SRID 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, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

1620

The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.))

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier (Director General of the Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1625

The Chair

1630

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier (Vice-President, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

1635

1640

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance)

1645

The Chair

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

1650

Mr. David Angell (Deputy to the Personal Representative of the Prime Minister for Africa and Director of the Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle (Deputy Director of Central and Francophone Africa, West and Central Africa Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

1655

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

1700

Ms. Anne-Marie Bourcier

1705

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

The Chair

Ms. Louise Marchand (Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

1710

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)

1715

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

1720

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

1725

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. David Angell

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn (Director General, Program against Hunger, Malnutrition and Disease, Canadian International Development Agency)

1730

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

1735

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

1740

Mr. David Angell

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

1745

Mr. Deepak Obhrai

Mr. David Angell

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

1750

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn

The Chair

Mr. David Angell

1755

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

Mr. John Deyell (Regional Director, East Africa & the Horn, Africa and Middle East, Canadian International Development Agency)

1800

Mr. David Angell

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn

1805

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. David Angell

The Chair

CANADA

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 005

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1620)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)): I'd like to welcome all of you to the continuing hearings of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the urgent matter of the humanitarian catastrophe in African states.

I'm delighted that we will have witness testimony from both the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.

We will begin with our witness testimony. I understand that Anne-Marie Bourcier will begin the witness testimony from DFAIT.

Thank you, and welcome to our committee hearings. I just want to apologize for our late start. We had some continuing motions in the House. It was also the Prime Minister's 40th anniversary as a member of Parliament. I suspect that our members will be trickling in as they come down from the Hill. Thank you.

Madame Bourcier.

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier (Director General of the Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to come before the committee.

Because of the time, I will do an abridged version of my statement, which has been distributed.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the past decade, the African continent has seen more than its fair share of violent conflicts. Armed conflicts have led to the death, injury and displacement of more civilians in Africa than in any other part of the world. In fact, those who fought in these conflicts deliberately attempted to cause civilian casualties.

[English]

However, Mr. Chairman, it would be incorrect to conclude that the situation is simply one of deterioration. In fact, over the past few years, enormous progress has been made. In Angola, we have seen the end of one of Africa's longest-running civil wars. Canada played a key role in rendering effective the Security Council's sanctions, helping to create the conditions necessary for peace.

Ten years after the end of its civil war, Mozambique has developed a model example of successful reconstruction and reconciliation. Democracy thrives, the rule of law is established, and sound economic policy is practised.

Sierra Leone was the scene of some of the worst atrocities committed against civilians anywhere in the world, but stability has returned--although the situation remains fragile. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has issued its first indictment and has arrested senior political and military leaders from both sides of the civil war. Canada contributes to this process through support to the special court and the truth and reconciliation commission.

On another front, the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea is holding. In addition, Canada is working through its human security program to enhance the protection of civilians and refugees.

The New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD, recognizes that prevention and resolution of conflicts are prerequisites for sustainable development. Furthermore, through NEPAD, Africans have acknowledged that Africans have to play the lead role and apply the necessary political will. Under Canada's leadership and through the Africa action plan adopted at Kananaskis, the G-8 also identified peace and security as key elements for Africa's future.

NEPAD is already having an impact. In December, Kenyans went to the polls in free and fair elections. They changed their government peacefully.

[Translation]

However, Mr. Chairman, one must also be realistic about the problems that remain unresolved. Although the Congo peace process has made substantial and encouraging strides, there has been some very serious deterioration in the eastern part of the country. The human rights situation in this region is also seriously deteriorating, with massacres of civilian populations and frequent, unthinkable violations of basic human rights.

The appointment by Canada in November 2001 of Mr. Marc-André Brault, Special Envoy, was decisive for our initiatives aimed at a return to peace in the Congo. Mr. Brault arranged for better coordination among the international community; secured the appointment of the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Niasse, who led the Inter-Congolese Dialogue to completion; provided the support needed by the various parties; and last, ensured genuine visibility and credibility for the Canadian action.

Throughout the six-month crisis in Côte d'Ivoire, Canada has frequently urged all parties to respect human rights and comply with international humanitarian law. Reports of mass graves and death squads are particularly disturbing. Canada, in cooperation with the United Nations, has demanded that an International Commission of Inquiry be set up without delay, so that the facts can be established and those responsible brought to justice. We are also committed to supporting the post-conflict process.

º (1625)

[English]

Mr. Chairman, with regard to Sudan, Canada's special envoy in support of the Sudan peace process, Senator Jaffer, has just completed a visit to Sudan, including to Khartoum and to the south. Kenya, Uganda, and Egypt were also some of the countries she visited.

Both parties to the conflict believe a peace agreement may be achieved as early as this summer. There has been some improvement in humanitarian access to the south, linked to the progress in the peace process. However, some areas are still closed. Further progress on the peace process should bring more improvement.

The senator's visit positions Canada to assist in the consultation of any peace agreement by facilitating the participation of NGOs, women's groups, and others in discussion. Ceasefire monitoring, demining, capacity building, and reinforcing planning around the rights of internally displaced are also other areas of consideration.

Canada remains concerned with Zimbabwe's deteriorating political, social, and economic conditions. We are particularly concerned by the violence against a wide range of Zimbabwean society, which seems to have worsened after the recent by-elections. These were won by the opposition party, despite extensive harassment and intimidation. We remain alarmed by the use of torture by state security forces and efforts to deny food to supporters of opposition parties. Canada insists that any Canadian food aid be delivered through impartial and neutral channels.

Canada has welcomed the efforts of the Commonwealth Secretary General to respond to the governance crisis in Zimbabwe and to find a compromise that will allow the suspension of Zimbabwe to stand until Commonwealth heads of government can have a full discussion in December 2003.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, this overview of humanitarian crises in Africa has ranged all the way from the encouraging to the depressing. The crises in Africa are deep, wide and complex. Successful resolutions will not be easy, nor come overnight. There will be plenty of bumps along the road. The developed world and African government will need patience, persistence and commitment over the long term.

The situation is nonetheless one of hope and promise. Last month, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his personal commitment to do all he could to help ensure that Africa's needs are neither ignored nor eclipsed by world events. We will continue to support our African partners in seeking to ensure that Africa's enormous potential is realized.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to introduce my colleagues and collaborators, Mr. David Angell, who is acting as assistant to the personal representative of the Prime Minister for Africa; he is also Director for East Africa and West Africa, and Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle, who is our Acting Director for West Africa and Central Africa. They will also take part in answering any questions the committee may care to ask.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the members of the DFAIT delegation in general. We appreciate your being here for purposes of sharing with us your experience and expertise in these matters.

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier is here, and I believe he will be beginning the CIDA presentation.

º (1630)

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier (Vice-President, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the occasion to discuss with you today the humanitarian crisis confronting Africa. While international attention is understandably focused on Iraq, we must not lose sight of less visible humanitarian crises, the majority of which are in Africa. Minister Whelan is committed to ensuring that our response to Iraq does not come at the expense of other humanitarian crises.

I would like to focus my remarks on conflicts in Africa and the disastrous impact they have had on civilian populations and, more generally, on African development.

Since the beginning of the 1980s, no fewer than 28 of Africa's 50 countries have been at war. The region stands out from other developing regions from the sheer number of conflicts and the massive impact on lives and livelihoods. This impact includes massive population displacement, with 13.5 million internally displaced persons and 3.6 million refugees, the majority of whom are women and children.

Armed conflict has also stunted and reversed Africa's socio-economic development, contributing to alarming levels of poverty. It is no coincidence that the world's conflict-affected countries are most often the poorest. Poverty is both a cause and consequence of armed conflict.

The roots of these conflicts are complex but include socio-economic inequality between groups, poor governance, and competition over scarce or highly valued resources, such as diamonds and oil. They are fuelled by a proliferation of small arms. They increasingly take on regional dimensions, as we see so clearly in countries such as Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

In these conflicts, which are often intrastate rather than interstate, the dividing line between civilians and combatants is frequently blurred. The protagonists are often non-state actors who have little regard for international humanitarian law. Women, children, and elderly are often targeted as part of political strategy. Children are used as combatants or are used for forced labour or as sexual slaves. Women and girls are vulnerable to sexual violence and trafficking.

Humanitarian agencies are frequently denied access to provide for populations in distress, and the safety of humanitarian workers is frequently endangered.

[Translation]

The consequences of conflict are clear in a country context like Angola. Despite the end to three decades of civil war in April 2002, the humanitarian crisis there remains one of the most serious in the world. One quarter of the country's population has been displaced due to the conflict. It suffers from some of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. Average life expectancy at birth is 45 years. Mine infestation, poor roads and broken bridges have meant that humanitarian agencies have been unable to reach 40 per cent of the countryside.

Likewise in the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite tentative steps to peace, the UN estimates that 16 million people have critical humanitarian needs. Over three million people have died from malnutrition or diseases over two and a half years in eastern DRC. The child mortality rate is the ninth worst in the world, and infant mortality is 50 per cent higher than the African average. Sections of the eastern DRC remain highly insecure with continued widespread violation of human rights.

In Somalia, over a decade of conflict has placed most Somalis in a perpetual state of socio-economic vulnerability. Malnutrition of children under five has become a chronic problem in the southern and central regions, while 50 per cent of the population live without access to sanitation, and over three quarters of the population have no access to safe water.

A further challenge is the complication which drought and food shortages pose in conflict and post-conflict situations. Food supply crises in Africa have historically been attributed to drought. However, the food crises associated with the present environmental reality of droughts and flooding in both the southern and Horn of Africa regions are compounded by upheaval in economic and agricultural sectors and in some cases, political instability and violence.

One example is Zimbabwe, where as you know, government policies and corruption continue to hamper economic recovery. Another is Eritrea, where thousands of internally displaced persons, expellees and returning refugees do not have secure homes to which they can return. Much of Eritrea's agricultural land is inaccessible due to land mines. The lack of trade between Ethiopia and Eritrea affects border populations and pastoralists who depend on selling their cattle in times of scarcity.

Traditional coping mechanisms of the poor are further being eroded through the heightened impact of HIV-AIDS, which has devastating social and economic impacts on families and communities at all levels. The HIV-AIDS pandemic is a huge burden on African health care systems, which cannot cope with the added numbers of people suffering from AIDS-related infections. The worst affected are women and girls, who are also the main victims of sexual exploitation.

Despite the bleak picture I have painted of humanitarian crises, there have been a number of encouraging developments over the past year in three of Africa's most protracted crises. After 30 years of civil war, there is renewed hope for the peace process in Sudan. Three decades of civil conflict in Angola came to an end in April 2002. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, further progress in the implementation of the Lusaka agreement is cause for cautious optimism. Also, in Sierra Leone, the still fragile peace agreement is being implemented and strengthened. The challenge for the international community will be to sustain engagement and support to these countries throughout their transition from conflict, through recovery to longer-term peace and development.

º (1635)

[English]

I would now like to share with you some ways in which CIDA is responding to these crises.

Through our United Nations, Red Cross, and non-governmental organization partners, we support programs that alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by conflicts and natural disasters. In fiscal year 2002-03, we provided over $160 million to respond to immediate humanitarian needs of crisis-affected populations in Africa. Some of our largest contributions went to the conflict-affected populations in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan.

CIDA has provided $15 million in humanitarian assistance to Angola since June 2002 and is the lead donor to the national measles immunization campaign currently under way in Angola, with involvement from the Angolan government, WHO, and UNICEF. Measles is a primary cause of vaccine-preventable mortality and one of the leading killers of Angolan children.

Canada's contribution to this initiative is expected to reduce the number of measles cases and deaths by at least 75% over the next five years. The campaign to include vitamin A supplementation, which has been shown to reduce child mortality by approximately 23%, is continuing. CIDA also provided over $2 million for therapeutic feeding programs for the most vulnerable and malnourished.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, CIDA supports the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide, inter alia, emergency relief supplies, seeds, and tools to conflict-affected communities. The ICRC also plays a critical role in the protection of civilians and the promotion of international humanitarian law to all parties of the conflict. We also provided support to smaller and less visible crises in Africa, such as in northern Uganda, Liberia, and Somalia.

CIDA does not, however, respond only to the symptoms of humanitarian crisis; we also support efforts to find peaceful solutions to them. CIDA recognizes that the best and most cost-effective peace-building is conflict prevention, and the best conflict prevention is sustainable development that addresses the root causes of conflict. That means efforts are being made to mainstream conflict-sensitive development in our programming. It also means that we provide targeted support to initiatives aimed at conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation activities. For example, in Sudan, CIDA has supported the formal peace process through the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace talks. We also support the ability of women and youth groups to develop peace campaigns and community-based conflict resolution initiatives.

In Sierra Leon, CIDA supports the rehabilitation and socio-economic recovery of war-affected women and girls through physical treatment, counselling, vocational training, and community sensitization campaigns. Through the Canada Fund for Africa, established in support of the G-8 summit Africa action plan, CIDA co-manages with DFAIT the Canada/West Africa peace and security initiative. The objective of this initiative is to provide strategic assistance, particularly to the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, which has a regional security role, and to strengthen local, national, and regional capacities to deal with peace and security challenges.

In its policy statement on strengthening aid effectiveness, CIDA committed itself to developing a two-part strategy for Africa to deepen its engagement with those poor countries in Africa with good track records on governance and commitment to reform, and to developing a response for those countries that continue to struggle with issues of conflict and instability.

To address the first part of the strategy, CIDA has identified six countries to focus on in Africa--Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, and Tanzania--on which we will concentrate new development resources. For the second part of the strategy we are looking at how we can strengthen our response to conflict and instability, with a particular focus on Africa. The issues involved and the responses required are complex, multifaceted, and resource-intensive. The responses involve humanitarian and development activities, along with diplomatic and, on occasion, military support.

º (1640)

CIDA is part of an interdepartmental dialogue on how we can implement what is called a three D approach--development, diplomacy, and defence--in our response to situations of conflict in Africa. We are also involved in these discussions at an international level with our multilateral partners, including the development assistance committee of the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations. CIDA must make difficult choices among crises to determine where it can go, beyond a purely humanitarian response, to support a country and its people through an extended and often fragile period of recovery, rehabilitation, and development.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to provide you today with a brief overview of some of Africa's humanitarian challenges and what the Government of Canada, through CIDA, is doing to respond to them. Ultimately--and this has been made very clear by African leaders--the solutions for Africa's humanitarian crisis must come from African countries themselves.

The international community, including Canada, can only play a supportive role. Nevertheless, I can assure you that Africa will remain at the forefront of CIDA's development and humanitarian agendas. The fact that 50% of the 8% increase to the development aid budget will be allocated to Africa is a testament to our commitment to African states.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to indicate that I have with me Mrs. Louise Marchand, who is the director general of the humanitarian assistance program, as well as Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn, who is

[Translation]

Director General of the Program against Hunger, Malnutrition and Disease, and Mr. John Deyell, Regional Director of the Program for Eastern Africa and the Horn of Africa.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you to Mr. Métivier and his delegation for making themselves available and sharing their information and expertise with us.

We'll begin now with questioning from my colleague, Deepak Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all of you for coming and giving us an overview.

Something bothers me. I would like to bring a bigger picture--and I will talk to DFAIT as well as CIDA; you can both discuss this issue. I spent half my life growing up in Africa during the time when the countries became independent, with their economic situation and everything. Today as I sit here, I don't see any changes that have taken place on the continent of Africa. I would say a lost decade has gone down the tube.

I have seen CIDA projects. I have seen CIDA's involvement. I have seen money flowing to the countries. I have seen attempts being made. But an overall view of the whole continent, when I look at it and when I see the humanitarian crisis that has taken place in southern Africa, tells me that nothing has changed.

With the presentation that CIDA made and all the money you're spending and so forth, the new increase that is targeted, to me, is a band-aid solution. You're not helping this crisis; you're only trying to stop the flow that has taken place from falling down further. That's all that is happening. That's where that money is going. Does it change the humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Africa? No.

With NEPAD, which we had at Kananaskis, and what the government is saying, in my point of view, the major flaw of that program goes back to what has been ailing the continent, that nobody is holding the African leaders accountable--none whatsoever.

The peer review system that is set under NEPAD is again resulting in this blank cheque being given back to the African leaders, who in the past have shown no accountability to anybody.

The guilt feeling...and I'm sorry, I'm coming down very strongly on this because we're talking about life and death. I was in Africa about a year and a half ago, and what I saw--dying people over there--really shook me, in the continent where I grew up.

Zimbabwe's Mugabe, and now the farce of Khadafi sitting in the chair at the human rights conference I've just come back from--all these things indicate to me that what is happening on the African continent has not changed. Where and when are we going to wake up and say to the African leaders...?

Your statement is very right. I buy the argument of Africa for the Africans and for the African leaders to decide what they want to do. But which African leaders, may I ask? The Algerian one? No. There is a big problem in Algeria. I went to Algeria. I can't even walk on the streets of Algeria.

What are we talking about? The Ivory Coast? There was a peak in stability and now it's off.

Are we--and now this is to DFAIT--

º (1645)

The Chair: I would just like to caution the member that we need to leave time for the response.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Sorry. This is final.

In terms of the development of Africa, what are we doing on the agricultural front, where there is more subsidy given to the European Union than is given to development aid for the whole continent of Africa? More money is spent propping up farmers who in turn create these barriers that will not allow the African countries to come out of....

This is the overall picture. I'm not putting you down. I'm just depressed, sad.

What has happened over there, and what is happening over there? This tells me nothing. I heard this 20 years ago, this whole picture that you presented. I want to see something new. I want to see something forceful taking place to hold them accountable. Is that coming forward?

What are your views on that?

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: I will answer first and then call on my colleague who was associated, and still is associated, with the follow-up on the Africa action plan that was adopted by G-8 leaders in Kananaskis as a response to the NEPAD initiative.

I ask the committee, Mr. Chair, to recognize again what we were saying in our presentation, that leaders, both in the developing world as well as in the African countries, will have to continue to be engaged. It's going to be a road that is “cahoteuse”, a bumpy road. We will be faced, unfortunately, with some difficulties but with success as well.

The successes that have been presented in our presentation are significant and are gradually marking the lives of Africans. Unfortunately, the continent is plagued, as Mr. Métivier was mentioning, with other dimensions, such as HIV/AIDS, with health conditions that are affected by the food situation or by the quality of water in some instances.

Perhaps I may now ask my colleague, David Angell, to comment on the NEPAD perspective.

º (1650)

One of the things that is new in NEPAD, in the new partnership, is the commitment by African leaders to hold each other accountable. It's simply too early to make a call on whether they'll be able to follow through on that commitment.

The heads of state and government committee of NEPAD met in Abouja on March 9. They agreed there to the framework for the African peer review mechanism. Ten countries signed onto the APRM.

G-8 partners will be meeting with their African partners on April 14 and 15 in Bamako, and much of the discussion will focus on this issue of peer review and whether in fact, as African leaders have pledged, the APRM will become operational this month or very shortly thereafter.

You mentioned a number of African leaders. You'll know that Canada opposed the election of Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission.

With regard to Mr. Moy, the change in Kenya in the elections on December 27 is really quite dramatic. I was in the country shortly thereafter. The sense of elation among the population is palpable, and the new government is aligning its policies behind what is called foreign NEPAD. So in the case of Kenya, we have a major African country that is walking the walk on NEPAD, and we'll see whether this is a precursor to what other countries are doing.

What G-8 leaders have committed to doing, in the context of the Africa action plan, is to first of all maintain a broad partnership with African countries across the continent, based on human dignity and need, but also to enter into deeper partnerships, enhanced partnerships, with those countries that are demonstrably committed to implementing the NEPAD in all its aspects. Again, this is a process that's only at the beginning, and we'll see where it leads.

With regard to the issue of agricultural subsidies, the Prime Minister has been outspoken, certainly within G-8 discussions involving G-8 partners and NEPAD partners, and has expressed his views very firmly on this issue. The G-8 summit at Evian on June 1 through 3, I think, will see quite considerable discussion of this issue, in part in the context of the Doha negotiations, but it's an issue that has been quite central in the G-8 engagement on, in effect, a separate tract from Doha.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle (Deputy Director of Central and Francophone Africa, West and Central Africa Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): If I may be allowed a comment, I've been in this business of Africa for several years. Many mornings I just feel the way you feel about it, and it's normal to think that way. But at the same time, as you say, you have to keep the big picture.

One argument I use when I say never to give up on Africa is consider the fact that durable peace actually began in Europe only in 1945, after centuries of war, slaughter, and genocide--you can imagine--so let's give a break to Africa.

It takes time, as Madame Bourcier said at the end of her statement; these things require time and patience. I agree that it's extremely frustrating, but you just cannot allow yourselves to give up, because there is hope. Many countries are in very bad shape at the moment, but some other countries are climbing the hill, so we cannot afford to give up. I agree with you that sometimes it's extremely frustrating, but we just cannot give up on this.

º (1655)

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: If you'll allow me, I'll make an additional comment. The first thing I'd like to say is that when we're talking about humanitarian assistance, we're talking about failed development. If development had worked, we would not need to have humanitarian assistance. That's an important starting point.

Another point I'd like to make is, if we look back over the last 30 years, there are lessons we can draw from the development effort. There have been success stories, not only failures. Some of the elements that stand out as major factors for success are: investment in the health and education of a population, institutions a country certainly needs; a commitment of a country to its own development; democratic or political institutions by which a population can express its views; good governance systems; and good macroeconomic and social policies. Countries that have followed these approaches have been successful. Of course, we have a tendency to look particularly toward some countries of east Asia.

If we look at Africa, we can see that this process is at a much earlier stage. If you're thinking, for instance, of democratization, much progress has been made, I would say, over the last 10 or 15 years, where leaders who had been there for a long time have moved on and democratic processes have been slowly started. It takes time to take hold and express itself clearly. As our colleagues have said, we have to be a little patient in terms of the time it takes for these processes to take hold.

We certainly have a very critical situation in Africa with regard to conflict. From that perspective, things are more serious now than they were 15 years ago. There's more conflict now than there was. Therefore, we need to pay very, very special attention to understanding what leads to conflict and try to coordinate ourselves to be at the front end of these situations, to have the staying power to come in and try to contribute to dissolving some of these tensions so they don't turn into very dramatic situations.

This is an area, I think, where as part of the international community we can play a role in terms of trying to understand what needs to be done and being more proactive.

The Chair: Mr. Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): In light of the situation, will we have several rounds or should we ask all of our questions at the same time? Will we be able to speak again later?

The Chair: Yes, in my opinion we can do that.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you. Let's say I have two or three questions to start; it all depends.

First, thank you for your presentations. I was surprised that you did not mention the situation in Burundi, where I was told there have been 300,000 deaths since 1996. I don't know if we can call that a genocide, but in any case this situation seems very dramatic to me. If you could give us your thoughts on that, it would help me in my thinking process.

You did not mention Algeria, either. I would like to know your point of view, as foreign observers.

Secondly, you said on page 2:

The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) recognizes that prevention and resolution of conflicts are prerequisites for sustainable development.

How can you make such a statement, in light of the strategy which was put in place on the Ivory Coast, to fragment that country, in my opinion? This was done with the obvious complicity of a country for whom we have a great deal of affection, but which, I believe, feels that its interests are directly threatened, as it still controls 75 per cent of the economy, and feels attacked—this is my perception—by the policies of the Gbagbo government which aim to take things in hand and free the Ivory Coast from the French grip by doing business with other countries.

How can you conciliate talk of prevention and settling conflicts with the fact that rebels are invited to the table, that the democratically elected government is forced to negotiate and deal with the rebels, and that the democratically elected government is having the presence of rebels imposed upon it? These rebels will, according to a first scenario, be given positions as ministers of the economy and of finance, and ministers of defence, communication and internal affairs. If memory serves, rebels did occupy the positions of minister of defence and minister of the interior. How do you conciliate that with the mission and stated objectives of NEPAD?

Those are my first two questions.

» (1700)

Ms. Anne-Marie Bourcier: Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau.

With regard to Algeria, I will say right off that I avoided making comments on countries outside sub-Saharan Africa, as we are responsible for sub-Saharan Africa. However, Algeria was a signatory and eager participant in the preparation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative, and it is in that context actively concerned by the preoccupations expressed by Africans as to the development of the continent and of their country.

To return to your question on the Ivory Coast and Burundi, firstly, my colleague Louis-Robert Daigle may add something to my answer, but in fact we are not forgetting that conflict or that worrisome situation. The situation is all the more worrisome in that it is one which involves the whole area of the Great Lakes, which affects both the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Rwanda, which is in a more stable situation currently, but the fact remains that this is a region which was intimately involved, as well as Uganda.

In Burundi, currently, or very soon, there will be a transitional situation where the government in power has agreed through an agreement to share its responsibilities with the opposing group. This transition had been announced for May. We are monitoring its development very closely, as difficulties still exist with a faction of the opposition groups that are negotiating.

With regard to the Ivory Coast, this country has indeed been experiencing a dramatic situation over the past six months. The Ivory Coast is the lung of west Africa, and the situation is indeed extremely unfortunate, and is to some extent the continuation a situation which had been preceded by the coup d'État in 1999. The government in power at that time attempted through reconciliation efforts to bring all of the dissident parties or opposition parties to make a national reconciliation effort after an election, but this initiative was a failure. The past six months were first of all characterized by extremely difficult situations in relation to the negotiations which were undertaken by Africans themselves.

The ECOWAS was very active in these negotiations through President Wade, and also through the African elder statesman, the President of Togo. And for those of us who know Africa, elders generally have some influence and may have an effect on outcomes. The difficulties derived from the fact that there was no conflict resolution, and it was pursuant to a French invitation that ECOWAS, the opposition parties, the party in power and the rebels, two rebel groups from the northern area, and also renegades who had provoked that first crisis in September, all came together at the same table to attempt to draft an operational agreement.

» (1705)

The Marcoussis accords were ratified by Canada. The Security Council also weighed in on those accords. These Marcoussis agreements affect several areas. With regard to the responsibilities of the transition team appointed by a prime minister following the Marcoussis accord, the agenda is significant. Whether the issue is land reform, naturalization, citizenship or other matters, the issues are of considerable scope.

The rebel groups will be part of the new government. Mr. Daigle can elaborate on the positions they will occupy. There was some discussion of their obtaining positions in defence and internal affairs, but it was decided that that would not be the case. A security committee was struck and it is in the process of designating those who will be responsible for those areas.

Louis-Robert, would you like to complete my reply?

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: I think it was quite complete.

According to what you were saying, it is as though we accepted the fact of the rebellion. Unfortunately, that is to some extent the way things go with rebellion in Africa. If you look at the Congo, no one is legitimate. On the Ivory Coast, there is a legitimacy deficit and a political process that had stalled even before the 1999 events. The situation had lasted for a long time.

From the moment when you have a group which controls a third of the territory, at some point you have to negotiate. You have to negotiate with reality, and that is what happened. No one could extricate them from there and everyone was forced to resign themselves to the obligation of negotiating with them.

But all of that is the result of a very long history. It did not start in September. The events of September were the result of a very long history. You referred to a country I will not name, but it played a major role in this history. No one denies that, and the country itself does not deny it.

However, the inhabitants of the Ivory Coast do have the will to distance themselves somewhat from those periods in their history. This is a process which may, however, take some time. The will is there and I think that the countries you referred to also feel the need to free themselves, because the weight of these periods can become crushing over time. They no longer have the means to do what they used to do before because the world changed; Africa has changed, and a process has been triggered.

Unfortunately, it is a difficult, halting process. There were damages, but things will get settled, little by little.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Louise Marchand (Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): I might like to make a few comments in reply to your question on Burundi.

As you may know, Canada took part extensively in the Arusha process in which Mr. Mandela was very involved, as well as Carolyn McAskie, a Canadian who also works with the United Nations in New York. We are expecting a government transition at the beginning of the month of May. So the process is continuing.

With regard to humanitarian aid needs, at the end of the current fiscal year we provided $3.4 million, especially for displaced persons, by providing contributions to the ICRC and to international NGOs as well as to Canadian NGOs. We also provided a great deal of funding for the protection of civilians, once again through the NGOs. This is an issue which concerns us, in particular the situation of refugees in Tanzania. You know that there are approximately 500,000 refugees who are still in Tanzania. Thus, we are working closely with the Red Cross and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to solve these issues.

I realize that my answer to your question was a bit scattered. What we could do is perhaps send you some additional information on Burundi, if you think this could be of assistance to you.

» (1710)

Mr. Yves Rocheleau What is striking—and you illustrate this well—is that Burundi interests no one. I learned from the ambassador perhaps two or three months ago that there had been 300,000 deaths. Can we use the word genocide? Was it a revolution? How can we qualify an event which caused the violent death of 300,000 people, according to what I was told? One of the bits of information I retained, among others, was that out of 65 elected representatives, 28 were assassinated.

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: We would have to go back to the very beginnings of independence. Some may draw parallels with Rwanda. There was indeed a tragic history. Since independence, a group took over control and power in the country and that group constitutes an ethnic majority. The names are the same as in Rwanda, but the history is different, and the context is different as well.

There have been recurrent massacres over the years. We are talking about these 300,000 people, but there were also massacres in 1972, among other years. We also have to be careful with the figures, because a lot of figures have been bandied about. But there was a large number, and the problem still has not been solved. It erupted again in 1993, and a process has been launched since then but it is not yet complete.

In the meantime, the rebellion is continuing. There have been peace agreements but an agreement does not necessarily mean that conflict is over. There were peace agreements but there were no cease-fires. Separate agreements were concluded with some rebels, but there are always some holdouts, some rebels who refuse to give up the fight. That is why the process is taking so long. There are peace agreements among the political parties, but in the field there are always rebels who did not take part in the peace process and who are continuing to fight.

So the process is moving forward, slowly and painfully. It moves forward, one step forward, two steps back, but it is progressing. On May 1, if the agreement is respected, theTutsi president should be joined by a Hutu vice-president. The president who occupies the position at this time recently declared that he was going to do this, but we have to wait and see whether this will really come to pass on May 1.

It is true that we don't hear about it, because it is a small country; it is the size of a telephone booth set down in the very heart of Africa. There is very little talk about it, but this has been going on for 30 years. It is unfortunate that we don't hear about it, but that is the way it is. I agree with you entirely.

Ms. Louise Marchand: Are you satisfied with my colleague's answer, or do you need additional information?

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: That's fine, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here today. This has been most interesting.

We need a massive sea change, I would suggest, in our dealings with these problems on the continent, and the comments I make are not directed at you personally at all.

Quite frankly, if I was an African living on the continent in some of the worst countries on that continent, I would only conclude that the west was more wedded to process than to effect. Certainly, we appear to be more interested in treating a problem than in preventing it.

I think, Monsieur Métivier, you mentioned quite eloquently that at the end of the day, development can only occur in the absence of conflict and the presence of good governance; otherwise, we're wasting our money.

In the worst-case scenarios, I would suggest that who we're dealing with is little more than somebody who is a bully, a thug, a kleptocrat, and a murderer, someone who is interested in promulgating and producing conflict for their own personal gain and that of their cronies.

I'll bring up first the issue of the Congo: 3.3 million dead, seven countries involved--removed, go in, back and forth--and they have developed seven proxy groups for their own enrichment as they pillage the massive resources of that country. As you are well aware, a thousand were hacked to death just a few days ago. I would ask you this. Being a group that provides very good suggestions to our government, will you suggest to our government that we ask for and start a process of unilateral, targeted sanctions against some of the seven countries that have been promulgating and continuing the bloodbath in the Congo.

I might add, section 2 of SIMA does enable us to act unilaterally. We do not have to do this under the auspices of the UN or some other multilateral organization we're a member of. Section 2 of SIMA does give the governor in council the power to enact that, so will you do that?

The second issue deals with famine in sub-Saharan Africa. Right now 40 million people are at risk of dying. Canada has done a wonderful job, as you know better than I, of giving a lot of food to the crisis areas in that part of the world.

But the world needs somebody to make a clarion call. James Morris has tried this every which way to Sunday, but it's partially fallen on deaf ears. We need a country that will make a clarion call for two things: one, food aid; and two, the long-term structural agricultural policies we hope will be adopted, ones that are congruent with the countries that have these problems. Will we push, number one, for a massive increase in food aid in the amount of $1 billion, and two, to engage countries in enabling them to adopt the agricultural policies that will enable them to have long-term food security so that we don't go around on this horrible merry-go-round?

And last, when I mentioned the issue of dealing with thugs in the worst-case scenarios, sometimes, as you know better than I, there's no place for negotiation. Negotiation is over. These people are acting in their own self-interest. Will you ask our government to call for special tribunals to try for crimes against humanity the following people: one, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; two, Joseph Kony of the LRA in northern Uganda; and three, Charles Taylor of Liberia? I cannot imagine how these venal creatures get away with what they've been doing in and around their regions.

Last, I would just hope that you will offer the solution of an expanded Canada Fund at our high commissions and embassies under the jurisdiction of our ambassadors. I think we get enormous bang for our buck with that. It would be very potent aid that could be given. Our ambassadors and high commissioners would be accountable for that. If we increase those funds--double or even triple them, if you will--I think we will have a massive effect right on the ground in some very important ways.

Thank you very much.

» (1715)

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: I will leave it to my colleague to address the question of famine. I will start with the question of the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, which is more related to the responsibilities of CIDA, and I will try to address the other concerns that were raised, Mr. Chair.

As for the Congo, with regard to the numbers that were publicized over the weekend, we advise some caution about the use of those numbers. For that reason, Louis-Robert Daigle was in contact with the international organization that was making that reference, and I would ask him to address that.

» (1720)

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: We make a distinction between the people who have been slaughtered, which is one thing, and the International Rescue Committee report that has been released today talking about three-point-something million.

This has been a very difficult issue because this is the same group that two and a half years ago came up with the first figures of two point five. I've always challenged that number because this is a region of the world where you have to be very careful with numbers. For example, like the genocide in Rwanda, the number of victims ranged from 500,000 to 1.2 million. So where is the truth? We don't know.

In the case of the victims of the conflict in Congo, you have to put things in perspective. You have to put together 30 or 35 years of the Mobutu regime, an inept regime, that has created some sort of a deliquescent country--no infrastructure, or very little infrastructure. The very little infrastructure there was has collapsed.

The problem was compounded by the war, that is true. There have been many victims of the war, but not necessarily direct victims of the war because this is not a classic, conventional war that you see in Africa. What you see is people suffering, dying, because of no food aid coming in, no medicine coming in, because there's no way to deliver the goods in those regions where there are no roads.

I don't know if you've been there. If you flew over the region, there are simply no roads. The only way to deliver food aid or medicine and so on in these huge regions would be by helicopter, or by plane, that sort of thing.

It is true that this conflict has made many victims, but we have to be careful with numbers. You know, 3.3 million people is a big number and there's no way to verify it. So we have to be extremely careful in using that number. I've always challenged that from the beginning.

I remember one other trip. I went to Geneva to talk to people about that number. I said, how can anybody come up with that sort of number, when you think of it? How can you arrive at such a number? That's not to say there were no victims--that's another thing--but we have to be careful with numbers.

You raised the issue of targeted sanctions vis-à-vis the seven countries. Unilaterally, I don't think anybody is in that business of going...and I'll be very frank about this. Maybe there's a law, but I wasn't aware there was a law about that--

Mr. Keith Martin: I don't mean to interrupt, but there is a section within SIMA that enables us to do that.

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: Maybe, but I doubt...and I want to explain to you why in this case I don't think it will work. We cannot go at it alone, that's for sure.

Mr. Keith Martin: I am sorry--

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: We cannot go at it alone. What we've been trying to do.... I agree with you that this is a big outbreak and a lot of people have done a lot of bad things, but it depends on the way you want to deal with it.

As I was mentioning earlier, there's no legitimate political leader in this country, to start with, and the way we have--

Mr. Keith Martin: Sir, I'm referring to the seven countries that are involved that do have political leaderships--

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: All right, but as I said, I don't think Canada will go at it alone, and we would not recommend that to the system, to our political masters, that we--

Mr. Keith Martin: Why?

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: Because it won't work.

Mr. Keith Martin: Why, as a starting point?

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: I don't think it will work. There are many precedents in other countries. Sanctions is a very tricky one.

Mr. Keith Martin: Targeted sanctions against the leadership.

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: Give me an example.

Mr. Keith Martin: Well, you can freeze the personal assets of particular leaders. You can ban them from travelling. In other words--

» (1725)

Mr. Louis-Robert Daigle: It's been done. In Zimbabwe, for example, it's been done.

Mr. Keith Martin: We won't get into that, because there are loopholes there that you can shoot a cannon through. But having said that, I'm really talking about targeted sanctions against leadership. It's not against the people, because I completely agree that the last thing you want to do is an Iraqi situation where the public, the people, suffer as a result of sanctions that are too blunt an instrument. But if you make the people pay on top, maybe there's an opportunity to start a sea change of process, because what we've done in the past hasn't worked.

You know better than I that these are not little problems. I mean, chopping arms and legs off babies and adults to leave them maimed on the ground so other people can see the effects of that is not a small problem.

Mr. David Angell: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Martin, on the issue of targeted sanctions, when Canada was a member of the Security Council in 1999-2000, Paul Fowler and Paul Heinbecker, who were the successive chairmen of the Security Council committee responsible for the application of sanctions against the UNITA rebel force in Angola, actually played a key role in rendering effective what had, until that point, been completely ineffective sanctions. Through their work they were able to make targeted sanctions meaningful, to the point at which both the Angolan government and UNITA have acknowledged that Canada's role in giving effect to these sanctions had an important impact in bringing about the ceasefire in Angola.

In the case of DRC, there was a panel of experts appointed by the council to look into the abuses and the illegal exploitation of resources. That panel was created while Canada was a member of the council.

The issue of sanctions was not discussed within the council at that time, in part because there was--I believe still is--a sharp difference of view among council members as to which parties in the region were contributing to the legitimate defence of the DRC and which were on the wrong side--who was invited in and who wasn't. Among the five elected members there are sharply differing views as to what the role of some of those seven countries are.

I think we're not likely to see council-imposed sanctions. The general approach of the Canadian government has been strongly to favour a multilateral approach to sanctions in the belief that it's the only efficient way to go forward, unilaterally imposed sanctions by Canada unlikely to have effect. One can compare situation to situation, but that's been the global approach by the government.

With regard to the issue of famine, colleagues from CIDA can say much more. I'm afraid this is a falling back into process, but the G-8 has established a contact group to look specifically at the issue of famine in Africa, looking in particular at the long-term dimension and what can be done to increase the ability of African countries to respond more effectively in situations of drought. This will be an important part of the agenda for the G-8 at Evian.

With regard to the issue of special tribunals, in broad terms, having invested an enormous amount of energy and diplomatic creativity in the creation of the ICC, I think we're reluctant to see special tribunals created outside the framework of the ICC, a measure that might be viewed by some as a weakening of the ICC. Now, there are circumstances where the ICC does not have jurisdiction.

With regard to the individuals you mentioned, Dr. Martin, with regard to Mr. Taylor, there were targeted sanctions imposed against Liberia while Canada was a member of the Security Council. We had an important role in that, and the panel of experts that was appointed by the Security Council to give effect to those sanctions, to make them more effective, was in many ways modelled on what Canada had done with UNITA. So on the issue of Liberia, we've been an active participant in trying to address the issue about which you're concerned.

With regard to LRA, my understanding is that the Government of Uganda has not sought the creation of a special tribunal. They probably would need to consent to it. Ordinarily, tribunals apply with regard to all sizes of any given conflict, not simply to one to the extent that it would apply to Mr. Koni. If it were physically possible to get access to Mr. Koni, the Ugandans would already have done so. So I don't think we would be able to get access in this case to the LRA leadership.

With regard to Mr. Mugabe, the Canadian government is still focusing its efforts on the Commonwealth, hoping to get a Commonwealth consensus. That track has not wound down yet.

Thank you sir.

The Chair: Monsieur Métivier.

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: In terms of the famine, I'd like to ask Mr. Loevinsohn to give us some information here.

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn (Director General, Program against Hunger, Malnutrition and Disease, Canadian International Development Agency): As my colleague from DFAIT, David Angell, suggested, there's an active G-8 process going on. But Dr. Martin, I know you're more concerned with what's happening on the ground, so I'll try to address that particularly.

First of all, with regard to the massive malnutrition going on in Africa, massive food aid has certainly got to be a part of the solution to that, so there's not much room for controversy there.

There's a need, however, to go beyond the obvious. For example, in these malnutrition situations, you have many people dying of infection. They don't make the newspapers, as it may not be obvious to newspaper writers, but in fact you may have a situation where a majority of deaths are due to infection, with poor nutrition as an underlying factor. You have to deal with both the poor nutrition through food aid and with the infection through health measures, clean water, and things like that.

Even more important, and David Angell mentioned this as well, you've got to get beneath the problem of malnutrition to say, “What is the agricultural and rural development situation that's making populations so vulnerable?” When we have a drought here in Canada, it's not good for the farm sector, but people don't starve. We need to put that kind of resilience into developing countries through robust economic measures, especially in the agricultural sector. This is definitely a key priority for our minister and agency.

» (1730)

Ms. Louise Marchand: Mr. Martin, I'd just like to maybe add some words on the Congo. I just came back two weeks ago from an annual field visit with the ICRC. Once a year they take people like me who deal with processes to the field and show us how humanitarian assistance is conducted.

I must say that I share your sentiment with respect to Congo. Anybody who's been there recently could not do otherwise. I was in Goma and Bikoro, and visited many communities along the lake, where the stories are absolutely terrible. When we got back to Kinshasa, an international group of us from different donor countries--which was very interesting in itself--had meetings with UN organizations, humanitarian actors, development actors, and the defence people as well.

I'd just like to come back on the point that Mr. Métivier made about the three D approach--diplomacy, defence, and development. When I was in the field, there was no doubt among the international community on the visit that this is what is needed. More diplomatic effort and a concerted effort with development and defence as well are needed.

So I think we have an interdepartmental opportunity on the DRC over the next few months to engage in some discussions with respect to that approach. We have been given a green light by our minister to develop a program framework for the DRC for her to consider. Nothing has gone to her yet, but we do have this opportunity to work interdepartmentally and maybe to consider sanctions as well. I don't know, but we do an opportunity to take a fresher approach, if I can speak that way.

So I just wanted to share my views after that mission and tell you that we will be pursuing discussions on the DRC. Hopefully, we can come up with some more effective and creative approaches and investments.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Going back on this issue, I have two small issues I want to bring up.

One is this culture of dependency. My concern is that in the whole scheme of things, when we are doing this little development plan, there seems to have developed a culture of dependency that these problems can be sorted out by throwing money at them. Believe me, we all know that money will not solve the problem. So this kind of thing concerns me because it may not address the real issue, the required structural change.

In response to my questions, many of you pointed to certain things. I agree there is hope; there has to be hope. I agree that some change has taken place. But overall, for somebody who grew up there and who knew where these places were and what they are now, it is quite a different matter. It will take me a long time to be convinced.

The second issue I have is that I want to know if Canada is using other multilateral means. I do not mean to say the United Nations, which I'm very well aware of Canada's involvement with. What we seem to have done is put all of our eggs into one basket, the G-8, saying that the G-8 will do this. Fine, but we are also members of other organizations that have a lot of experience. What I'm trying to get at is, are we also using the Commonwealth or other countries? Many countries in the G-8 have colonial histories behind them and are not, believe me, looked upon as partners in development. I will be blunt; I'm still surprised at what France is doing in the Ivory Coast. I think it's back trying to assert its colonial power with its troops in there. I don't know why it's there.

Nevertheless, from your perspective, is Canada's overall thinking that there are other partners who we can utilize to see what their expertise is and to see what can probably work in Africa? Is something like this contemplated or is something happening in this respect?

» (1735)

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: I'd like to say that when we are dealing with complex emergencies, obviously, from the conversation we have had around this table today, the traditional approaches we have used in the past for humanitarian or development intervention are insufficient. As we have said before, conceptually, we have to go much beyond that to look at dimensions we never considered before when we're talking of bringing together development and defence, these kinds of concepts. So, conceptually, we have to try to understand these complex emergencies and to see how we can design approaches that will hopefully deal with the heart of the issues. There is a lot of work being done in this area, not only in the G-8, which I'd like to come back to in a moment, but also, as I mentioned, in the DAC and the United Nations. The reason is that all partner countries, like us, are seeing the same thing and facing the same challenges and difficulties. So we are coming together to try to understand, analyse, and come up with new approaches.

In our case we have this humanitarian assistance dealing with immediate needs, and then we have development, which is more long term. But what has happened in between? We have a crisis situation, for instance, in Sierra Leone, and we will come in with immediate assistance. After that these situations have a tendency to slip from the front page of newspapers. Less attention is being paid to those situations and fewer resources are being channelled. There is a risk that it would create a vicious circle of continued instability. So there is a need for resilience in the level of effort but also in the type of effort that is required. Of course, it does require, first and foremost, a commitment from institutions in that country.

To answer your question, there is an effort at the international level beyond the G-8 to try to understand and design new approaches to these situations.

If we look, for instance, at Afghanistan, it's interesting to see how for the first time so many of these factors have come together--the element of security; the element of institutions, political and economic; and then the humanitarian assistance and the development factors. The modalities that have been put in place and are now working in Afghanistan are new, so there are lessons to be learned from that. But of course we had a situation where massive efforts were prepared to be engaged. It's not the same thing when we deal with forgotten smaller situations, such as Burundi.

When NEPAD was developed, we all felt it was a very important breakthrough in the sense that for the first time a very important African community was coming together and discussing a partnership with more traditional donors where there was recognition that there was a need for change and collaboration on both sides, particularly with regard to the issue of accountability and responsibility on the part of the African partners. In the past the tendency has been to say, as you have said earlier, bring more resources and it will solve the problem. We've seen that it doesn't. So there have to be new approaches. I think the concepts underlying NEPAD are very important. I think what we all wish is that they will actually be implemented and will deliver the results we hope for.

» (1740)

Mr. David Angell: Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Obhrai, if I might amplify on Mr. Métivier's points on the issue of dependency, in essence NEPAD is a capacity-building initiative. Its very purpose is to build African capacity to respond to the challenges confronting the continent. The African action plan we helped prepare and the Canadian initiatives announced by the Prime Minister on June 27 last year are intended very much to reinforce African efforts to build African capacity, both directly through support, for example, to the African Capacity Building Foundation, and indirectly, by opening our markets and providing assistance to African partners to improve their ability to participate in WTO negotiations. So it really is, in essence, an attempt to reduce dependency, specifically by supporting African efforts to that end.

With regard to the G-8, I think there are perhaps three reasons that in public discussion of Africa there's been so heavy an emphasis on this particular group. One is the economic fact that the G-8 accounts for almost 75% of development assistance to Africa. It's an important grouping with regard to Africa's future.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the fact that at Prime Minister's Chretien's instigation, the G-8 has taken the lead internationally in responding to NEPAD. The overall response to NEPAD is now quite extraordinary. Kofi Annan proposed, and the UN General Assembly concurred, that NEPAD should be the prism through which the UN system engages with Africa. That's quite an extraordinary development for an initiative that's barely two years old. But much of that was a result of G-8 leadership.

In addition, of course, was the fact that we hosted Kananaskis, and that Canada put forward a number of very important initiatives. That has made the G-8 engagement with Africa especially topical. But the fact is we work through the Francophonie, through the Commonwealth, and through African institutions like the ACBF. It's a very broad-based approach we've pursued historically and we continue to pursue.

Thank you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Is there something going on with the Commonwealth, and are the other ones not...? Is Canada taking the initiative over there? I'm just saying, where is Canada going in these things? Are we doing the same thing over there or not?

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: Mr. Chair, the Francophonie as well as the Commonwealth are inspired, as we were pointing out, by the NEPAD initiative in their relations with the country. They are very engaged in the governance issues, for the Francophonie, particularly in the context of the Bamako Declaration. They are about to meet in the coming days to pursue that avenue. So in effect, as we were pointing out, NEPAD is serving as the strategy for Africa and institutions are responding through that prism. The African Union as well is moving--

» (1745)

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: What's your view of the African Union?

Mr. David Angell: Just before responding to the African Union question, sir, if I might follow up on the Francophonie and Commonwealth, both of those organizations have a very substantial African membership. In the case of the Francophonie, for example, there's been a very creative attempt to define a role for the Francophonie in support of NEPAD. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the secretary general of the Francophonie, was here in Canada very recently for consultations with Mr. Paradis on what the Francophonie could do in support of NEPAD. So we're very actively engaged in those four as well.

With regard to the African Union, the NEPAD initiative formally exists as a subsidiary initiative of the union itself. At the moment, the first president in office at the African Union, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, is also the convener and in many ways the intellectual architect of NEPAD. President Mbeki's successor as president in office of the union will be President Chissano of Mozambique, who was received here in Parliament a short while ago and who is a key member of the NEPAD leadership.

If indeed the ideas that are contained in NEPAD become the ideas that define the new African Union, then the African Union can become an extremely effective organization for Africa's future. But we're now 10 months into the existence of the AU. There are still major decisions to be taken with regard to its institutions, and it's simply too early to say whether the AU will become the robust institution its founders hope it will be.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I would like to make a comment about the Ivory Coast. As a foreign observer who is far away, I think that the message we are sending Africans is very negative and devastating. Moreover, both parties seem to have a bad attitude.

First, there is a clearly colonialist flavour to this issue, and secondly, there is an obvious lack of solidarity between the African countries themselves in the face of this phenomenon. They do not denounce the situation, as they are well aware that this type of behaviour, which is currently profitable for the Ivory Coast, could also be of benefit to any other African country with a colonial past.

People trivialize the fact that this is a democratically elected government, an exceptional situation in Africa. It is not because one of the most important parties is absent from the political arena that we should invalidate and trivialize the result of those elections. In my opinion that party has to accept the consequences of its decision not to take part in the elections. The democratic structure overall should not be penalized, nor should the president; I met him personally, and he seems to me to be a democrat, a man who loves his people, who suffered for it and who wants its good.

Thus, one can attack and question the territorial integrity of one of the African countries, and everything is quickly trivialized; however, we know that the weapons used by those referred to as renegades do not belong to the Ivory Coast army. These weapons were provided by outside sources. A renegade comes from inside the armed forces. In this case we can thus talk about rebels funded from the outside, but how and by whom? That is even more mysterious.

In my opinion, had it not been for the conflict between the Americans and the Iraqis, this issue would have received much more publicity. Cuba may not be the only country—it has been said that it took advantage of the conflict between the Americans and the Iraqis to pull some stunts—to have taken advantage of the situation; there may have been others as well.

I would like to ask two questions. Mr. Métivier, you discussed the HIV/AIDS pandemic briefly in your document. I would like to know what you think about the fact that a very large number of countries intend to opt for generic medication, and also what you think about the American refusal to cooperate with that initiative.

My last question is the following: last spring, if I remember correctly, six African ambassadors came to meet with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and one of them stated that if African products could penetrate western markets we could quite quickly stop talking about African problems; the situation could then develop normally. The matter of tariff barriers was raised at the time, as well as that of real cooperation by the west with regard to solving African problems. Moreover, they said that if we could further promote the purchase of African products by Africans—if you are familiar with the issue, I would appreciate a few clarifications from you—a number of problems would be solved.

I would like to hear your comments on whether or not such reasoning is well-founded.

» (1750)

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: As for HIV/AIDS, I would like Mr. Loevinsohn to reply. He is very involved in this matter.

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn: I have to admit that the issue of HIV and medication is very complicated and that in this regard, at the government level, CIDA is not the leader.

[English]

So what I say is very much, let's say, a view of one part of the Government of Canada and doesn't reflect all of the trade issues, which perhaps some of our colleagues might want to address as well.

It's critical that medicines for AIDS and indeed for other diseases as well be readily available. And the international trade regime we've agreed to does allow for a series of extraordinary measures to deal with intellectual property rights when there are situations of national emergency.

So I think we need to press to take full advantage of the trade regime, which does take account of these health factors, and we also need to take a look at the question of simple cash for drugs. That's more directly in our role as an aid agency. In many cases drugs are available, but even a drug that would be cheap by Canadian standards is out of reach in an African country for the majority of the population.

I'm pleased to say Canada has played a lead role in terms of drug availability. We are the founding donor to the global drug facility for tuberculosis. As you know, there's a tuberculosis-AIDS co-epidemic. We've played an important role in terms of treatment of opportunistic infections of AIDS by providing drugs for sexually transmitted diseases. We've played a significant role.

Can we do more? Yes. Will we do more? Yes. But at least we've made a good start.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Angell.

Mr. David Angell: Mr. Chairman, on the question of tariff barriers, absolutely, the removal of tariff barriers is important to Africa's future.

At Kananaskis the Prime Minister announced that Canada would remove virtually all barriers to entry on imports from the least developed countries.

There are 49 LDCs, 34 of which are in Africa.

That decision took effect on January 1. The Canadian market was effectively opened. There were three minor exceptions, which didn't really have a bearing on imports from Africa.

In addition to opening our market, the Prime Minister also announced, through the Canada Fund for Africa, that Madam Whelan was responsible for important assistance to increase the ability of African partners to take advantage of the increased market access as well as to increase their ability to participate in the WTO negotiations to ensure that African concerns were addressed more effectively.

The backdrop for the G-8 engagement with Africa over the past year and a half, of course, is the Doha negotiations. There will be an important ministerial conference shortly after Evian at which will be discussed issues not only relating to tariff barriers but also, again as was raised by Mr. Obhrai, relating to the crucial issue of agricultural subsidies, on which the Prime Minister has been extremely critical. We'll see what progress can be made, but Canada is leading by its own actions on this issue.

» (1755)

The Chair: I wonder if I may, with the permission of the committee, put some questions to our witnesses. I would like to take advantage of your expertise while you are here.

I would like to begin both with Anne-Marie Bourcier and Jean-Marc Métivier on the issue of Sudan. I know we're going to be having hearings on it, but both of you have spoken in your testimony somewhat encouragingly about the peace process in the Sudan.

Madame Bourcier, you mention that both parties believe that a peace agreement may be achieved as early as this summer.

You, Mr. Métivier, spoke about renewed hope for the peace process in Sudan.

I was recently in Washington, and then again, par hasard, met today with some NGO representatives involved in Sudan, and I had some competing information. I have heard from Senator Mobina Jaffer who's reflected to me the same views you had.

Some of the countervailing information I've received, and I'd like your views on it, is that there is a peace process, but it really is a process without peace. The ceasefire is being honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

The civilian protection monitoring group that was set up to in fact monitor the ceasefire has not been given access for purposes of its work.

Humanitarian assistance is being impeded. All revenues are still being utilized for military purposes and so on.

These are some of the concerns that have been raised with me. The concluding comment on these is that the peace process is actually being used as a veil for what may very well be the gathering storm in terms of renewal, not of peace but of military operations in a sustained way by the governments on that.

I'm wondering if you have any comments on that.

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could start by asking Mr. Deyell to address this question.

Mr. John Deyell (Regional Director, East Africa & the Horn, Africa and Middle East, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The visit of Senator Jaffer, because of the fact that she met over 80 groups not only in Sudan but also in the countries surrounding, has certainly highlighted for us a vast variety of opinions and perspectives that really has deepened our understanding a lot of the issues in play in Sudan. I think it's quite clear to us that we have an imperfect process there.

The question we should probably bear in mind is, is the process better than what was there before? Given that this is one of the longest running civil wars in Africa, with particularly bloody results, although the ceasefire, for example, clearly has holes in it, and although classically all parties to a ceasefire will use the quiet to their advantage, it's quite clear that this is better than the alternative that existed before.

Likewise, although there may be imputed motives to both the Sudanese government and the groups in the south that are in the dialogue on what they may expect to get out of it, it has to be recognized that neither the Government of the Sudan, on this side, nor the groups in the south, on their side, are homogeneous entities. There are lots of currents at play, as Senator Jaffer discovered, within Sudan and within the government, and likewise in the south.

I think the point of the peace process that's being led under the very able hands in Kenya of General Sumbeiywo is to try to accentuate those aspects that are positive, to seek agreement on elements where agreement is possible, and to move from strength to strength. And by this, it will reinforce the elements of the Government of the Sudan and of the southern rebels who seek accommodation and it will undermine the positions of those groups who seek to accentuate and lengthen the process.

I think the response that we're seeing of not only the EGAD nations but also the bilaterals, such as Norway and the United States, which are showing an extraordinary interest, is that we have a unique opportunity here that's not likely to happen again. It is a clear consequence of September 11 and the war on terror. And we basically have to accept this as an historic opportunity, while keeping our eyes open to all of the difficulties in the diplomatic process and support, as best we can, in a very nuanced way, the peace process on both sides.

¼ (1800)

Mr. David Angell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amplify on Mr. Deyell's points. Reasonable people can disagree in their analysis of what is ultimately improvable until the peace process succeeds or fails. At the Department of Foreign Affairs we would certainly share the analysis offered from CIDA and offered by the parties to the conflict, as recently as last week in the Netherlands, that this is the best hope we have seen for peace in Sudan. It's a function of every peace process that I've been at all involved with, certainly in northern Ireland, that there are setbacks. There are good days and bad days, and sometimes it's hard to discern progress and it can be quite discouraging.

From what we've seen over the past six months, eight months, while there are very serious problems still to be addressed in Sudan--there are serious incidents of violence continuing in some regions of the country--the movement overall suggests that the analysis by the parties that peace may be attainable as soon as the summer comes probably is accurate.

As Mr. Deyell suggested, in response to your question, sir, about whether the peace process is a veil, I think the answer is no. There's no question that in any peace process of this complexity there are parties on both sides or all sides of the conflict that are more supportive or less supportive of the move towards peace. I think on both sides of the conflict there probably are individuals who are trying to upset the peace process. We've seen that in northern Ireland; we've seen it in the Middle East. It's a feature of peace processes. What we seem to be seeing is that those who do favour peace are on the ascendance on both sides, and we're trying to reinforce that.

The Chair: On another topic, Mr. Métivier, you mentioned in your comments that 50% of the 8% increase in the development budget will be allocated to Africa. Is this just for the current year, or does the 50% commitment apply to future increases as well?

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: It is for future increases as well, so it's beyond the current year.

The Chair: Since the question was answered so briefly, this will be a very brief, last follow-up question.

Mr. Lewis appeared before the joint hearing of the foreign affairs committee and this subcommittee last week on the whole crisis of HIV/AIDS in Africa, along with the famine, which exacerbates it, and the like. Could you tell us about the Canadian contribution to dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa?

The reason I ask this question is because his primary concern was that not just we but countries of the international community generally are not providing the necessary resources for purposes of combatting what he felt is the greatest threat we now have, internationally speaking.

Mr. Jean-Marc Métivier: Mr. Loevinsohn will answer this question.

Mr. Ernest Loevinsohn: Yes, I will, and I'll also ask my colleague John Deyell from the Africa branch, who may want to comment further, because Canada is responding with different means to the AIDS crisis.

One thing we've done that Canadians in general can be proud of is our role with regard to the global fund against AIDS, TB, and malaria, most of which is going to AIDS; in turn, most of that is going to Africa.

We were in at the beginning of that. The first meeting of donors to discuss such a fund was held in Ottawa, convened by CIDA. We are a leading donor to that, within our means. We're the seventh largest donor. Others regard us, I believe justly, as a force for a results orientation within that fund, for what is actually being achieved in terms of coverage. That is one area where we've shown leadership.

We've also played a lead role in terms of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of this terrible disease. Almost every case of AIDS is heart-rending, but the case of a child getting AIDS from mother's milk or from the mother has to be one of the most terrible examples of this disease, especially when we can prevent it through the use of a cheap drug called nevirapine. Again, we've played a leading role in mobilizing efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission through the use of this affordable and effective drug.

So we've done some good things. Of course, the problem is that it's such a huge epidemic, a pandemic, that our efforts have not been enough to reverse it. The international community as a whole definitely needs to do more.

¼ (1805)

The Chair: We'll have one final question if Mr. Martin wants to put one.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you so much for being here today. I won't ask a question, just make some comments.

Again, if we can push forward the clarion call for more money for the global fund Mr. Cotler mentioned, if we can put forth a clarion call for food aid right now.... And Mr. Loevinsohn, as you well said, using the words of Mr. Morris, it's the most important drug we can get for the people who are immuno compromised.

I would just ask if we can push for a weapons registry for small arms. That might be a first step in trying to stem the tide of what the International Committee of the Red Cross has said is one of the leading causes of death in the developing world.

You don't need to respond; I thank you for being here.

The Chair: Mr. Angell, I think you have a comment.

Mr. David Angell: I'm sorry to take the floor again. It's only to respond very briefly.

Those are all issues, Dr. Martin, on which Canada is taking a leading role within the G-8. What we're trying to do with the G-8 process is not only to put forward our own initiatives, which in the case of HIV/AIDS, for example, includes $50 million for AIDS vaccine research announced by the Prime Minister at Kananaskis, but also to try to leverage support from other G-8 partners.

With regard to the issue of 50%, for example, sir, let me say this. Largely at Canadian instigation, G-8 leaders as a group agreed at Kananaskis to allocate to Africa 50% or more of the ODA commitments they had announced at Monterrey the previous March. So in addition to the 8% annual increase announced by Canada, which has the intention of doubling Canadian ODA by 2010, other G-8 partners have also committed to increasing their new ODA commitments and directing half of those commitments to Africa. Across the G-8, that stands to increase development assistance to Africa by $6 billion U.S. per year as of 2006, so over a 10-year period that is $60 billion in new ODA above and beyond the almost 75% of development assistance that G-8 countries already provide to Africa.

We're trying to encourage a quite dramatic mobilization of resources toward Africa.

The Chair: That's a very positive note on which to end.

I want to thank you both on behalf of the subcommittee for your opening submissions and the perspectives therein and also for your fulsome responses to the questions put by the members of this subcommittee. It's been a very informed deliberation, and we appreciate your coming and helping us in what we regard here as a very compelling inquiry on these issues. Thank you again.

The meeting stands adjourned.