forces from the U.S.-led military campaign”.

[Translation]

Ms. Judith Berlyn: That appeared in La Presse on November 19.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, I know.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: You know that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): My question is, what type of cooperation would you like to see from the Canadian government? Do you see cooperation with the United Nations, that the Security Council would pass Resolution 1373, in that way or in any other way, or we should not be in Afghanistan, or just as les casques bleus and that's all, just as peacekeepers or something like that? What should Canada's role be? If we're going too far in what we're doing right now in Afghanistan....

Ms. Judith Berlyn: I'm sorry we sent combat troops for the first time since Korea. I wish we had gone more with the Europeans in the role they're trying to play in that particular situation.

We have done a wonderful thing with the International Criminal Court. Again, it's another place where we took a leadership role. Louise Arbour, when she was there, was magnificent. But the court isn't ready yet to deal with this, so we think probably it would take a special tribunal such as we had for Rwanda and Milosevic. Canada should be focusing on that kind of thing.

But this business of bombing that country to catch one person—maybe... And as we said in the ad, even if you got him, we don't know now if he's dead in a cave or if he's escaped or what. In the meantime, look at the suffering we have created for ordinary people who are already among the poorest in the world. It's absolutely irresponsible, I think, and cruel, and un-Canadian, really. I mean, we talk about our policy being based on Canadian values. What kinds of values are those?

I wish I could be more helpful, because I'm not a political scientist, I'm not an economist, and I'm not... I'm a librarian, and you can laugh, but I work in the—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It's fabulous to be a librarian, because you know about the history. If we all took care of history, we would not make the same mistakes later on. I think that's fabulous.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: That would be nice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I have another question about NEPAD, about the summit in Kananaskis. They are going to discuss Africa and this new partnership. It's for African development. What do you think about that and the fact that Canada wants to put an action plan to head it, that it's going to provide $500 million in new money for Africa? What do you think about this? Who should be responsible for this action plan? It's good to put money there, but where is the money going to go? We're asking ourselves that question. Do you have any ideas for us about this?

Ms. Judith Berlyn: It's very important. You see, I come from the NGO world. I believe very much in the work that NGOs do all over the world, particularly the ones that are unfunded, because people are working in them only out of concern, and they're putting their own personal resources into the work. I know very little—I'm really embarrassed by my ignorance—about actual situations in Africa, except that I've been listening for three days to some of the horror stories. The important thing always is to find out what the people themselves want.

The NGOs, again, are not working with any vested financial interest but are just genuinely motivated by what will be good for their land and their people, and there must be some... I don't know this world very well, but I would say it's very important to direct aid. It's very important to make sure... Many of those regimes are very corrupt, so we have to be very careful, for sure.

In the case of South Africa, for instance, and apartheid and the sanctions and all that, it seems to me we were guided through that by what the people in Africa, and not only Nelson Mandela's organization, were saying was needed. The business of sanctions is a very bad thing--I didn't put it in here. The sanctions in Iraq, in my opinion, are absolutely disgraceful, and we should be lifting them. That should be in here, because the G-8 could lift them.

¸ (1405)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We just want to let you know that our committee did a study on Iraq, and we recommended to the government the lifting of the sanctions.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: Excellent.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): I just wanted to let you know that some MPs are on your side.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: No, there are many.

It is very important, because it's not achieving what it was designed to achieve, and many people are suffering.

In the case of South Africa, the people themselves did suffer under sanctions, but they asked for that because they said it was the only thing that would get rid of apartheid. We were listening to them.

I think we have to find the people we trust. There are many Canadian NGOs that work in Africa. They can help you. In Montreal we have four universities; they must all have people working there. We have a huge community of Somalians, and there are others from the francophone African countries. They will know. You need to consult them much more than me.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We're consulting.

Okay. That's fine with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to ask you, jokingly, if you are going to change the name of your group to “Arrondissement de Westmount”.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: The word “ville” does not appear.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mrs. Berlyn. It was a real pleasure to have you here this afternoon. We're going to take everything into consideration. You can be assured of that.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: Thank you very much.

I'm glad to hear about your recommendations on sanctions.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will adjourn for a few minutes. Thank you.

Ms. Judith Berlyn: Thank you.

[English]

¸ (1409)

¸ (1415)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will continue hearing from our witnesses. We have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. Paul Klopstock, who is President of Artistes pour la Paix. Welcome, Mr. Klopstock.

You have the floor.

Mr. Paul Klopstock (President, Les artistes pour la paix): Thank you for having invited me. I had timed my presentation at nine and a half minutes, but I have a digression before I start. I will try to be brief.

I don't know if you are aware of what is called the Doomsday Clock. It is a clock that shows how close we are to end the world. It was created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The clock is a graphic indicator. The hands of this clock are set between midnight and a quarter to. It reflects the geopolitical situation in the world and the stability of nuclear weapons, so long as they exist on this earth. Yesterday, the Bulletin moved the clock two minutes ahead, to seven minutes to midnight. This is the time that appeared on the clock when it was invented. It was in 1947, I believe, 55 years ago. I would like to point out that only four years ago, in June 1998, the clock was set at 14 minutes to midnight.

I wanted to share this with you because I know that the committee is aware of the issue of nuclear weapons. I testified before the committee during your 1998 hearings. I would like to see my government do more to eliminate nuclear arms, and I would like to see my government officially adopt a policy, stating that Canada is for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I come back to my presentation.

Founded in 1983 by Gilles Vigneault, the Artistes pour la Paix association presently has some 300 members who are active in various artistic disciplines, and who share a vision of a just world, respectful of its environment, where humans can live in health, freedom and in security. This vision could serve as a definition of peace, but achieving this of course would require a great deal of maturity and confidence on the part of all parties. We are therefore far from achieving this definition, but we must start by showing the way, and in order to do so we must have a basis for security. By security, I mean no arms, stock-piling, anti-missiles shields, defence, exclusivity, and above all no exploitation. By security, I mean the abolition of nuclear weapons, the prevention of conflict and access to drinkable water, education, medecine, agricultural lands, et cetera.

I would like to draw your attention to the sheet entitled What the World Wants and How to Pay for It that we submitted to the committee. This 1999 diagram was produced by a non-governmental organization dedicated to education called the World Game Institute. Each little square on the page represents a billion dollars. The full page represents annual global military expenditures, a sum of US$780 billion. Proportionally superimposed over this grid are the amounts required annually to solve chronic problems on an international scale. This involves solutions to problems such as the elimination of famine and malnutrition, providing shelter, clearing minefields, providing health care and controlling AIDS. In fact, we give the cost of 17 major challenges, and this represents only 30% of military spending.

Here in Canada, foreign aid remains well below the 0.7% GDP rate, which is the minimum standard set out by the United States, whereas our defence budget keeps on climbing. It now stands at more than $12 billion.

The world, in a title What the World Wants, well and truly exists. This is a statement of the values, the hopes and the preferences of the more than 200,000 persons consulted. In my role with the Artistes pour la Paix, I virtually always hear the same statement from my fellow citizens. The wishing trees that lined the streets of Montreal and Quebec City last summer, and the murmur of Peace upon which society's thoughts were posted in the fall are eloquent examples of this. This is where we see the social determination to create a more just world, a world at peace. This is also where we can see the demand for representation of this determination at the political level.

We are facing a problem, an ascending spiral. I am referring to our support of the military industrial complex. I'm going to touch on two aspects that affect the jurisdiction of the G-8, and above all Canada's within the G-8.

The first concerns economic globalization. I imagine you are aware that products made and traded for the purposes of national security are exempt from free trade agreements. Therefore, one must ask: Does the fact that all military goods are exempt for reasons of national security is not equivalent to promoting arms sales? Everyone knows that this trade is amongst the most lucrative and best subsidized in the world. The very concept of benefiting from the suffering of individuals or of a population is not only illogical; it is immoral and it undermines their security.

Do you remember the day the stock exchanges reopened after the New York attacks? The two sectors that shot up were banking and defence industries. Is that not disgusting? But this is imperative for the globalization stakeholders, because they have invested and they have a great deal to protect, local resources in particular. This disparity between exploiters and exploited undermines security.

Must we remind you that militarization has its roots in economic exploitation? If we are serious about the security issue, we have to attack the military industrial complex. No one should make the slightest profit from a military product. Those $780 billion, without mentioning the tens of billions of dollars that have been added to this amount since this document was drafted, and above all since the fall, could serve to guarantee a fairer future for one and all.

I would encourage you to keep the What the World Wants document close at hand and to consult it often. I would also encourage you to tell the Government of Canada that we wish to address these issues when we are sitting around the table with the other seven world economic powers.

The second aspect deals with controls on arms exports. You are certainly all aware of the fact that the United States buys most of our armaments. But did you know that these sales require no export permit, contrary to sales to any other purchasing country? Therefore, Canadians have no way of knowing what we sell to the United States or for how much. It is impossible to know where, when and under what pretext these arms will be used. Even worse, in whose hands will they be found when they are resold? We know that the United States has armed other regimes. Once these weapons are resold, there is an increased danger that these Canadian products will be used directly against the interests of Canadian citizens.

I have just described a situation that goes against the whole notion of security that I mentioned at the beginning. The only viable solution to this is to work towards the elimination of the arms market. I would propose the following steps.

First of all, Canada should require export permits for Canadian military products that are sold to the United States.

¸ (1420)

After that, Canada should adopt an ethics code on the transfer of arms, similar to the one proposed by the former President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, along with 14 other Noble Peace prize recipients.

Then, Canada should stop subsidizing anyone involved in the arms business.

These are concrete measures which would show that we take poeples' security seriously. We should state that we refuse to participate in such a morally bankrupt business. In doing so, we would show leadership and hopefully other countries will follow our example.

Canada likes to be seen as a defender of peace. Issues involving armament and the military industrial complex are troubling, but we must address them. If we truly want to be a leader, we must take positions which are clearer and more pacifist and do so more often.

Take missile defence, for instance. Canada has stated that the United States have not asked anything of us and that therefore we need not take a position. In my view, this is a weak response. Why not show leadership by opposing missile defence?

However, there has been encouraging moments, such as last week, when Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Schroeder came out against an American attack on Irak. I am here to tell you that all Canadians support their government when it takes this type of position.

Let us look atTake the antipersonnel mines treaty. I would ask you to encourage the Government of Canada to take this kind of initiative more often. Instead of supporting the military industrial complex, let us take the road towards true peace and not towards preparing the next war. The G-8 Summit will be an ideal forum to begin heading in the right direction.

Thank you.

¸ (1425)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Klopstock. Your presentation was clear and precise.

Mr. Paquette, please.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There was obviously some overlap with the preceding presentation regarding...

Mr. Paul Klopstock: I also had that impression. I arrived during that presentation.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Since some questions have not yet been asked, I will put them to you.

You talked about Canadian military product export licences to the United States. Under what conditions were these licences issued and what ends did they serve? I am convinced that we already have export licences involving security matters. From your perspective, I imagine that you want them to limit Canadian arms exports to the United States. Could you please elaborate on this more fully?

As for an ethics code for the transfer of arms, you included some information in your brief, but I would like you to elaborate a little.

Of course, Les Artistes pour la Paix concern themselves mostly with issues directly affecting peace, but have you also given any thought to foreign aid development? You mentioned the figure of 0.7%, I was wondering whether your organization has a vision for Canada's role in helping the development of countries which are part of what was formerly called the third world.

Mr. Paul Klopstock: Thank you.

The issue of export licences is linked to the code of ethics, of which I do not have a copy here. It's a little ironic; I have to borrow yours.

As you know, my colleague and I feel that a code of ethics for the sale of arms represents one step towards their elimination. It is one way to possibly guarantee their destination, their use and to vouch for the reputation of their buyer. The issue is not so much what the United States will do with them, but where they will eventually end up. We can't control that. We don't even know what we are selling and for how much, as I mentioned.

I believe we have a right to know. If we want to retrace these weapons in case they are resold, we need to have access to that information. It is also necessary to ensure the transparency of what is going on in Canada, so that we know what we are selling and what we are producing. If we don't know, we just don't know.

Mr. Arias and his colleagues drew up criteria which included end-use control, that is, the final destination of weapons. If everyone respected the criteria, it would probably be more difficult to sell weapons to anyone in the world and maybe even in the United States. It might be a way to significantly reduce our weapons sales and to help reduce the arms business.

¸ (1430)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: To whom was the ethics code proposed to and in what circumstances?

Mr. Paul Klopstock: I think it was contained in a declaration put forward by the Nobel Peace prize winners.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): My question is a follow-up to that of Mr. Paquette. I know that Costa Rica does not have an army. It's one of the few countries without a military.

Mr. Paul Klopstock: It got rid of its military.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): It got rid of its military, but, of course, it still has a police force. A country has to police itself, after all. In Costa Rica, presidents can only serve for one term and one of them received the Nobel Peace prize. Was there a follow-up to the initiative? Have any countries adopted the ethics code proposed by Mr. Arias and the 14 other Nobel Peace Prize laureates?

Mr. Paul Klopstock: Shortly after the ethics code was introduced, it was adopted by Europe.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): The European Union?

Mr. Paul Klopstock: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): To develop this idea might be worthwile, because it is a new concept which none of the witnesses we have heard as yet has brought forward.

Mr. Paul Klopstock: As I said, adopting the code of ethics and changing our attitude towards weapon sales is not enough, but it is one step we must take.

We have to grasp firm control of our activities in order to move on to the next stage, the last stage, which would involve stopping the manufacture and use of weapons. I found an Internet site which, I believe, is the site of a foundation. It has to do with this document, including a history and follow-up. If you want, I can send you the Internet address.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, that would be interesting.

Mr. Paul Klopstock: It would be my pleasure.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Klopstock, if you had the opportunity—which is highly unlikely—to meet the Prime Minister or any other G-8 leaders, and if you could ask them one question or make one recommendation, what would it be?

Mr. Paul Klopstock: I am very troubled by the lack of will regarding the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was done for chemical and biological weapons, but we have never been able to do it for nuclear weapons. I believe that there must be some political reason why Canada cannot officially declare itself in favour of eliminating nuclear weapons.

So that would be the recommendation that I would make. To put it in modern terms, I believe that the worst evil today is not those who have nuclear weapons, but the fact that these weapons exist. If we really believe that we at least need to avoid a nuclear accident, we absolutely have to do something.

We need to comply with the non-proliferation treaty. In other words, as the international court has said, we have to develop a timeline for doing that. They still have not managed to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. That was very interesting. It was different from what we have already heard, but I wanted to tell you that your preparation was excellent. Thank you, Mr. Klopstock.

Mr. Paul Klopstock: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We are going to adjourn for two minutes in order to allow the next set of witnesses to come to the table.

¸ (1434)

¸ (1435)

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

We will now be hearing from Lorraine Guy and Jeannine Mukanirwa, representing the World March of Women. Welcome to the committee. We are pleased to have you with us this afternoon.

You have the floor.

Ms. Lorraine Guy (Representative, World March of Women): Thank you.

It has been said that there is something wrong when 20% of the population owns 80% of the world's wealth. This did not come from the participants in the World March. It was said by Mr. Wolfensohn of the World Bank, whom we met during the World March of Women. We are talking about 6,000 groups in 163 countries, in particular the G-7 countries. Marches have been organized around the world. We have also met with the president of the World Bank and the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Köhler. I would like to pass on to you some of what we were told by the G-7 representatives. According to our analysis, the G-7 countries are going in the same direction as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in terms of the type of development and their vision of economic growth. In our letter in which we ask to appear before the committee, we asked you whether it was not time to take a different direction. The heads of the World Bank have already been given 2,000 good reasons for taking a different approach, since the type of globalization and economic system that has been implemented with liberalization, privatization and deregulation, which you know better than I do, are merely resulting in more poverty at the moment. So why are we insisting on maintaining the same approach? Why do we keep being handed the very same solutions?

I will not dwell on the consequences of that, since you are familiar with them. I just want to emphasize the fact that the repercussions are particularly serious for women. As you know, 70% of the poor people in the world are women and children. That is not a coincidence. It is tied to the fact that this system is based on patriarchy and the domination of women, which is particularly perverse and detrimental. I will not dwell on the consequences. I would like to put forward a certain number of... When we talk about changing direction, what are we proposing?

Here are the alternatives that the World March has proposed to all G-7 countries. The world marches in all countries have made these demands.

The first deals with the importance of enabling states to regain their sovereignty in order to take their responsibilities in implementing anti-poverty policies. We believe that all states must implement framework legislation to eliminate poverty, a bit like what is being tried in Quebec, through the introduction of legislation that is supported by civil society, a little also like what is proposed in some parts of the United Nations Development Program or UNDP, report entitled Overcoming Human Poverty, with more regulatory and quasi-legislative framework to eradicate poverty. So just as some states have adopted balanced-budget legislation, we do not see why they should not also pass anti-poverty legislation.

Second, we are also calling for the Tobin tax. Yesterday you heard from the ATTAC, Action pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens. Women advocate and support that type of taxation, knowing that this alone will not end poverty and that it will take more than to solve the problem. We also suggest that the funds that would be created by a Tobin tax should be managed on a gender-parity basis and that priority be given to women, since they are the poorest.

Third, we hear a lot of talk, of course, about the 0.7%, and I will not repeat what has already been said. However, this idea still revolves around aid, which is basically a form of non-religious charity which certainly has its purpose and its utility. What we are saying is that we need to change the rules of the game because aid will have to be provided for even longer if the way that states and peoples trade with each other does not change. So we are proposing as a long-term solution that we move to fair trade, since we are all in favour of trade. Why could the trade rules not be fair? We also want to see trade comply with the various conventions and covenants on human rights and particularly women's rights.

Finally, we feel that the war on terrorism will not be won merely through anti-terrorist legislation and a security perimeter, but also through a war on financial terrorism. So we support the elimination of tax havens, bank secrecy and what amounts to international criminal activity. We would be delighted if the G-7 countries, led by Canada, were to become strong advocates and promoters of a world economic system based on transparency and fairness rather than on criminal activity.

In the medium-term, we have proposed or adopted an idea that has circulated in European political circles on how to build a world economic system. This idea was put forward by Riccardo Petrella, and involves establishing a council for economic and financial security that would review the Bretton Woods rules and look at the whole international system; this process would involve not only the richest countries but the whole international community. We think that a problem of legitimacy is caused by the mere fact that certain countries can get together and more or less decide the fate of the world because they are rich. The UN's role, in particular, is downplayed by the G-8, and we would like the UN to become much more involved in all development-related issues.

I will stop here. We had intended to focus our presentation on Africa, since many women who took part in the World March participated in Africa. My colleague, Jeannine Mukanirwa, will continue the presentation.

¸ (1440)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Mukanirwa.

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa (Representative, World March of Women): Thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak. I am very flattered to find myself here in this room before the members of the committee. I am from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and you are very aware of the situation there right now.

The new concept that the G-8 is using bothers me a bit, and I think that the New Partnership for African's Development bothers quite a few Africans. This is another in a long line of ideas that have amounted to nothing and have had no positive effect on the development of these countries.

This plan seems more generous, more charitable and raises quite a few questions about why the North has suddenly woken up to the realities in Africa. What is the hidden agenda here? And how is this plan for African development different from the others?

What the people of Africa are hoping for today, after 40 years of political, economic and even social and cultural chaos, is to see the birth of a new Africa that is egalitarian in all respects. Our hope, if there really is a willingness on the part of the G-8 to help Africa develop, is that people will reflect a little on the history of the countries in Africa, since I believe I am right in saying that for over 40 years now no African country has known real peace, lasting peace, and all the time the North has been indirectly helping the leaders of these various African countries they empower by military means. That weakened the populations of those countries, although the will to organize manifested itself in civil society through the existence of various pressure groups whose efforts were in vain.

As a woman, I want to express once again the demands made by the women who took part in the World March of Women in October 2000, where we shared the vision of women for a new Africa. In order to have this new Africa, the first thing that needs to be done is to write off the debts of these countries. We cannot build Africa under the burden of all this debt accumulated by African countries. The new system of debt rescheduling being promoted by the financial institutions would not help the people of Africa. We need to think about writing off these debts and calling for mechanisms to be set up to alleviate poverty. There is a large and unjustifiable gap between the natural resources that many African countries are blessed with and the situation facing the people themselves. The gaps are so huge that we do not even know if it is possible to talk about rebuilding Africa with this high level of debt.

The second point concerns peace building in Africa. The G-8 needs to focus on this important area for as long as possible. Today Africa is experiencing the first African war, which began in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is no secret that the Congolese people are experiencing aggression. This ongoing aggression is being practised in one way or another by the countries that are called major powers. The countries that are attacking Congo do not have the military or financial capacity, much less the political capacity, to bring the Congolese people to their knees and humiliate them to this extent.

This is why we have asked for the problems in Congo to be put at the centre of the G-8's agenda, since, as someone said, Africa is like a revolver and the Democratic Republic of Congo is the trigger.

¸ (1445)

Congo has nine bordering countries. Today, the crisis in Congo affects all those neighbouring countries. It has even caused the economy of all central African and other neighbouring countries to come to a standstill.

When we talk about peace-building, we think of peaceful conflict settlements. We also think about controlling arms traffic. We must start to develop mechanisms to control arms manufacturing. We may even need to oppose the manufacture of arms. Arms manufacturers are private sector people who do this just to become richer. They like to create conflicts in countries to have more customers. When there is no war, they cannot sell their arms. So we should be fighting against arms manufacturers.

We should think in terms of fostering democracy and human rights. It is very important for Africa. What we are witnessing is a culture of empowerment through arms, a culture which is not very conducive to democracy in many African countries.

These heads of state who get in power through arms try to remain in power through arms. Their people are therefore unable to have their voices heard. Those chiefs, those leaders should be made accountable to their people.

As my colleague said, we should fight terrorism of any kind. Terrorism is not just what we saw in New York. Congo today is a victim of terrorism like many other African countries.

Women must be able to participate actively and effectively in every decision-making process. The exclusion of women from the decision-making processes in Africa is an absolute tragedy. Women are becoming more and more vocal in demanding to be involved, especially in political negotiations, at the national, regional and international levels.

We should also consider compensating for the harm done and the wounds left by colonialism, slavery and the slave trade.

Finally, I would say that globalization should not be seen only from an economic point of view. If we want to help rebuild Africa, we must look at globalization in terms of safety, peace and justice.

¸ (1450)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. Your statement is very important. We can see that you are very much aware of what is going on in your country, Congo, as well as in all of Africa. This is very important for us.

You said at the end that women should be involved. I would like to mention that as a parliamentarian, I chair the Canadian section of French-Speaking Parliamentarians and I am a member of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. In 1999, in Ottawa, we insisted that women parliamentarians should have equal participation in our proceedings. This coming summer, we will be welcoming a network of women parliamentarians in the Francophonie.

For us, it is a small step, but with more women parliamentarians involved, it means that more women parliamentarians from francophone Africa will be able to move forward. This is of some importance.

We also put forward, at the last Sommet de la Francophonie in Moncton, a network of young parliamentarians. This is way of encouraging youth to participate in parliamentary life.

We will now move on to questions, with Mr. Paquette first.

¸ (1455)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentations. You touched upon many points. I am not an expert on Africa, but if Ms. Francine Lalonde were here, she could ask you many questions because she is our expert.

I am surprised by what you said. This may be coincidental, but this week, I heard on the news that war is brewing in Congo and that this could be the first African world war.

You proposed a certain number of solutions, but what should Canada propose at the G-8 Summit? You put forward a completely new idea, but one which is totally realistic. If you want to talk about peace in Africa, you have to start by addressing the heart of the problem.

What kind of initiative should Canada immediately put forward at the summit in support of peace? We would like to control the traffic in weapons, but to do so would mean implementing mechanisms. The same goes for the manufacture of weapons. We would also have to change the culture of repression and of military coups. In the coming months, what can Canada do to help bring about real peace in Africa? That's my first question.

My second question deals with debt forgiveness. Many people have raised this issue, but this is the first time I've heard it addressed through the lens of responsibility, transparency, information and accountability. I read the paragraph and did not quite understand the allusion. Perhaps there's a new element.

My third question is one I ask of many people. I am in complete support of the idea that trade must respect human rights. But how can we bring this about in a practical way? Some NGOs don't even want the WTO to get involved, because the WTO just deals with trade. But at the same time, I feel we have to link human rights and trade. As for labour rights in general, we already have the International Labour Organization and various other basic conventions endorsed by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. I have the beginnings of an idea, but I need to give it more thought. I'll put the question to the president of the CSN, who will come before the committee in a little while. And for women's rights in particular, what conventions or charter or rights should we refer to? How can we ensure that organizations which do not respect these rights are punished or that remedial action is taken?

I would like to know how you feel about this. More and more people agree with this principle, but they don't seem to all agree as to how to uphold it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Guy.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: There is the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. It exists. There is a protocol, but it has not been signed by every country. In our view, this is the basic convention. It includes not only the rights recognized in other conventions, but also property rights for women, access to land and credit and the suppression of, amongst other things, prostitution and the traffic in women. In short, it addresses all sorts of rights women have over their own bodies.

The problem with this convention, however, is that a host of reservations are attached to it. Of all the international conventions, this is the one for which countries around the world have had the most reservations. They agree with the convention, but many countries do not agree with such and such an aspect of it for any number of reasons.

The people who took part in the World March of Women demanded that all reservations be withdrawn and that countries not sign only the convention, but also the protocol. The protocol would impose more conditions on a certain number of countries.

In our view, trade must be based on the complete respect of basic human rights. For instance, trade involving child labour should be forbidden. Trade involving environmental damage should be forbidden. Trade involving below subsistence salaries, as is the case with the maquiladoras, which you are familiar with, should also not be allowed.

In short, investors and business people should abide by rules and be answerable to organizations which go beyond the issue of trade. Trade should promote and bring about human rights. Both issues must be linked. Any trade contract or provision should include the respect of labour rights, women's rights and other such rights. As well, pay equity should also be integrated into trade rules. That is our position.

With respect to conditions surrounding debt forgiveness, which deal with the principles of information, accountability and transparency, it is our view that it is not enough to simply forgive a debt. Civil society in particular, as well as political leaders, that is, parliamentarians, must also play an active role in deciding how the money, which would otherwise have gone to debt reduction, will be spent. The old ways don't cut it any more. If corruption was part of the system, it must be stopped. Civil society will have to be vigilant.

Because we work with women's groups to address these issues, Jeannine said that women must be fully involved in the economic decision-making process. In that regard, in particular, women's groups should play a major role. They should help decide how to eliminate debt, how money is spent, how it is invested, and other such matters. These decisions cannot only be left to governments, which are accountable to no one.

People are talking about debt forgiveness for Africa, but the principle underlying this issue also applies to northern hemisphere governments. It's the principle of accountability, transparency and information. Of course, some countries have put certain mechanisms in place, but we are not in a position to lead by example.

I know that these issues are controversial. Some people are asking for unconditional debt forgiveness. In our view, civil society and women in particular have a role to play in monitoring this area, as they have a role to play in other economic processes.

¹ (1500)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Mukanirwa.

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa: On your first point, the countries which are attacking the Congo are all members of the UN. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a member of the United Nations. So, the answer is easy: the UN, which has recognized the fact that the Congo is being attacked today, must implement the provisions on aggression contained in the United Nations Charter.

Article 41 of chapter VII contains sanctions against countries which attack other UN member countries. We are wondering why the UN is dragging its feet with regard to sanctions against Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, which all attacked the Congo and which have pillaged its resources for over three years now. We have to implement the provisions on aggression contained in the UN Charter.

¹ (1505)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: That's a very good suggestion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Ms. Mukanirwa, at the very beginning of your presentation, and in light of discussions surrounding NEPAD, you were wondering why people suddenly seemed to wake up. You have been very involved in that issue. I recognize and accept it. Why will people suddenly take an interest in Africa at the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis? It's not a new problem.

As you know, Canada is a member of both the Francophonie and the Commonwealth. When a democratically elected government is overthrown or when there is a coup d'état, the Commonwealth has rules to deal with these types of situations. But the Francophonie does not have these types of rules when member countries meet at francophone summits.

Just a few years ago, there was a summit in Marrakesh at which government leaders endorsed certain principles. The summit will take place in Beyrouth, Lebanon, next October, and member countries will probably endorse certain rules. I know this, because the rules were proposed by the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. One year ago, I drafted them. Government leaders, through their representatives, endorsed four of six resolutions. It's a step in the right direction.

But the next meeting will be held in Kananaskis. Mr. Chrétien and the Canadian government understand the African problem, but you are nevertheless justified in feeling skeptical. You have been let down so many times, too many times, that you have reason to be skeptical. But every event which is held throughout the world, including the World March of Women, helps government leaders understand the situation.

There is also the extremely unfortunate problem of AIDS, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. I also feel that the world is becoming aware of this problem. So, I feel there is reason to hope.

I hope things may change in Kananaskis. The fact that we are hearing from you is a first for us. It helps to hold public hearings on the subject, to hear from groups and from people such as yourself telling us about the Congo and what is happening there. It is very interesting, but we need recommendations. We need to know exactly what you think.

Canada has set aside $500 million for Africa. That's not a lot and we hope that more money from other countries is forthcoming. How can we achieve our goals? Madame Guy, you made a comparison with the Marshall Plan. Call it what you will, but we need to know how to address the problem. Money is all very well and good, but Africa covers a huge territory and faces enormous obstacles. How should we go about it? Based on our hearings, we understand that NEPAD was negotiated behind closed doors by government leaders and that there was no or very little consultation with NGOs. So, we would like your help in drafting the action plan which, we hope, may help solve some of Africa's problems.

Ms. Jeannine Mukanirwa: The plan must be drafted in consultation with civil society, because we have had negative experiences with every UN agency and with every international financial institution working directly with the government. Financial aid provided to the government did not reach the people. As a result, any plan will have to directly involve civil society through NGOs. And this time around, we will have to work more closely with women.

You have heard from my colleague Serge Blais, who spoke of Africa. Today, the survival of Africa depends on women and their involvement in the micro-economy, which is still largely controlled by women on that continent. But for some curious and unfortunate reason, the women receive no support. Their initiatives are simply ignored. We really have to involve women in the drafting of the action plan and they have to be the main focus of the implementation of the plan outlined in The New Partnership for Africa's Development.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: May I add a few words?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, please go ahead, Ms. Guy. We would love to hear from you.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: You mentioned the AIDS problem. We haven't had much time to address every issue. Some people have said that the rules of the game are changing.

Let's take a look at the role pharmaceutical companies have played in not helping to eradicate AIDS, in a manner of speaking. What happened was quite revealing for G-7 countries and perhaps an incentive for them to amend their intellectual property and patent laws to allow other countries to produce their own drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies did not lift a finger and it took a huge uproar to help save the lives of millions of AIDS-infected people. If there had not been this uproar, nothing would have happened. It's not just an ethical problem.

¹ (1510)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, you have a problem, but I don't quite share your opinion on that issue. Companies which hold pharmaceutical patents have a role to play. We met with them. And indeed, they want to be involved. But there is another problem: various African leaders deny the existence of AIDS and the populations they govern take their word as gospel. There are many other ways to address this problem, including prevention.

In some countries, food aid does not reach the people in need. It's a huge job. And as you know, it's a fairly widespread problem.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: We have to address the key factors.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): How?

Ms. Lorraine Guy: Of course, there is corruption in Africa, but I would like to repeat that we are not in a position to preach by example, because our international regulations are also corrupt. These regulations more or less sanction legalized theft. International pharmaceutical companies are engaged in legalized theft. Tax havens are tantamount to legalized theft.

Even the United States are saying: trade, not aid. We're saying: fair trade.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We agree with fair trade.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: Yes, but we have to translate the words into action. If the rules don't change, we will end up with more commissions like this one...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We hope to see you at other commissions.

Ms. Lorraine Guy: And in other circumstances.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Yes, in other circumstances as well.

Thank you very much for your presentations. We appreciated your coming. We will adjourn for a few moments.

Thank you.

¹ (1514)

¹ (1550)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will continue our hearings on North American integration and on the Kananaskis Summit, which will be held next June.

We will now hear from the CSN, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, represented by its President, Mr. Marc Laviolette, and by Mr. Vincent Dagenais, Assistant to the Executive Committee.

Thank you for appearing before the committee this afternoon. You may begin.

Mr. Marc Laviolette (President, Confederation of National Trade Unions): Thank you. We will take a look at this three-page document together.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear. This is not the first time that the CSN, which represents more than 260,000 workers, primarily in Quebec, but which also has offices throughout Canada, has participated in this debate. We are also participating actively in the discussions of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of which we are a member.

It should be noted that from the time of its inception, the OECD felt that it was necessary for the proceedings of member governments to include the opinions of union organizations. Hence a standing union advisory committee is an official component, in addition to the bodies representing governments, of the OECD.

We feel that the opinion of union organizations should be an essential component of the G-8 workshop meetings. We are therefore asking that this committee recommend to the government that the next G-8 meeting be an opportunity to consult formally with Canadian union organizations and their counterparts from member countries, as well as representatives from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the USCW. A formal meeting between government leaders and ourselves should enable us to present recommendations and exchange opinions. We are proposing that this be done.

Needless to say the smooth running of international affairs—what we refer to as world governance—is helped by direct consultations that governments decide to organize amongst themselves. There has been a proliferation of consultations and exchanges: G-10, G-77, G-7 or G-8, G-24, G-22, G-23, G-20. Obviously, that poses the question of international democracy. Are we not witnessing the jettisoning of the United Nations and its organizations? The G-8 cannot conduct itself as the executive committee of the wealthy nations.

In this respect, the CSN believes that the G-8 would be well advised to advocate the strengthening of UN institutions, such as the International Labour Organization, the ILO, rather than assign itself new roles in the area of world governance. Moreover, the ILO has just established an important committee on globalization. Shouldn't the members of the G-8 be making a strong commitment to participate in the work of this committee and to request that the World Trade Organization submit its proposals to this committee? The question has been asked.

As regards growth, the current economic situation is characterized, on the one hand, by the economic slowdown that is occurring simultaneously in North America, Europe and Japan, and on the other hand, by the fact that the situation is tied to a decline in demand everywhere. Although the most recent figures may reassure us somewhat, monetary policy in itself is far from being enough to guarantee growth. What we need are coordinated demand recovery policies based on infrastructure spending, the promotion of health and educational services and income support for the needy. We need to strengthen rather then weaken social protection systems.

As far as development is concerned, the CSN does not believe that development will occur automatically if we simply expand trade. Consequently, in terms of official development aid, the members of the G-8 must make a firm commitment to take concrete steps to reduce poverty, alleviate or write off the debt of the poorest countries in order to reach this... I am missing a page.

The other measure that we are suggesting is a tax on financial transactions, the Tobin tax. There is also what we could call a type of broad world Marshall Plan, whereby 0.7% of the wealthy countries' GDP could be used to support development in poor countries. We know that Canada is currently spending 0.3%. If we really want to do something about world poverty, 0.7% of the GDP would not overburden the budget of the Canadian government. It would be tremendously helpful if all wealthy countries were to endorse such a proposal.

As regards terrorism, the CSN condemned and denounced the terrorist attacks committed on September 11 in New York and Washington. Unfortunately, these thousands of victims were not the first victims of terrorism, victims of the fanaticism of religious fundamentalists of all stripes and of totalitarian governments. Women and ethnic, cultural or religious minorities continue to be victims throughout various parts of the world. Advocates of freedom and democracy are beaten and often killed. In Colombia alone, about 100 trade unionists are killed every year. We must respond on many different fronts. The people responsible for these terrorist acts must be accountable for their actions and be judged in accordance with the law and charters. It is precisely in a period of crisis that these instruments of democracy, peace and law must be upheld.

In addition, in the wake of September 11, we must do all that we can, here and elsewhere, to fight racism, exclusion, intolerance and fanaticism. In deploying security measures, we must ensure that the rights of all citizens living in Canada are respected. Once again, these instruments are more necessary than ever during periods of crisis. We must not view war as a solution. The solution lies rather in promoting democracy, in fighting against inequality, discrimination and exclusion, in supporting the struggles of women and minorities, in economic and social development, in the refusal to tolerate hegemonies and in the respect of the rights of states and of people.

Moreover, the government can implement these measures very easily, and we have had proof of this. When it came time to increase military spending for security reasons, we were able to find $7 billion in Canada.

¹ (1555)

Therefore, if we really want to get to the root of the problem, it is essential that we adopt measures such as, for example, the Tobin tax, which was moreover adopted by the Canadian government. We must systematically promote it, and advocate that 0.7% of our GDP be used for official development aid and that we fight against racism and all of these things that triggered the events of September 11.

I will not go on at great length about this, but if we do not want to have any more September 11 events, perhaps the United States will have to re-examine its foreign policy, but this is a matter that does not come under the purview of the consultation.

º (1600)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Dagenais, do you wish to add anything?

Mr. Vincent Dagenais (Assistant to the Executive Committee, Confederation of National Trade Unions): I would simply like to add something about the economic integration of the Americas and the criticism levelled by the CSN with respect to this type of trade agreement.

First of all, I must stipulate that the CSN is not against trade, but I must say that there is nothing magical about trade. People do not develop through trade alone.

Secondly, there is a whole series of rights, charters, and conventions that exist, and the particular problem with this type of accord is that it subordinates all rights, even including, at times, the sovereignty and authority of states, to the simple right to conduct trade, and even to the right to make a profit. Our organization is not saying that there shouldn't be any agreements or international accords. Rather, it is saying that these accords should be written so as to ensure that all of our rights are not subject to trade. In other words, these agreements and accords should be promoting democracy and all human rights, social rights, union rights and labour rights should have precedence over trade rights.

It seems to me that, if the accord were set up in this fashion, we would have a much more rewarding discussion. Once again, this is not about being against trade. This is not about being against trade amongst countries. We are not saying that each country should retreat behind its borders. This is about reaching agreements and integration accords which, instead of having trade surround democracy, will do the opposite, thereby ensuring that it is the rights that will rule and discipline trade.

This is what I wanted to say about the specific issue of economic integration accords.

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

Mr. Marc Laviolette: We have heard quite a bit of rhetoric from the United States about the fight against terrorism. This is done through trade agreements. It would be very dangerous not to consider these agreements from the perspective that Mr. Dagenais just described.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much for your presentation. I would ask you to send us page 3 so that we have your complete brief.

Mr. Marc Laviolette: You will have it today.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): This would simply assist our clerk.

We will now move on to our question period, beginning with Mr. Paquette, whom you know very well.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you for being here. It is always a pleasure to see people from the CSN. I want to make two comments.

First of all, on your last remark, I have, on several occasions, said that rights should be integrated into trade agreements. There are some people, including some NGOs, who say that the WTO must not deal with rights. I would like to hear your views on that.

Secondly, what type of mechanisms should be put in place so that the ILO can play its role, but also so that countries that do not respect fundamental labour conventions face some kind of trade-related sanctions? Has the CSN or the ICFTU given any thought to that? That is my first question. You want the government to ask the World Trade Organization to submit its projected policies. How?

Many have spoken about the importance of strengthening civil society in Africa. That will be one of the priorities under discussion at the G-8. I would like to know what kind of relationship the CSN has with African unions and what the nature of the unions is.

Does the CSN have training or support programs for those unions? That would enable us to gain a clear understanding of African civil society. Unfortunately, I do not know much about that. Finally, how could the Canadian government support the Quebec or Canadian labour movement in its work, if this work is being done?

Mr. Marc Laviolette: I will start with the social clauses contained in international agreements and international organizations, like the ILO, which look after rights.

Let's take the example of the ILO. The ILO, which is the international organization that specializes in labour issues, must have teeth. So the organization must have investigative powers and it must be in a position to highlight problem areas once it has completed its investigations. Why do we want social clauses to be included in economic agreements? Because it is the best way of ensuring these rights are respected. In the case of fundamental labour rights, for example, if there are economic sanctions, they will make it possible to bring countries back into line.

So in the case of a trade agreement, which is a contract, if the economic clauses are tied to a clause on social rights, the international organizations with a mandate to investigate and determine whether or not there has been lack of compliance could, thanks to these clauses, impose economic sanctions. That is one way of doing things. So, if the economic agreements clearly indicate that they are subject to social rights and that powers are given to international organizations to investigate and determine if a situation warrants a sanction or not, and if those procedures were followed, it would be a good way of helping straighten the situation out.

Perhaps my colleague would like to add some comments on this or talk about Africa.

Mr. Vincent Dagenais:Before talking about Africa, I want to go back to the relationship between the World Trade Organization and the International Labour Organization.

You will recall that at the last World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, the labour movement and many other organizations urgently requested that the WTO accept that social rights, including environmental rights, be included, and as Mr. Laviolette has just said, that trade be subordinated to these rights. It did not work in the end. I must also say that, unfortunately, the discussions the CSN had as recently as last week with Mike Moore in Geneva, seem to indicate that the WTO does not want to deal with social rights.

The International Labour Organization subsequently decided to go ahead and set up an international commission on the social impact of globalization. It was announced early last week. The ILO decided that it would try and go ahead and shed some light on the situation, to do a little bit of fact-finding, as we say, and to try and determine what the consequences are, and so on. The ILO invited the WTO to participate in this work and explain its position. To date, the WTO has still not accepted to participate in the work of this international commission set up by the International Labour Organization. That is why we say in our brief that the governments of the G-8 countries should urge the WTO, since they have some influence over the organization, to give in and accept to openly debate with the ILO the issue of the relationship between globalization and the respect of these rights.

º (1605)

A commission exists, and we think it would be an opportunity for Canada and the G-8 countries to put their shoulders to the wheel.

In response to your questions on Africa, I can confirm that the CSN has programs, namely two programs for cooperation with unions: one in Congo and the other in Mali. Both programs focus on training, and, more specifically, on training women in labour organizations so that we can promote activities and the participation of women in unions in Africa. Many experts say that training is the most cost-effective and efficient way of implementing change in Africa, but we are not talking just about training in general, but about training for women. The best opportunity for implementing sustainable change is in those specific areas.

º (1610)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: The idea of protecting rights, especially labour rights, was introduced for the first time in Doha. Even the Americans were open to that, at least formally. But we know that there is a lot of resistance on the part of countries in the south, which talk about neo-protectionism. What should we say to people who tell us that we are in favour of protecting these rights because it is a way of preventing countries from the south from catching up? We might well be told that here.

Mr. Vincent Dagenais: There is a clear and simple answer to that. We know and we cannot hide the fact that one of the countries that expressed the fiercest opposition to including social rights was India. Indian workers are not threatened by Canadian protectionism, or by Canadian workers who would impose respect for social or labour standards. They are threatened by China, by Chinese workers. The issue of competition, let's call it unfair competition, among countries on the basis of non-compliance with rights is currently more prevalent among countries in the south than among countries in the north.

The second issue is that the fundamental labour standards that we are talking about are not standards in absolute terms, concerning salaries, for example, or protection. We are talking about measures that should enable these people to identify solutions that can be adapted to their countries. We mean the right to form a union, the right to collective bargaining, to strike, to be free of discrimination, to abolish forced labour or slavery, and to abolish child labour. So we are far from protectionist standards that would require, for example, complying with a certain minimum wage or a certain level of social protection or standards on education or the environment.

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

I want to go back to your brief. Although it is short, it is very well done.

We are all fully aware that the G-8 is the private preserve of the big heads of state. You mentioned, rightly so, the G-10, the G-22, the G-23 and so on. It's almost like bingo. You are wondering if the G-8 is not behaving like a kind of executive committee for rich countries. I think that you are entitled to ask that question.

The G-8 does not have a secretariat; it does not have anything. So it is up to the host country which, starting on January 1 each year, tries to make it work. Do you think that we should try and set up a permanent secretariat for the G-8, since these countries are taking on more and more responsibilities? Initially, they dealt simply with economic issues, but now, as has been pointed out, they are taking over everything in the world. They are starting to control everything. Is it not time to set up a permanent secretariat for the G-8 with, as you mentioned, various consultative committees, including one to deal with union matters, as is the case at the OECD? Would this not be an improvement, or would we achieve the same results?

Mr. Marc Laviolette: What we would like is to be consulted ahead of time. The problem with the G-8 and other organizations, up to the G-20, as regards the organizations that say they have nothing, is that they are undermining international institutions like the UN. It seems to me that that is where we should take action. It seems to me that the G-8 should deal with that to a larger degree. It is a major problem. Just look at world-wide efforts to combat terrorism: the United Nations does not have a say. The United States is making all of the decisions, or almost all of them, and determining future targets.

So international institutions are losing their influence at a time when, because of globalization, they should be playing an even more important role to ensure that rights are respected. The G-8 does not want to discuss the special commission on globalization with the ILO. That is a problem.

The International Labour Organization is an organization that has proved its worth. It has existed for several years. Why don't they want to contribute to this debate? Even if there were a permanent secretariat, it would not change anything. The very existence of these “G” organizations is a problem in terms of what should be done at the UN.

º (1615)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You are asking for a proposal on formal consultations with labour organizations. When would you see those consultations taking place? We all know that at the G-8, most of the time the final communiqué is ready even before the meeting starts. When would you see these consultations taking place? Are the unions currently being consulted? Are the sherpas from the various countries consulting you?

Mr. Marc Laviolette: No, absolutely not. This consultation should take place before the final press release is drafted so that we might have some influence on it. I am aware that this is a fairly lengthy process. We should be consulted at each major stage. This is important for us.

Now, because of the anti-neo-liberal globalization movement, all of sudden almost all the G countries are looking at the issue of the have-not nations. They're starting to talk again about poverty and development because it makes them look good. We want to make sure that they put their money where their mouth is. It is for this reason that civil society and trade unions, in particular, should have input in the press releases.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Just for clarification purposes, I'd like to say that the very fact of formalizing the way G-8 meetings are organized strengthens the actual body itself. What you were really saying in your presentation was that we should further boost the United Nations.

Mr. Marc Laviolette: If the members of the G-8 were to consult us, we would tell them that one of their priorities should be to strengthen a body such as the United Nations. In order to do this, they have to listen to our suggestions. Currently, we are not consulted. We are kept away from proceedings. And once again, G-8 members are going to...

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Through the committee...

Mr. Marc Laviolette: That would be a very meaningful initiative. We think that this is entirely... However, we are going to find it quite difficult to demonstrate given where the meeting is being held.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Especially given the RCMP's new “wall” division. The RCMP intends to erect a wall.

Mr. Vincent Dagenais: I would just like to say that we have nothing against the fact that heads of governments are meeting to discuss issues of interest to them. This whole process, as everyone will remember, all began over a cup of tea at Rambouillet. However, the whole problem arises from the fact that this cup of tea or informal meeting has become a so-called world governmental body. That's where the problem really lies. This has meant that UN bodies are being totally undermined. Consequently, we do not agree with that. We do not agree with the fact that meetings which are undoubtedly very useful for heads of governments, be transformed into world governance bodies.

In terms of consultation, there is a whole issue of democracy and transparency. The issues that the heads of state will be addressing affect everyone in the world. The least we could expect would be for these issues to be openly debated and for heads of state to hear what people have to say on these issues. We are directly affected by trade agreements.

That would show at least a minimum of recognition for the value and legitimacy of what various organizations, especially trade unions, have to say. We are in the mainstream of society. We are part of society, and as such, we should be recognized as interesting and useful stakeholders able to discuss various issues with heads of state.

I would just like to point out that during the last G-8 Summit, which took place at Genoa, even if this meeting, unfortunately marred by a whole host of demonstrations and by the death of one particular individual, Mr. Berlusconi did indeed meet with a delegation of trade unionists, not just Italian trade unionists, but members of the ICFTU and trade unionists from throughout the world.

I do not recall whether these trade unionists were able to meet other world leaders, but according to what I have been told, Mr. Berlusconi stated that he would support the setting up of formal meetings between world leaders and trade union representatives. Given that Canada is hosting the upcoming meeting, and is responsible for organizing the mechanics of this meeting, we believe that Canada is in a position to start the ball rolling in that direction.

º (1620)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): You spoke about a Marshall plan and the 0.7% for official development assistance. As you know, Canada contributed $500 million in new funding to try to put forward an action plan. Do you have any specific ideas about the way in which this action should be set up?

There is particular mention of education, and that is very important, as well as health and information technology. Do you have any specific ideas? We are told that this should go through the NGOs and the unions, where they exist, and particularly when they are not collaborating with the governments. Do you have any specific ideas on this?

Mr. Vincent Dagenais: There is definitely an initial approach that could be taken—a lightening and restructuring of the debt. A very direct approach must be taken. We see the development problems caused in the countries of the south that result from simply paying the interest on their debt. So part of this money should be used first against the debt.

Next, as we know, health and education expenditures are necessary to allow these countries to catch up—we hope they will catch up—to get going and to start making progress. The vehicles used will vary from one country to another and from one situation to another.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): So you do not see an overall approach for Africa. We have to have a different strategy for north, south, east and west Africa.

Mr. Marc Laviolette: It depends on the specific situation in each country. Our expertise in these areas may be useful provided, of course, we show respect for the culture of these people. The idea is to improve the level of health care and education, and thereby improve their standard of living.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Would you like to make a final comment, Mr. Dagenais?

Mr. Vincent Dagenais: I would like to give you an example of how we work with countries in the south. First of all, we have established certain niches—the promotion of women and developing organizations' ability to get involved, particularly on issues regarding economic integration.

We do not go there to give them a training kit. We try to equip them and to help them so that they themselves can define their own needs and eventually take on responsibility for their own development. That is how aid can be useful, not by introducing full programs that are only approximately geared to people's needs. The idea is to find ways to enable the people in these countries to shoulder responsibility for their own development.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We should not be exporting what we do here. We should be helping them.

Mr. Vincent Dagenais: Definitely, we must help them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): That's it?

Thank you very much. We were very pleased to have you with us this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Laviolette and Mr. Dagenais.

We will break for a few minutes.

º (1624)

º (1625)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will resume our hearing. We are now pleased to welcome Mr. Denis Tougas, the Coordinator the Table de concertation sur les droits humains au Congo-Kinshasa (Group on Human Rights in Congo-Kinshasa).

Thank you for being here. We are eager to hear your testimony. Please begin, Mr. Tougas.

Mr. Denis Tougas (Coordinator, Table de concertation sur les droits humains au Congo-Kinshasa, Member of the International Missionary Benefit Society): Thank you.

I am a member of the International Missionary Benefit Society, a Catholic religious organization made up of Canadian missionaries working throughout the world, particularly in Africa. This organization has existed since the end of the war, and has a great deal of experience in all underdeveloped countries.

The International Missionary Benefit Society has developed some expertise in working with Canadian groups in three African countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi. These are war zones, areas of extreme poverty, but also areas that are very rich in minerals. These task forces combine all Canadian organizations—the NGOs and the missionary communities working in these three countries in various capacities.

Allow me to start by congratulating you on what you are doing here. I am very pleased that Canadian parliamentarians are studying the issues that will be debated at the G-8, particularly the document known as NEPAD, The New Partnership for Africa's Development. Most of your counterparts in the countries of Africa will not have had an opportunity to do that. I believe you have already heard this. I think your initiative is very good.

To situate my remarks, I am speaking here to parliamentarians, not the people who will be holding discussions at the G-8 Summit. I will not be talking about the substance of the NEPAD document, but rather about the type of partnership that our member organizations think they should establish if there is to be genuine renewal and change in Africa.

In reading this new proposal, the NEPAD, we were quite surprised to see the type of partnership that underlies this document, and its new features. Those are the two points I would like to make. I repeat, I am speaking here to Canadian members of Parliament, because much of what we have to say about the new partnership is directed at you.

I will touch on two specific points: the initiative for peace and security, and the mining and oil sectors, which are of interest to us and of considerable interest to Canadians.

Let met back up a little. In our view, the NEPAD document lowers the level of partnership that was emerging in some forms. It lowers it in terms of the attitudes and approaches already defined by the richer countries that will be meeting. That is why we ask what is new in this document. Are we not in the process of repackaging something that is already happening in any case? I will start with the initiative for peace and security.

The images coming out of Africa are horrendous. It is the continent with the greatest number of displaced people and refugees, because of the wars. We see real horrors. Let me remind you of some of them.

It is said that around 3 million people have died in the war in Sudan, which has been going on for 18 years. More recently, it has been said that the genocide in Rwanda killed between 800,000 and 1 million people. At the moment, the war in the Congo, which began in August 1998, has resulted in 2.5 million deaths. The figures are so enormous that we have difficulty understanding the response in NEPAD.

What does this document state? The heads of state who produced the NEPAD say that to achieve peace and security they will promote long-term sustainable development conditions, improve the ability of African institutions to prevent and resolve conflicts, and finally make official the commitment of the leaders to the key values of the NEPAD. We find this absolutely inadequate. It falls very far short of the whole movement that has been started, particularly by the UN.

This very specific proposal to strengthen the mechanism to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts, which was established by the OAU in 1993, is the main proposal contained in this NEPAD, in my view. I find this absolutely deplorable.

When we see the attitude that developed some time ago, particularly on the part of the UN and the rich countries, we see a trend that the heads of state are in the process of sanctioning. You will remember the sad episode that happened in Somalia in 1993, when some American soldiers were killed. We saw that on television. In Rwanda, 11 Belgium soldiers were killed. And what has happened since that time? There has been a complete withdrawal by the richer countries, the White countries—we should not hide this fact—from intervening in Africa when there were conflicts of international scope.

Immediately following these events, the UN conducted some independent investigations to find out what had happened. I would like to remind you about some of the conclusions contained in the first UN report, known as the Carlsson Report, which came out in December 1999. It was about the UN intervention in Rwanda.

The report found that Rwanda was of no strategic interest for third countries, that is our countries, and that the international community had applied a double standard in comparing the danger of a catastrophe in Rwanda to such dangers elsewhere.

More recently, in 2000, the UN produced the Brahimi Report on all international peace missions. It concluded that no developed country provided troops to the most difficult UN operations in terms of security: namely Sierra Leone and Congo, at the time.

Later, on January 30 of this year, the Security Council held a discussion on these peace missions in Africa. The following were some of the comments. The Council was blamed for its reticence with respect to Africa and there was criticism of its attitude of giving African countries full responsibility for peace and security. There was also a call to eliminate favouritism in humanitarian aid. Finally, there was a demand for equal treatment for Africa.

It is easy to see that there is a double standard in the case of Africa. In Kosovo, the international community was able to mobilize 40,000 peacekeepers within a few months. The same thing happened in East Timor. There was also a very significant intervention in Kuwait, and more recently in Afghanistan.

In wars involving countries, such as the one in Congo, there are barely 2,500 peacekeepers involved, and yet there have been 2.5 million deaths. We are wondering why this is the case.

NEPAD says nothing about this. It does not call for anything. I think this is something that should change.

Second, a number of wars in Africa are caused by access to precious resources such as diamonds, colombo-tantalite, which is essential in cell phones, oil and wood.

The wars associated with these commodities are waged in Sierra Leone and now Guinea, in Sudan and Angola for 18 years, and in Congo since 1998.

º (1630)

On this as well, the NEPAD is completely silent, and with reason. Resolving conflicts involving mineral resources goes beyond the African continent. In fact, all these resources can be found in the international community, and the first interventions should come from there.

The responses to date to this issues have been inadequate. Let me remind you of a few. In 1998, the G-8 of that time adopted an action plan to protect forests, in which it made a commitment to fight the illegal forestry development. This action plan was not implemented in Africa. It applied elsewhere in the world.

More recently, the Kimberley Process was started, which I imagine you have been following. The final phase of it will be held in Ottawa on March 18. This process brings together mining companies from the exporting countries and the producing countries, including Canada.

When we look at where we are headed, we cannot help but see the weak rules that will be applied, for example, the adoption of voluntary measures, with no international legislative standards. When we look at the damage done by diamonds as the sinews of war, we can only deplore this situation.

I come now to my final point, which applies to Canada in particular. It has to do with the mining, mineral and oil sectors. This is where the paradox of the NEPAD is apparent. I would like to give you some figures, if I may, to illustrate that the continent is immensely rich, but its people are extremely poor. This is the paradox that must be explained at some point. We have to understand this paradox, which would explain how Africa could be given a different role in international settings, in these major discussions, a role other than that of a beggar. When we see the extreme wealth of the continent, we have to wonder why Africa's heads of state are still begging for aid.

I was saying that the continent is very rich. The latest statistics and assessments show that most of the strategic resources required for economic development are found in Africa: cobalt, colombo-tantalite and all the minerals in the platinum group, for example.

In addition, there are the continent's oil resources. For example, the United States obtains 15% of its requirements from Africa. Because of the wars in the Middle East, US officials made a strategic decision to increase this figure to 25% over the next 10 years. Thus, 25% of the oil that will be used in the United States will come from Africa. This really makes us wonder why the African continent is not more involved in these major discussions.

NEPAD has very little to say about this point. It suggests three objectives: to improve the quality of information; to establish a regulatory framework favourable to the development of the mining industry; and to establish exemplary practices to ensure that mining operations are efficient.

Let met speak for a moment about the introduction of a regulatory framework favourable to industrial development. I think this will be a crucial point. What is new in this? There is talk about rewriting and reorganizing mining codes. As you may know, this process has been underway since 1992, and the international financial institutions advocated the rewriting of mining codes and their harmonization with the standards of the large international companies. This rewriting was part of the structural adjustment programs. It called for market liberalization, the withdrawal of certain government bodies involved in operations, privatization, and an alignment of government revenues to current world prices. We are familiar with this here in Quebec, because this is similar to the cost of electricity for the large aluminum plants. It is the same type of thing.

º (1635)

In 1998, the World Bank established an assistance program to modernize mining codes and investment codes. Since that time, over 25 producing countries have reorganized and rewritten their mining codes to comply with the directives, as they might be called, of the World Bank.

You see, the World Bank produced a framework. The countries that have to implement it take this framework drawn up in Washington and apply it in their own countries. These new codes are all aimed at the same thing: reducing royalties—the objective is to set royalties at around 3%; exempting companies from local social responsibilities; and, of course, lowering safety and environmental standards. In fact, these standards are not being lowered, but rather there are no codes at all in these areas.

I will give you a very recent example, something that happened today, February 28. The country involved is the Democratic Republic of Congo. I will read this, because it is only two lines long:

The adoption in late 2001 of the new mining code by the Congolese Parliament should increase the chances of success for Costamin International Ltd.'s copper and cobalt mining project. Representatives from the joint venture that involve, on the Canadian side, Gold City International and Peter Ewert International Group met in Kinshasa with government leaders to discuss the bill calling, among other things, for the reduction of sales taxes from 22 per cent to 9 per cent on mining operations an the abolition of import taxes.

So you can see how mining codes are being rewritten. Would we accept this in Canada?

As my last point, I would like to address the most important aspect of NEPAD. As you know, the basic thrust of the project is that development on the continent will take place through direct foreign investment and no longer through development aid or debt reduction. I imagine that the G-8 countries will be setting dates for these things.

I met with Mr. Fowler yesterday, who was of that opinion and said to me: “You are dreaming. You want us to increase international aid to 0.7%? What is with that? The African continent will develop through direct foreign investment from the private sector”.

In which sectors do you think this will happen? As is already the case, most of the investment goes into the mining and oil sectors. I give you an example. A consortium of oil companies is building an oil pipeline from Tchad through Cameroun so that oil from Tchad can be exported abroad. The investment for this project, which is already underway, is some $3.6 billion. There is money for this type of investment, but not everywhere, and you know that.

What impact can we expect from this proposal supported by NEPAD, which follows the same principles laid out by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund through their structural adjustment programs? I can give you examples where Canadian companies are involved. I think that you have already discussed this in Parliament. Unfortunately, there are many example and they often give rise to disputes.

In Sudan, there is the whole controversy surrounding Talisman, the oil company. In Kenya, there are environmental problems involving Tiomin. In Tanzania, there is controversy concerning the Bulyanhulu gold mine, in which Sutton and Barrick Gold are involved. In Ghana, there is the whole issue of the Tarkwa gold mine.

What do we see happening? Forced displacements of people, sometimes large groups of people. In places where people are capable of organizing and where there is a legal system that can support them, negotiations take place between the companies and the local communities, which is what happened in Ghana. Elsewhere, like at Bulyanhulu in Tanzania, the situation is very different. People are literally bulldozed. Amnesty International said that when the forced evacuation took place, some 50 miners were bulldozed and buried alive in their mine because they had to be gotten out of the way.

º (1640)

The most conspicuous case in Canada involves Talisman's operations in Sudan about which a report issued by a Parliament sponsored commission of inquiry, I believe, managed to show that forced displacement of local populations had taken place with help from the army and using Talisman's resources.

In conclusion, I feel that we need to regulate how foreign investments will take place, particularly where Canadian companies are concerned. Up to this point, and the most extreme case is Talisman, we have relied on voluntary codes of conduct. Talisman adopted such a code, and I think that then Minister Lloyd Axworthy was very happy about it.

Last November, the Presbyterian Church of Sudan started a lawsuit against Talisman in a New York court. This is a billion-dollar case for violation of international laws and participation in ethnic cleansing in the region where Talisman operates. If Canada wants to avoid this type of situation, there need to be tougher regulations.

Why do these companies not apply the same standards abroad that they do here with respect to displaced populations and environmental issues?

In closing, I want to say that my message is that we do need a new partnership. In my opinion, and the opinion of the groups I take part in, NEPAD does not propose any changes to the structures that have been set up over the past 10 years and that have turned the continent into a mere beggar, to put it crudely. There are things that need to be done here to change that, to make the international community more accountable in conflicts with an international dimension and to force and encourage Canadian companies to be good corporate citizens where ever they operate, here or in Africa.

Thank you.

º (1645)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, Mr. Tougas. That was certainly very interesting, I have to say. We need to give careful thought to what you have said. I will ask Mr. Paquette now to ask any questions he may have.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: First of all, I want to talk about the Amnesty International report on the miners that were allegedly buried alive. If such a report exists, I would like to have it, since the latest report that I have seen indicated that Amnesty International was not able to investigate. I have asked questions in the House on that topic, and Mr. Pettigrew answered at that time it was an honest mistake. He said that Amnesty International had investigated and that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. So I went to look, but if there has been a change in this file since then, I would certainly like to have that documentation so that I could raise it again in the House.

Recently, when we were reviewing the Export Development Corporation bill. We tried, unsuccessfully, to do a bit of a review of the mechanism to which you referred. Do you believe that crown corporations whose purpose is to promote Canadian exports and Canadian investment abroad should be subject to the international commitments that Canada has under the various conventions? That is my first question.

Second, as regards the first aspect of your presentation, concerning peace in Africa, someone suggested to us earlier that the UN should enforce the convention on outside aggression in the case of Congo. So I would like to know, since you are part of the Congo-Kinshasa Human Right Working Group, if you believe we should promote that, that is, if Canada should ask the UN to implement the rules to ensure that peacekeepers play the role that they are meant to play.

Mr. Denis Tougas: In answer to your first question, yes, Amnesty International looked into this case again and decided that it could say that there were allegations, although no proof, that supported the call by local groups for an independent international commission of inquiry.

As you know, if no one is talking any more about Bulyanhulu, it is because Barrick Gold, which is a wealthy company, does not want to have anything to do with this. Barrick Gold bought the company from Sutton, which was a subsidiary of Barrick Gold. Every time the issue comes up, the company's shares come under pressure.

º (1650)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: In this year's report.

Mr. Denis Tougas: In the 2001 report.

With respect to the Export Development Corporation, which now has a new name, I think that we need less than that: we just need access to information. People tried to find out what contracts had been signed between the Export Development Corporation and Tiomin. The information was never made available, even under the Access to Information Act. We were told that to do so would jeopardize commercial contracts. But this is taxpayers' money. I think that we need greater openness, at least at that level. That is fundamental.

EDC is often in an uncomfortable position; I can give you an example. In the case of Tiomin, the Export Development Corporation financed an environmental impact study for the company. Tiomin subcontracted the work to people from South Africa, who said that everything was fine and that there were no problems. So operations got underway. People from the University of Nairobi who were there and one of the University departments which was working with the communitie, said that the mining activities were going to cause enormous damage and they produced their own commission of inquiry, which arrived at totally different conclusions. The Export Development Corporation felt a bid awkward. The case went to court and the communities won, which means that the funding given to that company disappeared somewhere.

In the case of Congo, I imagine that Serge Blais talked about this this morning when he appeared here. I believe so. People have been working for a very long time to try to get international laws enforced there as well.

The Department, the Minister, departmental officials working in this area always tell us how we have to move cautiously. If we want to take the negotiation route and if everything goes well under the Lusaka accords, there is a need for caution. But since the beginning, we have been speaking on behalf of local people in asking why international law does not apply. One wonders whether, because these things are happening in Africa, they are less important and less serious.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Just for your information—and this is my last comment—we tried to pass an amendment to have the Export Development Corporation placed under the Access to Information Act. That amendment was defeated.

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

Mr. Tougas, you told us that the United States will be increasing its oil imports from 15% to 25%. You also told us about an oil pipeline from Tchad to Cameroun that would probably go to the United States; I cannot tell you which country is doing the importing. Does that really benefit the exporting countries, or do you think it makes no difference at all to them?

Mr. Denis Tougas: That is the point of my message. Up until now, from what we have seen, oil and mining projects have not yielded results. To give you the basis for my assertion concerning Tchad, the Tchad and Cameroun Episcopal Conferences set up a committee together to ask the companies and the States to ensure that these operations would benefit the people and would not destroy the environment among other things. The project is under way. We still have hope.

There is still some kind of leverage between the communities, the local governments and the mining companies but knowing that the annual revenues of these mining companies is 10 times greater than the revenues of these countries, it is easy to see how unequal the leverage is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do the mining companies that operate in those countries do so in partnership with the country, or is it the case of very few of them and it is simply a matter of royalties in the amount of 3%, as you mentioned?

Mr. Denis Tougas: It varies tremendously. Some countries require that there be joint ventures. Unfortunately, Congo is one such country. And as this is a country at war, the military will find it easy to do business with other companies that have ties to the military in allied countries, but as a rule, what we have seen is excessive privatization since 1995 or 1996.

The most recent example of this is Zambia, where the government last month passed legislation, whereby they would privatize all national copper mining companies.

º (1655)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you for your testimony. If you have any additional information, you can send it along to our clerk; it will certainly be very interesting.

We will adjourn for 30 seconds in order to welcome our next witnesses. Thank you.

º (1655)

º (1657)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We will resume hearing our witnesses with Mr. Eric Squire, for an individual presentation. Go ahead, Mr. Squire.

[English]

Mr. Eric Squire (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much.

The need for equitable global governance has become urgent. This is so because of the need to find global solutions to global problems, namely the large-scale environmental crises we all face and the increasingly desperate economic situation that about half of the global population faces on top of that. The G-8 by its very nature, i.e., that of exclusivity, is an unsuitable locus of governance. It lacks democratic legitimacy. For that reason, Canada should make haste to take its global governance concerns elsewhere.

To underscore how the G-8 lacks legitimacy as a global agenda setter, I'd like to read what Salih Booker, currently the director of Africa Action and until recently a senior fellow and director of Africa studies at the Council of Foreign Relations, has to say on this matter:

“Those seated around the (G-8) table represent little more than one-eighth of the world's 6.2 billion people. But they account for almost two-thirds of the world's annual income. Together they have a decisive influence over international financial institutions, including direct control of 46% of the votes in the World Bank and 48% of the votes in the International Monetary Fund. The G-8 members similarly control other powerful international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization. Although their decisions may mean life or death for tens of millions with no seat at this table, there is no global body that can demand accountability from the rich-country leaders.”

It's only natural for those of the majority world to take this view of the G-8. It is, after all, the reality of the situation. The disturbing part is that Canada has come to adopt an increasingly complicit position within this institution. This cannot go unnoticed forever. Eventually, as our government continues to increase Canada's stakes in the global neo-liberal project via its G-8 position, its disproportionately active presence in the WTO, and its appeasement policy with regard to the latest wave of American imperialism, something is going to happen. It's probably happening already, and that is that Canada's greatest diplomatic asset on the international level, namely Canada's reputation as a nation of integrity and magnanimity, will be undermined and replaced with a new dominant view of our country characterized by suspicion and hatred.

Some will reject this admittedly pessimistic interpretation. They'll point to things like debt cancellation and foreign aid, and state that although a lot remains to be done, positive things have been achieved via the G-8. But have they? The G-8 regularly talks about increasing aid, but look at the facts. In 1975-76, the fiscal period in which the G-7 was founded, Canada's official development assistance contributions stood at 0.5% of GNP, a high point, which was not far off the 0.7% target established within the United Nations. By 1990 this had fallen to 0.45%, and last year the figure had dipped to a dismal 0.27%.

Roy Culpeper of the North-South Institute has pointed out that “Canada used to stand among the top five or six of the world's most generous aid donors... Canada's position has fallen to 17th in 2001.” And this steady decline has been characteristic of all of the G-8 nations, with the exception of Japan.

Regarding debt cancellation, the G-8 record is not much better. It's true that a portion of the $100 billion in debt relief promised in Cologne in 1999 has been forthcoming, but meanwhile it has become apparent how the enhanced HIPC program was, from the very start, more designed to impose IMF and World Bank-dictated structural adjustment programs, including privatizations, cuts in spending on services, and liberalization of investment and remittance regulations, than to allow poor countries to get back on their feet again.

The enhanced HIPC program proposes that poor countries not eliminate debt but rather achieve a sustainable level of debt. In practice, sustainable has come to be measured in terms of an IMF mentality where the level of debt a country is deemed to be able to repay is primarily assessed in relation to its export revenues. So countries that are not restructuring quickly enough to suit the IMF taste for export-oriented economies end up being denied debt relief in spite of crushing poverty. And I've given a bunch of examples of different countries in which that has occurred.

As for the countries that do manage to draw up a poverty reduction strategy paper that meets with IMF approval, they're then stuck with a liberalized export-oriented economic framework but without the well-developed social and economic structures that can make it work. This leaves their economies wide open to the most predatory forms of foreign direct investment, which, rather than contributing to long-term sustainable human development, are focused purely on resource extraction—pillaging might be a more apt word—the exploitation of cheap surplus labour and snapping up bargains on the privatization auction block, which is completely in tune with the previous presentation.

To top it off, the countries are now bereft of any meaningful regulating mechanisms to rechannel corporate profits into local investment. Indeed, one of the first financial obligations of the SAPs is to lift restrictions on capital flows so that corporate remittances can flow back to the developed world.

In short, although the debt burden may be reduced for countries that have passed the PRSP test, the sustainable condition that ensues is more akin to sustained economic slavery. This is the essence of what African critics term “global apartheid”.

In addition to using debt relief as leverage to entrench this condition of perpetual economic servitude, the G-8 is now eyeing the possibility of using the New Partnership for African Development, or NEPAD, as a means of laying the foundations for further foreign economic domination.

» (1700)

Let's consider NEPAD for a moment. The official NEPAD document released in October 2001 contains bold rhetoric that suggests, on the surface, that it aspires to redress the tremendous inequities of the African and industrialized world relationship, and to empower Africans. But getting down to the nitty-gritty, we find that NEPAD really advocates a heavy emphasis on attracting more FDI, through the establishment of a liberalized trade and financial framework. It talks about “instituting transparent legal and regulatory frameworks for financial markets,” which, as journalist Raj Patel points out, means ensuring that capital interests take legal precedence over social and environmental ones.

Robert Fowler has stated that NEPAD is “about putting in place the conditions that will allow investment to come to Africa, because private investment is going to bring to Africa far, far more than any foreseeable amount of global assistance could bring”. However, it's precisely these conditions that have many representatives of African civil society most worried.

For instance, Patrick Bond, a researcher with the Alternative Information & Development Centre in South Africa, in an in-depth essay, questions Thabo Mbeki's allegiances in framing NEPAD. He points with apprehension to the proposed reliance on further multilateral loans, initiating a new cycle of debt; the promotion of foreign participation in public-private partnerships; and NEPAD's blithe espousal of privatization policies, including suggestions that areas as fundamentally monopolistic as roads and ports be opened to foreign control.

At the recent African Regional Dialogue, convened by the High Commissioner of Human Rights, NEPAD was again heavily criticized for its marginalization of women and its excessive market focus and lack of people focus. In the official report of this dialogue it's mentioned that:

“The danger of selling NEPAD to the Group of 8, the European Union and other external agencies before it was sold to the people on the ground was highlighted, especially in the light of the provision under paragraph 27 of NEPAD that referred to Africa having learned from the ‘painful experiences’ of the past. The past was characterized by neglect of real consultation with and full involvement of the people. Poverty reduction and increased decentralization required greater grassroots ownership of NEPAD.”

That brings us to what is perhaps the most serious criticism of NEPAD. Trevor Ngwane, a former African National Congress councillor and presently secretary of the South African Anti-Privatization Forum, puts it plainly:

“No civic society, church, political party, parliament or democratic body was consulted in Africa when NEPAD was put together. Instead, the first time we heard of it was when Thabo Mbeki presented it in Davos at the World Economic Forum in January 2001 to the likes of George Soros. At the time it was called the Millennium African Recovery Plan. Through a series of high-level discussions—that is, discussions above the heads of the people—MAP changed into the NAI (New Africa Initiative) and now to NEPAD. Any changes to the plan have been in response to the international ruling class's comments on the plan, for example, during the G-8 summit in Genoa where Mbeki was told to include good governance in his plan.The G-8 treated him with utter contempt, giving him only five minutes to make his presentation before sending him off to do his homework.”

To summarize, there's clearly no political consensus regarding NEPAD in Africa itself. Indeed, it's most likely there are vast swabs of Africa—probably the majority of the continent—whose populations have never even heard of the initiative. So for Canada to start making overtures of generous support for NEPAD is a clear case of sticking our noses into other people's business, without any general consent. This is yet another recipe for trouble further down the line.

Returning to the global governance crisis, I stress again that the G-8 is not the way to go. I've read some of the papers commissioned by the University of Toronto's G-8 information centre, in which it's suggested that the G-8 is a suitable cornerstone of global governance. Quite frankly, I am astonished. This is utterly the wrong direction to be taking. In contrast, Tom Barry, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus, writes that “the G-8/G-7 has contributed to this [global governance] crisis by supporting policy solutions that bypass the UN”, and I agree.

In pure financial terms, the G-8 is a considerable drain on resources. The bill for hosting Kananaskis will almost certainly exceed Canada's total UN dues for 2002. The G-8 serves to undermine the building of a participatory global governance, and in this harkens back to a former age, that of the Concert of Europe, in which the main European powers conspired to consolidate their hold on power by periodically intervening and suppressing popular movements. Since it represents a small, wealthy minority of the planet, the G-8 will inevitably amount to the same sort of thing, albeit by modernized means.

» (1705)

Time is running short. The primary dilemma facing the global system is democratic deficit. The voices of the few dominate those of the many, which leads to accelerated environmental exploitation on the part of all concerned. This dynamic has been well explained and documented by Thomas Homer-Dixon, director of the Centre for the Study of Peace and Conflict at the University of Toronto. The goal--that is, the way out of this mess--is a more equitable representation of voices at the global level. In this regard, the G-8 is obviously a dead end.

Let's take the money spent on G-8 summits and use it for something constructive—for debt cancellation initiatives, for getting aid contributions up to that 0.7% figure that they should have reached long ago, and to finance efforts at building global governance within a democratic context. Phase out the G-8, and phase in the Kyoto Protocol. That would be a fine start.

Thank you.

» (1710)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. That's quite impressive.

I just want to ask you one or two questions. First, for sure, the G-8 is there and is going to remain there even if it's not your wish. There's no doubt in my mind about it, and there's nothing we can do about it. But Canada is promising a new $500 million to be put in action. This plan may be in hope that some other countries will do the same, but we're not even sure that the other partners of the G-8 will put some new money over there. I think it's the contribution of Canada for Africa for the next few years.

If there is a plan of action, how do you see that the plan of action should be formed? We need to find some solutions. I understand—and you're not the only one who told us yesterday and today—that there was really no consultation with the NGOs or civil society in Africa. Nobody said there was any, so there's no doubt in my mind about that. That means we agree with you, but now that the leaders accept this, the leaders of Africa, all the leaders unanimously a year and a half ago and last year in Genoa... It was accepted a little bit, with some changes. Is there any way that Canada could try to force some of NEPAD to be ameliorated, to get a bonus in NEPAD? How can it be done?

Mr. Eric Squire: To comment on the initial thing that you said, that the G-8 is here, I'd just like to point out that I'm saying the G-8 shouldn't be used as a means towards achieving global governance. The G-8 may have some other purposes, but regarding global governance, the G-8 is not the place to further that goal.

On the $500 million, the worry I have about that is how it's going to be managed. That's going to or has been placed in what's called an Africa trust fund. In my mind, the real question is who's going to manage that fund?

Personally, I think the money would be best spent, most efficiently spent, in debt cancellation initiatives, because debt cancellation initiatives are long term. The debt problem is like a chronic illness that Africa suffers from. As long as the debt problem exists, really the other initiatives are never going fix it up.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much. That was very interesting. Sorry it's late, but we really appreciate your input.

Mr. Eric Squire: Thank you for having me.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Now we're going to adjourn briefly.

» (1712)

» (1715)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): We now have new witnesses. From the Canadian Citizens Movement, the founder, president, and CEO, Mr. Peter Vunic, and Mr. Kenneth Fernandez, vice-president.

Thanks for being with us this afternoon. You are our last witnesses for the week. The floor is yours.

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez (Vice-President, Canadian Citizens Movement): It's very kind of you to have given us this audience at such a late stage. We are much obliged.

At present there are two seemingly incongruous trends in international affairs. On the one hand is the push towards globalization, by which is commonly meant the free flow of goods and capital, while on the other hand there is a dramatic increase in levels of poverty, hunger, disease, and of course corresponding violence.

In this way, vast majorities of the world's population in every region and nation of the globe are reduced to being passive observers of the decision-making that affects their daily lives and becomes ever more unattainable. Thus, the reality of globalization has fallen far short of the promises made by its leading proponents, embodied in the G-8.

The challenge to the G-8, the prime movers of globalization, is therefore to assure the world community through concrete improvements in quality of life, working conditions, environment, health, access to potable water, nutrition, shelter, education, leisure, and most importantly, peace and stability.

It is precisely this goal of the furtherance of peace and stability, long a cornerstone of Canadian foreign and domestic policy, that led the Canadian Citizens Movement to appeal to the leaders of the countries in this hemisphere during the course of last year's Summit of the Americas. Many nations in this hemisphere are experiencing worsening social, political, environmental, and financial crises under the yoke of what is currently termed globalization.

In our view, it is essential that we, as Canadians, as Montrealers, be able to mobilize the intellectual and economic resources we have at our disposal, our creative energies, and our traditional role in the world as promoters of peace and stability, of justice and equilibrium. It is with this objective that we saw fit to launch the idea of the International Peace Garden Complex.

The complex is in fact complex, inasmuch as its structure would be such as to facilitate the free flow not of goods and of capital, but of knowledge and technology. In this way, the people of the north could benefit from the knowledge of plants, their medicinal and other beneficial uses, that the people of the south can offer them, while the people of the south could benefit from the northerners' knowledge of environmental technologies, such as solar energy, that they desperately lack and desperately need.

Moreover, at this time when globalization has tended to favour control over knowledge and science by certain financial concerns, the structure we envisage would allow for such knowledge and technology to be shared on a more communitarian basis, one that greater reflects the Canadian polity's vision of both society and Canada's role in the world.

We are of the view that Montreal would serve as the ideal site for this. It's ideal not only because of geographic and physical location and realities, but also because of ethnic and social realities. We have as many nations represented among us as there are in the world, all of which get along very well. Rare is the instance of ethnic strife or hatred or dispute or disregard.

Building on that social and geographic infrastructure, by working with the City of Montreal and hopefully with the Government of Canada, we would then extend that model to the whole world. This centre would not only serve to facilitate transfers of knowledge, but would also serve as a model for the world of a centre where people—particularly parties, nations, and politicians—could come together and negotiate in an environment that is conducive to the notion that life must precede ethnic, racial, or underlying financial considerations manipulated by parties external to the conflicts that appear. I think this is one way in which we Canadians could serve a key role in the world, and this is something we are very much interested in advancing.

As for Africa, we have taken note of the measures aimed at reducing or otherwise eliminating tensions that have arisen in central Africa. We have noted the launching of the inter-Congolese dialogue. In order to give full effect to that same dialogue, we are very happy to be working with a number of other community organizations in spearheading the mounting of the concert, Cri du Congo pour la Paix.

We have noted that many Canadians, including some members of ACTRA—of which I am a member, I'm happy to say—have expressed keen interest in supporting that initiative. They recognize that if we Canadians are seen to promote peace in the Congo, then we Canadians will be seen as peacemakers, as promoters and prime movers of peace, not just in the Congo but in the whole world. But it is a veritable and lasting peace, not a peace based on some promise of future prosperity for some, with exclusion to the many.

On that note, I would like to conclude my comments.

» (1720)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Mr. Vunic, do you have something else to add?

Mr. Peter Vunic (Founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Citizens Movement): Yes. I would like to continue the efforts and the commitment of the Canadian Citizens Movement to peace and stability, and to a real dialogue, to bring some concrete measures, such as the complex structural entities as such. Further, it is our goal to establish the world secretariat of civil society. This office would be stationed within this international peace complex. It is paramount that the members of civil society be given these tools by the governments of the world, particularly within our government here, as we have initiated those instruments.

Our efforts are further enforced by our letters, specifically letters to the leaders of the Summit of the Americas, the first draft. Our second draft and so on will state our foremost and heartfelt desire for the world to arrange itself to recognize a kind of new world order where peace and security and stability and prosperity across...

We must give the opportunity to those who are engulfed in wars and poverty, and don't have the material means or the technical means to come out of it. They have material means, which we are very happy to utilize as such, but we have to extend our hand to them to give them the knowledge, to give them education. We would not mind telling them to re-educate themselves as we are educating ourselves, as the world has to. We want them to reflect this reality of the high-level civilizations, such as we are in the north or the west, as the new world civilization in North America, the new world created some 500 years ago.

In that, I would very much like our leaders for the G-8 Summit--this summit is the most important in light of the events unfolding globally--to take note of the efforts of the Canadian Citizens Movement to state or to proclaim. As such, we have four key words, and I will make them known.

Make the promise to humankind by using the words from all languages--peace and paix and other languages in the world. Every leader should state that and make this promise and use those words.

Those who are able should seek to restore the bonds of divided families. There are divided families within rich countries, within poor countries.

The third word is to reunite families, communities, and nations. The fourth word is to reconnect them to humankind, so that they can feel they have been given this opportunity. Those who have the powers, who have the means, financial and moral, must give them strength to come out of this engulfed or encapsulated suffering or struggle to survive.

We would like very much that the forthcoming G-8 Summit stress those words.

» (1725)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do you have anything to add, Mr. Fernandez?

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez: Thank you. I will be very brief.

With respect to the international secretariat of civil society that we had envisaged, the idea of which we had presented during the course of the WOCSOC Summit, the World Civil Society Conference Summit that was held in Montreal in 1999, we have noticed that in many instances there is a grave danger to people who work in the furtherance of human rights, environment, labour conditions, and so on. If we are to give effect to the promises of that promotion, if we are to give effect to the very words—human rights, dignity, environmental stability, and so on—then we must provide a mechanism for those who work in the promotion thereof, in order to ensure their safety.

This organization would be a registry of all these different civil society organizations, which would keep in close contact with the UN. If there is any instance where someone who is in civil society has an unfortunate experience vis-à-vis the state or local powers or national or regional governments, or even external forces, then the fact of their difficulty or disappearance, unlawful arrest, or confinement will be made public before the UN General Assembly, will be registered. There will be a body that can call and put direct pressure, that will have a quasi-official standing. This is what we are envisaging.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Thank you very much, first of all, for your interventions as witnesses.

I have a question. We see a little bit what's going to happen in the next G-8. Say they take much more power. These eight are very rich countries. Do you think we're starting to put aside the United Nations? I'm not going to say the G-8 will take over the United Nations, but we know the position of the United States concerning the United Nations. Do you think it's a way for them to try to control the world and Africa, on this matter right now, by doing it through the G-8 and not through the United Nations?

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez: We certainly feel it is unfortunate that the United Nations seems to have lost its precedence. It seems to have been relegated to a passive observer vis-à-vis the G-8 and its affiliated organizations, such as the World Trade Organization. There seems to be a very clear agenda at consolidating power in the hands of a certain segment of the G-8.

» (1730)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry): Do you have any idea about NEPAD? We discussed NEPAD all day long yesterday. Some of our witnesses tended to say that the way NEPAD was drafted, there was no consultation at all with NGOs or with the civil society in Africa itself. Do you feel that the way NEPAD is drafted it is just a continuation of what's going on, or it's going to bring something new, something good for Africa, or it's not going to change anything at the end?

» (1735)

Mr. Kenneth Fernandez: There seems to be the usual dissonance between the promise of what NEPAD will offer and what is in fact happening on the ground.

We are in contact with a number of people and organizations within Africa, in particular within southern Africa, including Zambia, Zimbabwe, which we know is a tragedy, South Africa, and Namibia.

It is unfortunate that on the one hand there is the appearance of a government commitment to advancing social and economic development, but on the other hand there is this commitment to NEPAD, which seems to be premised on global free trade and globalization and the whole issue of liberalization of trade and capital and the free flow thereof, but not necessarily the free flow of people. Indeed, one can witness the expulsions, sometimes quite dramatic, of refugees from Burundi and Rwanda who end up in South Africa.

So there is a push for NEPAD. There is a stated commitment, but, like the promise of globalization, the reality behind the stated commitment falls far short of the promises.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Thank you very much for being with us this afternoon.

That concludes our afternoon session.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I would like to thank our clerk, our researcher, our interpreters as well as our support people at the console. Thank you very much and have a good evening.

The meeting is adjourned.