;

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, 1st SESSION

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

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 6, 2002

1540

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.))

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

1545

1550

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

1555

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ)

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Antoine Dubé

1600

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

1605

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine)

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Ms. Bernice Vincent (Zimbabwe Program Manager, Southern Africa Program, Africa and the Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

1610

The Chair

Mrs. Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1615

The Chair

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Arthur C. Perron (Director General, Africa Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West--Mississauga, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1620

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

1625

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

1630

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Denis Paradis

Mr. Arthur Perron

Ms. Marcia Burdette (Acting Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Departmentof Foreing Affiars and International Trade)

Mr. Arthur Perron

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Arthur Perron

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Arthur Perron

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Arthur Perron

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Arthur Perron

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Antoine Dubé

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

1635

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Ms. Macia Burdette

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

1640

Mr. Antoine Dubé

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

1645

The Chair

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

Mr. Arthur Perron

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Arthur Perron

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

The Chair

Mr. Paradis (Brome--Missisquoi)

1650

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Antoine Dubé

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

1700

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Antoine Dubé

1705

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

1710

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

CANADA

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

NUMBER 019

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 6, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm calling the meeting to order. This is a reduced quorum, but we can continue. We're hearing our witness. This is the 19th meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We'd like to welcome our new minister, Mr. Paradis, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. I believe, sir, that's it's probably your first appearance as the minister in front of our committee. We'll be hearing from you and from some NGOs in two weeks, after our trip to Colombia. We know the government's very concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe, as we are. After we hear from the NGOs, we'll be giving you our recommendation before the Commonwealth meetings in early March.

So again, welcome to the committee, and go ahead.

Hon. Denis Paradis (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, thank you for the invitation to speak to this committee this afternoon. Not so long ago I was sitting at this table with you as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I must tell you that it is an experience that I enjoyed and appreciated very much. I liked the way the committee worked. I have sat on other committees, as some of you have, and I liked the way the Foreign Affairs Committee worked, with everyone working in the same direction so that at some point, we reach a better world. It is in that spirit that I would like to speak to you for the first time this afternoon about our approach.

As you also know, I am acquainting myself with the new files that I have been given responsibility for, both the Latin American file and those of Africa and the Francophonie.

I must tell you, however, that the situation in Zimbabwe is particularly worrying. I think it is important that we give it our immediate attention. In terms of human rights, the situation in that country is of serious concern to Canada.

Therefore, as I was saying, I have come before you with an open mind. We will most certainly listen to your suggestions and your recommendations so that we can, insofar as we are able, improve the situation.

Human rights are integral to Canada's foreign policy. Respect for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, all values held closely by Canadians, are the foundation of national security and economic and social well-being.

Canada firmly believes that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated.

[English]

In the foreign policy update of 1995 there were three pillars of Canadian foreign policy: human security, economic growth, and values and culture. Under that third rubric of values and culture, human rights issues take pride of place. Canada believes that we must find the most effective means to uphold these values. Our ultimate aim is to influence governments to respect their people's rights under international human rights law. Multilateral fora often provide the most effective channels of influence. We work carefully with such bodies as the UN and particularly the Commission on Human Rights, the Commonwealth and

[Translation]

la Francophonie. Canada is in the unique position of being able to have influence within groups such as the Commonwealth and la Francophonie, especially in the area of human rights.

[English]

We also work closely with non-governmental organizations as well as civil society.

[Translation]

Over the past two years, Canada has watched the government of Zimbabwe violate the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant of Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Commonwealth Harare Declaration of 1991.

To date, the majority of violations appear to be sponsored, abetted or condoned by the senior party and government officials around President Mugabe. It appears that violations such as the disregard of the rule of law and due process, serious limits to the freedom of opinion and expression as well as the freedom of association, this last being particularly important during these election times, a part of a strategy to retain power for President Mugabe and his party.

The principal opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, better know as the MDC, alleges that many of its candidates have been harassed. They further allege that the government- sponsored violence had led to many deaths of its supporters and driven its campaign largely underground. The leader of the MDC has been personally threatened and attacked.

In late December 2001, at least three MDC opposition members were killed in apparent politically motivated attacks, accelerating negative events prior to the election. Both sides have been implicated in the violence, but the supporters of ZANU (PF) initiate most of the incidents. Most recently, in 2002, there have been other reports of politically motivated deaths of opposition supporters.

[English]

The situation of human rights in Zimbabwe has seriously declined since the invasions of commercial farms, owned by white Zimbabwean farmers, by groups led by ZANU (PF)-supported groups, such as “war veterans”, since February 2000. ZANU (PF), I repeat, is the political party in power.

Numerous non-governmental human rights organizations have reported on a growing number of abuses, such as beatings, rapes, destruction of property and animals, burning of land, poaching, extortion, and work stoppages, linked to the violence around the fast-track land reform, in particular against the black farm workers on the commercial farms. At this point, 10,000 farm workers have been displaced and are in desperate economic straits, as well as having an uncertain status for voting in the upcoming presidential election March 9 and 10.

Furthermore, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, is severely limited through harassment and intimidation of the media, including arrests and allegations of torture and detainment of two reporters in 1999. The bombing of the main independent newspaper, called Zimbabwe Daily News, in January 2001, and the recently passed media bill, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, are designed to suppress the independent press.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

The Public Order and Security Bill passed in January is the most overt expression of the government of Zimbabwe's desire to assert control of the State over the rights of its citizens. Consequently, the government is tightening the vise to exert the moral control over its citizens. This is a blatant disregard for internationally accepted principles of due process and manipulation of the rule of law.

There are several penalties, including the death penalty, for, anyone who undermines the authority of the president, or engenders hostility toward the president. These measures are totally unacceptable in the lead-up to an election.

Canada has made it very clear that we are concerned with the worsening situation in Zimbabwe and that steps need to be taken to bring back the rule of law and to allow the citizens of Zimbabwe to participate in a free, democratic and fair election.

In light of the increasing of violations of human rights i Zimbabwe, Canada has been very active in the Commonwealth context: both within the Commonwealth ministerial action group and in the Nigerian-led Abuja process. Our Foreign Affairs Minister has recently returned from a meeting, last week, of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. We can discuss that at greater length later.

The rationale for our action through the Commonwealth is to maximize leverage on the fellow Commonwealth member state of Zimbabwe, using the good offices of the Secretary General and the possibilities for collective influence on the government of Zimbabwe. However, the problem with working through the Commonwealth is that decisions have to be made by consensus.

[English]

Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham attended a CMAG meeting on Zimbabwe in London on January 30, during which he expressed his concern with the lack of respect for democratic principles in Zimbabwe. I understand our colleague from the Canadian Alliance, Dr. Keith Martin, also attended. The objective there was to get a consensus within CMAG that the situation in Zimbabwe was deteriorating and that the Commonwealth needed to take action, in particular on the issue of sending an election observer team.

CMAG expressed its deep concern over the continued violence, political intimidation, and actions against the freedom of the media in Zimbabwe. The group called for the immediate deployment of Commonwealth election observers to Zimbabwe and for the full cooperation of Zimbabwe in facilitating the operation, just like they've promised before. Election observers can play two roles in such a hotly contested election: first, to help reduce the likelihood of violence connected to an election campaign; and second, to assess the conduct of the election against accepted international norms.

[Translation]

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which I referred to earlier, has also called on Zimbabwe to ensure that all parties in the election are allowed to campaign freely without intimidation and fear of recrimination. Soon after the meeting ended, the government of Zimbabwe agreed to receive a Commonwealth observer team.

Under this process, the team of election observers will report back to the secretary general of the Commonwealth prior to the actual election about the conditions of the campaign and linked issues of democratic freedoms. A report will then be made to the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group which will meet again on March 1st,—the same ministers who met in London—and they can recommend suspension, once they have received the observers' report, to the heads of government meeting over the next few days. This meeting will take place between the 4th and 5th, however, prior to the Zimbabwe election.

Canada has responded very promptly to the Commonwealth Secretariat request for three election observers, and the advance team has departed for Zimbabwe.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am pleased with the way Canada is actively pursuing the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe. It goes without saying, as I stated at the outset, that I am open to any suggestion or recommendation you may want to make.

Thank you Madam Chair.

¹ (1550)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Martin, five minutes.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment.

[English]

You articulately describe what's transpiring in Zimbabwe, Monsieur Paradis. But I would suggest to you this, that the Commonwealth is impotent to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe. True, CMAG requested that election observers take place on the ground, but Mr. Mugabe has said to the international community that he would accept this and domestically he has said he's not going to allow it. So he's playing a game, as you know. He's playing the international community off against itself.

What he's also doing is buying time, because the brutalization that has been taking place over the last few months has nothing to do with land reform and everything to do with one venal, corrupt despot maintaining power. He has always been that way, as evidenced in 1982 when his Korean-trained 5th Brigade murdered 16,000 Matabele in western Zimbabwe. That's the kind of person we're dealing with. He has a lot to lose if he loses this election, and his own army chief and his police chief have made unequivocal statements that they will not respect an MDC victory if that happens.

So the situation, Monsieur Paradis, with all due respect, is such that, regardless of what the Commonwealth does, it will be too little too late in the beginning of March, because the elections are on March 9 and 10.

I would submit to you, sir...and I ask you this: will the Canadian government act unilaterally, as we have done in the past, in the face of an impending loss of many people's lives, to state publicly that we want Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth; ask for an international ban of Mr. Mugabe and 20 identified members of his government; ask for an international freeze of Mr. Mugabe's assets and those of the said 20 members; and, very importantly, ask for an imposition of an arms embargo in Zimbabwe, because arms-caching is going on right now?

Lastly, I think a strong statement, which can be done right away, is for Canada to dismiss Zimbabwe's High Commission to Canada and call back our own high commissioner right away.

Somebody has to lead on this, Mr. Paradis, and if it isn't going to happen, the people who are being slaughtered now.... And it's the black population in rural areas who are being brutalized in an effort to prevent them from voting; those are the victims. We can act now; the question is, will we?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[English]

I don't want to take time from Mr. Martin, but at the beginning I just forgot to introduce the people who are with me. So if I might, I would like to proceed with the introduction of the people who are with me.

[Translation]

I would like to introduce Mr. Arthur Perron, the Director General, Africa Branch, to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade; Ms. Marcia Burdette, Acting Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Division; Ms. Bernice Vincent, Zimbabwe Program Manager, Canadian International Development Agency; and Ms. Geneviève Gasser, Analyst, Policy and Strategic Planning, Africa and Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency.

I am also new to this file and I will perhaps need to consult department officials to supply you with specific answers. As I said at the outset, Madam Chair, we are open to any suggestions or recommendations you might make, and I have come to this meeting today with an open mind. I do hope that this will not be the only time we meet, because important human rights-related issues have been raised, not only in terms of Zimbabwe, but elsewhere in the world also.

[English]

I'll come back to your different points, Dr. Martin. The first point was whether Canada should unilaterally suspend Zimbabwe, if I well understand your point.

We adopted the position that we are discussing this within the Commonwealth group, within the Groupe ministériel d'action de CMAG, so if there is an effect...we prefer to work multilaterally with all the other colleagues from the Commonwealth than to act unilaterally. When the observers come back, if there is a question to suspend or not to suspend Zimbabwe, the Canadian position will be in favour of suspension if the report from our people on the ground demonstrates continued violence, a continued breach of democratic rules, and everything.

[Translation]

I did not note the second point in its entirety.

[English]

What was your second point?

¹ (1555)

Mr. Keith Martin: These are to call for--because we can't do this unilaterally--the suspension, to call for a ban on all international travel by Mr. Mugabe and 20 identified members of his government.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: As for a ban on international travel, you may know that, a few weeks ago, Canada established a visa system for people from Zimbabwe who wished to enter Canada. Mr. Perron, is this not a new measure? The Canadian government has already taken action to deal with travelling Zimbabweans.

As far as freezing assets are concerned, which is the third point you raised, once again, the government of Canada has established instruments that will enable it to freeze assets in certain cases. You will recall the Anti-terrorist Act, which was passed in the House. For example, we can freeze the assets of certain individuals should their names be included on a list. There is also legislation for organized crime groups. However, I am not sure if current Canadian legislation allows us to freeze assets legally.

You also talked about an arms embargo.

[English]

Right now Canada has a policy of not approving military exports to Zimbabwe.

Your last point was that we could just recall the ambassador. We do believe it's preferable right now to have an open discussion, to have some people with whom we can have discussions and to whom we can give messages.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I think it is important to have people there so that we can keep the dialogue going, so that we can send messages, rather than burn our bridges. Later on, should the observers come back and should the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group conclude that such recommendations should be made to the heads of State, who will be meeting in early March as well, then appropriate action will be taken.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now it's my turn to congratulate Mr. Paradis on his appointment. Since he has always been very friendly as an MP, I would imagine that he will not lose this character trait as a minister. Now that the courtesies have been dealt with—

Mr. Denis Paradis: First the flowers, then the tomatoes.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: No, not necessarily, because I endorse what was said. When you sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and especially when you are talking about human rights and humanitarian aid issues, this is not the time to be partisan. We are all, individually and collectively, looking for solutions.

Canada does have some means. I have attended several meetings of the international assembly of French-speaking parliamentarians. In such forums, we talk about the situation somewhat. Of course, the ministers are not there, but we note a certain powerlessness. It is almost frustrating to see certain situations occurring.

I am no expert on that country, but I have tried to read about it. The subcommittee is currently studying the situation in Columbia and we are getting ready to go there on the weekend. We have had regular reports, not only about violence, but also about death, victims. Perhaps I have not read enough on the subject, but I have never seen any reports like that on Zimbabwe to date. The reports talk about apprehension. Some violence has taken place, and that is serious. I do not want to minimize the situation, but we haven't seen the same types of reports as the ones we have seen on Columbia. How are we to rate the level of violence?

My second question is as follows: if the situation is as serious as that, how is this question being dealt with by the United Nations? There is of course the Commonwealth, but we can also take action through... What position has the United Nations taken in this particular case?

º (1600)

Mr. Denis Paradis: To answer your first question, I would say that this level of violence is very serious. For one thing, the opposition party, which I mentioned earlier, has told us about attacks, deaths, murders. The reports we have, which come from relatively serious sources, lead us to believe that there have been politically motivated murders, meaning that these are not street crimes, but murders committed by people for political reasons.

Hence the situation is quite serious. We must not minimize what is happening in Zimbabwe right now. President Mugabe appears to want to hang on to power at any price, and we need this international pressure we are trying with other partners within the Commonwealth. We need to exert strong international pressure on Zimbabwe. Some important dates are on the horizon. There will be this ministerial action group meeting that will be taking place on March 1, and we will receive an initial report from our field observers' group. Then,sometime around March 3 or 4, there will be this meeting of Commonwealth heads of state, and this group will be receiving, in the days that follow, the recommendation or recommendations made by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.

Elections are slated to take place a short while later, on March 9 and 10, which is not too far away. International pressure is essential in order to have an impact on Zimbabwe.

Secondly, you were asking whether it was possible to take action through other forums, and you gave the example of the UN. We are examining all of these suggestions and I think that the departmental officials can certainly analyze your recommendations and suggestions and then we could discuss them together.

A meeting of the UN Human Rights Commission is supposed to take place in Geneva between March 18 and April 26. Amnesty International has suggested that certain countries be called before this commission in order to verify the human rights situation. Zimbabwe is one of these countries.

So we may have a wide range of options available to us. We need to choose the best ones so that we can have the greatest impact on the government of Zimbabwe. This is what we are striving to achieve.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do Canada or the people informing you about the situation fear that there may be massacres when the election is held? In Africa, we have witnessed massacres. Are there any fears that such massacres could take place during this election?

Mr. Denis Paradis: I understand where you are going with your question, but we will be in a better position to assess the situation once our observers, who are currently in the field, come back. They have not been sent to monitor the election because the election will be taking place later on. The observers have been sent to monitor the electoral process and what is happening during the current election campaign. I think that, once they have come back, they will tell us what has occurred in the field. The ministers of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group will be in a position to make suggestions and recommendations to the heads of state who will be meeting in the days that follow.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary.

Ms. Jennings.

º (1605)

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation. From the outset, I would like to say that I am very pleased with the attitude and the position of our government with regard to the events in Zimbabwe, and Great Britain's request. Great Britain has not suspended diplomatic relations. It is using the Commonwealth process to try to reach a consensus amongst all members. I think it is the right way to go.

I would nevertheless like to examine the issue of Canada's international development aid. I have a couple of CIDA documents; they provide an overview of CIDA'S bilateral programs. I have two questions.

First, if I understand correctly, CIDA has decreased its bilateral relationship with Zimbabwe. I would like to know if financial aid is still being given to the country's civil society and NGOs and what is the nature of this aid.

Second, you spoke of the Legal Resources Foundation's ongoing support. It seems that the Canadian Bar is a member of this foundation. What are the positive outcomes of this financial support, given the current situation where the Mugabe government has removed certain judges from the Supreme Court and replaced them with its own supporters, and has amended the Constitution by removing what we believe are basic human rights? I would like you to tell the committee what “investments” have been made by CIDA, especially with regard to NGOs. Given the current situation, what good has come from this investment?

Mr. Denis Paradis: To begin, I agree with you that the government's attitude is truly unfortunate, in that it has not respected the Supreme Court's decision and has forced the chief justice to resign, replacing him with a government supporter and increasing the number of Supreme Court members to ensure it sides with the government.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If Canada Supreme Court judges were elected, we could do the same thing, correct?

Mr. Denis Paradis: That's a good point. I will ask Ms. Vincent to speak to the issue of humanitarian aid funding.

[English]

Ms. Bernice Vincent (Zimbabwe Program Manager, Southern Africa Program, Africa and the Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you.

You're correct, we have diminished our bilateral aid government to government because of the difficulty of working with the government. For the past few years we have been putting more and more resources into the country through civil society, and we will continue to do that. It's certainly our intention to continue, but we have noticed in the past year that it's becoming more and more difficult even to program through civil society because of the intimidation and violence that is occurring. But we will continue to work through civil society as long as we consider it feasible to do so and to do so effectively.

With regard to your second question about our involvement with the Legal Resources Foundation, we are planning to have some collaboration between them and the Canadian Bar Association.

You asked about the results, particularly with regard to influencing the situation with the Supreme Court. Our involvement with the foundation has not been geared so much toward that level, but more toward democratic education of the populace and awareness of human rights and constitutional issues and the like. In that respect we're very pleased with the work the foundation has done.

First of all, we selected them as a partner because of their very fine reputation and good work. For instance, they did some very good work at the time of the constitutional reform effort in Zimbabwe, and we feel that our support of them and their involvement with the citizens of Zimbabwe made a difference in terms of the Zimbabwean people's decision about that constitutional reform, which they rejected.

Unfortunately, I cannot claim that our assistance to the Legal Resources Foundation has made any difference with regard to the Supreme Court situation. But we also have some plans to work with the judicial system. We had planned a project with the Judicial College of Zimbabwe. All of the planning is virtually complete, but we have put that on hold because of the impossibility of the current situation. We will resume that effort as soon as it is feasible to do so, perhaps this March if we have a fortunate outcome from the election.

º (1610)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): Thanks very much.

I want to join in congratulating our colleague from the committee on his appointment as minister. I note this alarming trend the government has of stealing good members of our committee, including the chair of the committee, to elevate them to higher positions. But seriously, I know the member is dedicated and hardworking, and I wish him all the best in his new portfolio.

I approach the situation of Zimbabwe as one of just terrible tragedy. I celebrated the overthrow of the racist regime in Rhodesia, along with many people, and looked with great hope in the early years of Zimbabwe at the possibility that a new egalitarian society might be constructed, in which some of the terrible gaps between rich and poor would be eradicated. But there's no question that over the course of the last few years, the situation has just deteriorated, absolutely shockingly.

We don't have to look very far. There are the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. My colleague, Keith Martin, has certainly spoken eloquently on this issue as well. I'm absolutely appalled at what's happening there, with the brutal and violent suppression of the most basic human rights, and a whole range of different issues. The minister has spoken of some of them.

As a gay man, I've been particularly appalled at the attacks by Robert Mugabe on the gay community in Zimbabwe. There have been vicious public pronouncements, harassment, violent attacks, and arrests.

I'd like to put just a couple of questions, in the interest of time, and ask the minister to respond to them. Canada has taken a leading position on the issue of equality of gays and lesbians, within international forums, and I commend the government for that. Has Canada spoken out strongly--and I appreciate the minister may not be able to answer the question immediately--on the brutal suppression of the rights of gay people in Zimbabwe? If not, I urge the minister to do so.

I have two other brief points. On the Commonwealth and the position it can take, I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments my friend Mr. Martin has made. However, it seems to me that if we want to have any leverage at all, perhaps the best approach to take at this point is to tell them that unless they clean up their act, they're out; we'll expel them. If we just tell them they're out, our leverage will be gone, effectively.

So even though I certainly understand and share the concerns and disgust with what's happening there, the fact that this report is going to be made to CMAG before the elections take place...and I hope that even with the consensus and the kind of lowest common denominator, the way the Commonwealth works, if conditions don't improve, the Commonwealth will kick Zimbabwe out before the election. Let's face it, that may have some influence, so let's hope it does.

The Chair: They may not be able to answer them all.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay. My last very brief point is on the issue of coherence between our foreign policy and our refugee policy. Many of us were shocked that a woman from Zimbabwe, who had clearly been subjected to appalling treatment in that country, was going to be given the boot and sent back to Zimbabwe. What on earth is going on? Does Foreign Affairs have any communication with the refugee determination process, to avoid this happening again?

º (1615)

The Chair: Mr. Paradis, do you want Mr. Perron to answer?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Madam Chair, I think that the first point raised by Mr. Robinson was that if the situation does not improve in Zimbabwe, the Ministerial Action Group should recommend that government leaders call for Zimbabwe's suspension. We are in perfect agreement. Should that happen, that would be Canada's position. If conditions do not improve, Canada's position would be to tell Zimbabwe to get “out”. That's the first point.

The second point, Madam Chair, concerns the case of the woman from Zimbabwe who took shelter in a Montreal church which may be located in my colleague's riding. I have to tell you—and I think everyone heard it in the House -- that our new Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has suspended all deportations. No deportations are taking place as we speak. The government has decided to stay all proceedings, to examine the situation, and officials from the Department of Immigration are... I also spoke with the Minister of Immigration: for now, there are no proceedings. People waiting to be deported will not be forced to leave.

Perhaps Mr. Perron or Ms. Burdette would like to add a few words.

[English]

Mr. Arthur C. Perron (Director General, Africa Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Maybe we can say that representations were made some time ago. We don't have the details on that and we could obtain those for you. But in the last little while, as the minister says, we've been trying to concentrate on the human rights issues in a global sense and that's what we're putting all of our efforts on.

But as I say, we have made representations on the gay rights issue and we can obtain further information on when that occurred exactly. I don't have it on the tip of my fingers.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If you could get copies of that to the committee it would be helpful.

Mr. Arthur Perron: Excellent.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Beaumier, do you have a question?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West--Mississauga, Lib.): It's already been asked.

The Chair: Mr. Cotler, do you have a question?

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): No, I was going to ask the same question that Sven Robinson already asked.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. Thank you both, colleagues. It's nice to have such cooperative colleagues.

Mr. Keith Martin: I have a point of order. Why is the government getting another chance?

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I know you're not usually at this meeting, but this is usually the way we do the order. It's the way we do it at all our meetings. We did two here, one here, one here, one here, and then we'll come back and everybody gets their turn.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: We've always done it this way in the committee.

Mr. Keith Martin: It's a very collegial group.

The Chair: Everybody gets their turn and we sit here until they do.

Mr. Keith Martin: That's fair enough.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We welcome your attendance on a regular basis to our subcommittee.

I would like to come back to one point. Did I understand you correctly, Minister, that people from Zimbabwe now require a visa, that Immigration requires that they have a visa in order to come into Canada?

Mr. Denis Paradis: It's supposed to have been in effect for two or three weeks--a visitor's visa.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: A visitor's visa. Thank you on that point. That was completely separate, in answer to Mr. Robinson, but I do have a follow-up.

The Chair: Go ahead, then.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I just wanted clarification on that. If I understand you correctly in terms of Canada's position with Zimbabwe, we are sending three observers prior to the elections, and the report from the observers will determine whether or not Canada is one of the countries that calls for the expulsion of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth.

Has Canada made a decision in case no consensus develops within the Commonwealth as to...? For instance, if the recommendation is expulsion and Canada goes to the Commonwealth meetings, advocates for expulsion along with some other Commonwealth countries or possibly all by itself and is unable to develop a consensus that Zimbabwe should be expelled, has Canada made a determination that if this scenario does develop it will at that point, of its own volition, then expel Zimbabwe? I shouldn't say “expel”, but stop all diplomatic ties, any trade, etc., as we do when we suspend everything when we no longer recognize the government, as we did with the Taliban in Kabul.

The Chair: You have one minute.

º (1620)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: In answer to your question, I would describe the process as follows: once the observers have come back, they will be submitting a status report before the meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers who are part of the Ministerial Action Group. This meeting is scheduled for March 1. In turn, these people will be making a recommendation to the heads of State who will be meeting in the days that follow. They have the power to decide whether or not to suspend Zimbabwe.

In the event that there is no consensus within the Ministerial Action Group or amongst the heads of State, we are currently looking at other measures that Canada could take. This is why it is important that we have this type of discussion together. But it is important to remember that these are measures to determine the best way to put pressure on the Mugabe government in order to restore democratic rights, so that he treats these people like human beings.

This is why we are working through the forum of the Commonwealth, to make sure that we put on as much pressure as possible. All of the measures under study are pressure tactics. We are looking at potential scenarios, but before we unveil them, we will wait for the results of this phase, we will wait to see what the field observers are going to tell us.

I will repeat what I said at the beginning: we welcome all suggestions or recommendations for consideration.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to go back to the question raised by Mr. Martin. We should stick to the procedure we adopted initially. I know that, initially, if memory serves me correctly, the opposition parties were allowed to ask the first questions and then it was the turn of the government side. However, it turned out that there were rarely four opposition parties. Today there are three of us but most of the time, there were only two. That explains why, in practice, you gave the floor first to the two opposition parties and then to the other side. I do not want to make a big deal about this because, in the final analysis, that doesn't affect me since I am always the second person to speak. I am always here, but I think it would be good to remember what the procedural rule was at the beginning.

[English]

The Chair: Usually what we do is have seven minutes on the first questions. I know that's not what you're directing at, but I just want to tell you this. I usually give seven minutes on the first question, five on the second question and from there on. But since we have a fairly full house compared to what we usually have, I did it this way. I have always done one, two over here, one over there, one here, and then gone back. That's the way I have always done it.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I simply wanted to say that this was the procedure we had adopted.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll check that out. If you have any problem with it, if you feel left out, you're still going to get the same number of questions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In the interest of time, perhaps the clerk could just check what we initially adopted, because certainly my recollection is that there was a distinction--it seems to me--between when a minister was appearing and when other witnesses were appearing. That's my recollection, that when the minister was appearing there was a different rotation.

The Chair: You said that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's my recollection, but if the--

The Chair: I don't remember that, but we'll check it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: --clerk could check that and let us know, that would be helpful.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Monsieur Paradis, given that the population in Zimbabwe has been brutalized for months, given that unconstitutional laws are in place that gag the public, gag the opposition, and gag freedom of speech, given that the Commonwealth observer group, CMAG, is going to meet the first week of March, given that the election is on March 9, can you tell me that the process you're adhering to now can ensure a free and fair election in Zimbabwe?

º (1625)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I do not think that anybody could, right now, give any guarantees that there will be an election in Zimbabwe that is free, democratic, fair, etc.

We have observers in the field, as we speak, who will be reporting on the situation in the field. At the same time, everybody is telling the government of Zimbabwe that a CMAG meeting, a meeting of ministers from the Ministerial Action Group, will be taking place on March 1 and that there will be a meeting of Commonwealth heads of State shortly thereafter, on March 3 or 4, and then the election will be held on March 9 and 10. Right now—and this is important— we are calling on the international community to put as much pressure as possible on Robert Mugabe and his team. It is important that we create such pressure so that we can hopefully establish a regime that is as democratic as possible. This is what we are striving to do, but I do not believe that anybody can provide us with any guarantees right now.

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin: Monsieur Paradis, as you correctly pointed out, the decision-making process for the Commonwealth will be the first week of March. The election in Zimbabwe is March 9. It is absolutely, utterly impossible that what we're doing now is going to have any effect whatsoever to ensure a free and fair election in Zimbabwe. And Mr. Mugabe is laughing at all of us.

I would respectfully submit to the committee, Madam Chair, that I've presented a motion on the floor of this committee in both official languages. The motion reads as follows--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do we have notice of this? Were we given notice of this motion?

Mr. Keith Martin: I submitted the motion today.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, no, we have to have notice ahead of time, Keith, under the rules of the committee.

Mr. Keith Martin: I thought I could submit this motion today and ask for unanimous consent.

The Chair: We'll wait until the clerk comes back, but I think you'll find that just as we did not make any rules in this committee for who is to speak when, in order--the main committee set those rules that you're thinking of for the ministers. We didn't set any rules for this committee as to the order of speaking and how long.

Excuse, Mr. Minister, while we do our homework here.

Now, what do we do with the motion? Do we have to...?

Mr. Svend Robinson: There can certainly be agreement by members, if that is what Mr. Martin is seeking.

Mr. Keith Martin: What I'm seeking, actually, is a vote on this motion, and the motion--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Not unanimous consent?

Mr. Keith Martin: Not unanimous consent.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And that's what you need.

Mr. Keith Martin: Not necessarily.

The Chair: Can I ask the committee if they want to bring the motion at this time, when we have the witnesses here?

Mr. Keith Martin: We can either do it now or after the witnesses are finished, but I'd like this to be done today, because this is the last meeting for two weeks.

The Chair: We'll bring it up about ten minutes before the end of the meeting. Can we hear the witnesses first?

Ms. Beaumier, would you like to say something?

Mr. Keith Martin: So long as it's dealt with today, that's fine.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think we should get on with hearing the witnesses. We can deal with this business after. We're wasting valuable time.

Mr. Keith Martin: If we deal with this today, that's perfectly fine.

Mr. Svend Robinson: With consent.

The Chair: With consent, yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: With consent.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Paradis, do you have the floor? Where are we now? I'm a little lost.

Mr. Keith Martin: I think I have a few minutes left.

º (1630)

The Chair: You have one more minute.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

Monsieur Paradis, again I would just make the point that the time course here is such that the reporting back is in the first week of March. The elections are March 9. Perhaps you could tell the committee how the government's actions right now, through the Commonwealth, can possibly ensure that there's anything remotely resembling a free election.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I can answer you by giving you an example. The pressure coming from the Commonwealth group, from the Americans right now and from the European Union has resulted in a delegation of observers that is currently travelling to Zimbabwe, with the requisite approval. At one point, Zimbabwe did not want to have observers in the field, but as a result of international pressure, we have succeeded in sending observers to the country.

This is one concrete example of how international pressure can be brought to bear on the situation. I think that we have to continue building this international pressure in order to get some results, in order to achieve some noticeable improvement. Let's hope this works. We do have until March 10.

The main opposition party has to be able to conduct a campaign that is not underground. The opposition party has to be able to really campaign without its members, leaders and candidates being killed or threatened. What we are trying to do is build this international pressure.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have a question and it pertains to the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians. You may not have the answer to this question since you have only recently been appointed to this position, but perhaps Mr. Perron can respond.

Are there any precedents in the history of the Commonwealth? Has a member ever been expelled in the past? If so, did this lead to concrete results with respect to the leaders?

Mr. Denis Paradis: I will ask Mr. Perron to comment on this matter.

Mr. Arthur Perron: Thank you.

In the past, the Commonwealth has expelled members. Fiji was expelled, for example. You may have followed this story a few years ago. The government was overthrown and a group took over power and, as a result, Fiji was expelled. This also happened in the case of Pakistan. This occurred when Moucharraf assumed control. Earlier, there was the case of South Africa, in the days of apartheid. The leaders of the government got together and decided to expel this country.

[English]

Ms. Marcia Burdette (Acting Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Departmentof Foreing Affiars and International Trade): In Nigeria.

[Translation]

Mr. Arthur Perron: There was also the case of Nigeria, where there were situations deemed unacceptable by the Commonwealth. So there have certainly been precedents.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: What happened to these countries once this had been done? Did they make representations? What has happened to these countries that you mentioned? Are they now members of the Commonwealth? Have they been reintegrated? If so, we must have imposed specific conditions, right?

Mr. Arthur Perron: Members of the Commonwealth that have been expelled view this, in terms of the international scene and their own ego, as a really black mark that they tried to avoid at any cost because they really become the black sheep internationally. Consequently, they fight very hard to avoid expulsion. That is what Zimbabwe is doing right now.

As for changes in government, I think that the case of Fiji best illustrates what impact suspension can have. Democracy has been restored and there is a government that represents the people.

So there certainly have been--

Mr. Antoine Dubé: So Fiji has now been reintegrated?

Mr. Arthur Perron: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I think that this is important, Madam Chair. Perhaps “threats” is the wrong word, but floating the idea of a possible expulsion does have an effect. Obviously, we have to concern ourselves with the other once this has been done, because if this was viewed as being futile by the leader in power, that would not represent a real power. What I observe, in the light of the answers that we have just been given, is that indeed, this does have an impact and that therefore it is worthwhile making “threats”.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Mr. Perron would like to comment on that.

Mr. Arthur Perron: You may be interested as well to know that the European Union has just completed a re-evaluation of the situation in Zimbabwe, and if the election is not carried out in a reasonable manner, it is prepared to impose significant sanctions. In the United States, a bill has been passed that also provides for some very considerable sanctions.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Economic sanctions?

Mr. Arthur Perron: Yes, economic sanctions that would include such things as the seizure of assets, a ban on travel to the United States, etc. Thus, a number of international communities are planning to introduce some harsh measures with respect to Zimbabwe.

Mr. Denis Paradis: If I might finish, I would say that the pressure is growing. That is the important point: to continue increasing the pressure so that they understand that the election must be fair, reasonable and democratic.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to ask a sub-question, if I may.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Robinson has no more questions.

Madam Beaumier, you have another question.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I think one of the must frustrating parts about working in human rights is that we spend a lot of time preaching to the converted and spinning our wheels. What's happening in Zimbabwe right now is like a pathetic remake of an all-too-familiar movie. The world doesn't seem to be improving in human rights conditions. We put out a fire here and another one breaks out over there.

I'd like to ask those of you who've had a great deal more experience in observation what situation that has been resolved is this most like? Can we use similar methods here, and should we be looking at a strategy to become a little more creative at seeing these events before they happen? Can we stop this?

º (1635)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Perhaps you would like to add something, Mr. Perron.

[English]

I'd just maybe mention that Canada is coming also. The G-8 summit will be in Kananaskis next summer, and Africa is at the top of the agenda. It's very important because when you have countries with a lot of poverty, like those in Africa, it often creates the kinds of situations you just described.

[Translation]

I would say that Canada is a key player in the aid it provides to African countries to enable them to develop a new partnership with each other. This will be seen at the Summit in Kananaskis: Africa should be at the top of the agenda. The Prime Minister spoke about this in New York this week as well. As far as the other G-8 countries go, you will recall that the House approved a sum of $500 million for special programs. Some of these programs have to do with democracy, the rule of law and all these matters which mean that at some point, these countries need to feel some pressure, but if that does not work, they need assistance in order to operate properly as a civilized society.

The fact is that Canada is very well positioned at the moment. We are bringing our G-8 partners on board. We hope that they too will contribute to the kitty that will be used to enhance the status of the countries of Africa.

Mr. Perron would perhaps like to add something.

[English]

The Chair: Marcia Burdette.

Ms. Macia Burdette: The discussion on Zimbabwe tends to be exceedingly depressing. I've been following this for many years. However, if we look at the case of Nigeria, we can draw a little bit of optimism. It has to do with the actions of the CMAG and the Commonwealth. Nigeria was already a military regime by the time of the 1995 CHOGM meeting in New Zealand. It was on the eve of that CHOGM meeting when they hung Ken Saro-Wiwa and his cooperators. That, of course, activated the Commonwealth to do something. They suspended Nigeria, set up CMAG, and Canada joined the CMAG.

When President Obasanjo was democratically elected and Prime Minister Chrétien went there, President Obasanjo personally thanked him. He thanked Canada for working in the Commonwealth, working in the CMAG, and having brought about the change from a military dictatorship to a civilian government in Nigeria.

That's something we need to look forward to positively. It's difficult and frustrating, and I deal with it ever day, but there are some very optimistic signs that the Commonwealth can be very helpful in such a situation.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, you have a question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

The Chair: Oh, okay. I thought that was what you were trying to tell me.

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: To date, we have heard about the criticism of the current government in Zimbabwe, which has now embarked on an election. Are there any reports or comments on the behaviour of the other parties?

Mr. Denis Paradis: It is not impossible that other parties may have committed certain violent acts, but according to the reports we have, they have nothing in common with what Robert Mugabe's party and his followers are doing at the moment.

The population of Zimbabwe is between 12 and 13 million, and there are still about 80,000 or 85,000 Whites living there. In the past, there were 15,000 farms. In the last two years, President Mugabe has had his henchmen go to these farms and chase the people away. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the people are chased away, their farms are taken, the women are raped, etc. The violence is completely out of control at this time. It is nothing like... There may be violence in other parties as well, but it is nothing like what the government people are doing at the moment.

President Mugabe has been in place since 1980, after independence, and he is still hanging on to power. As I mentioned earlier, we need only look at the legislation he has passed. The Supreme Court overturned a decision of the former Supreme Court to put the agrarian reform program on the fast track. The former Supreme Court had rejected that, while the new one has given the program its blessing. As far as freedom of the press goes, the journalists cannot do their job.

We are also trying to have international journalists present to observe these elections. That is important, and that is part of the pressure being applied by Canada and other Commonwealth countries. Can this freedom of the press be achieved? Can we find out about what is going on in your country? This pressure should enable us to improve the situation.

º (1640)

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Earlier you said, and it is true, that the Commonwealth operates by way of consensus, as does the Human Rights Commission and other bodies. There may not be a consensus, but there is a great deal of unanimity to date to condemn what the current president is doing. Is anyone in disagreement? What are people afraid of? No one seems to disagree. Are there people in the neighbouring countries who say that the president is doing his job properly?

Mr. Denis Paradis: We saw what happens. At the last meeting of ministers, there was a consensus to send in observers. Pressure was applied to have observers present, but for the time being, the consensus achieved around the table was not to go any further. We will start by watching what the observers do and applying pressure. The observers will come back and report to us quickly on a situation, and the ministers who are members of the Ministerial Action Group will decide whether it is appropriate to take the next step. To date, that is more or less how things are working.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to continue on the subject of the need for Zimbabwean nationals to have visitor's visas in order to come to Canada.

You say that this is a new policy or a new condition that was introduced a few weeks ago. You say on page 2 of your speech: “In late December 2001, at least three MDC opposition members were killed in apparent politically-motivated attacks....” I imagine that Foreign Affairs had something to say before Immigration introduced this requirement. Why was the visitor's visa requirement imposed, given that, in your own remarks, you say that there have been certain violations, that Canada has seen violations committed by the Government of Zimbabwe?

Has this been done to prevent people, including participants, members or leaders of MDC, from coming to Canada and claiming political refugee status?

Mr. Denis Paradis: I will not mention a day so as not to get into a debate, but I found out recently that in the future, visas will be required for visitors from Zimbabwe. This decision was made by Immigration and Citizenship Canada. I'm told that there may be someone from Immigration Canada with us here.

º (1645)

[English]

The Chair: Maybe, Mr. Minister, when we have another meeting, we could ask somebody to come and--

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I cannot tell you—

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Could you just clarify this: has Foreign Affairs expressed an opinion as to whether or not visitor's visas should be required? [Editor's note: inaudible]... such a decision?

Mr. Denis Paradis: I will ask Mr. Perron to answer your question.

Mr. Arthur Perron: Are you asking whether we express an opinion regarding visa requests, or whether the country should be...?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm asking whether you recommended in the future people from particular countries be required to have a visitor visa, and that subsequently the Department of Immigration decides whether or not to introduce such a policy.

Mr. Arthur Perron: The Minister of Immigration is responsible for designating countries whose residents must obtain a visa in order to come to Canada. There is consultation with Foreign Affairs and with other departments, and the final decision is made by the Minister. This policy was introduced, and it would be up to officials from that department to explain why, but one of the reasons is that there was a disproportionate increase in the number of refugee claims being made in Canada. There has also been a great many false passports and fraudulent documents used to come to Canada. So it was felt that some control was required. Those are only two of the factors involved. I think the officials from that department could perhaps give you a more complete explanation.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. I think we just have one more question.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you, Monsieur Paradis and all the members from the departments, for coming here today. This has been most edifying.

In closing, Monsieur Paradis, land redistribution is taking place in Zimbabwe. The problem is that land has been redistributed to Mr. Mugabe's friends, as you know, and not to the black population. In fact, if you look back, historically, true land redistribution to impoverished blacks basically stopped within two years of Mr. Mugabe getting into power, and it had been relatively quiescent until very recently, when land has been redistributed to his friends and lackeys.

The other point I want to make is on the new plan for African development, and I compliment the Prime Minister on making Africa a centrepoint of the G-8 summit. I think that's a very honourable move and one of great leadership that we look forward to in the future. However, the effectiveness of the NEPAD rests mostly on the shoulders of the African nations themselves.

All I would ask you, sir, is whether or not you will be prepared to make interventions, particularly to the governments of South Africa and Botswana, and ask them to take a stronger stance on the issue of Zimbabwe, because, quite frankly, their behaviour on this particular issue has been shameful, in my view. So if Mr. Mbeki, the leader on the NEPAD, wants to make this work, perhaps their first test case is Zimbabwe. With all the wonderful statements and honourable things that exist there, the true test case for them will be whether they're prepared to effectively live up to the spirit of the NEPAD with respect to Zimbabwe.

So I just ask--I don't expect an answer, Monsieur Paradis--that you please consider doing that at the highest levels possible. Thank you.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you very much for your suggestions and recommendations. What I can add is that we've asked for their intervention already more than once, and so we'll continue to put pressure there, too.

[Translation]

We have already requested this and we will continue to do so.

Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

If there are no other questions, we'd like to thank you very much for coming. I don't know whether you want to make a closing statement or not.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Very quickly, Madam Chair, I would like to say that I am very pleased to have had an opportunity to share these concerns with you. Do not hesitate if you have any suggestions or recommendations to make. I repeat what I said at the outset: let us all try to work together to improve society. Thank you.

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now take a one-minute break.

º (1651)

º (1658)

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

Colleen, did Marlene leave?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: It looks like it.

The Chair: That's fine.

We have a motion. Before I go any further, would you like this motion to be public or in camera?

Mr. Keith Martin: Public.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: In camera.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There's no need. I mean, it's a policy question.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: With the journalists, please.

[English]

The Chair: You want the journalists in here too?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. Is that okay?

Do you need unanimous consent on whether it's in camera or not?

The Chair: Just a second, I have to speak to the clerk to decide whether it's going to be in camera or not.

We're in camera now. We need unanimous consent to stay in camera. Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr. Svend Robinson: To stay in camera for the motion? Say no, Keith.

The Chair: You want to say no, Keith. We're being pretty friendly to you, Keith.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Keith Martin: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're in public.

We have a motion here, which you all have. If I may make a suggestion as chair, I find it strange that when we have two meetings, one this week and one in two weeks, we would make this type of motion now rather than waiting the two weeks, but I leave the floor to you.

Since it's your motion, would you like to comment on it?

» (1700)

Mr. Keith Martin: The purpose of this motion, Madam Chair and colleagues, is the fact, as I described today, that the current course of action that's been taking place will not in any way, shape, or form allow free and fair elections to take place in Zimbabwe. That can't happen. Mugabe is playing and will play every trick in the game to ensure that free and fair elections do not happen.

The only thing he is going to potentially listen to is a very strong statement from the international community, and that's what this statement is. It will enable us to stand up and make a strong statement in the international community in the hope that others will follow suit and try to implement these things, which can happen internationally--not unilaterally, but they can happen internationally.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, could you tell us why you want it this week instead of at the end of our study, which is in two weeks?

Mr. Keith Martin: Because the election is going to take place on March 9. As we sit here today, the Zimbabwe government, through war veterans--who are not war veterans at all--and through hired youth brigades, are brutalizing the population, the black population primarily, in Zimbabwe to scare them away from voting.

One very clear message I took away when I went into the bush in Zimbabwe in October was when they said, you have to get election monitors in now, "now" meaning last October, not the last week of February. They made one point very clear. They said, if you put election monitors in at the end of February or just before the election, it will be too late, because the population will be cowed and afraid and they will not vote. That's why two weeks from now is too late, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Do you want us to discuss and to vote on whether we should have this motion today, or do you want us to discuss...?

Mr. Keith Martin: I want this committee to decide whether or not they would like to submit this motion as part of a report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, to be submitted in the House.

The Chair: So it's okay if it's not today.

Mr. Keith Martin: No, today. We have to make a decision on this motion today.

The Chair: You don't want us to make that decision in two weeks.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: No. It will be too late in two weeks. That's the point. Better now than two weeks from now.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One of the concerns I have is just that generally speaking, in any committee on which I've worked, including the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs itself, we do have a rule, which is that if a substantive motion is going to come before the committee, you're given some notice of that motion. That rule is there for a reason. It's in order to enable all members of the committee to have some opportunity to review the substance of the motion and, if necessary, to consult on it in order to make a decision.

This is a very serious issue, and presumably Mr. Martin didn't just decide to write this motion up a couple of hours ago. The position he's taken on this issue is one he has taken for some time. I read his report when he returned, and for the life of me I don't understand why it wasn't possible to give your colleagues the courtesy--I say this through the chair--of a motion ahead of time.

The dilemma I have is that I'd like to have a debate, a vote, and so on, but frankly it seems to me that there is still some evidence to be heard on this matter. The idea that somehow the world is just waiting with bated breath to see what this subcommittee does...with respect, I'm not sure that's the case. The situation there is devastating, and the passage of this motion isn't going to change that over the course of the next two weeks.

So for two reasons--first, because I believe that we as colleagues should have been given the courtesy of notice of this ahead of time, and second, because I believe there is still some important evidence to be heard--I think it would be more appropriate for us to deal with the motion at that time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have two comments, one about form and the other about substance.

On the matter of form, we found out some information from the clerk during the break. The subcommittee has no special rules on this. If we wanted to, we could pass this motion today, even though my colleague from the New Democratic Party mentioned that, in the interest of courtesy, it is always preferable to give us notice. I agree with him. Nevertheless, we do have a motion before us, and we could pass it.

I would now like to comment on the substance of the motion.

The minister appeared before us today and told us that there is a process under way which involves sending observers and all that. The motion will probably be justified. We can expect this, but at this point, we are making an assumption. It would be as though we were not allowing the observers to do their job. In the normal course of events, we should wait.

However, you say that we must take action quickly. I would be inclined to suggest.... This may not be an amendment, but I would be prepared to say that the Sub-committee on Human Rights condemns what is set out in the first two points, etc. I think, given what we have heard, that we can now say that what he is doing deserves to be condemned. In the other point, we say that we recognize the work done by the international community to defuse... I'm referring to those two points.

With respect to the other measures, I think it would be premature to take action before we receive the observers' report. If you were to agree to splitting the motion... Essentially what we would do today would be to say that the situation is terrible and that some work is being done by the international committee. As for the other measures, it would be logical to wait until we receive the observers' report.

» (1705)

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to make a motion?

Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I just want to disassociate myself with comments made by [Inaudible—Editor] members. Number one, just from a procedural point of view, I think if our committee adopts procedures that are not those generally adopted by committees of this kind, at least those I've sat on in the limited time I've been here.... Even though I may have sympathy with the motion in its substantive sense, I think that to go ahead now without appropriate notice is, in a sense, to be in breach of the kind of common practice before the committees, as I understand it to be. I think Mr. Robinson is correct that on a motion of such a substantive nature one would want to consult. The election observers have already been dispatched. We are now going to await their report. There will still be an opportunity prior to the elections for the suspension to be moved ahead as a result of the report by the election observers and otherwise.

That brings me to the second point. If I were to speak to this resolution on a substantive level, as well as procedural, I think it's both pre-emptive and presumptive in the sense that we are passing a motion prior to hearing the rest of the evidence. That to me is simply inappropriate procedurally as well as substantively. It's almost a discourtesy to do that.

I appreciate, Keith, the urgency of the situation and of the recommendation. But I don't imagine that the fact that we would pass this resolution now would effect that urgency any more than awaiting the report of the election observers who have already been dispatched. If there had not been a dispatching of election observers, if they had not already been in place, if the meeting had not taken place in London, if we had not given notice to Mugabe that we're going to suspend them pending the report of the observers and the like, then I'd say okay. Maybe we'd have to waive all procedures and go ahead. But I don't see the compelling reason to do that, given everything else that's going on, and given what I think would be a kind of inappropriate move on our part from a procedural point of view.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I was actually going to move to table the motion until we could address it after we'd heard from our other witnesses.

The Chair: Would you like to withdraw it?

Mr. Keith Martin: I just want to address the comments that were made here, Madam Chairman. Believe me, if there was an earlier opportunity to submit this, I would have done it. But between December and now, there was no opportunity, at least for me, to submit this motion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Give it to the clerk and the clerk will circulate it.

Mr. Keith Martin: This is the first meeting I've had since--

Mr. Svend Robinson: You give it to the clerk and the clerk circulates it to all members of the committee.

The Chair: You can give it any time, even if you're not here.

Mr. Keith Martin: Oh.

The Chair: We do have a motion to table it. Or would you like to withdraw it? We could do it either way.

» (1710)

Mr. Keith Martin: I'll just finish up the comments.

The evidence, Irwin, is amply there in terms of Mr. Mugabe's intent and his behaviour for years. So there's very little question about that. The reason I'm putting this at this point in time rather than two weeks from now is just the time course. The Commonwealth ministers' CMAG meeting is going to be March 1 and 2, and the CHOGM meeting of the heads of state will be March 5. The election is March 9. So the time when the decision is made will be too late to have any effect on the election, which is our objective. That's why I'm doing this now.

The Chair: I believe we'd make our decision on February 20. If we want to make a statement, we'd do it on February 20, so it is--

Mr. Keith Martin: Given the sentiments I've heard around the table, I think the prudent thing is to take a step backward. If Madam Beaumier wants to put that motion and table it, then I would certainly agree to that.

The Chair: Madam Beaumier, the clerk suggested that the way it should be proceeded with is if you ask that it be withdrawn and reintroduced maybe on February 20.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm not the one who will table it.

The Chair: All right. Do you want to repeat your motion, then?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I would like to move that we table Mr. Martin's motion until February 20.

The Chair: Is everybody agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Since you seem to be in agreement, would you like to pass a motion right now that we have 48 hours' notice of any motion coming before the committee?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, unless there's unanimous consent. There may be something....

The Chair: Yes, unless there's unanimous consent.

Okay, everybody agreed with that. We'll make that one of our rules. The other thing we were talking about earlier is that we don't have any rules for the subcommittee, we've just been floating. So now we do have one rule anyway.

[Proceedings continue in camera]